Boumil Marcia M, Dunn Kaitlyn, Ryan Nancy, Clearwater Katrina
Conflicts of Interest Administration at Tufts University School of Medicine, USA.
Ann Health Law. 2012 Winter;21(2):447-91, 4 p preceding i.
In 2011, the United States Supreme Court in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. struck down a Vermont law that would restrict the ability of pharmaceutical companies to purchase certain physician-identifiable prescription data without the consent of the prescriber. The law's stated purpose was threefold: to protect the privacy of medical information, to protect the public health and to contain healthcare costs by promoting Vermont's preference in having physicians prescribe more generic drugs. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Vermont law represented a legitimate, common sense regulatory program or a bold attempt to suppress commercial speech when the "message" is disfavored by the state. Striking down the law, the Supreme Court applied a heightened level of First Amendment scrutiny to this commercial transaction and held that the Vermont law was not narrowly tailored to protect legitimate privacy interests.
2011年，美国最高法院在“索雷尔诉艾美仕市场研究公司案”中判定佛蒙特州一项法律无效，该法律限制制药公司在未经开处方医生同意的情况下购买某些可识别医生身份的处方数据。该法律宣称的目的有三个：保护医疗信息隐私、保护公众健康以及通过促使佛蒙特州倾向于让医生开更多的非专利药来控制医疗成本。最高法院面临的问题是，佛蒙特州这项法律究竟是一项合理、符合常识的监管计划，还是当“信息”不受该州青睐时压制商业言论的大胆尝试。最高法院判定该法律无效，对这一商业交易适用了更高程度的第一修正案审查标准，并认定佛蒙特州法律在保护合法隐私利益方面并非经过狭义裁剪。
