Gooch George R, Rohack J James, Finley Marisa
Texas Wesleyan School of Law, USA.
Health Matrix Clevel. 2013 Spring;23(1):237-77.
This Article argues that in response to the United States Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., state legislators should refrain from enacting prescription confidentiality laws and instead implement policies supporting academic detailing, a form of continuing medical education in which trained health professionals such as physicians, registered nurses, advanced practice nurses, and pharmacists provide evidence-based information about prescription drugs to prescribers. According to Sorrell, pharmaceutical companies may freely use physicians' prescribing data to better promote, or "detail," products to physicians without government interference. While pharmaceutical companies may profit from detailing drugs to physicians, detailing increases health care costs for patients and negatively affects patient health outcomes. These problems motivated Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont to enact prescription confidentiality laws that banned the use of information about the prescribing habits of physicians to help market drugs to physicians. Recent state attempts to stop drug detailing to physicians have been found to violate the First Amendment. This Article provides a history and background on the pharmaceutical-detailing process and analyzes recent legal decisions relating to prescription confidentiality. It concludes that academic detailing is a viable solution to the negative effects of pharmaceutical detailing and is consistent with the First Amendment.
本文认为，针对美国最高法院2011年在索雷尔诉IMS健康公司案中的裁决，州立法者应避免颁布处方保密法，而应实施支持学术推广的政策。学术推广是一种继续医学教育形式，在这种形式中，诸如医生、注册护士、高级执业护士和药剂师等受过培训的医疗专业人员会向开处方者提供有关处方药的循证信息。根据索雷尔案的裁决，制药公司可以自由使用医生的处方数据，以便在没有政府干预的情况下更好地向医生推广或“详述”产品。虽然制药公司向医生详述药物可能会获利，但详述会增加患者的医疗保健成本，并对患者的健康结果产生负面影响。这些问题促使缅因州、新罕布什尔州和佛蒙特州颁布了处方保密法，禁止利用医生的处方习惯信息向医生推销药物。最近，各州试图阻止向医生详述药物的做法被认定违反了第一修正案。本文介绍了药物详述过程的历史和背景，并分析了近期与处方保密相关的法律裁决。结论是，学术推广是解决药物详述负面影响的可行办法，并且符合第一修正案。
