Does Vermont Prescriber ID Law Violate Free Speech? - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Healthcare // Analytics

Does Vermont Prescriber ID Law Violate Free Speech?

The Supreme Court might not even be hearing the case if the state's ban on using a doctor's prescription records for marketing purposes were written as "opt-out" rather than "opt-in."

Unless Vermont doctors provide consent, the state's prescription confidentiality law now prohibits the distribution and use of prescriber-identifiable data for marketing purposes. But that may all change, depending on whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court decides if this law is a violation of the First Amendment.

Opponents to the ban--including data mining companies and pharmaceutical firms--contend that the ban violates free speech rights.

Opponents argue that distribution and use of prescriber-identifiable data is unfairly allowed for other purposes, including by the state of Vermont itself. For instance, the state can use the information to help steer doctors into writing prescriptions for cheaper generic drugs for patients whose healthcare expenses are covered by government programs.

Pharmaceutical companies contend that in contrast, the ban unfairly prohibits the use of prescriber-identifiable data to help them more effectively "detail" marketing of their name-brand products to doctors.

But the important point that needs to be remembered in all this is that Vermont does allow prescriber-identifiable data to be used for marketing purposes, as long as the doctor gives consent.

For some busy doctors, a visit by a pushy pharmaceutical sales rep is probably as annoying as a dinner-time call from a telemarketer. But if the prescriber-identifiable data can shorten the sales pitch and more accurately focus it on the doctor's interest, then the detail marketing probably saves time for the doctor while making the salesperson more productive.

On the other hand, some doctors don't want to be bothered by drug company sales pitches at all, and others are likely bothered by the fact that marketers have the ability to dissect their prescribing habits.

Again, what's key in all this is consent. If doctors allow their data to be used, fine. If not, the Vermont law's consent rule as it stands now is much like a telemarketer no-call list, in my opinion.

The question is whether the law would've satisfied more or fewer constituents had it been written to allow the use of prescriber-identifiable data for marketing unless the doctor specifically opts out.

Marianne Kolbasuk McGee is a senior writer for InformationWeek.


We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Slideshows
IT Careers: 12 Job Skills in Demand for 2020
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  10/1/2019
Commentary
Enterprise Guide to Multi-Cloud Adoption
Cathleen Gagne, Managing Editor, InformationWeek,  9/27/2019
Commentary
5 Ways CIOs Can Better Compete to Recruit Top Tech Talent
Guest Commentary, Guest Commentary,  10/2/2019
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
Data Science and AI in the Fast Lane
This IT Trend Report will help you gain insight into how quickly and dramatically data science is influencing how enterprises are managed and where they will derive business success. Read the report today!
Slideshows
Flash Poll