The court also rejected claims that the law should be void because of its vagueness and that it violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars states from placing undue burdens on interstate commerce. The majority opinion, authored by Senior Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya, also vacated a lower court’s injunction against enforcement of the state’s Prescription Information Law. IMS Health Inc. v. Ayotte, No. 07-1945 (1st Cir.).
The New Hampshire law bans the use, transfer, sale or license of prescription information that is patient- or prescriber-identifiable for certain commercial purposes. Unlike other state laws, the New Hampshire law doesn’t contain a provision that would allow doctors to opt in or opt out of prescription information-sharing programs. [See " Drug 'data mining' digs up suits."] Selya wrote that the law is “no more restrictive than necessary” to accomplish the state’s goals of protecting patients’ privacy and health while containing health care costs.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
