-- EVENT ARCHIVE --
Constitutional Constraints on State Health Care & Privacy Regulation After
Sorrell v. IMS Health
Symposium
This event took place on
Friday, October 14, 2011
UNH Law's Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Concord, NH
Sponsored jointly by
University of New Hampshire Law Review
Vermont Law Review
This symposium focused on the issues arising out of the recently decided Sorrell v. IMS Health and the many legal dimensions of privacy and health care regulation.
The symposium explored the possible effects Sorrell may have on:
* Notions of federalism and preemption
* Privacy regulation
* Defining aggregate commercial data as speech
* State single-payer systems
* The wide-ranging impacts on consumers from smart grid deployment to off-label use of pharmaceuticals.
These cases presented a unique opportunity to bring together two Northern New England law schools for a joint symposium on federalism and the state regulation of health care, state and industry perspectives on the Sorrell v. IMS Health decision, and the wide-ranging implications of Sorrell v. IMS Health regarding the First Amendment, privacy law, and society in general.
The symposium assembled legal scholars and professionals, judges, policymakers, government representatives, and other interested individuals. Panelists included Professors of Law from six different law schools, judges, politicians, and several attorneys who were either directly involved in Sorrell v. IMS Health or are experts on the issues directly affected by the case. Read More >> Case Background
The Honorable Jeffrey Howard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit delivered the keynote address.
Agenda
Friday, October 14, 2011UNH School of Law's Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property, Concord, NH 8:00 a.m. - 8:45 a.m. - CLE Registration 8:30 a.m. - Introductions & Welcome 8:45 a.m. - 10:15 a.m. 10:15 a.m. - Break 10:30 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. Panelists: Noon - 1:30 p.m. - Lunch 1:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. - Keynote 2:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. Panelists:
3:30 p.m. - Break 3:45 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. Panelists: 5:15 p.m. - Closing Remarks 5:15 p.m. - 6:45 p.m. - Cocktail Reception |
Contact us
University of New Hampshire Law Review
University of New Hampshire School of Law
2 White Street
Concord, NH 03301
sorrellconference@gmail.com
Data mining companies have successively challenged laws regulating the sale, use, or disclosure of information about the prescribing practices of physicians. The latest of these challenges in Northern New England was against Vermont's Prescription Confidentiality Law, 18 V.S.A. § 4631. In response to the challenge, the District Court of Vermont held that the law met intermediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson Gas test. The Second Circuit reversed, ruling that Vermont's asserted interest in medical privacy was too speculative to qualify as substantial state interest. This created a circuit split since the First Circuit previously upheld similar Maine and New Hampshire statutes after classifying them as regulations of conduct. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari.
On June 23rd of 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that Vermont's Prescription Confidentiality Law violated the Free Speech Clause, reasoning that speech in the aid of pharmaceutical marketing is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. As such, the law was subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny that it could not meet. Because the law specifically disfavored marketing, or speech with a particular content put forth by a particular speaker, Vermont’s justification for the law in question needed to at least show that the statute directly advanced a substantial governmental interest and that the statute was created to advance that interest. The Court found that the government interests asserted were not viable, nor properly advanced by the statute, and ruled against the Vermont Statute in a 6–3 decision.
