Group items tagged

Two companies that collect, analyze and sell prescription information are mounting a Supreme Court challenge to New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation law making doctors' prescription writing habits confidential. In an appeal filed March 27, IMS Health Inc. of Norwalk, Conn., and Verispan LLC of Yardley, Pa., tell the high court that the law violates their First Amendment right to free speech in pursuit of their business. The law, aimed at thwarting hard-sell tactics by drug companies to doctors, makes it a crime for pharmacies and others to transfer information disclosing a doctor's prescribing history if the information could be used for marketing of prescription drugs in New Hampshire. Patients' names are not included in the data. The companies say that the ruling by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston that upheld the law's constitutionality could be broadly applied to newspaper publication of stock market information and many other services that gather large amounts of information. The money made by selling the information to drug makers, the companies say, allows them to provide the same material to researchers and humanitarian organizations at little or no cost. The law first took effect in 2006. The following year, U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadoro in Concord ruled in the companies' favor and said the law violated the First Amendment. Another federal judge subsequently ruled against a similar law in Maine, relying heavily on the New Hampshire decision. But the 1st Circuit overruled Barbadoro, calling the law a valid step to promote the delivery of cost-effective health care. "Even if the Prescription Information Law amounts to a regulation of protected speech - a proposition with which we disagree - it passes constitutional muster," the court said. "In combating this novel threat to cost-effective delivery of health care, New Hampshire has acted with as much forethought and precision as the circumstances permit and the

In court papers filed Wednesday, former federal prosecutor Richard Convertino called reporter David Ashenfelter's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, in an attempt to keep from having to reveal his confidential sources, both "speculative" and "unreasonable." Convertino urged the federal district court in Michigan to sanction Ashenfelter and to require him to present further evidence as to why he should not be held in contempt for his refusal at a December deposition to reveal the confidential sources. For the past two years, Convertino has been seeking Ashenfelter's testimony in hopes of boosting his Privacy Act lawsuit against the Department of Justice. Convertino claims DOJ violated the law by leaking to the press details of an investigation into Convertino's conduct during a terrorism trial. At a deposition in December, after Judge Robert Cleland in the Eastern District of Michigan ruled twice that Ashenfelter is not protected by a First Amendment reporter's privilege, the reporter invoked the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.