NH data mining ban upheld
Pharma Compliance Alert, November 26, 2008
The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld a New Hampshire law prohibiting the sale of physician prescribing information.
New Hampshire passed the Prescription Information Law in 2006, becoming the first state to specifically prohibit selling prescriber information for commercial purposes. Pharmaceutical companies use the information to identify physician preferences and tailor messages from sales representatives.
IMS Health and Verispan, two companies that collect and sell the data, sued, claiming the law violated the First Amendment right to free speech. A lower court agreed and blocked the law.
In the ruling, Judge Bruce Selya said the parts of the law at issue center on conduct and not on free speech. He added the information was not being used to stimulate better informed consumer choices because physicians already know their own prescribing habits.
In a statement, IMS, a data mining company, said it was disappointed in the ruling and is reviewing the decision to determine its next steps.
Other states have also tried to ban data mining. Maine’s data mining ban was struck down in district court earlier this year. A Vermont law banning data mining is scheduled to go into effect next year, but is also facing legal challenges. Washington, DC’s city counsel removed a data mining ban from its SafeRX Act earlier this year.
Comments
0 comments on “NH data mining ban upheld ”
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Case Management Monthly, June 2012
- Searched
