[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 343 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 343

Expressing disapproval of the decision by the Supreme Court in Sorrell 
                           v. IMS Health Inc.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2011

 Mr. Markey submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 
  on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Expressing disapproval of the decision by the Supreme Court in Sorrell 
                           v. IMS Health Inc.

Whereas the majority opinion issued by the Supreme Court on June 23, 2011, in 
        Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., incorrectly applied a heightened First 
        Amendment standard of review to a Vermont statute that lawfully 
        regulated purely economic activity;
Whereas the Vermont statute's only negative impact on expression is on the 
        ability of pharmaceutical companies and data-mining companies to develop 
        their sales and marketing strategies, a concern which is far outweighed 
        by the law's intent to protect privacy, improve public health, lower 
        healthcare costs, and prevent doctors from being unduly influenced in 
        their prescribing habits;
Whereas the Vermont statute restricted the sale of prescriber-identifying 
        information for marketing or drug promotion purposes when the 
        prescribing physician had not consented to the sale of the information;
Whereas the Vermont statute did not restrict the sale of prescriber-identifying 
        information for safety related purposes, such as clinical trials and 
        recalls, or health care research;
Whereas data-mining drives up health care costs, as pharmaceutical companies 
        develop targeted advertising that encourages doctors to prescribe more 
        expensive brand name drugs over alternative options that would be 
        equally effective and more moderately priced;
Whereas the dissenting opinion in Sorrel stated that ``The far stricter, 
        specially `heightened' First Amendment standards that the majority would 
        apply to this instance of commercial regulation are out of place 
        here.'';
Whereas the dissenting opinion in Sorrel stated that ``The Court has also 
        normally . . . taken account of the need in this area of law to defer 
        significantly to legislative judgment . . . .'';
Whereas the dissenting opinion in Sorrel stated that ``until today, this Court 
        has never found that the First Amendment prohibits the government from 
        restricting the use of information gathered pursuant to a regulatory 
        mandate--whether the information rests in government files or has 
        remained in the hands of the private firms that gathered it.''; and
Whereas the dissenting opinion in Sorrel stated that the Supreme Court has never 
        ``previously applied any form of `heightened' scrutiny in any even 
        roughly similar case.'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) disapproves of the majority opinion in Sorrell v. IMS 
        Health Inc., because it puts prescribers at risk of having 
        their prescriber-identifying information sold without their 
        knowledge or consent;
            (2) believes that the Supreme Court incorrectly applied a 
        ``heightened'' First Amendment standard of review to an 
        instance of commercial regulation;
            (3) believes that the negative impact on a pharmaceutical 
        manufacturer's ability to market their products is outweighed 
        by the interests of patient safety, doctor privacy, and health 
        care costs; and
            (4) believes that the States have the right to regulate the 
        pharmaceutical industry based on what they believe is best for 
        the health and safety of their residents.
                                 <all>