November 28, 2011
Should companies be allowed to advertise prescription drug prices?
Posted by Ryan Satkowiak under 15, Discussions[9] Comments
Situation:
We’ve all been there before: have bad allergies, had surgery or teeth pulled or some other ailment that required pain killers. For a good portion of Americans, prescription drugs are a part of their every day routine. However, many Americans also have tight financial circumstances that make affording these drugs harder. So, conventional wisdom would be that people would seek to find the cheapest solution they can, right? How would you be able to go about that best? Probably seeing advertised prices by different pharmacies.
Well, in the state of Virginia, pharmacies used to not be allowed to advertise the prices of prescription drugs. The Commonwealth of Virginia said companies that did such would be guilty of “unprofessional conduct.” So what happened?
Legal background:
The Virginia District Court found out that drug prices varied throughout the state, which did not make the citizens of Virginia happy, as they had no way of knowing this. Individual consumers and consumer groups challenges the law, and won the case before the Supreme Court. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority, saying that while previous cases similar to this one had been ruled on the economic due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and not on free speech grounds. He said that this case was not only about commercial regulation, but also about the free flow of information, essentially saying that commercial free speech is OK, as long as it is distinguished from unprotected forms of speech, such as obscenity.
Questions:
Do you agree with Blackmun’s opinion on “commercial speech,” especially in light of recent rulings granting corporations First Amendment rights?
Should prices for prescription drugs be advertised?
In his dissent, Justice William Rehnquist said that the First Amendment should be limited to political and social issues. Do you agree with this?
9 thoughts on “Should companies be allowed to advertise prescription drug prices?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 28th, 2011 at 8:58 am
I may not fully understand the issue here, but I see abosolutely no problem with advertising prescription drug prices. In fact, I think it’s a great idea! By advertising prices, a greater flow of information is available to consumers. This is especially important when it comes to cost issues in tough economies.
November 29th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Clearly the company who is advertising for prescription drugs wants to make a profit or there would be no reason for them to have deals or to advertise at all. I don’t see how obscenity could be used in the advertising of these so I think it would be ok.
I don’t think that it is a big deal to have advertising for prescription drugs because I don’t see a problem with it. You can only get those drugs with a prescription so not anyone can just go buy them if they are on sale or something. However, the advertising will help people who need them (and have a prescription) to find the best price available. There is nothing wrong with that.
I don’t agree because the first amendment should stretch to a lot more then just political and social issues. The first amendment should cover everything and not be limited at all.
December 1st, 2011 at 1:50 am
The intention of prescription drug advertisements is to make a profit, so I see nothing wrong with Blackmun’s opinion, because it is easy to distinguish obscenities from advertisements.
I think it is acceptable for the price of prescription drugs to be advertised. Only those with a prescription can purchase them, but for people who are looking for the best price to fulfill their needs with a prescription, it makes sense.
I do not think the First Amendment should be limited to just social and political issues. What is defined as a “social” or “political” issue is up to individual discretion, and by imposing some limitations, it opens up the possibility of a slippery slope of unconstitutional limitations in the future.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:25 pm
I do not see nothing wrong with Blackmun’s opinion because every business wants to make a profit. Company’s want consumers to come spend money at their businesses so they want to release advertisements showing the best prescription drugs with their company.
I do not see anything wrong with advertising the price of prescription drugs because street drugs are not being sold. The advertisements are being advertised for those with a prescription that can buy the drugs.
I do not agree with the First Amendment should be limited to social and political issues. The amendment should be able to cover a lot more and not have a limit.
December 1st, 2011 at 7:35 pm
I agree with most of the others who commented on this post because like this case for instance, the prices in Virginia varied so people had a hard time finding out prices of prescription drugs. I can see how this could be scene is unethical being how they are drugs and if used in the wrong way by children or young adults could be harmful. But with the constitutions first amendment encouraging a free flow of information I do not see anything wrong with the advertisements.
December 1st, 2011 at 11:09 pm
I do agree with Blackmun’s opinion on commerical speech. I believe that consumers should have the right to know the prices of each prescription drug at differnt pharmacies. Without this information available to the public, there is no real competition amongst pharmacies which may lead to consumers overpaying for the prescription drugs they need. I do not agree that the 1st Amendment should be limited to social and political issues. In my opinion, the rights we have under that amendment should extend over any issue that isnt obscence or could cause harm.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:09 am
I think there should be a freedom of commercial speech, but it should be kept honest. When profit is concerned, there is great incentive to be deceptive in the way one advertises their product and while not all companies are guilty of this, I don’t believe all marketers have been honest and held to their alleged commitment to honest advertising. There is generally rampant deception in the world of marketing and few industries are as guilty of this as the prescription drug industry.
The interesting thing here though is that these are prescription drugs, so a doctor must approve a patient’s need for a drug before someone can buy them, which acts as some degree of protective barrier. Some doctors are a bit too willing to write prescriptions, however, which calls into question the effectiveness of that barrier.
I do believe there should be a greater degree of regulation on commercial speech than political or social speech, but not that the first ammendment shouldn’t be considered when determining how commercial speech should be limited. I don’t think speech that aims to spread the prescription of antidepressants, for example, does anything to further the interests of society. It only furthers the interest of the corporations profit margin.
December 4th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
In his dissent, Justice William Rehnquist said that the First Amendment should be limited to political and social issues. Do you agree with this?
I agree to a certain extent. But there is a fine line between commercial speech and oil companies funneling millions of dollars into the campaign of a politician they will ultimately turn into their pawn.
As long as people have to pay any money out of pocket the prices should be advertised. If it were all covered by insurance, the prices wouldn’t matter and there would not be an issue.
It depends on what the issue at hand is. Social issues, political issues, and commercial issues are all very different issues.
December 7th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
I agree with Troy on this one..sometimes the need for profit, even the love for money can result in unethically altered advertisements to deceive people into buying the product. Even with a non-profit organization there is a fine line between ethical and unethical alterations to advertisements.
Despite the possibility for deception, companies should still have First Amendment rights, but should be regulated closely to ensure that proper standards to benefit society are upheld.
I also agree that companies should have commercial free speech, like Blackmun stated, but I think he should have made a greater distinction between the liberty of commercial free speech compared with free speech, such as journalic writing, etc. Obviously these two types of free speech are extremely different, and that difference should play a role in the protection of said speech.