Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pharma Advertising topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee adopts narrower amendment to bill banning some prescription-drug TV ads
Summary
Lawmakers adopted an author's amendment narrowing a proposed ban on prescription-drug television ads to medicines covered by major state programs; pharma representatives warned of First Amendment and preemption risks, while supporters said the change targets a substantial state spending interest.
The Judiciary Committee adopted a narrowed version of a bill that would restrict television advertising of prescription drugs. Senator Graham's Senate File 3650 originally sought a broader ban; the adopted A3 amendment limits the prohibition to drugs covered by the state's largest programs (Medical Assistance, MinnesotaCare, and the state employee insurance program).
Emily McGahn, representing PhRMA, testified in respectful opposition and warned the proposal raised serious First Amendment and federal preemption concerns, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent on commercial speech and recent decisions protecting industry-related speech. "The bill's ban on advertising raises serious First Amendment concerns and is likely unconstitutional," she told the committee.
Proponents argued the amendment narrows the state interest to programs that purchase large volumes of drugs, which gives the state a fiscal rationale to regulate advertising in that specific channel. Committee members debated whether litigation costs and constitutional risk outweighed potential savings; some said the law could lead to important consumer-protection precedent even if challenged. The committee adopted the amendment and referred the bill to the Commerce Committee.
