(Image source: The Vancouver Sun )

BY JIM FLINK

ANCHOR JENNIFER MECKLES

You're watching multisource politics video news analysis from Newsy.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed Big Pharma two big victories.

One limiting lawsuits from people injured by generic drugs.

The other strikes down a Vermont law which banned some prescription marketing to doctors.

The New York Times has the background on the first, noting the case was brought by three women who took a generic drug called Reglan for stomach ailments -- but developed a serious neurological disorder.

“Appeals courts ruled against the drug makers, saying that the federal regulatory regime did not block claims under state law.  The Supreme Court reversed those decisions on Thursday, rejecting what Justice Thomas called the ‘fair argument,’ that the defendants should have at least tried to persuade the federal drug agency to let them use a safer label.”

Brand-name drug manufacturers must update all the information on their prescription bottles.

CNN notes, the high court made an interesting call, saying the difference is -- generic drugs -- are cheaper.

“They said, look, generic drugs are inexpensive and they are inexpensive for a reason.  They don’t have to do that same kind of research.  Now this was a 5-4 decision.  The dissent said, wait a minute, this could lead to absurd results.  If you can sue a brand name company for not sufficiently warning about a problem, why shouldn’t you be able to sue a generic brand company.”

Generic drug makers also noted, they are required to carry the same labels as their brand-name counterparts.  But the Wall Street Journal reports, Justice Sotomayor -- in her dissent -- says this creates an unlevel playing field, determined by pharmacists.

“As a result of today’s decision, whether a consumer harmed by inadequate warnings can obtain relief turns solely on the happenstances of whether her pharmacist filled her prescription with a brand-name or generic drug.”

The other ruling, covers the back-room dealings of doctors, insurers and pharmacies.

Dealings -- which affect the marketing of drugs -- to doctors.

NBC’s Pete Williams has the skinny.

“But when your doctor writes a prescription for you to get a drug, and you take it to the pharmacy, the pharmacy sells the information about the doctor prescribing that to third party companies.  Now your name is left out of it.  But your doctors’ name, and how much he prescribed is then sold to drug companies who use that information to market to doctors.  And they say, hey we see you prescribed a lot of our drug and not the other guys.”

The majority called any ruling limiting such marketing -- a restriction of free speech.

Forbes notes, the Vermont law which spawned the case -- had some peculiar restrictions.

“One portion of the law that stuck in the Supreme Court’s craw was that Vermont prohibited pharmacies from selling prescription information specifically to marketers, leaving open the door for them to sell or give it to insurers, journalists, and private or academic researchers.”

Big Pharma celebrated the rulings, as a victory for speech and a protection against lawsuits.

Civil libertarians call it a loss for consumers and privacy.

The Los Angeles Times says, now is a good time for Americans to re-think the drugs they take.

“Now that the Supreme Court has made its decision to protect manufacturers of generic drugs, it’s a good time to remember: Whether it’s a brand name or a generic, medications can be risky. The Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research estimates that ‘adverse drug events’ seriously injure or kill more than 770,000 Americans each year -- and that's just in the hospital.”

Transcript by Newsy.