New Hampshire Prescription Law Upheld

I think this is great (4.00 / 3)

Not only do drug companies use this information to target marketing, they also use it to reward Dr. Welby when he prescribes a lot of their drug.  So those free samples that your doctor or NP (that's me) has on hand to give you so that you can try something out before you go pay a $45 copay for a drug that might not work for you; or that they have on hand to give to a patient who might not have prescription drug coverage, but needs medication... those samples are in part, doled out, based on how much of that drug you typically write actual prescriptions for.

Also, if Dr. Welby, prescribes a lot of Pneumopuff (to continue with your example Elwood), he might get a nice lunch for him (or her) and the office staff, while they receive more education about the newest and greatest product from Pneumopuff.

I think this law, in NH anyway, will go a long way to decreasing the cost of drugs and decreasing the impact of drug sales reps.

Full disclosure: I have dined on food provided by BIG PHARMA.   I think this will prevent me from ever running for higher office, but wanted to put it out there anyway!

Feeling hopeful since 2004...

---

by: Kelly Nordstrom @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 20:42:24 PM UTC

First In The Nation New Hampshire (4.00 / 2)

(warning:drug sales reps are a different genetic strain)

I agree with you on the potential effect this will have on sales...they use the data collected to build a data base for maximizing the use of and selling the highest priced product possible.

Give credit to John Lynch for signing this signal Legislation.

http://www.online-crc.com/cont...

New Hampshire law to block sale of prescription data
Published May 2006

The New Hampshire state Senate unanimously passed legislation May 4 to prohibit the sale of physicians' prescription information to pharmaceutical, insurance, and data-mining companies for commercial purposes. If Gov. John Lynch (D) signs the bill, the state will become the first in the nation to ban such sales.

Rep. Cindy Rosenwald (D-Nashua), the bill's main sponsor, said it would not affect research, or prohibit pharmaceutical companies from analyzing prescription data with the names of individual physicians removed, according to the Associated Press. Rosenwald said the bill is intended to protect the privacy of medical information and to prevent pharmaceutical sales representatives from pressuring physicians to prescribe certain medications.

The American Medical Association (AMA) will soon offer physicians the choice to have their prescription data kept confidential, although the program would not cover nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, or dentists, Rosenwald said. The AMA has lucrative contracts with data-mining companies for physician prescribing data, the New York Times reports.

Drug store chains, data-mining companies, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (a pharmaceutical company trade group) oppose the bill, saying patients benefit from having the data available.

Sources: "Senate votes to restrict sale of prescription information," (AP); "Doctors object to gathering of drug data," New York Times.

Kelly thanks for your knowledge of the real world !

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 23:37:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it's a start (4.00 / 3)

i'm not an expert on this, and i think there are tons of complicated details around this issue, but i'm gonna give a couple of thoughts anyway.  Maybe someone with more knowledge can enlighten me if and when i go astray.

1) The whole "commercial speech" counter-argument seemed bogus from the start.  I haven't read the decision, but the court seemed to kibosh that, which I liked.

2) And I like the law, which from reports goes further than any other law before it.  So now I'd like to see the law go further still.  Prescription information should belong to the patient.  It should be owned by the patient.  As, imo, should virtually all your records with any company you deal with.  But certainly and clearly your medical records.

If you want to enforce privacy, transferring  information ownership from the corporation to the individual seems to me the approach the government should take.  Undue deference is being paid to corporations on this issue (and I do not bash large corporations as a matter of course).  

3) I don't understand why a wide range of politicians aren't tackling privacy rights with something more than baby steps.  How dare my credit records be sold?!  For that matter, how dare my stupid shopping information be sold?!  Privacy should appeal to Democrats as matter of civil rights, and as a matter of standing up for the working stiff, and standing up for the consumer.  Hell, it should appeal to the Libertarian leanings of many Republicans.  What's everyone waiting for?

4) The way the state, in legislation today, allows corporations to handle information about you and me will dictate how much individual privacy remains in the next century. Kids today already have a different view of privacy. I like it myself, but I could be old-fashioned.  Maybe privacy will end up being a brief 20th century peculiarity.  But I'd be happier if we didn't hand over the keys before we had some more understanding of where we could end up.  Actually, the problem is I'm not handing over the keys.  They're just being quietly removed from my pocket.

Thanks to the drafters of this law (and I don't know its history).  Thanks to Lynch for signing it.  And (I think) thanks to our AG for appealing its dismissal.  Kudos.

And this is the short version of my comments on this subject ;-)

---

by: kite @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:37:08 AM UTC