In a story that didn't get much attention this week - but should have - a federal judge overturned a New Hampshire law that made doctors' prescription-writing habits confidential.
The Associated Press reported: "The law made New Hampshire the first state to try to block pharmaceutical companies' hard-sell ptiches by restricting access to data that identifies doctors and other prescribers. Pharmaceutical company salespeople prize doctors' information because it profiles prescribing habits. They can learn which doctors favor brand names or generics, and who is more willing to prescribe new drugs."
The judge said the law violated the First Amendment. (Huh???)
The NH legislator who sponsored the law told the New York Times, "I feel that corporate interests took precedent over the needs of people in New Hampshire. I think it's like having a drug rep peering over a doctor's shoulder when he is writing a prescription."
Posted by schwitz at May 3, 2007 08:06 AM | TrackBackI agree. I saw this news item. These companies claim that they need to know this information, but none of their explanations are credible, and its painfully obvious that they want to bknow so they can target those doctors who are especially "friendly" to their product.
Its thinly disguised targeting, and this NH judge is "on board" with them (i.e. he got paid)
Posted by: Mike at May 7, 2007 10:29 AMI have recently been thinking of the opposite approach to tackling the same problem: (1) open all the data (physician - not patient - like the NH law) to the public; (2) require full disclosure (date, time, company, amount) of any and all financial contacts - detailing (including accounting of samples), "educational dinners," consulting contracts, symposia, fess for participation in trials, etc.; (3) place the burden for disclosure on the pharma/device companies; (4) let the public connect whatever dots may be necessary.
Now, there will certainly be similar complaints from IMS and the pharmacies who profit from their trade in this info. This info is already collected by the state and federal governments for Medicaid and Medicare patients, so the basic infrastructure would not have to be built entirely from scratch. More importantly, the American public - through government regulation and licensing - has granted physicians monopolistic control over prescription access, and I find very little problem demanding this level of transparency regardless of who is footing the bill. Physician criticism will be fierce I suspect, but that is to be expected.
I have been tossing this idea around in my head for a while now, but have yet to develop a more detailed plan/proposal.
Any thoughts or comments would be welcome.
Posted by: Morris Berg at May 7, 2007 05:36 PM