Medical society gets involved in N.H. prescribing data case

A New Hampshire law restricting the sale of physicians' prescribing data does not violate the First Amendment or the Commerce Clause, according to an amicus brief the New Hampshire Medical Society and other groups filed last month. The law took effect June 30, 2006. So far, the measure has withstood data mining firms' attempts to block enforcement until a federal case, IMS Health et. al. v. New Hampshire, is decided in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire.

The data collection firms argue that the New Hampshire law would restrict the use of health information that is essential to patient care and health care quality, and would infringe on their free-speech rights. But Sean M. Fiil-Flynn, who wrote the medical society's brief, said "the Supreme Court has never held that the regulation of any information exchanged between contracting parties for commercial purposes is subject to First Amendment scrutiny."

Supporters of the New Hampshire law believe it can protect physicians from drugmakers' influence and help lower the state's prescription drug costs. Five other states considered similar legislation last year, and it is widely expected that more will follow in New Hampshire's footsteps, especially if its law holds up in court.

The AMA, which licenses information from its Physician Masterfile database to data-mining firms, opposes the New Hampshire law. In response to physicians' concerns about prescribing privacy, the Association last year offered doctors the opportunity to opt out of giving their prescribing data to drug reps or their direct supervisors.

To enroll in the AMA's Prescribing Data Restriction Program, physicians can visit the Prescribing Data Information Center's Web site www/ama-assn.org/go/prescribingdata.

Note: This item originally appeared at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/01/22/prbf0122.htm.