A New Hampshire law that restricted the collection and sale of information that would identify physicians was struck down by a federal judge for being unconstitutional. The judge ruled that the law was a restriction on free speech. [Press release from IMS Health and Verispan.]
This has been an interesting story up in the northeast, which I have recently discussed. New Hampshire, a state that is fiercely independent and anti-big government, became the first state in the nation to enact physician privacy/secrecy legislation. It seems that this wasn’t really a law to protect physicians as much as it was a piece of special interest legislation introduced by a New Hampshire Representative on behalf of her husband, a cardiologist in NH. This law is just a manifestation of the physician paternalism I’ve previously discussed.
Now, according to this state representative and her husband’s friends, the stated objective of the law was to rein in the State of New Hampshire’s spending on prescription drugs in the Medicaid program. Unfortunately, the representative and her husband’s friends were not able to offer any specifics on how this law would decrease drug costs (as previously discussed)
Just a guess, but I imagine that The State of New Hampshire will probably try and appeal the decision. If I were a resident of the State of New Hampshire, having already lost one costly legal battle over a flawed law, I’d have to wonder what the State will gain by pursuing an appeal (other than blowing a bunch of the State’s money).
This has been an interesting story up in the northeast, which I have recently discussed. New Hampshire, a state that is fiercely independent and anti-big government, became the first state in the nation to enact physician privacy/secrecy legislation. It seems that this wasn’t really a law to protect physicians as much as it was a piece of special interest legislation introduced by a New Hampshire Representative on behalf of her husband, a cardiologist in NH. This law is just a manifestation of the physician paternalism I’ve previously discussed.
Now, according to this state representative and her husband’s friends, the stated objective of the law was to rein in the State of New Hampshire’s spending on prescription drugs in the Medicaid program. Unfortunately, the representative and her husband’s friends were not able to offer any specifics on how this law would decrease drug costs (as previously discussed)
Just a guess, but I imagine that The State of New Hampshire will probably try and appeal the decision. If I were a resident of the State of New Hampshire, having already lost one costly legal battle over a flawed law, I’d have to wonder what the State will gain by pursuing an appeal (other than blowing a bunch of the State’s money).
Thanks to Mike Porter for the tip. Photo courtesy of Pharmalot.
No comments:
Post a Comment