Several states have been pursuing laws to restrict the collection and use of physician identifiable prescription data. New Hampshire was the first state to block the data and Nevada looks like it will be the second.
The logic here, according to a recent Associated Press article is: “Proponents say drug companies use the data to manipulate doctors and aggressively market off-patent drugs, which drives up health care prices and improperly interferes with doctors’ practices.” Really?
After I found this article on Saturday morning, I spent a large part of the Easter weekend trying to dig up any source to support the belief that access to this data drives up health care prices. I could not find a single source that would support these assertions. I did find a ton of quotes and anecdotes, but nothing documented.
And then today, PharmaLive carries a press release from the Information Policy Institute of the Political and Economic Research Council that they have done a study which proves the opposite—access to physician identifiable information actually holds down costs. The study found that the data makes biotech companies more effective in reaching “small patient populations.” It also found that without the data something called “mis-matches” between reps and doctors could amount to $1.4 billion and result and lost doctor time equivalent to 7 million patient visits.
This shouldn’t really come as a surprise, we have actually seen the same thing in other parts of health care. Transparency of information has helped to keep down prices in hospitals and insurance plans.
So what is it that doctors in New Hampshire and Nevada are really trying to achieve?
