The State of New York is considering legislation (A. 7468--summary; text) requiring any drug company that gives a doctor or other health care practitioner a gift worth $75 or more to disclose that fact to the Department of Health.

Sounds OK, right? I mean, who wants their doctor to be bought off by kick backs? Look into the specifics, and you’ll find that it’s a roadmap for getting state government into the business of developing prescription drugs. It requires companies to tell their business secrets (that is, marketing plans and budgets) to the state department of health.

The "Justification" section of the official summary reveals the weakness of the bill. It's based on the old saw: drug spending is going up, that's a problem, and marketing (a normal function of any other product) to influential people must be a problem, which regulation can solve.

But drug spending can be going up for a number of legitimate reasons: the population is getting older (so it may need more drugs); it’s getting wealthier (so it’s more willing to spend in the pursuit of cures); and, well, those very expensive costs of developing a new drug must be recouped.

I had to chuckle when I read that one reason for the bill is that industry spends money on "direct marketing to health care providers." Last time I heard about it, the problem was all those direct-to-consumer ads.

Maybe we're supposed to wait for wise, benevolent and omniscient public officials to tell us what drugs to use and when? (Oops. I think we're already going to try that, under the guise of "evidence-based medicine," though that's another post.)