The U.S. Supreme Court won't stop the state of New Hampshire from making doctors' prescription-writing habits confidential over the objection of companies that analyze and sell that information.

The high court yesterday refused to hear an appeal from IMS Health Inc. of Norwalk, Conn., and Verispan LLC of Yardley, Pa. Those two companies collect, analyze and sell prescription information and wanted to argue that the law violates their First Amendment right to free speech in pursuit of their business.

New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation prescription privacy law is aimed at thwarting hard-sell tactics by drug companies to doctors. It makes it a crime for pharmacies and others to transfer information disclosing a doctor's prescribing history if the information could be used for marketing of prescription drugs in New Hampshire. Patients' names are not included in the data.

The law, which passed in 2006, has subsequently been the subject of three years of court battles. Lawmakers who backed the law and Gov. John Lynch cheered the news yesterday, saying the court's decision to effectively leave the law in place will protect privacy and could help control health care costs.

"New Hampshire's prescription privacy law helps protect the privacy of doctor-patient relationships and helps stabilize health care costs," Lynch said in a statement. "The decision today by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the decisions of lower courts, affirms our belief that this law is an important step in improving our health care system."

State Rep. Cindy Rosenwald, a Nashua Democrat who sponsored the law, said she's heard a lot of interest in other states in following New Hampshire's lead on prescription privacy. The court's decision not to step in on this case may reassure legislators to move ahead on this.

"I think a lot of states will look at it because legislators are desperate to find ways to contain costs for prescription drugs," she said. "And this is one arrow in the quiver. This is one method that was approved."

Drug representatives often push newer, pricier drugs on doctors. Rosenwald said that since the law was passed - and temporarily suspended during its trajectory through the court system - she's heard one complaint from a doctor.

"I did hear from one physician that he was still having drug reps come in and say to him, 'Why aren't you prescribing my product?' " Rosenwald said.

The law went into effect this winter, after the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld the law. In a November ruling, the court found that the law is a valid step to promote the delivery of cost-effective health care.

"Even if the Prescription Information Law amounts to a regulation of protected speech - a proposition with which we disagree - it passes constitutional muster," the November ruling read. "In combating this novel threat to cost-effective delivery of health care, New Hampshire has acted with as much forethought and precision as the circumstances permit and the constitution demands."

But the companies say that the money made by selling the information to drug makers allows them to provide the same material to researchers and humanitarian organizations at little or no cost.

The companies also warned in court papers that the law could be broadly applied to newspaper publication of stock market information and many other services that gather large amounts of information.

Meanwhile, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is allowing Vermont to enforce a law similar to the New Hampshire ban on data-mining prescription information.