Open and confidential conversations with our physicians are something we take for granted. We also expect that our physicians will have the latest information on treatments available to us. But, legislation being promoted in Albany to ban pharmaceutical companies' "gifts" to doctors would undermine our doctors' ability to get the latest information they need.

Supporters of the legislation claim that drug companies are showering doctors with gifts to get them to prescribe name-brand drugs over less-expensive generic drugs, The implication is that, if not for these gifts, doctors would prescribe generics more often.

This makes no sense. No one believes their doctor picked their prescription on the basis of who recently gave her a pen or paperweight. And that common sense is backed up by evidence. More than half of all prescriptions written are for generic drugs.

To keep up with the fast-changing developments in the world of prescription drugs, pharmaceutical companies provide physicians with educational materials offering scientific details about the advantages of and the cautions about the latest drugs. This vital information is delivered through in-person visits, seminars and other outreach events where doctors can hear from, and question, experts in the field. Quality health care for all depends upon doctors having access to this kind of information.

All of this would end under this legislation which would ban legitimate marketing efforts by pharmaceutical companies. This ban would limit communication between pharmaceutical company representatives and physicians and other medical professionals. Communication that not only helps market these drugs but provides doctors with information they need.

Of course the pharmaceutical companies want to sell their drugs. But these companies must be able to market and sell their newest drugs or they'd never develop them in the first place. How else could they afford the staggering cost, an average of $800 million, of discovering a new drug and bringing it to market?

Generics have an important place in the health-care system. But today's generics were yesterday's brand-name drugs. They wouldn't exist if the companies that developed them couldn't price them initially in a way that helped recover their costs.

New drugs may seem expensive, but they succeed because the cost of going without them far exceeds the cost of using them, New drugs save lives, improve health and cut down on hospitalization costs.

The growth of the pharmaceutical industry is good for all of New York, including the North Country. It is exactly the kind of high-tech, high-wage and growing industry upstate needs. More than 131,000 New Yorkers currently work in this industry. We want to encourage more growth, not chill this industry with new regulations not found in other states. This industry contributes more than $8.4 billion a year to New York's economic output, nearly as much as this sector in Massachusetts and Michigan combined. Those are two states which compete with New York for this industry and have been wise enough not to saddle it with this type of legislation.

This legislation is a solution in search of a problem that could damage a very important industry to New York and the quality of health care for all of us. The federal government already regulates all information and promotional materials about prescription drugs and prohibits reciprocal arrangements between manufacturers and health professionals. The industry and individual companies also subscribe to voluntary guidelines. There is abundant regulation already In place.

The Business Council of New York State's members have Identified the cost of health care and how to pay for it as their number one cost-of-doing-business concern. New York should work to promote an environment that fosters innovation and encourages companies that develop state of the art medicines to do business in this state. Proposals, like this one, that diminish the future of the pharmaceutical industry in the state should be rejected.

Better drugs mean better health care for all of us. The state should encourage their development,