CONCORD, N.H. —  A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation law that restricts drug company access to some information about doctors' prescription writing habits.

The ruling by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston overturns a lower court decision that said the confidentiality law unconstitutionally infringed on free speech.

Among other things, drug company sales representatives use the information to target particular doctors and tailor their sales pitches. Patients' names are not included in the data.

New Hampshire's law blocks those pitches by restricting access to data that identifies doctors and other prescribers.

Companies that collect, analyze and sell medical data claimed the law violated their free speech rights.

These so-called data-mining companies say the information they gather also is used by researchers, law enforcement and government agencies.

Drug company salespeople use the data to identify doctors' drug preferences, whether they favor brand-name medicines over generics, and whether they have been willing to prescribe new drugs.

New Hampshire's law prohibits pharmacies, benefits managers, insurance companies and data-mining companies from selling or using prescription information that identifies doctors for commercial purposes, including influencing sales. Bulk data including prescribers' zip codes, location and medical specialties may be released.

In April 2007, U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadoro in Concord threw out the law. Another federal judge later ruled against a similar law in Maine, relying heavily on the New Hampshire decision.

The appeals court decision applies to both states' laws.

New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte appealed Barbadoro's decision, saying the law protects doctor-patient relationships and the health and safety of patients while also helping to contain health care costs.

The appeals court agreed, saying: "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."

The data-mining companies said they were disappointed in the decision and were evaluated their potential next steps.

"Two federal courts previously have examined the issue and validated the view that the First Amendment protects the dissemination of prescriber-identifiable data, which we believe is vital to efforts to improve the quality, efficiency and safety of our health care system," the companies' statement said.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.