1648                                      VETOES

the list? There are others. While some of these matters might be
worked out under the broad administrative power of the Health De-
partment, I believe they should be spelled out in any measure enacted
by the Legislature.

From the testimony which was produced before me at the hear-
ing on this bill, it seems clear that any list would have to be made
up of drugs that have been tested to be sure that the results are
equal with brand name drugs. Such testing would in my opinion be
an expensive proposition to the State, possibly costing more than
could be saved by the use of generic drugs. On this same subject
the Commissioner of Health informs me that statements as to the
possible savings under this bill are misleading since there is no way
to tell which drugs would be on the list and thereby compute
the money that could be saved.

The strongest reason for my reservation of approval is the
almost total opposition which was raised by the medical profession
and related fields. This is important and significant because it is
the physician who is responsible for the care and treatment of his
patient. It is he who must prescribe the drug which he feels will
be the one which will produce the most rapid recovery. It is to him that
the patient will look when the results are not satisfactory and health
is not restored as completely or as quickly as the patient might
expect. And it is the physician, and such agencies as the Medical
and Chirurgical Faculty, the State Health Department, the Board of
Health and Mental Hygiene and the Maryland School of Pharmacy,
to whom I must look for expert advice and counsel on such a subject.
Their complete and unanimous opposition was clear. In the face of
this, it would be hard to justify approval on my part until such time
as all the problems of the procedure are worked out and hard facts
are available to substantiate the claims of the bill's supporters.

I would suggest that the matter be thoroughly studied in the
coming year and that every effort be made to cooperate with the
Federal authorities who are now studying the equivalency question.
Federal regulations are expected within the year on this very sub-
ject. The State would be prudent in waiting until these regulations
are forthcoming before stepping out in a direction which may not be
a wise choice.

For the above reasons I am compelled to veto this measure.

Sincerely,

(s) Spiro T. Agnew,

Governor.

House Bill No. 714—Contractors for State Contracts

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 270
(a), 270(b) (1), 270(b) (3), 270(b) (4), 270(b) (5), 270(h) (1),
270(h) (2), 270(j), 270(o), 270(r), 270(s), 270(u) and 270(y) and
to repeal in its entirety Section 270 (t) and to enact a new Section
270 (t) in lieu thereof and to stand in the place of the repealed
section of Article 56 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1967