The incentives are definitely bad, and that's where the actual fix should be.
The code I write is not my code, it's the banks.
However I think it would be better to directly incentivize data release rather than require it, at least in biomedical sciences. Because of patient privacy issues there is no way raw data release can be required across the board. And I certainly do not trust the NIH to come up with a coherent set of rules for when it is versus isn't allowed, which would mean loopholes and more corruption.
This has not been born out in my experience, or the experience of others. Data products are chronically undervalued and undercited in science, and do not come with guarantees of authorship unless you put up barriers to access them without it.
Open data is, at this point, a decision made for either ideological reasons or as a condition of funding and/or publication, not a decision that is itself usually "worth" the investment of curating a public data set.