State AG Perspective: Exposing the Truth – as attorneys understand the pharmaceutical industry

State AG Perspective: Exposing the Truth

https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/blog/

Guest post by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella, New York Attorney General Letitia James, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, and Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares

Today’s disclosure of more than a million documents from Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, one of the country’s most prolific opioid sellers, is an important step to expose the truth and prevent a manmade crisis like the opioid epidemic from ever happening again.

Drug companies profited by pushing dangerous prescription opioids, and Americans have become the biggest users of opioids in the world. Communities across our nation suffered the consequences as a result: addiction, overdose, and death.

Families most impacted by the crisis have led the way in advocating for justice. Parents whose own children died because of the opioid crisis have dedicated years of their lives to protect others. They demanded that lawbreakers be held accountable, failed systems be reformed, and urgent investments be made for harm reduction, treatment, recovery, and prevention.

State Attorneys General heard the calls for action and acted. Working together, across party lines and across the nation, our teams conducted a searching investigation of illegal conduct throughout the opioid industry. We filed lawsuits and won verdicts from judges and juries, forcing companies to pay tens of billions of dollars that will be dedicated to address the crisis.

An essential part of justice is exposing the truth. Our teams pursued that truth for years. Our efforts resulted in the public disclosure of millions of documents and of the critical facts revealed by witnesses ranging from drug sales reps to company presidents.

We rejected the companies’ attempts to keep the evidence sealed, or to hand it back to the perpetrators. Instead, we posted it online.

For the first time in a generation, since the landmark tobacco cases, an industry’s secrets are being turned over to the public. Under orders entered by courts throughout the nation, millions of opioid industry documents will be posted in a free public archive, in perpetuity.

The families who suffered in this crisis will be able to see for themselves the evidence that we uncovered – the company emails, board minutes, and business plans that changed so many lives.

Journalists, filmmakers, artists, and scholars will tell the story of this epidemic using the real words and actions of the people who drove the opioid business.

Policymakers throughout the country will be informed by what went wrong.

Executives, directors, and employees in every industry will know that, if they break the law and endanger the public, the whole world may see what they did.

Today is a step toward justice. We are grateful to the advocates who demanded action in the face of a devastating crisis, to our staff who work every day to serve the public, and to the archivists at the University of California San Francisco and Johns Hopkins who will preserve this evidence for the public good.

FAILURE: the government’s ability to deal with opiate abuse and OD’s for the last CENTURY PLUS

This showed up in my inbox today.  This letter was dated before the CDC 2016 guidelines were published. We really don’t know when those guidelines were actually created… since there was NO PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.  According to the date on this letter,  at least the 6 members of the House of Representatives that signed this letter was aware the guidelines were in the early stage of being composed or already finished. I wonder if some of the questions that were asked were ever answered ? Notice that the six signatures at the bottom of the letter is three from each political party.  Of course, the head of the CDC Thomas Frieden knew his years at the agency were most likely numbered.  Pres Obama was “tapped out” and could not run for reelection and we would have a new president in Jan 2017 and he would be looking for a new job.  The CDC amended their name in 1992 with the permission of Congress https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00017924.htm and since the 2016 guidelines per published… the OD’s from opiates – mostly illegal fentanyl from China/Mexico – has jumped several fold.  While the CDC tracks the number of OD’s involving opiates… there seems to be little/no data kept on chronic pain pts that have died prematurely from complication of their existing comorbidity health issues from having their opiates reduced/eliminated because of the CDC 2016 guidelines, or chronic pain pts suicides that were reported as a opiate OD’s because their toxicology showed a opiate… I guess just like the DEA has been a 50 yr failure in the war on drugs, the CDC seems to be following down the same path as a failure in the PREVENTION of opiate abuse, hell… they were not even able to PREVENT the increase in opiate abuse & OD’s.



Best Documentary Film

Image

Winner ! Best documentary film March 2022 .
A film by Toronto filmmakers Tina Petrova and Eugene Weis – Pain Warriors. Now streaming on Amazon

Did Fauci and Collins Collect Big Pharma Royalties?

Did Fauci and Collins Collect Big Pharma Royalties?

https://patriotpost.us/articles/88360-did-fauci-and-collins-collect-big-pharma-royalties-2022-05-16

Records show that NIH researchers received over $350 million in royalty payments from 2010 to 2020

A newly acquired Freedom of Information Act request report reveals that from 2010 to 2020, individuals at the National Institutes of Health received an awful lot of money in royalty payments from third-party payers, likely pharmaceutical companies. How much money? The FIOA report, obtained by the nonprofit government watchdog group Open the Books, found that “between fiscal years 2010 and 2020, more than $350 million in royalties were paid by third-parties to the agency and NIH scientists — who are credited as co-inventors.”

The report further observes, “Because those payments enrich the agency and its scientists, each and every royalty payment could be a potential conflict of interest and needs disclosure.”

Exactly who at NIH received royalties and who paid those royalties remains a mystery, given that the documents received from NIH were heavily redacted. The information that was available notes the total number of NIH scientists and the total aggregate royalty payments NIH received.

The report noted that the agency’s top officials did indeed receive royalty payments, but the total amount and the source of those royalty payments remains hidden. What is known is that former NIH Director Francis Collins as well as Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), received royalty payments.

The revelation brings up an obvious conflict of interest question. Without knowing exactly what drug company was paying the royalties, it’s difficult to answer that question, but at the very least there is certainly the appearance of impropriety. Making matters worse is the fact that both Fauci and Collins went out of their way during the pandemic to promote certain narratives, like support of vaccine and masking mandates, while at the same time stifling legitimate inquires, such as the lab leak theory.

If it is learned that any of the pharmaceutical companies that produced COVID vaccines — companies like Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson — were making royalty payments to Fauci or Collins or both, that would present a significant breach of trust.

But it could go even deeper. Should any company with roots in China be discovered to have been making payments to NIH leadership, that might also go a long way to explaining the reason why Collins in particular was so adamant in his downplaying of the lab-leak theory.

More light needs to be shined on this, and NIH needs to disclose who was paid and by whom. The officials need to be held to account and not be allowed to hide behind a mountain of bureaucratic obfuscation.

 

Monkeypox… or just old MONKEY BUSINESS ?

No alternative text description for this image
Crane Stephen Landis, MBA, JD

So… the ONLY thing that has been reported through the Mainstream Media is that a small number of cases have been found in the US – which is somewhat a new phenomenon, since it’s disease usually limited to Africa. Additionally, those few cases seem to be of some concern, because none of those cases are found in people who have traveled to Africa.

NO ONE IS SOUNDING ANY ALARM. At all. No one. Not the CDC or NIH or even the US Government. And certainly not the Media.

So, why the bullshit conspiracy crap?

Because it’s all a big HOAX? The small number of people who apparently have it, don’t? Seriously?

That’s right… THE EVIL GOVERNMENT IS AFTER YOU!

Just like the Lizard People walking among us. Or the Jewish Cabal – no doubt lead by George Soros – and libertards who are bringing Brown and Black immigrants to replace White Americans and take over the Vote. All while operating Space Lasers and covertly running the world’s banking system. Right?

Good God.

If you’re so worried about mayhem, stop causing it. Such idiocy.

undiagnosed/untreated mental health can kill people, including 50K suicides and 1 Mil attempts

Is Pot Really Safe? Tales From the ER. An Interview with Dr. Roneet Lev

Is Pot Really Safe? Tales From the ER. An Interview with Dr. Roneet Lev

https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/05/26/pot-really-safe-tales-er-interview-dr-roneet-lev-16315

Marijuana is being decriminalized across the US. Most are celebrating, but there is a real (and sometimes serious) public health threat that tags along. Most of you will be unaware of what you’re about to read. Dr. Roneet Lev, the former head of the Scripps Mercy Hospital emergency department and also an addiction specialist shares some eye-opening information in the following interview.

I’ve been interviewed numerous times about the colossal mess we call the “opioid crisis,” so when Dr. Roneet Lev, who runs the High Truths website, asked me to do a podcast I figured it would be much of the same. It wasn’t. Dr. Lev is not only a specialist in addiction (a real one, unlike some of the dilettantes making the rounds) but is also a clinician – the head of the Emergency Department at Scripps Mercy Hospital in San Diego. Additionally, she was also the first Chief Medical Officer of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

During the interview, I learned that Dr. Lev is also an expert in marijuana addiction. (Yes, you heard that right.) Given the sea change in recreational drug use as marijuana becomes decriminalized and the profound difference in marijuana potency, compared to that of a generation ago, the drug is now more of a public health issue than ever. ACSH is very fortunate that Dr. Lev generously agreed to work with us to help convey that marijuana has a dark side that its proponents rarely discuss. She knows; she sees it every day,

JB: Dr. Lev, thanks very much for taking some of your valuable time to share your expertise with us.

RL: It’s my pleasure, and I’d also like to thank you for discussing opioids on my High Truths on Drugs and Addiction podcast.

JB: Speaking of opioids, it’s a bit ironic that as anti-opioid fever continues to rage in the US, making it difficult for legitimate pain patients to get their medications, marijuana, which has questionable medical utility, now gets a free pass just about everywhere. What are your thoughts about this? 

RL: My sympathies to the many people with chronic pain who have been unfairly cut off opioids without humane weaning or alternatives. I have spoken to family members whose loved ones were driven to suicide because of abrupt opioid withdrawal.  And it’s not just patients that have suffered in today’s climate. Lawsuits, threats to medical licenses, publicized law enforcement investigations, and vigilant government monitoring have scared the medical community from overprescribing to under-prescribing. There are agencies that have blood on their hands for their action.

JB: What is your philosophy regarding prescribing powerful drugs?

RL: I promote the Goldilocks method of prescribing: not too much, not too little, but just right. While denial of opioid pain medications to patients who truly need them is tragic, just as tragic is that the marijuana industry preys on people with chronic pain and leads them from opioids to pot. It is medically safer to take regulated and prescribed opioids such as hydrocodone or oxycodone under a doctor’s supervision than unregulated high-dose THC products with various contaminants and adulterants.

This is worth repeating:

It is medically safer to take regulated and prescribed opioids such as hydrocodone or oxycodone under a doctor’s supervision than unregulated high dose THC products with various contaminants and adulterants.

Roneet Lev, M.D.

To clarify definitions, cannabis refers to all products from the Cannabis sativa plant. THC is the most common psychoactive chemical. CBD (cannabinoid) is another common component of the plant. Marijuana refers to parts or products from the plant that contains substantial THC. The medical literature uses both cannabis and marijuana interchangeably, so I do as well.

I agree with your irony assessment. Opioids, FDA-approved medications, have many barriers. Cannabis products, which have no FDA approval have been declared a medicine, but without the science. As a physician, I must follow the standard of care before I prescribe any medication. I obtain a medical history, check vital signs, ask about other medications, and allergies, and perform a physical exam. My license would be in jeopardy without keeping medical records. Non-health professionals can recommend high potency cannabis products with significant health risks without following medical standards and with little accountability.

JB: Most people I speak with are astounded to find out that Emergency Department visits for marijuana overdoses are not rare. In fact, they’re rather common. How frequently do you see overdoses at your hospital?

 RL: Every shift I take care of marijuana poisoning. Every emergency department in America treats cannabis-related illnesses every day. I don’t refer to it as “marijuana overdose” because people think of an opioid overdose where someone stops breathing and almost dies. Instead, I refer to the cases as cannabis poisoning, an adverse event due to cannabis.

JB: Can you describe the symptoms of cannabis poisoning?

RL: The list of cannabis-related illnesses is long. The two most common symptoms are cannabis hyperemesis syndrome and cannabis-induced psychosis.

Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome (CHS) is associated with long-term cannabis use, typically of the smoked product. The symptoms of CHS have been described as “scromiting”, screaming and vomiting. There are reported deaths with CHS caused by electrolyte imbalance. The problem is caused by the inundation of the cannabinoid receptors by THC over a long period of time causing the neurons to act irradicably. 

Cannabis-induced psychosis is also common. THC is lipophilic, meaning it is absorbed by fat, and the brain is a fatty organ. The greatest problem in emergency departments across the nation is the increase in the volume of mental health emergencies. The issue is exacerbated due to the lack of mental health beds. We have patients who live in our emergency department for weeks waiting for placement. Some of them have cannabis-induced psychosis.

JB: How do you treat these conditions?

RL: THC and CBD do not have an antidote. Opioids are unique because of the availability of an overdose reversal agent, naloxone. Most other drugs, including cannabis products, cannot be reversed.

Patients simply need to wait until the cannabis is metabolized and removed from the body. That can take hours and sometimes days. In emergency cases, we direct our efforts to treat symptoms. Psychosis can be treated with antipsychotic medications. Blood pressure, fast heart, nausea, and vomiting can also be treated.  

JB: Con you compare this to what you observed five years ago? How about 15 years ago?

RL: When I started my career as an emergency doctor in the 1990s, I never saw cases of cannabis poisoning; there was no such thing as cannabis hyperemesis syndrome. Marijuana in those days was just weed – low potency, 3% THC flower rolled in a joint or blunt. Today low potency weed is long gone – try finding a marijuana plant with less than 10% THC. If you walk into a present-day cannabis dispensary you’ll see the new world order of dabs, shatters, oils, concentrates, vapes, sodas, candies, suppositories – seemingly endless possibilities. The high potency THC products behave more like a stimulant such as methamphetamine, a hard drug.

Data from 2019 in San Diego showed 13,525 primary and secondary diagnoses of marijuana-related emergency department visits, or 37 cases a day. In 2014 there were 10,302 and in 2006 there were 1,108. California emergency department visits for cannabis rose 53% between 2016 and 2019. That’s a steep trajectory (1).

Graph created using Canva

JB: It is well known that the concentration of psychotropic chemicals, particularly the dozens of cannabinoids in the plant, is far higher than in marijuana a generation ago. But the availability of marijuana is also far greater. Which of these factors do you consider to be more relevant to the two factors?

 RL: Both factors are important – potency and availability. I treat a lot of patients with methamphetamine poisoning. We studied 150 consecutive urine drug screens from our emergency department and 76% were positive for methamphetamine. Meth is cheap to make and purchase, readily flows across the Mexican border to San Diego, and the manufacturing method produces a purer chemical. The devastation to our population is caused by purity (potency) and availability.

Similarly, cannabis products are ever more available and the products are more potent. In the same emergency department drug surveillance study, 50% of drug screens were positive for THC. 

JB: You’re clearly not a big fan of unrestricted use of marijuana. What will be the negative fallout from the enormous experiment that is now underway? 

RL: I wouldn’t describe my views on marijuana as being a fan or not a fan. I want the public to make informed decisions. If people drink alcohol, they understand the risk of addiction, liver disease, and drunk driving. If people smoke cigarettes they know the risk of addiction, lung cancer, and emphysema. The opioid risks are well known. What makes marijuana different is that the risks are being hidden and denied.

JB: Most people will look at you like you’re insane if you suggest that marijuana is addictive. What would you say to them now?

I would tell people to follow the science. Cannabis use disorder or addiction is defined using the same DSM V 11-point criteria as alcohol use disorder or opioid use disorder. Approximately 1 in 10 people who use marijuana will become addicted. If starting before age 18, the rate of addiction rises to 1 in 6.

Cannabis withdrawal is reported in up to 30% of regular users and in 50-90% of heavy users. Many cannabis users do not believe they suffer from withdrawal until they understand that the symptoms of cannabis withdrawal are different than alcohol or opioid withdrawal. The common symptoms of cannabis withdrawal are irritability, anxiety, insomnia, and headache, and significant cravings for marijuana. Typically, these symptoms last for about 2 weeks after cessation.

 JB: It was ridiculous to imprison people for possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use, so decriminalization makes quite a bit of sense. But have we gone too far? What policy makes the most sense to you?

RL: I agree along with most Americans that marijuana should be decriminalization. But the savvy Marijuana Industry has used the popular decriminalization stance and extended it to legalization for both recreational and medical use. It is now openly promoting high potency THC products.

There are different philosophies on drugs. Some support legalizing all drugs – cocaine, methamphetamine, and illicit fentanyl. I support a public health approach, especially one that protects our youth and allows for transparency and informed consumers.

Current legalization has gone too far because it has grown with little regulation. There is no deterrence or consequences for making false health claims or selling high potency products. There is no childproof packaging for babies.  There is little consequence for prompting products to youth. Why does the world need Wheetos that look like Cheetos and send babies to the emergency room?

Smart policy would be to follow the science. We have a duty as a society to protect our youth and most vulnerable. All drugs that can be addicting should be avoided until the brain completes myelination and synaptic pruning. Adults should be aware of the various medical risks and make informed decisions.

JB: Are there known issues using marijuana with other medications? 

Yes. Both THC and CBD are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system and therefore may interact with many medications – over 300 for THC and over 500 for CBD. There are many pain medications and psychiatric medications that cause drug interactions with cannabis.

For example, I treated a man who was admitted three times to the hospital with internal bleeding. Each time he received blood transfusions and endoscopies evaluate a source of bleeding. On his third visit I asked him about drug use. He admitted to being a regular cannabis user with no problems. The problem was that he was on a blood thinner for her heart stents. The cannabis interacted with his blood thinner and was causing bleeding that could have been fatal.

I encourage people to use the Drugs.com medication interaction checker.  Enter cannabis for THC or cannabidiol of CBD and check your medications for interactions.

————————————————————————————–

I would like once again to thank Dr. Lev for her time and also the extremely valuable information that will probably surprise many of our readers. Additionally, we will publish two more articles on this topic that delve more deeply into the science and medicine of this important topic.

NOTE:

(1) It is difficult to distinguish whether marijuana poisoning was the primary or secondary diagnosis for an emergency room visit, which can affect the numbers. Dr. Lev explains: “There are very few cannabis ICD-10 codes, for example, there is no ICD-10 code for cannabis hyperemesis syndrome or cannabis induced psychosis. Therefore primary diagnoses are for typical symptoms such as vomiting, psychosis, or chest pain. Secondary, or subsequent diagnosis can include cannabis.  Given this methodology, cannabis diagnoses are underestimated.”

 

Is how the DEA enforces the CSA… in violation of this federal law ?

Currently there is a case before SCOTUS Ruan v. United States

that is trying to resolve this Issue: Whether a physician alleged to have prescribed controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice may be convicted of unlawful distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) without regard to whether, in good faith, he “reasonably believed” or “subjectively intended” that his prescriptions fall within that course of professional practice.

Within the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), it is illegal for a person to obtain a controlled substance without a valid medical reason. Historically, the DEA tried to trace back a OD/dead body back to a prescriber, didn’t seem to matter that the person that OD had not be seen by the prescriber for up to a year OR MORE.  The DEA charged the prescriber for prescribing opiates for someone without a valid medical necessity. Opiate Rxs peaked in 2011-2012 and they have been reduced by abt 60% since then.  Apparently “dead bodies’ that could be attached to a prescriber and opiate Rx, the DEA shifted to doing data search of those prescribers who were “believed” to be prescribing opiates for non-medical reasons.  The DEA – apparently to justify their conclusion – would publish how many doses of opiates – typically in millions – over a period of time – typically YEARS – and how many pts – typically in thousands…the prescriber had prescribed.

People – like me – would reverse engineer the numbers the DEA provided and in many instances … it would calculate that the “average pt” may have received a SINGLE DOSE every DAY OR TWO and I would share my findings on my blog and other places on the internet.

Over recent years, I have not seen any person that the DEA claimed the prescriber was providing opiates to that did not have a valid medical necessity getting arrested and sent to jail.  There have been rumors over the years, that the DEA would find a “bogus pt” in a particular practice and promise that person a free “get out of jail card” if they testify against the prescriber precisely what the DEA wants to be said under oath when the DEA takes the prescriber to Federal court.

Of course, the DEA is mostly interested in using the Civil Asset Forfeiture Act to confiscate all the prescriber’s assets.  So the prescriber has no income and no assets and the DEA has GROSSLY OVER CHARGED the prescriber, so going to trial with a public defender and facing so many years that a guilty verdict would pretty much means a LIFE SENTENCE… so the prescriber has no choice but to plead guilty to a SINGLE CHARGE and 20 yrs in jail and the bogus pt doesn’t have to perjure themself at trial and can’t admit to what they have done.

And all those legit pts in the prescriber’s practice is left “out in the cold”, because no other practice who wants to take a chance of accepting one of those pts from a “dirty practice” into their practice. Is the manner in which the DEA is enforcing the CSA, actually interfering with those pt’s medical care?

If you notice, 42 USC 1395 was added to our FEDERAL LAW in 1965 – FIVE YEARS before the CSA was signed into law and EIGHT YEARS before the DEA was created to enforce the CSA. Does this suggest that the Congress that passed the CSA and was signed into law by Pres “Tricky Dick” Nixon was technically signing into law a unconstitutional bill ?

42 USC 1395: Prohibition against any Federal interference

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:1395%20edition:prelim)

From Title 42-THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 7-SOCIAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER XVIII-HEALTH INSURANCE FOR AGED AND DISABLED

§1395. Prohibition against any Federal interference

Nothing in this sub chapter shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of any institution, agency, or person providing health services; or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, §1801, as added Pub. L. 89–97, title I, §102(a), July 30, 1965, 79 Stat. 291 .)


Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Short Title

For short title of title I of Pub. L. 89–97, which enacted this subchapter as the “Health Insurance for the Aged Act”, see section 100 of Pub. L. 89–97, set out as a Short Title of 1965 Amendment note under section 1305 of this title.

Protecting and Improving Guaranteed Medicare Benefits

Pub. L. 111–148, title III, §3601, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 538 , provided that:

“(a) Protecting Guaranteed Medicare Benefits.-Nothing in the provisions of, or amendments made by, this Act [see Short Title note set out under section 18001 of this title] shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.].

“(b) Ensuring That Medicare Savings Benefit the Medicare Program and Medicare Beneficiaries.-Savings generated for the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act under the provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall extend the solvency of the Medicare trust funds, reduce Medicare premiums and other cost-sharing for beneficiaries, and improve or expand guaranteed Medicare benefits and protect access to Medicare providers.”

Medicine & Law Cannot Get Along

Medicine & Law Cannot Get Along

https://www.daily-remedy.com/medicine-law-cannot-get-along/

We see a growing discrepancy between what most Americans understand healthcare to be, and what forms the philosophical basis of the Constitution. It leads to riots on the streets and vitriolic policy debates, particularly for polarizing healthcare issues.

The problem is neither side is entirely wrong. Regardless of whether the issue may be vaping, abortions, or prescription opioids, most are complex enough to justify nearly any stance. This is because healthcare and the Constitution as we currently interpret it are fundamentally incompatible.

“In Europe, the charters of liberty have been granted by power; America has set the example of charters of power granted by liberty”, said Founding Father and fourth President, James Madison. He was talking about the nature of rights in the then nascent United States.

Rather than a government giving rights to its people, the United States would assume that all Americans had pre-existing, unalienable rights “endowed by their Creator” and the American government would merely restrict certain rights in the name of public good.

Political scientists call these negative rights. In contrast, positive rights provide something or assume some obligation from the government to its people. Needless to say, healthcare as we understand it is derived from positive rights.

The problem is the Constitution is written to align philosophically with negative rights. The right to bear arms is considered an unalienable right, so the Constitution cannot restrict that right from people. Abortion was outlawed by English Common Law, so the writers of the Constitution, referencing Common Law, never saw abortion as an unalienable right.

This is why you hear so many anti-abortion policy wonks claim the Constitution never guaranteed the right to an abortion or assumes any provisions in protecting that right. They understand the Constitution is based on negative rights, restricting rights already assumed innate to all peoples.

To then turn around and claim that abortion should be protected violates the ethos of the Constitution and of the Common Law precedent that serves as the conceptual basis for it.

So who is right and who is wrong? Are those who steadfastly heed to the negative rights principle of the Constitution right? Or is it that those who intimately understand the modern socioeconomic constraints driving women toward abortions?

Attributing binary labels of right or wrong to any stance on a healthcare issue has proven to be counterintuitive at best. What would make more sense is analyzing how we can integrate positive rights beliefs underlying healthcare with a legal framework based on negative rights. In other words, how can we integrate healthcare into the framework of the Constitution?

There are two methods. The first is to concretely define the unalienable rights that constitute healthcare. European philosopher Henri Frederic Amiel wrote: “In health there is freedom. Health is the first of all liberties.” So conceivably, we would categorize healthcare as a liberty to be further elaborated, or enumerated, to use the most Constitution-friendly terms.

The problem with this approach is that we are already doing it. We ceaselessly chase our own tails arguing preconceived stances that we already believe. Some will say the right to pain relief is a fundamental liberty. Others will say the right to life, in all instances of life, is true liberty. We moralize our gut feelings through grandiose prose until our voices grow horse. And we continue to argue and bicker.

The second, and more reasonable, approach is to construct laws in an affirmative manner, which means laws balance rights afforded with commensurate responsibilities or obligations. We already have something like this, only we do not call it a law, we call it insurance. Health insurance policies balance medical risks with monthly premiums or deductible payouts.

Most insurance policies are already federally administered. The leap to extend this affirmative balance found in insurances to all aspects of healthcare would not be difficult. In fact, it would be quite logical.

Instead of issuing blanket restrictions on abortions, the right to the medical procedure would be determined by socioeconomic constraints, individual harms, and broader social benefits – and administer rights with responsibilities accordingly.

The Constitution has made provisions for such laws in the Fourteenth Amendment. Included within it are two core doctrines that serve as the basis for this type of law – Fundamental Fairness and Equal Protection of the Law.

These are abstract concepts, which have been formalized to enact laws like those that ushered in the Civil Rights Movement and fair immigration practices. Perhaps it is time we apply those concepts to healthcare.

So we can once and for all codify what we mean by rights in healthcare – not as a restriction, but as a balance.

 

Your pharmacist might be permanently out to lunch

Your pharmacist might be permanently out to lunch

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3499767-your-pharmacist-might-be-permanently-out-to-lunch/

CVS and Walgreens are limiting the amount of baby formula you can buy — a grim reminder of what shortages mean, and how dependent we have become on retail chains, especially when it comes to vital supplies, including drugs. 

Maybe you have noticed that it is getting crowded in CVS or Walgreens these days as you wait for an item, a vaccine or medication.  

Maybe you’ve been on hold for a pharmacist and finally given up. Perhaps you have argued with a pharmacist or been standing on a long line while someone else demanded better service from the pharmacist.

Within the major drug store outlets, you often see a sign that says, “We’re Hiring.” What I never considered is that the people they most need to hire are critical to our health.

Recently I was living in Massachusetts and went to pick up a prescription at my local Walgreens. A sign on the pharmacy counter read, “Closed for the weekend” with a list of nearby locations. I subsequently learned that the pharmacy was closed because of a shortage of pharmacists. And COVID-19 was not the culprit.

I did a bit of research, including a long chat with a pharmacist. It turns out my experience with a closed pharmacy was just one of many across the nation.

Here’s what I learned.

Pharmacists in America are struggling, and many are leaving the profession. Over the next 10 years, it is estimated that America will see a nationwide decline of at least 2 percent of its pharmacists, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

That might not sound like a lot until you consider that new prescription growth in the United States is off the charts. Last March, the volume of prescriptions increased 34 percent over the previous year. Much of that is mail-order prescriptions, which don’t require a pharmacist. But there are certain things that require a human pharmacist, including vaccines, advice on side-effects of medication, help with finding a generic brand to reduce costs and even what to do if you can’t find baby formula. Pharmacists are also wizards at dealing with insurance companies on your behalf.

The problem for pharmacists today, I learned, is not wages. A good pharmacist can earn $75 an hour. Not bad.

The problems have to do with working conditions for pharmacists. One pharmacist at a leading chain told me he does not drink water before his 13-hour shift because there is no time to use the bathroom. The phones are ringing off the hook. Angry customers are demanding refills. And the average pharmacist is backed up trying to prioritize competing demands for antibiotics and inhalers. Volume is up, staffing is down.

Unruly airline passengers got the lion’s share of attention this year while pharmacists were facing angry customers of their own. It is time to admit that Americans have become increasingly short-tempered.

What worries many pharmacists is that dismal conditions can lead to mistakes, accidents and shortages. A 2022 survey by the American Pharmacist Association found that 74 percent of respondents said they did not think they had sufficient time to safely perform patient care and clinical duties.  

The pharmacist shortage comes at a time when COVID infections are up and the supply of nurses and medical technicians is down.  According to the American Hospital Association, almost every hospital in the country has a nursing shortage due to burn out from COVID. One study found that 35 percent of hospitals report a nurse vacancy rate of greater than 10 percent. Whether or not you believe in vaccines is not relevant if you need medication or medical attention or vital goods.

Yes, we know. The American health care system is broken. There is no shortage of reports and commissions looking at America’s health crisis. The answers about how to fix the health system are as complex as the system itself.  

But the narrow sector of pharmacists is a good place to start reform. Major companies like CVS, Walgreens and RiteAid need to staff their stores with more qualified people to ease the burden on existing staff. They can afford it. CVS posted a profit last year of $7.9 billion — up over 10 percent from the year before. Walgreens also had a good year.

Another answer to the pharmacy problem might be to put some of the burden for vaccination back on the internists who have quietly avoided COVID by telling patients to take home tests or get vaccinated at their local pharmacy.  

Ultimately, we all want to support small, local businesses, including the neighborhood pharmacy. But we still turn to the big chains, confident that they will be open and well-staffed and have products on the shelves. In this era of increasing resignations, it is not helpful to have pharmacists resign anywhere in the country.  

Tara D. Sonenshine is the Edward R. Murrow Professor of Public Diplomacy at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.