Andrew Kolodny: BELIEVES that the pharmas collaborated to increase prescriptions for opioids across America 


I find it very interesting that the “expert” ( Andrew Kolodny) for the plaintiff  “broke down how HE BELIEVES that the companies named – among others – collaborated in the 1980’s and 1990’s to increase prescriptions for opioids across America  and ESPECIALLY IN WEST VIRGINIA.”

So the plaintiff appears to be totally counting on and basing their case on the OPINION of this “expert”.  My understanding is that any measurable perceived “opiate crisis” did not really again any traction until after Purdue Pharma introduced Oxycontin – which wasn’t until 1995-1996 and another potential stimuli was the Decade of Pain Law that was passed and signed into law in 2000.

Generic Vicodin first became available in 1983 and typically once a pharma loses a patent on a brand name med and the generic becomes available. The pharma does less promotion of the brand name, because most all states have mandatory generic substitution – unless brand name is specified by the prescriber, but most PBM/insurance will not pay for the brand name and/or charge a very large copay when a brand name is dispensed when a generic is available.

If there was few/no brand name opiates without a generic available. Historically, there is little/no promotion of a brand name opiates being promoted directly to prescribers.. the number of Rxs being prescribed will generally “fall off”. Pharmas making generics typically do not support a marketing staff to call on prescribers. The marketing to physicians is a very expensive endeavor and generic pharmas not have the profit margins to support a marketing staff.

This newspaper article did not elaborate on what was entailed in Kolodny’s “broke down how he believes the companies collaborated “

When a pharmacist holds a pt’s meds at hostage


Hello,
 I have been disabled for over 10ys. I have lived in the same place and gone to the same pharmacy and received the same prescription for the duration. Recently I went to pick up my monthly prescription and was told because I had picked it up early a few months prior that the pharmacist would be adding those days to my new prescription and it would not be available for pickup for an additional 6 and 10 days. These are legal perscriptions given to me by my health care provider and approved by my insurance to be paid for yet because a “floater” came into the pharmacy, looked into my history, and decided I now needed to wait 36 and 40 days for my 30 day supply of medications. Is this legal? Do I have ANY recourse? I am religious in the way I take my medication and I have NEVER abused it. This is evident by what happened 4 months ago and because my medication was “not in stock” again (which it hasn’t been in stock for over 2 years and I always have to wait a few days), and I had to wait FOURTEEN DAYS to get my medication. Had I not gone in early on those times I did I would have ended up dead without my medication. Lucky for me I did have extra on hand because I don’t abuse my medication but if it was exactly 30 days every single time, which is what I’m apparently being punished for this time, I honestly would not be here to write this email.
I sure could use some help. I’ve got enough meds to last through this whole thing but I’m fearful for what my future may look like if this persists. I tried to call and all I was told was to call and have my doctor transfer my prescription to a different pharmacy. I have a feeling that would have put me on some kind of list for shopping around my prescription so I’m just going to wait for this date they magically came up with. My question is why only go back a few months and hold my prescription hostage? Why not go back 10 year and really stick it to me? I mean they clearly aren’t following any guidelines. It seems petty and a power play but its MY life and they just don’t seem to care. I need to know where to go from here. Please help me. Thank you for your time
When a pharmacist thinks that holding a pt’s medication as hostage because – according to their calculation – they pt should have a few doses still on hand.  So the pt is suppose to just believe that the Pharmacist did not make some math errors in their calculation ? I wonder if these are the same pharmacist’s “mindset” that when they require the pt to wait until they are ready to take their last dose from the previous fill and they are out of stock of their meds… and they have no concerns that they won’t be able to get the pt’s med back in stock for several days…  I am sure that the pharmacist has no idea of what is in like for a chronic pain pt to be thrown into cold turkey withdrawal and maybe into a torturous level of pain…  maybe miss a couple of days of work… 

typed letter taped to counter that staffing issues are prohibitive to counting meds again when a patient picks them up

Steve do you know . . .Has anyone ever had issues with receiving less meds than MD ordered? How did you handle it? My insurance only pays at Walgreens. Must wait until next year to change it. It’s not like I can confront the pharmacy without being called suspicious and med seeking.  It would probably raise my narxcare score. They are rude enough to my family when they pick up meds as it is. My family used to ask for a count before leaving the counter, but with lay offs, short staffing, shorter hours, no weekend hours they won’t take the time to do it, unless my friend has floated over from another store. A days worth is bad enuf, but a week??&%$#@. I asked the group at American pain and disability. Got some suggestions.

Is there some kind of statement for pharmacist that says they need to count meds when we in drug store if it is requested?

They have a typed letter taped to counter that staffing issues are prohibitive to counting meds again when a patient picks them up.

Plus I don’t want to raise red flags. They might change narxcare score

The future of better medical care for pts is HERE

Matching drugs to DNA is ‘new era of medicine’

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-60903839

We have the technology to start a new era in medicine by precisely matching drugs to people’s genetic code, a major report says.

Some drugs are completely ineffective or become deadly because of subtle differences in how our bodies function.

The British Pharmacological Society and the Royal College of Physicians say a genetic test can predict how well drugs work in your body.

The tests could be available on the NHS next year.

Your genetic code or DNA is an instruction manual for how your body operates. The field of matching drugs to your DNA is known as pharmacogenomics.

It would have helped Jane Burns, from Liverpool, who lost two-thirds of her skin when she reacted badly to a new epilepsy drug.

She was put on to carbamazepine when she was 19. Two weeks later, she developed a rash and her parents took her to A&E when she had a raging fever and began hallucinating.

The skin damage started the next morning. Jane told the BBC: “I remember waking up and I was just covered in blisters, it was like something out of a horror film, it was like I’d been on fire.”

Jane BurnsImage source, Jane Burns
Image caption,

Jane Burns, now 50, has to be careful in the sun and is “terrified” of taking new medicines.

Her epilepsy medicine caused Stevens-Johnson syndrome, which affects the skin and is far more likely to happen in people who are born with specific mutations in their genetic code.

Mrs Burns says she was “extremely, extremely lucky” and said she supports pharmacogenomic tests.

“If it saves your life, then it’s a fantastic thing.”

Nearly everyone is affected

Jane’s experience may sound rare, but Prof Mark Caulfield, the president-elect of the British Pharmacological Society, said “99.5% of us have at least one change in our genome that, if we come across the wrong medicine, it will either not work or it will actually cause harm.”

  • More than five million people in the UK get no pain relief from codeine. Their genetic code does not contain the instructions for making the enzyme that breaks codeine down into morphine and without it, the drug’s a dud.
  • The genetic code of one in 500 people puts them at higher risk of losing their hearing if they take antibiotic gentamicin

Pharmacogenomics is already used for some medicines. In the past, 5-7% of people would have a bad reaction to the HIV drug abacavir and some died. Testing people’s DNA before prescribing the drug means the risk is now zero.

Scientists have looked at the 100 most prescribed drugs in the UK. Their report says we already have the technology to roll out genetic testing to guide the use of 40 of them.

The genetic analysis would cost about £100 and could be done using either a sample of blood or saliva.

Initially, the vision is to perform the test when one of the 40 drugs is prescribed. In the long term, the ambition is to test well ahead of time – possibly at birth if genetic testing of newborns goes ahead, or as part of a routine check-up in your 50s.

Precision

“We need to move away from ‘one drug and one dose fits all’ to a more personalised approach, where patients are given the right drug at the right dose to improve the effectiveness and safety of medicines,” said Prof Sir Munir Pirmohamed, from the University of Liverpool.

“What we’re doing is really going to a new era of medicine, because we’re all individuals and we all vary in the way we respond to drugs.”

He said that as we age and are prescribed more and more drugs, there’s a 70% chance that by the age of 70 you will be on at least one drug that is influenced by your genetic make-up.

Lord David Prior, the chairman of NHS England, said: “This will revolutionise medicine.”

He said pharmacogenomics “is the future” and “it can now help us to deliver a new, modern personalised healthcare system fit for 2022”.

Duke U surgeon: will only speak with 16 y/o pt post surgery

This video appears to be a video made by a parent of a 16 y/o that had back surgery and the surgery was done in the Duke University healthcare system. I had a heard a couple of years ago that Duke U had implemented a little/no opiate policy.

I can’t imagine a surgeon only willing to talk to a 16 y/o pt and won’t speak with the Mother. And according to this Mother the surgeon – or someone from the staff – would return a call after a couple of days from leaving a VM.

I suspect that if a parent – or anyone – intentionally inflicted pain or harm a child, I would expect that child protective services or cops would be looking for them… but… medical professionals seems to be exempt from being held responsible for a child being intentionally abused.

When is our society going to stop accepting/tolerating that pts being intentionally put in or left in pain without any consequences.. At least back in the 19th century, pts got a tree branch to chew on and bottle of WHISKEY.

 

where will the 2022 CDC opiate dosing guidelines take the community ?

We opened our independent pharmacy in 1976, back then the PBM industry was a minor part of paying for prescriptions, the vast majority of prescriptions were paid by cash/check/credit card.

In the early 80’s as the DRG reimbursement was implemented in the hospital system. Basically, when a person was admitted to a hospital, the hospital was given a fixed $$$ based on the pt’s diagnose and if the hospital spent less than the budgeted $$$ they made money… if they spend more than the budgeted $$$ the hospital LOSS MONEY.

The phrase quickly coined discharged “quicker and sicker”… The need/demand for various hospital equipment for the pt recuperating at home grew dramatically.  So we began being a supplier for home medical equipment.  Providing hospital beds, wheelchairs, walkers, crutches/canes, bedside commodes and the like.

As we got requests for items we did not normally stock, we expanded into new areas including home oxygen and related respiratory equipment & supplies, Home IV’s, Enteral feedings, T.E.N.S unit and both Barb and I got certified as prosthetic and orthotic fitters. Which allowed us to provide custom fitted back braces and Jobst custom compression stockings. Eventually we expanded adding a Mastectomy Center and Barb became our master fitter/trainer for women who had breast cancer and mastectomy surgery.

We had moved from our little 1200 -1400 sq ft pharmacy to a 5000 sq ft pharmacy, home medical equipment and Mastectomy center and a off site 2800 sq ft warehouse.  We went from a one pharmacist and one full time and one part time pharmacy tech to a total staff of 18 employees.

We also moved from being primarily a cash/check/credit card business to one doing a great deal of billing to Medicare part B, Medicaid and numerous other insurance companies.  To survive, we had  to become experts in billing and dealing with all the different rules and regulations of all those various insurance entities.

During those years, we went to DC with two of national associations that we belonged to… when they had multi day legislative meetings and we would meet with our elected members of the House and the Senate to lobby them on some legislative changes that was up for discussion and changes to regulation that affected our business and the pts that we cared for.

What was pretty common is that – especially large – proposed changes would not be addressed or final posting would not happen until after Labor Day on years when there was a Federal Election.  They would finalize the proposed rules then because all 435 members of the House and 33-34 members of the Senate would be out on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL…  When the election was over the first week of Nov… Congress would come back to DC…  those that did not get re-elected would start packing their office up… those who gained seniority because of the election would start jockeying for new/better office based on their new seniority.

Before you know it… it is time for Congress’ Christmas break…  before the new Congressional session starts the first of Jan.. Then there is orientation for the new ‘freshman” members of Congress. So the bureaucrats have several months to implement their proposed regulation changes to implement… because no one in Congress is around to try to get them to intervene.

If history repeats itself, the CDC will finalize the 2022 proposed opiate dosing guidelines around Labor Day and the DEA will latch on to them and start their indoctrination of various entities that have DEA licenses to prescriber or dispense controlled meds and most likely, they will have been working on their “new standard of care and best practices” to start their intimidation of many as possible within the healthcare system… that 50 MME/day is – IN THEIR OPINION – is where a prescriber prescribing greater than 50 MME/day will constitute providing opiates outside of “valid medical need” – per the DEA’s medical expertise

Does this suggest how useful signing petition are ?

Tennessee governor won’t consider clemency for RaDonda Vaught

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/tennessee-governor-won-t-consider-clemency-for-radonda-vaught.html

A petition signed by thousands of nurses nationwide to grant RaDonda Vaught clemency has taken off in the weeks since her conviction for a fatal medication error, but the movement may be in vain. 

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s office confirmed to Kaiser Health News last week that he is not considering clemency for Ms. Vaught. 

As of April 12 at 9:30 a.m., more than 200,000 people had signed a national petition hosted on change.org, calling for Ms. Vaught’s clemency.

Ms. Vaught was convicted March 25 of criminally negligent homicide and abuse of an impaired adult for a fatal medication error she made in December 2017 while working as a nurse at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. 

Patient safety groups, medical associations and nurses nationwide have spoken out against the conviction, saying it sets a dangerous precedent for the profession. 

Ms. Vaught’s sentencing is scheduled for May 13. She faces up to eight years in prison.

Biden Opioid Plan Puts Pharmacies On Notice

Biden Opioid Plan Puts Pharmacies On Notice

Law360 (November 8, 2020, 5:16 PM EST) — President-elect Joe Biden will enter office with a plan to curb the nation’s opioid crisis by increasing federal investigations into distributors of the drug, signaling that smaller companies should be aware that it’s not just big businesses that can become the focus of federal prosecutors.

Biden delivered a victory speech in Delaware on Saturday night after projected wins in Pennsylvania and Nevada handed him the electoral votes needed to take the presidency. Though President Donald Trump continues to fight in court, Biden is now poised to put into action an opioid plan he announced in March.

Biden’s plan would hold pharmaceutical companies, executives and others accountable for contributing to the opioid crisis, which has killed about 450,000 people in the country since 1999 from overdoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

While larger companies such as Purdue Pharma LP have so far been the subject of U.S. Department of Justice investigations and the target of civil suits, smaller companies should heed the message that no one in the opioid market is safe, said Jodi Avergun, the head of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP’s white collar defense group and a former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration chief of staff.

“This is a message that no one in the market is safe from these responsibilities … [and] once opioid cases are settled in the current MDL, all of the scrutiny will not go away from the whole issue,” she said. “This is a warning to middle-market companies who might not have been wrapped up in an all-consuming basis in the opioid litigation.”

The federal multidistrict litigation consolidated in Ohio contains roughly 3,000 cases filed by cities and counties, as well as Native American tribes, that want money for health care and law enforcement costs related to the opioid epidemic. The suits accuse the opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacy chains of feeding the epidemic by downplaying the risks of addiction and failing to monitor suspicious orders.

Under the Trump administration, the DOJ’s focus has only been on a relatively small number of participants in the DEA’s registry. Conversely, Biden’s policy tells government investigators to make sure companies are complying with regulations for monitoring and reporting suspicious orders of opioids, Avergun said.

“The next wave of enforcement actions is going to be who else is there beside the primary [manufacturers], distributors and pharmacy chains,” she said.

Product liability attorney and Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP partner Jay Stroble pointed out that Biden has said he would instruct his attorney general to support municipalities that have sued oil companies over climate change, so it may be that the DOJ under Biden would become more “activist.”

Attorneys also noted that investigations into pharmaceutical companies over their opioid marketing and distribution are popular on both sides of the political divide.

“There’s this sense of going after the big pockets and getting these big press releases, sometimes with good reason, looking for a deterrent to try to change behaviors,” said Larry Cote of Cote Law PLLC, a former DEA compliance attorney.

During the last months of the Obama administration, the DOJ made a $150 million deal with McKesson Corp. and a $44 million deal with Cardinal Health Inc. for failing to report suspicious opioid orders.

The Trump administration also moved aggressively against opioid companies, making it a top priority in 2017 when Trump declared the opioid crisis a national emergency. Since then, the DOJ has pursued investigations into opioid companies and reached settlements with multiple companies, most recently with Purdue. That October agreement includes the company’s guilty plea to three felony counts, $8 billion in financial penalties, and the dissolution of the company and the Sackler family’s ownership interests in it.

Still, attorneys questioned the wisdom of pursuing actions against pharmaceutical companies without meaningfully addressing other issues related to the opioid crisis, such as prevention and prescriber education.

“We’re living through a time where the drug companies are still the villains,” Harry Nelson of Nelson Hardiman LLP said.

The coronavirus pandemic has also caused a surge in opioid overdoses, according to the Overdose Mapping Application Program, which is run by the University of Baltimore. Reports of suspected opioid overdose submissions rose by 18% following lockdown orders in March, according to the program.

“If you look at the numbers, it becomes impossible to avoid the link between all the isolation and despair and trauma of the last six, seven months,” Nelson said.

But those overdoses have been largely caused by illicit drugs, including nonprescription fentanyl, according to the American Medical Association. There was also a nearly 40% drop in opioid prescribing between 2017 and 2019.

“The whole problem on a supply-side level is fentanyl, not prescriptions,” Nelson said.

Nelson, who authored a book on the opioid crisis and talked to Vice President-elect Kamala Harris’ campaign during the primaries about opioids, said that while he saw nothing negative in Biden’s plan, there’s too narrow a focus on pharmaceutical companies and there should be more of a focus on early intervention and prescriber education.

“I think the pharmaceutical industry has learned its lesson,” Nelson said. “And now the crisis has changed. You have patients who are genuinely in pain who aren’t getting access to medication.”

Biden’s plan does call for more education, Cote said, but that’s been proposed before and there’s always a question of who will fund it: the DEA or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Cote said that distributors could opt to drop out of the opioid market if they decide there’s too much risk of investigation, and it’s not worth the risk of the cost of running that part of their business.

One marked difference between Trump, whose brother Fred died of alcohol addiction, and Biden is that Biden has been open about his son Hunter’s struggles with addiction, saying that he was proud of Hunter during one of the debates, Nelson said.

“His comments … hold out the hope of somebody who really understands this in a lived way,” he said. “So I think that he can help reduce the shame that people feel, that families feel.”

–Editing by Adam LoBelia and Breda Lund.

Correction: A previous version of this article misstated the number of opioid deaths in the country. The article also incorrectly identified Jodi Avergun as a former DEA counsel and omitted a word from her quote. The errors have been corrected.

DOJ: new guidelines on ADA on which disabled people can/can’t be discriminated against being Rx’d controlled meds

It would seems that the Federal bureaucracy gets more and more contradictory… a number of years ago our Supreme Court ruled that the 8th Amendment only applies to prisoners

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.
Now our Dept of Justice  just created new guidelines: 

They assert that it’s illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act to discriminate against people because they are using prescribed methadone or other medications to treat opioid use disorder.

Once again our judicial system is basically “splitting hairs” on what part of those who are disabled and covered under the ADA can or can’t be considered being discriminated against when taking some controlled meds… depending on their medical issue the controlled meds are prescribed for.

Treatment for opioid addiction often brings discrimination

https://apnews.com/article/covid-business-health-opioids-discrimination-5462560a707d7c27b71ed4773d9ba82c

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Danielle Russell was in the emergency department at an Arizona hospital last fall, sick with COVID-19, when she made the mistake of answering completely when she was asked what medications she was on.

“I said yes, I was taking methadone,” said Russell, a doctoral student who also was in recovery from heroin use. “The smart thing to do, if I wanted to be treated like a human, would be to say no.”

Even though her primary doctor had sent her to the ER, she said she was discharged swiftly without being treated and given a stack of papers about the hospital’s policies for prescribing pain medications — drugs she was not asking for.

“It becomes so absurd and the stigma against methadone especially is so strong,” she said, noting that other people in recovery have had it worse. “You’re getting blocked out from housing resources, employment.”

It’s a problem people in the addiction recovery community have dealt with for decades: On top of the stigma surrounding addiction, people who are in medical treatment for substance abuse can face additional discrimination — including in medical and legal settings that are supposed to help.

This week, the U.S. Department of Justice published new guidelines aimed at dealing with the problem: They assert that it’s illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act to discriminate against people because they are using prescribed methadone or other medications to treat opioid use disorder.

The guidelines don’t change federal government policy, but they do offer clarification and signal that authorities are watching for discrimination in a wide range of settings. The Justice Department’s actions this year also show it’s taken an interest in the issue, reaching multiple legal settlements, filing a lawsuit and sending a warning letter alleging other violations.

One of the government’s recent settlements was with a Colorado program that helps house and employ people who are homeless. A potential client filed a complaint claiming she was denied admission because she uses buprenorphine to treat her addiction. As part of the settlement, Ready to Work is paying the woman $7,500. Stan Garnett, a lawyer for the organization, said Thursday that the organization’s staff is being trained to comply with the law.

FILE - In this Nov. 14, 2019, photo, Jon Combes holds his bottle of buprenorphine, a medicine that prevents withdrawal sickness in people trying to stop using opiates, as he prepares to take a dose in a clinic in Olympia, Wash. The U.S. Department of Justice made clear, Tuesday, April 2, 2022, that barring the use of medication treatment for opioid abuse is a violation of federal law. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File)
FILE – In this Nov. 14, 2019, photo, Jon Combes holds his bottle of buprenorphine, a medicine that prevents withdrawal sickness in people trying to stop using opiates, as he prepares to take a dose in a clinic in Olympia, Wash. The U.S. Department of Justice made clear, Tuesday, April 2, 2022, that barring the use of medication treatment for opioid abuse is a violation of federal law. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File)

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Danielle Russell was in the emergency department at an Arizona hospital last fall, sick with COVID-19, when she made the mistake of answering completely when she was asked what medications she was on.

“I said yes, I was taking methadone,” said Russell, a doctoral student who also was in recovery from heroin use. “The smart thing to do, if I wanted to be treated like a human, would be to say no.”

Even though her primary doctor had sent her to the ER, she said she was discharged swiftly without being treated and given a stack of papers about the hospital’s policies for prescribing pain medications — drugs she was not asking for.

“It becomes so absurd and the stigma against methadone especially is so strong,” she said, noting that other people in recovery have had it worse. “You’re getting blocked out from housing resources, employment.”

It’s a problem people in the addiction recovery community have dealt with for decades: On top of the stigma surrounding addiction, people who are in medical treatment for substance abuse can face additional discrimination — including in medical and legal settings that are supposed to help.

This week, the U.S. Department of Justice published new guidelines aimed at dealing with the problem: They assert that it’s illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act to discriminate against people because they are using prescribed methadone or other medications to treat opioid use disorder.

The guidelines don’t change federal government policy, but they do offer clarification and signal that authorities are watching for discrimination in a wide range of settings. The Justice Department’s actions this year also show it’s taken an interest in the issue, reaching multiple legal settlements, filing a lawsuit and sending a warning letter alleging other violations.

One of the government’s recent settlements was with a Colorado program that helps house and employ people who are homeless. A potential client filed a complaint claiming she was denied admission because she uses buprenorphine to treat her addiction. As part of the settlement, Ready to Work is paying the woman $7,500. Stan Garnett, a lawyer for the organization, said Thursday that the organization’s staff is being trained to comply with the law.

“It’s terrifying to be told by some authority — whether it’s a judge, or a child welfare official, or a skilled nursing facility — someone who has something you need is telling you you have to get off the medication that is saving your life,” said Sally Friedman, senior vice president of legal advocacy at the Legal Action Center, which uses legal challenges to try to end punitive measures for people with health conditions, including addiction.

Friedman said advocates and lawyers will cite the new guidelines when they’re making discrimination claims.

Dan Haight, president of The LCADA Way, which runs addiction treatment programs in the Cleveland area, said a suburb where they wanted to put a clinic at one point nixed the idea because of a moratorium in place on new drug counseling centers.

“We’re not looked at as another medical facility or counseling office,” Haight said. “We’re looked at because we do addiction.”

The new guidelines suggest that such broad denials could be violations of the ADA.

Overdoses from all opioids, including prescription drugs containing oxycodone, heroin and illicit laboratory-made varieties including fentanyl, have killed more than 500,000 Americans in the last two decades, and the problem has been growing only worse. That has frustrated advocates, treatment providers and public health experts who see the deaths as preventable with treatment.

Even as the crisis has deepened, there have been glimmers of hope. Drugmakers, distribution companies and pharmacy chains have announced settlements since last year to pay government entities about $35 billion over time plus provide drugs to treat addictions and reverse overdoses. Most of the money is required to be used to fight the epidemic.

It’s still to be determined how the money will be deployed, but one priority for many public health experts is expanding access to medication-based treatments, which are seen as essential to helping people recover.

But there’s still a stigma associated with the treatment programs, which use the medication naltrexone or drugs that themselves are opioids, such as methadone and buprenorphine.

Marcus Buchanan used methadone from 2016 through 2018 to help end a decadelong heroin habit. During that time, he was looking for work near his home in Chouteau, Oklahoma — mostly at factories — and could never land one.

“I can nail an interview. It would be the drug-screen process” when he’d explain why the results showed he was using methadone, said Buchanan, who is now an outreach coordinator for an opioid prevention program. “Every job, more than 20 probably, during those two years, was a door shut in the face.”

Dr. Susan Bissett, president of the nonprofit West Virginia Drug Intervention Institute, said people who are in treatment programs often hide it out of fear that they could lose their jobs.

She said she wants to reach out to business leaders and encourage them to hire and retain people who are using the medications.

“The next step is helping employers understand this is a disease instead of a moral failing,” Bissett said. “We don’t think about substance abuse disorder the way we think about diabetes, for example.”

One of the places where medication-assisted treatment is sometimes restricted or banned is in state drug diversion court programs, which are intended to get people help for addiction rather than incarcerate them.

Fewer than half the states have specific language that prohibits judges from excluding people who are taking the medications from participating in diversion programs or requires that they allow its use as part of the programs. That finding is based on an Associated Press review of legislation, administrative court orders and drug court handbooks that guide state drug diversion court programs.

Some states allow individual courts to make their own rules, while others only include language saying people can’t be excluded. Judges in some states still require defendants to taper off the medications and allow the diversion programs to decide whether the medications are appropriate for each person enrolled.

The Center for Court Innovation is trying to steer the drug courts into creating policies and programs that support people taking those medications instead of incentivizing them to stop.

“It can be frustrating, because nobody needs to tell a judge they need to allow someone to take blood pressure medication,” said Sheila McCarthy, a senior program manager for the Center for Court Innovation. “But for some, there is just a disconnect about the real effect these medications have on a person’s daily life.”

Veronica Pacheco has been off methadone for nearly a year after being on it for more than six years to treat an addiction to pain pills.

She said some people in the medical field — a physician, a dentist, a pharmacist — seemed to treat her differently after they learned she was on methadone treatment. They sometimes assume she was going to ask for new prescriptions for pain medications.

“I felt like I had a sign on my forehead saying, ‘I am a methadone person.’ The minute someone has your medical record, everything changes,” said Pacheco, who lives in the Minneapolis suburb of Dayton. “Now that I’ve been off it, I can see the night-and-day difference.”

Some kids in pain need opioids. For doctors, that means walking a tightrope

Some kids in pain need opioids. For doctors, that means walking a tightrope

https://www.statnews.com/2019/11/04/kids-pain-opioids-pediatricians-tightrope/

As a physician who works in a pediatric emergency department, I see the downsides of trampolines, monkey bars, coffee tables with sharp corners, and even hot soup — all common sources of children’s injuries. No matter what the trauma, many of my patients are in pain. And with all of the publicity around opioids, treating injured children’s pain has become a complicated, and often emotional, issue.

Pain can often be eased with acetaminophen or ibuprofen. But broken bones, burns, and other severe injuries that cause excruciating pain usually require something stronger, like an opioid.

In the era of opioid abuse and the overdose crisis, conversations around using medications such as morphine and fentanyl to control pain can be difficult to have with patients and parents. No one wants to become part of the grim statistics, such the 70,000 Americans dying from drug overdoses in a year or the nearly 9,000 children and adolescents who died from prescription and illicit opioid poisoning in the United States between 1999 and 2016.

Yet untreated or inadequately treated pain can harm children, both immediately and in the long term. It can also affect their development, their reactions to future painful experiences, and may cause post-traumatic stress disorder.

Since pain is a subjective experience, the best way to gauge it is by asking the person experiencing it how he or she feels. That usually works with older children, but doesn’t with infants and young children who can’t verbalize what they are feeling. For them, several behavioral scales can be used to assess and estimate pain.

Opioids work by binding to receptors in the brain that control pain and emotions. Taking opioids many times diminishes the brain’s sensitivity to the drug, making it hard to feel pleasure from anything besides the drug. That can lead to dependence and addiction. Taking a single dose to immediately control severe pain in the emergency room, and then quickly moving on to non-opioid pain control, does not cause dependence. It can temporarily depress breathing, which is why doctors determine the dose based on a child’s weight and carefully monitor his or her breathing.

My colleagues and I must walk a fine line between alleviating a patient’s pain while allaying fears and concerns of parents regarding the side effects and unclear potential for addiction from one or two doses of an opioid.

When I begin treating a child with a severe burn or broken bone, I start gearing up for the conversation about pain control, knowing I might get a response from his or her parents like, “I don’t want my child getting hooked on those drugs,” or, “Are you trying to make my child an addict by giving her those drugs?”

I usually start slowly, and say to parents something like, “It’s great you gave your child ibuprofen or acetaminophen at home, but I think she needs more than that.” Most parents know what opioids are and have opinions about them. I can see worry on their faces the second I mention the word.

Some say, “I trust your judgment.” Others immediately say no. When that happens, I suggest trying more ibuprofen or acetaminophen and seeing if that helps. If it doesn’t, I’ll once again recommend an opioid.