Dispensing Opioid Prescriptions Should be Restricted to Pharmacies Owned by Pharmacists

Dispensing Opioid Prescriptions Should be Restricted to Pharmacies Owned by Pharmacists

https://pharmacistactivist.com/2020/September_2020.shtml

My editorials in the July 15 and August 1 issues of The Pharmacist Activist have resulted in readers sharing with me additional heartbreaking experiences of opioid addictions and overdoses. There has been reduced media attention to these tragedies as a result of the challenge of COVID-19 infection, but the opioid-related problems have not abated. If anything, they have increased because of the concurrent consequences of COVID-19 including isolation, unemployment, depression and other mental health challenges, and desperation. Some have responded by seeking relief with the use of drugs, and others who were already misusing drugs have increased their use of them. My focus on the opioids should not be misinterpreted to minimize the importance of addictions to other drugs (e.g., amphetamines, benzodiazepines), alcoholic beverages, and nicotine. However, the addiction to opioids is second to no other, and the greater likelihood of immediate and potentially fatal consequences with opioid overdoses, warrants priority attention to their misuse. Regardless of the reason(s) for which one became addicted, EVERY individual who is addicted needs and deserves as much support as we can provide. Although a small percentage of those addicted to drugs are effective in stopping their use “cold turkey,” the vast majority are not able to do that in spite of multiple personal attempts and other interventions. We must never underestimate the power of the cravings and the agony of withdrawal symptoms when the cravings are not satisfied.

Who is vulnerable?

Some individuals are more vulnerable to opioid addiction and overdoses than others for reasons of injuries/illnesses, life circumstances, genetics, recreational use, and other factors. However, no one should ever consider themselves to be immune to addiction (i.e., “that will never happen to me!”). Indeed, such an over-confident attitude may actually be a source of risk.

Many pharmacists, physicians, and other health professionals have become addicted to opioids and other drugs. In a response to my recent editorials, one of my former students shared, “My wife has asked me, why do even health professionals get hooked on these drugs when they know the potential harm that can happen?” Ironically, the best response to that question that I am able to provide is one that I learned from this pharmacist’s classmate, Ken Dickinson, whose experience I shared briefly in my August 1 editorial. When Ken would speak with my students, he would caution them about what he designated as the “magical thinking” of health professionals, particularly pharmacists. He indicated that pharmacists think we know so much about medications that we think we will not become addicted if we were treated or experimented with them for a short time. If a pharmacist gets too “high” on one drug, he/she knows which other drug will bring her/him back “down.”

Illegal opioids

A large fraction of the supply of opioids that have caused the addiction and death of tens of thousands Americans have been smuggled or otherwise illegally brought into the country, or have been stolen or diverted within this country. In addition to the inherent addictive potential of the drugs, these supplies are often contaminated/”spiked” with fentanyl. Just traces of fentanyl or its other super-potent analogs can be deadly, and even addicted individuals who consider themselves knowledgeable about the drugs and the amounts they need to attain a “high” and to avoid withdrawal symptoms, fall victim to the highly variable composition, quantities, and contaminants of the products they thought they could manage. The risk is even greater for those who are experimenting or engaging in occasional recreational use of these products.

There is nothing that health professionals can do to cut off these illegal supplies of opioids. However, there are actions we can take such as facilitating the availability of naloxone for immediate use in overdoses, supporting and participating in intervention programs, educating the public regarding the risks of opioids with a warning that the actual content of illegal products can’t be known or trusted, and supporting law enforcement and other agencies/individuals who are attempting to prevent the illegal distribution of opioids.

Death is a frequent outcome of the use of illegal opioid products, and the “exporters,” smugglers, distributors, and local dealers should be charged with murder and penalized accordingly. A “defense” that the victims made the choices of seeking, purchasing, and using the drugs is not acceptable.

“Legal” opioids

Another large fraction of the supply of opioids that have caused addiction and death has been manufactured and supplied by pharmaceutical companies, distributed by pharmacy wholesalers, prescribed by physicians, and dispensed by pharmacists. Diversion and theft, as well as illegal and unprofessional conduct can occur at each of the steps in the supply and distribution channels for legal opioid products. Several thousand lawsuits seeking adjudication in amounts of many billions of dollars have been filed by states, local governments, and others against the pharmaceutical companies and major wholesalers. Settlements have been reached in some situations but most are pending. These situations are very serious but beyond the scope of this commentary, and I will focus on the responsibilities of physicians, pharmacists, and corporations that own pharmacies.

A very small percentage of physicians and pharmacists have acquired the reputation of being “pill-mill” physicians and “pill-mill” pharmacists who prescribe and dispense opioids for individuals who do not have legitimate medical needs for them. I do not rule out the possibility that the illegal actions of some of these physicians and pharmacists have resulted from being threatened or blackmailed, or initially becoming “entrapped” in such activity by doing a favor for a “friend.” However, these situations are the exception and the pill-mill physicians and pharmacists fully recognize the implications and potential consequences for the “patients” who typically pay substantial amounts of cash for the prescriptions and the drugs.

As with the use of illegal supplies of opioids, death is a frequent outcome of the knowingly inappropriate and excessive prescribing and dispensing of opioid products that are legally available. Should the penalties for such activity on the part of some physicians and pharmacists be any less than those for the suppliers, dealers, and pushers of the illegal opioids? Some would respond that, if anything, the penalties for the pill-mill physicians and pharmacists should be even greater because, in addition to increasing the risk for the addicts and/or those to whom they sell the products, they are also betraying their professions.

Challenges for pharmacists

There are physicians who specialize in the treatment of diseases that are characterized by severe and persistent pain, and it can be expected that they will be prescribing more prescriptions for opioids and other analgesics than physicians in other specialties. However, there are also some physicians who prescribe opioids excessively and pharmacists are well positioned to identify pill-mill doctors. This begins a sequence of events in which pharmacists are in the middle. When receiving a suspicious prescription for an opioid from a new “patient,” the pharmacist is faced with numerous questions.

  • Should I check the state’s prescription drug monitoring program for pertinent information?
  • Should I contact the physician to seek confirmation that the patient has a legitimate medical need for the opioid?
  • Should I question the patient regarding the use of the prescribed medication?
  • Should I decline to dispense the prescription and lie to the patient by saying we don’t stock the product or that we are out of it?
  • Am I placing myself and other employees at risk of harm by declining to dispense the prescription?
  • Should I ask or say nothing and dispense the prescription?
  • Should I contact the police regarding what I consider to be a forged or otherwise inappropriate prescription?
  • Will my employer/management support the decision(s) I make?
  • Are my decisions/actions consistent with my personal values and conscience, as well as my ethical and professional responsibilities?

Experienced pharmacists often consider these questions intuitively and quickly, but evaluating, confirming, and dispensing, or declining to dispense, any prescription for an opioid requires more of the pharmacist’s time than would be needed in dispensing most other prescriptions. In addition, their decisions and actions may be challenged by the “patient,” prescriber, and even the pharmacist’s own employer/manager. Some pharmacists choose the path of least resistance, and a few succumb to greed and illegal actions and become pill-mill pharmacists.

In addition to a commitment to serve their patients with a legitimate need for opioids for pain management, pharmacists must give priority attention to fulfilling the legal, professional, and ethical standards of practice. This includes the responsibility for protecting the supply of medications against diversion and other inappropriate uses. Declining to dispense suspicious prescriptions is not enough.

Many pharmacists make the best decision to decline to dispense certain suspicious prescriptions but then face a personal ethical dilemma of whether to lie about the reason for not doing so (e.g., “we are out of stock of this medication and will not have more for several days”). I can’t defend even well-intentioned lying, and owners of pharmacies should have policies to guide pharmacists in responding to the presentation of suspicious prescriptions. Such a policy could start with a provision that prescriptions for opioids (and other controlled substances) are only to be dispensed for patients who live in the community, and are known to the pharmacists who have previously provided them prescriptions and other healthcare services. The policy should also include provisions for new patients who have not previously used the pharmacy (e.g., those who have recently moved into the community) that require verification of the medical condition and the prescription with the prescriber and/or other steps to assure compliance with regulations. It is my expectation that patients with a legitimate need for opioid analgesia will understand and appreciate these policies in spite of additional time being needed to obtain their medication, whereas individuals trying to obtain opioids for misuse or diversion are likely to leave and not return.

Chain management complicity

In many situations in which chain pharmacists are committed to fulfilling their professional responsibilities in reducing the misuse and overdoses of opioids, their greatest barrier is their own management. My August 1 editorial includes the experience of Walmart pharmacists in wanting to decline to dispense prescriptions for opioids written by doctors whom they knew were running pill mills. Walmart management refused to support their pharmacists and, by doing so, federal prosecutors alleged that opioids dispensed by Walmart pharmacies had killed customers who overdosed. Also shared in that editorial is the experience of a CVS pharmacist who appropriately declined to dispense a prescription for Vicodin to a customer, only to be told by his district leader that he should have just turned his head and filled it, and threatened to terminate the pharmacist if the patient went to the news and complained.

In addition to filing lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and major pharmacy wholesalers, state and local governments are now also suing large chain pharmacies for their role in the epidemic of opioid overdoses. “West Virginia sues CVS, Walmart for aiding opioid epidemic,” is the title of a recent article (The Hill; August 18; Nathaniel Weixel), in which it is also noted that West Virginia had filed similar lawsuits against Rite-Aid and Walgreens in June. Although many of these lawsuits are not based on specific prescriptions, customers, or overdoses, they claim that aggregate purchasing and dispensing information in the many stores in the chain, to which management had access, should have resulted in recognition and action in situations in which the extent of purchasing and dispensing in particular pharmacies and regions far exceeded the anticipated legitimate market demand.

The management of chain pharmacies who had access to this data that clearly show purchases and dispensing of opioids by their stores that far exceed anticipated legitimate levels, have a responsibility to investigate and initiate appropriate actions. But they haven’t done that! When the deadly consequences of their negligence and lack of action are exposed and lawsuits are initiated, their excuses are already well-rehearsed and include the following:

“Our company does not manufacture or prescribe any opioids.”

“We only dispense legal prescriptions for opioids that are written by licensed physicians.”

“We fill the prescriptions accurately in providing the drug that the physician has prescribed.”

“We place instructions for use on the label of the container that are exactly what the physician has designated.”

“Our company and our pharmacies have fulfilled our responsibilities and shouldn’t be faulted for not doing more.”

“The opioid crisis is not our fault. It is the physicians who are at fault and, in fact, we are suing them.”

“While pharmacists are highly trained and licensed professionals, they did not attend medical school and are not trained as physicians.”

“Prescriptions for opioids are not included in any metrics our pharmacists and managers are expected to attain.” (This statement ignores the fact that prescriptions for opioids require more of a pharmacist’s time that detracts from the time available to attain the metrics for other prescriptions). “We are an industry leader in supporting educational programs to increase public awareness of the dangers of opioid misuse.”

These excuses are disingenuous and highly insulting to their own pharmacists by denying their professional responsibilities, and must be rejected! The priority that the executives and managers of large chain pharmacies give to profits and metrics has deadly consequences for which they should be held personally responsible.

Criminal charges in situations like this are extremely difficult to prove if there is not irrefutable evidence. Therefore, most lawsuits that have been filed seek recovery for financial damages. My expectation is that these lawsuits will be successful in achieving settlements in amounts of many billions of dollars. However, regardless of the amount of the financial settlement, the plaintiffs should not permit the chains to financially settle the litigation with the provision they “acknowledge no wrongdoing.” There has been wrongdoing, and to permit such a disclaimer makes a mockery of the entire legal process.

The executives and managers of these chains view the settlements of these lawsuits that they must pay as a cost of doing business. NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE! There is no remorse for the deadly consequences of their negligent or criminal inaction, particularly if they are permitted to personally escape by “acknowledging no wrongdoing.” There is also reason to question whether there will be any substantial changes in the profitable “business as usual” practices of the chains.

The situation described above is in sharp contrast to the consequences for pill-mill physicians and pill-mill pharmacists in an independent pharmacy. These physicians and pharmacists, when caught, typically have their licenses revoked and receive prison terms, and the guilty pharmacists who own a pharmacy must often close or sell it. I deplore their actions that have increased opioid misuse and overdoses but there is clearly a double standard that permits chain pharmacies to escape such consequences via large financial settlements. When chain pharmacies are implicated in activities with such devastating consequences, the licenses of the individual pharmacies involved should be revoked and/or they should no longer be permitted to dispense controlled substances. Consideration should also be given to prohibiting all of the pharmacies in the offending chain from participating in government-funded prescription programs. These are the actions that are more fitting for what they have done and much more likely to result in substantial reforms.

Chain pharmacy executives continue to refuse to accept the responsibility for the consequences of their opioid abuse-enabling actions, or inaction. Policies and activities regarding the dispensing of opioids should no longer be entrusted to individuals who are not pharmacists. The dispensing of prescriptions for opioids should be restricted to pharmacies owned by pharmacists. Yes, there will always be a few rogue pill-mill pharmacists. However, the vast majority of pharmacists will do the right things in the interest of serving their patients and protecting against opioid misuse and diversion. A secondary incentive will be the knowledge of the personal consequences (i.e. loss of license, prison term) if they do the wrong things.

Can the chains reform?

In Walmart’s desperate but successful attempt to avoid criminal charges for inappropriate policies and actions that resulted in opioid overdoses, it tried to claim that it had reformed with statements such as the following:

“Walmart has created a best-in-class opioid stewardship program that reflects the Company’s prioritization of patient safety over any business metric.”

“Walmart streamlined the process to refuse a prescription and has directed its pharmacists to fill an opioid prescription only after the pharmacist resolves any concerns about the prescription. Pharmacists are encouraged to blanket refuse to fill prescriptions from any prescriber who has concerning prescribing habits.” (Editor’s note: This latter statement is the exact opposite of a Walmart executive’s previous refusal to let its pharmacists do that).

“Walmart pharmacists counsel patients using the CDC guidelines on pain management.” (Editor’s questions: Is that accurate, Walmart pharmacists? Does the company actually provide the time and encouragement for you to do that?).

“Walmart recently implemented strict limits on opioid prescriptions to treat an initial acute pain event, prohibiting pharmacies from dispensing more than a 7-day supply of opioids or dosages exceeding 50 MME per day. Walmart is the first national pharmacy chain to impose such a limit on supply and dosage strength.” (Editor’s interpretation: Walmart’s executives, in spite of their previous flawed and dangerous decisions, still think they know what the best company policies should be, thereby preempting the opportunity for their pharmacists to exercise their professional judgment in determining the best course of action in widely-varying individual situation(s).

Isn’t it amazing what reforms can be made when there is a threat of criminal charges? But who will be responsible for implementing and monitoring these reforms? The same Walmart executives and managers whose irresponsibility resulted in the civil and attempted criminal charges. They couldn’t be trusted then and they shouldn’t be trusted now!

The other extreme

Stung by their companies being caught and exposed for activities that increased misuse and overdoses of opioids, some chain executives have now gone to the other extreme in wanting to become the opioid police. They have imposed restrictions on dispensing opioids that are a disservice to the patients who have a legitimate need for them. On June 16, 2020, the American Medical Association sent a letter to the CDC to identify its concerns that the guidelines that have been issued by the CDC “have been consistently misapplied by State legislatures, national pharmacy chains, pharmacy benefit management companies,” and others. The AMA letter specifically identifies CVS and Walgreens for having inappropriate policies that misapply the CDC guidelines in ways that result in harm for patients.

News provided by Seeking Justice for Pain Patients (August 10, 2020) provides a commentary, titled, “Seeking Justice for Pain Patients: Class Action Lawsuits Filed Against CVS, Walgreens and Costco for Refusal to Fill Opioid Prescriptions for Chronic Pain Patients.” The lawsuits allege that the refusal to dispense legitimate prescriptions for opioids in the dosages and quantities prescribed is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the antidiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The commentary describes a patient’s experience in filing a complaint with CVS corporate headquarters, being promised that the matter would be investigated, but never hearing back from CVS. Another patient complained to Walgreens corporate, but they were dismissive of her concerns. The commentary includes the statement:

“CVS, Walgreens, and Costco have implemented nationwide policies that have resulted in their pharmacies treating patients who present a valid prescription for opioid medications as if they are a drug abuser, interfering with the customer’s relationship with his or her treating doctor, and improperly refusing to fill legitimate prescriptions for opioid pain medication or imposing medically unnecessary limitations or other requirements before agreeing to fill the prescriptions.”

The pharmacists at these chain stores have the knowledge, sensitivity, and good judgment to handle prescriptions for opioids in a caring and effective manner IF they were provided the autonomy and TIME to do so. However, the time needed for pharmacists to evaluate, dispense, and counsel with respect to prescriptions for opioids is viewed by management as being too valuable for these services to be “cost-effective” and could jeopardize attaining metrics. Therefore, the executives determine “one size fits all” policies and impose them on their pharmacists and customers. And pharmacists who violate corporate policies will be terminated. Chain pharmacists are trapped in a dilemma of wanting to exercise their professional judgment and taking the best course of action, or complying with company policies to avoid being fired.

The ultimate hypocrisy

An article titled, “Abusive Prescribing of Controlled Substances – A Pharmacy View,” was published in the September 12, 2013 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. The authors are two employees of CVS, a pharmacist and the physician medical director of CVS. The article focuses almost exclusively on abusive prescribing, pill mill doctors, bogus pain clinics, and an analysis of the prescriptions written by physicians identified by CVS as “high-risk prescribers.” It is noted that “pharmacists must (my emphasis) evaluate patients to ensure the appropriateness of any controlled-substance prescription,” and that “pharmacists have an ethical duty, backed by both federal and state law, to ensure that a prescription for a controlled substance is appropriate.”

It is further noted that “chain pharmacies …have the advantage of aggregated information on all prescriptions filled at the chain,” and that “At CVS we recently instituted a program of analysis and actions to limit inappropriate prescribing.”

Conspicuously missing in this analysis and commentary of abusive prescribing is any evaluation or even mention of error-prone abusive practices and metrics in CVS pharmacies. CVS has highly-detailed data for everything in its operations but information regarding errors and lawsuits is a closely-guarded secret.

The commentary notes that pharmacists have responsibilities and an ethical duty with respect to prescriptions for controlled substances, but it fails to acknowledge that the profit-driven corporate metrics do not allow time for pharmacists to fulfill their professional and ethical responsibilities, but can result in termination of pharmacists who do not attain those metrics. From every appearance, complaint and lawsuit, errors and misuse and overdoses of opioids dispensed by CVS stores seem to have increased since the self-serving commentary was published in 2013. How has the aggregated information on all prescriptions filled at the chain been used advantageously as claimed? Why are the responsibilities and ethical duties of CVS executives and managers who are obsessed with profit and the value of company shares completely ignored, or are they not expected to have ethical duties? This is the ultimate hypocrisy!

Daniel A. Hussar
danandsue3@verizon.net

 

CVS: a dangerous environment where for customer safety is concerned

I work for the 3 letter chain. At the beginning of the covid chaos, in March, when the travel bans and restrictions began, we didn’t have any ppe available. I worked alongside several sick employees, 2 of whom tested positive, and they ended up on loa. we work in close quarters, sharing phones, computer keyboards, everything. none of the other employees were made aware by our management team that we were exposed, or offered a quarantine period. then in April, we were provided with some masks, and gloves, and flimsy plexiglass barriers. the company sent some chlorox wipes and told us to clean every work station hourly. During that time, another employee fell ill. I had lunch with her, and was placed on a mandatory 14 day quarantine. (i still haven’t seen my pay for that tine out). at THAT time our DL told us, although she wouldn’t do it, employees can come in to work if they are positive, because we have ppe now…. [WHAT?!?!] Our DL never closed the pharmacy for a thorough cleaning. She had a delayed opening one day and had some cleaning people come in an wave a steam wand around. The employees working that day protested, and refused to open the in store service area, and would only deal with customers at the drive thru. they never pulled from the waiting bin any of the prescriptions that were touched by the sick employees. It’s been a total shit show. We now are pushing the flu shot, and that is the company’s first and foremost priority now. we are down employees, they cut hours, we are 28 pages in the red, and it’s a dangerous environment where for customer safety is concerned. Retail pharmacy is evil. If you choose to share this, please keep me anonymous.

 

 

When you see the THREE LETTER CHAIN MENTIONED — they are referring to CVS HEALTH… People should not get FLU SHOTS until Oct… Why do you think that you have to get a flu shot every year?  It is because the antibodies are PASSIVE… they  ( blood titter) will fade over times.  If you get your flu shots in July- Aug – Sept… flu season isn’t until Nov thru March…  The CDC recommends that everyone get a flu shot by the end of Oct and since you are looking at TWO WEEKS for the flu shot to be able to build up immunity.  Any entity that is promoting getting flu shots before Oct.. is just interested in the money/profits that they can generate… the pt’s health is somewhere down their line of their priorities

Australian researchers tout new ‘wonder drug’ as potential cure for coronavirus patients

https://youtu.be/6xklE0jTgaw

Australian researchers tout new ‘wonder drug’ as potential cure for coronavirus patients

Fauci now says “putting a fan on your head to “blow” the virus away is better than a mask “

CVS employees are slamming the company saying it repeatedly ignored reports of COVID-19 exposure and forced staff to break quarantine in order to work

CVS employees are slamming the company saying it repeatedly ignored reports of COVID-19 exposure and forced staff to break quarantine in order to work

https://www.businessinsider.com/employees-say-cvs-ignored-covid-cases-forced-employees-to-work-2020-8

  • CVS just raised its profit forecast this month, but some employees say that the chain’s outward optimism hides major health violations.
  • Business Insider spoke with three CVS employees in Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas who said that the pharmacy chain ignored reports of potential COVID-19 exposure at stores and required sick or quarantined employees to come to work.
  • A CVS spokesperson told Business Insider that the incidents in question are “not in keeping with our policies.”
  • Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

CVS raised its full-year profits forecast in August after announcing it was in talks with the US government to administer COVID-19 vaccines. But some employees tell Business Insider that the pharmacy chain has also put worker and customer safety at risk during the coronavirus pandemic. 

Business Insider spoke with three CVS employees in multiple states who said that the company actively instructed staff to come to work after potential exposure to the coronavirus, actions that go against company policies and CDC guidelines. All of the CVS employees were granted anonymity after Business Insider verified their employment status, due to fear of retaliation. 

While debate continues over testing asymptomatic people for COVID-19, experts agree anyone who tested positive for the disease can infect others. Still, a Tennessee CVS technician told Business Insider that at the end of July, employees in her district were told to report for work even if they tested positive for COVID-19, as long as they were asymptomatic.

“Corporate’s reasoning was that since we are wearing masks, no customers would be exposed,” the Tennessee technician said. 

Another CVS pharmacy technician in Missouri said that after her significant other tested positive for COVID-19 in July, she was told to violate a government-mandated quarantine to keep working. 

“I was instructed by our local health department to start my 14-day quarantine. However, my district manager and the corporate COVID hotline told me I still had to work,” the Missouri technician said, adding that she was told she did not qualify for paid leave without first showing COVID-19 symptoms. 

“The hotline [operator] specifically told me to ignore the health department, and that if I didn’t have symptoms I don’t have to listen to the isolation order,” the technician said.

CVS spokesperson Michael DeAngelis told Business Insider that the incidents described in this article are “not in keeping with our policies and practices concerning employees who test positive or are presumptive positive for COVID-19, or who are exposed to someone who has COVID-19.”

“We have numerous policies and protocols in place to help ensure our stores are safe for both employees and customers,” DeAngelis added.

According to CVS Health’s website, the company’s policy is to pay for up to 14 days of paid leave to employees who test positive for COVID-19 or are required to quarantine for exposure. CVS’ COVID-19 hotline encourages employees to self-report a coronavirus diagnosis or request time off if ordered to quarantine.

This policy is in keeping with the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which requires most employers to pay workers two weeks of paid leave if ordered to quarantine by the government or a healthcare provider.

James Biscone, a personal injury and workers’ compensation attorney at Johnson & Biscone, told Business Insider that because coronavirus response information has changed often since the pandemic began, the precise legal responsibilities of employers are often murky and vary state by state.

While taking unpaid leave to comply with the state-mandated quarantine order, the Missouri technician’s COVID-19 test results ultimately came back negative. However, two of her partner’s coworkers tested positive for the coronavirus and were asymptomatic.  

Another CVS employee, a customer service associate based in Arkansas, told Business Insider the company had repeatedly ignored possible exposure incidents in-store, even after staff made numerous calls to the COVID-19 hotline.

A woman who told staff she’d tested positive for COVID-19 picked up her medications in May through the drive-thru, then later entered the store to talk with several staff members about her medications. When staff reported the incident to HR and their district lead, they were simply told to clean what she had touched.

Similar incidents continued to occur at the Arkansas customer service associate’s CVS location, but each time they were reported, staff either did not receive a follow-up or were told nothing could be done. 

And after a coworker had tested positive for the virus and was placed on leave, the Arkansas associate said that the company did nothing — no follow-up, cleaning, or contact tracing – to ensure other workers were not infected.

“When we are informed that an employee has tested positive or is presumptive positive for COVID-19, we implement our infectious disease protocols that follow CDC guidelines. This includes: placing the employee on a 14-day paid leave so that they can self-isolate, whether or not they are symptomatic; appropriate cleaning of the worksite; and performing contact tracing,” DeAngelis told Business Insider.

Biscone believes employers should ultimately err on the side of caution when it comes to worker and public safety.

“I can think of few things more reckless than requiring an employee who shows symptoms of COVID-19 or who has tested positive to come into a work environment where they will be exposed to coworkers and patrons,” he said. “If employers continue to do this, the virus is going to be around a very long time.”

If you are a CVS employee and have a story to share, please reach out to the reporter at ijiang@businessinsider.com.

MUST WATCH! |Corona virus | David E. martin PHD | missing link

https://youtu.be/rjK1B_vUVAA

CDC guidelines say wearing a mask during prolonged exposure to coronavirus won’t prevent possible infection

CDC guidelines say wearing a mask during prolonged exposure to coronavirus won’t prevent possible infection

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cdc-guidelines-say-wearing-a-mask-during-prolonged-exposure-to-coronavirus-wont-prevent-possible-infection

Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that those who come in close contact with someone with the coronavirus for more than 15 minutes could spread the virus regardless of whether either party wears a mask.

“Wondering what @cdcgov really thinks about masks? Their guidance on quarantining after exposure to someone with #covid explicitly states whether the infected OR exposed person wore masks doesn’t matter,” former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson tweeted Sunday.

“My mask protects no one. So does yours. Thanks for clearing that up, CDC!” he added, accompanied by screenshots of the CDC’s guidelines.

The CDC states on its Public Health Guidance for Community-Related Exposure page that those who come in close contact with people showing COVID-19 symptoms or someone who has tested positive for the virus can spread the infection whether or not they are wearing masks.

CDC states that “data to inform the definition of close contact are limited.” Factors “to consider” when defining close contact are duration of exposure, proximity to an infected person, and whether or not that person is presenting symptoms. Data for what a prolonged exposure is are iffy; however, longer than 15 minutes can be considered an operational definition, according to the CDC.

“This is irrespective of whether the person with COVID-19 or the contact was wearing a mask or whether the contact was wearing respiratory personal protective equipment (PPE),” the CDC states.

The guidance goes on to say masks “may” help people who are infected with the coronavirus from spreading it, but adds that “there is less information” if masks protect a person coming into contact with someone with the virus.

“While research indicates masks may help those who are infected from spreading the infection, there is less information regarding whether masks offer any protection for a contact exposed to a symptomatic or asymptomatic patient,” the guideline states. “Therefore, the determination of close contact should be made irrespective of whether the person with COVID-19 or the contact was wearing a mask.”

The CDC also notes that the public has not been trained on how to use PPE properly, and so it is not certain if such equipment protects them from exposure.

“Because the general public has not received training on proper selection and use of respiratory PPE, it cannot be certain whether respiratory PPE worn during contact with an individual with COVID-19 infection protected them from exposure. Therefore, as a conservative approach, the determination of close contact should generally be made irrespective of whether the contact was wearing respiratory PPE, which is recommended for health care personnel and other trained users, or a mask recommended for the general public,” the guideline states.

Wearing face masks to stop the spread of the coronavirus has sparked debates across the country this summer. The CDC and leading U.S. doctors, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, have advocated for the use of masks, saying they are crucial in defeating the virus.

The CDC released a meta-analysis in May 2020 of 14 controlled, extended trials studying the effects of mask usage. The study found no reduction in the rate of laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza, a similar respiratory illness.

In July, Dr. Robert Redfield, director for the CDC, said, “If we could get everyone to wear a mask right now, I think in four, six, eight weeks we could bring this epidemic under control.”

There should be universal wearing of masks,” Fauci said earlier this month. “There should be the extent possible social distancing, avoiding crowds. Outdoors [is] always better than indoors, and [you should] be in a situation where you continually have the capability of washing your hands and cleaning up with sanitizers.”

Leading Swedish epidemiologist Dr. Anders Tegnell, however, dismissed the idea that masks alone will “solve” the pandemic, citing “astonishingly weak” scientific evidence.

“The findings that have been produced through [the use of] face masks are astonishingly weak,” he told the German outlet Bild this month.

“I’m surprised that we don’t have more or better studies showing what effect masks actually have. Countries such as Spain and Belgium have made their populations wear masks, but their infection numbers have still risen. The belief that masks can solve our problem is, in any case, very dangerous,” he said.

Lilly Expands Insulin Affordability Solutions

Lilly Expands Insulin Affordability Solutions

https://www.drugtopics.com/view/lilly-expands-insulin-affordability-solutions

Lilly is committed to helping people who face high out-of-pocket costs for insulin by offering a broad suite of affordable solutions.

This article was provided and sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company.

Lilly is committed to helping people who face high out-of-pocket costs for insulin by offering a broad suite of affordable solutions, which help fill various gaps in the healthcare system. Lilly introduced the Lilly Insulin Value Program, which reduces the monthly out-of-pocket prescription cost for most Lilly insulins to $35 for people with commercial insurance and those with no insurance.

For people with government insurance who can’t use our savings programs, Lilly has introduced two additional non-branded options to help people living with diabetes afford their insulin. Non-branded versions of Humalog® Mix75/25™ KwikPen® (insulin lispro protamine and insulin lispro injectable suspension 100 units/mL) and Humalog® Junior KwikPen® (insulin lispro injection 100 units/mL) are available for order in pharmacies. They are the same as the branded versions, with different packaging and a 50 percent lower list price of $265.20 for a package of five KwikPens.

Lilly also continues to offer Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL (U-100) launched in May 2019, at a 50 percent lower list price. Because these non-branded options are the same insulin as the branded versions, pharmacists can substitute with the non-branded options if they reduce out-of-pocket expenses.

Any pharmacy that does not stock the non-branded options can place an order for them and expect delivery in 1-2 days. These non-branded insulins are distributed by major US wholesalers and are included in the Lilly Insulin Value Program.

Depending on a person’s insurance coverage, the non-branded insulins may not be the lowest-cost option for everyone. These non-branded insulins are now being distributed by major US wholesalers and are also included in the Lilly Insulin Value Program.

Information about these affordability options is available by calling the Lilly Diabetes Solution Center at 833-808-1234, Monday-Friday. Live representatives can help people determine whether a non-branded insulin, the Lilly Insulin Value Program or another of Lilly’s affordability options will provide the lowest out-of-pocket cost for someone. The solution center provides several ways to receive significant savings on Lilly insulin, including point-of-sale savings, information about obtaining Lilly insulin at free clinics, and more.

Terms, conditions, and limitations apply to the co-pay cards. Not available to those patients with government insurance such as Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Part D, TRICARE®/CHAMPUS, Medigap, DoD, or any State Patient or Pharmaceutical Assistance Program.

INDICATION AND IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION FOR HUMALOG BRAND OF INSULINS AND LILLY’S NON-BRANDED INSULIN LISPRO PRODUCTS

Important Facts About Humalog® (HU-ma-log) and Insulin Lispro Injection

Humalog (100 units/mL and 200 units/mL) and Insulin Lispro Injection (100 units/mL) are indicated to improve glycemic control in adults and children with diabetes mellitus. Humalog Mix75/25, Humalog Mix50/50 (insulin lispro protamine and insulin lispro injectable suspension, 100 units/mL) and Insulin Lispro Protamine and Insulin Lispro Injectable Suspension Mix75/25 (100 units/mL) are indicated to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Limitations of Use

The proportions of rapid-acting and intermediate-acting insulins in Humalog Mix75/25, Humalog Mix50/50, and Insulin Lispro Protamine and Insulin Lispro Injectable Suspension Mix75/25 are fixed and do not allow for basal versus prandial dose adjustments.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION FOR HUMALOG BRAND OF INSULINS AND LILLY INSULIN INJECTABLE PRODUCTS

• Contraindications

Humalog, Insulin Lispro Injection, Humalog Mix75/25, Insulin Lispro Protamine and Insulin Lispro Injectable Suspension Mix75/25, and Humalog Mix50/50 are contraindicated during episodes of hypoglycemia and in patients who are hypersensitive to these insulins or any of their excipients.

• Warnings and Precautions

Never share a Humalog, Insulin Lispro Injection, Humalog Mix75/25, Insulin Lispro Protamine and Insulin Lispro Injectable Suspension Mix75/25, or Humalog Mix50/50 prefilled pen, cartridge, reusable pen compatible with Lilly 3 mL cartridges, or syringe between patients, even if the needle is changed. Patients using vials must never share needles or syringes with another person. Sharing poses a risk for transmission of blood-borne pathogens.

Hyperglycemia or Hypoglycemia with Changes in Insulin Regimen: Changes in insulin strength, manufacturer, type, injection site, or method of administration may affect glycemic control and predispose to hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Any changes in insulin regimen should be made cautiously under close medical supervision and the frequency of blood glucose monitoring should be increased. Due to reports of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, advise patients who have repeatedly injected into areas of lipodystrophy or localized cutaneous amyloidosis to change the injection site to unaffected areas and closely monitor blood glucose. For patients with type 2 diabetes, dosage adjustments of concomitant antidiabetic products may be needed.

Hypoglycemia: Severe hypoglycemia may be life threatening and can cause seizures or death. Hypoglycemia is the most common adverse reaction of Humalog, Insulin Lispro Injection, Humalog Mix75/25, Insulin Lispro Protamine and Insulin Lispro Injectable Suspension Mix75/25, and Humalog Mix50/50. Monitor blood glucose and increase monitoring frequency with changes to insulin dosage, use with glucose-lowering medications, meal pattern, physical activity; in patients with renal or hepatic impairment; and in patients with hypoglycemia unawareness.

Hypoglycemia Due to Medication Errors: Instruct patients to always check the insulin label before each injection to avoid medication errors. Humalog U-200 should not be transferred from the Humalog KwikPen to a syringe as overdose and severe hypoglycemia can occur.

Hypersensitivity Reactions: Severe, life-threatening, generalized allergy, including anaphylaxis, can occur with Humalog, Insulin Lispro Injection, Humalog Mix75/25, Insulin Lispro Protamine and Insulin Lispro Injectable Suspension Mix75/25, and Humalog Mix50/50. If hypersensitivity reactions occur, discontinue the use of insulin and treat per standard of care until signs and symptoms resolve.

Hypokalemia: Hypokalemia may be life threatening. Insulins, including Humalog, Insulin Lispro Injection, Humalog Mix75/25, Insulin Lispro Protamine and Insulin Lispro Injectable Suspension Mix75/25, and Humalog Mix50/50, cause a shift in potassium from the extracellular to intracellular space possibly leading to hypokalemia, which, if untreated, may result in respiratory paralysis, ventricular arrhythmia, and death. Monitor potassium levels in patients at risk for hypokalemia (e.g., patients using potassium-lowering medications or medications sensitive to serum potassium concentrations).

Fluid Retention and Heart Failure with Concomitant Use of PPAR-gamma Agonists:

Thiazolidinediones (TZDs), which are PPAR-gamma agonists, can cause dose-related fluid retention, particularly when used in combination with insulin, including Humalog, Insulin Lispro Injection, Humalog Mix75/25, Insulin Lispro Protamine and Insulin Lispro Injectable Suspension Mix75/25, and Humalog Mix50/50. This may lead to or exacerbate heart failure. Observe patients for signs and symptoms of heart failure and consider discontinuation or dose reduction of the PPAR-gamma agonist.

Hyperglycemia and Ketoacidosis Due to Insulin Pump Device Malfunction:

Malfunction of the insulin pump device, infusion set, or insulin degradation can rapidly lead to hyperglycemia and ketoacidosis. Patients using subcutaneous insulin infusion pumps must be trained to administer insulin by injection and have alternate insulin therapy available in case of pump failure.

• Adverse Reactions

Adverse reactions associated with Humalog, Insulin Lispro Injection, Humalog Mix75/25, Insulin Lispro Protamine and Insulin Lispro Injectable Suspension Mix75/25, and Humalog Mix50/50 include hypoglycemia, hypokalemia, allergic reactions, injection-site reactions, lipodystrophy, pruritus, rash, weight gain, and peripheral edema.

• Drug Interactions

Some medications may alter glucose metabolism, insulin requirements, and the risk for hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Signs of hypoglycemia may be reduced or absent in patients taking anti-adrenergic drugs. Particularly close monitoring may be required.

Please see provided Humalog Full Prescribing Information, Insulin Lispro Injection Full Prescribing Information, Humalog Mix75/25 Full Prescribing Information, Insulin Lispro Protamine and Insulin Lispro Injectable Suspension Mix75/25 Full Prescribing Information and Humalog Mix50/50 Full Prescribing Information.

Please see Patient Information and Instructions for Use included with the product.

Humalog®, KwikPen®, Humalog® Mix50/50TM, and Humalog® Mix75/25TM are trademarks or registered trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.

We have to believe the scientists/experts as to what we should do ?

I have been “binge watching” the HLN newwork’s shows titled “How it really Happened”.   One in particular “The Strange Case of the Killer Nanny”

concerning the death of a 6 month old little boy under the care of a live-in Nanny.  The defense was made up of  high priced attorneys and various top-notched medical experts.  The extensive details of the medical experts was pretty “into the medical weeds” and to me established a more than reasonable doubt that the nanny was the cause of the baby’s death.

How a jury of 12 lay people could even begin to understand what was presented seems like monumental task and apparently it was over the head of most of the jury since they came back and found her guilty.

The prosecutor had their own set of medical experts and put forth a whole 180 degree different hypothesis of why the baby died.

There is a lot of daily talk about “listening to the experts” as to what should have been done and should be done going forward in dealing with COVID-19.

Here is a recent post on a opiate crisis trial in NY, where the prosecutor’s “expert”  David Aaron Kessler (born May 13, 1951) is an American pediatrician, lawyer, author, and administrator

In this article there is some alarming admissions from Kessler that he did little examination of pt’s medical records and/or very little any studies to come to his conclusions that “opiates are bad”

New York’s opioid case: No improper prescriptions, no misled docs, big damages

Remember the Oklahoma’s J&J opiate trial and who the prosecuting team HIRED as a EXPERT  – Andrew Kolodny !!

Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $572 million for its role in Oklahoma’s opioid crisis

You will also notice in the above link that the video testimony from Kolodny has been taken down 🙁

Everyone needs to pay attention that when some is saying that they are “following the expert’s advice” they need to look into the background of THE EXPERT

 

 

 

 

 

“On Duty” one final time