Amid opioid epidemic, report finds more doctors stealing prescriptions

Amid opioid epidemic, report finds more doctors stealing prescriptions

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amid-opioid-epidemic-report-finds-more-doctors-stealing-prescriptions/

When Lauren Lollini went to the hospital for kidney surgery in 2009, she was shocked when she left with hepatitis C and a liver infection.

“My life dramatically changed because now I am a 40-year-old woman with a 1-year-old daughter who is so fatigued I can’t work,” Lollini said.

Hospital technician Kristen Parker had infected Lollini and at least 18 others by stealing their pain medication and then leaving contaminated syringes for reuse. She’s now serving 30 years in jail.

“She was taking them off surgical trays, using them for herself, her own use, and then filling them with saline and putting them back on trays,” Lollini said. “I really was angry at the broken system. The hospital that hired her — unbeknownst to them that she had been let go from other jobs.”

A new report that will be released Tuesday by data firm Protenus finds that this so-called “opioid diversion” is a growing problem. In 2018, more than 47 million doses of legally prescribed opioids were stolen, an increase of 126 percent from the year before.

Protenus found 34 percent of these incidents happened at hospitals or medical centers, followed by private practices, long-term care facilities and pharmacies. Only 77 percent of the cases identified a particular drug, but the most common was Oxycodone, followed by hydrocodone and fentanyl.

Sixty-seven percent of the time, doctors and nurses are responsible. Dr. Stephen Loyd of Tennessee was one of them.

“What I didn’t realize was how quickly it would escalate. Going from that half of a five milligram Lortab, to within three years about 500 milligrams of Oxycontin a day. That’s about 100 Vicodin,” he said.

For three and a half years, he siphoned drugs away from his patients.

“There was no requirements on what happened to those pills. They could go down the toilet or they could go in my pocket,” Loyd said.

He warns that people who work in the health care industry are at high risk of abuse.

“They’ve got high stress jobs. A lot of them, like myself, have workaholism. And not only that, you have access,” Loyd said.

He’s now been clean for 15 years and was the director of Tennessee’s Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services division before running a rehab facility in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Loyd implores addicted health care workers to admit they need help, which he knows was the hardest part for him until he was confronted by his own father.

After confessing to his dad fears of losing his house, car and career should he come clean, his father responded, “None of those things are gonna do you any good if you’re dead.”

Kira Caban of Protenus said the firm’s findings are likely a “tip of the iceburg” considering only a fraction of opioid diversions are uncovered because an addict admits to the behavior or a patient gets sick. The Department of Justice established an Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit to combat this issue, but it’s operational in less than a third of the country.

 

What a new rule in Ohio means for people getting pain meds

What a new rule in Ohio means for people getting pain meds

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/05/06/naloxone-opioid-prescriptions-chronic-pain-ohio-medical-board-rule/3564150002/

Do you or does someone you know have a pain pill prescription? Did naloxone come with the prescription?

More Ohioans can expect to discuss that option as a result of a new rule for doctors.

Doctors who regularly prescribe pain patients high doses of opioids are now required to talk to them about opioid safety, including the use of naloxone.

The State Medical Board of Ohio made the rule that went into effect late in December. It’s for patients receiving new, high-dose prescriptions for pain lasting more than six weeks.

“It is meant to safely manage pain,” said Tess Pollock, spokeswoman for the medical board. “We are not taking opioids away from patients who need them.”

Pollock said that’s something the medical board has been careful about during the opioid epidemic, which has been blamed in part on the overprescription of pain pills. The state continues to try to educate the public about the dangers of opioid medications, and the new rule is one way to prevent accidental overdose deaths, she said.

Naloxone is a non-narcotic that blocks the effects of opioids, restoring breathing in overdosing patients. Higher doses of pain pills, or even an extra pill taken by mistake, can induce overdose.

A recent survey shows that most Ohio pain-pills patients (81%) know if their prescribed medication is an opioid. Most (82%) have heard of naloxone. And most (70%) think it’s a good idea to have it around for safety. 

But among those surveyed, few had heard any of that from their physicians.

“We have strong majorities having heard of naloxone, but a small fraction had heard from their own providers,” said Doug Usher, a partner of the research group, Forbes-Tate Partners of Washington, D.C.

The survey wasn’t only for people who get high-dose pain-pill prescriptions, so respondents didn’t necessarily fit the profile of patients who fall under the state’s rule. The minimum strength for the rule is an 80 morphine equivalent dose.

Forbes-Tate surveyed 511 Ohioans in February who’d either been prescribed pain medication or had a family member prescribed it. The market research was commissioned by Adapt Pharma, the maker of Narcan, the brand for naloxone.

Thom Duddy, spokesman for Adapt Pharma, praised Ohio for creating the rule for doctors, noting, “There’s a significant percentage of patients out there that are at risk every day.”

He said Adapt Pharma’s concern isn’t just the prescription of Narcan. “I don’t care if they prescribe syringes and vials of naloxone instead of Narcan,” Duddy said.

The company has committed to the opioid-overdose fight, he said. In 2017, Adapt Pharma provided 25,000 free Narcan kits to Hamilton County alone as part of the region’s initiative to expand access to try to cut overdose deaths.

These days, chronic pain patients often are prescribed opioids at lower doses than that, said Dr. Harsh Sachdeva, who practices at UC Health West Chester and is the director of the pain fellowship program at UC College of Medicine.

“In our chronic pain practice, 70 percent of our patients are under that dose,” Sachdeva said. Patients get additional pain help, including spinal implants and psychological intervention. 

Regardless, Sachdeva said his patients are being prescribed naloxone as a safety measure to prevent unintentional overdose. 

Not all of them want it, he said.

“I hear it all the time. ‘Why are you giving it to me?’ ” Sachdeva said.

But Ohioans and others nationally might have to get used to the idea of having naloxone awaiting them at a pharmacy along with their pain pills.

The practice of prescribing the two together probably will become routine, medical professionals say.

Young doctors are being taught about the state rule, said Dr. Michael Binder, assistant professor of clinical medicine at UC College of Medicine.

But that’s not all:

“We’re teaching them to have a discussion with all patients about the risks and benefits of their opioid prescriptions,” Binder said. “That’s standard now.”

Study Finds Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Ineffective at Curbing Overdoses

Study Finds Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Ineffective at Curbing Overdoses

https://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/study-finds-prescription-drug-monitoring-programs-ineffective

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are now in place in response to rising levels of overdoses involving opioids and synthetic opioids. But a new study that sought to clarify the relationship between PDMPs and their effectiveness in attacking the nation’s drug problem found limited to no evidence that they actually work. In addition, 3 of the studies reviewed found an increase in heroin overdose deaths after the programs began.
Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are now in place in all 50 states and the District of Columbia in response to rising levels of overdoses involving opioids and synthetic opioids. But a new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that sought to clarify the relationship between PDMPs and their effectiveness in attacking the nation’s drug problem found limited to no evidence that they actually work.

In addition, 3 of the 17 studies reviewed found an unintended consequence, in that heroin overdose deaths rose after the programs began.

“Prescription drug monitoring programs have become a hallmark of any policies that have been put into place, “ said lead author David S. Fink, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Columbia University, in an interview with The American Journal of Managed Care® (AJMC®).

The programs all vary in what they require of both doctors and pharmacists. Some are voluntary and some are not. So far in 2018, 36 states have so-called “mandatory use” policies, which mean that providers must register and use the program.

This review of 17 studies about PDMPs sought to clarify what would make such a program effective, since they are all implemented differently, all with their own nuances, he said.

Although 10 of the studies suggested that PDMP implementation had some low evidence tying it to reductions in fatal overdoses, the evidence was not enough.

“There’s no evidence to say a PDMP works,” Fink said, adding later, “PDMP programs alone are not going to be sufficient to reduce overdoses.”  

Of the programs that were most effective, they shared these characteristics, which all indicate signs of a robust and aggressive program, he said:

  • Mandatory review of PDMP data by healthcare providers before writing prescriptions 
  • Frequent, or weekly, updates of data 
  • Provider authorization to access PDMP data 
  • Monitoring of noncontrolled substances, even over-the-counter pain relievers.

These factors are meant to combat issues like “doctor shopping,” where a patient seeks multiple opioid prescriptions from different providers, but both Fink and a critic of PDMP programs had concerns about the impact of the programs, albeit different ones.

Fink said his concern is “that when you take away a primary drug that somebody is dependent upon, what’s going to happen in that next stage if a [rehabiliation] program isn’t provided to help those individuals?”

“We saw the same thing when abuse-deterrent OxyContin came out and we saw the switch in heroin overdoses. With PDMPs we seem to be finding the exact same thing,” he said.

Part of the problem is there is a shortage of doctors who are trained in addiction medicine, especially medication-assisted treatment (MAT), including buprenorphine, which is used to prevent relapse in people with opioid dependence.

“Our systematic review found that 3 of the 6 studies that have examined the postimplementation effect of PDMPs on heroin found an increase in heroin overdose deaths following PDMP implementation,” Fink wrote in a follow-up email. “Although the mechanism is unknown, it is possible that restricting the supply of prescription opioids to opioid-dependent persons might drive them to illicit heroin. Thus, policies that can restrict the supply of opioids, such as PDMPs, should be implemented within a suite of policies that can identify and treat those who are opioid-dependent to prevent them from moving to illicit heroin.”

Fink said it would be beneficial for doctors to increase their proficiency with MAT, as well as developing greater empathy for patients who may be seeking care from multiple doctors. The patient may be reported to authorities but without a referral for treatment, he said.

Some experts have started to call for primary care doctors to get involved in MAT to help address the shortage, which in turn may increase the chances that patients will seek treatment from a doctor they know and trust, the Commonwealth Fund reported last year.

But more often than not, PDMP programs are a law enforcement tool to catch doctors and patients, said a frequent critic of the programs in an email to AJMC®.

“Sixty percent of ‘doctor shoppers’ are actually legitimate patients with pain disease, not those with addiction, who are being purposely undertreated and need to look for adequate pain medicine doses by going to more than one doctor,”  said Thomas F. Kline, MD, a geriatrician in North Carolina. “This issue was not addressed as an unintended consequence.”

In addition, Kline said PMDPs are being used to send “raw data to law enforcement for further raids and persecution, shaming and blaming medical professionals and their patients whose profiles do not fit the law enforcement view of proper practice of medicine.”

Fink said that there are very few, if any, data on the effects that policies intended to address rising overdose deaths are having on chronic pain or palliative care patients. Most of what he has heard is anecdotal, but it is clear that the “pendulum is swinging in the other direction,” he said, referring to prescribing patterns by doctors.

Major medical associations are in favor of PDMPs, but want them used for patient care first and not as a law enforcement tool, as evidenced by these guidelines from the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Fink’s study did not address provider responses to PDMPs, but he said it is possible that some doctors might report patients as a way of practicing defensive medicine in anticipation of a negative law enforcement response, and that more research is needed in this area.

The 17 articles reviewed for this study were pulled from 2661 records that met the inclusion criteria. In addition, the authors ranked the studies according to a risk of bias, ranging from low to moderate to severe. Most of the studies fell into the moderate to severe category.

Fink and his fellow researchers used state-level and national data to pull information about nonfatal and fatal overdoses. 

All of the studies examining the association between PDMP implementation and overdose had methodological shortcomings, including inadequate confounding factors and no adjustment for competing laws and policies that might affect overdoses, such as Good Samaritan, naloxone distribution, or medical marijuana laws.

Fink said more research needs to be done to see if medical marijuana is helping to reduce opioid overdoses.

 

Investigation: Chronic pain patients denied life-saving medicine because of opioid crackdown

Investigation: Chronic pain patients denied life-saving medicine because of opioid crackdown

https://www.wtae.com/article/investigation-chronic-pain-patients-denied-life-saving-medicine-because-of-opioid-crackdown/27377991

PITTSBURGH —

Action News Investigates has learned the war against opioids is causing collateral damage — chronic pain patients who are being denied life-saving medicine.

Watch the investigative report by @VanOsdol_WTAE in the video player above.

Medical experts said the government crackdown on opioids has had a chilling effect — causing doctors, pharmacists and insurance companies to severely restrict access to opioid painkillers.

Cris Orlando uses electrical stimulation to treat a severe spinal condition. But that is not enough to ease the pain.

“A 7- and 8-level pain, to be in that all day long constantly, you want to give up,” he said. “I can’t function. I can’t help my wife around the house. It can be deadly. I mean the depression sets in quick.”

That’s why Orlando said he needs an opioid patch.

But it took six months after he moved to Creighton before he could find a doctor who would prescribe opioids strong enough to treat his pain. He told one doctor he was desperate and worried he might kill himself.

“I went in and said, ‘Will I have to bring my guns to the pawn store again because I’m afraid,'” Orlando said.

Jacqueline Schneider, of Independence, Beaver County, said she knows the feeling. She has multiple spinal conditions that cause severe pain.

“It felt like flesh being torn away from bone or something,” she said.

Last year, she was able to get a prescription for opioids, but she could not find a pharmacy that would fill it.

“I called six (pharmacies) in my area, chains and independents, and every single one of them told me they wouldn’t fill my medication for me. I just felt hopeless. I felt totally hopeless,” she said.

Like Orlando, Schneider was eventually able to get her medicine.

But experts said the difficulties facing them and other chronic pain patients is a national health crisis.

“It’s terrible,” said Dr. Ryan Marino, of UPMC.

He blames the government’s crackdown on doctors and pharmacies who overprescribed opioids, contributing to the epidemic. Now, he said, many physicians are afraid of prescribing any opioids, even to patients who legitimately need them.

“I think the response has been mostly to stop writing them. There really isn’t a middle ground here and most people don’t want to risk that and they’ll stop writing those prescriptions,” he said.

Even if doctors write an opioid prescription, Rosemary Mihalko said pharmacists like her may not fill it, because they fear a government crackdown.

“The biggest concern, honestly, is getting shut down and having your license revoked,” Mihalko said. “It’s easier to turn someone away, even though that’s not the right moral thing to do. It’s safer not to have our license on the line for that.”

One big reason for the concern is a guideline from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that encourages doctors to reduce prescriptions for opioid painkillers. In the three years since the guideline came out, opioid prescriptions have dropped significantly. That sounds good, but some doctors are pushing back against the CDC, saying the guideline needs to be clarified to avoid harming patients who legitimately need these drugs.

Earlier this year, 300 medical experts signed a letter to the CDC saying doctors and pharmacists are misapplying the guideline, resulting in unnecessary suffering, illicit drug use and even suicide for pain patients.

Among the signers were three former White House drug czars and Marino.

“The pendulum has definitely overswung here where we’re now hurting people with the response we have to people being hurt by overprescribing,” he said.

In a statement, the CDC said the guideline does not endorse mandated or abrupt dose reduction or discontinuation.

But the agency is studying the impact of the guideline on chronic pain patients.

Orlando and Schneider said they hope the government and the medical community will start listening to them.

“We shouldn’t be lumped in with the people who are addicted or abuse medication,” Schneider said.

“It’s just simply unfair to take people that are having chronic pain issues and cut them off of medications that are working,” Orlando said.

They said they have tried alternative therapies to reduce pain — including medical marijuana — and nothing has worked for them.

Dr Bill Bennett “drug czar” under Bush (43) says that war on drugs – going the wrong way now

Dr Bennett is still not really “with it” they were asking him about the bribery charges against the head of insys therapeutics and claim that “if they were pushing pills”… Insys was “pushing” Subsys whicquh is a sublingual Fentanyl spray – currently no solid opiate/controlled substance products.  Also is quoting the 72 K deaths… when 40% of those numbers do not involve opiates.

However, he did state that the vast majority of pts who are prescribed them – DO NOT ABUSE THEM – and that the CDC was backtracking on the opiate dosing guideline truthfully stating that they have been misapplied.

Hallelujah

 

International Stakeholder Community of Pain Experts and Leaders Call for an Urgent Action on Forced Opioid Tapering

International Stakeholder Community of Pain Experts and Leaders Call for an Urgent Action on Forced Opioid Tapering

https://academic.oup.com/painmedicine/article/20/3/429/5218985

We, the undersigned, stand as a unified community of stakeholders and key opinion leaders deeply concerned about forced opioid tapering in patients receiving long-term prescription opioid therapy for chronic pain. This is a large-scale humanitarian issue. Our specific concerns involve:

  • rapid, forced opioid tapering among outpatients;
  • mandated opioid tapers that require aggressive opioid dose reductions over a defined period, even when that period is an extended one.

Opioid tapering guidelines were created, in part, to decrease harm to patients resulting from high-dose opioid therapy for chronic pain. However, countless “legacy patients” with chronic pain who were progressively escalated to high opioid doses, often over many years, now face additional and very serious risks resulting from rapid tapering or related policies that mandate extreme dose reductions that are aggressive and unrealistic.

Rapid forced tapering can destabilize these patients, precipitating severe opioid withdrawal accompanied by worsening pain and profound loss of function. To escape the resultant suffering, some patients may seek relief from illicit (and inherently more dangerous) sources of opioids, whereas others may become acutely suicidal. Regardless of one’s view on the advisability of high-dose opioid therapy, every thoughtful clinician recognizes rapid tapering as a genuine threat to a large number of patients who are often medically complex and vulnerable. Indeed, even slower tapers should include realistic, patient-centered goals that are achievable and account for individual patient factors.

New and grave risks now exist because of forced opioid tapering: an alarming increase in reports of patient suffering and suicides within and outside of the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in the United States.

Reports suggest that forced tapering is also occurring in patients on opioid doses below the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Opioid Guideline threshold of 90 morphine equivalent daily dose. These patients too are at risk of harm from overly aggressive tapering.

Patients on legacy opioid prescriptions require different considerations and careful attention to the methods by which opioid tapers might be considered and implemented. Currently, no data exist to support forced, community-based opioid tapering to drastically low levels without exposing patients to potentially life-threatening harms. Existing data that support rapid reductions of opioid doses—often to zero—were conducted in highly structured, supportive, interdisciplinary, inpatient settings or “detox” programs in which medications and other approaches were used to minimize the symptoms of withdrawal. These data do not inform community-based opioid tapering. Currently, nonconsensual tapering policies are being enacted throughout the country without careful systems that attend to patient safety. The methods by which a taper is conducted matter greatly.

We therefore call for an urgent review of mandated opioid tapering policies for outpatients at every level of health care—including prescribing, pharmacy, and insurance policies—and across borders, to minimize the iatrogenic harm that ensues from aggressive opioid tapering policies and practices.

Almost 18 million Americans are currently taking long-term prescription opioids. We ask the Department of Health and Human Services to consider the following to mitigate harms in this special, at-risk population:

  • Enact policies that prohibit or minimize rapid, forced opioid tapering in outpatients taking legacy opioid prescriptions (this includes prescribers and health care organizations, pharmacies, and insurance payors).
  • Provide compassionate systems for opioid tapering, if indicated; that includes careful selection, patient-centered methods, close monitoring, triaging of adverse events, and realistic end-dose goals that are evidence-based and derived from applicable outpatient tapering data.
  • Convene patient advisory boards at all levels of decision-making to ensure that patient-centered systems are developed and patient rights are protected within the context of pain care.
  • Require inclusion of pain management specialists at every level of decision-making about future opioid policies and guidelines.

In standing as a unified community of concerned scientists, experts, citizens, and leaders of pain organizations in our respective countries, we call for the development and implementation of policies that are humane, compassionate, patient-centered, and evidence-based in order to minimize iatrogenic harms and protect patients taking long-term prescription opioids.

Missouri is the ONLY STATE that does not have a state PDMP

Sen. Caleb Rowden is interviewed by liberty guru Gary Nolan. Caleb explains that the new reason for passing a 2019 PDMP bill is keep the St. Louis County PDMP from passing your personal information on to the federal government, which could use it to infringe on your right to bear arms. What else could he say? All the facts indicate that PDMPs simply aren’t working in the 49 other states that already have them. But the new “reason” holds no water, since the provisions in the statewide PDMP bill are not legally binding to other states or the federal government.

Can the Damage Done by the CDC’s Opioid Guidelines Be Reversed?

Can the Damage Done by the CDC’s Opioid Guidelines Be Reversed?

The agency’s acknowledgment of the suffering caused by its prescribing advice may be too little, too late.

www.reason.com/2019/05/01/can-the-damage-done-by-the-cdcs-opioid-guidelines-be-reversed/

When the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published its opioid prescribing guidelines in 2016, the American Medical Association worried about “unintended consequences,” including “the potential effects of strict dosage and duration limits on patient care.” Since then those consequences, including needless suffering, despair, and suicides caused by involuntary dose reductions and patient abandonment, have become painfully clear, as the authors of the guidelines finally acknowledged last week.

Writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, the guidelines’ authors said their advice has been “misimplemented.” But they took no responsibility for the unintended yet foreseeable results of their recommendations, and their warning may be too little, too late for the innocent victims of the government’s cruelly misguided fight against opioid-related deaths, the vast majority of which involve illicit drugs rather than prescription analgesics.

The NEJM article echoed an April 10 letter in which CDC Director Robert Redfield emphasized that his agency “does not endorse mandated or abrupt dose reduction or discontinuation, as these actions can result in patient harm.” Redfield was responding to a March 6 letter in which more than 300 health professionals and addiction specialists, including three former drug czars, expressed concern about the fallout from the CDC’s guidelines.

The letter included reports from hundreds of patients around the country who have suffered as a result of policies and practices based on the guidelines. “Undertreated pain is killing me!” wrote a Syracuse, New York, patient with osteoarthritis and tethered spinal cord syndrome. “You don’t know me, you don’t walk in my shoes, you don’t have my nerve damage, and you don’t have to live with the thought of will today be the day that I kill myself because I can’t take the pain anymore,” said a patient in Washington, D.C.

“This policy is just cruel,” wrote a woman in Albany, California. “Every patient is an individual and should be treated with care and respect so they can live a functional life—and not given inappropriate or ineffective medication.”

When a document is as widely misconstrued as the CDC’s guidelines have been—by insurers, regulators, legislators, pharmacists, and law enforcement agencies as well as clinicians—it is fair to ask how the authors left themselves open to misinterpretation. According to the guidelines, doctors “should avoid increasing dosage” above 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day “or carefully justify a decision to titrate dosage” above that level.

The implication is that doses of 90 MME or more per day are rarely, if ever, medically justified. It is hardly a stretch for physicians with patients who exceed this arbitrary threshold, including patients who have been functioning well on high doses for years, to worry that they will be perceived as practicing outside the bounds of proper medical care.

Given the scrutiny that regulators and law enforcement agencies have been applying to doctors in recent years, prescribing practices portrayed as extreme and dubious by the CDC are apt to attract unwelcome attention that could jeopardize a physician’s livelihood and liberty. In this context, forced tapering and abandonment were predictable outcomes, even though the CDC guidelines say doctors should reduce doses only when the risks outweigh the benefits and describe the process as collaborative and consensual.

“We all warned of this outcome when the ‘guidelines’ were issued,” says Mark Ibsen, an emergency medicine physician in Helena, Montana. “The CDC guidelines have been as harmful as predicted, and the silence over three years has been criminal.”

Patrice Harris, the AMA’s president-elect, worries that “the guidelines have been misapplied so widely that it will be a challenge to undo the damage.” Lynn Webster, a former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, is even less optimistic.

“I am afraid that cultural attitudes, fears, misinformation, and prejudices are baked into the system,” Webster says. “It may take a generation before a more sensible and compassionate approach to treating people in pain with opioids is established.”

Big Red-Flag Study on Telemedicine Should we be worried?

Big Red-Flag Study on Telemedicine

Should we be worried?

https://www.medpagetoday.com/resource-centers/ms-resource-centertime-start-treating-ms-earlier/1652

Can telemedicine replace a traditional visit to the doctor? Dr. Mike doesn’t think so. He’s worried that the drive for profits will take center stage, shoving proper healthcare to the rear.

Following is a transcript of his remarks in the video:

To summarize, a study was published in the Journal of Pediatrics that showed children who had a consultation with a telemedicine doctor had a much higher rate for a prescription of antibiotics than if they were to be seen at a primary care office like my own. Now why is this problematic? Well, I’ll tell you. The huge majority of respiratory tract infections, basically colds, don’t require antibiotics. This is because antibiotics don’t work on viruses. You’ve heard me say this literally a million times.

Why is that such a big deal? They got more antibiotics. Doesn’t that mean they got better care? No, not necessarily. In fact, definitely not. Respiratory tract infections by the huge majority are caused by a virus, meaning that they don’t require an antibiotic. Antibiotics only work on bacteria, and I’ll briefly run through the list of why over-prescribing antibiotics is bad.

One, cost. You shouldn’t be paying for a medicine you don’t need. Two, antibiotics are not benign medications. They have true adverse events: diarrhea — like we talked about at the opening — rashes, allergic reactions, your throat closing up, and finally resistance. That superbug I’m always talking about, about that bacteria that can get into your system where antibiotics can’t even fix it, that’s scary stuff.

I understand why telemedicine is so popular. I mean us, millennials, we treasure convenience almost above all else. We want to save time. We may be traveling. We don’t have access to a doctor. The cost is less when we use a telemedicine consultation, as opposed to going to a doctor’s office.

But it truly is alarming to hear that telemedicine may be hurting the outcomes for these people who want better convenience, who want more access for lower costs. I think the reason why telemedicine doctors are over-prescribing antibiotics are as follows. First and foremost, there is usually no relationship with the doctor and the patient.

Now, if one of my patients comes to see me, I know what they’re like. I know if they’re really sensitive, that if they have a stuffy nose they can act very dramatic. Or, I have some patients that if I see they have some pain, they have such a high pain tolerance that I really do worry and get an X-ray early on. But if you don’t have that sort of doctor-patient relationship, you may come to an incorrect conclusion.

Second, if you’re doing a telephone consultation, there is no physical exam. Think about that for a baby. If a mother calls and says her child is fussy and has a fever, it’s hard to decide whether it’s viral or bacterial without a proper physical exam. I mean, you need to look in that baby’s ear. But without that physical exam, you may be practicing what’s known as C.Y.A. Medicine, cover-your-butt medicine. That’s when you’re so worried about being sued by a patient, by them becoming worse and you not treating them with antibiotics, that you just over-prescribe antibiotics in the hopes of covering your butt.

Now I’ve seen this happen one too many times, even in primary care offices, so I can only imagine how much more often it’s happening in a telemedicine consultation where there’s no existing relationship and no proper physical exam done. It’s obvious that you’re not going to have great outcomes in this case.

One of the more concerning things that I’ve actually read in a study that was done in late 2018 was that doctors who practice telemedicine, who are generally just scattered throughout the country, those doctors had higher satisfaction rates and shorter visit times. And guess what doctors get compensated on? Shorter visit times and higher patient satisfaction scores. That’s the problem right there.

If doctors are more motivated to get you out the door and just keep you happy, they’re going to give you whatever it is that you want. Just because you want an antibiotic, it doesn’t mean that it’s the right treatment plan. Sometimes, the visit may need to take longer because the doctor should be educating you on why you don’t need an antibiotic, on what lifestyle things you can do to maybe speed up your recovery, and maybe to prevent you from having the same symptoms next time.

It’s kind of crazy to me as a doctor that by doing the wrong thing, over-prescribing antibiotics, you can have higher patient satisfaction and shorter visit times. That’s wild. As a young doctor, it really gets me excited when technology and healthcare combine. So when I hear the story about telemedicine not giving quality care to patients, it truly upsets me because I see how advantageous telemedicine can be. You can have lower costs and better access to care. You can have consultations with specialists who may be in a totally different city than you, but who can give you really great advice. It’s just in this case the standards of care are not being maintained. We need to hold telemedicine docs accountable for over-prescription of medications, change the incentive system so that we don’t just focus on patient satisfaction and shorter visit times, but instead focus on quality medicine, in addition to those factors.

I’m excited for the future of telemedicine and frankly, you should be too. Telemedicine antibiotics seem to be struggling. But here’s another instance where telemedicine fell short. Check out my video here. Click it.

Mikhail Varshavski, DO, (better known on social media as “Doctor Mike”) is a board-certified family medicine physician at the Atlantic Health System’s Overlook Medical Center in Summit, New Jersey. His YouTube channel educates over 3 million subscribers with two weekly shows covering everything from trending medical stories, to health myths, to reaction videos critiquing popular medical TV dramas. His goal is to expose medical misinformation and increase the health literacy of young adults.