The LEAST VISIBLE healthcare “MIDDLEMAN” – makes the most PROFIT ?

Image may contain: one or more people

No photo description available.

So the monthly list price of your insulin has gone from $391 in 2014 to $594 in 2018, THAT’S UNACCEPTABLE!! But who’s to blame??

It must be the drug manufacturer, right?? NO!! When you look at what the drug manufacturer keeps, it actually lowered from $147 in 2014 to $135 in $2018. They are getting less!
It must be the pharmacy jacking up the price to make a huge profit, right??? NOPE!! The pharmacies are down to making $7 for the months Rx in 2018, when they need to average $11 to stay in business. That is why Pharmacies are closing at a record pace!!
Then Who??? IT’S THE MIDDLEMEN!! You know, the ones that have no work, time, money, college education, student loans, business investment or business loans involved!! No research and development, no cost of employing brilliant scientists that develop and bring life savings drugs to market!
IT’S the THIEVING PBM MIDDLEMEN taking $432 from the middle for doing a $1 job !!

Remarks from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., as prepared for oral testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Hearing, “Federal Efforts to Combat the Opioid Crisis: A Status Update on CARA and Other Initiatives

Remarks from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., as prepared for oral testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Hearing, “Federal Efforts to Combat the Opioid Crisis: A Status Update on CARA and Other Initiatives

https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm582031.htm

Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone, thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the full committee.

The epidemic of opioid addiction that’s devastating our nation is the biggest crisis facing public health officials, FDA included.

As this crisis grew, many of us didn’t recognize the consequence of this threat. We missed opportunities to stem its spread. So we find ourselves at a tragic crossroad.

We have a crisis of such massive proportion that the actions we need to take are going to be hard.

We’ll need to touch clinical practice in ways that may make certain parties uncomfortable. This may include such steps as restrictions on prescribing, or mandatory education on providers. Long ago, we ran out of straightforward options.

At FDA, we’re working across the full scope of our regulatory obligations to impact this crisis.

That means updating and extending the risk management plans and educational requirements that we impose on sponsors as a condition of a product’s approval.

It means doubling our efforts to promote the development of new, less addictive pain remedies; as well as opioids that are harder to manipulate and abuse.

It means updating our risk-benefit framework to take measure of the risks associated with misuse and abuse of opioids; and using this information to inform our decisions — including recommending that products be withdrawn from the market.

These steps and others are needed to prevent new addiction.

But given the scale of the epidemic, with millions of Americans already affected, prevention is not enough.

We must also help those who are suffering from addiction by expanding access to lifesaving treatment.

I’d like to announce three new steps towards this goal today.

First, FDA will issue guidance for product developers as a way to promote the development of new addiction treatments.

As part of this guidance, we’ll clearly lay out our interest in the development and use of novel, non-abstinence-based endpoints as part of product development. We’ll also aim to make it easier to develop new products that address a fuller range of the symptoms of addiction such as craving.

Second, FDA will take steps promote the more widespread use of existing, safe and effective, FDA approved therapies to help combat addiction. There are several FDA approved treatments. All of these treatments work in combination with counseling and psychosocial support. Everyone who seeks treatment deserves the opportunity to be offered all three options as a way to allow patients and providers to select the treatment best suited to the needs of each individual patient.

How do we know that medications work?

To start, the FDA approval process requires that all products demonstrate that they are safe and effective prior to approval.

The evidence base then grows significantly after approval.

Unfortunately, far too few people who are addicted to opioids are offered an adequate chance for treatment that uses medications. In part, this is because insurance coverage for treatment with medications is often inadequate.

To tackle the treatment gap, FDA is planning to convene experts and stakeholders to discuss the evidence of treatment benefits at the population level – such as studies that show community wide reductions in overdose following expansion of access to therapy. We will also discuss the potential for further research to assess the value of these medications in the context of today’s overdose epidemic.

There’s a wealth of information supporting the use of these medications. We’re focusing on the data in the drug labeling that can help drive broader and appropriate prescribing. So one concept that FDA is actively pursuing is the research necessary to support a label indication for medication-assisted treatment for everyone who presents with an overdose, based on data showing a reduction in death at a broader population-level. Such an effort would be a first for FDA. We believe that granting such an indication in labeling can help promote more widespread use of, and coverage for these treatments.

Why is it important to promote the value of these treatments at the population level? Here’s an example. Recently, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts found a greater than 50 percent reduction in the risk of death from overdose among individuals treated with methadone or buprenorphine after a nonfatal overdose. These kinds of data have immense implications for insurers and policymakers in deciding how to adopt these treatments.

A common question that arises with treatment is the proper duration of medication therapy. Clinical evidence shows that people may need treatment with medications for long periods of time to achieve a sustained recovery. Some may even need a lifetime of treatment. Recognizing this, the FDA is revising the labels of these medical products to reflect this fact.

Now I know this may make some people uncomfortable. That’s why the third step I’m announcing today is that FDA will join efforts to break the stigma associated with medications used for addiction treatment. This means taking a more active role in speaking out about the proper use of these drugs.

It’s part of our existing public health mandate to promote the appropriate use of medicine. Misunderstanding around the profile of these products enables stigma to attach to their use.

This stigma serves to keep many Americans who are seeking a life of sobriety from reaching their goal. In this case, in the setting of a public health crisis, we need to take a more active role in challenging these conventions around medical therapy.

The stigma reflects a view some have; that a patient is still suffering from addiction even when they’re in full recovery, just because they require medication to treat their illness.

This attitude reveals a flawed interpretation of science. It stems from a key misunderstanding many of us have of the difference between a physical dependence and an addiction.

Because of the biology of the human body, everyone who uses opioids for any length of time develops a physical dependence—meaning there are withdrawal symptoms after the use stops. Even a cancer patient requiring long-term treatment for the adequate treatment of metastatic pain develops a physical dependence to the opioid medication.

That’s very different than being addicted.

Addiction requires the continued use of opioids despite harmful consequences. Addiction involves a psychological craving above and beyond a physical dependence.

Someone who neglects his family, has trouble holding a job, or commits crimes to obtain opioids has an addiction.

But someone who is physically dependent on opioids as a result of the treatment of pain but who is not craving more or harming themselves or others is not addicted.

The same principle applies to medications used to treat opioid addiction. Someone who requires long-term treatment for opioid addiction with medications – including those that cause a physical dependence — is not addicted to those medications.

Here’s the bottom line:

We should not consider people who hold jobs, re-engage with their families, and regain control over their lives through treatment that uses medications to be addicted.

Rather, we should consider them to be role models in the fight against the opioid epidemic.

Committee members, we need to embrace long-term treatment with proven therapies to address this crisis. At FDA, we will step up our efforts to do our part to promote these goals.

I look forward to discussing these issues with the committee. And I’m grateful for the opportunity to be here.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

Civil Asset Forfeiture – Could it be on its last days ?

 

www.ij.org/press-release/bipartisan-bill-in-congress-would-dramatically-reform-civil-forfeiture/

On Wednesday, Reps. Tim Walberg (R-MI), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Tony Cardenas (D-CA), Tom McClintock (R-CA), and Bobby Rush (D-IL) reintroduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR Act), which would enact a sweeping overhaul of federal civil forfeiture laws. Under civil forfeiture, the government can permanently confiscate property without charging anyone with—let alone convicting them of—a crime. Worse, federal law even encourages law enforcement to forfeit property by letting the seizing agencies keep up to 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds.

“For too long, tens of thousands of Americans have lost their hard-earned savings, cars, businesses and even their homes to an unjust civil forfeiture system,” said Darpana Sheth, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice and who heads IJ’s End Forfeiture Initiative. “The FAIR Act is a bold effort that would enact urgently needed reforms and end many of the appalling practices endemic to current law. Critically, the FAIR Act would end the perverse financial incentives that fuel forfeiture abuse,” Sheth added.

The FAIR Act would enact the following changes to federal civil forfeiture:

  • Ban the U.S. Department of Justice from retaining forfeiture proceeds and instead re-directs all forfeiture proceeds to the General Fund of the Treasury. In 1986, the DOJ’s Assets Forfeiture Fund took in $93.7 million in forfeiture revenue, but by 2018, annual deposits had topped $1.3 billion;
  • Abolish the “equitable sharing” program, which violates federalism principles and allows local and state law enforcement to collaborate with federal agencies and collect up to 80 percent of the proceeds, even if that would circumvent state restrictions. From 2001 to 2013, the DOJ distributed more than $4.7 billion in equitable-sharing money, according to a report by the Institute for Justice;
  • Shift the burden of proof from the property owner onto the government, restoring the presumption of innocence;
  • Raise the standard of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings from “preponderance of the evidence” (i.e. more likely than not) to “clear and convincing”;
  • Provide legal representation for those who cannot afford it in civil forfeiture proceedings;
  • Limit forfeiture for currency “structuring” only when funds in question are derived from an illegal source or used to conceal illegal activity, codifying a 2014 IRS policy change in response to documented abuses; and
  • Allow individuals and small business owners to request a prompt hearing to contest the seizure of their funds for alleged structuring violations.

Reforming civil forfeiture is the rare political issue that transcends party lines. The national platforms for both the Democratic and Republican Party have endorsed forfeiture reform, as have the editorial boards for over 130 different newspapers. And last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous landmark decision, which ruled that state civil forfeiture cases are bound by the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “excessive fines.”

On the state level, forfeiture reforms are currently under consideration in 12 states. Missouri and Rhode Island have advanced legislation that would close the equitable-sharing loophole. Most sweeping of all, Minnesota, Nevada, and South Carolina, could completely abolish civil forfeiture, a move that would generally require a criminal conviction to forfeit property and would ban police from self-financing with forfeiture revenue.

Since the Institute for Justice began its End Forfeiture Initiative in 2014, 30 states and the District of Columbia have enacted forfeiture reforms.

The administration “failed to conduct a comprehensive legal analysis” of three NSA-style bulk data collection programs, according to the Justice Department Inspector General.

The administration “failed to conduct a comprehensive legal analysis” of three NSA-style bulk data collection programs, according to the Justice Department Inspector General.

https://www.nextgov.com/analytics-data/2019/03/dea-never-checked-if-its-massive-surveillance-operations-are-legal-watchdog-says/155907/

The Drug Enforcement Administration skirted numerous legal checks on a trio of bulk data collection programs dating back to the early 1990s, according to an internal watchdog.

In a heavily redacted, 144-page report published Thursday, the Justice Department Inspector General revealed the administration failed to fully assess the legal basis for three massive international surveillance operations that ran largely unchecked from 1992 to 2013. Two of the programs remain active in some form today.

Under one initiative, which investigators called “Program A,” the administration used “non-target specific” subpoenas to force multiple telecom providers to provide metadata on every phone call made from the U.S. to as many as 116 countries with “a nexus to drugs.” Investigators found some companies also provided the officials with data on all calls made between those foreign countries.

The administration also conducted two other bulk surveillance programs during that time without assessing their legality, investigators found. Under “Program B,” officials used similarly sweeping subpoenas to collect information on anyone who purchased specific products from participating vendors. Through “Program C,” DEA purchased telephone metadata for targets of ongoing investigations through a contractor for a separate government agency.

Program B ran from 2008 to 2013, and Program C began in 2007 and remains active today, according to the IG.

Investigators found the administration “failed to conduct a comprehensive legal analysis” of actions under all three programs. Previous court rulings have called into question the use of the sweeping subpoenas under programs A and B, they said. According to the report, the FBI also raised concerns about the legality of the operations.

“We also found the absence of a robust legal review troubling because the DEA utilized the bulk data collected … on an unknown number of occasions in support of investigations by non-DEA federal agencies that had no apparent connection to specific drug investigations,” the IG added. “This utilization raised significant legal questions” because the administration justified its actions by saying the information “was ‘relevant or material’ to a drug investigation.”

The administration also never clearly determined whether its existing subpoena authority extended to the data provided through Program C, investigators said. The IG also found proof that DEA officials exploited certain investigative practices to keep prosecutors from sharing evidence with defendants.

DEA significantly scaled back Program A after Edward Snowden revealed the existence of similar sweeping surveillance programs at the National Security Agency, according to investigators. In 2014, the administration started subpoenaing metadata on calls made from phone numbers specifically tied to federal investigations. This more narrow surveillance program remains active today, the IG said.

Under target-specific data collection operations, DEA officials must provide “reasonable articulable suspicion” that the target is involved in drug activity, but investigators found there were few safeguards to ensure they did so. The administration set no specific standards of proof for issuing subpoenas, and officials often justified data collection using “generic” and “cursory” explanations, the IG found.

“The information provided [in subpoena documents] often lacks specificity sufficient to establish the particularized facts or basis for connecting the target number to a drug investigation, even if such review had occurred,” investigators said. They added the administration’s auditing process also did little to assess the relevance of the subpoenas it issued.

Additionally, the DEA lacked any policies governing how long data collected under Program B could be stored, according to the IG. The information still resides on its servers today, and officials have no final plan for getting rid of it, investigators said.

The IG began reviewing DEA’s bulk data collection programs in 2013, but according to investigators, the administration “took many actions that hindered the OIG’s access to information available to it that the OIG was plainly authorized to obtain.”

Though the programs have been largely curtailed or discontinued altogether, investigators noted there’s nothing to prevent the administration from launching similar operations in the future. The IG made 16 recommendations that would help ensure future programs are conducted “appropriately and consistently with the law … civil rights and civil liberties.”

“DEA is committed to ensuring its practices comply with all Department of Justice policies and procedures and continue to be vetted through a rigorous legal review,” DEA Spokesperson Katherine Pfaff said in a statement to Nextgov. “The DEA agrees with the OIG’s recommendation … and has already begun enhancing these processes.”

This story- warning – sounds plausible

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-0/p480x480/54220579_2130157127222890_3998676550428917760_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=9c7812fbc5b9a56bd4d5332602cb6e03&oe=5D3D734F

Another – OHIO- Lawmaker Overlooks Pain Management in Bill to Fight Opioid Crisis

[Photo: Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) looks on intently during a press meeting.]Another Lawmaker Overlooks Pain Management in Bill to Fight Opioid Crisis

www.rewire.news/article/2019/03/28/another-lawmaker-overlooks-pain-management-in-bill-to-fight-opioid-crisis/

“Dependence isn’t addiction, and that is continually left out of the discussion and the policies being made,” said disability advocate Maelee Johnson.

Hardly a day goes by when the discussion of opioids and their misuse is not on the front page of local or national newspapers. However, the flipside of the issue, pain management, is barely, if ever, centered in the conversation.

This came up most recently with Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who seeks to advance a bill he previously introduced called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 2.0, which would, among other things, establish a three-day limit for opioid prescriptions.

This lack of focus on disabled and chronically ill patients has inadvertently pitted doctors against their own patients, who are framed as going down the rabbit hole of dependency following a sprained ankle or routine dental surgery. But this overly simplistic framing erases people with long-term disabilities and chronic health conditions who are struggling to live their lives while being punished for using the best tools we have available to enable their full participation in society.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2016 offered strategies to taper patients off opioids, but left doctors and patients with their decision-making authority, as it should. However, while the CDC clearly intended the guidelines to be just that—recommendations—that’s not how they’ve been interpreted.

As of last fall, 33 states have put policies in place that limit a person’s access to pain medication, in some cases to three to seven days of medication with no available refills. In some states, this means that patients are forced to go back to the doctor, enduring the burdens of medically unnecessary appointments just to get a new prescription, in order to get the medication they need every seven days.

These are people for whom opioids allow them to go to school, work a job, and manage their home life. In the words of Maelee Johnson, a disability advocate, in an interview for this piece: “Dependence isn’t addiction, and that is continually left out of the discussion and the policies being made.”

This costs lives, Johnson added. “Since the opioid crisis became a political issue, I’ve lost access to all my medication, and I dread having to convince doctors that I need these meds to survive again. The consequences of this are very far reaching.”

It’s not a legislator’s job to diagnose a patient’s ailment or prescribe relief. That responsibility falls to clinicians, who go to school for years for this specialty. And yet, time after time, lawmakers in Congress think they are equipped to address the complex needs of millions of individual patients with their policymaking. In the case of Sen. Portman’s bill, this is especially concerning in light of data pointing to the disastrous impact of arbitrary day-centered limits on pain treatment.

While this bill and similar efforts—including one by Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, whose recent policy announcement ended in her pledging to work more closely with the disability and chronic health communities to fix her bill—have an exemption for “people with chronic pain,” this approach fails to take into account what that will mean in practice for actual patients.

Research shows that even when there are exemptions, the patients’ needs are overridden as physicians fear being punished for over-prescribing medication. “Despite exemptions for [chronic pain] patients in the CDC Guideline and Tennessee state law, [a nurse practitioner at Vanderbilt University’s hematology department] had seen a major push from state regulators and insurers to get [sickle cell disease] patients down to lower doses,” noted a 2018 report from Human Rights Watch.

The report showed that legislative interventions such as these do have an impact on the quality of care doctors can provide to their patients who live with chronic pain. Doctors are interpreting the CDC guidelines and congressional action as broad, iron-clad requirements, and patients and people with chronic illnesses are the ones struggling.

Every person experiences pain differently, and legislation addressing this issue needs to take that into account.

Evidence shows that policies inserting the government into the doctor-patient relationship don’t work. For one thing, the majority of people with addiction issues tied to opioids do not receive them from a medical professional. Rather, they receive them from a friend, colleague, or they purchase them on the black market, according to data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, when working on limiting access to opioids among its community, issued a report in 2018 that clearly showed how restrictions did not result in fewer veterans overdosing. It resulted in more veterans dying by suicide, according to the research.

If you enact a policy and it results in constituents dying, it’s a bad policy.

This is what happens time and time again when policymakers craft legislation based on “good intentions” versus tapping into the deep expertise and “lived experience” of the disability community.

Inconsistent enforcement by the Drug Enforcement Administration has also led physicians to be concerned about the prescriptions they’re writing for patients. But it isn’t just the DEA pressuring and arresting physicians; when government intervention is not successful, insurance companies may meddle in complex patient care decisions. The America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) has announced it will begin to track how physicians are complying with these new policies. Though this surveillance data will not be released to the public initially, there is little doubt it will be used to track the preponderance of opioid prescriptions.

This will compound the pressure already on doctors to not diagnose people with chronic pain and will lead to a decrease in access to pain management.

Additionally, there is a concern we will see an expanded list of drugs under restriction; we have already seen anti-seizure and anti-anxiety drugs like gabapentin included in recent state regulations. Broadening what drugs are included will undoubtedly expand who is affected. As we saw when allergy medications became restricted due to their use in manufacturing crystal meth, many times a medication that could be used to combat one symptom could be used for a nefarious purpose.

Instead of trying to force a flawed, one-size-fits-all policy onto hundreds of millions of people in the United States, legislators in Congress should support the dissemination of unbiased, science-based information about appropriate opioid use. Part of the current challenge is that so much of that information is produced by the pharmaceutical industry.

The marketing of OxyContin by Purdue Pharma is a great example of how this can be a conflict of interest. Purdue flew doctors on all-expenses-paid trips to resorts around the country to “educate” them about the merits of the drug. At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration was concluding that OxyContin was not any more effective than any other drug on the market. In 2007, the manufacturer pled guilty to misrepresenting how addictive the drug was and received a significant fine.

Rather than letting pharmaceutical companies run roughshod over clinicians, doctors need education about impacts of over-prescribing, and continuing medical education (CME) requirements should focus on responsible and careful pain management and the consequences of over-prescribing opioids.

Arbitrary limits on the days of medicine a person can receive is not good policy. Nor does it help people. And isn’t that gist of the Hippocratic oath?

 

good ole opiophobic INDIANA – TV COMMERCIAL

Indiana Opiate Prescribing Guidelines — MME limit 60/day ?

Image may contain: text

Image may contain: text

 

 

Image may contain: text

OPIOID PRESCRIBING GUIDELINES

In 2017, more than 6 million opioid prescriptions were dispensed to Indiana residents.[1]Improving the way opioids are prescribed through clinical practice guidelines can ensure patients have access to safer, more effective pain treatment, while reducing the number of people who misuse, abuse or overdose from these drugs. The following guidelines have been developed and published by experts in the field of pain management to guide clinicians on best practices when it comes to prescribing opioids. Each guideline is tailored to a specified clinical setting.

Chronic Pain – Indiana Pain Management Prescribing Final Rule
In 2014, the Indiana Medical Licensing Board adopted a final rule that regulates physicians engaged in the practice of pain management prescribing, pursuant to Indiana Administrative Code 844 IAC 5-6. These regulations address the main factors of safe and effective prescribing practices that include: patient assessment, non-opioid treatment options, patient information consent, patient follow-ups, INSPECT reports, drug monitoring tests, a daily high dose threshold and a treatment agreement.

Comparison of CDC Guidelines to Indiana Prescribing Rule

The variety of guidelines published by various institutions can often be difficult to compare and contrast. In response to this, the Indiana State Medical Association has compiled a document that compares CDC’s Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain with Indiana’s Pain Management Prescribing Final Rule. Although both sets of guidelines are aimed at improving the safety and effectiveness of opioid prescribing practices, the Indiana requirements are tailored more to the state of Indiana, while the CDC’s recommendations apply nationally. Physicians in Indiana may still apply the CDC’s recommendations in their opioid prescribing practices, even if those guidelines are not addressed in Indiana’s requirements.

Acute PainThe Indiana Guidelines for the Management of Acute Pain

The Indiana Guidelines for the Management of Acute Pain guidelines address safe, appropriate and effective opioid prescribing practices for outpatient management of acute pain. They may be applied to patients of all ages presenting acute pain, but they may not apply to acute pain resulting from a chronic condition.

Additional ResourcesCo-prescribing Naloxone to Patients at Risk of Overdose

Co-prescribing naloxone is encouraged by a broad range of stakeholders to help reverse the effects of an opioid overdose for high-risk patients. This resource provided by the American Medical Association (AMA) describes how to determine when it is clinically appropriate to co-prescribe naloxone and provides additional considerations, such as how to approach a patient you wish to co-prescribe naloxone to.

[1] Indiana State Department of Health, Division of Trauma and Injury Prevention, INSPECT.
Data retrieved from https://gis.in.gov/apps/isdh/meta/stats_layers.htm.

Page last updated 11/27/2018

https://www.in.gov/isdh/28027.htm

Opioid Treatment 10-year Longevity Survey Final Report

Opioid Treatment 10-year Longevity Survey Final Report

Patients in this study were found to be functioning quite well after 10 or more years on generally stable opioid dosages—with the vast majority able to care for themselves and even drive.

https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/amp/152

About eighteen months ago, I approached the publisher of Practical Pain Management to assist in a survey of long-term, opioid-treated pain patients. Rightly, as any good publisher, he asked why should I go to the time and expense to do a longevity survey? I then presented him my laundry list of reasons for doing the survey. Some explanations of my reasons for doing this survey are given here. Quite frankly this survey was needed, since we simply have little data on opioid long-term treatment.1,2 Also, opioid treatment is constantly under attack, so it seems logical to see if the popularity of this treatment is justified.

Reasons for the Survey

First, recall that we have just finished the “Decade of Pain.” Ushering in this decade were many laws, regulations, and guidelines—promulgated in many states—that encouraged physicians to prescribe opioids without fear of legal reprisal. Did anyone get help this decade? Did this political and humanitarian effort pay off?

Secondly, my own experience in practice was the predominant factor. I started my pain practice in 1975 while serving as a Public Health Physician in East Los Angeles County. Cancer and post-polio patients needed ‘narcotics’ (the common name prior to the more correct usage ‘opioids’) treatment for their severe chronic pain. I’ve now followed some chronic pain patients still taking opioids after 25 to 30 years.1 Also, I was a government consultant in the 1970s on Howard Hughes who managed to survive 30 years with intractable pain after a 1946 plane crash. His average opioid dosage over that time period was about 200 mg of morphine equivalence. But are my patients unusual or simply responsive to an overzealous clinician? Do opioid-treated patients in the hands of other physicians do just as well over a long period?

A little over a year ago there was another reason to do a longevity survey. At that time there was a vitriolic, anti-opioid propaganda campaign being waged. Some prominent academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies, professional organizations, and journals, almost in unison, essentially claimed that opioids shouldn’t be prescribed due to hyperalgesia or other as-yet unnamed complications. Some parties stated that opioids, if prescribed at all, should have a dosage restricted to some arbitrary number such as 200mg of morphine equivalence a day. Some claims fundamentally suggested that pain should only be treated with non-opioids, because opioids actually “cause pain.” Amazingly, some detoxification centers actually advertised for “clients” on the basis that the person’s pain would be cured if the patient spent $10K or $20K to detoxify from opioids. Needless to say, the anti-opioid campaign was hardly backed by bonafide medical management pain practitioners or scientific studies. So what was needed was a simple survey to see if there are long-term opioid-treated patients who are still doing well.

What the Survey Can’t Determine

This survey was not intended or designed to answer some ancillary questions. Not answered is which opioids are superior or could patients have done as well without opioids? Also, it wasn’t intended to determine optimal dosage or complications. The intent was clear and simple: Do some opioid-treated patients improve pain control, function better, and enhance their quality of life over a 10-year period?

Survey Methods

In early 2009, an advertisement was placed in this publication to identify any physician who had a cohort of chronic pain patients they had treated with opioids for 10 or more years and were willing to share outcome data. Three physicians, one each from Kentucky, Louisiana, and California, reported a total of 76 patients who have been treated with opioids for 10 or more years. These, together with the 24 patients treated by this author,1 provide a cohort of 100 patients who have been treated with opioids for 10 or more years and serve as subjects for this survey. Physicians completed a survey questionnaire for each patient that inquired about demographic status, cause of pain, opioids currently used, basic physical functions, activities of daily living, and stability of opioid dosage.

Results and Findings

Patients in this study appeared typical of most chronic pain patients in that they are primarily middle age or older and have degenerative diseases of the spine, joints, or peripheral nerves (see Tables 1 and 2). Most have maintained on one opioid, although some patients required two or three. The majority have been on stable dosages for many years (see Table 3). Despite the longevity of treatment, most function quite well. The vast majority of patients report good function in that they can dress, read, attend social functions, drive, and ambulate without assistance (see Table 4). Almost half (45%) reported they had been on a stable opioid dosage for at least 3 years.

Table 1. Demographics of 10-Year Opioid Patients
Age (Yrs) Range 30-83
Males 61 (61%)
Females 39 (39%)
Length of time in opioid treatment 10 – 35 yrs
Stable opioid dosage without significant escalation 3mos – 31 yrs
Table 2. Causes of Chronic Pain in This Population (N=100)
Spine disease 51
Arthritis 16
Peripheral neuropathy 14
Headache 10
Knee diseases 5
Abdominal adhesions 5
Hip diseases 4
Shoulder/arm diseases 4
Fibromyalgia 4
113*
*Adds up to more than 100 as some patients had more than 1 diagnosis.
Table 3. Opioids Currently Used by These 100 Patients
No. of Opioids Currently Used N(%)
1 62
2 26
3 12
Opioids Currently Used
Hydrocodone 56
Oxycodone 25
Fentanyl 15
Morphine 13
Methadone 8
Propoxyphene 8
Hydromorphone 5
Other 6
Table 4. Activities and Functions in These 10-Year+ Opioid Patients (N=100)
N(%)
Dress without assistance 82
Attend church/social events 89
Read newspapers, books, magazines 97
Gainful employment 25
Care for family 61
Ambulate unassisted 85
Ambulate with cane 5
Drive a car 74

Discussion

Recent epidemiologic studies indicate that about 10 million Americans now take opioid drugs for chronic pain control. This relatively recent and dramatic occurrence has had little outcome study.1,2 The author recently reported 24 Southern California chronic pain patients who were treated with opioids over 10 years and who had positive social, physical, and functional results.1 Outcomes from other patients treated by other physicians in other geographic areas were needed to confirm or deny the positive outcomes found with one physician in one geographic area. As stated above, this survey was not intended and doesn’t imply that there are patients who may have done as well or better if treated differently. Also this survey does not include patients who did not respond to opioids or stopped them due to complications.

This survey doesn’t lay claim to any sophisticated epidemiogic methodology or randomization. All this survey intended to do was meet one fundamental goal: “Are there chronic pain patients in the United States who have taken opioids over 10 years and report less pain, better function and have a better quality of life?” This survey satisfies this simple goal.

Conclusion

Patients reported here are functioning quite well after 10 or more years in opioid treatment. The vast majority can care for themselves and even drive. Opioid dosages have generally remained stable for long periods without significant escalation. Given the findings here, there is no obvious reason to discourage opioid use or encourage pain patients to cease opioids.

References

  • 1. Tennant F. A 10-year evaluation of chronic pain patients treated with opioids. Heroin Addict Relat Clin Probl. 2009. 11: 31-34.
  • 2. Portenoy RK, Farrar JT, Bakonjam M, et al. Long term use of controlled-release oxycodone for noncancer pain: results of a 3-year registry study. Clin J Pharm. 2007. 23: 287-299.

Senator Kamala Harris requested to investigate Medical Board Police Corruption in California

Senator Kamala Harris requested to investigate Medical Board Police Corruption in California

www.doctorsofcourage.org/senator-kamala-harris-requested-to-investigate-medical-board-police-corruption-in-california/

To:

Honorable Kamala D. Harris

United States House of Senate

Washington, DC 20510

URGENT MATTER: Widespread Corruption against Doctors

BRIEF INTRODUCTION

The Drug Distributors and Big Pharma are unlawfully guiding the Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Medical Boards (MB), and other Government Taxpaying Agencies (GTA) regulating the Medical Practice Act. The Washington Post and 60 Minutes conducted a joint investigative research and published it in October of 2017, detailing how the Drug Distributors guided top-level officials employed by the DEA and the DOJ.1 The Drug Distributors paid-off 53 of the U.S. top DEA / DOJ Lawyers, Prosecutors, and Chief Executives, from 2000 to 2017, and members of Congress. Evidence shows these top Government employees switched sides and presently employed with the Drug Distributors. When many people think about professional investigative services, the image of a man wearing a long overcoat and sunglasses and conducting a stakeout with a high-powered camera and binoculars comes to mind. The fact is, however, that there are a wide range of investigative services that you may use over the course of your life, to know more refer investigationhotline. The Drug Distributors called for a Nationwide War against American Peoples in Pain and Doctors who treated them.2 Although the Drug Distributors called for this so-called war against doctors and patients; they utilized GTA’s like the DOJ and the DEA to conduct their war by controlling the top employees of these agencies and by controlling and directing the Mainstream Media to provide false narratives and create a false Nationwide crisis of opioid overdose deaths caused by doctors, a fact that has been proven to be false and malicious.3  The Drug Distributors have created and implemented a Coercive Monopoly using the GTA’s to Run Doctors out of Business and clear the way for “RETAIL” clinics to take over the community base clinic market shares, a scheme that violates Antitrust Laws in the United States.4

 

STATE ENFORCEMENT CORRUPTION

The Medical Board is a state regulatory agency and they utilize dully sworn peace officers to investigate doctors and other healthcare providers. The DOJ provide lawyers and prosecutors to team-up with MB law enforcement employees. The state Governor oversees the MB and the state Attorney General directs the DOJ employees. The Governor and the state Attorney General contracts with the Office of Administrative Hearings to hire administrative judges to hear complaints made against doctors and healthcare professionals. The MB / DOJ enforcement team can also access other GTA’s to assist, such as the IRS, DEA, FBI, or Local Police units. The Washington Post joint investigation detailed that the Drug Distributors have control over these agencies that are responsible for regulating doctors by virtue of controlling the top GTA employees and personnel. The doctors and healthcare provider’s rights to due process and fair hearings have been placed in jeopardy by enforcement misconduct, special interest agendas, and serious DOJ misconduct, including murdering of doctors and healthcare providers California:

  • Doctor Anthony Jackson of California gathered several black medical associations and Al Sharpton’s group to sue the MB for discrimination and racism in October of 2016.5 A few days later he suddenly died according to Al Sharpton’s group leaders. This is extremely suspicious and foul play is suspected.
  • Cassandra Hockenson, a CBS investigative reporter working for the MB suddenly died months after Dr. Anthony Jackson. She witnessed the MB publish a false report, the mysterious death of Dr. Jackson, and she was at the venue when Dr. Jackson said the MB was engaged is discrimination against Blacks and people of ethnic color. Her death is extremely suspicious.6
  • An open letter was sent to the MB in December of 2017, requesting for an investigation into Dr. Jackson’s and CBS reporter Cassandra Hockenson deaths and demanding them to stop mocking Dr. Jackson’s Death within their agency.

 

SERIOUS REGULATORY MISCONDUCT

  • A complaint was sent to Governor Jerry Brown, informing him that CVS Health was colluding with the GTA’s to run doctors out of business, with credible evidence to back-up allegations, as the Washington Post provided about the DEA and DOJ. Brown’s office ignored the complaint and CVS Health is a big donor of Brown and a part of his inner circle.
  • The Attorney General of California, Xavier Becerra, is not competent for AG title or position, he was involved with concealing evidence and providing false evidence to Washington State Capitol Police, in the matter of the Awan’s family scandal.7 Becerra’s leadership enables more unlawful misconduct by DOJ employees by allowing misconduct against doctors and patients in the state of California.
  •  The Governor of California and the State Attorney General supports the Sanctuary State initiative executive orders, which violates Federal Laws and hurts American Blacks and people of Ethnic Color like myself. The lack of respect for the laws and the United States Constitution has led to serious misconduct on all levels, (i) Enforcement, (ii) Judicial, and (iii) Constitutional protections for doctors and citizens of this state.

 

COMMON ENFORCEMENT MISCONDUCT  

  • Concealing evidence and exculpatory evidence is extremely common
  • Threatening doctors and witnesses is extremely common
  • Manufacturing evidence against doctors is extremely common
  • Making false statements and committing perjury is extremely common
  • Planting / tampering with chart evidence is extremely common
  • Retaliation, monitoring personal calls, and sending confidential informants to clinics to incriminate doctors unlawfully is extremely common, getting their informants to sue doctors is common, and
  • Colluding with administrative judges to unlawfully remove licenses from doctors in California occurs frequently. Brown appointed Zackery Morazzini, a top AG supervisor to head the Administrative Judges; this is causing a further decline of due process rights for doctors.

 

THIS MATTER IS URGENT

In my personal experience with the MB, DOJ, and the Judiciary, I realized there is extreme misconduct and corruption, evidence tampering, retaliation, harassment, manufacturing evidence, perjury, and judicial misconduct was identified.8 I have also looked at numerous cases against doctors like Dr. Ray Salerian, who was sentenced to 4 months in jail in solitary confinement, he was raped, tortured, his attorney Kevin Byers and consultant Siobhan Reynolds were killed in a mysterious plane crash, and then his Centre contributor Dr. Solange McArthur died suddenly. Dr. Salerian life was also threatened and he moved back to his country in Greece.9 The DEA and FBI oversight for government reform also identified innocent peoples murdered by corrupt government employees and confidential informants, who are mostly being deployed towards clinics. Another successful Beverly Hills Turkish doctor, Guven Uzun, sued CVS Health and the MB for telling his patients he was not licensed, for fraud, perjury, and violation of due process rights. CVS attorneys paid-off the judges according to Dr. Uzun and his 10 Million dollar lawsuit against a MB crooked defense attorney whose wife (Dorothy Kim) worked for the prosecution, without his knowledge, and later she was appointed, as a Superior Court Judge, which is outrageous, and Uzun’s lawsuit was thrown out of court on a technicality. Dr. Uzun has written the DOJ and FBI numerous times concerning all the fraud and misconduct going on in California and they intentionally targeted him because of his ethnic background and success as a prestigious Beverly Hills Neurologist.10

CLOSING WORDS

CVS Health, is one of the major sponsors of the Tom Marino Bill, they have access to GTA’s confidential investigative files and they are using this unlawfully information to run doctors out of business, like we have seen in the case of Dr. Uzun, and thousands of similar cases by telling patients their doctors are under GTA criminal investigations, this is occurring Nationwide and requires urgent attention.11 This matter is urgent because Drug Distributors are corrupting the Medical Practice Act and destroying the Doctor-Patient relationship by virtue of Fraud and illegal competition.12 The Washington Post Joint Investigation provides substantial proof that the Drug Distributors are controlling GTA’s to create a false opioid crisis concerning doctors and chronic pain patients, and they are using this hysteria to provide accountability for calling patients drug addicts and arresting thousands of U.S. trained doctors, calling them drug dealers, a term coined by the “CVS-DEA” partnership that was identified in 2012 and affirmed in court documents that I received from CVS Attorneys.

Thank you Mr. Barbosa for taking the time to review this important update and sharing this information with Senator Kamala Harris.

Kind regards,

Mr. Billy Z. Earley,

Physician Assistant Healthcare Advocate (PAHA),

National Adviser American Pain Institute (API),

National Adviser Black Doctors Matter (BDM),

Advocate World Sickle Cell Federation (WSCF),

Writer/Contributor Doctors of Courage (DOC).

REFERENCE LINKS:

1The Drug Industry Triumph Over The DEA

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/dea-drug-industry-congress/?utm_term=.51ee1d34e993

2Rx for Danger: CVS’ ‘blacklist’ of some doctors sparks outcry, legal action

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/health/os-cvs-blacklisted-doctors-20120114-story.html

3Drug Distributors Behind Massive Fraudulent DEA Arrests Of Doctors In U.S.A., featured presenter: Dr. Michael Schatman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ1lw9BcOPU

4FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SOUGHT TO INVESTIGATE FORTUNE 500 HEALTHCARE CORPORATION FOR ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS

http://doctorsofcourage.org/federal-trade-commission-sought-to-investigate-fortune-500-healthcare-providers-for-antitrust-violations/

5Prominent Black Doctor Ends Up Dead After Accusing The Medical Board Of Discrimination

https://doctorsofcourage.org/prominent-black-doctor-ends-up-dead-after-accusing-the-medical-board-of-discrimination/

6Black doctors accuse state medical board of racial profiling

http://wavenewspapers.com/black-doctors-accuse-state-medical-board-of-racial-profiling/

7EXCLUSIVE: DWS IT Guy Was Banned From House After Trying To Hide Secret Server

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/12/exclusive-dws-it-guy-was-banned-from-house-after-trying-to-hide-secret-server/

8California Medical Board Accused of Illegally Targeting Black Doctors

http://greaterdiversity.com/california-medical-board-accused-of-illegally-targeting-black-doctors/

9DEA vs Alen J. Salerian, MD

http://doctorsofcourage.org/alen-j-salerian-md/

10Beverly Hills Doctor Accuse Medical Board Of Ethnic Cleansing

https://patch.com/california/orange-county/beverly-hills-doctor-accuse-medical-board-ethnic-cleansing

11Indianapolis doctor wins defamation judgment against CVS

https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/42428-indianapolis-doctor-wins-defamation-judgment-against-cvs

12Governor Jerry Brown Ties To CVS Pharmacy Under Grand Jury Investigation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjmxb8Yng4Q