Blaming Prescription Pain Pills For The Opioid Epidemic Is Fake News

Blaming Prescription Pain Pills For The Opioid Epidemic Is Fake News

How negligent media have helped inflate a deadly moral panic over prescription opioids and ignored the real sources of addiction, while hurting people who live with devastating chronic pain.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/26/blaming-prescription-pain-pills-opioid-epidemic-fake-news/

Angela Kennecke is a popular reporter for a television news station in my hometown of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Each weeknight, Kennecke is at the anchor desk for KELO, a CBS affiliate, and has been there as long as I can remember. For many people in the “Sioux Empire,” Kennecke’s work on television is a normal part of the day, and they can count on her to tell them how it is.

But Kennecke’s objectivity was shaken in May 2018, when her 21-year-old daughter, Emily, was found dead after overdosing on heroin that had been laced with the opioid fentanyl. This tragedy, which made national news, deeply affected Kennecke and the Sioux Falls community. Now, almost a year since Emily’s death, Kennecke has become South Dakota’s leading reporter on the opioid crisis.

In 2017, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) counted 47,600 opioid-related deaths, three-quarters of which involved heroin or “synthetic opioids other than methadone,” a category that consists mainly of fentanyl or its analogs. In 2011, 2,666 deaths involved drugs in that category; by 2017 the number had increased to 28,466, or 60 percent of opioid-related deaths.

Fentanyl in the medical setting is the narcotic drug most commonly administered during surgery. Outside the surgical room, it is primarily prescribed by doctors in the hospital to palliative care patients due to its high potency, which is 50 to 100 times greater than that of morphine. Unfortunately, fentanyl is also dirt cheap for black-market drug dealers to import from China and Mexico. In recent years, traffickers have increasingly turned to fentanyl as a heroin booster and substitute.

The Rise of Black Market Fentanyl

Although opioid-related deaths are driven mainly by heroin and black-market fentanyl, you would not know that from most of the press coverage, which emphasizes pain medication prescribed to patients who become addicted, overdose, and die. This narrative is “fake news.”

Just 30 percent of opioid-related deaths in 2017 involved commonly prescribed pain pills, and most of those cases also involved other drugs. People who die after taking these drugs typically did not become addicted in the course of medical treatment. They tend to be polydrug users with histories of substance abuse and psychological problems.

Contrary to what you may have read or see on TV, addiction is rare among people who take opioids for pain. In a 2018 study of about 569,000 patients who received opioids after surgery, for example, just 1 percent of their medical records included diagnostic codes related to “opioid misuse.” According to federal survey data, “pain reliever use disorder” occurs in 2 percent of Americans who take prescription opioids each year, including non-medical users as well as bona fide patients.

“The current battle against fentanyl as a street drug has little or nothing to do with American medical practice,” writes Harvard-trained anesthesiologist Richard Novak. “Most of the fentanyl found on the streets is not diverted from hospitals, but rather is sourced from China and Mexico.”

Yet, politicians, law enforcement agencies, anti-drug ad campaigns, movies, and TV shows still put pain treatment at the center of the “opioid crisis.” Kennecke’s reporting has helped perpetuate this false narrative. In a 50-minute news special that aired last December, for instance, representatives of the two largest South Dakotan hospitals brag about cutting opioid prescriptions by a whopping 38 percent. Kennecke asks no questions and shows no skepticism.

While fentanyl is mentioned as a cause of the crisis, prescription analgesics gets much of the blame. A viewer only needs to see the opening image of a black background covered in a waterfall of pills to understand the correlation being made. In her news reports and work for her opioid-addiction charity, Emily’s Hope, Kennecke frequently refers to prescription opioids while talking about deaths caused mostly by fentanyl and heroin.

To be fair, her reporting and charity work are done with good intent, and Kennecke is far from alone in reporting this narrative. You can almost count on two hands the number of journalists in the country reporting on this issue responsibly. But this kind of thing—where someone pushes a specific narrative for a cause without regard to the full context and facts of a story—isn’t journalism, it’s activism.

No one can blame Kennecke, Eric Bolling (a national conservative personality whose son died from a fentanyl overdose in 2017), or any other journalist whose life is affected by a fentanyl death for getting emotional. It is understandable that they feel as strongly as they do. But reporting one-sided and biased information is unethical because their reporting is influential.

For example, Bolling reportedly has President Trump’s ear and helped influence an anti-opioid bill package that Congress passed last year. Activism like this comes with a heavy price.

Cracking Down in the Wrong Areas

Thirty-three states have now created laws that severely restrict opioid prescriptions in response to the hysteria. Most of these laws put hard day limits on prescribers. In Florida, for example, they impose a three-day limit on any prescription opioid for acute pain. The combination of these laws, plus overactive Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, has made pain specialists scarce in states such as Montana and Tennessee.

Due to the media hysteria which in turn inspires political hysteria, it is now harder than ever to get an opioid prescription for those in chronic pain, even though there is currently no equivalent medical treatment to replace the prescription opioids used by 18 million Americans for long-term pain. In 2017, a New England Journal of Medicine study found, the number of doctors who prescribed opioids at all fell by 29 percent. That same journal in a more recent study found a decline of 54 percent in prescription opioids by doctors for first-time-opioid patients between 2012 and 2017.

A nationwide survey of almost 4,000 pain patients by Dr. Terri Lewis found that 56 percent reported either disruption in pain treatment or outright abandonment by their once trusted doctors.

So awful is the reaction against chronic pain patients that 300 drug policy, addiction, and pain treatment experts, including three former White House drug czars, recently urged the CDC to clarify its 2016 opioid prescription guidelines, which have been widely interpreted as imposing arbitrary limits on average daily doses. Last November, the American Medical Association approved a resolution noting that guidelines had been read “by pharmacists, health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, legislatures, and governmental and private regulatory bodies in ways that prevent or limit access to opioid analgesia.”

While the news media aren’t to blame for the backlash against doctors and their chronic pain patients, they are guilty of sustaining the moral panic underlying it—a panic that is causing many needless deaths. Just go to any chronic pain patient forum, social media group, or even the federal government’s regulatory website to read the thousands of stories of quality-of-life reductions and suicide plans.

Kelly Goricki, a mother of four, offered this account on Chronic Pain Reddit:

It pisses me off when I get treated like a drug-seeking junkie by doctors who can CLEARLY see my well-documented injuries in my medical files. It pisses me off when my doctor, who doesn’t have chronic pain and has watched my injuries worsen dramatically over the last decade+ tells me I/my injuries ‘shouldn’t hurt that bad/aren’t that bad,’ as she watches my physical decline and takes away pain meds that allowed me to care for myself, my home, and my family, just so she ‘doesn’t have to deal with the paperwork.’ It pisses me off I’m treated like a junkie bad mother because someone finds out I take pain medication. It pisses me off that people assume the same meds I have been prescribed for (years) ….. make me high, or that I abuse them to get high.

An anonymous commentator had this to say on the government website regulations.gov:

I have fibromyalgia, arthritis, depression and diabetes. About 2 years ago my physician decided to take all of (his) patients off of pain meds. … The pain level is very extreme and it is 24/7 chronic pain. I can not function with this pain at a level that I could full time. I live by myself and can no longer support myself. I feel that eventually suicide may be my only option. I never abused my meds and I was able to function.

All this misery for this patient, Goricki, and an untold number of other patients is happening because the media and the CDC have made their physicians’ jobs impossible.

Desperation for Chronic Pain Patients?

Many of these patients used their prescriptions responsibly for decades, but they are now being pushed into trying dangerous surgical interventions or desperately buying drugs off the street. Reporters like Kennecke are helping to push chronic pain patients past their breaking point. It’s a pointless sacrifice, since opioid-related deaths have continued to rise even as prescriptions of pain medication have fallen dramatically.

As someone who is disabled and suffering from intractable pain, I know this problem keenly. For more than a year, I have lived without a prescription of low-dose oxycodone I responsibly used for almost nine years.

While not a perfect treatment for my pain, oxycodone did allow me enough function to survive. While on it, I attended college, served a mission, obtained my bachelor’s and master’s degrees, and ran for school board twice. All that was taken away from me a year ago by a doctor who didn’t want to deal with the hassle that now comes with opioid prescriptions.

Reporters like Kennecke are doing what they think is right. The deaths caused by fentanyl are real and atrocious. But what she and too many of our leaders are doing by associating prescription opioids with fentanyl deaths is unethical and inaccurate. And the deaths of innocent pain patients will be the price of it. Journalists must ask themselves: Does our misreporting have a cost?

Peter Vaughn Pischke is a journalist and podcast host for TheSiouxEmpire.com. He can usually be found manning the Happy Warrior Podcast: providing commentary on conservative and nerd-culture news and ideas. You can find him on Twitter: @happywarriorp.

CVS asked us to fill out a “safety” survey

CVS asked us to fill out a “safety” survey and how well our teams adhered to policies and procedures for safe practices… Then they left a comment space at the end, which I dutifully filled in.

This is a CVS pharmacist’s response to the corporation’s how Rx dept staff are:

how well our teams adhered to policies and procedures for safe practices

This is just one of their pharmacist’s opinion but from what I have heard others share to a major degree the same feelings and you as a pt… are you putting your health/safety at risk by having your prescriptions filled there ?

Here is a link to help you find a independent pharmacy – by zip code – where you will be dealing with the pharmacist/owner

http://www.ncpanet.org/home/find-your-local-pharmacy

Bayer, J&J settle thousands of US Xarelto lawsuits for $775 million

Bayer, J&J settle thousands of US Xarelto lawsuits for $775 million

https://www.mdlinx.com/pharmacy/top-medical-news/article/2019/03/26/7561883/

Bayer AG and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to settle more than 25,000 US lawsuits alleging that their blockbuster blood thinner Xarelto (rivaroxaban) caused unstoppable and in some cases fatal bleeding for a total of $775 million, court documents on Monday showed.

The amount will be shared equally between the two companies that jointly developed the drug. Bayer and J&J do not admit liability under the agreement.

The settlement will resolve all pending US lawsuits over rivaroxaban, which plaintiffs claimed caused uncontrollable and irreversible bleeding leading to severe injuries and even death among thousands of patients. Plaintiffs accused the drugmakers of having failed to warn about the bleeding risks, claiming their injuries could have been prevented had doctors and patients been provided adequate information.

Bayer in a statement on Monday said it continues to believe the claims are without merit. “However, this favorable settlement allows the company to avoid the distraction and significant cost of continued litigation,” the company said. Lawsuits over rivaroxaban began piling up in 2014, and the companies had so far won all six trials over rivaroxaban’s alleged bleeding risk.

J&J in a statement said it continued to believe in the safety of rivaroxaban but that the settlement was the right thing to do for patients and their doctors.

Rivaroxaban is Bayer’s best-selling drug. It contributed 3.6 billion euros ($4.07 billion) in revenue to the German group’s pharmaceutical business last year. Bayer said its share of the settlement amount will be partially offset by product liability insurance.

Bayer jointly developed rivaroxaban with J&J’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit, which sells the blood clot preventer under a licensing agreement in the United States. J&J reported 2018 rivaroxaban sales of $2.47 billion.

The US Food and Drug Administration approved rivaroxaban in 2011. It is prescribed for people with atrial fibrillation, and to treat and reduce the risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The companies in the past have said rivaroxaban’s warning label provides “complete, accurate, and science-based information on the medicine’s benefits and risks.”

The majority of the claims were consolidated in New Orleans federal court, where three cases were selected as so-called bellwether trials, aimed to help determine the range of damages and define settlement options. The companies won those three trials throughout 2017. J&J and Bayer were also cleared of liability in three other state court trials in 2018.

Rivaroxaban is among a class of oral blood thinners, including Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer’s Eliquis (apixaban), that are alternatives to decades-old warfarin. Most of the lawsuits over apixaban have been dismissed by US judges.

A similar drug, Boehringer Ingelheim’s Pradaxa (dabigatran), also became the subject of thousands of lawsuits claiming the company understated its bleeding risk. Boehringer in 2014 reached a $650 million settlement to resolve more than 4,000 of those cases.

Why did these companies agree to make these settlements ??.. because in MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION – they are dangerous…  A number of years ago, Barb had A-Fib and her then cardiologist wanted to discharge her from the hospital on one of these “new oral anticoagulants” that – at the time – had no way to reverse of a pt started bleeding… I reluctant to allow her to be discharged on the one that could at least be reversed with dialysis  – on top of that  – the particular med he wanted her on has a LEVEL ONE DRUG INTERACTION with one or more of her other meds – LEVEL ONE is DO NOT GO THERE.

Once I got her into the PCP… I got her switched to Warfarin… our PCP really kinda of defended using these new meds but he caved to my persistence. Thru a medical procedure, Barb was able to get her A-Fib correct and no longer on Warfarin…

A few years later, I showed up with some clots and had to go on a blood thinner and our PCP – either remembered me be “hard-headed” about using Warfarin  – or he had seen the problems with these new blood thinners and never discussed me being on anything but Warfarin.  A Warfarin bleed can be quickly reversed with Vit K and while there is a new reversal agent for these blood thinners… the studies I have seen suggests that it works so slow that 17% of the pt will still BLEED OUT !

I can do home testing with a meter http://www.coaguchek.com/coaguchek_patient/landing and with Medicare and a Supplement… the cost is paid 100% and it takes maybe a total of 5 minutes to do the test

 

 

Just how important are the CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURES to the feds ?

For those who are skeptical about how important the $$$ collected by the FEDS using CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE ACT…  here is a list from SEVEN DIFFERENT FEDERAL AGENCIES and the lists of property that was seized/confiscated by the FEDS

https://www.forfeiture.gov/

https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/ATF/OfficialNotification.pdf
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/DEA/OfficialNotification.pdf
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/FBI/OfficialNotification.pdf
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/USAO/OfficialNotification.pdf
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/CBP/OfficialNotification.pdf
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/USPS/OfficialNotification.pdf
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/USSS/OfficialNotification.pdf

 

Does it remind you of the WILD WILD WEST ?

 

Purdue Pharma, state of Oklahoma reach settlement in landmark opioid lawsuit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/purdue-pharma-state-of-oklahoma-reach-settlement-in-landmark-opioid-lawsuit/2019/03/26/69aa5cda-4f11-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html

Purdue Pharma and the state of Oklahoma have agreed to settle a lawsuit over the drugmaker’s role in the deadly opioid crisis, a milestone in the legal effort to force pharmaceutical companies to pay some of the costs of the epidemic, people familiar with the matter said.

The deal, which is scheduled to be announced at a news conference Tuesday, will require Purdue and the family that owns the company to pay approximately $270 million. Most of the money will fund a new center for research, education and treatment of addiction and pain at Oklahoma State University in Tulsa.

Oklahoma is free to continue its lawsuit against two other defendants and their subsidiaries — Johnson & Johnson, the 37th-largest company in the United States, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, an Israel-based manufacturer that focuses mainly on generic drugs. The two companies, which have asked to be tried separately from Purdue, are slated to go to trial on May 28.

Lawyers in the case and a spokesman for Purdue declined to comment ahead of the planned announcement Tuesday.

Oklahoma contends that Purdue, Johnson & Johnson and Teva bear some responsibility for thousands of opioid deaths across the state, in addition to the health care, law enforcement and treatment costs of the state’s addiction crisis. Purdue and others face similar claims in several other courts, and the first major settlement in the flood of lawsuits could help set the bar for compensation sought by hundreds of states, cities, counties and Native American tribes for the costs incurred in responding to the epidemic.

About 1,600 of those cases are consolidated in one enormous case — known as multidistrict litigation — before a federal judge in Cleveland. That action targets companies that manufactured, distributed and dispensed narcotic painkillers across the country, and those cities, towns and tribes are seeking damages in what some believe is the most complex litigation in U.S. history.

Thirty-six states have chosen to bring separate lawsuits in their own court systems, believing they have better chances there.

Purdue’s recent acknowledgment that it is considering bankruptcy as an option could influence strategy in those lawsuits; Oklahoma’s settlement ensures it will receive at least some compensation for its claims.

Under the terms of the settlement, Purdue will contribute $102.5 million to establish the new addiction center. Members of the Sackler family, who own the company but were not defendants in the case, will pay another $75 million in personal funds over five years, people familiar with the agreement said. Purdue also will provide $20 million worth of treatment drugs, will pay $12 million to cities and towns, and will cover about $60 million in pay to private attorneys from two law firms that have represented Oklahoma in the case.

The addiction center would be housed at Oklahoma State University’s Center for Wellness and Recovery and would be overseen by an independent board.

Nearly 400,000 people in the United States died of opioid overdoses between 1999 and 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including a record 47,600 in 2017. Purdue is widely blamed for helping to start the epidemic after it introduced the powerful opioid OxyContin to the market in 1996. The company allegedly persuaded doctors to prescribe — and overprescribe — the drug for a wide variety of ailments. In 2007, Purdue and three of its executives pleaded guilty to misconduct in their marketing of OxyContin and paid more $600 million in fines.

Authorities have argued that Purdue used deceptive marketing tactics and a sizable workforce of representatives to repeatedly visit physicians to sell them narcotics, assuring them that the drugs were rarely addictive. Many patients became addicted to the potent painkillers, and large amounts of the drug were diverted to the black market.

More than 2 million Americans now suffer from an opioid use disorder, according to government data. The epidemic has evolved to encompass illicit use of fentanyl, a synthetic ultrapowerful opioid that has caused a spike in overdoses and fatalities.

Three years ago, the CDC estimated the cost of the opioid epidemic at $78.5 billion for calendar year 2013. In 2017, the White House Council of Economic Advisers placed the price tag much higher, at $504 billion for 2015.

A consultant’s report that Oklahoma filed in court estimated that abating the opioid crisis in that state would cost more than $8.7 billion during the next 20 years.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter sued the three drug companies in June 2017, and the two sides have been taking depositions and jousting over pretrial issues for nearly two years. As other cases lagged, Oklahoma judge Thad H. Balkman set a May 28 trial date, agreed to televise the proceedings live and refused drug company requests to postpone the trial. That ensured that the Oklahoma case would be the first major test of whether the companies would be forced to pay for the crisis.

According to a lawsuit filed by the state of Massachusetts, Sackler family members received nearly $4.3 billion in payouts from Purdue between 2008 and 2016. But the family-owned company has suffered heavy blows to its image in recent months as litigation has advanced. Three museums in Britain and the United States have turned down donations from the Sacklers, longtime patrons of the arts, in recent days.

And documents released in the Massachusetts lawsuit, brought by state Attorney General Maura Healey, depicted some of the Sacklers as insatiably greedy and uncaring about the human toll of their product.

“Millions of dollars were not enough. They wanted billions,” the lawsuit charges. “They cared more about money than about patients, or their employees, or the truth.”

Another Vet left being tortured by the VA & the govt that promised to take care of him

Image may contain: one or more people, people sitting, living room and indoor

It’s OFFICIAL the VA has now fully tapered my dad. His last RX is coming and that’s the end. Their intentions were all along to kill my father, even after the family begging them not to take away his pain medication. It was the VA who put my father on the pain program now they are taking away their promise to treat him.
I hold the VA and the #opioidhysteria responsible for the extreme suffering my father is going through. I will be outside the VA center everyday in protest and will shame this facility for the entire Pensacola area to see!!!!!

Another Vet left being tortured by the VA & the govt that promised to take care of him.
Please speak up and share this post, this has to end. I’m sure this woman would appreciate some help in protesting outside the VA in Pensacola as well, if anyone is in the area, contact her or stop by & show some support for those being harmed by #opioidhysteria and the false narrative being perpetuated by Andrew Kolodny, his cohorts at PROP, their PR team and the CDC & DEA who is their own personal terrorist army.
Please join the special class action lawsuit against the govt and help stop the torture! Visit www.sickofsuffering.com for more info!

 

A Federal Court Says Your Prescription Records Aren’t Really Private. The Supreme Court Might Have Something to Say About That.

A Federal Court Says Your Prescription Records Aren’t Really Private. The Supreme Court Might Have Something to Say About That.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/location-tracking/federal-court-says-your-prescription-records-arent-really

When you fill a prescription at your local drug store, you would surely bristle at someone behind you peeking over your shoulder — but in a decision issued last week, a federal court in Utah said that you have no Fourth Amendment right to object when the peeker is the United States government.

You read that correctly: In a case challenging the Drug Enforcement Administration’s warrantless access to patient prescription records stored in a secure state database, the court relied in part on an outdated legal doctrine to rule that a “patient in Utah decides to trust a prescribing physician with health information to facilitate a diagnosis,” and thereby “takes the risk . . . that his or her information will be conveyed to the government.”

That’s hard to swallow — and it helps make very clear the huge stakes of our upcoming Supreme Court argument in United States v. Carpenter, which concerns the role of the so-called “third-party doctrine” in opening up all kinds of sensitive records to warrantless searches by police.

The 1970s-era doctrine says that Fourth Amendment protections afforded to certain kinds of information disappear once people voluntarily provide that information to a third party. The doctrine emerged from a pair of Supreme Court cases, one of which — Smith v. Maryland — involved a robbery suspect who argued that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated when police recorded the numbers he dialed from his home phone without obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that because his phone calls passed through the phone company, he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed, and therefore they weren’t protected by the Constitution.

This case (and its close cousin, United States v. Miller, which held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in certain banking records held by a bank) is still on the books, and the government has leveraged it to acquire powers that were unimaginable four decades ago. Today, police can track not only the phone numbers dialed by a single suspect over a short period, but also collect reams of information about people — whether their sensitive prescription records or data about their every movement over months at a time — without ever asking a judge for a warrant based on probable cause.

That brings us back to Utah. In 1995, the state passed a law establishing a database for prescriptions of certain medications, including those that treat chronic and acute pain, anxiety disorders, gender transitions, and many more medical conditions or procedures. As of last year, the database housed more than 70 million prescription records and was growing by more than 5 million per year. To address the obvious privacy risks in maintaining this kind of database, and in response to a scandal in which a Utah detective downloaded the entire prescription histories of nearly 500 firefighters, in 2015 the Utah legislature amended its law to require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before retrieving this private medical information.

But even though the amendment made clear that sensitive prescription records should be protected by the safeguards of the warrant requirement — including a probable cause finding of criminal activity, an independent assessment by a judge, and a narrow and particular purpose — the federal government simply didn’t care. In June 2015, the DEA issued a subpoena that was never approved by a judge demanding reams of prescription records from Utah’s state database. When Utah said “get a warrant,” the agency went to court to force the state to turn them over.Last year, the ACLU and the ACLU of Utah intervened in the case on behalf of Equality Utah, an LGBTQ advocacy organization concerned about the privacy of transgender individuals who are prescribed hormones and other medications, and IAFF Local 1696, the union representing Unified Fire Authority firefighters and paramedics who have experienced concrete violations of their prescription privacy in recent years. (We also represent two individual Utahns and the patients and physicians among the ACLU of Utah’s members.)

The ACLU, on behalf of our clients — along with Utah, on behalf of all its residents — argued that the Fourth Amendment required a warrant because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their prescription records.

But the court disagreed, deciding that “[p]hysicians and patients do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the highly regulated prescription drug industry,” because a patient who gives a doctor private health information takes the risk that her prescribed treatment will be regulated by state law. In other words, because a person gives sensitive information to a third party (here, a doctor and pharmacist!), that person loses an expectation of privacy in that information — the so-called “third-party doctrine.”

While we’ve lost this round in Utah, there’s another on the horizon that may require the court in Utah to reconsider its conclusions. This fall, we’ll be arguing before the Supreme Court in Carpenter that the mere fact that an individual’s private and sensitive records reside with some third party does not, on its own, eliminate the individual’s constitutional right to privacy in those records. In that case, police collected months’ worth of cell phone location information about our client, all without a warrant.

Given how integral cell phones have become to daily life, and the amount of sensitive information they generate about us, it’s simply untenable to argue that the mere act of carrying a cell phone eliminates your Fourth Amendment right against warrantless government access to your most private information. The Carpenter case provides a historic opportunity to ensure that the protections of the Constitution don’t become obsolete in the face of advancing technology. But it’s about more than the privacy of our cell phone location records. It could also provide an opening to give our prescription data and other sensitive records the privacy they deserve. It’s about time.

 

Opioid bill ignores real problem, creates host of new ones, critics argue

https://www.watchdog.org/minnesota/opioid-bill-ignores-real-problem-creates-host-of-new-ones/article_6f73481c-4c18-11e9-bc8c-9b551bb84e55.html

A Minnesota bill seeking to establish an Opioid Stewardship Fund doesn’t address the root cause of the opioid crisis – the illegal sale of narcotics – and will only increase costs to taxpayers, insurance companies and their customers, critics argue. And while well-intentioned, it potentially could drive pharmaceutical companies out of the state, they say.

The bill, HF 400, passed the state House by a vote of 94-34 and awaits action in the Senate. If passed into law, it would create an opioid stewardship fund, an opiate product registration fee, and modify provisions related to opioid addiction prevention, education, intervention, treatment and recovery.

Rep. Tony Albright, Assistant Minority Leader, who voted against the bill, has proposed several alternatives over the years, including better access to treatment and prevention resources.

The fund’s revenue would come from fees on manufacturers and wholesalers of opioid medication. Board members of the Opioid Stewardship Fund would determine fees based on its $20 million annual budget.

But imposing arbitrary fees on pharmaceutical distributors will only increase costs for everyone and do nothing to address the opioid crisis, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, argues.

HF 400 “could even make the opioid crisis worse,” Norquist says. “The legislation would impose a harmful new tax that would hurt patients in need of medicine by driving up costs directly and causing supply problems that would further hike costs and create access issues.”

Action 4 Liberty, an advocacy group that opposes the bill, argues “government should not get involved in the decision-making of prescribing pain medication from medical professionals.”

The bill dictates how much opioid pain medication a doctor can prescribe to patients who’ve had surgery or undergone a major trauma. It states, “when used for the treatment of acute pain associated with a major trauma or surgical procedure, initial prescriptions for opiate or narcotic pain relievers listed in Schedules II through IV of section 152.02 shall not exceed a seven-day supply.”

The bill also adds mandated acupuncture coverage to Minnesota health insurance plans: “health plans must cover acupuncture services for the treatment of pain and ongoing pain management.”

The new regulations are misplaced and overly burdensome, the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), argues.

“Because the opioid crisis is primarily driven by illegal narcotics like fentanyl and heroin, it would be prudent for legislators to focus their efforts on preventing those drugs from being trafficked, instead of placing further regulations and taxes on the legal pharmaceuticals that Americans use every day,” Elizabeth Wright, CAGW’s director of health policy, said.

According to a study published this month by economics professors at Union University in New York, any costs to comply will be passed on to taxpayers. When evaluating a similar opioid tax proposed in New York, the researchers found that “the proposed tax will encourage residents suffering from opioid dependence to switch to cheaper illegal opioids, including heroin and fentanyl, with increased rates of accidental overdose.”

The opioid tax would drive up prices for consumers and insurers, the researchers found, and not actually address the drug-addiction crisis.

None of these initiatives address the root of the opioid problem, critics argue.

Approximately 26,000 people died nationwide from fentanyl sold on the black market originating from China and Mexican cartels in 2017, according to a Bloomberg News report. According to Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, the sale of illicit fentanyl poses the greatest risk in the opioid crisis.

Critics point out that because the tax demands an arbitrary amount of fees, once one fee-paying pharmaceutical company leaves the state, the rest will end up paying more, and then also might consider leaving. Suppliers would then leave the state, opponents of the bill fear, creating another crisis altogether – less access to medication.

“Taxpayers should make their voices heard and demand that policies related to the opioid epidemic are focused on the cause of the crisis, not on a political scapegoat,” Wright added.

Dr Mark Ibsen : unhappy about how a cancer survivor veteran loosing his pain meds

Under treatment of pain – ELDER ABUSE – plaintiff awarded 1.5 million by jury

http://www.mywhatever.com/cifwriter/library/eperc/fastfact/ff63.html

Title: Fast Fact and Concept #63: The legal liability of undertreatment of pain

Author(s): Warm, Eric; Weissman, David E

It is well recognized that physician’s fear of fear of regulatory scrutiny (DEA, state medical boards), is a major contributor to the problem of under treatment of pain. A recent landmark lawsuit should be a wake-up call for all physicians that this type of practice poses its own legal liability. An 85-year-old California man with metastatic lung carcinoma spent the final week of his life in severe pain. Three years after his death his children sued his doctor alleging that the physician had failed to prescribe drugs powerful enough to relieve their father’s suffering. This was one of the first U.S. cases in which a doctor has gone on trial for allegedly under-treating a patient’s pain. By a 9 to 3 vote the jury decided that the physician’s lack of attention to pain constituted elder abuse, awarding the family $1.5 million (the amount was reduced to $250,000). To win, lawyers convinced the jury that under-treatment of pain was “reckless negligence”. Until recently, lawyers would have considered such a suit un-winnable. Given politically savvy aging baby boomers, as well as the preponderance of sound scientific evidence for the proper assessment and treatment of pain, we can probably expect more such verdicts. Here are some tips for how physicians can better protect themselves from charges of under-treatment of pain?

  • Review your own practice–are you currently meeting JCAHO standards? Find out at: http://www.jcaho.org and AHQR (a.k.a. AHCPR) http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/cpgarchv.htm pain guidelines?
  • Improve your knowledge and skills in pain assessment and treatment. (Some states, such as California, now require mandatory pain CME).
  • Learn about and utilize your local consultation resources for pain management.
  • Improve your knowledge and skills in assessing substance abuse disorders; learn about and utilize your local resources for substance abuse referrals and treatment.
  • Improve your understanding of the drug regulatory system and how it functions- learn about the common triggers for regulatory review . Go to: http://www.medsch.wisc.edu/painpolicy/ for information about federal and state regulatory laws and regulations.
  • Become active in your hospital pain improvement efforts-check with your hospital QI department and their efforts to meet the new JCAHO pain guidelines.
  • Become active with your state Cancer Pain Initiative; go to http://www.aacpi.org/ to find information about your state activities.

Ideally physicians should not use the fear of lawsuits to help guide medical care, but evidence shows that they do. In a way, this attention on improved pain management may become a silver lining in the black cloud of our litigious society.

References

Stieg RL, et al: Roadblocks to effective pain treatment. Med Clin N Amer, 1999;83(3): 809-821.

Okie, S. Doctor’s Duty to Ease Pain At Issue in Calif. Lawsuit. Washington Post.May 7, 2001; Page A03

Crane M, Treating pain: damned if you don’t? Med Economics, Nov 19, 2001, pp 67-69.

Weissman DE, Doctors, Opioids and the law: The Effect of Drug Regulations on Cancer Pain Management. Semin Oncol 20(Suppl A): 53-58, 1993.

Gilson AM, Joranson DE. Controlled substances and pain management: Changes in knowledge and attitudes of state medical regulators. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 2001;21(3):227-237.

Joranson DE, Maurer MA, Gilson AM, Ryan KM, Nischik JA. Annual review of state pain policies, 2000. Pain & Policy Studies Group, University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center. Madison, Wisconsin; February 2001.

Jacox A, Carr DB, Payne R, et al. Management of Cancer Pain. Clinical Practice Guideline No. 9 AHCPR Publication No. 94-0592, Rockville, MD. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1994.

Acute Pain Management Guideline Panel. Acute pain management: Operative or Medical Procedures and Trauma Clinical Practice Guideline. AHCPR Publication No. 92-0032. Rockville, MD. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1992.

Copyright and Referencing Information: Users are free to download and distribute Fast Facts for educational purposes only. Citation for referencing. Fast Facts and Concepts #63 The legal liability of undertreatment of pain. Warm E and Weissman DE. March, 2002. End-of-Life Physician Education Resource Center www.eperc.mcw.edu.

Fast Facts and Concepts was originally developed as an end-of-life teaching tool by Eric Warm, MD, U. Cincinnati, Department of Medicine. See: Warm, E. Improving EOL care–internal medicine curriculum project. J Pall Med 1999; 2: 339-340.

Disclaimer: Fast Facts provide educational information, this information is not medical advice. Health care providers should exercise their own independent clinical judgment. Some Fast Fact information cites the use of a product in dosage, for an indication, or in a manner other than that recommended in the product labeling. Accordingly, the official prescribing information should be consulted before any such product is used.

Creation Date: 3/2002

Format: Handouts

Purpose: Instructional Aid, Self-Study Guide, Teaching

Audience(s)

Training: Fellows, 1st/2nd Year Medical Students, 3rd/4th Year Medical Students, PGY1 (Interns), PGY2-6, Physicians in Practice
Specialty: Anesthesiology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, General Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, Hematology/Oncology, Neurology, OB/GYN, Ophthalmology, Pulmonary/Critical Care, Pediatrics, Psychiatry, Surgery
Non-Physician: Nurses

ACGME Competencies: Medical Knowledge

Keyword(s): Addiction, Chronic non-malignant pain, Controlled substance regulations, Pain, Pain assessment, Pain treatment