Linder v. United States

Linder v. United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linder_v._United_States

Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1925),[1] is a Supreme Court case involving the applicability of the Harrison Act. The Harrison Act was originally a taxing measure on drugs such as morphine and cocaine, but it later effectively became a prohibition on such drugs. However, the Act had a provision exempting doctors prescribing the drugs. Dr. Charles O. Linder prescribed the drugs to addicts in Moore, Oklahoma, which the federal government said was not a legitimate medical practice. He was prosecuted and convicted. Linder appealed, and the Supreme Court unanimously overturned his conviction, holding that the federal government overstepped its power to regulate medicine. The opinion of the court was written by Justice James Clark McReynolds and states, “Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.”

Ohio Drug Overdose Data Good News for Chronic Pain Patients

www.cergm.carter-brothers.com/2019/03/14/ohio-drug-overdose-data-good-news-for-chronic-pain-patients/

I’ve monitored Ohio’s efforts to collect drug overdose data since 2015 and until now, it’s been discouraging, showing overall rising rates between 2000 and 2017. But new data shows an encouraging trend in the fight against illegal drug use, more importantly the data blows holes in claims that chronic pain treated with opiates is a leading cause of drug overdose deaths.

Prescription Opiate Data

First, the overall death rate from prescription opiates shows a solid trend of decreases since 2011. Clearly Ohio’s efforts at collecting specific data points on prescribed opiates is now having a payoff.

 

Ohio Unintentional Prescription Overdose Deaths 2011-2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, the number of written scripts from physicians is down dramatically. It’s likely this data point hides a more ominous statistic, that of the number of patients who have legitimate medical conditions which qualify them for treatment with opiates, but have been denied treatment due to the backlash of sentiment around treating chronic pain with opiates combined with fear physicians have from state medical board regulations.

Ohio-Number-of-Prescription-Written-2011-2017
Ohio Number of Prescription Written 2011 2017

 

Third, Ohio’s prescription drug monitoring program identifies people  attempting to fill scripts from multiple doctors. While overall this is also good news, it too may hide an ominous data point which remains unknown, that of patients with legitimate medical problems who are under prescribed due to the backlash of sentiment spurred on by the CDC’s out of context guidelines for treating chronic pain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ohio Number of Doctor Shoppers 2011-2017
Illegal Opiate Data

Forth, the percentage of overdose deaths from Fentanyl as compared to other opiates has seen a dramatic increase since 2003 while deaths from other sources continues to decline. This is now signalling that more effort and funding are needed for law enforcement in thwarting this scourge of drug abuse.

 

 

 

 

 

Ohio Fentanyl Related Drug Deaths 2013-2017
Ohio Fentanyl Related Drug Deaths 2013-2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fifth, when comparing trends on selected opiates, clearly prescription opiate overdose deaths are declining. Heroin deaths have had mixed but improved outcomes, benzodiazepeines deaths are down while deaths from cocaine and methamphetamines have risen since 2010.

Ohio Percentage of Unintentional Overdose Deaths by Drug 2010-2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overdose deaths by age group remain relatively unchanged. While many argue that those aged 60 and older have a higher risk, the data doesn’t support such conclusions.

Ohio Fentanyl and Related Drug Unintentional Overdose Deaths by Age and Sex 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sixth, when comparing Fentanyl overdose deaths to drug seizures by law enforcement, the news is encouraging but a clear trend is still lacking. We know that Fentanyl and Carfentanyl overdose deaths have increased since 2011, but this data would suggest more funding and effort is needed with law enforcement to fight this crisis.

Ohio Fentanyl Drug Deaths Compared to Drug Siezures 2015-2017

 

Seventh, the data points on this graph have been updated from previous graphs to now separate prescription opiates from illegal opiates. We know that most death certificate data does not make a differentiation between prescription opiates vs illegal opiates. So agencies in Ohio have started collecting data from other sources as documented in this post.

The rise in illicit Fentanyl deaths since 2013 is alarming, demonstrating how some people who had access to prescription opiates turned to illegal sources. This too may hide a ominous trend which is not investigated and reported. Patients who have been denied treatment due to the general sentiment towards opiates and fewer prescribers writing scripts for otherwise legitimate medical conditions.

 

 

 

Ohio Unintentional Overdose Deaths Using Selected Drugs 2000-2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In large part due to the rising rate of illicit Fentanyl overdose deaths, the number of overdose deaths per 100,000 population remains at an all time high. Still for those who claim that treatment of chronic pain with opiates is a leading cause of overdose deaths, the data from Ohio no longer supports this claim.

Ohio Overdose Death Rate by Population 2001-2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This graph also underscores how illegal drug use has been and remains the number one cause of overdose deaths in Ohio. As of 2017 70% of all overdose deaths are from Fentanyl, 20% from Heroin, 31% from Cocaine and 10% from prescription opiates.

Ohio Unintentional Overdose Deaths Using Specific Drugs 2005-2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s been know since the start of the opiate crisis that most overdose deaths result from a combination of drugs. This is a new graph showing those combinations of drugs in Ohio. Fentanyl and Cocaine make up the largest group at 22%, followed by Fentanyl and Heroin at 14%, followed by Fentanyl and prescription opiates at 9%.

These stats are very revealing, showing that even with prescription opiates, those dying from these combinations are most likely illicit drug users and not chronic pain patients.

Ohio Unintentional Overdose Deaths Drug Combinations 2007-2017

 

This data from Ohio is unprecedented in its scope and detail, supporting what the chronic pain community has been saying since the onset. Improved methods at monitoring, in data reporting and collection, physician use of this data combined with better screening for drug abuse is finally producing a picture which is rational and believable.

Ohio has committed to being a leader in the war on illicit and illegal drug use. This data is encouraging and good news for chronic pain suffers. Still, we know from individual reports this data hides another view which is troubling and an underlying cause of the increased number of suicides. That of fear driving prescribers to kick some patients to the curb and denying them access to healthcare. 

I only hope Ohio will exercise as much due diligence in uncovering this aspect of healthcare for Ohioans as they have in fighting the drug abuse war.

 

Surprise Turn at Oregon Health Meeting on Forced Opioid Taper Proposal

ww.nationalpainreport.com/surprise-turn-at-oregon-health-meeting-on-forced-opioid-taper-proposal-8839121.html

The highly anticipated meeting in Oregon to consider a policy to force taper some Oregon Medicaid pain patient who use opioids took a surprising turn.

The head of the Oregon Health Authority called off today’s review in light of potential conflicts of interest by staff.

Dr. Catherine Livingston is a family medicine physician who serves as a contracted medical consultant to the Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC). In addition, she is a co-investigator on two studies evaluating the impact of HERC’s previous decision to expand pain management coverage for people suffering from back pain.

“It is vital for the Oregon Health Plan to cover safe and effective therapies to help people reduce and manage chronic pain. Yet it is also vital that Oregonians have full confidence in the decisions the HERC makes to assess the effectiveness of health care procedures,” OHA Director Patrick Allen said in a statement published in this press release released on Thursday.

Apparently, Dr. Livingston’s potential conflict was uncovered by a chronic pain activist who has been fighting HERC’s attempt to force taper any pain patients.

“We are pleased that the OHA is taking time to investigate possible conflicts of staff, consultant and commission members,” said Amara M., who prefers we don’t use her last name. “We believe there are other possible conflicts.”

The HERC proposal has received withering criticism from providers who treat chronic pain from across the country and as recently as last week the commission received a letter from Stanford’s Sean Mackey and other pain leaders who wrote:

“We continue to have grave concerns with the primary goal of the current proposal, namely, its call for non-consensual forced tapering off prescription opioid analgesics of a broad class of patients.”

Sean Mackey, M.D., Ph.D., is Chief of the Division of Pain Medicine and Redlich Professor of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Neurosciences and Neurology at Stanford University. He is a Past President of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.

For chronic pain advocates in Oregon, today’s delay allows them to continue to work to educate HERC members and the general public about what the advocates believe will cause real damage to chronic pain patients.

“Maybe they can take the time to read Dr. Mackey’s letter and other communications by people who treat chronic pain about what a horribly bad idea forced opioid tapering is,” said Amara M.

Sharing is caring

Attention: Dr Tennant who supports us chronic  pain patients is asking that we patients —wright Paul Ramsey letters and get Jane Ballantyne fired and removed !!!
she’s the one who’s culpable in getting the CDC to write the restrictions and she’s claiming we don’t need opiodes and she stated that we pain patients need to embrace our pain and accept it !!!

now Dr Tennant is asking that we write letters to Paul Ramsey Who is the CEO of the UW medicine and Dean of school of medicine and ask for Jane Ballantyne removal immediately along with Sullivan they are both prop members who have caused this mess..
Please help n share.

Drug importation is not the solution to prescription drug costs

Drug importation is not the solution to prescription drug costs

https://www.bendbulletin.com/home/6981704-151/guest-column-drug-importation-is-not-the-solution

State lawmakers are tired of waiting on their federal counterparts to act on prescription drug prices.

The state Senate recently held a hearing on a bill that would call on the Board of Pharmacy to import prescription drugs from Canada. A companion bill, which would require the Oregon Health Authority to enact an importation program, is pending in the state House of Representatives.

As a pharmacist, I see and feel my patients’ pain from the high cost of medications that only seems to grow more expensive each year. Their frustration is my profession’s collective frustration too.

I can understand why they — or anyone — would think purchasing drugs from outside the U.S. would make prescriptions more affordable.

Yet importing prescription medication from Canada or other countries would be a cure worse than the disease. It would threaten what patients need even more than lower prices: safety and choice.

Our patients’ safety is our top concern, and the reality of so-called “Canadian” drug sites is that most are not Canadian, nor do they sell Health Canada-reviewed or approved medications. A 2017 review by the National Board of Pharmacies showed many of these sites do not require a valid prescription — a troublesome prospect in light of the nation’s opioid crisis.

Worse, several were found to sell counterfeit medications. The World Health Organization estimates that 1 in 10 medicines in developing countries is counterfeit — a significant public health threat, which Americans are immune to given the Food and Drug Administration’s “track and trace” system that is the safest in the world.

Consider the ramifications of counterfeit medicine. A fake Rolex may give you the wrong time, but it won’t kill or maim you.

As a pharmacist, my job is to know what’s in my patients’ medications and how to mitigate potential side effects and drug interactions. The problem with fake medications is there’s no way to know what’s in them until it’s too late.

Even if state health authorities could somehow verify the safety of Canadian drugs, it’s Pollyannaish to believe that Canada, which is experiencing widespread drug shortages, would allow its limited supply to be exported.

Christopher Ward, a Canadian health consultant explains that “in Canada, we have faced significant drug shortages. There’s no way there’d be support for this type of operation.”

And even if Canada had excess supply, it likely wouldn’t sell to the U.S. at the same price Canada charges its citizens. Doing so would cause public outcry given the chronic funding shortfalls experienced by the country’s universal health care system.

“Canada’s pricing controls don’t apply to exports,” notes Canadian health care expert Tim Squire.

Foreign countries like Canada are able to offer their citizens cheaper drug prices because their governments use price controls. This is unfair to American patients who are forced to subsidize the artificially low cost of these drugs in foreign countries. Yet foreign patients pay the price in lack of access. If manufacturers can’t meet the low prices demanded by governments, their citizens simply go without.

Canadians only have access to about 50 percent of the new medicines that Americans enjoy. That number falls to just 33 percent for Australians.

So what’s the solution to rising drug prices if not importation? Reforming the opaque supply chain. Transparent prices, absent middlemen who increase drug prices by more than $150 billion annually, can reduce costs in the same way they do in virtually every other sector of the economy.

In the meantime, Oregon shouldn’t fall for the siren song of prescription drug importation.

U.S. Government Wants to Use Social Media to Decide Who Is ‘Disabled Enough’ for Disability Benefits

U.S. Government Wants to Use Social Media to Decide Who Is ‘Disabled Enough’ for Disability Benefits

https://themighty.com/2019/03/social-security-disability-benefits-monitoring-social-media/?utm_source=engagement_bar&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=facebook_share

The U.S. government wants to use your Facebook posts to decide if you’re disabled.

According to the New York Times, the Trump administration is proposing that Social Security Administration officials routinely examine the social media accounts of people who have applied for or receive disability benefits as part of determining whether they qualify. The policy is not specifically outlined in Trump’s recently released budget, though it does mention allowing the SSA to “use all collection tools to recover funds in certain scenarios.” The budget would have to be approved by Congress before going into effect.

This proposal has alarmed disability advocates all over the country. However, most of the objections raised in the media have failed to address the real dangers of such a policy to individuals with disabilities and the disability community as a whole.

In an Engadget report on this issue, Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Adam Schwartz said, “When a disabled person posts a picture of themselves doing something a disabled person should not be doing, it is not necessarily evidence of fraud about government disability benefits.”

Attempting to determine whether someone is disabled using social media can only be done by relying on inaccurate, damaging stereotypes about what disability looks like and what disabled people can and can’t do. It’s based on the false assumption that if someone is “really” disabled, they must be utterly miserable, stuck at home all the time and unable to function in life. If they aren’t, they must be faking and living it up on the government’s dime. But that couldn’t be further from the truth.

The New York Times article states that examiners could look at social media for evidence that a person is working or is able to work. But what exactly does “disabled” look like? How a person appears in photos and videos tells you very little about their physical and mental health. Just because you see someone doing something doesn’t mean they can do it on a regular basis, and you can’t see how much pain they’re in or the price they pay afterward.

Stories and studies have shown that people often present themselves in the best possible light on social media, smiling even when they’re in pain and struggling. People with disabilities may share the joy of having a good day, joining their family for a backyard barbecue or even going on vacation. They may or may not feel comfortable talking about medical appointments, treatments and bad days when just getting out of bed hurts.

If someone mentions “working” on social media, that could mean a lot of different things. Perhaps they volunteered at the animal shelter or sold handmade jewelry at a local market. It doesn’t mean they are capable of SGA (substantial gainful activity), the measurement of ability to work under Social Security rules. They could be working and earning under the SGA limit, or be employed while receiving benefits, which is possible through the SSDI ticket to work or a state Medicaid working disabled program. If they have impairment-related work expenses such as out-of-pocket medical bills or privately-paid personal attendant care, they can deduct those costs from the income they’re allowed to earn while receiving benefits.

There are people with physical disabilities who ski, skydive and ride horses. These activities can be therapeutic and improve physical and mental health. They have nothing to do with whether someone requires disability services.

SSDI and SSI are not an easy path to “free money.” Qualifying for these programs involves complicated paperwork, medical exams and months or years of waiting. Most applicants are turned down the first time and must go through an appeals process that usually takes years and involves being questioned and doubted at every turn. Mighty contributor Sunny Ammerman described the ignorance she faced from a “vocational expert” at a grueling SSDI appeal hearing she recently endured:

She said I could work in a call center. Did she not hear me when I told the judge that my optic nerve hypoplasia causes me to have to take breaks from looking at computer screens so I don’t get intense headaches from eyestrain? … She said I could work as a ‘line worker’ assembling simple parts in a factory. Did she not hear me explain that my bouts of fatigue cause me to have to lie down at a moment’s notice? What factory foreman is going to put up with that?

Ammerman’s lawyer argued strongly against the “expert’s” poorly-justified assertions, but as of this writing, she’s still waiting to find out if she got approved.

People with disabilities who make it through this agonizing process and obtain benefits do not sit around getting rich off government funds. The money is usually not even enough to afford basic necessities. Could you get by on $771 per month, the SSI benefit for 2019? SSDI is typically a bit higher, with the average around $1,200 per month. That’s still not enough to live on in many places, and certainly not enough to be worth fighting for benefits if a person has other options. Many people with disabilities have no choice but to work a little while on benefits even if it’s a struggle because the alternative would be homelessness.

For others, the most important part of qualifying for SSDI or SSI is having access to healthcare through Medicare and/or Medicaid. People with significant physical disabilities who need personal care assistance for tasks like dressing and bathing have no choice but to obtain disability benefits because no private insurance pays for in-home care. They may want to and even be able to work, but must utilize limiting “working disabled” programs to keep their Medicaid attendant care.

The Social Security Administration already puts people through hell just to get what amounts to a very small, frankly inadequate amount of support. And now they want to spy on our social media too?

The idea that a productive day or a smiling photo could put people with disabilities at risk of losing the services we need to live is absolutely terrifying. I am a travel blogger, so I have pictures and video of myself at locations all over the country going to concerts, visiting the beach, camping and living my life to the fullest. I was in pain or exhausted when some of them were taken, but you can’t see that. I had a Medicaid-funded personal care assistant with me to help me bathe and dress, but she’s not in the pictures. However, you can see my wheelchair, which proves that enjoying life and posting about it online doesn’t mean someone isn’t disabled. I am rocking out to music while disabled, enjoying the ocean while disabled, and exploring the woods while disabled. I’m severely disabled and I can live my life because of SSDI, Medicare and Medicaid. Will I now be punished for actually doing so?

Government surveillance of social media puts all people with disabilities in danger, but would disproportionately harm those whose conditions don’t have obvious external signs or require the use of mobility aids. People with invisible disabilities already struggle to get the support they need because strangers, doctors, friends and even family members dismiss their needs and say they “don’t look sick.” They would be the first targets in what amounts to a modern-day witch hunt against those perceived as “not disabled enough” in the eyes of the public. If they do the things I do without visible “proof” of disability, they’re far more likely to be questioned and doubted, which is both unfair and dangerous.

Judging the legitimacy of disabilities based on social media posts could cause disabled people to lose life-sustaining services and even lead to violence. For evidence of this, we need only look at the U.K., where government rhetoric surrounding benefits fraud has contributed to a steady increase in hate crimes against disabled people. Many have reported being verbally and physically attacked by strangers who use epithets like “scrounger” to suggest they are faking their disabilities and abusing the social service system.

This proposal and other similar recent policies such as electronic visit verification treat people with disabilities like criminals, subjecting us to invasive surveillance with no right to privacy and no due process. They’re based on fear of fraud — but that unfounded fear causes real harm to real people with disabilities every day.

People who become disabled later in life often struggle with shame because our culture has placed such a stigma on those who receive disability benefits. They may feel guilty on days when they feel well and even question whether they are deserving of help. The Internet is a powerful tool to combat this stigma because it enables us to share our accomplishments and demonstrate how much people with disabilities can do when we have the support services we need.

People with disabilities can find emotional support and practical advice in online communities like The Mighty. Every day when I read through comments on articles here, I see someone whose life was changed because they found a story by a contributor with their rare disease and now know they’re not alone. I see someone who feels hopeful because a contributor with the same condition as their child went to college and became a teacher. I see someone who joins the fight for disability rights because they read an article about ableism in society and realized we all deserve to be treated with respect and equality.

But what happens if these voices go silent out of fear? How can a person connect with others when they constantly have to wonder if what they say online will be used to hurt them? How can they stop worrying that an ignorant government employee who believes people who receive benefits don’t deserve to be happy could target them because they live joyfully with a disability, or just don’t fit into stereotypes about what disability looks like? Government spying on disabled people could decimate disability support communities and force role models and advocates whose lives hang in the balance to retreat into the shadows. There would be no one left to counter the stereotypes, to show that life with a disability is worth living.

You can be happy and disabled. You can be active and disabled. You can do things people think disabled people can’t do and still be disabled. The Trump administration — and the public — need to understand that disability doesn’t have a look. It often isn’t visible. Government support programs that actually work should empower people to get the care they need and find joy in life, not live in shame and fear.

Why your prescriptions COSTS SO DAMN MUCH !

Reports show pharmacy middlemen making big money in other states

https://www.ohio.com/news/20190314/reports-show-pharmacy-middlemen-making-big-money-in-other-states/1

Pharmacy middlemen are making big money in at least two other Midwestern states’ Medicaid programs, according to two new analyses.

The state-federal health insurance programs for the poor in Illinois and Kentucky appear to be even more profitable for pharmacy benefit managers than they were in Ohio, the research found.

A study in the Buckeye State — one that was prompted in part by an earlier analysis by The Dispatch — found that in 2017, middlemen CVS Caremark and OptumRx charged taxpayers $224 million more for Medicaid drugs than they paid pharmacists, for a margin of 8.8 percent. The analyst who wrote the report said those charges were at least triple the going rate.

An analysis released Wednesday by the Illinois Pharmacists Association shows that just as that state rolled out its Medicaid managed-care system in the second quarter of 2018, pharmacy benefit managers, also known as PBMs, were charging taxpayers 23 percent more for generic drugs than they were paying pharmacists for those drugs.

“It’s in the first quarter of implementation,” said Antonio Ciaccia, a co-founder and researcher with 3 Axis Advisors, which did the report. He also is a lobbyist for the Ohio Pharmacists Association.

Ciaccia said that Illinois’s high “spread” between what PBMs are charging for generic drugs and what they’re paying could be a harbinger of the future. “The data we’re tracking shows that this is a growing problem.”

Greg Lopes, a spokesman for the PBM industry group the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, noted the Illinois study used data from 21 percent of generic drug transactions to come to its conclusions.

“These types of studies are biased toward one group — independent drugstores — and give an incomplete and inaccurate picture of prescription drug costs in Medicaid,” he said in an email.

CVS, which also operates the nation’s largest drugstore chain, is PBM to most of Ohio’s Medicaid managed-care plans, as it is in Illinois and Kentucky. In its role as a pharmacy benefit manager, it negotiates rebates with manufacturers, determines which drugs are covered by insurance and to what extent.

CVS’s PBM also determines how much retail pharmacies are reimbursed for drugs — a glaring conflict, critics say, since CVS’s retail stores directly compete with the stores for which CVS Caremark determines drug reimbursements. Some groups, including the American Medical Association, are concerned that the marketplace will become even less competitive if CVS’s merger with insurance giant Aetna is allowed to be consummated.

In Kentucky, state officials have been concerned with the amounts PBMs might be making from their Medicaid system. The legislature there passed a bill last year requiring PBMs to provide the state with financial information relating to their contracts with managed-care organizations and the pharmacies they reimburse.

Last month, the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services released a report showing that in calendar year 2018, PBMs charged taxpayers $124 million more for drugs than they reimbursed pharmacies — a spread of almost 13 percent. A year earlier, the spread was $87 million, or 9.4 percent, the report said.

“These are taxpayer dollars that we can’t identify what is the service they are being used for,” Jessin Joseph, director of pharmacy for Kentucky’s Department for Medicaid Services, told Bloomberg.

Also of interest in the report is that the spread PBMs received on transactions with companies owning 11 or more pharmacies jumped from 11.5 percent in 2017 to 21.6 percent in 2018. That seems to comport with data The Dispatch obtained from the Ohio report indicating that CVS would have to reimburse retail giants Walmart and Sam’s Club 45 percent more to bring them on par with the amounts given to its own pharmacies.

In Ohio, Gov. Mike DeWine has vowed to revamp the method by which PBMs handle taxpayer money, while Attorney General Dave Yost says he is eyeing legal action against the companies.

In Illinois, pharmacists held a press conference Wednesday in the state Capitol after the 3 Axis Advisors report found that managed care hasn’t saved money, it’s just flipped income from pharmacies to PBMs.

“These findings have huge implications for [Illinois] taxpayers who are being ripped off by the built-in-complexities and backroom deals that PBMs use to make themselves look like they are saving the state money,” Monique Whitney, executive director of Pharmacists United for Truth and Transparency, said in a written statement.

Meanwhile, in West Virginia, where pharmacy services were carved out of Medicaid managed care, a new actuarial analysis found that the state saved $54 million — mostly on administrative costs — of $570 million in drug spending for the year ending June 30, 2018.

PCMA spokesman Lopes took issue with that study as well.

“The West Virginia report does not include the amount the state saves in dispensing fees under the managed-care model, and is riddled with mathematical flaws that render the methodology highly suspect, and the results inaccurate,” he said.

In Kentucky, lawmakers are promising better oversight of the companies.

“We have to solve this problem,” Republican Sen. Jimmy Higdon said, according to the Louisville Courier Journal. “We cannot make our independent pharmacists in Kentucky extinct.”

Assume that any power you grant to the federal government to fight terrorism will inevitably be used in other contexts

Trump’s drug war power grab was sadly predictable

https://theweek.com/articles/828991/trumps-drug-war-power-grab-sadly-predictable

“We are. We are. We’re thinking about doing it very seriously,” President Trump told Breitbart News in an interview published Tuesday. The “it” in question is designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations, a move Trump said his administration has “been thinking about … for a long time.” The shift would be “psychological, but it’s also economic,” Trump rambled on. “As terrorists — as terrorist organizations, the answer is yes. They are.”

Except legally, they aren’t. Our government defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents,” and though the State Department’s criteria for designating Foreign Terrorist Organizations is slightly broader, it still involves that element of political coercion. Drug cartels do terrible things, and terrorists sometimes sell drugs, but a drug cartel is not committing terrorism if it is acting for profit rather than politics.

That detail is unlikely to deter Trump from moving forward with the terrorist designation if he so chooses — and really, why would it? This sort of mission creep, in which law enforcement programs originally justified on national security grounds are repurposed for the drug war, is nothing new. Our government made a habit of finding all sorts of unexpected uses for powers and privileges it insisted were strictly to keep us safe from terror.

The Patriot Act, passed in the wake of 9/11, made this transition quite quickly. By 2003, The New York Times reported the Bush administration had “begun using the law with increasing frequency in many criminal investigations that have little or no connection to terrorism,” including “suspected drug traffickers.” Federal officials told the Times they were “simply using all the tools now available to them to pursue criminals,” hastening to note they sometimes also used them for, you know, actual terrorists.

A decade later, an analysis from the Electronic Frontier Foundation showed that was only technically true. The “sneak-and-peek” searches the Patriot Act authorized — which don’t require investigators to inform their target they are under scrutiny — rapidly changed from an option for exceptional circumstances to a routine investigative procedure. The searches were also overwhelmingly unconnected to the war on terror: In 2013, for example, 9,401 of 11,129 sneak-and-peak requests dealt with drug cases. Just 51 — less than 1 percent of the total — concerned suspected terrorism.

“Assume that any power you grant to the federal government to fight terrorism will inevitably be used in other contexts,” The Washington Post’s Radley Balko wrote at the time. “Assume that the primary ‘other context’ will be to fight the war on drugs.”

The same can often be said of measures to fight violent crime more broadly. SWAT teams, initially designed to deal with dangerous hostage and barricade situations, are now regularly used for more mundane purposes. Today, only 7 percent of SWAT raids are used to address the dangers they were created to combat. About two-thirds are used to fight the war on drugs.

This drug war mission creep also moves in the opposite direction. USA Today broke the news in 2015 that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) secretly tracked the metadata for billions of Americans’ international phone calls beginning under the first Bush administration about a decade before the 9/11 attacks. The program operated without court approval — in fact, DEA agents actively concealed their surveillance activity to keep it out of public record — and “provided a blueprint for the far broader National Security Agency surveillance that followed.” Predictably, drug warriors would later be among the federal agencies asking the NSA for access to its spy data.

Likewise, the Trump administration has repeatedly cited drug trafficking among its reasons for border wall construction. In his State of the Union address this year, the president pitched funding the wall as an opportunity for “Congress to show the world that America is committed to ending illegal immigration and putting the ruthless coyotes, cartels, drug dealers, and human traffickers out of business.” On the campaign trail, Trump said the wall would “stop the drugs” and help him “get all of the drug lords, all of the bad ones.” In reality, it will do no such thing. If anything, the wall could make the illegal drug trade more lucrative than it already is.

The war on drugs has a convenient malleability that allows it to both leech off other expansions of the security state and be used to justify them. Its consistent ineffectiveness offers unscrupulous politicians a perpetual bugbear, always ready to dance to the tune of whatever new policing technology or authority is desired. It is ripe for abuse.

The ideal solution here would be to end the drug war entirely, but failing that, narrow and more explicitly restrictive national security and law enforcement legislation would be a good start. “Always assume that when a law grants new powers to the government, that law will be interpreted in the vaguest, most expansive, most pro-government manner imaginable,” as Balko advises, and try to head off any drug war mission creep before it begins to ooze.

Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson and CVS are already suffering damage to their reputations

Opioid litigation brings company secrets into the public eye

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/03/13/npr-opioid-litigation-brings-company-secrets-into-the-public-eye

America’s big drugmakers and pharmacy chains are scrambling to respond to hundreds of lawsuits tied to the deadly opioid epidemic. Billions of dollars are at stake if the companies are found liable for fueling the crisis.

Even before judgments are rendered, companies like Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson and CVS are already suffering damage to their reputations as evidence in civil suits reveals more about their internal workings.

“The narrative is clearly shifting on this story,” said David Armstrong, a senior reporter with ProPublica, who has covered the drug industry for years. “People want some sort of reckoning, some sort of accounting.”

One reason for the shift is that cities and states filing these suits are moving more aggressively to pull back the curtain on the drug industry’s practices, urging courts to make internal memos, marketing strategies and reams of other documents public.

“Our next battle is to get the depositions and the documents that are being produced made available to the public, instead of everything being filed under confidentiality agreements,” said Joe Rice, one of the lead attorneys bringing lawsuits against drug companies on behalf of local governments in Ohio.

A growing number of documents have already been released or leaked to the press, and many of the revelations they contain have been troubling. In internal memos, Purdue executives acknowledged that their prescription opioids are far more addictive and dangerous than the company was telling doctors. At the same time, company directives pushed sales representatives to get even more opioids into the hands of vulnerable people, including seniors and veterans.

Memos also show that Purdue executives developed a secret plan, never implemented, called Project Tango in which they acknowledged the escalating risk of the opioid epidemic. The program was allegedly designed to help Purdue profit from the growing wave of opioid dependency by selling the company’s addiction treatment services to people hooked on products like its own OxyContin.

This increased transparency represents a big shift in the way opioid lawsuits are being handled. “We’ve done something that hasn’t been done before,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who appeared in February on NPR and WBUR’s program On Point.

Massachusetts is suing Purdue, like dozens of other states, and Healey fought successfully to make all the documents her office had uncovered public, without redactions. “What Purdue’s own documents show is the extent of deception and deceit. What’s important to me is that the facts come to light, and we get justice and accountability,” Healey said.

Purdue Pharma declined to speak with NPR, but the drug industry has fought these disclosures at every turn. They describe the information in these documents as proprietary, asserting that it should be viewed by the courts as corporate property. For years, governments pursuing these cases mostly went along with those arguments.

In past opioid settlements, companies paid fines but insisted on gag orders. “The way it usually works is the language in the settlement requires either that the records be destroyed very quickly after the settlement or that they physically actually return the records to the drug company,” said ProPublica’s Armstrong.

That happened in 2007 when the Justice Department ended a criminal case against Purdue Pharma. It happened again a few years ago when the state of Kentucky settled a civil case with the company and that state’s attorney general destroyed thousands of pages of documents. As a result, few people in the wider public knew how serious the allegations were.

As more information has been revealed, it’s sparking fury. At a February hearing on Capitol Hill, Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., blasted industry executives. “Companies like Janssen and Purdue Pharma fueled this epidemic, employing deceptive and truly unconscionable marketing tactics despite the known risk, so you could sell more drugs to maximize your profits,” she said.

Jennifer Taubert heads the Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit of Johnson & Johnson, which makes and sells opioids. The company faces escalating lawsuits over its products, but Taubert denied any wrongdoing at the hearing. “Everything that we have done with our products when we’ve promoted opioid products, which we stopped marketing a long time ago, was appropriate and responsible,” she told lawmakers.

Yet according to the drug companies’ internal documents, firms including Johnson & Johnson pushed unscientific theories about drug addiction. They allegedly did so as part of an effort to persuade doctors to prescribe even more opioids after patients showed signs of dependency.

This kind of industry backlash has happened before, such as when tobacco companies faced lawsuits in the 1990s. As those trials unfolded, the public learned for the first time about widespread corporate wrongdoing.

The difference here is that drug companies and their researchers have been seen by many in the public as healers and innovators, part of a trusted health care system.

There could be more revelations. With another big opioid trial set to begin in May in Oklahoma state court, attorneys are still fighting over millions of pages of documents, most of which the public has still never seen.

One possibility is that companies could agree to what is known as a global settlement of these opioid cases, paying billions of dollars in compensation in hopes of winning new secrecy agreements.

If that happens, says ProPublica’s Armstrong, documents that help tell the full story of this drug epidemic could be destroyed or locked away for years. “I worry that we’re going to lose all this valuable information about how we got to this point with this crisis, who knew what when,” he said.

Oregon is a “death with dignity” state…just trying to increase utilization ?

“Gambling with Lives”: Oregon Medicaid cutting off opioids to chronic pain patients

www.tarbell.org/2019/03/gambling-with-lives-oregon-medicaid-cutting-off-opioids-to-chronic-pain-patients/

At the height of the Tea Party and Republican campaign against the Affordable Care Act, the GOP raised a false alarm about “death panels” that would purportedly kill the disabled based on a subjective judgment and “pull the plug on Grandma.”

But to real grandmothers like 60-year-old Wendy Morgan, who has suffered excruciating back and neck pain in the wake of two botched surgeries, degenerative disc disease and severe pain from MS for decades, there’s now a genuine death panel:  the Oregon Health Authority’s pain and evidence committees that are slated today in Salem to finalize mandated opioid cut-offs to zero for Medicaid patients with chronic back and neck pain conditions, plus fibromyalgia. 

“This is going to come as quite a shock to a lot of people,” she says, in the wake of preliminary plans she and her husband made to kill herself last spring after her opioid dosages were already cut 97 percent under pressure from government  agencies. “I never did anything wrong, always followed the doctor’s orders, but I was treated like a drug addict.” She managed to function as a homemaker even after she was forced to quit her sales job in 2009 and go on disability, but after her primary care doctor dropped her for using high doses of opioids and her pain specialist started a drastic taper in 2016, “I felt like killing myself,” she said. She went weeks without sleep, remained housebound, unable to even shower without agony and sunk into a deep depression. “It was an absolute nightmare,” she says.

Her husband, Larry Gordon, a retired postal worker, briefly but angrily testified on her behalf at a hearing in January before OHA’s Health Evidence Review Committee (HERC), as his wife of over 40 years sat quietly next to him.

The agency is targeting overwhelmingly disabled patients with 170 separate medical conditions that cause spine and neck pain for a total forced cut-off to zero opioids; these draconian limits  go far beyond even the CDC’s 2016 recommended voluntary 90 Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME) upper limits for new — not long-term — pain patients. These voluntary guidelines have been “weaponized” in drastic cut-offs nationwide and spurred a wave of suicides by chronic pain patients.

Larry, dressed in a blue ball cap, windbreaker and blue jeans, proclaimed, “Doctors are abandoning patients left and right. Look at what’s happening in the real world: there’s people dying. If you take opioids away from intractable pain patients, they only thing they have left is to go straight to suicide. I had to tell my children that their mom’s going to kill herself because no one else will help her.”

Larry and his family have been petitioning local stakeholders, including the Oregon Medical Board and local newspapers, in order to bring attention to chronic pain patients’ access to painkillers. Click Here To Read The Gordon Family’s Full Story In Letters

Fortunately, Wendy recently found through a network of pain patients a Portland clinician willing to quietly resume her high dosages of methadone and occasional oxycodone pills, amounting to a quite rare medication level of 1100 MME. It’s not clear how long this arrangement will last, but for now, she says, “This nurse practitioner saved my life.” Her pain is worse than before because the years of forced tapering worsened her MS, but at least she can visit her grandchildren, go to their recitals and ball games, take a shower. “I can live a normal life.”

That option is about to be closed off to a significant portion of patients –variously estimated between 60,000 and 80,000 chronic pain patients — who are part of the 25 percent of  all Oregonians who are on Medicaid. This latest Oregon action flies in the face of mounting alarms by three former White House drug czars and over 300 leading health professionals and academics who warned in an open letter to CDC and Congress about the dangerous, unintended consequences of the  harsh crackdown on opioids for legitimate pain patients, as chronicled recently in The New York Times. These professional critiques have been joined by over 120 pages of anguished testimony from patients across the country about the agonizing impact of the resulting  hard-line approaches in their lives.

True, rigorous evidence that such policies are driving up suicides rates is relatively scarce, even though there are horrifying examples of patients like Jay Lawrence in Tennessee shooting himself on a park bench with his wife holding his hand. However, an important study published in 2017 in the peer-reviewed journal General Hospital Psychiatry found that veterans cut off from opioids after long-term use engaged in suicidal actions and thoughts at a rate nearly 300 percent higher than the overall veterans community, whose members are already killing themselves at a rate of 20 people a day. 

Oregon’s actions are even more extreme than the CDC guidelines spurring such tragedies, says the organizer of that open letter, Dr. Stefan Kertesz, a noted addiction researcher and primary care doctor specializing in vulnerable populations at the University of Alabama in Birmingham. “They’re gambling with the lives of a subset of patients,” he says. “There’s something cruel in going after patients with these conditions: it’s completely untested and there’s no evidence that you can swap in yoga and cognitive therapy across the state for opioids.” (Note: Like Kertesz, most, but not all, of the hundreds of clinicians across the country protesting the national and Oregon opioid cut-offs actually don’t have a history of sleazy ties to the drug industry.)

Even patients like Sierra Brown — who while a disabled patient on private insurance was denied pain medications for her damaged spine resulting from previously undiagnosed lupus and Sjorgen’s auto-immune disease — fears she will continue to be treated like a drug-seeking addict once the influential Medicaid policies kick in. Yet she has been given a reprieve of sorts: after showing up vomiting in agony at an ER last month, she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, but only after the admitting doctor first told her, “If you’re here for pain medications, we’re not giving you any.” Now, she is viewed as a near-angelic victim of cancer, and was generously provided with all pain medications she needed to be taken every few hours, from Dilaudid to Tramodol. “Pain-wise, I’m fine,” she says, relatively speaking. “Their attitude totally flipped. It’s totally disgusting.” But once she achieves her hoped-for remission  because they spotted her cancer early, “I’m scared I won’t be getting any pain medicines because of the law’s crackdown.”

In Oregon, making the case for keeping opioids away from patients like Sierra when they don’t have cancer, is the alternative medicine community. Some of them don’t seem to be much more immune from conflicts of interest than drug company shills, critics say. In fact, the ad-hoc Chronic Pain Task Force, an advisory subcommittee that’s helping drive Oregon’s move to shut off opioids for pain patients, is dominated by holistic practitioners with a financial stake in ending opioids by hyping a smorgasbord of alternative therapies that have weak or limited evidence that they work for any chronic pain patients at all  — let alone with that minority of long-term chronic patients who use opioids.

Indeed, OHA commissioned the nationally respected Oregon Health and Sciences University (OHSU) to do a review of the skimpy evidence on the efficacy of tapering and alternative therapies. In its rush to back alternative therapies as an “evidence-based” replacement for the removed opioids, the Medicaid agency brushed aside the OHSU findings that  \concluded the studies’ quality were variously “very low” for tapering, and “limited” or “insufficient” for the alternative therapies.  Even the agency’s own summary of the available  evidence branded all of the holistic therapies, some with potentially major  new funding streams, as having “no clinically significant impact” on long-term pain. Instead, the agency seems to be relying in part on a 12-year-old survey of the personal opinions of an earlier OHA advisory panel that found these alternative medicine  treatments as somehow having “fair” to “good” evidence for “moderate benefit.” In addition, Kertesz asks about the OHA’s dismissive approach to the new OHSU review it commissioned: “Why are they ignoring their own report that says there’s no evidence that a mandatory taper has been properly assessed, and certainly hasn’t been proven to be safe and effective?”

As of this writing, the OHA press office didn’t reply to repeated emailed and phoned requests for comment or rebuttal to the criticisms aimed at the opioid proposal.

Oregon-style forced taperings continue unabated, with doctors across the country reacting to mounting pressure from agencies including state licensing boards and the DEA to slash their opioid prescribing — and then kicking out their chronic pain patients who have become known as pain or opioid “refugees.” Human Rights Watch recently issued a stinging report condemning such actions: “Many patients are involuntarily cut off medications that improve their lives or say they are unable to find a doctor willing to care for them.” Yet Oregon is the only state — so far — that has moved so decisively to adopt these potentially deadly practices as official state policies. One possible factor, argues University of Southern Illinois rehab specialist, Terri Lewis: The financially-strapped Oregon Medicaid system is moving under a Medicaid waiver to reduce spending and limit care for disabled chronic pain patients who merit palliative care but aren’t actually getting it. 

This punishing crackdown doesn’t stem primarily from what patients often see as sheer sadism on the part of officials. Instead, it’s driven apparently both by a desire to save money and  a well-meaning yet misguided, simplistic and wrong-headed response to the alarming rise of opioid-related drug overdoses, largely from illegally manufactured fentanyl — not legally prescribed pills. It’s an oft-told story:  how Big Pharma companies and their crooked distributors ramped up an oversupply of opioid pills starting in the late 1990s, but much of the flooding of the marketplace was clearly fraudulent and intended to hook a new generation of substance abusers who already had addiction histories. Why else flood one West Virginia town of 9,200 people with nearly 21 million pills?  Yet while prescriptions have fallen nationally nearly 20 percent since 2012, overdose deaths haven’t been stemmed at all, rising to as high as 70,000 deaths in 2017, more than AIDS, guns and car crashes killed people in any one year. Yet as few as 15 percent of opioid deaths today are due to prescription drugs, often stolen — even as 75 percent of  new heroin users started by using  “diverted” opioid pills they weren’t prescribed. Kertesz has pointed out that today’s prescription drug dosage limits are  a “funhouse mirror image” of the drug industry’s earlier propaganda to lower the “pain score” of patients and give out way more pills: it is still a focus on a number, not on the actual well-being of  patients.

Meanwhile, Oregon’s chronic pain patients remain political orphans whose plight is largely ignored by people across the political spectrum. They are scrambling on their own in blog posts, on Twitter and Facebook to try to get other people — or even their own factionalized pain community —  to fight back against the steamrolling impact of the Oregon Medicaid rules that will surely flatten them if it’s not defeated this week.  Amara is a disabled Medicaid patient and co-founder of the Oregon Pain Action Group. She is suffering from a host of severe disc injuries following a botched epidural during childbirth and lives in intractable pain.  She told Tarbell, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation, “It’s catastrophic and things are already so bad.”