DEA only shares the part(s) of the evidence that they want to ?

Posted on February 13, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve

DEA teaches agents to recreate evidence chains to hide methods

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/feb/03/dea-parallel-construction-guides/

Trainers justify parallel construction on national security and PR grounds: “Americans don’t like it”

Drug Enforcement Administration training documents released to MuckRock user C.J. Ciaramella show how the agency constructs two chains of evidence to hide surveillance programs from defense teams, prosecutors, and a public wary of domestic intelligence practices.

In training materials, the department even encourages a willful ignorance by field agents to minimize the risk of making intelligence practices public.

The DEA practices mirror a common dilemma among domestic law enforcement agencies: Analysts have access to unprecedented streams of classified information that might prove useful to investigators, but entering classified evidence in court risks disclosing those sensitive surveillance methods to the world, which could either end up halting the program due to public outcry or undermining their usefulness through greater awareness.

An undated slide deck released by the DEA to fleshes out the issue more graphically: When military and intelligence agencies “find Bin Laden’s satellite phone and then pin point [sic] his location, they don’t have to go to a court to get permission to put a missile up his nose.” Law enforcement agencies, on the other hand, “must be able to take our information to court and prove to a jury that our bad guy did the bad things we say he did.”

Bin Laden nose

The trainer’s notes continue, “In the old days, classified material was poison. In some ways, it still is… because if treated incorrectly, it can screw up your investigation.”

A tactic known as “parallel construction” allows law enforcement to capitalize on intelligence information while obscuring sensitive sources and surveillance methods from the prosecution, defense and jury alike. DEA training documents suggest this method of reconstructing evidence chains is widely taught and deployed.

Last August, Reuters first reported on the practice of parallel construction by the DEA’s Special Operations Division (SOD), a secretive unit that includes representatives from the FBI, CIA and NSA. Slides obtained by Reuters defined the method as “the use of normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD.” But documents released to Ciaramella indicate that DEA trainers routinely teach the finer points of parallel construction to field agents and analysts across the country, not just within SOD.

The bulk of the release comprises eight versions of a training module, “Handling Sensitive Information.” Per lesson cover sheets, the module was created in 2007 for inclusion in entry-level analyst training programs, as well as for workshops at DEA field offices. The most recent dated revision in the release is from May 2012:

The module puts the issue of using sensitive intelligence in law enforcement a bit more delicately. Per the 2012 lesson plan, the main problem with combining intelligence collection with law enforcement investigations “is the high potential for disclosure of these sensitive sources of information in our open, public trial system.”

In addition to potential national security risks of exposing classified information and constitutional quandaries, an earlier version of the module highlights another issue with introducing sensitive or clandestine evidence into domestic trials: “Americans don’t like it.”

Americans don't like

The instructor’s notes from the same revision clarify the public pushback rationale.

Americans don't like notes

Given the “fish bowl” nature of law enforcement work, DEA Academy graduates are guided to only use techniques “which are acceptable to our citizens.”

Controversy notwithstanding, parallel construction apparently makes the DEA’s list of such palatable techniques. The modules make clear that the idea is to shape evidence chains so that neither the prosecution nor the defense are to be made aware of classified information, if it can be helped.

See No Evil

When the court is made aware of classified evidence, a wholly separate—if unfortunately named—squad of prosecutors called the Taint Review Team will consult with the judge to determine which evidence must be turned over to the defense.

Taint Review Team 1

Taint Review Team 2

As described in the released portions of the module, parallel construction simply entails splitting the prosecutorial labor, with a Taint Review Team tackling pre-trial review so the trial prosecutor encounters as little classified evidence as possible.

But the released training modules provide no guidance on key issues noted in documents obtained by Reuters last August. In particular, the SOD slides barred agents from disclosing classified sources on affidavits or in courtroom testimony. Under this strain of parallel construction, the court would never know the classified origins of an investigation.

“You’d be told only, ‘Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.’ And so we’d alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it,” as one former federal agent described the process to Reuters.

While there are no direct references to protocols of this kind, three additional slide decks released to Ciaramella cover traffic stops and drug dog sniffs extensively. These presentations are heavily redacted, but released portions address the advantages of pairing “tip information” and “vertical information transfers” with routine traffic stops as a pretext for making an arrest.

Information transfers

Traffic stop

This same presentation offers guidance to officers wondering whether they should lie under oath rather than reveal that information came from a classified source.

Perjury

Perjury false

DEA trainers advise officers in this position to let the prosecutor know “so that he or she can proactively address any issues” with the evidence in question, regardless of “where the information came from.”

The unprecedented window these training documents give into the parallel construction method still leaves many questions unanswered, especially when it comes to logistics and legal justifications. What could not be clearer, though, is the DEA’s stance that law enforcement must vigilantly protect intelligence resources by all possible means.

Protect

Read the manual embedded below, or on the request page.

Filed under: General Problems | 1 Comment »

Fentanyl Case Shows China’s Scary Ability to Adapt

Posted on February 13, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve

Fentanyl Case Shows China’s Scary Ability to Adapt

www.insightcrime.org/investigations/china-fentanyl-production-adaptability/

In October 2017, two Chinese men—Xiaobing Yan and Jian Zhang—were indicted for conspiring to manufacture and distribute “large quantities” of fentanyl and fentanyl analogs in the United States. Although they used multiple names and company identities over a period of six years, investigators were able to trace the fentanyl shipments back to four clandestine labs and two chemical plants in China.

It was the first known indictment of Chinese nationals for the production of fentanyl, but it told a deeper and more troubling story about the chemical industry in China: that it could and would adapt as fast as the market it services.

Fentanyl use is soaring in the US where overdoses led to the deaths of close to 30,000 people in 2017. Nearly all the fentanyl is produced in China in chemical factories such as those owned by Yan and Zhang. Much of it is sold directly to the US, sent via mail, in small, practically undetectable doses through the US postal system.

This article is part of a series on the growing demand for fentanyl and its deadly consequences done with the support of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. See the rest of the series here. 

The two chemical plants operated by Yan “were capable of producing ton quantities of fentanyl and fentanyl analogs,” according to an official US Department of Justice press release. Apart from the two Chinese nationals, 19 others were indicted for conspiring to distribute the illicitly-produced fentanyl and fentanyl analogs throughout the United States.

banner download reportBut Yan’s factories responsible for the fentanyl were producing a panoply of illicit substances. The nine-count indictment against Yan read like chemistry test. The government noted Yan’s production of pentedrone as well as 4-MEC (4-methylethcathinone), both noted ingredients in so-called “bath salts,” designer drugs popular in nightclubs in Europe and the US. There was also AM-2201, a synthetic marijuana. In the end, prosecutors named over 20 different chemical configurations.

Yan had obviously shifted production to fentanyl as soon as he saw the opioid become a drug of choice among the opioid-consuming population.

The indictments also provide further evidence of the substances exported from China directly to the United States and with Canada as a transshipment point, and shed light into how quickly Chinese groups can alter fentanyl-family substances to escape scheduling efforts. Yan, for example, closely monitored scheduling decisions and law enforcement activities to modify the structure of his chemical analogs to avoid detection, the US Justice Department said.

An estimated 160,000 chemical companies are currently operating either legally or illegally in China, according to the US Department of State. China’s chemical industry suffers from poor regulation, thus allowing fentanyl precursor chemicals to be diverted into clandestine labs by criminal groups, the US State Department says. A lack of oversight paired with administrative inefficiencies has also allowed illegal chemical factories to spring up and manufacture significant quantities of precursors that make their way directly to the US or via Mexico, where criminal groups are also quickly adapting to new market.

The second indictment against Zhang follows this narrative. Zhang operated four labs and exported fentanyl, fentanyl analogs, as well as pill presses, stamps, and other materials to shape fentanyl into pills in the United States, the US Justice Department said.

In addition to fentanyl, US prosecutors said Zhang was producing ANPP, acetyl fentanyl, and furanyl fentanyl, all fentanyl analogs. He’d then channeled them through freight forwarding companies that moved the chemical substances into the US via Canada hiding their activities behind aliases such as “Joe Bleau,” the Canadian version of Joe Blow.

China has attempted to control the development of countless numbers of fentanyl analogs and precursor chemicals. But during our investigation into fentanyl-trafficking networks, we found that implementation of these initiatives has proven difficult as law enforcement and drug investigators struggle to keep track of high levels of pharmaceutical and chemical output.

Furthermore, as fentanyl addiction and overdose deaths are not problems in China, it currently takes scheduling and interdiction actions at the behest of the United States, making this relationship dependent on the changing dynamics of the US-China relationship.

But some positive efforts are being made, and United States officials said that the bilateral relationship with China on this issue is open and developing. In 2015, the Chinese Food and Drug Administration made 116 psychoactive substances, along with six fentanyl analogs, controlled substances, and in February 2018, newly created controls on five fentanyl precursors including ANPP went into effect.

The impact that these controls will have on the diversion of fentanyl precursor to clandestine laboratories, or the export of said chemicals to criminal groups in Mexico and the United States, may be limited by the rapid ability of these groups to adapt.

 

 

Filed under: General Problems | 1 Comment »

Medicare for all … or … Medicaid for all…

Posted on February 13, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve

There is a lot of talk about “Medicare for all”… but they seem to be talking about is Medicaid for all… because they seem to be inferring that what they are talking about is national health insurance paying from FIRST DOLLAR…

Medicare now… only Part A has no premiums but has a $1200- $1400 deductible each time a person is admitted to a hospital… deductible is “forgiven” if the pt is readmitted to a hospital within 60 days of being discharged.

Medicare Part B has a monthly premium of $135.50 and a $185 annual deductible and 20% copay

Medicare Part D ..which is a policy offered by a FOR PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANY… and has various premiums, copays, deductibles.

One of the people who is floating around as a 2020 Presidential candidate has claimed that the whole insurance industry should be eliminated but what this candidate doesn’t seem to know is that both Medicare Advantage policies and Part D policies are provided by FOR PROFIT PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES

All one has to do is look at what is going on with the VA medical system and what is going on with chronic pain pts and their pain management as being dictated by HHS/CMS to get what a national health insurance program may look like…

Here is a article about how the 70 million Medicaid pts are having trouble finding a physician to treat them…

 

You’ve Got Medicaid – Why Can’t You See the Doctor?

https://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-insurance/articles/2015/05/26/youve-got-medicaid-why-cant-you-see-the-doctor

Medicaid insures more than 70.5 million Americans, according to the most recent report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Largely low-income health care consumers, these patients have had a notoriously difficult time finding physicians to treat them, and in a reasonable amount of time.

With an influx of people qualifying for the public insurance and changes to providers’ reimbursement rates, it’s difficult to say if these troubles will improve or worsen. So it’s crucial that Medicaid beneficiaries know what they’re up against.

In an effort to make it easier for Medicaid patients to see the doctor, the federal government increased Medicaid reimbursement fees in 2013 as part of the Affordable Care Act. When 2014 came to a close, so did that program, and fees once again fell in many states – though some states chose to continue paying higher rates on their own.

It’s too early to say with certainty how the fee changes – both the rise and subsequent fall – have affected patients, but even prior to the fee bump and before the ACA expanded Medicaid to include millions more Americans, these patients sometimes struggled to get in to see the doctor, had worse health outcomes and found themselves holding a good insurance policy with nowhere to use it.

“There are certain aspects of Medicaid, particularly for low-income populations, where it is really almost superior to private [insurance] coverage, with very low copays and no deductibles,” says Stephen Zuckerman, co-director and senior fellow with the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center. “But at the same time, Medicaid beneficiaries are significantly more likely to report having difficulty finding a provider or delaying care because their health care coverage isn’t widely accepted.”

A 2011 nationwide survey of doctors found 31 percent were “unwilling” to accept new Medicaid patients, with acceptance rates across states varying widely. Across the nation, the study estimated 69 percent of doctors were accepting Medicaid, but state acceptance rates ranged from a low of 40 percent in New Jersey to 99 percent in Wyoming, according to the study published in Health Affairs. This was pre-ACA expansion and prior to any reimbursement fee changes.

Why Some Doctors Won’t Accept Medicaid

When comparing reimbursement rates among health insurance plans, Medicaid is the lowest payer, meaning it’s not a moneymaker for doctors’ offices. Paired with the administrative requirements of accepting public insurance, doctors sometimes just don’t want the hassle

The fee bump of 2013 to 2014 sought to make Medicaid acceptance more enticing by putting those fees on par with Medicare reimbursement rates.

“We don’t know if physician participation in the Medicaid program really increased as a result of the fee increases,” Zuckerman says. But a study he worked on with colleagues from Urban Institute and the University of Pennsylvania did find one way the fee bump helped.

Evaluating wait times for appointments in two periods – November 2012 through March 2013, and May 2014 through July 2014 – the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, reported Medicaid patients found it easier to make appointments after the fee bump, and those states with the biggest changes in wait time were those with the largest increases in reimbursement rates.

It’s this study that may have motivated some states to continue reimbursing doctors at higher rates after the federal bump expired on Dec. 31, 2014. According to the University of Pennsylvania, 16 states have elected to continue paying at least partially higher rates than they had pre-bump, to continue encouraging doctor participation in the Medicaid program. In the other states, fees have dropped.

Given that states have wildly different acceptance rates, different reimbursement rates and various state-set nuances, the effects of all this remain to be seen. But it stands to reason that beneficiaries may struggle again for their appointment times.

“You would think if there were access problems that the fee bump dealt with for a couple of years, that those access problems could reemerge,” says Zuckerman, who reiterates the lack of data backing this hypothesis. On the other hand, Zuckerman says, doctors knew the fee adjustment wasn’t permanent, and those who increased their participation may not make major adjustments in light of any changes.

What Does It Mean For You?

If you’re on Medicaid, this may be more than you care to know. The bottom line: You need a doctor, and you shouldn’t have to wait an unreasonable amount of time for an appointment. How you navigate your state’s Medicaid system likely hasn’t changed, but finding a doctor may require some legwork.

If you had a doctor prior to receiving Medicaid approval, call the office to discuss staying on as a patient. If the doctor accepts Medicaid, you likely won’t have to look for a new provider.

If you need a doctor, check your state’s Medicaid website for a provider directory. If your state doesn’t offer one, contact the doctor you’re interested in and ask if he or she is accepting new Medicaid patients. Ask what the average wait time is for a new patient appointment, and use that answer to compare a few different providers in your area. You can also use tools such as the Medicare.gov Physician Compare, Healthgrades or the U.S. News Doctor Finder to see how doctors stack up.

If you live in a state where Medicaid doctors are in short supply, you may find using a health center or community clinic is your best option. And before you turn up your nose, know that the ACA-funded major improvements and the expansion of health centers across the country in part to help deal with the influx of new Medicaid patients. Further, a Kaiser Family Foundation study found these centers to largely be on par (or even better) than other Medicaid managed care organizations in terms of quality, even before the ACA-funded improvements.

It is possible to get high-quality medical care under the Medicaid system. Navigating your way through the system, however, can be difficult. Regardless of how doctors are getting reimbursed or who is accepting the public insurance, your health should remain a top priority. So don’t delay medical care out of frustration, and remember to stay flexible with your provider choices.

 

Filed under: General Problems | 1 Comment »

Veteran. On opiates for 10 years. 50% cut.

Posted on February 13, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve

Veteran. On opiates for 10 years. 50% cut.
Sick
As
Hell.
Language alert.

Is this the type of healthcare we can expect… if we get Medicare for all… and HHS/CMS is in control

Filed under: General Problems | 1 Comment »

Largest Chronic Pain Patient Survey Is Still Looking For Your Opinion

Posted on February 13, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve

Largest Chronic Pain Patient Survey Is Still Looking For Your Opinion

www.nationalpainreport.com/largest-chronic-pain-patient-survey-is-still-looking-for-your-opinion-8838724.html

What is believed to be the largest-ever patient survey on chronic pain is being kept open. Over 3,000 chronic pain patients and loved ones have filled it out in the last year.

“There’s nothing like it out there,” said Terri Lewis, Ph.D., who is the study author.

She told the National Pain Report this week that the survey has generated over 200,000 lines of comment data which she and her team are busy tabulating.

One thing she told us really stood out—that respondents have tried 262 different alternatives to treat their chronic pain.

If you have not yet filled out the survey, you can do so here.

You’ll note that this survey originally was designed to present data to the FDA for its Public Meeting for Patient-Focused Drug Development on Chronic Pain last summer. But Dr. Lewis has kept the survey active because of the vast information it’s generating.

She said that the data collected will be able to use in three basic ways.

  1. “What the survey results can be are a weapon for people to take to their doctors, to their fellow patients and to their state legislature.”
  2. “The data will also give clinicians the confidence to change their behaviors and not be cowed by the government.”
  3. “It should also be a driver in helping change and create uniform policy which ultimately will hold people accountable to do the right thing.”

Dr. Lewis points out that a big number of people who are responding would otherwise be in the prime of their working and economic lives were it not for injury and illness that they endure.

“They are very unhappy with the system they have to rely on. They are extraordinarily negatively impacted by shrinking footprint of healthcare and public policy,” she pointed out.

Many of the respondents have been dealing with their illnesses and injuries for many years and had achieved some degree of stability of care until the opioid wars destabilized their provider system.

If you have not yet added your voice to this—please do.

If you are not yet following us on Twitter, please do:

@NatPainReport

@edcoghlan

To follow Dr. Lewis, and to keep up on her on behalf of chronic pain patients, find her @tal7291

 

Filed under: General Problems | 2 Comments »

The worst CVS pharmacy is the one I work at

Posted on February 13, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve

Let me start out by saying that I’m the lead tech at a store in a college town and have worked as a tech for 4 years. My store has, in the past year and a half both of our pharmacists quit (we only have 2) then got a new staff pharmacist in and a Pharmacy manager until after 6 months our pharmacy manager quit. For the past 9 months we have had an interim pharmacy manager, who was only supposed to be here 3 months, and the pharmacist who was supposed to replace him quit after 3 days. A few months later a pharmacist from out of state was going to take over, he quit after his 5th day. 3 techs have transferred in and ALSO QUIT getting better jobs on campus.

Not only are employees treated as disposable but patients are pretty much shit on with how our district leader wants us to treat them. We are supposed to turn on text messaging, script sync, and readyfill even after the patients decline it. Want off PCQ calls? Too bad. I’ll be calling every weekend until you wise up and go to a better pharmacy. Have Caremark insurance and can’t go anywhere else? Lube is in aisle 11.

We already have horrible customer service as we at max have 2 techs at a time for 5 hours. Opening and closing is done by one tech. Every day there is a line of people in drive through, in store picking up and dropping off and 3 PHARMACY CALLS. The wait time we tell people is an hour, 2 hours for C2s and if we are transferring from another pharmacy it’s 24 hours.

When people complain we are not allowed to tell them we are understaffed and busy.

Our interim pharmacy manager is about to jump ship and I will be too after I graduate. Really hope one day CVS goes bankrupt as a corporation.

If my district leader is reading this, sincerely go fuck yourself.

www.reddit.com/r/CVS/comments/apxylf/the_worst_cvs_pharmacy_is_the_one_i_work_at/

Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »

For anyone who missed the Senate HELP Committee hearing this morning, here is the video archive

Posted on February 12, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve

Filed under: General Problems | 4 Comments »

When the profits of a practice is more important than caring for pts ?

Posted on February 12, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve

I took my yearly drug screen 2 weeks ago. I noticed that unlike before, adderall and xanax were listed as rxs I take. I asked about the xanax tablets because I’ve taken 3 (Three tablets) in the past  year. 2 (two tablets) for tests, and 1, (one tablet) for surgery. Adderall  has been a regular RX of mine since Feb. 2005. Four days after the urine screen my Dr’s office calls says my screen is “inconsistent” for xanax. I say, “I’m in the car, ill be right there to take another test and get a copy of the previous urine screen results.” I’m shaken up, I’ve done nothing wrong, nothing whatsoever, I took nothing, used nothing. The Med assistant said they didn’t want another test, but informed me the N.P. needs to see me before she’ll prescribe for me again. Still driving, I say yes, I want an appt. asap. I arrive at the N.P. office only 5 minutes after I’d answered their call. Again I ask for a UDS, again, “No”. I filled out the form to obtain my UDS from the previous week, When I review the report I see it states that the definition of “inconsistent” in my case is that there was “NO TRACE” of xanax. I went to my appt with the N.P. I waited 1 1/2 hours in an exam room. She came in she asked why I was there and I repeated the message her assistant called me with. The N.P. began loudly stating conclusions about me and said she should’ve done a pill count on me and that she’ll no longer write rx for me. When it was over I walked calmly to the checkout desk and asked for my records. I received my med records yesterday, which ends with the statement that I “failed” my drug test. What do you recommend? I live in a small community that my family and myself have been well thought of for decades. I need a lawyer. My welfare, reputation and life have been damaged, The final page of my healthcare record in their office states I failed my drug screen

 

I have seen this before, a pt is discharged because of a “bad lab” and refusal to let the pt take a second test.

This situation is stranger than most, the pt had taken a total of 3 doses of Xanax over the last year at the time of procedures.

And the NP was looking for a positive urine test for Xanax days or weeks after the pt had taken a Xanax as a single dose on two separate occasion.

I have often expected that the reason(s) behind some of these irrational discharges is because the practice has taken on too many pts and/or someone has quit and they can’t find a replacement or chose not to replace them.

Are they going thru the billing records and seeing which insurance is paying less than others, a slow payer or one requiring a higher number of PA’s, or the pt is one of the lower generator of revenue/yr..  not all pts generate the same amount of revenue.  After all healthcare is nothing but a FOR PROFIT BUSINESS.

Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »

Guest view: Montana has become a wasteland for pain management

Posted on February 12, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve

Guest view: Montana has become a wasteland for pain management

https://mtstandard.com/opinion/columnists/guest-view-montana-has-become-a-wasteland-for-pain-management/article_0dd1d1ec-9add-5ad2-8a02-f637ac1b6bde.html

Why would we be sycophants for the Attorney General, who misrepresents the facts for political gain, so he can claim a “victory” in a drug war (against people) that is 50 years old, costing $2 trillion?

AG Fox is featured in the Montana Medical Association bulletin this month, supporting added mandates for physicians and others who provide prescription medications. “Know your Dose” is a program right out of American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, not scientifically based, and holds a prominent ad buy in the bulletin.

The surge in back pain in Montana is directly related to the surge in procedures.

Drs. Bender and Danaher testified under oath in Dr. Christensen’s trial, in order to take out their competition.

Dr. Christensen took on opiate refugees from Missoula Spine, as the plan, now successful, was to eliminate opiates, so as to enable more procedures. Did you know that epidural steroids are NOT approved by FDA? That ESIs can cause adhesive arachnoiditis, and Intractable Pain?

That .01 percent of patients metabolize opiates so rapidly that they require very large doses (similar to diabetics who require huge insulin doses)?

That Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, a group of addiction doctors, claim that opiates for pain are heroin pills, and never should be used, and they claim this without evidence?

There is another side to this whole story that has yet to be told, or is being told by doctors and patients who have been marginalized, and that includes myself. The Board Of Medicine took me out, in coordination with DEA. It worked.

But the DEA, regulators and legislators are practicing medicine without a license, always mindful of: “We cannot tell you what to do, we are not doctors.”

It is well known that the board of medicine deprived me of my due process rights, had “experts” that were found to be lying (not credible) and ignored the findings of their own hearing officer, David Scrimm. The intimidation of doctors in this state has worked. It worked on me.

The consequences, intended or not, are that Montana has been turned into a wasteland for pain management. We have become a Third World state, with people in such misery that they kill themselves.

Let’s have an open debate about the terror that doctors have been feeling.

Let’s look at the tribalism and shaming happening around pain and addiction.

Let’s interview patients who were taken from their familiar primary care MD, and forced to see a mid level NP or PA, who took them off their stable regimen.

It’s nasty.

Follow the money. 

But remember FEAR: false evidence appearing real.

In a letter to the Statesman Journal, Dr. Darryl George wrote: “I have seen providers misread drug tests and dismiss patients with rapid or no tapers. They fail to do confirmation testing to ensure the office test is accurate. They look for any excuse to fire the patient. Many of these patients will become unable to work, become less functional at home, and personal relationships become strained. Some patients end up divorced or contemplate suicide when their pain is uncontrolled.

The “ugly” happens when federal and state agencies blame the opioid epidemic on providers and patients.”

The facts are coming out. Montana leads the nation in suicides. Pain mismanagement and malfeasance have created a hostile regulatory environment for doctors.

I’m a member of The Montana Medical Association.

MMA could start standing up for patients who have been abandoned and physicians who try to help them.

Of course, the message and messengers were not welcomed.

Truth will come out.

Where will we be standing when it does?

Mark Ibsen, MD, is the former owner of Urgent Care Plus in Helena. 

Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »

DEA states that they want legit pts to get needed medication – YEA RIGHT ? DEA practicing medicine ?

Posted on February 12, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve

Jeff Walsh, DEA Asst. Special Agent, sits down with WESH 2’s Matt Grant to discuss issues patients are having getting legitimate prescriptions filled.  Feb 2015

Filed under: General Problems | 5 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »