The five most addictive substances in the world – two don’t need a Rx

The five most addictive substances in the world

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/health/most-addictive-substances-partner/index.html

What are the most addictive drugs? This question seems simple, but the answer depends on whom you ask.

From the points of view of different researchers, the potential for a drug to be addictive can be judged in terms of the harm it causes, the street value of the drug, the extent to which the drug activates the brain’s dopamine system, how pleasurable people report the drug to be, the degree to which the drug causes withdrawal symptoms, and how easily a person trying the drug will become hooked.
There are other facets to measuring the addictive potential of a drug, too, and there are even researchers who argue that no drug is always addictive. Given the varied view of researchers, then, one way of ranking addictive drugs is to ask expert panels.
In 2007, David Nutt and his colleagues asked addiction experts to do exactly that — with some interesting findings.

1. Heroin

Nutt et al.’s experts ranked heroin as the most addictive drug, giving it a score of 3 out of a maximum score of 3. Heroin is an opiate that causes the level of dopamine in the brain’s reward system to increase by up to 200% in experimental animals. In addition to being arguably the most addictive drug, heroin is dangerous, too, because the dose that can cause death is only five times greater than the dose required for a high.
Heroin also has been rated as the second most harmful drug in terms of damage to both users and to society. The market for illegal opiates, including heroin, was estimated to be $68 billion worldwide in 2009.

2. Cocaine

Cocaine directly interferes with the brain’s use of dopamine to convey messages from one neuron to another. In essence, cocaine prevents neurons from turning the dopamine signal off, resulting in an abnormal activation of the brain’s reward pathways. In experiments on animals, cocaine caused dopamine levels to rise more than three times the normal level. It is estimated that between 14 million and 20 million people worldwide use cocaine and that in 2009 the cocaine market was worth about $75 billion.
Crack cocaine has been ranked by experts as being the third most damaging drug and powdered cocaine, which causes a milder high, as the fifth most damaging. About 21% of people who try cocaine will become dependent on it at sometime in their life. Cocaine is similar to other addictive stimulants, such as methamphetamine — which is becoming more of a problem as it becomes more widely available — and amphetamine.

3. Nicotine

Nicotine is the main addictive ingredient of tobacco. When somebody smokes a cigarette, nicotine is rapidly absorbed by the lungs and delivered to the brain. Nutt et al’s expert panels rated nicotine (tobacco) as the third most addictive substance.
More than two-thirds of Americans who tried smoking reported becoming dependent during their life. In 2002 the WHO estimated there were more than 1 billion smokers and it has been estimated that tobacco will kill more than 8 million people annually by 2030. Laboratory animals have the good sense not to smoke. However, rats will press a button to receive nicotine directly into their bloodstream — and this causes dopamine levels in the brain’s reward system to rise by about 25% to 40%.

4. Barbiturates (“downers”)

Barbiturates — also known as blue bullets, gorillas, nembies, barbs and pink ladies — are a class of drugs that were initially used to treat anxiety and to induce sleep. They interfere with chemical signalling in the brain, the effect of which is to shut down various brain regions. At low doses, barbiturates cause euphoria, but at higher doses they can be lethal because they suppress breathing. Barbiturate dependence was common when the drugs were easily available by prescription, but this has declined dramatically as other drugs have replaced them. This highlights the role that the context plays in addiction: if an addictive drug is not widely available, it can do little harm. Nutt et al’s expert panels rated barbiturates as the fourth most addictive substance.

5. Alcohol

Although legal in the US and UK, alcohol was scored by Nutt et al.’s experts 1.9 out of a maximum of 3. Alcohol has many effects on the brain, but in laboratory experiments on animals it increased dopamine levels in the brain’s reward system by 40% to 360% — and the more the animals drank the more dopamine levels increased.
Some 22% of people who have taken a drink will develop dependence on alcohol at some point during their life. The WHO has estimated that 2 billion people used alcohol in 2002 and more than 3 million people died in 2012 due to damage to the body caused by drinking. Alcohol has been ranked as the most damaging drug by other experts, too.

Is this how the CDC opiate guidelines are causing many pts to be living in a torturous level of pain ?

Thank you! Thank you! Brenda Sharp so much for sharing your pain with us and for spreading awareness for Trigeminal Neuralgia and Facial Pain Disorders! This is the first video that I’m uploading across social media sites as well as domestic and international media channels that will allow uploads. Thank you for helping me to step out of the box with awareness in a different avenue by exploring awareness through videos. For starters, it’s on Instagram, Youtube, GooglePlus, Twitter and TNnME! Thank you!

This is what forced cold turkey withdrawal looks like when pt’s pain meds are stopped abruptly

Why vertical mergers will continue to dominate health care – causing antitrust issues ?

Why vertical mergers will continue to dominate health care

https://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/2018/12/why-vertical-mergers-will-continue-dominate-health-care

Insurers are busy merging with retailers and providers in vertical integration deals after attempts at horizontal combinations hit antitrust roadblocks.

While 2019 might not see the mega-mergers of 2018, “I don’t think it will be a slow year,” predicts Stephen Burrill, vice chairman and health care leader at Deloitte LLP.

Much of the action is expected to come from retailers linking up with payers or providers, or from health insurers or health care systems acquiring services such as home health care providers and rehabilitation facilities. Payers and providers have begun to realize “maybe this is a better answer if we work together and think about the patient holistically,” Burrill says. With that type of vertical integration, “you help manage money,” with the goal of reducing health care costs, he adds.

During the first three quarters of 2018, nearly 800 health care deals were announced, valued at almost $115 billion, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. By far the largest were Cigna’s $67 billion acquisition of Express Scripts and CVS Health’s $69 billion acquisition of Aetna. For 2017, the number of health care deals totaled 967, with a combined value of $175.2 billion. The Cigna–Express Scripts deal may not close until mid-2019, several months after it was expected to, and California, New York and New Jersey regulators are still reviewing it. The CVS–Aetna merger has also run into snags. It has gotten the Department of Justice’s approval but early this month Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said he might require the companies to remain separate until he can review the merger and consider anti-trust issues. “I can’t recall another instance of a judge doing this,” Andrea Agathoklis Murino, co-chairperson of Goodwin Procter LLP’s antitrust and competition law practice, told CNBC.

In a November earnings call, CVS CEO Larry Merlo said the company would work to help better manage customers’ chronic conditions, such as diabetes, through the integration of CVS’s and Aetna’s claims data, according to media reports.

CVS is planning to launch new “health hub” stores this year that will provide “new services to better address the cost-quality-access challenges of consumers,” Merlo said. The hubs would reportedly use pharmacists to help manage patients’ care between visits to primary care providers. The pilot efforts would initially involve Aetna members, but could be expanded to other health plans.

Meanwhile, Humana and Walmart have been talking about merger-slash-partnership arrangements, according to media reports, but as 2018 waned they had yet to make any kind of big-splash announcement. Humana has partnered with Walgreens to test senior-focused primary care clinics in Kansas City.

Insurers are busy merging with retailers and providers in vertical integration deals after attempts at horizontal combinations hit antitrust roadblocks. In 2017, federal judges ruled against Humana’s proposed tie up with Aetna and a Cigna–Anthem merger. And the bar for horizontal mergers got a little higher this year. California approved a law that requires that any health insurers who want to merge to first gain approval from the state’s Department of Managed Health Care. The department can reject mergers that limit competition.

Other vertical deals this year included Humana’s acquisitions of a Curo Health Services, a hospice provider, and Family Physicians Group in Orlando, a primary care provider. Meanwhile, Centene announced it was acquiring Community Medical Group, a primary care provider in Miami-Dade County. Anthem acquired Aspire Health, a palliative care provider.

Whether the enthusiasm for vertical integration will go too far and start bumping up against antitrust objections is one of the important questions going into 2019. An example might be a health insurer acquiring all the rehabilitation facilities in a particular market. “There may be a point where it’s too big,” Burrill says.

More US Teens Are Vaping, but Use of Opioids, Alcohol Falling

More US Teens Are Vaping, but Use of Opioids, Alcohol Falling

https://www.clinicaladvisor.com/pediatrics-information-center/more-us-teens-are-vaping-but-use-of-opioids-alcohol-falling/article/821791/

HealthDay News — Vaping among American teenagers increased dramatically in 2018, with nearly 2 of every 5 high school seniors reporting they had tried an electronic cigarette during the past year, according to the latest Monitoring the Future survey funded by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse.

About 37% of teens said they had tried vaping and even Nicotine-free vape options within the previous 12 months compared with about 28% in 2017. Vaping rates also increased by about one-third in younger teens, with about 18% of eighth graders and 32% of 10th graders reporting they had tried e-cigarettes in 2018. After alcohol, vaping is the second-most common form of substance use in the United States, the survey revealed. However, marijuana use remains steady among high schoolers, with nearly 6% of 12th graders reporting daily use. For the past two decades, daily use among high school seniors has hovered between 5% and 6.6%.

The survey also showed that smoking is at an all-time low, with only about 4% of high school seniors smoking daily compared with 22% two decades ago. Prescription opioid use (such as OxyContin or Vicodin) has declined to about 3% among 12th graders. Only 1.7% of seniors reported misuse of Vicodin in the past year compared with 10% 15 years ago. Alcohol use also has declined. About 17% of high school seniors reported being drunk during the past month, down from 26% 5 years ago. Fewer teens reported binge drinking (5 or more drinks in a row). About 14% of 12th graders said they had recently engaged in binge drinking, down from 17% in 2017 and the all-time high of 31% in 1998.

“We are encouraged to see continued declines in a variety of measures of underage alcohol use,” George F. Koob, PhD, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, said in a statement. “The new data, however, underscore that far too many young people continue to drink at a time in their lives when their brains and bodies are quite vulnerable to alcohol-related harms.”

More Information

Opioid crisis critical as youth drug deaths nearly triple in the past 20 years

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5984887974001

 

 

 

CVS is now working with a nonprofit “health” advisor that may ration customers’ health care choices

CVS Makes Plans To Ration Customers’ Health Care

http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/28/cvs-makes-plans-ration-customers-health-care/

CVS Caremark customers throughout America recently received bad news as the retail pharmaceutical chain officially closed on its $69 billion acquisition of Aetna. This is bad news because CVS is now working with a nonprofit “health” advisor that may ration customers’ health care choices.

In August, CVS announced a partnership with the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), a nonprofit group that bills itself as a medical review board. But its leadership team and the far-left billionaires footing its bill paint a troubling picture.

ICER was founded by Dr. Steven Pearson. Pearson previously worked with the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). A pleasant-sounding moniker, NICE is anything but.

Thanks to NICE guidelines, millions of British citizens are on waiting lists at any given time for procedures, hundreds of thousands are waiting for basic diagnostic tests, and thousands of operations are regularly cancelled. During the first quarter of 2018, “the number of British patients waiting 18 weeks or more for treatment increased by 35 percent, which was an increase of 128,575 patients from about 362,000 patients in 2017, to over 490,000 patients in 2018. Additionally, by March 2018, 2,755 patients had waited over a year to be treated, compared to 1,528 patients in 2017,” according to The Heritage Foundation.

NICE is even worse about drug approvals. NICE “has declined to fund [drugs] such as Benlysta, Novartis, Sorafenib and Avastin. The first is a treatment for lupus while the last three can extend the life of cancer patients. The Rare Cancers Forum notes that 16,000 patients annually could benefit from cancer drugs rejected by NICE,” notes the National Center for Public Policy Research’s David Hogberg.

Under ICER’s direction, CVS has set a “threshold of $100,000 per QALY, or quality-of-life years, a benchmark that measures both the quantity and quality of life generated by providing a treatment or some other health care intervention.” In practice, that means ICER’s opinion about the so-called quality of life value will determine whether CVS customers can receive new prescription drugs and treatments.

This means that even if a doctor prescribes a drug for a patient, that individual may find that CVS doesn’t carry that medication if it doesn’t fit ICER’s parameters. Think of it as socialized health care without the socialistic government regime.

Former Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Calif.), a primary author and sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, has been a strong critic of CVS’s decision and ICER’s approach. This is how he explained its effects:

This type of cost effectiveness analysis discriminates against people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups like the elderly because it assigns higher value to people in ‘perfect health’ than people in less-than-perfect health. So let’s say your child has a degenerative neurological condition and an expensive new drug is introduced that can halt, but not reverse, the damage done by the disease. Your child, and other patients like her, would be considered ‘worth less’ under a cost-effectiveness formula. As a result, the new treatment would not meet the threshold.

Recall that the debate over health-care rationing was a primary reason so many folks objected to ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). IPAB was to be a 15-person panel deciding which treatments should be allowed under what circumstances for government-run programs.

The idea of a panel deciding who gets what kind of care and when seemed Orwellian from the start, and Americans by and large opposed the entire concept. In February, Congress did away with IPAB.

CVS is now instituting its own form of IPAB with ICER. Rationing, by any other name, is just as insidious. So who is funding this far-left push? The Laura and John Arnold Foundation has donated more than $19 million to ICER since 2015. These big-money liberals appear to have goals of moving beyond ObamaCare to a full-blown single-payer system.

In addition to funding ICER, the Arnolds have teamed up with George Soros to bankroll Patients for Affordable Drugs (P4AD), an advocacy group claiming to be bipartisan yet comprised largely of former Obama and Clinton staffers. P4AD’s political actions during this past election cycle put the truth to the lie of bipartisanship.

According to The Intercept, “P4AD touts itself as a bipartisan organization, which means that come election time, it needs to spend money targeting both Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats being targeted by P4AD are virtually guaranteed to win re-election, which allows the group to claim a bipartisan label without actually harming any Democratic incumbents.”

Obviously P4AD is not bipartisan and neither is the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. As I noted in a recent Investor’s Business Daily commentary, “[f]rom abortion, to anti-Second Amendment work, to liberal ‘investigative’ journalism, to single-payer health care, the Arnolds fund the gamut of far-left causes… They promote their bipartisan giving, yet the Arnolds fund groups whose sole mission is to demonize and bankrupt right-of-center organizations. How is that possibly bipartisan?”

Now, through ICER, the Arnolds resurrecting one of ObamaCare’s most underhanded programs. And CVS is helping them.

During the Obama administration, CVS teamed up with the White House to promote the Affordable Care Act in its stores. Now it is working with far-left actors to revive a version of ObamaCare’s rationing board. CVS customers and investors deserve better.

Justin Danhof is the General Counsel for the National Center for Public Policy Research, as well as Director of the Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

 

 

Mis-statement of facts as early as 2014 ?

Kolodny Congress 5-2014 Opioiods from Media Policy Center on Vimeo.

Guilty regardless of the evidence to the contrary

They Fell like Dominos: My License, My Certification, My Profession

https://opmed.doximity.com/articles/they-fell-like-dominos-my-license-my-certification-my-profession-21667cc4d596

They fell like dominos, one after another: first, my medical privileges, then my Ohio Medical License, then my state license, then my board certification, finally my DEA license. While, like most physicians, I had concerns about malpractice suit, a medical board investigation never crossed my mind.

I suppose that’s why the certified letter from an investigator with my state medical board took me by surprise. I was alleged to be “an unregistered terminal distributor of dangerous drugs.” I told the investigator everything. I hadn’t distributed anything. Seven months previously, my husband of 37 years announced that he was getting a divorce. I had no home, no marriage, no job, no doctor, not even a car. I couldn’t stop crying. I couldn’t eat. Worst of all, I couldn’t sleep. I tried alcohol; it didn’t help. In desperation, I had ordered a bottle of Xanax from a wholesaler.

That was it. I signed a release of medical records to confirm my statements and document the help I was getting and the progress I was making. I hadn’t seen any patients during that time, violated any laws, or driven under the influence. Since I wasn’t in any legal jeopardy, I didn’t need a lawyer.

Then the second certified letter arrived. The Board had reason to believe that I was “unable to practice according to acceptable and prevailing standards of care by reason of mental illness or physical illness…” I was ordered to submit to a forensic psychiatric exam. Failure to do so would constitute “an admission of the allegations…and a default and final order may thereupon be entered without the taking of testimony or presentation of evidence.” If I didn’t submit to their demands, I could lose my license.

The interview went smoothly. I had no personal or family history of alcoholism or addiction. I could spell W-O-R-L-D backwards. I did my serial 7s down to 57 and my presidents down to Kennedy, at which point the psychiatrist had said, “Enough!” I was still in therapy and taking an antidepressant, but I was back to work and feeling good. I thought that was it.

But again, I was wrong. Four months later, I got a third certified letter. This time the Board ordered me to submit to a 72-hour inpatient addiction evaluation. Knowing what was at stake, I submitted.

When I arrived at the rehab hospital, my phone, wallet and keys were confiscated, and my car, suitcase and body were searched. During my stay, I was assailed with questions I couldn’t answer, questions like “What’s your drug of choice?” and “Does your family know about your addiction?” I submitted to observed urine drug tests, sleep deprivation and hours of interrogation, group therapy and lectures on alcoholism. The cognitive dissonance was unbearable.

On the morning of the third day in rehab, I was told that, since I was still in denial about my addiction, I would have to stay in rehab at least 28 more days. I had packed for three.

I refused. I was reminded of the consequences to my career. I still refused. I had given the rehab hospital permission to contact my husband, my daughter, my brother and a longtime colleague. They would confirm that, except for that brief period, I was the epitome of sobriety. The nightmare would be over.

It wasn’t. Six weeks later, the fourth certified letter arrived. It stated: “We have reason to believe that you pose an imminent threat to your patients and we thereby are suspending your medical license.” I had to stop practicing immediately. I could have a hearing. It would be adversarial, but it was my last chance to salvage my career.

I prepared assiduously in the 15 days leading up to the hearing. I was an articulate, consistent and contrite defendant, but a terrible lawyer. After eight hours of testimony, the Board’s lawyer concluded that my children were enablers, my spouse was lying, my colleagues were clueless and I was a hopeless drunk full of excuses. Nonetheless, I was hopeful.

Shortly thereafter, the fifth certified letter arrived. I was offered a chance to face my accusers, the eight members of the state medical board, for five minutes at a public hearing. I took the offer. Three and a half minutes into my statement, the Board’s spokesman interrupted me and read a perfunctory statement echoing their lawyer’s sentiments. I was numb.

Two weeks later, the sixth certified letter arrived. It said, “There is clear and convincing evidence that you are impaired in your ability to practice medicine and your Ohio license had been permanently revoked.” The seventh certified letter said my state license was suspended, the eighth, that my Board certification was revoked, and the ninth, that my DEA license was invalidated.

It’s taken me months to be able to write about this. Months to get past the shame of a personal crisis made public, to recover from the pain of the ordeal, and to accept that never again could I practice the profession to which I had dedicated my entire adult life.

I have learned over these months that countless other unwary practitioners have been victims of the same disciplinary fervor. I know now that, to keep their licenses, most of these physicians will submit to what’s demanded of them and they will stay silent to protect their reputations. I, however, was physically, emotionally and financially unable to submit to my Board’s final demand. As a result, I lost everything professionally. I have nothing to lose by speaking out.

My colleagues need to know that if a Board investigator contacts you, you must immediately contact your lawyer. Unlike in a civil case, Boards can presume you’re guilty and ignore exculpatory evidence. Unlike in a criminal case, Boards don’t have to advise of your civil rights because you don’t have any. They can coerce you into medically unnecessary treatment, rob you of your personal freedom, publicly defame you and deprive you of your livelihood, all with complete impunity.

State legislatures cannot abridge the civil rights of its citizens. However, they allow state medical boards to do so based on the rationale that medical professionals must adhere to higher standards than average citizens. I accept that. However, boards should not be allowed to violate our civil rights when evaluating whether or not we are adhering to those standards. Perhaps in the long run, we can repeal the laws that allow this travesty. For now, any of you who can speak up, please do. Talk to your colleagues, your medical society, your state representative. For those who can’t speak up, please know this: you aren’t a pariah, you aren’t worthless, and you definitely aren’t alone.

 

Chronic Pain Patient Lives Matter – Bill Murphy