Email steve@steveariens.com 502-938-2414
Pay Attention
Americans eat more French fries than any other country in the world and now a Harvard professor is saying you should not eat more than six fries at a time. Professor Eric Rimm at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told The New York Times, “I think it would be nice if your meal came with a side salad and six French fries.” Potatoes, especially those cooked in oil, have been linked to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
Filed under: General Problems | 1 Comment »
We’ve also contacted every civil rights attorney & organization here in Oregon & across the country. Their answers have been, across the board, via phone, snail mail, email, & in person, “we do not choose to get involved with this issue at this time.”
There is a lot going on in Oregon, for those not paying attention that local bureaucrats are hell bent on taking away all opiate pain management … initially from Medicaid pts.
Could the above response from the various law firm be for several reasons:
What we have seen over the last 2-3 yrs with these bureaucrats and their actions against chronic pain pts cannot be labeled as anything less than they are ZEALOTS.
From what I have read about the “going ons” in Oregon… these bureaucrats have their opinions and maybe they have reached the point where they believe that they are entitled to their opinions should actually be considered as FACTS. Or they are basing their actions on “facts” from such entities like the CDC, which most realize that many are fabricated, embellished or just flat out lies.
Sooner or later… the chronic pain community is going to have to come to the conclusion that data/facts from some other entities than what the bureaucrats have formed their decisions from are most likely not going to be considered by the bureaucrats and they are going to move forward with their planned changes… they have devoted a lot of staffing time coming to their conclusions and perhaps no words or “other’s facts” are going to change their agenda and moving forward.
In the end, it may just boil down to the chronic pain community coming together FINANCIALLY and funding one or more law firms to challenge the constitutionality of what has been done against those suffering from chronic pain and their pain therapy is being reduced, stopped or not started in the first place to those new pts which are headed towards being a chronic pain pt.
Filed under: General Problems | 9 Comments »
Walmart announced Monday it is introducing new restrictions on how it will fill opioid medication prescriptions in all of its in-store and Sam’s Club pharmacies.
It is the company’s latest expansion of its Opioid Stewardship Initiative, intended to stem the spread of opioid addiction, prevent overdoses and curb over-prescribing by doctors. It follows a similar initiative by CVS that went into effect in February.
A March report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found overdoses from opioids soared by nearly 30 percent between 2016 and 2017.
“We are proud to implement these policies and initiatives as we work to create solutions that address this critical issue facing the patients and communities we serve,” Marybeth Hays, executive vice president of Health & Wellness and Consumables said in a statement.
Over the next 60 days, the fourth-largest pharmacy chain will cap acute painkiller supplies to cover a maximum of seven days. It will also limit a day’s total dose to no more than the equivalent of 50 morphine milligrams. And, in states where prescriptions are restricted to fewer than seven days, Walmart will abide by the governing law.
Walmart said the new policies align with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations established in 2016. Those rules were meant for doctors prescribing chronic pain medication and encourage primary care physicians to prescribe the “lowest effective dose.”
By the end of Aug. 2018, the company said its pharmacists will begin using NarxCare, a controlled-substance tracking tool with “real-time interstate visibility.”
Pharmacies will also carry naloxone, an opioid overdose antidote that has become instrumental in helping to decrease overdose deaths. The life-saving medicine will be offered over the counter, dispensed upon request, wherever it is legal.
As NPR has reported, “The medicine is now available at retail pharmacies in most states without a prescription.” Retail sales of naloxone, more commonly known by the popular brand name, Narcan, increased by tenfold between 2013 and 2015.
Dr. Steven Stanos, former president of the the American Academy of Pain Medicine told NPR the organization applauds “any action that seeks to limit the over-prescription of opioids.” But, he added, “That needs to be balanced with the very real need of patients.”
“Setting a mandatory limit without giving physicians the ability to explain why a patient might need a longer prescription, interferes with the relationship between that person and their physician, who knows them better than the pharmacist,” Stanos said.
He also explained requiring patients to obtain a new prescription after seven, or sometimes even three days, depending on the state, can become too costly because of mandatory co-pays.
Another of the company’s changes going into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, is a requirement that all controlled-substance prescriptions be submitted electronically. According to Walmart: “E-prescriptions are proven to be less prone to errors, they cannot be altered or copied and are electronically trackable.”
Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »
LAS VEGAS – A year ago this month, 8 News Now aired a multi-part, in-depth project called “#OurPain: The other side of opioids,” which explored the mostly untold stories of how a crackdown on prescription medications has affected millions of legitimate patients dealing with chronic pain.
#OurPain: Opioid crisis leaves legitimate pain patients struggling
The Centers for Disease Control started this ball rolling back in 2016 when it issued supposedly voluntary guidelines that have since been enacted into law across the country. In the past 12 months, the crackdown has intensified, though it failed to put a dent in opioid overdoses.
I-Team: Feds ask public for help with opioid crisis
Barby Ingle, the president of the International Pain Foundation, learned about chronic pain patients the hard way when she became one. Ingle lost everything to pain, then slowly rebuilt her life and became an advocate for pain patients.
Since 2016, when the CDC initiated the great opioid crackdown by issuing supposedly voluntary guidelines, the suffering of millions of legitimate pain patients grew to be worse.
“I’m hearing more desperation,” Ingle said. “I’m hearing about more suicides, more loss of friends.”
Ingle says she hears the stories every day through her pain foundation, but now, the news is slowly seeping out.
Suicides among pain patients, including veterans and seniors, have spiked. Pain patients who could function and hold jobs have had to leave the workforce after being cut off.
Forced reductions in the production of opioid medications is felt in hospital emergency rooms, even in hospices where end-of-life cancer patients have had to suffer.
The crackdown on pain medications not only failed to cut opioid overdoses, but the deaths have also gone up. Especially, in areas that cut down the most. Death records, including in Nevada show that 80 percent of deaths are from illicit drugs like heroin and fentanyl, or a combination of drugs and alcohol, along with other underlying medical problems.
“Gunshot wounds; people who are taking multiple medications or mixing medications, even NSAIDs and opioids, It could have been the NSAIDs that gave you internal bleeding, but they blame it on opioids only,” Ingle said.
The annual pain week symposium held in Las Vegas was missing many familiar faces this year. Pain doctors are shutting down their practices out of fear they will be prosecuted.
Pain pioneer Dr. Forrest Tennant earned a lifetime achievement award one year ago. Now, his practice is shut down. Not because he was charged with any crime, but merely because he was served a search warrant. That kind of news spreads fast among doctors.
“We already know patients are having trouble finding doctors willing to treat them, especially in rural areas — pain management doctors are extremely hard to find,” said Pat Anson, Pain News Network. “And if they are abandoning their practice and doing whatever they can do safely, who is going to treat the pain patient of the future from the standpoint of the patient, they are being abandoned. From the standpoint of the doctor, they could be going to jail if they don’t stop prescribing, o what choice do they have?”
Since January when a new state law kicked in, Nevada doctors have sought clarification from the medical board about what the crackdown means here. At its most recent meeting, the board approved general guidelines that are far less Draconian than in other states, but the required paperwork is burdensome, and patients are being cut back regardless of their individual medical needs.
“I had my pain management physician involuntary taper me down to 90 MMEs and their entire amount of patient; they had like 300 patients and told me they were going to taper all of them down to 90. We’re all in pain because of it,” said Rick Martin, patient advocate.
Martin says the worst may come in January when new federal guidelines give pharmacies and insurance providers more power to overrule no matter what a doctor might prescribe,
“The insurance company is basically got a prescription pad and a white coat now, telling the legislators and doctors what to do,” Martin said. “The patient-doctor relationship is shattered.”
Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »
Oregon along with 5-6 other states has a “death with dignity ” law. it is claimed that another 30 states will have similar bills on their legislative agenda over the next year.
According to https://www.newamericancentury.org/, changes in our social morals seem to be driven by MONEY… generally gambling was illegal, until the bureaucrats “did the math” and figured out the revenue stream attached to the Lottery and Casinos – now many states are licensing all sorts of gambling activities.
We are seeing the same “realization” by bureaucrats as to the tax revenue that can be generated by Marijuana and we now have some 30 states that have legalized it .. in some form or another and it is probably just a matter of time before at the federal level it will no longer be a C-I – illegal substance – after some 100 years of claiming that this substance has no valid use.
Over the years, I have worked with several non-profits and the brighter ones understand in the non-profit arena that it much easier to save money than beg/raise money.
For the first 140 years or so, the United States did not have a income tax, but a income tax was initiated to replace the tax revenue that was going to be lost by the 18th Amendment that make alcohol ILLEGAL.. that initial income tax was just 1% -2 % and it mostly hit those people who were considered “rich” at that time. 14 yrs later the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, alcohol was once again legal and alcohol tax money starting flowing again.. but.. the Federal income tax … did not go away.
Is the bureaucracies finally “seeing the light” that it is going to be easier to cut expenses than to raise money and with us spending abt $10,000/person in healthcare taxes and much more on those who are handicapped/disabled, elderly.
Is Oregon the FIRST STATE to establish a processes that will make an increasing number of its residents to “qualify” for the parameters of utilizing the state’s death with dignity law ? The state is not DIRECTLY forcing them to exercise their choice to utilize the “final act” to eliminate their pain ? It is the choice of the pt and their prescribers as to what the pt wishes to do ?
I am not encouraging suicides… but.. already we have 50,000 suicides and ONE MILLION attempts every year. As that number start climbing… as many of us believe that it will.. it may be time for those people who believe that suicide is their only option from unrelenting pain from intractable chronic pain to do some planning… It has been reported that many times a suicide note inexplicably disappears either by the family that is embarrassed that their family member has did this and/or some other person(s) would prefer that the death be labeled as a “opiate related death” to better serve their agenda.
Should a video by the “desperate person” be made… blaming/accusing those who have put them into the position that causes them to take this action. Could they be charged with assisting suicide ? Could an “agreement/understanding” be made by compassionate friends/relatives that the video could be sent to them and it would be understood that it would be “shared far and wide”. Should those complicit in carrying out the actions of the bureaucracy be held accountable ?
Over the last decade, we have all seen the insidious actions of many bureaucracies and where they seem to be heading and it would appear that Oregon has stepped up the game plan and is seemingly taking very bold steps to take the “game’ to the end and declare VICTORY.
Filed under: General Problems | 10 Comments »
Guest: PHARMACIST GRANT
Topic: Pharmacology
Tune in at www.cawnation.com click “Listen”
Or YT Channel: The Doctor’s Corner
Call in with questions (415) 915-2291
Filed under: General Problems | 1 Comment »
https://www.webmd.com/special-reports/er-violations/20181129/patients-rights-in-the-emergency-room
Nov. 29, 2018 — The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, guarantees a certain level of medical care to anyone who comes to an emergency department that accepts payments from Medicare or Medicaid.
Some labor and delivery units and psychiatric hospitals are also governed by EMTALA.
Under the law enacted in 1986, emergency departments must:
1. Offer patients a timely and appropriate medical screening exam.
Over the last 10 years, the most frequent EMTALA violation by hospitals was the failure to do an adequate medical screening exam.
2. Stabilize patients who have emergency medical conditions.
Failure to offer stabilizing treatment was the fourth most common EMTALA violation over the last 10 years.
3. If a hospital can’t stabilize a patient, it is required to arrange an appropriate transfer to another facility, including:
Failure to do an appropriate transfer was the second most common way hospitals have violated EMTALA over the last 10 years.
4. Keep appropriate records on patients, including a central log of who came to the ER and what happened to them.
Failure to keep this log was the third most common EMTALA violation over the last 10 years.
5. Post signs in the ER letting people know about these rights.
6. Keep a list of on-call doctors who can see patients in case of an emergency.
7. Accept appropriate transfers from other hospitals if the receiving facility has special abilities or is able to care for an incoming patient.
8. Not punish any hospital employee who reports a violation.
9. Report any improperly transferred patients it receives within 72 hours.
Filed under: General Problems | 2 Comments »
It is claimed that there are 10 MILLION ESI given to pts every year in this country and that an estimated 5% of the ESI’s will cause Arachnoiditis
That is described as a VERY PAINFUL and IRREVERSIBLE disease state/condition.
One of the medications that is typically uses is Depo-Medrol which is a suspension of Methylprednisone – but some physicians may be using other corticosteroids that are in the same class as Depo-Medrol.
Both the FDA and Pfizer – who manufacturers the medication – has come out and strongly recommended that this medication NOT BE USED in ESI’s. Many other countries have BANNED these medications being used in ESI’s.
Recently the FDA, FDA Warns Against Off-Label Use of Implantable Pain Pumps
The only opiate that is approved for use in implanted pain pumps is INFUMORPH (Morphine) and often pain docs use a pharmacy compounded cocktail in the implanted pump in their pts. BECAUSE.. it is claimed that the pain clinic can purchase the compounded product for 10%-25% of the cost of the commercial product.
The question has to be asked … why does Medicare/Medicaid and other health insurance companies pay for these product(s) and procedure(s).
What is even more questionable is that it was recently reported that Medicare was going to increase the allowable – what is paid physicians – on providing ESI’s.
I have also read statements from chronic pain pts that have indicated that their pain clinic refuse to prescribe oral opiates to pt who do not want to have ESI procedures, especially those pts who have had them in the past and they have received little/no benefit and/or benefit was very short lived, less than what would be expected. Some suggest that this may be in violation of a part of the Sherman Antitrust Act called Tying Commerce which basically states that forcing someone to purchase something they don’t want/need in order to be able to purchase something that they want/need.
So do we have three federal agencies (FDA, DOJ, HHS) with policies in conflict.
What would happen if some pro-pain group(s) petitioned the FDA to BAN or declare the use of these medications in these particular applications as EXPERIMENTAL. No insurance company will pay for experimental medications.
Has anyone noticed that when the DEA charges a prescriber with inappropriate (medically unnecessary) prescribing of opiates… that they are also charged with Medicare fraud ?
If the FDA won’t act, then Congress is always talking about getting rid of Medicare fraud and abuse.. maybe talking to members of Congress to get these specific medications no longer being reimbursed… may be an option.
What has the chronic pain community got to lose ?
Filed under: General Problems | 3 Comments »
China agrees to make fentanyl a controlled substance after talks with US at G20 summithttps://www.cnn.com/2018/12/01/politics/fentanyl-us-china-g20-talks/index.html
(CNN)China has agreed to reclassify fentanyl as a “controlled substance,” in what the White House is calling a “wonderful humanitarian gesture” after the much-anticipated talks Saturday between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Filed under: General Problems | 2 Comments »
Tyson Timbs just wants his car back. In 2015, Timbs was charged with selling heroin to undercover officers in Indiana to fund his opioid addiction. After he pleaded guilty, a private law firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of the state to confiscate his Land Rover SUV, valued at $42,000. That’s more than four times the maximum $10,000 fine for Timbs’ crimes. But because he briefly carried drugs in the vehicle, the firm claimed that it could seize and sell it, turning over some of the profit to Indiana and pocketing the rest.
Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of civil asset forfeiture, also known as legalized theft. Every year, the federal and state governments obtain billions of dollars thanks to the work of prosecutors who expropriate property with some tenuous connection to a crime. Most states use the money to fund law enforcement, called policing for profit. Indiana also lets private attorneys file forfeiture claims against defendants, earning contingency fees and a share of the profit. That’s what happened to Timbs—so he sued, insisting that extreme forfeiture violates the Constitution. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court signaled that it agreed, with an unusual coalition of justices assailing the practice. A decision for Timbs could curb law enforcement abuses across the country, limiting one of the most scandalous components of our criminal justice system.
In a sense, Timbs v. Indiana is a pretty easy case. The Eighth Amendment bars the imposition of “excessive fines,” and the Supreme Court has already recognized that the forfeiture of personal property qualifies as a “fine” for constitutional purposes. It has also ruled that fines may not be “grossly disproportionate” to an offense. When the government seized Timbs’ car—which, again, is worth vastly more than the monetary penalty for his crime—it would seem to have imposed a grossly disproportionate fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
But, weirdly enough, the court has never explicitly held that this rule restricts state governments. The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government, as the Framers were hesitant to limit state sovereignty. After the Civil War, Congress drafted the 14th Amendment with the intent to “incorporate” the Bill of Rights against state governments as well. Throughout the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that almost all these rights did, indeed, apply to states. That’s why neither Congress nor your state government may infringe upon your freedom of speech, authorize an unreasonable search, or compel self-incrimination. But the court has never had an opportunity to squarely state that the excessive fines clause is “incorporated”—until now.
There is little doubt that the justices will use Timbs to incorporate the clause at long last. Under long-standing precedent, a right that is “fundamental” to “ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted” in history receives protection under the 14th Amendment. And in its extraordinary brief, the Institute for Justice—the libertarian firm representing Timbs—demonstrates that the right against excessive fines checks both boxes. It was enshrined in the Magna Carta and safeguarded by most state constitutions when the U.S. Constitution was ratified. When Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, lawmakers argued that it would nullify “Black Codes” in Southern states that levied crippling, arbitrary fines on newly freed slaves. There is really no plausible argument that the right against excessive fines is not “fundamental” or “deeply rooted” and thus incorporated against the states.
So when Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher approached the lectern to argue that the excessive fines clause doesn’t fully apply to Indiana, Justice Neil Gorsuch pounced. “Can we just get one thing off the table?” he asked. “We all agree that the excessive fines clause is incorporated against the states. … Can we at least agree on that?” Fisher hedged, but Gorsuch shot back: “I think a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would probably be a good starting place.” Fisher tried to suggest the truth was more complicated, but Gorsuch cut him off, noting that most of the Bill of Rights was incorporated “in, like, the 1940s.”
“And here we are in 2018, still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights,” the justice said. “Really? Come on, General.” He leaned back in his chair, grinning like the cat that caught the canary.
Although Gorsuch led the charge, no justice seemed to think that the Constitution permits states to impose excessive fines. So Fisher raised a backup argument, alleging that the Eighth Amendment doesn’t bar forfeitures of property, only money. The problem with this claim is that the court rejected it in 1993’s Austin v. United States. So Fisher asked the court to overrule Austin, further flummoxing Gorsuch.
“Let’s say this court’s not inclined to revisit Austin,” he told Thomas. “You’re going to lose not just the incorporation question but the merits question too.” Justice Stephen Breyer asked if Indiana could seize a Bugatti if it was going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit. “Yes, it’s forfeitable,” Fisher responded. Breyer mused: What about a “Mercedes, or a special Ferrari or even jalopy?” Fisher laughed at Breyer’s fanciful hypotheticals. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Gorsuch’s new criminal justice ally, looked unamused.
“Justice Scalia said it very well,” she told Fisher, quoting Scalia’s opinion in Austin. “For the Eighth Amendment to limit cash fines while permitting limitless [property confiscation] would make little sense.” Instead, it would revive England’s notoriously lawless Star Chamber. Gorsuch nodded vigorously in agreement. “Are we trying to avoid a society that’s like the Star Chamber?” Sotomayor asked. “If we look at these forfeitures that are occurring today … many of them seem grossly disproportionate to the crimes being charged.”
She’s right. In Philadelphia, prosecutors seized one couple’s house because their son was arrested with $40 worth of drugs. Officials there seized 1,000 other houses and 3,300 vehicles before a 2018 settlement that led to reparations for victims. In 2014, federal prosecutors used asset forfeiture to take more stuff than burglars. One Texas police department seized property from out-of-town drivers, then colluded with the district attorney to coerce these drivers into waiving their rights. Law enforcement frequently targets poor people and racial minorities, figuring they are unable to fight back.
Although he said nothing on Wednesday (as usual), Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the court’s fiercest critics of civil asset forfeiture. In 2017, he wrote a solo opinion urging the court to rein in the practice. Citing its “egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” Thomas asserted that the Constitution likely does not allow police to “seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use.” And in 1998, he authored a 5–4 decision, joined only by the liberals, outlawing forfeitures that are “grossly disproportional to the gravity of [the] offense.”
So while Gorsuch and Sotomayor led the fight on Wednesday, there’s probably a cross-ideological coalition of justices prepared to invalidate excessive forfeitures. Such a ruling would reflect broad agreement across the ideological spectrum that forfeiture has gone too far. Among the organizations that wrote or joined amicus briefs supporting Timbs are the progressive ACLU and NAACP; the libertarian Cato and Goldwater institutes, as well as the Pacific Legal Foundation; the conservative Chamber of Commerce and Judicial Watch; and the fundamentalist Foundation for Moral Law, which is “dedicated to the defense of God-given liberties.”
Only Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito expressed any interest in allowing civil asset forfeiture to continue unabated. A majority of the court seems poised to rule that all 50 states must stop seizing property in a way that’s grossly disproportionate to the crime committed—a holy grail of criminal justice reformers. In one fell swoop, defendants will receive new protections against the legalized theft of their stuff. And Tyson Timbs, who attended Wednesday’s argument, can demand that Indiana return the Land Rover that it never had a right to seize in the first place.
Filed under: General Problems | 2 Comments »
