CMS Pushing 7-Day Limit on Initial Opioid Scripts

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/892412

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is proposing that beginning in 2019, initial opioid prescriptions for acute pain be limited to 7 days.

The agency is also suggesting in the 2018 Draft Call Letter that Medicare Part D prescription drug plans monitor patients who take medications considered to be “potentiators” of opioid misuse and opioid-related adverse events — specifically, gabapentin and pregabalin.

 

Noting an alarming increase in gabapentin use to treat pain and concurrent opioid and gabapentin use, CMS is asking for comment on whether it is useful to more closely monitor beneficiaries receiving these prescriptions.

The CMS proposal came as a US House committee took a closer look at Medicare’s oversight of opioid use. At the February 6 hearing, members of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee said there are few data on opioid use among older Americans and that Medicare has done a poor job of encouraging prevention and treatment.

 

“With 10,000 baby boomers joining Medicare each day, we must harness innovation, technology and data to get ahead of this problem,” said Subcommittee Chairman Peter Roskam (R-IL). “Unfortunately, there is a lack of available data regarding the Medicare population and the extent to which opioid abuse, overprescribing, and diversion is an issue for seniors and the disabled,” he said.

 

That echoed an October 2017 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, which found that Part D plans are not sufficiently identifying and helping beneficiaries at high risk for opioid misuse. CMS established its overutilization monitoring system (OMS) in 2013, but opioid misuse continues, and thousands of baby boomers are being added to the Medicare rolls daily.

Drugs of Concern

The agency said in its latest announcement that the system has reduced “very high risk overutilization of prescription opioids in the Part D program,” but “given the urgency and scope of the continuing national prescription opioid epidemic, we will propose new strategies to more effectively address this issue for patients in Part D.”

 
 

CMS proposes the following:

  • To have the OMS identify high-risk beneficiaries who use “potentiator” drugs (such as gabapentin and pregabalin) in combination with prescription opioids to ensure that plans provide appropriate case management. The agency noted in its proposal that in just 2 years (2015 to 2017), the rate of gabapentin users in Part D plans increased by 14%: from 93 to 108 users per 1000 enrollees. Opioid users had even higher gabapentin use.
  • To create a new quality measure that would track how well Part D plans flag concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines. The OMS already flags concurrent benzodiazepine use, but there is no follow-up mechanism. According to CMS, in late 2016, when the OMS began tracking concurrent use, 64% of beneficiaries flagged as potential opioid overusers had a benzodiazepine prescription. In 2017, after monitoring, the number had dropped to 62%.
  • That Part D plans to have a pharmacy point-of-sale edit that prohibits dispensing of any prescription that is more than a 90 morphine milligram equivalent, or a 7-day supply.
  • That all sponsors implement soft point-of-sale edits that alert when there is duplicative therapy of multiple long-acting opioids.

CMS is taking comments on the proposal until March 5 and will publish the final requirements on April 2.

The Part D proposal builds on another CMS proposed rule, issued in December 2017. The agency was required by the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 to beef up opioid oversight.

 

As with that previous regulation, the newest proposal would exempt patients with cancer, in hospice, or in long-term care facilities from much of the strict oversight. 

Methadone Treatment Not Covered

Even as enrollees who misuse opioids are flagged, Medicare is not fully prepared to help. The federal health program does not pay for outpatient methadone treatment, for instance.

“We know there are significant gaps in access and coverage under Medicare,” said the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Richard Neal (MA), at the hearing.

 Neal introduced a bill in October 2017 — the Medicare Beneficiary Opioid Addiction Treatment Act — that would require Medicare to pay for outpatient methadone therapy. 
 Neal and Democratic colleague Frank Pallone (NJ) also have written to 14 Medicare Advantage and Part D drug plans asking them to share their evidence-based best practices.
 “The growth of Medicare Part D spending on opioids far outpaces the growth in enrollment, having increased 165 percent from 2006 to 2015,” said Neal and Pallone. They said that among the 12 million Medicare enrollees who were prescribed opioids in 2015, “the average beneficiary received five prescriptions for commonly abused opioids.”

YOUR PHARMACIST DOESN’T WANT TO SEE YOU NOW

http://www.thecabin.net/news/20180206/your-pharmacist-doesnt-want-to-see-you-now

If your pharmacist doesn’t look happy to see you the next time you visit, it’s probably because she’s losing money filling your prescription.

The problems are occurring with two groups of patients. The largest are those covered by Arkansas Works, which uses Medicaid dollars to purchase private health insurance for 285,000 low-income Arkansans. The other problem patients are the 68,100 Arkansans who purchase their health insurance through the online Arkansas Health Insurance Marketplace. Like Arkansas Works, the Marketplace was created by the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

Pharmacists say that, in those plans, they aren’t being fairly reimbursed by their pharmacy benefit managers. Those PBMs act as middlemen between pharmacists and insurance companies, which in Arkansas are Blue Cross, Ambetter and QualChoice.

If you’re thinking that insurance companies are supposed to be the middlemen, well, so did I. But as big as the insurers are, they’re not as big as the three PBMs that control the pharmaceutical market nationwide. The insurance companies pay the PBMs, and the PBMs reimburse the pharmacists while subtracting what’s supposed to be an administrative fee. That’s how your pharmacist gets paid.

The PBM that contracts with Blue Cross and Ambetter is CVS Caremark – the same CVS that owns your local drugstore and is buying Aetna, one of the nation’s largest insurers. A spokesperson released a statement saying it reimburses pharmacies at “competitive rates that balance the need to fairly compensate pharmacies while providing a cost-effective benefit for our clients.”

More than 300 pharmacists attended a legislative subcommittee meeting last week to voice their disagreement with that assertion. Earle pharmacist Cissy Clark said more than 22 percent of her prescriptions are for Arkansas Works patients, and she’s losing money on a “large portion.” She said one pregnant mother and her two sick children came into her pharmacy with three prescriptions for generic Tamiflu, which costs Clark $87 wholesale. The children were covered by traditional Medicaid with a reasonable reimbursement. For the mother, Clark was going to be reimbursed $36.23 by CVS Caremark. When Clark called Ambetter, she was told the insurer had paid $132.61 to the PBM, “which means that CVS made almost $100 while I lost 50,” Clark said. She eventually managed to work it out by filling a liquid version of the prescription and received a fair reimbursement.

In one sense, the system did its job by moving the mother to a lower cost drug. But that was an awful lot of running around to do for any business transaction – particularly a pharmacist trying to serve a family with sick kids. And there should be no situation in a market economy where the middleman takes that big of a cut.

State law does require the PBMs to allow pharmacists to appeal their reimbursements and ultimately have their costs covered. But of course, that means your busy, white-coated pharmacist has to go to war with a giant bureaucracy. Clark said she filed 65 appeals in the first week of this year alone and had not received any responses.

 

Arkansas Works and the Health Insurance Marketplace both were created by Obamacare, but the problems run much deeper. In America, health care is a profit-making enterprise, but it’s based on perverse incentives where the sellers make more money managing our illness than they do if they make us well. The payment system is a complex web of insurance companies, PBMs, big government agencies and other faceless middlemen. Their job is to shield us from the cost of our transactions. For that, they take a huge piece of the pie. Then there’s the fact that Americans have fundamentally unhealthy lifestyles. Being unhealthy is expensive.

 

Repeal the law, and the underlying issues will remain.

So what now? Pharmacy reimbursements will continue to be an issue in Arkansas politics. Nationally, Congress will continue to talk about health care but do little about it.

Last week, Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase announced they were jointly forming a new health care company to serve their employees. They didn’t offer many details because they don’t know what the company will look like. But it will be different.

Can these big businesses fix the big business of health care? At least, they can disrupt it. CVS’ stock fell 4.9 percent after the announcement.

Regardless, it’s going to take a while, and pharmacists are losing money now – or at least waiting on appeals.

when I first started working in pharmacies – late 60’s – there were virtually no generics… everything was a brand name… there was no PBM’s… and everyone PAID CASH… there was no Medicare to pay for prescriptions and Medicaid paid for a very small number… and the average prescription price was $4.00 -$5.00…

Today abt 90% of all prescriptions are generics, PMB’s price/pay/process about 90% of prescriptions and the average prescription price is pushing $60

If you apply the CPI from those days in the 60’s until today… and presuming that nothing else changed from what it was in the late 60’s..the average prescription price should be around $30 +/-. 

And just what contributed to that EXTRA $30 per prescription ?  Generics are suppose to save everyone money…

What they don’t talk about in this article and other places… these PBM’s DEMAND rebates/kickbacks etc.. from the pharmaceutical manufacturers … you may have been told that your insurance company wont’ pay for a particular medication that your doc wrote for but would pay for a “similar medication”… what they don’t tell you is that the PBM gets a LARGER kickback/rebate from the manufacturer’s product on the PBM’s formulary.  All of these “players” in the medication business are FOR-PROFIT businesses and isn’t it comforting that their decisions on what medication that you get to take – that can have a positive/negative outcome on your quality of life… is highly determined on the profitability of the insurance & PBM companies..

Here is one example of how profits by insurance/PBM come to play in your quality of life

Health insurer Anthem has sued Express Scripts Holding Co., alleging the pharmacy benefits manager is not passing along billions of dollars in savings from negotiated drug prices.

Pill peril: How pharmacists make sure you get the right medication

http://www.thv11.com/news/health/pill-peril-how-pharmacists-make-sure-you-get-the-right-medication/515122789

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (KTHV) — If you take medication every day, you’re part of the majority of Americans, but how do you know what you’re prescribed and what you’re given is correct? Mistakes happen. THV11 looked into what we can do to avoid medication errors

Eighty-two percent of American adults take at least one medication a day according to the Centers for Disease Control. This keeps pharmacists filling prescriptions all day.

“Per pharmacist probably 125 or 150 prescriptions a day,” said Philip Way, a pharmacist at Remedy Drug.

What if you were handed the wrong prescription? Or what if your doctor accidentally prescribed you the wrong medicine?

“Everyday the pharmacist is working to correct dosage,” said Dr. Scott Pace, CEO of the Arkansas Pharmacists Association.

Many of you know firsthand the possible mistakes that can happen when it comes to receiving your medicine.

“I once received the wrong birth control pills,” one viewer said.

“I was given someone else’s pills in my bottle,” another said.

“I once noticed my dad’s refill looked different. He started to fall and not remember anything,” said another viewer claiming he was given the wrong prescription.

“The right drug at the wrong dose can be prescribed, the wrong instructions can be prescribed, it can be misinterpreted at the pharmacy level,” Pace said. “A lot of selection errors have happened.”

Pace believes technology has created a new opportunity for error.

“We’ve moved away from a lot of handwritten prescriptions to electronic prescriptions,” Pace said.

When doctors send prescriptions electronically, if they click the wrong medication, the pharmacist won’t know it’s a mistake.

“It’s the technology that sometimes is changing what used to be a simple paper process and turning it into something on a computer and it’s a different workflow so with that workflow is a new opportunity for different errors,” Pace said.

“Rarely does it appear here,” Way said.

He puts prescriptions through a triple screening process to make sure those mistakes don’t happen.

“There’s a process of data entry.”

So when he gets your prescription, he reviews the patient, the doctor, and what else the patient is taking. He finds the medicine off the shelf, counts the pills, bottles them, then checks again

“Making sure the right medicines on the bottle, the right drug is on the label, the right doctor is on the label and that the patient is not already taking it or taking something that would interfere with it,” Way said.

Every year, the CDC reports more than one million emergency department visits come from adverse drug events. That’s any harm that comes from the use of medication like allergic reactions, side effects, over medication, and medication errors.

“If it’s a drug allergy they could have a reaction and depending on who they’re surrounded by and how they know how to react to that, it could be fatal,” Way said.

The final step to make sure you’re getting the right medicine is conversation.

“Communication is very important to us at the pharmacy level,” Way said. “Tell them what’s going on with your health care. They’re going to protect that information, but they need to know if you just had a baby, if you got over an infection.”

“If the color looks different than it did last month, ask. If the shape looks different, ask. If the directions look different, ask,” Pace said.

Scott Pace believes some errors come from drugs that sound alike or with similar names. The Food and Drug Administration reviews about 300 drug names a year before they’re marketed, with about a third rejected to minimize confusion.

If the pt presents a prescription and there is no drug allergy, drug interaction, or other contraindications that would suggest that the Pharmacist should not fill the prescription… but.. the pharmacist because of some personal opinion, bias , prejudiced or phobia the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription.  Won’t give the pt a valid reason… just … NO…

Is there that much difference between a pt walking away from the pharmacy counter with the WRONG MEDICATION and the pt walking away from the pharmacy counter WITHOUT the medication that their doc had determined they had a medical necessity for…

Both pts are walking away from the pharmacy counter without the medication that their doc wanted them to have.

My money is on that if both pts filed a complaint with the state pharmacy board…the board would take some sort of punitive action against the pharmacist for giving the pt the wrong medication and it is highly unlikely they would take any action against the pharmacist for refusing to fill a legit/on time/medically necessary prescription.

In 2016, the KY board of pharmacy reported it received 15 complaints for denial of care – refusing to fill a legit/on time/medically necessary prescription and 14 complaints were dismissed without further action.  One can only surmise that for every complaint filed with the board over denial of care there was probably 100 – 1000 more incidents that the pt didn’t bother to file a complaint.

FDA Takes New Steps to Mitigate Opioid Overprescribing

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/892135

As part of its ongoing efforts to address the opioid crisis, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released a revised blueprint containing core content for training that drug manufacturers are required to make available to opioid prescribers.

“The revised Blueprint broadens content to include information on acute and chronic pain management, safe use of opioids or other non-opioid or non-drug treatments, as well as material on addiction medicine and opioid use disorders,” the FDA said.

When finalized later this year, coupled with the Opioid Analgesic Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, the blueprint will apply to manufacturers of both immediate-release opioid analgesics intended for use in the outpatient setting and extended-release/long-acting formulations. For the first time, the FDA is requiring that the guidance be offered to healthcare professionals who are involved in the management of patients with pain, including nurses and pharmacists, in addition to prescribers.

“With millions of Americans misusing prescription opioids and more than 40 people dying every day from overdoses involving opioid medications, it has become abundantly clear that we need to do everything we can, along with our partners, to get ahead of this crisis,” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in a statement.

 

“Appropriate prescribing practices and education are important steps within our statutory authority to help address the human and financial toll of this crisis. We can and must do more to arm physicians — who are the gatekeepers of prescription opioids — with the most current and comprehensive guidance on the appropriate management of pain. The Blueprint is one tool for achieving these goals,” he added.

Dr Gottlieb said the FDA will continue to seek feedback from a “broad group of stakeholders and explore a range of approaches that, when combined with other steps we’re taking to tackle this epidemic, help ensure proper treatment for pain and better addresses the crisis of opioid addiction.”

 According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, opioids — including prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl — killed more than 42,000 people in 2016, more than any year on record. Forty percent of all opioid overdose deaths involve a prescription opioid.

42,000 deaths… what happened to the 64,000 deaths everyone else is using… does this CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE that there is 22,000 drug overdose deaths are caused by NON-OPIATE medications?

Claiming 40% of all OD’s are from prescription opiates… still does not clarify if the person ODing had legally been prescribed the prescription opiates.. Still no reference how many of these OD’s were in fact SUICIDES…

The USA has 50,000 suicides/yr with ONE MILLION attempts…   from this article https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/21/guns-most-deadly-choice-in-suicide-attempts/2572097/  

Guns are used in about half of U.S. suicides

and what is the cause of the other HALF of suicides??? BUTTER KNIFES…. ???   I guess that it is a little more obvious about a person committing suicide by shooting themselves with a gun as opposed to take all their meds and add in a little/lot of alcohol to help assure to “get the job done”…

Are the “powers that be” so mis-focused on drug overdoses that when a opiate shows up in toxicology it is automatically concluded to be a “accidental drug overdose”… is this why the nomenclature has been changed that all deaths when toxicology shows a opiate… no further investigation needs to be done.. just label the death as a “opiate related death”

A lot of people want to talk about FAKE NEWS… but who talks about PSEUDO-FACTS…

 

Addiction psychiatrist questions involuntary tapering of opioids

http://www.wjhl.com/local/addiction-psychiatrist-questions-involuntary-tapering-of-opioids/943940749

JOHNSON CITY, TN (WJHL) – A renowned author and addiction psychiatrist says the efforts of the Department of Veterans Affairs and other institutions across the country to taper people off opioids without their consent is “an outrage.”

“To take a patient who’s doing well off of medication abruptly and without their permission is not unfair. I actually think it’s malpractice,” Dr. Sally Satel said. “I think it is an outrage when you have a person who’s doing well on a dose of medication, highly functional and their pain is under good control. This is what you want. This is the clinical outcome.”

Dr. Satel is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a lecturer at Yale University. She’s a vocal opponent of the involuntary tapering of controlled opioids.

“It shouldn’t be done without their permission,” she said. “Without the patient’s consent, the results are often disasterous.”

Mountain Home VA Medical Center is prescribing half as many opioids as it did in 2012, according to recently released federal data. Since December 2016, several veterans have voiced their frustration over what they’ve said is a mandate to taper their pain medications.

Dr. Satel says many institutions have misinterpreted the Centers for Disease Control’s pain management guidelines as mandates rather than recommendations.

“It doesn’t say anything about taking people off their medications if they don’t want to go off of it,” Dr. Satel said. “Of course, it’s frustrating, especially when it’s misinterpreted in the direction of poor patient care. It’s very frustrating.”

For decades, VA and other doctors have prescribed pain medications because they thought, at the time, that’s what patients needed. However, in recent years, they changed their approach when new research found opioids can be dangerous and ineffective.

“I understand their fear, their anxiety and their anger, but I want them to understand this is driven by our concern for their safety,” Mountain Home VA Opiate Safety Initiative Chairman Dr. Martin Eason said in December 2016.

Most recently, Mountain Home VA Chief of Staff Dr. David Hecht said the facility is proud of its 49% decrease in opioid prescriptions since 2012. He added, doctors consider every patient’s need on a case-by-case basis and taper veterans off opioids in a safe way.

“Many veterans have really understood and bought into it and it has helped us,” Dr. Hecht said. “Any time we reduce these medications, we want to reduce them in a safe environment.”

The VA maintains it has taken patients off opioids gradually and given veterans the opportunity to appeal their tapering decisions. The agency adds while opioids may help with short-term pain, they are not approved to treat chronic pain in non-cancer patients. Mountain Home is now encouraging veterans to try safer and more effective alternatives.

As we reported earlier this month, VA representatives plan to discuss preliminary data that show a link between opioid discontinuation and suicides at an upcoming summit. Dr. Satel has authored several published works alongside one of those speakers.

Insurance tells pts to pay cash for doses above quantity limits – maybe not so easy ?

Steve,

I’m  have exchanged messages with you before. Our insurance company just sent a notice saying that they will only allow 60 tablets for a 25 day period of my husband’s class II narcotic rather than the 90/month the doctor prescribes. A statement follows this saying that the doctor can prescribe more and nothing will prevent us from filling a higher number. However they will only pay for the 60 allowed. They also say that the doctor can call them to get approval for a higher number, but that they will still only pay for the amount stated. This doesn’t go into effect until March 1, but I discussed it with our independent pharmacy today. We are willing to pay for the extras that the insurance won’t pay for, which actually calculates out to 18 additional tablets/month. ( they are allowing 60 for a 25 day period which translates to 72 for 30 days). However, the pharmacist said that the DEA won’t allow us to pay cash for the additional number. Is this true? How could I confirm this? Who should I call? We can pay for the additional and would rather do that than have his dose reduced yet again. Thank you.

What this insurance company is doing may be creating a “mine field” for everyone but them.  The DEA considers it a RED FLAG for a pt to pay cash for a controlled substance prescription when they have insurance.  Nothing would indicate that the DEA will make an exception for that RED FLAG under this particular situation.

Then there is the situation that pharmacy software sends the prescription to the insurance company and normally if the days supply exceeds insurance company’s limits, it is just rejected for payment.  That would mean that the pharmacist would have to fill a single paper C-II prescription TWICE.. assigning it two different prescription numbers…  billing the allowed quantity to the insurance company and the second for CASH.

This is going to send two different prescriptions to the state’s PMP for the same medication twice on the same day by the same doctor, pharmacy and patient. Is this going to throw some RED FLAGS by the PMP ?

I am sure that this pt can call the BOP and the DEA and they may or may not get a answer, but I suspect that neither would be willing to put the answer in writing.

If this pt is covered by Medicare/Medicaid they can file a grievance with www.cms.gov 800-MEDICARE or if the insurance is a ERISA policy that means that the “insurance company” is just administrating the payment of the bills with the company’s money and someone within the employer can probably tell the insurance company to pay these types of claims and remove the quality limits on these medications.

Then there is the state insurance commissioner to file complaints with.

The pt can also review their policy – which is a contract – and see if they can find a statement in the policy that states that the insurance will pay for “medically necessary treatments”

 

Your Pain, Your Rights: Dealing With Your Physician And Your Hospital

www.rsds.org/your-pain-your-rights-dealing-with-your-physician-and-your-hospital/

 

By Mary Baluss, Esq.

Although I had concentrated on legal issues relating to pain in terminal illness, I had never even heard of CRPS until I got a call from a young mother in  California with the crippling syndrome. She had gone from being an athletic, employed, confident woman to one who could not care for her two-year old,  couldn’t work, and feared her husband was getting fed up with her inabilities and constant complaints. She was stitched to life by her innate determination, her love for her daughter and not much else. The tragic aspect of her story was that she knew, from experience, that she could get significant pain relief from a combination of fentynl patches and breakthrough medication.

Her HMO balked at the cost of fentynl and suggested that she was not really hurting. A physician at the clinic told her she was drug seeking. A clinic pharmacist yelled at her when she came to pick up medications and told her not to come back for “her drugs.” It took an HMO appeal, a complaint to the state insurance commissioner, and filing a complaint in a local court to get her relief. A little over a year later, a re-evaluation started it all over again.

In advising her, I learned that chronic pain, just like end-of-life pain, could be safely treated with opioids, and that the barriers for adequate pain management were much higher for those with chronic pain than those with terminal illnesses. I also had begun to understand that living with severe chronic pain is
as bad as dying with it-and lasts longer.

Advocacy at the systemic level may eventually make multidisciplinary pain management a reality at all disease and income levels. In the meantime, many chronic pain sufferers will continue to fight it out one physician and one appointment at a time-not always successfully. As with much of medical care, self-advocacy
is absolutely necessary. You need to know your rights.

Getting Off on the Right Foot

CRPS patients with untreated pain often feel that the physicians they consult are unfeeling, paternalistic, judgmental gate-keepers. Although this image may fit some, it is more useful to see the prescriber in a different light and do your best to respond to his limitations, which may include:

  • lingering doubts about whether CRPS is a real syndrome
  • poor training in pain management, or training against using opioids for chronic pain because, despite reassuring words, his state medical board takes a hard line on physicians who prescribe them.
  • feedback from a pharmacist that the physician is prescribing too much pain medicine
  • intense pressure from your HMO to hold costs down by not prescribing the more expensive formulations
  • bad experiences with other opioid patients, making him feel that chronic pain makes for needy, time-consuming and difficult patients
  • the knowledge that honest physicians have unfairly been indicted for their prescribing habits.

For all these reasons, physicians are often fearful and wary of chronic pain patients and they cannot help but wonder which one will get him in trouble. The physician who simply refuses to use opioids for anything but acute pain, and then only for brief periods, is not going to help you, even though the AMA ethical standards require member physicians to provide patients with “adequate pain control, respect for patient autonomy, and good communication.1” However, he should be willing to refer you to someone who will provide effective pain care. In Florida, California and a few other states, physicians are legally required either to treat pain or refer. In other states, the obligation is usually defined in the medical board regulations. Certain specialty boards have adopted standards or guidelines on the use of opioids to treat chronic pain.

If you would like to provide your physician with state laws and guidelines regarding opioid treatment, they are available online at http://www.medsch.wisc.edu/painpolicy/matrix.htm

Prescribers who use opioids for pain management must feel secure about treating you and your pain and must overcome his comfort level limitation on dosage. Therefore, put aside your anger and frustration to present yourself as effectively as possible. Let the physician know that you are responsible and willing to cooperate to protect you both. Bring all the records you have to the first visit and let him know if opioids have helped you in the past. Be aware, however, that physicians are conditioned to see this as demanding a particular opioid; be clear that you are only informing.

Good physicians will have some practice management tools in place, so don’t take it personally if you are asked to sign a pain “contract” and to submit to blood or
urine monitoring. Contracts are actually a form of detailed and interactive informed consent. Good physicians will regard some contract violations as reason to evaluate and discuss what certain actions mean and will understand that actions that look like abuse can also be clear signals of under-treated pain, dysfunctional living arrangements, or manifestations of depression or anxiety.

Let the physician know if you need to “violate” one of the contract rules-such as requesting early refills so that you can go out of town or increase the dose in a time of particularly serious pain. However, you still have pain, call the physician before you increase the dose and ask for an appointment to talk about titration. If you can’t afford an interim visit, try to speak with him by telephone to explain how you are feeling, or have a friend or relative call him to express concerns.

Finally, do not be shocked or offended if he asks you to have a psychiatric consultation. This need not mean that he thinks your pain is “all in your head”. Depression and anxiety are almost synonymous with chronic pain, as is social isolation. Many studies show that a psychological evaluation and even ongoing psychological care can substantially improve pain management, as can other modalities, such as neurocognitive feedback. And, of course, it gives your physician some “cover” to have another professional involved. If money is an issue, let him know.

It is a good idea to bring a relative or friend who will talk to your physician about your suffering and the functional difference that pain medicine makes because prescribers are reassured when a patient using opioids has a visible support structure. It is also less likely that the physician will be rude or patronizing in front of a supportive friend or relative.

Some pain management physicians who are anesthesiologists by training have a firm bias toward invasive procedures over medical management, so they may suggest that you repeat sympathetic blocks or expensive tests even if a previous physician has already tried them. You have no obligation to go along, particularly
if your records reflect a history of procedures. The physician is obliged to seek your informed consent, which requires a discussion of risks and alternatives. Although you do not have to give it, the unfortunate upshot may be that he declines to treat you further.

You and Your Physician: What are Your Rights?

Reality dictates that some physicians, even in the face of clear pain, will not be willing to prescribe opioids. More commonly, they are willing to prescribe low doses but have a personal comfort level limit that may or may not be adequate for you. Moreover, if you push him to titrate doses above that comfort level, he may decide that you are a drug seeker. This serious ethical problem-the physician putting his perceived personal safety before his patient-is a deplorable situation
that can lead to abandonment.

A physician can abandon a patient whom he views as drug seeking or who has in some way “violated” the informed consent agreement. Although state laws and medical ethical rules do not allow abrupt termination of a physician-patient relationship, a prescriber does not have to keep you in his practice. If you are stable and able to find another physician, he can terminate you if he provides a brief written explanation of his reasons. An oral message is insufficient. The physician
must also agree to continue your care for at least 30 days and he should also provide a referral.

However, if you are at a critical or important point in your treatment, abandonment by notice and 30-day care is not permissible under common law. This restriction should apply to a patient taking opioids for pain because the consequences of withdrawal for a person who has a chronic illness could be significant.
Additionally an un-medicated patient may face a return of the pain that had been mediated by the opioids; he will almost certainly experience anxiety and distress. In short, a period without continuity of care could constitute a medical emergency. It seems logical that refusal to treat a patient until the patient has obtained another physician (or perhaps until it becomes clear that the patient is not making a serious effort to transfer care) should constitute abandonment.

What Can You Do?

Try Informal resolution. Deal with the termination immediately. If the physician is in a clinic setting, ask the head of the clinic if another physician there will take over your care. Speak to other health care professionals who know you well enough to be comfortable calling to explain that you are genuinely in pain and are a reliable, conscientious person.

Ask for a meaningful referral. Tell your prescriber you will need his help in finding another physician and you have a right to his assistance.  Get your records and review them carefully. Federal privacy law (HIPAA) requires your physician to provide your records promptly and to charge you no more than his actual costs of copying. It also allows you to have your records corrected if they contain errors. Review them for accuracy and look closely at what they say about the reason for termination. Phrases like “drug seeking” or “possibility of abuse” will hurt your efforts to find another physician. If he has used these phrases, write him a letter, preferably through an attorney, and use the words “abandonment,” defamation” and “emotional distress” if the attorney confirms that they are appropriately used in your state.

File a Complaint with the State Medical Board. Every state has a medical board that reviews all complaints and takes action when necessary. Only two state boards have disciplined any prescriber for under treating pain, so it is not possible to see this yet as a meaningful remedy. However, as more complaints are made and individual physicians show a pattern of patient abandonment, state boards are more likely to act.

State board complaints are not complicated. You do not need an attorney, but if you have one, take advantage of his advice. The forms themselves are simple and straightforward and are available on your state’s website. You can also order them by phone. Make your complaint more effective by writing a clear statement of what happened to you and any difficulties that you are having in finding another physician. Avoid a long, rambling statement. It may help if you number each paragraph and tell your story chronologically. If possible, have someone else read it to make sure it seems clear.

Do not feel limited by a form that does not allow much space for your comments.

Explain the emotional and physical impact of the termination. If you think your physician terminated you unfairly, state why. Make it clear if he was verbally abusive! Attach brief statements by anyone who has observed the impact that the termination has had on you and any other documents that may help the board understand that you are a legitimate pain patient with a serious medical condition.

If you want to follow up with the board, talk with the clerk to make sure it was put on the docket. Find out who is responsible for the investigation and ask to speak with him. Answer any questions and ask to be kept informed of case progress.

Consult an Attorney About a Formal Action

Abandonment is a tort (legal wrong) that may give you cause for a legal action against your physician. To prove abandonment you usually have to show (a) a physician-patient relationship; (b) that was terminated or neglected by the physician and (c) that caused you harm. An attorney can advise you about
your state’s requirements. Additionally, there is a tort called “infliction of severe emotional distress,” which requires (a) an action taken by the defendant (b) which was reasonably foreseeable to cause severe distress; and (c) that it did in fact cause severe emotional distress. Some states require a physical injury, but there is some precedent that recognizes pain as such. A growing body of medical evidence that untreated pain has serious physical consequences would
substantiate this view. If the defendant physician knew and intended to cause the emotional harm, a more serious tort is invoked. The requirements of these torts are often complicated and you should discuss your state’s precedents with your attorney.

Do not take a suit lightly and do not expect a windfall. Litigation is very hard on anyone with a chronic illness and even more so with RSD because of the stress involved. It prevents you from moving on. If you cannot afford to pay an attorney, you will have to convince one that the case is worth taking on a contingency basis; experience has proven this difficult. Most attorneys know very little about opioids and even less about pain management. You will need to educate your attorney so that he can evaluate your case intelligently.

2018 Adult ACIP Schedule Highlights New Shingles Vaccine

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/892281

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued its 2018 Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 or Older.

Key changes in the updated schedule  relate to the new herpes zoster vaccine, as well as to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The new schedule is published online today in Annals of Internal Medicine and on the  CDC website.

Following the US Food and Drug Administration’s October 2017 approval of recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV; Shingrix, GlaxoSmithKline) to prevent shingles in adults age 50 years and older, the ACIP now recommends RZV as follows:

  • Give two doses of RZV 2 to 6 months apart to adults age 50 years and older with competent immune systems regardless of a history of herpes zoster or receipt of the zoster vaccine live (ZVL; Zostavax, Merck & Co).
  • Give two doses of RZV 2 to 6 months apart to previous recipients of ZVL at least 2 months after ZVL.
  • For persons age 60 years and older, administer RZV or ZVL, with RZV the preferred option.
 

“RZV is an excellent new vaccine providing excellent protection,” David Kim, MD, the CDC’s deputy director for adult immunization, told Medscape Medical News. “It has long duration and does not wane, and because of its longer protection we incorporated the recommendation for those age 50 and older instead of just the age 60 and older group.”

RVZ may produce more reactions, however. It contains a new immune adjuvant, AS01B, and so far has been tested in clinical trials only in the United States, Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, an internal medicine physician in Atlanta, Georgia, and adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, told Medscape Medical News. “So there’s a theoretical concern that when it’s used in the general population, there could be some unforeseen adverse events. It is reactogenic, so we need to warn our patients to expect a reaction,” she cautioned.

Dr Fryhofer, who is the American College of Physicians’ liaison to ACIP, referred to one study in which 80% of patients had a reaction — mainly fatigue, muscle aches, and injection site pain  — and 17% had a grade 3 reaction with symptoms severe enough to inhibit daily activities. “But getting a reaction is better than getting shingles,” she said. “So we have to tell our patients that that if they react to the first dose, they won’t necessarily have a reaction to the second dose, and they do need that second dose.”

Dr Fryhofer has been administering RZV since last month, and so far none of her patients have reported significant problems.

However, because the clinical trials of RZV excluded individuals who were pregnant or have immunocompromising conditions, ACIP advises healthcare providers to delay giving RZV to pregnant women or adults with immunocompromising conditions, including HIV infection. After further planned discussions, ACIP will release recommendations on the use of RZV in adults with immunocompromising conditions.

In another new recommendation, the 2018 ACIP guideline endorses administering an additional dose of MMR during a mumps outbreak to at-risk adults previously vaccinated with two (or fewer) doses of a mumps-containing vaccine. “But this is not a decision for individual healthcare providers to make for their patients. It should hinge on the recommendation of public health authorities during a mumps outbreak,” Dr Kim said. 

While the 2018 schedule has been streamlined for easier use, the authors advise doctors to pay close attention to the detailed footnotes for the colored charts in Figures 1 and 2 of the report. These offer useful information on dosing intervals for vaccination series and special patient populations, such as pregnant women and patients with HIV infection.

The authors also note that more needs to be done to encourage vaccine uptake in adults. Despite modest increases in vaccination coverage rates observed in some adult groups in 2015, overall vaccination coverage rates for US adults remain low. Except for a steady rise in zoster vaccination among persons age 60 years and older, no sustained increases in vaccination coverage have occurred in the past few years.

 

That persistently low uptake prompted the National Vaccine Advisory Committee to update its practice standards in 2014 to promote immunization as part of routine adult care. Strategies include offering vaccines to patients during clinical visits for other issues, standing orders in charts for routine vaccination, and documenting and assessing vaccination status in local and state immunization information systems.

 

“We need to promote adult immunization not only to prevent disease but also to reduce its severity and prevent complications,” Dr Kim said. “Keeping patients up to date on their immunizations is as important as making sure their medication lists are up to date. We’re essentially talking about the same thing.”

 

Coauthor Dr Riley reports receiving personal fees from the private sector outside the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE LABEL: INTRACTABLE PAIN

THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE LABEL: INTRACTABLE PAIN

By Forest Tennant M.D., Dr. P.H.
No. 2 – Jan., 2018 REPORT
INTRACTABLE PAIN
The term “intractable pain” (IP) is a mystery to many people including health professionals. This is most unfortunate because it is an old concept that has, unfortunately, been largely ignored in recent years. I submit that a failure to understand the origin and purpose of the IP label is largely responsible for many aspects of the current opioid public health issue or “crisis”, as many call it.
In the 1960’s and 70’s some Canadian and British physicians considered themselves to be intractable pain specialists and they believed it caused profound biochemical changes in the body.(Footnotes 1,2) Their thinking and logic is summarized in a 1978 British Medical Journal article entitled “Biochemical Changes Associated with Intractable Pain”. (Footnote 3) Their definition of IP was “pain of at least one month’s duration that had not responded to conventional treatment”. This article makes three enduring points: (1) IP means pain is incurable: (2) IP means that conventional or standard treatment has failed to relieve pain; and (3) IP causes biochemical changes in the body that can be detected.
Physicians, such as myself, who began pain practice in the 1970’s, adopted the concept of intractability when dealing with pain patients, and we were quite reticent to prescribe opioids unless conventional therapy had proven to fail. This concept was further ingrained by the World Health Organization’s 3-Step Analgesic Ladder of 1982 and 1986. (Footnote 4) Step One on the ladder are non-opioid measures such as physical therapies and anti-inflammatory agents. If step one was not successful, a weak opioid such as codeine was added as Step Two. Step Three is the addition of a potent opioid such as morphine or oxycodone.
The concept of intractability was well accepted and institutionalized in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, because it separated simple chronic pain from IP. Potent opioids were the last treatment resort for bonafide pain patients. At the State level in 1989 and 1990, Texas and California adopted “Intractable Pain Laws”. The intent was to make a “safe harbor” for physicians such as myself who treated IP. For example, the California Intractable Pain law authorized a physician to treat an incurable pain patient with IP who had failed conventional treatment and it “would prohibit the Medical Board of California from disciplining a physician for that prescribing or administering” to the patient. (Footnote 5)
IP laws worked quite well until the late 1990’s when a powerful, moneyed, yet well-intended coalition of physicians, pharmaceutical companies, device makers, and government agencies, collectively rejected the concept of intractability and the WHO 3-Step Ladder. They developed, championed and aggressively marketed a set of technologic advances including long-acting, potent opioids, implanted electrical stimulators, epidural corticoid injections, and intrathecal, opioid infusion devices. They truly believed that this new set of technology advances would eliminate the need to separate pain patients into the classic 3 categories: acute, chronic, and intractable. An attempt was even made to reject the classic terms of chronic and intractable and substitute a more all-inclusive and less-defining term, “persistent”. We were no longer to use the terms “incident”, “rescue”, or “flare” pain, but to use the term “breakthrough” pain, because all “persistent” pain patients were to be on one of the new, long-acting opioids. Underpinning their movement was what later proved to be the false scientific belief that the central nervous system had only one neurotransmitter and receptor for each purpose or function. Their sole pick for the function of pain relief was endorphin and the opioid receptor. I now count seven different brain areas and receptors for pain relief. Furthermore, with the new technological advances and terminology, there wasn’t much need for training, family, or a therapeutic team. Just follow the cook book protocol for any patient who registered pain on a 1 to 10 scale, and they could expect a computer to tend them at their next clinic visit! Unfortunately, while much of the new technology benefited many patients and should be retained, there has been profound, unintended consequences.
Now the Nation is paying for the rejection of the WHO 3-Step Ladder and the concept and purpose of identifying intractable versus simple chronic pain patients. High tech and a new vocabulary hasn’t been a substitute for training, clinical competence, family, and a diagnostic evaluation based on an old-fashioned history, physical, and laboratory testing for biochemical changes. For example, I’ve personally found that I can almost always separate deserving and needy IP patients from simple chronic pain patients and blatant drug addicts with a history, physical, and drawing a little blood for biochemical tests.(Footnote 6) Lately almost every day we hear stories of drug abuse, diversion, raids, overdoses, the undertreatment of pain, and suicides of those who are just “done”. Although I clearly support some of the technical advances, I’ve never wavered from the three precepts of intractability: an incurable cause, conventional treatments that fail, and detectable biochemical changes. Isn’t is time to join me in a return to the basic principles of intractability?
References
1. Shenkin HA. Effect of pain on diurnal pattern of plasma corticoid levels. Neurology 1964;14:1112-1117.
2. Evans RJ. Acid-base changes in patients with intractable pain and malignancy. Can J Surg 1972;15:37-42.
3. Glynn CJ, Lloyd JW. Biochemical changes associated with intractable pain. Br Med J 1978;1:280-281.
4. World Health Organization. Cancer Pain Relief, Geneva, 1982 & 1986.
5. California Intractable Pain Act. Senate Bill No. 1802, 1990. 6. Tennant F, Herman L. Using biologic markers to identify legitimate chronic pain. Amer Clin Lab, June 2002.

DOCTOR SHOWS UP TO MEDICAL BOARD INVESTIGATION IN HIS UNDERWEAR

www.doctorsofcourage.org/doctor-shows-up-to-medical-board-investigation-in-his-underwear/

Los Angeles – A Northridge doctor decided to show-up to a mandatory Medical Board interview without wearing any clothing except his underwear. Doctor Robert Markam license was restricted by the Medical Board and he was assigned to complete a police oversight program involving him taking classes for ethics, billing, monitoring, and he had to submit to quarterly interviews by the Medical Board hired staff.

Doctor Robert Markam became suspicious about how he was being treated by several Medical Board staff members after they ordered police to strip search the doctor several times before he could be interviewed by them. Rachel Wachholz-Lasota is an inspector of probation for the Medical Board and she was in charge of supervising Dianna Garibian, a probation officer who was in charge of supervising doctor Markam.

One day, doctor Markam showed-up and he informed the police officer that he had injured his shoulder and could not raise his arm for the search. According to court papers, the police officer who was employed by the CHP, grabbed doctor Markam’s arm and shoved it behind his back, which later resulted in a rotator-cuff injury. This is not the first time Rachel Wachholz-Lasota has been involved in a controversial scandal, abusing her authority, and harassing innocent doctors with the sole intent to cause further harm and sham to them.

In 2013, approximately, Rachel Wachholz-Lasota was accused of telling the wife of a Beverly Hills doctor, Guven Uzun, she told her, “I want you to spy on your husband and give me the information so I can take his license!” Doctor Uzun’s wife reported the incident to the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and they basically made fun of the entire situation. Doctor Uzun stated that Rachel should have never been hired by the Medical Board because she was caught by her former employer, when she worked for the Department of Homeland Security, she was caught doing credit card fraud and she stated that she had an “unknown” health condition several times. Doctor Uzun said, “The Medical Board is hiring felons and stupid people like Rachel Lasota to oversee doctors; this is crazy!”

The record shows that doctor Markam was getting tired of the strip searches and abuse of power by Rachel and the police officers that she apparently controlled. So one day, doctor Markam decided to go to the mandatory interview with Rachel and Dianna wearing only his underwear, no shirt, no pants, no shoes, no socks, nothing! Just his underwear… The police called Rachel and told her that Doctor Markam was wearing his underwear and she told them to turn him away. It appears that doctor Markam was waiting for a ride and when he was going downstairs, Rachel call the police in the building and told them to harass doctor Markam.

According to court papers filed in Federal Court, doctor Markam claims that while he was in the elevator, the CHP police, under the orders of Rachel and Dianna, threw him to the ground and arrested him. The records shows that he was taken and placed on a 51/50 at a nearby hospital. Doctor Markam is suing Rachel, Dianna, the CHP, Medical Board, and a list of individuals for civil rights violations of the law and abuse of power.

The story just further goes to show you that Rachel Wachholz-Lasota is a huge problem for the Medical Board and her lack of knowledge regarding medical doctors is a real liability. City data shows that Rachel’s salary has been cut from $54,000 thousand a year, down to $17,500 thousand. Doctor Uzun read the complaint and said, “This Rachel should never be allowed to supervise any doctor because she has been charged with fraud, making false sexual harassment suit against the government, and she is mental problem. Doctor Markam and Uzun have both filed federal lawsuits against the Medical Board and Rachel Wachholz-Lasota because she and other untrained employees are harassing doctors and their families, unnecessarily.

LEARN THE PAINFUL TRUTH ABOUT HOW DOCTORS HAVE FALLEN PREY TO CORRUPT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, SUCH AS THE DOJ, DEA, FBI, AND IGNORANT MEDICAL BOARD EMPLOYEES LIKE RACHEL WACHHOLZ-LASOTA : https://wscfederation.wixsite.com/paintruth

  • HELP MAKE CHANGE: Sign our petition requesting that Congress enact a Medical Board Civilian Police Review Committee law to deter medical board police and prosecutorial misconduct and hold these officials responsible for their actions. The most common crime against doctors made by the medical board police teams are “FALSE REPORTS” that police officers refer to as accusations. These are criminal actions by law enforcement and they are not held accountable for making false statements, perjury, and manufacturing evidence. A Civilian Police Review Committee will help stop these senseless acts against healthcare providers and restore justice and constitutional rights.
SIGN / SHARE OUR PETITION to fight for doctors and nurses rights:

Click To Sign (:

Editor: Billy Earley,
Physician Assistant,
Healthcare Advocate,
National Adviser Black Doctors Matter
National Adviser American Pain Institute
Advocate World Sickle Cell Federation

*Mr. Billy Earley is a Panelist, Congressional Briefing, March on Washington, April 23rd, to the 31st, 2018. You can make a donation to support our cause by clicking here: Support Doctors & Nurses Rights