Shingles and My 10-Year-Old Bottle of Vicodin

By Cynthia Toussaint

A few years ago, a friend who’d been through a rowdy case of shingles tried to spook me.

“You of all people, Cynthia, have to get the shingles vaccine. You couldn’t go through this level of pain with all you’ve got going on,” she said.

Yeah, yeah, I thought, normies who don’t live with the flame-broiler called Complex Regional Pain Syndrome can’t hack the small stuff.

While Laura’s warning was well-intentioned, I decided to skip the shot because I’d heard it was a real ass kicker. That, and I’m already an Olympic-level pro at neuropathic pain. I’d be fine without getting the shingles vaccine.      

I bet on the wrong horse.    

In early August, a mysterious pain on the side of my left leg woke me. I’d never had aching pain that hurt so much, and rousted my partner John in alarm. Muscling through my day, the ache turned lava hot while I moaned and yelped. By bedtime, I was writhing and screaming. No position offered a smidge of relief and I ended up pretzelled against the foot board after only a couple hours of sleep.   

I couldn’t make heads or tails of this new pain. It burned something fierce like CRPS, but was unfamiliar. Terrified, I pointed out to John the places on my thigh where piercing pain, like striking arrows, were erupting. Worse, there was a “hatchet” in my groin.

42 years into CRPS, could this be a different kind of pain rearing its ugly head? The new version came complete with a high fever and wipe-out fatigue.

No amount of my old standby’s – rest, heat, distraction, kitty cuddling – offered relief. In fact, the pain kept amping higher, rendering me useless.

Soon, a bright-red, ghoulish rash appeared and began to spread by the hour. It felt like I was starring in my own horror film, with no pause button on the remote.

The next day, it hit me. This is goddamn shingles and I scooted off to an immediate care clinic.

I was disappointed to get a young male doctor and, true to form, he dismissed my symptoms by announcing that I’d burned myself with a heating pad. His only advice was for me to take a picture of the rash for reasons unknown. 

That night, while the rash continued to march on, the redness turned to bubbling blisters, and the next day I found myself back at immediate care.   

This time at the clinic I hit the jackpot, as a skilled and caring female doctor took about three seconds to diagnose shingles. Livid over the previous day’s dismissal, as treatment time was now of the essence, she instructed me to immediately pick up anti-viral medication and start them as soon as I got home.

Before leaving the room, she gave me a major fright. She looked into my eyes and told me that my shingles might become chronic, especially with my long CRPS history. At that moment, I had no doubt I was in for a world of unchartered hurt.                

For the next two months, except for doctor appointments, I lived between my bed and the couch, surviving one minute at a time. The blisters spread from the top of my thigh down to my knee, and up onto my left buttocks. Mixed with exquisite pain were patches of numbness, and my dermatologist gently warned that this might indicate nerve death.        

My allodynia was so severe I couldn’t bear anything touching the rash, and the never-ending pain kept me awake nights. I despised hearing from doctors, again and again, that I had the worst case of shingles they’d ever seen. Their biggest concern was that the rash would spread to my right side, in which case they suspected it would travel to my eyes and I’d likely lose my sight.   

Vicodin to the Rescue

The pain got so bad, John pleaded with me to take a Vicodin from a 10-year-old bottle he’d asked me to keep, just in case. In the past, this was unthinkable as my primary physician warned me that, due to being on a benzodiazepine, combining both medications might suppress my breathing. Despite that, I didn’t hesitate and got my first taste of blessed relief.

Soon my frantic pain doctor directed me to up my dose to four 5mg Vicodin tablets a day. Scared due to being opioid-naïve, I went on three instead. I could survive the pain then, but had zero quality of life. During this miserable time, I gulped laxatives to keep the pipes flowing, and for 10 days hobbled no further than our condo balcony. I was slowly cancelling my life and couldn’t even tolerate a visitor.

I ruminated over worst case scenarios. What if my pain stays chronic at a level ten? Also, my dermatologist told me I might be scarred forever.

Even if my pain improves, could I ever show my disfigured leg in public? Upon seeing the angry rash, my sister-in-law innocently chirped, “You can’t get in the pool with that, Cynthia. It’ll frighten the other swimmers.” I knew she was right and wanted to sob.

Mercifully, in the last month, the pain and rash (four tubes of scar gel and counting!) started to retreat, bit by bit. With great trepidation, I successfully weaned off the Vicodin, but sure enough, I’m left with post-herpetic neuralgia, the chronic pain I so dreaded.

While my numbness and allodynia are improving, the hatchet pain in my groin hasn’t dissipated. I’m over-the-moon happy to be swimming again with no problem, but for the first time this former ballerina is less than limber on her left side, which makes Pilates and Feldenkrais movement therapy formidable challenges.

While there are no guarantees, I remain optimistic for total healing because I take such good care of my body and mind. Three cheers for self-care!

Hands down, shingles at its apex was the worst pain experience of my life, and because of my CRPS, it was far, FAR worse than what a healthy person would have experienced. My doctors and I suspect the immunotherapy I took for cancer care over two years ago played a major role in getting shingles now, as it’s been the root of three prior serious pain complications.                   

While I can’t go back in time and take Laura’s sage advice about getting the almighty shingles vaccine, I can share my cautionary tale in hopes you’ll do so. With a caveat, I shuddered to learn the vaccine – which I’ll be getting in February – isn’t full proof. Inoculated folk can still get shingles, but those cases are rare and usually less severe, which is especially beneficial for those already wrangling with neuropathic pain.          

While I’m slowly moving my shingles nightmare (albeit with PTSD) into the rearview mirror, I’m haunted by a horrific question. Because my pharmacy refused to fill my pain doctor’s new prescription for Vicodin, what would have happened to me if not for my 10-year-old bottle?

In the grips of the worst pain and torture I’ve ever experienced and the absolute hopelessness of relief, in desperation what might I have done?

I don’t know, but am glad as hell I didn’t have to find out. My god, where is the mercy for people with pain?

Cynthia Toussaint is the founder and spokesperson at For Grace, a non-profit dedicated to bettering the lives of women in pain. She has lived with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and multiple co-morbidities for over four decades, and has been battling cancer since 2020. Cynthia is the author of “Battle for Grace: A Memoir of Pain, Redemption and Impossible Love.” 

FDA’s New Rules Aim to Make Pharma Ads Easier to Understand

By Crystal Lindell

The Food and Drug Administration is hoping that its new rules will make pharmaceutical ads on TV and radio easier to understand. 

Commercials for pharmaceutical drugs must now include a “major statement” about side effects and contraindications in “a clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner.” The rule applies to direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads for prescription drugs and what conditions they are used to treat. 

The new regulations are a response to something many drug makers figured out long ago: people tend to tune out when they start to hear a long list of potential side effects and interactions, which are usually rushed through at the end of drug commercials. By then, consumers may have tuned out the downsides of the medication. 

“If you’re a company and you’re worried about possible FDA enforcement or product liability and other litigation, all your incentives are to say more, not less,” Torrey Cope, a food and drug lawyer, told the AP.

The law firm Lerman Senter broke down the five new standards the FDA requires companies to meet in drug ads. All commercials must now include:

1. Consumer Friendly Language: Ads must clearly state the name of the drug, and a major statement of side effects must be presented in language that is readily understandable. It should not include technical or medical jargon.
   

2. Understandable Audio: Audio information must be understandable in terms of volume, articulation and pacing, and should be as understandable as the rest of the commercial. “Rapid fire” disclosures will no longer be permitted.
   

3. Major Statement Must Be Presented Concurrently in Text and Audio: Television ads must present the major statement simultaneously in the audio and visual sections.
   

4. Text Must Be Easily Readable: The on-screen text must be presented against a contrasting background for sufficient duration, and in a font size and style that is easily readable.
   

5. No Distractions. Advertisements cannot have statements, text, images or sounds that detract from comprehension of the major statement. No other sounds, including music or catchy jingles, should be heard during the side effects disclosure.

While the rule went into effect a few months ago, companies have until November 20 to be in full compliance. So while you may have already noticed pharma ads changing, all of them should be in compliance starting this week. 

In its report about the changes, the FDA said that while drug ads often have a caveat urging people to “ask your doctor” about a medication, pharmaceutical companies are incentivized to make the ads deceptive in various ways. 

“Like all advertisers, prescription drug firms have ample business incentives to present their products in a positive light to potential consumers,” the FDA said. “But those business incentives do not assure clear communication of the advertised drug’s negative attributes to consumers.”

While no federal law has ever banned pharmaceutical companies from directly advertising to consumers, the practice didn't really take off until about 40 years ago. Currently, the United States and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow DTC drug advertising. 

In its report, “Background on Drug Advertising,” the FDA explains: 

"Until the mid-1980s, drug companies gave information about prescription drugs only to doctors and pharmacists. When these professionals thought it appropriate, they gave that information to their patients. However, during the 1980s, some drug companies started to give the general public more direct access to this information through DTC ads."

As someone who was born in the mid 1980s, I remember being surprised as an adult when I learned that most other countries ban pharma companies from advertising directly to consumers. 

While it’s difficult to imagine that the U.S. would ever ban the ads completely, there’s definitely a good case for heavily regulating them. A 2005 study found pharmaceutical ads that encouraged consumers to talk with their doctors “have a profound effect on physician prescribing” and could promote overuse or inappropriate prescribing.

In other words, drug companies are very good at creating ads that make people want to buy their products, whether they need them or not. Let’s be real: if drug advertising didn’t work, companies would not be spending over $15 billion a year promoting their medications. 

I’m glad to see the FDA amping up these regulations, so people have a better understanding of drug ads. But it remains to be seen how these agency regulations will hold up under the incoming Trump administration.   

Will Trump Let RFK Jr. ‘Go Wild’ with Public Health?

By Arthur Allen, KFF Health News

Many scientists at the federal health agencies await the second Donald Trump administration with dread as well as uncertainty over how the president-elect will reconcile starkly different philosophies among the leaders of his team.

Trump announced Thursday he’ll nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, after saying during his campaign he’d let the anti-vaccine activist “go wild” on medicines, food, and health.

Should Kennedy win Senate confirmation, his critics say a radical anti-establishment medical movement with roots in past centuries would take power, threatening the achievements of a science-based public health order painstakingly built since World War II.

Trump said in a post on the social platform X that “Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health,” echoing Kennedy’s complaints about the medical establishment. The former Democratic presidential candidate will “end the Chronic Disease epidemic” and “Make American Great and Healthy Again!” Trump wrote.

Vaccine makers’ stocks dipped Thursday afternoon amid news reports ahead of Trump’s RFK announcement.

If Kennedy makes good on his vision for transforming public health, childhood vaccine mandates could wither. New vaccines might never win approval, even as the FDA allows dangerous or inefficient therapies onto the market. Agency websites could trumpet unproven or debunked health ideas. And if Trump’s plan to weaken civil service rights goes through, anyone who questions these decisions could be summarily fired.

“Never has anybody like RFK Jr. gotten anywhere close to the position he may be in to actually shape policy,” said Lewis Grossman, a law professor at American University and the author of “Choose Your Medicine,” a history of U.S. public health.

Kennedy and an adviser Calley Means, a health care entrepreneur, say dramatic changes are needed because of the high levels of chronic disease in the United States. Government agencies have corruptly tolerated or promoted unhealthy diets and dangerous drugs and vaccines, they say.

Means and Kennedy did not respond to requests for comment. Four conservative members of the first Trump health bureaucracy spoke on condition of anonymity. They eagerly welcomed the former president’s return but voiced few opinions about specific policies. Days after last week’s election, RFK Jr. announced that the Trump administration would immediately fire and replace 600 National Institutes of Health officials. He set up a website seeking crowdsourced nominees for federal appointments, with a host of vaccination foes and chiropractors among the early favorites.

At meetings last week at Mar-a-Lago involving Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump Jr., Kennedy, and Means, according to Politico, some candidates for leading health posts included Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University scientist who opposed covid lockdowns; Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, who opposes mRNA covid vaccines and rejected well-established disease control practices during a measles outbreak; Johns Hopkins University surgeon Marty Makary; and Means’ sister, Stanford-trained surgeon and health guru Casey Means.

All are mavericks of a sort, though their ideas are not uniform. Yet the notion that they could elbow aside a century of science-based health policy is profoundly troubling to many health professionals. They see Kennedy’s presence at the heart of the Trump transition as a triumph of the “medical freedom” movement, which arose in opposition to the Progressive Era idea that experts should guide health care policy and practices.

It could represent a turning away from the expectation that mainstream doctors be respected for their specialized knowledge, said Howard Markel, an emeritus professor of pediatrics and history at the University of Michigan, who began his clinical career treating AIDS patients and ended it after suffering a yearlong bout of long covid.

“We’ve gone back to the idea of ‘every man his own doctor,’” he said, referring to a phrase that gained currency in the 19th century. It was a bad idea then and it’s even worse now, he said.

“What does that do to the morale of scientists?” Markel asked. The public health agencies, largely a post-WWII legacy, are “remarkable institutions, but you can screw up these systems, not just by defunding them but by deflating the true patriots who work in them.”

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf told a conference on Nov. 12 that he worried about mass firings at the FDA. “I’m biased, but I feel like the FDA is sort of at peak performance right now,” he said. At a conference the next day, CDC Director Mandy Cohen reminded listeners of the horrors of vaccine-preventable diseases like measles and polio. “I don’t want to have to see us go backward in order to remind ourselves that vaccines work,” she said.

Stocks of some the biggest vaccine developers fell after news outlets led by Politico reported that the RFK pick was expected. Moderna, the developer of one of the most popular covid-19 vaccines, closed down 5.6%. Pfizer, another covid vaccine manufacturer, fell 2.6%. GSK, the producer of vaccines protecting against respiratory syncytial virus, hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, and influenza, fell just over 2%. French drug company Sanofi, whose website boasts its products vaccinate over 500 million annually, tumbled nearly 3.5%.

Exodus From Health Agencies?

With uncertainty over the direction of their agencies, many older scientists at the NIH, FDA, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are considering retirement, said a senior NIH scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job.

“Everybody I talk to sort of takes a deep breath and says, ‘It doesn’t look good,’” the official said.

“I hear of many people getting CVs ready,” said Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University. They include two of his former students who now work at the FDA, Caplan said.

Others, such as Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, have voiced wait-and-see attitudes. “We worked with the Trump administration last time. There were times things worked reasonably well,” he said, “and times when things were chaotic, particularly during covid.” Any wholesale deregulation efforts in public health would be politically risky for Trump, he said, because when administrations “screw things up, people get sick and die.”

At the FDA, at least, “it’s very hard to make seismic changes,” former FDA chief counsel Dan Troy said.

But the administration could score easy libertarian-tinged wins by, for example, telling its new FDA chief to reverse the agency’s refusal to approve the psychedelic drug MDMA from the company Lykos. Access to psychedelics to treat post-traumatic stress disorder has grabbed the interest of many veterans. Vitamins and supplements, already only lightly regulated, will probably get even more of a free pass from the next Trump FDA.

‘Medical Freedom’ vs ‘Nanny State‘

Trump’s health influencers are not monolithic. Analysts see potential clashes among Kennedy, Musk, and more traditional GOP voices. Casey Means, a “holistic” MD at the center of Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” team, calls for the government to cut ties with industry and remove sugar, processed food, and toxic substances from American diets. Republicans lampooned such policies as exemplifying a “nanny state” when Mike Bloomberg promoted them as mayor of New York City.

Both the libertarian and “medical freedom” wings oppose aspects of regulation, but Silicon Valley biotech supporters of Trump, like Samuel Hammond of the Foundation for American Innovation, have pressed the agency to speed drug and device approvals, while Kennedy’s team says the FDA and other agencies have been “captured” by industry, resulting in dangerous and unnecessary drugs, vaccines, and devices on the market.

Kennedy and Casey Means want to end industry user fees that pay for drug and device rules and support nearly half the FDA’s $7.2 billion budget. It’s unclear whether Congress would make up the shortfall at a time when Trump and Musk have vowed to slash government programs. User fees are set by laws Congress passes every five years, most recently in 2022.

The industry supports the user-fee system, which bolsters FDA staffing and speeds product approvals. Writing new rules “requires an enormous amount of time, effort, energy, and collaboration” by FDA staff, Troy said. Policy changes made through informal “guidance” alone are not binding, he added.

Kennedy and the Means siblings have suggested overhauling agricultural policies so that they incentivize the cultivation of organic vegetables instead of industrial corn and soy, but “I don’t think they’ll be very influential in that area,” Caplan said. “Big Ag is a powerful entrenched industry, and they aren’t interested in changing.”

“There’s a fine line between the libertarian impulse of the ‘medical freedom’ types and advocating a reformation of American bodies, which is definitely ‘nanny state’ territory,” said historian Robert Johnston of the University of Illinois-Chicago.

Specific federal agencies are likely to face major changes. Republicans want to trim the NIH’s 27 research institutes and centers to 15, slashing Anthony Fauci’s legacy by splitting the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which he led for 38 years, into two or three pieces.

Numerous past attempts to slim down the NIH have failed in the face of campaigns by patients, researchers, and doctors. GOP lawmakers have advocated substantial cuts to the CDC budget in recent years, including an end to funding gun violence, climate change, and health equity research. If carried out, Project 2025, a policy blueprint from the conservative Heritage Foundation, would divide the agency into data-collecting and health-promoting arms. The CDC has limited clout in Washington, although former CDC directors and public health officials are defending its value.

“It would be surprising if CDC wasn’t on the radar” for potential change, said Anne Schuchat, a former principal deputy director of the agency, who retired in 2021.

The CDC’s workforce is “very employable” and might start to look for other work if “their area of focus is going to be either cut or changed,” she said.

‘It Won’t Be Harmless’

Kennedy’s attacks on HHS and its agencies as corrupted tools of the drug industry, and his demands that the FDA allow access to scientifically controversial drugs, are closely reminiscent of the 1970s campaign by conservative champions of Laetrile, a dangerous and ineffective apricot-pit derivative touted as a cancer treatment.

Just as Kennedy championed off-patent drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to treat covid, Laetrile’s defenders claimed that the FDA and a profit-seeking industry were conspiring to suppress a cheaper alternative.

The public and industry have often been skeptical of health regulatory agencies over the decades, Grossman said. The agencies succeed best when they are called in to fix things — particularly after bad medicine kills or damages children, he said.

The 1902 Biologics Control Act, which created the NIH’s forerunner, was enacted in response to smallpox vaccine contamination that killed at least nine children in Camden, New Jersey. Child poisonings linked to the antifreeze solvent for a sulfa drug prompted the modern FDA’s creation in 1938. The agency, in 1962, acquired the power to demand evidence of safety and efficacy before the marketing of drugs after the thalidomide disaster, in which children of pregnant women taking the anti-nausea drug were born with terribly malformed limbs.

If vaccination rates plummet and measles and whooping cough outbreaks proliferate, babies could die or suffer brain damage.

“It won’t be harmless for the administration to broadly attack public health,” said Alfredo Morabia, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University and the editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Public Health. “It would be like taking away your house insurance.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

The Stress of Navigating Opioid Shortages As a Patient

By Crystal Lindell

At 9:30 am Monday morning, I got one of the most dreaded phone calls that someone taking a controlled substance can get – my pharmacy was completely out of my pain medication, Morphine Sul ER. 

Chronic shortages of prescription opioids were finally impacting me directly. 

At first, the pharmacist tried to make it sound like there was just a small delay, asking me, “How how many pills you have left?”

None. I had none left. Because pain medication refills usually aren’t filled until you completely run out. There’s not even a one-day leeway built in, because god forbid pain patients have one extra pill ever. 

Even if I did have some left, I couldn’t tell the pharmacist that, because it might risk having that used against me later. Afterall, if I had extras, that shows that I don’t need to be prescribed as many pills as I was getting. 

You’re always risking something as a pain patient. If you try to plan too far ahead by stockpiling extra pills, they could use that to reduce what you’re prescribed. And if you don’t plan ahead at all, you risk physical pain and withdrawal if there are any issues getting your refill – issues beyond your control like a drug shortage. 

As it turned out, it wouldn’t have mattered if I did have some pills leftover because the situation was worse than the pharmacist was initially letting on. This wasn’t an issue of waiting for an afternoon shipment or even a next-day restock. The pharmacist didn’t know when my medication would be back in stock at all. 

She said she had been requesting more pain medication every day, but their supplier wasn’t providing any updates on a timeline for when that would happen. So she suggested that I call around to other pharmacies to see if any of them had it in stock. 

There’s just one problem: the pain contract I had to sign to get a monthly opioid prescription technically bans me from getting refills at different pharmacies. I don’t think there are any exceptions in the contract. And if I break it, I risk losing access to the only medication that makes it possible for me to function on a daily basis. 

So even if I could find another pharmacy, I wasn’t sure if my doctor would let me get the medication filled there. 

The pharmacist was surprisingly understanding of this, and said that she had already called my doctor before calling me, so she was hopeful that they would be accommodating. 

At that point I realized that any plans I had for my Monday morning were now canceled, because I was going to have to spend the next few hours trying to navigate this. 

I made one last attempt to get the situation resolved without having to loop in another pharmacy, asking if they had an alternative medication that wasn’t too expensive because I don’t have health insurance. My medication is an extended release opioid, and the pharmacists said all they really had was the instant-release versions – which I knew my doctor would not want to swap in.

So, another pharmacy it would have to be. 

I did wonder for a moment if my pharmacy was lying to me about being out of stock. It was just last month that I had to negotiate the price of this same medication with them after they tried to increase the price by $50. 

Maybe they just didn’t want to deal with me, a long-term opioid patient, any more. So after the attempted price increase failed to deter me, they were trying a different tactic. 

The thing is, how would I even find that out? As far as I know, there’s no accountability for pharmacies that lie to patients about why they aren’t able to fill a prescription. Most people understand why that’s concerning when it comes to things like birth control or insulin, but when it’s pain medication, the general public tends to side with the pharmacist who doesn’t want to fill the prescription. 

At that point, I started calling other pharmacies. Thankfully, a locally owned one said they had the medication in stock and that they could fill it. I called my doctor to see if they’d transfer the prescription, and his receptionist took down the message. Then, I waited. 

I spent the next few hours anxious about whether this would all work out, and how long it would be until I got my refill. Finally, at about 1 pm, I saw in MyChart that the medication had been sent to the new pharmacy. 

Then I called the new pharmacy to make sure they saw my prescription come through and to ask what the cash price was. It was going to be $52, about $16 more than I paid at the other pharmacy. I probably could have asked them about using a GoodRx coupon, but I was already throwing a controlled substance prescription on them at the last minute, and they had it in stock, so I didn’t want to make waves. 

A few hours later it was finally filled, sort of. At 3 pm I arrived at the pharmacy to pick it up, after driving 25 minutes on rural roads to get there. 

They handed me the bottle and said, “Oh, by the way, we’re two pills short. Hopefully we will have those in for you later this week. So you can come back and pick them up then.”

Another 50 minutes of round-trip driving was suddenly in my future. 

I’m thankful that I found a pharmacy with any of my medication in stock, and I’m happy that my doctor seemed to handle the prescription transfer without issue. 

What Happens Next Month?

But the entire, stressful ordeal wiped out most of my day, and now I also have to figure out what will happen next month. 

Will the shortage impacting my medication be handled by then? Or should I try to have my doctor switch my prescription to something else? And if he did that, how much would that medication cost? Should I have my prescriptions permanently transferred to the other pharmacy? Is the one I normally go to going to give me a hassle every month now?

If medication shortages don’t impact you directly, it can be easy to gloss over reports like the one from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), which found that shortages of drugs used for pain, anesthesia, chemotherapy and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) “continue to be problematic.” 

Those shortages impact real people. Despite a stressful morning, I was among the lucky ones, as I was able to get it worked out within just one day. Who knows if that will be the case next month though. 

The ASHP cited reduced DEA production quotas and the fallout from opioid litigation as some of the reasons for the drug shortages, which have led to rationing at many pharmacies. In a recent PNN survey, 90% of patients with an opioid prescription said they had trouble getting it filled at a pharmacy.

We need the government to start working on behalf of patients to get this resolved. I can’t just call up the manufacturer of Morphine Sul ER and tell them to make more. It has to be the government that intervenes. 

The best place to start would be to lift the DEA production quotas – although that’s really just a start. If we’re being realistic here, there should also be production minimums, with government funding and support if needed. 

People’s lives depend on these medications. It’s time to stop pretending that these drug shortages are just trivial inconveniences. They’re harmful, and sometimes even deadly.

A Pained Life: Can They Feel What We Feel?

By Carol Levy

How many times have I seen a post or comment in a chronic pain support group that read: “I wish the doctor (or my family, colleagues, friends) could go through this to really understand how I feel.”

I also wish they could, but is there any way such a thing could be accomplished?

Then I read about a course at a Japanese medical school, in which students pretended to be patients and were hospitalized for two days and one night. Students learned firsthand the stress, anxiety and loss of control that comes with being a hospital patient — like being poked and prodded, being told when to sleep, when it was time to get an x-ray, to have blood taken or bandages changed.

Students also observed “the distress of other inpatients” and the “psychological pressure” they felt from physicians. This was meant to enhance their empathy skills and to further their professional development.

It sounds like a good idea. But it's not reality.

Maybe in some form, the course replicates Philip Zimdardo's 1971 prison experiment, in which Stanford students were assigned to be prisoners or guards in a simulated prison. The study was meant to focus on the power of roles and rules, but was ended early because of the behavior that emerged in both groups.

Very quickly the students who were “guards” acted like guards by asserting their control and abusing their power. And many of the “prisoners” acted like prisoners, showing signs of distress from the powerlessness that comes from being ruled by guards

Our pain can also make us feel powerless, especially when it comes to treatment and getting the medications that we need. In that regard, we are indeed powerless. The doctors and pharmacists have all the power.

When we are hospitalized, it often intensifies that feeling of powerlessness. We are “imprisoned” in the hospital and not allowed to leave until someone in power gives us permission. We are in the hands of people who decide what we can do, where we can go, and if our cries of pain will be attended to or not.

They may be called doctors or nurses, but in a very true sense they are guards. Our freedom and health in are in their hands.

Is there really a way to replicate for others how we feel, what we go through?

In a promo for the new TV series “Brilliant Minds,” Dr. Wolf, the main character, says he wants to know what his patients are feeling, so he can feel it himself.

My first thought was that would be great if it was doable. But then I thought about it more deeply. There is no way it could work. A doctor can go into the hospital as a pretend patient, even allow himself to have medically induced pain, but they will always know it is just an experiment. Their pain will end, they can go home when they want, and they will feel fine.

It would make life so much easier for us if others could feel our pain. Absent compassion and empathy, I don't see how it is possible.

Carol Jay Levy has lived with trigeminal neuralgia, a chronic facial pain disorder, for over 30 years. She is the author of “A Pained Life, A Chronic Pain Journey.”  Carol is the moderator of the Facebook support group “Women in Pain Awareness.” Her blog “The Pained Life” can be found here. 

Where Did the Opioid Settlement Money Go?

By Crystal Lindell

How are states spending their opioid settlement money? Unsurprisingly, it’s often hard to say – even when a state has promised transparency. 

Federal, state and local governments in the United States will collect about $50 billion in opioid settlement money in coming years from basically every sector of the health care industry, including drug makers, wholesale distributors and pharmacies. 

But an investigation of 12 states by NPR and KFF Health News found that it’s unclear how much of that money is being used to prevent addiction or to help people with substance abuse issues. 

As a pain patient, I have long assumed that none of the settlement money would be used to develop effective, non-opioid pain analgesics for patients who lost their medication as a result of opioid-phobia. Based on how everything around opioids has played out over the years, I also didn’t have high hopes for what it would actually get spent on.

The NPR/KFF Health News investigation shows that I was correct to worry. 

“There are no national requirements for jurisdictions to report money spent on opioid remediation,” Aneri Pattani reported.”In states that have not enacted stricter requirements on their own, the public is left in the dark or forced to rely on ad hoc efforts by advocates and journalists to fill the gap.”

Pattani shared a story about the situation in Idaho, where local governments were required to complete a form showing how they spent settlement money and whether it was for an approved purpose. But a process meant to show transparency seemed to do just the opposite. 

“In reality, it reads like this,”said Pattani. “In fiscal year 2023, the city of Chubbuck spent about $39,000 on Section G, Subsection 9. Public Health District No. 6 spent more than $26,000 on Section B, Subsection 2. Cracking that code requires a separate document. And even that provides only broad outlines.”

Pattani said that following the money trail just led to more intentionally confusing bureaucratic language. 

For example, she found that Subsection 9 refers to “school-based or youth-focused programs or strategies that have demonstrated effectiveness in preventing drug misuse.” 

Subsection 2 refers to “the full continuum of care of treatment and recovery services for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.” 

“What does that mean? How exactly are you doing that?” Corey Davis, a project director at the Network for Public Health Law, wondered when he first saw the Idaho reports. Without detailed descriptions of the projects the money was spent on, it’s impossible to track. 

“It’d be similar to saying 20% of your monthly salary goes to food,” Pattani wrote. “But does that mean grocery bills, eating out at restaurants, or hiring a cook?” 

Minnesota’s ‘Dashboard’

Some states are more transparent about where the money is going. Minnesota, for example, has an online dashboard and downloadable spreadsheet listing projects. One project was in Renville County, which used $100,000 to install a body scanner in its jail to help staff find drugs in the body cavities of inmates.

So, cops are getting the money. And when you look around on the Minnesota dashboard, it becomes clear that law enforcement agencies got some of the largest shares of the state’s opioid settlement money.  

So far, Minnesota has received over $74 million in settlement money. Of that, law enforcement-related categories received about $17 million, coming in fourth behind "American Indian" with $32.6 million, “African or African American" with $22.6 million, and "Child protection” which received $22.65 million. 

I was pleasantly surprised to see that Minnesota does have a "Chronic pain patients" category — but then was disappointed to learn that it got the least amount of money of any group, receiving just $290,180 of the state’s settlement funds.

When I drilled down deeper on the chronic pain category, things only got more depressing. 

The bulk of that money ($257,220) went to Hennepin Health System to "expand access to holistic chronic pain treatment through Heals on Wheels program,” which includes traveling clinics that provide training in mindfulness, stress management, mindful movement, acupressure, acupuncture and massage therapy.

The remaining $32,960 went to a group called Health Partners, which said it would use the money to, "Certify 10 clinicians to provide Empowered Relief, a one-session class that equips patients with pain management skills, draws on principals from mindfulness and cognitive behavior therapy.” 

As a pain patient, finding out that the very small amount of Minnesota’s opioid money going to pain patients is being used to fund BS about mindfulness is beyond infuriating. We need real treatments, not happy thoughts.

Of course, in other states, it’s hard to even know how much money is going to cops and if any is going to chronic pain patients, so I guess I should be happy that there’s at least some record of things in Minnesota.  

Interestingly, over $1.9 million of Minnesota’s settlement money went to the Steve Rummler Hope Foundation, primarily for opioid education and naloxone distribution. 

Coincidentally, the Rummler Foundation happens to be the fiscal sponsor of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group that played an instrumental role in raising fears about opioid use and addiction.

Several PROP members worked as paid expert witnesses for plaintiff law firms that pursued opioid litigation on behalf of the states, and were paid as much as $850 an hour for their services. The law firms themselves will pocket billions of dollars in contingency fees once all the funds are paid. That kind of detail is rarely mentioned in reporting on how settlement money is used.   

So while some details of how opioid funds were spent are technically available to the public, Pattani says it doesn’t matter if finding them requires hours of research and wading through budgetary jargon.

“Not exactly a system friendly to the average person,” she said.

Of course, if any of the opioid settlement money was ever actually meant to help people who may have been harmed by opioids, it wouldn’t be going to governments – it would be going directly to opioid users or their surviving loved ones.

But it’s been clear from the beginning that these opioid settlements were primarily a cash grab for state and local governments, plaintiff law firms, and their expert witnesses. They don’t help patients and they don’t help their loved ones. 

I don’t expect any of the states to increase transparency about where the money has been going. Most of the general public doesn’t care, so the states can funnel a lot of the money into things like body scanners, because they don’t have the pesky public watching what they’re doing. 

Maybe next time when we decide to sue every pharmaceutical company and pharmacy chain in the country, we could at least make it class action lawsuits on behalf of patients, not governments.

What Will Trump’s White House Return Mean for Healthcare?

By Stephanie Armour, KFF Health News

Former President Donald Trump’s election victory and looming return to the White House will likely bring changes that scale back the nation’s public health insurance programs — increasing the uninsured rate, while imposing new barriers to abortion and other reproductive care.

The reverberations will be felt far beyond Washington, DC, and could include an erosion of the Affordable Care Act’s consumer protections, the imposition of work requirements in Medicaid and funding cuts to the safety net insurance, and challenges to federal agencies that safeguard public health. Abortion restrictions may tighten nationwide with a possible effort to restrict the mailing of abortion medications.

And with the elevation of vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Trump’s inner circle of advisers, public health interventions with rigorous scientific backing — whether fluoridating public water supplies or inoculating children — could come under fire.

Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris with 277 Electoral College votes, The Associated Press declared at 5:34 a.m. ET on Wednesday. He won 51% of the vote nationally to Harris’ 47.5%, the AP projected.

Trump’s victory will give a far broader platform to skeptics and critics of federal health programs and actions. Worst case, public health authorities worry, the U.S. could see increases in preventable illnesses; a weakening of public confidence in established science; and debunked notions — such as a link between vaccines and autism — adopted as policy.

Trump said in an NBC News interview on Nov. 3 that he would “make a decision” about banning some vaccines, saying he would consult with Kennedy and calling him “a very talented guy.”

‘Concepts of a Plan’

While Trump has said he will not try again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, his administration will face an immediate decision next year on whether to back an extension of enhanced premium subsidies for Obamacare insurance plans. Without the enhanced subsidies, steep premium increases causing lower enrollment are projected. The current uninsured rate, about 8%, would almost certainly rise.

Policy specifics have not moved far beyond the “concepts of a plan” Trump said he had during his debate with Harris, though Vice President-elect JD Vance later said the administration would seek to inject more competition into ACA marketplaces.

Republicans were projected to claim a Senate majority, in addition to the White House, while control of the House was not yet resolved early Wednesday.

Polls show the ACA has gained support among the public, including provisions such as preexisting condition protections and allowing young people to stay on family health plans until they are 26.

Trump supporters and others who have worked in his administration say the former president wants to improve the law in ways that will lower costs. They say he has already shown he will be forceful when it comes to lowering high health care prices, pointing to efforts during his presidency to pioneer price transparency in medical costs.

“On affordability, I’d see him building on the first term,” said Brian Blase, who served as a Trump health adviser from 2017 to 2019. Relative to a Democratic administration, he said, there will be “much more focus” on “minimizing fraud and waste.”

Efforts to weaken the ACA could include slashing funds for enrollment outreach, enabling consumers to purchase more health plans that don’t comply with ACA consumer protections, and allowing insurers to charge sicker people higher premiums.

Democrats say they expect the worst.

“We know what their agenda is,” said Leslie Dach, executive chair of Protect Our Care, a health care policy and advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. He worked in the Obama administration helping to implement the ACA. “They’re going to raise costs for millions of Americans and rip coverage away from millions and, meanwhile, they will give tax breaks to rich people.”

Theo Merkel, director of the Private Health Reform Initiative at the right-leaning Paragon Health Institute, which Blase leads, said the enhanced ACA subsidies extended by the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 do nothing to improve plans or lower premiums. He said they paper over the plans’ low value with larger government subsidies.

Other Trump supporters say the president-elect may support preserving Medicare’s authority to negotiate drug prices, another provision of the IRA. Trump has championed reducing drug prices, and in 2020 advanced a test model that would have tied the prices of some drugs in Medicare to lower costs overseas, said Merkel, who worked in Trump’s first White House. The drug industry successfully sued to block the program.

Within Trump’s circles, some names have already been floated as possible leaders for the Department of Health and Human Services. They include former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Seema Verma, who ran the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during the Trump administration.

Kennedy, who suspended his independent presidential run and endorsed Trump, has told his supporters that Trump promised him control of HHS. Trump said publicly before Election Day that he would give Kennedy a big role in his administration, but he may have difficulty winning Senate confirmation for a Cabinet position.

While Trump has vowed to protect Medicare and said he supports funding home care benefits, he’s been less specific about his intentions for Medicaid, which provides coverage to lower-income and disabled people. Some health analysts expect the program will be especially vulnerable to spending cuts, which could help finance the extension of tax breaks that expire at the end of next year.

Possible changes include the imposition of work requirements on beneficiaries in some states. The administration and Republicans in Congress could also try to revamp the way Medicaid is funded. Now, the federal government pays states a variable percentage of program costs. Conservatives have long sought to cap the federal allotments to states, which critics say would lead to draconian cuts.

“Medicaid will be a big target in a Trump administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Less clear is the potential future of reproductive health rights.

Trump has said decisions about abortion restrictions should be left to the states. Thirteen states ban abortion with few exceptions, while 28 others restrict the procedure based on gestational duration, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization focused on advancing reproductive rights. Trump said before the election that he would not sign a national abortion ban.

State ballot measures to protect abortion rights were adopted in four states, including Missouri, which Trump won by about 18 points, according to preliminary AP reports. Abortion rights measures were rejected by voters in Florida and South Dakota.

Trump could move to restrict access to abortion medications, used in more than half of abortions, either by withdrawing the FDA’s authorization for the drugs or by enforcing a 19th-century law, the Comstock Act, that abortion opponents say bans their shipment. Trump has said he generally would not use the law to ban mail delivery of the drugs.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Five Strategies to Support Chronic Pain Caregivers

By Mara Baer

As someone who has lived with chronic pain for ten years, I worry about my health and future. I also worry about my ability to be fully present for my kids and spouse, and the load that he carries in our family life.

When my pain first became chronic, my husband’s expanded role became critical. He did more driving, more cooking, and more laundry. There was always more for him to do. When my pain became so persistent that it impacted my mental health, his responsibilities grew even more.

Fifty million people in America live with chronic pain. We are five times more likely to experience depression and anxiety, and our risk of suicide is twice as high as people without pain. Isolation, elevated stress, and loneliness are also common. Because the healthcare system does not typically address the biopsychosocial nature of pain – the biological, psychological and social factors behind it -- these problems persist and have deep impacts on our relationships and caregivers.

When I was at my darkest times with chronic pain, I felt helpless. Feeling helpless lead to acting helpless, which added to the caregiving burdens of my spouse. Many days I could not get myself out of bed, as the pain and my sadness about it were too great. I avoided family and social activities, and doing chores around the house.

I thought I was allowing my body the rest it needed, but I’ve since learned that avoiding movement and isolating oneself can exacerbate pain, and deepen depression and anxiety. This created a vicious cycle, where lack of activity leads to more pain and worsens mental health.  

My husband watched as I declined and kept picking up the pieces. We spent years like this, but we didn't have to. I now have five key strategies that can help caregivers and their loved ones:

1. Learn about the biopsychosocial nature of pain: The complex nature of pain involves many factors, including the brain’s capacity to become hardwired to pain, as well as social and emotional issues. "The Pain Management Workbook" by Rachel Zoffness provides an excellent tutorial on the biopsychosocial aspects of pain and is a useful tool for caregivers and those living with pain. As caregivers learn more about the multi-faceted nature of pain, it becomes easier find ways to improve pain care.

2. Explore pain reprocessing and other therapies: In "The Way Out" by Alan Gordon, readers can learn about the neuroscience of chronic pain and how Pain Reprocessing Therapy (PRT) can teach the brain to “unlearn” chronic pain. Several pain therapy programs are grounded in this model, which has been found to provide significant pain relief. Caregivers should also evaluate other therapies that can help manage pain, including Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Acceptance Commitment Therapy.

3. Evaluate healthcare stigma: People living with chronic pain often face stigma in the healthcare system. This impacts their access to care and mental health. Caregivers should evaluate whether stigma is occurring, which may result in the undertreatment of pain by providers and skepticism about patient suffering.

4. Assess your own pain and mental health: Like other caregivers, chronic pain caregivers can experience stress, isolation and burnout. That burden is often correlated with a patient’s pain, anxiety, depression, and lower self-efficacy. Over half of caregivers’ struggle with their own pain, which impacts their mental health and ability to serve in the caregiving role. Self-evaluation is important for caregivers to assess their own medical and mental health, and to seek support when needed.

5. Join a support group: Chronic pain is isolating, not only for people living with pain but also their caregivers. Connecting with others who understand these challenges can be incredibly healing and supportive. There are many support groups online. The U.S. Pain Foundation hosts a regular free support group for caregivers, providing opportunities to share challenges and coping strategies.

When I finally became aware of the evidence around the biopsychosocial nature of pain, it was a turning point for me and my spouse. After learning that nearly all chronic pain conditions have a psychological component, I sought mental health support, coaching and counseling. This helped me see that the way I coped with pain would never work, and that moving my body, avoiding isolation and acknowledging my emotions would help me feel better and engage more fully in family life.

There are times my husband may still carry a heavier load, especially when I am having a pain flare, but his caregiving responsibilities are more manageable now. And I am certainly more present in our family and relationship.

Mara Baer has lived with Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome for over 10 years. She is a writer, speaker, and health policy consultant offering services through her women-owned small business, AgoHealth. Mara is a member of the National Pain Advocacy Center’s Science and Policy Council and recently launched a newsletter called Chronic Pain Chats.

Opioids Are Effective at Treating Pain. Just Ask My Family

By Crystal Lindell

What if I told you that there was a medication that made it possible for my grandma to live at home instead of a nursing home? 

And that the same medication allowed my uncle to endure prostate cancer treatments long enough to see his cancer go into remission. And that it helped my mom avoid pneumonia after hip surgery. Or that this medication is the only reason I’m pain-free enough to be able to write this column?

But that’s not all. What if I told you the same medication helps me take care of my cats, as well as the cats at the local animal shelter where I volunteer? 

What if I told you that doctors hated this medication? And that many of them also hate anyone who takes it?.

In an age of opioid-phobia, it seems a lot of people – doctors in particular – have forgotten why opioid pain medications like Norco exist in the first place. And why they are such a miracle drug.

Over the summer, my grandma fractured her foot. After a couple of weeks in the hospital, she was transferred to a rehab facility to start the healing process. In mid-October, she was finally cleared to put some weight on her foot again, and last week she was able to come home. 

But she’s still not fully recovered and every movement still feels like climbing a mountain. In fact, standing up to go from her chair to the commode would still be impossible for her, if not for one very specific medical intervention: a 5mg hydrocodone tablet.

Yes, just one of those pills every six hours makes it possible for her to stand up to use the bathroom, walk to the kitchen, and visit with her new great-grandchild. 

Too bad her doctors are doing everything possible to refuse to prescribe it for her. Each one keeps pushing her off to a different specialist that they claim should actually be giving them to her.

The entire situation is made all the more frustrating because her chronic health issues mean she’s not allowed to take the pain medication most doctors try to push on patients: ibuprofen. 

Not to mention the fact that – at 82 years old – the main reason that doctors cite for refusing to prescribe opioids to my grandma doesn’t apply. At her age, she’s not likely to suddenly develop compulsive use behavior. And if she did, why would it matter? 

Doctors will sometimes claim that opioids aren’t effective at treating pain long term. But if a patient says they are still effective, then clearly that doesn’t apply.

Here we are in 2024, and we as a civilization have managed to harness the power of the poppy plant to such an extent that we can use it to help elderly patients enjoy their final years at home with loved ones, instead of being stuck in a depressing nursing home. But we refuse to use it. 

I’m tired of having to spend so much time countering people who think opioid pain medications are the root of all of society’s ills. That’s just not the case. Unfortunately, their constant complaints have managed to work the refs, so now we have to waste time begging for the bare minimum in pain treatment. 

In fact, if those same people would just look around a little bit, they would see the truth: opioids help millions of people lead better lives. And, if anything, they should be prescribed more, not less. 

Flawed Mayo Clinic Study Promotes Opioid Myths

By Crystal Lindell

A new study has been released analyzing why patients start taking opioids — but all the research actually does is perpetuate harmful myths about opioids and the patients who use them. 

The study, which was just published in the Journal of Pain, was conducted by researchers from the Mayo Clinic and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. 

The researchers say this is “the first study to present nationally representative rates of incident prescription opioid use.” But it’s the headline from a Mayo Clinic article about the study that clarifies what the authors were actually trying to get at. It reads: “Who is choosing to use prescription opioids?”

“Choosing” – as though patients have any choice about whether or not they use opioids. 

Opioid medications are not sold over the counter, and many doctors today do everything possible to avoid prescribing them. So the idea that any patient can walk into a doctor’s office and “choose” opioids over alternative treatments is wildly naive, at best. 

I’ll go a step further and somewhat defend the doctors here: if a doctor is prescribing opioids in the current opioid-phobia environment, they are not doing it as a first-line treatment. They’ve  already tried non-opioid medications and non-pharmaceutical therapies, which didn’t work.

But let’s take a step back and look at exactly what the authors of the study claim their research found. In a nationwide survey of nearly 10,500 people conducted in 2019 and 2020, about 4% started using prescription opioids. Four percent isn’t much, but it was enough to surprise the researchers.

"One of the things that we noticed is that people are still utilizing opioids as an early resort or first line treatment, before trying non-opioid treatments first, which goes against best practice guidelines in healthcare," said lead author Ryan D'Souza, MD, a Mayo Clinic anesthesiologist. "This is a wake-up call to how high the incidence rate among new users continues to be."

A bit of a jump in my opinion, but let’s go with that. What are these "early resort or first-line” treatments that D’Souza and his co-author want patients to try before resorting to opioids? As they explain: "Nonpharmacologic modalities, over-the-counter medications, and other nonopioid analgesics as initial treatment for pain."

“Nonpharmacologic modalities” means things like physical therapy and cognitive therapy. “Over-the-counter medications and “nonopioid analgesics” means pain relievers like ibuprofen and acetaminophen (Advil and Tylenol) or prescription medications like gabapentin.

Well, I have some great news for the researchers who did this study: Every single patient asking a doctor for opioid pain medication has already tried Advil. 

It’s also worth noting that some of the data was collected in 2020, which is infamous for being a year that greatly disrupted medical care because of COVID. It was the kind of disruption that literally limited how much access patients had to physical therapy and in-person cognitive therapy. So yes, some patients may have resorted to opioids during that time.

Also, physical and cognitive therapy are both significantly more expensive than hydrocodone, even if you have insurance. Both therapies require multiple sessions — sometimes in the same week — and most insurance companies require a copay for each session. So the difference in price can be dramatic, not to mention the cost of time away from work and family to go to appointments. 

The other major flaw in their list of alternatives is that none of them are great at treating pain quickly. Physical therapy may help over a period of weeks or months, but it’s not going to be much help to an arthritis patient who needs to get work on Monday. And there’s little data showing medications like gabapentin are effective at all when it comes to pain. 

In fact, the researchers found that “ineffective pain treatment” was the primary reason people were given a new prescription for opioids. Other leading factors for opioid use are three or more visits to the ER in one year; having four or more painful conditions; and having two or more disabilities.

Anyone with that many strikes against them probably needs opioids, yet the authors are still troubled that “some participants are using opioids… instead of following various best-practice guidelines.”

As is the case for most medical research, both the data collection and the conclusions drawn by the authors seem to have been done with zero input from any actual patients. That’s the foundational problem for the entire study. None of the conclusions factor in real life situations. 

Studies like this one that demonize every single use of opioids would have a lot more sway if there were actually effective opioid alternatives available. As it stands now, patients do not have an option between “an effective, non-addictive pain medication” and “an effective, always addictive pain medication.” 

In reality, the options are usually between “ineffective, non-addictive medication” and “effective and rarely addictive medication.” 

Anyone who’s actually experienced real pain will tell you that when those are the choices, the “effective” medication wins every time. 

It’s so exhausting that we are still dealing with such flawed thinking from the medical community when it comes to opioids. I understand that opioids make an easy villain in healthcare, but opioids are not a magical, always-addictive medication — no matter how many times the medical community tries to convince us otherwise.

I know this because most patients who undergo general anesthesia are routinely given the opioid medication fentanyl — and none of them wake up post-op suddenly addicted to opioids. In fact, most people who take opioids in any setting never develop problematic use.

So we would be wise to remember that the real villain isn’t opioids. It’s the problem they’re trying to address: pain.

The Whims of Pharmacy Pricing

By Crystal Lindell

I pay cash for my prescriptions every month because I don’t currently have health insurance. 

I got laid off in 2022 and I’ve been freelancing to make ends meet since then, which makes it difficult to get health insurance. I know, not a great situation for a chronically ill patient to be in, but as Gambino said, “This is America.”

Thankfully, the cash prices for my prescriptions aren’t very high, so the situation has been manageable. For my main pain medication, which is not a name brand, I’ve been paying just $36 a month for over two years.

Unfortunately, I recently found out how vulnerable I am to price changes for prescriptions. 

My most recent refill was ready last week, but I was dealing with a pain flare — likely caused by our changing weather here in the Midwest. So I asked my fiance to pick it up for me in an effort to avoid having to endure a taxing trip out of the house.

But while I was at home waiting, he called to tell me that the pharmacy had just told him that there was a new price this month: $86. 

That’s a $50 increase! It literally went up nearly 139 percent! With no warning! 

Doing a little back-of-the-napkin math, because it’s a monthly prescription, that increase results in an extra $600 a year! Not to mention the fact that it also means the price could increase again next month. And then again the month after that. 

So I called the pharmacy to try to figure out what was going on. I spoke to two different people and they both told me that it’s the new price and there’s nothing they can do. 

One of them claimed the price went up months ago, but after I explained to her that I literally got the exact same medication four weeks ago for $36, she changed her story and said the price increased over the weekend. Or it may have increased overnight. 

She insisted there was nothing they could do about it. 

Since it’s a controlled substance and I have a pain patient contract with my doctor, I’m not allowed to have the prescription transferred to a different pharmacy to get it for a cheaper price. It’s one of those opioid regulations that was supposedly launched to keep patients safe, but it has instead resulted in pharmacies having their own monopolies. 

As a freelancer, my bank account balance varies dramatically, depending on which projects I’ve recently been paid for and which ones I’m waiting on payment for. So I didn’t have the full $86 in my account to cover the medication that day. 

Thankfully my mom lives nearby, and I’m able to borrow some money from her when situations like this occur. So my fiance drove home, and then I drove to my mom’s to pick up some cash from her. I then drove to the pharmacy myself to get the medication — all while still dealing with a spike in my daily pain. 

When I got to the counter, I recognized the pharmacist who was working as someone who’s been helpful to me in the past. So I took a chance and said, “Yeah, so the price went up dramatically? Huh?”

She looked at the prescription price and then quietly went to the computer for like 10 minutes to look into it. Then she came back over to me and said, “I got it back down to $36. Here you go, you can pay up front.”

I was half in shock and half worried that if I said the wrong thing, the price would go back up, so I didn’t ask how she did it. I just took the package and went up front to pay, hoping it would still be $36 next month.

I know I should be sharing the details of why it went up and then back down again, but I honestly don’t even know what they are. And I don’t think that those details are necessarily the point. 

The real point is that pharmacies have way too much power in pricing and the entire process is purposely opaque to make it difficult for patients to navigate. After I shared this story with some close friends the day it happened, many of them responded by telling me similar stories about arbitrary pricing at their pharmacies. 

The initial price increase should not have even happened in the first place. What patients pay for medication should not be dependent on the whims of pharmacy staff, especially when patients like me are not allowed to shop around for a more competitive price due to controlled substance regulations. 

As far as I can tell, there are no laws regulating how much pharmacies can increase prices for medication, nor any law requiring them to give a certain amount of notice when they do. If there are laws about such things, they aren’t publicized in any meaningful way. If patients don’t know they have a right, does the right even exist?

I don’t know if there’s any good advice for patients to take from this experience. Most patients on controlled substances can’t risk angering their pharmacist, so it’s understandable they would just choose to pay a higher price if that’s what the pharmacy wanted. 

The situation reminds me of someone else that sells drugs: street dealers. But at least with street dealers, customers usually have the option of shopping around for a better price. 

Eilish, Dunham, Jamil: How Ehlers-Danlos Celebrities Raise Awareness and Scrutiny

By Crystal Lindell

I have to confess that I never watched the HBO Show Girls. It’s not that it looks like a bad show. In fact, almost the opposite. It sounds like a good show. 

But as a young millennial flailing through life when Girls premiered in 2012, I worried that I’d see myself — including my flaws — reflected back at me. And I just have never been in a place, mentally, to process that kind of personal attack. So I didn’t watch Girls.

When the show’s top star and creator Lena Dunham later revealed that she had the same health condition as me — Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) — it only worked to confirm my fears. 

A lot of people hate Lena Dunham, and a lot of people also hate the character she played on Girls.

What if, through watching the show, I discover that I am like her?

What if I start to believe that I’m worthy of the same level of hate? And in the process, I start to hate myself?

After I was diagnosed with EDS in 2018, Dunham was among the first celebrities I remember seeing reveal her own diagnosis publicly. 

In the fall of 2019, Dunham posted unflattering paparazzi pictures of herself to Instagram — including one of her in a blue granny nightgown, holding a cane in one hand and a cellphone in the other.

LENA DUNHAM

“I could choose to be embarrassed by these paparazzi pics — I mean, that’s probably the point of someone publishing them in the first place — but I’m really not,” Dunham wrote.

“I could lie and say it was an early Halloween look… But the truth is just: This is what life is like when I’m struggling most with chronic illness. An Ehler-Danlos syndrome flare means that I need support from more than just my friends... so thank you, sweet cane!”

A lot of the online EDS community did not take the news well. 

One Reddit user wrote at the time: “Lena Dunham is an extremely problematic and troubled individual. If there is ANY celebrity whose claims — not just regarding illness but regarding all facets of autobiography — should be looked at with a critical and cautious eye, it’s her. She’s not someone we should, as a community, try to turn into a role model or representative for EDS.”

The sentiment summed up what a lot of EDS patients were saying on the internet at the time.

Finally, a celebrity bringing awareness to EDS, and I couldn’t even be excited about it? Instead, I worried that the people who hated her would now hate me too.

JAMEELA JAMIL

The other big name to reveal her EDS diagnosis in 2019 was Jameela Jamil.

And, unfortunately, she’s another celebrity who a lot of people love to hate. 

Two celebrities were out there spreading awareness about the very condition that has caused me immense health problems my entire life, but I couldn’t even post about it online without worrying about haters.

Over the years, a number of other celebrities have also revealed that they have EDS or a related hypermobility disorder, including: Selma Blair, Halsey, Sia, Cherylee Houston, Yvee Oddly and others. 

‘Been in Pain Since I Was Nine’

Most recently, Billie Eilish discussed her hypermobility, a condition often seen as related to EDS, in a recent Vogue profile. At times, she feels like she was at war with her own body.

“I’ve basically been in pain since I was nine,” said Eilish. “Growing up, I’d always hear people be like, ‘Just wait until you’re older! You’re going to have so much pain!’ And I remember being so furious.” 

Bringing EDS into the mainstream and creating awareness should, in theory, help more suffering patients get the diagnosis they seek. Ideally, it would also help lead to more research into the condition, including treatments and maybe even a cure. 

In a perfect world, increased awareness would also lead to more compassion for those struggling with the often painful symptoms of EDS. 

Sadly, over the years, I’ve watched the opposite often happen instead. As EDS has become more well-known, a lot of people have started to see EDS as a trendy diagnosis, the type patients want because they saw that a celebrity has it. 

BILLIE EILISH

In fact, a few years after I was diagnosed at a university hospital, I had a different medical specialist at the same university walk into the exam room and greet me for the first time with, “So what makes you think you have EDS?” 

He asked me as though I had Googled “EDS” on the way to the appointment and then decided to add it to my intake form on a whim. 

In fact, that’s been one of the most jarring things about having EDS. The condition has very obvious visual markers, but people will still try to claim it’s fake. 

My elbow extends way past the normal range of motion. You can’t fake that. 

Every celebrity I’ve seen who’s revealed their own EDS diagnosis has seemed intent on making sure that it is not seen as the most defining thing about them. It’s a truly understandable goal. I don’t want EDS to define me either. 

Unfortunately, EDS has started to be defined by the celebrities who have it: “That Lena Dunham-Jameela Jamil thing.” For better — and sometimes worse — they end up representing our condition in the eyes of the general public. 

While most EDS celebrities don’t have a slew of hate-fans behind them, none of them are fully beloved by the public. And, of course, that’s because being fully beloved by the public is impossible for any human being. 

In fact, all of us are flawed. So in that sense, EDS celebrities are just like us! 

Peer Reviewers of Medical Studies Have Conflicts of Interest

By Crystal Lindell

How much are medical studies impacted by financial conflicts of interest? New research shows the problem may run deeper than most people realize. 

The authors of peer-reviewed studies in medical journals usually have to disclose whether or not they received money from pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers. But new research published in JAMA looks at the next layer: the peer reviewers themselves.

Due to the “traditionally opaque nature of peer review,” it’s difficult to investigate the issue, but an international team of researchers studied peer reviewers at high-impact medical journals like The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine.

They looked specifically at nearly 2,000 U.S-based physicians who served as peer reviewers. 

What they found is both unsurprising and alarming. Between 2020 and 2022, more than half (58.9%) of the peer reviewers analyzed had received at least one industry payment. In total, the peer reviewers received a staggering $1.06 billion in industry payments. 

It should be noted that companies don’t spend that kind of money out of some noble love of medicine. No, they are doing it because it helps increase their profits or advances their interests. 

Most of that money – $1 billion or 94 percent – was paid directly to individuals or to their institutions to help fund research programs. That’s why academics who churn out studies are highly prized at universities and research institutes.

The rest of the money – $64.18 million – was in the form of general payments, which includes everything from speaker fees and “honoraria” to food, drink, lodging and travel expenses. 

The median general payment to a peer reviewer was $7,614, while the median research payment was $153,173. 

Interestingly, the average male reviewer had a significantly higher total payment ($38,959) than the average female reviewer ($19,586). 

The authors also broke down differences between medical specialties. Doctors who specialize in cardiology, rheumatology, oncology, immunology or addiction treatment were the most likely to get payments (73.5%), followed by surgeons (72%), psychiatrists (65%), hospital-based specialists (47%) and primary care physicians (38%).

Those results shed light on which fields of medicine may be more susceptible to conflicts of interests.

The study’s authors came to the only conclusion that makes sense given all this data: "Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed."

I agree that this is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed. But we shouldn’t have to wait for more research to start taking action. We need stronger policies at medical journals to help contain the potential harm it’s causing. 

At the very least, peer reviewers should have to disclose conflicts of interest. While that may conflict with the policy of some journals to keep peer reviewers anonymous, given the potential for bias and other negative consequences, it seems the financial disclosures should take precedence. 

Since peer reviewers also have the ability to reject research before it’s even published, they should have their names and potential conflicts listed in the publications. 

Beyond that, medical journals need to start having difficult conversations about whether peer reviewers should even be allowed to review studies that involve companies or industries that pay them. 

While it may not be entirely possible in our for-profit healthcare system, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be explored. After all, the study did not find that 100% of peer reviewers accepted payments. So clearly some peer reviewers found a way to do the work without an obvious conflict of interest.

It isn’t just medical journals that do a poor job flagging the conflicts of peer reviewers. When PNN made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the CDC seeking more information about the “Core Expert Group” involved in the agency’s 2016 opioid guideline, most of the documents we received back were heavily edited or redacted.

The CDC’s FOIA office said the group was exempt from our request because of “deliberative process privilege” and that disclosing their conflicts would have been “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”  

Why Conflicts Matter

Why do conflicts of interest matter? The easiest way to understand it is that whenever money is involved, it can potentially lead to what is essentially a boss-employee power dynamic. And typically, people don’t like to upset their bosses. 

Intuitively, most people also understand that if a medical device company funds medical device research, the researchers are incentivized to manipulate both the research methods and results in hopes of providing the funder the results they seek. 

Sometimes it’s deliberate, but sometimes it just happens on a subconscious level. People naturally favor people who give them money. However, in this case, the result of that favoritism could harm the health of millions of patients. 

In one high-profile example from 2018, a top cancer researcher failed to disclose the millions of dollars in payments he received from drug and healthcare companies.

As ProPublica and The New York Times reported, Dr. José Baselga, then-chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, had a number of undisclosed conflicts of interests. 

One such conflict may have led Baselga to put a positive spin on the results of two Roche-sponsored clinical trials — trials that many others had considered disappointments. He did this without disclosing the more than $3 million in consulting fees he’d received from Roche. He also left out that he had a stake in a company Roche had acquired. 

Baselga resigned just days after the news investigation came out, but journalists just don’t have the resources to constantly investigate every single researcher for conflicts of interest. That’s why medical journals must regulate the issue themselves. 

Yes, most medical journals already have policies requiring study authors to disclose conflicts of interest, but as this new research makes clear, that’s not enough. It’s past time for peer reviewers to be required to do the same. 

After all, it’s not just because the public deserves to know. Our lives could depend on it. 

Do You Hurry to Outrun the Pain?

By Carol Levy

I'm infused with impatience. I do everything fast.

I used to swim at the YMCA. I didn’t feel like I was moving quickly, but to others I was a speeding bullet knifing through the water. As soon as I stopped, to make my turn at the end of the lane, invariably someone watching would yell down at me, “What's your rush? Isn't it more fun if you enjoy it?”

Not for me. It's not just the physicality of moving swiftly through the water, which for me is a wonderful feeling. More important is getting to the end of the mile of swimming I try to complete, before something happens to trigger my pain.

I can't tolerate touch to the left side of my face, due to trigeminal neuralgia and phantom pain. Just the idea of a droplet of water touching my face terrorizes me, so I only do the backstroke.

One day a man asked me, “Is that the only stroke you know? I could teach you others.”

I didn't want to explain why I only did the backstroke, so I shrugged my shoulders and swam away. 

The backstroke works for me because my arms move in such a way that they don't fire off bullets of water that might hit my face. Regardless, I am always at the mercy of the thought, “Be careful! Finish this before you get hit in the face with a droplet.”

I'm impatient because I have to outrun the pain. I get to the Y early, impatient to get into the pool before others, so no one gets in the lanes next to me and splashes water on my face.

This is true of almost every aspect of my life. I shop fast because using my eyes too much triggers the pain. The faster I go through a store, the less opportunity I have to see things I want to see, but did not come to buy.

On rare occasions, I get sidetracked.  I forget.  I start to look at what else they have. My eyes start to travel up and down the shelves, and the pain grows to such heights that I fear my ability to get out of the store and drive home safely. So, I rush.

Before my trigeminal neuralgia, I loved to read. I could read a whole book in a few hours. And as soon as I finished, like the joke about eating Chinese food, I'd be hungry to start a new one.

Now I can read only a few pages at a time, skipping words, paragraphs, pages, looking for the dialogue that essentially explains the story. Who the main characters are and what their relationships are with each other, are lost to me.

I am impatient to get to the end. Not to see who the murderer is (I love mysteries the best), but to get to the end quickly, so the pain doesn't interfere.

I could go on and on with other examples, but they don't matter. At the end of the day, they all boil down to one thing: Hurry up! Hurry up! The pain is coming! The pain has started!

But I have to get to the end. The end of the swimming lane, the grocery list, and the end of the book.

There are changes we all go through, no matter our circumstances. But I think pain sufferers change more than most people -- and the changes are largely the result of trying to outrun the pain. It’s an impatience that’s very hard for those without pain to understand.

As for me? I used to be the tortoise. Now I'm the hare. Right now, I'm hurrying to finish writing this column before the pain takes over from using my eyes so much.

Pain makes me rabbit my way through life. The tortoise, ambling by, gets to look at the scenery. The hare in us makes it hard to stop and smell the roses.

Carol Jay Levy has lived with trigeminal neuralgia, a chronic facial pain disorder, for over 30 years. She is the author of “A Pained Life, A Chronic Pain Journey.”  Carol is the moderator of the Facebook support group “Women in Pain Awareness.” Her blog “The Pained Life” can be found here. 

Hurricane Helene Highlights Need for Emergency Prescription Access

By Crystal Lindell

Following the news for Hurricane Helene this week, I’ve been worried about everyone in its path. But it’s the people who rely on prescription pain medication that I am most worried about. 

When natural disasters strike, patients who rely on opioids and other controlled substances can be left to face withdrawal or the black market to fill the gaps until doctors and pharmacies are fully functioning again.

While some states have laws in place to allow people to get early refills of their prescriptions when there’s an impending natural disaster, those laws can specifically exclude controlled substances like hydrocodone and Adderall. 

According to a 2022 article by Healthcare Ready, the laws vary widely state-by-state and are poorly organized. Only 12 states have laws or regulations that allow for emergency prescriptions during a specified public health emergency. About half the states allow for short-term refills of medication during unspecified emergencies. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia don’t have any regulations allowing for emergency prescriptions.

The two states facing the worst from Hurricane Helene, Florida and Georgia, both have laws allowing for emergency prescription refills – but only one allows for refills of opioids. 

Georgia specifically excludes Schedule 2 controlled substances such as codeine, hydrocodone, morphine and amphetamines, according to Atlanta News First. 

Florida’s law is much more expansive. You can obtain a 30-day refill of any prescription medication, as long as your county meets one of the state’s disaster qualifications. 

My guess is that Florida is more lenient due to the state’s reputation as a retirement destination. Older retired people are more likely to need pain medication and more likely to vote. 

It’s understandable that states more commonly hit by hurricanes would have laws in place to address this issue, but every state should allow for emergency prescription refills. Natural disasters like earthquakes, tornadoes and wildfires can happen anywhere. 

Ideally, this would be something best addressed at the federal level, so that patients who have to evacuate their state during emergencies would know they can get refills no matter where they go. Pharmacists would also need to be aware of how to apply the regulations. 

The Food and Drug Administration recommends that patients have at least a week's supply of  medication in case of emergencies – something that’s impossible for many pain patients. You know things are not functioning correctly when a federal agency is giving medical advice that patients are literally unable to follow. 

The last thing anyone facing the threat of losing their home or even their lives should have to worry about is running out of hydrocodone. Even a small daily dose can cause withdrawal if stopped abruptly.

Medication withdrawal in normal conditions can feel like hell. I can’t imagine what it would be like if you also had to deal with the aftermath of a hurricane or wildfire. It could take days or weeks before power is restored, pharmacies to reopen, and supply chains to start functioning again.

Nobody should have to endure that, and with sensible laws in place across the country, nobody would have to.