Return to Sender: WIll Anyone Use FDA’s New Opioid Mail-Back Program?

By Crystal Lindell

The DEA has been hosting drug “Take Back Days” for over a decade, collecting over 9,200 tons of unwanted or expired prescriptions and over-the-counter medicines. The take-back program is seen as a key effort to prevent drug diversion and opioid addiction.

Now the Food and Drug Administration is expanding its own drug collection program – essentially making every day an opioid take-back day.  

Starting on March 31, 2025, drug makers participating in the FDA’s Opioid Analgesic Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)  – which means every company that makes and sells opioids – will be required to provide pre-paid, drug mail-back envelopes “upon request” to pharmacies that dispense opioids. The pharmacies then have to give the envelopes to patients and caregivers who ask for them, so they can mail back any unwanted opioids. 

The fact that both pharmacies and patients have to request these envelopes makes me skeptical about how much this program will actually be used.

The press release from the FDA includes a quote that sounds surprisingly pro-patient though. So even if the program doesn’t have a high use-rate, perhaps an extra measure of safety will make it easier for patients to get opioid prescriptions. 

“We want to ensure patients have access to opioid analgesics in their pain management regimens and that they are educated about methods available to safely dispose of any leftover medicines, which could pose a real danger to their loved ones and pets,” said Marta Sokolowska, PhD, deputy center director for Substance Use and Behavioral Health at the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.  

It’s the part about ensuring that “patients have access to opioid analgesics” that stands out to me. Patients certainly need access to opioid pain meds. And if programs like this help doctors and medical professionals feel more comfortable prescribing opioids, then I fully support them. 

But I’m skeptical about whether that will be the actual outcome. The real question is whether anyone will use the mail-back program. 

The DEA has never released a full breakdown of the medications returned during its drug take-back days. But an analysis of the drugs returned at a take-back day in Lansing, Michigan in 2013 provides some insight. 

Of the nearly 2,500 medication containers that were returned, only 304 were for a controlled substance like opioids – about 12% overall. The most common types of medication returned were for pain/spasm, cardiovascular, and mental health conditions.

While hydrocodone/acetaminophen combinations (Norco) were the most returned medication at that 2013 event, it represented just 4.4% of all returned containers. 

The second most-common drug returned was ibuprofen (Advil) in 2.2% of the containers. Acetaminophen (1.7%) and aspirin (1.3%) also made the top ten list of most-returned medications. 

Something tells me that Advil isn’t what organizers had in mind when they asked people to bring in their unused drugs. 

In the end, the FDA’s new mail-back program will likely have a greater impact as a public relations initiative to make the agency look good, rather than keeping unwanted opioids off the street. 

In a world where doctors are so reluctant to prescribe opioids, I don’t blame people for wanting to hold on to the opioids they’re able to get. In a PNN survey of thousands of pain patients, nearly a third (32%) admitted hoarding their unused opioids because they’re unsure if they’ll be able to get them in the future 

If we’re lucky, the program will accomplish at least one of the goals that the FDA’s Sokolowska laid out: “We want to ensure patients have access to opioid analgesics.”

Given the federal government's abysmal track record with opioids and pain care in general, I’ll believe that when I see it.

Drug Shortages Easing, But Pain Patients Still Have Problems Getting Opioids

By Pat Anson

Shortages of prescription drugs and other medications appear to be easing in the United States, but with tight supplies of oxycodone, hydrocodone and other opioids persisting.

As of September 30, the number of active drug shortages stands at 277, down from a record high of 323 at the end of last year, according to a new report from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). The report found that shortages of drugs used for pain, anesthesia, chemotherapy and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) “continue to be problematic.”

Health systems also face significant shortages of medical grade intravenous (IV) and dialysis fluids, which have gotten worse in recent weeks due to production shortfalls in the southeast caused by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. To conserve supplies, some hospitals are giving patients Gatorade instead of IV electrolytes. The American College of Emergency Physicians also recommends using tap water to clean wounds rather than sterile irrigation fluids.

Over half of the drug manufacturers (60%) contacted by the ASHP did not provide a reason for the shortages, but others cited increased demand for certain drugs (14%), manufacturing problems (12%), business decisions (12%), and raw material shortages (2%).

The ASHP has also cited reduced DEA production quotas and the fallout from opioid litigation settlements, which have significantly reduced the supply of opioid medication and 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.

Teva Pharmaceuticals, a large generic drug maker, recently discontinued production of potent fentanyl analgesics known as Transmucosal Immediate-Release Fentanyl Medicines (TIRF). That forced the FDA to end a program that supplied TIRF medication to about 150 patients, many of them suffering severe pain from late-stage cancer.

Teva has not made any public statements about its discontinuation of the TIRF drugs Actiq and Fentora. The most likely explanation for the discontinuation is that Teva’s bottom line was suffering due to the costs of opioid litigation. In 2022, Teva agreed to pay $4.25 billion to settle thousands of opioid liability lawsuits.

Opioids currently listed in short supply by the ASHP include oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, oxycodone immediate-release tablets, hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets, hydromorphone tablets and solution, fentanyl patches, fentanyl solution, and morphine solution. Most have been in shortage for over a year.

‘It’s So Hard to Find My Medications’

The Drug Enforcement Administration recently announced plans to further reduce the supply of prescription opioids in 2025, while raising production quotas for amphetamine and other stimulants used to treat ADHD.

Although the FDA advised the DEA that medical need for schedule II opioids will decline 6.6% next year, DEA is proposing only minor reductions in the supply of fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone and hydromorphone, while keeping quotas unchanged for morphine and codeine. If the quotas are implemented, it would be the ninth consecutive year the opioid supply has been reduced.

Over 1,900 people submitted comments to the Federal Register on the DEA’s plans, many expressing frustration with chronic opioid shortages.

“It’s so hard to even find my medication anymore. I have to go from pharmacy to pharmacy and it causes so much anxiety. I feel so insecure and the unknown makes me sick,” wrote Sierra Shareiko. “It’s like kicking us down while we’re already down. We need to start being smart and looking into how much these medications are actually keeping us alive.”

“In the last year I have had to contact multiple pharmacies in order to get my monthly refill of opioid medication I take for a chronic disease I’ve dealt with for 16 years. Either the pharmacies are out of stock, or they will only fill prescriptions for acute pain,” said another patient. “By throttling production, you’re throwing an already precarious situation further into chaos. You’re putting pressure and stress on the entire medical system and it’s not solving any problems.”

One letter, signed by over two dozen geriatric and palliative care physicians in New York City, warned that any further cuts in the opioid supply would “cause significant harm” to patients.

“In my clinical experience, virtually every time we prescribe opioids for severe and disabling pain in the setting of serious illness, we are required to spend hours tracking down a pharmacy that has the medication in stock. Most do not because their suppliers can't get it for them,” wrote Dr. Diana Meier.

“Our inability to care effectively for our patients because of well-intended but harmful constraints on production and distribution of opioid analgesics is a major source of burn out, frustration, and anger among the already inadequate workforce available to care for the mostly older people living with serious and chronic illness.”

“As a recently retired pain doctor, I saw firsthand just how difficult opiate supply cutbacks made life for my patients. Some reported calling 20 or 30 pharmacies, or traveling a hundred miles, to find pharmacies that would fill their prescriptions,” said Dr. William Taylor. “These cutbacks are a backdoor way to deny medication to patients who have a legitimate medical need for opiate analgesics. There is no evidence that these cutbacks benefit patients in any way.”

The public comment period on the DEA’s proposed 2025 production quotas has ended. The agency is expected to release its final decision on drug quotas before the end of the year.

What Rescheduling Will Mean for Marijuana

By Dr. Chris Meyers

The Drug Enforcement Administration announced in early 2024 that it would act on President Joe Biden’s call to reclassify marijuana, moving it from the tightly controlled Schedule I category that it has been in since 1970 to the less restrictive Schedule III status of the Controlled Substances Act. That triggered a long process of hearings and reviews that will not be completed until after the presidential election in November.

The news drew strong reactions from critics: 25 Republican lawmakers sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland protesting any changes to federal marijuana laws. They argued that the decision “was not properly researched … and is merely responding to the popularity of marijuana and not the actual science.”

As a philosopher and drug policy expert, I focus on assessing arguments and evidence rather than politics or rhetoric. So, what are the arguments for and against rescheduling cannabis?

Scheduling Under Controlled Substances Act

The Controlled Substances Act places each prohibited drug into one of five schedules based on known medical use, addictive potential and safety. Schedule I drugs – which, along with marijuana, also includes heroin, LSD, psilocybin, ecstasy (MDMA) and quaaludes – is the most restrictive category.

Schedule I substances cannot be legally used for any purpose, including medical use or research, though an exception for research can be made with special permission from the DEA. The criteria for inclusion in the Schedule I category is that the substance has a high potential for abuse, is extremely addictive and has “no currently accepted medical use.”

Schedule II, which is slightly less restrictive than Schedule I, includes drugs that are addictive and potentially unsafe but also have some accepted medical use. These include strong opioids such as fentanyl, as well as cocaine, PCP and methamphetamine. Though they are still tightly regulated, Schedule II drugs can be used medically with a prescription or administered by a licensed physician.

Schedule III is much less restrictive and is intended for substances with legitimate medical use and only moderate risk of abuse or dependency. This category includes low-dose morphine, anabolic steroids and ketamine.

Schedule IV – which includes the sedative Valium, the weak opioid tramadol and sleep medicines such as Ambien – is even less restrictive.

The least restrictive category is Schedule V, which includes cough syrups with codeine and calcium channel blockers such as gabapentin and pregabalin. All scheduled drugs require a doctor’s prescription and can be distributed only by licensed pharmacies.

Schedule III Would Only Legalize Some Medical Use

The push to reschedule is largely to make federal laws consistent with state medical marijuana programs that – as of October 2024 – are legal in 38 states plus the District of Columbia.

Moving marijuana to Schedule III would not change its legal status in states where it is banned. It would make marijuana legal at the federal level but only for medical use. Recreational use would still be federally prohibited, even though it is currently legal in 24 states plus Washington.

Rescheduling, however, might not make medical marijuana any easier for patients to access and could even make it much harder for some. Currently, getting a medical marijuana card is quite easy in most states. In Washington D.C., where I live, patients can self-certify.

If marijuana is reclassified as Schedule III, medical marijuana programs will have to start requiring a doctor’s prescription, just like with all other scheduled substances. And it could be distributed only by licensed pharmacies, which would put medical dispensaries that are now selling it without a license from the Food and Drug Administration out of business.

Rescheduling, however, would give medical marijuana legitimacy as a bona fide medicine. And the intent of the move is to increase access, even if it is unclear how rescheduling would achieve that.

So, assuming that rescheduling would have the intended effect of expanding access to medical marijuana, should it be rescheduled?

Medical Uses of Marijuana

Though there are three criteria for Schedule I in the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA in fact relies on only the medical use criterion. This was the basis of the DEA’s proposal to reschedule marijuana. The fact that almost 75% of Americans live in a state with a medical marijuana program suggests that marijuana has an accepted medical use.

More importantly, Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act already includes dronabinol, which is delta-9 THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Although dronabinol is synthesized in the lab rather than extracted from the cannabis plant, it is the exact same molecule. The FDA approved THC in the form of dronabinol in 1985 for treating anorexia caused by HIV/AIDS as well as nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy. Placing marijuana in the same schedule as its primary active ingredient makes a lot of sense.

Another argument in favor of rescheduling is that it would open up new opportunities for medical research into marijuana’s effects, research that is currently hampered by its Schedule I status. This work is critical because the system of cannabinoid receptors through which marijuana causes its therapeutic and psychoactive effects is crucial for almost every aspect of human functioning.

Research has shown that cannabis is effective not only in treating nausea and AIDS but also chronic pain and some symptoms of multiple sclerosis.

There is also good evidence that marijuana can help treat other conditions, including Lou Gehrig’s disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS), glaucoma, irritable bowel syndrome, insomnia, migraine, post-traumatic stress disorder and Tourette syndrome. Keeping marijuana in the Schedule I category severely hampers research that might establish more effective treatments for these conditions.

Balancing Risks and Benefits

Those opposed to rescheduling cite possible health risks associated with marijuana consumption. Heavy use is linked to an increased risk of developing schizophrenia. However, the increased risk of schizophrenia from cannabis use is comparable to that caused by watching excessive television, eating junk food or smoking cigarettes.

Long-term marijuana use can also lead to sleep problems and diminished visuospatial memory. It can also cause gastrointestinal trouble, such as cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, which is characterized by nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. The symptoms, while extremely unpleasant, are temporary and occur only after consuming marijuana. The condition disappears in people who stop using.

Marijuana use can also be addictive. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about three out of every 10 regular marijuana users meet the diagnostic criteria for cannabis use disorder.

All of the concerns above are legitimate, though it is worth noting that virtually no effective medicine is free from undesirable side effects. And although marijuana can be habit-forming, it is not as addictive as alcohol, tobacco, oxycodone, cocaine, methamphetamine or benzodiazepines. None of those other drugs are categorized as Schedule I, and alcohol and tobacco are not scheduled at all.

Unlike most other prescription medications, marijuana use is associated with many benefits. For example, in states where marijuana has been legalized, worker’s compensation payments have fallen by an average of 21% among people over 40. Researchers think that this is because marijuana helps workers better manage chronic pain. The use of marijuana for pain management also helps to reduce dependency on opioids. One study found that U.S. counties with one or two marijuana dispensaries had an average of 17% fewer opioid-related fatalities compared with counties with no dispensaries.

Research also shows that marijuana use can help to prevent Alzheimer’s by blocking the enzymes that produce amyloid plaques. It also shows promise for reducing a person’s risk of developing Type 2 diabetes by helping the body regulate insulin and glucose levels.

All of these benefits add up to marijuana users having an overall lower rate of premature death than nonusers.

Chris Meyers, PhD, is an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University. His main area of research is in moral psychology, moral theory, and applied ethics/public policy. Meyers is the author of “Drug Legalization,” a textbook that looks at the pros and cons of prohibiting recreational drugs.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission.

DEA Plans More Cuts in Opioid Supply, While Raising ADHD Stimulant Production

By Pat Anson

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is planning more cuts in the supply of prescription opioids in 2025, while raising production of amphetamine and other stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

If the DEA’s plans are finalized after a public comment period, it would be the ninth consecutive year the opioid supply has been reduced.

Under the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA has broad legal authority to set annual aggregate production quotas (APQs) for drug makers – in effect telling them how much Schedule I and II chemicals and medications they can produce. DEA sets the quotas after consulting with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal agencies, as well as individual states about the projected need for controlled substances.

“FDA predicts that levels of medical need for schedule II opioids in the United States in calendar year 2025 will decline on average 6.6 percent from calendar year 2024 levels. These declines are expected to occur across a variety of schedule II opioids. These declines are expected to occur across a variety of schedule II opioids,” the DEA said in a notice recently published in the Federal Register.

There will not be 6.6% cuts across the board for every opioid. Unlike previous years, the agency is proposing only slight reductions in the supply of fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone and hydromorphone, while keeping quotas unchanged for morphine and codeine.

Most of the cuts are very minor – less than a tenth of one percent -- when the proposed APQ’s for 2025 are compared to the ones adopted in 2024.

DEA Opioid Production Quotas for 2025

• Fentanyl: 0.0025% decrease

• Oxycodone:  0.137% decrease

• Hydrocodone: 0.081% decrease

• Hydromorphone: 0.015% decrease

• Morphine: Unchanged

• Codeine: Unchanged

The DEA notice does not address the discrepancy between the FDA’s estimate of a 6.6% decline in medical need for opioids with the quotas it is proposing. The agency says it considered a “potential increase in demand for certain opioids” due to more elective surgeries being performed in 2025. Many of those surgeries were postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The FDA predicted a 3.5% increase in domestic medical use of Schedule II stimulants in 2025. Demand for stimulants to treat ADHD has grown in recent years, but the drugs are also increasingly used to treat brain fog and fatigue caused by Long Covid. The FDA told DEA it was concerned about ongoing shortages of amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, and methylphenidate, which are used to make stimulants such as Adderall.    

The DEA wants to raise production quotas for amphetamine (+5.9%) and lisdexamfetamine (+23.5%), while leaving the 2025 quota for methylphenidate the same as it was in 2024. The agency said inventories of amphetamine and methylphenidate-based products had increased, while shortages of lisdexamfetamin continue.

“DEA believes that manufacturers will be able to meet the increase in domestic medical need for these three schedule II stimulants with the APQs proposed in this notice,” the agency said.

The Myth of Opioid Diversion

The DEA has been cutting opioid production quotas for nearly a decade, reducing the supply of oxycodone by over 68% and hydrocodone by nearly 73% since 2015. Many of those cuts are due to pressure from Congress, as well as a common belief that prescription opioids are often diverted or sold to people they are not intended for.

That belief is largely a myth.

As required by Congress, DEA estimated the diversion rate of schedule II opioids in 2025, and once again came to the conclusion that diversion is rare – less than half of one percent for oxycodone and hydrocodone. Much of the diversion is a result of theft and losses in the supply chain, before opioids even reach patients.

Estimated 2025 Diversion Rates

• Oxycodone: 0.493%

• Hydrocodone: 0.379%

• Fentanyl:  0.013%

• Hydromorphone: 0.06%

The DEA’s diversion rates are partially based on “red flag” data from prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP). Potential red flags include patients who see three or more prescribers in a 90-day period; patients who receive a daily opioid dose in excess of 240 morphine milligram equivalents (MME); and patients who pay in cash for a controlled substance.

DEA requested PDMP data from all 50 states, but only 29 states responded to the request by sharing summaries of their red flag data.

“While PDMP data is useful in estimating diversion, it is not conclusive. Further investigation would be required before concluding that any of the subject prescriptions were actually diverted. DEA continues to evaluate its methodologies in estimating diversion in an effort to set quotas more efficiently. State participation is crucial to accurate data analysis, and DEA anticipates working closely with states, as well as other federal and state entities, in future quota determinations,” the agency said.

Public Comments

The DEA quietly published its notice about 2025 production quotas in the Federal Register on September 25, with no fanfare or press release.

Usually the agency receives thousands of comments from the public about its production quotas, but so far there have been only a handful of comments posted. Many are from patients still bitter about the decade of cuts the DEA has imposed on the opioid supply, which have contributed to record shortages of prescription drugs.

“The actions that are being taken by Congress, by the DEA, state legislatures, and state medical boards, have caused THOUSANDS of these patients to lose access to their medications, have resulted in the improper prosecution of pain doctors, resulting in a severe nationwide shortage of pain specialists, and nationwide shortages of medications,” wrote David Smith.  

“The CDC, FDA, and DEA have severely underestimated the needs of chronic pain patients and misjudged the consequences of these cuts. While opioid misuse is a serious issue, penalizing legitimate pain patients is not the solution,” said Gina Harrison.

“Please I'm begging you not to cut opioids meds this year,” said Melissa Guthrie. “I'm on palliative care and there were a couple months last year I didn't get my meds due to shortages. You know it's not the pain meds causing harm. It’s the illicit fentanyl and street drugs killing people.”

You still have time to make your feelings known, as long as you do it by October 25, when the public comment period ends. To make a comment, click here.

DEA Delays Decision on Reclassifying Marijuana Until After the Election

By Crystal Lindell

The Drug Enforcement Administration has likely eliminated any possibility of marijuana being rescheduled until after a new president is sworn into office next year. The agency will hold a public hearing on the matter on December 2nd —  nearly a month after the presidential election —  according to a notice published yesterday in the Federal Register. 

The hearing will help determine if marijuana should be re-classified under Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) from its current status as an illegal Schedule I substance. 

Moving marijuana to schedule III would place it in a category of drugs that are considered to have an accepted medical use. Rescheduling would also indicate that cannabis has less potential for abuse than Schedule I and II substances, with only moderate to low risk of physical or psychological dependence. 

But the DEA has also made it clear that rescheduling does not equal legalization, noting that “the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana would remain subject to the applicable criminal prohibitions of the CSA.” 

To make a cannabis-based medicine legal under Schedule III, the Food and Drug Administration would first have to approve it for a specific medical condition, which would likely require a lengthy clinical trial process that could take years to complete.

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), an advocacy organization that has long fought for cannabis to be legalized, says it’s not surprised that the DEA wants to have public hearings. 

“Hearings are an integral part of the rescheduling process. To think that the DEA, which historically has opposed any changes to cannabis’ prohibitive status, would sign off on the most significant proposed change in federal marijuana policy in over fifty years absent such hearings was always wishful thinking,” said NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano.

“That said, the scientific evidence in favor of removing cannabis from Schedule I remains overwhelming. Cannabis clearly has legitimate therapeutic value and it possesses a superior safety profile compared to other Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substances.”

The Biden Administration initiated the regulatory process to review the scheduling of cannabis in late 2022, a review that has dragged on for nearly two years. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended marijuana be moved to Schedule III in August 2023.

But the Justice Department and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram – who has the final say on rescheduling – have yet to approve the HHS recommendation.  The DEA published the proposed change in cannabis’ classification in May in the Federal Register. That notice drew over 43,000 responses during a 60-day public comment period, with numerous requests for a public hearing.

Seeing the process take so long is frustrating. With 38 states and the District of Columbia allowing medical cannabis, it’s clear that marijuana has a legitimate medical use – a fact confirmed by the HHS recommendation to reschedule. So why are the DOJ and DEA dragging their feet?  

Holding the public hearing after the presidential election also risks that it won’t be done at all, depending on who wins and what their policy preference is on the matter. 

Although Democratic nominee Kamala Harris is likely to continue President Joe Biden’s push to have marijuana reclassified, we can’t be sure what she would do. Republican nominee Donald Trump has also indicated in recent days that he favors “decriminalizing” marijuana, but we also don’t know with certainty what he would do. 

With so many states having already legalized the medical and recreational use of marijuana, it’s become increasingly clear that there are no compelling health-related reasons to continue classifying cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance. And the longer the DEA delays changing marijuana’s status, the more it should make all of us question how much health concern there really is behind the Controlled Substances Act.

Can Ketamine Treat Fibromyalgia Pain?

By Pat Anson

At a time when the medical and recreational use of ketamine is coming under more scrutiny from law enforcement, a new study highlights its potential value as a treatment for fibromyalgia pain.

Ketamine is an anesthetic drug that is only FDA-approved for depression and anesthesia. But in recent years ketamine infusions are increasingly being used “off-label” for severe chronic pain conditions such as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS).

In a small systematic review (a study of studies), researchers in Brazil found that ketamine infusions were safe and effective in relieving fibromyalgia pain. The review was small – just 6 clinical trials involving 115 patients – because ketamine has rarely been considered as a treatment for fibromyalgia due to its potency. Ketamine infusions require constant medical supervision because they put patients into a temporary dream-like state that can lead to hallucinations and out-of-body experiences.

But the Brazilian researchers found the side effects from infusions were mild and short-term, with some fibromyalgia patients experiencing pain relief that lasted for days or weeks.

Fibromyalgia is a poorly understood condition that causes widespread body pain, fatigue, insomnia, brain fog and mood disorders. The FDA has approved only three medications for fibromyalgia, two antidepressants (Cymbalta and Savella) and a nerve drug (Lyrica), but many patients consider the drugs ineffective.

Could ketamine be another option?

“Ketamine infusions might be a reasonable therapeutic approach for short-term relief of symptoms but unsatisfactory at inducing long-term analgesia in FM (fibromyalgia) patients,” the Brazilian research team reported in Advances in Rheumatology. “Future studies that evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ketamine in FM are desired for long-term follow-up. In patients refractory to conventional therapy, ketamine infusions might be a reasonable therapeutic approach.”

A recent case study suggests ketamine does have potential as a long-term treatment. A 68-year-old woman with fibromyalgia experienced “significant, widespread pain relief” after receiving several ketamine infusions over a two-week period. She continued getting infusions twice a week for the next year.    

“Pain relief has persisted under this regimen, along with a demonstrable improvement in quality of life, a reduced use of morphine, and the cessation of anti-depressant medication. This case indicates that long-term ketamine infusions show promise for chronic pain management and that more longitudinal studies on this treatment are warranted,” researchers reported.

‘Targeting and Investigating Doctors’

The positive news about ketamine is being overshadowed by the investigation into the death of actor Matthew Perry, who drowned in a hot tub last year after getting three ketamine injections in one day – none of them while under medical supervision.  Five people, two of them doctors, were recently arrested in connection with Perry’s death, including an alleged drug dealer known as the “Ketamine Queen.”

Perry had long struggled with substance abuse issues, but federal prosecutors say the defendants “were more interested in profiting off Mr. Perry than caring about his well-being.”  The two doctors charged in the case both surrendered their DEA licenses and can no longer prescribe controlled substances.      

In a recent appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation, DEA Administrator Anne Milgram likened Perry’s death to the opioid crisis, claiming that his doctors were ultimately responsible.  

“It started with two unscrupulous doctors who were violating their oath, which is to take care of their patients, and instead supplying Matthew Perry with enormous quantities of ketamine in exchange for huge amounts of money. And then it switched to the street where Matthew Perry was buying the ketamine from two drug traffickers,” Milgram said.

“Every single day, (we) are targeting and investigating doctors, nurse practitioners, others who are violating this duty of trust to their patients by over prescribing medicine or prescribing medicine that isn't necessary.”

Milgram also claimed that ketamine “has a high potential” for addiction. While experts agree the drug can be abused, ketamine is not an opioid and does not suppress respiration, the leading cause of an overdose.  

Rite Aid Settles Opioid Dispensing Case

By Pat Anson

Embattled pharmacy chain Rite Aid has agreed to a settlement with the federal government over the illegal dispensing of opioid pain medication, removing one of the last legal hurdles in the company’s bankruptcy case. Details of the settlement, which includes an explicit offer to cooperate with DEA investigations, were made public this week.

Rite Aid agreed last month to a bankruptcy restructuring plan that eliminates $2 billion in debt, while giving the company access to another $2.5 billion in loans to finance a turnaround plan. The pharmacy chain has already closed over 520 stores, about a quarter of the 2,100 pharmacies it operated prior to filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Rite Aid allegedly violated the Controlled Substances and False Claims Acts by dispensing hundreds of thousands of prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances that lacked a “legitimate medical purpose.” The government said the prescriptions were filled by Rite Aid pharmacists from 2014 to 2019, despite “red flags” that they were suspicious or illegal.

“Pharmacies and pharmacists have an affirmative legal duty to ensure that the prescriptions they fill are legitimate,” Rebecca Lutzko, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, said in a statement. “When they disregard this responsibility and instead ignore red flags indicating that prescriptions for addictive painkillers are invalid, they violate the public’s trust and harm the community they are supposed to serve — all to make a buck.”

The Justice Department may have squeezed all it can get out of Rite Aid. Under the settlement, the company agreed to pay the government $7.5 million, along with an “allowed, unsubordinated, general unsecured claim” of nearly $402 million in the bankruptcy case.

An unsecured claim means the government is not entitled to any liens on liquidated Rite Aid property and has to stand in line behind other secured creditors. The $7.5 million payment may be the only one the government receives.

Rite Aid and other pharmacy chains have faced “extreme pressure” from regulators and law enforcement to rein in their opioid prescribing. According to congressional investigators, Rite Aid, CVS and Kroger allow their pharmacy staff to routinely hand over prescription records to law enforcement without a warrant. In most cases, patients are never informed that their medical records were provided to law enforcement or why they were being sought.   

That cooperative relationship with law enforcement is being codified under Rite Aid’s settlement with the government. The company and the DEA have signed a memorandum of agreement “to increase communication between the company, its retailers and DEA.” The agreement requires Rite Aid to keep records relevant to DEA investigations for a minimum of five years and to give employees additional training to help them identify suspicious prescriptions.

Law enforcement agencies are not covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which protects patient privacy.

Rite Aid also agreed to a corporate integrity agreement, which requires the company to submit data on prescriptions for controlled substances to an Independent Review Organization to determine whether the drugs are properly prescribed, dispensed and billed.

‘They Give Me the Runaround’

It’s already quite common for a pharmacist to refuse to fill an opioid prescription, regardless of a patient’s condition or need.

In 2019, a California woman with late-stage breast cancer posted a tearful video online, after a Rite Aid pharmacist said he would not refill her prescription for Norco, an opioid medication she took for cancer pain. Doyle said the pharmacist told her he was worried about being fined or losing his job if he filled her prescription, even though cancer pain is exempt from opioid prescribing guidelines. 

“I have to take 20 pills a day just to stay alive,” Doyle said. “Every time I take my pain pill prescription there, they give me the runaround.”

Rite Aid eventually apologized to Doyle and offered to fill her prescriptions, but she refused to go back to the Rite Aid pharmacy where she shopped for 20 years.  She died of cancer in 2020, leaving behind a 9-year-old son.

April Doyle’s case is not unique. A recent PNN survey of nearly 3,000 pain patients found that over 90% with an opioid prescription experienced delays or problems getting their medication. Nearly 20% couldn’t to get their prescription filled, in part because opioids such as hydrocodone and oxycodone are in short supply.

Although most U.S. drug overdoses involve illicit fentanyl and other street drugs, federal prosecutors and law enforcement continue to blame doctors, pharmacies, drug wholesalers and opioid manufacturers for the nation’s overdose crisis.  

“America continues to live through the worst opioid epidemic we have ever seen. Rite Aid contributed to this crisis by ignoring obvious red flags and dispensing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary opioids,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram. “DEA will continue to do everything in our power to protect the health and safety of Americans and to end the opioid epidemic.”

Public Comments Sought on Marijuana Rescheduling

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. public is finally getting a chance to comment on the federal government’s historic decision to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I substance with a “high potential for abuse” to a less restrictive Schedule III drug with “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence.”

After months of foot dragging, the Justice Department published a notice in the Federal Register today giving the public 60 days to comment on the proposed rescheduling. Written comments must be submitted or postmarked on or before July 22. Online comments can be made here.

Every step in this process has been fraught with delays. And there may be more.

The Food and Drug Administration completed a review last August – nearly a year after it was requested by President Biden -- finding “credible scientific support” for marijuana’s rescheduling. But the FDA report was not made public until January, after a lawsuit was filed by two pro-cannabis lawyers seeking its release when the agency didn’t respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Another four months passed before the Justice Department, which oversees the Drug Enforcement Administration, submitted to the Federal Register a notice about the proposed rescheduling. Since the DEA is charged with enforcing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and determines how drugs are scheduled, public notices involving the CSA are almost always signed by the DEA administrator.

This one, however, is signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, not DEA Administrator Anne Milgram – a sign that her agency is not yet on board with marijuana’s rescheduling.

“DEA has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana,” Garland wrote. “The CSA vests the Attorney General with the authority to schedule, reschedule, or decontrol drugs… The Attorney General has delegated that authority to the DEA Administrator, but also retains the authority to schedule drugs under the CSA in the first instance.”

According to an Associated Press report, Milgram told her staff in March that marijuana’s rescheduling “had been taken over” by Garland and the DOJ. The DEA wanted more time for studies to determine whether marijuana has an accepted medical use, a request that was rejected.

Former DEA Administrator Tim Shea believes the rescheduling process was hijacked by DOJ for political reasons.

“If she (Milgram) had supported it she would have signed it and sent it in,” Shea told the AP. “DEA was opposed to this and the politics entered and overruled them. It’s demoralizing. Everybody from the agents in the streets to the leadership in DEA knows the dangers this brings.”   

Asked recently during a congressional hearing what her views are on marijuana. Milgram ducked the question.

“Since DEA is ultimately the decider of scheduling and rescheduling, and the DEA administrator is in that role, it would be inappropriate for me to make comments about this process or parts of that process,” Milgram said.

‘Evidence Supports Marijuana for Pain’

Reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III substance – in the same category as codeine and ketamine – may be historic, but it’s not the full “legalization” that many cannabis supporters have been calling for.  

Under the CSA, legal access to Schedule III substances requires a prescription from a licensed doctor that is filled at a licensed pharmacy. Any new medical marijuana products would also have to go through a lengthy and costly clinical trial process to assess their safety and effectiveness. Even if they pass that test, they would likely only be approved by FDA for certain conditions.  

Garland’s notice in the Federal Register is largely based on the FDA’s 2023 review, which states there is good evidence that marijuana is helpful in treating chronic pain and mixed evidence it could be useful in relieving nausea, anxiety, epilepsy and PTSD.

“FDA’s review of the available information identified mixed findings of effectiveness across indications, ranging from data showing inconclusive findings to considerable evidence in favor of effectiveness, depending on the source. The largest evidence base for effectiveness exists for marijuana use within the pain indication (in particular, neuropathic pain). Numerous systematic reviews concluded that there exists some level of evidence supporting the use of marijuana for chronic pain,” Garland wrote.

As for marijuana’s potential for abuse, Garland cited findings that marijuana poses less of a health risk than illicit drugs and even some legal medications such as oxycodone and benzodiazepines.

“The rank order of the comparators in terms of greatest adverse consequences typically ranked heroin, benzodiazepines, and cocaine first or in immediately subsequent positions, with marijuana in a lower place in the ranking,” Garland wrote.

“For overdose deaths, marijuana is always in the lowest ranking among comparator drugs. These evaluations demonstrate that there is consistency across databases, across substances, and over time. HHS thus concluded that although abuse of marijuana produces clear evidence of a risk to public health, that risk is relatively lower than that posed by most other comparator drugs.”

The opening of a public comment period does not mark the end of the rescheduling process. The DEA/DOJ will need time to review and evaluate thousands of comments, which will be followed by an administrative hearing and a final ruling that is subject to presidential review. Even then, the final rule has to be published in the Federal Register, followed by a 30 or 60-day wait period before the rule takes effect. 

During that process, and until a final rule is published, marijuana remains a schedule I controlled substance that is illegal under federal law. About three-quarters of states have already legalized marijuana for medical or recreational purposes.

Fatal Overdoses Show First Decline in 5 Years

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

There’s good and bad news in the latest report on the overdose crisis in the United States.

Preliminary data released by the CDC show that there were an estimated 107,543 drug deaths in 2023, a 3.1% decline from 2022 and the first annual drop since 2018. The rate of confirmed overdoses fell even more -- by 5.1 percent – a number subject to change as lagging data and toxicology reports come in.

“We are encouraged to see the preliminary data that shows a decrease in the overdose death rate for the first time in five years, especially following the period of rapid double-digit increases from 2019-2021,” said White House Drug Control Policy director Dr. Rahul Gupta, in a statement.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that drug deaths kept rising in several western states, with Alaska (+44%), Nevada (+29%), Oregon (+30%) and Washington (+28%) showing substantial increases.

In contrast, overdoses declined in the East and Midwest, with significant decreases in Nebraska (-25%), Indiana (-18%), Kansas (-16%) and Maine (-16%).

The report did not offer any explanation for the wide variation between states and regions.

Percent Change in Drug Overdose Deaths 2022-2023

SOURCE: nchs

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) said over 74,000 deaths last year involved fentanyl – most of it illicit – and more than 36,000 deaths were attributed to methamphetamine.

Most overdose deaths involve multiple drugs, according to the NCHS, so “a single death might be included in more than one category” and be counted multiple times.

Although the numbers remain somewhat unreliable, this report and others suggest that fentanyl and other illicit drugs play a far greater role in the nation’s drug crisis than prescription opioids.

A study published this week in the International Journal of Drug Policy reported that law enforcement seized a record 115 million counterfeit pills containing fentanyl last year. That compares to only 4 million prescription opioid pills that were reported lost or stolen by the DEA in 2023.   

Fake Pills Containing Fentanyl Seized by Law Enforcement

International Journal of Drug Policy

“Availability of illicit fentanyl is continuing to skyrocket in the U.S., and the influx of fentanyl-containing pills is particularly alarming,” wrote lead author Joseph Palamar, PhD, an Associate Professor in the Department of Population Health at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

“Both the number and size of drug seizures containing fentanyl have increased in the US between 2017 and 2023, with the majority of seizures –– particularly in pill form –– occurring in the West.”

Prescription opioids are mentioned only a handful of times in the DEA’s recent National Drug Threat Assessment, mainly within the context of their theft and diversion falling to the lowest levels in 12 years. That report also warns that counterfeit pills are increasingly being found with xylazine, a potent animal tranquilizer, and nitazenes, a synthetic opioid that is 40 times stronger than fentanyl  

DEA Report Downplays Role of Prescription Opioids in Drug Crisis

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

After a three-year absence, the DEA’s National Drug Threat Assessment (NDTA) has returned, with a tacit admission by the agency that prescription opioids don’t play much of a role anymore in the nation’s drug crisis.

Prescription opioids are mentioned only a handful of times in the 57-page report, mainly within the context of their theft and diversion declining to levels not seen in over a decade.

“The DEA Theft/Loss Reporting Database reveals that the number of unaccounted-for narcotic prescription drugs (opioids) in 2022 was at its lowest level in 12 years and continued to decline into the first nine months of 2023,” the NDTA report states.

The DEA said the number of unaccounted-for opioids fell from 19.5 million pills/units in 2011 to just 4 million in 2023, an 80% decline.

Most of the focus in the 2024 NDTA is on illicit fentanyl, methamphetamine, and counterfeit medications that have become increasingly more toxic and deadly.

Nearly 108,000 fatal overdoses were reported in 2022, with fentanyl and other synthetic opioids – most of them illicit -- involved in 68% of drug deaths. The remaining overdoses were linked primarily to cocaine, methamphetamine and other synthetic stimulants.

“The shift from plant-based drugs, like heroin and cocaine, to synthetic, chemical-based drugs, like fentanyl and methamphetamine, has resulted in the most dangerous and deadly drug crisis the United States has ever faced,” DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in a press release.

“At the heart of the synthetic drug crisis are the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels and their associates, who DEA is tracking world-wide. The suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and money launderers all play a role in the web of deliberate and calculated treachery orchestrated by these cartels.”

Most counterfeit medications in the U.S. are spiked with illicit fentanyl, a synthetic opioid 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. In 2023, a DEA laboratory analysis found that about 70% of counterfeit pills contain at least 2 milligrams of fentanyl, a potentially deadly dose.

Fake pills are also increasingly being found with xylazine, a potent animal tranquilizer, and nitazenes, a synthetic opioid chemically unrelated to fentanyl. According to some estimates, nitazenes are 40 times more potent than fentanyl and 1,000 times more potent than morphine. Nitazenes have never been approved for medical use in the United States.  

Although Milgram called the NDTA “a critical tool for informing and educating the public about the current drug threats,” the DEA’s annual report literally disappeared from public view three years ago. The last NDTA was released in 2021.

The DEA did not respond to a request for comment from PNN on why a NDTA was not published for three straight years or why one was finally released this week.

The DEA has been under growing criticism for its failure to stop fentanyl trafficking and for imposing steep cuts in production quotas on drug manufacturers, which has contributed to record shortages of opioids, ADHD stimulants and other essential drugs.  

Sometimes, what is not disclosed in the DEA’s report can be just as revealing as what is. For example, while the DEA officially lists kratom as a “drug of concern” and even tried to ban the herbal supplement, the agency has never said a word about kratom in a NDTA report. Not in 2021. And not in 2024.

Are Rx Drug Databases ‘Trojan Horses’ for Law Enforcement?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) were widely adopted in the U.S. over a decade ago to help identify patients who might be abusing opioid medication or other controlled substances. All 50 states now have databases that physicians and pharmacists can use to monitor a patient’s prescription drug history and look for possible signs of abuse.

Although widely billed as a way to improve patient safety and prevent diversion, critics say PDMP’s quickly became a surveillance tool for local and federal law enforcement --- in effect, ‘Trojan Horse’ technologies that turned pharmacists into undercover cops.

“Equipped with PDMPs, pharmacists readily police patients. Pharmacists use this surveillance tool to interrogate patients about their drug use, document interactions defensively, and let patients know they are being watched,” said Elizabeth Chiarello, PhD, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Saint Louis University.

“PDMPs are surveillance technologies, not healthcare tools, so they do not offer pharmacists new ways to deal with patients’ pain or substance use disorders, they simply empower pharmacists to view patients with suspicion and refuse to treat them.”

Chiarello conducted 118 interviews with pharmacists in six states, asking how PDMP’s have affected their work and relationships with patients. Her findings, recently published in American Sociological Review, suggest that many pharmacists now feel pressured to work with law enforcement to identify suspicious prescriptions.   

A pharmacist in Mississippi said she was approached by a DEA agent, who gave her his card and said, “Call me anytime you need me.”

“From then on, she called the DEA when she spotted a fake prescription and worked with them to arrest the patient,” wrote Chiarello. “Pharmacists have become more comfortable deciding which patients deserve opioids and turning away those deemed undeserving. PDMP use has also strengthened communication with law enforcement, so pharmacists now contact them about troubling patients.”

A pharmacist in Missouri told Chiarello that he and his colleagues “work pretty well” with local law enforcement:

“We get calls all the time from the police that say ‘Hey, can you find out if they’re actually on this?’… I’ll call the police if I ever need any help, especially with someone who is jumping from pharmacy to pharmacy or doing something that’s illegal. But they’ll come back to me as well saying, ‘Hey, can you check the fill dates for this guy or can you check where he’s been filling for me?’ And so they kind of use me as a PDMP resource as well.”

Congressional investigators recently reported that three pharmacy chains -- CVS, Kroger and Rite Aid – faced “extreme pressure” from law enforcement to immediately respond to requests for patient information, even without a warrant. In most cases, patients are not informed that their medical records have been shared with law enforcement or why they were being sought.

Only three states – Louisiana, Montana and Pennsylvania – have laws that require a warrant or subpoena before medical data is disclosed.  

‘We Don’t Go Fishing’

In a recent webinar with medical providers, a DEA investigator denied that the agency uses PDMPs to troll for suspicious patients and providers.

“This comes up sometimes, so I'll just address the elephant in the room. We don't go fishing in the (PDMP) data. Okay? Why do people think we have this open access to driving records and that we pull whatever we want? No. We have to have a case and we have to have a subpoena. We just don't go trolling through the records,” said Jed Nitzberg, a DEA Supervisory Diversion Investigator.

The DEA has long been interested in prescription drug records. In 2020, the agency solicited bids from contractors to create and operate a surveillance program that would identify patients, prescribers and pharmacies that may be involved in the diversion or abuse of drugs.

Under the proposed program, the DEA would have “unlimited access” to prescription data, including the names of prescribers and pharmacists. The names of patients would be redacted, but if investigators suspect a drug was being abused or diverted, they could get a subpoena to identify them. No contract was awarded by DEA and it’s unclear if the surveillance program was ever initiated.

Even without prompting from law enforcement, pharmacists are under enormous pressure to be alert to suspicious behavior by patients and physicians. Under the national opioid settlement, if a pharmacy has too much “Red Flag activity” such as patients paying for drugs in cash or a prescription written by a doctor in another zip code, it risks being terminated from receiving any more shipments of opioids and other controlled substances.

Ironically, the theft, loss and diversion of prescription opioids is at its lowest level in over a decade. In the DEA’s latest National Drug Threat Assessment, the agency said the number of “unaccounted-for” opioids had fallen by 80 percent, from 19.5 million pills/units in 2011 to just 4 million in 2023.

U.S. Drug Shortages Reach Record Levels

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Shortages of opioids and other medications reached a record level in the U.S. during the first quarter of 2024, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). The 323 medications listed in short supply are the highest number since the ASHP began tracking drug shortages in 2001.

Some of the most acute shortages are for basic, life-saving injectable drugs used in hospitals for pain control, sedation and chemotherapy.

Most of the drug manufacturers contacted by the ASHP did not provide a reason for the shortages, but some blamed supply/demand issues (14%), manufacturing problems (12%), business decisions (12%) and raw material issues (2%).

The ASHP also cited reduced DEA production quotas and the fallout from opioid litigation settlements, which have curtailed the supply of opioid medication at many pharmacies.

“New DEA quota changes, along with allocation practices established after opioid legal settlements, are exacerbating shortages of controlled substances,” the ASHP said in its latest report.

The Drug Enforcement Administration has been cutting opioid production quotas for nearly a decade, reducing the supply of oxycodone by over 68% and hydrocodone by nearly 73% since 2015. The DEA says it acts on the advice of the Food and Drug Administration, which projected a 7.9% decline in the “medical need” for opioids in 2024, months before the new year even began.

Many pain patients question whether the demand for opioids is really going down. In a recent PNN survey, 90% of patients with an opioid prescription said they had trouble getting it filled at a pharmacy. Nearly 20% were unable to get their pain medication, even after contacting multiple pharmacies.

“The pharmacist said they could not get my medication because the supplier informed them that they had reached their yearly max and the DEA would not let them supply anymore medication,” one patient told us.

“I am terrified of the cuts being pushed by the DEA,” said another patient. “Several times I have had to wait over a week until my local CVS got my medication back in stock. Honestly, I have such intolerable pain I had no choice but to turn to illicit street drugs to fill in the gaps.”

Shortages of stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) get far more attention than shortages of opioids, which the FDA and DEA have largely ignored. The DEA modestly raised production quotas for ADHD drugs in 2024, but they remain in short supply.

About 12% of the 323 drugs currently listed in shortage by the ASHP are controlled substances regulated by the DEA because they are potentially addictive.

University of Utah Drug Information Service

“I can’t say for sure that every single controlled substance shortage is due to quota issues, but it’s a contributing factor for some,” says Erin Fox, PharmD, Senior Pharmacy Director at University of Utah Health, which tracks drug shortages for the ASHP. “DEA changed their quota process to try to help with ADHD drug shortages, but didn’t take into account how their change affects injectable manufacturers.”

Fox shared a recent letter sent by Pfizer to U.S. hospitals warning of “additional supply interruptions and potential stock outs” due to DEA quota changes. The letter warns of limited supplies of several injectable medicines made by Pfizer, including meperidine (Demerol), hydromorphone and morphine.  

“I understand that DEA is working to prevent drug diversion and was under fire for the ADHD medication shortages, but injectable manufacturing is very different than oral products and DEA did not take into account all of the special processes that are required for injectables,” Fox said in an email to PNN.

Nearly half of the drugs on the ASHP’s shortage list are injectables. Opioids, stimulants and other drugs that affect the central nervous system are the leading class of medication in short supply, followed by antibiotics, hormonal agents, and chemotherapy drugs.

The FDA, which uses a different system to track drug shortages, currently lists only 153 medications in short supply, less than half the number listed by the ASHP.

DEA Urged to End ‘Red Flag’ Policy for Pharmacies

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A coalition of telehealth companies is urging the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to stop telling pharmacies to be careful about filling prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances that originate from out-of-state.

The DEA’s “red flag” policy has had a chilling effect on doctors and patients nationwide, including those that use telehealth services. Many pain patients have found that pharmacies won’t fill opioid prescriptions written by doctors that are not near them geographically.  

In an open letter to the DEA, the American Telemedicine Association and a handful of telehealth providers said “clearer green lights” were needed from the DEA on how to safely dispense controlled substances, not more red flags.

“The DEA should provide explicit guidance to the pharmacy community that geography of a prescriber in relation to the patient or the pharmacy should not be a ‘red flag’ when a prescription is a result of a telehealth visit,” the letter states. “The distance of a telehealth prescriber from the patient alone should not give a pharmacist a signal that the prescription may be illegitimate.”

The DEA relaxed telehealth rules three years ago at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, to allow for opioids, stimulants, sedatives and other controlled substances to be prescribed remotely via telehealth. Those temporary rules have been extended until the end of 2024, to give the DEA more time to develop permanent ones to govern telehealth.

Many pharmacies haven’t gotten the message. In a recent PNN survey, over 90% of pain patients with an opioid prescription said they had trouble getting a pharmacy to dispense their medication. Drug shortages are the primary cause, but so is the fear of some pharmacists that they could get in trouble or even lose their jobs if they filled a prescription deemed suspicious because it comes from out-of-state.

“In conversations with the pharmacy community and in our experience as prescribers, we have determined many pharmacies and pharmacists are currently considering geography as a ‘red flag.’ While red flags are not defined in statute or regulations or other official guidance, in the wake of the overprescribing and overdispensing contributing to the opioid epidemic, pharmacists have been directed to do so as a part of their corresponding responsibility, or due diligence to ensure that prescriptions are legitimate,” the letter from the telehealth coalition states.

‘An Unusual Distance’

Federal laws and regulations may not clearly define what a red flag is, but the onus is clearly put on pharmacies to catch them:

“[A] pharmacist or pharmacy may not dispense a prescription in the face of a red flag (i.e., a circumstance that does or should raise a reasonable suspicion as to the validity of a prescription) unless he or it takes steps to resolve the red flag and ensure that the prescription is valid.”

Under a 2022 opioid litigation settlement, drug distributors and big chain pharmacies agreed to tightly limit the supply of opioids and be on the lookout for suspicious orders. That includes patients with prescriptions for “highly diverted controlled substances” written by doctors from a zip code 50 miles or more from a pharmacy. Pharmacies with a high volume of those prescriptions risk having their drug supplies further restricted or cutoff.

DEA investigators and federal prosecutors have long targeted doctors and pharmacies that have out of state patients. In 2021, for example, DEA suspended the license of a Florida pharmacy that “repeatedly ignored obvious red flags of abuse or diversion,” including a high number of patients who traveled “an unusual distance” to obtain their prescriptions.

Contrary to popular belief, opioid diversion is rare. The DEA estimates that less than one percent of oxycodone (0.3%) and hydrocodone (0.42%) medications are lost, stolen or diverted.

Another example of a provider being red-flagged came in 2022, when DEA suspended the controlled substance license of Dr. David Bockoff, a California physician who treated many chronically ill patients from out of state who couldn’t find local providers.

Within days of Bockoff’s suspension, one of his patients and his wife died by suicide at their home in Georgia. A few weeks later, another patient died at her home in Arizona, apparently from complications caused by opioid withdrawal. Neither of those patients were using telehealth to see Dr. Bockoff, but their deaths highlight how red flags and heavy-handed oversight of medical providers can have serious consequences.    

“DEA must use this opportunity to make clear what their expectations are for pharmacists in filling telehealth prescriptions of controlled substances,” the letter from the telehealth coalition warns. “If DEA simply adds recordkeeping, reporting, or data requirements to the overwhelming workload pharmacies and pharmacists already face, access issues will only be exacerbated.”

Drug Distributor Surrenders DEA License Over Opioid Sales

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The nation’s largest independent pharmaceutical distributor has agreed to pay a $19 million fine and surrender one of its DEA licenses to settle long-standing charges that it ignored suspicious orders of opioid pain medication.

Louisiana-based Morris & Dickson delivers drugs to health systems, hospitals and independent pharmacies in 27 states. In 2018, the DEA suspended the company’s licenses to distribute opioids and other controlled substances, but delayed making a final decision on revoking them until last year. Morris & Dickson vowed to fight the revocation, saying it was “unwarranted and unjustified” and would essentially put the company out of business.   

After nearly a year of talks with the DEA, the two sides reached a settlement. In addition to the $19 million fine, Morris & Dickson “admitted to all wrongdoing” and agreed to surrender one of its two DEA Certificates of Registration. The company also promised to continue a heightened compliance system to flag suspicious orders of controlled substances.

“Drug distributors like Morris & Dickson have a responsibility to protect the safety and health of customers and maintain effective controls against diversion of highly addictive controlled substances,” DEA spokesperson Katherine Pfaff said in a press release. “At the height of the opioid crisis, Morris & Dickson failed to uphold that responsibility, and turned a blind eye as thousands of unusually large orders for hydrocodone and oxycodone went out the door. Today, Morris & Dickson takes an important first step by admitting wrongdoing and paying for its misconduct.”

In a brief statement on its website, Morris & Dickson acknowledged no wrongdoing and gave no indication of how its business operations would be impacted by the loss of one of its DEA licenses.

“Today’s announcement recognizes our extensive and voluntary efforts to improve and enhance our compliance system over the past five years. In fact, following our efforts, our state-of-the-art compliance program has been repeatedly acknowledged as impressive and above reproach by outside parties,” the company said. “We are very proud that throughout discussions with the DEA, we have continued to provide the highest levels of service.”

The DEA delayed revoking Morris & Dickson’s registration until the Associated Press reported last year that the company was still shipping opioids, despite a judge’s recommendation that its licenses be revoked for “cavalier disregard” of suspicious orders.

Complicating the case is that a top DEA official who retired from the agency in 2017 went to work as a consultant for Morris & Dickson and led efforts to improve its compliance system. Louis Milione “unretired” in 2021 and went back to work at the federal agency as the top deputy to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram. Milione resigned soon after the AP story was published, citing “person reasons.” He is now consulting again for the pharmaceutical industry.   

In fiscal year 2023, DEA said it took 143 administrative actions against doctors, pharmacies, drug makers and drug distributors for violations of the Controlled Substances Act, which regulates the prescribing, dispensing and distribution of opioids and other potentially addictive drugs.

In 2022, the nation’s three largest drug distributors – McKesson, AmerisourceBergen and Cardinal Health — agreed to strict limits on the amount of opioids and other controlled substances they sell as part of a $21 billion opioid litigation settlement.

Collectively, these various actions have led to tight supplies of opioid pain medication. In a recent survey of nearly 3,000 pain patients by PNN, over 90% of those with an opioid prescription said they experienced delays or problems at a pharmacy getting their medication. Nearly 20% of patients were unable get their prescriptions filled.

FDA Finds ‘Credible Scientific Support’ for Marijuana as Pain Reliever

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

It took a lawsuit to prompt its release, but the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has finally made public a lengthy FDA review explaining why it thinks marijuana should be rescheduled as a Schedule III controlled substance. Such a move would make it legal under federal law for marijuana to be used for medically approved purposes, such as pain relief.

The FDA review was completed last August, nearly a year after it was requested by President Biden. But the 252-page review was not released until Friday, after a lawsuit was filed by two pro-cannabis lawyers when HHS didn’t respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Medical marijuana is already legal in 38 states, but cannabis remains classified as a Schedule I substance by the Drug Enforcement Administration, making its sale or use illegal under federal law. The DEA is expected to make its decision on rescheduling soon.

The FDA looked at seven potential medical uses of cannabis: pain, anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), nausea, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

After reviewing clinical studies of cannabis, and the views of academic and professional medical societies, the FDA said they found “mixed findings of effectiveness.” The strongest evidence was for pain relief, anorexia and nausea.

“The available data indicate that there is some credible scientific support for the use of marijuana in the treatment of pain.”

— FDA review

“The largest evidence base for effectiveness exists for marijuana use within the pain indication (in particular, neuropathic pain),” the FDA said. “On balance, the available data indicate that there is some credible scientific support for the use of marijuana in the treatment of pain, anorexia related to a medical condition, and nausea and vomiting, with varying degrees of support and consistency of findings.”

Perhaps just as importantly, the FDA found no evidence of “unacceptably high safety risks” when marijuana was used therapeutically. That is a key finding for marijuana to be rescheduled by the DEA. The risk of marijuana being used nonmedically was also low, compared to substances like alcohol, heroin, cocaine, prescription opioids and anti-anxiety drugs.

“The rank order of the comparators in terms of greatest adverse consequences typically places heroin, benzodiazepines and/or cocaine in the first or immediately subsequent positions, with marijuana in a lower place in the ranking, especially when a utilization adjustment is calculated. For overdose deaths, marijuana is always in the lowest ranking among comparator drugs,” FDA said.

“These evaluations demonstrate that there is consistency across databases, across substances, and over time that although abuse of marijuana produces clear evidence of a risk to public health, that risk is relatively lower than that posed by most other comparator drugs.”

The FDA said the “vast majority” of professional medical organizations do not recommend marijuana, but they don’t specifically recommend against it either. The lone exception is the American Psychiatric Association, which warns that long-term use of marijuana can worsen psychiatric conditions, such as paranoia and hallucinations.

Reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III substance – in the same category as codeine and ketamine – would certainly be historic, but it won’t resolve the many differences between federal and state regulation of cannabis.

Under federal law, legal access to Schedule III substances requires a prescription from a licensed doctor that is dispensed from a licensed pharmacy. Medical marijuana products would also have to go through the FDA’s lengthy and costly clinical trial process to assess their safety and effectiveness. Even if they pass that test, they would only be approved by FDA for certain conditions.