America’s Biggest Fear: Fentanyl and Opioid Addiction

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The fentanyl crisis is the biggest public health problem in the US, according to two new surveys that highlight Americans’ growing fears about opioid addiction and the toxicity of street drugs.

The first survey, conducted by Axios-Ipsos, found that opioids and fentanyl have surpassed Covid-19, firearms, obesity and cancer as the nation’s #1 public health threat. Over one in four Americans (26%) ranked opioids and fentanyl first, replacing gun violence as the top threat to public health.  

Top U.S. Public Health Threats

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is 100 times more potent than morphine. It has been used safely for decades as an analgesic during surgery and to treat severe pain, but in recent years illicit versions of fentanyl have come to dominate the black market, where they are used in counterfeit medication or mixed with substances like heroin. Most fatal overdoses in the U.S. involve illicit fentanyl, not prescription opioids.

The Axios-Ipsos survey found that about four in ten adults (44%) are aware that U.S. overdose deaths reached a record high last year. Americans who live in rural areas, which have some of the highest overdose rates, are even more familiar (51%) with the rising number of drug deaths. 

Over half the respondents (51%) said they cared a lot about overdoses and think the government should be doing more to reduce drug deaths (79%). Most also believe that government does not make the health and well-being of citizens a priority (62%).  

While most Americans trust the health information they get from federal agencies like the CDC (64%) and FDA (62%), there is more trust placed in health information from personal doctors (89%) and family members/close friends (75%). 

Other key findings about respondents’ drug use in the last three months:

  • 26% used a pain medication for which they had a prescription or knew someone who did

  • 3% used a pain medication for which they did not have a prescription or knew someone who did

  • 20% used cannabis or knew someone who did

  • 2% used hallucinogenic drugs or new someone who did

  • 2% used “other illegal drugs” or knew someone who did

“Pain medication” was not defined in the survey questions, so the responses may include some non-opioid analgesics.

The recently updated Axios-Ipsos American Health Index is based on a nationally representative sample of 1,162 adults, who were surveyed on a wide array of health topics from August 11-14.

Most Families Impacted by Addiction

The second survey, conducted by the non-profit KFF, asked a representative sample of 1,327 adults online and over the phone in July about a variety of drug and substance use issues.

Two-thirds of respondents said either they or a family member were addicted to alcohol or drugs, experienced homelessness due to addiction, or had a drug overdose resulting in hospitalization or death.  

Nearly three in ten (29%) said they or someone in their family were addicted to opioids, either prescription opioids or illicit ones like fentanyl and heroin. Opioid addiction was most common among rural residents (42%) and White adults (33%). Among those who experienced addiction firsthand, most said it had a negative impact on their family’s relationships and finances. 

Only 5% felt they themselves might be addicted to opioid painkillers, far less than those who believe they might be addicted to alcohol (13%). 

Fear about addiction is common. Over half (51%) of adults are worried that someone in their family will experience a substance use disorder and one-third (32%) are worried that someone in their family will overdose on opioids.  

About four in ten adults (39%) are worried that someone in their family will unintentionally consume illicit fentanyl, a fear that looms largest in rural areas (48%). 

SOURCE: KFF

Nearly three in ten respondents (29%) said they had been prescribed opioid pain medication in the past five years. Of those, most said their doctors had warned them about the risks of opioid addiction and dependence (57%), side effects from opioids (69%), other ways to manage pain (60%), and about keeping their medications in a safe place (58%).  

While fears about addiction to opioid pain medication are common, it doesn’t happen nearly as often as many people believe. A recent study in Australia found that 92% of patients prescribed opioids for the first time never progressed to long-term use. Less than 3% became persistent users or needed higher doses — and they were mostly seniors with chronic health problems.

Neither the KFF or Axios-Ipsos polls asked respondents about growing shortages of opioid pain medication or how the reduced supply was impacting legitimate pain patients.   

‘Unintended Victims’

The patient side of the story was shared this week in an opinion video by The New York Times. Video producers Vishakha Darbha, Lucy King and Adam Westbrook spoke with chronic pain patients who are the “unintended victims” of the national crackdown on opioid prescribing.

“America’s doctors have been put in a difficult position. But it doesn’t need to be this way. It is possible to stop overprescribing yet ensure that pain sufferers get the relief they deserve. The patients in our video have one message: Listen to us,” the producers said.

Kaiser Permanente’s Expansion Faces Skepticism

By Harris Meyer, KFF Health News

As regulators review Kaiser Permanente’s proposed acquisition of a respected health system based in Pennsylvania, health care experts are still puzzling over how the surprise deal, announced in April, could fulfill the managed care giant’s promise of improving care and reducing costs for patients, including in its home state of California.

KP said it would acquire Danville, Pennsylvania-based Geisinger — which has 10 hospitals, 1,700 employed physicians, and a 600,000-member health plan in three states — as the first step in the creation of a new national health care organization called Risant Health. Oakland-based Kaiser Permanente said it expects to invest $5 billion in Risant over the next five years, and to add as many as six more nonprofit health systems during that period.

Industry experts believe KP’s aim is to build a big enough presence across the country to effectively compete with players like Amazon, Aetna CVS Health, Walmart Health, and UnitedHealth Group in providing health care for large corporate customers. Kaiser Permanente executives touted the potential for spreading the group’s vaunted brand of quality, lower-cost care around the country.

But it’s not clear how KP will be able to bring its model, in which facilities and doctors receive a monthly per-member fee for all care, to markets where it doesn’t own an integrated system of physicians, hospitals, and health plans, as it does in California. Critics note that KP’s efforts to expand failed in a number of states in the 1980s and 1990s.

In addition, the physician-led Permanente Medical Groups, which lead KP’s patient care, were not involved in the Risant deal, raising questions about how their expertise would be shared.

“I don’t know how Kaiser will bring its knowledge and best practices to improve health care delivery without the involvement of the medical group, which does all the care delivery,” said Robert Pearl, a former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group who’s now a lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Is Bigger Better?

There are also questions about how the expansion will benefit current KP customers. The tax-exempt, nonprofit organization has 39 hospitals, 24,000 physicians, and 12.7 million health plan members in eight states and Washington, D.C., though about three-quarters of its members are in California, where it controls nearly half of the private insurance market. KP reported $95 billion in revenue last year.

“We’ve asked Kaiser Permanente management questions about the deal’s advantages to employees and customers, but we haven’t heard back,” said Caroline Lucas, the executive director of the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions, several of which are in contentious contract talks with the company. “Where is the money coming from? Are the citizens of California and other states subsidizing this expansion? How are they benefiting?”

Kaiser Permanente CEO Greg Adams declined to comment. A KP spokesperson, Steve Shivinsky, said the group’s physicians would be involved in developing a “platform” to offer other health systems its value-based care expertise, including in design of care models, pharmacy practices, consumer digital engagement, development of health insurance products, and best practices for supply chains. Shivinsky said work on the platform was just beginning.

“Risant Health’s success will firmly establish value-based care as a better model for health care in this country,” said Shivinsky, KP’s director of national media relations.

“If there is a commitment to truly delivering higher-quality and lower-cost care, it will take time and hard work,” said John Toussaint, chair of Catalysis, a nonprofit that trains executives in health care and other industries in quality improvement. “But frankly I’m skeptical that’s the reason for these types of mergers. Bigger may be better for increasing prices, but not necessarily for improving care.”

The deal may be a sign that KP, founded in 1945, is hearing the alluring call of lucrative fee-for-service medicine. “This gets Kaiser into the much bigger part of the market — commercial insurance — and expands beyond their traditional model of owning all the pieces and selling their own insurance,” said Glenn Melnick, a health economics professor at the University of Southern California.

The Geisinger acquisition is being reviewed by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, with a 30-day public comment period ending Aug. 7, 2023. The Federal Trade Commission and the California attorney general’s office declined to say whether they were reviewing the deal. KP expects the deal to close sometime in 2024. There was no purchase price, but KP said Risant would make a minimum of $2 billion available to Geisinger through 2028, including income that Geisinger generates itself.

Federal and state antitrust regulators have expressed growing concern about consolidation of hospitals and physician groups into ever-larger organizations with the power to drive up prices. But antitrust experts say it’s unlikely regulators will challenge the deal since KP does not currently have a presence in Pennsylvania, Delaware, or Maine, where Geisinger operates.

Indeed, the deal could boost competition if KP’s investment enables Geisinger to expand beyond central and eastern Pennsylvania and take on the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Highmark, the state’s two dominant integrated health systems.

Around the country, Risant could be appealing to businesses that offer health plans to their employees.

“If Kaiser can become an effective player in more markets through Risant and that leads to greater price competition, that will be very attractive to large employers,” said Bill Kramer, senior adviser for health policy at the Purchaser Business Group on Health, which represents large employer health plans.

Smaller health systems and physician groups that are struggling financially may also see joining Risant as a more palatable option than being acquired by more profit-hungry entities, such as private equity firms, Melnick noted.

Through tight coordination between its physicians, hospitals, and health plans, KP has a strong track record of producing good health outcomes, particularly for plan members with chronic conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes. In recent years, Kaiser doctors have also significantly reduced opioid prescribing.

KP hospitals and doctors are paid a monthly per-member fee for all care — called capitated payment. That gives KP a powerful financial incentive to keep members healthy and prevent costly hospital admissions and emergency room visits.

In contrast, Geisinger and most other health systems across the country generally are paid for each separate procedure — known as fee-for-service payment — giving them less incentive to keep patients healthy and reduce overall costs. Because of that, it’s not clear how KP’s value-based care model will work at Geisinger and other health systems acquired through Risant.

Adams has said Risant won’t try to fully replicate Kaiser Permanente’s model. Instead, Risant will help other health systems achieve the same kind of outcomes and cost savings while working with multiple insurers and providers.

KP also could potentially learn lessons from Geisinger and other health systems about producing better health outcomes at lower cost for members. Geisinger has won acclaim for its ProvenCare model, in which it accepts a fixed fee for providing an entire episode of care, such as heart bypass surgery, with no extra charge if the outcome isn’t satisfactory and the patient needs additional care.

But Kramer, a former KP executive, is skeptical. “It’s hard if not impossible to transform a medical group that’s reliant on fee-for-service payment into something like the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group,” he said.

Critics of the deal, citing KP’s failed expansion moves in the 1980s and 1990s, also worry that building Risant Health could distract KP executives from cost-control and quality improvement efforts in their home state and draw down the organization’s financial reserves, potentially leading to premium hikes.

In 1999, for example, KP sold a money-losing medical group it had established in North Carolina in the mid-’80s. It faced opposition from the local medical community and challenges with employer health plans, among other factors. Kramer also pointed to its withdrawal from other markets including Connecticut, Missouri, Ohio, and Texas.

Still, KP did succeed in establishing a significant presence in the mid-Atlantic states, Washington, D.C., and Georgia, though it doesn’t own hospitals in those markets. It also has long-standing operations in Hawaii, Colorado, and Oregon.

With Risant, KP will be up against very large, sophisticated managed care competitors including UnitedHealth’s Optum, which employs about 70,000 physicians across the country.

“Hopefully Kaiser’s senior leadership will be smarter this time around and avoid the kinds of problems they had when they expanded in the past,” Kramer said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. It is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Expanded Insurance Coverage ‘Urgent Priority’ for Chronic Pain Patients

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A panel of experts convened by the University of Michigan is recommending expanded insurance coverage and better training of providers to address problems faced by millions of chronic pain patients on long-term opioid therapy. Although improving access to pain care is an “urgent priority,” it took nearly three years for the panel’s recommendations to be developed and released.

“Patients who take opioids for chronic pain face unique challenges in the present opioid policy landscape, including reduced access to care,” wrote lead author Adrianne Kehne, a former researcher at Michigan Medicine who is now a Research Project Manager at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

“While there have been substantial efforts to improve access to care for OUD (opioid use disorder), the needs of this patient population have gone largely unrecognized and unaddressed.  Limited access to high-quality care has caused significant distress among both patients and providers, and increasing access is an urgent priority.”

In a paper recently published in the Journal of Pain Research, Kehne and her colleagues said recent efforts to improve access, such as a revised CDC guideline that takes a more flexible approach to opioid prescribing, may not be adequate.

“It remains to be seen how providers and policymakers respond to these new recommendations. The non-binding guideline may not be sufficient to reverse prescribing rules at the state and health system level or significantly change provider behaviors,” they wrote.

A Michigan-based panel of 24 experts, including providers, researchers, regulators, insurers and patients, first met online in September, 2020 to discuss ways to improve access to pain care. Their long-delayed recommendations -- which are only being made public now -- stop well short of reversing policies that discourage opioid prescribing.

Instead, they focus on changing insurance reimbursement policies, to allow providers to spend more time with patients and to offer multimodal, non-pharmacological treatments. Multimodal therapy includes acupuncture, chiropractic care, cognitive behavioral therapy, injected pain therapies and “collaborative care” techniques that are often not covered by insurance.

“In order to encourage more clinics to offer multimodal pain care and increase access for patients who currently don’t receive it, insurance companies and government health coverage programs such as Medicaid need to change how they pay for it,” said senior author Pooja Lagisetty, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at Michigan Medicine and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

“We are starting to see some change, most notably at the VA and in insurance coverage of physical therapy, but more is needed in order for patients and providers to have time to develop individualized approaches, overcome stigma around providing opioid-related care, and for clinics to begin offering non-medication services.”

Other key recommendations of the panel:

  • Make providers aware of how Michigan’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) is “used in investigating and disciplining providers”

  • To reduce stigma, educate providers on the differences between addiction and dependency in patients on long-term opioid therapy

  • Improve provider education about chronic pain, as well as multimodal and non-pharmacological therapies

  • Train social workers in biopsychosocial factors involved in chronic pain treatment

  • Improve provider education and practices to address racial barriers and biases in pain care

  • Increase recruitment of providers from racial and ethnic minorities

The expert panel study was funded by the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Aging.

Researchers say between 5 and 8 million U.S. patients currently take opioids long-term. That’s down from about 11 million a few years ago. Opioid prescribing in the U.S. has decline by 64% since its peak, and now stands at levels last seen in the year 2000. Despite that historic decline, fatal overdoses have climbed to record levels, fueled primarily by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

Large Study Debunks Myths About Rx Opioid Addiction

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A large new study in Australia is debunking myths about the addictive nature of opioid pain medication and how a single prescription can lead to long term use.

In an analysis of nearly 3.5 million Australians who were prescribed opioids for the first time, researchers found that 92% never progressed beyond low opioid use and only 3% became persistent users or needed higher doses. The “sustained use” of opioids occurred mostly in seniors (65 and older) suffering from cancer, depression, anxiety and other chronic health problems.

“Results of this cohort study suggest that most individuals commencing treatment with prescription opioids had relatively low and time-limited exposure to opioids over a 5-year period,” wrote lead author Natasa Gisev, PhD, a clinical pharmacist at National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney.

“The small proportion of individuals with sustained or increasing use was older with more comorbidities and use of psychotropic and other analgesic drugs, likely reflecting a higher prevalence of pain and treatment needs in these individuals.”

Previous research estimated the risk of long-term opioid use as high as 57 percent, but Gisev and her colleagues say those studies are flawed because they excluded people with cancer and opioid use disorder, or used various definitions of long-term use. The Australian researchers took a different approach in tracking opioid prescriptions, developing five “trajectories of opioid use.”

The vast majority of patients had very low (75%) or low use (17%) of opioids. Others started with moderate opioid use and decreased to low use (3%), or began with low use and increased to moderate use (3%). Only 3% became sustained users or took higher doses.

Five-Year Trajectories of Opioid Use

JAMA NETWORK OPEN

“Overall, these findings suggest that most people who initiate an opioid prescription are likely to have low, time-limited exposure to opioids with little indication of ongoing use. This possibility is an important consideration for policymakers and stakeholders considering population-level prescribing of high-risk drugs,” researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“Opioids are essential drugs for acute and cancer pain, and many people with CNCP (chronic non-cancer pain) benefit from opioids. Continued focus and policy responses based on findings from a small group of people with increased risk of harms run the risk of limiting access to people who safely derive objective benefits from opioids.”  

That’s exactly what happened to millions of pain patients in the US, who lost access to opioids due to steep cuts in prescribing, chronic shortages of opioid medication, and a relentless drumbeat in the media about people becoming addicted or overdosing after one pill.  

“One prescription can be all it takes to lose everything,” the CDC said in a 2017 advertising campaign that emphasized the risks of prescription opioids, while ignoring the far more serious problem of illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

Just how common is opioid addiction? Estimates are all over the map, ranging as low as 1% to as high as 40% for long-term opioid users.

“The problem with all of these studies is that they are retrospective in nature, limited to a particular patient population, and constrained by the diagnostic criteria in use at the time,” my late colleague Roger Chriss pointed out in a 2019 column on opioid addiction.  

Roger was prescient about the imprecision of diagnostic criteria. A little known 2021 study of U.S. veterans who were diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) challenged how many actually had it. Researchers found that nearly 20% of veterans with OUD used prescription opioids without any signs of abuse and evidence was lacking in another 7% of cases. Less than 60% of the veterans had a “high likelihood” of being correctly diagnosed with OUD.

DEA Considering More Changes to Telehealth Prescribing Rules

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will hold two public hearings next month – what it calls “listening sessions” – to consider if providers should continue prescribing controlled substances through telehealth without first requiring patients to have an in-person medical evaluation.

Patients are currently allowed to get a controlled medications without visiting their doctor under emergency telehealth rules adopted three years ago at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Controlled substances include many opioids, stimulants, sedatives, steroids, and addiction treatment medications such as methadone and buprenorphine (Suboxone).

“DEA recognizes the importance of telemedicine in providing Americans with access to needed medications, and DEA has been, and remains, committed to expanding access to telemedicine in a way that puts patients — and their safety — first, is simple to understand and apply, reflects technological advancements, and is consistent with lessons learned during the COVID–19 PHE and the ongoing opioid epidemic,” the agency said in a statement.

Rules that are “simple to understand and apply” may be the key issue. In March, the DEA proposed changing the telehealth rules to reimpose “guardrails” on Schedule II opioids such as oxycodone and hydrocodone. For those medications, a patient would first be required to have an in-person meeting with a doctor, with refills then allowed via telehealth. Other drugs that are classified as Schedule III, IV or V substances could initially be prescribed for 30 days via telehealth, but any refills would require an in-person meeting.

The proposed rule changes are so confusing and drew so much opposition that the DEA delayed implementing them until this November. Next month’s public hearings are another sign the agency is still uncertain what to do.

In a notice published in the Federal Register, the DEA said it was open to creating a special registration process that would allow providers to continue prescribing “some controlled substances” without seeing patients in-person. The agency didn’t specific which controlled substances it is referring to.

“DEA is open to considering — for some controlled substances — implementation of a separate Special Registration for telemedicine prescribing for patients without requiring the patient to ever have had an in-person medical evaluation at all,” the DEA notice said.

“DEA also observes that making permanent some telemedicine flexibilities on a routine and large-scale basis would potentially create a new framework for medicine that fundamentally expands access to controlled substances in a way that warrants a new framework for accountability based, in part, on increased data collection and visibility into prescription practices in order to ensure patient safety and prevent diversion in near-real-time.”

Opioid Diversion Rare

Contrary to popular belief, opioid diversion is rare. Using data gathered from prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), pharmacies, hospitals and others in the drug supply chain, the DEA’s most recent estimate is that less than one percent of oxycodone (0.3%) and hydrocodone (0.42%) is lost, stolen or diverted to someone they were not prescribed to.

Opioid prescriptions are also harder to obtain and there are chronic opioid shortages around the country, so few pain patients are willing to part with their legally prescribed medications. Counterfeit medications and other street drugs made with illicit fentanyl are the real problem, which the DEA “listening sessions” won’t address.

The public hearings will be held on September 12 and 13 at DEA headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. Medical practitioners, patients, pharmacists, drug makers, distributors, law enforcement, and other interested parties can express their views either in-person or by video teleconference. The public hearings will also be streamed live online.

The DEA is seeking input on these key questions:

  • Should telemedicine prescribing of Schedule II medications be permitted without an in-person medical evaluation?  If it is permitted, what safeguards would you recommend to ensure patient safety and prevent diversion?

  • If telemedicine prescribing of Schedule III–V medications is permitted without an in-person medical evaluation, what safeguards and data should be collected for those substances? 

To register as a speaker, click here. The deadline for registering is August 21.

My Story: A Bone Cancer Survivor’s Search for Pain Relief  

By Kristen Hernandez

The past three weeks have been the most challenging since my cancer diagnosis 20 years ago. Shortages of opioid pain medication have taken their toll, costing me weeks of productivity, mental and physical anguish, and a negative bank account.

When I was 25, I had a different life -- a career as a corporate travel consultant for RCA Records in New York City. I clawed my way out the ghettos of the Bronx and into corporate America, and purchased my first home in the suburbs of Long Island.

But everything changed when I was diagnosed with an insidious and rare form of bone cancer called Chordoma. It’s a literal one-in-a-million disease, with just one in every million individuals diagnosed with it each year.

The type of Chordoma that chose me is extremely rare, due to the tumor’s location: it was housed inside the L3 vertebra of my lumbar spine. And it was extraordinarily painful.

KRISTEN HERNANDEZ

Because Chordoma doesn't respond to chemotherapy or radiation, surgery is the only treatment. To save my life, surgeons reconstructed my spine, replacing a vertebra with a titanium cage and filling it with bone graft from my hip.

They also replaced a spinal disc with two more titanium cages, adding 16 rods and 20 screws for reinforcement.

My spine today resembles a nightmarish ladder that Tim Burton might have created.

After eight reconstructive spinal surgeries, I was given a miraculous drug called OxyContin. Doctors did not think I’d ever walk again because they needed to sever the nerves to my legs so that they could remove the cancer-infected bone.

Because of OxyContin, I was able to take my first step and eventually walk. This was in 2005, at the beginning of the so-called opioid crisis.

Once I relocated to Florida, pain management doctors refused to prescribe OxyContin to me, fearing lawsuits and scrutiny from law enforcement. Regardless of how much I protested, I was dismissed as if I was the problem, instead of having a problem.

At the time, pill mills were everywhere in Florida. They were places where if you had cash, you could get any medication. It’s also why there’s a such stigma today against chronic pain sufferers.

Eventually, I found a legitimate pain management doctor in Fort Lauderdale. Instead of OxyContin, he changed my regimen to a fentanyl patch, along with oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets (Percocet) for breakthrough pain, essentially replacing one opioid with two. That was my pain management routine for the past twelve years, until recently.

When I went to a Walgreens pharmacy this past June, I was shocked to hear, “Sorry, oxycodone is on back order, and we have no idea if or when it’s coming back.”

Opioid Shortages

Shortages of oxcodone, hydrocodone and other opioids are increasing around the country. And there is zero advance notice from pharmacies about when a prescribed medication will be available. Patients like me who suffer from severe pain are forced to go through withdrawal until the pharmacy restocks.

It’s a nightmare to deal with. Pain patients are usually not prepared for the sudden halt in medical care. Even the smallest disruption can have devastating effects, such as loss of productivity, reduced quality of life, and a diminished social life. Even smiling takes an effort.

Patients are always the last to know when there’s a problem with a prescription. Like thousands of others, I made frantic phone calls to my doctor, who scrambled to find an alternative medication. Without consulting me, he wrote a script for hydrocodone/acetaminophen (Vicodin), a medication I had never taken before. That’s when my three-week nightmare began. Because I wasn’t prepared to handle the ineffectiveness of hydrocodone for bone pain, my condition quickly began to decline.

Each morning, the first sensation I get feels like someone dug their elbow into my lower back all night long. It’s so fierce, it takes my breath away. Then, when I stand and all the titanium in my spine settles, the nerves hum in my legs and a crawling sensation shoots up and down, vibrating constantly.

As the morning coffee brews, I get the “poke” sensation. Due to a 200-pound weight loss, there’s a rod that sticks out of my thoracic spine area that rubs up against everything -- the bed, couch, office chair, car seat, everything. It’s miserable because it’s there forever.

Hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets seem to exacerbate those symptoms, causing my body to swell and tighten into a ball of pressure, while the pain intensified. My productivity stopped and the bills began to pile up. Working while experiencing severe spinal and bone pain is nearly impossible.

After a recent candid discussion with my pain management doctor, we formed a “Plan B.” We’re trying oxycodone without acetaminophen to see if that works better. Having a backup plan with an alternate list of medications is essential with the shortages and fear-based drug culture we’ve found ourselves dumped into.

Government regulators and health policies have failed the people who suffer the most in this country, who often live with medical conditions they cannot control, like cancer. They’ve failed us time after time, filing lawsuits and adopting guidelines that make it harder for us to get prescription opioids – even though over 82% of opioid overdoses are caused by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

Patients who suffer from chronic pain all have one common goal: relief. When that relief is interrupted, and access to crucial therapies and drugs is denied, you leave us with few choices. We can either live our lives without pain relief or seek out riskier alternatives. Those are not good choices.

Kristen Hernandez is a freelance journalist and creative nonfiction writer living in South Florida. 

Do you have a “My Story” to share? Pain News Network invites other readers to share their experiences about living with pain and treating it.

Send your stories to editor@painnewsnetwork.org.

FDA and DEA Leaders Call for More ADHD Meds, But Ignore Rx Opioid Shortages

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Leaders of the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration say they’re working to end one of the worst drug shortages in decades.

“The lack of availability of certain medications in recent months has been understandably frustrating for patients and their families,” FDA commissioner Robert Califf, MD, and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in an unusual joint letter. “We are calling on key stakeholders, including manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, and payors, to do all they can to ensure access for patients when a medication is appropriately prescribed.”

Those should be welcome words for pain patients across the U.S. who have trouble getting their prescriptions filled for opioid medication. Unfortunately, the letter has nothing to do with opioids. It’s only about shortages of Adderall and other prescription stimulants, which are used primarily to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

The letter is the latest example of how the FDA and DEA have turned a blind eye to opioid shortages, which both agencies have played prominent roles in creating. Two widely used painkillers, oxycodone and hydrocodone, have been difficult to get for months, leaving thousands of patients in uncontrolled pain or going into withdrawal. Even big chain pharmacies like CVS are out of opioids or have a limited supply.   

“I had to once again follow up with CVS, just to be told they received absolutely nothing! Pain management provider in response sent another prescription to the outpatient pharmacy,” says Christine Kucera, a pain patient who recently wrote a column for PNN about her problems getting prescriptions filled for oxycodone.

“I'm currently sitting in the waiting area at the outpatient pharmacy, stressing, waiting for another bomb to drop.”

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) first warned about a shortage of immediate release oxycodone in March. Over the next few months, hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets (Vicodin) and oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets (Percocet) were added to the ASHP’s shortage list. Those shortages could soon grow even worse, because one of the largest generic drug makers in the world, Teva Pharmaceutical, is discontinuing production of immediate release oxycodone. 

Despite these warning signs, the FDA and DEA have yet to acknowledge shortages of either oxycodone or hydrocodone, and appear to be doing nothing about them. But they are moving to boost production of stimulants used to treat ADHD. The agencies say drug makers have sold only 70% of the stimulants they were authorized to produce.   

“We want to make sure those who need stimulant medications have access,” Califf and Milgram said in their letter. “We have called on manufacturers to confirm they are working to increase production to meet their allotted quota amount.” 

“What this latest notice shows is that the FDA and DEA could get involved with the opioid shortage if they wanted to,” says Rick Martin, a retired pharmacist disabled by back pain. Martin recently had to switch to a weaker opioid for pain relief because he can’t find a pharmacy with hydrocodone in stock.

“Teva said they were going to stop making oxycodone. The DEA/FDA could be proactive and ask Teva to relinquish their remaining 2023 quota allotment, then redistribute to other manufacturers,” Martin told PNN. 

Lower Production Quotas

The DEA sets annual production quotas for opioids, stimulants and other controlled substances, working closely with the FDA in assessing demand. Last year, the FDA advised the DEA that demand for hydrocodone, oxycodone and other Schedule II opioids would fall by 5.3% in 2023, which resulted in another year of cuts by the DEA in opioid production. Since 2013, the supply of oxycodone has fallen by 65 percent and hydrocodone by 73 percent. 

The FDA also advised the DEA that domestic medical use of stimulants would fall by 0.1% in 2023, even while warning that shortages were developing. The DEA’s response last December was that amphetamine and other stimulants were overprescribed to patients who didn’t really need them, and that its proposed production quotas (APQ) for the drugs in 2023 would be adequate.

“The majority of the manufacturers contacted by DEA and/or FDA have responded that they currently have sufficient quota to meet their contracted production quantities for legitimate patient medical needs,” the DEA said in the Federal Register. “Based on this trend, DEA has not implemented an increase to the APQ for amphetamine at this time.”

That kind of background detail is missing from Califf’s and Milgram’s letter, which disingenuously claims that there is little that the DEA and FDA can do to ensure that there are adequate supplies of medication. 

“This is not a problem that the FDA and DEA can solve on our own,” Califf and Milgram wrote. “The FDA and DEA do not manufacture drugs and cannot require a pharmaceutical company to make a drug, make more of a drug, or change the distribution of a drug.” 

Only briefly do Califf and Milgram acknowledge that their own production quotas are part of the problem, saying they were “committed to reviewing and improving our quota process.” 

“These (stimulant) shortages were caused by the DEA, which limited the manufacture of these medications,” says Andrea Anderson, a pain sufferer and patient advocate. “This exact problem has affected patients who require opioid analgesics to manage their severe pain. It has been affecting them for over six years, yet we see no mention of the extraordinary difficulties these patients are experiencing trying to find pain medication.  

“The DEA has no reason to be involved in deciding how many prescriptions should be written for any medical condition. This is the purview of trained medical clinicians and quantities should not be dictated by law enforcement agencies.” 

Drug manufacturers are required to report shortages and supply interruptions to the FDA. Doctors, hospitals, pharmacies and consumers can also report supply problems by sending an email to drugshortages@fda.hhs.gov.

That’s where Christine Kucera recently sent an email addressed to the FDA commissioner.

“Three different medications used in my treatment are continuously unavailable, sometimes for weeks and months. CVS IS OUT, the system is not working, and all you do is NOTHING!” Kucera wrote to Califf. 

“When will you address the unethical treatment and harms being inflicted upon millions of US citizens directly caused by government practicing medicine, limiting and denying access to essential medicines based on biased and manipulated facts, reduced quotas, faulty CDC prescription guidelines that should never have been created; and the DEA who are making up their own rules, practicing medicine, and deciding what they think appropriate medical care is?”  

Army Veteran Is Latest Casualty of DEA’s War on Drugs

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Becky Snyder and her husband Vance were soldiers when they first met in 1979 at Fort Lewis, Washington. Becky was a legal clerk for the Army, while Vance was a combat medic who later became an Army-trained physician assistant and chief warrant officer. They soon married and had a son.

After years spent defending their country, Vance and Becky could not have imagined they’d windup becoming unintended casualties of the DEA’s failed War on Drugs. Vance lost the love of his life when Becky died last month at the age of 70, after a lifetime of suffering from chronic pain.

“She had scoliosis her whole life, probably congenital. And that made it hard for her to do sit ups in the in the military and probably injured her spine trying to do that,” said Vance. “She could walk with difficulty. Usually when we went out, we used a wheelchair.”

Becky’s back pain progressively worsened and she became bedridden after developing intractable pain from two very serious complications: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and arachnoiditis, a chronic inflammation of spinal nerves.

Both conditions are incurable and cause severe pain, but Becky found relief under the care of two Los Angeles-area doctors, Forest Tennant and David Bockoff. 

BECKY SNYDER AND SON

The careers of both physicians effectively ended after their offices were raided by DEA agents, Dr. Tennant in 2017 and Dr. Bockoff in 2022. They were targeted by the DEA for giving patients like Becky with complex medical conditions high doses of opioid pain medication — which, in the eyes of the DEA, has no legitimate medical use.

There is no evidence that any of Tennant’s patients were harmed or overdosed while under his care, but he retired in 2018 rather than face a costly legal battle with the DEA and Department of Justice.

Becky and other Tennant patients became “opioid refugees,” scouring the country for doctors because no one was willing to treat them locally. Several eventually found their way to Bockoff, with some traveling thousands of miles from out-of-state to see him and get their prescriptions filled in California. That made Bockoff a target for the DEA.

Last November, the DEA suspended Bockoff’s license to prescribe opioids and other controlled substances, even though he practiced medicine for over 50 years in California with no record of any disciplinary action or complaints filed with the state medical board. The DEA claimed five of Bockoff’s patients were in “imminent danger,” but then waited a year to suspend him.  

Patient Deaths

While Bockoff appeals his suspension, at least three of his former patients have died, including one who committed suicide with his wife and another who died after buying opioid medication in Mexico. Becky Snyder is the most recent death.        

“The last six years have been very difficult, because we couldn’t get the amount of medicine that Dr. Tennant gave. Dr. Bockoff, I mean to his credit he did the best he could, but he couldn’t give the amount that Forest Tennant was willing to give,” said Vance.

“But if there hadn’t been Dr. Bockoff, I think she would have died even sooner.”

Becky didn’t die from withdrawal, but from pancreatic cancer. She was diagnosed earlier this summer after complaining of stomach pain, and the cancer quickly metastasized. Becky didn’t drink, and Vance is convinced that poorly treated pain contributed to her death.

BECKY SNYDER

“I was in Army medicine. Clinically and diagnostically, pain can be an important indicator of what’s wrong with a patient. You have to take the suffering seriously,” Vance told PNN. “I believe pain kills people all the time because it just wears the person out. It leads to all kinds of conditions, whether it’s endocrine, whether it’s cancer, whether it’s depression and suicide. There’s all kind of things that pain causes.”

“Cancer follows intractable pain like night follows day,” says Tennant, who believe Becky’s death was preventable. “Because if you can’t get the pain relieved, you disturb your hormonal systems and your immune system. I can’t tell you how common cancer is in these people who can’t get care. It’s just one of the complications.

“I’m sure if I was still in practice or Dr. Bockoff was, she’d still be alive.“

Vance Snyder says intractable pain took a toll on Becky’s physical and mental health, and she aged considerably in her final years. He believes high dose opioids is what kept her alive.

“For the worst, worst cases of intractable pain, opioids have to be part of the package. The idea that nerve blocks, epidurals, aromatherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy and all those things are going to make a big difference with the worst kind of pain is ridiculous,” he said.

Snyder has joined with several other Bockoff patients in a lawsuit asking the U.S. Court of Appeals to give them legal standing as interested parties in the Bockoff case. 

In an open letter, Snyder urged the court to find a “proper balance” between appropriate pain care and the needs of law enforcement.

“Severe intractable pain does not exist in isolation, but is connected to every other aspect of the patient’s overall health,” he wrote. “Becky is gone now, but there are many thousands of agonized patients who are desperate and on the verge of suicide. Please think about them when you make your decisions.”     

Why Cheap Generic Drugs Are Harder to Find

By Dr. Geoffrey Joyce, University of Southern California

Past public ire over high drug prices has recently taken a back seat to a more insidious problem – no drugs at any price.

Patients and their providers increasingly face limited or nonexistent supplies of drugs, many of which treat essential conditions such as cancer, heart disease and bacterial infections. The American Society of Health System Pharmacists now lists over 300 active shortages, primarily of decades-old generic drugs no longer protected by patents.

While this is not a new problem, the number of drugs in short supply has increased in recent years, and the average shortage is lasting longer, with more than 15 critical drug products in short supply for over a decade. Current shortages include widely known drugs such as the antibiotic amoxicillin; the heart medicine digoxin; the anesthetic lidocaine; and the medicine albuterol, which is critical for treating asthma and other diseases affecting the lungs and airways.

What’s going on?

I’m a health economist who has studied the pharmaceutical industry for the past 15 years. I believe the drug shortage problem illustrates a major shortcoming of capitalism. While costly brand-name drugs often yield high profits to manufacturers, there’s relatively little money to be made in supplying the market with low-cost generics, no matter how vital they may be to patients’ health.

The shortage includes chemotherapy drugs, antibiotics, medications to treat ADHD and other critical drugs. Some patients are able to get their drugs, while others are not, and in some cases patients are getting ‘rationed care.’

Brand Name Drugs More Profitable

The problem boils down to the nature of the pharmaceutical industry and how differently the markets for brand and generic drugs operate. Perhaps the clearest indication of this is the fact that prices of brand drugs in the U.S. are among the highest in the developed world, while generic drug prices are among the lowest.

When a drugmaker develops a new pill, cream or solution, the government grants the company an exclusive patent for up to 20 years, although most patents are filed before clinical testing, and thus the effective patent life is closer to eight to 12 years. Nonetheless, patents allow the drugmakers to cover the cost of research and development and earn a profit without the threat of competition from a rival making an identical product.

But once the patent expires, the drug becomes generic and any company is allowed to manufacture it. Since generic manufacturers are essentially producing the same product, profits are determined by their ability to manufacture the drug at the lowest marginal cost. This often results in low profit margins and can lead to cost-cutting measures that can compromise quality and threaten supply.

Outsourced Production Creates Supply Risks

One of the consequences of generics’ meager margins is that drug companies outsource production to lower-cost countries.

As of mid-2019, 72% of the manufacturing facilities making active ingredients for drugs sold in the U.S. were located overseas, with India and China alone making up nearly half of that.

While overseas manufacturers often enjoy significant cost advantages over U.S. facilities, such as easy access to raw materials and lower labor costs, outsourcing production at such a scale raises a slew of issues that can hurt the supply. Foreign factories are more difficult for the Food and Drug Administration to inspect, tend to have more production problems and are far more likely than domestic factories to be shut down once a problem is discovered.

In testimony to a House subcommittee, Janet Woodcock, the FDA’s principal deputy commissioner, acknowledged that the agency has little information on which Chinese facilities are producing raw ingredients, how much they are producing, or where the ingredients they are producing are being distributed worldwide.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the country’s reliance on foreign suppliers – and the risks this poses to U.S. consumers.

India is the world’s largest producer of generic drugs but imports 70% of its raw materials from China. About one-third of factories in China shut down during the pandemic. To ensure domestic supplies, the Indian government restricted the export of medications, disrupting the global supply chain.

This led to shortages of drugs to treat COVID-19, such as for respiratory failure and sedation, as well as for a wide range of other conditions, like drugs to treat chemotherapy, heart disease and bacterial infections.

Low Profits Hurt Quality

Manufacturing drugs to consistently high-quality standards requires constant testing and evaluation. A company that sells a new, expensive, branded drug has a strong profit motive to keep quality and production high. That’s often not the case for generic drug manufacturers, and this can result in shortages.

In 2008, an adulterated version of the blood-thinning drug Heparin was recalled worldwide after being linked to 350 adverse events and 150 deaths in the U.S. alone.

In 2013, the Department of Justice fined the U.S. subsidiary of Ranbaxy Laboratories, India’s largest generic drug manufacturer, US$500 million after it pleaded guilty to civil and criminal charges related to drug safety and falsifying safety data. In response, the FDA banned products made at four of the company’s manufacturing facilities in India from entering the U.S., including generic versions of gabapentin, which treats epilepsy and nerve pain, and the antibiotic ciprofloxacin.

And while there may be multiple companies selling the same generic drug in the U.S., there may be only a single manufacturer supplying the basic ingredients. Thus, any hiccup in production or shutdown due to quality issues can affect the entire market.

A recent analysis found that approximately 40% of generic drugs sold in the U.S. have just one manufacturer, and the share of markets supplied by just one or two manufacturers has increased over time.

Repatriating the Drug Supply

It is hard to quantify the impact of drug shortages on population health. However, a recent survey of U.S. hospitals, pharmacists and other health care providers found that drug shortages led to increased medication errors, delayed administration of lifesaving therapies, inferior outcomes and patient deaths.

What can be done? One option is to simply find ways to produce more generic drugs in the U.S.

California passed a law in 2020 to do just that by allowing the state to contract with domestic manufactures to produce its own generic prescription drugs. In March 2023, California selected a Utah company to begin producing low-cost insulin for California patients.

Whether this approach is feasible on a broader scale is uncertain, but, in my view, it’s a good first attempt to repatriate America’s drug supply.

Geoffrey Joyce, PhD, is director of Health Policy at the USC Schaeffer Center, an associate professor and chair of the Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics at the USC School of Pharmacy, and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Prior to his position at USC, Dr. Joyce was a Senior Economist at the RAND Corporation and currently co-directs UCLA's post-doctoral program in Health Services Research.

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

Pain Clinic Chain to Pay $11M to Settle Fraud Claims

By Don Thompson, KFF Health News

The owner of one of California’s largest chains of pain management clinics has agreed to pay nearly $11.4 million to California, Oregon, and the federal government to settle allegations of Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the states’ attorneys general say Francis Lagattuta, a physician, and his Lags Medical Centers performed — and billed for — medically unnecessary tests and procedures on thousands of patients over more than five years.

It was “a brazen scheme to defraud Medicare and Medicaid of millions of dollars by inflicting unnecessary and painful procedures on patients whom they were supposed to be relieving of pain,” Phillip Talbert, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of California, said in a statement this month.

The federal Medicare program suspended reimbursements to Lags Medical in June 2020, and Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, followed in May 2021. Lags Medical shut down the same day the state suspended reimbursements. The company, based in Lompoc, California, had more than 30 pain clinics, most of them in the Central Valley and the Central Coast.

A KFF Health News review last year found the abrupt closure left more than 20,000 California patients — mostly working-class people on government-funded insurance — struggling to obtain their medical records or continue receiving pain prescriptions, which often included opioids.

Lagattuta and Lags Medical did not admit liability under the settlement. Lagattuta denied the governments’ claims, saying in a statement he was “pleased” to announce the settlement of a “long-standing billing dispute.” As part of the agreement, Lagattuta will be barred for at least five years from receiving Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements.

“Since the Centers have been closed for a couple of years, it made sense for Dr. Lagattuta to settle the dispute and continue to move forward with his other business interests and practice,” Malcolm Segal, an attorney for Lagattuta and the centers, said in the statement.

According to state officials, the federal government will receive the bulk of the money, about $8.5 million. California will receive about $2.7 million, and an additional $130,000 will go to Oregon. The settlement amount is based in part on Lagattuta’s and Lags Medical’s “ability to pay.” It does not cover the governments’ full losses, which the U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento said are not public record.

Blanket Orders for Unnecessary Tests

A nearly four-year investigation by federal officials and the California Department of Justice found that from March 2016 through August 2021, Lagattuta and his company submitted reimbursement claims for unneeded skin biopsies, spinal cord stimulation procedures, urine drug tests, and other tests and procedures.

Lagattuta began requiring all his clinics to perform various medical procedures on every patient, the officials said, no matter if they were needed or requested by patients’ medical providers. Patients who refused were told they would have their pain medication reduced and could suffer adverse medical consequences.

U.S. and California investigators piggybacked on a federal claim filed in late 2018 by a whistleblower, Steven Capeder, Lags Medical’s former operations and marketing director, who will receive more than $2 million of the settlement.

As part of the settlement, Lagattuta and his company acknowledged that in mid-2016 he began requiring his providers to do at least two to three skin biopsies on Medicare patients each day and told providers to quit if they wouldn’t comply. Such biopsies are used to measure small-fiber neuropathy, which causes burning pain with numbness and tingling in the feet and lower extremities.

According to the settlement, a monthly report in early 2018 set a goal of performing 250 biopsies a week. Lagattuta created a separate team that was required to order at least 150 biopsies weekly, often overruling providers. And the company’s chief executive officer in late 2019 texted Lagattuta to report a particularly high number of biopsies, illustrating the text with emojis of a money bag and a smiley face.

Authorities said Lagattuta violated regulations requiring that skin biopsy results be interpreted by a trained pathologist or neurologist. Instead, they say, Lagattuta had the biopsies read by a family member who had no formal medical training and by a former clinic executive’s spouse, who was trained as a respiratory therapist.

Lags Medical clinics performed more than 22,000 biopsies on Medi-Cal patients from 2016 through 2019.

The settlement also alleges Lagattuta encouraged unsuitable patients to undergo spinal cord stimulation. It describes the procedure as “an invasive surgery of last resort,” in which implants placed near the spinal cord apply low-voltage electrical pulses to nerve fibers.

Lagattuta paid a psychiatrist $3,000 each month to falsely certify that every Lags Medical candidate for the procedure had no psychological or substance use disorders that would negatively affect the outcome, according to the settlement. For instance, the settlement says the psychiatrist overruled a Lags Medical social worker to OK the procedure for a young woman who had bipolar disorder with hallucinations that included hearing a man’s voice ordering her out of bed.

He also issued blanket orders for every patient to have urine drug testing, a policy the company’s CEO said “should be a big money maker.”

KFF Health News found that from 2017 through 2019 nearly 60,000 of the most extensive urine drug tests were billed to Medicare and Medi-Cal under Lagattuta’s provider number. Medicare reimbursed Lagattuta $5.4 million for those tests.

The clinics “carefully examined, tested, and treated” more than 60,000 patients during the time covered by the settlement, “when others might have been content to prescribe medication to mask pain,” said Lagattuta’s statement. 

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

FDA and DEA Silent as Rx Opioid Shortages Worsen

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Shortages of opioid pain medication in the U.S. appear to be worsening, with no apparent action from the FDA or DEA to ease the suffering of patients left in uncontrolled pain or going into withdrawal.

Last week the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) added another widely used painkiller to its drug shortage list: oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, which are more widely known under the brand names Percocet and Endocet. The medication is typically prescribed for moderate to severe pain.   

The ASHP reports that five drug makers are either running low or have exhausted their supply of oxycodone/acetaminophen in 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10mg tablets.  Amneal, Major and Rhodes did not provide ASHP with a reason for the shortage, while Camber and KVK-Tech said they were “awaiting DEA quota approval for active ingredient.”

Amneal, Camber and KVK-Tech said the tablets were on back order with no estimated resupply date. Major and Rhodes said additional supplies were expected in mid-September or early August, respectively. Limited supplies and doses of oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets are still available from other drug manufacturers.

There are already shortages of two other widely used painkillers. The AHSP put immediate release oxycodone on its list of drug shortages in March and added hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets to the list in May.  

But those shortages have yet to be acknowledged by the FDA. Asked why oxycodone and hydrocodone were missing from the FDA’s drug shortage list, a spokesperson referred PNN to an FDA website for “Frequently Asked Questions about Drug Shortages.”

One possible explanation, according to the website, is that the FDA “focuses on shortages that have the greatest impact on public health.” Shortages are also not reported if they are expected to be resolved quickly, if other substitutes are available, or if there are only local supply issues.

Manufacturers are required to report shortages and supply interruptions to the FDA, while providers, hospitals, pharmacies and consumers can report them by email to drugshortages@fda.hhs.gov.  

‘No One Seemed to Care’

At PNN, we hear from readers almost daily about opioid shortages.

“I am now past my usual fill date,” said Rick Martin, a retired pharmacist in Las Vegas who lives with chronic back pain. “My CVS pharmacist manager told me that she was told by their wholesaler that hydrocodone won't be available until the middle of August.” 

Martin said pharmacists at Walgreens, Smith’s and Sav-on have also told him they were out of oxycodone and hydrocodone tablets.  

“It's been spotty for 6 months but now seems entrenched. I got switched to tramadol. Not as effective, but I can just barely get by. I've heard that's what doctors are doing. Tramadol or Tylenol with codeine,” he told PNN.

Steve Keating, another Las Vegas resident, has been taking oxycodone for chronic neck pain after his vehicle was rear-ended by another driver. He had no problems getting his prescription refilled at either Walgreens or CVS, until last month. Now he is out of pain medication. 

“I began having withdrawal symptoms. No one seemed to care,” said Keating, who turns 73 this month. “The pharmacy recommendations were to obtain tramadol, which I've tried in the past and found ineffective.  I cannot take opiates with acetaminophen as it upsets my stomach.   

“It seems that there is a huge gap between prescribers, pharmacies and whatever governmental agencies are involved.  Do these governmental idiots not realize how important the medication we've been prescribed for months or years is to give us some degree of a better quality of life?” 

There are several reasons behind the opioid shortages. It started with misleading information that demonized prescription opioids and the false portrayal of patients and doctors as the primary cause of the “opioid epidemic.” That was followed by medical guidelines that discourage opioid prescribing and a tsunami of opioid litigation that cost drug makers, wholesalers and pharmacies tens of billions of dollars. 

Egged on by politicians, the Drug Enforcement Administration also aggressively cut production quotas for opioids and other controlled substances, reducing the supply of oxycodone by 65% and hydrocodone by 73% since 2013.  

DEA PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR OXYCODONE (KILOGRAMS)

SOURCE: DEA

The DEA quotas are rigidly enforced, making it difficult for a drug maker to boost production of opioids when another manufacturer has shortages or discontinues production, like Teva Pharmaceutical recently announced.

It’s not just opioids in short supply. Drugs used to treat cancer and attention deficit disorder (ADHD) are also hard to get. These problems have been building in plain sight for years, yet the FDA’s commissioner says there is little his agency can do to correct them.

“We wish that we could fix all these things, but we don't make the medicines and we can't tell someone that they must make medicines. There are some things that are out of our control,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a May interview. 

That’s not exactly true. The DEA sets annual production quotas for drug makers only after consulting with the FDA. The 2023 DEA quotas for hydrocodone, oxycodone and several other opioids were cut — for the 7th year in a row — based on the advice of the FDA.

“FDA predicts that levels of medical need for schedule II opioids in the United States in calendar year 2023 will decline on average 5.3 percent from calendar year 2022 levels,” the DEA said in a notice published last year in the Federal Register.   

DEA administrator Anne Milgram, meanwhile, has not made any public comments about shortages of opioid medication. In a recent appearance on Meet the Press, she said illicit fentanyl was being used to make counterfeit versions of prescription opioids — the same legal drugs that are now in short supply due to DEA actions.

“They're pressing it into these fake pills made to look exactly like oxycodone or Percocet or or Adderall, when it's just fentanyl and filler. So tens of thousands of Americans are dying without having any idea that they're taking fentanyl,” Milgram said.

(Update: On August 1, Milgram and Califf released a joint letter saying the FDA and DEA were working “as quickly as possible” to resolve the drug shortages, but took no responsibility for causing them. The letter only addressed shortages of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD, binge eating and narcolepsy. It makes no mention of opioid shortages.)

JAMA: Patients on Long-Term Opioids Often ‘Irrational’

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Do pain patients on long-term opioid therapy make irrational decisions? Is their mental capacity so diminished by opioids that they shouldn’t be involved in treatment decisions with their doctors?

The answer to both questions is often yes, according to a controversial new op/ed published in JAMA Internal Medicine. At issue is a recent update to the CDC’s opioid prescribing guideline, which calls for shared decision-making (SDM) when a prescriber considers tapering a patient or abruptly discontinuing their opioid treatment. The guideline was revised last year after reports of “serious harm” to patients caused by forced tapering.

“In situations where benefits and risks of continuing opioids are considered to be close, shared decision-making with patients is particularly important,” the 2022 guideline states.

But that advice about consulting with patients goes too far, according to the lead author of the JAMA op/ed, Mark Sullivan, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington and a longtime board member of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group.

“The value of SDM has been recognized for many years but also has its limitations, including where patients make irrational or short-sighted decisions,” Sullivan wrote. “Long-term opioid therapy induces a state of opioid dependence that compromises patients’ decisional capacity, specifically altering their perception of the value and necessity of the therapy; and although patients with chronic pain are not usually at imminent risk of death, they often can see no possibility of a satisfying life without a significant and immediate reduction in their pain.”

Sullivan and his two co-authors, Jeffrey Linder, MD, and Jason Doctor, PhD, have long been critical of opioid prescribing practices in the U.S. In their conflict of interest statements, Sullivan and Doctor disclose that they have worked for law firms involved in opioid litigation, a lucrative sideline for several PROP members.

Sullivan, Linder and Doctor call for more “structured” decision-making that includes the patient’s family and friends, “motivational interviewing” of patients about opioid risks and treatment goals, and education about non-drug alternatives such as yoga and meditation.

“We believe that a fully individualized, unstructured decision-making process will not be adequate to protect patients receiving long-term opioid therapy,” they wrote.

In the case of opioid prescribing, and especially opioid tapering, working to persuade the patient is almost always the best clinical strategy. But there are circumstances where tapering should occur even if the patient objects.
— Dr. Mark Sullivan

And what happens if a patient refuses to have their dose reduced? The op/ed doesn’t explicitly state it, but in an email to PNN, Sullivan said forced tapering would be acceptable in some situations.

“In the case of opioid prescribing, and especially opioid tapering, working to persuade the patient is almost always the best clinical strategy. But there are circumstances (opioid use disorder, diversion, serious medical risks) where tapering should occur even if the patient objects,” Sullivan wrote.

Opioid diversion by patients is actually rare. The DEA estimates that less than one percent of oxycodone (0.3%) and hydrocodone (0.42%) will be used by someone they were not intended for.

As for patients on opioids behaving “irrational,” Sullivan and his co-authors cite an op/ed published 33 years ago in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). But that article doesn’t even discuss opioids or tapering, it’s about whether patients and doctors should collaborate in making decisions about end-of-life medical care.  It also makes an important disclaimer that “even the irrational choices of a competent patient must be respected if the patient cannot be persuaded to change them."

Sullivan rejects that approach to opioid treatment.

“We cite (the NEJM article) to demonstrate that SDM does not exclude or prevent irrational decisions,” he wrote in his email.  “You are right that we do not endorse the conclusion you cite, that patient’s irrational decisions must be respected.”

In a rebuttal to Sullivan’s op/ed also published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Mitchell Katz, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, dispute the notion that a patient’s choices shouldn’t be respected.

“Primary care professionals generally highly value the inclusion of the patient’s perspective in decision-making, consistent with the principles of patient autonomy and self-determination, and are loathe to go against a patient’s wishes,” they wrote.

“As primary care professionals, we have found it helpful to tell patients that it is not recommended to take more than a specific threshold of opioids and that we do not want to prescribe something that is not recommended. However, that does not mean sticking to rigid cut points for dose and duration of opioid use, abandoning patients, or having them undergo too rapid a taper.”

Others questioned JAMA’s decision to publish Sullivan’s op/ed.

“While I recognize the editors’ legitimate intellectual interest in providing a forum for open discussion on the opioid policy space, I question their decision to publish an editorial that represents an ongoing call for broad, ill-defined reductions in opioid prescribing,” said Chad Kollas, MD, a palliative care specialist who rejects the idea that patients shouldn’t be involved in their healthcare choices.

“Errantly embracing a lower evidentiary standard for medical decision-making capacity creates an unacceptable risk for harm to patients with pain by violating their rights of medical autonomy and self-determination.”

Opioids were once commonly prescribed in the U.S. for both acute and chronic pain, but those days are long over. Opioid prescribing has been cut in half, to levels not seen since the 1990’s. And many patients today have trouble just getting their prescriptions filled at pharmacies due to opioid shortages.

Despite that, fatal overdoses have climbed to record levels, with illicit fentanyl and other street drugs involved in the vast majority of drug deaths, not prescription opioids.

Tylenol on Trial: Does Acetaminophen Cause Autism and ADHD?

By Teresa Carr, Undark Magazine

More than 100 families of children with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are suing companies that market acetaminophen, the pain reliever in Tylenol and an array of other medications. Tylenol-maker Johnson & Johnson, as well as major retailers that use acetaminophen in their store-brand products, knew about research linking prenatal use of acetaminophen to neurodevelopmental disorders in children, the families claim, and should have included warnings on product labels.

The court filings reveal mothers wracked with guilt, convinced that by taking an over-the-counter pain reliever, they caused their child’s disability. In case after case, these women say that if they had thought acetaminophen could possibly harm their baby, they would have minimized their use of the drug — or not taken it at all.

It’s hardly an open-and-shut case. Most of what is known about acetaminophen and pregnancy comes from a type of study that sifts through data looking for correlations between prenatal exposures and developmental disorders. Scientists have been fighting amongst themselves over how much weight to give these studies, which were not designed to prove that a given factor — in this case, acetaminophen — caused ADHD or autism.

The debate reached a boiling point in 2021, when a group of international scientists declared that the current research, limited as it is, warrants stronger warnings about the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy. In a consensus statement published in Nature Reviews Endocrinology, the scientists called for “precautionary action” through focused research and increased awareness of the drug’s potential risks. Ninety-one scientists, clinicians, and public health professionals from around the world signed on.

That statement was the “galvanizing incident” for the lawsuits, said Ashley Keller, a founding partner at the legal firm Keller Postman LLC and one of the lawsuits’ lead attorneys.

‘An Outlier Opinion’

But there’s a hitch: The consensus statement does not, in fact, reflect the views of many experts or of any major medical organization. The same Nature journal published three rebuttals signed by numerous professional groups as well as individual researchers and clinicians. These critics wrote that the consensus statement used flawed data to exaggerate potential harms of acetaminophen and downplayed the drug’s essential role for treating fever and pain.

Johnson & Johnson has seized on those criticisms in its defense. The consensus statement “is an outlier opinion of a small group whose position has been rejected by their own medical organizations and every regulatory body to address the issue,” company spokesperson Melissa Witt told Undark in an email. Giving credence to theories not based in sound science, she said, could harm millions of pregnant women.

This debate over how to interpret the acetaminophen science lies at the heart of the lawsuits, and the answer has profound implications, both for individuals and for public health. Acetaminophen is one of the most common drugs in the world, and in the United States, up to 65 percent of all expectant mothers use it. The cases have been consolidated in the Southern District of New York. If the litigation proceeds to trial, attorneys expect tens to hundreds of thousands of families to join in.

It’s a shame that questions linger about the safety of a drug that’s been around for 70 years, said Christina Chambers, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego and lead investigator for a series of studies on exposures during pregnancy for the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, a professional society that provides advice on using medications during pregnancy and breastfeeding.

In an interview with Undark, Chambers expressed doubts about the consensus statement, saying that if acetaminophen has any effect on fetal development, that effect is likely to be modest. Still, she added, “What this accumulated data calls for is to do better study.”

Top Selling Pain Reliever

Acetaminophen was discovered in 1878, according to an FDA history of groundbreaking medications. But it wasn’t until the early 1950s that researchers demonstrated that the compound worked as well as the two popular pain relievers of the time — aspirin and acetanilide — with fewer side effects. In 1955, drugmaker McNeil gained FDA approval and launched Tylenol Elixir for Children, advertising it “for little hotheads.”

Four years later Johnson & Johnson acquired McNeil, and, in 1975, began aggressively marketing an “extra strength” 500-milligram version of the drug to adults. By the early 1980s, Tylenol was the top-selling pain reliever in the U.S.

Acetaminophen is now used in more than 600 over-the-counter and prescription medications, including combination products for sleep, cough, cold, and allergy.

Acetaminophen is one of the most common drugs in the world, and in the United States, up to 65 percent of all expectant mothers use it.

Today, new medications typically undergo toxicity testing in animals before researchers study their safety and effectiveness in humans, but like many older drugs, acetaminophen didn’t undergo as thorough of a process. “Back in ’55 we weren’t doing preclinical testing for reproductive safety,” said Chambers.

Scientists do know that, in most cases, acetaminophen is the safest way for pregnant women to relieve fever and pain. “Not treating a fever — especially a high fever — can have consequences,” continued Chambers.

Strong data from lab animal and human studies have associated a high fever at certain points in pregnancy with an increased risk of birth defects and other fetal abnormalities. And, while it’s an understudied area, she said, chronic pain is associated with depressive symptoms, insomnia, and other harms to the mother and could adversely affect her pregnancy.

Some common over-the-counter drugs treat both fever and pain, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like aspirin, ibuprofen (Advil), and naproxen (Aleve), but the FDA warns against using any of these after 20 weeks of pregnancy because these drugs can damage the unborn babies’ kidneys.

Meanwhile, other painkillers have their own drawbacks. Babies exposed to opioids during the first trimester of pregnancy are at increased risk for birth defects of the brain, spine, and spinal cord. In addition, studies show that regular use of opioids during pregnancy increases the risk of poor fetal growth, preterm delivery, stillbirth, and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome.

Medicinal cannabis may address pain, and some women might think of it as a natural and, therefore, safe alternative. But there’s very little data available on short- and long-term outcomes for mothers and babies exposed to the potent products available today, said Chambers. Recent studies suggest that cannabis increases the risk of preterm birth and smaller babies, but it’s hard to tease out the effects from other factors. She described the drug’s legalization and increased societal acceptance as “a huge experiment happening now.”

“So, what are you left with?” she asked.

In 1975, Johnson & Johnson began aggressively marketing extra-strength Tylenol to adults. In this 1983 commercial, the product is touted as the most potent pain reliever that can be bought without a prescription:

Rising Rates of Autism and ADHD  

For pregnant people experiencing fever or pain, acetaminophen is widely viewed as the best option. But can it also harm the fetus?

To begin answering this question, researchers have analyzed preexisting datasets of health information, looking for associations between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental problems in children. Such research is referred to as observational, and while it can be useful, this approach can’t typically prove causality.

Autism rates have climbed steadily since the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, first established it as a distinct disorder in 1980. In 2000, 1 in 150 children were diagnosed with autism by the age of eight according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; by 2020, the number had risen to 1 in 36.

ADHD rates increased as well, though not as sharply. In 2019, 6 million children between the ages of 3 and 17 (9.8 percent) had received a diagnosis of ADHD, compared to 4.4 million children in 2003, according to CDC data from a national survey of parents.

Many experts attribute the bulk of that increase to greater awareness and broadening definitions of the disorders. Factors such as improved survival for premature infants and a trend toward starting families later may also play a role, as both prematurity and older parents are associated with increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

In the early 2010s researchers additionally became interested in whether acetaminophen, so commonly used by pregnant people, could affect fetal development.

In 2014, after a couple of observational studies suggested a possible link, the Food and Drug Administration began a formal process to track data on the issue. The findings from the agency’s initial review of the evidence, based on limited and contradictory data, were inconclusive according to a Drug Safety Communication published the following year.

Since then, researchers from several countries, including the U.S., have published a steady stream of observational research. In 2021, an international group of researchers came together to review the evidence and craft a consensus.

“We all sat down and said, it’s time to put all this together; we’ve done reviews, there’s more and more evidence,” said lead author Ann Bauer, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. “We all felt that it was time for women to have this information.”

Of the 29 observational studies involving 220,000 mother-child pairs, 26 linked prenatal use of acetaminophen to neurodevelopmental disorders including ADHD, autism, language delays, lower IQ, and cerebral palsy among others. Sixteen studies showed a more-pronounced effect with longer-term use of the drug.

Bauer pointed out that a handful of observational studies published after the consensus statement also suggest an association.

The group conceded that the observational data is imperfect. The positive association could stem from other factors, such as heredity or the condition that prompted the woman to take the drug. Still, the researchers concluded that the combined weight of the data was strong enough to warrant warning labels on acetaminophen and for health care professional to caution women against indiscriminate use of the drug. Society should act now, they wrote, “not wait unequivocal proof that a chemical is causing harm to our children.”

In science, it’s always possible to find something wrong with individual studies, said David Møbjerg Kristensen, a professor of molecular biology at Roskilde University in Denmark, one of the consensus authors. “But it’s more when you have all the studies lining up that you begin to be concerned,” he said.

‘Irresponsibly Published’

But other experts say that it’s misleading to stack up profoundly limited data and conclude that, as a whole, it carries more weight.

The paper from Bauer’s team was “irresponsibly published,” said Nathaniel DeNicola, an obstetrician-gynecologist based in Orange County, California, who helped review the evidence for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “It did not reflect the preponderance and overall weight of the data, and it did not reflect the clinical context.”

DeNicola, who has expertise in environmental exposures and health policy, pointed out that consensus authors didn’t include numerous reviews, including those from major medical organizations, that drew different conclusions. Both ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, for example, found no clear evidence that acetaminophen causes fetal developmental issues and no reason to change current medical advice and practice.

In the end, neither did the FDA. In 2018, the agency brought the issue before its Medical Policy and Program Review Council, which provides oversight and direction of policies. The council found the available data didn’t warrant changes on acetaminophen labels or updates to the existing safety communication, wrote FDA press officer Charlie Kohler in an email to Undark.

While the agency continues to monitor the issue, it closed the formal tracking process in 2020 said Kohler, because extensive reviews failed to turn up solid evidence of a link between the drug and neurodevelopmental issues.

The gold standard for understanding the effect of a medication is to randomly assign one group to take the drug and another to get a placebo, with neither researchers nor participants knowing who got what until the end of the study. However, those randomized clinical trials rarely include pregnant women because of potential risks to the fetus. As a result, acetaminophen researchers rely on observational studies and laboratory experiments, including those that test the effects of the drug on experimental animals.

It can be difficult, however, to study neurodevelopmental problems in these animals. For one, researchers wouldn’t diagnose ADHD or autism in a mouse, though some research finds that mice exposed to acetaminophen in the womb are more likely to have problems with learning, memory, motor skills, and social behavior. Additionally, the biological mechanisms that lead to a diagnosis in humans are complex and not well understood, said Kristensen, so researchers don’t know what to exactly look for when they study the brains of laboratory animals.

Research in test tubes and lab animals does show that acetaminophen affects several chemical systems involved in brain development. “The compound is doing multiple different things during development at specific time points when the fetus is vulnerable,” said Kristensen. But whether these factors contribute to neurodevelopmental problems, he added, is unclear. Kristensen said that he expects to publish data within the next year or so that could help clarify the connection.

It’s also hard to know what to make of the observational research, which has numerous limitations, according to DeNicola. Many of the studies rely on women’s recall of having taken acetaminophen, which can be faulty weeks and even months later, he said. And instead of a clinical diagnosis of a child’s developmental or behavior disorder, studies often depend on assessments by parents and teachers, which sometimes differ.

One of the biggest issues with the observational research is failing to adequately control for other factors that cause autism and ADHD, particularly heredity, said Per Damkier, head of research in clinical pharmacology at the University of Southern Denmark and a co-author of a consensus rebuttal by the European Network of Teratology Information Services. (Teratology is the study of diseases and conditions that are congenital, or present at birth.) Based on data from Western countries, researchers estimate that up to 80 percent of autism and up to 90 percent of ADHD results from genes children inherited from their parents. If you don’t account for that huge factor, he said, “you inevitably will come up with misleading results.”

For example, a 2017 Pediatrics study included in the original consensus review found that the father’s use of acetaminophen increased a child’s risk of ADHD just as much as the mother’s use during pregnancy. While the researchers theorize that acetaminophen could have altered how the fathers’ genes work, Damkier said that the more likely explanation is that the analysis didn’t sufficiently adjust for heredity.

The pain or illness that prompts a woman to take a pain reliever may also skew the data. In their consensus rebuttal, authors from the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists point to the OTIS’ long-running MotherToBaby study, which found that compared to pregnant women who use acetaminophen for short periods, those who take it longer term report having more mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, and are more likely to take antidepressants — all factors studies suggest are associated with ADHD and autism in children.

In a 2020 study, epidemiologist Reem Masarwa, then a postdoctoral fellow at McGill University in Montreal, and colleagues explored whether confounding factors such as heredity and maternal illness could be biasing acetaminophen research.

The group reanalyzed data from a meta-analysis Masarwa had published two years earlier, which had found a 35 percent increased risk of ADHD in children exposed to prenatal acetaminophen. This time the researchers stringently adjusted for parental ADHD and migraines in the mother.  The ADHD risk nearly disappeared.

‘There’s Something Biological Going On’

The consensus authors cite two studies that overcome the limitation of relying on a mother’s memory of acetaminophen use. The first, a 2019 study, tested umbilical cord blood for traces of acetaminophen and the second, published in 2020, measured acetaminophen in babies’ first bowel movement. Both found that the higher the prenatal exposure to acetaminophen, the greater the chance of a child receiving a physician diagnosis of a neurodevelopmental disorder.

“The beautiful thing about the new studies coming out is that the better the study, the stronger the associations,” said Kristensen. “Suddenly, you can see dose response, which is something we always look for because that argues that there’s something biological going on.”

However, both of those studies have drawbacks as well. Acetaminophen only lingers in the blood for a few hours, so the implication of the cord-blood study is that a single dose right before birth could have a dramatic effect on a child’s brain. Many experts find that result implausible.

Testing a newborn’s bowel movement may be a better measure as it is thought to reflect the mother’s use of acetaminophen during the last two trimesters of pregnancy. But as with some other observational studies, the researchers didn’t account for why the mother took the drug in the first place.

Plaintiff attorney Ashley Keller said that his first responsibility is to help his clients win compensation. In addition, he said, there’s also a public health issue at stake in that the women need full information to make informed decisions.

In April, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who is presiding over the pre-trial proceedings, took the unusual step of inviting federal regulators to provide an opinion on whether the science warrants adding a warning to acetaminophen labels about an association between prenatal exposure and ADHD and autism.

The FDA declined to comment on whether the agency would weigh in by the end of July as requested by Judge Cote.

Claiming that FDA regulations and federal laws prevent them from changing Tylenol labels, Johnson & Johnson is pushing for a dismissal. The company continues to evaluate the science and has not seen any evidence that acetaminophen use during pregnancy causes fetal development issues, Witt, the company spokesperson, wrote in an email. “Leading medical organizations agree with the current product label which clearly states, ‘If pregnant or breast-feeding, ask a health professional before use.’”

Bauer said the lawsuits are helping get the word out about the accumulating research on acetaminophen’s risks. Up until now, she said, a lot of women have viewed the drug as “completely innocuous,” something to take “whenever they are in discomfort.” Others disagree. DeNicola said that the women he sees in his practice are conscientious about using acetaminophen.

One thing everyone agrees on is the recommendations for acetaminophen use, said DeNicola: “Use it only where indicated in the lowest dose for the shortest duration.” So, for pain or fever that means taking one pill, one time, to see if symptoms ease, he said.

Another point of real consensus is the need for more research. Bauer said that several groups are looking at possible mechanisms for how acetaminophen could affect development. “As far as the epidemiology, there’s a pretty perfect study that could be done,” she said, pointing out that, with smartphones, women can easily record what they take and why. “But it’s going to take us many, many years is the problem.”

“Something that is potentially this important for, not just fetal, but for childhood brain development should be studied,” DeNicola said. “And it should be studied in a real way.” For example, he would like to see studies that use blood tests and other measures throughout pregnancy to accurately track exposures not just to acetaminophen, but also to environmental substances of greater concern to fetal development, such as industrial chemicals. And, since a baby’s brain continues to develop after birth, studies should account for use of acetaminophen in childhood — a glaring omission from most of the current research, said DeNicola.

At the moment, no one is conducting exactly that type of study on acetaminophen.

However, FDA spokesperson Charlie Kohler said that agency is conducting a small study to see how people’s bodies absorb, metabolize, and excrete the drug. The agency is also planning a toxicology study in 2024, pending approval of funding.

And Chambers said that she is coordinating a study funded by the National Institutes of Health of about 8,000 mother-child pairs in 25 sites across the U.S. The Healthy Brain and Child Development Study will capture information on prenatal exposures, including to acetaminophen, and use brain imaging and standardized assessments to track brain development in children. Researchers will release data annually, so information on prenatal exposure to acetaminophen will begin to emerge in the next couple of years, she said.

If there’s anything good to come out of the controversy, it’s that every drug, over the counter or not, deserves rigorous research on safety, said Chambers — and society hasn’t invested in systematically doing that type of research. She pointed out that while the FDA requires new drugs to be assessed for safety during pregnancy, nobody has the resources of motivation to do that for old drugs like acetaminophen.

“And we need to stop that,” said Chambers. “We need to turn that wheel around, pay attention and do the work that needs to be done.”

This article was originally published by Undark, a non-profit, editorially independent online magazine covering the complicated and often fractious intersection of science and society. You can read the original article here.

Home Delivery of Rx Opioids Would Help Chronic Pain Patients

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

We hear almost every day from people in pain who say they can’t get an opioid prescription filled because their pharmacy is out of stock. Often, the pharmacist has no idea when the next shipment of pain medication is coming.

“Walgreens cannot fill my prescription. They say the drug is on back order with no ship date available,” a patient recently told us.

“20 years on the same Rx for Vicodin and now CVS says they are out of stock and no idea when it will be available,” another patient wrote.

“Just talked to a pharmacist today that said they are out of Percocet, Vicodin and morphine. They said that their supplier, Cardinal Health, wasn't sure when they would get more,” said another patient.

Now imagine, if you will, what it would be like to have a pharmacy that delivers opioid medication directly to your home. No more standing in line at the pharmacy. No more dirty looks from the pharmacist. No more excuses about being out of stock.

For about 1,000 patients in the Philadelphia area, most of them chronic pain sufferers, that fantasy is a reality. They are customers of a boutique pharmacy in the Delaware Valley that specializes in home deliveries of controlled substances – including high dose opioids.  Prescriptions and refills are delivered on a carefully managed schedule before a patient runs out, becomes disabled by uncontrolled pain, and goes into withdrawal.

“We hand deliver directly to the patient. I have a whole delivery team. They're our own drivers, our own vehicles,” says Brian Dunleavy, CEO of PMC Pharmacy. “Our customers get notified when their delivery is anticipated to arrive at their home. And then every patient has to sign for it. They have to be present or we can't leave it there. Or it has to be an adult that's been authorized to receive the medication.”

I first heard of PMC Pharmacy when it sent out a news release last month to address difficulties that some patients have getting opioids and other controlled medications from other pharmacies in the Delaware Valley. PMC said it could help those patients avoid gaps in drug therapy and was committed to keeping them “on schedule, at home, and independent.”

“We should really have every chronic pain management patient in the Delaware Valley under our care because of the way our program works,” Dunleavy told PNN.

While big chain pharmacies and their wholesale drug suppliers are under increased scrutiny from law enforcement and regulators, PMC flies under the radar because its customers’ medical conditions, prescriptions and insurance claims are carefully documented – reducing the risk of diversion or misuse.     

“We won't take patients from a typical primary care practice, we're only working with chronic pain specialists who give us (patient) chart notes and supporting documentation to satisfy our wholesalers’ desires that we're doing due diligence on all these doctors and all these patients, and making sure that there's a legitimate need for the medication,” Dunleavy explained. “The diversion isn't coming from the people that are legitimate chronic pain patients. Those people hold onto that medication as if it's their lifeline.”

Trifecta of Problems

The supply of opioids and other controlled substances is tight because of a trifecta of problems that have hamstrung the pharmaceutical industry.

First, the Drug Enforcement Administration has been aggressively cutting opioid production quotas for nearly a decade, reducing the supply of oxycodone by 65% and hydrocodone by 73% since 2013.

Second is the fallout from opioid litigation. The nation’s three largest drug wholesalers reached a $21 billion settlement with 46 states, requiring them to impose strict limits on opioid shipments to pharmacies. CVS, Walgreens and other pharmacy chains have also paid tens of billions of dollars to settle lawsuits that alleged they helped fuel the overdose crisis by dispensing too many opioids.  

The third reason for tight supplies is a retooling of the generic drug industry. There’s little money to be made in selling most opioids and there’s a risk of further liability, so drug makers are cutting back production of many generic opioids.  One of the world’s largest manufacturers of generics, Teva Pharmaceutical, recently notified the FDA that it was discontinuing production of oxycodone.

It all adds up to an increasing number of drug shortages, involving not just opioids, but medications used to treat cancer, anxiety and attention deficit disorder. Dunleavy thinks the shortages are a direct result of regulatory overreach.

“You have all these things going on and everybody's like, ‘Oh well, there's a shortage of oxycodone out there.’ And in actuality, there isn't. It's a regulatory created shortage, which is why there's a discrepancy between what we're hearing from patients versus what we see at the on the wholesalers’ shelves,” he explained. “The pharmacies can't get those drugs because they're quantity restricted by the wholesalers, based on the programs that the wholesalers have implemented to police the pharmacies.”

Dunleavy says PMC would like to add more patients to its customer base, provided they live in its delivery area in southeastern Pennsylvania and parts of New Jersey and Delaware that border Philadelphia. He’s confident he’ll be able to get the additional medication from suppliers.

“You're not going to have a better adherence and compliance program from a pharmacy than ours,” he said. “Because our program is pain management specific, once we start working with a practice, we start getting quite a few referrals. So it's very easy for us to start growing.”

Could PMC’s business model be adopted by other pharmacies? With pain management under so much scrutiny, Dunleavy says home deliveries to selected patients make sense.

“There's a legitimate need for a pharmacy that puts in a little bit more effort, that's a little bit more specialized. Because the regulatory environment requires it, the patients require it, and the physicians require it,” he said.

“This is a very interesting concept. It almost sounds too good to be true, but if it really works it would be tremendously helpful to many chronically ill people,” says Kristen Ogden, a patient advocate in Virginia. “I think this concept may be really helpful to house-bound patients and persons with limited access to transportation, especially those who don't have an engaged family member helping them.”  

For many years, Kristen and her husband Louis have traveled to California to get the high dose opioids he needs to treat severe pain from arachnoiditis and Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. Not having to make that monthly cross-country trip for refills would be a welcome relief to the Ogdens.  

“It would be great to think this sort of service would be available to us as we get older, especially since we have no children and no other family members who live in our area to assist us. This could certainly be a big factor in enabling older adults to continue living in their own homes if that's what they prefer to do,” Kristen said. 

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists put immediate release oxycodone on its list of drug shortages in March and added hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets to the list in May.  Neither shortage has yet to be recognized by the FDA, although many patients are already well aware that both medications are in short supply. 

“I've been waiting for over a week for oxycodone to come in. Over the last weekend, I went to over 25 different pharmacies searching, until I couldn't drive anymore. It's not fair to any of us!” a pain patient recently told PNN

Patients Squeezed in Fight Over Costly Infusion Drugs

By Samantha Liss, KFF Health News

Health insurers and medical providers are battling over who should supply high-cost infusion drugs for patients, with the tussle over profits now spilling into statehouses across the country.

The issue is that some insurers are bypassing hospital pharmacies and physician offices and instead sending more complex drugs through third-party pharmacies. Those pharmacies then send the medications directly to the medical provider or facility for outpatient infusing, which is called “white bagging,” or, more rarely, to patients, in what is called “brown bagging.” That shifts who gets to buy and bill for these complex medications, including pricey chemotherapy drugs.

Insurers say the policies are needed because hospital markups are too high. But hospitals argue that adding an intermediary results in unnecessary risks and delays, and they say some insurers have their own or affiliated pharmacy companies, creating financial motives for controlling the source of the medications. The patients, meanwhile, are left to deal with the red tape.

Paula Bruton Shepard in Bolivar, Missouri, is among those caught in the middle. Flares of lupus, an autoimmune disease, rob Shepard of her mobility by attacking her joints. She relies on monthly infusions to treat her symptoms.

PAULA SHEPARD

But at times, she said, her treatments were delayed due to UnitedHealthcare’s white bagging infusion policy. And interruptions to her treatments exacerbated her symptoms.

“I once had to use a toilet lift and it was kind of demoralizing to say, ‘I’m a 50-year-old woman and I have to use a toilet lift,’” Shepard said of the medication delays.

This is a tug of war over profits between insurers and medical providers, said Ge Bai, a professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University. While insurers claim the arrangement reduces costs, she said, that doesn’t mean insurers pass along savings to patients.

“I don’t think we should have more sympathy toward one party or the other,” Bai said. “Nobody is better than the other. They’re all trying to make money.”

The savings from white bagging can be significant for expensive infusion drugs, according to a report from the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission. For example, Remicade, used to treat a variety of inflammatory diseases, including Crohn’s, cost on average $1,106 per unit in 2015 under hospitals’ traditional buy-and-bill system, the commission found in its review of state claims data. That same drug cost an average of $975 per unit under white bagging, a 12% savings.

But the report also found patients, on average, faced higher cost sharing — what they are responsible for paying — for Remicade and other drugs when white bagging was used. While some patients had only modest increases to their costs under the policy, such as $12 more for a medication, the review found it could mean much greater cost sharing for some patients, such as those on Medicare.

Delays in Care

At Citizens Memorial Hospital in rural Bolivar, more than 1 in 4 patients who receive regular infusions are being forced to use an outside pharmacy, said Mariah Hollabaugh, the hospital’s pharmacy director. Shepard was among them.

Even if the hospital has the exact drug on the shelf, patients must wait for a separate shipment, Hollabaugh said, potentially interrupting care. Their shipped drugs may sometimes be unusable when the doctor needs to change the dosage. Or the medicine comes in a nondescript package that doesn’t get immediately flagged for the pharmacy, potentially subjecting the drugs to damaging temperature fluctuations. For patients, that can mean delays in care.

“They’re in pain, they’re uncomfortable,” Hollabaugh said. “They may be having symptoms that don’t allow them to go to work.”

Siteman Cancer Center, led by physicians from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, has confronted the same issue. But the cancer center’s size has helped it largely avoid such insurer policies.

John DiPersio, a Siteman oncologist and researcher who led the university’s oncology division for more than two decades, said Siteman reluctantly allows white bagging for simple injectables but refuses to accept it for complicated chemotherapies. It does not accept brown bagging. Occasionally, he said, that means turning patients away.

“You’re talking about cancer patients that are getting life-threatening treatments,” DiPersio said, referring to the dangers of chemo drugs, which he said can be fatal if used improperly. “It doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s all stupid. It’s all lunacy.”

At least 21 states, including Missouri, introduced some form of white or brown bagging legislation during the most recent legislative session, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. And in the past two years, the trade group said, at least 13 states have already enacted restrictions on white bagging, including Arkansas, Louisiana, and Virginia.

ASHP has created model legislation to limit insurers from requiring the practices as a condition of coverage.

“This is a major issue,” said Tom Kraus, a vice president at the trade group. “We see this as central to our ability to coordinate patient care.”

At the heart of the tension is an often-litigated federal program that allows certain hospitals and the clinics they own to purchase drugs at deep discounts. The 340B program, named for a section of the law that created it, allows hospitals to buy certain drugs for much less — sometimes for a total cost of a single penny — than what they are later paid for those drugs. Hospitals are not required to pass along 340B savings to patients.

The program was intended to help hospitals spread scarce resources further to treat patients in poor and vulnerable communities, but it has morphed into a means of enriching hospitals and their affiliated clinics, researchers said in a 2014 Health Affairs report. Hollabaugh said many rural facilities such as Citizens rely on the revenue generated from the 340B drugs to subsidize infusions that have no profit margin.

The number of participating hospitals and their affiliated outpatient clinics has increased significantly since the 340B program was created in 1992. More than 2,600 of the nation’s roughly 6,100 hospitals were participating in the 340B program as of January 2023. That gives them access to discounts that can knock off as much as 50% of a drug’s cost, according to the Health Resources & Services Administration, which oversees the program.

‘People Got Greedy’

The insurance industry argues that hospital markups, especially when made on top of those discounts, have gotten out of control.

“The fact is, people got greedy,” Shannon Cooper, a lobbyist for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, said during a Missouri state Senate hearing in March.

Markups are not unique to 340B hospitals, said Sean Dickson, who helps lead pharmaceutical policy for AHIP, a trade group formerly known as America’s Health Insurance Plans. The markups thrusted on commercial plans are “widely out of line” with what Medicare will pay, he said, and that is driving up costs without providing additional value.

Legislation that targets white bagging hinders an insurer’s ability to rein in such costs, Dickson said, especially when an area lacks competition.

“What we're really trying to focus on here is putting pressure on those markups that are not related to cost or safety,” Dickson said.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield lobbyist David Smith testified during the March hearing in Missouri that even the idea of white bagging elicited a quick response and that almost every major hospital system in the state said they would drop their prices and come back to the negotiation table.

For now, Citizens Memorial Hospital and other Missouri medical facilities will have to continue to tango with the insurers: Legislation to limit white and brown bagging did not pass during the Missouri General Assembly’s recent session.

Shepard, though, won’t need such legislation.

UnitedHealthcare had been sending her lupus infusion through other pharmacies on and off since 2021, unwilling to cover the drugs if they came from Citizens’ in-house pharmacy. Shepard had to authorize each shipment before it was sent. If she missed the monthly call, she said, it was a “bureaucratic mess” trying to get the medication shipped.

“We are driving unnecessary costs out of the health care system to help make care more affordable, while also maintaining drug safety, effectiveness and quality of care,” UnitedHealthcare spokesperson Tony Marusic wrote.

But after KFF Health News inquired about Shepard’s case, Marusic said UnitedHealthcare stopped white bagging Shepard’s medication to “prevent potential delays in shipping.” And during her latest infusion in June, her hospital was again able to supply Shepard’s medication directly.

“I'm just so relieved,” Shepard said. “I don't have to take phone calls. I don't have to reply to emails. I just show up.”

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