How Technology Could Improve Healthcare in Underserved Communities

By Barby Ingle, PNN Columnist 

This year I was fortunate to visit all 15 counties in Arizona, from large cities and rural areas to those considered “frontier” and tribal reservations. I talked to patients, providers and caregivers about the stress points in their access to healthcare. I was in towns with no EMS, no hospital, and no specialists.

Seeing these disparities in healthcare closeup was an eye-opener for me. Imagine being injured or needing surgery, and you must take a helicopter to get immediate care. It’s like living on another planet.  

We can ensure that underserved communities have equal access to healthcare services, regardless of location, by providing remote and rural areas with access to telemedicine. Although the ability to access the internet is still difficult in some areas, services like Elon Musk's Star Link are being utilized to improve healthcare no matter where you live. 

With the recent pandemic, we were able to utilize telemedicine more often and see advancements in digital health solutions. Healthcare professionals can now remotely diagnose, treat and monitor patients from a distance. But will relaxed telehealth rules continue in the same form now that the pandemic has ended? Many of the details are still being worked out.

Mobile applications and wearable devices enable patients to monitor their vital signs and share the data with providers, allowing for remote monitoring and proactive intervention. They can also empower patients to more closely monitor their own health, receive medical advice, and manage chronic conditions from their homes.

With the increased availability of internet connectivity and mobile networks, technology has the potential to revolutionize healthcare delivery and improve health outcomes in remote and underserved regions. Several steps can be taken to address the digital divide in healthcare between urban and rural areas.

First, it is crucial to educate individuals about the benefits of technology and digital health tools. Technology can reduce transportation barriers, provide on-demand health advice, and minimize the risk of exposure to infectious diseases by enabling patients to stay at home.

Second, partnerships between stakeholders, such as academia, the private sector and government can help narrow the digital divide by leveraging resources to place healthcare technology where it is most needed. By building awareness, partnerships and targeting resources, it will be possible to bridge the digital divide and ensure that all communities have access to healthcare technology.

Here are some specific steps that can be taken:

• Conduct a comprehensive needs assessment in underserved communities to understand their unique healthcare challenges, cultural context and technological requirements. A needs assessment can involve surveys, interviews and focus group discussions with community members, healthcare providers and other stakeholders.

• Engage community members, healthcare professionals, and technology experts in a co-design approach. This means collaborating with the community to design and develop healthcare technology solutions that align with its needs, preferences and capabilities.  

• Adopt a user-centered design approach to make sure healthcare technology is user friendly.  Involve people from underserved communities in testing and interface design to ensure the technology is accessible, culturally appropriate and easy to operate.

• Consider the affordability and sustainability of healthcare technology by addressing cost barriers. ensuring compatibility with low-resource settings, and developing tools that can operate with limited infrastructure or connectivity.

• Provide training and support for people to utilize healthcare technology effectively. The training should include digital literacy programs, capacity-building workshops, and ongoing technical assistance.  

By involving underserved communities in the design process, healthcare technology can be tailored to their specific needs, leading to increased adoption and improved healthcare outcomes. It is crucial to prioritize the needs of these communities to ensure that they are included in the design and development of healthcare technology. By doing so, we can create more effective and sustainable solutions that genuinely address the healthcare challenges faced by underserved communities.

I am grateful for the opportunity to talk to patients, providers and caregivers in Arizona, thanks to a grant from HealtheVoices, Respond & Rescue, KB Companies and the International Pain Foundation. I look forward to continuing to gather feedback from underserved communities nationwide. By listening to patients and understanding their unique healthcare challenges, we can work towards creating meaningful solutions that improve access to care and overall health outcomes. 

Barby Ingle is a reality TV personality living with multiple rare and chronic diseases. She is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, motivational speaker, and best-selling author on pain topics. You can follow Barby at www.barbyingle.com. 

FDA Recalls Abbott Stimulators for Technical Malfunction

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

After receiving reports of dozens of injuries, the Food and Drug Administration has issued a Class I recall for two models of implantable neurostimulators due to a technical malfunction. The recall affects over 155,000 of Abbott’s Proclaim and Infinity devices, which are primarily used in spinal cord and deep brain stimulation.

Although Class I recalls are the most serious type of recall because they may result in injuries or death, patients are not being advised at this time to have the devices surgically removed. The stimulators were implanted in some patients as far back as 2015.

The malfunction occurs when the devices are temporarily turned off when a patient is having magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). There have been 186 complaints of patients being unable to turn the devices back on once the MRI ends, resulting in a loss of therapy and 73 injuries. No deaths have been reported.

In July, Abbott sent an “urgent medical device correction” letter to healthcare providers who install the devices, to clarify instructions on how to exit MRI mode.

The letter also advises providers to tell patients not to delete their device controller’s connection to Bluetooth if a malfunction occurs, and to update their systems and consult with a physician before having an MRI scan.   

ABBOTT IMAGE

Abbott estimates that only about 0.06% of the recalled devices malfunctioned, with 0.03% of them resulting in loss of therapy and additional surgery.   

The following devices are included in the recall:

• Proclaim XR 5 IPG Model 3660 (previously known as the ‘Proclaim 5 Elite IPG Model 3660’)

• Proclaim XR 7 IPG Model 3662 (Previously known as the ‘Proclaim 7 Elite IPG Model 3662’)

• Proclaim Plus 5 IPG Model 3670

• Proclaim Plus 7 IPG Model 3672

• Proclaim DRG IPG Model 3664

• Infinity 5 IPG Model 6660

• Infinity 7 IPG Model 6662

Implantable neurostimulators are an invasive treatment of last resort for people with chronic back, leg or head pain. The devices are surgically implanted near the spine or brain, and emit low-level electrical impulses to block pain signals.

About 50,000 spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) are implanted annually in the U.S. and their use is growing – in part because of the belief they’ll reduce the need for opioids and other pain therapies. A recent study found that many patients with stimulators did not reduce their use of opioids, epidurals, corticosteroid injections or radiofrequency ablation; and about one in five had complications so severe the devices had to be removed or revised.

A 2018 study found that SCSs have some of the worst safety records of medical devices tracked by the FDA. An FDA review of adverse events involving stimulators found that nearly a third were reports of poor pain relief. The review also identified nearly 500 deaths linked to the devices, along with nearly 78,000 injuries and 30,000 malfunctions.

‘A Devil’s Bargain’: Why Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Sticking with Humira

By Arthur Allen, KFF Health News

Tennessee last year spent $48 million on a single drug, Humira — about $62,000 for each of the 775 patients who were covered by its employee health insurance program and receiving the treatment. So when nine Humira knockoffs, known as biosimilars, hit the market for as little as $995 a month, the opportunity for savings appeared ample and immediate.

But it isn’t here yet. Makers of biosimilars must still work within a health care system in which basic economics rarely seems to hold sway.

For real competition to take hold, the big pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, the companies that negotiate prices and set the prescription drug menu for 80% of insured patients in the United States, would have to position the new drugs favorably in health plans.

They haven’t, though the logic for doing so seems plain.

Humira has enjoyed high-priced U.S. exclusivity for 20 years. Its challengers could save the health care system $9 billion and herald savings from the whole class of drugs called biosimilars — a windfall akin to the hundreds of billions saved each year through the purchase of generic drugs.

The biosimilars work the same way as Humira, an injectable treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. And countries such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Poland have moved more than 90% of their Humira patients to the rival drugs since they launched in Europe in 2018.

Kaiser Permanente, which oversees medical care for 12 million people in eight U.S. states, switched most of its patients to a biosimilar in February and expects to save $300 million this year alone.

Biosimilars Are Cheaper

Biologics — both the brand-name drugs and their imitators, or biosimilars — are made with living cells, such as yeast or bacteria. With dozens of biologics nearing the end of their patent protection in the next two decades, biosimilars could generate much higher savings than generics, said Paul Holmes, a partner at Williams Barber Morel who works with self-insured health plans. That’s because biologics are much more expensive than pills and other formulations made through simpler chemical processes.

For example, after the first generics for the blockbuster anti-reflux drug Nexium hit the market in 2015, they cost around $10 a month, compared with Nexium’s $100 price tag. Coherus BioSciences launched its Humira biosimilar, Yusimry, in July at $995 per two-syringe carton, compared with Humira’s $6,600 list price for a nearly identical product.

“The percentage savings might be similar, but the total dollar savings are much bigger,” Holmes said, “as long as the plan sponsors, the employers, realize the opportunity.”

That’s a big if.

While a manufacturer may need to spend a few million dollars to get a generic pill ready to market, makers of biosimilars say their development can require up to eight years and $200 million. The business won’t work unless they gain significant market share, they say.

The biggest hitch seems to be the PBMs. Express Scripts and Optum Rx, two of the three giant PBMs, have put biosimilars on their formularies, but at the same price as Humira. That gives doctors and patients little incentive to switch. So Humira remains dominant for now.

“We’re not seeing a lot of takeup of the biosimilar,” said Keith Athow, pharmacy director for Tennessee’s group insurance program, which covers 292,000 state and local employees and their dependents.

The ongoing saga of Humira — its peculiar appeal to drug middlemen and insurers, the patients who’ve benefited, the patients who’ve suffered as its list price jumped sixfold since 2003 — exemplifies the convoluted U.S. health care system, whose prescription drug coverage can be spotty and expenditures far more unequal than in other advanced economies.

Biologics like Humira occupy a growing share of U.S. health care spending, with their costs increasing 12.5% annually over the past five years. The drugs are increasingly important in treating cancers and autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, that afflict about 1 in 10 Americans.

Humira’s $200 billion in global sales make it the best-selling drug in history. Its manufacturer, AbbVie, has aggressively defended the drug, filing more than 240 patents and deploying legal threats and tweaks to the product to keep patent protections and competitors at bay.

The company’s fight for Humira didn’t stop when the biosimilars finally appeared. The drugmaker has told investors it doesn’t expect to lose much market share through 2024. “We are competing very effectively with the various biosimilar offerings,” AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez said during an earnings call.

How AbbVie Maintains Market Share

One of AbbVie’s strategies was to warn health plans that if they recommended biosimilars over Humira they would lose rebates on purchases of Skyrizi and Rinvoq, two drugs with no generic imitators that are each listed at about $120,000 a year, according to PBM officials. In other words, dropping one AbbVie drug would lead to higher costs for others.

Industry sources also say the PBMs persuaded AbbVie to increase its Humira rebates — the end-of-the-year payments, based on total use of the drug, which are mostly passed along by the PBMs to the health plan sponsors. Although rebate numbers are kept secret and vary widely, some reportedly jumped this year by 40% to 60% of the drug’s list price.

The leading PBMs — Express Scripts, Optum, and CVS Caremark — are powerful players, each part of a giant health conglomerate that includes a leading insurer, specialty pharmacies, doctors’ offices, and other businesses, some of them based overseas for tax advantages.

Yet challenges to PBM practices are mounting. The Federal Trade Commission began a major probe of the companies last year. Kroger canceled its pharmacy contract with Express Scripts last fall, saying it had no bargaining power in the arrangement, and, on Aug. 17, the insurer Blue Shield of California announced it was severing most of its business with CVS Caremark for similar reasons.

Critics of the top PBMs see the Humira biosimilars as a potential turning point for the secretive business processes that have contributed to stunningly high drug prices.

Although list prices for Humira are many times higher than those of the new biosimilars, discounts and rebates offered by AbbVie make its drug more competitive. But even if health plans were paying only, say, half of the net amount they pay for Humira now — and if several biosimilar makers charged as little as a sixth of the gross price — the costs could fall by around $30,000 a year per patient, said Greg Baker, CEO of AffirmedRx, a smaller PBM that is challenging the big companies.

Multiplied by the 313,000 patients currently prescribed Humira, that comes to about $9 billion in annual savings — a not inconsequential 1.4% of total national spending on pharmaceuticals in 2022.

The launch of the biosimilar Yusimry, which is being sold through Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs pharmacy and elsewhere, “should send off alarms to the employers,” said Juliana Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, an industry group. “They are going to ask, ‘Time out, why are you charging me 85% more, Mr. PBM, than what Mark Cuban is offering? What is going on in this system?’”

Cheaper drugs could make it easier for patients to pay for their drugs and presumably make them healthier. A KFF survey in 2022 found that nearly a fifth of adults reported not filling a prescription because of the cost. Reports of Humira patients quitting the drug for its cost are rife.

Inflated Sticker Prices

When Sue Lee of suburban Louisville, Kentucky, retired as an insurance claims reviewer and went on Medicare in 2017, she learned that her monthly copay for Humira, which she took to treat painful plaque psoriasis, was rising from $60 to $8,000 a year.

It was a particularly bitter experience for Lee, now 81, because AbbVie had paid her for the previous three years to proselytize for the drug by chatting up dermatology nurses at fancy AbbVie-sponsored dinners. Casting about for a way to stay on the drug, Lee asked the company for help, but her income at the time was too high to qualify her for its assistance program.

“They were done with me,” she said. Lee went off the drug, and within a few weeks the psoriasis came back with a vengeance. Sores covered her calves, torso, and even the tips of her ears. Months later she got relief by entering a clinical trial for another drug.

Health plans are motivated to keep Humira as a preferred choice out of convenience, inertia, and fear. While such data is secret, one Midwestern firm with 2,500 employees told KFF Health News that AbbVie had effectively lowered Humira’s net cost to the company by 40% after July 1, the day most of the biosimilars launched.

One of the top three PBMs, CVS Caremark, announced in August that it was creating a partnership with drugmaker Sandoz to market its own cut-rate version of Humira, called Hyrimoz, in 2024. But Caremark didn’t appear to be fully embracing even its own biosimilar. Officials from the PBM notified customers that Hyrimoz will be on the same tier as Humira to “maximize rebates” from AbbVie, Tennessee’s Athow said.

Most of the rebates are passed along to health plans, the PBMs say. But if the state of Tennessee received a check for, say, $20 million at the end of last year, it was merely getting back some of the $48 million it already spent.

“It’s a devil’s bargain,” said Michael Thompson, president and CEO of the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions. “The happiest day of a benefit executive’s year is walking into the CFO’s office with a several-million-dollar check and saying, ‘Look what I got you!’”

Executives from the leading PBMs have said their clients prefer high-priced, high-rebate drugs, but that’s not the whole story. Some of the fees and other payments that PBMs, distributors, consultants, and wholesalers earn are calculated based on a drug’s price, which gives them equally misplaced incentives, said Antonio Ciaccia, CEO of 46Brooklyn, a nonprofit that researches the drug supply chain.

“The large intermediaries are wedded to inflated sticker prices,” said Ciaccia.

AbbVie has warned some PBMs that if Humira isn’t offered on the same tier as biosimilars it will stop paying rebates for the drug, according to Alex Jung, a forensic accountant who consults with the Midwest Business Group on Health.

AbbVie did not respond to requests for comment.

One of the low-cost Humira biosimilars, Organon’s Hadlima, has made it onto several formularies, the ranked lists of drugs that health plans offer patients, since launching in February, but “access alone does not guarantee success” and doesn’t mean patients will get the product, Kevin Ali, Organon’s CEO, said in an earnings call in August.

If the biosimilars are priced no lower than Humira on health plan formularies, rheumatologists will lack an incentive to prescribe them. When PBMs put drugs on the same “tier” on a formulary, the patient’s copay is generally the same.

In an emailed statement, Optum Rx said that by adding several biosimilars to its formularies at the same price as Humira, “we are fostering competition while ensuring the broadest possible choice and access for those we serve.”

Switching a patient involves administrative costs for the patient, health plan, pharmacy, and doctor, said Marcus Snow, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

Doctors Reluctant to Switch

Doctors seem reluctant to move patients off Humira. After years of struggling with insurance, the biggest concern of the patient and the rheumatologist, Snow said, is “forced switching by the insurer. If the patient is doing well, any change is concerning to them.” Still, the American College of Rheumatology recently distributed a video informing patients of the availability of biosimilars, and “the data is there that there’s virtually no difference,” Snow said. “We know the cost of health care is exploding. But at the same time, my job is to make my patient better. That trumps everything.”

“All things being equal, I like to keep the patient on the same drug,” said Madelaine Feldman, a New Orleans rheumatologist.

Gastrointestinal specialists, who often prescribe Humira for inflammatory bowel disease, seem similarly conflicted. American Gastroenterological Association spokesperson Rachel Shubert said the group’s policy guidance “opposes nonmedical switching” by an insurer, unless the decision is shared by provider and patient. But Siddharth Singh, chair of the group’s clinical guidelines committee, said he would not hesitate to switch a new patient to a biosimilar, although “these decisions are largely insurance-driven.”

HealthTrust, a company that procures drugs for about 2 million people, has had only five patients switch from Humira this year, said Cora Opsahl, director of the Service Employees International Union’s 32BJ Health Fund, a New York state plan that procures drugs through HealthTrust.

But the biosimilar companies hope to slowly gain market footholds. Companies like Coherus will have a niche and “they might be on the front end of a wave,” said Ciaccia, given employers’ growing demands for change in the system.

The $2,000 out-of-pocket cap on Medicare drug spending that goes into effect in 2025 under the Inflation Reduction Act could spur more interest in biosimilars. With insurers on the hook for more of a drug’s cost, they should be looking for cheaper options.

For Kaiser Permanente, the move to biosimilars was obvious once the company determined they were safe and effective, said Mary Beth Lang, KP’s chief pharmacy officer. The first Humira biosimilar, Amjevita, was 55% cheaper than the original drug, and she indicated that KP was paying even less since more drastically discounted biosimilars launched. Switched patients pay less for their medication than before, she said, and very few have tried to get back on Humira.

Prescryptive, a small PBM that promises transparent policies, switched 100% of its patients after most of the other biosimilars entered the market July 1 “with absolutely no interruption of therapy, no complaints, and no changes,” said Rich Lieblich, the company’s vice president for clinical services and industry relations.

AbbVie declined to respond to him with a competitive price, he said.

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

Moderation – Not Prohibition – Is Key to Treating ER Patients With Opioids

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Over the years many people living with pain have told us that they avoid going emergency rooms because they fear their pain will be ignored and that they’ll be treated as an addict if they ask for opioids.  

“Going to the ER terrifies me and I am an RN,” one patient said. “I was recently there on 2 separate episodes for kidney stones. Over a three-day period they gave me absolutely nothing for pain!” 

“I can't and won't return to an ER even if I am dying because I won't accept being treated like an addict ever again,” said a 60-year-old disabled woman.  

“It took me 12 hours and a staged public fit to get any pain relief at my local ER when I went in with a pinched nerve,” another patient told us. 

“Called suicide hotline and was told to go to ER,” said a woman suffering from a severe flare from rheumatoid arthritis. “Well, that was a waste. Told I was drug seeking and received a hefty bill to pile on top of all the others.”

A new study suggests that moderation – not prohibition -- is the key to treating pain in the ER with opioids. Researchers in Canada found that half of patients discharged from an emergency department needed only a handful of opioid tablets to control their pain.

“Patients are often prescribed too many opioid tablets and that means unused tablets are available for misuse,” Raoul Daoust, MD, a professor of Family and Emergency at University of Montreal, said in a press release. “On the other hand, since the opioid crisis, the tendency in the USA is to not prescribe opioids at all, leaving some patient in agonising pain.

“With this research I wanted to provide a tailored approach to prescribing opioids so that patients have enough to manage their pain but almost no unused tablets available for misuse.”

Daoust and his colleagues surveyed 2,240 adult patients who were treated for acute pain at one of six hospital emergency departments in Canada. All were discharged with an opioid prescription and were asked to complete a pain diary for two weeks.

Their findings, presented over the weekend at the European Emergency Medicine Congress in Spain, showed five or fewer morphine tablets (5mg) were adequate for about half the patients. The rest needed more tablets, depending on their condition. For example, patients suffering from renal colic or abdominal pain needed eight tablets, while a patient with broken bones needed 24 tablets. 

Daoust says emergency room physicians need to recognize that morphine can be “very beneficial” for patients. The key is to individualize treatment and prescribe the right amount to minimize the risk of addiction.

“Our findings make it possible to adapt the quantity of opioids we prescribe according to patient need. We could ask the pharmacist to also provide opioids in small portions, such as five tablets initially, because for half of patients that would be enough to last them for two weeks,” said Daoust.

The researchers plan to apply their findings in a clinical setting to evaluate whether they can reduce the long-term use and misuse of opioids. 

“This study shows how opioid prescriptions could be adapted to specific acute pain conditions, and how they could be dispensed in relatively small numbers at the pharmacy to lower the chance of misuse. This research could provide a safer way to prescribe opioids that could be applied in emergency departments anywhere in the world,” said Youri Yordanov, MD, an emergency physician at Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, who was not involved in the research.

A large 2017 study found that the risk of long-term opioid use is lower for ER patients than it is for patients treated in other medical settings. Researchers found that only 1.1% percent of ER patients taking opioids for the first time progressed to long term use. That compares to 2% of patients in non-emergency settings.

Virtual Reality Has Long-Term Benefits for Patients with Back Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A novel treatment that combines virtual reality with cognitive behavioral therapy significantly reduced pain levels and other symptoms in patients with chronic back or neck pain, according to results of a new study presented at the annual meeting of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.

Unlike other therapies using virtual reality (VR) – which temporarily distract people from their pain – patients in this study had long term reductions in their pain, anxiety and depression. This suggests that combining VR with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) induces neuroplasticity, a “rewiring” of the brain and nervous system that reduces the impact of physical and emotional trauma.    

“What we found is it actually creates new neural pathways to form, what's called neuroplastic reprogramming or neuroplastic change, and that actually creates a more resilient patient,” said co-author Gerry Stanley, MD, Chief Medical Officer of Harvard MedTech, a medical device company that offers VR therapy.

“The patient who may be thinking about their pain 22 hours a day, and their pain (level) has always been eight or nine, now thinks about their pain one or two hours a day and their pain (level) is a three or four, because the brain is no longer fixating on it. So it allows for, I don't want to say permanent distraction, it’s really neuroplastic reprogramming.”

Stanley and his colleagues enrolled 145 patients with non-operative degenerative neck or back pain in Harvard MedTech’s Vx Therapy program, which included daily virtual reality sessions for 14 weeks and weekly telephone calls with a therapist trained in CBT.  

Unlike other VR therapies, which encourage physical activity, participants sat stationary in a chair while watching and listening to prerecorded programs with a headset and earphones. The VR programs come in four categories that emphasize education, meditation, distraction or entertainment, depending on the patient’s needs and goals.

HARVARD MEDTECH IMAGE

After 14 weeks, results showed that Vx Therapy reduced pain and anxiety during sessions by an average of 33% and 46%, respectively. The duration of pain relief also increased over time, from 2.5 hours in the first weeks of treatment to 4.5 hours in the final weeks.

The study has not been peer-reviewed or published yet, but Stanley says the findings mirror what his company has learned after treating about 4,000 patients. The benefits of Vx Therapy continue long after the treatment ends, with many patients still reporting improvement after two years.  

“They're often reporting the same level of resiliency. I think a lot of it is they start getting into better sleep patterns,” he told PNN.  “And they really get good at meditation. Most people fail in meditation because of distractions. But when they're doing it in the virtual reality, they get very good at it. So they really develop some nice, I'm going to say muscle memory, even though I know it's cognitive. But they do develop a little bit of muscle memory around the meditation.”

Because Vx Therapy is done remotely, it’s available to any patient regardless of location, as long as they have a prescription. Some worker compensation insurers cover the treatment.   

Previous studies have also suggested that virtual reality therapy has long-term benefits for people with chronic back pain. A 2022 study showed that people with moderate lower back pain reported improvements in pain, function, mood and sleep six months after treatment ended.  

Stimulants Involved in Growing Number of Fentanyl Overdoses

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The number of drug deaths involving both fentanyl and stimulants has soared in recent years, according to a new UCLA study that highlights the complex and changing nature of the U.S. overdose crisis.

Stimulants such as cocaine and methamphetamine are now involved in nearly a third of fentanyl-related overdoses, the most of any other drug class. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid up to 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times as potent as heroin.

In 2010, researchers say there were only 235 fatal overdoses in the U.S. involving illicit fentanyl and stimulants. In 2021, there were 34,429 drug deaths linked to fentanyl and stimulants, a 14,550% increase in a little over a decade.

"We're now seeing that the use of fentanyl together with stimulants is rapidly becoming the dominant force in the US overdose crisis," said lead author Joseph Friedman, PhD, an addiction researcher at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. "Fentanyl has ushered in a polysubstance overdose crisis, meaning that people are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, like stimulants, but also countless other synthetic substances. This poses many health risks and new challenges for health care providers.

“We have data and medical expertise about treating opioid use disorders, but comparatively little experience with the combination of opioids and stimulants together, or opioids mixed with other drugs. This makes it hard to stabilize people medically who are withdrawing from polysubstance use."

People who overdose on stimulants and other non-opioid substances mixed with fentanyl may not be as responsive to naloxone, which only works as an antidote to opioids.

The study findings, published in the journal Addiction, highlight the four “waves” of the overdose crisis, which began with an increase in deaths from prescription opioids (Wave 1) in the early 2000s, followed by a rise in heroin deaths (Wave 2) in 2010, and fentanyl-related overdoses in 2013 (Wave 3). The fourth wave — overdoses from fentanyl and stimulants — began in 2015 and continues to escalate.

The Four Waves of Overdose Crisis

SOURCE: ADDICTION

Since cocaine, methamphetamine and other stimulants are not opioids, the findings undercut the long-held theory that the overdose crisis started with prescription opioids and is still being fueled by people addicted to them. Deaths involving prescription opioids and heroin have been in decline for several years.

Researchers found that fentanyl/stimulant deaths disproportionately affect African Americans and Native Americans. There are also geographical patterns to fentanyl/stimulant use. In the northeast US, fentanyl is usually combined with cocaine, while in the south and western US, fentanyl is most commonly found with methamphetamine.

"We suspect this pattern reflects the rising availability of, and preference for, low-cost, high-purity methamphetamine throughout the US, and the fact that the Northeast has a well-entrenched pattern of illicit cocaine use that has so far resisted the complete takeover by methamphetamine seen elsewhere in the country," Friedman said.

In addition to its low cost, drug users say methamphetamine helps prolong fentanyl’s “high” and delays the onset of withdrawal symptoms.  

Counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl – which are frequently made to look like oxycodone or alprazolam (Xanax) – represent about a quarter of all illicit fentanyl seizures. Researchers say it is difficult to track deaths involving counterfeit pills because they are often mistaken for legitimate medication, so the data is not completely reliable.

In its most recent update on the overdose crisis, the CDC estimates there were a record 111,355 drug deaths in the 12-month period ending April 2023 -- about a thousand more deaths than the year before. Fentanyl and its analogues were involved in nearly 70% of the overdoses, stimulants were linked to about a third of them, and cocaine was involved in about a quarter of the drug deaths.

CDC Recommends New Covid Boosters

By Arthur Allen, KFF Health News

Everyone over the age of 6 months should get the latest covid-19 booster, a federal expert panel recommended Tuesday after hearing an estimate that universal vaccination could prevent 100,000 more hospitalizations each year than if only the elderly were vaccinated.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 for the motion after months of debate about whether to limit its recommendation to high-risk groups. A day earlier, the FDA approved the new booster, stating it was safe and effective at protecting against the covid variants currently circulating in the U.S.

After the last booster was released, in 2022, only 17% of the U.S. population got it — compared with the roughly half of the nation who got the first booster after it became available in fall 2021. Broader uptake was hurt by pandemic weariness and evidence the shots don’t always prevent covid infections. But those who did get the shot were far less likely to get very sick or die, according to data presented at Tuesday’s meeting.

The virus sometimes causes severe illness even in those without underlying conditions, causing more deaths in children than other vaccine-preventable diseases, as chickenpox did before vaccines against those pathogens were universally recommended.

The number of hospitalized patients with covid has ticked up modestly in recent weeks, CDC data shows, and infectious disease experts anticipate a surge in the late fall and winter.

The shots are made by Moderna and by Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, which have decided to charge up to $130 a shot. They have launched national marketing campaigns to encourage vaccination. The advisory committee deferred a decision on a third booster, produced by Novavax, because the FDA hasn’t yet approved it. Here’s what to know:

Who Should Get a Booster Shot?

The CDC advises that everyone over 6 months old should, for the broader benefit of all. Those at highest risk of serious disease include babies and toddlers, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with chronic health conditions including obesity. The risks are lower — though not zero — for everyone else. The vaccines, we’ve learned, tend to prevent infection in most people for only a few months. But they do a good job of preventing hospitalization and death, and by at least diminishing infections they may slow spread of the disease to the vulnerable, whose immune systems may be too weak to generate a good response to the vaccine.

Pablo Sánchez, a pediatrics professor at The Ohio State University who was the lone dissenter on the CDC panel, said he was worried the boosters hadn’t been tested enough, especially in kids. The vaccine strain in the new boosters was approved only in June, so nearly all the tests were done in mice or monkeys. However, nearly identical vaccines have been given safely to billions of people worldwide.

When Should You Get It?

The vaccine makers say they’ll begin rolling out the vaccine this week. If you’re in a high-risk group and haven’t been vaccinated or been sick with covid in the past two months, you could get it right away, says John Moore, an immunology expert at Weill Cornell Medical College. If you plan to travel this holiday season, as he does, Moore said, it would make sense to push your shot to late October or early November, to maximize the period in which protection induced by the vaccine is still high.

Who Pays For It?

When the ACIP recommends a vaccine for children, the government is legally obligated to guarantee kids free coverage, and the same holds for commercial insurance coverage of adult vaccines.

For the 25 to 30 million uninsured adults, the federal government created the Bridge Access Program. It will pay for rural and community health centers, as well as Walgreens, CVS, and some independent pharmacies, to provide covid shots for free. Manufacturers have agreed to donate some of the doses, CDC officials said.

Will New Booster Work Against Current Variants?

It should. More than 90% of currently circulating strains are closely related to the variant selected for the booster earlier this year, and studies showed the vaccines produced ample antibodies against most of them. The shots also appeared to produce a good immune response against a divergent strain that initially worried people, called BA.2.86. That strain represents fewer than 1% of cases currently. Moore calls it a “nothingburger.”

Why Are People Still Skeptical About Vaccines?

Experience with the covid vaccines has shown that their protection against hospitalization and death lasts longer than their protection against illness, which wanes relatively quickly, and this has created widespread skepticism.

Most people in the U.S. have been ill with covid and most have been vaccinated at least once, which together are generally enough to prevent grave illness, if not infection — in most people. Many doctors think the focus should be on vaccinating those truly at risk.

What About Getting Other Vaccines?

People tend to get sick in the late fall because they’re inside more and may be traveling and gathering in large family groups. This fall, for the first time, there’s a vaccine — for older adults — against respiratory syncytial virus. Kathryn Edwards, a 75-year-old Vanderbilt University pediatrician, plans to get all three shots but “probably won’t get them all together,” she said.

Covid “can have a punch” and some of the RSV vaccines and the flu shot that’s recommended for people 65 and older also can cause sore arms and, sometimes, fever or other symptoms. A hint emerged from data earlier this year that people who got flu and covid shots together might be at slightly higher risk of stroke. That linkage seems to have faded after further study, but it still might be safer not to get them together.

Pfizer and Moderna are both testing combination vaccines, with the first flu-covid shot to be available as early as next year. Although Pfizer’s shot has been approved in the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, and Moderna has won approval in Japan and Canada. Rollouts will start in the U.S. and other countries this week.

Unlike in earlier periods of the pandemic, mandates for the booster are unlikely. But “it’s important for people to have access to the vaccine if they want it,” said panel member Beth Bell, a professor of public health at the University of Washington.

“Having said that, it’s clear the risk is not equal, and the messaging needs to clarify that a lot of older people and people with underlying conditions are dying, and they really need to get a booster,” she said.

ACIP member Sarah Long, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, voted for a universal recommendation but said she worried it was not enough. “I think we’ll recommend it and nobody will get it,” she said. “The people who need it most won’t get it.”

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

ChatGPT Is Replacing Dr. Google

By Andrew Leonard, KFF Health News

As a fourth-year ophthalmology resident at Emory University School of Medicine, Riley Lyons’ biggest responsibilities include triage: When a patient comes in with an eye-related complaint, Lyons must make an immediate assessment of its urgency.

He often finds patients have already turned to “Dr. Google.” Online, Lyons said, they are likely to find that “any number of terrible things could be going on based on the symptoms that they’re experiencing.”

So, when two of Lyons’ fellow ophthalmologists at Emory came to him and suggested evaluating the accuracy of the AI chatbot ChatGPT in diagnosing eye-related complaints, he jumped at the chance.

In June, Lyons and his colleagues reported in medRxiv, an online publisher of health science preprints, that ChatGPT compared quite well to human doctors who reviewed the same symptoms — and performed vastly better than the symptom checker on the popular health website WebMD.

And despite the much-publicized “hallucination” problem known to afflict ChatGPT — its habit of occasionally making outright false statements — the Emory study reported that the most recent version of ChatGPT made zero “grossly inaccurate” statements when presented with a standard set of eye complaints.

The relative proficiency of ChatGPT, which debuted in November 2022, was a surprise to Lyons and his co-authors. The artificial intelligence engine “is definitely an improvement over just putting something into a Google search bar and seeing what you find,” said co-author Nieraj Jain, an assistant professor at the Emory Eye Center who specializes in vitreoretinal surgery and disease.

But the findings underscore a challenge facing the health care industry as it assesses the promise and pitfalls of generative AI, the type of artificial intelligence used by ChatGPT: The accuracy of chatbot-delivered medical information may represent an improvement over Dr. Google, but there are still many questions about how to integrate this new technology into health care systems with the same safeguards historically applied to the introduction of new drugs or medical devices.

The smooth syntax, authoritative tone, and dexterity of generative AI have drawn extraordinary attention from all sectors of society, with some comparing its future impact to that of the internet itself. In health care, companies are working feverishly to implement generative AI in areas such as radiology and medical records.

When it comes to consumer chatbots, though, there is still caution, even though the technology is already widely available — and better than many alternatives. Many doctors believe AI-based medical tools should undergo an approval process similar to the FDA’s regime for drugs, but that would be years away. It’s unclear how such a regime might apply to general-purpose AIs like ChatGPT.

“There’s no question we have issues with access to care, and whether or not it is a good idea to deploy ChatGPT to cover the holes or fill the gaps in access, it’s going to happen and it’s happening already,” said Jain. “People have already discovered its utility. So, we need to understand the potential advantages and the pitfalls.”

The Emory study is not alone in ratifying the relative accuracy of the new generation of AI chatbots. A report published in Nature in early July by a group led by Google computer scientists said answers generated by Med-PaLM, an AI chatbot the company built specifically for medical use, “compare favorably with answers given by clinicians.”

AI may also have better bedside manner. Another study, published in April by researchers from the University of California-San Diego and other institutions, even noted that health care professionals rated ChatGPT answers as more empathetic than responses from human doctors.

Indeed, a number of companies are exploring how chatbots could be used for mental health therapy, and some investors in the companies are betting that healthy people might also enjoy chatting and even bonding with an AI “friend.” The company behind Replika, one of the most advanced of that genre, markets its chatbot as, “The AI companion who cares. Always here to listen and talk. Always on your side.”

“We need physicians to start realizing that these new tools are here to stay and they’re offering new capabilities both to physicians and patients,” said James Benoit, an AI consultant. While a postdoctoral fellow in nursing at the University of Alberta in Canada, he published a study in February reporting that ChatGPT significantly outperformed online symptom checkers in evaluating a set of medical scenarios. “They are accurate enough at this point to start meriting some consideration,” he said.

A ’Band-Aid’ Solution

Still, even the researchers who have demonstrated ChatGPT’s relative reliability are cautious about recommending that patients put their full trust in the current state of AI. For many medical professionals, AI chatbots are an invitation to trouble: They cite a host of issues relating to privacy, safety, bias, liability, transparency, and the current absence of regulatory oversight.

The proposition that AI should be embraced because it represents a marginal improvement over Dr. Google is unconvincing, these critics say.

“That’s a little bit of a disappointing bar to set, isn’t it?” said Mason Marks, a professor and MD who specializes in health law at Florida State University. He recently wrote an opinion piece on AI chatbots and privacy in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“I don’t know how helpful it is to say, ‘Well, let’s just throw this conversational AI on as a band-aid to make up for these deeper systemic issues,’” he said to KFF Health News.

The biggest danger, in his view, is the likelihood that market incentives will result in AI interfaces designed to steer patients to particular drugs or medical services. “Companies might want to push a particular product over another,” said Marks. “The potential for exploitation of people and the commercialization of data is unprecedented.”

OpenAI, the company that developed ChatGPT, also urged caution.

“OpenAI’s models are not fine-tuned to provide medical information,” a company spokesperson said. “You should never use our models to provide diagnostic or treatment services for serious medical conditions.”

John Ayers, a computational epidemiologist who was the lead author of the UCSD study, said that as with other medical interventions, the focus should be on patient outcomes.

“If regulators came out and said that if you want to provide patient services using a chatbot, you have to demonstrate that chatbots improve patient outcomes, then randomized controlled trials would be registered tomorrow for a host of outcomes,” Ayers said.

He would like to see a more urgent stance from regulators.

“One hundred million people have ChatGPT on their phone,” said Ayers, “and are asking questions right now. People are going to use chatbots with or without us.”

At present, though, there are few signs that rigorous testing of AIs for safety and effectiveness is imminent. In May, Robert Califf, the commissioner of the FDA, described “the regulation of large language models as critical to our future,” but aside from recommending that regulators be “nimble” in their approach, he offered few details.

In the meantime, the race is on. In July, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Mayo Clinic was partnering with Google to integrate the Med-PaLM 2 chatbot into its system. In June, WebMD announced it was partnering with a Pasadena, California-based startup, HIA Technologies Inc., to provide interactive “digital health assistants.” And the ongoing integration of AI into both Microsoft’s Bing and Google Search suggests that Dr. Google is already well on its way to being replaced by Dr. Chatbot.

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

The National Opioid Settlement Is Causing Drug Shortages

By Pat Irving, Guest Columnist

I am a retired nurse with over 40 years of healthcare experience. The principal focus of my career was on healthcare regulations, risk management and patient safety.  My most recent position was as National Leader for Risk and Patient Safety for Kaiser Permanente. 

As a pain patient myself and the victim of a mandatory opioid taper, I was motivated to understand the reasons behind the many difficulties patients have getting opioids, anti-anxiety medications and other controlled substances. 

The goal of my research over the last several months is to help patients and their families understand the drastic changes in pain management that have occurred in recent years. While much of it is due to the CDC opioid guideline and the law enforcement crackdown on prescribers, the fallout from opioid litigation now plays a major role in our inability to get prescriptions filled.

As early as 2017, acting on the incorrect premise that prescription opioids were the primary cause for the opioid crisis, the National Association of Attorneys General began a legal assault on entities they believed were responsible for the “opioid crisis.”  This included opioid manufacturers, big chain pharmacies, and the three biggest wholesale distributors -- AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson.

On July 21, 2021, the Attorneys General announced that they had reached a $26 billion settlement with the three distributors and Johnson & Johnson, who agreed to make major changes in how they do business.  The intent was to improve the safety and oversight of prescription opioids, but the unintended consequences of the settlement have caused incalculable harm to patients with chronic pain and mental health disorders.

In addition to the monetary settlement, the three distributors agreed to substantially increase measures to identity suspicious orders from pharmacies for ten years.  The distributors, collectively known as “Injunctive Relief Distributors,” also established an independent clearinghouse to keep track of every shipment of opioids and other controlled substances to pharmacies.

Red Flags and Suspicious Orders

For reference, the 571-page settlement can be found at this link.  The most important section (Exhibit “P”) begins on page 478.  Among other things, it requires the distributors to collect from each pharmacy a list of their top prescribers for opioids and other “Highly Diverted Controlled Substances,” the number of prescriptions and doses they wrote, their DEA registration number, address and medical specialty.

You may notice several other things.  Many of the restrictions came directly out of DEA regulations.  For example, there is language about “Red Flags” and “Suspicious Orders,” the latter being “orders of unusual size, orders deviating substantially from a normal pattern, and orders of unusual frequency.”

Other potential red flags include patients paying for a prescription in cash and “out-of-area” patients with prescribing doctors from a zip code that’s 50 miles or more from the pharmacy. 

If a pharmacy customer has an excessive number of suspicious orders or “unresolved Red Flag activity,” it risks being “terminated” from receiving further controlled substances – which would effectively put the pharmacy out of business: 

“In the event that an Injunctive Relief Distributor identifies one or more unresolved Red Flags or other information indicative of potential diversion of Controlled Substances through the onboarding process or otherwise, the Injunctive Relief Distributor shall refrain from selling Controlled Substances to the potential Customer pending additional due diligence.”

It is easy to see why the settlement has made pharmacists more hesitant, even fearful, about filling orders that might be suspicious. 

Under federal law, pharmacists already had a “corresponding authority” to decide whether a prescription is suspicious and if it should be filled. Whereas before a pharmacist might call a prescriber to double check on a prescription and the reasons for it, under the settlement a pharmacist may err on the side of caution and not fill the prescription at all.

To make the situation worse, the definitions of “suspicious orders” are purposely vague, and may be interpreted in the strictest way possible.  For example, since the CDC guideline recommends that physicians “should carefully evaluate” increasing doses above 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME), the distributor or pharmacy may see that as hard limit, not a suggestion.  

And because the CDC guideline urges caution when prescribing opioids and benzodiazepines together, that may be another hard stop on a prescription, regardless of how long or how safely a patient was managed on these medications. There may be serious consequences for the prescribing physician as well, who could be reported to state authorities and the DEA if they have too many suspicious prescriptions.

Medication Thresholds 

The injunction also brought with it medication “thresholds.”  Unlike the annual DEA production quotas which are imposed on drug makers nationwide, the settlement thresholds are very specific to each pharmacy or pharmacy chain. It limits the total volume of a controlled substance that a pharmacy may receive in any given month, quarter and year.  These threshold limits, are developed by the distributor using a statistical algorithm of their own design. 

Once a pharmacy has exceeded its particular threshold, it is unable to obtain additional medication in that drug category. Physicians and patients have no way of knowing if they are the unlucky ones to have exceeded a pharmacy’s threshold.  For many patients, this means being cutoff cold turkey, waiting another month, or having a prescription only partially filled – essentially a forced taper.

Many health plans talk about their concern for patient safety, but there is often a lack of information given to patients about the known risks of tapering, especially for “legacy” patients who have been on prescribed opioids for an extended period, and who were stable and doing well. There is often no discussion with the tapered patient on the possibility of withdrawal, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, depression, and unmanaged pain. 

The patient population most affected by the distributors’ settlement are either disabled, seniors or both.  This is the very population that has difficulty accessing alternative pain therapies such as acupuncture or injections, and in many cases are alone and homebound. It has been almost impossible to get attention for this segment of the population that needs the most support. 

There has been no strong response to the settlement and resulting drug shortages from the Health and Human Services Administration, DEA, CDC, or FDA.  There has also been a lack of a coordinated response from Medicare/CMS to patients being forcibly tapered. 

It is likewise unclear what position state medical and pharmacy boards are taking on the ruptured drug supply chain. Many patients with legitimate prescriptions now have to wait weeks for their medications to become available or are forced to travel to other pharmacies to get their prescriptions filled. Worst of all, the suffering imposed on these patients has done nothing to reduce the number of drug overdose deaths.

Our government must wake up to the fact that the injunction portion of the settlement must be modified.  There are sections of the settlement that allow for “potential adjustments” and “modifications” in the event of a national or state emergency “to meet the critical needs of the supply chain.” Such an emergency now exists.

Future efforts by stakeholders must focus attention on these sections and the need for changes. It is possible to have a safe and well monitored drug supply chain that also allows legitimate patients to have the medical treatment they deserve. As it stands now, patients are needlessly suffering due to the unreasonable restrictions imposed by the national opioid settlement.

Pat Irving, RN, lives with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (now in remission) and piriformis syndrome, a type of sciatica. Pat wishes to thank Monty Goddard, a patient advocate, for his contributions to her research.

Shrinking Number of Primary Care Doctors Reaches Tipping Point

By Elisabeth Rosenthal, KFF Health News

I’ve been receiving an escalating stream of panicked emails from people telling me their longtime physician was retiring, was no longer taking their insurance, or had gone concierge and would no longer see them unless they ponied up a hefty annual fee.

They have said they couldn’t find another primary care doctor who could take them on or who offered a new-patient appointment sooner than months away.

Their individual stories reflect a larger reality: American physicians have been abandoning traditional primary care practice — internal and family medicine — in large numbers. Those who remain are working fewer hours. And fewer medical students are choosing a field that once attracted some of the best and brightest because of its diagnostic challenges and the emotional gratification of deep relationships with patients.

The percentage of U.S. doctors in adult primary care has been declining for years and is now about 25% — a tipping point beyond which many Americans won’t be able to find a family doctor at all.

Already, more than 100 million Americans don’t have usual access to primary care, a number that has nearly doubled since 2014. One reason our coronavirus vaccination rates were low compared with those in countries such as China, France, and Japan could be because so many of us no longer regularly see a familiar doctor we trust.

Another telling statistic: In 1980, 62% of doctor’s visits for adults 65 and older were for primary care and 38% were for specialists, according to Michael L. Barnett, a health systems researcher and primary care doctor in the Harvard Medical School system.

By 2013, that ratio had exactly flipped and has likely “only gotten worse,” Barnett said, noting sadly: “We have a specialty-driven system. Primary care is seen as a thankless, undesirable backwater.” That’s “tragic,” in his words — studies show that a strong foundation of primary care yields better health outcomes overall, greater equity in health care access, and lower per capita health costs.

Practices Sold

One explanation for the disappearing primary care doctor is financial. The payment structure in the U.S. health system has long rewarded surgeries and procedures while shortchanging the diagnostic, prescriptive, and preventive work that is the province of primary care. Furthermore, the traditionally independent doctors in this field have little power to negotiate sustainable payments with the mammoth insurers in the U.S. market.

Faced with this situation, many independent primary care doctors have sold their practices to health systems or commercial management chains (some private equity-owned) so that, today, three-quarters of doctors are now employees of those outfits.

One of them was Bob Morrow, who practiced for decades in the Bronx. For a typical visit, he was most recently paid about $80 if the patient had Medicare, with its fixed-fee schedule. Commercial insurers paid significantly less. He just wasn’t making enough to pay the bills, which included salaries of three employees, including a nurse practitioner.

“I tried not to pay too much attention to money for four or five years — to keep my eye on my patients and not the bottom line,” he said by phone from his former office, as workers carted away old charts for shredding.

Morrow finally gave up and sold his practice last year to a company that took over scheduling, billing, and negotiations with insurers. It agreed to pay him a salary and to provide support staff as well as supplies and equipment.

The outcome: Calls to his office were routed to a call center overseas, and patients with questions or complaining of symptoms were often directed to a nearby urgent care center owned by the company — which is typically more expensive than an office visit. His office staff was replaced by a skeleton crew that didn’t include a nurse or skilled worker to take blood pressure or handle requests for prescription refills. He was booked with patients every eight to 10 minutes.

He discovered that the company was calling some patients and recommending expensive tests — such as vascular studies or an abdominal ultrasound — that he did not believe they needed.

He retired in January. “I couldn’t stand it,” he said. “It wasn’t how I was taught to practice.”

‘Squeezed From All Sides’

Of course, not every practice sale ends with such unhappy results, and some work out well. But the dispirited feeling that drives doctors away from primary care has to do with far more than money. It’s a lack of respect for nonspecialists. It’s the rising pressure to see and bill more patients: Employed doctors often coordinate the care of as many as 2,000 people, many of whom have multiple problems.

And it’s the lack of assistance. Profitable centers such as orthopedic and gastroenterology clinics usually have a phalanx of support staff. Primary care clinics run close to the bone.

“You are squeezed from all sides,” said Barnett.

Many ventures are rushing in to fill the primary care gap. There had been hope that nurse practitioners and physician assistants might help fill some holes, but data shows that they, too, increasingly favor specialty practice. Meanwhile, urgent care clinics are popping up like mushrooms. So are primary care chains such as One Medical, now owned by Amazon. Dollar General, Walmart, Target, CVS Health, and Walgreens have opened “retail clinics” in their stores.

Rapid-fire visits with a rotating cast of doctors, nurses, or physician assistants might be fine for a sprained ankle or strep throat. But they will not replace a physician who tells you to get preventive tests and keeps tabs on your blood pressure and cholesterol — the doctor who knows your health history and has the time to figure out whether the pain in your shoulder is from your basketball game, an aneurysm, or a clogged artery in your heart.

Some relatively simple solutions are available, if we care enough about supporting this foundational part of a good medical system. Hospitals and commercial groups could invest some of the money they earn by replacing hips and knees to support primary care staffing; giving these doctors more face time with their patients would be good for their customers’ health and loyalty if not (always) the bottom line.

Reimbursement for primary care visits could be increased to reflect their value — perhaps by enacting a national primary care fee schedule, so these doctors won’t have to butt heads with insurers. And policymakers could consider forgiving the medical school debt of doctors who choose primary care as a profession.

They deserve support that allows them to do what they were trained to do: diagnosing, treating, and getting to know their patients.

The United States already ranks last among wealthy countries in certain health outcomes. The average life span in America is decreasing, even as it increases in many other countries. If we fail to address the primary care shortage, our country’s health will be even worse for it.

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

Chronic Pain Patients Report Improvement from Cannabis Oil

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Patients with chronic pain and other illnesses who did not respond to conventional treatment reported improvements in pain, anxiety, depression, fatigue and quality of life after being prescribed cannabis oil for three months, according to a large new Australian study. There were no improvements in patients with insomnia.

Researchers at the University of Sydney surveyed 2,327 patients with chronic health issues who were prescribed cannabis oil products containing cannabinoids, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). The oils are made by Little Green Pharma , a company that specializes in cannabis-based medicine and provided funding for the Quality of Life Evaluation Study (QUEST Initiative).

Over two-thirds of the participants (69%) suffered from chronic pain. Half were being treated for more than one health condition; and one in four were unemployed, on leave, or had limited work duties due to illness.   

Medical cannabis was legalized in Australia in 2016. Cannabis is only available by prescription in Australia to patients with health conditions that are unresponsive to conventional treatment.

“Short-term findings over 3-months indicate that patients prescribed MC (medical cannabis) in practice have improved HRQL (health-related quality of life) and reduced fatigue. Patients experiencing anxiety, depression, or chronic pain also improved in those outcomes over 3-months, but no changes in sleep disturbance were observed in patients with sleep disorders,” researchers reported in PLOS ONE.  

“The study continues to follow patients over 12-months to determine whether improvements in PROs (patient reported outcomes) are maintained long-term. In addition, further subgroup analyses will be undertaken to determine whether patients with specific health conditions have better outcomes compared with others when using validated condition-specific questionnaires.”

The researchers did not measure adverse effects in the QUEST Initiative, but 30 participants withdrew from the study due to “unwanted side effects.” The authors noted that more research on cannabis oil products used in the study is needed in order to successfully treat patients with insomnia and sleep disorders.

Another recent survey in Australia of patients with chronic illness found significant improvements in their physical and mental health after they started using medical cannabis. Most of the cannabis products in that study were oils containing CBD and/or THC.   

'Growing Pains' in Childhood Linked to Migraine

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Did you experience “growing pains” as a child? An unusual ache or throbbing in your legs that occurred late in the day and kept you awake at night?

The Mayo Clinic says there’s no evidence that a growth spell actually causes physical pain, and that any discomfort may be caused by a low pain threshold or even psychological issues.

But a small new study suggests something else may be going on: Brazilian researchers say children who have growing pains are significantly more likely to develop migraines – just as their parents did.  Migraine can be hereditary, and if one or both parents have migraine, there’s a 50-75% chance that their children will also.

“In families of children with growing pains, there is an increased prevalence of other pain syndromes, especially migraine among parents,” wrote lead author Raimundo Pereira Silva-Néto. PhD, a neurology professor at Federal University of Delta do Parnaibal. “Children with migraine have a higher prevalence of growing pains, suggesting a common pathogenesis; therefore, we hypothesized that growing pains in children are a precursor or comorbidity with migraine.”

With parental authorization, Silva-Néto and his colleagues followed 78 children between 5 and 10 years of age, who were born to mothers being treated for migraine at a headache clinic. Their findings were published in the journal Headache.

After five years, about half of the children reported growing pains in their lower limbs. Headaches occurred in 76% of those children, with many meeting the criteria for migraine without aura. By comparison, only 22% of the children who did not have growing pains had headaches.

Lower limb pain was reported most often in the calf muscles (70%), usually lasted more than 30 minutes, and occurred more frequently at night.

That nocturnal connection intrigued the researchers, who noted that previous studies have found that sleepwalking, nightmares, and restless leg syndrome also occur more frequently in children who have migraines.   

“There is no definitive explanation for the nocturnal patterns of growing pains, nor for the overlap with sleep disturbances; however, the authors believe the hypothesis of a common pathogenesis with migraine,” researchers concluded. “Pain in the lower limbs of children and adolescents, commonly referred to as GP (growing pains) by pediatricians and orthopedists, may reflect a precursor/comorbidity with migraine.”

Migraine affects about 39 million people in the United States and is the second leading cause of disability worldwide, according to the American Migraine Foundation. In addition to headache pain, migraine can cause nausea, blurriness or visual disturbances, and sensitivity to light and sound. About one in five teens suffer from migraine.

Rx Opioid Shortages Persist With No Federal Action

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

There is no end in sight to shortages of opioid pain medication in the US, with the federal government taking no apparent action to increase opioid production and several drug makers unable to estimate when full supplies will be restored.

In a recent update, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) said five generic drug makers were running low or have exhausted their supply of oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, which are better known as the brand names Percocet and Endocet. The medication is usually prescribed for moderate to severe pain.   

ASHP asked drug makers about their current supplies and received these responses:

• Camber has no doses of oxycodone/acetaminophen available. The tablets are on back order and “the company cannot estimate a release date.” Camber said it was still awaiting DEA approval for additional supplies.

• Amneal and KVK-Tech said they had limited supplies of 5 and 7.5 mg oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, and that 10 mg tablets were on back order with no estimated resupply date.

• Major anticipates getting 7.5 mg tablets in late September and 10 mg tablets in late October.

• Rhodes said it had 7.5 and 5 mg tablets on “intermittent back order” and would only be releasing supplies as they become available.

Percocet and Endocet tablets in various doses are still available from Endo and Par Pharmaceuticals, according to the ASHP.

Shortages of oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, as well as immediate release oxycodone and hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets, were first reported by ASHP several months ago. But they have yet to appear on the FDA’s drug shortage list or even be publicly acknowledged by the agency.

In a recent joint letter, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, and DEA administrator Anne Milgram said they were working “as quickly as possible” to resolve persistent drug shortages. But the letter only addressed shortages of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD, and makes no mention of opioids.

When asked by PNN, one federal health official did acknowledge shortages of opioid medication, but was vague about possible solutions.

“This is an important issue that CDC and other federal partners are aware of and working to find solutions to,” said Stephanie Rubel, who heads the CDC’s Overdose Preparedness and Response Team (ORRP). Rubel’s office works with other federal and state agencies to reduce the serious risks posed to patients who suddenly lose access to prescription opioids. 

“As part of ORRP’s work, we strongly encourage state health officials to proactively partner with pharmacists and pharmacies to ensure that impacted patients are able to continue receiving appropriate pain management care after a disruption,” said Rubel in a statement to PNN. “Because ORRP cannot provide medical care or make referrals to healthcare providers, advanced preparation and partnerships with pharmacists is essential to ensure continuity of care.” 

But many pharmacists have their hands tied due to opioid litigation. Last year, three large drug wholesalers reached a $21 billion settlement with 46 states, requiring them to impose strict limits on the pharmacies they do business with. Most pharmacies are capped on the amount of opioids they can dispense in any given month, regardless of patient needs. An unusually large order for opioids could get a pharmacy red-flagged by its wholesale supplier and the order cancelled.  

Another reason for the shortages are persistent problems in the drug supply chain and the heavy US reliance on foreign suppliers for many drugs, especially low-cost generic ones.  A third factor is aggressive cuts in the opioid supply by the DEA, which sets annual production quotas for controlled substances that drug manufacturers must follow.

Whatever the cause, it’s leaving many patients with uncontrolled pain and little faith in their government.

“I've been on hydrocodone for 10 years. With the shortage that is going on in Las Vegas, I've been out for 4 weeks,” one patient told PNN. “Unfortunately, the pain has made it too difficult to take care of myself. I cannot clean, cook or sleep without my pain levels increasing. I've been living on frozen foods and Alka Seltzer.”

“I live with 200 other seniors in a low-income complex.  I’ve seen three older veteran residents commit suicide because they couldn’t get pain medication.  I know several other seniors who live with horrible pain and are not able to get medication,” another patient told us.

“The US Government is just screwing us over by limiting what the pharmacies can get and what their suppliers can make. This is driving people to buy pain meds off the street and that's like playing Russian roulette,” said another patient who has trouble getting Norco prescriptions filled by his pharmacy. “Our government is supposed to help us, not hurt us.”

Drug makers are required to report shortages and supply interruptions to the FDA, but prescribers, pharmacies and consumers can also report them by email to drugshortages@fda.hhs.gov.  

To report a drug shortage to the ASHP, click here.

Rescheduling Won’t End Conflict Between Federal and State Marijuana Laws

By Paul Armentano, Guest Columnist 

Ten months after the Biden administration requested the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law,” Secretary Xavier Becerra confirmed that the agency has recommended cannabis be removed from its Schedule I classification and placed in a lower schedule.

While the explicit details of HHS’ recommendation are not public, Bloomberg reports that the agency seeks to have cannabis moved to the less restrictive Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act. 

The HHS recommendation now goes to the Drug Enforcement Administration, which will conduct its own scientific review. In the past, the DEA has employed its own five-factor test (which differs from HHS’ criteria) to determine whether or not cannabis ought to be rescheduled. On four prior occasions, most recently in 2016, the agency determined that cannabis failed to meet any of its five criteria.  

While it remains unknown at this time how the DEA will ultimately respond to HHS’ request, many are already speculating about the potential implications of such a policy change. And while some entities, particularly those involved in the commercial cannabis industry, have lauded the proposed change as a “giant” step forward, others – like myself – have been far more restrained.

That’s because reclassifying cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III is neither intellectually honest, nor does it sufficiently address the widening chasm between state and federal marijuana laws. 

Specifically, reclassifying cannabis to a lower schedule within the CSA continues to misrepresent the plant’s safety relative to other controlled substances such as oxycodone and hydrocodone (Schedule II), codeine and ketamine (Schedule III), benzodiazepines (Schedule IV), or alcohol (unscheduled). More importantly, rescheduling marijuana fails to provide states with the explicit legal authority to regulate it within their borders as best they see fit, free from federal interference.  

To date, 38 states regulate the production and distribution of cannabis products for medical purposes. Twenty-three of these states regulate the possession and use of marijuana for adults. All of the state laws are currently in conflict with federal marijuana laws. Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III will not change this reality. 

That’s because Schedule III substances are regulated only for prescription use by the federal government. That means legal access to these substances is limited to patients who possess a prescription from a licensed physician and who have obtained the product from a licensed pharmacy.

Currently, no state government regulates cannabis in such a manner – nor is it likely that any state will reconstruct their existing laws and regulations to do so in the future. 

Simply put, if marijuana is rescheduled, state laws authorizing citizens to possess cannabis for either medical or social purposes will continue be in violation of the federal law, as would the thousands of state-licensed dispensaries that currently serve these markets. And the DEA would still possess the same authority it has now under federal law to crack down on these state-regulated markets should it elect to do so. 

Some have suggested that rescheduling the cannabis plant may provide greater opportunities for investigators to conduct clinical research into its eventual drug development, but this result is also unlikely. That is because many of the existing hurdles to clinical cannabis research, such as the limits placed upon scientists’ access to source materials, are marijuana-specific regulations and predate cannabis’ Schedule I classification.

Other impediments, such as requiring the US Attorney General to approve marijuana-specific research protocols are statutory and are not specific to marijuana’s scheduling in the CSA. 

For these reasons, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) holds the position that the only productive outcome of the current scheduling review would be a recommendation to deschedule cannabis – thereby removing it from the Controlled Substances Act altogether and providing states with greater discretion to establish their own distinct marijuana policies. (A case in point: In 2018 Congress removed from the CSA hemp plants containing no more than 0.3 percent THC, as well as certain cannabinoids derived from them.)

Descheduling would remove the threat of undue federal intrusion in existing state marijuana programs and would respect America’s longstanding federalist principles allowing states to serve as “laboratories of democracy.”

By contrast, rescheduling simply perpetuates the existing contradictions between state and federal cannabis laws, and it fails to provide any necessary legal recognition from the federal government to either the state-licensed cannabis industry or those adults who use the plant responsibly in compliance with state laws.

Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

CDC Report ‘Likely Underestimated’ Deaths Linked to Counterfeit Drugs

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that fatal overdoses in the U.S. from counterfeit medication more than doubled in recent years, with 93% of those deaths involving illicit fentanyl.

Deaths from counterfeit pills rose from 2% of all overdoses in the third quarter of 2019 to 4.7% of drug deaths in the last quarter of 2021, according to the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The overdose rate from fake medication was three times higher in western U.S. states (14.7%). 

However, due the unreliability of death certificates, witnesses and coroner investigations, as well as other flaws in the study’s methodology, the MMWR report acknowledges that the number of deaths involving counterfeit medication is “likely underestimated.”

CDC researchers only looked at overdose data from 34 states and the District of Columbia, identifying 2,437 deaths linked to counterfeit pills during the 30-month study period.

Nearly 106,700 people in the U.S. died from drug overdoses in 2021, so if the 4.7% death rate was applied to that year alone, that would suggest there were over 5,000 deaths nationwide involving counterfeit medication.

Even that estimate is probably on the low end, because CDC researchers focused on counterfeit pills made to look like oxycodone and the anti-anxiety drug alprazolam (Xanax).

While “Mexican Oxy” – blue tablets that look like 30mg oxycodone – are favored by counterfeiters, fake pills are also designed to look like Vicodin, Norco, Adderall, and many other medications. Deaths from those pills were not counted.  

Importantly, whether a death was even linked to fake medication “depended largely on scene or witness evidence of pill use” and other anecdotal evidence, rather than toxicology tests on the pills or the actual people who died.

And while pills are obviously designed to be taken orally, the MMWR report only includes “noningestion routes of drug use,” such as smoking, snorting or injection, which require the pills to be ground into powder or liquefied. CDC researchers considered data on the oral ingestion of counterfeit pills so unreliable, “that information is not presented” in the report.

Many of these details on the study’s strange methodology are buried in the footnotes of the MMWR report, which a casual reader could easily miss. 

Not surprisingly, given the limitations on data, smoking was found to have an outsized role in overdose deaths. According to the MMWR, nearly 40% of the deaths linked to counterfeit medication involved smoking – a misleading statistic, given the study’s flaws. But that didn’t stop researchers from drawing conclusions or recommending “safer smoking practices.”

“The higher percentage of deaths with evidence of drug use by smoking might reflect recent general shifts from injecting drugs to smoking them in western states or could be specific to counterfeit pill use methods,” wrote lead author Julie O’Donnell, PhD, an epidemiologist at the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

“Harm reduction services that expand outreach to persons using drugs by methods other than injection, such as smoking, and provide education about safer smoking practices and risks related to smoking, might be most successful at addressing diverse drug use patterns.”

There’s a safer way to smoke illicit fentanyl?

This is the CDC’s first MMWR report to look exclusively at deaths caused by fake pills, a public health crisis that the agency has been slow to acknowledge. The DEA started warning about a “fentanyl crisis” as far back as 2016, a time when the CDC was preoccupied with its guideline to reduce opioid prescribing.

There were major flaws in CDC research even back then. The agency eventually admitted that thousands of overdose deaths linked to illicit fentanyl and other street drugs were misclassified as deaths caused by prescription opioids. Some deaths that involved more than one drug were counted multiple times.