DEA Keeping Supply of Rx Opioids Unchanged in 2025

By Pat Anson

The Drug Enforcement Administration says it can’t do anything about shortages of opioid pain medication at U.S. pharmacies and will keep the 2025 opioid supply essentially unchanged from this year’s levels.

Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the DEA sets annual aggregate production quotas (APQs) for every drug maker, in effect telling them the amount of opioids and other controlled substances they can make every year.

The APQs for 2025 were recently published in the Federal Register after a public comment period that received nearly 1,900 responses, many from patients and providers worried about further cuts in the opioid supply.  

“DEA received a significant number of comments from pain advocacy groups, hospital associations, health professionals, and others who raised concerns over the proposed APQs for certain opioids in 2025,” DEA said. “After considering all of the relevant factors, DEA has determined… that U.S. manufacturers will need to manufacture approximately the same amount of those opioids in 2025 as in 2024 in order to meet legitimate needs.”

Although the FDA advised the DEA there will be a 6.6% decline in the medical need for opioids in 2025, the DEA adopted only minor reductions for several widely used opioid medications. They are the same amounts proposed by the agency in October.

DEA Opioid Production Quotas for 2025

  • Oxycodone:  0.137% decrease

  • Hydrocodone: 0.081% decrease

  • Morphine: Unchanged

  • Codeine: Unchanged

  • Hydromorphone: 0.015% decrease

  • Fentanyl: 0.0025% decrease

Although the reductions are tiny compared to previous years, 2025 will still be the ninth consecutive year that DEA has cut the supply of opioids. Since 2015, DEA has reduced production quotas for oxycodone by over 68% and hydrocodone by nearly 73%.

DEA acknowledged receiving many comments from pain patients who said their local pharmacies were often out of opioids, forcing them to contact additional pharmacies and travel further to get their prescriptions filled. DEA said those issues were out of its control.

“Drug shortages may occur due to factors outside of DEA's control such as manufacturing and quality problems, processing delays, supply chain disruptions, or discontinuations,” the agency said.  “Currently, FDA has not issued notice of any nationwide shortages of the types of opioid medications mentioned by these commenters.”

The FDA and DEA may not be tracking opioid shortages, but the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) is.

Opioids currently listed in short supply by the ASHP include oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, oxycodone immediate-release tablets, hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets, hydromorphone tablets and solution, fentanyl solution, and morphine solution.

Most opioid medications are generic and cheap to make, but they have low profit margins and come with high risks. Teva Pharmaceuticals, a large generic drug maker, recently discontinued production of oxycodone and potent fentanyl lozenges. The medications were entangled in costly litigation that resulted in Teva paying $4.25 billion to settle opioid liability lawsuits.

Opioid shortages at the pharmacy level are also linked to litigation. Under the terms of a 2022 settlement with drug distributors, opioids are tightly rationed at many pharmacies, resulting in patients with opioid prescriptions being unable to get them filled because pharmacies are out of stock.

Here again, the DEA said the shortages are out of its control and claimed its prosecution of doctors for “unlawful” opioid prescribing was a non-issue.

“Patients and medical professionals may notice specific drug products are out of stock in particular areas; however, DEA cannot dictate DEA registrants' distributions of drug products,” the agency said.

“Additionally, DEA's regulations do not impose restrictions on the amount and the type of medication that licensed practitioners can prescribe. DEA has consistently emphasized and supported the authority of individual practitioners under the CSA to administer, dispense, and prescribe controlled substances for the legitimate treatment of pain within acceptable medical standards.”

Quotas Don’t Prevent Overdoses

For patients reliant on opioids, including those with late-stage cancer, being unable to fill a prescription means withdrawal, uncontrolled pain, and little quality of life.

A palliative care physician recently wrote an op/ed in STAT about “Teresa,” a patient in her mid-60’s with advanced cancer that spread to her abdomen.

“Only her prescription morphine gave her the relief she needed to function and enjoy some small pleasures, like walking her dog in the park,” wrote Dr. Rebecca Rodin, an assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“But one day, her pharmacy didn’t have her morphine in stock, nor did five other neighborhood pharmacies that she went to. I called another three pharmacies before finding one with a two-week supply available — but it was a 40-minute drive from her home.”   

Rodin says the real culprits in the overdose crisis are illicit fentanyl and other street drugs – not prescription opioids. And no amount of buck passing by the DEA will fix that problem.

“Quotas and resulting shortages of prescription pain medicines are not helping to prevent overdose deaths,” said Rodin. “Quotas are simply turning vulnerable patients with serious illness into collateral damage in a misguided effort to address the opioid epidemic.”   

Trump’s Picks for Top Health Jobs at Odds With Each Other

By Stephanie Armour and Julie Rovner, KFF Health News

Many of President-elect Donald Trump’s candidates for federal health agencies have promoted policies and goals that put them at odds with one another or with Trump’s choice to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., setting the stage for internal friction over public health initiatives.

The picks hold different views on matters such as limits on abortion, the safety of childhood vaccines, the covid-19 response, and the use of weight-loss medications.

The divide pits Trump picks who adhere to more traditional and orthodox science, such as the long-held, scientifically supported findings that vaccines are safe, against often unsubstantiated views advanced by Kennedy and other selections who have claimed vaccines are linked with autism.

The Trump transition team and the designated nominees mentioned in this article did not respond to requests for comment.

It’s a potential “team of opponents” at the government’s health agencies, said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian policy organization. Kennedy, he said, is known for rejecting opposing views when confronted with science.

“The heads of the FDA and NIH will be spending all their time explaining to their boss what a confidence interval is,” Cannon said, referring to a statistical term used in medical studies.

Those whose views prevail will have significant power in shaping policy, from who is appointed to sit on federal vaccine advisory committees to federal authorization for covid vaccines to restrictions on abortion medications. If confirmed as HHS secretary, Kennedy is expected to set much of the agenda.

“If President Trump’s nomination of RFK Jr. to be secretary is confirmed, if you don’t subscribe to his views, it will be very hard to rise in that department,” said Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“They will need to suppress their views to fit with RFK Jr’s. In this administration, and any administration, independent public disagreement isn’t welcome.”

Kennedy is chair of Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine nonprofit. He has vowed to curb the country’s appetite for ultra-processed food and its incidence of chronic disease. He helped select Trump’s choices to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health. If confirmed, he would lead them from the helm of HHS, with its more than $1.7 trillion budget.

Clashes are likely. Kennedy has supported access to abortion until a fetus is viable. That puts him at odds with Dave Weldon, the former Florida congressman whom Trump has chosen to run the CDC. Weldon, a physician, is an abortion opponent who wrote one of the major laws allowing health professionals to opt out of participating in the procedure.

Weldon would head an agency that’s been in the crosshairs of conservatives since the covid pandemic began. He has touted his “100% pro-life voting record” on his campaign website. (He unsuccessfully ran earlier this year for a seat in Florida’s House of Representatives.)

Trump has said he would leave decisions about abortion to the states, but the CDC under Weldon could, for example, fund studies on abortion risks. The agency could require states to provide information about abortions performed within their borders to the federal government or risk the loss of federal funds.

Vaccine Safety

Weldon, like Kennedy, has questioned the safety of vaccines and has said he believes they can cause autism. That’s at odds with the views of Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins surgeon whom Trump plans to nominate for FDA commissioner. The British American said on the “Brian Kilmeade Show” on Fox News Radio that vaccines “save lives,” although he added that it’s good to question the U.S. vaccine schedule for children.

The American Academy of Pediatricians encourages parents and their children’s doctors to stick to the recommended schedule of childhood vaccines. “Nonstandard schedules that spread out vaccines or start when a child is older put entire communities at risk of serious illnesses, including infants and young children,” the group says in guidance for its members.

Jay Bhattacharya, a doctor and economist who is Trump’s selection to lead NIH, has also supported vaccines.

Kennedy has said on NPR that federal authorities under his leadership wouldn’t “take vaccines away from anybody.” But the FDA oversees approval of vaccines, and, under his leadership, the agency could put vaccine skeptics on advisory panels or could make changes to a program that largely protects vaccine makers from consumer injury lawsuits.

“I do believe that autism does come from vaccines,” Kennedy said in 2023 on Fox News. Many scientific studies have discredited the claim that vaccines cause autism.

Ashish Jha, a doctor who served as the White House covid response coordinator from 2022 to 2023, noted that Bhattacharya and Makary have had long and distinguished careers in medicine and research and would bring decades of experience to these top jobs.

But, he said, it “is going to be a lot more difficult than they think” to stand up for their views in the new administration. It’s hard “to do things that displease your boss, and if [Kennedy] gets confirmed, he will be their boss,” Jha said.

“They have their work cut out for them if they’re going to stand up for their opinions on science. If they don’t, it will just demoralize the staff.”

Most of Trump’s picks share the view that federal health agencies bungled the pandemic response, a stance that resonated with many of the president-elect’s voters and supporters — even though Trump led that response until Joe Biden took office in 2021.

Kennedy said in a 2021 Louisiana House oversight meeting that the covid vaccine was the “deadliest” ever made. He has cited no evidence to back the claim.

Federal health officials say the vaccines have saved millions of lives around the globe and offer important protection against covid. Protection lasts even though their effectiveness wanes over time.

The vaccines’ effectiveness against infection stood at 52% after four weeks, according to a May study in The New England Journal of Medicine, and their effectiveness against hospitalization was about 67% after four weeks.

The vaccines were produced through Operation Warp Speed, a public-private partnership Trump launched in his first term to fast-track the shots as well as other treatments.

Makary criticized covid vaccine guidance that called for giving young children the shots. He argued that, for many people, natural immunity from infections could substitute for the vaccine. Bhattacharya opposed measures used to curb the spread of covid in 2020 and advised that everyone except the most vulnerable go about their lives as usual. The World Health Organization warned that such an approach would overwhelm hospitals.

Mehmet Oz, Trump’s choice to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, an agency within HHS, has said the vaccines were oversold. He promoted the use of the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. The FDA in 2020 revoked emergency authorization of hydroxychloroquine for covid, saying that it was unlikely to be effective against the virus and that the risk of dangerous side effects was too high.

Janette Nesheiwat, meanwhile, a former Fox News contributor and Trump’s pick for surgeon general, has taken a different stance. The doctor described covid vaccines as a gift from God in a Fox News opinion piece.

Kennedy’s qualms about vaccines are likely to be a central issue early in the administration. He has said he wants federal health agencies to shift their focus from preparing for and combating infectious disease to addressing chronic disease.

The shifting focus and questioning of vaccines concern some public health leaders amid the spread of the H5N1 bird flu virus among dairy cattle. There have been 60 human infections reported in the U.S. this year, all but two of them linked to exposure to cattle or poultry.

“Early on, they’re going to have to have a discussion about vaccinating people and animals” against bird flu, said Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “We all bring opinions to the table. A department’s cohesive policy is driven by the secretary.”

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

Brain Stimulation May Prevent Chronic Pain Before It Starts

By Pat Anson

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a noninvasive procedure that uses magnetic pulses to stimulate nerve cells in the brain. TMS is typically used to treat depression, but is increasingly used off-label to relieve chronic pain conditions such as migraine, fibromyalgia and peripheral neuropathy.

Research recently published in the journal PAIN suggests that TMS may also be useful in preventing pain before it even starts.

A team of international researchers gave 41 healthy volunteers a 5-day course of either repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or sham treatment. Both targeted the left primary motor cortex, a part of the brain that controls movement.

After the fifth and final session, all of the volunteers had an injection of nerve growth factor into their cheeks to induce prolonged pain. For the next two weeks, participants kept diaries of their jaw pain, jaw function and muscle soreness.

“We found that a five-day course of rTMS before pain onset has the potential to interrupt the transition to chronic pain,” said lead author Nahian Chowdhury, PhD, Head of Neurostimulation at the NeuroRecovery Research Hub at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

“We were looking to see what the experience was for participants who had received the rTMS, versus what happened for those who had received the sham. Those people who had received active rTMS experienced lower pain on chewing and yawning than those who received the sham.”

Chowdhury and his colleagues also found that two measurements of brain activity -- Peak Alpha Frequency (PAF) and corticomotor excitability (CME) – seemed to moderate pain whether participants received rTMS or not. This suggests that monitoring PAF and CME may be useful in predicting each individual’s pain resilience.

“Regardless of whether people received the active treatment or sham, our analysis showed that those with faster PAF and higher CME on Day 4 had lower intensity future pain,” Chowdhury said in a news release from NeuRA, an Australian medical institute where he is a research fellow.

This is the first study to show that rTMS can have a protective effect against chronic pain. More research is needed, but the findings open the door for preventative treatments for those at high risk of developing chronic pain.

​“Whilst chronic pain is a significant problem, the current interventions are usually only applied once the pain is chronic,” Chowdhury said. “This research shows in some situations – such as for people undergoing a surgery known to be painful or often leading to chronic pain – there is promise from preventative treatments that may be able to stop chronic pain before it begins.”

PNN Columnist Madora Pennington, who has Ehler-Danlos syndrome, tried TMS therapy and found it eased her pain, depression and anxiety.

“Since having TMS, I notice that my body is less sensitive to touch,” she wrote. “It does not hurt as much to be poked at or pressed on. The extra comfort TMS has given me, both mentally and physically, is a lot for someone with medical problems like mine that are so difficult to treat.”

After Years of Foot Dragging, CDC Plans Review of Opioid Guideline

By Pat Anson

Eight years after releasing its controversial 2016 opioid guideline and two years after revising it, the CDC is finally making plans for a review of the guideline’s impact on patients, caregivers, doctors, and the practice of pain management.

In a notice published in the Federal Register, the CDC said it would open a 30-day public comment period on a “mixed-method quasi-experimental approach” to evaluating the updated 2022 guideline.

In plain English, the CDC plans a web-based survey of about 200 clinicians, and individual interviews with 10 clinicians, 2 dentists, 3 health system leaders, 3 insurers, 3 professional association leaders, and 3 medical board leaders. In addition, CDC will interview up to 15 patients and 15 caregivers in focus groups.

The agency did not indicate how the participants or organizations will be selected, or what questions will be asked.

“CDC is comprehensively evaluating the uptake, implementation, and outcomes of the 2022 CDC Clinical Practice Guideline on evidence-based care for pain management to understand its impact,” the agency said. “The evaluation includes dissemination and impact of the 2022 CDC Clinical Practice Guideline through population-wide changes in prescribing practices for opioids and medications for opioid use disorder.”

This is actually the second time CDC has published a public notice about the guideline review. Only two public comments were received after a similar notice was published in the Federal Register on October 1, which the CDC made no effort to publicize.

‘Timing Is Very Odd’

It’s not clear why a second notice was published during the holiday season and in the final weeks of the Biden administration. CDC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The timing is very odd, and almost everyone missed the opportunity for open comments earlier this year,” said Chad Kollas, MD, a palliative care physician and pain policy expert.

“Few states have backed off from overly restrictive prescribing laws that were created based on the 2016 Guideline. I think that’s the main opportunity here, documenting the failure to implement the revised recommendations in the 2022 guidance. It’s unclear how CDC plans to determine who will get an opportunity to respond in the proposed study, so transparency remains troublesome for them.”

The CDC was slow to acknowledge the harm caused by the 2016 guideline. Although voluntary, the agency’s recommendations were widely implemented as mandatory by states and law enforcement agencies, resulting in patients having their opioid medication reduced or cutoff, and doctors being prosecuted for exceeding the guideline’s dosage recommendations.

To address those issues, CDC issued a revised guideline in 2022. But many of the problems caused by the original guideline linger.

“The 2016 guidelines led to a variety of restrictive policies, including limitations on opioid dosages. These measures created significant barriers for patients trying to access pain care and made it more challenging for physicians to prescribe necessary medications,” Donald Arnold, MD, President of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) wrote in a letter to the CDC, one of the two public comments made in response to the October 1 public notice.

The ASA surveyed its members on the impact of the 2022 revised guideline. Over half (56%) thought it was “somewhat effective” in reversing the harm caused by the 2016 guideline, while 40% thought it was ineffective.

A PNN survey of over 2,500 patients, providers and caregivers also found mixed reviews of the 2022 guideline. Only 39% of respondents thought it was “improved” or “much improved” over the original guideline.  Most respondents said it was about the same or even worse.

‘Same Problems Still Exist’

The CDC never conducted a comprehensive review on the impact of the 2016 guideline, but it did hire a consulting firm to improve its image after the agency was widely criticized for its secrecy and lack of transparency during the guideline’s development process.

A former CDC epidemiologist was so dismayed by the agency’s lack of accountability that he wrote a book about it, “Greed to Do Good: The Untold Story of CDC’s Disastrous War on Opioids.” Dr. Charles LeBaron says CDC leadership was blinded by its own hubris.

“The problem was not looking at the (guideline) sufficiently quantitatively and then not checking the consequences, or at least responding to the consequences when they're brought to your attention,” LeBaron told PNN. “Many of the same problems continue to exist, even though the personalities are completely different, and there are still significant restrictions on people in chronic pain for no apparent benefit.”

The personalities will change yet again when the Trump administration takes office on January 20. Conservative activists have made clear they want a major restructuring of the CDC, returning the agency to its core mission of collecting and disseminating data on communicable diseases. They want the CDC to stop telling people what to do, and to leave medical guidelines to professional societies and state medical boards.

More Lackluster Results for Non-Opioid Pain Reliever

By Pat Anson

New questions are being raised about the effectiveness of an experimental non-opioid analgesic and whether it can be a viable alternative to opioid pain medication.

Results from Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ Phase 2 clinical trial show that suzetrigine is essentially no more effective than a placebo in relieving back and hip pain caused by lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR).

After 12 weeks of treatment with the drug suzetrigine, patients with LSR had a 2.02 average reduction in their pain scores on a rating scale of zero to 10. That compares to an average reduction of 1.98 for patients who received a placebo or sham treatment.

Although the difference between 2.02 and 1.98 is minuscule, Vertex claimed the overall findings were “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” in a press release. The company blamed the lackluster results on the placebo effect and the difficulty of treating lumbosacral radiculopathy.

“Suzetrigine has again demonstrated its potential to fill an important unmet need in the treatment of pain,” said Carmen Bozic, MD, Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer at Vertex. “We did not see separation between the suzetrigine and the placebo arms. Yet our post-hoc analyses suggest that this could be due to the high placebo response in this study.”

Despite the disappointing results, Vertex still plans to go ahead with a Phase 3 study of suzetrigine for LSR, while changing the study design to minimize the impact of the placebo.

“Managing the placebo response in pain trials is a complex challenge. We look forward to innovating in clinical trial design, including for the pivotal study, with the aim of bringing a potentially safe and effective treatment to patients suffering from LSR," said Christine Sang, MD, co-chair of Vertex’s Peripheral Neuropathic Pain steering committee and principal investigator of the study.

Suzetrigine is already under consideration by the FDA as a treatment for acute pain, with a decision expected in late January. If approved, suzetrigine would be the first new medication for acute pain in over two decades.

Unlike opioids, suzetrigine blocks pain signals in the peripheral nervous system before they reach the brain. That means it won’t have the “liking” effect that opioids can have in some patients or be as addictive.

Although suzetrigine has been touted as a novel painkiller that "could bring relief to millions” without the risk of addiction, findings from earlier studies have also been mixed. In a Phase 3 trial of patients recovering from minimally invasive surgery, suzetrigine was no more effective than a low dose combination of hydrocodone and acetaminophen, more commonly known as Vicodin.

Although Vertex downplayed the results from the Phase 2 study, shares of the company lost about 15% of their value after last week’s announcement. Wall Street analysts said the Phase 2 findings were “very messy” and "raise considerable risk around suzetrigine's potential.”

Ultimately, it will be up to the FDA to decide whether suzetrigine should be allowed on the market. The agency is under pressure to approve new non-opioid analgesics, so it may look past the disappointing clinical trial findings. If approval is granted in January, it will coincide with implementation of the NOPAIN Act, which will make non-opioid analgesics in outpatient surgical settings eligible for higher Medicare reimbursement rates.  

In addition to acute pain and lumbosacral radiculopathy, Vertex is also studying suzetrigine as a treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

How U.S. Set the Stage for a Bird Flu Pandemic

By Amy Maxmen, KFF Health News

Keith Poulsen’s jaw dropped when farmers showed him images on their cellphones at the World Dairy Expo in Wisconsin in October. A livestock veterinarian at the University of Wisconsin, Poulsen had seen sick cows before, with their noses dripping and udders slack.

But the scale of the farmers’ efforts to treat the sick cows stunned him. They showed videos of systems they built to hydrate hundreds of cattle at once. In 14-hour shifts, dairy workers pumped gallons of electrolyte-rich fluids into ailing cows through metal tubes inserted into the esophagus.

“It was like watching a field hospital on an active battlefront treating hundreds of wounded soldiers,” he said.

Nearly a year into the first outbreak of the bird flu among cattle, the virus shows no sign of slowing. The U.S. government failed to eliminate the virus on dairy farms when it was confined to a handful of states, by quickly identifying infected cows and taking measures to keep their infections from spreading. Now at least 875 herds across 16 states have tested positive.

Experts say they have lost faith in the government’s ability to contain the outbreak.

“We are in a terrible situation and going into a worse situation,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “I don’t know if the bird flu will become a pandemic, but if it does, we are screwed.”

To understand how the bird flu got out of hand, KFF Health News interviewed nearly 70 government officials, farmers and farmworkers, and researchers with expertise in virology, pandemics, veterinary medicine, and more.

Together with emails obtained from local health departments through public records requests, this investigation revealed key problems, including deference to the farm industry, eroded public health budgets, neglect for the safety of agriculture workers, and the sluggish pace of federal interventions.

Case in point: The U.S. Department of Agriculture this month announced a federal order to test milk nationwide. Researchers welcomed the news but said it should have happened months ago — before the virus was so entrenched.

“It’s disheartening to see so many of the same failures that emerged during the covid-19 crisis reemerge,” said Tom Bollyky, director of the Global Health Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Far more bird flu damage is inevitable, but the extent of it will be left to the Trump administration and Mother Nature.

Already, the USDA has funneled more than $1.7 billion into tamping down the bird flu on poultry farms since 2022, which includes reimbursing farmers who’ve had to cull their flocks, and more than $430 million into combating the bird flu on dairy farms.

In coming years, the bird flu may cost billions of dollars more in expenses and losses. Dairy industry experts say the virus kills roughly 2% to 5% of infected dairy cows and reduces a herd’s milk production by about 20%.

Worse, the outbreak poses the threat of a pandemic. More than 60 people in the U.S. have been infected, mainly by cows or poultry, but cases could skyrocket if the virus evolves to spread efficiently from person to person. And the recent news of a person critically ill in Louisiana with the bird flu shows that the virus can be dangerous.

RUNNY NOSE OF DAIRY COW

Just a few mutations could allow the bird flu to spread between people. Because viruses mutate within human and animal bodies, each infection is like a pull of a slot machine lever.

“Even if there’s only a 5% chance of a bird flu pandemic happening, we’re talking about a pandemic that probably looks like 2020 or worse,” said Tom Peacock, a bird flu researcher at the Pirbright Institute in the United Kingdom, referring to covid. “The U.S. knows the risk but hasn’t done anything to slow this down,” he added.

Beyond the bird flu, the federal government’s handling of the outbreak reveals cracks in the U.S. health security system that would allow other risky new pathogens to take root.

“This virus may not be the one that takes off,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, director of the emerging diseases group at the World Health Organization. “But this is a real fire exercise right now, and it demonstrates what needs to be improved.”

A Slow Start

It may have been a grackle, a goose, or some other wild bird that infected a cow in northern Texas. In February, the state’s dairy farmers took note when cows stopped making milk. They worked alongside veterinarians to figure out why. In less than two months, veterinary researchers identified the highly pathogenic H5N1 bird flu virus as the culprit.

Long listed among pathogens with pandemic potential, the bird flu’s unprecedented spread among cows marked a worrying shift. It had evolved to thrive in animals that are more like people biologically than birds.

After the USDA announced the dairy outbreak on March 25, control shifted from farmers, veterinarians, and local officials to state and federal agencies. Collaboration disintegrated almost immediately.

Farmers worried the government might block their milk sales or even demand sick cows be killed, as poultry are, said Kay Russo, a livestock veterinarian in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Instead, Russo and other veterinarians said, they were dismayed by inaction. The USDA didn’t respond to their urgent requests to support studies on dairy farms — and for money and confidentiality policies to protect farmers from financial loss if they agreed to test animals.

The USDA announced that it would conduct studies itself. But researchers grew anxious as weeks passed without results. “Probably the biggest mistake from the USDA was not involving the boots-on-the-ground veterinarians,” Russo said.

Will Clement, a USDA senior adviser for communications, said in an email: “Since first learning of H5N1 in dairy cattle in late March 2024, USDA has worked swiftly and diligently to assess the prevalence of the virus in U.S. dairy herds.” The agency provided research funds to state and national animal health labs beginning in April, he added.

The USDA didn’t require lactating cows to be tested before interstate travel until April 29. By then, the outbreak had spread to eight other states. Farmers often move cattle across great distances, for calving in one place, raising in warm, dry climates, and milking in cooler ones. Analyses of the virus’s genes implied that it spread between cows rather than repeatedly jumping from birds into herds.

Milking equipment was a likely source of infection, and there were hints of other possibilities, such as through the air as cows coughed or in droplets on objects, like work boots. But not enough data had been collected to know how exactly it was happening. Many farmers declined to test their herds, despite an announcement of funds to compensate them for lost milk production in May.

“There is a fear within the dairy farmer community that if they become officially listed as an affected farm, they may lose their milk market,” said Jamie Jonker, chief science officer at the National Milk Producers Federation, an organization that represents dairy farmers. To his knowledge, he added, this hasn’t happened.

Speculation filled knowledge gaps. Zach Riley, head of the Colorado Livestock Association, said he suspected that wild birds may be spreading the virus to herds across the country, despite scientific data suggesting otherwise. Riley said farmers were considering whether to install “floppy inflatable men you see outside of car dealerships” to ward off the birds.

Advisories from agriculture departments to farmers were somewhat speculative, too. Officials recommended biosecurity measures such as disinfecting equipment and limiting visitors. As the virus kept spreading throughout the summer, USDA senior official Eric Deeble said at a press briefing, “The response is adequate.”

The USDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration presented a united front at these briefings, calling it a “One Health” approach. In reality, agriculture agencies took the lead.

This was explicit in an email from a local health department in Colorado to the county’s commissioners. “The State is treating this primarily as an agriculture issue (rightly so) and the public health part is secondary,” wrote Jason Chessher, public health director in Weld County, Colorado. The state’s leading agriculture county, Weld’s livestock and poultry industry produces about $1.9 billion in sales each year.

Patchy Surveillance

In July, the bird flu spread from dairies in Colorado to poultry farms. To contain it, two poultry operations employed about 650 temporary workers — Spanish-speaking immigrants as young as 15 — to cull flocks. Inside hot barns, they caught infected birds, gassed them with carbon dioxide, and disposed of the carcasses. Many did the hazardous job without goggles, face masks, and gloves.

By the time Colorado’s health department asked if workers felt sick, five women and four men had been infected. They all had red, swollen eyes — conjunctivitis — and several had such symptoms as fevers, body aches, and nausea.

State health departments posted online notices offering farms protective gear, but dairy workers in several states told KFF Health News that they had none. They also hadn’t heard about the bird flu, never mind tests for it.

Studies in Colorado, Michigan, and Texas would later show that bird flu cases had gone under the radar. In one analysis, eight dairy workers who hadn’t been tested — 7% of those studied — had antibodies against the virus, a sign that they had been infected.

Missed cases made it impossible to determine how the virus jumped into people and whether it was growing more infectious or dangerous.

“I have been distressed and depressed by the lack of epidemiologic data and the lack of surveillance,” said Nicole Lurie, an executive director at the international organization the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, who served as assistant secretary for preparedness and response in the Obama administration.

Citing “insufficient data,” the British government raised its assessment of the risk posed by the U.S. dairy outbreak in July from three to four on a six-tier scale.

Virologists around the world said they were flabbergasted by how poorly the United States was tracking the situation. “You are surrounded by highly pathogenic viruses in the wild and in farm animals,” said Marion Koopmans, head of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands. “If three months from now we are at the start of the pandemic, it is nobody’s surprise.”

Although the bird flu is not yet spreading swiftly between people, a shift in that direction could cause immense suffering. The CDC has repeatedly described the cases among farmworkers this year as mild — they weren’t hospitalized. But that doesn’t mean symptoms are a breeze, or that the virus can’t cause worse.

“It does not look pleasant,” wrote Sean Roberts, an emergency services specialist at the Tulare County, California, health department in an email to colleagues in May. He described photographs of an infected dairy worker in another state: “Apparently, the conjunctivitis that this is causing is not a mild one, but rather ruptured blood vessels and bleeding conjunctiva.”

Over the past 30 years, half of around 900 people diagnosed with bird flu around the world have died. Even if the case fatality rate is much lower for this strain of the bird flu, covid showed how devastating a 1% death rate can be when a virus spreads easily.

Like other cases around the world, the person now hospitalized with the bird flu in Louisiana appears to have gotten the virus directly from birds. After the case was announced, the CDC released a statement saying, “A sporadic case of severe H5N1 bird flu illness in a person is not unexpected.”

‘The Cows Are More Valuable Than Us’

Local health officials were trying hard to track infections, according to hundreds of emails from county health departments in five states. But their efforts were stymied. Even if farmers reported infected herds to the USDA and agriculture agencies told health departments where the infected cows were, health officials had to rely on farm owners for access.

“The agriculture community has dictated the rules of engagement from the start,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “That was a big mistake.”

Some farmers told health officials not to visit and declined to monitor their employees for signs of sickness. Sending workers to clinics for testing could leave them shorthanded when cattle needed care. “Producer refuses to send workers to Sunrise [clinic] to get tested since they’re too busy. He has pinkeye, too,” said an email from the Weld, Colorado, health department.

“We know of 386 persons exposed — but we know this is far from the total,” said an email from a public health specialist to officials at Tulare’s health department recounting a call with state health officials. “Employers do not want to run this through worker’s compensation. Workers are hesitant to get tested due to cost,” she wrote.

Jennifer Morse, medical director of the Mid-Michigan District Health Department, said local health officials have been hesitant to apply pressure after the backlash many faced at the peak of covid. Describing the 19 rural counties she serves as “very minimal-government-minded,” she said, “if you try to work against them, it will not go well.”

Rural health departments are also stretched thin. Organizations that specialize in outreach to farmworkers offered to assist health officials early in the outbreak, but months passed without contracts or funding. During the first years of covid, lagging government funds for outreach to farmworkers and other historically marginalized groups led to a disproportionate toll of the disease among people of color.

Kevin Griffis, director of communications at the CDC, said the agency worked with the National Center for Farmworker Health throughout the summer “to reach every farmworker impacted by H5N1.” But Bethany Boggess Alcauter, the center’s director of public health programs, said it didn’t receive a CDC grant for bird flu outreach until October, to the tune of $4 million. Before then, she said, the group had very limited funds for the task. “We are certainly not reaching ‘every farmworker,’” she added.

Farmworker advocates also pressed the CDC for money to offset workers’ financial concerns about testing, including paying for medical care, sick leave, and the risk of being fired. This amounted to an offer of $75 each. “Outreach is clearly not a huge priority,” Boggess said. “I hear over and over from workers, ‘The cows are more valuable than us.’”

The USDA has so far put more than $2.1 billion into reimbursing poultry and dairy farmers for losses due to the bird flu and other measures to control the spread on farms. Federal agencies have also put $292 million into developing and stockpiling bird flu vaccines for animals and people. In a controversial decision, the CDC has advised against offering the ones on hand to farmworkers.

“If you want to keep this from becoming a human pandemic, you focus on protecting farmworkers, since that’s the most likely way that this will enter the human population,” said Peg Seminario, an occupational health researcher in Bethesda, Maryland. “The fact that this isn’t happening drives me crazy.”

Nirav Shah, principal deputy director of the CDC, said the agency aims to keep workers safe. “Widespread awareness does take time,” he said. “And that’s the work we’re committed to doing.”

As President-elect Donald Trump comes into office in January, farmworkers may be even less protected. Trump’s pledge of mass deportations will have repercussions whether they happen or not, said Tania Pacheco-Werner, director of the Central Valley Health Policy Institute in California.

Many dairy and poultry workers are living in the U.S. without authorization or on temporary visas linked to their employers. Such precarity made people less willing to see doctors about covid symptoms or complain about unsafe working conditions in 2020. Pacheco-Werner said, “Mass deportation is an astronomical challenge for public health.”

First Human-to-Human Transmission?

A switch flipped in September among experts who study pandemics as national security threats. A patient in Missouri had the bird flu, and no one knew why. “Evidence points to this being a one-off case,” Shah said at a briefing with journalists. About a month later, the agency revealed it was not.

Antibody tests found that a person who lived with the patient had been infected, too. The CDC didn’t know how the two had gotten the virus, and the possibility of human transmission couldn’t be ruled out.

Nonetheless, at an October briefing, Shah said the public risk remained low and the USDA’s Deeble said he was optimistic that the dairy outbreak could be eliminated.

Experts were perturbed by such confident statements in the face of uncertainty, especially as California’s outbreak spiked and a child was mysteriously infected by the same strain of virus found on dairy farms.

“This wasn’t just immaculate conception,” said Stephen Morrison, director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It came from somewhere and we don’t know where, but that hasn’t triggered any kind of reset in approach — just the same kind of complacency and low energy.”

Sam Scarpino, a disease surveillance specialist in the Boston area, wondered how many other mysterious infections had gone undetected. Surveillance outside of farms was even patchier than on them, and bird flu tests have been hard to get.

Although pandemic experts had identified the CDC’s singular hold on testing for new viruses as a key explanation for why America was hit so hard by covid in 2020, the system remained the same. Bird flu tests could be run only by the CDC and public health labs until this month, even though commercial and academic diagnostic laboratories had inquired about running tests since April. The CDC and FDA should have tried to help them along months ago, said Ali Khan, a former top CDC official who now leads the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health.

As winter sets in, the bird flu becomes harder to spot because patient symptoms may be mistaken for the seasonal flu. Flu season also raises a risk that the two flu viruses could swap genes if they infect a person simultaneously. That could form a hybrid bird flu that spreads swiftly through coughs and sneezes.

A sluggish response to emerging outbreaks may simply be a new, unfortunate norm for America, said Bollyky, at the Council on Foreign Relations. If so, the nation has gotten lucky that the bird flu still can’t spread easily between people. Controlling the virus will be much harder and costlier than it would have been when the outbreak was small. But it’s possible.

Agriculture officials could start testing every silo of bulk milk, in every state, monthly, said Poulsen, the livestock veterinarian. “Not one and done,” he added. If they detect the virus, they’d need to determine the affected farm in time to stop sick cows from spreading infections to the rest of the herd — or at least to other farms. Cows can spread the bird flu before they’re sick, he said, so speed is crucial.

Curtailing the virus on farms is the best way to prevent human infections, said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, but human surveillance must be stepped up, too. Every clinic serving communities where farmworkers live should have easy access to bird flu tests — and be encouraged to use them. Funds for farmworker outreach must be boosted. And, she added, the CDC should change its position and offer farmworkers bird flu vaccines to protect them and ward off the chance of a hybrid bird flu that spreads quickly.

The rising number of cases not linked to farms signals a need for more testing in general. When patients are positive on a general flu test — a common diagnostic that indicates human, swine, or bird flu — clinics should probe more deeply, Nuzzo said.

The alternative is a wait-and-see approach in which the nation responds only after enormous damage to lives or businesses. This tack tends to rely on mass vaccination. But an effort analogous to Trump’s Operation Warp Speed is not assured, and neither is rollout like that for the first covid shots, given a rise in vaccine skepticism among Republican lawmakers.

Change may instead need to start from the bottom up — on dairy farms, still the most common source of human infections, said Poulsen. He noticed a shift in attitudes among farmers at the Dairy Expo: “They’re starting to say, ‘How do I save my dairy for the next generation?’ They recognize how severe this is, and that it’s not just going away.”

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

CVS Pushes Back Against DOJ’s Latest Opioid Lawsuit

By Crystal Lindell

The U.S. Justice Department’s latest opioid lawsuit against CVS is getting some push back from the pharmacy chain. The DOJ alleges that CVS knowingly filled “unlawful prescriptions” for opioids and other controlled substances, and then sought reimbursement for them from federal healthcare programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

Specifically, the DOJ claims that CVS had “corporate-mandated performance metrics” that incentivized pharmacists to fill the prescriptions. The government also alleges that CVS “set staffing levels far too low” for pharmacists to meet their corporate goals and legal obligations.

“Our complaint alleges that CVS repeatedly filled controlled substance prescriptions that were unlawful and pressured its pharmacists to fill such prescriptions without taking the time needed to confirm their validity,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said in a statement. “The practices alleged contributed to the opioid crisis and opioid-related deaths.”

CVS issued a statement in response to the lawsuit that “strongly disagrees with the allegations and false narrative.” The company said the standards the DOJ is claiming CVS didn’t meet are so vague and ever-changing as to be useless. 

“The government’s lawsuit seeks to impose a shifting standard for pharmacy practice,” CVS said. “Many of the litigation theories laid out in the complaint are not found in any statute or regulation, and relate to topics on which the government has declined to provide guidance.

“Each of the prescriptions in question was for an FDA-approved opioid medication prescribed by a practitioner who the government itself licensed, authorized, and empowered to write controlled-substance prescriptions.”

I have to say, it’s good to see CVS defend itself in these situations. 

Especially by pointing out the obvious: The prescriptions were written by doctors who were licensed by the government. Although pharmacists have a “corresponding authority” to make sure a prescription is legitimate, why should a private pharmacy chain be held to a higher standard than the government itself?

The government’s lawsuit intensifies a serious dilemma for the pharmacy industry, which is simultaneously second-guessed for dispensing too many opioids and for filling too few. 

Over the last few years, it seems like every government agency in existence has been looking for anyone they could possibly sue in relation to opioids. As a result, about $50 billion in opioid settlement money will be paid in coming years by opioid makers, distributors and pharmacies.

However, there’s one glaring aspect of this tactic that makes it clear the lawsuits aren’t about helping people hurt by opioids, but about finding ways for the government and plaintiff law firms to get more money. Much of the settlement money received so far has been earmarked for law enforcement and other government projects that have little to do with opioids.

‘We Will Defend Ourselves’

CVS has already agreed to pay about $5 billion to settle opioid litigation. The company says the latest lawsuit, which seeks unspecified additional penalties, is just another cash grab.

“We will defend ourselves vigorously against this misguided federal lawsuit, which follows on the heels of years of litigation over these issues by state and local governments — claims that already have been largely resolved by a global agreement with the participating state Attorneys General,” the company said. 

CVS says it has been an “industry leader” in developing programs to fight opioid misuse. In recent years, the nation’s largest pharmacy chain has refused to fill controlled substance prescriptions written by over 1,250 doctors, about half of whom the government continues to license. 

The company also points to its “Our Opioid Response” website, which features a telling headline about government regulations and the scrutiny faced by pharmacists: 

“Fill this opioid prescription. No, wait, actually you can’t do that. Or, maybe, you can: The dilemma for community pharmacists.”

The text on the site then goes on to again point out the DEA’s vague guidance and inconsistent stance on the issue. 

“Whichever decision they make, community pharmacists know they can – and will – be second-guessed later. Too often, we have seen government agencies and trial lawyers question the good-faith decisions made by pharmacists while a patient waits at the pharmacy counter, often in pain. While simultaneously being accused of dispensing too few opioids and too many, pharmacists and pharmacies face threats of liability no matter their actions,” CVS said.

A recent court case suggests that CVS and other pharmacy chains are making some headway in defending themselves. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this week that CVS, Walmart and Walgreens are not “public nuisances” under the state’s product liability law. Similar rulings have also been made in West Virginia, California and Oklahoma, rejecting public nuisance claims that resulted in costly opioid settlements.

CVS says it is standing up for “patients enduring relentless pain,” and as a patient who faces relentless pain, I’m happy to see it. While I’m skeptical that the overall tide is turning when it comes to public attitudes about opioids, it’s good to know at least one company is pushing back. 

Response to CEO Murder Shows Depth of Frustration with Health Insurers  

By Simon Haeder

The U.S. health care system leaves much to be desired.

It is convoluted, fragmented, complex and confusing. Experts have also raised concerns about quality, and disparities are rampant. And, of course, it is excessively costly – far more so than in any other developed nation. Given these failings, it is not surprising that Americans are unhappy with their health care system.

As the public reaction to the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has made clear, however, many Americans are perhaps most unhappy with their health insurers. Indeed, just 31% of Americans have a favorable view of the health insurance industry, according to a 2024 survey.

Yet, given the recent tragic events, as a health policy scholar, I think it would be prudent to take a step back and reflect on the broader health care system and how the U.S. got to this point.

Patchwork Healthcare

Few with any personal experience or professional expertise would describe U.S. health care as the gold standard of health care systems.

For a number of historical and political reasons, it is barely a “system” but rather a complex patchwork with countless different approaches to covering the costs of health care that include splitting the costs between individuals, employers and governments.

Governments also extensively regulate health and health care and, although in a diminished role today, serve as the providers of care through state and county hospitals as well as the Veterans Health Administration.

The result is a regulatory amalgam made up of countless entities. The Affordable Care Act reforms only added additional layers of laws and regulations to an already complex framework.

Yet, even beyond this general structure, Americans face many challenges. Indeed, no other health care system in the world is pricier. This involves costs for medical services but also extremely high administrative costs. Pharmaceuticals are just one example of the excessive financial burden carried by Americans.

For many Americans, these costs are too high, with an estimated 530,000 medical bankruptcies annually.

And despite that high price, concerns persist about quality and access.

In addition, the system tends to be highly inequitable and subject to countless disparities that make it harder for many poorer, rural and nonwhite Americans to access care.

The Role of Insurers

In the United States, insurers play a crucial role in connecting – and at times disconnecting – patients with the care they require.

They are also at the forefront of many of the starkest frustrations that Americans experience – even the ones they are not directly responsible for. While medical providers and pharmaceutical companies charge the world’s highest prices, it is generally up to insurers to tell patients how much they still have to pay or that their care won’t be covered. Insurers are also the ones who determine whether a drug is not covered or a doctor is “out of network,” meaning patients can’t get the specific treatment or care they desire.

To be sure, insurers are not just the messenger – they also add to many of the frustrations patients experience every day. For example, a patient may have to travel very far or wait a long time for an appointment if their provider network is too narrow or simply does not have enough providers. Moreover, the directories and searches that insurers use to show what providers are “in network” may be inaccurate, as they rarely get updated.

For many individuals, this can mean delayed or forgone care, which has major implications for their health and finances. For some, it can even lead to preventable deaths.

Some of the practices insurers are most infamous for, such as rescinding coverage over minor clerical issues and refusing to cover preexisting conditions, ended under the ACA. But some of these issues could return if the incoming Trump administration seeks to undo some of the ACA’s protections.

Even today, so called short-term, limited-duration health plans promise good coverage for lower premiums, but even basic items may not be covered. Many plans, for example, do not cover prescription drugs or even hospital emergency rooms.

Blame the System, Not Just Insurers

Why do insurers act the way they do? For many, the answer may seem simple: to make money. This, of course, rings true – insurers in the U.S. rake in billions of dollar. However, while they tend to be profitable, their margins generally range only from 3% to 5%.

But the story is more complicated than that. With government power limited, insurers are perhaps the only force in the U.S. health care industry trying to rein in rising costs in a health care system where everyone seeks to maximize their profits.

That means insurers take on the role of bad cop, doing things such as limiting access to certain care or doctors. But there are several prudent reasons for doing so; for instance, it’s in the public’s best interest when insurers do not cover drugs that have been shown ineffective or of low quality. And ultimately this does keep premiums lower than they would otherwise be. Of course, insurers and their CEOs profit handsomely in the process. And at times, their methods are ethically and legally questionable.

Ultimately, many if not most of the frustrations Americans experience with health care have their origins in a poorly designed system that is highly inefficient and offers countless opportunities for profit. Yet insurers are only one – perhaps the most visible – part of that broken system.

Simon F. Haeder, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Public Health in the Department of Health Policy & Management in the School of Public Health at Texas A&M University. His most recent work has focused on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, provider networks, and regulatory policymaking at the Office of Management and Budget.

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

Should We Diagnose Random Strangers on the Internet?

By Crystal Lindell

I need to say something that is considered controversial in the online chronic illness community: I actually think that we should diagnose random strangers on the internet.

At least sometimes. 

I know, I know. This is the kind of thing most people in the chronic illness community rally against. It’s frowned upon and quickly policed anytime it comes up. 

If you so much as hint that someone with overextended elbows in an Instagram Reel video could have Ehlers-Danlo syndrome (EDS), you’ll get swarmed with comments along the lines of “Don’t diagnose random strangers on the internet!”

But I’m coming to this topic from my own personal experience of being correctly diagnosed by random strangers on the internet. 

After I started writing about my health issues online, readers emailed me to say that they thought I might have EDS. I then took that information to my doctors, who eventually diagnosed me. 

Despite the fact that all of my joints very clearly overextend and that multiple doctors had commented on this to me, none of them even mentioned EDS until I brought it up. So, without the random strangers on the internet, there’s a good chance I never would have known that I have EDS. 

It doesn’t stop there though. Because of that chain of events, many of my family members were also diagnosed with EDS. And someday, future generations might be as well. 

That’s a whole family of people finally knowing what has been afflicting us for generations, and finally understanding that all the chronic health issues we’ve experienced are related. 

There’s power in that, but more importantly there are tangible benefits to it. Knowing that we have EDS and that we are likely to pass it on to our children helps us make more informed decisions about our health in countless ways. 

And it’s all because random strangers on the internet diagnosed me. 

I understand that actively writing about my health issues is not the same thing as people posting random videos on all sorts of topics on TikTok. I get that my content was much more open to the idea of health input from strangers. 

But I would argue that this aversion to diagnosing random strangers online can be harmful to patients. It leads to fewer people knowing what’s wrong with them – and more people thinking that whatever is wrong is some kind of moral failing. 

I do get that EDS, especially the hypermobile type, stands out in this conversation because there are very clear visual markers of the disease. But I don’t think we should stop at EDS, especially in the United States where healthcare is a for-profit industry. I’ll even go so far as to say that I consider it mutual aid to offer free medical advice to others online.

It’s not like we as online commenters are doctors who can prescribe medications to people we’ve diagnosed. Merely mentioning to someone that they may have an illness just opens the door for them to look into that diagnosis themselves and to then bring it up with their doctor. Millions of people have done that after consulting with “Dr. Google” online – usually to the chagrin of their actual doctors.

The idea that it is bad to even comment on a public post about health also serves to continue stigmatizing many illnesses. After all, it’s not a bad thing to have EDS, so why would it be a bad thing to mention to someone online that they could have it? 

Many doctors miss very obvious diagnoses because our for-profit healthcare system mandates that they rush patients through appointments. Their egos also tend to dismiss their patients’ descriptions of their health issues. 

Sometimes the best chance we have is actually random strangers on the internet. 

Now obviously, I need to add an important disclaimer here. If someone specifically says that they do not want medical input, you should listen to them. 

But I would also tell people that refusing medical input could be a bad idea. There is a lot of power in crowdsourcing information. And who knows, random strangers on the internet may just figure out what’s going on with your health before your doctor does. 

A Healthy Diet May Ease Chronic Pain

By Pat Anson

We’ve all been told that eating a healthy diet and watching our weight are essential to good health.

What you may not know is that healthy eating can also reduce the severity of chronic pain, even if you are overweight or obese.

That’s one of the key findings from an Australian study that found a healthy diet was linked to less pain, especially among women, regardless of body weight.

"It's common knowledge that eating well is good for your health and well-being. But knowing that simple changes to your diet could offset chronic pain, could be life changing," said Sue Ward, PhD, a researcher at the University of South Australia and lead author of the study published in the journal Nutrition Research.

"Knowing that food choices and the overall quality of a person's diet will not only make a person healthier, but also help reduce their pain levels, is extremely valuable."

Warn and her colleagues analyzed data from 654 Australians who were surveyed about their health, fitness and eating habits. Over two-thirds were considered overweight (36%) or obese (35%), and had high levels of body fat (adipose tissue).

The participants’ diets were then compared with the Australian Dietary Guideline, which emphasizes the consumption of vegetables, fruit, lean meat, fish, legumes/beans, and low fat dairy products.

The researchers found that diet quality works differently in men and women. Women with better diets had lower pain levels and better physical function, an association that was much weaker for men.

Why Healthy Food Reduces Pain

It’s the anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant properties of healthy food that appear to reduce pain.

"In our study, higher consumption of core foods — which are your vegetables, fruits, grains, lean meats, dairy and alternatives — was related to less pain, and this was regardless of body weight,” said Ward. "This is important because being overweight or obese is a known risk factor for chronic pain.

The findings are good news for people with pain who may struggle with their weight but are sedentary and unable to exercise. Having a few extra pounds will not inhibit the pain-reducing effect of a healthy diet.

“Despite high levels of adiposity in the study population, and the potential for excess adipose tissue to contribute to inflammation, risk for pain, and impact on physical function, there was limited evidence for adiposity mediating relationships between diet quality and pain or physical function,” researchers concluded.

“Recognizing dietary intake as a relevant aspect in assessing and managing pain holds importance in the context of overweight and obesity. In situations where long-term weight loss may not be feasible, attainable, or even desirable, people may show a greater inclination to adopt healthful dietary modifications that could potentially impact their pain.”

The research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that high fat Western diets can make pain worse. A recent study found that foods high in saturated fat and low in fiber can trigger an immune system response that can lead to rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

High fiber diets reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, while promoting the growth of healthy bacteria that slow the progression of RA and reduce joint pain.

You Are a Medical Commodity

By Dr. David Hanscom 

The shocking murder of a health insurance executive and the glorification – by some – of Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer, has underscored how many Americans feel about the U.S. healthcare system.

Medicine has become big business and you, the patient, are a hot commodity. You and your health problems are the main source of revenue for many companies needing to report big profits to their shareholders. In this era of so-called health reform, it’s essential to understand what this means to you – and the news is not good.

As a spine surgeon, I enjoy caring for patients and performing surgeries when needed, and do my best to help people feel better and function well. Unfortunately, most people getting spine surgery today not only won’t be helped, they’ll suffer more as a result of complications from surgeries they shouldn’t have.

For example, let’s look at spinal fusion for low back pain. There is clear research showing that only about 25% of patients significantly benefit from a spine fusion for lower back pain. Another report from Washington State, where I practiced, showed that just 15% of people who had a spinal fusion returned to work one year after their operation.

Physicians today are trained to use evidence-based data to make treatment decisions – and yet, when it comes to low back pain, the data is routinely ignored. A 2009 study showed that physicians eschew established clinical guidelines for best practices in treating back pain.

3 Patient Stories: George, Teresa and Tom

George, a middle-aged businessman, had lower back pain. The first spinal fusion he had didn’t help, so he had another. As a result of complications from that second (unnecessary) surgery, he lost bowel and bladder function, and has to walk with crutches.

Teresa was struck in the back by a swinging steel beam while at work. It was a significant blow, but she only had a bruise, no fractures.  Her discomfort was treated with 15 sets of injections that included facet blocks, epidural cortisone injections, and dye into most of her discs.

She also underwent a spinal fusion from her neck down to her pelvis – an operation that made it impossible for her to stand upright, as she was fused in a flexed-forward position. I was able to help her stand up straight again after a 10-hour procedure that involved cutting her spine in two to re-straighten her back.

Had Teresa only gotten some work on her back muscles after the workplace injury, she could have gone back to everyday life without surgery.

Tom had a narrowing of his lumbar spinal canal caused by spinal stenosis, which caused weakness in his legs. The stenosis should have been treated with a simple, three-level laminectomy (simple removal of bone), as his spine was stable. Instead, he had surgery to fuse his spine at eight levels from his 10th thoracic vertebra to the pelvis. A fusion is only indicated for an unstable spine and is a much bigger operation.

After the fusion, Tom suffered a series of infections and fractures, requiring 15 additional operations in 30 months. He is now solidly fused at 24 levels from the base of his skull to his pelvis. He did not do well.

I could share dozens of stories like these, all with a common theme. Though they were experiencing back and leg pain, not a single one required fusion surgery. Fusions are necessary and helpful only for unstable or deformed spines, and they do not relieve back pain. The more significant number of levels fused during surgery requires more extended operations, which have a higher chance of complications.

All three of the patients I described above could have been helped with a structured spine care program to implement known effective treatments to decrease their pain and improve the odds of a successful surgery.

Instead, they were subjected to unnecessary risks and unspeakable misery. Spread out over the hundreds of thousands of other patients who could tell similar stories, the costs to society in dollars and human suffering are enormous.

Why Is This Happening?  

There are several reasons, some concerning how doctors are trained, but money is a significant factor. Spinal fusion is a lucrative procedure for hospitals.  Hospitals now employ an increasing number of physicians and many use their electronic medical records to track the number of diagnostic tests that their doctors order and the surgical procedures they perform. Doctors are rewarded financially with bonuses for doing as many surgeries as possible, but they get negative ratings for not doing enough to contribute to the institution's profitability.

That’s bad enough, but even worse, these highly profitable procedures have been well-documented as not working. Effective treatments are often (usually) not covered by insurance. Instead of solving and preventing disability, the business of medicine is creating it. The total cost of chronic disease in the U.S. is approaching $4 trillion a year. Yet nothing is being done to solve it.

The Hippocratic Oath swears us doctors to first to do no harm. That also means doing the right thing for our patients, regardless of the situation. It is often said that the financial incentives need to change to create a healthier medical system. The Oath does not say to treat patients with the best standard of care only if they can pay for it.

One place change has to occur is with each physician refusing to be intimidated by hospital administrators and by demanding more time to talk to their patients.

This is a complicated state of affairs, and I am not blaming any group for causing it. I am continually impressed by how committed physicians are to doing the right thing for patients. But in this practice-for-profit climate, they need to be allowed more time or be given the resources to do so.

Only about 10% of spine surgeons implement psychological screening prior to surgery that will optimize a patient’s chances of a successful outcome. Many surgeons don’t feel it is their responsibility. Really? Are we going back to the days when barbers were the surgeons? Are we only technicians?

Hospital systems are problematic because administrative costs have risen 3,000% over the last 10 years, while physician salaries have grown by 15%. The increased “productivity” goes directly into management’s pockets.

BTW, 65% of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. Could this be a factor in creating our homelessness epidemic?

Profits Over Safety

The core problem lies with the healthcare-for-profit model and the scale at which it is being practiced. It is focused on making money off of illness, rather than encouraging wellness. Businesses must operate profitably, but at whose expense? Is there any shareholder willing to trade their health for the betterment of the bottom line? Why should you be the one to be the fuel for this machine?

We can’t afford to continue down this road. Medical consumers – that’s you, me, and our husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters -- are the core revenue source. We must become better, more educated and more vocal consumers of healthcare, and we must refuse to be treated like medical commodities.

This effort needs to begin NOW and with one person at a time. You deserve much better than this.

David Hanscom, MD, is an orthopedic spine surgeon who has helped hundreds of back pain sufferers by teaching them how to calm their central nervous systems without the use of drugs or surgery.

David is the author of ”Back in Control: A Spine Surgeon's Roadmap Out of Chronic Pain,” one of the books on back pain that was read by Luigi Mangione.

What Qualifies Someone as Disabled?

By Crystal Lindell

There’s a common question in the disability community about what qualifies someone as “disabled.”

My advice to anyone considering this question about themselves is this: People who are not disabled do not sit around contemplating whether or not they are disabled. 

So, if you are wondering if your health issues qualify you as disabled: They do.  

A lot of Americans have a rigid idea of “disability” based on how it’s often portrayed in popular culture. The idea is that “real” disabled people use something like a wheelchair, a walking cane, or a walker. Those Hollywood props are what qualifies someone as legitimately disabled. 

But in real life, that’s not true. Disability is often gradual, slowly chipping away at our abilities – but taking them away nonetheless. Which means it can be hard to know when we’ve crossed the threshold into fully disabled. And we may arrive there without so much as a walking cane. 

In truth, it took me years to fully grasp this about my own diminishing health. 

My pain often makes it so that I cannot leave the house, even with pain medication. Grocery shopping trips leave me exhausted, assuming I even have the energy to push through that day’s pain to navigate the store in the first place. I am on daily medications, I put off showers because they are too difficult for me to handle, and I often cancel plans last minute when my body decides to be uncooperative. 

Yet despite all of that, I still did not know if I should consider myself "disabled."

Over time though, I have come to realize that my health problems impact so many aspects of my life, that of course I am disabled. 

After we decide to take on the label of “disabled” for ourselves, we often meet the next hurdle: pushback from loved ones and strangers who bristle at the distinction. 

There’s also a common sentiment among patients with chronic illness where they think if they meet some imaginary threshold of disabled, then finally people will start to accept their limitations and maybe even show some sympathy. Unfortunately, that is often not the case. 

When it comes to health issues, you will never find validation from others. There is no level of mobility aids or level of diagnosis you can get where people who’ve dismissed your health issues in the past will suddenly start to accept them. 

That’s in large part because when people interact with a disabled person, it requires them to contemplate the fact that their own body could eventually fail them one day. 

Some people choose to hold space for that realization in themselves and then express empathy. But others try to reject it, choosing instead to accuse the disabled person of being overdramatic. That’s because they don’t want to consider just how vulnerable our human bodies really are.  

I’ve heard people dismiss diagnosed cancer patients as “hypochondriacs” for complaining about their symptoms. I’ve seen people claim that POTS is not a real disability, despite the fact that it’s often debilitating and life-altering. And I’ve heard people tell loved ones not to use a wheelchair when they need it, because it might make them “give up.” As though we are ever allowed to give up in our bodies. 

Personally, I think of the time I sprained my ankle back in high school. At the time I was working at Walmart, and I went into work despite the severe pain, swelling and bruising on my ankle. Unable to put any weight on it, I used one of the store’s electric mobility scooters to get around the store during my shift. 

A co-worker felt the need to come right up to me and tell me that I shouldn’t be using it because I should be saving the scooters for people who “really” need them. Apparently being unable to walk did not qualify me. 

My advice here is that other’s opinions of your body are irrelevant. They don’t know what it’s like to live with your symptoms, so it doesn’t matter if they accept the label of disabled for you or not. All that matters is that you accept whatever you label you decide to use. 

And, like I said, if you’re wondering if you are “disabled” you probably are. And that’s okay. Now that you’ve named it, you can get on with the noble work of finding new ways to live with it.

Rage Against the System: Opioid Lawsuits, Trump and the UnitedHealthcare Shooting

By Dr. Lynn Webster

In recent years, we’ve witnessed a collective shift in societal attitudes, where deep-seated anger and disillusionment are driving public narratives in unsettling ways.

Three seemingly unrelated phenomena -- the public applause for opioid lawsuit settlements, unwavering support for Donald Trump, and the viral glorification of Luigi Mangione, who allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealthcare -- are not as disparate as they first appear.

Together, they reveal a troubling portrait of the undercurrents shaping modern America: a sense of betrayal, unchecked populist rage, and a growing disdain for perceived elites.

The Opioid Crisis

The opioid epidemic has left an indelible scar on American society, and the plethora of lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies like Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and others has been widely celebrated.

These legal victories are seen by many as a reckoning for the corporations and individuals who allegedly profited from human suffering. However, beneath this applause lies something darker -- a visceral hatred for systems and figures viewed as complicit in perpetuating a crisis that ruined lives and decimated communities.

While the lawsuits represent an attempt at justice, they have done little to address the underlying anger that millions of Americans feel. Many believe the settlements, while historic, are a drop in the bucket compared to the lives lost and families shattered. This resentment fuels a broader anti-establishment sentiment, one that increasingly targets not only corporations, but anyone perceived to be profiting at the expense of the vulnerable.

The Cult of Trump

Donald Trump’s rise and sustained political influence hinge on a similar anger: a profound distrust of institutions, wokeness, and systems perceived to exploit ordinary Americans.

Trump’s base is galvanized not by policy specifics, but by his ability to channel their rage and direct it at convenient targets -- be it the media, the "deep state," or global corporations. His support thrives on a shared belief that traditional systems, including the government, have failed to protect the American public.

The opioid lawsuits and Trumpism overlap in their shared narrative of betrayal by elites. Whether it’s Big Pharma, corporate executives, or Washington insiders, these movements feed off the same anger -- a belief that the powerful have sacrificed ordinary Americans for profit or political gain.

The Mangione Phenomenon

Enter Luigi Mangione, a name that now reverberates across social media, not because of his actions alone, but because of what he represents in the public imagination.

Allegedly responsible for the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, Mangione has been transformed into a meme and even a symbol of resistance against perceived corporate exploitation. Viral hashtags, merchandise, and online jokes portray him as a folk hero for those who feel victimized by insurance companies and the broader healthcare system.

What’s striking is not just the speed at which this narrative has developed, but the glee with which Mangione’s alleged crime has been embraced. Social media platforms, awash with memes and satirical merchandise, have turned an act of violence into a rallying cry. This reaction is deeply rooted in the same anger that celebrates opioid lawsuits and supports populist leaders.

UnitedHealthcare, representing an industry notorious for denying claims and driving up costs, has become a symbol of the kind of unchecked corporate power people love to hate. Mangione’s alleged actions, while abhorrent, have been reframed as an act of rebellion against a system that many feel prioritizes profits over people.

What This Reveals About Us

Taken together, these phenomena reflect a society grappling with betrayal, powerlessness, and the long-term consequences of institutional failures. The opioid epidemic, insurance company practices, and political stagnation are all symptoms of systems that millions of Americans believe have failed them. Instead of addressing these issues with nuance or systemic reform, we’ve turned to simplified narratives that vilify individuals and institutions.

The memeification of Mangione, much like the unwavering support for Trump and the uncritical celebration of opioid lawsuit settlements, reveals a deep longing for retribution -- a sense that someone, anyone, must pay for the perceived injustices of modern life. Yet this focus on retribution distracts from meaningful solutions and perpetuates a cycle of outrage and despair.

Moving Forward

The overlapping applause for lawsuits, political populism, and dark memes should serve as a wake-up call. These phenomena highlight not only the anger but also the desperation of a society searching for accountability in all the wrong places.

Addressing these issues requires more than legal settlements, political rhetoric, or viral content; it demands a reimagining of the systems and structures that have allowed such disillusionment to fester.

If we fail to address the root causes of this anger -- systemic inequities, lack of accountability, and the growing divide between the powerful and the powerless -- we risk further polarizing a society already on edge.

We need solutions that offer more than fleeting justice or performative outrage. Only then can we begin to rebuild trust in the institutions that are supposed to serve us all.

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is Senior Fellow at the Center for U.S. Policy (CUSP) and Executive VP Dr. Vince Clinical Research. He also consults with the pharmaceutical industry. Lynn is the author of the award-winning book "The Painful Truth" and co-producer of the documentary "It Hurts Until You Die." You can find him on Bluesky: @butchielyons.bsky.social.

CEO Shooting Exposes Deep Faults in U.S. Healthcare System

By Crystal Lindell

Over the last few weeks I’ve been privately lamenting the fact that we just completed an entire presidential election cycle with almost zero mention of health insurance from either of the major party candidates. 

Healthcare costs impact so much of my life and the lives of loved ones, yet it seems like neither the Republicans or Democrats even noticed. Just a few years ago, there were conversations about the possibility of Medicare for All or at least a public option from the U.S. government – but in 2024, both of those things seemed to have been forgotten. 

My credit was destroyed long ago by tens of thousands of dollars in medical debt, all of which were incurred when I was still working full-time and when I still had what most people would consider “good” health insurance. 

Now, as a freelancer, I’ve just gone without. I did try to look into private health insurance, but it costs too much and covers too little, so I decided that it made more sense to live without health insurance for the last 2 years. I pay cash for doctor appointments and prescriptions while trying my best to avoid hospitals.

I’m not the only one I know struggling with health insurance and healthcare costs though. 

My grandma’s Medicare Advantage plan recently kicked her out of a short-term rehab facility because they said she was fit to go home – despite the fact that she could not even stand up to use the toilet yet. 

My sibling had to put off a needed procedure until they could get a new job that offered better insurance. 

And my mom can’t go on Social Security yet because she’s still a couple years too young for Medicare, and the Social Security payments would mean she’d lose her Medicaid eligibility. 

In fact, the only people I’ve ever met in real life who like the health insurance industry are people who work for the health insurance industry. And I have long said that the only people in America who like their own health insurance are the people who’ve never really had to use it

Over the last few years I’ve become even more radicalized on the issue. I’ve come to realize health insurance in America is an active scam. That’s in large part because it’s usually tied to your employment.

The problem is that when someone gets truly sick, one of the first things they often lose is their ability to work. The entire healthcare system is set up to make most people pay for insurance when they’re well, and then to make them lose their insurance as soon as they might need to use it. That’s a scam. Especially as insurers rake in billions of dollars in profit annually while running this scam. 

Plus, if you somehow manage to hold on to your job and your insurance after getting sick, the  insurance companies often won’t pay for all your healthcare costs. They do their best to deny as many claims as possible. 

Vigilante Justice

Last week, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot in a targeted assassination in New York. Luigi Mangione, a 26-year-old who suffered from chronic back pain, has been arrested for the crime. 

It was the kind of violent act that just a few years ago I think most Americans would have bristled at. Vigilante violence isn’t usually something that finds mainstream acceptance here. 

But as healthcare costs continue to ruin people’s lives, while politicians ignore all the suffering, the reaction to the shooting wasn’t universal condemnation – it was glee. All over the internet, people rejoiced at the news. And there’s already merchandise supporting the alleged shooter being sold online. 

There’s no doubt that Thompson’s decisions as CEO of the largest private health insurer in the world have resulted in people dying. Afterall, UntiedHealthcare has the highest claim denial rate in the industry. 

And make no mistake, claim denials kill people. It means that patients who needed life-saving treatments couldn’t get them. Yet the U.S. justice system would never make Thompson face any form of criminal liability for those deaths. 

Human beings crave justice though. And when the law stops giving it to them, they seek it elsewhere.

Thompson’s shooting – and the public reaction to it – are predictable. In a system where a well-paid insurance executive will never even be arrested, the desire for justice doesn’t evaporate. 

Most Americans understand this already. We live it everyday, and we know healthcare costs in the United States are unsustainable. 

It’s the politicians – who actually have the power to fix any of this – who refuse to see the truth. They all receive large donations from the insurance industry to make sure we never get so much as a public option. 

But truth demands to be seen. You can’t hide it forever. And people will instinctively feel joy when it is revealed – even if that joy is in response to a vigilante assassination. 

I’m not hopeful that our politicians will acknowledge these truths now. But it would be in their best interest to do so. 

Suspect in Shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Had Chronic Back Pain

By Pat Anson

The 26-year-old suspect arrested for last week’s brazen shooting of an insurance company executive suffered from chronic back pain severe enough to require surgery.

Luigi Mangione was detained at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania after a witness reported to police that he looked similar to the man wanted in the Manhattan assassination of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare. Mangione was initially held on gun charges, and later charged with murder by New York City police.  

"He matches the description of the person we are looking for," NYC mayor Eric Adams said in a news conference.

Mangione had a handgun and a silencer that were "consistent with the weapon used in the murder," according to NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch.

He also had several fake IDs and a handwritten manifesto that explained his motives. Police sources told the New York Post that Mangione hated the U.S. healthcare system.

“These parasites had it coming,” the manifesto reportedly says. “It had to be done.”

Mangione is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, where he majored in computer science and received a master's degree in engineering.

LUIGI MANGIONE / x

In his online accounts, Mangione wrote about artificial intelligence and reposted links about psychedelics and mental health. He also shared that he suffered from spondylolisthesis, a chronic condition where vertebrae in the spine slip out of place and cause back pain.

Mangione’s profile on Twitter/X includes an x-ray image of several screws embedded in a spine. It appears to be his own x-ray. A second image shows a smiling and seemingly fit Mangione hiking bare-shirted in Hawaii.

A friend and former roommate of Mangione said he had to spend several days in bed after aggravating his back during a surfing lesson in Hawaii.

“He was in bed for about a week. We had to get a different bed for him that was more firm,” R.J. Martin told CNN’s Erin Burnett. “And I know it was really traumatic and difficult. You know, when you're in your early 20’s and you can't do some basic things, it can be really, really difficult.”

Martin said Mangione was thoughtful, friendly and communicated well. The two fell out-of-touch when Mangione left Hawaii, but exchanged texts earlier this year.

“I knew he was going to have a surgery. So earlier this year, I checked in with him. He confirmed that he had had surgery, and he sent me the X rays. It looked heinous with just giant screws going into his spine,” Martin said.

“After that, he called me once and I didn't pick up. We kind of texted a little bit, but we lost contact unfortunately. I feel terrible now. I wish I would have made more of an effort to communicate with him.”

‘Violence Is Necessary to Survive’

While in Hawaii, Martin says Mangione started a book club with his roommates. His profile on Goodreads shows a particular interest in back pain. He listed five books about it, including “Back in Control: A Spine Surgeon's Roadmap Out of Chronic Painby Dr. David Hanscom and “Crooked: Outwitting the Back Pain Industry and Getting on the Road to Recoveryby Cathryn Jakobson Ramin.

Ramin wrote about the excessive use of epidural steroid injections, calling them the “bread and butter” treatment of interventional pain doctors.

Hanscom wrote his book to explain why he abandoned his 30-year career as a spine surgeon. He was seeing too many patients being harmed by interventional procedures.

“Modern medicine is ignoring this. We are not only failing to treat chronic pain, but creating it,” Hanscom wrote in a PNN column. “Spine surgeons are throwing random treatments at symptoms without taking the time to know a patient’s whole story.” 

On Goodreads, Mangione reviewed the manifesto of “Unabomber” Theodore Kaczynski, the reclusive hermit who planted bombs that killed three people before being caught in 1996. His words suggest that Mangione saw Kaczynski as a counterculture hero who rebelled against an unjust society.

“He was a violent individual - rightfully imprisoned - who maimed innocent people,” Mangione wrote. “While these actions tend to be characterized as those of a crazy luddite, however, they are more accurately seen as those of an extreme political revolutionary.

'When all other forms of communication fail, violence is necessary to survive. You may not like his methods, but to see things from his perspective, it’s not terrorism, it’s war and revolution.'

It’s not known if Mangione’s back pain became worse after his surgery or what role, if any, United Healthcare had in his treatment.

His friend Martin was shocked by Mangione’s arrest and alleged involvement in murder.

“I can make zero sense of it. You know, there's never justification for violence. We live in a democratic system with processes and procedures to address our issues. I can make no sense of it,” he said.

If Mangione did resort to violence against the healthcare system, he wouldn’t be the first patient to do so. In recent years, doctors in Indiana, Nevada and Oklahoma have been shot by disgruntled pain patients or their spouses.