House Members Divided on Response to Opioid Crisis

Republicans stress border issues, Democrats talk treatment $$

https://www.medpagetoday.com/psychiatry/opioids/79782

WASHINGTON — A House Oversight Committee hearing on the opioid crisis revealed a partisan split over its main drivers and how best to address them.

A Republican member identified drug supply and border security as the main problem. “One party wants more money, more money, and more money,” said Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) at Thursday’s hearing held by the House Oversight & Reform Committee.

“Until we cut off the flow of illegal drugs coming across the border … we’re still going to have a drug problem,” he continued. “If we’re serious about stopping the flow of illegal drugs in the U.S., we’re going to have to get serious in this Congress about securing the border.”

In addition, he said, “the business model to treat pain has been wrong. Doctors … for whatever reason, overprescribed opioids for the treatment of pain. We’ve come a long way in educating our medical providers on the perils of opioids … but there are also a lot of people in America that have legitimate pain, and there are people that deserve and have the right to treat their pain.”

Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) had a different take. “At first glance, the president’s budget appears to put a priority on public health priorities, but at a second look, the president has very inconsistent policies here; he’s gutting the programs critical to the objective of confronting the opioid epidemic. I say that because so many caught in the opioid epidemic depend on Medicaid — 4 in 10 adults [are] struggling with this addiction … I’m trying to find the real deal on the resources that are committed to this program.”

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the White House office tasked with developing a strategy to combat the opioid crisis, has made some progress, but still has a ways to go, said witness Triana McNeil, acting director for homeland security and justice at the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

She said ONDCP’s strategy omitted key requirements, “including a performance system to track [results].”

Recently, the drug control office has provided the GAO with some of the materials it has requested for oversight purposes, McNeil said, noting that her office will be issuing a report on the agency’s progress. However, she replied in response to questions from Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), “there are two things [that] we’ve been asking for from [the] ONDCP for us to continue make progress — one, the budget guidance they used, and two, the National Security Council Strategic Framework for reducing the availability of illicit drugs. We asked for [those] in December and still haven’t received [them].”

Medication-assisted treatment, especially buprenorphine, came up several times during the hearing. Karyl Rattay, MD, director of public health for the state of Delaware, “strongly urged” lawmakers to pass legislation to modify the “3-day rule.” This rule limits a non-waivered emergency room physician to administering — but not prescribing — buprenorphine one day at a time for relieving acute withdrawal symptoms in overdose patients awaiting admission into treatment.

“The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials is deeply concerned that the requirements of the 3-day rule are preventing providers from appropriately managing withdrawal and we are missing opportunities to successfully engage [and get] people into treatment,” she said. “I implore the committee to address this immediately.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) noted that in France, which had an opioid epidemic in the 1980’s and 1990’s, the government eliminated a waiver requirement — similar to the one now enforced in the U.S. — limiting the number of patients that primary care physicians could treat with medication for substance use disorders, “and opioid overdoses dropped 80% after they did that.”

ONDCP director James Carroll, who also testified at the hearing, responded that “buprenorphine is very effective, but not without its own dangers, and we do need to make certain that the people prescribing it are properly trained,” he said. “The original cap … was 100 [patients], and the Secretary of Health and Human Services engaged in rulemaking and moved it up to 275 [patients]. But I think you’re right and one of our goals is to make sure buprenorphine is more available.”

Rep. Pete Welch (D-Vt.) asked about increasing the use of peer coaches to help patients with opioid use disorder get through recovery. Carroll agreed they were important. “They really do help — they can reach out and say, ‘I’ll hold your hand and get you through this,'” Carroll said.

Carroll particularly praised a project that uses a “quick response team” that visits opioid-addicted patients on their second day of treatment; it consists of a law enforcement officer — someone not in uniform, who is there to take away any illicit drugs with no questions asked — plus a public health official, a member of a faith-based community, and a peer counselor.

“This type of quick response team, it works,” said Carroll.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked about ways to increase the use of non-pharmaceutical alternatives to opioids. “One thing I’ve heard from doctors is that the incentive is to give pain medication,” she said, adding that she was pleased that patient satisfaction surveys have dropped questions about whether physicians have completely relieved their patients’ pain. “Instead of asking [patients] to rate whether the doctor took away all their pain, you could ask the doctor, ‘Did you try every other alternative form of pain relief before you moved to an opioid?'”

“I think you should take opioids totally off the market, unless it’s [for] hospice [patients], because [they’re] harmful to people,” Maloney added. “Most people [get] addicted by the doctor giving them these pills.”

Rattay noted that changing physician prescribing habits “is a tough nut to crack,” in part because the system is set up to favor drugs over other types of therapy. “Insurance is much better at reimbursing for pharmaceuticals, including opioids. We’re now working on massage and acupuncture and requiring reimbursements for those.”

Filed under: General Problems | 2 Comments »

Pfizer Recalls BP Drugs Because of Potential Carcinogen

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/970748

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling:

• 6 lots of Accuretic tablets
  • two at 10 mg/12.5 mg
  • three at 20 mg/12.5 mg
  • one at 20 mg/25 mg
• 1 lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20 mg/25 mg tablets
• 4 lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets
  • three at 20 mg/12.5 mg
  • one at 20 mg/25 mg

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed here.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their healthcare provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Healthcare providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 AM to 9 PM ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the US Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

Follow Patrice Wendling on Twitter: @pwendl For more from theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, follow us on Twitter and Facebook .

Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »

While I am normally PRO-VACCINATIONS – when it came to the COVID-19 vaccinations, I waited until we could get the J&J/Jansen vaccine.  I felt that the mRNA process that was used to produce the Moderna & Pfizer vaccine, was too new and too unproven.  As a pharmacists I can recall all too many new meds brought to market after going thru full clinical trials of 10+ yrs and within a year or two – were pulled from the market because of adverse side effects.  I don’t think that we are going to get a mRNA booster shot…  If the current mutation of COVID-19 follows the typical path… the current mutation should be much, much less lethal than previous versions. Until proven otherwise, We are going to pass on a mRNA booster.

Not Everyone Needs a Second COVID Booster

— Fourth doses should target those at risk for severe breakthrough infections

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/97781

Last week, both Pfizer and Moderna applied for emergency use authorization (EUA) of additional booster doses — in essence, fourth doses — of their COVID-19 vaccines. The companies cite waning protection and believe fourth doses are needed. While Pfizer has asked for an EUA focused on those above 65 years old, Moderna is seeking one applicable to all adults. It is critical, as we debate COVID-19 vaccine clinical guidance, to be explicit about the goals we are trying to achieve.

A few weeks ago, the Biden administration articulated a goal, with which I completely agree, of preventing severe disease from COVID-19. We should not be focusing on total case numbers. SARS-CoV-2 is an ineradicable, ineliminable efficiently spreading respiratory virus that is destined for endemicity alongside four of its other viral family members. Making SARS-CoV-2 a manageable virus, similar to how we manage influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), reflects this microbiological fact. Shifting the spectrum of illness to the mild side, to the outpatient side, has become an achievable goal with the medical countermeasures — antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, and vaccines — we now have on hand.

With this endpoint in mind, it becomes clear that COVID-19 vaccine booster doses should be targeted to protect those at risk for severe breakthrough infections.

First and second doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines prevent severe disease for the vast majority of the population. Only those with advanced age or high-risk conditions benefit from additional doses of vaccine in terms of severe illness, hospitalization, and death. This is because erosion of protection against hospitalization was almost exclusively evident in those with high-risk conditions (including advanced age) as time passed since their second dose. Meanwhile, hospital capacity was primarily compromised by unvaccinated individuals. Therefore, a targeted approach to boosters — emphasizing their essential nature in those with high-risk conditions in which a breakthrough infection might not be mild — was always the best policy.

Some have argued that boosters for healthy people prevent infection and spread — an important public health goal. In the pre-Omicron era they did, albeit transiently. But with Omicron, the protection from breakthrough infection has become even more transient and breakthroughs are, essentially, inevitable. Thus, with the first-generation vaccines currently in use, protection against severe disease is the primary aim. In healthy individuals, without any high-risk conditions, third and fourth doses do not provide additional protection against severe disease.

In fact, I refrained from getting a booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine until one particular hospital where I am on staff changed their policy and required goggles and N95s at all times for those who were not boosted (in an attempt to minimize healthcare worker quarantine post-exposure and to remain consistent with CDC guidance). I was willing to get the booster — as it’s safe and effective — but as a young, healthy person, it likely didn’t afford me added protection against severe illness.

While it may seem attractive to public health authorities, especially in a crisis, to have a one-sized-fits-all policy, precision-guided recommendations are optimal. Not only does precision medicine more exactly fit the scientific evidence, it also recalibrates in the minds of the public what these vaccines were intended to do: tame the virus and decouple cases from hospitalizations. We have the tools and data to be precision-guided at this stage of the pandemic.

There may be a time when second generation, variant-specific, or universal coronavirus vaccines might durably prevent more than severe disease, meriting reconsideration of vaccine policy. With current vaccines, however, recommendations for additional doses should be evidence-based and directed towards those who meaningfully benefit. We should continue to focus efforts on vaccinating the unvaccinated and boosting those at high-risk for severe disease.

It is biologically probable that fourth doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine will be beneficial in those whose immunity may have waned to the point that renders them susceptible to a severe breakthrough infection (the prophylactic, and underutilized, monoclonal antibody tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Evusheld) is also indicated for many in this population). However, universal booster recommendations for the entire vaccinated population are far from warranted. Hopefully, the FDA and CDC advisory panels will convene, engage in robust discussion about the data, integrate the data with overarching COVID-19 goals, and endorse an evidence-based, precision-guided booster policy.

Amesh Adalja, MD, is a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and a practicing infectious disease, critical care, and emergency physician in Pittsburgh.

Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »

Please share this message with any medical professionals you know.  We need to show AUI that we are a group that they need to focus on.  Please come to this meeting of the minds.   Wednesday night, March 23, at 8:00 PM.  Get signed up to come at

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMudOioqjwtE9MeMi8Ie6M98lWmjrhfaO2k?fbclid=IwAR3wusAPNjxhzGOASJ2Wf2DUuR02B_C5LQ1EKq4pbk40kULaOr29C3sCBko

Please share this message with any medical professionals you know. We need to show AUI that we are a group that they need to focus on. Please come to this meeting of the minds. Wednesday night, March 23, at 8:00 PM. Get signed up to come at

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMudOioqjwtE9MeMi8Ie6M98lWmjrhfaO2k

America United International (AUI) invites you to a Zoom Meeting for Medical Providers.
Join us for an organizational meeting with American United International for:

AUI Collaboration re Medical Professional Regulation/Oversight/Discipline Abuses.
When: Wednesday March 23, 2022 08:00 PM Eastern Time

ADVANCE REGISTRATION FO THIS MEETING IS REQUIRED:
Register Here

AUI has cleared the legal hurdles for global outcry of Judicial System Abuse.

Now we need to put faces on the persecution we’ve all faced.

W eaponization of
A merica’s legal system
V ery much needs to
E nd

ADVANCE REGISTRATION FO THIS MEETING IS REQUIRED:
Register Here!

Learn abour AUI on their website
Go to AUI webstite–Click Here

Filed under: General Problems | 2 Comments »

CDC reports fewer COVID-19 pediatric deaths after data correction

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-reports-fewer-covid-19-204027980.html

(Reuters) – The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 966,575 deaths from COVID-19 on Friday after it corrected the data earlier this week, which reduced the death tallies in all age-groups, including children.

The health agency, in a statement to Reuters, said it made adjustments to its COVID Data Tracker’s mortality data on March 14 because its algorithm was accidentally counting deaths that were not COVID-19-related.

The adjustment resulted in removal of 72,277 deaths previously reported across 26 states, including 416 pediatric deaths, CDC said.

The reduction cut the CDC’s estimate of deaths in children by 24% to 1,341 as of March 18.

Children accounted for about 19% of all COVID-19 cases, but less than 0.26% of cases resulted in death, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, which summarizes state-based data.

Americans have been polarized over the mitigation measures the CDC recommended for schools during the pandemic from urging schools to be remote, require masks and set up social distancing measures. It now advises that for most of the country, children should be in school and can be without masks.

Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »

JetBlue, American, Southwest pilots sue CDC over federal mask mandate

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/jetblue-american-southwest-pilots-sue-cdc

A group of commercial airline pilots filed a lawsuit against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in an attempt to lift the federal transportation mask mandate.

In court paperwork, the 10 commercial airline pilots – who work for American JetBlue and Southwest – argued that the CDC issued an order “Requirement for Persons to Wear Masks While on Conveyances & at Transportation Hubs” on Feb. 1, 2020 “without providing public notice or soliciting comment.”

The pilots are asking the court to “vacate worldwide the FTMM (federal transportation mask mandate)” calling the move an “illegal and unconstitutional exercise of executive authority.”

The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) mask mandate went into effect on Feb. 1, 2021, and was originally set to expire on May 11, 2021. However, the TSA has extended the mandate several times since then as infections rose nationwide. The rule now remains in place through April 18.

Until then, the “CDC will work with government agencies to help inform a revised policy framework for when, and under what circumstances, masks should be required in the public transportation corridor,” TSA said in a statement earlier this month. “This revised framework will be based on the COVID-19 community levels, risk of new variants, national data, and the latest science.”

However, the pilots claim that federal officials adopted the policy despite “countless scientific and medical studies and articles showing that face masks are totally ineffective.”

The pilots also argue that it was enacted without “considering the impact on tens of millions of travelers and transportation workers every single day.”

The pilots say they “have seen up close and personal the chaos in the sky created by the FTMM, with thousands of reports to the Federal Aviation Administration (‘FAA’) of ‘unruly’ passenger behavior since the FTMM took effect Feb. 1, 2021 – nearly all of which have been caused by incidents related to masks,” according to court documents.

So far this year, the FAA has already received 889 reports of unruly passengers, with 587 of those cases mask-related incidents. In 2021, 5,981 unruly passenger cases were reported to the FAA with 4,290 being mask-related.

To quell these incidents, the FAA has been proposing fines against passengers who assault, threaten, intimidate or interfere with airline crew members as part of its zero-tolerance policy, which was adopted in January 2021. The FAA reported that the rate of incidents has dropped by half since record-highs reported in early 2021.

Still, the pilots say the policy was “was rushed into place only 12 days after the inauguration” and that the CDC and HHS “illegally failed to give passengers and employees our legally guaranteed option under the Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act (‘FDCA’) to refuse to use a medical device (face mask) not approved by HHS’ Food & Drug Administration (‘FDA’) or allowed only under an Emergency Use Authorization (‘EUA’).”

Representatives for Southwest, American and JetBlue airlines did not immediately return FOX Business’ requests for comment.

Representatives for the Air Line Pilots Association, the world’s largest airline pilot union, and the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association did not return FOX Business’ request for comment.

The Allied Pilots Association, the labor union representing American Airlines pilots, declined to comment.

Filed under: General Problems | 1 Comment »

COVID-19 rapid test recalled for ‘high number’ of false positive reports

https://www.foxbusiness.com/healthcare/covid-19-rapid-test-recalled-for-high-number-of-false-positive-reports

The Food and Drug Administration announced Wednesday that a healthcare company has recalled 45,500 COVID-19 rapid tests due to a “high number of false positive reports.”

Pharmaceutical company Celltrion USA announced on Feb. 28 it is recalling specific lots of the DiaTrust COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test due to the high number of false-positive reports, an FDA recall webpage read on Wednesday.

The FDA says that a false-positive test result can lead to a delay in “the correct diagnosis and treatment for the actual cause of a person’s illness.”

The COVID-19 rapid tests also displayed a shelf life of 18 months, but the FDA’s emergency use authorization states that the tests can only be used for 12 months.

Individuals and customers who received the effected COVID-19 rapid tests are being told to discontinue use and return the unused products.

“The use of the affected product could cause serious adverse health consequences and death,” the FDA webpage states.

On Wednesday, the FDA also announced the recall of the SD Biosensor STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Home Test, stating the test is not approved by the FDA for marketing or distribution in the United States.

Since the test was not authorized by the FDA, the government agency said “there is not sufficient data demonstrating that the test’s performance is accurate,” which could lead to inaccurate results.

“This means there is a risk of both false-negative and false-positive test results. False negative results are when the test does not detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus but the person is actually infected. False-positive results occur when the test says the person has SARS-CoV-2 virus present, but they are not infected,” the website states.

Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »

Case Against Florida Cannabis Doc Goes Up in Smoke

Judge clears Joseph Dorn, MD, who was the target of an undercover sting operation

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/97760

An administrative law judge in Florida issued a decision in favor of Joseph Dorn, MD, whose medical cannabis clinic was targeted by the state’s Department of Health in an undercover sting.

The department sent two investigators posing as patients to Dorn’s clinic in Tallahassee in November 2017 and April 2018. The first investigator said he was a 30-year-old delivery driver with anxiety, PTSD, and chronic pain, while the second claimed to be a 37-year-old construction worker and former Marine with PTSD.

In 2019, the Department of Health filed a license-threatening administrative complaint against Dorn, claiming its sting operation had found that he failed to conduct a full assessment of patient medical histories before prescribing medical cannabis, and that he acted in a manner to defraud or trick patients.

Though the COVID-19 pandemic delayed a hearing in the case until late last year, a decision by Judge W. David Watkins on March 16 stated that the Department of Health failed to prove any of its claims against Dorn.

“The evidence of record undermines DOH’s argument that Dr. Dorn’s practice is nothing more than an ‘open gate’ to medical marijuana,” Watkins wrote in his decision. “In the case of both [investigators] (and presumably the other 28 patients examined), Dr. Dorn conducted a detailed and thorough assessment of the patient’s condition prior to prescribing medical marijuana.”

Watkins further wrote that the evidence in the case demonstrates that Dorn performed a meaningful review of the investigators’ medical histories and symptoms, identified and discussed their qualifying stressors, and noted the PTSD symptoms they said they experienced. The judge added that Dorn documented the severity of the PTSD symptoms through two rating scales, and discussed the benefits and risks of medical marijuana with each of the investigators.

The decision also addressed the Department of Health’s argument that Dorn defrauded or tricked patients by including false representations in the investigators’ medical records, failed to create or complete their records until subpoenaed, operated without the necessary medical equipment to conduct adequate physical examinations, charged $299 per new patient appointment for the sole purpose of adding patients to the medical marijuana user registry, and ordered marijuana for more than 3,000 new patients in a 12-month timeframe.

“DOH failed to present competent substantial evidence in this case establishing, particularly under a clear and convincing evidence standard, that Dr. Dorn acted, or failed to act, in any manner to defraud or trick any patient, or that any patient was actually defrauded or tricked,” Watkins wrote.

Ultimately, Watkins recommended that the Department of Health issue a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Dorn. The department had sought to strip Dorn of his medical license for 5 years, ban him from ordering medical marijuana for patients, and impose a $10,000 fine, the News Service of Florida reported.

“We feel great about the result, and frankly are not surprised. Dr. Dorn is an incredible physician with an even stronger reputation. Hopefully this ruling will now help the DOH finally understand the statutes they are charged to enforce,” wrote Ryan Andrews, of the Andrews Law Firm in Tallahassee, who represents Dorn, in an email to MedPage Today.

“Nonetheless, this saga is not over,” Andrews added. “Now it’s our turn to pursue in circuit court DOH and every individual that was involved in this investigation.”

The Department of Health did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Filed under: General Problems | 1 Comment »

I was involved in on this “remotely” via phone with Bob & Johanna who were there in person.  Any time that Bob runs into a medication question when he is advocating… my phone rings.  I am more than happy to provide Bob with the “factual ammunition” in advocating for a pt. Apparently this practitioner is JUST AN EMPLOYEE OF VANDERBILT HOSPITAL… and if he was concerned about liabilities – he shouldn’t have become a physician…  I suspect that VANDERBILT is another large hospital corporation that has adopted a “little/no opiate” policy.  The medication that this kid was on previously was not doing a very good job on reducing their pain and there is NO RECOMMENDATION FOR DOSES FOR KIDS… and this physician wanted to take the kid off of a opiate – that I had previously recommended – that was reducing their pain and improving their QOL and giving the FAMILY more quality time together, with what time that the kid has left.

I know that if a parent INTENTIONALLY inflicted as much pain on one of their kids , as this kid was going to experience if he was put back on the medication that was not working well for them…  Child Protective Services would be knocking at their door. Isn’t it amazing in our society that health care practitioners can INTENTIONALLY inflict pain on a pt – by taking away or lowering their pain meds – and NO ONE IS IN TROUBLE….  EXCEPT THE PT HAVING TO EXIST IN PAIN.

Maybe it is time that the chronic pain community start using LAW FIRMS to advocate for us

APDF learned yesterday if you spank your kid the government will punish you! But It’s entirely ok for the government to torture your child (Guantanamo Bay style) if they are suffering from rare diseases or end of life issues! Then the idea was to change the child from a schedule 2 that has reported to be working to a schedule 4 when the child only has 3 to 6 months left to live. Then he proceeded to tell us his liabilities and hospital policies! Then he spread his God like knowledge upon us like we were in kindergarten! Well that backfired when he met the KING OF ARGUMENTS! I may let Amanda win from time to time but he ain’t Amanda! At the end of the day we let it known that child services and an attorney will be contacted and paid for by American Pain And Disability Foundation and not to mention having several picketing signs outside his beautiful home and hospital establishment.. they decided to leave the child on the current medication that was previously agreed to from a previous appointment as long as I wasn’t allowed back to Advocate for said child any longer I told the mom make the deal and if they go back on it…. we will be back. Deals a deal right? Oh and he also said,” something about F###ing a##hole before leaving abruptly! After all we aren’t looking for credit but I’ll be damned if we were gonna let that impede my other 14 children and start a new ”policy” especially at Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital where we have worked so hard and it would spread like wildfire! Anyways we also went to Methodist Hospital were we were successful in helping the last of the 15 children get end of life care and a special thank you to Methodist Hospital for stepping up for these kids! A special thank you goes out to Methodist Hospital & Johnna Magers and Steve Ariens and the rest of the APDF team for taking up your whole day! You are truly Amazing people! I was home about 3 minutes before I passed out from 6pm to 5 am and thank God because obviously my old beat up ass body was ready for that! OH and 14-1 is not a bad Advocating record for a bunch of pain patients with bad attitudes but with alot of knowledge more thank yous go out to all the folks who helped along the way Andrew Hohenthaner Carol Adams Dr Anthony Mimms Shirley Buck Stacy Siano Ashley Michel Karlyn Beavers Karen Wilkinson & Cheri Mendes for awesome articles…. Thank You!

Filed under: General Problems | 2 Comments »

Walgreens sued by BCBS payers, health systems for alleged drug overcharging fraud scheme

https://www.beckerspayer.com/payer/walgreens-sued-by-bcbs-payers-health-systems-for-alleged-drug-overcharging-fraud-scheme.html

Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates and other payers are suing Walgreens for allegedly overcharging payers and customers for prescription drugs.

Court documents filed March 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division claim that Walgreens “knowingly and intentionally engaged in an ongoing fraudulent scheme” to overcharge payers by submitting claims with artificially inflated drug prices.

The lawsuit alleges that Walgreens concealed the fraud scheme by making false statements and leaving out facts related to its true usual and customary prices for prescriptions given to the individuals enrolled in the plaintiff’s health plans. The suit alleges that Walgreens overcharged payers and health systems by hundreds of millions of dollars for more than a decade by submitting falsely inflated usual and customary prices on millions of reimbursed claims.

The plaintiffs named in the suit are CareFirst of Maryland, Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, CareFirst BlueChoice, Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, BlueChoice HealthPlan of South Carolina, Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Co., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, and HMO Louisiana.

The court documents say that plaintiffs are owed at least the amount of money they were overcharged on reimbursement claims.

The suit also says that Walgreens’ alleged scheme affected consumers directly. By purchasing prescription drugs from Walgreens’ pharmacies with falsely inflated prices, payers increased copays, coinsurance, deductibles and premiums.

The lawsuit claims that Walgreens’ alleged fraudulent actions are still happening and that the company continues to report falsely inflated prices for payer claims. Because of this, the plaintiffs believe they are still threatened with future harm from Walgreens.

Walgreens declined to provide a comment to Becker’s Hospital Review.

Here is another blog post from today… https://www.pharmaciststeve.com/colorado-wags-pharmacy-techs-shine-light-on-shortages-delays-mistakes/

suggests that WAGS is under paying their Rx dept employees, while at the same time under staffing and over working the same employees. It is almost like WAGS is “pocket-picking” just about everyone’s pockets that deals with them – at least in the Rx dept.

Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »