state contracts conceal the profits being made by pharmacy benefit managers for squeezing pharmacies

http://www.sj-r.com/news/20180429/medicaid-managed-care-reboot-pinching-pharmacies-advocates-say

Drastic cuts in what Illinois pharmacies are paid for filling Medicaid patients’ prescriptions will cause many to lay off employees or close in coming months, pharmacy advocates say.

The financial crisis for owners of independent and small-chain pharmacies has accelerated since the April 1 expansion of the state’s Medicaid managed-care program to all 102 Illinois counties, according to the Illinois Pharmacists Association.

“We’ve got to fix this,” said Garth Reynolds, executive director of the Springfield-based association. “This is far and away the most egregious situation we’ve seen.”

Many owners of the state’s more than 500 independent pharmacies and smaller chains — including those in the Springfield area — are being paid less than the “acquisition cost,” or wholesale price, of the medicines they dispense to Medicaid patients.

Reynolds said pharmacies also have seen their per-prescription “dispensing fee” from Medicaid — designed to cover professional services — drop from $5.50 for generics and $2.40 for brand-name drugs under the previous “fee-for-service” system to the current 45 cents per prescription.

At least one of those PBMs, CVS Caremark, pharmacy benefit manager for the huge CVS Pharmacy chain, appears to be working with CVS Pharmacy to put smaller pharmacies out of business so CVS can acquire them, Reynolds said.

“It’s kind of a predatory market practice and misuse of state tax dollars,” he said.

CVS officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.

PBMs are hired by private companies called managed-care organizations, or MCOs, to process payments to pharmacies. MCOs have contracts with the state to carry out the Medicaid managed-care program now serving 80 percent, or 2.7 million, of Illinois’ 3.14 million Medicaid recipients.

The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services has said Gov. Bruce Rauner’s expansion, or “reboot,” of Medicaid managed care will lead to annual savings of $200 million to $300 million, or more than $1 billion in savings over the life of the four-year contract for HealthChoice Illinois.

A bill that would require Healthcare and Family Services (HFS) to pay pharmacies “fair and reasonable” reimbursement rates — at least equal to the former fee-for-service rates — has bipartisan support and passed the Illinois House, 87-16, on Thursday.

Those voting “yes” to House Bill 3479 included Reps. Sara Wojcicki Jimenez, R-Leland Grove; Tim Butler, R-Springfield; and Sue Scherer, D-Decatur. Rep. Avery Bourne, R-Raymond, was absent from the vote but is listed as a co-sponsor of the bill, which now will be considered by the Senate.

Health and Family Services, an agency controlled by the Republican governor, opposes the bill but didn’t respond to a request for comment from The State Journal-Register.

Also opposing the legislation are two organizations representing private companies that are part of the Medicaid managed-care program.

Samantha Olds Frey, executive director of the Illinois Association of Medicaid Health Plans, said in a written statement that the bill could require Medicaid plans to pay above fee-for-service rates.

She said the bill “removes all incentive for all pharmacies throughout the state to acquire pharmaceuticals in a cost-efficient manner.”

Members of Frey’s association “see great value in independent pharmacies, especially those in rural communities throughout the state,” she said. “No one can argue that they are not an important part of our health-care system. However, this bill does not just address independent pharmacies. It requires more taxpayer dollars going to chains and ‘big-box’ stores.”

Officials at Deerfield-based Walgreens — another of the state’s largest pharmacy chains — declined comment.

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, based in Washington, D.C., and representing pharmacy benefit managers, said in a written statement that HB 3479 would “grant a ‘blank check’ to independent drug stores by requiring higher payments for prescription drugs in Medicaid while removing incentives to dispense lower-priced, equally effective options for patients.”

The proposed law, according to the PCMA, “pads the profit margins of Illinois independent drug stores at a time when consumers are concerned about rising health costs and the state faces serious budget challenges.”

Reynolds responded that pharmacy benefit managers are the ones getting a blank check from the state because of the state’s lack of oversight.

“We’re trying to keep pharmacies operational to be available to patients in their communities,” he said.

Pharmacist David Falk, who supports HB 3479, is the owner of the Decatur-based Sav-Mor Pharmacy chain, which includes stores in Virden, Nokomis and 11 other downstate communities.

Falk said his drug stores posted an average profit per Medicaid prescription of $6.77 under the fee-for-service system. That profit took into account the wholesale cost of medicines and dispensing fees.

Under Rauner’s reboot of managed care, however, Falk’s average profit has dropped to 89 cents per Medicaid prescription. Depending on the store, Medicaid represents between 18 percent and 42 percent of his stores’ total revenue, Falk said.

Unless the situation changes, he said, “I will go out of business.”

Two of his pharmacies — in Neoga and Toledo, both in Cumberland County, northeast of Effingham — “won’t make it until the end of the year,” he said.

The financial pain has been similar for Michelle Dyer, a pharmacist and owner of Michelle’s Pharmacies in Carlinville, Gillespie and Bunker Hill, where Medicaid makes up about 40 percent of total revenues.

“I can’t pay my bills,” she said, adding that she has had to borrow to make ends meet.

Pharmacist Byron Berry, who owns and operates Pharmacy Plus sites in Carrollton, Roodhouse, Winchester and Barry, gets 25 percent to 35 percent of his revenues from Medicaid.

It’s frustrating that state contracts conceal the profits being made by pharmacy benefit managers for squeezing pharmacies, Berry said.

It’s unknown how much of that “savings” is being passed on to managed-care organizations or the state, he said. Also unknown, he said, is how much money pharmacy benefit managers are receiving in “rebates” from pharmaceutical manufacturers to pad their own profits.

The pharmacy owners said it’s wrong when CVS Caremark hits small pharmacies with low payment rates for serving Medicaid patients and CVS Pharmacy follows up with letters to those same pharmacies containing offers to purchase.

A copy of one such letter, distributed to lawmakers by the Illinois Pharmacists Association, says CVS wants to ease the stress of what the letter describes as “mounting challenges” that include “declining reimbursements.”

Not all pharmacies that end up going out of business will end up being acquired, Berry said. Some will close and leave large swaths of downstate Illinois without a local pharmacy, he said.

“We take care of our people in these small towns,” Berry said.

Several states are taking a closer look at how Medicaid managed care is affecting small pharmacies, Reynolds said. Arkansas lawmakers and that state’s governor recently approved a new law to regulate pharmacy benefit managers.

At an Illinois House subcommittee last week, several lawmakers were receptive to pharmacy owners’ complaints about pharmacy benefit managers. Lawmakers said fewer pharmacies will mean less access to care for patients.

“What is the patient supposed to do while we’re searching around for the best deal?” asked Rep. Mary Flowers, D-Chicago.

“We’re talking about people’s lives. … We need the pharmacists. We do not need the middleman; they are not accountable to anyone.”

The payment cuts threaten the future of pharmacist Beax Cole’s Medicine Shoppe pharmacies in Springfield and Jacksonville. Those stores receive up to one-quarter of their revenues from Medicaid, Cole said.

Rachel Hinkle of Auburn said the Springfield Medicine Shoppe has provided expensive, compounded medicines to help her 8-year-old son, Matthew, deal with neurological problems and a genetic condition known as Angelman syndrome.

Cole has had to wait months for thousands of dollars in reimbursements for the life-sustaining medicines under the fee-for-service Medicaid system, and now he said he is having problems getting the medicines covered under the managed-care reboot.

Hinkle she doesn’t know what she would do if she lost access to the Medicine Shoppe.

“Thank God they think of the patient,” she said. “They just want to make sure Matthew is taken care of. Shouldn’t people be the priority?”

Medicare and Medicaid are suppose to grant beneficiaries the “freedom of choice” of providers… Of course, if the bureaucracy reduces reimbursement to a point it drives out many of the providers… “freedom of choice” may come down to a few providers – mostly corporate providers that may – or may not – meet the pt’s needs.

It is generally considered that it costs $12.00 to fill a prescription – to cover all the costs of the pharmacy and according to this article, the state of Illinois has reduced “profits” to $0.89. While such entities – like CVS Health/Caremark – a PBM…  whose administrative costs are not accountable to anyone… is also a competitor to many of the smaller pharmacies that they are determining the profitability of those competitors.

Here is a recent post  Lawmakers, Pharmacists Meet with CVS over Regulation of Pharmacy Benefit Managers   where the Treasurer of Arkansas did a CVS/PBM price audit on some 250 + different medications and ON AVERAGE… CVS/Caremark paid CVS pharmacies $60.00 to fill a prescription over what they paid their competitors.

Presuming the $12/Rx overhead cost of filling a prescription. Under this program CVS pharmacies were paid FIVE TIMES what it cost to fill a prescription.  Is this just predatory business practices or anti-competitive behavior ?

Sugar should be a CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE maybe even ILLEGAL ?

Should sugar be classified in the same category as heroin?

Should sugar be classified in the same category as heroin?

http://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/385376-should-sugar-be-classified-in-the-same-category-as-heroin

Most people are aware of the types of drugs that are federally classified as substances with no medicinal benefit and high abuse potential: heroin, LSD and marijuana are examples of these drugs and they are indeed classified as illegal. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are the two government agencies responsible for classifying drugs.

The FDA recently received a Citizen Petition for Stricter Regulation of Added Sugar “to amend the Drug Schedules to include added sugar to either Schedule I or Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act.” This idea is not new to many members of the medical community who believe that sugar is a poison.

The implications of scheduling sugar may run deeper and command more gravitas, than one might think. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. is experiencing an obesity epidemic that results in premature deaths and billions of added healthcare costs to manage diabetes, heart disease and obesity-induced joint destruction. 

Sugar unquestionably adds to the prevalence of obesity in America. Therefore, every food product that includes sugar may be contributing to the scope and costs of the obesity epidemic and is accelerating the volume of premature deaths among millions of Americans.

Robert Lustig, a specialist on pediatric hormone disorders and a leading expert in childhood obesity, popularized the claim that sugar is a poison in his “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” lecture.”

According to a New York Times Magazine article, “Is Sugar Toxic?,” Lustig has taken a leadership role in blaming sugar for the increase in obesity and diabetes.

He holds sugar at least partly responsible for the prevalence of many diseases, implicating high-fructose corn syrup (which is actually fructose and glucose) as well sucrose (refined sugar). Studies with laboratory rats, the results of which may also hold true for humans, have convinced him that sugar is toxic.

Time sums up this research, “Lustig and his colleagues think they’ve produced the ‘hard and fast data that sugar is toxic irrespective of its calories and irrespective of weight.’ “

However, there has been controversy surrounding the toxicity of sugar. According to a EcoWatch article, for the past 50 years, the sugar industry has manipulated the science to exonerate sugar and shift the blame to fat for causing disease. The article contends academic scientists were complicit in persuading people to get more of their calories from sugar rather than from fats.

Minimally, many people do seem to crave sugar. Dr. David Samadi, writing for the Huffington Post, says that sugar affects the brain in much the same way as heroin and cocaine. In that sense, he says, sugar is an addictive drug.

In fact, sugar may be as addictive as other substances that are scheduled 1 by the FDA and DEA. Many of us experience great pleasure from eating sweets and continue to ingest them despite the harm they may cause.

This is the classic definition of an addiction. For example, some people claim they are addicted to chocolate; maybe, in fact, they are.

It’s likely that some of us who would refuse to misuse — or even use — highly scheduled drugs continue to perceive the dangers of sugar in a different light than other risky substances. Maybe our perceptions should change.

The CDC has estimated the number of deaths that are attributable to obesity each year to be between 112,000 and 365,000, depending on the calculation. Even if we conservatively take the lesser number, that still represents 3-4 times more deaths than the number of opioid-related deaths in the U.S.

What the FDA and DEA will do with the Citizen Petition for Stricter Regulation of Added Sugar is unknown. However, it is possible that the petition may eventually lead to a class action lawsuit against sugar manufacturers and soft drink producers and their distributors. Has industry been forthright with the American public about the potential harm of sugar? Time will tell.

Meanwhile, we know sugar is a rewarding substance that is abused by millions of Americans every day and has contributed to more than 1 million deaths in the past decade. It will be interesting to see how the debate will evolve and how political and social forces will influence the outcome.

Fortunately, sugar affects all of us differently and for many people it is neither addictive or deadly. Just like many other substances that carry inherent risk, sugar can be safely used in moderation by most people without wreaking havoc on their lives or contributing to their premature deaths.

Lynn R. Webster, M,D. is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with Pharma. He is a former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. Webster is the author of “The Painful Truth: What Chronic Pain Is Really Like and Why It Matters to Each of Us.” You can find him on Twitter at @LynnRWebsterMD. 

Senate Health panel approves opioid bill

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/384601-senate-health-panel-approves-opioid-bill

The Senate Health Committee unanimously voted Tuesday to send the panel’s bipartisan opioid bill to the chamber’s floor.

The panel held seven hearings on the opioid crisis, including one on the discussion draft of the bill introduced by Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and ranking member Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Lawmakers touted the bipartisan process used to craft the Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018 aimed at combating the opioid crisis, which has shown no signs of slowing down.

“The challenge before us has sometimes been described as needing a moonshot,” Alexander said during the markup. “I believe that solving the opioid crisis might require the energy of a moonshot, but ultimately, it’s not something that can be solved by an agency in Washington, D.C.

“I wish we could have a single blockbuster idea that an agency here could deal with and solve the problem: What we can do is take a number of steps to create an environment so that everyone … can succeed in fighting the crisis community by community.”

The bill includes more than 40 proposals from 38 different senators, Alexander said. Specifically, it includes measures attempting to make it easier to prescribe smaller packs of opioids for limited durations, spur the development of nonaddictive painkillers and bolster the detection of illegal drugs at the border.

Alexander said he expects other committees will also have ideas on how to combat the opioid epidemic, “but if we can present our framework to Senator [Mitch] McConnell, maybe this is something the Senate can move on this summer.”

During the markup, the panel approved several amendments unanimously.

An amendment from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — which sought to impose retroactive civil fines on companies and executives that illegally marketed or distributed opioids — failed in an 8 to 15 vote. Sanders introduced similar legislation last week.

Murray said she “strongly supports” the goals of Sanders’s amendment. “Companies making false claims about the addictive nature of opioids while seeking to pad their bottom line should be held accountable for their role in starting and perpetuating this crisis.”

But she voiced concerns that the amendment needs “a few revisions so it doesn’t undermine legitimate prescribing,” in explaining her “no” vote and saying she wants to work with Sanders on the measure.

On the other side of the Capitol, the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee will vote on more than 60 opioid bills, beginning Wednesday afternoon. The full committee’s chairman, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), hopes to send legislation to the House floor by Memorial Day weekend.

Strict limits on opioid prescribing risk the ‘inhumane treatment’ of pain patients

www.statnews.com/2017/02/24/opioids-prescribing-limits-pain-patients/

Amid a rising toll of opioid overdoses, recommendations discouraging their use to treat pain seem to make sense. Yet the devil is in the details: how recommendations play out in real life can harm the very patients they purport to protect. A new proposal from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to enforce hard limits on opioid dosing is a dangerous case in point.

There’s no doubt that we needed to curtail the opioid supply. The decade of 2001-2011 saw a pattern of increasing prescriptions for these drugs, often without attention to risks of overdose or addiction. Some patients developed addictions to them; estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention range from 0.7 percent to 6 percent. Worse, opioid pills became ubiquitous in communities across the country, spread through sale, theft, and sharing with others, notably with young adults.

The prescribing tide has turned: Private and governmental data show that the number of prescriptions for opioids has been falling since 2012. Reassuringly, federal surveys show that misuse of pain relievers bottomed out in 2014-15.

Nevertheless, the CDC produced a guideline in 2016 that recommended shorter durations for opioid prescriptions and the use of non-drug treatments for pain. It also suggested keeping opioid doses lower than the equivalent of 90 milligrams of morphine. As the guideline acknowledged, its recommendations reflected weak scientific evidence. Problematically, it was silent on how to care for patients already receiving doses higher than the 90 milligram threshold.

To its credit, the guideline endorsed treating patients as individuals, not numbers. A CDC official wrote to one patient that the guideline “is not a rule, regulation, or law. … It is not intended to take away physician discretion or decision-making.”

Unfortunately, these mitigating features were undermined by intemperate publicity that vilified opioids for pain. Opioids for pain “are just as addictive is heroin,” proclaimed CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden. Such statements buttress a fantasy that the tragedy of opioid overdoses and deaths will be solved in doctors’ offices, primarily by upending the care of 5 to 8 million Americans who receive opioids for pain, even when most individuals with opioid addiction did not start as pain patients.

The progression of the guidelines from “voluntary” to “enforceable” has culminated in a draft policy from CMS. It would block all prescriptions above the CDC threshold of 90 milligrams unless complex bureaucratic barriers are surmounted. Many pharmacy plans are already enforcing this approach. Under that plan, many patients suffering with chronic pain would lose access to the medicines they are currently taking, all in the name of reversing a tide of death increasingly defined by non-prescribed opioids such as heroin and fentanyl.

The logic of doing this is untested. There have been no prospective clinical studies to show that discontinuing opioids for currently stable pain patients helps those patients or anyone else. While doing so could help some, it will destabilize others and likely promote the use of heroin or other drugs. In effect, pain patients currently taking opioids long-term have become involuntary participants in an experiment, with their lives at stake.

Turning the voluntary guidelines into strict policy is unfortunate for three reasons.

Second, we have alternatives to bureaucratic controls. These include promoting and paying for treatments that de-emphasize pills. Important work by the Department of Veterans Affairs shows how to identify patients with elevated risk for harm from opioids and how to mitigate the risks.

Third and most troubling is the increasingly inhumane treatment of patients with chronic pain. Fearing investigation or sanction, physicians caring for patients on long-term opioids face a dire choice: to involuntarily terminate prescriptions for patients who are otherwise stable, or to carry on as embattled, unprotected professionals, subject to bureaucratic muscle and public shaming from every direction.

In this context, we cannot be surprised by a flurry of reports, in the press, social media, and the medical literature describing pain patients entering acute withdrawal, losing function, committing suicide, or dying in jail. The CMS policy, if adopted, will accelerate this trend.

Many of our colleagues in addiction medicine tell us they are alarmed by the widespread mistreatment of pain patients. We receive anecdotes every week from physicians and pharmacists, most of them expert in addictions, describing pain patients who have involuntarily lost access to their pain medications and as a result have been reduced from working to bedridden adults, or who have become suicidal.

This loss of access occurs several ways. A pharmacy benefit program may refuse to cover the prescription because it has already enacted the changes that CMS is proposing to make mandatory. A physician may feel threatened by employers or regulators, and believes his or her professional survival depends on reducing opioid doses — involuntarily and without the patient’s consent — to thresholds that the CDC itself described as voluntary and not mandatory. Or state regulators have imposed such burdensome requirements that no physician in a given region can sustain prescriptions for their patients. Such patients are then “orphaned,” compelled to seek treatment from other physicians across the country.

Given the expertise in addiction among these physicians, it should be particularly worrisome that they believe the present pill-control campaign has gone too far. And yet, the ethics are clear: It should never be acceptable for us to countenance the death of one patient in the avowed service of protecting others, even more so when the projected benefit is unproven.

Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy made an underappreciated declaration in a recent interview with the New England Journal of Medicine. “We cannot allow the pendulum to swing to the other extreme here, where we deny people who need opioid medications those actual medications. … We are trying to find an appropriate middle ground,” he said.

As addiction professionals, we agree wholeheartedly.

Stefan G. Kertesz, MD, and Adam J. Gordon, MD, are physicians in both internal medicine and addiction medicine. Dr. Kertesz is an associate professor of preventive medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine; Dr. Gordon is a professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and editor of the journal Substance Abuse. The views expressed here are their own and do not reflect positions held by their employers.

Pharmacists face murky legal territory over concept of unresolvable ‘red flags’

https://www.pharmacytoday.org/article/S1042-0991(18)30491-2/fulltext

Background

In one recent case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld DEA’s revocation of a Florida pharmacy’s registration on the basis of the pharmacist–owner’s alleged failure to meet what DEA refers to as a pharmacist’s “corresponding responsibility.” The alleged factual basis of the revocation was that the pharmacist had “repeatedly ignored obvious and unresolvable red flags of diversion.”

The “obvious and unresolvable” red flags noted by the court were as follows: “1) individuals traveling long distances to fill prescriptions; 2) prescriptions for drug ‘cocktails,’ known for their abuse potential, such as oxycodone and Xanax; 3) individuals who arrived together with identical or nearly identical prescriptions; 4) purported pain patients with prescriptions for immediate-release rather than long-acting narcotics; 5) cash purchases; and 6) doctors prescribing outside the scope of their practice.”

Rationale

The pharmacist challenged the DEA revocation as arbitrary and capricious. The appellate court disagreed, noting that from February 2010 to July 2012, the pharmacy “filled [more than 100] prescriptions that had at least one red flag that [the pharmacy] did not attempt to resolve and that could not have been resolved.” The court did not explain how a pharmacist should attempt to resolve a red flag that cannot be resolved.

The court rejected testimony of the pharmacist’s expert witness, who testified that pharmacists were unaware of the concept of unresolvable red flags. The court instead credited contrary testimony of the government’s expert witness, who testified that “the concept of red flags has long been recognized as a reflection of the norms of the pharmacy profession.”

Revocation of the pharmacy’s DEA registration was affirmed

Obvious and unresolvable’ red flags

  • Traveling long distances to fill prescriptions
  • Prescriptions for drug ‘cocktails’
  • Arriving together with nearly identical prescriptions
  • Prescriptions for immediate-release rather than long-acting narcotics
  • Home
  • Cash purchases
  • Doctors prescribing outside the scope of their practice
 Discussion

DEA has a singular responsibility to prevent drug diversion. Pharmacists, on the other hand, have a dual responsibility to meet the needs of patients in pain and to prevent drug diversion.

Pain patients and drug diverters do not identify themselves to pharmacists. Rather, pharmacists must identify them through an evaluative process. This process may lead to resolution of an apparent red flag. Yet, if red flags are legally unresolvable, the evaluative process will fail, and many pain patients will be denied medication they need.

The concept of unresolvable red flags, as applied to this case, raises several important questions. For example: How long a distance must a patient travel for there to be an unresolvable red flag? Can the combination of an opioid and a benzodiazepine never be resolved? Is there no possible way to resolve the contemporaneous arrival of patients with “nearly identical” prescriptions?

Are immediate-release opioids an unresolvable problem for pain patients? Is cash payment for medication unresolvable regardless of any explanation? How does a prescriber’s scope of practice create an unresolvable problem?

Perhaps more fundamentally, pharmacists need to know whether an unresolvable red flag invalidates a prescription. If so, which red flags are resolvable, and which red flags are unresolvable? Or, maybe all red flags are unresolvable. If that is the case, it would be helpful to have a comprehensive list of all red flags.

Regulated professions deserve to know the legal standard against which their conduct will be measured. The concept of unresolvable red flags puts pharmacists in an untenable position, where their only option may be to reject prescriptions on the basis of concerns that could be resolved.

Column coordinator: David B. Brushwood, BSPharm, JD, senior lecturer, School of Pharmacy, University of Wyoming, Laramie

This is SO TYPICAL of the DEA… “unresolvable red flags” seem to have been created by the DEA observing what diverters/addicts did in the earlier part of this decade.  Just like the DEA observed addicts abusing certain combinations of prescription medication and came to the conclusion that these combination have “NO VALID MEDICAL NECESSITY”.  Of course, the addicts were taking those combination is higher than normal dosage ranges and at the same time and often in combination with other substances, but those particular did not interfere with the DEA making their “NO VALID MEDICAL NECESSITY” determination.

As more and prescribers are ceasing to treat chronic pain pts… pts are left with few options but to travel long distances to find a prescriber who will address their chronic pain issues.

Of course, the addict/diverter/abuser has moved on to importing/using illegal opiates from China and Mexico and we are seeing the results of 40 K OD deaths every year and growing… while the number of opiate Rxs having been in a steady decline since 2011.  The DEA has reduced production quotas annually for the last 3 yrs… whereas the total pharmaceutical opiate production is now about 50% of what it was.  People are having to put off elective surgery and being discharged with a prescription for Acetaminophen, NSAID and/or other non-controlled meds that will – at best – handle mild pain.

Just how many pts end up with “mild-pain” after a surgical procedure.. especially a major surgical intervention ?

Build the “southern border wall”, while the northern Canadian border remains WIDE OPEN ?

US puts Canada on IP priority watch list

https://gulfnews.com/business/economy/us-puts-canada-on-ip-priority-watch-list-1.2213130

Washington: The Trump administration on Friday labelled 36 countries as inadequately protecting US intellectual property rights, keeping China on a priority watch list and adding Canada over concerns about its border controls and pharmaceutical practices.

The US Trade Representative’s annual report on global IP concerns is separate from the ‘Section 301’ report on Chinese technology transfer practices that has led the world’s two largest economies to threaten each other with tariffs.

The so-called ‘Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights’ calls out China for its “coercive technology transfer practices” and “trade secret theft, rampant online piracy, and counterfeit manufacturing”.

It was the 14th straight year that China was placed on the ‘Priority Watch List’.

The report was met with objections from the Chinese commerce ministry, which said the United States lacks objective standards and fairness.

“The Chinese side opposes this, and urges the US to earnestly fulfil its bilateral commitments, respect the facts, and objectively, impartially, evaluate with positive intentions the efforts made by foreign governments including China in the area of intellectual property rights and the results achieved,” the ministry said in a statement on its website on Saturday.

US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is due to travel to China next week along with other senior Trump administration officials for talks on US demands for changes in Beijing’s trade and intellectual property policies.

President Donald Trump has threatened up to $150 billion (Dh551 billion) in tariffs on Chinese goods, and China’s Ministry of Commerce has threatened to retaliate in equal measure.

A USTR official declined to comment on Lighthizer’s specific message to his Chinese counterparts next week, but said US officials “anticipate engaging with them meaningfully on all these issues.”

The biggest surprise in Friday’s report was the decision to move Canada from the lower-level ‘Watch List’ to the same priority list as China. USTR cited Canada’s “poor border enforcement,” especially for counterfeit goods shipped through America’s northern neighbour, and concerns about intellectual property protections for pharmaceuticals.

US pharmaceutical companies have long complained that generic versions of drugs still under US patent protection flood in from Canada at much cheaper prices.

Nafta talks

The increased criticism of Canada was revealed as Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland was locked in intense negotiations with Lighthizer over updating the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

Washington has demanded that a modernisation of the 1994 pact include stronger IP protections.

Lighthizer, Freeland and Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo are trying to work out a number of stumbling blocks in the Nafta talks, including auto content rules.

The office of Canadian Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains, who launched an intellectual property strategy on Thursday, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ottawa is pledging to create an independent body to oversee patent and trademark issues, “which will ensure that professional and ethical standards are maintained.”

Colombia also was added to the Priority Watch List for failing to revise its copyright laws as required under a free trade agreement with the United States.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE were added to the Watch List. Concerns about pharmaceutical intellectual property protections, pirated software and counterfeit goods were factors in those decisions, USTR said.

Former pt of Dr Tennant before the DEA raided/closed his practice ?

In Memory Of

Jennifer E. Adams age 41 of Helena

December 20, 1976April 25, 2018

Every DEATH starts with “DEA”

Pts PENALIZED for seeking ER visit when health issue is NOT LIFE THREATENING

Blue Cross Warns Patients They May Be On Hook For Their ER Visit

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Blue-Cross-Warns-Patients-They-May-Be-On-Hook-For-Their-ER-Visit-481000741.html

Thousands of Texans may want to think twice about their next trip to the emergency room.

The largest health insurer in the state, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, will notify some policy holders they’ll be responsible for paying the entire bill of an emergency room visit for reasons that are determined to not be life threatening or serious. 

In a memo, the company says “some of our members are using the emergency room (ER) for things like head lice or sprained ankles.”

It goes on to say, “doing so not only drives up costs for our members, but uses limited ER resources for conditions that are not serious or life threatening. We want to make health care affordable for our members.” 

Starting June 4th, fully-insured groups or retail HMO members may be required to pay for the entire ER bill if they go to an-of network ER as a convenience for a condition they don’ think is serious or life-threatening.

President of the DFW Hospital Council W Stephen Love says misuse of the ER has been a problem for some time and leads to higher health care costs.

He says the other problem is confusion about where to get immediate health care. Many people go to out-of-network, freestanding emergency rooms, under the impression they’re going to in-network urgent care clinics.

“If you walk into a freestanding ER and said, ‘do you accept insurance?’ most would say yes. The real question you should be asking is, ‘do you take insurance that’s in network and will I not be billed out of network?’ Sometimes, people don’t know enough to ask those detailed type questions,” Love said.

Want to spend the night in the slammer? Minnesota’s Chisago County Sheriff’s Office can help make it happen.The department is letting people stay overnight inside the new Public Safety Center to see the facility and help deputies train before inmates arrive. It just costs $40 per person.

(Published Friday, April 27, 2018)

Dallas freelance hair and makeup artist Cheryl Smith purchased a Blue Cross HMO plan, which she says, requires with monthly premiums higher than her monthly mortgage payments.

Smith feels the policy change creates an extra burden on the consumer to decide what’s considered a covered “emergency.”

“I’m paying for this but I’m scared to use it because I don’t think our insurance company is going to have our back on this,” says Smith.

Dallas Morning News Business of Healthcare Reporter Sabriya Rice takes an in-depth look at the changes here.

To learn more about BCBS emergency care, visit its SmartER Care website.

It would appear that BC is putting the decision as to what is an emergency and requires a trip to the ER and what doesn’t not … on NON MEDICALLY TRAINED GENERAL PUBLIC and if the person does not evaluate their condition correctly could be given a bill for hundreds or THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.

Recently it was stated that 60% + of the population could not afford a $500 emergency cost and/or a $1000 emergency medical bill. According to this, a person going to ER, who it is determined – after the fact – did not have a “real health emergency” … could throw the family’s financial status into a financial crisis ?

Congressional hearing (04/25/2018) in Washington, DC for CPP’s and doctors about the “opioid epidemic.”

https://www.facebook.com/jonelle.elgaway/videos/1686814994740377/

 

Healthcare – WALMART STYLE ?

Image result for Walmart Medical Clinic

Walmart May Need Humana Patients To Fill Emptying Retail Space

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2018/04/27/walmart-may-need-humana-patients-to-fill-emptying-retail-space/#c414b92c6d34

As online shopping continues to eat away at traditional brick and mortar retailers, Walmart may need Humana health plan enrollees to fill its store with patients in need of healthcare services.

That’s a theory floated in a report from Credit Suisse’s A.J. Rice and colleagues who said they recently hosted a former Walmart executive who offered the longtime healthcare analyst and his team thoughts on how a partnership with Humana would help the retail giant.

“(Walmart) would like to see more of overall healthcare spending take place in its locations, while making sure on the other hand that it protects its current related activities, particularly in the midst of a changing landscape,” Rice and Credit Suisse associates wrote in a note last week. “As the need for traditional retail space has evolved due to the proliferation of online shopping , there is a perception that some space within the footprint of an average store could be used to offer new and non-traditional services, such as healthcare.”

Humana releases its first quarter earnings next week when the insurer could face questions from Wall Street analysts about recent Walmart speculation. Humana has more than 14 million people in its health plans.

 But adding healthcare services at Walmart stores is hardly a stretch given what its rivals are already doing inside their stores.

Filling available space with health services is already part of the strategy of Walgreens Boots Alliance and CVS Health. CVS is working its way through an acquisition of Aetna, the nation’s third-largest health insurer, and both parties say they want to develop more healthcare services that would be covered by the health plan for its more than 20 million members.

Walgreens is “opening up more space” for healthcare services such as the attached urgent care centers run by UnitedHealth Group’s MedExpress that connect primary care with the corner drugstore. The partnership has grown to 15 locations.

Image result for Health Clinics in Walmart Stores