The FEDS/FDA caused the Heroin EPIDEMIC ?

‘Safer’ OxyContin Caused 7,500 Heroin Deaths, Researchers Find

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/14/safer-oxycontin-caused-7-500-heroin-deaths-researchers-find.html

It all started back in 1914 when Congress passed the Harrison Narcotic Act and created the “black drug market” for opiates… then in 1970 Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act which created the “war on drugs” to stop the “black drug market” that they had created… In 2010 they “convinced/forced” Purdue Pharma to create a abuse resistance Oxycodone… and from this article it looks like it directly contributed to the increase in Heroin use/abuse/deaths. The Feds just can’t stay out of their own way ?

A new pill that couldn’t be crushed and snorted seemed like the way to curb opioid abuse. Instead, the RAND Corporation and Wharton School say it pushed more people to heroin, with deadly results.
Zachary Siegel

Zachary Siegel

01.13.17 11:15 PM ET

Danielle Novascone was hooked on OxyContin for about a year when it suddenly got a lot harder to get high.

For years, people like Novascone crushed the pills and snorted the powder for an instant fix. In 2010, OxyContin’s manufacturer, Purdue Pharma, changed the opioid painkiller to supposedly stem the abuse epidemic it ignited. When new “abuse-deterrent” OxyContin was crushed, it would turn to jelly, Novascone said.

“It didn’t stop a damn thing,” she added.

 

Like a burglar confronted with a new safe, Novascone came up with novel methods to break in.

Novascone would shave the pills down with a metal file or chisel, then microwave or bake the jelly until it hardened, crush it and snort or inject it just like the old Oxy.

“It would take 45 minutes to set up one pill,” she said. “It became a pain in the ass.”

When Novascone realized she could buy heroin already in powder form at a fraction of the cost of OxyContin, she switched without hesitation.

New research by the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and the RAND Corporation has found OxyContin users like Novascone made the jump to heroin and thousands didn’t survive.

“Our results, imply that a substantial share of the dramatic increase in heroin deaths since 2010 can be attributed to the reformulation of OxyContin,” the study’s authors wrote.

 

As much as 80 percent of the three-fold increase in heroin mortality since 2010 can be attributed to OxyContin’s reformulation, the study concluded.

As dangerous as Oxy can be, it is at least regulated by federal government and produced uniformly by a pharmaceutical company. Heroin, on the other hand, is is increasingly cut with fentanyl, an opioid as much as 80 times stronger than morphine.

Using the study’s estimate, that means the reformulation likely caused more than 7,500 additional heroin deaths.

In 2010, the year Purdue rolled out the new formula, there were 3,038 heroin deaths in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, the death toll jumped to 8,260. Since then heroin deaths have continued to climb, hitting a record high of 12,989 in 2015, the latest year for which there is data.

“The reformulation totally screwed up our game,” said Kevin Joyce, 53, who started out using OxyContin before 2010. “We eventually moved to heroin and our addiction’s got worse.”

“In the past two years 7 of my friends have died,” Joyce said.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!
By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
 
 

Purdue Pharma responded to the study in a statement to The Daily Beast.

“The White House, FDA, and DEA consider abuse-deterrent technology to be an important part of a comprehensive approach toward combating prescription drug abuse,” Purdue said, adding drug treatment and prevention should be part of that approach.

Despite previous studies that link OxyContin’s reformulation to increased heroin use, the CDC maintains that there is no causal link between supply reductions in prescription painkillers and the rise in heroin deaths.

It’s the second time in as many decades that Purdue Pharma tried to make its drug safer.

OxyContin was rolled out in 1996 and aggressively marketed by Purdue and pharmaceutical-giant Abbott Laboratories as a wonder drug for pain that only needed to be taken twice a day. Other painkillers like Vicodin would wear off after 4 to 6 hours, requiring several daily doses to relieve pain. Oxycontin, on the other hand, supposedly lasted 12 hours, requiring only two doses.

In advertisements for OxyContin, doctors paid by Purdue misrepresented the risk of the drug’s addiction potential.

“The rate of addiction amongst pain patients who are treated by doctors is much less than one percent,” a doctor said in this video advertisement made by Purdue. Though the risk of addiction in the chronic pain population is debatable, the problem is OxyContin was over prescribed and massively diverted from the medical system.

A Los Angeles Times investigation revealed that Purdue knew their blockbuster drug’s effects didn’t last that long. So they told doctors to prescribe stronger and stronger doses, increasing the risk of overdose for thousands of patients. The “extended-release formula” that supposedly made OxyContin safe was a total sham.

The marketing scheme was brought to light in 2007 when Purdue pleaded guilty to misleading doctors and regulators. The company paid out $600 million in fines and to this day is still fending off lawsuits by states that see the Purdue’s marketing campaign responsible for killing hundreds of its residents.

The grim irony is OxyContin was supposed to be safer than other opioids but instead turned out to be deadly. So Purdue tried making it safer with a reformulated version and the outcome was even more deaths, according to Wharton and RAND.

“They call these heroin deaths unintended consequences. If they had any understanding of opioid addiction they would’ve known that these consequences were inevitable,” said Sam Snodgrass, a former opioid user who holds a PhD in biopsychology, and works at a buprenorphine clinic that treats patients with opioid use disorder in Arkansas.

“I truly believe that if the CDC, FDA, HHS, and other organizations that put their time, effort, and money into restricting access to pain pills and reformulations, had instead put resources into education, harm reduction, and treatment, so many of the dead would be alive. And that’s on them,” said Snodgrass, who is also a board member of Grief Recovery After Substance Passing (GRASP), a resource for families who have lost a loved one to addiction. Snodgrass’s work puts him on the frontlines of the epidemic’s tragic toll.

Leo Beletsky, an associate professor of law and health sciences at the University of California San Diego, who also holds a post at Northeastern School of Law, said that the story behind Purdue’s abuse-deterrent formulation is more “sinister” than it appears.

“A lot of the motivation behind the reformulation was arguably not about public health,” said Beletsky. “It was driven by the dynamics of one of Purdue’s patents expiring.”

In 2013, the exact day Purdue’s patent on OxyContin expired, the FDA made the decision that it would not approve any generic versions of OxyContin’s old formula because it was too dangerous.

That was after OxyContin’s sales increased from $45 million in 1996 to more than $3 billion in 2010.

The FDA’s decision was another win for Purdue, as the company was able to retain its share of the painkiller market without cheap, generic competitors—a practice in the pharmaceutical industry called “evergreening.”

“It was a brilliant strategy by Purdue,” said Beletesky. “But devastating from a public health standpoint.”

Beletesky sees policies that make painkillers more difficult to access too limited in scope. “I’m not arguing that the misuse of a medication should continue unabated,” he said. “As with any intervention, you need to be mindful to do more good than harm and balance various considerations.”

That didn’t happen with OxyContin’s reformulation, said Beletsky.

One of the study’s co-authors, David Powell, an economist at RAND, told The Daily Beast that instead of only focusing on the supply side of the equation, perhaps policy that emphasizes “demand-side interventions like harm reduction might be more effective.”

“Most drug policy tends to be supply side,” said Powell. But he noted that the heavily lobbied 21st Century Cures Act earmarked $1 billion to treat opioid addiction. This could mean the United States is moving away from strictly supply side interventions, said Powell.

For Snodgrass, who treats opioid addiction with medication, harm reduction policies and interventions include expanding access to naloxone, the lifesaving antidote for opioid overdoses, as well as providing medication-assisted treatment like methadone and buprenorphine on-demand.

Novascone kicked her heroin habit in September 2015, when she entered a methadone-maintenance program.

“My daughter turned 2 and I just had to take care of her,” Novascone said. “I’m so thankful for methadone. It doesn’t make me feel high or anything—I can’t even tell I’m on it.”

Without a robust strategy in place to treat the addiction that demands opioids, Snodgrass thinks the problem will worsen. “I know they believe that if they slam down on pain pills they’ll solve this opioid epidemic,” he said. “But if they take away hydrocodone, we’ll goto oxycodone. If they take away OxyContin, we’ll go to heroin. They slam down heroin, and we’ll go to fentanyl.”

“They need to give us a way out,” he said.

lawyers weren’t interested in the case because her father’s life didn’t have much value.

Darrell Gibbons had been using methadone for about 15 years to deal with a drug addiction. ‘I wouldn’t let her give medication to a mouse,’ woman says of pharmacist who made fatal error

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/pharmacist-leanne-forbes-disciplined-darrell-gibbons-death-1.3934532

A Nova Scotia woman is haunted knowing her father’s life could have been saved by some simple instructions from a pharmacist.

Darrell Gibbons was 58 years old when he died in his sleep at his Amherst home in December 2015.

He’d died of a methodone overdose because a pharmacist failed to warn his family that his dosage needed to be adjusted.

“I don’t know that we’re coping that well,” said Monica Gibbons, one of Darrell’s daughters.

“We still haven’t been able to spread my dad’s ashes because we just can’t. We can’t let go.”

Darrell Gibbons and grandchildren

Darrell Gibbons with his son and his daughter Monica. (Monica Gibbons)

Monica Gibbons, a licensed practical nurse who is studying to be a registered nurse, said her father had been using methadone for about 15 years to deal with a drug addiction.

He was admitted to hospital in 2015 because of complications from alcohol abuse. While he was there, he was prescribed a drug called naltrexone to help him deal with his alcohol problem. He also continued with his methadone treatment.

Gibbons said her father’s condition improved considerably during his stay in hospital and he was released to live with her sister.

‘You’ll be fine without it’

When her father left the hospital, Gibbons said the pharmacy told his family the naltrexone wasn’t covered by his drug plan. The pharmacist, Leanne Forbes, told the family it was no problem.

“She said, ‘You’ll be fine without it.’ That’s what she told my sister,” said Gibbons.

But he wasn’t fine.

30-day suspension

Because Forbes failed to warn the family that cutting off naltrexone would require a decrease in Darrell Gibbons’s methadone dosage, the adjustment was never made and he died of an overdose.

“What would have been safe is either keeping him on both drugs or taking away a large amount of the dose of methadone that he was receiving,” said Monica Gibbons.

The Nova Scotia College of Pharmacists suspended Forbes’s licence for a month, fined her and ordered her to write an essay and apologize to Gibbons’s family.

His daughter — who said she has not yet received the apology — doesn’t feel the 30-day suspension is enough.

“I don’t think that that pharmacist is going to learn anything from it,” said Gibbons. “I wouldn’t let her give medication to a mouse if I had one.”

‘I hope that I can save somebody else’s life’

Forbes is one of two Nova Scotia pharmacy managers who were suspended after making prescription drug dispensing mistakes in unrelated cases that ultimately led to the deaths of two patients. 

Gibbons said the family tried to hire a lawyer to consider a lawsuit against Forbes. She said she was told lawyers weren’t interested in the case because her father’s life didn’t have much value.

“Who’s to say my dad’s life isn’t valuable enough?” she asked. “I’m the one who has to get married without my dad walking me down the aisle, I’m the one whose children are never going to meet their grampy over this mistake.”

Gibbons said she decided to speak out after the release of the disciplinary decision because she wanted to warn others.

“I really just don’t want my dad’s death to have no purpose,” she said. “I hope that I can save somebody else’s life.”

 

Medical battery is a unique intentional tort because it does not require proof of hostile intent.

Doctor Performs Surgery on Wrong Patient or Wrong Part of Body – Why This is a “Never Event” that Should Never Occur

http://statewideillinois.legalexaminer.com/2017/01/13/doctor-performs-surgery-on-wrong-patient-or-wrong-part-of-body-why-this-is-a-never-event-that-should-never-occur/

Could the reduction of pain management therapy – against the pt’s wishes – and the resulting increased pain level and decrease in quality of life and the pt’s loss of ability to perform normal daily personal functions be a form of MEDICAL BATTERY ?

According to a recent article in the Journal of Patient Safety, preventable medical errors may now be the third leading cause of death in the United States.  These errors include so-called “never-events,” such as wrong site and wrong patient errors. For example, if a patient is scheduled to have a surgery performed on their right shoulder and the physician performed a surgery on the patient’s left shoulder,  this situation would be a “never-event” – meaning it should never happen. The medical profession has widely adopted basic safety procedures to prevent these types of mistakes. However, wrong patient and wrong site events continue to happen and, when they do, they give rise to potential medical battery claims.

Medical battery is a unique intentional tort because it does not require proof of hostile intent. Rather, the focus of a claim for medical battery is the lack of consent to the medical procedure performed. A common setting for a medical battery is where the patient consents to care, but the physician deviates from the consent and performs an additional procedure or a different procedure. Under Illinois law, a physician must obtain consent from a patient before performing any medical procedure. This is the rule in Illinois, with very few exceptions. One such exception would be if the physician is performing the medical procedure in an emergency setting.  Medical battery can also occur outside of a hospital setting, including if a patient is enrolled in a medical study without their consent or prescribed medication without their consent. In almost all circumstances, a patient should be aware of and consent to any potential procedures that may be performed on them prior to undergoing those procedures.

You should not let a “never event” cause harm to you or your family.  If a doctor has performed a medical procedure on you or a loved one without consent, contacting an attorney may be in your best interest.

RUMOR ON THE STREET

This showed up on another chronic pain closed FB page

Heard from attorneys…. all Dr. Tennant’s patients call them now !

Class Action lawsuit

Dr Forest Tennant – home page

National Pharmacist Day !

IMO… you had better start looking over your shoulder

https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Outreach/Partnerships/Downloads/CMS-Opioid-Misuse-Strategy-2016.pdf

http://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/mass-tort-litigation-class-actions-plaintiffs

https://www.medicare.gov/claims-and-appeals/file-a-complaint/complaint.html

www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2017/1/12/medicare-takes-big-brother-approach-to-opioid-abuse

https://www.ada.gov/filing_complaint.htm

CMS is suppose to be the guardian of our Medicare/Medicaid healthcare system.. They created a Star Rating System a couple of years ago and they are suppose to be the focal point for pts filing grievances against healthcare providers (hospitals, doctors, pharmacies/pharmacists, Part D, Medicare Advantage Providers) for providing poor/bad care.

Now CMS has put forth edicts for Pharmacists to act as judge/jury/executor for docs that Pharmacist feel MAY BE providing controlled substances in excessive amounts and pts that they BELIEVE are getting excessive amount of controlled substances.

As bad as this edict is.. it is highly concerning to me because Pharmacists are not trained to diagnose diseases and do not have the legal authority – by the various states’ Pharmacy practice act to diagnose or prescribe.. but that is what it seems that the CMS is dictating what Pharmacists do.. but only concerning controlled meds.

It is illegal for a physician to diagnose/prescribe for a pt that they have not done a in person physical exam and yet according to this edict Pharmacists are suppose to perform a similar feat.. without doing a in person physical exam nor having access to the pt’s entire medical records.. they will have to come to “medical conclusion” based just on the pt’s prescription history – which may or may not be complete and MAYBE a couple of ICD10 diagnostic codes.

It also appears that Pharmacists will be left on their own to determine where “the bar” is in regards to a prescriber’s excessive prescribing and/or the pt getting/taking excessive doses. So “the bar” can be – or most likely will be – HIGHLY VARIABLE from Pharmacist to Pharmacist.

The CDC guidelines on opiate dosing may be a “blessing in disguise”…..suggest you read this “The guideline is intended to ensure that clinicians and patients consider safer and more effective treatment, improve patient outcomes such as reduced pain and improved function.”

“Clinicians should consider the circumstances and unique needs of each patient when providing care.”

“Clinical decision making should be based on a relationship between the clinician and patient, and an understanding of the patient’s clinical situation, functioning, and life context.”

“This guideline provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care.”

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/rr/rr6501e1.htm

The above four quotes are directly from the CDC guidelines.. I am not an attorney, I would think that groups of physicians and/or corporate entities (hospitals) who employ prescribers.. if they “adopt” the CDC guidelines and place arbitrary mgs/day limits on ALL PATIENTS… regardless of CYP450 opiate metabolism status, or other extenuating circumstances …regarding pt’s appropriate care… are in violation of the intend of the CDC guidelines… the corporate entities in particular… could be guilty of practicing medicine without a license …using their corporate policies and procedures to dictate “cookie cutter medicine – medicine by the numbers”

According the World Health Organization https://palliative.stanford.edu/overview-of-palliative-care/overview-of-palliative-care/world-health-organization-definition-of-palliative-care/

Most/all chronic pain pts could be classified as in need of palliative care. Exempting chronic pain pts from the mgs/day limits… Apparently most bureaucrats believe that palliative care is part of Hospice… when in reality palliative care can be its own care modality .. for those pts who are classified as high acuity and thus palliative care is normally furnished as PART OF HOSPICE CARE, but not exclusive to Hospice.

I would think that those physicians or organizations that profess to be adopting the CDC guidelines but in reality have sliced/diced the guidelines into portion that they wish to adhere to and other portions they wish to ignore could have exceed their legal authority.

I believe that the legal case could be made against these group practices or organizations and their employed prescribers.. that in doing so are failing to meet best practices and standard of care… resulting is pt/senior abuse, guilt of malpractice, ADA violation of (civil rights) discrimination for starters.

Since these decisions are being made by organizations and could be affecting sizeable number of chronic pain pts… and those organizations also represents a lot of “deep pockets”… would seem like the basic ingredients for a class action lawsuit.. I can see the TV commercials now… CALL 1-800- BADDOCS

I have been told many times by pts that they have contacted attorneys about suing prescribers , pharmacies/pharmacists and others for denial of care and/or ADA violation.  Our legal system puts little/no value of the life of a person who is handicapped/disabled, elderly or unemployable.  So I have not heard of the first attorney to take a case on a contingency basis.. because there is no financial upside for the law firm to take a case on a contingency basis.

I have put a link for the “BIG” legal firms that deal with class action… I am now being told that large medical practices and certain entities (hospitals, insurance companies) are creating policies and procedures that claim that they are implementing and following the CDC guidelines and then only following PORTIONS of the CDC guidelines.. meaning that hundreds or thousands of pts will probably be adversely impacted by these decision because they are deviating from what is called not meeting best practices and standard of care… when they state that they are implementing the CDC guidelines as their policy.. and then not follow the WHOLE POLICY..

IMO… the equation of the value of a large group of people who are disabled/handicapped, elderly or unemployable… has dramatically changed by the actions of these corporate entities. It could also be possible that all the employed prescribers for these entities are equally guilty of not meeting best practices and standard of care.. which is basically MALPRACTICE.  It could also document violation of the Americans with Disability Act.. since most/all of the pts effected are covered under the ADA.

This whole thing – as it is evolving – IMO.. IS SO WRONG… in so many ways.

 

DEA Tweet Unintentionally Reveals Cannabis Legalization Argument

DEA Tweet Unintentionally Reveals Cannabis Legalization Argument

ireadculture.com/dea-tweet-unintentionally-reveals-cannabis-legalization-argument/

The DEA has caused a roller coaster of news in the cannabis industry over the past year. The agency always seems to be butting heads with cannabis in some way or another and the truth behind the DEA’s intentions isn’t always widely publicized. Now, newest information on the DEA front is in the form of a tweet from DEA HQ, where it describes a connection between the perception of risk and actual substance use.

On January 9, @DEAHQ posted the following:

CHALLENGE: Over the long term its proven that the perception of drug harm is correlated w/use, a trend that’s going in the wrong direction

 

 

The tweet was also accompanied by two charts, both utilizing research conducted between 1975

and 2013 through the eyes of 12th grade students. The first shows “cigarette use and perception of harm,” with a clear increase in risk of harm and decrease in a 1/2 pack of cigarettes or more per day. The second exhibits “marijuana use and perception of harm” and shows the gradual decrease of risk and increase of cannabis use almost meeting in the middle.

According to an article on VOX, there is a much different reading of this post that argues directly against what the post meant to prove. The tobacco industry has been legal since before the chart begins, and its risk is well advertised in our world today.

This is thanks to everything from education campaigns, bans on smoking and increased tobacco taxes. Yet cannabis is still federally illegal, but the overall acceptance of cannabis use has increased tenfold, along with the knowledge that the plant is natural, and there is little to no risk involved in consuming it. VOX notes that ultimately the charts clearly show that the “legal model” works and the legal substance experienced reduced use whereas the illegal substance has not. If you wish to learn more about cannabis or CBD, you can check out sites like cbdluxe.com and others to gain sufficient knowledge.

If cannabis were to be regulated as tobacco, things might drastically change. Even President Barack Obama agreed in a recent interview with Rolling Stone that it could be a beneficial change, “I do believe that treating [substance abuse] as a public-health issue, the same way we do with cigarettes or alcohol, is the much smarter way to deal with it.”

OMG… CMS… calling out all opiophobic Pharmacists and Technicians… all hands on deck

Medicare Takes Big Brother Approach to Opioid Abuse

www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2017/1/12/medicare-takes-big-brother-approach-to-opioid-abuse

By Pat Anson, Editor

A new strategy being developed by Medicare to combat the abuse of opioid pain medication will encourage pharmacists to report physicians who may be prescribing opioids inappropriately. Patients that a pharmacist believes are abusing opioids could also be referred for investigation.

The strategy, which has yet to be finalized, was outlined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) last week in a 30-page report on the agency’s “Opioid Misuse Strategy.”  It has not been widely publicized by CMS or reported in the news media.

“Many Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and their families have experienced opioid use disorder, commonly referred to as addiction,” the agency says in the report’s executive summary.

“Given the growing body of evidence on the risks of misuse… CMS is outlining our agency’s strategy and the array of actions underway to address the national opioid misuse epidemic.”

One strategy CMS will explore is “incentivizing prescribing behavior” by encouraging physicians and pharmacists to consult with prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) to review each patient’s prescription drug history. The use of PDMPs is fairly widespread already, but CMS would take it a step further by encouraging pharmacists to report suspicious activity by prescribers and patients.

“Pharmacies would be able to identify prescribers with potentially illicit prescribing practices or beneficiaries (patients) who may be overusing opioids. This information can be referred to health plans to investigate provider and beneficiary behaviors that may be indicative of fraud or abuse.”

Investigations of abuse or inappropriate prescribing would be shared with insurers enrolled in the giant Medicare/Medicaid system, even if the allegations are never proven. CMS contracts with dozens of private insurance companies to provide health insurance to about 54 million Americans through Medicare and nearly 70 million in Medicaid.

“Part D plans can use CMS’s information sharing platform to identify leads for their own internal investigations and can report actions they have taken. For example, if one plan sponsor suspects a provider of inappropriate prescribing behavior, it can alert other plans to that possibility so that those plans can conduct their own evaluations and take coordinated action if warranted.

“The results of these projects are provided to plan sponsors so that additional actions can be taken, including initiating new investigations, conducting audits, or terminating physicians and pharmacies from their network.”

“It looks like ‘Big Brother’ is going to watch everyone,” says Rick Martin, a retired Las Vegas pharmacist who suffers from chronic back pain. “Pharmacists are going to be even more paranoid than they already are.

“Retail pharmacists don’t have time for this. They aren’t the police. Nevada has a PDMP. It already shows a significant decrease in prescribing patterns over the last several years, so it is working.  With the CMS, just who decides what are appropriate quantities and proper prescribing habits?”

CMS Using CDC’s Prescribing Guidelines

In developing its strategy, CMS is relying heavily on prescribing guidelines released in 2016 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which discourage doctors from prescribing opioids for chronic pain. CMS says it will use the “evidence-based guidelines” to determine what constitutes inappropriate prescribing. The guidelines include a recommendation that opioids be limited to no more than 90 mg of morphine equivalent milligrams a day, a dose that many patients in severe chronic pain consider inadequate. 

The CDC maintains the guidelines are “voluntary” and intended only for primary care physicians. However, under the CMS strategy, the guidelines would apply to all prescribers, except those treating cancer or patients in palliative care.

“I just hate to see something that CDC itself said was voluntary, was a recommendation, and really isn’t all that specific if you really read it, get turned into something that creates bright red lines. And if you step across the line, you’re going to get yourself in trouble. I don’t think that’s right,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, Executive Director of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management, the nation’s largest pain management organization.

CMS says the additional scrutiny of doctors and patients is needed because “the Medicare population has among the highest and fastest-growing rates of diagnosed opioid use disorder,” which the agency estimates at 6 out of every 1,000 beneficiaries. Addiction rates are higher among Medicaid beneficiaries, at 8.7 patients for every 1,000, a figure 10 times higher than patients covered by private insurance plans.

“Because there is no systematic policy of screening for opioid use disorder and patients are unlikely to volunteer that they are misusing their medication or are using opioids like heroin because of discrimination and stigma, these rates are likely underestimates,” CMS says.

Rick Martin believes the Medicare policies will make physicians even less likely to prescribe opioids and pharmacists less likely to fill legitimate prescriptions.

“Pharmacists, like the docs, are just plain scared. If they don’t know you, many are reluctant to fill,” Martin wrote in an email to PNN. “One pharmacy I went to refused to fill my bona fide legitimate prescription because it exceeded an arbitrary amount. The manager didn’t want any extra scrutiny from DEA, the home office, the PDMP, the board of pharmacy, or the (drug) wholesaler. Even though I was in the system for over 2 years and had previously had even higher amounts filled.

“One of the pain docs I am working with told me he has gotten numerous letters from Humana and one other (insurer) because he is in the upper 1% of dispensing opioids. Well, duh!  He is an exclusive pain management doctor. They didn’t compare him with other pain doctors, just ALL doctors. Stupid. What will the CMS do on top of what goes on already?”

Bob Twillman worries the CMS strategy will create distrust between physicians and pharmacists.

“We’ve been trying to make efforts over the last few years to get pharmacists and physicians to work more closely together. I’m concerned this could increase suspicion between the two and be counter to that effort,” said Twillman. “Getting prescribers and pharmacists to work together is an important thing in enhancing patient safety and if we do something like this and short circuit that effort we’re doing more harm than we are good.”

CMS did not say when it planned to implement its Opioid Misuse Strategy or if public hearings would ever be held on them. The agency only said in coming weeks it would release “statements reflecting the agency’s Medicare and Medicaid goals.” A phone call and emailed request to CMS for clarification went unanswered.

Also unclear is why CMS and the Department of Health and Human Services would take a major step affecting the healthcare of tens of millions of patients and their doctors in the final days of the Obama administration.

“The fact that this is coming out a couple of weeks before the new administration comes in does make it a little bit odd. It makes me wonder how many legs it has or whether it will carry over into the next administration,” said Twillman.

 

How to Appeal a Health Insurance Denial

How to Appeal a Health Insurance Denial

http://guides.wsj.com/health/health-costs/how-to-appeal-a-health-insurance-denial/

Battling a health insurer when it refuses to cover certain treatments can be aggravating and time-consuming. But if you choose to appeal a coverage denial, there are several strategies that can bolster your case.

Some health-coverage problems — such as when your doctor enters a wrong code on a claim form — can be resolved with a phone call. But other issues can be more difficult, because they center on complex medical questions like whether a certain cancer treatment is appropriate for you.

First, figure out what led to the denial of coverage and learn your insurer’s procedure for appeals. When you call your health plan to get the information, take notes and get names. If the problem can’t be readily resolved, you should ask the insurer for some key documents to reconstruct what led to the rejection.

You will need the denial letter. You should also get a copy of your plan’s full benefits language, sometimes called the “Evidence of Coverage,” as well as the detailed guidelines that explain what the company considers medically necessary. Some companies, such as Cigna Corp. and Aetna Inc., post their medical policies online.

After you gather the facts, set a strategy. You may want to start by seeking help from one of the array of nonprofit and for-profit entities that offer advice. Many states have health insurance consumer advocates. The advocacy group Families USA offers a list of state resources.

Another key resource is the nonprofit Patient Advocate Foundation, which handles health-insurance appeals for free. Other organizations and companies can be found at the following Web sites:
Claims.org
Hospitalbillreview.com
Healthproponent.com
Billadvocates.com
Healthchampion.net
Patientcare4u.com.

Your appeal may hinge on proving that your treatment qualifies for coverage under your plan’s benefits and rules. In that case, you will want to zero in on the plan’s language, and figure out why the procedure you are seeking fits into a category of care that the insurer has promised to pay for.

Many appeals hinge on a different issue: whether a treatment is scientifically proven and medically necessary. Your doctor should be able to write a detailed letter on your behalf. You also may be able to bolster your case by researching the scientific evidence online on sites like pubmed.gov, sponsored by the National Library of Medicine. You are seeking studies that may demonstrate that the treatment you want has worked in cases similar to yours. The strongest evidence comes from large, randomized, controlled trials, but anything published in a reputable medical journal might help. You should show your findings to your doctor, so he or she can explain anything you don’t understand, as well as integrate anything important into his or her letter to the insurer.

You may also want to seek help from researchers who worked on the cutting-edge studies you find – sometimes, these doctors are willing to help a patient with an urgent case. They might even review your medical records and submit a backup letter on your behalf, which can add weight to your own doctor’s views.

Even if your insurer rejects your appeal, you still have other options. If your employer has a self-funded health plan, which might be administered by a private insurer but is backed by the employer, your next step is often to sue in federal court, a tough and expensive proposition.

But if your coverage is with an insurance company, either through your employer or an individual policy, you can opt for your state’s appeals process. Often, these are handled through the state’s insurance regulator, but if not, this agency should at least be able to tell you where to go. Make sure you check with the agency, because the 44 states that offer independent reviews won’t handle all kinds of issues, and each has its own rules. For Medicare beneficiaries, there is a separate, federal appeals-review process that you can learn about at Medicare.gov.

HookedRx: From Prescription to Addiction

https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/hookedrx/