Heal yourself… #Kratom

And they say that Trump supporters are “crazy” ? … takes one to know one ?

https://youtu.be/ejjP59fQD8k

#CVS:… customers will learn to do things our way ???

CVS: Nope, We Aren’t Bringing Back The Target Pharmacy Bottles Everyone Loves

consumerist.com/2016/09/28/cvs-nope-we-arent-bringing-back-the-target-pharmacy-bottles-everyone-loves/

When Target reported its last batch of quarterly results, CEO Brian Cornell noted that visits to its in-store pharmacies were down after the conversion of those pharmacies to mini CVS stores. Readers explained to us why they left, and a popular reason was that CVS ditched Target’s easy-to-use red prescription bottles. Some customers held on to hope that CVS would deploy the bottles across its whole chain now that it owns the patent. Now we know the answer: nope.

A CVS spokesman finally picked up the phone and spoke to the Associated Press about the issue, explaining that it’s easier and more cost-efficient to use the same bottles across all 9,600 CVS pharmacies, instead of keeping the red bottles at the stores inside Target.

CVS as a whole is working on a new dispensing system, and the AP even reports that Deborah Adler, the designer behind the beloved red bottles, is working on the project. However, CVS declined to answer whether the new system would incorporate any elements of the beloved Target packaging.

The CVS spokesman also said that he didn’t see a connection between the drop in pharmacy sales and the phaseout of Target’s red bottles, possibly because he hasn’t talked to any customers.

 

FDA looking for app like YELP/Urban Spoon to find nearby person with Naloxone

rheumatology, hospital medicine, critical care, pain management, addiction medicine, opioids, prescription drugs, painkillers, overdose, abuse, technology, smartphone, iPhone, appsFDA Launches App Competition to Combat Opioid Overdoses

There is dozens of geolocating apps… for someone trying to get a “quickie” … to find a place to get a meal and who know whats… now the FDA wants people who “carry” Naloxone/Narcan  with them and if someone OD’s they or their friends can use this proposed geolocating app to find someone nearby with Naloxone..  I thought that there was already “a app for that”.. it was called 911 ???
 advancedstupid

Calling all computer programmers, public health advocates, clinical researchers, entrepreneurs, and innovators from various specialties! The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched the 2016 Naloxone App Competition as an innovative strategy to fight opioid overdose.

Opioid abuse remains a growing problem in the United States. Naloxone (Evzio) is used to treat narcotic overdoses in emergency situations. The FDA has taken steps to combat these scenarios, such as encouraging the development of abuse-deterrent opioids and providing opioid abuse screening questions for clinicians. Next up in the campaign is creating a mobile phone application.

“Mobile phone applications have been developed to educated laypersons on how to recognize an overdose and administer naloxone, and to connect bystanders with individuals in need of other medical services, such as CPR. To date, however, no application is available to connect carriers of naloxone with nearby opioid overdose victims,” Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis at the FDA, said in a news release.

The whole purpose behind the app idea is that it can connect opioid users experiencing an overdose with carriers of naloxone near them. This can increase timely administration to reverse the overdose. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is supporting the FDA with the competition.

The number of deaths due to opioid overdoses – including drugs such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and morphine, as well as illicit opioids like heroin – have more than tripled since 1999. The FDA announcement says that many of these deaths could have been avoided if naloxone was administered immediately – which is why this competition was created.

“With a dramatic increase in the number of opioid overdose deaths in the US, there’s a vital need to harness the power of new technologies to quickly and effectively link individuals experiencing an overdose – or a bystander such as a friend or family member – with someone who carries and can administer the life-saving medication,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD.
– See more at: http://www.hcplive.com/medical-news/fda-launches-app-competition-to-combat-opioid-overdoses?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=HCPLive&utm_campaign=MDMagazine_Pain_Management_9-28-16#sthash.yas8r2fg.dpuf

Utah bureaucrats ignore looking for street dealers as the reason for OD’s ?

stupidcanyoubeUtah DEA agent says opioid epidemic ‘bane of our existence’

fox13now.com/2016/09/28/utah-dea-agent-says-opioid-epidemic-bane-of-our-existence/

Notice that they state …  An average of one person dies every day in Utah due to an opioid overdose.. and they show a picture of  opioid… when there was a article last week in the Boston Globe   Only 8.3 percent of those who died had a prescription for an opioid drug

and who are the bureaucrats going to talk to ?  “We’re looking at health care providers, first responders, public safety professionals, practitioners, pharmacists, wholesalers—this whole group together in a room to talk about this epidemic, which has become the bane of our existence,

This reminds me of a old joke…. I guy saw a person standing in the street.. under a street lamp … appeared to be looking around on the ground… the guy walked up to the fellow and asked if he could help… if he had lost something… and said that he had lost a ring… the guy asked where did he think that he had dropped/lost it… the fellow pointed down the street – about 1/2 block away…  the guy asked the fellow.. why he was looking here for his lost ring… the fellow said that it was dark down the street and this was where the STREET LIGHT WAS.

The Boston Globe article suggests that around 90%+ of the pts who OD.. does not have a legal prescription for the opiate that toxicology found in their blood… so who are these bureaucrats going to talk to… Those who deal with the legal distribution of opiates… when all those illegal drugs they are actually ODing from .. are coming from outside of our country from cartels and “street dealers”…  I guess that the “street dealers” are “hiding in the dark” ?

SALT LAKE CITY – An average of one person dies every day in Utah due to an opioid overdose, and state leaders gathered for a two-day summit starting Wednesday to discuss ways to reduce that figure.

Utah’s problem with heroin and opioid addiction has been on the rise for nearly a decade now, to the point where we are one of the leaders in the U.S. when it comes to deaths due to opioid and heroin overdoses.

It is a multi-faceted problem requiring a broad-based coalition of people and agencies to deal with it.

“We’re looking at health care providers, first responders, public safety professionals, practitioners, pharmacists, wholesalers—this whole group together in a room to talk about this epidemic, which has become the bane of our existence,” said Brian Besser of the DEA in Salt Lake City.

This particular summit has been in the works for several months. The bottom line is that hundreds of Utahns have died from preventable deaths over the past 10 years. Law enforcement personnel said they know they are part of the solution, but they also acknowledge the need for everyone in the community to step forward and be pulling in the same direction.

“They have to walk out to a treatment facility, a funded treatment facility, that offers legitimate pharmacological, sociological and psychological support,” Salt Lake County Sheriff Jim Winder said.

They also want folks who have dealt with or who are currently dealing with the problem firsthand to take part.

“We want the community to come forward and say: ‘Hey, let’s talk about this,’” Besser said. “We don’t necessarily have to be shameful about this, let’s get out and talk about it, let’s address it and say, ‘Hey, I am dealing with this problem at home, it has hit home with my family, and it’s come under my roof—what can we do to address it collectively? And we need help.”

Part of that community involvement will revolve around the screening of a film Wednesday night called “Chasing the Dragon.” That will be followed by a family discussion featuring medical and mental health experts, along with those who have lost loved ones due to an opioid overdose.

The screening begins at 6 p.m. and the round table discussion follows at 7 p.m. The event is being held downtown in the Sheraton Salt Lake City Hotel, 150 West 500 South.

 

 

MJ is LEGAL in Colorado … but it is ILLEGAL to grow it

DEA operation targeting illegal pot grows in Pueblo County

http://www.chieftain.com/news/pueblo/5191565-120/chieftain-dea-operation-pueblo

The Drug Enforcement Administration said it is currently conducting a large-scale operation targeting illegal marijuana grows in multiple counties in Southern and Eastern Colorado, including in Pueblo County.

 The DEA said it is working on the operation here in conjunction with the Pueblo County Sheriff’s Office and 10th Judicial District Attorney’s Office.

The DEA said organizations that have come to the state to grow pot and ship it back out of the state are the targets of the operation.

Details about the raids have not been released yet, as the efforts are ongoing, the DEA said.

Please come back to Chieftain.com for more on this story and see the next issue of The Chieftain. Don’t subscribe? Please call (719) 544-0166.

FDA expands its authority over tobacco products

1984]FDA expands its authority over tobacco products

http://drugtopics.modernmedicine.com/drug-topics/news/fda-expands-its-authority-over-tobacco-products

According to FDA and other sources, tobacco use is the single largest preventable cause of disease and death in the United States.

Ned MilenkovichAs part of its goal to improve public health and protect future generations from tobacco use risk, the FDA has engaged in rulemaking to extend its jurisdictional authority over all products that are within the definition of a “tobacco product.”

Previously, FDA regulated cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco.  However, in 2016, the FDA finalized a rule – “Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act” – that extended FDA’s authority to include the regulation of electronic nicotine delivery systems such as e-cigarettes and vape pens, all cigars, hookah (waterpipe) tobacco, pipe tobacco, and nicotine gels.

The regulation provides FDA with unprecedented authority to:

• Review new tobacco products not yet released into the marketplace

• Help prevent misleading claims by tobacco product manufacturers

• Evaluate the ingredients of tobacco products and how they are made

• Communicate the potential risks of tobacco products

The final rule, which went into effect on August 8, 2016, subjects all manufacturers, importers, and/or retailers of newly-regulated tobacco products to any applicable provisions related to tobacco products in the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and FDA regulations. The following will be required:

• Registering manufacturing establishments and providing product listings to the FDA

• Reporting ingredients, and harmful and potentially harmful constituents

• Requiring pre-market review and authorization of new tobacco products by the FDA

• Placing health warnings on product packages and advertisements

• Not selling modified risk tobacco products (including those described as “light,” “low,” or “mild”) unless authorized by the FDA.

Additionally, there are provisions that restrict youth access to tobacco products, including:

• Disallowing products to be sold to persons under the age of 18 years (both in-person and online)

• Requiring age verification by way of photo ID

• Disallowing the sale of tobacco products in vending machines (unless in an adult-only facility)

• Disallowing distribution of free samples

FDA has authority over tobacco products, which is derived through statute. The final rule was issued to deem the products within the statutory definition of  “tobacco product,” except accessories of the newly deemed tobacco products, to be subject to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act). The Tobacco Control Act provides FDA authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and any other tobacco products that the FDA by regulation deems to be subject to the law. With this final rule, FDA is extending its “tobacco product” authorities in the FDCA to all other categories of products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” in the FDCA, except accessories. 

As described, the final rule also prohibits the sale of “covered tobacco products” to individuals under age 18 and requires the display of health warnings on cigarette tobacco, roll-your own tobacco, and covered tobacco product packages and in advertisements. In accordance with the Tobacco Control Act, FDA considers and intends the extension of its authority over tobacco products and the various requirements and prohibitions established by this rule to be severable, which means that if a court should strike down one regulation, it is the intent of the FDA that other regulations would remain in force.

Ned Milenkovich is chair of the healthcare law practice at Much Shelist PC and vice chair of the Illinois State Board of Pharmacy. Call him at 312-521-2482 or nmilenkovich@muchshelist.com.

Longtime customers of Target’s pharmacies are finding CVS’ change in pill bottle design hard to swallow

In this Sunday, Sept. 18, 2016, photo, Shelley Ewalt sits in her home, in Princeton, N.J., near an amber-colored CVS pharmacy prescription bottle, right, and two uniquely designed red ones from Target. After CVS took over operation of Target's drugstores earlier this year, distraught customers have been asking the drugstore chain to bring back the retailer’s red prescription bottles, which came with color-coded rings, labeling on the top and prescription information that was easier to read. Ewalt tweeted to the drugstore chain, asking if there was any chance they might return to the design of the Target bottles, which she found easier to open. (AP Photo/Mel Evans) ORG XMIT: NJME251 Photo: Mel Evans / Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Seeing red over CVS change

Target customers say bland bottles replace Target red containers

Why do people patronize companies that could care less about what makes the customer happy or meets the person’s needs or wants ? Isn’t that the basic premise of a good business plan ? Personally, I refuse to patronize companies that expect me to BEG THEM to allow them to take my money.  I have always seemed to be able to find a local business that appreciates my business and it appreciates me spending my money at their establishment.

http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Seeing-red-over-CVS-change-9313227.php

In this Sunday, Sept. 18, 2016, photo, Shelley Ewalt sits in her home, in Princeton, N.J., near an amber-colored CVS pharmacy prescription bottle, right, and two uniquely designed red ones from Target. After CVS took over operation of Target’s drugstores earlier this year, distraught customers have been asking the drugstore chain to bring back the retailer’s red prescription bottles, which came with color-coded rings, labeling on the top and prescription information that was easier to read. Ewalt tweeted to the drugstore chain, asking if there was any chance they might return to the design of the Target bottles, which she found easier to open.

Longtime customers of Target’s pharmacies are finding a change in pill bottle design hard to swallow.

After CVS began operating Target’s drugstores earlier this year, distraught customers have been asking — in some cases begging — the drugstore chain to bring back the retailer’s red prescription bottles, which came with color-coded rings, labeling on the top and prescription information that was easier to read.

 Some customers also took more drastic steps.

Vivian Ruth Sawyer went fishing through her trash to rescue the old Target bottles soon after opening her stapled prescription bag to find the dowdy, white-capped amber vials that are common in most medicine cabinets. She has since poured refills of her thyroid medicine into the old Target bottles, even though they don’t have the right expiration dates. It’s worth it, she said, because those bottles make it easier to tell her prescriptions apart when she looks in her drawer for them.

“This is really inconvenient and irritating,” the Louisville, Ky., resident said.

CVS says it is working on designing a new system for dispensing prescriptions and helping people stay on their medications, but spokeswoman Carolyn Castel declined to share details or say whether that might involve an updated bottle design.

Meanwhile, shoppers continue to mourn the loss of a bottle that was considered groundbreaking when it debuted about a decade ago and was once on display at New York’s Museum of Modern Art.

Target flipped bottle design on its head in 2005 when it introduced a red container with the opening on the bottom. That allowed the label to wrap around the top so it could be seen from above.

It included a flat surface that customers found easier to read than the curve of a typical pill bottle, and it came with color-coded rings for the neck to help family members quickly tell their medicines apart.

100,000 or more deaths annually.. from taking prescribed drugs…but no EPIDEMIC… nothing to see here.. keep on moving…

Death By Prescription

By one estimate, taking prescribed medications is the fourth leading cause of death among Americans.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2016-09-27/the-danger-in-taking-prescribed-medications

Americans are taking more medications than ever before.

Nearly 60 to 70 percent of us take at least one prescribed drug, depending upon the estimate; for many it amounts to a fistful, potpourri of pills per day. Meanwhile, new drug approvals have reached a 19-year high. It’s a mark cheered notably for the swift minting of medications to tackle so-called “orphan diseases,” rare conditions for which few or no treatment options exist. But critics say an expedited drug approval process is opening the door for riskier drugs – including many not proven to provide unique benefits over drugs already on the market.

Even as an opioid overdose crisis sweeps the country, another ubiquitous, insidious danger is hidden from view. There’s no formal process for quantifying injuries, hospitalizations or even deaths caused by therapeutic drug use – which excludes overdose or misuse. “Risk management begins with measuring things accurately, so you know what the threats are and the ones where you should be paying attention,” says Thomas J. Moore, senior scientist for drug safety and policy at the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. But he notes that there’s no system in place or accepted methodology for developing these tallies for prescription drugs, unlike with overdoses. Health providers and consumers are encouraged to report adverse drug reactions to the Food and Drug Administration, and the agency can issue safety communications, require drug label warnings and pull drugs from the market, among other risk management measures. But the FDA says it’s unable to use the incomplete adverse event reporting data to quantify overall deaths that result from therapeutic drug use.

The difficulty involved in trying to estimate the toll, however, hasn’t stopped Moore and other researchers from seeking to quantify how many people die annually from taking prescribed drugs – often by closely evaluating hospital admission studies. Estimates dating back nearly two decades put the number at 100,000 or more deaths annually, which includes a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998 that projected 106,000 deaths. A more recent analysis estimates 128,000 Americans die each year as a result of taking medications as prescribed – or nearly five times the number of people killed by overdosing on prescription painkillers and heroin.

 

 Experts say medication safety involves more than just taking drugs as prescribed.

“By far the greatest number of [prescription drug-related] hospitalizations and deaths occur from drugs that are prescribed properly by physicians and taken as directed,” says Donald Light, a medical and economic sociologist and lead author of a 2013 paper that detailed the estimate, entitled “Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs.” “About 2,460 people per week are estimated to die from drugs that were properly prescribed, and that’s based on detailed chart reviews of hospitalized patients,” says Light, who is a professor of comparative health policy at Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine in Stratford, New Jersey. The estimate, which didn’t include those who died as a result of prescribing errors, overdose and self-medication, would make taking properly prescribed drugs the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S.

For those taking them, prescription drugs can provide myriad benefits from treating infections that could be potentially life-threatening to preventing stroke or helping manage a chronic condition. And frequently any side effects experienced are relatively minor. However, depending upon the analysis, adverse drug reactions are estimated to result in approximately 1.5 to 2.7 million hospitalizations each year. And though following a doctor’s orders and medication labeling instructions can reduce harms associated with taking prescription drugs, simply taking prescribed drugs as directed can expose a person to significant risk.

“Most people who are harmed by prescription drugs [are] taking the drug as prescribed,” says Dr. Michael Carome, director of the Health Research Group at the consumer watchdog Public Citizen. Even the best projections of medication-related death and injury are likely underestimates of the harm inflicted, he says, since often these adverse events may be errantly attributed to another cause, like a patient’s underlying condition.

Conversely, one difficulty in understanding the potential harm a medication may cause is that even hindsight isn’t always 20/20. It can be hard to discern the role a specific drug played when a patient develops a new health problem – particularly if a patient has multiple health conditions and is on numerous medications. “Some cases are really easy to determine; some get very difficult to determine,” Moore says.

But while complexities present challenges to pinpointing the number, Carome says population growth and aging are likely to further increase injuries and deaths resulting from taking prescription medications. “As people get older they tend to have more illnesses, and they end up taking more prescriptions,” he says, which can increase the chances drugs will interact in a dangerous way. In addition, kidney and liver function can decline with age, making it harder to metabolize drugs – thus increasing the risk of side effects.

 And even a single drug taken in isolation has the potential to cause serious harm. “There’s no such thing as a risk-free drug,” he says.

The Harm in What’s New

For all the hoopla that may surround certain new drugs, it’s also during the time shortly after drugs are approved when safety issues often become apparent. “We have what’s called a seven-year drug rule,” Carome explains. Within the first seven years after a drug is approved, it’s common for safety warnings – including the FDA’s strongest, the “black box” warning – to come to light, Carome says. And it’s within the same period, he adds, that drugs are often withdrawn from the market because of serious safety concerns.

“We advise people not to take the drug for seven years” after approval, he says, with exceptions only for actual breakthrough drugs, which Carome contends are few and far between. Those that offer a unique breakthrough treatment compared to what’s already on the market – like those that treat orphan diseases – would be one such example. But even in those instances, because of the limited safety information available, he recommends proceeding with caution.

Helen Haskell, president of the nonprofit safety organization Mothers Against Medical Error, says it’s not just patients but doctors who frequently don’t always have the full picture about risks of prescribed drugs. Even when that information is available, she adds, doctors aren’t necessarily aware of every drug risk, given harried schedules and all there is to know in medicine. So doctors often rely on information drug reps provide, patient advocates say. And research finds that health providers routinely overstate the perceived benefits of drugs – as with medical procedures – while downplaying or not discussing harms.

Haskell’s rule of thumb: If you’re taking a new-to-you medication (whether newly approved or not), and you experience a new symptom, suspect the medication first. It may seem counterintuitive, and many doctors may be loathe to blame the drug they prescribed for how lousy you feel, but Haskell says it’s more important that patients report such symptoms, which could be side effects. Also, ask about alternatives to the medication.


 How you can reduce your prescription drug risk.

While some patient advocates – as well as members of Congress – have applauded the FDA for expediting the approval process for breakthrough drug treatments, the agency has also faced sharp criticism for not doing enough to reduce the likelihood patients could be harmed by newly approved medications.

Since drugmaker Merck yanked the blockbuster painkiller Vioxx (approved in 1999) in 2004 due to an increased risk of strokes and heart attacks, only a few other new drugs have been pulled from the market; that includes Abbott Laboratories’ agreeing to withdraw the diet drug Meridia, approved in 1997, in 2010, after it was also found to increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks. And Carome says the agency now seems reluctant to pull new drugs off the market.

But the FDA asserts that neither in its approval process or post-marketing monitoring has it lagged on safety as it works to more quickly greenlight certain drugs.

“Today, thanks to the efforts of those across the FDA, we are delivering new, lifesaving therapies to patients faster than any other developed country and more expeditiously than ever before,” FDA spokeswoman Sandy Walsh wrote in an email. “In addition, we have significantly strengthened the drug safety surveillance system in the United States, modernized drug review processes, and introduced new genomic and related sciences into the drug evaluation process.”

 Reward and Risk

In addition to monitoring drugs already on the market, the FDA has sought to meet demand for newer therapies to treat rare diseases, approving drugs in 2015 ranging from Orkambi – a therapy for the lung disease cystic fibrosis – to an enzyme replacement therapy called Strensiq to treat patients with infantile- and juvenile-onset hypophosphatasia, a bone disease that can be fatal.

The 45 new medicines approved by the FDA last year provide patients with important new treatment options and will play a key role in helping them live longer, healthier lives, wrote Andrew Powaleny, a spokesman for the industry trade association PhRMA, in an email. “More than a third of the new medicines approved were first-in-class treatment options – offering a completely new way to treat diseases – and nearly half were for rare conditions. Among the new medicines are innovative cancer treatments with the potential to prolong and transform patients’ lives.”

However, some health experts and consumer advocates, including Carome, say that drugs approved in areas where a range of treatment options already exist – from managing diabetes to controlling cholesterol – tend to offer little or no new benefits, compared to less costly and more proven treatments already on the market, while increasing risk. “Newer patented drugs have much higher prices, and yet the vast majority of new patented drugs have been shown by independent review groups to be little or no better than older post-patent drugs that sell at generic prices,” Light adds.

 

But the FDA’s Deputy Center Director for Clinical Science, Dr. Robert Temple, contends that comparing effectiveness of drugs isn’t always the best approach. “Some people do better on one drug than another very similar drug and you don’t always know the reason,” Temple writes on the FDA’s site.

Even so, pills, like cars, can turn out to be lemons. So, experts say, don’t assume a brand-name drug is better than a less expensive generic or even that a doctor-recommended drug is necessarily the best option for you in a particular drug class.


 

Serious medication harms can undercut benefits.


To bone-up on drug safety information, start by going to the FDA’s website to read the drug label and see reported adverse events, and check out independent analysis on drug harms. Older adults should also consider the American Geriatrics Society Updated Beers Criteria, which identifies medications seniors should avoid or use with caution. Last updated in 2012, clinicians and pharmacists say this remains a very useful and important list for seniors when weighing drug benefits against harms. Incorporate risk comparisons in discussing drug choices and alternatives with your doctor.

As it relates to expediting the approval process for novel drug therapies, including to treat rare conditions, the FDA remains bullish – while deflecting concerns that increasing the speed of approval increases the risk for patient harm. “Scientific research has helped us better understand the mechanisms of a disease and allow for targeted drug development. When we see signs of efficacy early on in the development process, we need to find the fastest path to get a product on the market,” Walsh says. She adds that the FDA “applies the same statutory approval standard of safety and efficacy to new drugs that we’ve always applied. Increased flexibility does not alter our fidelity to the science and our commitment to patient safety.”

ACLU sues over illegally restricted access to medically necessary treatment

Colorado is latest state to be sued for restricting access to hepatitis C drugs

www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/09/22/colorado-sued-for-restricting-hepatitis-c-medicine/

The DEA/CDC/FDA/Surgeon General and others can limit/restrict the medically necessary pain medication for the estimated 116 million chronic pain pts.. and where is the ACLU… AWOL ???  You have Hep C and you die because of liver failure.. because Medicaid won’t pay for the appropriate medication.. that is a bad thing… Chronic pain pts have their medication denied or limited by insurance and some commit suicide or die from hypertensive crisis or other related health issues from lack of appropriate pain management…  And the ACLU just turns a BLIND EYE ?

You can add Colorado to the list of states being sued for refusing to widen access to the hepatitis C medications in its state Medicaid program.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, was filed on behalf of two Colorado citizens on Monday in response to a longstanding policy by the state Medicaid program to restrict coverage only to people with the most advanced stages of liver disease, such as cirrhosis.

The state “illegally restricts” access to medically necessary treatment “that can be provided only by” the available hepatitis C drugs, the lawsuit states. The state also “violates” standard medical care and “flaunts the clear instructions and warnings” of federal officials. The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School.

The lawsuit comes amid increasing pressure on public and private payers to loosen coverage restrictions on the hepatitis C medicines. These new types of treatments began arriving in early 2014 and boast very high cure rates, but are also costly, ranging in price from $54,600 to $94,500, depending upon doses and regimen, although this is before rebates or discounts are applied.

High cure rates prompted many physicians to write prescriptions — notably, for the Sovaldi and Harvoni drugs sold by Gilead Sciences. Drug makers and their supporters have argued the near-term spending saves money down the road on treating liver failure or liver cancer, and on liver transplants. But payers have complained the medicines are straining their budgets, and some instituted coverage restrictions.

Since 2013, the Colorado Medicaid program spent $26.6 million treating 326 hepatitis C patients, or about $82,000 per person, according to the state Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, which oversees the program. Last month, a department spokesman told us that if the state were to cover every eligible Medicaid patient with hepatitis C, it would cost $237 million.

State restrictions are under fire, though. Last November, the Obama administration wrote state Medicaid programs they may be violating federal law by restricting access to hepatitis C medicines. And last May, a federal court judge ordered the Washington state Medicaid program to lift coverage restrictions.

After the American Civil Liberties Union last month threatened to sue Colorado officials, the state Department of Health Care Policy and Financing loosened restrictions so that more people would be eligible for coverage under the Medicaid program.

The state determined that more patients would be covered for the drugs depending on the severity of their disease. Now, up to 70 percent of roughly 14,450 people who are diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C are eligible, a department spokesman told us.

However, the lawsuit contends the move did not go far enough and argued there should be no restrictions. The lawsuit argues the medicines do not reverse the disease, so treatment should be provided sooner rather than later; the disease can progress quickly in some patients, suggesting treatment should not be delayed; and common testing methods do not always produce accurate results.

A spokesman for the state Department of Health Care Policy and Financing declined to comment specifically about the lawsuit