chance to make your voice heard ?

I copied this post from another page.

Wanted — Chronic pain patients (particularly but not exclusively in Tennessee) who have had difficulty getting physicians to continue opioid medications on which they have been stable and well managed for at least six months. I will pass your stories to two doctors who are working with a media producer to generate a program on the effects on patients of the so-called “prescription opioid epidemic” solutions proposed by the CDC in their revised voluntary practice standard for prescription of opioids in chronic pain.

You may be contacted for an interview on your experience. I addition to commenting on this posting, please pass a point of contact (email address and/or phone) to lawhern@hotmail.com.

Regards all,
Red Lawhern

So now SUGAR is an abuse substance that we need to restrict access to ?

Tackling the obesity epidemic by treating sugar addiction like drug abuse

https://drugstorenewsce.com/editorial-news-item/10/9198

04/07/2016

With obesity rates on the rise worldwide and excess sugar consumption considered a direct contributor, the search has been on for treatments to reverse the trend. Now a world-first study led by Queensland University of Technology (QUT) may have an answer.

Neuroscientist Professor Selena Bartlett from QUT’s Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation said the study, which has just been published by international research journal PLOS ONE, shows drugs used to treat nicotine addiction could be used to treat sugar addiction in animals.

The publication coincides with another paper by the team — Prolonged Consumption of Sucrose in a Binge-Like Manner, Alters the Morphology of Medium Spiny Neurons in the Nucleus Accumbens Shell — being published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. It shows that long chronic sugar intake can cause eating disorders and affect behavior.

“The latest World Health Organization figures tell us 1.9 billion people worldwide are overweight, with 600 million considered obese,” said Professor Bartlett who is based at the Translational Research Institute.

Excess sugar consumption has been proven to contribute directly to weight gain. It has also been shown to repeatedly elevate dopamine levels, which control the brain’s reward and pleasure centers in a way that is similar to many drugs of abuse including tobacco, cocaine and morphine. After long-term consumption, this leads to the opposite, a reduction in dopamine levels. This leads to higher consumption of sugar to get the same level of reward.

“We have also found that as well as an increased risk of weight gain, animals that maintain high sugar consumption and binge eating into adulthood may also face neurological and psychiatric consequences affecting mood and motivation,” added Bartlett.

The study found that drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), such as varenicline — a prescription medication trading as Champix, which treats nicotine addiction — can work the same way when it comes to sugar cravings.

PhD researcher Masroor Shariff said the study also put artificial sweeteners under the spotlight.

“Interestingly, our study also found that artificial sweeteners such as saccharin could produce effects similar to those we obtained with table sugar, highlighting the importance of reevaluating our relationship with sweetened food per se,” said Shariff.

Professor Bartlett said varenicline acted as a neuronal nicotinic receptor modulator (nAChR) and similar results were observed with other such drugs, including mecamylamine and cytisine.

“Like other drugs of abuse, withdrawal from chronic sucrose exposure can result in an imbalance in dopamine levels and be as difficult as going ‘cold turkey’ from them,” she said. “Further studies are required but our results do suggest that current FDA-approved nAChR drugs may represent a novel new treatment strategy to tackle the obesity epidemic.”

A Pharmacist’s personal experience can influence professional discretion ?

stevemailboxThe pharmacy/pharmacist that has been giving me such a hard time each and every month for my pain medication. Well now, the pharmacist has a chronic pain issue herself and now she as of last month has been treating me well and thanking me for my business. Reality has struck! Big grin. She knows what pain is now! What a surprise!

54 Senators could care less abt your safety, health and comfort when flying commercially, do you think that they care about your chronic pain ?

Senate won’t stop airlines from shrinking seat sizes

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2016/04/08/senate-wont-stop-airlines-from-shrinking-seat-sizes.html?intcmp=hpffo&intcmp=obnetwork

The Senate refused Thursday to come to the aid of airline passengers squeezed by the ever-shrinking size of their seats.

An amendment by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., would have blocked airlines from further reducing the “size, width, padding, and pitch” of seats, passengers’ legroom and the width of aisles. “It costs you an arm and a leg just to have room for your arms and legs,” Schumer said.

The amendment also would have required the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to set standards for the minimum amount of space airlines must provide passengers for their “safety, health and comfort.” Airlines would have had to post the size of their seats on their websites so that consumers could take the information into consideration when buying tickets.

The proposal failed on a vote of 42-54, with all but three Democrats in favor and all but one Republican against.

Economy-class airline seats have shrunk in recent years on average from a width of 18 inches to 16.5 inches. The average pitch — the space between a point on one seat and the same on the seat in front of it — has gone from 35 inches to about 31 inches. Many airlines are charging passengers for extra legroom in amounts that used to be standard.

No senators spoke against the proposal, but airlines opposed to the measure have accused lawmakers of trying to “re-regulate” an industry that has been deregulated since 1978.

The vote was the Senate’s last this week. Shortly afterward, many senators left to board planes to fly home to their states.

Democrats were quick to capitalize on the vote in an election year. Within hours, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out news releases chastising GOP senators from Arizona, Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Ohio who are facing Democratic challengers this fall for siding with the airline industry over passengers.

The Senate is considering a bill to renew FAA programs, due to expire July 15, through Oct. 1, 2017. The bill also contains aviation policy provisions that lawmakers have been working on for more than four years, including greater access for drones to the national airspace and protections for airline passengers chafing at fees for basic services such as checked bags and ticket changes.

Also Thursday, the Senate overwhelmingly approved amendments seeking to boost security at airports and other transportation hubs in response to last month’s attacks in Brussels, as well as the downing of a Russian airliner in Egypt last year that is suspected to have been caused by a bomb planted by an airport worker. The security amendments would:

—Authorize an increase from 30 up to 60 in the number of government “viper teams” that stop and search suspicious passengers in public areas before screening, often using bomb-sniffing dogs.

—Make more federal grants available to train law enforcement officers in how to prepare for and respond to active shootings at transportation hubs and other “soft targets.”

—Require the Transportation Security Administration to use private companies to market and enroll more people in its PreCheck program while ensuring PreCheck screening lanes are open during high-volume travel times. The aim is to reduce crowds waiting for security screening by vetting more passengers before they arrive to get them through checkpoints quickly.

—Enhance the vetting of airport employees with access to secure areas. It also expands the use of random and physical inspections of airport employees in secure areas and requires a review of perimeter security.

—Authorize TSA to donate unneeded security equipment to foreign airports with direct flights to the U.S., permit increased cooperation between U.S. officials and partner nations to protect routes flown by Americans, and require a new assessment of foreign cargo security programs.

How to keep Docs participating in Obamacare … cut what they are paid ???

Insurer Cuts Doctor Pay After ACA Losses: Will Others Follow?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/859789?src=wnl_tp10n_160407_mscpedit&uac=232297BR&impID=1049366&faf=1

The move by insurer Highmark to reduce physician rates in health plans offered under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to make up for massive losses has sparked anger, as well as worries that other insurers will follow suit.

Highmark, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield affiliate that operates in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Delaware, said it lost $221 million on its health plans in ACA marketplaces, or exchanges, in 2014, and that it expects to lose another $500 million in 2015 because enrollees have required more care than anticipated. That has caused the insurer to pay more in claims than it collected in premiums.

Last month, Highmark announced it would cut provider rates on average in Pennsylvania by 4.5%, effective April 1, to keep these plans viable, rather than shutting them down. Physicians in the insurer’s ACA networks in Delaware and West Virginia were spared the axe, at least for the time being.

Scott Shapiro, MD, president of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, is one physician who is not showing Highmark any sympathy regarding its financial situation.

“Frankly, it’s unbelievable that Highmark has so grossly mismanaged their book of business and made the unconscionable decision to rectify that wrong on the backs of physicians,” said Dr Shapiro in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It stinks.”

His telephone has been ringing constantly with calls from his members, he said. “The level of anger starts at irate and goes up from there.”

Dr Shapiro and others said the coming pay cut could pressure some physicians to accept fewer enrollees in exchange plans or drop out of the provider networks entirely. “They may balance their willingness to be in the network with the need to cover their basic costs,” said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association.

Reimbursement rates for providers contracting with ACA plans typically are not generous to begin with, Gilberg told Medscape Medical News. “They have been closer to Medicare than commercial, and sometimes between Medicaid and Medicare.”

“I don’t believe what ails the ACA exchanges is excess payment to doctors,” he said.

However, Highmark has been paying physicians in its ACA networks “at full commercial rates,” said company spokesperson Aaron Billger.

Lower Pay Better Than No Pay?

Highmark network physicians are galled not only by the 4.5% pay cut but also by a published report that hospitals would be spared any financial sacrifices. An article in The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, indirectly quoted Alexis Miller, Highmark’s senior vice president for individual and small group business, as saying that “doctor contracts are more flexible, and there’s ‘precedent’ for such adjustments, while cutting hospital reimbursements would require hospital-by-hospital negotiations.”

However, in an interview with Medscape Medical News, Billger said his company is indeed talking with hospitals and “addressing issues.” He noted that unlike physicians, hospitals are not paid according to a uniform fee schedule.

And what about a financial sacrifice on the part of Highmark? The Patriot-News indirectly quoted Miller as saying that “the market must be self-sustaining, and dipping into reserves isn’t a practical solution,” another statement that inflamed physicians. Billger told Medscape Medical News, however, that Highmark has used a substantial part of its reserves in the past to subsidize its money-losing exchange plans. But he agreed with Miller that continued reliance on company reserves isn’t “a sustainable business practice.”

“As a healthcare community, we’re at the point where we need to work collectively to ensure the viability of the ACA marketplaces,” Billger went on to say. He pointed out that ACA enrollees were once the kind of patients who came to physician offices unable to pay their bills. “We don’t believe going back to uncompensated care is good for Pennsylvania or physicians,” he said.

For the average physician, the 4.5% pay cut would reduce overall revenue by only 0.5%, given that ACA enrollees constitute just a portion of his or her patient roster, said Billger. He also noted that before the ACA, Highmark had offered a low-cost, limited-benefit plan called SpecialCare with provider rates that were 27.5% lower than going commercial rates, and that physicians had accepted them. The 4.5% cut planned for April will be far less painful to swallow, he said.

Highmark Known for Aggressive Dealings With Physicians

Highmark is not the only major insurer to take a beating in the ACA exchanges. UnitedHealth Group reported a $720 million loss in this line of business in 2015. The giant insurer has warned that it may pull out of the exchanges in 2017 if profitability is not in sight. Other insurers such as Aetna and Anthem also lost money on the exchanges last year, but they claim to see signs of an upswing in 2016.

For all these insurers, the red ink results from a risk pool of beneficiaries that is riskier than first anticipated. Total enrollment fell short of initial projections, and enrollees are more chronically ill than expected, driving up healthcare costs. Highmark said that the rate of congestive heart failure among its ACA members, for example, is 43% higher than that for members of its regular commercial plans. The rate of chemotherapy claims per ACA member is 49% higher. Spokesperson Aaron Billger explained that many individuals who signed up for coverage previously had been either uninsured or underinsured, which translated into unmet medical needs.

The financial pain of insurers might not be as acute if the ACA worked as originally designed. Foreseeing that insurers may initially struggle to make a profit on exchange plans, the ACA’s drafters pencilled in “risk corridor” subsidies to offset any losses for the first 3 years. However, a Republican Congress has limited the ability of the Obama administration to dispense most of those funds. As a result, insurers will get only about 13% of the subsidy money they counted on, which was about $220 million for Highmark in 2014. And the insurer has yet to receive any of that federal aid.

Spot checks with the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other medical associations did not turn up insurers other than Highmark that have cut physician pay in response to losses on the ACA exchanges. Then again, Highmark is a pacesetter in its field, according to Ron Howrigon, a medical practice consultant who helps physicians negotiate contracts with insurers.

“Highmark is almost always at the forefront of these trends,” said Howrigon, president and chief executive officer of Fulcrum Strategies in Raleigh, North Carolina, noting that the insurer has a reputation for dealing very aggressively with physicians. “It’s not surprising that they’re first out of the chute. If this is like everything else, others will follow suit.”

Elizabeth Carpenter, who heads the healthcare reform unit of the consulting firm Avalere Health, also sees the possibility of rate reductions for physicians serving exchange plan patients.

“When carriers feel pressure,” Carpenter told Medscape Medical News, “it’s expected that providers may feel increasing pressure, too.”

what you get when you let those with a anti-opiate agenda control the conversation ?

Just How Responsible is PROP?

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
(from
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll)
Most of these people have interest in rehab facilities … like… The Phoenix House http://www.phoenixhouse.org/
should read some of the opinions of this place on www.indeed.com http://www.indeed.com/cmp/Phoenix-House/reviews?fcountry=US by employees.. or just do a web search on The Phoenix House and/or some of the people involved with PROPnoopiatesforyou
Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) is an organization of medical doctors whose mission is to “reduce morbidity and mortality resulting from prescribing of opioids and to promote cautious, safe and responsible opioid prescribing practices.” At first blush, this is a worthy goal that few would challenge. A quick glance at the “Who We Are” section of the PROP website reveals several familiar names: Andrew Kolodny, MD (President); Michael Von Korff, ScD (Vice-President); Rosemary Orr, MD (Treasurer); Stephen Gelfand (Secretary); and several directing members, including Jane Ballentyne, MD, Irfan Dhalla, MD, Gary Franklin, MD. External reviewers for their Cautious, Evidence-based Opioid Prescribing guide include Roger Chou, MD; Mark Edlund, MD; Richard A. Deyo, MD; Thomas Kosten, MD; Mark Sullivan, MD; and Judith Turner, PhD.
 
In an opinion piece Kolodny published in The New York Times in February 2012, he wrote that “opioids are rarely the answer” for the management of chronic pain, and that “doctors have contributed to an epidemic of overdose deaths and addiction by overprescribing opioids” for chronic pain. While declaring that doctors did not do this out of malicious intent, Kolodny nevertheless claimed that “for most of us, it was a desire to treat pain more compassionately…” Kolodny’s thesis is that “overprescribing” physicians “need access to education and training programs that are free of industry bias” because he feels that “an industry-funded campaign” caused sales of opioids to increase exponentially, without mentioning the context in which this happened.
 
At the end of the 1990s, US physicians were chastised for the collective undertreatment of pain (which Kolodny admits is “a serious problem”). At a time when the Veterans Administration, Joint Commission, and others were describing pain as “the fifth vital sign,” the Medical Board of Oregon sanctioned a physician for undertreating pain, and two California-based physicians were sued in civil court for elder abuse because they failed to adequately relieve pain.
 
By 2001, the Joint Commission added assessment of pain, treatment of pain, and several corollaries to its accreditation standards for health care organizations. Buoyed by the success of treating cancer-related pain with opioids, many physicians rose to the challenge of doing more for their patients suffering with chronic pain. This led to an increase in the number of prescriptions for opioids, which had the unintended consequence of more opioids ending up in medicine cabinets in more homes, ultimately giving more people (not patients) access to these valuable medications for nonmedical purposes.
 
The ideas about the risks, benefits, and role of opioid medications put forth by PROP are among the many opinions about the role of opioids in the management of chronic noncancer pain that are being proposed at a time when Congress has already directed the Food and Drug Administration to do more about opioid  use, abuse, misuse, diversion, overdose, and death as part of the Food and Drug Administration Amendment Act of 2007 (FDAAA 2007), which is the enabling legislation for the delivery of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) for extended-release/long-acting opioids. Commencing in 2013, the REMS is intended to provide education and training by the end of 2016 to hundreds of thousands of US prescribers—the FDA estimates that “more than 320,000 prescribers registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) wrote at least one prescription for these drugs in 2011.”
 
However, in their July 25, 2012 petition to the FDA, the members of PROP asked the FDA to “strike the term moderate from the indication for noncancer pain, add a maximum daily dose, equivalent to 100 mg of morphine for noncancer pain, and add a maximum duration of 90-days for continuous (daily) use for noncancer pain.” Among the “statements of scientific basis” underpinning its case against the use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain, the PROP petition cited a four-fold increase in opioid prescribing leading to a four-fold increase in opioid-related overdose deaths and a six-fold increase in individuals seeking treatment for opioid addiction, a lack of data on long-term safety and efficacy, surveys showing that many patients continue to report pain when receiving opioid therapy, comorbidity with mental health issues, and studies showing that high doses of opioids are associated with increased risk of emergency room visits and fractures in the elderly.
 
When I first read the PROP petition I immediately had to ask “Who died and left these people in charge?” Sarcasm aside, the radical nature of their proposal made me closely examine their claims and concerns. Could there be a basis for concern, I wondered, and do their opioid analgesic labeling demands have merit? I have been a pain practitioner since 1985. I practiced without opioids for the first 10 years of my career, taking nearly every patient with chronic noncancer pain off of opioid therapy. I recall the “bad old days” when I told patients that chronic opioid therapy for their pain condition was not recommended. I did occasionally identify specific patients for chronic opioid therapy who responded well clinically, played by the rules, and suffered no obvious harm. When the paradigm shifted toward the use of opioids for chronic pain in the mid-to-late 1990s, I adapted my prescribing behavior accordingly. Now, we face a national “crisis” situation, and we are moving back toward more judicious opioid use. I understand that “trends” come and go, and practitioners must stay current and evolve in response to new evidence.
 
However, I do not believe that PROP has made its case. For starters, consider the language we use to describe pain. Since we have no scientific basis for the precise measurement of pain, exactly how will the line between moderate and severe chronic noncancer pain be determined? If opioid analgesics are not anesthetics, why wouldn’t we expect patients to continue experiencing pain while taking opioids? If patients have chronic pain, and it is associated with depression about 50% of the time, why are we surprised that there are comorbid mental health issues? If an individual patient has no problems associated with the use of 120, 180, or 240 mg of morphine equivalent on a daily basis, why do we need to reduce that dose? If an individual patient is functioning well with opioid therapy after 90 days, and there is no better treatment available, why would we stop treatment and inflict worsening pain? Assuming we agree to restrict opioids to fewer patients, will we really see fewer deaths, or just fewer deaths directly due to overdose instead of suicide? How exactly do we respect the patient’s right of autonomy and then override the decisions they make in consultation with their providers? What will become of the patient-physician relationship when absolute “rules” are enacted, and no individual distinctions are permitted?
 
I fear that PROP and its Congressional supporters will attempt to maneuver the FDA to take drastic action denying patients with chronic noncancer pain the opportunity to use opioid therapy before we even implement REMS education in 2013. The REMS training will occur 2013-2016, so I believe we should not draw absolute lines in the sand until we evaluate these educational efforts. It has taken us more than 15 years to arrive at this current moment in time in the ongoing conversation about the role of opioids in managing chronic noncancer pain, so we need to incrementally adjust prescribing behavior before we throw out everything we have done.
 
Prescribers who treat people with chronic pain are on the frontline. Patients who are now receiving chronic opioid therapy have legitimate concerns. Each one of us will have to set personal practice limits and rules, but please do not forget the need to treat pain sufferers with compassion and be careful not to use a “broad brush” approach to deny all patients access to pain relief.
 
 
B. Eliot Cole, MD, MPA, FAPA, CPE, is a member of the Pain Management editorial advisory board. He has served in executive positions for several prominent pain management organizations and societies, including the American Society of Pain Educators and the American Academy of Pain Management. He has been a pain management fellow, clinician, educator, and advocate for nearly 30 years and has practiced in a variety of settings serving a wide range of patients.

More bureaucrats attempting to practice medicine without any medical training ?

ccpscrewedLePage administration, doctors compromise on opioid prescribing bill

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/03/18/lepage-administration-doctors-compromise-on-opioid-prescribing-bill/

AUGUSTA — The LePage administration and a lobbying group representing doctors agreed Friday to a compromise on a bill that aims to reduce the amount of prescription opioids that are flowing through the state.

The administration proposed limiting opioid prescriptions to three days for acute pain and 15 days for chronic pain, and capping dosages at 100 morphine milligram equivalents per day.

 

Under the compromise, the administration agreed to lengthen the maximum time for prescriptions to seven days for acute pain and to 30 days for chronic pain, in part because some rural residents must travel long distances to pick up prescriptions.

The bill also would mandate usage of the Prescription Monitoring Program, a database created to prevent patients from “doctor shopping.” And the measure would require doctors to undergo training before being permitted to prescribe opioids.

The compromise leaves most of the administration’s proposal in place – including the cap on opioid dosages. The Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee discussed the compromise Friday but tabled the bill in order to bring it up again in the coming weeks.

Gordon Smith, executive vice president of the Maine Medical Association, which represents physicians, said he believes all but one lawmaker on the committee supports the compromise measure.

The Maine Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that about 350,000 Mainers were prescribed a total of 80 million opioid pills in 2014, the latest figures available. Research shows opioids are ineffective and often counterproductive for treating chronic pain, leading pain physicians have told the Portland Press Herald.

Meanwhile, Maine is undergoing a heroin epidemic, with drug overdose deaths reaching 272, an all-time high, in 2015. About 15,500 Mainers were receiving treatment for opioid addiction in state-sponsored programs in 2015, according to Maine DHHS.

DHHS Commissioner Mary Mayhew said she’s “extremely excited” that the bill is receiving strong support, and she believes the changes would help limit the number of Mainers at risk of becoming addicted to opioids through prescriptions.

“This bill will address the issue of how prescribing opioids has contributed to opioid addictions,” Mayhew said. “I am confident this will make significant changes.”

Four out of five new heroin users develop their addictions as a result of prescription opioids, according to the American Society for Addiction Medicine.

Smith said doctors normally resist efforts to legislate medical practice, but in this case the changes are necessary.

“We had to do something. There’s a serious problem out there,” Smith said. “There is definitely overprescribing going on, and we have to change the culture, both for the doctors and the expectations by the patients.”

He added, “Too many times, people are walking out after having a minor procedure done with 30 or 60 Percocet.”

The compromise creates exceptions to the maximum dose limit for end-of-life, cancer and palliative care patients. Smith said more exceptions could be added as needed. The dose maximum closely coincides with prescribing guidelines released this week by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Patients who need another prescription can seek one from their doctor, but the prescription would have to be medically justified. With a state law setting a 30-day maximum for chronic pain, insurance companies may start requiring prior authorization before reimbursing for new prescriptions beyond the initial 30-day prescription, Smith said.

If approved by the Legislature, the law would go into effect Jan. 1, 2017, which would give current patients who are on dosages higher than 100 morphine milligram equivalents several months to taper to the new standard.

Smith said the medical association estimates about 20,000 to 25,000 patients exceed the 100 morphine milligram equivalents dosages and many of them would have to taper to the new standard. Some may be cancer, palliative or end-of-life patients and would be excluded from meeting the standard.

Massachusetts signed a similar measure into law this week.

If the bill is approved, Maine would join the 27 states that require doctors to use the state’s prescription monitoring program before prescribing opioids. Maine’s additional requirements on opioid prescribing would make it one of the strictest states in the country for laws on prescribing practices, a national expert told the Press Herald when the bill was introduced in early March

Opioid crackdown leaves patients caught in the middle

http://www.king5.com/news/health/opioid-crackdown-leaves-patients-caught-in-the-middle/124855916

Brenda Johns’ husband, Sam, relies on pain medication, but filling his prescriptions makes them feel like criminals.

“It’s wrong,” she said. “It’s just wrong to make people suffer like this.”

A nationwide crackdown on prescription drugs, including Sam’s oxycodone, has made it difficult for patients to get their medication. Pharmacies are given a dramatically smaller allotment of pills every month, and the government is keeping an eye on how many pills are doled out.

“You feel like you are one of the people who are trying to abuse it, and you’re not,” she said.

Sam was hit by a car in 1986, and the medication help controls his chronic pain. Just like Patti DeSalvo, of Port Richey, Florida. Her Walgreens pharmacist cut her off from her pain meds with no explanation.

“I don’t know where I’m going to get my medication next month,” DeSalvo said.

Dr. Jeffery Singer, a surgeon and Cato Institute scholar, is taking a stand.

“The scientific literature shows absolutely no long-term harmful benefits of being these medications for long periods of time,” Singer said.

Singer insists the government is going after the wrong people. When patients are cut off, with no help, no weaning off the medication, it leads to even more trouble.

“When they get cut off, a lot of them go to the street to get it because they are addicted,” Singer said. “Not only is oxycodone and oxycontin available on the street, but as the CDC reported, heroin is more available on the street than ever before.”

FL’s new pharmacy regulation.. concerning filling controlled meds.. is working so well !


Pain pill crackdown hurts cancer patients, including retired St. Pete officer

http://www.wfla.com/2016/04/05/pain-pill-crackdown-hurts-cancer-patients-including-retired-st-pete-officer/

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (WFLA) – A state and federal crackdown on prescription pills is now hurting patients never meant to be impacted: those fighting terrible pain from cancer.

Gary Gibson and his wife Kathie know this all to well. He is a retired St. Petersburg police officer, now with stage 4 colon cancer. After a recent surgery, Gibson was in what he calls “the worst pain of my life.”

READ MORE: Experts: Pain pill crackdown will make cut-off patients turn to heroin

Kathie rushed out to a Publix pharmacy and was shocked when she tried to fill his pain pill prescription. The pharmacist turned her away, saying she didn’t have the medication on hand. She offered no guidance to Kathie on where she should go to find her husband’s medication.

“She absolutely thought I was a drug addict,” Kathie Gibson said.

Gary, the longest serving homicide detective of all time in St. Petersburg, understands the need for the crackdown on pill abuse. He has seen first hand what happens when pills get in the wrong hands.

READ MORE: Crackdown on prescription drug abuse hurts pain management patients

But he can’t believe this crackdown is hurting him – in his darkest hour.

“I didn’t even want to take the medication,” Gary Gibson said. “My doctors had to convince me. But I’ve never been in that much pain. It’s terrible.”

Pharmacist after pharmacist turned Kathie away as she tried to fill her husband’s script, saying either they didn’t have the medication or doubted her husband’s prescription was legitimate. It took four hours of pharmacy shopping to finally buy the medication.

“It’s not supposed to affect people who have cancer, but it obviously does,” Kathie Gibson said.

The Gibsons are yet another example of an unintended consequence of a state and federal crackdown on pill mills. Pharmacies are given dramatically smaller batches of pills, and the government is keeping an eye on who gets them. But regulations were never intended to hurt people like Gary.

Sarah Steinhardt is a lawyer, a pharmacist and a professor at the University of South Florida. The crackdown, she said, has led to millions in fines issued to pharmacies, and now pharmacists are afraid to fill prescriptions out of fear of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“There’s the pharmacist apprehension of not wanting to fill the script just in case it’s invalid and then there’s the issue that they might not even have enough access themselves to have enough medication for the legitimate medication,” Steinhardt said.

It will take time, but she thinks things are getting better. The state pharmacy board and the DEA recently issued new guidelines for pharmacists.
“If it is a valid prescription, there should be (no) problem filling it,” she said.

FDA: Meds.. Onglyza & Nesina linked to heart failure

FDA issues warning for 2 diabetes drugs linked to risk of heart failure

http://www.clinicaladvisor.com/diabetes-resource-center/diabetes-medications-containing-saxagliptin-and-alogliptin-will-have-warning-on-labels-about-risk-for-heart-failure/article/488365/

Type 2 diabetes medications that include saxagliptin and alogliptin may increase the risk of heart failure, particularly in patients who have heart or kidney disease, according to the FDA, which has announced that new warnings will be added to the drug labels.

“Healthcare professionals should consider discontinuing medications containing saxagliptin and alogliptin in patients who develop heart failure and monitor their diabetes control,” according to the FDA’s statement. “If a patient’s blood sugar level is not well-controlled with his or her current treatment, other diabetes medicines may be required.”

Continue Reading Below

As part of its safety review, the FDA evaluated 2 large clinical trials of patients with heart disease. Both trials found that more patients who received medications containing saxagliptin or alogliptin were hospitalized for heart failure, compared with patients who received a placebo. In the saxagliptin trial, 3.5% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized for heart failure, compared with 2.8% of patients who received a placebo. Risk factors included a history of heart failure or kidney impairment. In the alogliptin trial, 3.9% of patients who received alogliptin were hospitalized for heart failure, compared with 3.3% in the placebo group.

The FDA advises that patients who are taking these medicines should immediately contact their healthcare professionals if they develop signs and symptoms of heart failure, which include:

Unusual shortness of breath during daily activities
Trouble breathing when lying down
Tiredness, weakness, or fatigue
Weight gain with swelling in the ankles, feet, legs, or stomach

The FDA also recommends that patients should not stop taking their medicine without first talking to their healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of these drugs to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program, available at: www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.
Reference

Diabetes medications containing saxagliptin and alogliptin: drug safety communication – risk of heart failure. U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. http://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch/safetyinformation/safetyalertsforhumanmedicalproducts/ucm494252.htm. Published April 5, 2016. Accessed April 7, 2016.