Ken Mc Kim and Feel This Pain: S4E1 Acute Intermittent Porphyria

“I mean MMJ turns people’s lives around,”

Mental Health Practitioner says marijuana helps symptoms of PTSD

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s4006201.shtml#.Vomc4VJDhj8

A local Adult Psychiatric and Mental Health Nurse Practitioner who treats PTSD has been pushing for years for the feds to essentially legalize medical marijuana.

It’s legal here in New Mexico but the federal laws still muddys things for patients.

“I mean it turns people’s lives around,”  Mental Health Nurse Practitioner Bryan Krumm said.

Patients battling Post Traumatic Stress Disorder have told Krumm it changes everything for them.

“In patients who have suicidal thoughts, it rapidly takes those thoughts down in most patients,” Krumm said.  “It helps with sleep, it helps to stop nightmares. It helps to just kind of turn off those racing thoughts in people’s brains…helps them actually enjoy things.”

That’s why Krumm has spent the last five years pushing for the federal government to change the drug classification for marijuana.

Right now it’s considered “schedule one” along with narcotics like heroin and cocaine.

Krumm argues that because marijuana is widely accepted now for its medical benefits, it must be removed from the narcotics list.

Now Krumm has learned that top federal health officials recently told the DEA whether marijuana should be reclassified.

If the agencies agreed with Krumm’s petition, it would essentially mean legalizing medical marijuana nationwide on a federal level.

“We don’t have to worry about medical cannabis patients losing their jobs because they’re using a legal prescription,” Krumm said. “We don’t have to worry about the stigma associated with this.”

Krumm says he sent his petition in back in 2009 and in a case before this; it took four years for the DEA to issue a response.

He’s expecting the battle to continue for quite a while longer.

Without weed, the agency would have to rely on demand for the enforcement of other drugs to justify their tall budget requests

How the DEA Profits off the War on Drugs

http://www.attn.com/stories/4898/how-dea-profits-from-war-on-drugs

The Drug Enforcement Administration has a vested interest in the War on Drugs, the federal government’s decades-long mission to eradicate drug use in the U.S. Not only does it support the federal agency’s core goal — to “enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States” — but it also serves the criminal justice system on a financial level, allowing the agency to profit off enforcement through budget requests and a civil asset forfeiture program. 

Tough drug laws demand greater financial resources, a larger slice of the federal budget from the U.S. government. That’s one theory as to why the DEA continues to enforce federal marijuana laws in legal states, despite public condemnation: It pays to criminalize pot.

RELATED: The Real Reason We Started the War on Drugs

The DEA has an entire department, the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program, dedicated to the enforcement of marijuana laws under the Controlled Substances Act, which strictly prohibits the use, cultivation, and sale of cannabis in the U.S. Federal law regards marijuana as a Schedule I drug — as addictive and dangerous as heroin. Schedule 1 drugs are considered the most dangerous drugs and to have no “accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse,” according to the DEA. 

DEA marijuanaTom Angell – marijuana.com

But there’s another controversy behind marijuana that you might not know about.

So it makes sense that the DEA would resist changes in public opinion and state marijuana laws. Without weed, the agency would have to rely on demand for the enforcement of other drugs to justify their tall budget requests. And as the weed videos show on its website, marijuana is the “only major drug of abuse grown within the U.S. borders.” It’s also the most commonly abused illegal drug in the country, according to National Institutes of Health.

But the War on Drugs doesn’t just help the agency bolster its budget. Another controversial program allows the agency to seize the money and “assets” of people and businesses it suspects of violating federal drug laws.

The civil asset forfeiture program

In 2014, the Department of Justice took in about $3.9 billion worth of civil asset forfeitures, more than doubling what the agency seized in 2005, The Wall Street Journal reported. The DEA contributes to those funds by seizing assets in suspected drug-related cases. A statistical report from the DEA’s 2014 fiscal year shows that it seized more than $27 million is assets through the cannabis enforcement program alone.

Under the “asset forfeiture program,” the DEA can take your money even if you haven’t been charged or convicted of a drug-related crime. Sure, you can try to fight the forfeiture in court if you feel you’ve been wronged, but that can be a costly legal battle.

RELATED: Top White House Drug Official Says War on Drugs is a Failure

John Oliver breaks this down this “Last Week Tonight” clip:

The funds seized through the forfeiture program are used, in part, to finance drug enforcement efforts. And as the agency has previously argued, its efforts are primarily aimed at illegal drug trafficking networks operating in the country. Still, there are problems with the program. Critics point to a number of cases where they allege assets were wrongfully seized by federal agencies such as the DEA.

In April, for example, a New Mexico man named Joseph Rivers lost his life savings after a DEA agent boarded a train he was on and seized an envelope that contained about $16,000 in cash. Rivers was headed to Los Angeles to start a music video production company, he told the agent, who was apparently asking everybody on the train where they were going and why.

The agent asked to search Rivers’s bag and he compiled. When the agent found the envelope, Rivers was suspected of involvement in drug-related activities; and while he wasn’t charged or convicted of any crimes (the agent found no evidence—no drugs, no firearms, nothing but the money), the DEA seized every penny under the asset forfeiture program.

“Rivers’s life savings represent just a drop in the Justice Department’s multibillion-dollar civil asset forfeiture bucket,” the Washington Post reported. “There is no presumption of innocence under civil asset forfeiture laws. Rather, law enforcement officers only need to have a suspicion—in practice, often a vague one—that a person is involved with illegal activity in order to seize their property.”

ALSO: Marijuana Could Literally Replace These 5 Prescription Drugs

DEATwitter – twitter.com

While a number of advocacy organizations have called for an end to (or amendment of) the department’s civil asset forfeiture program, the issue has often been underrepresented in debates about criminal justice reform. That said, the Department of Justice recently announced the end of one component of the program, known as the “equitable-sharing” program.

That program enabled local and state law enforcement to prosecute asset forfeiture cases under federal law, as opposed to state law, in order to reap 80 percent of the assets seized. Under most state laws, the portion that law enforcement is allowed to claim is significantly lower. In California, for example, police can only take up to 66.25 percent.

The decision to end the program has been met with widespread condemnation by federal law enforcement officials, including U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. In a letter addressed to President Barack Obama and members of Congress, Lynch expressed “profound concern” over the issue, writing that it “will have a significant and immediate impact on the ability of law enforcement agencies throughout the nation to protect their communities and provide their citizens with the services they expect and deserve.”

RELATED: 5 Charts That Prove the War on Drugs Is a Nightmare

But many criminal justice reform advocates disagree with Lynch’s rationale, arguing that the fraction of money law enforcement agencies acquire through asset forfeiture law should not influence their ability to serve and protect.

In response to reactions such as Lynch’s, Lee McGrath, Legislative Counsel at the Institute for Justice, issued the following statement:

“Law enforcement revealed that its true interest in forfeiture is policing for profit—not public safety. The recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act does not stop police and prosecutors from chasing criminals. They’re frustrated because Congress put on hold their chasing cash. Many police, sheriffs and prosecutors want to circumvent state laws because outsourcing forfeiture litigation to the federal government is lucrative.”

breaking the troubling cycle of drugs and drug-related violence.

lmao

Traveling DEA Exhibit “Drugs: Costs & Consequences” Debuts in Virginia

http://www.cadca.org/resources/traveling-dea-exhibit-drugs-costs-consequences-debuts-virginia

The national touring exhibit developed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the DEA Educational Foundation, “Drugs: Costs and Consequences,” formerly known as “Target America,” opens Jan. 12, at 750 Miller Drive, SE, Suite F-1 in Leesburg, Va., and will be open Tuesdays through Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Admission is free.

“Drugs: Costs and Consequences” explains the science behind illegal drug addiction, and the countless costs and consequences of illegal drugs to individuals, American society, and the world. Visitors will gain an understanding of the environmental effects of drugs and what law enforcement, drug abuse education, and treatment are doing to break the troubling cycle of drugs and drug-related violence. They will view an actual South American jungle coca processing lab and a re-created Afghan heroin factory as well as analyze brain-scans in a simulated MRI machine and view real wreckage from a drug-related car accident.

A portion of “Drugs: Costs and Consequences” will focus specifically on Loudoun County and Northern Virginia, exploring the evolution of heroin abuse and enforcement in the area.

CADCA also consulted with exhibit curators to include a panel on the power of the coalition movement in addressing substance abuse.

“Drugs: Costs and Consequences” was developed in partnership with The DEA Educational Foundation, The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, The U.S. National Guard, The National Institute on Drug Abuse, The Office of National Drug Control Policy, and CADCA.

The CDC has “backed-off”..BUT.. have they “backed-down ” ?

There has been almost 1600 comments on this… many of them from the anti-opiate groups.. who can’t believe that anyone else pain would be greater than their pain from losing a loved from having the mental health disease of addictive personality disorder and they have OD’d or committed suicide using opiates and/or some other substances.  Here is the link to make comments … the “clock” is tickin’   http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CDC-2015-0112-0001

CDC Delays Opioid Prescribing Guidelines

http://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2015/12/11/cdc-delays-opioid-prescribing-guidelines

Faced with the threat of lawsuits and growing ridicule from patients, physicians and other federal agencies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has apparently decided to delay for several months plans to implement its controversial opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic pain.

Today the agency filed a formal notice in the federal registry that it was opening a 30-day public comment period on the guidelines, which had been scheduled for adoption in January. The guidelines would discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioid pain medication in an effort to end what has been called an “epidemic” of addiction and overdoses.

“In response to feedback, CDC is posting its draft opioid prescribing guideline for chronic pain in the Federal Register for 30 days of public comment. In addition, in early 2016 the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control’s Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), a federal advisory committee, will review the draft guideline. CDC will ask the BSC to form a workgroup to review the guideline and public comments and present recommendations to the BSC,” the CDC said in a statement to Pain News Network.   

The public comment period will run from December 14th  until January 13, 2016.

The CDC unveiled the guidelines in September to a select online audience and then only allowed a 48-hour public comment period. The agency was roundly criticized for its secrecy during the drafting of the guidelines and for consulting with special interest groups, but few pain patients or pain physicians. The agency never made the guidelines available on its website or in any public form outside of the webinar.

A spokesperson told PNN the guidelines will finally become available for public scrutiny on Monday when they are published in the federal registry.

A list of the dozen draft guidelines that were released in September can be found here. They recommend “non-pharmacological therapy” as the “preferred” treatment for non-cancer pain, and state that limited quantities and doses of opioids should be prescribed for both acute and chronic pain.

The CDC later said the guidelines were being revised, without giving any detail.

Last week, a key government panel that oversees pain research indicated it would file a formal objection to the guidelines. Politico reported that the National Institute of Health’s Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee believes there is little or no evidence to support many of the prescribing guidelines. Some committee members reportedly called the agency’s recommendations “ridiculous” and “an embarrassment to the government” during a meeting.

Evidence cited to support the guidelines “is low to very low and that’s a problem,” Sharon Hertz, a top FDA official was quoted as saying.

Another top official in the Department of Health and Human Services told the research committee the CDC’s guidelines were “shortsighted” and there was a rush to judgement.

“You know, damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead,” said Wanda Jones, principal deputy assistant secretary for health at HHS.

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) also signaled it was prepared to file a lawsuit to stop the guidelines from being implemented, accusing the CDC of “blatant violations” of federal law for not holding public hearings and refusing to publicly identify members of its advisory committees.

“The overly secretive manner in which CDC has been developing the Guideline serves the interests of neither the healthcare community nor consumers,” wrote WLF chief counsel Richard Samp to CDC director Tom Frieden.

In a survey of over 2,000 patients by Pain News Network and the Power of Pain Foundation, over 90% said the guidelines were discriminatory and would be more harmful than helpful to pain patients. Most said they had already tried non-opioid treatments, such as massage, acupuncture and cognitive behavioral therapy, and found that they didn’t work or were not covered by insurance. Many predicted the guidelines would lead to more suicides in the pain community, and cause more addiction and overdoses, not less.

Guidelines… carry the weight of the LAW ?

stevemailbox

This is a email that showed up in my inbox.. it would appear that this pt’s particular insurance company has taken upon themselves to send out the CDC dosing guidelines to prescribers… “suggesting” that “if appropriate” the opiate dose of their pts should be reduced.  It is interesting that the CDC guidelines have not even been implemented yet.. just published for comments and those that pay the bills… is using them as a way to save the system money ?

IMO.. if this woman loses her job and home because of the actions of this insurance company and prescriber.. that those issues are calculable as monetary damages, besides ADA violations and other issues of  malpractice and pt harm/neglect.

 

 

Hello, My name is xxxx and I have been dealing with Arachnoiditis for the past 26 years. I got it from a spinal block during child birth. Dec. 4 I was told by my doctor that my insurance company will no longer pay for my morphine at the level it was so he lowered it by 120 mg a day. On Dec 31 I had an appointment and was told the same thing again and this time it is going down 100 mg a day. He informed me that he would give me Cymbalta, lyrica, ES Injections, or a spinal stimulator. He is taking me off all of the opiates and refuses to refill any further rx’s. We are living in a state of total communism when a doctor tells you how you are feeling. Since being on this dose of medication I have been able to get my degree and go back to work. If I can not find a new doctor to help me I am going to lose my job again, and last time this happened I became homeless for over a year. Thanks for being so outspoken and on our side. We need to be one large voice.

Forced Opioid Reduction … Genocide … American style ?

The Dangerous Game of Forced Opioid Reduction

http://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2015/9/2/the-inhumane-and-dangerous-game-of-forced-opioid-reduction#commenting

By Forest Tennant, MD, Guest Columnist

A colleague who I highly respect just informed me of a woman with intractable angina who had multiple, inserted coronary splints and required a high daily dose of morphine. Without warning, her insurance company arbitrarily decided she did not need opioids. As one might expect, the forced cessation of opioids led to her death.

The forced reduction and/or cessation of daily opioids in stabilized patients have, in some corners of our country, reached the point of unscientific and inhumane hysteria. The craze to fight opioid abuse and force opioid dosages below 100 to 120 mg of morphine equivalents a day (MEQ) is now harming some patients who have been doing quite well on stable, daily opioid dosages. Some of the rhetoric and tac­tics being used to force opioid reduction are farcical if they weren’t so tragic in their consequences.

First, who is doing the forcing? There are multiple culprits: insurance companies, state legislators, regulators, and suppli­ers. Some of the tactics to force opioid reduction are indirect, such as limiting the amount of opioids a pharmacy can stock. Others are blatant, such as states that require physicians to seek a pain consultation if they continue to prescribe over a threshold MEQ level, even to patients who have been well maintained for a considerable time period. For example, in Washington State, a 120 mg/d MEQ threshold will trigger the prescribing physician to conduct, or refer the patient for, a pain consultation (exceptions and exemptions do exist). As noted by Stephen J. Ziegler, PhD, JD, “in some states, these thresholds appear in regulations, making the actions required actions, while in other states the thresholds appear in guidelines, making the actions merely recommended.”

Insurance companies are currently the most dangerous “forcers.” Neither patient, pharmacist, nor physician is pre­pared when a stable, opioid-maintained patient goes to fill a long-standing opioid prescription only to be told their insurance company has suddenly decided the patient should immediately cut their opioid daily dose by 30% to 70%, or even stop it altogether. The saddest aspect of this dan­gerous practice is that the motive is clearly greed, although the reduction may be accompanied by an “out-of-the-blue” statement that the forced reduction is for the patient’s safety. For example, insurance companies have recently informed long-standing, opioid-maintained patients that they have suddenly and capriciously decided they will no longer cover brand name opioids, injections, patches, compounded for­mulations, or a daily dosage above a specific level.

Insurance companies and some state guidelines are spitting out two illogical excuses for the forced reduction of opioids. One is that opioids dosages above 120 mg or so of MEQ are unsafe. Show me a study that indicates tissue toxicity of opioids at dosages over 120 mg in patients who have been maintained at a stable dosage for over 1 year. Patients who have been titrated up to dosages above 120 mg of morphine and periodically monitored by competent physicians almost always experience improved health and function, not the reverse. I have several patients who have been safely main­tained on high opioid dosages and led quality lives for over 20 years!! Why force these folks into sickness, suffering, and possibly death by suddenly and capriciously claiming their life-saving medication is dangerous?

The other straw-dog is “hyperalgesia.” Would someone please tell me how I’m to define and diagnose hyperalge­sia in a patient who has been well maintained on a stable opioid dosage—high or low—for over a year? Hyperalgesia has become a label and excuse to force down opioid dos­ages. Reputable and credible pain practitioners are not even sure it exists in a human who is well maintained on opioids. Whenever I see a patient who is on opioids and claims their opioids aren’t working as well as they used to, I take a hor­mone profile. Once I replace any deficient hormones, the patients’ opioids resume working.

My demand is for someone to send me the consensus doc­ument that tells me how to objectively diagnose hyperalge­sia in patients who have been well maintained on opioids over 90 days. What’s more, if hyperalgesia exists, what harm does it do? If we really believe that hyperalgesia is a problem with high-dose opioids, we must remove all intrathecal opi­oid pumps because these devices deliver a MEQ directly to the CNS receptors that is far in excess of any dosage we can achieve by peripheral administration!!

Readers of Practical Pain Management well know that severe, constant pain has far more risks than any stable, daily opioid dosage. Severe pain adversely affects the cardiovas­cular, endocrine, immune, and neurologic systems. It sends patients to bed in agony to lead a short, suffering life. There is no need to take these risks in a caring, concerned soci­ety, as a minute extract from the opium plant can prevent these complications and the pathetic, miserable death that a forced opioid reduction can bring.

So what do we do at this point? First, physician’s need to correct any false comments about the imagined dan­gers of stable, on-going opioid dosages. Whenever possible, pain practitioners should attempt to prescribe non-opioid pharmaceuticals that have come forward in recent years. In the latter category, I place ketamine, anti-epileptic agents (gabapentin, pregabalin, etc), and neurohormones (oxyto­cin, human chorionic gonadotropin, and progesterone). I’ve cut my patients’ opioid use by about 50% over the past 5 years by use of these new agents. I also recommend obtain­ing an opioid serum level in patients who take over 100 mg of MEQ. The presence of a reasonable opioid serum level indicates that the patient is ingesting opioids and is func­tioning well with a high opioid dosage.

Lastly, and most important, families of patients who must take a high daily opioid dosage need to become publicly active as advocates for their loved one. Unfortunately, but realistically, patients who must take a high opioid dosage always have a debilitating condition such as arachnoiditis, CRPS, traumatic brain injury, post-encephalitis headache, or facial neuropathy, and are too ill to fend for themselves. But their family can. Its time families demand the right of their suffering loved ones to obtain opioids, and their direct and blunt communication should go to State Medical Boards, insurance companies, wholesale suppliers, and their elected representatives.

Also, pain patients and family members should start joining the emerging nationwide organizations that are now forming to fight back. While we physicians have little public voice left, families of pain patients can, should, and will be heard.

Dr. Forest Tennant is pain management specialist in West Covina, California who has treated chronic pain patients for over 40 years. He has authored over 300 scientific articles and books, and is Editor Emeritus of Practical Pain Management.

This column is republished with permission from Practical Pain Management.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Medical care at the end of life can be expensive… Genocide .. American Style ?

Blue Cross expands benefits for end-of-life care

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/12/27/blue-cross-expands-benefits-for-end-life-care/5Uduttll3fG3ARVZkktP8I/story.html

“We don’t want anyone to be concerned they may not get the care they need,” said Andrew Dreyfus, chief executive of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts.
By Priyanka Dayal McCluskey Globe Staff December 28, 2015

The state’s largest health insurer this week will begin offering some of the newest and most comprehensive end-of-life benefits in the nation, aiming to prod patients and health care providers to discuss death openly and expand services to help people live out their last days.

The move by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts comes as a growing number of health organizations put more emphasis on how patients are treated at the end of life by providing and paying for care that is more in line with patient wishes. Most Americans, for example, say they want to die at home, but most still die in hospitals and other institutions, according to several studies.

And while the primary goal is not cost control, the effort also has the potential to lower health care spending by giving patients more options to replace hospital care with less expensive — and often preferable — alternatives, such as hospice and home care. Medical care at the end of life can be expensive; a 2010 study found that 25 percent of all Medicare payments go toward the 5 percent of people in the last year of their lives.

“The industry is now starting to take this seriously,” said Dr. Lachlan Forrow, director of the ethics and palliative care programs at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “The industry now not only understands the issues [around death and dying], but understands there are concrete things they can and need to do, and Blue Cross is showing us how to get started.”

As of Jan. 1, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, with 2.8 million members, will pay for more counseling sessions between providers and patients to discuss end-of-life care and expand access to hospice services. It is also developing a home care program that will be launched later in 2016.

Other insurers, including Medicare, the government program for those 65 and older, have decided to cover the cost of end-of-life discussions between doctors and patients. (Medicare’s change takes effect in 2016.)

Blue Cross is taking this a step further. It will also cover costs of visits with psychologists, social workers, and other mental health workers, where patients can ponder questions such as how they want to die, where they want to die, whether they would want doctors to take all possible measures to keep them alive — or whether they prefer to forgo intensive medical treatments to be more comfortable at the end.

Specialists in end-of-life care say people should begin such conversations with providers and loved ones well before they become seriously ill. Blue Cross plans to cover end-of-life counseling sessions for any member who chooses to have one, not just for those who are sick.

“All patients should be thinking about it,” said Andrew Dreyfus, chief executive of Blue Cross.

The insurer’s efforts to expand end-of-life benefits were inspired in part by Dreyfus’s experience of watching his parents and 61-year-old brother die from illnesses, which he detailed in a recent essay in the Globe.

“Each of these losses was excruciating, but my grief was softened because my parents and brother made decisions about their care and died gently, free from invasive medical treatment and touched by loved ones until the very end,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, their experiences are not typical.”

Efforts to improve end-of-life care are gaining traction, though. Massachusetts General Hospital is preparing to launch an initiative in 2016 to train clinicians who treat serious illnesses to help patients plan for death. The hospital also plans to hire more specialists in palliative care, the branch of medicine that treats the symptoms and stresses of disease for the seriously ill, so more patients can receive such care.

Beth Israel Deaconess has revised its electronic health records system to help emergency doctors retrieve information about patients’ end-of-life wishes. Starting early next year, every patient admitted to the hospital will receive a guide outlining options for people with serious illnesses.

Among insurers, several health care specialists said, Blue Cross is leading the field on end-of-life care. But others are focused on the issue, too.

‘We don’t want anyone to be concerned they may not get the care they need.’
Andrew Dreyfus, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts chief executive

Quote Icon

Tufts Health Plan, an insurer based in Watertown, said it will work with some of its sickest members to put their end-of-life wishes on paper, so they can be shared with primary care physicians and the patients’ health care proxies.

Medicare and many health plans limit hospice coverage to people with six months or less to live, but Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, of Wellesley, said it has no such restrictions for terminally ill patients, as long as physicians believe hospice is appropriate.

Blue Cross said it will expand hospice eligibility to patients expected to live 12 months or less, from the current six months.

Dreyfus said Blue Cross’s new benefits may reduce some costs: For example, if a terminally ill patient with shortness of breath gets help at home, instead of going to the hospital. But he said that providing hospice and home care to more patients means costs might also increase. The goal of end-of-life benefits is to improve care for dying patients, he said: “We don’t want anyone to be concerned they may not get the care they need.”

Dr. Vicki Jackson, chief of palliative care at Mass. General, said insurers play a key role in the movement to increase patient-doctor discussions about end-of-life care and help patients decide how they want to spend their remaining time.

“Reimbursement is one important piece,” she said. “That there is a way to be able to bill for it says how important this is. That adds a certain validity.”

Ellen Goodman, a former Boston Globe columnist who now directs The Conversation Project, a campaign to promote end-of-life planning, said that efforts such as the one at Blue Cross show the progress in addressing issues surrounding death and dying.

“We’ve already seen a big culture change in the number of people who recognize that it’s important to have conversations with their families, as well as their providers, to talk in advance about how they want to live the end of their lives,” said Goodman.

“This is about quality of care,” she said. “This is about helping people to live the way they want to at the end of their lives.”

Priyanka Dayal McCluskey can be reached at priyanka.mccluskey@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @priyanka_dayal.

Next phase in GENOCIDE American style ?

VA to Adopt CDC Opioid Guidelines

http://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2015/12/21/va-to-adopt-cdc-opioid-guidelines

By Pat Anson, Editor

The massive $1.1 trillion spending bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last week contains an early Christmas present for the nation’s veterans.

Or it could be a lump of coal — depending on your view about opioid pain medication.

Buried in the 2,009 page document is a provision requiring the Veteran’s Administration to implement a number of measures to stop the “overdose epidemic” among veterans, including adoption of the controversial opioid prescribing guidelines being developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Those guidelines, which discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioids for chronic pain, have now become official government policy at a federal agency before they’re even finalized. 

“To address mounting concerns about prescription drug abuse and an overdose epidemic among veterans, the bill directs VA to adopt the opioid prescribing guidelines developed by the Centers of Disease Control; to develop IT systems to track and monitor opioid prescriptions; to ensure all VA medical facilities are equipped with opioid receptor antagonists to treat drug overdoses; and to provide additional training to medical personnel who prescribe controlled substances,” Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Vice Chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a summary of the omnibus bill sent to colleagues.

The VA was also instructed to report to Congress within 90 days on alternative treatments to opioids, as well as “how VA can better facilitate the use of safe and effective complementary and integrative health therapies for pain management.”  

The CDC, which recently delayed implementation of the opioid guidelines after widespread criticism from patients and advocacy groups, has repeatedly said the guidelines are “voluntary” and not intended for anyone other than primary care physicians.

But adoption of the guidelines by a federal agency that provides health care services to over 6 million patients is an early sign they will have a much broader impact, voluntary or not. Critics have warned that state regulators, licensing boards and professional medical societies could also adopt the CDC’s guidelines, which would likely have a chilling effect on all doctors who prescribe opioids.

“This is disturbing. It doesn’t help solve the opioid problem by codifying low evidence or no evidence recommendations,” said Lynn Webster, MD, past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.

“The opioid crisis is serious, requiring thoughtful interventions that are evidence based.  There are many evidence based recommendations that could be promulgated but have been ignored.  I am very concerned that the soldiers who have sacrificed so much are not going to receive the treatment they deserve.”

According to an Inspector General’s study, more than half of the veterans being treated at the VA experience chronic pain, as well as other conditions that contribute to it, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Because veterans are at high risk of opioid abuse and overdose, the VA implemented the Opioid Safety Initiative in 2013 to discourage its doctors from prescribing the drugs. The number of veterans prescribed opioids fell by 110,000, but alarms were raised when some vets turned to street drugs or suicide to stop their pain.

“Veterans are now required to see a prescriber every 30 days, but at the El Paso VA, they are unable to get an appointment, so they go without, or they do something they shouldn’t — they buy them on the street,” Rep. Beto O’Rourke, (D-Texas), told Military Times. “At a minimum, these veterans are suffering and in some cases, I would connect that suffering to suicide.”

Several veterans have written to Pain News Network recently about their difficulty obtaining opioids from the VA for their chronic pain.

“The VA will only prescribe 10 mg oxycodone 3 times a day. This gives me no relief at all and now I’m very worried about what may come next,” wrote an Army veteran with diabetic nerve pain who had a toe amputated. “When I asked to have this increased my VA PC (primary care) doc raised my gabapentin script and says if that doesn’t work for my increased pain levels we may try Lyrica next . He ignores my statement that 15 mg of Oxy works in reducing my pain by 30%”

“After taking opiate pain meds for nearly 15 years, the VA has now decided to take them away. I had a decent life while on these, and now they have cut them in half, I am in constant pain. I wish some of these people that make these stupid decisions had to live like I do,” a Vietnam veteran who had a leg amputated above the knee wrote to PNN.

“The pain meds allowed me to have some semblance of a normal life. Now that is gone. I don’t know what I am going to do. I can understand now why vets turn to alcohol and other street drugs, because you have to do something to take the edge off this constant pain. But do they care? Not one whit. They practically throw this stuff at you when I first started going, now it is up to me to figure out how I am going to make it without any of it.”

The federal spending bill provides $7.2 billion in funding for the CDC, which is $278 million more than last year.  That includes $70 million to support state efforts to address prescription opioid abuse – more than triple the amount included in last year’s bill. 

The bill also provides $3.8 billion to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which is $160 million more than last year.  Nearly $50 million is directed to address the “epidemic” of prescription drug and heroin overdose, $25 million is for addiction treatment in high-risk states, $12 million for naloxone distribution in 10 states; and $10 million for drug abuse prevention efforts in up to 20 states.

A covert “GENOCIDE” using our healthcare system

Genocide is the intent to systematically eliminate a racial, ethnic, religious, cultural or national group. Well-known examples of genocide include the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, and more recently the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian Genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

This post may be viewed by some as politically incorrect… I don’t care… This post will be stating facts and stats… if you get OFFENDED… then you can stop reading… you can leave comments agreeing or disagreeing… I DON’T CARE…

The war on drugs has taken a definite turn to a war on pts and the healthcare professionals that care for those pts.

We have moved from 2000 and the Joint Commission declaring that decade as the “decade of pain” and declared that pain was the FIFTH VITAL SIGN and pt’s pain should be properly managed. As the decade closed, there was seemingly a quantum shift from adequately treating pain to a denial of pain care.

The bureaucrats in Congress over several decades have siphoned off the “trust funds” of social security, Medicare and Medicare disability funds, filling those trust funds with IOU’s. It is estimated that in 2016 the Medicare disability fund will have a negative 20% cash flow going forward.

Over the last seven years our country has amassed more additional debt than we had accumulated since our country was founded 200 + years ago. It was reported today that in 2015 the Feds collected (inflation adjusted) the most revenue EVER.. and yet we spent almost ONE-HALF TRILLION more than we took in.

It has been stated that we could confiscate all the assets from all the millionaires and billionaires in the country and it would only pay about 10% of the unfunded entitlements that Congress has promised to those citizens in our country.

It is estimated that in 2030, as the oldest baby boomer reaches their anticipated life expectancy (83) the social security fund will go into a negative cash flow status at the same time the “X” generation will be reaching full retirement age.

Here is quote from today …

Michael Botticelli

Deputy Director at Office of National Drug Control Policy

who has a BS in Psychology claims to have the medical expertise to make the following quote:

“we really have to focus on reducing the magnitude of the prescription drug use issue.”

It would appear that it is no longer a matter of dealing with people who have a addictive  personality disorder.. but.. reducing all opiate usage by anyone and everyone …. if they have a legit medical need or not.

Tomorrow Oregon is one more state that will limit the amount of opiates that a prescriber can write for.. no consideration for a pt that is a fast/ultra fast metabolizer .. no consideration for the severity/intensity of a pt’s pain.

We all know that “the system” is “play games” with the numbers of deaths and the reasons for those deaths.  We also know that the cutting of chronic pain pt’s opiates doses and flat out denial of care is causing pts to commit suicide, and they deaths are being labeled as “opiate related death”

Let’s admit it … our country has a huge financial problem and those individuals who are on Medicare, Medicare disability or Medicaid could be considered an expendable and unnecessary financial liability.

Could there be a covert agenda to “thin the herd” via genocide of denial of care with the intent to encourage suicide by those who are a huge financial liability on the country?

And Medicare is encouraging prescribers to counsel pts on end of life issues… since it is stated that 80% of a person’s lifetime medical expenses is in the last couple of years of life… as well as we have more states passing “right to die” laws.

‘End-of-life counseling’: Death panels are back

 Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel  the architect of Obamacare… suggests that we should all “die off at 75” so that we are no longer a liability to the society…the prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel argues that longevity — living into your 80s, 90s and beyond — often comes at the expense of quality of life. Emanuel says he will be perfectly content if he dies at age 75.

You stop contributing to society at 75 ?

Most genocides in the world’s history have been OVERT… this could be the first COVERT one.. using the healthcare system as the conduit ?