“The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped.” – Hubert Humphrey
passionate pachyderms
Pharmacist Steve steve@steveariens.com 502.938.2414
Montana Pain Patients Rebuttal To: Montana Know Your Dose Statistics
December 6, 2015
In 2014 there were 243 completed suicides in Montana:
81% involved Males
Almost 25% of completed suicides involved Veterans
Most common age group was 55-64 years old, or 51 suicides
Approximately 9% of suicides involved Native Americans
Often over-looked number is that 40 percent of Montana’s completed suicides involved people with severe medical problems, including terminal illness or chronic pain. “We have to change something with this issue … with people who are tired of the pain, who didn’t want to have another surgery,” said Karl Rosston, Montana’s suicide prevention coordinator and a member of the Montana Suicide Mortality Review Team.
Montana DPHHS reports the following statistics on Montana poisonings (August 2014):
Year of DeathTotal DeathsAccidentsSuicidesHomicidesUndetermined Intent
2009 139 91 30 0 18
2010 115 60 32 0 23
2011 135 86 21 0 28
2012 109* 72 19 0 18
*NOTE: There were 90 poisonings (109 minus 19) of accidental or undetermined intent. Suicide statistics should not be included within the “overdoses” as this skews the statistics shared by the MT Know Your Dose campaign. According to our research, some coroners accommodate grieving families and categorize the cause of death as accidental since suicide typically voids most insurance benefits. According to more recent statistics from MT Department of Public Health and Human Services, Montana is gaining the upper hand on prescription drug abuse, and yet intentional suicides are increasing.
Problems:Poisoning Deaths quoted in Montana Know Your Dose statistics include intentional suicides and many other classes of drugs in addition for opioids for pain control.
“…There is mounting evidence that patients on chronic opiates usually have a poorer quality of life and life expectancy, when compared to those treated by other means,” Dr. Marc Mentel, D.O., Associate Program Director for Osteopathic Curriculum at the Family Medicine Residency of Western Montana and MMA Prescription Drug Abuse Reduction Faculty.”
This quote was retreived from Montana Know Your Dose website with no citation regarding supporting studies on which Dr. Mentel is basing his claim. Is it peer reviewed research or anecdotal?
“…there is no consistent, high quality, evidence that chronic opioid therapy is effective for the treatment of non-cancer pain,” Dr. Camden Kneeland, Medical Director, Montana Center for Wellness and Pain Management and MMA Prescription Drug Abuse Reduction Faculty.”
Again, this quote was retrieved from the Montana Know Your Dose website with no citation on which studies Dr. Kneeland is basing his evidence. Is it peer reviewed research or anecdotal?
There were no disclosures regarding Dr. Kneeland’s potential conflict of interests. Dr. Kneeland receives research grants from St. Jude, manufacturer of implantable spinal cord stimulator units. Dr. Kneeland performs other interventional pain procedures, including epidural steroid injections for back pain. There is no steroid approved by the FDA for the epidural route of adminstration. Patients are not warned of the potential risks, including the serious complication of adhesive arachnoiditis. The FDA issued a warning on the risks on April 23, 2014. We have requested that the FDA warning be added to the MT Know Your Dose website since the guidelines from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians was posted. ASIPP’s protocoal for the treatment of pain is not appropriate for this website.
Questions:
The number of prescription drug-related deaths also numbered 109 in 2013, according to references below. This results in 109 poisoning two years in a row (2012 and 2013). Is there an error in reporting?
Should physicians who are quoted, and whose recommendations are listed on the state funded Know Your Dose website, be required to disclose their potential financial gain from promoting procedures they perform?
Our Position: The Montana Prescription Drug Registry (MPDR) has been a success. It is time to focus on pain and suicides resulting from untreated pain conditions and overuse of invasive procedures for chronic pain. Combining statistics from 2011-2013 for drug overdose deaths misrepresents the data and doesn’t show that prescription drug overdose deaths have declined. The MPDR is working.
Addiction problems affecting Montana’s youth should be addressed separately from chronic pain patients suffering from Veteran combat injuries, bad backs, arthritis, and many pain conditions associated with an aging population.
The job interview wouldn’t last more than 15 minutes, Richard Pazdur believed.
So, on a June morning in 1999, his wife Mary settled down to wait at a restaurant near the FDA buildings alongside Rockville Pike.
The restaurant turned out to be Hooters, and Mary ended up spending three hours at the joint known for all-you-can-eat chicken wings served by scantily clad waitresses known as Hooters Girls.
“How much Hooters coffee can you drink?” Mary said frequently, retelling the story of her introduction to FDA, Washington and cancer politics.
Rick got the job, and over 16 years, he shaped the FDA approach to drug approval, setting forth a set of criteria accepted by drug companies, academics and NCI. Mary was by his side, supportive, practical, compassionate, intuitive, and intolerant of nonsense. For most of these 16 years, she was an oncology nurse practitioner at the NIH Clinical Center. She eventually took the therapies she had worked on.
Mary died of ovarian cancer Nov. 24. She was 63.
Her death and the three-year struggle that preceded it appears to have launched Rick, director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, into a new career phase, one where he infuses an advocate’s urgency into his unchallenged power—he’s the closest thing America has to a cancer czar.
“This three-year period of time has given us the opportunity for observation of the healthcare system from the other side of the stethoscope,” Pazdur said Nov. 17, at a Washington conference sponsored by Friends of Cancer Research. “You see the worst of the system; you see the fact that you’re not immune just because you’re a doctor or a member of a doctor’s family.”
At the time Rick uttered these words, Mary was at the Casey House of the Montgomery County Hospice.
The FOCR talk—an onstage conversation with the group’s chair and founder Ellen Sigal—is posted here.
A few weeks earlier, the Pazdurs sat down for a chat with Ellen Stovall, senior health policy advisor with the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. The hour-long interview, filmed at the Pazdurs’ house in Bethesda, is available below. A shorter version was published on the NCCS website and in the Oct. 23 issue of The Cancer Letter.
The two conversations address the FDA approval criteria, accrual to studies, reporting of toxicities, difficulties of getting treatments on compassionate basis, and the need to complete consolidation of the FDA oncology functions.
Sigal appears to have launched the buzzword “integration” to describe this proposed reorganization of FDA. As it is, Pazdur’s office doesn’t regulate cancer vaccines, cellular therapies, assays and devices.
The conversations also depict the couple’s coming to terms—publicly—with impending loss. And they record oncology’s principal rainmaker adopt the language of advocacy.
Consider this statement, made in his conversation with Sigal:
“I have morphed from ‘the regulator’ to the unique position of ‘regulator/advocate.’
“What we’re seeing now is not a patient voice but a patient cry—wanting to have their position heard.
“The position of a patient should be defined by the patient—not by somebody else. Certainly not by the FDA, and not by the pharmaceutical industry nor the clinical trial enterprise—a multi-billion dollar enterprise. Rather than the patients being asked to come and comment about a predefined issue, patients need to direct the show.
“So the question I have for the patients is ‘what do you want?’ You need to run the show—not the FDA, not the NCI, and not the pharmaceutical companies. Ultimately, the clinical trials are about you.”
Advocates and bureaucrats aren’t easily hybridized. Advocates, if they are genuine, are focused on a single, defined set of issues. Under normal circumstances, advocates work on behalf of constituents, and they couldn’t care less about competing priorities. Bureaucrats usually move with caution, considering institutional interests and practicing the art of the possible.
An interview with Rick Pazdur and his wife, Mary. The interview was conducted by Ellen Stovall, senior health policy advisor of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. Filming and production courtesy of Beckstein Productions, LLC.
What should one expect from a “regulator/advocate”?
Expect a sense of urgency. Expect impatience. Indeed, if you know where you are going, why not move fast?
Consider this recent action on the part of the agency:
On March 4, FDA announced approval of the Bristol-Myers Squibb drug Opdivo (nivolumab) in metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer. The action was almost certainly unprecedented, because the agency received the data and sprung into action—read this carefully—before the results were unblinded to the sponsor.
“With regard to the impetus for this rapid action, we began working immediately on this review and submission strategy after being informed of the survival results. This was prior to BMS having been informed of the results since they were still blinded,” Pazdur said matter-of-factly to The Cancer Letter (The Cancer Letter, June 2). “Patients and physicians need to be informed about these findings and this was the impetus for the rapid inclusion of the survival data in product labeling.”
Some changes are hard to miss, and people who know the Pazdurs pretty much uniformly note the change of tone in Rick’s remarks and a new sense of urgency in his actions.
“It’s a huge loss, and I think he has been using this experience—I don’t know whether consciously or subconsciously—to impact major changes in such a short period of time as to how we are redefining drug development and drug approval. It’s very outside the box,” said Patricia LoRusso, associate director of innovative medicine at Yale Cancer Center and one of Rick’s former trainees.
“Rick—as many caregivers of cancer patients—realizes the urgency. He may speak as an activist, but I think he also thinks as a brilliant drug regulator. He may come across as an activist, but I think his brilliance always made him an activist. It could look like he is an activist, but when you know Rick, you know a very outside-the-box thinker,” said LoRusso.
“He is the kind of person who can solve the problems.”
FOCR’s Sigal, too, sees the new urgency. “I think he has changed. I don’t think that he is prepared to put junk products on the market, to loosen standards,” said Sigal. “I think the toxicity, and the urgency, and the quality of life issues change you when you see them first-hand.”
Same goes for NCCS’s Stovall: “Mary’s diagnosis heightened Rick’s interest in the way cancer patients are treated in our healthcare system and that no matter who you know or how much you know, the limitations of the science are the harsh realities he an others have to face when a loved one has cancer,” she said to The Cancer Letter.
“Both Rick and Mary expressed to me that they didn’t want or expect any special treatment simply because of his position with the FDA. I do think because of Mary’s professional role as an oncology nurse at NIH, and Rick’s distinctive knowledge of emerging therapies, that their mutual respect for the science gave them a lens through which to view the realities of what would be in store.
“Did these realities change Rick and alter his views of regulatory processes? I don’t believe so. I do believe that his sense of urgency about getting promising drugs through the regulatory system expediently, but responsibly, was top of mind for him throughout his career and remains his steadfast goal.
“I do believe that Mary’s diagnosis widened his awareness of what families experience when treatments become futile, and how frustrating it is that we can do so little for someone with advanced cancer.
“I feel certain that his awareness will serve to strengthen his resolve to continue to reform the FDA to best serve the interests of all of us who rely on that agency to be a standard-bearer for excellence in expediting well designed drug development plans and approval of effective new oncology therapies.”
Where Detroit Is
Rick and Mary met in June 1979, on the first day of his oncology fellowship at Rush Presbyterian Hospital in Chicago, where Mary Patricia Bagby was a nurse.
Both were as Chicago as it gets. Rick comes from a Polish family in the grimy, industrial Calumet City, Mary from a large Catholic family in Tinley Park, also south of the city.
“If she had my mother, she would be chief of neurosurgery at Mass General,” said Rick recently. But nursing was the traditional occupation for women in the Bagby family. Mary’s mother, Shirley Bagby, was a nurse, as are her three sisters. “She won academic awards,” said Pazdur. “She could have done anything she wanted to, and she chose nursing, because she wanted to help people.”
“It’s hard for me to talk about her without crying,” said Arthur Rossof, who worked with Mary and Rick when he was a junior attending physician at Rush. “Mary was always a tranquil, anchoring voice, she was always in control, she always had nice things to say about people, projecting the attitude of we’ll get through this, and we will get it right, and everybody will be taken care of.”
Mary and Rick started dating two years after they met, and were married in 1982, as Rick was preparing to move to Wayne State University.
“You don’t even know where Detroit is,” said Mary at the time.
“Yeah, it’s someplace east of South Bend,” Rick conceded. Their honeymoon was in Detroit.
“When Mary smiled, she always had that sparkle in her eyes, it was just so special,” said LoRusso, who was trained by Pazdur at Wayne State. “She was such a basically positive person. She had such a gentle soul.”
Six years later, in 1988, the Pazdurs moved to MD Anderson Cancer Center, and in the mid-nineties, in interactions with FDA over clinical trials of the drug UFT, an oral version of 5-fluorouracil, Rick realized that the agency might be an interesting place to work.
Roy Herbst got to work with Mary when he was a junior attending physician and she ran the practice of Waun Ki Hong, chair of the Department of Thoracic/Head & Neck Medical Oncology at MD Anderson.
“Mary was sort of the dean of our nurse practitioners there,” said Herbst, now chief of medical oncology at Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Hospital at Yale-New Haven.
Rick applied for the job to head the oncology division at the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, but didn’t get hired on the first try. The job went to Robert DeLap instead. In 1999, the job opened again after DeLap moved to regulation of over-the-counter drugs.
“I don’t want to get Rick mad, but I remember when Rick left, we all missed him at MD Anderson, but we missed Mary at Thoracic/Head & Neck more,” said Herbst.
“And here at Yale, I have just recently recruited a fellow from NCI who had trained under her,” Herbst said. “I knew that if he worked with Mary, he must have had some good training.”
Politics of cancer wasn’t Mary’s world, but after the couple’s moved to Bethesda and she took a job at the Clinical Center, she relied on her God-given intolerance of nonsense to become a clear-headed observer and advisor to Rick.
“She was the sounding board,” Rick said. “How could she not be? You discuss things. During the hard times she was there.”
Paul Kluetz, who is now the acting deputy director at the FDA Office of Hematology and Oncology Products, met Mary in the beginning of his fellowship at NCI in 2008.
“I was eager to learn what it takes to become a great oncologist, how to confront the challenge of providing empathy and compassion while taking care not to allow the inevitable losses to hit too hard, derailing my mission to continue to help the next patient. This is a continuous balancing act,” Kluetz said.
“At the time, Mary worked with Bill Dahut’s group [the Prostate Cancer Clinical Research Section], and I had gravitated toward his busy clinic at the NCIs Clinical Center. As a new fellow, I remember getting to know Mary—and being struck by her combination of efficiency and great humanity, her compassion and strength.
“She frequently saw more patients than any other nurse in the clinic. The patients and their families loved her. She cut to the chase, she had a great sense of humor and an infectious laugh—and she cared. Deeply.”
FDA, 16 Years Ago
In 1999, FDA’s cancer portfolio was splintered, with small-molecule drugs going to one division and biologics to another.
The word in the street was that to get your drug approved you needed two randomized trials showing an improvement in survival.
There was a de facto shortcut—accelerated approval, which allowed the use of surrogate endpoints, primarily tumor shrinkage. The best way to get an accelerated approval was to conduct a large, usually single-arm, phase II study, enrolling 100 patients or more.
Many times, these trials demonstrated small, marginal response rates that raised questions about their utility. But the advantage of accelerated approval was a fast route to approval with a small data set that didn’t require a large randomized trial of hundred of patients.
In what could be described as the first phase of his career at the agency, Pazdur combined an emphasis on randomization with the search for endpoints other than survival. This met with protests on the part of groups that opposed randomization, some for ideological reasons.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages singled out Pazdur as FDA’s “Dr. No,” building on a theme of opposition to the efficacy standard and the IND requirements.
Editorial pages included stories titled “Pazdur’s Revenge,” “Pazdur’s Cancer Rules,” and “Pazdur is What the Doctor Ordered.” The newspaper’s editorialists described the oncologist as a “hyper-cautious” man of “anti-industry views” who insists on costly and unethical placebo-controlled trials, and is determined to use mind-numbing minutiae to drive American’s cancer sufferers into the grave by denying them access to life-saving drugs.
Decisions attributed to Pazdur triggered demonstrations, vicious posts on the Web, and lawsuits. All of this made friends worry about the Pazdurs’ physical safety (The Cancer Letter, Aug. 5, 2005).
Yet, even in situations where others accepted protection, the Pazdurs did not. Threats notwithstanding, they continued with their routines, which included buying cool stuff and useless tchotchkes at estate sales, taking care of their garden and playing with their tiny, snow-white Maltese dogs.
One of them, a rescue Maltese named Moshe, loved Mary, but, akin to The Wall Street Journal editorialists, took every opportunity bite Rick.
Tag-Team Storytelling
Yale’s Herbst says that Pazdur’s achievements at FDA include building a strong team of medical reviewers. This required making regulatory science into an exciting career path for young oncologists.
Over the past five years, Pazdur’s office hired many former NCI fellows, all of them unofficially pre-screened by Mary.
“I remember someone at NCI saying to me, ‘Don’t you know who Mary’s husband is? It’s Rick Pazdur!’” Kluetz recalled. “Not being familiar with the FDA at the time, I didn’t really know who the guy was.
“As I began to work closely with Rick at FDA, my relationship with Mary changed a bit. I got the opportunity to get to know her outside the clinic as a friend. It has really been a pleasure to get to see how Mary and Rick were as a couple, the way they looked at each other knowingly and smiling during conversation, how they reminisced about great trips and adventures they had taken. They were complementary, and they were tag team storytellers.
“Mary would set the scene, Rick would flesh out the characters and play out the events, taking it to the extremes of appropriateness and beyond, and the story would be punctuated by a Mary Pazdur laugh, usually a half-hearted reprimand—‘Oh Rick!’—and a knowing smile.”
“Integration”
Pazdur’s emphasis on randomization has made it possible to change the endpoints for some diseases from survival to slowing down disease progression, and with the industry mostly pleased, the protests haven’t been heard in recent years.
And as science changed and drugs became more precise, Pazdur’s office found a methodology to approve them quickly.
Because of the new crop of drugs over the past few years have far more impressive response rates, single arm trials have come back into vogue. “The drugs just got better,” Pazdur said to The Cancer Letter. “We are no longer taking about response rates of 10-15 percent, but rate exceeding 50-60 percent.”
So far this year, the hematology and oncology office approved 15 new molecular entities—and almost 40 percent of breakthrough therapies are in oncology.
At the recent FOCR meeting, Pazdur said he believes that FDA’s oncology portfolio needs to be further consolidated.
“Our orientation toward a specific problem is a reflection of legislation—much of that emanated from the 1960s,” he said. “I ask each one of you, have you changed since 1962? And I think if you haven’t, there’s something fundamentally wrong with you.
“I’ll use a phrase that my wife uses. And I’ll answer it as she would answer this question. Who likes change? A baby with a wet diaper.
“The purpose of the FDA is ultimately to serve the American public and get these drugs out in the most efficient means as possible… People need to have the structure and the foresight to see that this is coming. Whether it’s in my lifetime or not, it will be done because it’s the right thing to do.”
Sigal agrees. FDA needs to integrate its cancer portfolio, she said to The Cancer Letter.
“You don’t go to a doctor for CDRH or CDER. You go to a doctor for your disease. When you are regulating this disease, the integration of disciplines is extremely important,” she said. “I have never gone against FDA—ever. I have always worked with them. And I have always been genuine partners with them. But this time I am willing to make a lot of noise.”
Exactly a week after Pazdur spoke at the FOCR event, Mary succumbed to her disease.
The funeral service at St. Jane de Chantal Catholic Church on Dec. 1, a few blocks from the couple’s house, was followed by a gathering in the church basement. The food was Middle Eastern, prepared by the Syrian immigrant who cooks at the Montgomery County Hospice.
Mary hired her to make sure that the last arrangements she will ever make would help someone establish a new life in a new country.
She will miss the next act in Rick’s career, the phase that her illness inspired.
In addition to Rick, she is survived by father David Bagby and siblings Michael Bagby, Larry Bagby, Debbie Brower, Patty Ortiz, Peter Bagby, Martha Baggetto and Joseph Bagby.
In lieu of flowers, memorial donations can be made to Marcella Niehoff School of Nursing, Loyola University of Chicago, Health Sciences Campus, 2160 S. First Ave., Building 120, Suite 300, Maywood, IL 60153—or to the Christ Child Sodality of St. Jane’s Church.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. —The Florida Board of Pharmacy has approved a new rule that requires pharmacists to complete two extra hours of training regarding prescription pain medication.
Officials say it’s the first step to help pharmacists deal with patients who require pain medication.
The rule change begins to outline what pharmacists can do when handling patients who are prescribed pain medication.
Pharmacists will have access to a database that will ensure that the patient is seeking to obtain the drug legally.
Patient Harm: When An Attorney Won’t Take Your Case
Ernie Ciccotelli was trying to do a good deed when he donated a kidney to his brother. But within days of the surgery, his incision was oozing green fluid and his guts were rotting.
Ciccotelli said he was almost killed by an infection, and the follow-up surgeries and months of disability nearly ruined his fledgling legal practice. So he looked for a malpractice attorney who would help him file a case against the hospital.
That’s when he ran into a problem faced by many who are harmed in a medical setting: Attorneys refuse their cases, not because the harm didn’t happen but because the potential economic damages are too low.
It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of patients a year suffer some type of preventable injury or die while undergoing medical care. For many of these patients or surviving family, a lawsuit is the only hope to recover losses, learn the truth about what happened and ensure the problem is corrected.
But lawyers may have to invest $50,000 or more to pursue a case, and they usually only get paid if they win or settle. The payout is determined largely by economic damages – lost earnings, medical bills and future costs caused by the injury. Those who don’t earn big paychecks – including children, the elderly and stay-at-home-moms – are the least likely to find an attorney, studies show.
A 2013 Emory University School of Law study found that 95 percent of patients who seek an attorney for harm suffered during medical treatment will be shut out of the legal system, primarily for economic reasons. Most attorneys would not accept a case – even one they might win – if the damages likely were less than $250,000.
“You’re basically saying for someone who doesn’t earn a lot of money, ‘It’s OK for a hospital to harm them,’” Ciccotelli said.
For many cases, “the juice isn’t worth the squeeze,” said Stephen Daniels, a research professor at the American Bar Foundation, a legal research institute.
The elderly are probably affected the most, Daniels said, even when they’ve suffered an obvious medical error that led to permanent disability or death. Elderly patients are often retired, so their income is low. Plus, they usually have no dependents and Medicare picks up their medical bills.
By comparison, a 40-year-old who suffered the same type of harm but was a breadwinner for a family with three children, would be a much more attractive case, Daniels said.
Lawyers are the gatekeepers to the law,” Daniels said. “You can have all the rights in the world, but if no one will take your case, then those rights mean absolutely nothing.”
Ciccotelli, 58, donated his kidney in 2006 at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. The transplant went off without a hitch, but his medical records show that within days he suffered nausea and intense pain in his gut, then chills and a steady greenish drainage that soaked his bandages and shirts.
He had an infection plus an additional complication: His intestines had knuckled under beneath his skin. Ten days after the transplant, doctors operated again, removing 15 inches of dying intestine from Ciccotelli’s gut and scraping out the infection. The hospital, which declined to comment for this story, didn’t charge him for the clean-up procedures.
The injury Ciccotelli sustained while being a Good Samaritan had a cascading effect on his life and finances. He had just started a new career as a lawyer, running a jack-of-all-trades shop near his home in Norwich, Vt. But because he couldn’t consistently travel to his office and hearings, he estimates he lost $45,000 in earnings.
Ciccotelli said he paid a few thousand dollars out-of-pocket traveling back and forth to the hospital for treatments. For about a year he was unable to carry any weight, and he said he still can’t exercise the way he did before the surgery, which has caused his weight to balloon.
Ciccotelli figured another lawyer would jump to take his case. He’d been fine before the surgery and clearly had suffered harm. But one by one, lawyers turned him away.
After about a half-dozen rejections, he asked one why no one would take his case. You can win, the attorney told him, but it won’t be enough money to be worth it.
As a new lawyer, Ciccotelli didn’t make much. He estimated his income would be about $41,000 that year. Because the hospital performed the repair surgeries for free, there were no big medical bills, the attorney told him. Plus, he’d be able to earn income again.
Given the potentially high costs of suing a hospital, the attorneys took a pass.
In some states, the problem is exacerbated by strict caps on damages for medical malpractice. A 2011 study in the journal Qualitative Sociology however, found that the emphasis on damages affects patients nationwide, no matter the state limits.
The study included interviews with attorneys and found that monetary damages were the most important factor in taking cases. “I turn down clearly meritorious cases all the time because I think they’re just not worth enough money,” said an attorney from Pennsylvania, which the study said did not have caps on damages.
Malpractice attorneys agree that many legitimate cases aren’t pursued, though not because they’re greedy or don’t want to help.
Patrick Malone, a Washington, D.C., attorney who has represented patients in medical malpractice lawsuits since 1985, said he triages cases to focus on those that resulted in permanent harm. That’s necessary, he said, because of the time and emotional investment the patient will need to make to bring the case to trial, and because of his investment in the case.
Most cases settle, Malone said, but not usually until the last minute, years into the process. So he has to prepare the patient and himself for a long haul.
Some patients are initially outraged when he declines to take their case, but Malone said it can cost up to $20,000 just to assess a case and up to $300,000 in expenses to bring a complex case to trial. If there’s a verdict or settlement in the patient’s favor, the attorney fees eat up a third and expenses take up more.
If you spend $50,000 and only get $50,000, the lawyer gets nothing and the patient gets nothing,” he said. “Nobody wants to do that.”
Some call patients who can’t access legal system “hidden victims,” said the American Bar Foundation’s Daniels. No one knows how many there are because their cases never get a hearing.
Not all patients who suffer harm have the same experience. A small but growing movement in the medical community encourages openness with patients when they’ve suffered harm.
ProPublica is conducting an ongoing investigation of health care safety. Have you been harmed while undergoing medical care? Please complete our Patient Harm Questionnaire
A federal class action lawsuit accuses CVS Health of “fraud” and of “knowingly and intentionally” overcharging people in insurance plans by using “a false and deceptive pricing scheme” to inflate the prices of prescription drugs.
We asked CVS for an interview. Instead, CVS sent a written statement saying, in part, the company will “vigorously defend against the baseless allegations in this lawsuit, which is completely without merit.”
The CVS statement didn’t explain why its price for Burshem’s medicine was so much higher than the other pharmacies we checked.
Not only was the total cost for Burshem’s medicine higher at CVS. So was his copay.
His bill from CVS Caremark shows even with insurance covering most of the total cost, Burshem’s copay was $476.55.
That’s almost double the price – without insurance – at the local pharmacy Burshem found.The full price there was just $259.02.
Here’s an interesting factoid about contemporary policing: In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week.
Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really! — through the highly controversial practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion.
Armstrong claims that “the police are now taking more assets than the criminals,” but this isn’t exactly right: The FBI also tracks property losses from larceny and theft, in addition to plain ol’ burglary. If you add up all the property stolen in 2014, from burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft and other means, you arrive at roughly $12.3 billion, according to the FBI. That’s more than double the federal asset forfeiture haul.
One other point: Those asset forfeiture deposit amounts are not necessarily the best indicator of a rise in the use of forfeiture. “In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money — with a portion going back to victims — thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels,” the Institute for Justice explains. A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment, most of which flowed back to the victims.
For that reason, the net assets of the funds are usually seen as a more stable indicator — those numbers show how much money is left over in the funds each year after the federal government takes care of various obligations, like payments to victims. Since this number can reflect monies taken over multiple calendar years, it’s less comparable to the annual burglary statistics.
Still, even this more stable indicator hit $4.5 billion in 2014, according to the Institute for Justice — higher again than the burglary losses that year.
One final caveat is that these are only the federal totals and don’t reflect how much property is seized by state and local police each year. Reliable data for all 50 states is unavailable, but the Institute of Justice found that the total asset forfeiture haul for 14 states topped $250 million in 2013. The grand 50-state total would probably be much higher.
Still, boil down all the numbers and caveats above and you arrive at a simple fact: In the United States, in 2014, more cash and property transferred hands via civil asset forfeiture than via burglary. The total value of asset forfeitures was more than one-third of the total value of property stolen by criminals in 2014. That represents something of a sea change in the way police do business — and it’s prompting plenty of scrutiny of the practice.
Officials arrested eight people, including seven Baton Rouge residents, accused of using fake prescriptions to obtain $45,000 worth of pain medication.
The Drug Enforcement Administration Diversion Squad, with the help of multiple local police agencies, rounded up the people wanted on warrants for allegedly buying and possessing narcotics they collected using prescriptions made to look as if they came from Baton Rouge medical facilities, an East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office news release says.
The group obtained about 810 dosage units of Hydrocodone and about 1,220 dosage units of Oxycodone in the last year, together estimated to have a street value of $45,000, the release says.
Authorities booked into East Baton Rouge Parish Prison Tuesday Mia Bindon, 36, 1314 N. 48th Street; Charles Benjamin, 46, 4260 Billops Street; Clifford Buckley, 55, 3436 Osceola Street and Darrly Richards, 51, 3324 Wenonah Street, all accused of obtaining a controlled dangerous substance and possession of a Schedule II drug. Bindon was booked on two counts and Richards on three.
Jesse Armstead Jr., 57, 1229 N. 37th Street, was also arrested Tuesday on one count of an attempt to obtain a controlled dangerous substance by fraud.
Officials also arrested in November Siera Pryer, 77655 Lee Street, Maringouin; James Dyer, 2829 Tecumseh; and Jasen Webb, 5145 Maple Dr., all on obtaining a controlled dangerous substance and possession of a Schedule II drug. Webb was booked on three counts.
Agencies involved in the round up include Iberville Sheriff’s Office, East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office, Louisiana State Police, West Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, Ascension Parish Sheriff’s Office and Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Office.
A Nurse from OHIO writes: “As a nurse I have tried to make a stand. Patients aren’t in the ICU without cause. It is horrifying to watch a patient suffer on a ventilator because the pharmacy is watching everything. I chose to do the ethical thing and medicate. I stayed within the confines of the orders however because I medicate more than all the other nurses I’m being accused of diversion. I’ve proven twice by taking their test that I was not. Now I have to worry that they will accuse me of stealing and selling the drugs because I can’t give a dirty sample. It is a witch hunt. I hate what my profession has become and it disgusts me that more of us aren’t standing up. When I first became a nurse you had to give the patient all they wanted. That created this wave of junkies. The board of pharmacy is going to be responsible for the next wave but its going to be legitimate patients they are refusing to help now. I can tell you that if you are able to make big donations and build hospital wings you can get anything you want.”
A Nurse from WI writes: “A nurse for over 50 years, I have seen patients and friends suffer needlessly, and have experienced the denial of humane treatment myself. The current climate of over-control and witch hunts is very alarming.”