cvslawsuit10212015

click on link above to open lawsuit paperwork

Filed under: General Problems | 4 Comments »

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

― Adolf Hitler

FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Announces Public and Private Sector Efforts to Address Prescription Drug Abuse and Heroin Use

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/21/fact-sheet-obama-administration-announces-public-and-private-sector

This  is a very long diatribe … with a lot of already failed processes regurgitated … bringing forth a  multitude of previous proven false factoids/LIES.

There are 3-6 million serious substance abusers… and 106 million serious chronic painers… and we only want to deal with the very small minority of those with mental health issues of addictive personalities.

Moses and the Jews roamed the desert for only 40 yrs before they found their way…  Maybe they were more motivated than we are about finding a solution to deal with mental health and substance abuse.. since we have been at this war for 100+ yrs… or maybe we have a different motivations ?

Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »

CHARLESTON- Two University of Charleston pharmaceutical students will be attending the President’s drug abuse forum Wednesday at the East End Family Resource Center.

One of them is Jeremy Arthur. Arthur is still a pharmacy student, but he’s already seen first-hand what prescription drug abuse looks like. He has been interning behind the counter of a local pharmacy where he’s seen how bad the drug abuse problem really is.

“I see a lot of patients and seen a lot of situations that involved prescription drug use, especially being in the professional pharmacy, so I kind of have an eye on substance abuse and seeing some patients that have struggled with it,” Arthur explained.

The student is a native of the Mountain State, so he knows how bad the prescription drug and heroin problem is in West Virginia. Arthur told 13 News he hopes the President’s visit will prompt change and growth especially in the way we prescribe opioids.

“Is it an issue of prescribed- is it just physician based? Is it an issue of coming down to the pharmacy-level and are we not adequately counseling our patients and helping them with their medication management and things of that nature?” said Arthur.

He believes the gathering of various agencies at tomorrow’s event will also draw attention to the need for collaboration in the health care industry. He wants to see pharmacists more involved in conversations between doctors and patients.

“Bring in the pharmacist in that role in that counseling role, and talking to patients and seeing whether or not they’re on an appropriate therapy if they’re pain is being managed and it’s being managed inappropriately or not sufficiently enough, we can kind of step in ,” Arthur said.

He believes with collaboration between different health care groups and law enforcement, there is hope for West Virginia.

Filed under: General Problems | 7 Comments »

Filed under: General Problems | 1 Comment »

More filings made in lawsuit against Dallas County DA Susan Hawk

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20151019-more-filings-made-in-lawsuit-against-dallas-county-da.ece

Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »

——– Original message ——–
From:
Date: 07/23/2015
To:
Subject: Re: OMS TA – Pain Management or Primary Care Doctor Denial of Services to Patient based on Patient Disability

Dear :

Thank you once again for your quick and thorough response!  I need to digest what you have included and will let you know of any questions.  I am in your debt…

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 21, 2015,
> Good Day
>
> The professional office of a healthcare provider is a “public accommodation” covered under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (7)(F); 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.  Accordingly, doctors are obligated to comply with the requirements of title III of the ADA.  28 C.F.R.§ 36.104.
>
> Under title III of the ADA, no person who owns or operates a place of public accommodation may discriminate against an individual on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, and must provide auxiliary aids and services when necessary to ensure effective communication.  42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(a), 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii), 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.201(a), 36.202, 36.303. Ensuring that medical care providers do not discriminate on the basis of disability is an issue of general public importance.  The U.S. Department of Justice is authorized to investigate alleged violations of title III of the ADA and to bring a civil action in federal court in any case that involves a pattern or practice of discrimination or that raises issues of general public importance.
>
> The facts you articulated indicate that the doctors open to receive patients that you contacted to become your Primary Care Provider (PCP) and to help you with disability-related pain management and treatment failed to consult with you, the patient, to legitimately determine whether or not any of these doctors could provide the treatment that you sought. In failing to meet and consult with you these doctors denied a full and equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered by these medical practices within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(a), 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii), 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii) and 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.202;36.303. Essentially, you stated that once these doctors learned that you received pain management treatment, and that they would be referring you to other specialists regarding your disability-related pain, they immediately denied service or refused to take you in as a patient without any explanation.
>
> The ADA also provides “defenses” to public accommodations when the business, or in this case the doctors, determine that they are unable to provide services or that they must refuse services to a prospective or current patient based on an individual’s disability. For example, the doctors would have had to show that treating you would have posed a “direct threat” to the health or safety of others (see 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(3).  A determination that an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others must be made through an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, not on generalization or stereotypes. 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(3); 28 C.F.R. § 36.208(b). However, since your condition is neither contagious nor of the type that poses a direct threat to others should a doctor elect to provide treatment, the direct threat defense does not apply in your case.
>
> Essentially, the doctors you speak of appear to be denying services based on your disability which necessitates that you be prescribed pain medication in accordance to medical evaluation and as consistent with any treatment deemed necessary by a given doctor or specialist. Whatever the reasons for these refusals to treat, doctors are liable under Title III of the ADA for failing to provide their services to patients based on any stigma or stereotype associated with anyone who has a condition that imposes chronic pain. Moreover, a doctor is likely violating ethical codes by refusing to treat a given patient when the doctor is licensed appropriately to treat as a general practitioner and/or specialist in a given area. Hence, they may decline to treat patients that require medical services from a different practice area. But they may not decline to treat patients inside their scope of practice and/or they may not decline to provide a helpful referral even if the condition is outside their area of practice.
>
> I would recommend that you forward them this response and seek to obtain treatment so as to avoid filing complaints against these doctors under the ADA and other applicable laws. I attached a sample US DOJ Settlement Agreement that you should also forward.
>
> I am available for questions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Southwest ADA Center
> TIRR Memorial Hermann
> 1333 Moursund St.
> Research Center 2nd Flr. Suite 212
> Houston, Texas 77030
> Toll Free: (800) 949-4232
> Office: (713) 797-7114
> Fax (713) 520-5785
> E-Mail:
> Web: www.SouthwestADA.org
>
> Good teamwork often means helping other people out with jobs that do not benefit you…
>
> Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/swdbtac.ilru https://www.facebook.com/swdbtac.ilru
>
> Follow us on Twitter:
> https://twitter.com/SouthwestADA
>

Filed under: General Problems | 1 Comment »

St. Peter’s ousts employees after surprise inspection; Hospital maintains Joint Commission approval despite deficiencies

http://helenair.com/news/local/article_d3608e94-eadd-5753-b7b6-8a0d029ea342.html

A private accrediting agency found multiple high-priority deficiencies during a recent surprise inspection of St. Peter’s Hospital.

Though they showed a potential for risk, none of the findings put patients in harm’s way, hospital spokeswoman Katy Peterson said.

Shortcomings that were identified included inadequate documentation in patient records, facility faults that didn’t meet code and holes in a process for medical staff to pass grievances up the chain of command.

The hospital fired “no more than two” staff members following the review, CEO Nate Olson said. He declined to say which departments the employees worked in or elaborate on the reasoning behind the terminations, citing the privacy of personnel. 

“Changes are made to ensure we’re providing the highest quality and safety to our community,” he said.

The hospital has 30 days to show improvement in order to maintain its accreditation from The Joint Commission, the accrediting body that made an unannounced visit on Sept. 28 to inspect St. Peter’s.

The Joint Commission is a nonprofit organization that evaluates over 20,000 health care organizations around the country for standards that deem them eligible for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. It completes a comprehensive survey of hospitals once every three years and gives the organization a 90-day window in which it will conduct the inspection.

The commission releases its decision after surveying a hospital but does not make survey details public. St. Peter’s Hospital and home care services maintained their “seal of approval” from The Joint Commission after the most recent survey, according the organization’s website.

Hospitals can choose to contract with a different accrediting body, and Olson said St. Peter’s continues with The Joint Commission because it is considered the “gold standard.”

“It’s something we want to hold ourselves to the highest level of care possible,” he said.

Though deficiencies are routinely found, the commission identified more than the hospital administration expected.

“We probably had a few more opportunities (for improvement) than we anticipated,” Olson said. “It wasn’t exactly what we expected in terms of our preparedness.”

In the provision and record of care category, the hospital was dinged for inadequate and inconsistent documentation of patient records, including a signature, date and time by all physicians.

The Joint Commission faulted hospital leadership for not providing consistent performance reviews, documentation of department meetings and recommended changes.

Hospital staff was also knocked for not putting all staff requirements in a single document, inadequately documenting history and physical reports and not adhering to policy for handwritten physician prescriptions.

Olson said all 1,200 St. Peter’s staff members are more aware because of the findings, and improvements to quality are being made as a team effort.

“There is no detail too small. We’re going to focus on anything and everything that comes up,” he said.

Filed under: General Problems | 3 Comments »

THE STATE OF OREGON!!!!!

I’m contacting my Connecticut Pharmacists Association to see if we can’t get this started and get the CT BOP to start implementing this as soon as possible.

Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »

Why Suing Big Pharma Isn’t Changing Anything

http://www.legalreader.com/why-suing-big-pharma-isnt-changing-anything/

You could say this has been a bad year for Big Pharma as lawsuits over injuries caused by dangerous drugs and medical devices keep pouring in all over the country. Yet, nothing seems to really change, does it? The suits keep coming and so do the “new and improved” drugs and devices that only generate further suits. It may seem to be a bad year for Big Pharma, but is it really? Read on to learn why suing Big Pharma isn’t changing anything.

There are lawsuits over Zoloft (birth defects when taken by pregnant women), Xarelto & Pradaxa (uncontrollable, often fatal, bleeding events), testosterone (increased risk of strokes and heart attacks), Actos (risk of bladder cancer) and many, many more. One would think that Big Pharma would clean up its act. After all, these suits are expensive!

• Paxil’s manufacturer paid $3B in fines due to illegally promoting the drug for use with children and teens, despite clinical proof that it not only doesn’t work, but also increases the risk of suicidal thoughts.
• Actos’ manufacturer coughed up $2.34B in settlements.
• Pfizer continues to pay to defend against Zoloft suits.
• Bayer and Johnson & Johnson are paying to defend against Xarelto suits.

That’s recent information. The last few years have been costly to Big Pharma, too:

• 2012: Bayer settles for $110M over claims that the oral contraceptive, Yasmin, caused fatal blood clots.
• 2010: Avandia’s manufacturer pays $460M to settle 10,000 suits claiming its diabetes drug increased heart attack risks.
• 2008: Vioxx’ manufacturer settles claims that its painkiller caused strokes and heart attacks for $4.85B.

Despite these incredibly expensive suits and settlements, these same drugs rake in billions of dollars in sales for their makers. None of these things seem to work to convince the industry to straighten up and fly right. There are reasons for that and they’re somewhat surprising.

Settlements

We’ve been conditioned to think that big settlements effect change, yet this is a fallacy. Settlements actually have a protective effect on the issue at hand. When a plaintiff settles, there is no big, public trial at which all of Big Pharma’s dirty little secrets are exposed. In fact, some settlements even come complete with “gag orders” stating that the parties involved are not to publicly discuss the case.

As long as the profits are larger than the settlement payouts, Big Pharma is willing to take the financial hit. This is not conducive to changing the industry’s behavior. Instead, settlements become one more cost of doing business, much the same way that recall campaigns are for the auto industry.

SCOTUS Turns a Blind Eye

Sadly, the solution is not merely convincing plaintiffs to stop settling. We’ve seen cases taken to trial this year that resulted in victories for Big Pharma. The biggest example is the second Zoloft trial, which Pfizer actually won despite internal evidence that supported the case.

Back in 2013, the SCOTUS issued a ruling that stated, “If the FDA says a drug is safe, that takes precedent over actual facts, real victims and any and all adverse reactions.” The other thing this ruling did was to exempt U.S. generic manufacturers from liability for drug side effects. Generics comprise roughly 80% of the U.S. pharmaceutical market.

FDA Puts Innovation Ahead of Safety

Congress has put four programs into effect since the 90s that expedite the approval process for “new, exceptional” drugs. The goal is to get FDA approval as quickly as possible so that these “better” drugs can save more patients. Unfortunately, this comes with a price: the data used to fast track these drugs comes from preliminary research that is often substandard.

The sad truth is that these programs have missed their marks. While more new drugs are hitting the market faster than ever before, studies suggest that they really aren’t all that “innovative and exceptional.” Researchers from both Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School found that, of the drugs hitting the market since the mid-90s, about “85 to 90 percent… don’t offer any clinical advantages for users.” In fact, many of these innovations are duplicates – under a different name – for drugs already available.

The scariest part is that it often takes months, even years, for some of the damaging side effects to become known. In the meantime, patients are using these products under the assumption that they passed rigorous testing and are completely safe.

As you can see, it’s going to take a lot more than lawsuits to change Big Pharma. We need new and better legislation and policies covering drug approval, as well as a more realistic ruling from the SCOTUS. Whether we’ll get any of that is unclear at the moment.

Filed under: General Problems | 1 Comment »

DEA Must Stop Interfering With Legal Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Federal Court Rules

http://time.com/4080110/dea-medical-marijuana-california-ruling/

The judge said the DEA was defying the “language and logic” of the law

In a victory for state medical marijuana programs and patients, a federal court in California ruled Monday that federal authorities may not shut down medical pot dispensaries operating within state laws.

Under Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, which accompanied last year’s spending bill, the Justice Department can not use federal dollars to interfere with state medical marijuana laws and practices, preventing the DEA from pursuing dispensaries and patients, the court ruled, according to the Washington Post.

The decision follows a leaked Justice Department memo that interpreted the amendment as offering protections limited to the actual states, not the individuals and businesses which deal with the day-to-day implementation of marijuana laws. As a result of the DEA’s continued enforcement, several dispensaries have been closed in California, including one owned by the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, the first licensed medical pot dispensary in the state.

Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. district court in northern California disagreed with the DEA memo, writing in his decision that the department’s interpretation of the law “defies language and logic” and is “at odds with fundamental notions of the rule of law.” Instead, the court sided with the dispensaries, saying the department could not interfere with medical marijuana providers operating legally under state regulations.

The ruling is a huge win for California’s dispensaries, who have battled with the DEA for years over the legality of their business practices, the Post notes. The decision could also discourage the Department of Justice from cracking down on medical marijuana in the other 23 states with where the substance is legal.

Filed under: General Problems | 3 Comments »