ER Opioids ‘Extremely Unlikely’ to Lead to Addiction

By Pat Anson

Many patients in pain have horror stories to share about their experiences in hospital emergency rooms, where they’ve been treated as drug seekers and denied opioid medication.

“I had a broken arm and was given nothing for pain when leaving the emergency room,” one patient told us. “They now treat everyone like a drug seeking addict even if you have legitimate pain!”

“My last ER visit has caused me PTSD. It was awful they put me in a room and turned the light off and left me there for hours,” said another.

“The emergency rooms are horrible,” said a patient with a fractured rib. “I wasn’t even asking the ER for meds. I wanted an x-ray or something because I was in excruciating pain.”

Are fears about opioid addiction justified? A new study found that the risk of developing opioid use disorder after being treated with intravenous opioids in the ER is quite low – less than one-tenth of one percent (0.002%).

Out of 506 patients treated with IV opioids in two Bronx emergency rooms, only one met the criteria for long-term or persistent opioid use six months later.

“These data suggest that the use of IV opioids for acute pain among opioid-naive patients is extremely unlikely to result in persistent opioid use,” wrote lead author Eddie Irizarry, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Montefiore Medical Center.

“Opioid naïve” means the patients had never taken opioids before or only used the drugs infrequently.

The study, recently published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, defines persistent use as filling six or more opioid prescriptions in the 6 months after an ER visit, or an average of one prescription per month.

The most frequently reported IV opioid administered in the ER was morphine (94%), followed by hydromorphone (4%) or a combination of both morphine and hydromorphone (2%). The researchers noted that most of the morphine doses were “relatively modest.”

After being treated in the ER, 63 of the patients (12%) received an opioid prescription on discharge.   

The researchers cautioned that opioids should be used “judiciously” and that many ER patients could be treated with non-opioid analgesics such as acetaminophen. But they could find no evidence that IV opioids should be routinely denied in the ER.

“We are not aware of compelling data to support denying parenteral opioids to opioid-naïve patients who are suffering from severe acute pain,” said Irizarry.   

The research mirrors the findings from a 2017 Mayo Clinic study, which found that the risk of long-term opioid use is lower for ER patients than it is for patients treated in other medical settings. In the Mayo study, 1.1% of opioid naive patients became long term users. That compares to 2% of patients who were prescribed opioids in non-emergency settings.

FDA’s New Rules Aim to Make Pharma Ads Easier to Understand

By Crystal Lindell

The Food and Drug Administration is hoping that its new rules will make pharmaceutical ads on TV and radio easier to understand. 

Commercials for pharmaceutical drugs must now include a “major statement” about side effects and contraindications in “a clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner.” The rule applies to direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads for prescription drugs and what conditions they are used to treat. 

The new regulations are a response to something many drug makers figured out long ago: people tend to tune out when they start to hear a long list of potential side effects and interactions, which are usually rushed through at the end of drug commercials. By then, consumers may have tuned out the downsides of the medication. 

“If you’re a company and you’re worried about possible FDA enforcement or product liability and other litigation, all your incentives are to say more, not less,” Torrey Cope, a food and drug lawyer, told the AP.

The law firm Lerman Senter broke down the five new standards the FDA requires companies to meet in drug ads. All commercials must now include:

1. Consumer Friendly Language: Ads must clearly state the name of the drug, and a major statement of side effects must be presented in language that is readily understandable. It should not include technical or medical jargon.
   

2. Understandable Audio: Audio information must be understandable in terms of volume, articulation and pacing, and should be as understandable as the rest of the commercial. “Rapid fire” disclosures will no longer be permitted.
   

3. Major Statement Must Be Presented Concurrently in Text and Audio: Television ads must present the major statement simultaneously in the audio and visual sections.
   

4. Text Must Be Easily Readable: The on-screen text must be presented against a contrasting background for sufficient duration, and in a font size and style that is easily readable.
   

5. No Distractions. Advertisements cannot have statements, text, images or sounds that detract from comprehension of the major statement. No other sounds, including music or catchy jingles, should be heard during the side effects disclosure.

While the rule went into effect a few months ago, companies have until November 20 to be in full compliance. So while you may have already noticed pharma ads changing, all of them should be in compliance starting this week. 

In its report about the changes, the FDA said that while drug ads often have a caveat urging people to “ask your doctor” about a medication, pharmaceutical companies are incentivized to make the ads deceptive in various ways. 

“Like all advertisers, prescription drug firms have ample business incentives to present their products in a positive light to potential consumers,” the FDA said. “But those business incentives do not assure clear communication of the advertised drug’s negative attributes to consumers.”

While no federal law has ever banned pharmaceutical companies from directly advertising to consumers, the practice didn't really take off until about 40 years ago. Currently, the United States and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow DTC drug advertising. 

In its report, “Background on Drug Advertising,” the FDA explains: 

"Until the mid-1980s, drug companies gave information about prescription drugs only to doctors and pharmacists. When these professionals thought it appropriate, they gave that information to their patients. However, during the 1980s, some drug companies started to give the general public more direct access to this information through DTC ads."

As someone who was born in the mid 1980s, I remember being surprised as an adult when I learned that most other countries ban pharma companies from advertising directly to consumers. 

While it’s difficult to imagine that the U.S. would ever ban the ads completely, there’s definitely a good case for heavily regulating them. A 2005 study found pharmaceutical ads that encouraged consumers to talk with their doctors “have a profound effect on physician prescribing” and could promote overuse or inappropriate prescribing.

In other words, drug companies are very good at creating ads that make people want to buy their products, whether they need them or not. Let’s be real: if drug advertising didn’t work, companies would not be spending over $15 billion a year promoting their medications. 

I’m glad to see the FDA amping up these regulations, so people have a better understanding of drug ads. But it remains to be seen how these agency regulations will hold up under the incoming Trump administration.   

The Stress of Navigating Opioid Shortages As a Patient

By Crystal Lindell

At 9:30 am Monday morning, I got one of the most dreaded phone calls that someone taking a controlled substance can get – my pharmacy was completely out of my pain medication, Morphine Sul ER. 

Chronic shortages of prescription opioids were finally impacting me directly. 

At first, the pharmacist tried to make it sound like there was just a small delay, asking me, “How how many pills you have left?”

None. I had none left. Because pain medication refills usually aren’t filled until you completely run out. There’s not even a one-day leeway built in, because god forbid pain patients have one extra pill ever. 

Even if I did have some left, I couldn’t tell the pharmacist that, because it might risk having that used against me later. Afterall, if I had extras, that shows that I don’t need to be prescribed as many pills as I was getting. 

You’re always risking something as a pain patient. If you try to plan too far ahead by stockpiling extra pills, they could use that to reduce what you’re prescribed. And if you don’t plan ahead at all, you risk physical pain and withdrawal if there are any issues getting your refill – issues beyond your control like a drug shortage. 

As it turned out, it wouldn’t have mattered if I did have some pills leftover because the situation was worse than the pharmacist was initially letting on. This wasn’t an issue of waiting for an afternoon shipment or even a next-day restock. The pharmacist didn’t know when my medication would be back in stock at all. 

She said she had been requesting more pain medication every day, but their supplier wasn’t providing any updates on a timeline for when that would happen. So she suggested that I call around to other pharmacies to see if any of them had it in stock. 

There’s just one problem: the pain contract I had to sign to get a monthly opioid prescription technically bans me from getting refills at different pharmacies. I don’t think there are any exceptions in the contract. And if I break it, I risk losing access to the only medication that makes it possible for me to function on a daily basis. 

So even if I could find another pharmacy, I wasn’t sure if my doctor would let me get the medication filled there. 

The pharmacist was surprisingly understanding of this, and said that she had already called my doctor before calling me, so she was hopeful that they would be accommodating. 

At that point I realized that any plans I had for my Monday morning were now canceled, because I was going to have to spend the next few hours trying to navigate this. 

I made one last attempt to get the situation resolved without having to loop in another pharmacy, asking if they had an alternative medication that wasn’t too expensive because I don’t have health insurance. My medication is an extended release opioid, and the pharmacists said all they really had was the instant-release versions – which I knew my doctor would not want to swap in.

So, another pharmacy it would have to be. 

I did wonder for a moment if my pharmacy was lying to me about being out of stock. It was just last month that I had to negotiate the price of this same medication with them after they tried to increase the price by $50. 

Maybe they just didn’t want to deal with me, a long-term opioid patient, any more. So after the attempted price increase failed to deter me, they were trying a different tactic. 

The thing is, how would I even find that out? As far as I know, there’s no accountability for pharmacies that lie to patients about why they aren’t able to fill a prescription. Most people understand why that’s concerning when it comes to things like birth control or insulin, but when it’s pain medication, the general public tends to side with the pharmacist who doesn’t want to fill the prescription. 

At that point, I started calling other pharmacies. Thankfully, a locally owned one said they had the medication in stock and that they could fill it. I called my doctor to see if they’d transfer the prescription, and his receptionist took down the message. Then, I waited. 

I spent the next few hours anxious about whether this would all work out, and how long it would be until I got my refill. Finally, at about 1 pm, I saw in MyChart that the medication had been sent to the new pharmacy. 

Then I called the new pharmacy to make sure they saw my prescription come through and to ask what the cash price was. It was going to be $52, about $16 more than I paid at the other pharmacy. I probably could have asked them about using a GoodRx coupon, but I was already throwing a controlled substance prescription on them at the last minute, and they had it in stock, so I didn’t want to make waves. 

A few hours later it was finally filled, sort of. At 3 pm I arrived at the pharmacy to pick it up, after driving 25 minutes on rural roads to get there. 

They handed me the bottle and said, “Oh, by the way, we’re two pills short. Hopefully we will have those in for you later this week. So you can come back and pick them up then.”

Another 50 minutes of round-trip driving was suddenly in my future. 

I’m thankful that I found a pharmacy with any of my medication in stock, and I’m happy that my doctor seemed to handle the prescription transfer without issue. 

What Happens Next Month?

But the entire, stressful ordeal wiped out most of my day, and now I also have to figure out what will happen next month. 

Will the shortage impacting my medication be handled by then? Or should I try to have my doctor switch my prescription to something else? And if he did that, how much would that medication cost? Should I have my prescriptions permanently transferred to the other pharmacy? Is the one I normally go to going to give me a hassle every month now?

If medication shortages don’t impact you directly, it can be easy to gloss over reports like the one from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), which found that shortages of drugs used for pain, anesthesia, chemotherapy and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) “continue to be problematic.” 

Those shortages impact real people. Despite a stressful morning, I was among the lucky ones, as I was able to get it worked out within just one day. Who knows if that will be the case next month though. 

The ASHP cited reduced DEA production quotas and the fallout from opioid litigation as some of the reasons for the drug shortages, which have led to rationing at many pharmacies. In a recent PNN survey, 90% of patients with an opioid prescription said they had trouble getting it filled at a pharmacy.

We need the government to start working on behalf of patients to get this resolved. I can’t just call up the manufacturer of Morphine Sul ER and tell them to make more. It has to be the government that intervenes. 

The best place to start would be to lift the DEA production quotas – although that’s really just a start. If we’re being realistic here, there should also be production minimums, with government funding and support if needed. 

People’s lives depend on these medications. It’s time to stop pretending that these drug shortages are just trivial inconveniences. They’re harmful, and sometimes even deadly.

Where Did the Opioid Settlement Money Go?

By Crystal Lindell

How are states spending their opioid settlement money? Unsurprisingly, it’s often hard to say – even when a state has promised transparency. 

Federal, state and local governments in the United States will collect about $50 billion in opioid settlement money in coming years from basically every sector of the health care industry, including drug makers, wholesale distributors and pharmacies. 

But an investigation of 12 states by NPR and KFF Health News found that it’s unclear how much of that money is being used to prevent addiction or to help people with substance abuse issues. 

As a pain patient, I have long assumed that none of the settlement money would be used to develop effective, non-opioid pain analgesics for patients who lost their medication as a result of opioid-phobia. Based on how everything around opioids has played out over the years, I also didn’t have high hopes for what it would actually get spent on.

The NPR/KFF Health News investigation shows that I was correct to worry. 

“There are no national requirements for jurisdictions to report money spent on opioid remediation,” Aneri Pattani reported.”In states that have not enacted stricter requirements on their own, the public is left in the dark or forced to rely on ad hoc efforts by advocates and journalists to fill the gap.”

Pattani shared a story about the situation in Idaho, where local governments were required to complete a form showing how they spent settlement money and whether it was for an approved purpose. But a process meant to show transparency seemed to do just the opposite. 

“In reality, it reads like this,”said Pattani. “In fiscal year 2023, the city of Chubbuck spent about $39,000 on Section G, Subsection 9. Public Health District No. 6 spent more than $26,000 on Section B, Subsection 2. Cracking that code requires a separate document. And even that provides only broad outlines.”

Pattani said that following the money trail just led to more intentionally confusing bureaucratic language. 

For example, she found that Subsection 9 refers to “school-based or youth-focused programs or strategies that have demonstrated effectiveness in preventing drug misuse.” 

Subsection 2 refers to “the full continuum of care of treatment and recovery services for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.” 

“What does that mean? How exactly are you doing that?” Corey Davis, a project director at the Network for Public Health Law, wondered when he first saw the Idaho reports. Without detailed descriptions of the projects the money was spent on, it’s impossible to track. 

“It’d be similar to saying 20% of your monthly salary goes to food,” Pattani wrote. “But does that mean grocery bills, eating out at restaurants, or hiring a cook?” 

Minnesota’s ‘Dashboard’

Some states are more transparent about where the money is going. Minnesota, for example, has an online dashboard and downloadable spreadsheet listing projects. One project was in Renville County, which used $100,000 to install a body scanner in its jail to help staff find drugs in the body cavities of inmates.

So, cops are getting the money. And when you look around on the Minnesota dashboard, it becomes clear that law enforcement agencies got some of the largest shares of the state’s opioid settlement money.  

So far, Minnesota has received over $74 million in settlement money. Of that, law enforcement-related categories received about $17 million, coming in fourth behind "American Indian" with $32.6 million, “African or African American" with $22.6 million, and "Child protection” which received $22.65 million. 

I was pleasantly surprised to see that Minnesota does have a "Chronic pain patients" category — but then was disappointed to learn that it got the least amount of money of any group, receiving just $290,180 of the state’s settlement funds.

When I drilled down deeper on the chronic pain category, things only got more depressing. 

The bulk of that money ($257,220) went to Hennepin Health System to "expand access to holistic chronic pain treatment through Heals on Wheels program,” which includes traveling clinics that provide training in mindfulness, stress management, mindful movement, acupressure, acupuncture and massage therapy.

The remaining $32,960 went to a group called Health Partners, which said it would use the money to, "Certify 10 clinicians to provide Empowered Relief, a one-session class that equips patients with pain management skills, draws on principals from mindfulness and cognitive behavior therapy.” 

As a pain patient, finding out that the very small amount of Minnesota’s opioid money going to pain patients is being used to fund BS about mindfulness is beyond infuriating. We need real treatments, not happy thoughts.

Of course, in other states, it’s hard to even know how much money is going to cops and if any is going to chronic pain patients, so I guess I should be happy that there’s at least some record of things in Minnesota.  

Interestingly, over $1.9 million of Minnesota’s settlement money went to the Steve Rummler Hope Foundation, primarily for opioid education and naloxone distribution. 

Coincidentally, the Rummler Foundation happens to be the fiscal sponsor of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group that played an instrumental role in raising fears about opioid use and addiction.

Several PROP members worked as paid expert witnesses for plaintiff law firms that pursued opioid litigation on behalf of the states, and were paid as much as $850 an hour for their services. The law firms themselves will pocket billions of dollars in contingency fees once all the funds are paid. That kind of detail is rarely mentioned in reporting on how settlement money is used.   

So while some details of how opioid funds were spent are technically available to the public, Pattani says it doesn’t matter if finding them requires hours of research and wading through budgetary jargon.

“Not exactly a system friendly to the average person,” she said.

Of course, if any of the opioid settlement money was ever actually meant to help people who may have been harmed by opioids, it wouldn’t be going to governments – it would be going directly to opioid users or their surviving loved ones.

But it’s been clear from the beginning that these opioid settlements were primarily a cash grab for state and local governments, plaintiff law firms, and their expert witnesses. They don’t help patients and they don’t help their loved ones. 

I don’t expect any of the states to increase transparency about where the money has been going. Most of the general public doesn’t care, so the states can funnel a lot of the money into things like body scanners, because they don’t have the pesky public watching what they’re doing. 

Maybe next time when we decide to sue every pharmaceutical company and pharmacy chain in the country, we could at least make it class action lawsuits on behalf of patients, not governments.

Return to Sender: WIll Anyone Use FDA’s New Opioid Mail-Back Program?

By Crystal Lindell

The DEA has been hosting drug “Take Back Days” for over a decade, collecting over 9,200 tons of unwanted or expired prescriptions and over-the-counter medicines. The take-back program is seen as a key effort to prevent drug diversion and opioid addiction.

Now the Food and Drug Administration is expanding its own drug collection program – essentially making every day an opioid take-back day.  

Starting on March 31, 2025, drug makers participating in the FDA’s Opioid Analgesic Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)  – which means every company that makes and sells opioids – will be required to provide pre-paid, drug mail-back envelopes “upon request” to pharmacies that dispense opioids. The pharmacies then have to give the envelopes to patients and caregivers who ask for them, so they can mail back any unwanted opioids. 

The fact that both pharmacies and patients have to request these envelopes makes me skeptical about how much this program will actually be used.

The press release from the FDA includes a quote that sounds surprisingly pro-patient though. So even if the program doesn’t have a high use-rate, perhaps an extra measure of safety will make it easier for patients to get opioid prescriptions. 

“We want to ensure patients have access to opioid analgesics in their pain management regimens and that they are educated about methods available to safely dispose of any leftover medicines, which could pose a real danger to their loved ones and pets,” said Marta Sokolowska, PhD, deputy center director for Substance Use and Behavioral Health at the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.  

It’s the part about ensuring that “patients have access to opioid analgesics” that stands out to me. Patients certainly need access to opioid pain meds. And if programs like this help doctors and medical professionals feel more comfortable prescribing opioids, then I fully support them. 

But I’m skeptical about whether that will be the actual outcome. The real question is whether anyone will use the mail-back program. 

The DEA has never released a full breakdown of the medications returned during its drug take-back days. But an analysis of the drugs returned at a take-back day in Lansing, Michigan in 2013 provides some insight. 

Of the nearly 2,500 medication containers that were returned, only 304 were for a controlled substance like opioids – about 12% overall. The most common types of medication returned were for pain/spasm, cardiovascular, and mental health conditions.

While hydrocodone/acetaminophen combinations (Norco) were the most returned medication at that 2013 event, it represented just 4.4% of all returned containers. 

The second most-common drug returned was ibuprofen (Advil) in 2.2% of the containers. Acetaminophen (1.7%) and aspirin (1.3%) also made the top ten list of most-returned medications. 

Something tells me that Advil isn’t what organizers had in mind when they asked people to bring in their unused drugs. 

In the end, the FDA’s new mail-back program will likely have a greater impact as a public relations initiative to make the agency look good, rather than keeping unwanted opioids off the street. 

In a world where doctors are so reluctant to prescribe opioids, I don’t blame people for wanting to hold on to the opioids they’re able to get. In a PNN survey of thousands of pain patients, nearly a third (32%) admitted hoarding their unused opioids because they’re unsure if they’ll be able to get them in the future 

If we’re lucky, the program will accomplish at least one of the goals that the FDA’s Sokolowska laid out: “We want to ensure patients have access to opioid analgesics.”

Given the federal government's abysmal track record with opioids and pain care in general, I’ll believe that when I see it.

Drug Shortages Easing, But Pain Patients Still Have Problems Getting Opioids

By Pat Anson

Shortages of prescription drugs and other medications appear to be easing in the United States, but with tight supplies of oxycodone, hydrocodone and other opioids persisting.

As of September 30, the number of active drug shortages stands at 277, down from a record high of 323 at the end of last year, according to a new report from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). The report found that shortages of drugs used for pain, anesthesia, chemotherapy and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) “continue to be problematic.”

Health systems also face significant shortages of medical grade intravenous (IV) and dialysis fluids, which have gotten worse in recent weeks due to production shortfalls in the southeast caused by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. To conserve supplies, some hospitals are giving patients Gatorade instead of IV electrolytes. The American College of Emergency Physicians also recommends using tap water to clean wounds rather than sterile irrigation fluids.

Over half of the drug manufacturers (60%) contacted by the ASHP did not provide a reason for the shortages, but others cited increased demand for certain drugs (14%), manufacturing problems (12%), business decisions (12%), and raw material shortages (2%).

The ASHP has also cited reduced DEA production quotas and the fallout from opioid litigation settlements, which have significantly reduced the supply of opioid medication and led to rationing at many pharmacies. In a recent PNN survey, 90% of patients with an opioid prescription said they had trouble getting it filled at a pharmacy.

Teva Pharmaceuticals, a large generic drug maker, recently discontinued production of potent fentanyl analgesics known as Transmucosal Immediate-Release Fentanyl Medicines (TIRF). That forced the FDA to end a program that supplied TIRF medication to about 150 patients, many of them suffering severe pain from late-stage cancer.

Teva has not made any public statements about its discontinuation of the TIRF drugs Actiq and Fentora. The most likely explanation for the discontinuation is that Teva’s bottom line was suffering due to the costs of opioid litigation. In 2022, Teva agreed to pay $4.25 billion to settle thousands of opioid liability lawsuits.

Opioids currently listed in short supply by the ASHP include oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, oxycodone immediate-release tablets, hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets, hydromorphone tablets and solution, fentanyl patches, fentanyl solution, and morphine solution. Most have been in shortage for over a year.

‘It’s So Hard to Find My Medications’

The Drug Enforcement Administration recently announced plans to further reduce the supply of prescription opioids in 2025, while raising production quotas for amphetamine and other stimulants used to treat ADHD.

Although the FDA advised the DEA that medical need for schedule II opioids will decline 6.6% next year, DEA is proposing only minor reductions in the supply of fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone and hydromorphone, while keeping quotas unchanged for morphine and codeine. If the quotas are implemented, it would be the ninth consecutive year the opioid supply has been reduced.

Over 1,900 people submitted comments to the Federal Register on the DEA’s plans, many expressing frustration with chronic opioid shortages.

“It’s so hard to even find my medication anymore. I have to go from pharmacy to pharmacy and it causes so much anxiety. I feel so insecure and the unknown makes me sick,” wrote Sierra Shareiko. “It’s like kicking us down while we’re already down. We need to start being smart and looking into how much these medications are actually keeping us alive.”

“In the last year I have had to contact multiple pharmacies in order to get my monthly refill of opioid medication I take for a chronic disease I’ve dealt with for 16 years. Either the pharmacies are out of stock, or they will only fill prescriptions for acute pain,” said another patient. “By throttling production, you’re throwing an already precarious situation further into chaos. You’re putting pressure and stress on the entire medical system and it’s not solving any problems.”

One letter, signed by over two dozen geriatric and palliative care physicians in New York City, warned that any further cuts in the opioid supply would “cause significant harm” to patients.

“In my clinical experience, virtually every time we prescribe opioids for severe and disabling pain in the setting of serious illness, we are required to spend hours tracking down a pharmacy that has the medication in stock. Most do not because their suppliers can't get it for them,” wrote Dr. Diana Meier.

“Our inability to care effectively for our patients because of well-intended but harmful constraints on production and distribution of opioid analgesics is a major source of burn out, frustration, and anger among the already inadequate workforce available to care for the mostly older people living with serious and chronic illness.”

“As a recently retired pain doctor, I saw firsthand just how difficult opiate supply cutbacks made life for my patients. Some reported calling 20 or 30 pharmacies, or traveling a hundred miles, to find pharmacies that would fill their prescriptions,” said Dr. William Taylor. “These cutbacks are a backdoor way to deny medication to patients who have a legitimate medical need for opiate analgesics. There is no evidence that these cutbacks benefit patients in any way.”

The public comment period on the DEA’s proposed 2025 production quotas has ended. The agency is expected to release its final decision on drug quotas before the end of the year.

Opioids Are Effective at Treating Pain. Just Ask My Family

By Crystal Lindell

What if I told you that there was a medication that made it possible for my grandma to live at home instead of a nursing home? 

And that the same medication allowed my uncle to endure prostate cancer treatments long enough to see his cancer go into remission. And that it helped my mom avoid pneumonia after hip surgery. Or that this medication is the only reason I’m pain-free enough to be able to write this column?

But that’s not all. What if I told you the same medication helps me take care of my cats, as well as the cats at the local animal shelter where I volunteer? 

What if I told you that doctors hated this medication? And that many of them also hate anyone who takes it?.

In an age of opioid-phobia, it seems a lot of people – doctors in particular – have forgotten why opioid pain medications like Norco exist in the first place. And why they are such a miracle drug.

Over the summer, my grandma fractured her foot. After a couple of weeks in the hospital, she was transferred to a rehab facility to start the healing process. In mid-October, she was finally cleared to put some weight on her foot again, and last week she was able to come home. 

But she’s still not fully recovered and every movement still feels like climbing a mountain. In fact, standing up to go from her chair to the commode would still be impossible for her, if not for one very specific medical intervention: a 5mg hydrocodone tablet.

Yes, just one of those pills every six hours makes it possible for her to stand up to use the bathroom, walk to the kitchen, and visit with her new great-grandchild. 

Too bad her doctors are doing everything possible to refuse to prescribe it for her. Each one keeps pushing her off to a different specialist that they claim should actually be giving them to her.

The entire situation is made all the more frustrating because her chronic health issues mean she’s not allowed to take the pain medication most doctors try to push on patients: ibuprofen. 

Not to mention the fact that – at 82 years old – the main reason that doctors cite for refusing to prescribe opioids to my grandma doesn’t apply. At her age, she’s not likely to suddenly develop compulsive use behavior. And if she did, why would it matter? 

Doctors will sometimes claim that opioids aren’t effective at treating pain long term. But if a patient says they are still effective, then clearly that doesn’t apply.

Here we are in 2024, and we as a civilization have managed to harness the power of the poppy plant to such an extent that we can use it to help elderly patients enjoy their final years at home with loved ones, instead of being stuck in a depressing nursing home. But we refuse to use it. 

I’m tired of having to spend so much time countering people who think opioid pain medications are the root of all of society’s ills. That’s just not the case. Unfortunately, their constant complaints have managed to work the refs, so now we have to waste time begging for the bare minimum in pain treatment. 

In fact, if those same people would just look around a little bit, they would see the truth: opioids help millions of people lead better lives. And, if anything, they should be prescribed more, not less. 

Benzodiazepines Get Positive Reviews on Twitter

By Pat Anson

Benzodiazepines have gotten a bad reputation over the last few years. The anti-anxiety medications were once commonly prescribed to pain patients, until fears rose that Valium, Xanax and other benzodiazepines could lead to an overdose when taken with opioid medication.

In 2016, the FDA warned of a “public health crisis” because overdose deaths involving opioids and benzodiazepines had nearly tripled. That was followed in 2020 by updated FDA warning labels that strongly cautioned patients and doctors about the risks of benzodiazepine abuse, addiction and dependence.

It turns those public health messages have fallen flat, because many patients have entirely different attitudes about benzodiazepines. In an unusual study of social media posts on Twitter (now known as “X”), researchers found that over half the tweets praised how effective benzodiazepines are, with minimal discussion of their side effects.

“Social media platforms offer valuable insights into users’ experiences and opinions regarding medications. Notably, the sentiment towards benzodiazepines is predominantly positive, with users viewing them as effective while rarely mentioning side effects,” wrote lead author Óscar Fraile-Martínez, an academic researcher at the University of Alcalá in Spain.

Fraile-Martínez and his colleagues analyzed over 11,600 English-language tweets that mentioned benzodiazepines in 2019 or 2020. Zolpidem (Ambien), lorazepam (Ativan), and clonazepam (Klonopin) were the most frequently discussed medications.

Over half the tweets (57%) were posted by patients or their relatives, while healthcare professionals authored less than 1% of them. The remaining tweets were posted by other users who couldn’t be classified.

The study findings, published in BMC Psychiatry, show that only about 5% of the tweets discussed adverse side effects from benzodiazepines, such as daytime sleepiness, impaired cognitive functioning, memory problems, reduced mobility, and increased risk of falls and fractures.

Notably, a significant percentage of patients reported combining benzodiazepines with other psychiatric drugs, or with alcohol and other addictive substances. Yet there was hardly any discussion of overdoses, dependence or withdrawal.

Researchers say the minimal discussion of side effects may be due to the nature of social media, where posts tend to be shorter and provide little detailed medical information.  

“The predominance of positive mentions about benzodiazepines’ efficacy on Twitter could be due to several factors. Users may share personal experiences that highlight immediate relief from anxiety and insomnia, which are the primary benefits of these medications. This focus on short-term effectiveness may occur because individuals seek validation and support for their experiences or advice on similar issues, thus emphasizing positive outcomes,” wrote Fraile-Martínez. 

So who is right? Twitter users with positive views about benzodiazepines or public health experts who think the medications are potentially dangerous?    

The researchers in this study took the latter view. They say their findings show “an alarming minimization” of the risks associated with benzodiazepines and called for expanded efforts to educate physicians, patients, and families about their use.

Doctors who heed that advice may want to think twice about tapering patients on long-term benzodiazepine treatment. A recent study found that cutting off or rapidly tapering patients on benzodiazepines nearly doubles their risk of dying within a year. Deaths from suicide, accidents and other causes rose for patients after benzodiazepines were discontinued.

Can ‘Abuse-Deterrent’ Oxycodone Help Calm Fears About Opioids?

By Crystal Lindell

When I first saw the news about an “abuse-deterrent” formulation of oxycodone being approved by the FDA, I was skeptical. What exactly was sacrificed to be worthy of such a claim? 

However, after reading more about it, I am here to report that RoxyBond — which is made by Protega Pharmaceuticals — could be the opioid medication that pain patients have been waiting for. In a perfect world, RoxyBond won’t just treat pain, it may also help calm fears about opioid addiction and overdoses. 

RoxyBond is not new. It’s already available in 5mg, 15mg and 30mg tablets. What the FDA did was approve a new 10mg tablet, making it the first immediate-release opioid of that dosage with abuse-deterrent properties. Most abuse deterrent opioids are extended-release medications.

“Abuse-deterrent” essentially means the tablets are so hard they cannot easily be crushed or dissolved in order to snort or inject them for a quick high. In the case of RoxyBond, that’s due to special coating and chemical make-up called SentryBond.

Protega describes SentryBond as “technology [that] combines inactive excipients with active pharmaceutical ingredients to make the tablet more difficult to manipulate for misuse and abuse.” 

The noteworthy part for patients is that SentryBond makes the medication harder to abuse without the use of an opioid antagonist like naloxone. In other words, RoxyBond does not contain what a lay person may call an opioid antidote. That’s good news because naloxone can make opioids less effective and can distort a patient’s tolerance levels. 

Protega says RoxyBond’s formulation is “expected to reduce abuse by intranasal and intravenous routes,” but there is also an interesting caveat in their press release. 

An asterisk points readers to this disclaimer: "Abuse is still possible by intranasal, intravenous, and oral routes." That’s what previous studies have found about pills that are hardened as an abuse deterrent, so I’m not sure if RoxyBond will actually prevent abuse.

And, to be honest, that’s not what I’m concerned about. I’m much more interested in how the medication’s “abuse-deterrent” descriptor will impact prescribers and the DEA. Perhaps it’s naive of me, but my hope is that doctors and nurses will see those magic adjectives and feel more comfortable about prescribing opioids. 

And — while this is perhaps even more naive — the best outcome would be for the DEA to see RoxyBond as a “safe” pain medication. 

Years ago, the FDA put out a call for companies to develop abuse-deterrent opioid medications just like Roxbody, writing:

“The FDA looks forward to a future in which most or all opioid medications are available in formulations that are less susceptible to abuse than the formulations that are on the market today. To achieve this goal, FDA is taking steps to incentivize and support the development of opioid medications with progressively better abuse-deterrent properties.”

The fact that the FDA has now approved multiple doses of RoxyBond, and that the medication was basically made at the request of the government, gives me some hope that the DEA will see the tablets as less dangerous than other opioids and won’t target doctors who prescribe it.

If doctors and the DEA need adjectives like “abuse-deterrent” in order to feel safe treating pain, then that’s a small price for patients to pay. Especially since it sounds like RoxyBond is just as effective as other opioids when it comes to treating pain. 

Protega says SentryBond “could potentially be utilized in other medications” like hydromorphone and hydrocodone, so we may be seeing its use expanded.

An interesting side note about SentryBond technology is that it was originally developed in a partnership with Daiichi Sankyo. But the Japanese drug maker walked away from its $200 million investment because it feared becoming entangled in U.S. opioid litigation. That’s how much litigation has disrupted American pain care.

Of course, there is still one glaring problem here. RoxyBond has already been approved in different doses, but it’s not widely known and there doesn’t seem to be much interest from doctors. I have helped multiple elderly relatives navigate their healthcare over the last few years, and I have never once heard a doctor mention RoxyBond as an option for pain management. 

Maybe the news of a new dose being approved will help make prescribers more aware of RoxyBond. Maybe it just needs more time on the market. 

Unfortunately, for many patients in pain, time is not something we have a lot of. We need effective treatments today, because many of us don’t know how we’ll get through tomorrow. 

Flawed Mayo Clinic Study Promotes Opioid Myths

By Crystal Lindell

A new study has been released analyzing why patients start taking opioids — but all the research actually does is perpetuate harmful myths about opioids and the patients who use them. 

The study, which was just published in the Journal of Pain, was conducted by researchers from the Mayo Clinic and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. 

The researchers say this is “the first study to present nationally representative rates of incident prescription opioid use.” But it’s the headline from a Mayo Clinic article about the study that clarifies what the authors were actually trying to get at. It reads: “Who is choosing to use prescription opioids?”

“Choosing” – as though patients have any choice about whether or not they use opioids. 

Opioid medications are not sold over the counter, and many doctors today do everything possible to avoid prescribing them. So the idea that any patient can walk into a doctor’s office and “choose” opioids over alternative treatments is wildly naive, at best. 

I’ll go a step further and somewhat defend the doctors here: if a doctor is prescribing opioids in the current opioid-phobia environment, they are not doing it as a first-line treatment. They’ve  already tried non-opioid medications and non-pharmaceutical therapies, which didn’t work.

But let’s take a step back and look at exactly what the authors of the study claim their research found. In a nationwide survey of nearly 10,500 people conducted in 2019 and 2020, about 4% started using prescription opioids. Four percent isn’t much, but it was enough to surprise the researchers.

"One of the things that we noticed is that people are still utilizing opioids as an early resort or first line treatment, before trying non-opioid treatments first, which goes against best practice guidelines in healthcare," said lead author Ryan D'Souza, MD, a Mayo Clinic anesthesiologist. "This is a wake-up call to how high the incidence rate among new users continues to be."

A bit of a jump in my opinion, but let’s go with that. What are these "early resort or first-line” treatments that D’Souza and his co-author want patients to try before resorting to opioids? As they explain: "Nonpharmacologic modalities, over-the-counter medications, and other nonopioid analgesics as initial treatment for pain."

“Nonpharmacologic modalities” means things like physical therapy and cognitive therapy. “Over-the-counter medications and “nonopioid analgesics” means pain relievers like ibuprofen and acetaminophen (Advil and Tylenol) or prescription medications like gabapentin.

Well, I have some great news for the researchers who did this study: Every single patient asking a doctor for opioid pain medication has already tried Advil. 

It’s also worth noting that some of the data was collected in 2020, which is infamous for being a year that greatly disrupted medical care because of COVID. It was the kind of disruption that literally limited how much access patients had to physical therapy and in-person cognitive therapy. So yes, some patients may have resorted to opioids during that time.

Also, physical and cognitive therapy are both significantly more expensive than hydrocodone, even if you have insurance. Both therapies require multiple sessions — sometimes in the same week — and most insurance companies require a copay for each session. So the difference in price can be dramatic, not to mention the cost of time away from work and family to go to appointments. 

The other major flaw in their list of alternatives is that none of them are great at treating pain quickly. Physical therapy may help over a period of weeks or months, but it’s not going to be much help to an arthritis patient who needs to get work on Monday. And there’s little data showing medications like gabapentin are effective at all when it comes to pain. 

In fact, the researchers found that “ineffective pain treatment” was the primary reason people were given a new prescription for opioids. Other leading factors for opioid use are three or more visits to the ER in one year; having four or more painful conditions; and having two or more disabilities.

Anyone with that many strikes against them probably needs opioids, yet the authors are still troubled that “some participants are using opioids… instead of following various best-practice guidelines.”

As is the case for most medical research, both the data collection and the conclusions drawn by the authors seem to have been done with zero input from any actual patients. That’s the foundational problem for the entire study. None of the conclusions factor in real life situations. 

Studies like this one that demonize every single use of opioids would have a lot more sway if there were actually effective opioid alternatives available. As it stands now, patients do not have an option between “an effective, non-addictive pain medication” and “an effective, always addictive pain medication.” 

In reality, the options are usually between “ineffective, non-addictive medication” and “effective and rarely addictive medication.” 

Anyone who’s actually experienced real pain will tell you that when those are the choices, the “effective” medication wins every time. 

It’s so exhausting that we are still dealing with such flawed thinking from the medical community when it comes to opioids. I understand that opioids make an easy villain in healthcare, but opioids are not a magical, always-addictive medication — no matter how many times the medical community tries to convince us otherwise.

I know this because most patients who undergo general anesthesia are routinely given the opioid medication fentanyl — and none of them wake up post-op suddenly addicted to opioids. In fact, most people who take opioids in any setting never develop problematic use.

So we would be wise to remember that the real villain isn’t opioids. It’s the problem they’re trying to address: pain.

The Whims of Pharmacy Pricing

By Crystal Lindell

I pay cash for my prescriptions every month because I don’t currently have health insurance. 

I got laid off in 2022 and I’ve been freelancing to make ends meet since then, which makes it difficult to get health insurance. I know, not a great situation for a chronically ill patient to be in, but as Gambino said, “This is America.”

Thankfully, the cash prices for my prescriptions aren’t very high, so the situation has been manageable. For my main pain medication, which is not a name brand, I’ve been paying just $36 a month for over two years.

Unfortunately, I recently found out how vulnerable I am to price changes for prescriptions. 

My most recent refill was ready last week, but I was dealing with a pain flare — likely caused by our changing weather here in the Midwest. So I asked my fiance to pick it up for me in an effort to avoid having to endure a taxing trip out of the house.

But while I was at home waiting, he called to tell me that the pharmacy had just told him that there was a new price this month: $86. 

That’s a $50 increase! It literally went up nearly 139 percent! With no warning! 

Doing a little back-of-the-napkin math, because it’s a monthly prescription, that increase results in an extra $600 a year! Not to mention the fact that it also means the price could increase again next month. And then again the month after that. 

So I called the pharmacy to try to figure out what was going on. I spoke to two different people and they both told me that it’s the new price and there’s nothing they can do. 

One of them claimed the price went up months ago, but after I explained to her that I literally got the exact same medication four weeks ago for $36, she changed her story and said the price increased over the weekend. Or it may have increased overnight. 

She insisted there was nothing they could do about it. 

Since it’s a controlled substance and I have a pain patient contract with my doctor, I’m not allowed to have the prescription transferred to a different pharmacy to get it for a cheaper price. It’s one of those opioid regulations that was supposedly launched to keep patients safe, but it has instead resulted in pharmacies having their own monopolies. 

As a freelancer, my bank account balance varies dramatically, depending on which projects I’ve recently been paid for and which ones I’m waiting on payment for. So I didn’t have the full $86 in my account to cover the medication that day. 

Thankfully my mom lives nearby, and I’m able to borrow some money from her when situations like this occur. So my fiance drove home, and then I drove to my mom’s to pick up some cash from her. I then drove to the pharmacy myself to get the medication — all while still dealing with a spike in my daily pain. 

When I got to the counter, I recognized the pharmacist who was working as someone who’s been helpful to me in the past. So I took a chance and said, “Yeah, so the price went up dramatically? Huh?”

She looked at the prescription price and then quietly went to the computer for like 10 minutes to look into it. Then she came back over to me and said, “I got it back down to $36. Here you go, you can pay up front.”

I was half in shock and half worried that if I said the wrong thing, the price would go back up, so I didn’t ask how she did it. I just took the package and went up front to pay, hoping it would still be $36 next month.

I know I should be sharing the details of why it went up and then back down again, but I honestly don’t even know what they are. And I don’t think that those details are necessarily the point. 

The real point is that pharmacies have way too much power in pricing and the entire process is purposely opaque to make it difficult for patients to navigate. After I shared this story with some close friends the day it happened, many of them responded by telling me similar stories about arbitrary pricing at their pharmacies. 

The initial price increase should not have even happened in the first place. What patients pay for medication should not be dependent on the whims of pharmacy staff, especially when patients like me are not allowed to shop around for a more competitive price due to controlled substance regulations. 

As far as I can tell, there are no laws regulating how much pharmacies can increase prices for medication, nor any law requiring them to give a certain amount of notice when they do. If there are laws about such things, they aren’t publicized in any meaningful way. If patients don’t know they have a right, does the right even exist?

I don’t know if there’s any good advice for patients to take from this experience. Most patients on controlled substances can’t risk angering their pharmacist, so it’s understandable they would just choose to pay a higher price if that’s what the pharmacy wanted. 

The situation reminds me of someone else that sells drugs: street dealers. But at least with street dealers, customers usually have the option of shopping around for a better price. 

Muscle Relaxants Ineffective for Low Back Pain and Fibromyalgia

By Pat Anson

Muscle relaxants are increasingly prescribed “off label” as an alternative to opioid medication, but according to a new analysis they are no more effective than a placebo in treating fibromyalgia and low back pain. They may be beneficial, however, for patients suffering from muscle cramps, neck pain and trigeminal neuralgia.

Researchers reviewed 44 studies involving nearly 2,500 patients who were prescribed a muscle relaxant for various pain conditions. Nine skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs) were assessed, drugs that were initially developed and then approved by the FDA as anti-spasticity and anti-spasmodic medications:

• Carisoprodol (Soma)

• Baclofen

• Tizanidine

• Cyclobenzaprine

• Eperisone

• Quinine

• Orphenadrine

• Chlormezanone

• Methocarbamol

Despite a lack of evidence on their effectiveness beyond 3 weeks, prescribing of SMRs doubled between 2005 and 2016, with office visits for refills of SMR prescriptions tripling over the same period, indicating they were increasingly being used long-term and off-label. According to a 2021 study, over a third of patients prescribed SMRs did not have a musculoskeletal disorder, a sign of “unnecessary or inappropriate use.”

Researchers involved in the current study, published in JAMA Network Open, reached a similar conclusion that muscle relaxants are overprescribed.

“Despite increasing prevalence and increasing risks of their use, our systematic review suggests only limited evidence of efficacy for long-term use of SMRs for a small subset of pain syndromes,” wrote lead author Benjamin Oldfield, MD, an Assistant Clinical Professor of Internal Medicine at Yale School of Medicine.

“Evidence for effectiveness was strongest for SMRs used for muscle spasms, painful cramps, and neck pain; in studies of SMRs for fibromyalgia, low back pain, headaches, and other syndromes, some showed small benefits and some did not, and on balance studies did not suggest a benefit.”

Oldfield and his colleagues say physicians should consider deprescribing SMRs to pain patients who have been using them long-term without apparent benefit.   

Adverse side effects from SMRs include sedation, somnolence, dizziness and dry mouth. The FDA also warns against taking the drugs with opioids, which could raise the risk of respiratory depression and overdose.

SMRs also increase the risk of falls, fractures, and vehicle crashes. Because of those risks, muscle relaxants should be avoided altogether in elderly patients, according to the American Geriatrics Society.

Survey Finds Patients and Doctors Unsatisfied with Treatments for Acute Pain

By Pat Anson

Nine out of ten (89%) patients who recently had short-term acute pain say it caused a major disruption in their lives, limiting their ability to sleep, exercise and enjoy leisure activity, according to a new survey. Many patients also expressed dissatisfaction with the pain medication they received and want to try a new one if their pain returns.

The survey was conducted by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, which is awaiting FDA approval of suzetrigine, its experimental non-opioid medication for acute pain. Vertex surveyed 1,001 adults and 547 doctors who were treated for or who treated acute pain. The company also commissioned a survey by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), which asked similar questions of 49 of its members who treated patients with moderate-to-severe pain from surgery.

The resulting report, “The State of Pain in America,” is obviously intended to drum up support for suzetrigine by showcasing dissatisfaction with current treatment options for acute pain. But the surveys also provide some interesting insights into what patients and doctors think about opioids and pain care in general.

“The Vertex and AAOS surveys underscore that treating acute pain in today’s health care landscape can be complex, as are the complexities that patients and health care providers have when personalizing pain management, highlighting the unmet need in this therapeutic area for more options,” Vertex said.

About 80 million adults receive treatment for acute pain in the U.S. each year, about half of whom receive an opioid, according to Vertex. Many also take acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for pain relief.

Nearly a third of patients (31%) said they stopped taking analgesics before their acute pain resolved and 77% said they would be interested in trying a different medication – clear indications of dissatisfaction with their pain care.

Patients were also concerned with how acute pain impacted their lives:

• 70% Limited their ability to walk and exercise

• 69% Limited their sleep

• 65% Limited their hobby or leisure activity

• 65% Made them feel irritable or emotionally drained

• Missed an average of 19 work days annually

The surveys also found that both patients and doctors were worried about the risk of opioid addiction:

• 49% of patients concerned about opioid addiction

• 78% of doctors concerned about patients becoming addicted to opioids

• 88% of doctors believe patients prefer to manage pain without opioids

• 67% of patients said they would request a non-opioid medication in the future

• 52% of patients want a pain medication with fewer side effects

In addition, 83% of providers and 74% of AAOS surgeons said there was a high need for a new class of non-opioid pain medication.

Whether suzetrigine is a solution to these issues is an open question. Unlike opioids, which act on pain receptors in the brain, suzetrigine is designed to block pain in the peripheral nervous system. That means it won’t have the same “liking” effects of opioids or be addictive.

But in clinical studies, suzetrigine was not more effective than a low dose of Vicodin in treating acute pain in patients recovering from minimally invasive surgeries.

The risk of a surgery patient misusing opioids or becoming addicted is actually quite low – less than one percent. One study even found that patients who received no opioids during surgery were more likely to have post-operative pain and require opioids during recovery.

Vertex hopes suzetrigine will be approved by the FDA in January for post-operative acute pain.  The company is also studying the drug as a treatment for pain caused by diabetic peripheral neuropathy and for lumbosacral radiculopathy.  

CDC Is Worried About Shortages of ADHD Stimulants. What About Rx Opioids?

By Pat Anson

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is worried that shortages of stimulant medication used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may be forcing some patients to turn to street drugs or even suicide.

In a new report, the CDC estimates that 15.5 million U.S. adults have ADHD¸ a condition that causes inattention, impulsiveness and hyperactivity. About a third of those patients were prescribed a stimulant, but 71.5% of them had difficulty getting their prescription filled because of shortages.

“Shortages of stimulant medications in the United States have affected many persons with ADHD who rely on pharmacotherapy to appropriately treat their ADHD,” wrote lead author Brooke Staley, PhD, an epidemiologist at the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

“Patients experiencing these difficulties might seek medication outside the regulated health care system, increasing their risk for overdose because of the prevalence of counterfeit pills in the illegal drug market, which might contain unexpected substances such as fentanyl.”

This is the second CDC report in recent months to warn about stimulant shortages. In a CDC Health Advisory released in June, the agency said ADHD patients who are unable to obtain Adderall and other stimulants are at risk of “social and emotional impairment, increased risk of drug or alcohol use disorder, unintentional injuries, such as motor vehicle crashes, and suicide.”

The CDC’s concern about ADHD patients is in marked contrast to its ongoing neglect of pain patients, who face similar shortages of opioid medication.

In a recent PNN survey, 90% of pain patients said they experienced delays or problems getting their opioid prescriptions filled at a pharmacy. Desperate for relief, some bought counterfeit medication or other illicit drugs; obtained opioids prescribed to another person; or used alcohol, cannabis and other substances to ease their pain. Nearly a third said they considered suicide because their pain was so severe.

In short, the very same risky behavior that concerns the CDC about ADHD patients.   

We asked the CDC if it was studying the impact of opioid shortages on pain patients and instead got a defense of the ADHD study.

“There has been limited information about (ADHD) diagnosis and treatment in adults and this analysis aimed to fill that information gap – providing the first national estimates on prevalence of adult ADHD in more than a decade. It is also the first national estimates to describe age at diagnosis and treatment, including telehealth and difficulty filling stimulant prescriptions,” a spokesperson said in an email.

It would not be unreasonable to say that the CDC shares some of the blame for chronic shortages of hydrocodone, oxycodone and other prescription opioids. The agency’s controversial 2016 opioid guideline paved the way for steep cuts in opioid prescribing, resulting in “serious harm” to patients who were rapidly tapered and left in uncontrolled pain. Some committed suicide.

The CDC guideline also greased the skids of opioid litigation by exaggerating the risk of opioid addiction and overdose. Faced with a tsunami of lawsuits, drug distributors and pharmacy chains agreed to ration the supply of opioids at individual pharmacies, and drug makers cut back on the production of opioids to avoid further liability. As recently as last month, Teva Pharmaceuticals stopped production of immediate-release fentanyl medicines, potent pain relievers that were relied on by dying cancer patients.

The CDC has been silent about opioid shortages – so have the FDA and DEA.

“We don't make the medicines and we can't tell someone that they must make medicines. There are some things that are out of our control,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a 2023 interview. 

Faced with complaints about shortages of ADHD medication, the DEA recently said it would raise the supply of stimulants that drug makers are allowed to produce in 2025, but would continue with its decade-long campaign to reduce the supply of opioids.

That discrepancy hasn’t been lost on pain sufferers.

“You’ve corrected course for ADHD drugs, now do the same for opioid pain analgesics,” one patient posted in a comment on the DEA’s plan. “Do not cut opioids production in 2025. The shortages across the country will be worse, with a corresponding increase in suffering and deaths among chronic pain patients.”

“These proposals will only further the pain and harm on a community of disabled individuals that did not ask to be disabled,” wrote Rebecca Meadows. “Would you want your mother, brother, sister, child or yourself to suffer unnecessarily due to unwarranted cutbacks in pain medications being made? The amount of people who suffer now is ridiculous but it’s only going to get worse if we continue on this path.”

A former CDC epidemiologist wrote a book about how the CDC’s “Disastrous War on Opioids” made the overdose crisis worse. Opioid overdoses have nearly doubled since the 2016 guideline was released.

“There are still significant restrictions on people in chronic pain for no apparent benefit. There continues to be very high rate of overdoses,” said author Charles LeBaron, MD. “I'm kind of a diehard public health guy. I want to see whether anything good happens. Nothing good happened. Time to reconsider.”

New Mothers Lose Custody of Babies After False Positive Drug Tests

By Crystal Lindell

A California mother wasn’t allowed to take her newborn baby home because she ate a Costco salad with poppy seeds and then tested positive for codeine.

A woman in Philadelphia had her baby taken away by child welfare workers after her prescription ADHD medication resulted in a positive drug test for meth. 

A Pennsylvania woman had her newborn taken away by the state for three months because she tested positive for opioids after eating pasta salad.

These are just some of the stories shared in an alarming investigation by The Marshall Project about hospitals giving urine drug tests to new moms — and then reporting them to child welfare agencies when the tests show false positives. 

The Marshall Project interviewed dozens of patients, medical providers, toxicologists and other experts to report the story. They also collected information on over 50 mothers who faced investigations over positive drug tests that were likely wrong. 

At least 27 states require hospitals to alert child welfare agencies if a mother tests positive for an illicit drug, but no state requires hospitals to confirm the test results before reporting them.

While it's unclear how many of the nation’s 3.6 million births every year involve drug testing, healthcare experts told The Marshall Project that urine screening is ubiquitous and “tens of  thousands of infants are reported annually to authorities for in utero drug exposure, with no guarantee that the underlying tests are accurate.”

Many common foods and medications — from antacids and antidepressants to blood pressure and cold medicines — can prompt false results because urine drug tests are often inaccurate.

“People should be concerned,” Dr. Stephen Patrick, a neonatal researcher told The Marshall Project. “This could happen to any one of us.”

A 2001 article in the BMJ makes it clear that, unfortunately, this is not a new problem. The article focused on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding hospitals drug testing new mothers. In a 6 to 3 decision, the court ruled that hospitals cannot drug test pregnant women without their informed consent or a valid warrant if the purpose is to alert the police to a potential crime.

“While the ultimate goal of the programme may well have been to get the women in question into substance abuse treatment and off drugs, the immediate objective of the searches was to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes in order to reach that goal,” the Court said. “It is especially difficult to argue that the program here was designed simply to save lives.”

Although that ruling came down two decades ago, The Marshall Project found that hospitals have gotten around it by using drug screenings to report patients to child welfare services, instead of the police. 

We should call these child welfare interventions what they are: kidnappings. And like any kidnapping, they can cause long-lasting harm to mothers, children and families. 

A 2022 report from Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union focused on children who were unjustly removed from a parent's home, often because of the perception by child welfare workers that poverty leads to neglect. 

"Removing a child from their parents, even for a short time, can be highly traumatizing, with long-term consequences," the report found. "In some cases, children in out-of-home placements experience maltreatment, including sexual or physical abuse, causing further trauma."

The Marshall Project found that false-positive drug tests were impacting mothers of all socioeconomic classes and occupations — from a lawyer to a school librarian to a nurse.

There’s a special type of outrage that comes from knowing that hospitals are taking away newborns based on faulty drug tests. But I would argue that the outrage shouldn’t stop there. 

New mothers who actually misuse drugs should not automatically have their babies stolen by the government either. Someone who takes a stray Norco tablet left over from a relative’s past surgery isn’t automatically a bad parent just because they used a prescription drug that wasn’t their own.

The United States has done such a great job spreading “War on Drugs” propaganda that most people just blindly accept the assertion that drug use unequivocally creates an unsafe environment for a baby. Just looking at our evolving cannabis laws shows that past assertions about “Reefer Madness” were not based on any real evidence. 

‘We’re Going to Be Held Liable for That’

One doctor interviewed by The Marshall Project tried to justify the heinous policy of automatically involving child welfare departments after a mother’s positive drug test. He shared a sentiment that many pain patients have heard from doctors and pharmacists about opioid medication.

“God forbid the baby goes home, withdraws and dies, we’re going to be held liable for that,” Dr. Adi Davidov, an obstetrician at Staten Island University Hospital, which drug tests every birthing mother, told The Marshall Project.

"Liable." The word is so telling. As usual, the hypothetical potential for the doctor to face even minor repercussions is the real worry.  

If treating a newborn for opioid withdrawal was really the concern, that could easily be addressed without any involvement from child welfare departments. 

Of course, these policies are also examples of “do as I say, not as I do.” The Marshall Project found that while mothers often lack legal protection from false positives, “most of the caseworkers who investigate them are entitled to confirmation testing and a review if they test positive for drugs on the job."

Allowing for confirmation testing is the type of policy that’s created when the policymakers are concerned about protecting child welfare workers. When it comes to new mothers though, that empathy dies. 

My hope is that the report from The Marshall Project prompts governments and hospitals to re-evaluate their drug testing policies and stop automatically reporting mothers to child welfare agencies. But after watching the War on Drugs up close for over a decade, I’m not optimistic. 

The most effective tactic the War on Drugs uses is convincing people that its harmful policies won’t hurt them. That only bad people use drugs and good people don’t, so you’ll be safe. We’re only after the bad guys.

But the War on Drugs has never been about helping people. Many pain patients have already learned that lesson the hard way, as doctors refuse to give them the opioid medications they need to function. 

But the war is relentless. It never stops. And it’s always seeking new ways to extend its long, dangerous claws into people's lives in unexpected ways. 

As the saying goes, none of us are safe until all of us are safe. Until we drastically reframe our views and policies regarding drug use, we all remain potential victims of the War on Drugs.