Trump Administration Delays Release of Bird Flu Studies

By Amy Maxmen, KFF Health News

The Trump administration has intervened in the release of important studies on the bird flu, as an outbreak escalates across the United States.

One of the studies would reveal whether veterinarians who treat cattle have been unknowingly infected by the bird flu virus. Another report documents cases in which people carrying the virus might have infected their pet cats.

The studies were slated to appear in the official journal of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The distinguished journal has been published without interruption since 1952.

Its scientific reports have been swept up in an “immediate pause” on communications by federal health agencies ordered by Dorothy Fink, the acting secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Fink’s memo covers “any document intended for publication,” she wrote, “until it has been reviewed and approved by a presidential appointee.” It was sent on President Donald Trump’s first full day in office.

That’s concerning, former CDC officials said, because a firewall has long existed between the agency’s scientific reports and political appointees.

“MMWR is the voice of science,” said Tom Frieden, a former CDC director and the CEO of the nonprofit organization Resolve to Save Lives.

“This idea that science cannot continue until there’s a political lens over it is unprecedented,” said Anne Schuchat, a former principal deputy director at the CDC. “I hope it’s going to be very short-lived, but if it’s not short-lived, it’s censorship.”

White House officials meddled with scientific studies on covid-19 during the first Trump administration, according to interviews and emails collected in a 2022 report from congressional investigators. Still, the MMWR came out as scheduled.

“What’s happening now is quite different than what we experienced in covid, because there wasn’t a stop in the MMWR and other scientific manuscripts,” Schuchat said.

Neither the White House nor HHS officials responded to requests for comment. CDC spokesperson Melissa Dibble said, “This is a short pause to allow the new team to set up a process for review and prioritization.”

News of the interruption hit suddenly last week, just as Fred Gingrich, executive director of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, a group for veterinarians specializing in cattle medicine, was preparing to hold a webinar with members. He planned to disclose the results of a study he helped lead, slated for publication in the MMWR later that week.

Back in September, about 150 members had answered questions and donated blood for the study. Researchers at the CDC analyzed the samples for antibodies against the bird flu virus, to learn whether the veterinarians had been unknowingly infected earlier last year.

Although it would be too late to treat prior cases, the study promised to help scientists understand how the virus spreads from cows to people, what symptoms it causes, and how to prevent infection. “Our members were very excited to hear the results,” Gingrich said.

Like farmworkers, livestock veterinarians are at risk of bird flu infections. The study results could help protect them. And having fewer infections would lessen the chance of the H5N1 bird flu virus evolving within a person to spread efficiently between people — the gateway to a bird flu pandemic.

At least 67 people have tested positive for the bird flu in the U.S., with the majority getting the virus from cows or poultry. But studies and reporting suggest many cases have gone undetected, because testing has been patchy.

Just before the webinar, Gingrich said, the CDC informed him that because of an HHS order, the agency was unable to publish the report last week or communicate its findings. “We had to cancel,” he said.

Another bird flu study slated to be published in the MMWR last week concerns the possibility that people working in Michigan’s dairy industry infected their pet cats. These cases were partly revealed last year in emails obtained by KFF Health News. In one email from July 22, an epidemiologist pushed to publish the group’s investigation to “inform others about the potential for indirect transmission to companion animals.”

Jennifer Morse, medical director at the Mid-Michigan District Health Department and a scientist on the pending study, said she got a note from a colleague last week saying that “there are delays in our publication — outside of our control.”

A person close to the CDC, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of concerns about reprisal, expected the MMWR to be on hold at least until Feb. 6. The journal typically posts on Thursdays, and the HHS memo says the pause will last through Feb. 1.

“It’s startling,” Frieden said. He added that it would become dangerous if the reports aren’t restored. “It would be the equivalent of finding out that your local fire department has been told not to sound any fire alarms,” he said.

In addition to publishing studies, the MMWR keeps the country updated on outbreaks, poisonings, and maternal mortality, and provides surveillance data on cancer, heart disease, HIV, and other maladies. Delaying or manipulating the reports could harm Americans by stunting the ability of the U.S. government to detect and curb health threats, Frieden said.

The freeze is also a reminder of how the first Trump administration interfered with the CDC’s reports on covid, revealed in emails detailed in 2022 by congressional investigators with the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. That investigation found that political appointees at HHS altered or delayed the release of five reports and attempted to control several others in 2020.

In one instance, Paul Alexander, then a scientific adviser to HHS, criticized a July 2020 report on a coronavirus outbreak at a Georgia summer camp in an email to MMWR editors, which was disclosed in the congressional investigation.

“It just sends the wrong message as written and actually reads as if to send a message of NOT to re-open,” he wrote. Although the report’s data remained the same, the CDC removed remarks on the implications of the findings for schools.

Later that year, Alexander sent an email to then-HHS spokesperson Michael Caputo citing this and another example of his sway over the reports: “Small victory but a victory nonetheless and yippee!!!”

Schuchat, who was at the CDC at the time, said she had never experienced such attempts to spin or influence the agency’s scientific reports in more than three decades with the agency. She hopes it won’t happen again. “The MMWR cannot become a political instrument,” she said.

Gingrich remains hopeful that the veterinary study will come out soon. “We’re an apolitical organization,” he said. “Maintaining open lines of communication and continuing research with our federal partners is critical as we fight this outbreak.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.  

Is the Opioid Epidemic Really Ending?

By Dr. Charles LeBaron 

From all the self-congratulations by outgoing Biden administration officials about a 15% decrease in overdose deaths last year, one might conclude that the opioid epidemic is coming to an end. However, drug overdoses remain the #1 killer of adults aged 15 to 45, causing more deaths than automobiles and firearms combined.

So even if this “disappearing epidemic” continues at its current pace – about 98,000 fatal overdoses annually -- nearly a million Americans will die of overdoses within the next ten years. 

The carnage is taking place amid a startling paradox: many severely ill persons with a clearly legitimate need for pain control have grave difficulties obtaining opioid medications adequate to make their existence less of a living hell. This worst-case scenario is the legacy of past policy failures – failures that need not be repeated, if incoming Trump administration officials can take a moment to consult our history and apply its lessons. 

In the 1990s, as has been extensively chronicled, large pharmaceutical companies began aggressively promoting proprietary opioid preparations. By the mid-2010s, the United States, with 5% of the world’s population, was estimated to consume 80% of the world’s opioids. For Americans recovering from surgery, 91% received opioids, compared to just 5% in the rest of the world for the same operations.  

Opioid overdose deaths rose in parallel to opioid prescriptions – which became so numerous that the number of pills prescribed was technically enough to kill every American. Whereupon the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stepped in. The CDC’s 2016 opioid guideline, developed with almost no meaningful input from clinicians who treat pain, laid out a series of recommendations on who should get opioids, at what dosage, and for what duration. 

Essentially no attention was paid at the time to antidotes for overdoses or the treatment of dependence. Public and private insurers, eager for cost savings, rapidly adopted the CDC’s dosage restrictions, as did pharmacy chains under attack for their lucrative role in opioid sales. The Drug Enforcement Administration also lent a hand by imposing manufacturing caps on the five major opioid pain medications.  

Within two years, opioid prescribing rates had decreased dramatically in major specialties: for primary care clinicians they dropped 40%, cancer specialists down 60%, and ER docs down 71%. Overall prescription rates fell back to 1990s levels. Success was proclaimed. 

‘Inhuman Punishment’

Then the full consequences of inflexible dosage limits by non-clinicians became apparent. More than 80% of chronic pain patients said they now had more pain and a worse quality of life. The number of cancer patients and survivors with opioid prescriptions decreased by more than half. Suicides by patients cut off from opioids increased. And almost 80% of primary care physicians reported they were reluctant to prescribe opioids for any reason.  

Even when opioids were prescribed, patients often found that their opioid medication was unavailable because of the artificial scarcity created by opioid litigation and the DEA’s manufacturing caps. Patient and professional organizations protested. A group of 274 academic experts (including two former “drug czars”) sent a protest petition to CDC.  

Human Rights Watch, an organization best known for exposing torture by totalitarian regimes, issued a hundred-page report, suggesting that CDC policies could be considered to violate basic human rights by imposing “cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment” on those whose only crime was to be in severe pain.  

But CDC held the line, pointing proudly to a drop of a few percent in the 2018 overdose rate. Lost in the triumphalism was the fact that the overdose rate was creeping up from a little-known opioid called fentanyl, which is 100 times more potent than morphine.

The 2018 overdose downturn proved to be a pause, during which a new set of entrepreneurs entered the market, acquiring fentanyl components from suppliers in China, using pill presses to make them look like FDA-approved medications, and then transporting them to a gig distribution system in the US.

The Mexican cartels were meeting an unmet need. The pharmaceutical companies had helped create the need. And rigid implementation of the restrictive CDC guidelines, aided by DEA manufacturing caps, helped assure the need went unmet.

Overdoses, primarily from illicit fentanyl, exploded after the 2018 pause, doubling in the six years following implementation of the CDC recommendations, a surge particularly acute right in the CDC’s own backyard of Georgia.

So here we are in 2025, with a few percent reduction in overdoses and once again a repetition of 2018 triumphalism.

Meanwhile, overdoses have increased seven-fold from illicit carfentanil, a veterinary opioid so potent that a delivery box could overdose the entire US population.

We remain in the paradoxical situation where evermore dangerous illicit opioids from abroad are easily purchased on a street corner, while medically-prescribed opioids, manufactured under the FDA’s safety and purity standards, are hard to obtain by those who legitimately need them.

We Could Do Better

I worked for more than 28 years at CDC as an epidemic control specialist, during which time I also did clinical work with addicts and drug dealers in Appalachia and in the federal penal system.

Several years ago, as a patient with life-threatening staph spinal abscesses, I received months of high-dose opioids for severe pain. Many pain patients wake up each morning, as I did then, praying that the day’s struggle for some semblance of pain control will succeed against odds that seem so perversely, so specifically, so implacably stacked against them.

Out of these personal and professional experiences, I concluded that we could do better by the millions currently in severe inescapable pain, as well as the million projected to die by overdose in the upcoming decade. I wrote a book about the opioid crisis, "Greed to Do Good: The Untold Story of CDC's Disastrous War on Opioids."

In brief, here’s what I suggest should be minimal elements of an effective opioid epidemic response:

• We have an ongoing mass poisoning. We have an antidote. Naloxone (Narcan) should be deployed on a scale equivalent to the mass poisoning.

• For the estimated 50 million Americans with chronic pain, and especially the 17 million for whom pain limits life and basic functioning, opioids prescribed by a physician should not be so difficult to obtain that patients turn to cartels as America’s pharmacist.

• Standards guiding pain treatment should come from medical organizations with clinical expertise – not from pharmaceutical marketers, government bureaucrats, or the police.

• Artificial scarcity for legitimate opioids through DEA caps on manufacturing merely shifts demand to illicit opioids. This policy should be abandoned.

• For the estimated 6 million Americans with opioid use disorder, only 20% are in treatment. Addiction is a relapsing-remitting condition, with treatment outcomes similar to those for other chronic conditions, such as diabetes, asthma and hypertension, where behavioral setbacks are also common. To really wreak havoc on cartel profits, while saving American taxpayers millions of dollars in unnecessary incarceration costs, treatment needs to be made as accessible as it is for other chronic conditions

One-in-ten American families has lost an immediate family member to a drug overdose. The dead are our brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children and newborns. The sooner we recognize that our policies result in more deaths and more persons in pain, the sooner we will bring this self-inflicted massacre to a close. 

A graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Medical School, Charles W. LeBaron, MD, is board certified in both internal medicine and pediatrics. For more than 28 years, he worked as a medical epidemiologist at the CDC.  

Dr. LeBaron’s book “Greed to Do Good: The Untold Story of CDC’s Disastrous War on Opioids” can be purchased from online booksellers or the publisher (Amplify Publishing in Herndon VA). For book reviews, see Kirkus or BlueInk.

Exclusive: How CDC Will Evaluate the Impact of Its Opioid Guidelines

By Pat Anson

We’ve learned more about a research study the CDC plans to conduct on the impact of its opioid prescribing guideline, which took opioids off the table as a treatment option for millions of Americans suffering from chronic or acute pain. The study was briefly outlined in a public notice published in the Federal Register in October.

It’s been over 8 years since the CDC released its controversial guideline and two years since the agency revised it, after receiving many reports of patient harm, including rapid opioid tapering, withdrawal, poorly treated pain, and suicide.

The agency has released few details on the “mixed-method quasi-experimental design” of the study, the first attempt by the agency to get direct feedback from patients, caregivers and doctors about the guideline’s impact on pain management.

Further details of the study are not coming from the CDC, but from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is evaluating whether the study meets the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, a law that gives OMB broad authority over the collection of data by federal agencies. The CDC’s briefings for the OMB can be found here, here and here.        

“The goal of this research study is to conduct a rigorous, comprehensive evaluation to assess the 2022 CDC Clinical Practice Guideline implementation, uptake, and outcomes. The government will use this information collection to inform CDC efforts and interventions to ensure that Americans have access to safer, effective ways of managing their pain,” the CDC explained.

“We propose conducting an analysis of changes in public and private payers’ policies—e.g., those governing Medicaid, Medicare, private health plans—since late 2022 when the CDC released the Clinical Practice Guideline.”

The study will be conducted over a four-year period and cost nearly $4 million, with much of the work subcontracted to Abt Global, a private research and consulting firm. Abt Global will perform a series of interviews, surveys and focus groups involving patients, caregivers and doctors; as well as dentists, insurers, health system leaders, professional medical associations, and state medical boards.

The DEA and other law enforcement agencies that investigated and prosecuted doctors for “unlawful” opioid prescribing are not included in the study.

The CDC’s previous attempts at evaluating the 2016 and 2022 guidelines relied on data about opioid prescribing rates, not on patient welfare or even whether the guidelines met their primary goal of reducing opioid addiction and overdoses. In that respect, the guidelines have failed. While opioid prescribing has fallen to levels not seen in decades, opioid-related overdoses have nearly doubled since the 2016 guideline’s release.

‘What Has Been Most Effective in Managing Your Pain?’

The CDC is planning an online survey of about 600 doctors (with invitations sent to 3,000) and virtual interviews with 30 of them, asking about their pain management and opioid prescribing practices, as well as any “unintended consequences“ of the agency’s guidelines. Similar questions will be asked of the dentists, insurers, health systems, medical boards, and professional societies.

No interviews or surveys are planned with patients or caregivers. Instead, a series of one-hour focus groups will be conducted involving a total of 135 patients and 90 caregivers, who will receive a $75 gift card as an incentive to participate. The CDC says it will “partner with patient advocacy organizations” to identify participants from their membership lists.

Due to the nature of focus groups, the opinions gathered from patients and caregivers are likely to be viewed as anecdotal or qualitative “perceptions,” not quantitative research.

“We will conduct focus groups with patients to provide an in-depth understanding of a single or small number of cases set in their real-world contexts. Examining the experiences of patients can provide a deeper understanding of real-world behavior within a specific healthcare context to elucidate perceptions of whether and/or how changes occurred in overall treatment and/or pain management, including opioid prescribing,” the CDC said.

The focus groups will be led by Abt Global moderators, who will ask a series of open-ended questions to promote discussion. Notably, there are more questions in the “Patient Focus Group Guide” about non-opioid pain treatments than there are about opioids.

There are also no questions about the CDC’s 2016 guideline. The focus is only on pain management after November 2022, when the revised guideline was released in an attempt to give more flexibility to doctors in using opioids to manage pain.

Focus Group Questions for Patients  

1. What treatments and medications for pain have you tried? What has been most effective in managing your pain?

2. There are a lot of strategies to help with pain. Tell us about your experience with physical therapy or exercise therapy to help with your pain.

3. Counseling or behavioral therapy is often used to help with pain. What has your experience been receiving counseling for pain management?

4. Have you had experience with any other non-medication therapies for pain (e.g., acupuncture)? Can you share your experience with those?

5. Medications other than opioids, such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen, which can be both prescribed or over-the-counter, are also often used for pain management. Tell us your experience with these non-opioid medications to manage your pain.

6. Tell us about your first experience being prescribed opioids for pain. How was your pain after you began taking opioids? What side effects did you experience?

7. When were you initially prescribed opioids for pain? How long were you initially prescribed opioids for? Had you received additional refills for opioids after that first prescription?

8. Have you noticed any changes to how clinicians manage your pain since November 2022? If so, what have you noticed?

9. Give me an example of how the management of your pain has improved since November 2022?

10. Give me an example of how the management of your pain remained the same since November 2022?

11. How has your pain management gotten worse since November 2022?

12. Since November 2022, what other factors may have affected how your pain has been managed, such as a change in primary care clinician or changes in your insurance coverage or changing from a primary care clinician to a pain management specialist?

This kind of detail about the questions, participants and research methods has not been made public before. Only a brief overview of the study was provided in the October 2024 notice in the Federal Register, which the CDC made no effort to publicize to get broad public feedback.

As a result, the notice received only two public comments, one of them a letter from the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). The ASA called the 2022 guideline a “significant improvement” over the 2016 guideline, but added that 40% of its members felt the updated guideline was “ineffective.” There were also criticisms that the guidelines “might lead to reduced access to necessary pain medications.”

The CDC was dismissive of both public comments and said no changes would be made to its study design or methodology.  

“The public comments received did not have specific suggestions that impact any evaluation instruments; therefore, no changes were made to the instruments,” CDC said.      

After Years of Foot Dragging, CDC Plans Review of Opioid Guideline

By Pat Anson

Eight years after releasing its controversial 2016 opioid guideline and two years after revising it, the CDC is finally making plans for a review of the guideline’s impact on patients, caregivers, doctors, and the practice of pain management.

In a notice published in the Federal Register, the CDC said it would open a 30-day public comment period on a “mixed-method quasi-experimental approach” to evaluating the updated 2022 guideline.

In plain English, the CDC plans a web-based survey of about 200 clinicians, and individual interviews with 10 clinicians, 2 dentists, 3 health system leaders, 3 insurers, 3 professional association leaders, and 3 medical board leaders. In addition, CDC will interview up to 15 patients and 15 caregivers in focus groups.

The agency did not indicate how the participants or organizations will be selected, or what questions will be asked.

“CDC is comprehensively evaluating the uptake, implementation, and outcomes of the 2022 CDC Clinical Practice Guideline on evidence-based care for pain management to understand its impact,” the agency said. “The evaluation includes dissemination and impact of the 2022 CDC Clinical Practice Guideline through population-wide changes in prescribing practices for opioids and medications for opioid use disorder.”

This is actually the second time CDC has published a public notice about the guideline review. Only two public comments were received after a similar notice was published in the Federal Register on October 1, which the CDC made no effort to publicize.

‘Timing Is Very Odd’

It’s not clear why a second notice was published during the holiday season and in the final weeks of the Biden administration. CDC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The timing is very odd, and almost everyone missed the opportunity for open comments earlier this year,” said Chad Kollas, MD, a palliative care physician and pain policy expert.

“Few states have backed off from overly restrictive prescribing laws that were created based on the 2016 Guideline. I think that’s the main opportunity here, documenting the failure to implement the revised recommendations in the 2022 guidance. It’s unclear how CDC plans to determine who will get an opportunity to respond in the proposed study, so transparency remains troublesome for them.”

The CDC was slow to acknowledge the harm caused by the 2016 guideline. Although voluntary, the agency’s recommendations were widely implemented as mandatory by states and law enforcement agencies, resulting in patients having their opioid medication reduced or cutoff, and doctors being prosecuted for exceeding the guideline’s dosage recommendations.

To address those issues, CDC issued a revised guideline in 2022. But many of the problems caused by the original guideline linger.

“The 2016 guidelines led to a variety of restrictive policies, including limitations on opioid dosages. These measures created significant barriers for patients trying to access pain care and made it more challenging for physicians to prescribe necessary medications,” Donald Arnold, MD, President of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) wrote in a letter to the CDC, one of the two public comments made in response to the October 1 public notice.

The ASA surveyed its members on the impact of the 2022 revised guideline. Over half (56%) thought it was “somewhat effective” in reversing the harm caused by the 2016 guideline, while 40% thought it was ineffective.

A PNN survey of over 2,500 patients, providers and caregivers also found mixed reviews of the 2022 guideline. Only 39% of respondents thought it was “improved” or “much improved” over the original guideline.  Most respondents said it was about the same or even worse.

‘Same Problems Still Exist’

The CDC never conducted a comprehensive review on the impact of the 2016 guideline, but it did hire a consulting firm to improve its image after the agency was widely criticized for its secrecy and lack of transparency during the guideline’s development process.

A former CDC epidemiologist was so dismayed by the agency’s lack of accountability that he wrote a book about it, “Greed to Do Good: The Untold Story of CDC’s Disastrous War on Opioids.” Dr. Charles LeBaron says CDC leadership was blinded by its own hubris.

“The problem was not looking at the (guideline) sufficiently quantitatively and then not checking the consequences, or at least responding to the consequences when they're brought to your attention,” LeBaron told PNN. “Many of the same problems continue to exist, even though the personalities are completely different, and there are still significant restrictions on people in chronic pain for no apparent benefit.”

The personalities will change yet again when the Trump administration takes office on January 20. Conservative activists have made clear they want a major restructuring of the CDC, returning the agency to its core mission of collecting and disseminating data on communicable diseases. They want the CDC to stop telling people what to do, and to leave medical guidelines to professional societies and state medical boards.

Women, Elderly and Rural Americans More Likely to Have Chronic Pain

By Crystal Lindell

American women are more likely than men to experience chronic pain and high-impact pain severe enough to disrupt their lives. Americans of both sexes are also more likely to have pain if they live in rural areas, are over age 65, and of American Indian or Alaska Native descent. 

Those are the findings in a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which found that 24.3% of U.S. adults (60 million people) experienced chronic pain in 2023, while 8.5% (21 million) experienced high-impact pain that limited their daily life and work activities. 

What the report doesn’t tell you is that pain rates have risen dramatically since 2016, the year the CDC introduced its controversial opioid prescribing guideline, which drastically reduced patient access to opioids. Not only has the guideline failed to reduce overdoses, it appears to have worsened pain care for millions of Americans.

In 2016, the National Health Interview Survey estimated that 20.4% (50.0 million) of U.S. adults had chronic pain, while 8% (19.6 million) had high-impact chronic pain. What that essentially means is that 10 million more Americans have chronic pain today than in 2016, and 1.4 million more people have debilitating pain.

The CDC report does not speculate about why pain rates have increased, but a recent study that looked at the same survey data offers some insight, suggesting the increase is due to a number of factors, such as long Covid, more sedentary lifestyles, more anxiety and stress, and reduced access to healthcare.

“The widely-cited 20% prevalence of CP (chronic pain) in the adult US population appears obsolete,” wrote co-authors Anna Zajacova, PhD, and Hanna Grol-Prokopczyk, PhD, in medRxiv. “Our findings indicated that chronic pain, already a widespread issue, has reached new heights in the post-pandemic era, necessitating urgent attention and intervention strategies to address and alleviate this growing health crisis.”

While the CDC report neglects to cover the causes of pain, it does provide a detailed look at chronic pain rates by sex, race, age, and location.  For example, researchers found that people aged 65 and older are three times more likely to have chronic pain than young adults, while Whites are more likely to have pain than Blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

Chronic and High-Impact Pain by Sex:

• Women: 25.4% and 9.6%

• Men: 23.2% and 7.3%

Chronic and High-Impact Pain by Age:

• Ages 18–29: 12.3% and 3.0%

• Ages 30–44: 18.3% and 4.9%

• Ages 45–64: 28.7% and 11.3%

• Ages 65 and older: 36% and 13.5%

Chronic and High-Impact Pain by Race: 

• American Indian and Alaska Native: 30.7% and 12.7%

• White: 28% and 9.5%

• Black: 21.7% and 8.7%

• Hispanic: 17.1% and 6.5%

• Asian: 11.8% and 2.6%

Whether you live in a city, suburb or rural area also affects pain rates, with rural Americans significantly more likely to have chronic pain than those who live in cities. In the CDC study, large metropolitan areas of one million or more people are categorized as “central” or “fringe” counties. Medium and small metropolitan areas are counties with 250,000–999,999 people or less than 250,000 people, respectively. Non-metropolitan areas are rural counties with significantly fewer people.

Chronic Pain by Urban Area:

• Large central metropolitan area: 20.5% 

• Large fringe metropolitan area: 22.5%

• Medium and small metropolitan area: 26.4% 

• Non-metropolitan area: 31.4%

The CDC does not address the impact of chronic pain in its bare-bones report. But independent researchers Anna Zajacova and Hanna Grol-Prokopczyk do in their analysis, pointing out that pain “profoundly impacts” physical, mental and cognitive health, as well as employment, relationships, sexual function and sleep. It all adds up to an economic impact of $560-$635 billion annually — more than any other health condition.

“The findings are a call to action for public health professionals, policymakers, and researchers to further investigate the root causes of this increase. Addressing the rise in chronic pain is critical, as pain serves as a sensitive barometer of population health and has profound economic, social, and health consequences,” they wrote.

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.”

Should CDC Be Involved in Cannabis Regulation?

By Pat Anson

If you think the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention bungled its handling of COVID-19 tests and misled the public about the risks of opioid pain medication – then you’re probably not going like a new recommendation from a federal advisory panel.     

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) wants the CDC to play a much larger role in setting federal policy on cannabis, such as expanding its surveillance of cannabis use and establishing “best practices” for states to follow in cannabis regulation.

In other words, a CDC cannabis guideline that would be used as a model for state laws and regulations, much like the agency’s opioid prescribing guideline was. Only this guideline would go much further.

“The best practices should encompass marketing restrictions, age restrictions, physical retail and retail operating restrictions, taxation, price restrictions, product design, and measures to limit youth access,” NASEM said in a 312-page report released this week. “Once the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s best practices have been developed, they should be incorporated into the model legislation.”

Cannabis is currently illegal under federal law, but 38 states and the District of Columbia allow its medical and/or recreational use. At the urging of the Biden Administration, the DEA is considering a proposal to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III controlled substance, which would allow for some medical use of cannabis under federal law. A final decision is not likely until sometime next year.    

But with a major change in federal policy on the horizon and a hodgepodge of state regulations already in place, NASEM wants federal agencies and Congress to get more involved in setting policy for legalized cannabis.

“There is an urgent need for a coordinated public health approach to cannabis policy in the U.S.,” said Steven Teutsch, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California and chair of the committee that wrote the NASEM report. “Our report shows that cannabis policy often focuses on regulating sales and revenue first, and protecting public health second. Now is the time for the federal government to create guidance for states that have legalized cannabis in the interest of protecting the public’s health.”

The first recommendation from NASEM is for Congress to overhaul the regulation of hemp, which was legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill.  That opened the door for cannabis companies to tweak the chemical composition of hemp-derived Delta-8 THC to make it more potent. Intoxicating edibles containing Delta-8 THC are now widely sold as candy, cookies, gummies and beverages – even in states where medical and recreational cannabis are illegal.

NASEM wants Congress to close that loophole by changing the definition of hemp so that Delta-8 THC is regulated the same way as other cannabis products.

Public Health Campaigns

The report also calls for the CDC to develop “targeted public health campaigns” to warn about the risks of cannabis use by children, pregnant women and older adults.  

The latter is one of the fastest growing segments of the population using cannabis, according to a recent survey that found 12% of Americans over 50 had consumed a THC-containing product in the past year. Only 3% were using cannabis in 2006. Ironically, many older adults use cannabis to manage chronic pain because they are no longer able to obtain opioids after the widespread misapplication of the CDC’s opioid guideline.

The NASEM report also warns about the lobbying influence of the cannabis industry, which it blames for the weakening of cannabis regulations in Colorado and Washington, as well as conflicts of interest and “financial entanglements” that some state regulators have with the industry.

“The influence of the burgeoning legal cannabis industry on policy development raises concern about potential bias. Lobbying efforts by the industry have demonstrably impacted regulation,” the report states.

That’s pretty rich when you consider the many biases and conflicts the CDC had when it secretly developed the opioid guideline, and how CDC insiders hijacked a public hearing to silence anyone who might oppose it. Some CDC consultants were later paid millions of dollars testifying as expert witnesses in opioid litigation.

Conservative critics of the CDC are unlikely to support any effort to get the agency involved in cannabis regulation.  The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 calls for the CDC’s budget to be slashed and its ability to set healthy policies severely restricted.

“COVID-19 exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government,” wrote Roger Severino, former director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services during the Trump administration.

“Never again should public health bureaucrats be allowed to hide information, ignore information, or mislead the public concerning the efficacy or dangers associated with any recommended health interventions.”

A CDC spokesperson told the Associated Press the agency would study NASEM’s recommendations, but more money would be needed to implement them.

Are U.S. Overdose Deaths Really Declining?

By Pat Anson

Preliminary data from the CDC suggest that U.S. overdose deaths have declined significantly, falling by 10% in the last year alone. If confirmed, the double-digit drop would mean there were 11,247 fewer drug deaths in the 12-month period ending in April 2024.

The decline, first reported by NPR, was hailed by addiction and public health experts as a hopeful sign that progress is finally being made in reducing the number of drug deaths, which have doubled in the past decade to over 100,000 a year.

“This is exciting," said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "This looks real. This looks very, very real."

Good news, if it’s true. But caution is warranted about how “real” the decline is, because preliminary death data often changes as more information comes in.

Overdose data is fragmented in both quality and quantity, as it comes from 50 different sources. The data is collected by each state and then submitted to the CDC to decipher for its monthly Provisional Drug Overdose Death Count.

Some states still do not use toxicology tests to confirm whether a death is drug-related – leaving it up to medical examiners and coroners to decide which drugs, if any, may have played a role in someone dying. Some elected coroners, particularly in rural counties, have no medical training or expertise in drug death investigations. And in many cases, autopsies are not performed.

In addition to the wide variability in expertise and data collection, overdoses are typically not reported to the CDC until four months after the date of the death, sometimes longer. In its most recent provisional count, the CDC acknowledged that its overdose data may underestimate the actual number of deaths.

“Some states may have longer than usual delays in submitting drug overdose deaths. In particular, North Carolina is experiencing substantial delays in the resolution of pending records by the medical examiner’s office. Recent trends may underestimate the death count in affected states and this potential impact should be considered when comparing results for states to previous months,” the CDC said.

Percent Change in Drug Overdose Deaths (April 2023 to April 2024)

SOURCE: CDC

Reported vs Predicted

Because the provisional counts are often incomplete and the causes of many deaths are “pending investigation,” the CDC maintains two different data sets. One is the number of “reported” cases, and the other is the “predicted” number of deaths. The latter is where the 10% decline comes from.

The number of reported drug deaths is even lower than the predicted ones, suggesting there has been a 12.2% decline in overdoses nationwide. But that number is also misleading because it is based on incomplete data.

Take North Carolina, for example. For the most recent 12-month period ending in April, North Carolina reported 2,512 drug deaths, compared to 4,317 overdoses from the year before. That’s a whopping decrease of nearly 42 percent!

No one believes that number is real and will hold up over time. Not even Nora Volkow.

North Carolina is not an outlier. Reported drug deaths in Nebraska are down nearly 30 percent, but the data from there is considered “underreported due to incomplete data.” The same is true for Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where reported drug deaths are down about 20 percent. Big states like that can sway nationwide estimates.

Meanwhile, reported drug deaths are up in several western states: +42% in Alaska, +15% in Oregon, +13% in Nevada, +10% in Washington and +7% in Utah. It’s hard to square those numbers with any national trend.

“Utah’s trends haven’t aligned with national trends for some time. We plateaued while overdoses increased significantly at the national level, especially during the pandemic,” Megan Broekemeier, an overdose research coordinator for the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, told the Deseret News. “We haven’t seen statistically significant changes in the rate yet.”

‘The Dip in Overdoses Is Real’

To be fair, some of the overdose-related data is encouraging and suggest that drug deaths are in fact declining.

In a blog that tracks health data trends, Nabarun Dasgupta, PhD, a drug researcher and scientist at the University of North Carolina, reported a nationwide drop in ER visits and EMS calls (ambulance runs) involving overdoses. He estimates that non-fatal overdoses have fallen -15% to -20% nationwide

“A 15-20% decrease in non-fatal overdose and a 10% decrease in fatal overdose is a major impact. There is barely any public health intervention that has credibly achieved this magnitude of decrease,” wrote Dasgupta. “Our conclusion is that the dip in overdoses is real, and not a data artifact. It remains to be seen how long it will be sustained.”

Dasgupta attributes the decline to several possible factors, such as wider access to the overdose recovery drug naloxone and increased law enforcement seizures of illicit fentanyl.

He does not think the decline in opioid prescribing has anything to do with the drop in overdoses. Deaths linked to opioid pain medication have remained flat for nearly a decade, even as prescribing levels fell to 20-year lows.

“Let's put one hypothesis to rest: Reductions in opioid analgesic prescribing is not driving the changes in overdose rates. We've studied it, and that's not what is driving current fentanyl overdoses,” says Dasgupta.    

The CDC has a checkered history when it comes to tracking overdose deaths. When the agency released its controversial 2016 opioid guideline, it laid the blame for rising overdose deaths squarely on opioid analgesics.

“Overprescribing opioids – largely for chronic pain – is a key driver of America’s drug overdose epidemic,” said then-CDC director Dr. Thomas Frieden, a claim based on weak evidence and false assumptions.

Two years later, after millions of pain patients had their opioid doses reduced or cutoff, the CDC admitted that illicit fentanyl was driving the overdose crisis and that it mistakenly classified many fentanyl deaths as overdoses caused by prescription opioids.The death toll from prescription opioids in 2016 was nearly cut in half — from 32,445 down to 17,087 — when the deaths were reclassified as fentanyl-related.

The CDC says its data collection and analysis have improved in recent years, but they still come with a disclaimer that the monthly provisional counts “may not include all deaths that occurred” and are “subject to change.”

"I think we have to be careful when we get optimistic and see a slight drop in overdose deaths," said Dan Salter, Director of the North Carolina Office of National Drug Control Policy, told NPR. "The last thing we want to do is spike the ball."

An Insider’s Perspective on CDC’s ‘Disastrous War on Opioids’

By Pat Anson

Dr. Charles LeBaron is a medical epidemiologist who worked for 28 years at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. LeBaron was not directly involved in developing the CDC’s 2016 opioid guideline, but knew colleagues who did and largely supported their efforts to rein in opioid prescribing.

Then LeBaron developed crippling pain from a meningitis infection and learned firsthand how the CDC guideline was harming patients. While hospitalized, he screamed into his pillow at night because a nurse -- following the CDC’s recommendations -- gave him inadequate doses of oxycodone. The pain relief only lasted a couple of hours, and then he had to wait in misery for the next dose.

“I hadn't experienced the pain that so many patients feel, so I hadn't had the level of sensitivity to the issue that would have benefited me. It took full personal experience to straighten me out,” said LeBaron. “You'd rather be dead than in pain. In that bubble of pain, it really is life changing.

“Once you experience that, you tend to view things very differently through a very different lens. At least that was my experience. There was nothing like being in acute pain.”

LeBaron eventually recovered from the infection and no longer needed oxycodone. He also didn’t become addicted. That lived experience made him wonder if the CDC -- his longtime employer – made mistakes in developing the guideline. He came to recognize that the CDC’s push to limit opioid doses was based on weak evidence and the false presumption that many patients quickly become addicted.

Most of all, he was shocked at how quickly the CDC guideline was adopted throughout the healthcare system. He’d never seen anything like it, in all his years at the agency.

“Most of the recommendations we come out with, that people should eat right, exercise or whatever, no one ever bothers doing. We have a tough time getting people to do things. This recommendation? They just had remarkably fast implementation,” LeBaron told PNN.

“I've never seen a recommendation that got implemented that fast and that hard by so many actors. Normally, it’s like herding cats in public health, trying to get everybody involved. And for prescription medications, there are a million cats. There are pharmacies, benefit managers, physicians, insurance and so forth. This thing just took off.”

Now retired, LeBaron decided to write a book about his personal experience with pain, along with a critique of the CDC guideline. “Greed to Do Good: The Untold Story of CDC’s Disastrous War on Opioids” gives a rare insider’s look into how the agency works and thinks.

The word “greed” may suggest there were financial motives behind the CDC guideline, but LeBaron says it’s more a matter of pride and hubris that borders on institutionalized arrogance.

The agency was so caught up in its reputation as the “world’s premier public health agency” -- one that defeated polio, smallpox, HIV and other infectious disease outbreaks -- that it developed an outsized belief that it could do no wrong.

According to LeBaron, that was the mindset that Dr. Tom Frieden had when he was named CDC Director during the Obama administration. While serving as New York City’s health commissioner, Frieden led ambitious campaigns to stamp out tuberculosis, ban smoking in public places, and limit unhealthy trans fats served in the city’s restaurants.  

At CDC, LeBaron says Frieden became “the driving force” behind a campaign to limit opioid prescriptions as a way to reduce rising rates of opioid overdoses.

“I would not attribute vicious and evil impulses to the people who were involved,” says LeBaron. “I think they were gravely mistaken, but not driven by the desire to harm. They conceived of themselves as wanting to do good in a very emphatic fashion.

“The problem here was not the motivation, the notion that if you can kind of reduce prescription opioids, maybe you'll reduce subsequent addiction. The problem was not looking at the thing sufficiently quantitatively and then not checking the consequences, or at least responding to the consequences when they're brought to your attention.”

People working in public health are normally careful about tracking the outcomes of their policies. But before and after the CDC guideline, the agency turned a deaf ear to a chorus of complaints that it was forcing millions of patients on long-term opioids into rapid tapers that resulted in uncontrolled pain, withdrawal and even suicide.    

Worst of all, the number of fatal opioid overdoses doubled to over 80,000 annually after the guideline’s release, an outcome that demonstrated CDC had gone after the wrong target at the wrong time and with the wrong solution.

“The typical person who's having an overdose is a 30-year-old male taking illicit medication. The most typical person who's getting chronic opioids for pain would be a 60-year-old woman with a variety of rheumatological conditions. So you're aiming at a completely off-center target,” LeBaron explained.

“Then subsequently the data started coming in that, in effect, you are worsening the situation. If you take people who really need pain control off their meds, in a sense, it normalizes illegal acquisition.

“If somebody is really in terrible pain, needs opioid medication and can't get it through the legal system, pain is a remarkable motivator. Very few motivators are as strong as pain. And ultimately, somebody will come up to you and say, ‘I know a guy.’ And sure enough, then you end up with completely uncontrolled, unregulated stuff.”

Not until 2022 did the CDC revise its original guideline and give doctors more flexibility in prescribing opioids. By then, its 2016 recommendations were so ingrained in the U.S. healthcare system that the revisions had little, if any, impact.

Frieden left the CDC in 2017. LeBaron says Frieden’s two immediate successors did little to address the overdose crisis and the harms created by the guideline. But he does have hope for the agency’s current director, Dr. Mandy Cohen, because she has experience in public health and a better understanding of the primary role played by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs in the overdose crisis.

Asked if the CDC guideline should be scrapped or withdrawn completely, LeBaron is circumspect. He thinks a review of the guideline is in order, as well as a return to public health policies that are checked and double-checked to make sure they have outcomes that actually work.

“The difficulty here, in my opinion, is many of the same problems continue to exist, even though the personalities are completely different, and there are still significant restrictions on people in chronic pain for no apparent benefit. There continues to be very high rate of overdoses,” LeBaron said.

“I'm kind of a diehard public health guy. I want to see whether anything good happens. Nothing good happened. Time to reconsider.”

Long COVID Risk Declining, Mostly Due to Vaccinations

By Crystal Lindell

Rates of Long Covid appear to have declined over the course of the pandemic, according to new research from the Washington University School of Medicine. One reason is that people who are vaccinated against COVID-19 and its variants have about half the risk of developing Long Covid than those who are unvaccinated.

Long Covid refers to a wide range of symptoms that some people experience four or more weeks after an initial infection with COVID-19. Symptoms such as fatigue, body pain and shortness of breath may last for weeks, months or years, and can be mild or severe.  

While the new research only looked at COVID cases through 2022 – making it unclear how newer COVID strains and vaccines in 2023 and 2024 may be impacting Long COVID cases  – it does provide a ray of hope.

Specifically, researchers attributed about 70% of the risk reduction to vaccination against COVID-19 and 30% to changes over time, such as the evolving characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and improved detection and management of COVID-19. The research was published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“The research on declining rates of long COVID marks the rare occasion when I have good news to report regarding this virus,” said the study’s senior author, Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a Washington University clinical epidemiologist and global leader in COVID-19 research. “The findings also show the positive effects of getting vaccinated.”

Although the latest findings sound more reassuring than previous studies, Al-Aly tempered the good news. 

“Long COVID is not over,” said the nephrologist, who treats patients at the John J. Cochran Veterans Hospital in St. Louis. “We cannot let our guard down. This includes getting annual COVID vaccinations, because they are the key to suppressing long COVID risk. If we abandon vaccinations, the risk is likely to increase.”

For the research, Al-Aly and his team analyzed millions of de-identified medical records in a database maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the nation’s largest integrated health-care system. 

The study included over 440,000 veterans with SARS-CoV-2 infections and more than 4.7 million uninfected veterans. Patients included those who were infected by the original strain, as well as those infected by the delta and omicron variants. Some were vaccinated, while others were unvaccinated. 

The Long COVID rate was highest among those with the original strain, about one in every ten (10.4%). No vaccines existed while the original strain circulated.

The rate declined to 9.5% among those in the unvaccinated groups during the delta era and 7.7% during omicron. Among the vaccinated, the rate of Long COVID during delta was 5.3% and 3.5% during omicron.

“You can see a clear and significant difference in risk during the delta and omicron eras between the vaccinated and unvaccinated,” said Al-Aly. “So, if people think COVID is no big deal and decide to forgo vaccinations, they’re essentially doubling their risk of developing long COVID.”

Al-Aly also emphasized that even with the overall decline, the lowest rate — 3.5% — remains a substantial risk. 

“That’s three to four vaccinated individuals out of 100 getting long COVID,” he said. “Multiplied by the large numbers of people who continue to get infected and reinfected, it’s a lot of people. This remaining risk is not trivial. It will continue to add to an already staggering health problem facing people across the world.”

The World Health Organization has documented more than 775 million cases of COVID-19.

Disabled at Higher Risk of Long COVID  

The CDC recently found that Long COVID symptoms were more prevalent among people with disabilities (10.8%) than among those without disabilities (6.6%).

The new data was released as part of the CDC’s annual update to its Disability and Health Data System, which provides quick and easy online access to state-level health data on adults with disabilities.

The report found data that over 70 million adults in the U.S. reported having a disability in 2022.

Older adults reported a higher disability rate (43.9% for those aged 65 and older) compared to younger age groups. The race/ethnic groups with the highest rate of disability, regardless of age, identified as American Indian or Alaska Natives.

The CDC has fact sheets that provide an overview of disability in each state, including the percentages and characteristics of adults with and without disabilities. Click on any state listed here to view that state’s profile.

The findings underscore the fact that people with disabilities are a large part of every community and population.

FDA and CDC Face Flood of Litigation After Supreme Court Ruling

By Stephanie Armour, KFF Health News

A landmark Supreme Court decision that reins in federal agencies’ authority is expected to hold dramatic consequences for the nation’s health care system, calling into question government rules on anything from consumer protections for patients to drug safety to nursing home care.

The June 28 decision overturns a 1984 precedent that said courts should give deference to federal agencies in legal challenges over their regulatory or scientific decisions. Instead of giving priority to agencies, courts will now exercise their own independent judgment about what Congress intended when drafting a particular law.

The ruling will likely have seismic ramifications for health policy. A flood of litigation — with plaintiffs like small businesses, drugmakers, and hospitals challenging regulations they say aren’t specified in the law — could leave the country with a patchwork of disparate health regulations varying by location.

Agencies such as the FDA are likely to be far more cautious in drafting regulations, Congress is expected to take more time fleshing out legislation to avoid legal challenges, and judges will be more apt to overrule current and future regulations.

Health policy leaders say patients, providers, and health systems should brace for more uncertainty and less stability in the health care system. Even routine government functions such as deciding the rate to pay doctors for treating Medicare beneficiaries could become embroiled in long legal battles that disrupt patient care or strain providers to adapt.

Groups that oppose a regulation could search for and secure partisan judges to roll back agency decision-making, said Andrew Twinamatsiko, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute. One example could be challenges to the FDA’s approval of a medication used in abortions, which survived a Supreme Court challenge this term on a technicality.

“Judges will be more emboldened to second-guess agencies,” he said. “It’s going to open agencies up to attacks.”

Regulations are effectively the technical instructions for laws written by Congress. Federal agency staffers with knowledge related to a law — say, in drugs that treat rare diseases or health care for seniors — decide how to translate Congress’ words into action with input from industry, advocates, and the public.

Fragmented Health Policy

Up until now, when agencies issued a regulation, a single rule typically applied nationwide. Following the high court ruling, however, lawsuits filed in more than one jurisdiction could result in contradictory rulings and regulatory requirements — meaning health care policies for patients, providers, or insurers could differ greatly from one area to another.

One circuit may uphold a regulation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, while other circuits may take different views.

“You could have eight or nine of 11 different views of the courts,” said William Buzbee, a professor at Georgetown Law.

A court in one circuit could issue a nationwide injunction to enforce its interpretation while another circuit disagrees, said Maura Monaghan, a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton. Few cases are taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which could leave clashing directives in place for many years.

In the immediate future, health policy leaders say agencies should brace for more litigation over controversial initiatives. A requirement that most Affordable Care Act health plans cover preventive services, for example, is already being litigated. Multiple challenges to the mandate could mean different coverage requirements for preventive care depending on where a consumer lives.

Drugmakers have sued to try to stop the Biden administration from implementing a federal law that forces makers of the most expensive drugs to negotiate prices with Medicare — a key cog in President Joe Biden’s effort to lower drug prices and control health care costs.

Parts of the health care industry may take on reimbursement rates for doctors that are set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services because those specific rates aren’t written into law. The agency issues rules updating payment rates in Medicare, a health insurance program for people 65 or older and younger people with disabilities. Groups representing doctors and hospitals regularly flock to Washington, D.C., to lobby against trims to their payment rates.

And providers, including those backed by deep-pocketed investors, have sued to block federal surprise-billing legislation. The No Surprises Act, which passed in 2020 and took effect for most people in 2022, aims to protect patients from unexpected, out-of-network medical bills, especially in emergencies. The high court’s ruling is expected to spur more litigation over its implementation.

“This really is going to create a tectonic change in the administrative regulatory landscape,” Twinamatsiko said. “The approach since 1984 has created stability. When the FDA or CDC adopt regulations, they know those regulations will be respected. That has been taken back.”

Industry groups, including the American Hospital Association and AHIP, an insurers’ trade group, declined to comment.

Agencies such as the FDA that take advantage of their regulatory authority to make specific decisions, such as the granting of exclusive marketing rights upon approval of a drug, will be vulnerable. The reason: Many of their decisions require discretion as opposed to being explicitly defined by federal law, said Joseph Ross, a professor of medicine and public health at Yale School of Medicine.

“The legislation that guides much of the work in the health space, such as FDA and CMS, is not prescriptive,” he said.

In fact, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf said in an episode of the “Healthcare Unfiltered” podcast last year that he was “very worried” about the disruption from judges overruling his agency’s scientific decisions.

The high court’s ruling will be especially significant for the nation’s federal health agencies because their regulations are often complex, creating the opportunity for more pitched legal battles.

Challenges that may not have succeeded in courts because of the deference to agencies could now find more favorable outcomes.

“A whole host of existing regulations could be vulnerable,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF.

Other consequences are possible. Congress may attempt to flesh out more details when drafting legislation to avoid challenges — an approach that may increase partisan standoffs and slow down an already glacial pace in passing legislation, Levitt said.

Agencies are expected to be far more cautious in writing regulations to be sure they don’t go beyond the contours of the law.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision overturned Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which held that courts should generally back a federal agency’s statutory interpretation as long as it was reasonable. Republicans have largely praised the new ruling as necessary for ensuring agencies don’t overstep their authority, while Democrats said in the aftermath of the decision that it amounts to a judicial power grab.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. 

‘We’re Flying Blind’: Response to Bird Flu Outbreak Mirrors Covid Errors

By Amy Maxmen, KFF Health News

It’s been nearly three months since the U.S. government announced an outbreak of the bird flu virus on dairy farms. The World Health Organization considers the virus a public health concern because of its potential to cause a pandemic, yet the U.S. has tested only about 45 people across the country.

“We’re flying blind,” said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at the Brown University School of Public Health. With so few tests run, she said, it’s impossible to know how many farmworkers have been infected, or how serious the disease is. A lack of testing means the country might not notice if the virus begins to spread between people — the gateway to another pandemic.

“We’d like to be doing more testing. There’s no doubt about that,” said Nirav Shah, principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC’s bird flu test is the only one the Food and Drug Administration has authorized for use right now. Shah said the agency has distributed these tests to about 100 public health labs in states.

“We’ve got roughly a million available now,” he said, “and expect 1.2 million more in the next two months.”

But Nuzzo and other researchers are concerned because the CDC and public health labs aren’t generally where doctors order tests from. That job tends to be done by major clinical laboratories run by companies and universities, which lack authorization for bird flu testing.

As the outbreak grows — with at least 114 herds infected in 12 states as of June 18 — researchers said the CDC and FDA are not moving fast enough to remove barriers that block clinical labs from testing. In one case, the diagnostics company Neelyx Labs was on hold with a query for more than a month.

“Clinical labs are part of the nation’s public health system,” said Alex Greninger, assistant director of the University of Washington Medicine Clinical Virology Laboratory. “Pull us into the game. We’re stuck on the bench.”

The CDC recognized the need for clinical labs in a June 10 memo. It calls on industry to develop tests for the H5 strain of bird flu virus, the one circulating among dairy cattle.

“The limited availability and accessibility of diagnostic tests for Influenza A(H5) poses several pain points,” the CDC wrote. The points include a shortage of tests if demand spikes.

Testing Failures Made Pandemic Worse

Researchers, including former CDC director Tom Frieden and Anthony Fauci, who led the nation’s response to covid, cite testing failures as a key reason the U.S. fared so poorly with covid. Had covid tests been widely available in early 2020, they say, the U.S. could have detected many cases before they turned into outbreaks that prompted business shutdowns and cost lives.

In an article published this month, Nuzzo and a group of colleagues noted that the problem wasn’t testing capability but a failure to deploy that capability swiftly. The U.S. reported excess mortality eight times as high as other countries with advanced labs and other technological advantages.

A covid test vetted by the WHO was available by mid-January 2020. Rather than use it, the United States stuck to its own multistage process, which took several months. Namely, the CDC develops its own test then sends it to local public health labs. Eventually, the FDA authorizes tests from clinical diagnostic labs that serve hospital systems, which must then scale up their operations. That took time, and people died amid outbreaks at nursing homes and prisons, waiting on test results.

In contrast, South Korea immediately rolled out testing through private sector laboratories, allowing it to keep schools and businesses open. “They said, ‘Gear up, guys; we’re going to need a ton of tests,’” said Frieden, now president of the public health organization Resolve to Save Lives. “You need to get commercials in the game.” 

Nuzzo and her colleagues describe a step-by-step strategy for rolling out testing in health emergencies, in response to mistakes made obvious by covid. But in this bird flu outbreak, the U.S. is weeks behind that playbook.

Ample testing is critical for two reasons. First, people need to know if they’re infected so that they can be quickly treated, Nuzzo said. Over the past two decades, roughly half of about 900 people around the globe known to have gotten the bird flu died from it.

Although the three farmworkers diagnosed with the disease this year in the United States had only mild symptoms, like a runny nose and inflamed eyes, others may not be so lucky. The flu treatment Tamiflu works only when given soon after symptoms start.

The CDC and local health departments have tried to boost bird flu testing among farmworkers, asking them to be tested if they feel sick. Farmworker advocates list several reasons why their outreach efforts are failing. The outreach might not be in the languages the farmworkers speak, for example, or address such concerns as a loss of employment.

If people who live and work around farms simply see a doctor when they or their children fall ill, those cases could be missed if the doctors send samples to their usual clinical laboratories. The CDC has asked doctors to send samples from people with flu symptoms who have exposure to livestock or poultry to public health labs.

“If you work on a farm with an outbreak and you’re worried about your welfare, you can get tested,” Shah said.

But sending samples to public health departments requires knowledge, time, and effort.

“I really worry about a testing scheme in which busy clinicians need to figure this out,” Nuzzo said.

‘Get Prepared Before Things Get Crazy’

The other reason to involve clinical laboratories is so the nation can ramp up testing if the bird flu is suddenly detected among people who didn’t catch it from cattle. There’s no evidence the virus has started to spread among people, but that could change in coming months as it evolves.

The fastest way to get clinical labs involved, Greninger said, is to allow them to use a test the FDA has already authorized: the CDC’s bird flu test. On April 16 the CDC opened up that possibility by offering royalty-free licenses for components of its bird flu tests to accredited labs.

Several commercial labs asked for licenses. “We want to get prepared before things get crazy,” said Shyam Saladi, chief executive officer of the diagnostics company Neelyx Labs, which offered covid and mpox tests during shortages in those outbreaks. His experience over the past two months reveals the types of barriers that prevent labs from moving swiftly.

In email exchanges with the CDC, shared with KFF Health News, Saladi specifies the labs’ desire for licenses relevant to the CDC’s test, as well as a “right to reference” the CDC’s data in its application for FDA authorization.

That “right to reference” makes it easier for one company to use a test developed by another. It allows the new group to skip certain analyses conducted by the original maker, by telling the FDA to look at data in the original FDA application. This was commonplace with covid tests at the peak of the pandemic.

At first, the CDC appeared eager to cooperate. “A right of reference to the data should be available,” Jonathan Motley, a patent specialist at the CDC, wrote in an email to Saladi on April 24. Over the next few weeks, the CDC sent him information about transferring its licenses to the company, and about the test, which prompted Neelyx’s researchers to buy testing components and try out the CDC’s process on their equipment.

But Saladi grew increasingly anxious about the ability to reference the CDC’s data in the company’s FDA application. “Do you have an update with respect to the right of reference?” he asked the CDC on May 13. “If there are any potential sticking points with respect to this, would you mind letting us know please?”

He asked several more times in the following weeks, as the number of herds infected with the bird flu ticked upward and more cases among farmworkers were announced. “Given that it is May 24 and the outbreak has only expanded, can CDC provide a date by which it plans to respond?” Saladi wrote.

The CDC eventually signed a licensing agreement with Neelyx but informed Saladi that it would not, in fact, provide the reference. Without that, Saladi said, he could not move forward with the CDC’s test — at least not without more material from the agency. “It’s really frustrating,” he said. “We thought they really intended to support the development of these tests in case they are needed.”

Shah, from the CDC, said test manufacturers should generate their own data to prove that they’re using the CDC’s test correctly. “We don’t have a shortage such that we need to cut corners,” he said. “Quality reigns supreme.”

The CDC has given seven companies, including Neelyx, licenses for its tests — although none have been cleared to use them by the FDA. Only one of those companies asked for the right of reference, Shah said. The labs may be assisted by additional material that the agency is developing now, to allow them to complete the analyses — even without the reference.

“This should have happened sooner,” Saladi told KFF Health News when he was told about the CDC’s pending additional material. “There’s been no communication about this.”

Greninger said the delays and confusion are reminiscent of the early months of covid, when federal agencies prioritized caution over speed. Test accuracy is important, he said, but excessive vetting can cause harm in a fast-moving outbreak like this one. “The CDC should be trying to open this up to labs with national reach and a good reputation,” he said. “I fall on the side of allowing labs to get ready — that’s a no-brainer.”

Clinical laboratories have also begun to develop their own tests from scratch. But researchers said they’re moving cautiously because of a recent FDA rule that gives the agency more oversight of lab-developed tests, lengthening the pathway to approval. In an email to KFF Health News, FDA press officer Janell Goodwin said the rule’s enforcement will occur gradually.

However, Susan Van Meter, president of the American Clinical Laboratory Association, a trade group whose members include the nation’s largest commercial diagnostic labs, said companies need more clarity: “It’s slowing things down because it’s adding to the confusion about what is allowable.”

Creating tests for the bird flu is already a risky bet, because demand is uncertain. It’s not clear whether this outbreak in cattle will trigger an epidemic or fizzle out. In addition to issues with the CDC and FDA, clinical laboratories are trying to figure out whether health insurers or the government will pay for bird flu tests.

These wrinkles will be smoothed eventually. Until then, the vanishingly slim numbers of people tested, along with the lack of testing in cattle, may draw criticism from other parts of the world.

“Think about our judgment of China’s transparency at the start of covid,” Nuzzo said. “The current situation undermines America’s standing in the world.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.  

Fatal Overdoses Show First Decline in 5 Years

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

There’s good and bad news in the latest report on the overdose crisis in the United States.

Preliminary data released by the CDC show that there were an estimated 107,543 drug deaths in 2023, a 3.1% decline from 2022 and the first annual drop since 2018. The rate of confirmed overdoses fell even more -- by 5.1 percent – a number subject to change as lagging data and toxicology reports come in.

“We are encouraged to see the preliminary data that shows a decrease in the overdose death rate for the first time in five years, especially following the period of rapid double-digit increases from 2019-2021,” said White House Drug Control Policy director Dr. Rahul Gupta, in a statement.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that drug deaths kept rising in several western states, with Alaska (+44%), Nevada (+29%), Oregon (+30%) and Washington (+28%) showing substantial increases.

In contrast, overdoses declined in the East and Midwest, with significant decreases in Nebraska (-25%), Indiana (-18%), Kansas (-16%) and Maine (-16%).

The report did not offer any explanation for the wide variation between states and regions.

Percent Change in Drug Overdose Deaths 2022-2023

SOURCE: nchs

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) said over 74,000 deaths last year involved fentanyl – most of it illicit – and more than 36,000 deaths were attributed to methamphetamine.

Most overdose deaths involve multiple drugs, according to the NCHS, so “a single death might be included in more than one category” and be counted multiple times.

Although the numbers remain somewhat unreliable, this report and others suggest that fentanyl and other illicit drugs play a far greater role in the nation’s drug crisis than prescription opioids.

A study published this week in the International Journal of Drug Policy reported that law enforcement seized a record 115 million counterfeit pills containing fentanyl last year. That compares to only 4 million prescription opioid pills that were reported lost or stolen by the DEA in 2023.   

Fake Pills Containing Fentanyl Seized by Law Enforcement

International Journal of Drug Policy

“Availability of illicit fentanyl is continuing to skyrocket in the U.S., and the influx of fentanyl-containing pills is particularly alarming,” wrote lead author Joseph Palamar, PhD, an Associate Professor in the Department of Population Health at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

“Both the number and size of drug seizures containing fentanyl have increased in the US between 2017 and 2023, with the majority of seizures –– particularly in pill form –– occurring in the West.”

Prescription opioids are mentioned only a handful of times in the DEA’s recent National Drug Threat Assessment, mainly within the context of their theft and diversion falling to the lowest levels in 12 years. That report also warns that counterfeit pills are increasingly being found with xylazine, a potent animal tranquilizer, and nitazenes, a synthetic opioid that is 40 times stronger than fentanyl  

CDC Could Be ‘Dismantled’ in Second Trump Term

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is “the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government,” not qualified to offer medical advice to patients, and its ability to set public health policy should be “severely confined.”  

Those are some of recommendations being made by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that seeks a major overhaul of the federal government if a Republican president – presumably Donald Trump – is sworn into office next year.

The agenda for Project 2025 is outlined in “Mandate for Leadership” – an 887-page book that advocates for many traditional conservative goals: smaller government, lower taxes, restrictive abortion laws, and an end to federal policies that promote equality and diversity.

We’re not going to get into those hot button issues, but will focus on how Mandate for Leadership would “dismantle the administration state” that governs healthcare in America.

That section of the book is written by Roger Severino, the former director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) during the first Trump administration.   

To begin, it’s pretty clear that the CDC has a target on its back, largely due to how the agency responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by shutting down much of the country in a bid to control the virus.    

“COVID-19 exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government. CDC continually misjudged COVID-19, from its lethality, transmissibility, and origins to treatments,” wrote Severino.

“Unaccountable bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci should never again have such broad, unchecked power to issue health ‘guidelines’ that will certainly be the basis for federal and state mandates. Never again should public health bureaucrats be allowed to hide information, ignore information, or mislead the public concerning the efficacy or dangers associated with any recommended health interventions.”

Substitute “Tom Frieden” for “Anthony Fauci” and that paragraph would nicely sum up how many pain patients and doctors feel about the former CDC director and the 2016 CDC opioid guideline. Drafted in secret under Frieden’s leadership, the agency’s guideline development process likely violated federal open meeting and conflict-of-interest laws, while hiding behind an almost comical “Cone of Silence.”

Although its recommendations are voluntary, the opioid guideline was quickly adopted as a mandatory policy by many states, regulators and law enforcement – resulting in hundreds of doctors losing their medical licenses or going to prison for “overprescribing” opioids.

Severino, an attorney who seems well-positioned for another key healthcare job if Trump is elected to a second term, says the CDC went far beyond its authority when it created medical guidelines.  

“Most problematically, the CDC presented itself as a kind of ‘super-doctor’ for the entire nation. The CDC is a public health institution, not a medical institution,” he wrote. “It is not qualified to offer professional medical opinions applicable to specific patients. We have learned that when CDC says what people ‘should’ do, it readily becomes a ‘must’ backed by severe punishments, including criminal penalties.

“CDC guidelines are analogous to guidelines from other public health associations or medical societies: They are informative, not prescriptive. By statute or regulation, CDC guidance must be prohibited from taking on a prescriptive character.”

Split in Two

How can the CDC be reined in? The answer, according to Severino, is to cut the CDC in half and slash much of its funding.

“The CDC should be split into two separate entities housing its two distinct functions,” he wrote. “These distinct functions should be separated into two entirely separate agencies with a firewall between them. We need a national epidemiological agency responsible only for publishing data and required by law to publish all of the data gathered from states and other sources. A separate agency should be responsible for public health with a severely confined ability to make policy recommendations.”

Frieden calls that proposal “very dangerous and very wrong.”

“We don’t split up the military because it’s too big. We don’t split up corporations because they’re too big,” Frieden told Politico. “Big organization needs a big management structure and also flexibility.”

Severino says the CDC Foundation, a not-for-profit organization that works closely with the agency in promoting health policy, should be prohibited from accepting contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. The foundation received nearly $275 million in donations last year, much of it coming from Pfizer, Biogen, Merck and other healthcare companies.  

“This practice presents a stark conflict of interest that should be banned,” wrote Severino. “The CDC and NIH Foundations, whose boards are populated with pharmaceutical company executives, need to be decommissioned. Private donations to these foundations — a majority of them from pharmaceutical companies— should not be permitted to influence government decisions about research funding or public health policy.”

Severino also wants stronger transparency and conflict of interest policies, not just at the CDC, but at HHS and all federal agencies involved in healthcare. He thinks a lengthy “cooling off period” should be adopted to prevent federal regulators from going into industries they helped regulate once their government jobs end. A 15-year cooling off period “would not be too long,” according to Severino.

To be clear, Mandate for Leadership is more of a wish list than anything else. It all hinges on the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. If it does become a playbook for a second Trump administration, some of its recommendations could be imposed by executive order, but many will require congressional approval. CDC directors, once directly appointed by the president, will need Senate confirmation next year under a new law, just as other cabinet members do.      

Whatever happens, it’s clear that conservative advocates are gunning for the CDC.

“The federal government’s public health apparatus has lost the public’s trust. Before the next national public health emergency, this apparatus must be fundamentally restructured,” Severino wrote.

Oregon Medical Board Has ‘No Limits’ on Prescription Opioids

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Oregon Medical Board has come full circle in its regulation and enforcement of pain management guidelines. After years of taking disciplinary action against doctors for prescribing high dose opioids without a “legitimate medical purpose,” the board has acknowledged that its policies had a chilling effect on doctors who no longer felt safe treating chronic pain with opioids.

“The Board is well aware some number of clinicians have shied away from long-term pain management in part or in whole for fear of Board sanctions. We wish it weren’t so, and the Board is hopeful the realignment in prescribing guidance will provide reassurance to those licensees caring for patients with long-term pain,” David Farris, MD, Medical Director of the Oregon Medical Board (OMB), recently wrote in the board’s newsletter.

The board’s “realignment” came a year after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised its own opioid guideline to give doctors more flexibility in treating pain patients.

In 2016, the CDC initially recommended that daily opioid dosages not exceed 90 MME (morphine milligram equivalents), which was widely seen as a mandatory dose limit.

But after numerous reports of patients being rapidly tapered, going into withdrawal and dying by suicide, the CDC guidance was revised in 2022 to eliminate any dose thresholds. Physicians were instead urged to prescribe opioids cautiously at the “lowest possible effective dose.”   

“There are no set regulatory limits on the daily dosage of opioids that can be prescribed in Oregon. There is also not a requirement to rapidly taper or discontinue opioids for patients.”

— Oregon Medical Board

In a “Statement of Philosophy” adopted in January, the OMB urged doctors to read the CDC guideline and heed its advice about treating patients individually and to allow “shared decision making” about their treatment.

“In alignment with this statement and CDC guidelines, there are no set regulatory limits on the daily dosage of opioids that can be prescribed in Oregon. There is also not a requirement to rapidly taper or discontinue opioids for patients on existing opioid doses. The Board wants to ensure licensees accepting new patients on existing chronic opioid therapy do not feel pressured to rapidly change a patient’s current opioid dose,” the OMB said.

‘More Harm Than Good’

Opioids have been a contentious issue in Oregon for several years. In 2018, the state considered rule changes to its Medicaid program that would have limited coverage of opioids to just 90 days for patients with neck or back pain. The proposal, which would have forcibly tapered thousands of patients on long-term opioid therapy, was supported by Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group.     

The plan was scrapped after pain management experts signed a joint letter warning that Oregon’s tapering plan was unsupported by treatment guidelines and would do “substantially more harm than good.”

The Medical Board’s decision to give more leeway to doctors reflects a growing awareness that the crackdown on opioids is harming pain patients and may be worsening the drug crisis.    

“The Board wishes to reassure and encourage licensees to assume the prescribing responsibilities for such patients, regardless of MME level, at least temporarily, in order to avoid patients going into withdrawal or turning to illicit sources,” Farris wrote.

“It is gratifying to see the OMB finally recognize that their arbitrary opioid dosing policies harmed people with chronic pain and the providers caring for them. It seems as though the Board may have been adversely affected by advice received from home state clinicians aligned with PROP, and, inevitably, the chickens have come home to roost in that regard,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, former Executive Director of the Association of Integrative Pain Management, who signed the 2018 joint letter.

“I hope this change in stated policy will be reflected in changes to Board investigations and to the state-developed CME (Continuing Medical Education) program on pain management that is mandated for all prescribers in the state. It's going to take years to repair the damage done so far, but I'm hoping the pendulum can finally come to rest somewhere near the midpoint of the extremes we've seen over the last 30 years.”

Opioid prescribing in Oregon has been falling for nearly a decade – as it has nationwide – but overdose deaths in the state keep rising. According to CDC data, Oregon has one of the lowest rates of fatal overdoses involving prescription opioids in the country. Deaths linked to illicit fentanyl, stimulants, methamphetamine and heroin are far more common in Oregon.