Rejecting Purdue Pharma’s Bankruptcy Plan Harms Pain Patients, Again

By Crystal Lindell

Turns out the family behind Purdue Pharma wasn’t always acting on the up and up when it came to their money — a revelation that surprises almost no one. But a recent Supreme Court decision punishing them for that has the potential to prolong — and even cause — more suffering for millions of pain patients.

In short, last week the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that it was wrong for the Sackler family, which owns Purdue, to essentially try to shield some of their money through bankruptcy proceedings. Under a proposed bankruptcy plan, Purdue agreed to settle a massive lawsuit over the fraudulent marketing of the opioid medication OxyContin, which they claimed was less addictive than other opioids.

Specifically, according to an NPR article about the decision, "The ruling upended a carefully-crafted settlement worth roughly $8 billion… (for) all the individuals, states and local governments that had sued over harms from the opioid epidemic.”

The high court’s ruling means the Sackler family is now open to more lawsuits against it, and that some of the previously decided opioid cases could now be re-opened. That’s not just bad for those slated to receive money from those lawsuits, it’s also bad for pain patients. Continuing the opioid lawsuits will only perpetuate the anti-opioid zealotry that’s infiltrated the medical community.

To be honest, on a broad level, I kind of agree with the Supreme Court. If you lose or settle a lawsuit, you should not be able to move your money around by filing for bankruptcy to shield it. The problem I have with the ruling is that it is only going to serve to prolong the failed and harmful strategy of trying to solve opioid-related problems with lawsuits.

The lawsuits are especially damaging because they perpetuate the myth that the biggest sin Purdue committed in regard to OxyContin was claiming the medication wasn’t as addictive as other opioids.

That myth is even referenced on in the Supreme Court opinion:

“Because of the addictive quality of opioids, doctors had traditionally reserved their use for cancer patients and those ‘with chronic diseases.’ But OxyContin, Purdue claimed, had a novel ‘time-release’ formula that greatly diminished the threat of addiction. On that basis, Purdue marketed OxyContin for use in ‘a much broader range’ of applications, including as a ‘first-line therapy for the treatment of arthritis.’”

However, as a pain patient myself, and also as a former OxyContin user, I am here to tell you the truth: Purdue’s biggest sin wasn’t lying about how addictive OxyContin was. No, Purdue’s biggest sin was that they claimed that OxyContin time-released pills lasted 12 hours. In reality they only last about 4-6 hours.

Don’t take my word for it though. The Los Angeles Times reported the same thing in 2016.

“The drugmaker Purdue Pharma launched OxyContin two decades ago with a bold marketing claim: One dose relieves pain for 12 hours, more than twice as long as generic medications… [But] the drug wears off hours early in many people,” the Times said.

Purdue’s lie meant that thousands of patients were not prescribed enough pills to get through the day or the month, leading to two likely outcomes.

In one scenario, patients took an OxyContin when their last one wore off, and then ran out of their medication days or even weeks before their next refill date. They then faced the impossible choice of debilitating withdrawal or seeking medication on the black market.

The second scenario is that they took the medication as prescribed, only every 12 hours, and that meant they went through daily cycles of short bursts of pain relief followed by hours of pain while they wait for their next dose.

The Times also reported that Purdue was very aware of these possible problems, but wanted to maintain the lie that OxyContin lasted 12 hours to make it stand apart from less expensive opioids.  Purdue told doctors to stick to the 12-hour dosing schedule and to prescribe stronger doses if patients complained.  

Here’s the thing, the way to fix the real lie -- about how long the pills last -- is to give patients more opioids, not fewer. So instead of prescribing two 10mg OxyContin per day, the doctor should prescribe four to six 10mg OxyContin per day.

Unfortunately, that is not the lesson doctors learned from OxyContin and the opioid lawsuits. Instead, doctors decided the best solution was to minimize prescribing any opioids to any patient.  As long as these lawsuits continue, medical professionals and law enforcement will be flooded with even more propaganda about how the best way to save lives is to limit opioids.

Maybe one day, we will finally realize just how damaging it has been to make people suffer needlessly by limiting opioid prescriptions. But I fear that as long as the opioid lawsuits continue, that day will be pushed further and further out into the future.

Patients know firsthand that these lawsuits have made many doctors and pharmacists scared of prescribing opioids, even for post-op pain. But opioids are still the only effective treatment for many painful conditions. This leaves patients to languish in suffering or resort to the black market for needed relief.

We could do better than that though. We could actually help people.

Saving My Soul From a Real-Life Dopesick

By Cynthia Toussaint, PNN Columnist

While watching Dopesick, the Hulu series that dramatizes Purdue Pharma’s driving of the opioid crisis through their cash-cow OxyContin, I was traumatized to the point of hitting the pause button at least half a dozen times.

The filmmakers were so spot-on with their story telling, I anticipated and said names and organizations out loud before the actors did. You see, I was in the middle of this evil. And I was asked to be a part of the killings for money.

Watching Dopesick reminded me of those god-awful times. Recounting the untold number of people who got addicted to OxyContin and overdosed made me sick. Knowing Purdue and its accomplices nearly got away with it made me sick. How close I was to it all turned my stomach.

In 2003, about a year after I founded For Grace, I was deep in the planning of a California Senate hearing that would shed light on gender care bias toward women with high-impact pain. I loved every crazy-busy moment of this endeavor to give voice to women dismissed by the words, “It’s all in your head.” I was ecstatic to have three female state senators co-sponsoring my hearing that, to this day, remains the most requested event video in Capitol history.     

Out of the blue, Purdue Pharma’s Director of Community Outreach phoned. I’d never heard of Purdue before, but upon overhearing the call, my partner John handed me a note, telling me they were a pharmaceutical company that funded nonprofit pain organizations.

I was flattered that Brenda (not her real name) loved the work I was doing with the hearing, but more than a bit miffed when she recommended her own advocacy people be able to testify. As a start-up nonprofit, For Grace sure as hell needed underwriting, so I agreed to call and get to know her folk. What could it hurt?

I was pleasantly surprised when they were friendly and knowledgeable and, in the end, I chose to go with half my people and half Brenda’s that I and the senators’ staff vetted.

Things went sideways the morning of the hearing when Purdue and those who would testify met with us at the Capitol. After brief intros, Brenda asked for my written testimony and quickly edited it in red pen. I was infuriated by this unwelcomed intrusion.

Still fuming, I arrived late to my own senate hearing as I’d been yelling at John that they had no right to change my testimony just because they’d paid to fly some people in. Who the hell do these creeps think they are?                  

After the successful, standing room only hearing, I was beyond stoked and let the bad energy of the morning pass over dinner with legislators and staffers I adored.

Also in attendance were Purdue and their speakers. That night, at Purdue’s suggestion, we began laying the groundwork for a “Women In Pain” coalition. I was in heaven with the prospects of giving my movement a bigger platform.   

cynthia toussaint (right) testifying at 2004 hearing

Women In Pain (WIP for short) was For Grace’s exciting new project and the cause I wanted most to lead. Springing from a 2001 medical study entitled “The Girl Who Cried Pain” and a follow-up article in The New York Times on the neglect women face in getting their pain treated, I couldn’t wait for the world to learn about WIP. To have a coalition of nonprofit pain leaders and a deep funder behind our movement was a dream.

A dream that would slowly erode into the ugliest kind of nightmare.

When the coalition and Purdue began meeting, the first order of business was to establish an understanding that everyone would be working under For Grace’s umbrella, as we initiated the WIP concept and felt a deep ownership. In fact, we were strongly considering expanding our mission from CRPS awareness to the plight of all women in pain.

Though I’m known for my work ethic, I soon felt overwhelmed by my load. To keep up with For Grace’s everyday activities and the coalition’s needs, John and I were grinding through long hours, seven days a week.

Almost out of the gates, we were getting pushback from coalition members about seemingly everything. Jealousies erupted as I was getting the lion’s share of media attention due to my hustle and drive. Per their demands, I generated media coverage for all members, but that wasn’t enough. Some of them wanted me to script out their answers for interviews. I was beginning to feel beaten.  

‘The Correct Response’

One day I received a call from Purdue inviting me to give the keynote address for pain advocacy conferences they were underwriting in Denver and Philadelphia. The purpose of these events – or so I was told – was to train and inspire pain leaders to effectively interface with media and policy makers.

The person who’d be overlooking this affair was Dr. Richard Sackler, the grand dragon of the family-owned Purdue empire. At the event, Purdue minions were twisted like pretzels in their desire to please this unimpressive man, who struck me as distant and cold.

I was insulted when Purdue insisted that I take a media training class. In a taped, mock interview with their crisis management consultant, I was asked, “What treatment do you advise when a person gets a CRPS diagnosis?”

“Well, there’s a whole range of options out there, including alternative ones,” I answered, spreading my hands a yard wide. “Remember, what works for one person may not work for the next.”

Purdue’s consultant chided me. “As the up-and-coming pain star, you should rethink your answer. The correct response is to take OxyContin,” she said.

Stunned, I responded, “But that would kill people. There’s nothing to rethink.” I felt trapped in a queasy Twilight Zone episode, as not a soul in the crowded room of pain advocacy leaders and healthcare professionals backed me up.

That night, ensconced in our five-star hotel room, it dawned on John and me that everyone in this scheme was training to be a de facto sales force for OxyContin. We were the only schmucks not in on it, though Purdue was actively grooming me to be their #1 patient sales person.           

This bizarre, shady gathering left me with a rancid taste and my enthusiasm curbed for the coalition. But I forged on, at the behest of my advisors, to give Purdue a fair chance to find common ground, a notion I now laugh at.

Next, Purdue offered me an extraordinary opportunity to make WIP fly in an influential, national arena. I was invited to bring our project to “Women In Government”, a powerful organization comprised of female state legislators throughout the country. Thrilled, I introduced my cause at their western regional meeting in Honolulu, then prepared to close the deal at their annual conference in Tucson.

I must admit, I was enjoying Purdue’s lavish courtship – travel, the chauffeur-driven town cars, the choicest suites and the finest meals. After all, I’d earned these perks, I told myself. I was working damn hard and was extremely effective with my message. I knew I was good at what I was doing and it was gratifying to be recognized.

But Purdue continued their insidious attempts to control me. Before my speech, Brenda chided that I’d better knock it out of the park as they were spending a small mint. Further, I was not to go one nanosecond over my 20 minute speaking limit, or else! Hmmm, not the good luck pat on the back I’d hoped for.

Fuming, I made a beeline for the event coordinator, telling her of Brenda’s abuse. Her face turned beet red, angrily telling me that Purdue didn’t run their show. This kind woman reassured me to take a deep breath, then go out and do my thing. So I did.

During my standing ovation, the director came over and hugged me with eyes welling. Joy confided with the room her ongoing bout with chronic pain, along with her ringing endorsement of the WIP movement. Then I was circled by legislators, shaking my hand and thanking me. Most important, they said they’d do whatever I asked.

Later that day, Brenda showed me first-hand what my advocacy future would look like if I played nice with Purdue. During a special session, I watched a Broadway-level singer/actor/cancer survivor entertain the audience, giving them an update about her cause to promote a cervical vaccine. She was living my advocacy dream job – traveling the world, performing, making great money, all the while helping people. That afternoon, she captivated the room.

I had stars in my eyes. For the first time since losing my performance career at 21 due to CRPS, I was being offered a job that would completely feed me. And it was a more noble pursuit than entertaining, as I’d be helping, even saving, many people. But could I get Purdue to come around? They wouldn’t want my services solely to peddle OxyContin, right?

There’s much bigger fish to fry with our shared mission (or so I thought) to put chronic pain and gender care bias on the map. This was my great passion, and I was determined more than ever to thread that needle.

Purdue Wants More

But my naïve hope didn’t float for long. When we restarted our coalition meetings, the women were stone cold toward me, and I felt punished. Their jealousies were amping, and managing all the egos and expectations added to my overload.  I began feeling itchy that the coalition was grinding me to dust in an attempt to heist the project, leaving For Grace behind. The walls were closing in.

I called Brenda and voiced my concern. Oddly, she was warm and reassuring, voicing that, per our agreement, the project would never be taken away from For Grace. To the contrary, she said we were approaching a tipping point where the WIP movement would explode.

I was calm, for about a minute.

On the next call, the gates of hell broke open. The women were backing unethical suggestions from Purdue, including supplying a prominent link from our WIP website to Purdue’s OxyContin marketing page.

John went nuts, sternly stating that was a “slippery slope.” He exploded, “If we give them that link for their money, they’ll want more. And more!"

The women yelled him down, saying For Grace didn’t know how business worked. The back and forth warring finally ended when I pronounced, knowing full well Purdue was on the call, “I won’t be a whore for a pharmaceutical company.” The sounds of phones hanging up followed.

Soon after, I saw in a coalition member’s nonprofit newsletter that she and the others were launching a new organization. It was called “Women With Pain” and parroted our mission. Around that same time, I was abruptly dropped from planned media stories and speaking engagements. Clearly, Purdue’s tentacles ran far and wide. When I threatened to speak to the media about their dirty deeds, Purdue called with a bevy of their attorneys in tow, telling us thuggishly to put a cork in it.

I cried, I yelled, I screamed, I even begged God for mercy. What I’d given birth to had been heisted, and was going to be used to kill people. John and I got deeply ill with what I thought was an epic flu, but looking back, I see it was despair. I became despondent and we were convinced there was no path forward with the good work. Worse, I started thinking deeply about ending my life. I didn’t want to live in a world this soulless.

Saving My Soul

But the fire within hadn’t burned out, and after ample time to grieve, I was able to get out of bed. I was further lifted by For Grace board members who prodded me to not let the bad guys win. Ultimately, I saw that good things could be possible again.

While formally expanding our mission to Women In Pain, I used my persuasiveness to get the pro-bono services of a top-end intellectual property attorney. He sent every coalition member a cease-and-desist letter, advising them not to use the name and idea inspired by For Grace.

I was elated that the letter hit its mark. In fact, the rival organization’s name and announcement were taken down the very next day. Shortly after, I was informed the new coalition was dead on arrival and I knew I’d gotten Purdue, a multi-billion dollar corporation, to buckle.

That’s how I saved my soul from the Sackler family and their savage empire. And I’ve never looked back. Until now.

Those terrible years of trauma surged back while watching the evil dramatized in Dopesick. I was reminded that everything Purdue touched turned to rot. Worse, with few exceptions, everyone enabled them. Without hesitation, they all lapped up Purdue’s dirty money. To make this level of killing possible, Purdue bought support from a wide range of villains: the FDA, policy makers, healthcare professionals and, yes, pain patient advocates. You know who you are.

For years, I’ve watched bad people with bad organizations take bad money to do bad things. And the opioid crisis that Purdue spearheaded has made collateral damage of all of us with pain. Many who need opioids to functionally survive no longer have access.  Many good doctors who responsibly prescribed have been indicted. And for ethical pain organizations who still want to do good work, funding has dried up. I think it’s fair to emphatically state that everyone with pain is suffering in the wake of Purdue’s and their enablers’ sins.               

With apologies, I don’t have my usual up-beat take-away, no words of comfort. Just tears, and a plea. Watch Dopesick, study it, commit this atrocity to memory. Take my word, the pharmaceutical industry is doing just that, and there’s another Purdue in the making that will attempt to make billions off the suffering and murdering of millions. All in the name of pain care. 

I was this close to being one of Purdue’s statistics. But I lived to tell my story. Perhaps it’s not foolish to hope next time more souls will be saved.

Cynthia Toussaint is the founder and spokesperson at For Grace, a non-profit dedicated to bettering the lives of women in pain. She has lived with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and 19 co-morbidities for nearly four decades, and became a cancer survivor in 2020. Cynthia is the author of “Battle for Grace: A Memoir of Pain, Redemption and Impossible Love.”

The 2019 Event With Major Impact for Millions of Pain Patients

By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

The demise of the American Pain Society (APS) in June of 2019 was a major blow to pain patients, their providers and pain research. For 42 years, APS enjoyed an unimpeachable reputation as an academic, scholarly organization and an icon of scientific integrity.

However, with an opportunity to make billions of dollars, opioid plaintiffs' attorneys targeted professional medical organizations like APS as complicit in creating the opioid crisis. They labeled them as front organizations for deceptive opioid manufacturers and distributors.

As implausible as the claims were, it was a real problem for APS and other professional organizations and individuals who care for patients with pain. There were more than a thousand lawsuits filed against myriad defendants. I don't know the exact number of claims filed against APS, but I was named in several hundred of them.  

The plaintiffs required records about, and responses to, each claim. Complying with that many demands proved to be such a financial burden that APS could not survive. I, too, have struggled to deal with these baseless attacks on my integrity and resources.

Law firms representing over 2,000 states, counties and municipalities, along with national media, have judged and found blameworthy those who have devoted their careers to helping people in pain.

Even deep-pocketed companies such as Purdue Pharma are not always able to weather the financial and administrative burden of responding to thousands of legal claims. The manufacturer of OxyContin, Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy in September 2019.

It strikes me as an injustice when small organizations like APS cannot defend themselves in court due to the overpowering financial and political forces alleging spurious conspiracies and dubious claims of wrongdoing. 

In the past decade, the number of doctors and other providers who have been criminally charged for prescribing controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose has increased dramatically. Some were appropriately charged, but others were caught up in a social fever to cast blame for the destruction that substance abuse can cause.

Providers are easy targets. It is much simpler to accuse doctors and pharmacists of wrongdoing than it would be to try to correct social disparities that drive the demand for drugs of abuse. I have attempted to defend many such providers, who eventually decided to plea bargain because of the enormous legal costs they would incur if they continued their defense.

Justice for Some

Attorney Bryan Stevenson shines a light on the naked injustices that treat the rich and guilty better than the poor and innocent in his memoir, Just Mercy. Stevenson shows that racial prejudice fuels injustice, but the lack of resources to secure adequate defense makes the process painfully unfair and the outcome predestined. 

Another injustice was in the national news some years ago. You may remember that Richard Jewell was unfairly accused of a bombing at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. The media essentially convicted Jewell before he was charged with anything. After several months of cruel media persecution and harassment, the truth emerged and Jewell was exonerated. A movie about what happened to Jewell is currently playing in theaters. 

Veteran newscaster Tom Brokaw recently apologized for suggesting to viewers that Jewell was guilty. NBC reportedly paid Jewell $500,000 for contributing to his suffering, but this is a rare consequence when such injustices occur. APS is not likely to receive either vindication or reparations.  

Groundless accusations, media hysteria and the enormous financial backing of a false narrative exploit the weaknesses of our civil and criminal justice systems. 

Two of the most powerful forces in America are the media and the government. When they join together to fight evil, they can strengthen a democracy and serve the people well. But if they combine forces to propagate a false narrative, it is nearly impossible for the innocent to survive the damage on a personal or professional level. The catastrophic results can undermine the integrity of our legal system and free press. 

The media's framing of an issue, whether factual or not, changes attitudes and even public policies if it is repeated often enough. The media has certainly carried the water for the plaintiffs against organizations like APS. 

Most disheartening is that, in the case of APS, the harm goes far beyond the organization and its members. One hundred million Americans with pain and their families are the ultimate victims of APS's collapse. The harm will not be confined to 2019 but will extend for decades into the future.  

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. He is the author of the award-winning book, “The Painful Truth,” and co-producer of the documentary, “It Hurts Until You Die.” You can find Lynn on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD.

Opinions expressed are those of the author alone and do not reflect the views or policy of PRA Health Sciences. 

Mother Who Lost Son to OxyContin Vindicated by Purdue Settlement

By Mark Kreidler, Kaiser Health News

In the 15 years since she lost her son to a single OxyContin pill, Barbara Van Rooyan has had but one up-close look at the people representing the company that made it.

It was in a small courthouse in Abingdon, Va., where Van Rooyan and other relatives of OxyContin victims gathered for a sentencing hearing in 2007. Three executives of Purdue Pharma had pleaded guilty to federal charges related to their misbranding and marketing of the powerful opioid. The company had pleaded guilty as well.

Van Rooyan and the others in her group spoke during the sentencing, giving voice to their grief and their pain. They wanted the executives sent to jail for knowingly expanding an opioid crisis fast engulfing the country.

Instead, Purdue paid fines totaling $634 million. The executives served no time. The company was allowed to continue aggressively marketing its product, and the following year, sales of OxyContin reached $2 billion.

From 1999 to 2017, more than 700,000 people in the U.S. died of drug overdoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2017, nearly 68% of the more than 70,000 recorded overdose deaths involved opioids, mostly illicit opioids such as fentanyl and heroin.

“I never really thought a whole lot about evil before this all happened,” Van Rooyan said recently, seated on a couch in the living room of her Irvine, Calif., home. “But to see this kind of malevolence or disregard for human life — I don’t know what else to call it but evil.”

The outcome in that Virginia courthouse was a far cry from last week’s news of a tentative mass settlement of many of the 2,000-plus lawsuits against the company, which could total upward of $12 billion and result in Purdue’s dissolution.

The potential settlement amount would include $3 billion from the Sackler family, owners of Purdue, whose fortune is estimated at $13 billion. The family has amassed that money over the past two decades, largely by selling OxyContin, an opioid painkiller.

‘The Lid Is Off’

Van Rooyan’s Purdue experience is a story of deception, sadness and frustration — yet when she tells it now, she emits a surprising spark of energy. That’s because Van Rooyan, part of the unlikely group of citizens who repeatedly took flailing swings at Purdue Pharma, is watching the giant fall.

Van Rooyan, who has studied the cases against Purdue closely, sees the paradox in the proffered settlement: Much of the payout would be financed by profits from the continued sale of OxyContin, under a new company that would be formed following a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

But in some regard, she said, Purdue Pharma’s complicity in the opioid crisis has finally emerged into the general public’s view. “The world really knows now. They get it,” she said. “The lid is off, and all this stuff is bubbling out.”

That wasn’t the case on the night of July 4, 2004, when Van Rooyan and her husband, Kirk, got the call that changed their world. Barbara, then a professor of counseling at Folsom Lake College near Sacramento, was told that her son, Patrick Stewart, lay in a San Diego hospital, in a medically induced coma from which he was unlikely to emerge.

Patrick, a graduate of Oak Ridge High School in El Dorado Hills, Calif., and San Diego State University, died at age 24.

His friends told Barbara they had attended an Independence Day party at which someone offered her son an OxyContin pill, telling him it “was kind of like a muscle relaxant and it was FDA approved, so it was safe,” she said. Patrick, who had also consumed a couple of beers, was opioid intolerant and suffered respiratory failure in his sleep.

Barbara Van Rooyan holds picture of her son, Kirk

“At the time,” Van Rooyan said, “all I knew about Oxy was that Rush Limbaugh had been addicted to it.”

She was about to learn a lot more.

OxyContin Abuse

Van Rooyan channeled her grief through intense research into Oxy’s vast potential for damage despite the company’s sales pitches to the contrary. A slow-release pain treatment with a heavy dose of the narcotic oxycodone, it could be easily crushed or dissolved for a more intense and addictive high. Rampant abuse already had begun to be reported, particularly in the Appalachian area, author Beth Macy wrote in her national bestseller “Dopesick.”

Later in 2004, Van Rooyan found Ed Bisch, a Philadelphia man who had begun a website to expose Oxy abuse in the wake of his teenage son’s death. The following year, Van Rooyan and her husband, a plastic surgeon, petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to require that OxyContin be made more abuse-resistant, and that its use be strictly limited to severe pain.

“This was an exhausting process, which she and Kirk did as a labor of love to try to save others,” Bisch recalled.

Van Rooyan became the California arm of a grassroots movement known as RAPP — Relatives Against Purdue Pharma. The group, originally just four in number, protested at physician meetings funded by pharmaceutical companies and testified before Congress. Van Rooyan enlisted the help of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who wrote the FDA on her behalf and later sent Van Rooyan a letter of commendation.

But most members of Congress did not reply to Van Rooyan’s letters, she said. The FDA said its review needed more time — which turned out to be eight years. By then, Purdue already had reformulated OxyContin to make it more abuse resistant and to renew its patent, but the FDA declined to restrict its use to managing severe pain.

Van Rooyan pressed on, but for a long while, the opioid crisis felt to her like a topic hiding in plain sight. And fighting Purdue while still grieving the loss of son Patrick was taking a toll.

“Her determination was tireless,” Bisch said, “but eventually the frustration burned us out.”

And then came the turn.

A rash of high-profile opioid overdoses and deaths, from actor Heath Ledger to Tom Petty to Prince, put the topic squarely in the public eye — and 15 years after the death of Van Rooyan’s son, Purdue Pharma and other drugmakers were suddenly on the run.

(Editor’s note: Ledger, Petty and Prince all died from a lethal mix of opioids and other drugs that were apparently obtained on the street.)

Wants Purdue Settlement Spent on Treatment

Van Rooyan tracks every development related to Purdue, including a lawsuit in New York that alleges members of the Sackler family have been offloading their fortunes into private or offshore accounts to shield them from a settlement.

But she’s not out for vengeance. Her goals have changed.

“Do I want the records to be public? Do I want these people to have their business shut down? Yes, I do,” she said. “But more than vindictiveness, I want that money of theirs to go to treatment and rehab. If that happens, something good can come out of it.”

If she has a regret, it is that the case in Virginia ended in 2007 with no more than a fine. “If that result had been different — if people had gone to jail — it could have changed the trajectory of this,” she said.

Ana Venegas for KHN

But momentum finally appears to be gathering, and Van Rooyan finds herself identified as one of the trailblazers of the anti-OxyContin movement. She spends little time dwelling on that. Instead, she quotes her younger son, Andrew, who told her, “We didn’t want any of this — this is just the hand we were dealt. We need to play the cards the best we can.”

“She’s just a really strong person,” said Kirk Van Rooyan, who has been with Barbara throughout the ordeal, though he is not Patrick’s biological father. “There have been times when I’d think to myself, ‘How would I be doing if I were in her shoes?’ And the answer usually is, ‘Not as well as she’s doing.’”

Van Rooyan, a longtime artist, now spends much of her time volunteering with veterans in Orange County, Calif., helping them get back into the workforce and using art therapy to help them express themselves.

The art is special to Van Rooyan, she said, because it is part of what saved her in the aftermath of her son’s death.

“Patrick was the one who suggested I take my first class,” she said. After a few delays, she finally enrolled. It was about a month before that Fourth of July in 2004.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Liability Trial of Opioid Drug Maker Could Set Precedents

By Jackie Fortier, Kaiser Health News

All eyes will be on Oklahoma this week when the first case in a flood of litigation against opioid drug manufacturers begins. Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter’s suit alleges Johnson & Johnson, the nation’s largest drugmaker, helped ignite a public health crisis that has killed thousands of state residents.

With just two days to go before the trial, one of the remaining defendants, Teva Pharmaceutical, announced an $85 million settlement with the state on Sunday. The money will be used for litigation costs and an undisclosed amount will be allocated “to abate the opioid crisis in Oklahoma,” according to a press release from Hunter’s office.

In its own statement, Teva said the settlement does not establish any wrongdoing on the part of the company, adding Teva “has not contributed to the abuse of opioids in Oklahoma in any way.”

That leaves Johnson & Johnson as the sole defendant.

Court filings accuse the company of overstating the benefits of opioids and understating their risks in marketing campaigns that duped doctors into prescribing the drugs for ailments not approved by regulators.

The bench trial — with a judge and no jury — is poised to be the first of its kind to play out in court.

Nora Freeman Engstrom, a professor at Stanford Law school, said lawyers in the other cases and the general public are eager to see what proof Hunter’s office offers the court.

“We’ll all be seeing what evidence is available, what evidence isn’t available and just how convincing that evidence is,” she said.

Most states and more than 1,600 local and tribal governments are suing drugmakers and distributors. They are trying to recoup billions of dollars spent on addressing the fallout tied to opioid addiction.

Initially, Hunter’s lawsuit included Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. In March, Purdue Pharma settled with the state for $270 million. Soon after, Hunter dropped all but one of the civil claims, including fraud, against the remaining defendants. Teva settled for $85 million in May, leaving Johnson & Johnson as the only opioid manufacturer willing to go to trial with the state.

But he still thinks the case is strong.

“We have looked at literally millions of documents, taken hundreds of depositions, and we are even more convinced that these companies are the proximate cause for the epidemic in our state and in our country,” Hunter said.

The companies involved have a broad concern about what their liability might be, said University of Kentucky law professor Richard Ausness.

“This case will set a precedent,” he said. “If Oklahoma loses, of course they’ll appeal if they lose, but the defendants may have to reconsider their strategy.”

With hundreds of similar cases pending — especially a mammoth case pending in Ohio — Oklahoma’s strategy will be closely watched.

“And of course lurking in the background is the multi-state litigation in Cleveland, where there will ultimately be a settlement in all likelihood, but the size of the settlement and the terms of the settlement may be influenced by Oklahoma,” Ausness said.

Rx Opioids ‘Useful Products’

The legal case is complicated. Unlike tobacco, where states won a landmark settlement, Ausness pointed out that opioids serve a medical purpose.

“There’s nothing wrong with producing opioids. It’s regulated and approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the sale is overseen by the Drug Enforcement Administration, so there’s a great deal of regulation in the production and distribution and sale of opioid products,” Ausness said. “They are useful products, so this is not a situation where the product is defective in some way.”

It’s an argument that has found some traction in court. Recently, a North Dakota judge dismissed all of that state’s claims against Purdue, a big court win for the company. In a written ruling that the state says it will appeal, Judge James Hill questioned the idea of blaming a company that makes a legal product for opioid-related deaths.

“Purdue cannot control how doctors prescribe its products and it certainly cannot control how individual patients use and respond to its products,” the judge wrote, “regardless of any warning or instruction Purdue may give.”

Now the Oklahoma case rests entirely on a claim of public nuisance, which refers to actions that harm members of the public, including injury to public health.

“It’s sexy you know, ‘public nuisance’ makes it sound like the defendants are really bad,” Ausness said.

If the state’s claim prevails, Big Pharma could be forced to spend billions of dollars in Oklahoma helping ease the epidemic. “It doesn’t diminish the amount of damages we believe we’ll be able to justify to the judge,” Hunter said, estimating a final payout could run into the “billions of dollars.”

Hunter’s decision to go it alone and not join with a larger consolidated case could mean a quicker resolution for the state, Ausness said.

“Particularly when we’re talking about [attorneys general], who are politicians, who want to be able to tell the people, ‘Gee this is what I’ve done for you.’ They are not interested in waiting two or three years [for a settlement], they want it now,” he said. “Of course, the risk of that is you may lose.”

Oklahoma has the second-highest uninsured rate in the nation and little money for public health. Of the $270 million Purdue settlement, $200 million is earmarked for an addiction research and treatment center in Tulsa, though no details have been released. An undisclosed amount of the $85 million Teva settlement will also go to abating the crisis.

This story is part of a partnership that includes StateImpact Oklahoma, NPR and Kaiser Health News. KHN is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

How Sackler Family Built an OxyContin Fortune

By Christine Willmsen and Martha Bebinger, WBUR

The first nine months of 2013 started off as a banner year for the Sackler family, owners of the pharmaceutical company that produces OxyContin, the addictive opioid pain medication. Purdue Pharma paid the family $400 million from its profits during that time, claims a lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts attorney general.

However, when profits dropped in the fourth quarter, the family allegedly supported the company’s intense push to increase sales representatives’ visits to doctors and other prescribers.

Purdue had hired a consulting firm to help reps target “high-prescribing” doctors, including several in Massachusetts. One physician in a town south of Boston wrote an additional 167 prescriptions for OxyContin after sales representatives increased their visits, according to the latest version of the lawsuit filed in Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston.

The lawsuit claims Purdue paid members of the Sackler family more than $4 billion between 2008 and 2016. Eight members of the family who served on the board or as executives as well as several directors and officers with Purdue are named in the lawsuit.

This is the first lawsuit among hundreds of others that were previously filed across the country to charge the Sacklers with personally profiting from the harm and death of people taking the company’s opioids.

WBUR along with several other media sued Purdue Pharma to force the release of previously redacted information that was filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court case. When a judge ordered the records to be released with few, if any, redactions, Purdue filed two appeals and lost.

The complaint filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey says that former Purdue Pharma CEO Richard Sackler allegedly suggested the family sell the company or, if they weren’t able to find a buyer, to milk the drugmaker’s profits and “distribute more free cash flow” to themselves.

That was in 2008, one year after Purdue pleaded guilty to a felony and agreed to stop misrepresenting the addictive potential of its highly profitable painkiller, OxyContin.

At a board meeting in June 2008, the complaint says, the Sacklers voted to pay themselves $250 million. Another payment in September totaled $199 million.

The company continued to receive complaints about OxyContin similar to those that led to the 2007 guilty plea, according to unredacted documents filed in the case.

While the company settled lawsuits in 2009 totaling $2.7 million brought by family members of those who had been harmed by OxyContin throughout the country, the company amped up its marketing of the drug to physicians by spending $121.6 million on sales reps for the coming year. The Sacklers paid themselves $335 million that year.

The lawsuit claims Sackler family members directed efforts to boost sales. An attorney for the family and other board directors is challenging the authority to make that claim in Massachusetts. A motion on jurisdiction in the case hasn’t been heard. That attorney hasn’t responded to a request for comment on the most recent allegations.

Purdue Pharma, in a statement, said the complaint filed by Healey is “part of a continuing effort to single out Purdue, blame it for the entire opioid crisis, and try the case in the court of public opinion rather than the justice system.”

Purdue went on to charge Healey with attempting to “vilify” Purdue in a complaint “riddled with demonstrably inaccurate allegations.” Purdue said it has more than 65 initiatives aimed at reducing the misuse of prescription opioids. The company says Healey fails to acknowledge that most opioid overdose deaths are currently the result of fentanyl.

Purdue fought the release of many sections of the 274-page complaint. Attorneys for the company said at a hearing on Jan. 25 that they had agreed to release much more information in Massachusetts than has been cleared by a judge overseeing hundreds of cases consolidated in Ohio. Purdue filed both state and federal appeals this week to block release of the compensation figures and other information about Purdue’s plan to expand into drugs to treat opioid addiction.

The attorney general’s complaint says that in a ploy to distance themselves from the emerging statistics and studies that showed OxyContin’s addictive characteristics, the Sacklers approved public marketing plans that labeled people hurt by opioids as “junkies” and “criminals.”

Richard Sackler allegedly wrote that Purdue should “hammer” them in every way possible.

Addiction Treatment ‘Attractive Market’

While Purdue Pharma publicly denied its opioids were addictive, internally company officials were acknowledging it and devising a plan to profit off them even more, the complaint states.

Kathe Sackler, a board member, pitched “Project Tango,” a secret plan to grow Purdue beyond providing painkillers by also providing a drug, Suboxone, to treat those addicted.

“Addictive opioids and opioid addiction are ‘naturally linked,'” she allegedly wrote in September 2014.

According to the lawsuit, Purdue staff wrote: “It is an attractive market. Large unmet need for vulnerable, underserved and stigmatized patient population suffering from substance abuse, dependence and addiction.”

They predicted that 40-60 percent of the patients buying Suboxone for the first time would relapse and have to take it again, which meant more revenue.

Purdue never went through with it, but Attorney General Healey contends this and other internal documents show the family’s greed and disregard for the welfare of patients.

This story is part of a reporting partnership between WBUR, NPR and Kaiser Health News. 

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Lessons from 'American Overdose' on the Opioid Crisis

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

The book “American Overdose: The Opioid Tragedy in Three Acts” by Chris McGreal takes a hard look at the opioid crisis. The book focuses on the legal and political side of the crisis, along with a history of Purdue Pharma and OxyContin, and a detailed description of pill mills and rogue pharmacies in Appalachia.

“It is a tragedy forged by the capture of medical policy by corporations and the failure of institutions in their duty to protect Americans,” is how McGreal describes the genesis and evolution of the crisis.

The book highlights the massive collusion and corruption in communities in West Virginia and Kentucky, leading to the Williamson Wellness Center and other pill mills that were protected by law enforcement, ignored by state and federal regulators, and encouraged or exploited by drug manufacturers and distributors.

McGreal also traces the history of Purdue and the Sackler family, and how their efforts to improve pain management led to the creation of the blockbuster drug OxyContin. He explains how Purdue’s marketing claims “proved to be demonstrably false, including an assertion that addiction is rare when opioids are taken under a doctor’s care.”

However, McGreal does not depict Purdue as a lone bad actor. Instead, federal and state dysfunction and disinterest contributed to the crisis. “The FDA wasn’t the only one to drop the ball. A clutch of federal agencies with long names have responsibility for combating drug addiction and overdose,” he wrote. And they all failed.

The failure was both systemic and systematic. As the crisis unfolded, local law enforcement had to contend with “indifference and what they regarded as the political cowardice of the system.” Perhaps more important than the cowardice and corruption was greed, not just corporate greed but also local greed for the money brought in by pill mills: “The businesses did good. You had pharmacies that were doing really good.”

The problem soon extended far beyond Appalachia. Among the earliest and biggest pill mills was American Pain, set up in 2007 near Fort Lauderdale, Florida by twin brothers Chris and Jeff George – neither of whom had medical training.

Opioid addiction also rose across the nation because of cultural factors, writes McGreal. In Utah, “the dominance of the conservative Church of Latter-day Saints appeared to be a cause of addiction, not a deterrent” because of the church’s “toxic perfectionism.”

Government agencies and officials were encouraged to ignore it all. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s office wasn’t interested in pursuing pill mills and the “political leadership within Florida wasn’t much better.”

Rudy Giuliani, Eric Holder, and James Comey all helped Purdue, according to McGreal, by delaying investigations of the company as addiction and overdose rates rose rapidly in the 2000’s.

The CDC’s involvement is described as delayed and dysfunctional. "Until 1998 the United States used a classification system lumping heroin, morphine, and prescription opiate deaths together," McGreal points out. Even when CDC researcher Len Paulozzi documented rising trends in overdose deaths, no one paid serious attention until Thomas Frieden, MD, became director. Even then, serious flaws remain in how the CDC reports on overdose deaths.  

Anti-opioid activists Andrew Kolodny, MD, founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), and PROP President Jane Ballantyne, MD, sounded warnings about opioids, but offered little in the way of solutions outside of cutting off prescriptions. Many of their warnings proved to be unfounded, in particular with the opioid analgesic Zohydro. The drug was approved by the FDA amid dire warnings of a major spike in addiction and overdoses, but “there was no great surge of overdoses because of Zohydro.”

“FDA officials don’t like Kolodny. They characterize him as unreasonable and difficult. One described him as a ‘complex character’,” McGreal writes.

Similarly, the 2016 CDC opioid prescribing guideline is described as too late to be useful. McGreal looks closely at the debate about the CDC guideline and recommendations from the 2017 opioid commission set up by President Trump. But despite these much-touted steps, “little changed on the ground for states desperate for treatment facilities and help with the social costs of the tragedy.”

The book concludes on a pessimistic note, captured in a comment from Nathaniel Katz, MD, about opioid addiction and overdose: "I don’t really see any prospect for intelligent policy in this area in the United States.”

McGreal summarizes his ideas with an indictment of American culture.

"In large parts of the United States, opioids were popular because they were a fix. A fix for emotional pain. A fix for failing bodies. A fix for struggling to make it in a society that promises so much, and judges by what is achieved, but turns it back on so many of those who fail to live up to that promise," he writes.

If “American Overdose” offers lessons, it is that the opioid crisis is a result not only corporate greed but also American culture; in particular politicians, regulators and a broader medical industry with agendas contrary to the public good. The book is an origin tale of the opioid crisis that offers little hope for the future.

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society. Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.

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

OxyContin, Heroin and the Opioid Crisis

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

The roles of heroin and OxyContin in the opioid crisis are frequently mischaracterized and misunderstood. Such is the case with a recent op/ed in The Washington Post.

“In the 1990s, when the industry began aggressively marketing prescription opioids such as OxyContin, heroin was a minimal presence in American life," wrote Keith Humphreys, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University

This is an unfortunate and common error about the role of heroin in the opioid crisis. Humphreys is repeating what many politicians and policymakers have also claimed. It’s important to correct this error because otherwise we will misunderstand how to treat heroin addiction, what our options are for pain management, and how to create sound policies to address the opioid crisis.

In fact, the U.S. has long had a major problem with heroin. Mexican black tar heroin arrived decades before OxyContin, and opioid addiction is usually a result of recreational use starting during adolescence, with addiction due to medical care being uncommon.

According to the book “Dark Paradise” by historian David Courtwright, researchers estimated the number of heroin addicts in the U.S. during the 1990s at a half million or more, about the same level as in the mid-1970s. This is also close to the 626,000 heroin addicts that the National Institute of Drug Abuse estimates for 2016.

Fatal overdoses involving Mexican black tar heroin were increasing even before OxyContin was introduced by Purdue Pharma in 1996. Sam Quinones notes in “Dreamland” that Oregon’s Multnomah County had only 10 heroin overdose deaths in 1991, about the time Mexican drug dealers arrived in Portland, but by 1999 there were 111 heroin overdoses.

So the idea that “heroin was a minimal presence in American life” isn’t supported by data. Neither is the claim that heroin traffickers “set up shop in the areas of the United States with the highest prevalence of prescription opioid addiction.”

According to Quinones, the Mexican drug gang the “Xalisco Boys” went into communities that were not a part of the established drug trade and were not subject to turf wars or other forms of gang violence. They wanted to fly below the radar, to avoid detection by law enforcement, and deliberately avoided carrying guns, driving fancy cars, or living large.
So the Xalisco Boys went to smaller cities like Portland and rural communities like Appalachia that were specifically chosen because they were low risk. And they were there well before 1996 and the advent of OxyContin.

Humphreys makes an additional error with his claim that about 80 percent of Americans who became heroin addicts started out with prescription opioids, according to an assessment from the National Institutes of Health. The 80% statistic varies significantly with time and place. As I wrote in a previous column,  non-medical use of opioid medication was found in 50% of young adult heroin users in Ohio, in 86% of heroin users in New York and Los Angeles, and in 40%, 39%, and 70% of heroin users in San Diego, Seattle, and New York respectively.

It's also important to note that “prescription opioids” does not necessarily mean prescribed opioids. Many addicts don't have a prescription and steal, buy or borrow pain medication. The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that about 10 percent of patients legally prescribed opioids develop an opioid use disorder. And only about 5 percent of those who misuse their medication transition to heroin.

There is also a disturbing new trend in heroin use. A study in JAMA Psychiatry last year found that about one-third of heroin users had no prior experience with any opioid, prescription or otherwise. Heroin users often have extensive prior drug use with a variety of different substances, along with a history of severe childhood trauma or mental illness.

Humphreys’ claim that the “heroin-addicted were transfers from prescription opioids” ignores another route on the path to opioid addiction. In “Drug Dealer, MD,” Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke says some drug addicts switched from heroin to prescription opioids in the late 1990s and early 2000s because of the increased availability of the latter.

None of this is meant to exonerate OxyContin or Purdue Pharma. Barry Meier’s recent book “Pain Killer” does a good job of explaining the history of the company and why it is the focus of so many lawsuits. Purdue was fined over $600 million for the illegal marketing of OxyContin and important questions about the company’s actions remain to be answered.

Heroin addiction has been a major presence in American life for generations. The current opioid crisis may have been jump-started with prescription drugs, but heroin came long before OxyContin. It is better to view OxyContin as gasoline tossed on a smoldering fire, rather than blame OxyContin for heroin. The crisis is more complicated and pervasive than that.

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society. Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.

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

Report Alleges Opioid Makers Bankrolled Patient Groups

By Pat Anson, Editor

U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has released a scathing report that is sharply critical of patient advocacy groups and medical pain societies for accepting money from opioid manufacturers.

The report found that Purdue Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Mylan, Depomed and Insys Therapeutics provided nearly $9 million to over a dozen non-profits and medical societies from 2012 to 2017.  In many cases, the amount of the donations was not fully disclosed by the recipients.

“These financial relationships were insidious, lacked transparency, and are one of the many factors that have resulted in arguably the most deadly drug epidemic in American history,” McCaskill's report alleges.

    Opioid Maker Payments to Advocacy Groups

• Purdue Pharma              $4,153,000
• Insys Therapeutics         $3,146,000
• Depomed                        $1,071,000
• Janssen                             $465,000
• Mylan                                  $20,250

Over the same five year period, physicians affiliated with the advocacy groups and medical societies accepted more than $1.6 million in payments from the opioid manufacturers.  

McCaskill, who is the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has long been critical of opioid prescribing practices and the role they played in fueling the so-called opioid epidemic.  Her report suggests that advocacy groups that criticized the CDC’s 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines did so to curry favor with drug makers -- not because of the well-documented harm the guidelines were causing pain patients.  

“Initiatives from the groups in this report often echoed and amplified messages favorable to increased opioid use — and ultimately, the financial interests of opioid manufacturers. These groups have issued guidelines and policies minimizing the risk of opioid addiction and promoting opioids for chronic pain, lobbied to change laws directed at curbing opioid use, and argued against accountability for physicians and industry executives responsible for overprescription and misbranding,” the report found.

"The fact that these same manufacturers provided millions of dollars to the groups described below suggests, at the very least, a direct link between corporate donations and the advancement of opioids friendly messaging. By aligning medical culture with industry goals in this way, many of the groups described in this report may have played a significant role in creating the necessary conditions for the U.S. opioids epidemic."   

Top 10 Recipients of Funding from Opioid Makers

1. U.S. Pain Foundation                                                      $2.922,000
2. American Academy of Integrative Pain Management     $1,265,000
3. American Academy of Pain Medicine                              $1,199,000
4. American Pain Society                                                       $962,000
5. National Pain Foundation                                                   $562,000
6. Washington Legal Foundation                                           $500,000
7. American Chronic Pain Association                                   $417,000
8. American Society of Pain Management Nursing                $323,000
9. AAPM Foundation                                                              $304,000
10. Center for Practical Bioethics                                             $163,000

"Sen. McCaskill and the others haven’t spent the necessary time talking to us to understand how we do things and what we have to offer," Bob Twillman, PhD, Executive Director of the American Academy of Integrative Pain Management said in a statement. "It appears that they’ve simply looked at how much money we got from a set of pharma companies, constructed a narrative about what that means, and published it."

Perhaps the most surprising detail in the report is the amount of money Insys Therapeutics gave to the U.S. Pain Foundation – over $3.1 million --- with $2.5 million paid in 2017 alone. Insys is the manufacturer of Subsys, a potent fentanyl-based spray that has been blamed for hundreds of overdose deaths.

Former Insys executives and sales representatives have been charged with racketeering and bribing doctors to prescribe Subsys off label to non-cancer patients. The Arizona drug maker has also been accused of misleading and defrauding insurance companies to pay for Subsys, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars for each 30-day prescription.

U.S. Pain founder and president Paul Gileno released a statement defending his non-profit's acceptance of the Insys money. He said the funds were used by the organization to fund a co-pay assistance program for cancer patients.   

"This funding, like any funding we receive, does not influence our values. When it comes to opioids, we believe both that people with legitimate pain have a right to effective care and that systematic changes must be made to address the ongoing opioid crisis," Gileno said.

McCaskill’s report makes no mention of the increasing role played by illegal opioids, such as heroin and illicit fentanyl, in fueling the opioid epidemic. A recent CDC report blamed illicit fentanyl for over half of the overdoses in ten states -- including McCaskill's home state of Missouri.  

Law Firms Major Donors to McCaskill Campaign

According to OpenSecrets.org, McCaskill has received over $6 million in campaign donations from law firms since 2005, including some currently involved in litigation against opioid manufacturers. Contributors affiliated with the law firm of Simmons Hanly Conroy have donated over $300,000 to McCaskill, who is running for re-election this year.

Simmons Hanly Conroy represents dozens of states, counties and cities that are suing Purdue Pharma and other drug makers over their marketing of opioids, and would pocket one-third of the proceeds from any settlement, according to reports.

A statement on the Simmons Hanly Conroy website claims the law firm "effectively invented large-scale, multi-defendant opioid litigation" and is a "trusted ally to local and state governments who seek justice and reprieve from the often debilitating costs associated with fighting the opioid crisis."

According to a survey of over 3,100 patients by Pain News Network and the International Pain Foundation, the CDC guidelines have reduced access to pain care, harmed many patients and caused some to consider suicide. Over 70 percent said their opioid medication had been reduced or cutoff by doctors, and 11 percent said they had obtained opioids illegally for pain relief since the guidelines came out. 

Unlikely Partners in Pain App Study

By Pat Anson, Editor

Purdue Pharma and a Pennsylvania-based healthcare provider have announced the enrollment of their first patient in a joint study of wearable health technology. As many as 240 people will eventually be enrolled in the two-year study, which is designed to see if “wearables” can help manage chronic pain.

It’s an unlikely partnership between Purdue Pharma, which faces multiple lawsuits over its promotion of the painkiller OxyContin, and the Geisinger Health System, which is actively trying to discourage the use of opioid pain medication. Geisinger provides healthcare to over 3 million people in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Geisinger patients enrolled in the study will get an Apple Watch and iPhone equipped with pain apps that will measure their physical activity, self-reported pain, disability, sleep quality, depression, medication use and heart rate.

Patients who report pain will be prompted to try non-pharmaceutical alternative therapies, such as stretching, mindfulness and thermotherapy.

“The goal of this technology is to improve patient function and quality of life while reducing the need for analgesic medications. It provides objective measures of numerous aspects of pain, function and treatment effectiveness so that information can be gathered for the patient and the healthcare provider in between visits,” said Dr. Tracy Mayne, who heads Medical Affairs Strategic Research at Purdue Pharma.

“We are pleased to partner with Geisinger on this important initiative and believe real-time data may have the potential to support an improved understanding of chronic pain patients’ experiences and needs.”

The study's primary goals are to assess whether the use of wearables can reduce pain, depression, medication use, and healthcare costs.

“We are incorporating advanced technology into the traditional healthcare setting to redirect and empower the patient to take more control of their own well-being. The proposed multi-level integrated platform will facilitate and accelerate the speed of communication between the patient and healthcare providers, thereby allowing quicker patient access to appropriate care,” said John Han, MD, director of Pain Medicine at Geisinger.

“Furthermore, it is hoped providing more education as well as alternative, non-opioid treatment options and coaching to promote a long-term sustainable healthy lifestyle will improve patient function and quality of life.”

Further details about the study can be found here.

The study comes as Purdue fights a seemingly endless series of court battles with state and local governments over its marketing of OxyContin over a decade ago. Critics contend the overprescribing and abuse of OxyContin helped launch the overdose crisis.

A recent study by Geisinger found that opioids are ineffective in treating chronic pain and increase the risk of overdose and death.

"Opioids are not the answer," said Mellar Davis, MD, a palliative care physician for Geisinger. "Chronic pain rehabilitation, exercise, cognitive behavioral therapies, acupuncture, yoga or tai chi are all better options than opioids."

Petition Calls on FDA to Ban High Dose Opioids

By Pat Anson, Editor

A group of anti-opioid activists has filed a citizen petition with the Food and Drug Administration, asking the agency to remove most high dose opioid pain medications from the market.

The petition would apply to all opioid pills that exceed a daily dose of 90mg morphine equivalent units (MMEs), which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention set last year as the highest recommended dose for primary care physicians and their patients.  

Such a ceiling, if adopted by the FDA, would take all OxyContin 80mg tablets off the market, as well as many other high-dose oral painkillers. A single OxyContin 80mg tablet, according to the petition, is equivalent to 160 MME.

Another example cited in the petition would be immediate release oxycodone 30mg tablets. If four such pills are taken daily, as they are often prescribed, that adds up to 180 MME.

The petition claims high dose opioid pills raise the risk of overdose and addiction, and are especially harmful to children.

“These products are just too dangerous, there's no need for them," said Pete Jackson, who lost his teenage daughter to an OxyContin overdose.

"These are not medicines. These are lethal weapons that should be removed from the market," said Andrew Kolodny, MD, an addiction treatment specialist and Executive Director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), one of five anti-opioid activists who signed the petition. None are considered experts in pain management.

“Removing UHDU (ultra-high dosage unit) orally-administered opioids from the market will result in patients having to swallow more tablets or capsules. But this is unlikely to result in a significant inconvenience or hardship for patients,” the petition states. “For patients that may have difficulty swallowing it is important to note that opioid analgesics are available in liquid preparations, sublingual preparations, patches and suppositories.”

Opioids ‘Can Be Appropriate’

In a rare acknowledgement that opioids "can be appropriate" for some pain patients, Kolodny and the other petitioners wrote that "the benefits of prescribing high doses may outweigh the risks when treating severe pain from a life-limiting illness."

But then they make the dubious claim that flooding the market with lower-dose pills will somehow be safer. Reducing the potency of painkillers would mean patients need more to get pain relief – resulting in more pills being prescribed, stored in medicine cabinets, and possibly stolen or diverted – hardly a prescription for reducing abuse.

Having to take more pills could also be risky to patients.  

"With a very large number of pills to manage, they are going to be at more risk of taking the wrong number of pills and of having some of those pills swiped by others without them noticing," Stefan Kertesz, MD, an Alabama primary care physician, told the Associated Press.

“Given the significance of the nation’s opioid crisis, this petition and issue should be discussed by the scientific experts at FDA and we look forward to participating in such a discussion,” Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, said in a statement. “It is critical that we seek the appropriate balance of treating pain severe enough that requires opioid treatment for which alternative treatments are inadequate, with efforts combating the opioid crisis.”

The FDA had no immediate comment on the petition.  Any U.S. citizen can file a petition with the agency to seek the removal of a drug or medical device for safety issues.

In June, the FDA asked Endo Pharmaceuticals to take Opana ER off the market because it was being abused, the first time that sales of an opioid painkiller have been halted. FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, has hinted the agency could take other painkillers off the market.

“We will continue to take regulatory steps when we see situations where an opioid product’s risks outweigh its benefits, not only for its intended patient population but also in regard to its potential for misuse and abuse,” Gottlieb said in June.

To make a comment on the PROP petition to the FDA, click here.

Are Abuse Deterrent Opioids Working?

By Pat Anson, Editor

In 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration put drug makers on notice that they should speed up the development of abuse deterrent formulas for opioid pain medication.

“(The) abuse and misuse of these products have resulted in too many injuries and deaths across the United States,” Douglas Throckmorton, MD, a top FDA official said at the time. “An important step towards the goal of creating safer opioids is the development of products that are specifically formulated to deter abuse.”

Acting on the FDA's guidance, pharmaceutical companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing abuse deterrent formulas (ADFs) that make opioid medications harder for addicts to chew, crush, snort or inject. Several new opioids with ADF formulas have been approved by the FDA and more are still in the pipeline.

Was it worth the investment? Not according to a new study funded by insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and some drug makers.

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), a non-profit that recommends which medications should be covered by insurance and at what price, released a Draft Evidence Report  earlier this month that questions the effectiveness of ADF opioids, giving them a middling grade of C+ when it comes to preventing abuse.

“Without stronger real-world evidence that ADFs reduce the risk of abuse and addiction among newly prescribed patients, our judgment is that the evidence can only demonstrate a ‘comparable or better’ net health benefit (C+),” the ICER report states.

ICER also gave a lukewarm review to OxyContin, the painkiller that was reformulated by Purdue Pharma in 2010 after widespread reports that it was being abused and causing addiction.   

“Evidence on the impact of reformulated OxyContin on opioid abuse is mixed. The majority of time series studies found that after the abuse-deterrent formulation of OxyContin was introduced, there was a decline in the rate of OxyContin abuse,” the ICER report states. “However, the rate of abuse of other prescription opioids (ER oxymorphone, ER morphine, IR oxycodone) and heroin abuse may have increased during the same period.

“Furthermore, findings from direct interviews with recreational users showed that reformulated OxyContin may have limited impact on changing overall abuse patterns.”

Purdue objects to ICER’s analysis – citing another study that found reformulated OxyContin prevented 7,200 cases of abuse and $200 million in additional medical costs.

“ICER missed the opportunity to fairly evaluate the impact of these innovative technologies, recognized by the FDA, DEA, NIDA (National Institute of Drug Abuse) and other policy makers as an important component of addressing the opioid crisis,” the company said in a statement.

Purdue and other ADF makers are troubled by the ICER report because it gives cover to insurers who are already reluctant to pay for branded ADF opioids like OxyContin when generic opioids without abuse deterrent formulas are much cheaper.  According to one study, OxyContin was covered by only 33% of Medicare Part D plans in 2015. Many insurers create more hoops for patients and doctors to jump through by requiring that prior authorization be given before an OxyContin prescription is filled.  

ICER estimates the average annual cost of an ADF opioid (90mg MED) prescription at $4,234, nearly twice that of a non-ADF opioid ($2,124).  If all opioid medication was made with ADFs, ICER says the additional cost to patients and insurers would be $645 million over five years.

Are ADFs worth it, given their mixed record in preventing abuse and addiction?

According to startling cost-benefit analysis devised by ICER, preventing a single case of opioid abuse with ADFs costs $165,868. The same analysis found that preventing just one overdose death with ADFs would cost $977,119,566 – almost a billion dollars.

Survey Shows Addicts Abusing ADF Opioids

A new report from RADARS, a national drug abuse tracking system, would seem to support ICER’s analysis that ADFs are not making a significant impact on abuse. A survey of 1,775 addicts about to enter treatment in early 2017 found that ADF opioids were still being chewed, snorted, injected and smoked, but at rates "slightly lower" than those of non-ADF opioids.

SOURCE: RESEARCHED ABUSE, DIVERSION AND ADDICTION-RELATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (RADARS) 

“The majority of individuals who abused an ER (extended release) opioid abused an ADF opioid (58.6%), but the proportion of respondents who reported abuse via tampering was slightly lower for ADF opioids than ER opioids as a whole. Among individuals entering treatment, abuse of prescription opioids by chewing, snorting, or injecting is prevalent with oral solid dosage formulations of both IR (immediate release) and ER opioids,” the RADARS report said.

Lost in the debate over the cost and effectiveness of ADF’s is the decreasing role played by prescriptions opioids in the nation’s overdose epidemic. As PNN has reported, prescriptions for hydrocodone and other painkillers have been declining for years, yet drug overdoses continue to continue climb; fueled by heroin, illicit fentanyl and other illegal drugs, for which there are no abuse deterrent formulas other than abstinence and sobriety.

Abuse Deterrent Pain Medications Deserve Support

Barby Ingle, Columnist

It's no secret that the abuse of pain medication and illegal opioids has led to a growing public health problem across the country. The numbers are alarming and they are growing.

Also alarming is the number of people who suffer with chronic pain. According to the Institute of Medicine, one in three Americans – about 100 million people – have been affected with a condition that causes pain.

Since 2002, I have been battling Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), a progressive neuro-autoimmune condition that affects multiple systems in the body. The worst symptom for me is the constant burning fire pain. It feels like someone put lighter fluid in me, lit it, and I can’t put the fire out. I know firsthand how difficult the journey for pain relief can be, particularly the sidelong glances and disbelief from medical professionals.

The challenges are complex and multi-layered, and I always applaud solutions that help to balance pain management with the cost that prescription drug abuse has on society. Promising technological advancements in recent years are proving to be an important part of the battle.

Among these are so-called "abuse deterrent formulas" (ADFs) of commonly prescribed opioid pain medications that are being developed to prevent some of the deadliest forms of opioid abuse. The formulas generally make it harder to crush or liquefy pills for snorting or injecting.

These tamper deterring formulas of pain medications provide patients with the same pain relief as conventional opioids, but incorporate breakthrough technology designed to protect against tampering and abuse.

Since Purdue Pharma introduced a reformulated abuse deterrent version of OxyContin (oxycodone ER) in 2010, the “nonmedical” or recreational use of OxyContin has fallen dramatically.  

source: radars system

Several states are considering legislation in 2017 to improve patient access to these new abuse deterrent formulas of painkillers. As bills are introduced and updated, the International Pain Foundation and other pain organizations track them on our websites, put out action alerts and ask for the pain patient community to get involved by sharing their stories.

ADFs have received widespread support as part of a comprehensive effort to combat prescription drug abuse and promote appropriate pain management, including from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, members of Congress, and the National Association of Attorneys General — including California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who was recently elected to the U.S. Senate.

Abuse of pain medications has led to a growing public health problem nationwide. Each year approximately 4.5 million Americans use prescription pain medications for non-medical purposes, contributing to more than 14,000 overdose deaths annually.

To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved abuse-deterrent labeling for seven drugs (OxyContin, Targiniq, Embeda, Hysingla, Morphabond, Xtampaza, and Troxyca), with two other abuse-deterrent opioids under review.

This technology is only part of the solution, but it is a solution nonetheless. Patients that have struggled with addiction or substance abuse in the past, those who live with others who are current or recovering addicts, and those who live with teens or young adults who may seek opioids for recreational use can all benefit from ADFs.

For the sake of those with legitimate, life-altering pain and for the safety of those prone to abuse these medications, I urge our lawmakers to stand up for policies that preserve and improve patient access to ADF technology.

Barby Ingle suffers from Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD) and endometriosis. Barby is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, and president of the International Pain Foundation. She is also a motivational speaker and best-selling author on pain topics.

More information about Barby can be found at her website.

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

How Long Does OxyContin Last?

By Pat Anson, Editor

The pain relieving effects of OxyContin, Purdue Pharma’s best-selling opioid painkiller, often wear off early and the company has been aware of the problem for many years, according to a lengthy investigation by the Los Angeles Times.

The Times investigation of OxyContin, which was based on court records and thousands of “confidential” Purdue documents, found that a single dose of the extended release painkiller often doesn’t last for the intended 12 hours and that it performs more like “an 8-hour drug.” That makes some patients take extra doses or stronger ones, raising the risk of abuse and addiction.

“Such results shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, the FDA doesn’t require drugs to work as promised for all patients. What was eye-popping about The Times’ findings was how Purdue responded when doctors told them their patients weren’t getting the full 12 hours of relief promised,” The Times said in an editorial.

“Instead of recommending that such patients take OxyContin more than twice per day — which might make it less appealing than cheaper generic opioids with short durations — Purdue’s representatives told doctors to stick to the 12-hour regimen and prescribe higher-strength pills.”

Purdue quickly issued a statement rejecting The Times’ story, saying it was “short on facts.”

“In an attempt to resurrect a long-discredited theory, the paper ignores the clinical and regulatory data that directly contradicts their story,” Purdue said. “Over the course of two years, Purdue Pharma provided the LAT (Los Angeles Times) with more than a dozen hours of briefings and discussions regarding the clinical evidence supporting OxyContin’s 12-hour dosing and the regulatory requirement that we promote the product as such. Unfortunately, the paper disregarded this information, instead publishing a story that’s long on anecdote and short on facts.”

Purdue said the FDA rejected claims over a decade ago that OxyContin was misbranded as a “twice-a-day” drug and was being prescribed inappropriately.

The Times published its own rebuttal to Purdue’s statement online, which you can see by clicking here.

Pain News Network asked readers what they thought about OxyContin’s pain relieving qualities and got a mixed response.

“Worked like a dream for me, but too expensive,” wrote one patient on our Facebook page, who said she switched to generic oxycodone.

“Doesn't start working for 3 hrs. Seems like it ends at the 9th hour. Not really happy about that, but what can you do?” wrote another patient, who said she had too many side-effects from other pain medications.

“It only lasted 5-6 hours for me. Stopped taking it years ago because it was ineffective,” said another pain patient.

Since its introduction in 1996, OxyContin has reportedly generated over $31 billion in revenue for Purdue, but it also created a tainted legacy that the company is still trying to shed two decades later. Many believe OxyContin helped spark the so-called opioid “epidemic” because its sales reps initially told doctors the drug had a low risk of abuse and addiction.

In 2007, a class action lawsuit against Purdue for deceptive marketing ended with several company executives pleading guilty to a felony count of misbranding OxyContin. The company and its executives were fined $634 million.

In 2010, Purdue introduced an abuse-deterrent formula of OxyContin that makes it harder for drug abusers to crush or liquefy the tablet for snorting or injecting. Some patients have complained the new formulation isn't as effective or causes gastrointestinal problems.

Canada: Abuse Deterrent Opioids Too Expensive

By Pat Anson, Editor

At a time when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is actively promoting the development of more opioid pain medication with abuse deterrent formulas (ADFs), Canada is saying the drugs are too expensive and will have “little to no effect” in the fight against opioid abuse and addiction.

Health Canada last week rejected a proposed regulation that would require all medications containing the painkiller oxycodone to have tamper resistant properties.  ADFs generally make it harder for drug abusers to crush or liquefy opioids so they can be snorted or injected.

“(After) a review of the latest scientific evidence, the department has concluded that this specific regulatory approach, requiring tamper-resistance, would not have had the intended health and safety impact,” Health Canada said in a statement.

“Specifically, requiring tamper-resistant properties on all legitimate preparations of controlled-release oxycodone would have served to eliminate certain lower cost drugs from the market, increasing costs for patients and the health system, while having little to no effect in the fight against problematic opioid use.”

Like the United States, Canada has a severe and growing drug problem. According to the World Health Organization, Canada consumes more opioid painkillers per capita than any other country.

But Health Canada recently told drug makers to conduct more research demonstrating that ADFs do not change the safety and effectiveness of drugs. Until those studies are completed, the agency said it would rely on programs educating patients and prescribers about the safe use of opioids.

Purdue Pharma Canada released a statement saying it was disappointed in Health Canada’s decision and asked Health Minister Jane Philpott to reconsider.

“We continue to believe products with features designed to deter misuse, abuse and diversion, can and do have a positive impact on public health, based on the abundance of published evidence,” Purdue said in a statement. The company also urged Canada to “align with the FDA” by moving to require ADFs “across the entire class of opioids.”

In 2010, Purdue's OxyContin became the first opioid to be reformulated to make it harder for addicts to crush or liquefy. Since then, four other ADF opioids have been approved by the FDA and drug makers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing new formulas to make opioids even harder to abuse. Last month the FDA issued draft guidance encouraging drug makers to develop generic versions of opioids with ADF.

A major issue that has slowed the use of opioids with ADF is their cost. According to the Healthcare Bluebook, a website that estimates the market price of medications, the fair price for a 60-day supply of OxyContin 20mg in southern California is $352. A 60-day generic version of oxycodone -- without abuse deterrence -- retails for as little as $138.

Many health insurers have been reluctant to pay the extra cost of ADF.  A recent study found that only a third of Medicare Part D plans cover OxyContin and in many cases prior authorization is needed. Oxycodone, however, is covered by all Medicare Part D plans and prior authorization is rarely required.

Another recent study found that over a quarter of patients admitted to drug treatment facilities in the U.S. were still abusing OxyContin, five years after it was reformulated.