Stimulants Involved in Growing Number of Fentanyl Overdoses

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The number of drug deaths involving both fentanyl and stimulants has soared in recent years, according to a new UCLA study that highlights the complex and changing nature of the U.S. overdose crisis.

Stimulants such as cocaine and methamphetamine are now involved in nearly a third of fentanyl-related overdoses, the most of any other drug class. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid up to 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times as potent as heroin.

In 2010, researchers say there were only 235 fatal overdoses in the U.S. involving illicit fentanyl and stimulants. In 2021, there were 34,429 drug deaths linked to fentanyl and stimulants, a 14,550% increase in a little over a decade.

"We're now seeing that the use of fentanyl together with stimulants is rapidly becoming the dominant force in the US overdose crisis," said lead author Joseph Friedman, PhD, an addiction researcher at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. "Fentanyl has ushered in a polysubstance overdose crisis, meaning that people are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, like stimulants, but also countless other synthetic substances. This poses many health risks and new challenges for health care providers.

“We have data and medical expertise about treating opioid use disorders, but comparatively little experience with the combination of opioids and stimulants together, or opioids mixed with other drugs. This makes it hard to stabilize people medically who are withdrawing from polysubstance use."

People who overdose on stimulants and other non-opioid substances mixed with fentanyl may not be as responsive to naloxone, which only works as an antidote to opioids.

The study findings, published in the journal Addiction, highlight the four “waves” of the overdose crisis, which began with an increase in deaths from prescription opioids (Wave 1) in the early 2000s, followed by a rise in heroin deaths (Wave 2) in 2010, and fentanyl-related overdoses in 2013 (Wave 3). The fourth wave — overdoses from fentanyl and stimulants — began in 2015 and continues to escalate.

The Four Waves of Overdose Crisis

SOURCE: ADDICTION

Since cocaine, methamphetamine and other stimulants are not opioids, the findings undercut the long-held theory that the overdose crisis started with prescription opioids and is still being fueled by people addicted to them. Deaths involving prescription opioids and heroin have been in decline for several years.

Researchers found that fentanyl/stimulant deaths disproportionately affect African Americans and Native Americans. There are also geographical patterns to fentanyl/stimulant use. In the northeast US, fentanyl is usually combined with cocaine, while in the south and western US, fentanyl is most commonly found with methamphetamine.

"We suspect this pattern reflects the rising availability of, and preference for, low-cost, high-purity methamphetamine throughout the US, and the fact that the Northeast has a well-entrenched pattern of illicit cocaine use that has so far resisted the complete takeover by methamphetamine seen elsewhere in the country," Friedman said.

In addition to its low cost, drug users say methamphetamine helps prolong fentanyl’s “high” and delays the onset of withdrawal symptoms.  

Counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl – which are frequently made to look like oxycodone or alprazolam (Xanax) – represent about a quarter of all illicit fentanyl seizures. Researchers say it is difficult to track deaths involving counterfeit pills because they are often mistaken for legitimate medication, so the data is not completely reliable.

In its most recent update on the overdose crisis, the CDC estimates there were a record 111,355 drug deaths in the 12-month period ending April 2023 -- about a thousand more deaths than the year before. Fentanyl and its analogues were involved in nearly 70% of the overdoses, stimulants were linked to about a third of them, and cocaine was involved in about a quarter of the drug deaths.

The National Opioid Settlement Is Causing Drug Shortages

By Pat Irving, Guest Columnist

I am a retired nurse with over 40 years of healthcare experience. The principal focus of my career was on healthcare regulations, risk management and patient safety.  My most recent position was as National Leader for Risk and Patient Safety for Kaiser Permanente. 

As a pain patient myself and the victim of a mandatory opioid taper, I was motivated to understand the reasons behind the many difficulties patients have getting opioids, anti-anxiety medications and other controlled substances. 

The goal of my research over the last several months is to help patients and their families understand the drastic changes in pain management that have occurred in recent years. While much of it is due to the CDC opioid guideline and the law enforcement crackdown on prescribers, the fallout from opioid litigation now plays a major role in our inability to get prescriptions filled.

As early as 2017, acting on the incorrect premise that prescription opioids were the primary cause for the opioid crisis, the National Association of Attorneys General began a legal assault on entities they believed were responsible for the “opioid crisis.”  This included opioid manufacturers, big chain pharmacies, and the three biggest wholesale distributors -- AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson.

On July 21, 2021, the Attorneys General announced that they had reached a $26 billion settlement with the three distributors and Johnson & Johnson, who agreed to make major changes in how they do business.  The intent was to improve the safety and oversight of prescription opioids, but the unintended consequences of the settlement have caused incalculable harm to patients with chronic pain and mental health disorders.

In addition to the monetary settlement, the three distributors agreed to substantially increase measures to identity suspicious orders from pharmacies for ten years.  The distributors, collectively known as “Injunctive Relief Distributors,” also established an independent clearinghouse to keep track of every shipment of opioids and other controlled substances to pharmacies.

Red Flags and Suspicious Orders

For reference, the 571-page settlement can be found at this link.  The most important section (Exhibit “P”) begins on page 478.  Among other things, it requires the distributors to collect from each pharmacy a list of their top prescribers for opioids and other “Highly Diverted Controlled Substances,” the number of prescriptions and doses they wrote, their DEA registration number, address and medical specialty.

You may notice several other things.  Many of the restrictions came directly out of DEA regulations.  For example, there is language about “Red Flags” and “Suspicious Orders,” the latter being “orders of unusual size, orders deviating substantially from a normal pattern, and orders of unusual frequency.”

Other potential red flags include patients paying for a prescription in cash and “out-of-area” patients with prescribing doctors from a zip code that’s 50 miles or more from the pharmacy. 

If a pharmacy customer has an excessive number of suspicious orders or “unresolved Red Flag activity,” it risks being “terminated” from receiving further controlled substances – which would effectively put the pharmacy out of business: 

“In the event that an Injunctive Relief Distributor identifies one or more unresolved Red Flags or other information indicative of potential diversion of Controlled Substances through the onboarding process or otherwise, the Injunctive Relief Distributor shall refrain from selling Controlled Substances to the potential Customer pending additional due diligence.”

It is easy to see why the settlement has made pharmacists more hesitant, even fearful, about filling orders that might be suspicious. 

Under federal law, pharmacists already had a “corresponding authority” to decide whether a prescription is suspicious and if it should be filled. Whereas before a pharmacist might call a prescriber to double check on a prescription and the reasons for it, under the settlement a pharmacist may err on the side of caution and not fill the prescription at all.

To make the situation worse, the definitions of “suspicious orders” are purposely vague, and may be interpreted in the strictest way possible.  For example, since the CDC guideline recommends that physicians “should carefully evaluate” increasing doses above 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME), the distributor or pharmacy may see that as hard limit, not a suggestion.  

And because the CDC guideline urges caution when prescribing opioids and benzodiazepines together, that may be another hard stop on a prescription, regardless of how long or how safely a patient was managed on these medications. There may be serious consequences for the prescribing physician as well, who could be reported to state authorities and the DEA if they have too many suspicious prescriptions.

Medication Thresholds 

The injunction also brought with it medication “thresholds.”  Unlike the annual DEA production quotas which are imposed on drug makers nationwide, the settlement thresholds are very specific to each pharmacy or pharmacy chain. It limits the total volume of a controlled substance that a pharmacy may receive in any given month, quarter and year.  These threshold limits, are developed by the distributor using a statistical algorithm of their own design. 

Once a pharmacy has exceeded its particular threshold, it is unable to obtain additional medication in that drug category. Physicians and patients have no way of knowing if they are the unlucky ones to have exceeded a pharmacy’s threshold.  For many patients, this means being cutoff cold turkey, waiting another month, or having a prescription only partially filled – essentially a forced taper.

Many health plans talk about their concern for patient safety, but there is often a lack of information given to patients about the known risks of tapering, especially for “legacy” patients who have been on prescribed opioids for an extended period, and who were stable and doing well. There is often no discussion with the tapered patient on the possibility of withdrawal, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, depression, and unmanaged pain. 

The patient population most affected by the distributors’ settlement are either disabled, seniors or both.  This is the very population that has difficulty accessing alternative pain therapies such as acupuncture or injections, and in many cases are alone and homebound. It has been almost impossible to get attention for this segment of the population that needs the most support. 

There has been no strong response to the settlement and resulting drug shortages from the Health and Human Services Administration, DEA, CDC, or FDA.  There has also been a lack of a coordinated response from Medicare/CMS to patients being forcibly tapered. 

It is likewise unclear what position state medical and pharmacy boards are taking on the ruptured drug supply chain. Many patients with legitimate prescriptions now have to wait weeks for their medications to become available or are forced to travel to other pharmacies to get their prescriptions filled. Worst of all, the suffering imposed on these patients has done nothing to reduce the number of drug overdose deaths.

Our government must wake up to the fact that the injunction portion of the settlement must be modified.  There are sections of the settlement that allow for “potential adjustments” and “modifications” in the event of a national or state emergency “to meet the critical needs of the supply chain.” Such an emergency now exists.

Future efforts by stakeholders must focus attention on these sections and the need for changes. It is possible to have a safe and well monitored drug supply chain that also allows legitimate patients to have the medical treatment they deserve. As it stands now, patients are needlessly suffering due to the unreasonable restrictions imposed by the national opioid settlement.

Pat Irving, RN, lives with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (now in remission) and piriformis syndrome, a type of sciatica. Pat wishes to thank Monty Goddard, a patient advocate, for his contributions to her research.

Rx Opioid Shortages Persist With No Federal Action

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

There is no end in sight to shortages of opioid pain medication in the US, with the federal government taking no apparent action to increase opioid production and several drug makers unable to estimate when full supplies will be restored.

In a recent update, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) said five generic drug makers were running low or have exhausted their supply of oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, which are better known as the brand names Percocet and Endocet. The medication is usually prescribed for moderate to severe pain.   

ASHP asked drug makers about their current supplies and received these responses:

• Camber has no doses of oxycodone/acetaminophen available. The tablets are on back order and “the company cannot estimate a release date.” Camber said it was still awaiting DEA approval for additional supplies.

• Amneal and KVK-Tech said they had limited supplies of 5 and 7.5 mg oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, and that 10 mg tablets were on back order with no estimated resupply date.

• Major anticipates getting 7.5 mg tablets in late September and 10 mg tablets in late October.

• Rhodes said it had 7.5 and 5 mg tablets on “intermittent back order” and would only be releasing supplies as they become available.

Percocet and Endocet tablets in various doses are still available from Endo and Par Pharmaceuticals, according to the ASHP.

Shortages of oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, as well as immediate release oxycodone and hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets, were first reported by ASHP several months ago. But they have yet to appear on the FDA’s drug shortage list or even be publicly acknowledged by the agency.

In a recent joint letter, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, and DEA administrator Anne Milgram said they were working “as quickly as possible” to resolve persistent drug shortages. But the letter only addressed shortages of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD, and makes no mention of opioids.

When asked by PNN, one federal health official did acknowledge shortages of opioid medication, but was vague about possible solutions.

“This is an important issue that CDC and other federal partners are aware of and working to find solutions to,” said Stephanie Rubel, who heads the CDC’s Overdose Preparedness and Response Team (ORRP). Rubel’s office works with other federal and state agencies to reduce the serious risks posed to patients who suddenly lose access to prescription opioids. 

“As part of ORRP’s work, we strongly encourage state health officials to proactively partner with pharmacists and pharmacies to ensure that impacted patients are able to continue receiving appropriate pain management care after a disruption,” said Rubel in a statement to PNN. “Because ORRP cannot provide medical care or make referrals to healthcare providers, advanced preparation and partnerships with pharmacists is essential to ensure continuity of care.” 

But many pharmacists have their hands tied due to opioid litigation. Last year, three large drug wholesalers reached a $21 billion settlement with 46 states, requiring them to impose strict limits on the pharmacies they do business with. Most pharmacies are capped on the amount of opioids they can dispense in any given month, regardless of patient needs. An unusually large order for opioids could get a pharmacy red-flagged by its wholesale supplier and the order cancelled.  

Another reason for the shortages are persistent problems in the drug supply chain and the heavy US reliance on foreign suppliers for many drugs, especially low-cost generic ones.  A third factor is aggressive cuts in the opioid supply by the DEA, which sets annual production quotas for controlled substances that drug manufacturers must follow.

Whatever the cause, it’s leaving many patients with uncontrolled pain and little faith in their government.

“I've been on hydrocodone for 10 years. With the shortage that is going on in Las Vegas, I've been out for 4 weeks,” one patient told PNN. “Unfortunately, the pain has made it too difficult to take care of myself. I cannot clean, cook or sleep without my pain levels increasing. I've been living on frozen foods and Alka Seltzer.”

“I live with 200 other seniors in a low-income complex.  I’ve seen three older veteran residents commit suicide because they couldn’t get pain medication.  I know several other seniors who live with horrible pain and are not able to get medication,” another patient told us.

“The US Government is just screwing us over by limiting what the pharmacies can get and what their suppliers can make. This is driving people to buy pain meds off the street and that's like playing Russian roulette,” said another patient who has trouble getting Norco prescriptions filled by his pharmacy. “Our government is supposed to help us, not hurt us.”

Drug makers are required to report shortages and supply interruptions to the FDA, but prescribers, pharmacies and consumers can also report them by email to drugshortages@fda.hhs.gov.  

To report a drug shortage to the ASHP, click here.

CDC Report ‘Likely Underestimated’ Deaths Linked to Counterfeit Drugs

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that fatal overdoses in the U.S. from counterfeit medication more than doubled in recent years, with 93% of those deaths involving illicit fentanyl.

Deaths from counterfeit pills rose from 2% of all overdoses in the third quarter of 2019 to 4.7% of drug deaths in the last quarter of 2021, according to the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The overdose rate from fake medication was three times higher in western U.S. states (14.7%). 

However, due the unreliability of death certificates, witnesses and coroner investigations, as well as other flaws in the study’s methodology, the MMWR report acknowledges that the number of deaths involving counterfeit medication is “likely underestimated.”

CDC researchers only looked at overdose data from 34 states and the District of Columbia, identifying 2,437 deaths linked to counterfeit pills during the 30-month study period.

Nearly 106,700 people in the U.S. died from drug overdoses in 2021, so if the 4.7% death rate was applied to that year alone, that would suggest there were over 5,000 deaths nationwide involving counterfeit medication.

Even that estimate is probably on the low end, because CDC researchers focused on counterfeit pills made to look like oxycodone and the anti-anxiety drug alprazolam (Xanax).

While “Mexican Oxy” – blue tablets that look like 30mg oxycodone – are favored by counterfeiters, fake pills are also designed to look like Vicodin, Norco, Adderall, and many other medications. Deaths from those pills were not counted.  

Importantly, whether a death was even linked to fake medication “depended largely on scene or witness evidence of pill use” and other anecdotal evidence, rather than toxicology tests on the pills or the actual people who died.

And while pills are obviously designed to be taken orally, the MMWR report only includes “noningestion routes of drug use,” such as smoking, snorting or injection, which require the pills to be ground into powder or liquefied. CDC researchers considered data on the oral ingestion of counterfeit pills so unreliable, “that information is not presented” in the report.

Many of these details on the study’s strange methodology are buried in the footnotes of the MMWR report, which a casual reader could easily miss. 

Not surprisingly, given the limitations on data, smoking was found to have an outsized role in overdose deaths. According to the MMWR, nearly 40% of the deaths linked to counterfeit medication involved smoking – a misleading statistic, given the study’s flaws. But that didn’t stop researchers from drawing conclusions or recommending “safer smoking practices.”

“The higher percentage of deaths with evidence of drug use by smoking might reflect recent general shifts from injecting drugs to smoking them in western states or could be specific to counterfeit pill use methods,” wrote lead author Julie O’Donnell, PhD, an epidemiologist at the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

“Harm reduction services that expand outreach to persons using drugs by methods other than injection, such as smoking, and provide education about safer smoking practices and risks related to smoking, might be most successful at addressing diverse drug use patterns.”

There’s a safer way to smoke illicit fentanyl?

This is the CDC’s first MMWR report to look exclusively at deaths caused by fake pills, a public health crisis that the agency has been slow to acknowledge. The DEA started warning about a “fentanyl crisis” as far back as 2016, a time when the CDC was preoccupied with its guideline to reduce opioid prescribing.

There were major flaws in CDC research even back then. The agency eventually admitted that thousands of overdose deaths linked to illicit fentanyl and other street drugs were misclassified as deaths caused by prescription opioids. Some deaths that involved more than one drug were counted multiple times.

Artificial Intelligence May Decide Whether You Get Rx Opioids

By Andy Miller and Sam Whitehead, KFF Health News

Elizabeth Amirault never heard of NarxCare until last year, when she learned its software was tracking her medication use. During a visit to a hospital in Fort Wayne, Indiana, Amirault told a nurse practitioner she was in severe pain and received a puzzling response.

“Your Narx Score is so high, I can’t give you any narcotics,” she recalled the man saying, as she waited for an MRI before a hip replacement.

Tools like NarxCare are used to help medical providers review controlled substance prescriptions. They influence, and can limit, the prescribing of painkillers, similar to a credit score influencing the terms of a loan. NarxCare’s overdose risk ratings – known Narx Scores -- are produced by health care technology company Bamboo Health (formerly Appriss Health).

NarxCare’s software uses artificial intelligence to analyze data about prescriptions for controlled substances to identify patterns of potential problems involving patients and physicians. State and federal health agencies, law enforcement officials, and health care providers have enlisted these tools, but the mechanics behind their algorithm formulas are generally not shared with the public.

Artificial intelligence is working its way into more parts of American life. As AI spreads within the health care landscape, it brings familiar concerns of bias and accuracy and whether government regulation can keep up with rapidly advancing technology.

The use of systems to analyze opioid-prescribing data has sparked questions over whether they have undergone enough independent testing outside of the companies that developed them, making it hard to know how they work. Lacking the ability to see inside these systems leaves only clues to their potential impact.

Some patients say they have been cut off from needed care. Some doctors say their ability to practice medicine has been unfairly threatened.

Researchers warn that such technology — despite its benefits — can have unforeseen consequences if it improperly flags patients or doctors.

“We’re concerned that it’s not working as intended, and it’s harming patients.”

— Jason Gibbons, Health Economist

“We need to see what’s going on to make sure we’re not doing more harm than good,” said Jason Gibbons, a health economist at the Colorado School of Public Health at the University of Colorado’s Anschutz Medical Campus. “We’re concerned that it’s not working as intended, and it’s harming patients.”

Amirault, 34, said she has dealt for years with chronic pain from health conditions such as sciatica, degenerative disc disease, and avascular necrosis, which results from restricted blood supply to the bones.

The opioid Percocet offers her some relief. Amirault had been denied the medication before, but never had been told anything about a Narx Score, she said.

In a chronic pain support group on Facebook, she found others posting about NarxCare, which scores patients based on their supposed risk of prescription drug misuse. She’s convinced her ratings negatively influenced her care.

“Apparently being sick and having a bunch of surgeries and different doctors, all of that goes against me,” Amirault said.

Database-driven tracking has been linked to a decline in opioid prescriptions, but evidence is mixed on its impact on curbing the epidemic. Overdose deaths continue to plague the country, and patients like Amirault have said the monitoring systems leave them feeling stigmatized as well as cut off from pain relief.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that in 2021 about 52 million American adults suffered from chronic pain, and about 17 million people lived with pain so severe it limited their daily activities. To manage the pain, many use prescription opioids, which are tracked in nearly every state through electronic databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs).

The last state to adopt a program, Missouri, is still getting it up and running.

More than 40 states and territories use the technology from Bamboo Health to run PDMPs. That data can be fed into NarxCare, a separate suite of tools to help medical professionals make decisions. Hundreds of health care facilities and five of the top six major pharmacy retailers also use NarxCare, the company said.

The platform generates three Narx Scores based on a patient’s prescription activity involving narcotics, sedatives, and stimulants. A peer-reviewed study showed the “Narx Score metric could serve as a useful initial universal prescription opioid-risk screener.”

NarxCare’s algorithm-generated “Overdose Risk Score” draws on a patient’s medication information from PDMPs — such as the number of doctors writing prescriptions, the number of pharmacies used, and drug dosage — to help medical providers assess a patient’s risk of opioid overdose.

Bamboo Health did not share the specific formula behind the algorithm or address questions about the accuracy of its Overdose Risk Score but said it continues to review and validate the algorithm behind it, based on current overdose trends.

Guidance from the CDC advised clinicians to consult PDMP data before prescribing pain medications. But the agency warned that “special attention should be paid to ensure that PDMP information is not used in a way that is harmful to patients.”

This prescription-drug data has led patients to be dismissed from clinician practices, the CDC said, which could leave patients at risk of being untreated or undertreated for pain. The agency further warned that risk scores may be generated by “proprietary algorithms that are not publicly available” and could lead to biased results.

(Editor’s note: A citizen’s petition filed with FDA earlier this year alleged that NarxCare software “altered the practice of medicine in the U.S. to the detriment of patients,” and sought to have the software declared a misbranded medical device and recalled. The petition by the Center for U.S. Policy was rejected by FDA on technical grounds because it was “not within the scope” of the agency’s petition process.)

Impact on Patients

Bamboo Health says NarxCare’s rating system should never replace decisions made by physicians. But some patients say the risk scores have had an outsize impact on their treatment.

Bev Schechtman, 47, who lives in North Carolina, said she has occasionally used opioids to manage pain flare-ups from Crohn’s disease. As vice president of the Doctor Patient Forum, a chronic pain patient advocacy group, she said she has heard from others reporting medication access problems, many of which she worries are caused by red flags from databases.

“There’s a lot of patients cut off without medication,” according to Schechtman, who said some have turned to illicit sources when they can’t get their prescriptions. “Some patients say to us, ‘It’s either suicide or the streets.’”

The stakes are high for pain patients. Research shows rapid dose changes can increase the risk of withdrawal, depression, anxiety, and even suicide.

Some doctors who treat chronic pain patients say they, too, have been flagged by data systems and then lost their license to practice and were prosecuted.

Lesly Pompy, a pain medicine and addiction specialist in Monroe, Michigan, believes such systems were involved in a legal case against him.

His medical office was raided by a mix of local and federal law enforcement agencies in 2016 because of his patterns in prescribing pain medicine. A year after the raid, Pompy’s medical license was suspended. In 2018, he was indicted on charges of illegally distributing opioid pain medication and health care fraud.

“I knew I was taking care of patients in good faith,” he said. A federal jury in January acquitted him of all charges. He said he’s working to have his license restored.

One firm, Qlarant, a Maryland-based technology company, said it has developed algorithms “to identify questionable behavior patterns and interactions for controlled substances, and for opioids in particular,” involving medical providers.

The company, in an online brochure, said its “extensive government work” includes partnerships with state and federal enforcement entities such as the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

In a promotional video, the company said its algorithms can “analyze a wide variety of data sources,” including court records, insurance claims, drug monitoring data, property records, and incarceration data to flag providers.

William Mapp, the company’s chief technology officer, stressed the final decision about what to do with that information is left up to people — not the algorithms.

Mapp said that “Qlarant’s algorithms are considered proprietary and our intellectual property” and that they have not been independently peer-reviewed.

“We do know that there’s going to be some percentage of error, and we try to let our customers know,” Mapp said. “It sucks when we get it wrong. But we’re constantly trying to get to that point where there are fewer things that are wrong.”

Prosecutions against doctors through the use of prescribing data have attracted the attention of the American Medical Association.

“These unknown and unreviewed algorithms have resulted in physicians having their prescribing privileges immediately suspended without due process or review by a state licensing board — often harming patients in pain because of delays and denials of care,” said Bobby Mukkamala, chair of the AMA’s Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force.

Even critics of drug-tracking systems and algorithms say there is a place for data and artificial intelligence systems in reducing the harms of the opioid crisis.

“It’s just a matter of making sure that the technology is working as intended,” said health economist Gibbons.

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

New DEA Rule Allows Pharmacies to Transfer Opioid Prescriptions

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has adopted a new rule that allows patients, doctors and pharmacists to transfer initial prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances from one pharmacy to another.  

The rule became effective August 28, but has been in the works for several years. It revises DEA regulations to allow prescribers, hospitals and pharmacists the ability to write, dispense and transfer electronic prescriptions for controlled substances “upon request of the patient.” Under the old rule, prescriptions could not be transferred if a pharmacy is unwilling or unable to fill them – forcing doctors to write a second prescription for another pharmacy and creating delays for patients in need of treatment.

“The final rule amends DEA regulations to explicitly state that an electronic prescription for a controlled substance in schedule II–V may be transferred between retail pharmacies for initial filling on a one-time basis only, upon request from the patient, and clarifies that any authorized refills included on a prescription for a schedule III, IV, or V controlled substance are transferred with the original prescription,” DEA said in a lengthy notice published in the Federal Register.

In recent years, many patients have experienced delays or outright refusals getting prescriptions filled for opioids, stimulants, sedatives, steroids and other medications classified as controlled substances.  The problem has grown worse in recent months, due to chronic shortages of oxycodone, hydrocodone and stimulants.

It would be nice to say the DEA changed the rule to make it easier for patients to get their prescriptions filled, but the agency’s primary goal is to reduce drug diversion. Having doctors write duplicate prescriptions for the same patient is not only a waste of time, in the eyes of the DEA it raises the risk of the original prescription being misused.

“DEA realizes that this scenario creates the potential for duplication of prescriptions, if the practitioner transmits a new prescription to a different pharmacy and does not cancel or void the original prescription that was sent to the first pharmacy. It also recognizes that this scenario creates additional burden for patients, who have to get back in touch with the prescribing practitioner to request a new prescription,” the agency said.

“DEA believes that allowing the electronic transfer of controlled substance prescriptions will decrease the potential for duplicate prescriptions and thus reduce the opportunity for diversion or misuse.”

The diversion of prescription opioids is actually rare. According to the DEA, less than one percent of oxycodone (0.3%) and hydrocodone (0.42%) is lost, stolen or diverted to someone they were not prescribed to.

The DEA estimates the new prescription transfer rule will cost pharmacies over $91 million annually due to additional record-keeping and time spent transferring prescriptions, but will reduce overall costs to the healthcare system by $22 million a year.  

FDA Approves First Biosimilar for Multiple Sclerosis

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Tyruko (natalizumab-sztn) as the first biosimilar for adults with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), a move that could substantially reduce treatment costs for MS patients. Biosimilars are “highly similar” to brand-name biologic medicines, but about 30% cheaper.

"Approval of the first biosimilar product indicated to treat relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis furthers the FDA's longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products and ultimately empowers patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost," said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the FDA’s Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars.

Like Tysabri (natalizumab), the biologic it is modeled after, Tyruko is administered by infusion every four weeks to patients with MS, a chronic disease that attacks the body’s central nervous system, causing numbness, paralysis, loss of vision, fatigue and pain. Many MS patients experience periods of remission, followed by relapses.  

The listed cash price for a single vial of Tysabri is over $17,000, although the discounted price for insured patients is about $8,500 or $102,000 a year. Sandoz, a pharmaceutical company that specializes in biosimilars and generics, has not revealed its pricing plans for Tyruko or said when it will become available. Sandoz is a division of Novartis.

“Of the nearly one million people in the US living with multiple sclerosis, hundreds of thousands experience disease relapse. Tyruko has the potential to extend the reach of natalizumab treatment for these patients, increase healthcare savings and fuel innovation through competition in the market,” Keren Haruvi, President North America, Sandoz Inc., said in a news release.

Like Tysabri, Tyruko may also be used to treat adults with moderate to severe symptoms from Crohn's disease who have not responded well to other treatments. Crohn’s causes chronic inflammation in the digestive tract.

The FDA says patients using natalizumab products (including Tyruko and Tysabri) are at higher risk of developing progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), a viral infection of the brain that can lead to death or severe disability. Because of that risk, prescribers must evaluate patients three and six months after their first infusion, every six months thereafter, and even after they discontinue treatment.

Growing Market for Biosimilars

Patients have long complained about the high price of MS drugs in the US, which cost two to three times more than the same drugs in Canada, Australia or the UK. One reason biologics are so expensive is that they derived from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, making them costly to develop.

Drug patents also last a long time – usually five years – before a “copycat” version can be introduced. Patent holders often take their competitors to court to further delay the introduction of generics or biosimilars, as was the case with AbbVie’s Humira, a biologic widely used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic inflammatory diseases. At least 9 new Humira biosimilars are finally entering the U.S. market this year.

Last week, CVS Health announced that it was launching a wholly owned subsidiary called Cordavis, which will work with drug manufacturers to commercialize biosimilars. The first biosimilar CVS plans to market in early 2024 is Hyrimoz (adalimumab-adaz), a biosimilar for Humira produced by Sandoz. CVS says the list price of the Hyrimoz will be over 80% lower than the current list price of Humira.

"Biosimilars are crucial to creating competition and reducing costs for specialty pharmaceuticals where drug prices are rising the fastest," said Prem Shah, PharmD, Executive Vice President and Chief Pharmacy Officer for CVS. "Through our direct involvement, we will expand the supply chain and ensure biosimilar availability in the market.”

As more patents expire, the biosimilars market in the U.S. is projected to grow from $6.7 billion in 2021 to more than $100 billion in 2029, according to one market forecast..

Tramadol Banned by Anti-Doping Agency

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

When it comes to treating pain, tramadol (Ultram) is widely seen as a weak synthetic opioid that provides little relief to patients with severe or chronic pain.

“I get a lot more relief from aspirin” and “this stuff does nothing but make you dizzy and sleep,” are some of the comments PNN readers have made about tramadol.  

But some professional athletes, particularly those in cycling, have a completely different take on tramadol. They use it as a performance enhancing drug that can help them run, skate or peddle faster, and for longer periods of time. That’s why the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is adding tramadol to its list of prohibited drugs, starting in 2024.

“Tramadol has been on the WADA Monitoring Program for some years. Monitoring data has indicated significant use in sports including cycling, rugby and football,” WADA said in a statement. “Research studies funded by WADA have confirmed the potential for tramadol to enhance physical performance in sports.”

Results from one of those studies, recently published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, confirm many of WADA’s concerns. UK researchers enrolled 27 cyclists in a double-blind randomized study, in which they were given either 100mg tramadol or a placebo before engaging in 30 minutes of high intensity cycling, followed by a 25-mile time trial.

On average, the cyclists who took tramadol were 1.3% faster in the time trial (TT) than those given a placebo. That doesn’t sound like much, but in the highly competitive world of professional cycling, even a few seconds can be the difference between finishing first or second.

Interestingly, the researchers found there were “no differences in pain intensity” between the cyclists on tramadol and those who took the placebo.

“This study demonstrates that highly trained cyclists can maintain a significantly higher power output and complete a competitive TT in a significantly faster time following acute ingestion of 100 mg of fast-acting soluble tramadol. Tramadol reduced the perception of effort for a given power output but had no discernible impact on pain intensity whilst cycling,” wrote lead author Alexis Mauger, PhD, a professor in the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences at the University of Kent.

“The findings from this study suggest that tramadol elicits a significant performance-enhancing effect in highly trained cyclists, such that it can change the outcomes of a race. Given the evidence of the historical prevalence of use of tramadol in sport with the intention of improving performance, and the risks pertaining its use, this study provides strong evidence to justify its inclusion on the 2024 Prohibited Substance List.”

To be clear, no one is taking tramadol away from pain patients. But professional athletes who test positive for tramadol — without a medical reason for taking it — run the risk of suspension or disqualification if their sport follows the WADA guidelines..

Previous studies by Mauger found that acetaminophen (Tylenol) gave a 2% boost in performance for cyclists, suggesting that even a mild analgesic can be helpful in making endurance exercise seem easier. Conversely, it also lends weight to pain sufferers who say tramadol works no better than Tylenol or aspirin.      

“Now we have a conundrum. Tramadol, an opioid painkiller, appears to have had no effect whatsoever on the pain experienced during cycling. On the other hand, it significantly lowered the perception of effort, which in turn…  improved performance,” journalist Alex Hutchinson wrote in Outside. “I’m not sure what to make of this finding, but it reaffirms my sense that we still have a lot to learn about how pain and effort and other related constructs like mental fatigue influence our performance.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies tramadol as a Schedule IV controlled substance, meaning it has less potential for abuse and addiction compared to opioids like oxycodone or hydrocodone, which are Schedule II drugs.

In recent years, prescriptions for tramadol have soared in the U.S. because it is considered “safer” than other opioids. In many third world countries, however, tramadol is widely misused. In 2019, Public Citizen filed an unsuccessful petition with the FDA to have tramadol reclassified as a Schedule II drug, saying there was “overwhelming evidence” that tramadol was a public health risk.

The Way Forward: California’s New Opioid Guidelines

By Dr. Forest Tennant and Kristen Ogden

The Medical Board of California recently published new guidelines for prescribing opioids and other controlled substances for pain, which emphasize “individualized care” that is customized for each patient. 

The guidelines are a remarkable, positive and practical way forward in pain care. All persons concerned about chronic pain treatment with opioids, benzodiazepines and other controlled drugs need to know the basic concepts embedded in them.    

As the medical board was updating its guidelines, we had great concern that they would bury California’s Pain Patient's Bill of Rights and Intractable Pain Treatment Act. When these laws were passed in the 1990’s, they were a godsend to patients with chronic intractable pain, who were given the right to “request or reject the use of any or all modalities in order to relieve his or her pain.”

That means patients, with the support of their doctors, could get opiate medication without first having to submit to surgery, medical devices and other forms of pain treatment.  

To our great pleasure, the medical board’s new guidelines recognize, define and support these worthy laws.  Importantly, the guidelines also state that they are “not in any way intended to limit treatment” of patients in hospice or palliative care. And they allow for doctors to prescribe high dose opioids, provided they keep good medical records that document a need for them.

Defining Intractable Pain

The California guidelines provide a classic definition of intractable pain as “a state in which the cause cannot be removed or otherwise treated and no relief or cure has been found after reasonable efforts.” 

The problem with this definition is that intractable pain may be mild or intermittent and not curable, but may still be treated with non-opioid modalities. To require and receive treatment with opioids and other controlled drugs, one really needs a specific causative diagnosis of the unremitting “high impact” pain that produces physiologic complications such as hypertension, tachycardia, and endocrine deficiencies. 

Put another way, is intractable pain an incurable but treatable problem? Or is it constant and incurable with potentially life-threatening complications? 

Physicians, as a group, are often mystified, confused and unaware of how to determine which patients have an incurable, but readily treatable problem, and which patients have the constant and incurable pain that causes complications and require opioid therapy.

Physicians need help to make sound, defensible treatment decisions in the face of this quandary.  Some patients with complex intractable pain are greatly impacted and require non-standard treatment, which may include high-dose opioids, benzodiazepines and stimulant drugs. 

Here are the recommended criteria to identify such patients and support non-standard treatment plans.

1. A specific medical cause of intractable pain has been identified.

2. Constant pain has impacted some physiological and/or mental functions such as sleep, eating, hygiene, reading, concentration, and mobility.

3. Trials of standard medications and dosages with such agents as anti-depressants, muscle relaxants, anti-inflammatories, stimulants, anti-seizure medications, and low-dose opioids have not controlled pain or normalized functions.

4. There is objective physical evidence of the causative disease or complications of the pain, such as hypertension, tachycardia, neurologic deficits, or anatomic structural abnormalities.

5. There is an objective, diagnostic test result that documents an abnormality of the cause of pain or its complications, such as a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), hormone deficiency, elevated autoimmune or inflammatory marker, or an abnormal electrodiagnostic test.

It is the lack of adequate treatment of complex intractable pain that is really the crux of the suffering and deaths that have emerged due to overzealous and misinformed opioid regulations and guidelines.  These legitimate, complex patients comprise about 3 to 5% of chronic pain patients.

The California medical board’s new guidelines provide clinicians the opportunity to implement individualized and effective treatments for these unfortunate and deserving intractable pain patients. 

Forest Tennant, MD, DrPH, is retired from clinical practice but continues his research on the treatment of intractable pain. Dr. Tennant was the lead physician in crafting California’s Intractable Pain Law and Pain Patient Bill of Rights, and worked with the legislature to get them passed. 

Kristen Ogden is a patient advocate from Virginia. Kristen and her husband Louis travel regularly to California for his intractable pain treatment and prescriptions, which are not available in their home state. Kristen testified during public hearings on the California guidelines and closely followed their development. 

The Tennant Foundation gives financial support to Pain News Network and sponsors PNN’s Patient Resources section.  

America’s Biggest Fear: Fentanyl and Opioid Addiction

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The fentanyl crisis is the biggest public health problem in the US, according to two new surveys that highlight Americans’ growing fears about opioid addiction and the toxicity of street drugs.

The first survey, conducted by Axios-Ipsos, found that opioids and fentanyl have surpassed Covid-19, firearms, obesity and cancer as the nation’s #1 public health threat. Over one in four Americans (26%) ranked opioids and fentanyl first, replacing gun violence as the top threat to public health.  

Top U.S. Public Health Threats

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is 100 times more potent than morphine. It has been used safely for decades as an analgesic during surgery and to treat severe pain, but in recent years illicit versions of fentanyl have come to dominate the black market, where they are used in counterfeit medication or mixed with substances like heroin. Most fatal overdoses in the U.S. involve illicit fentanyl, not prescription opioids.

The Axios-Ipsos survey found that about four in ten adults (44%) are aware that U.S. overdose deaths reached a record high last year. Americans who live in rural areas, which have some of the highest overdose rates, are even more familiar (51%) with the rising number of drug deaths. 

Over half the respondents (51%) said they cared a lot about overdoses and think the government should be doing more to reduce drug deaths (79%). Most also believe that government does not make the health and well-being of citizens a priority (62%).  

While most Americans trust the health information they get from federal agencies like the CDC (64%) and FDA (62%), there is more trust placed in health information from personal doctors (89%) and family members/close friends (75%). 

Other key findings about respondents’ drug use in the last three months:

• 26% used a pain medication for which they had a prescription or knew someone who did

• 3% used a pain medication for which they did not have a prescription or knew someone who did

• 20% used cannabis or knew someone who did

• 2% used hallucinogenic drugs or new someone who did

• 2% used “other illegal drugs” or knew someone who did

“Pain medication” was not defined in the survey questions, so the responses may include some non-opioid analgesics.

The recently updated Axios-Ipsos American Health Index is based on a nationally representative sample of 1,162 adults, who were surveyed on a wide array of health topics from August 11-14.

Most Families Impacted by Addiction

The second survey, conducted by the non-profit KFF, asked a representative sample of 1,327 adults online and over the phone in July about a variety of drug and substance use issues.

Two-thirds of respondents said either they or a family member were addicted to alcohol or drugs, experienced homelessness due to addiction, or had a drug overdose resulting in hospitalization or death.  

Nearly three in ten (29%) said they or someone in their family were addicted to opioids, either prescription opioids or illicit ones like fentanyl and heroin. Opioid addiction was most common among rural residents (42%) and White adults (33%). Among those who experienced addiction firsthand, most said it had a negative impact on their family’s relationships and finances. 

Only 5% felt they themselves might be addicted to opioid painkillers, far less than those who believe they might be addicted to alcohol (13%). 

Fear about addiction is common. Over half (51%) of adults are worried that someone in their family will experience a substance use disorder and one-third (32%) are worried that someone in their family will overdose on opioids.  

About four in ten adults (39%) are worried that someone in their family will unintentionally consume illicit fentanyl, a fear that looms largest in rural areas (48%). 

SOURCE: KFF

Nearly three in ten respondents (29%) said they had been prescribed opioid pain medication in the past five years. Of those, most said their doctors had warned them about the risks of opioid addiction and dependence (57%), side effects from opioids (69%), other ways to manage pain (60%), and about keeping their medications in a safe place (58%).  

While fears about addiction to opioid pain medication are common, it doesn’t happen nearly as often as many people believe. A recent study in Australia found that 92% of patients prescribed opioids for the first time never progressed to long-term use. Less than 3% became persistent users or needed higher doses — and they were mostly seniors with chronic health problems.

Neither the KFF or Axios-Ipsos polls asked respondents about growing shortages of opioid pain medication or how the reduced supply was impacting legitimate pain patients.   

‘Unintended Victims’

The patient side of the story was shared this week in an opinion video by The New York Times. Video producers Vishakha Darbha, Lucy King and Adam Westbrook spoke with chronic pain patients who are the “unintended victims” of the national crackdown on opioid prescribing.

“America’s doctors have been put in a difficult position. But it doesn’t need to be this way. It is possible to stop overprescribing yet ensure that pain sufferers get the relief they deserve. The patients in our video have one message: Listen to us,” the producers said.

Kaiser Permanente’s Expansion Faces Skepticism

By Harris Meyer, KFF Health News

As regulators review Kaiser Permanente’s proposed acquisition of a respected health system based in Pennsylvania, health care experts are still puzzling over how the surprise deal, announced in April, could fulfill the managed care giant’s promise of improving care and reducing costs for patients, including in its home state of California.

KP said it would acquire Danville, Pennsylvania-based Geisinger — which has 10 hospitals, 1,700 employed physicians, and a 600,000-member health plan in three states — as the first step in the creation of a new national health care organization called Risant Health. Oakland-based Kaiser Permanente said it expects to invest $5 billion in Risant over the next five years, and to add as many as six more nonprofit health systems during that period.

Industry experts believe KP’s aim is to build a big enough presence across the country to effectively compete with players like Amazon, Aetna CVS Health, Walmart Health, and UnitedHealth Group in providing health care for large corporate customers. Kaiser Permanente executives touted the potential for spreading the group’s vaunted brand of quality, lower-cost care around the country.

But it’s not clear how KP will be able to bring its model, in which facilities and doctors receive a monthly per-member fee for all care, to markets where it doesn’t own an integrated system of physicians, hospitals, and health plans, as it does in California. Critics note that KP’s efforts to expand failed in a number of states in the 1980s and 1990s.

In addition, the physician-led Permanente Medical Groups, which lead KP’s patient care, were not involved in the Risant deal, raising questions about how their expertise would be shared.

“I don’t know how Kaiser will bring its knowledge and best practices to improve health care delivery without the involvement of the medical group, which does all the care delivery,” said Robert Pearl, a former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group who’s now a lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Is Bigger Better?

There are also questions about how the expansion will benefit current KP customers. The tax-exempt, nonprofit organization has 39 hospitals, 24,000 physicians, and 12.7 million health plan members in eight states and Washington, D.C., though about three-quarters of its members are in California, where it controls nearly half of the private insurance market. KP reported $95 billion in revenue last year.

“We’ve asked Kaiser Permanente management questions about the deal’s advantages to employees and customers, but we haven’t heard back,” said Caroline Lucas, the executive director of the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions, several of which are in contentious contract talks with the company. “Where is the money coming from? Are the citizens of California and other states subsidizing this expansion? How are they benefiting?”

Kaiser Permanente CEO Greg Adams declined to comment. A KP spokesperson, Steve Shivinsky, said the group’s physicians would be involved in developing a “platform” to offer other health systems its value-based care expertise, including in design of care models, pharmacy practices, consumer digital engagement, development of health insurance products, and best practices for supply chains. Shivinsky said work on the platform was just beginning.

“Risant Health’s success will firmly establish value-based care as a better model for health care in this country,” said Shivinsky, KP’s director of national media relations.

“If there is a commitment to truly delivering higher-quality and lower-cost care, it will take time and hard work,” said John Toussaint, chair of Catalysis, a nonprofit that trains executives in health care and other industries in quality improvement. “But frankly I’m skeptical that’s the reason for these types of mergers. Bigger may be better for increasing prices, but not necessarily for improving care.”

The deal may be a sign that KP, founded in 1945, is hearing the alluring call of lucrative fee-for-service medicine. “This gets Kaiser into the much bigger part of the market — commercial insurance — and expands beyond their traditional model of owning all the pieces and selling their own insurance,” said Glenn Melnick, a health economics professor at the University of Southern California.

The Geisinger acquisition is being reviewed by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, with a 30-day public comment period ending Aug. 7, 2023. The Federal Trade Commission and the California attorney general’s office declined to say whether they were reviewing the deal. KP expects the deal to close sometime in 2024. There was no purchase price, but KP said Risant would make a minimum of $2 billion available to Geisinger through 2028, including income that Geisinger generates itself.

Federal and state antitrust regulators have expressed growing concern about consolidation of hospitals and physician groups into ever-larger organizations with the power to drive up prices. But antitrust experts say it’s unlikely regulators will challenge the deal since KP does not currently have a presence in Pennsylvania, Delaware, or Maine, where Geisinger operates.

Indeed, the deal could boost competition if KP’s investment enables Geisinger to expand beyond central and eastern Pennsylvania and take on the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Highmark, the state’s two dominant integrated health systems.

Around the country, Risant could be appealing to businesses that offer health plans to their employees.

“If Kaiser can become an effective player in more markets through Risant and that leads to greater price competition, that will be very attractive to large employers,” said Bill Kramer, senior adviser for health policy at the Purchaser Business Group on Health, which represents large employer health plans.

Smaller health systems and physician groups that are struggling financially may also see joining Risant as a more palatable option than being acquired by more profit-hungry entities, such as private equity firms, Melnick noted.

Through tight coordination between its physicians, hospitals, and health plans, KP has a strong track record of producing good health outcomes, particularly for plan members with chronic conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes. In recent years, Kaiser doctors have also significantly reduced opioid prescribing.

KP hospitals and doctors are paid a monthly per-member fee for all care — called capitated payment. That gives KP a powerful financial incentive to keep members healthy and prevent costly hospital admissions and emergency room visits.

In contrast, Geisinger and most other health systems across the country generally are paid for each separate procedure — known as fee-for-service payment — giving them less incentive to keep patients healthy and reduce overall costs. Because of that, it’s not clear how KP’s value-based care model will work at Geisinger and other health systems acquired through Risant.

Adams has said Risant won’t try to fully replicate Kaiser Permanente’s model. Instead, Risant will help other health systems achieve the same kind of outcomes and cost savings while working with multiple insurers and providers.

KP also could potentially learn lessons from Geisinger and other health systems about producing better health outcomes at lower cost for members. Geisinger has won acclaim for its ProvenCare model, in which it accepts a fixed fee for providing an entire episode of care, such as heart bypass surgery, with no extra charge if the outcome isn’t satisfactory and the patient needs additional care.

But Kramer, a former KP executive, is skeptical. “It’s hard if not impossible to transform a medical group that’s reliant on fee-for-service payment into something like the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group,” he said.

Critics of the deal, citing KP’s failed expansion moves in the 1980s and 1990s, also worry that building Risant Health could distract KP executives from cost-control and quality improvement efforts in their home state and draw down the organization’s financial reserves, potentially leading to premium hikes.

In 1999, for example, KP sold a money-losing medical group it had established in North Carolina in the mid-’80s. It faced opposition from the local medical community and challenges with employer health plans, among other factors. Kramer also pointed to its withdrawal from other markets including Connecticut, Missouri, Ohio, and Texas.

Still, KP did succeed in establishing a significant presence in the mid-Atlantic states, Washington, D.C., and Georgia, though it doesn’t own hospitals in those markets. It also has long-standing operations in Hawaii, Colorado, and Oregon.

With Risant, KP will be up against very large, sophisticated managed care competitors including UnitedHealth’s Optum, which employs about 70,000 physicians across the country.

“Hopefully Kaiser’s senior leadership will be smarter this time around and avoid the kinds of problems they had when they expanded in the past,” Kramer said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. It is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Expanded Insurance Coverage ‘Urgent Priority’ for Chronic Pain Patients

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A panel of experts convened by the University of Michigan is recommending expanded insurance coverage and better training of providers to address problems faced by millions of chronic pain patients on long-term opioid therapy. Although improving access to pain care is an “urgent priority,” it took nearly three years for the panel’s recommendations to be developed and released.

“Patients who take opioids for chronic pain face unique challenges in the present opioid policy landscape, including reduced access to care,” wrote lead author Adrianne Kehne, a former researcher at Michigan Medicine who is now a Research Project Manager at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

“While there have been substantial efforts to improve access to care for OUD (opioid use disorder), the needs of this patient population have gone largely unrecognized and unaddressed.  Limited access to high-quality care has caused significant distress among both patients and providers, and increasing access is an urgent priority.”

In a paper recently published in the Journal of Pain Research, Kehne and her colleagues said recent efforts to improve access, such as a revised CDC guideline that takes a more flexible approach to opioid prescribing, may not be adequate.

“It remains to be seen how providers and policymakers respond to these new recommendations. The non-binding guideline may not be sufficient to reverse prescribing rules at the state and health system level or significantly change provider behaviors,” they wrote.

A Michigan-based panel of 24 experts, including providers, researchers, regulators, insurers and patients, first met online in September, 2020 to discuss ways to improve access to pain care. Their long-delayed recommendations -- which are only being made public now -- stop well short of reversing policies that discourage opioid prescribing.

Instead, they focus on changing insurance reimbursement policies, to allow providers to spend more time with patients and to offer multimodal, non-pharmacological treatments. Multimodal therapy includes acupuncture, chiropractic care, cognitive behavioral therapy, injected pain therapies and “collaborative care” techniques that are often not covered by insurance.

“In order to encourage more clinics to offer multimodal pain care and increase access for patients who currently don’t receive it, insurance companies and government health coverage programs such as Medicaid need to change how they pay for it,” said senior author Pooja Lagisetty, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at Michigan Medicine and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

“We are starting to see some change, most notably at the VA and in insurance coverage of physical therapy, but more is needed in order for patients and providers to have time to develop individualized approaches, overcome stigma around providing opioid-related care, and for clinics to begin offering non-medication services.”

Other key recommendations of the panel:

• Make providers aware of how Michigan’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) is “used in investigating and disciplining providers”

• To reduce stigma, educate providers on the differences between addiction and dependency in patients on long-term opioid therapy

• Improve provider education about chronic pain, as well as multimodal and non-pharmacological therapies

• Train social workers in biopsychosocial factors involved in chronic pain treatment

• Improve provider education and practices to address racial barriers and biases in pain care

• Increase recruitment of providers from racial and ethnic minorities

The expert panel study was funded by the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Aging.

Researchers say between 5 and 8 million U.S. patients currently take opioids long-term. That’s down from about 11 million a few years ago. Opioid prescribing in the U.S. has decline by 64% since its peak, and now stands at levels last seen in the year 2000. Despite that historic decline, fatal overdoses have climbed to record levels, fueled primarily by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

Large Study Debunks Myths About Rx Opioid Addiction

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A large new study in Australia is debunking myths about the addictive nature of opioid pain medication and how a single prescription can lead to long term use.

In an analysis of nearly 3.5 million Australians who were prescribed opioids for the first time, researchers found that 92% never progressed beyond low opioid use and only 3% became persistent users or needed higher doses. The “sustained use” of opioids occurred mostly in seniors (65 and older) suffering from cancer, depression, anxiety and other chronic health problems.

“Results of this cohort study suggest that most individuals commencing treatment with prescription opioids had relatively low and time-limited exposure to opioids over a 5-year period,” wrote lead author Natasa Gisev, PhD, a clinical pharmacist at National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney.

“The small proportion of individuals with sustained or increasing use was older with more comorbidities and use of psychotropic and other analgesic drugs, likely reflecting a higher prevalence of pain and treatment needs in these individuals.”

Previous research estimated the risk of long-term opioid use as high as 57 percent, but Gisev and her colleagues say those studies are flawed because they excluded people with cancer and opioid use disorder, or used various definitions of long-term use. The Australian researchers took a different approach in tracking opioid prescriptions, developing five “trajectories of opioid use.”

The vast majority of patients had very low (75%) or low use (17%) of opioids. Others started with moderate opioid use and decreased to low use (3%), or began with low use and increased to moderate use (3%). Only 3% became sustained users or took higher doses.

Five-Year Trajectories of Opioid Use

JAMA NETWORK OPEN

“Overall, these findings suggest that most people who initiate an opioid prescription are likely to have low, time-limited exposure to opioids with little indication of ongoing use. This possibility is an important consideration for policymakers and stakeholders considering population-level prescribing of high-risk drugs,” researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“Opioids are essential drugs for acute and cancer pain, and many people with CNCP (chronic non-cancer pain) benefit from opioids. Continued focus and policy responses based on findings from a small group of people with increased risk of harms run the risk of limiting access to people who safely derive objective benefits from opioids.”  

That’s exactly what happened to millions of pain patients in the US, who lost access to opioids due to steep cuts in prescribing, chronic shortages of opioid medication, and a relentless drumbeat in the media about people becoming addicted or overdosing after one pill.  

“One prescription can be all it takes to lose everything,” the CDC said in a 2017 advertising campaign that emphasized the risks of prescription opioids, while ignoring the far more serious problem of illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

Just how common is opioid addiction? Estimates are all over the map, ranging as low as 1% to as high as 40% for long-term opioid users.

“The problem with all of these studies is that they are retrospective in nature, limited to a particular patient population, and constrained by the diagnostic criteria in use at the time,” my late colleague Roger Chriss pointed out in a 2019 column on opioid addiction.  

Roger was prescient about the imprecision of diagnostic criteria. A little known 2021 study of U.S. veterans who were diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) challenged how many actually had it. Researchers found that nearly 20% of veterans with OUD used prescription opioids without any signs of abuse and evidence was lacking in another 7% of cases. Less than 60% of the veterans had a “high likelihood” of being correctly diagnosed with OUD.

DEA Considering More Changes to Telehealth Prescribing Rules

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will hold two public hearings next month – what it calls “listening sessions” – to consider if providers should continue prescribing controlled substances through telehealth without first requiring patients to have an in-person medical evaluation.

Patients are currently allowed to get a controlled medications without visiting their doctor under emergency telehealth rules adopted three years ago at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Controlled substances include many opioids, stimulants, sedatives, steroids, and addiction treatment medications such as methadone and buprenorphine (Suboxone).

“DEA recognizes the importance of telemedicine in providing Americans with access to needed medications, and DEA has been, and remains, committed to expanding access to telemedicine in a way that puts patients — and their safety — first, is simple to understand and apply, reflects technological advancements, and is consistent with lessons learned during the COVID–19 PHE and the ongoing opioid epidemic,” the agency said in a statement.

Rules that are “simple to understand and apply” may be the key issue. In March, the DEA proposed changing the telehealth rules to reimpose “guardrails” on Schedule II opioids such as oxycodone and hydrocodone. For those medications, a patient would first be required to have an in-person meeting with a doctor, with refills then allowed via telehealth. Other drugs that are classified as Schedule III, IV or V substances could initially be prescribed for 30 days via telehealth, but any refills would require an in-person meeting.

The proposed rule changes are so confusing and drew so much opposition that the DEA delayed implementing them until this November. Next month’s public hearings are another sign the agency is still uncertain what to do.

In a notice published in the Federal Register, the DEA said it was open to creating a special registration process that would allow providers to continue prescribing “some controlled substances” without seeing patients in-person. The agency didn’t specific which controlled substances it is referring to.

“DEA is open to considering — for some controlled substances — implementation of a separate Special Registration for telemedicine prescribing for patients without requiring the patient to ever have had an in-person medical evaluation at all,” the DEA notice said.

“DEA also observes that making permanent some telemedicine flexibilities on a routine and large-scale basis would potentially create a new framework for medicine that fundamentally expands access to controlled substances in a way that warrants a new framework for accountability based, in part, on increased data collection and visibility into prescription practices in order to ensure patient safety and prevent diversion in near-real-time.”

Opioid Diversion Rare

Contrary to popular belief, opioid diversion is rare. Using data gathered from prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), pharmacies, hospitals and others in the drug supply chain, the DEA’s most recent estimate is that less than one percent of oxycodone (0.3%) and hydrocodone (0.42%) is lost, stolen or diverted to someone they were not prescribed to.

Opioid prescriptions are also harder to obtain and there are chronic opioid shortages around the country, so few pain patients are willing to part with their legally prescribed medications. Counterfeit medications and other street drugs made with illicit fentanyl are the real problem, which the DEA “listening sessions” won’t address.

The public hearings will be held on September 12 and 13 at DEA headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. Medical practitioners, patients, pharmacists, drug makers, distributors, law enforcement, and other interested parties can express their views either in-person or by video teleconference. The public hearings will also be streamed live online.

The DEA is seeking input on these key questions:

• Should telemedicine prescribing of Schedule II medications be permitted without an in-person medical evaluation?  If it is permitted, what safeguards would you recommend to ensure patient safety and prevent diversion?

• If telemedicine prescribing of Schedule III–V medications is permitted without an in-person medical evaluation, what safeguards and data should be collected for those substances? 

To register as a speaker, click here. The deadline for registering is August 21.

My Story: A Bone Cancer Survivor’s Search for Pain Relief

By Kristen Hernandez

The past three weeks have been the most challenging since my cancer diagnosis 20 years ago. Shortages of opioid pain medication have taken their toll, costing me weeks of productivity, mental and physical anguish, and a negative bank account.

When I was 25, I had a different life -- a career as a corporate travel consultant for RCA Records in New York City. I clawed my way out the ghettos of the Bronx and into corporate America, and purchased my first home in the suburbs of Long Island.

But everything changed when I was diagnosed with an insidious and rare form of bone cancer called Chordoma. It’s a literal one-in-a-million disease, with just one in every million individuals diagnosed with it each year.

The type of Chordoma that chose me is extremely rare, due to the tumor’s location: it was housed inside the L3 vertebra of my lumbar spine. And it was extraordinarily painful.

KRISTEN HERNANDEZ

Because Chordoma doesn't respond to chemotherapy or radiation, surgery is the only treatment. To save my life, surgeons reconstructed my spine, replacing a vertebra with a titanium cage and filling it with bone graft from my hip.

They also replaced a spinal disc with two more titanium cages, adding 16 rods and 20 screws for reinforcement.

My spine today resembles a nightmarish ladder that Tim Burton might have created.

After eight reconstructive spinal surgeries, I was given a miraculous drug called OxyContin. Doctors did not think I’d ever walk again because they needed to sever the nerves to my legs so that they could remove the cancer-infected bone.

Because of OxyContin, I was able to take my first step and eventually walk. This was in 2005, at the beginning of the so-called opioid crisis.

Once I relocated to Florida, pain management doctors refused to prescribe OxyContin to me, fearing lawsuits and scrutiny from law enforcement. Regardless of how much I protested, I was dismissed as if I was the problem, instead of having a problem.

At the time, pill mills were everywhere in Florida. They were places where if you had cash, you could get any medication. It’s also why there’s a such stigma today against chronic pain sufferers.

Eventually, I found a legitimate pain management doctor in Fort Lauderdale. Instead of OxyContin, he changed my regimen to a fentanyl patch, along with oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets (Percocet) for breakthrough pain, essentially replacing one opioid with two. That was my pain management routine for the past twelve years, until recently.

When I went to a Walgreens pharmacy this past June, I was shocked to hear, “Sorry, oxycodone is on back order, and we have no idea if or when it’s coming back.”

Opioid Shortages

Shortages of oxcodone, hydrocodone and other opioids are increasing around the country. And there is zero advance notice from pharmacies about when a prescribed medication will be available. Patients like me who suffer from severe pain are forced to go through withdrawal until the pharmacy restocks.

It’s a nightmare to deal with. Pain patients are usually not prepared for the sudden halt in medical care. Even the smallest disruption can have devastating effects, such as loss of productivity, reduced quality of life, and a diminished social life. Even smiling takes an effort.

Patients are always the last to know when there’s a problem with a prescription. Like thousands of others, I made frantic phone calls to my doctor, who scrambled to find an alternative medication. Without consulting me, he wrote a script for hydrocodone/acetaminophen (Vicodin), a medication I had never taken before. That’s when my three-week nightmare began. Because I wasn’t prepared to handle the ineffectiveness of hydrocodone for bone pain, my condition quickly began to decline.

Each morning, the first sensation I get feels like someone dug their elbow into my lower back all night long. It’s so fierce, it takes my breath away. Then, when I stand and all the titanium in my spine settles, the nerves hum in my legs and a crawling sensation shoots up and down, vibrating constantly.

As the morning coffee brews, I get the “poke” sensation. Due to a 200-pound weight loss, there’s a rod that sticks out of my thoracic spine area that rubs up against everything -- the bed, couch, office chair, car seat, everything. It’s miserable because it’s there forever.

Hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets seem to exacerbate those symptoms, causing my body to swell and tighten into a ball of pressure, while the pain intensified. My productivity stopped and the bills began to pile up. Working while experiencing severe spinal and bone pain is nearly impossible.

After a recent candid discussion with my pain management doctor, we formed a “Plan B.” We’re trying oxycodone without acetaminophen to see if that works better. Having a backup plan with an alternate list of medications is essential with the shortages and fear-based drug culture we’ve found ourselves dumped into.

Government regulators and health policies have failed the people who suffer the most in this country, who often live with medical conditions they cannot control, like cancer. They’ve failed us time after time, filing lawsuits and adopting guidelines that make it harder for us to get prescription opioids – even though over 82% of opioid overdoses are caused by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

Patients who suffer from chronic pain all have one common goal: relief. When that relief is interrupted, and access to crucial therapies and drugs is denied, you leave us with few choices. We can either live our lives without pain relief or seek out riskier alternatives. Those are not good choices.

Kristen Hernandez is a freelance journalist and creative nonfiction writer living in South Florida. 

Do you have a “My Story” to share? Pain News Network invites other readers to share their experiences about living with pain and treating it.

Send your stories to editor@painnewsnetwork.org.