Doctor Bison’s Fables: The Crowded Exam Room

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Dr. Mark Ibsen is a Montana physician whose license was suspended in 2016 by the state medical board for “overprescribing” opioids and poor record keeping. A state judge later reversed the suspension, ruling the medical board made numerous errors.

Ibsen has since become a strong proponent of medical marijuana and a leading advocate in the pain community. He’s published a new book, “Dr. Bison’s Fables,” using animals as lead characters in a series of stories to convey how many pain patients in the U.S. lack proper treatment and some are in crisis.

This interview with Ibsen has been edited for content and clarity.

PNN: Who is “Doctor Bison’s Fables” intended for and what is your goal? What is the message you're trying to get across?

Dr. Mark Ibsen

IBSEN: I'm not really in the book selling business. I'm in the restoration of the sacred physician-patient relationship business. But all of my screaming from the rooftops about it for the last 12 years has made little progress.  

I was talking to the publisher and he was saying if you write a book about what's going on in medicine today, the pain crisis and catastrophe of it, you'll have a readership of 50,000. If you write a book that talks about the dynamics of what's going on, and put it in the form of a parable or a fable that has a bigger meaning to it, your audience will expand.

When this approach was suggested to me, I rejected it completely out of hand. I said I just want to tell what's going on because the house is on fire. But I slowly came to look at this idea as maybe he's onto something. Maybe Aesop's Fables had some good things to say, maybe the Brothers Grimm had some good things to say. So I thought, okay, let's add some folksiness to this. Give it a Burl Ives approach.

PNN: When you tell your fables in the book, animals are the key characters. Why did you choose them?

IBSEN: The animals are the protagonists. I chose Dr. Bison because of the bullheadedness of the character. As you can see on the book cover, he's examining this cute little otter on the exam table. And the weasel guy with the clipboard is scowling at him and evaluating how he's doing his job and if he's doing it effectively or quickly enough.

The weasel is like an interloper in the exam room, which has been my persistent complaint. We have too many guests in the exam room that have a vote into what's going on between the doctor and the patient. We have an insurance bureaucrat deciding what you can or can't prescribe, and a pharmacist deciding if the prescription is legitimate.

Then there's a law enforcement officer who's looking at whether a crime is being committed. Then there's a DEA agent who may or may not have a college education, who's looking at patterns and matrices. Is Dr. Bison prescribing more than other doctors?

Then there's legislators, like the legislators in the state of Ohio that legislated exactly how much I could get for the pain in my chest after it was split open during heart bypass surgery at the Cleveland Clinic.

So it's really crowded in the exam room now.

PNN: You want to get across the point that you can't treat all patients the same way. Everyone is different. How do you communicate that in your fable scenario?

IBSEN: I think it's basically species dependent. By that I mean that different species have different personal attributes. A mouse is going to attack a problem much different than a bison would. Or an herbivore will attack a problem more than a carnivore will.

I guess you could call it a menagerie. There's a bison and a cougar. There's a possum. There's a wise llama. There's a viper in the chapter about breeding resentment. There's a coyote, the trickster who has a lawyer's briefcase and there's a crow. And then the elk. Elk handle their conflicts by keeping the herd intact, surrounding the weakest member so the wolves can't get to them.

My goal is to is to make this seemingly light and then develop it. Story development pulls them in and readers finish the story. And then they're left with curiosity about the pain crisis, rather than revulsion or rejection or resistance or argumentation.

PNN: Take us to the epilogue and the message that you really want to get across to the reader.

IBSEN:  I guess I would say that I didn't leave medicine, medicine left me. I don't want to project some righteous indignation about it. I'm sad about it more than anything else. I don't think this is limited just to the patient-physician relationship. I think it's a cultural phenomenon. And it's just manifested in medicine in this way.

We now have patients that cannot tell their doctor the truth. It's sort of like a teenager who has to lie to their parents. It's like a patriarchal system. The patriarchal system works if the patriarch supports the people in the system. But these days, if you admit that there's a family history of alcoholism, then suddenly you're not a candidate for opiates.

Or this doctor friend of mine who was recently suspended, he's a residency mate of mine. He had a mother and a daughter, both in chronic pain. I think they lived together and one was on hydrocodone and the other on oxycodone. And it turns out their medications may have gotten mixed up. They had a urinalysis and it looked bad.

But if you live in the same household, then maybe you can get your pills mixed up. I mean, you could have that chance. But do you fire somebody for having hydrocodone in their system? In my training, a lab result is something that you respond to, not something you react to. The first thing you do is you repeat the lab test. If you see something that's completely out of the ordinary, then you have to inquire about it.

But in this system, you have to fire the patient, even when there's no evidence that doing urine drug screens make any difference at all about diversion or patient care or anything. Nobody's done a placebo, double-blind controlled study about that.

I'm now seeing some pain refugees from Billings. The pain doctor there retired and the new guy came in slashing everybody’s dose and then he left. All these patients are trying to recover and none of them are oriented towards taking cannabis because they know that if they found cannabis in their urine that they would be fired. Somebody somewhere will say if you have cannabis in your urine, it's obvious that you're selling your pain pills in order to buy your cannabis. That is not obvious to me. Not even remotely

There’s a huge amount of gaslighting going on between the system and patients, that doctors are willing participants in. I mean, my younger colleagues have loans to pay off, so they are not risk takers. Right now, I am quite a risk taker. Because everything's gone. I don't have anything left.

I would say that in medicine today, the wheels are coming off and maybe they need to all come off. It doesn't operate in the same mentor-apprenticeship relationship that I was trained in. I don't know if I would last in medical training today.

I think that the internet has both good and bad things about it. And the good thing is that patients research their ailments or their symptoms and they come in with that. They come in with a differential diagnosis already. And I get to hear that and respond to it.

The great thing about that is what I call the alignment effect. If a patient comes to me and wants to do something that they read about and it's not going to kill them, if I say yes and it works for them, then they're going to be really persistent about following that therapy because it was their idea. Right? If it fails and they come back to me, then they're willing to listen to my point of view on it. And that builds trust.

If only the hospital administrator, pharmacist, insurance bureaucrat and legislator would trust our medical expertise. I think we're in a period of time where expertise is not thriving. Failing to use the expertise of our specialists is really putting us in a bad way, not only in medicine, but in the entire culture.

PNN: Thank you, Dr. Ibsen.

Why the Ruan Case Won’t Protect Doctors From Prosecution

By Dr. Joseph Parker

Doctors trying to save lives and help pain patients are regularly being sent to prison for prescribing opioids. And despite last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the Ruan case, that’s not changing.  Here’s why. 

First, it’s important to know what you are up against.  When the US federal government goes after a doctor or anyone else, they face a streamlined conviction machine.  Since the time of Ronald Reagan (who I voted for), the rights of an American citizen to challenge the charges against them or try to overturn an unjust conviction have been eroded. 

Then came President Bill Clinton (I voted for him too), who signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, doing more to ensure that the government can imprison the innocent than any other president since the Civil War.

At the founding of this nation, it was recognized that governments are prone to lock up people they don’t like, finding some legal pretext to justify their actions.  To guard against this, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted to limit the powers of the federal government. 

Originally, there was only one federal crime: an act of treason. This crime was much more limited than the British version had been, when wandering over onto the King’s hunting grounds was considered treason. In the American version, you had to wage war against the United States or give aid and comfort to its enemies during a time of war. 

Then John Adams, the second president of the United States, made sedition a federal crime. Since then, so many federal laws have been added that government itself cannot tell you exactly how many or what they are.

That’s not counting all of the rules and regulations enforced by federal law enforcement, as if they were the law.  Locked up is locked up, after all.  Today the land of the free incarcerates more of its citizens than any other nation.  Not only that, but the sentences have become draconian. 

There is no nation on earth today where the liberty of a citizen has less value than in America.  The US incarcerates an average of 629 people for every 100,000 citizens. The next closest nations are Rwanda, Turkmenistan, El Salvador and Cuba. China and Russia don’t even make the Top 10.

Believe it or not, there are 37 states in the US that beat Cuba’s incarceration rate of 510 prisoners, with Louisiana coming in at a mind numbing 1,341. 

All of those inmates did not end up in prison by accident.  Looking at 2020 numbers, there were about 1,879 criminal cases heard in federal court.  Of those, about 90% of the accused plead guilty without even going to trial. Is that because the US government is absolutely right 90% of the time?  I am cautiously skeptical. Only 0.04% of cases -- 4 out of 1,000 – resulted in acquittal.  Those are not good odds. 

In Ruan v. United States, Dr. Xiulu Ruan appealed his conviction for prescribing opioids in an “unauthorized manner.” In a stunning unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court justices repeated what they said in 1925 in Linder v. United States, and then again in 2006 in Gonzales v. Oregon:  the federal government cannot dictate the practice of medicine and a doctor can only be prosecuted if they knew what they were doing was wrong.

As has happened in the past, US law enforcement doesn’t let something like a Supreme Court ruling slow them down.  They are completely ignoring the Ruan ruling by arguing something called “willful blindness.” What was the doctor willfully blind to?  To whatever opinion the government’s expert witness feels like arguing is the “usual practice of medicine” and “a legitimate medical purpose.”

Even though the Supreme Court made clear that only individual states can regulate the practice of medicine, the government’s hired expert does not have to come from your state or even be familiar with your state’s laws regarding the practice of medicine.

In effect, the DEA argues that there is a national practice of medicine that must be followed.  Where do they draw these medical practice standards when there is no such thing as a federal medical license?  From medical textbooks like the "Principles and Practices of Pain Medicine"?  No.  From the teachings of national medical organizations like the American Academy of Pain Medicine or the American Society of Addiction Medicine?  No again. 

The teachings from those sources are not allowed in court, unless you can get one of the original authors to come testify for you.  And sometimes, not even then.  The chapter on avoiding addiction in pain management from the above textbook was written by Dr. Alan Wartenberg.  Despite his advanced years, Dr. Wartenberg came to my trial to testify for me.  But he was not allowed to be considered as an expert in pain medicine, because he was “only” an addiction specialist. 

This is nothing compared to what happened to Dr. William Bauer of Ohio.  A dozen pharmacists, doctors, and scientists were willing to testify on his behalf, and all of them were disqualified by the court.  But the government’s “experts” in pain medicine can testify about almost anything, including addiction and even chronic cough.

The government does not convict you by proving you are guilty, they convict you by smearing you publicly long before you get to trial, and then making sure that the jury does not have access to the truth, by disqualifying experts, withholding favorable evidence, allowing false testimony, and making false statements to the jury. 

And remember, Dr. Ruan “won” at the Supreme Court. But he’s still in prison. 

Good luck and be prepared.  Ruan will not save you.

Joseph Parker, MD, is Chief Science Officer and Operations Officer at Advanced Research Concepts, a company developing solutions to the challenges of space travel and space-related medical issues.  In clinical practice, Dr. Parker specialized in emergency medicine and served as Director of Emergency Medicine at two hospitals. Prior to that, he had a distinguished career in the U.S. Marines and Air Force. 

In 2022, a federal jury convicted Dr. Parker on two counts of unlawful opioid prescribing. He has filed an appeal as he awaits sentencing.

A Pain Patient's Perspective on Opioid Prescribing

By Barby Ingle, PNN Columnist

It is essential to prescribe pain treatments that are appropriate and effective for each patient. I say that based on my own experiences as a patient, as well as thousands of others I have spoken with over the years as a friend and advocate.

Patients who need opioids, benzodiazepines, antidepressants and other medications should have access to them -- just as a heart patient has access to medication that keeps their heart functioning or a diabetic needs access to insulin.

People living with pain should also be offered individualized treatment. That could be anything from physical therapy and analgesics to surgical procedures and alternative therapies like acupuncture. I have tried over 100 different types of pain treatment; some have worked and others have not. It often made me feel like a guinea pig. Unnecessary surgery hurt me most in the end.

There are many public education campaigns underway to prevent addiction and overdoses by reducing the use of prescription opioids. These campaigns are repeated in the media, but the information does not always include facts or is presented in a misleading way.

For example, there is the DEA’s “One Pill Can Kill” campaign, which is aimed at raising awareness about a surge in counterfeit pills made with illicit fentanyl and other street drugs. Another is the CDC’s “Rx Awareness” campaign, which shares the stories of people whose lives were impacted by prescription opioids. The overall theme is that opioids are “addictive and dangerous.”  

Although well-intentioned, these campaigns have a tendency to demonize FDA-approved medications that have a lot of science and research behind them. Most people are unaware that fentanyl has been used safely and effectively for decades to treat severe pain and as an analgesic in millions of surgeries. Saying “one pill can kill” to a pain patient who has improved their life with a legally prescribed medication is disheartening.

I have seen this misinformation firsthand over the years and how it has put a damper on opioid prescribing. Physicians should prescribe opioids for pain when appropriate, but many are afraid to do so because of potential sanctions and legal threats. As a result, many providers won’t prescribe opioids or will only do so minimally and as a last resort.

Individualized Treatment

I believe each patient is different and should be treated as such. We need providers to operate on the assumption that each individual is unique and requires something different, even when they have the same disease or injury as someone else.

Physicians today can use pharmacogenomics to see if a patient’s DNA can affect how they respond to a treatment or what is chemically right for them. The dosage, brand, procedure and frequency will vary depending on each patient. I often bring my pharmacogenomics information to communicate more effectively with my providers, which benefits us both.

I also know that doing what is least invasive first and then progressing to other options is essential. Sometimes, surgery is the best option. Sometimes, opioids or other pain medications should be used first. Every medical provider should work at finding the treatment that most effectively suits the patient.

It is a considered best practice to prescribe opioids to someone in severe pain from sickle cell disease. Yet, when many sickle cell patients go to the ER or are admitted to a hospital, they are denied opioids because of hospital policy. What is the point of having a trained medical providers on staff if you won’t let them treat a patient the way they should be?

Denying pain relief is not only cruel, it can be the worst practice for everyone involved. For example, a man in severe chronic pain committed suicide after a doctor at a Kentucky pain clinic cut his opioid dose in half. The man’s family filed a lawsuit and won a $7 million judgement against the doctor and clinic.  

Ultimately, it should be the patient's responsibility to weigh the risks and benefits of any treatment, after getting input from their provider and conducting due diligence. Unfortunately, there are many obstacles standing in the way of that. One of the biggest is finding a doctor willing to prescribe pain medication. In addition, there are insurance restrictions, the cost of medication, and other logistical issues such as transportation to appointments.

Here in Arizona, patients must see their provider every month to renew a prescription for a controlled substance. Policies like that were put in place to “protect” pain patients, but only added extra costs, burdens and stigmas to them.

Patient-Physician Communication

How can we change the narrative about opioid prescribing? We can start by emphasizing the importance of effective communication between physicians and patients, even those as young as elementary school. Early education on how to talk to medical professionals and advocate for yourself is vital. I see this as one of the most critical things for patients to do.

Communication and trust are essential. Patients need to know when to take medication, how much to take, and what the potential side effects are. They also need to be able to express how the medication is working and what their symptoms are. Patients should feel comfortable asking questions and discussing their pain management plan. Physicians need to listen, provide feedback and give advice when needed.

Individualized treatment plans should be tailored to the patient’s age, gender, medical history, lifestyle and other factors.  That will help ensure that the treatment is effective and also reduce the risk of adverse reactions and potential complications. Collaborative decision-making makes patients feel more comfortable, confident in their treatment plan, and more likely to follow it.

Barby Ingle is a reality TV personality living with multiple rare and chronic diseases. She is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, motivational speaker, and the founder and former President of the International Pain Foundation. You can follow Barby at www.barbyingle.com. 

White Patients More Likely Than Blacks to Get Opioids at ER

By Drs. Trevor Thompson and Sofia Stathi, University of Greenwich

White people who visit hospital emergency departments with pain are 26% more likely than Black people to be given opioid pain medications such as morphine. This was a key finding from our recent study, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

We also found that Black patients were 25% more likely than white patients to be given only non-opioid painkillers such as ibuprofen, which are typically available over the counter.

We examined more than 200,000 visit records of patients treated for pain, taken from a representative sample of U.S. emergency departments from 1999 to 2020. Although white patients were far more likely to be prescribed opioid medication for their pain, we found no significant differences across race in either the type or severity of patients’ pain.

Furthermore, racial disparities in pain medication remained even after we adjusted for any differences in insurance status, patient age, census region or other potentially important factors.

Our analysis of prescribing trends spanning over two decades’ worth of records found that opioid prescribing rates rose and fell, reflecting changing attitudes in clinical practice toward the use of opioid drugs. Notably, however, there appeared to be little change over time in the prescribing disparity across race.

These findings are important because they suggest that efforts to promote equitable health care in the U.S. over the past two decades, such as the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” do not appear to have translated to clinical practice – at least with regards to pain management in hospital emergency departments.

There’s no question that as the ongoing opioid crisis continues to escalate, a careful balance must be struck between the risks and benefits of prescribing opioids. But their appropriate use is an essential component of pain control in the emergency department, and they typically provide superior relief to non-opioids for short-term moderate to severe pain.

Undertreated pain produces unnecessary suffering and can result in a range of negative outcomes, even including a greater likelihood of developing long-term pain. There are over 40 million pain-related emergency department visits annually, so it is clear that equitable pain treatment is a fundamental component of a fair health care system.

We do not know why such marked racial disparities exist. Some researchers have argued that prescribing fewer opioids may be beneficial for Black patients as it reduces the risk of addiction. But this argument doesn’t square with the data, which show that overdose rates have traditionally been lower in Black populations compared with white people. However, this trend has started to change in recent years.

In addition, some evidence suggests that clinicians may hold unconscious biases, incorrectly believing Black patients to be less sensitive to pain or that certain racial groups are less willing to accept pain medication.

While there is preliminary evidence that these factors may be important, there is not enough research that examines the degree to which they influence clinical practice. Researchers like us also know very little about whether promising remedial strategies based on these factors – such as educational training during medical school that challenges stereotypical beliefs – are effective, or indeed even implemented, in the real world.

The need for tackling racial disparities in health was brought into focus once more in February 2023, when the Biden-Harris administration signed an executive order on further advancing racial equity. Given the long history of these issues, it is clear that more research is needed to help develop better strategies for tackling health inequalities.

The most effective strategies for addressing racial disparities in pain treatment are likely to be those that target the underlying causes. We are currently undertaking research to try to better understand these causes, how they contribute to disparities in real-world clinical practice and whether strategies designed to address them are actually effective.

Trevor Thompson, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Clinical Research and works in the Centre for Chronic Illness and Ageing at the University of Greenwich.  

Sofia Stathi, PhD, is a Professor of Social Psychology in the School of Human Sciences at the University of Greenwich, where she leads the Centre for Inequalities.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission.

DEA Plans Further Cuts in Rx Opioid Supply in 2024

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Despite chronic shortages of opioid pain medication around the country, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is planning to further reduce the supply of oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine and other opioids in 2024.

The DEA sets annual production quotas for opioids and other controlled substances after consulting with the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and individual states about their projected medical and research needs. If the proposed cuts are finalized next month, 2024 will be the 8th consecutive year that DEA reduced production quotas for opioid manufacturers.

“FDA predicts that levels of medical need for schedule II opioids in the United States in calendar year 2024 will decline on average 7.9 percent from calendar year 2023 levels. These declines are expected to occur across a variety of schedule II opioids including fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and oxymorphone,” DEA said in a public notice published in the Federal Register.

There will not be 7.9% cuts across the board for every opioid. The steepest cuts will be in the supply of codeine and prescription fentanyl, while production quotas for oxycodone and hydrocodone will be reduced only marginally.  

Proposed Cuts in 2024 Opioid Supply

- 8.3% Codeine  

- 7.6% Rx Fentanyl  

- 4.3% Morphine

- 2.1% Hydromorphone 

- 0.3% Oxycodone   

- 0.3% Hydrocodone

Since reaching their peak in 2015, DEA production quotas have been reduced by over 68% for oxycodone and nearly 73% for hydrocodone, the two most widely prescribed Schedule II opioids.

The primary goal of the DEA in cutting the supply is to reduce the risk of diversion, abuse and overdose, but there is little evidence the policy is working or even needed. Prescription opioid use has been cut in half in recent years, but overdose deaths have grown to record levels, fueled primarily by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

Fears about patients selling or diverting their opioid medication also appear overblown, as the DEA estimates the diversion risk for hydrocodone at only 0.31% and 0.28% for oxycodone. That means for every pill that’s sold or stolen, about 300 pills are used by the patient they were intended for.

Federal health agencies appear to have turned a blind eye to opioid shortages. For several months, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) has warned of shortages of immediate release oxycodone, oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, and hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets. But those shortages have not been publicly acknowledged by the DEA or FDA, and have not been added to the FDA’s drug shortage list.

More ADHD Meds, Cannabis and Psychedelics

The DEA and FDA have been more responsive to complaints of shortages of Adderall and other stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The DEA is modestly raising its production quotas for stimulants after the FDA predicted a 3.1% increase in their medical use in 2024.

“DEA is committed to ensuring that patients who need stimulant medications have access to them and to ensuring that these drugs are being prescribed thoughtfully and responsibly, and we will continue working with our partners inside and outside of government to do so,” DEA Administrator Ann Milgram wrote in a letter released this week. She said 17 out of 18 drug makers had agreed to increase their production of stimulants under existing 2023 quotas.

In addition to stimulants, the DEA is also raising 2024 production quotas for cannabis, psychedelics and hallucinogens in response to an “increased level of research and clinical trials” involving the Schedule I substances.

The DEA’s quota process may undergo significant changes in the years ahead. The agency wants to be “more nimble” in responding to shortages and increases in demand. To do that, it is seeking access to sales and inventory reports from drug makers to better assess the supply that is available.

“DEA believes that changes to reporting requirements are necessary to improve both the type of data collected and the timeliness of that data, allowing DEA to be more nimble in its administration of the quota program. Future regulatory changes may seek to address the lack of real-time inventory and sales data accessible to DEA, the lack of information on production lead times, and issues of timeliness,” the agency said.

“DEA also is considering methods by which it might increase transparency in its quota setting process. Future regulatory proposals may define additional steps, including such concepts as public notification and an opportunity for public input when prescribing rates for controlled substances deviate substantially from FDA's estimate of future use. Furthermore, DEA is considering regulatory changes which will authorize it to reduce a manufacturer's individual manufacturing or procurement quota in order to apportion it to another manufacturer.”

To leave a comment on the DEA’s 2024 production quotas, click here. Public comments must be submitted online or in writing on or before December 4, 2023.

Study Finds Low Risk of Overdose From Prescription Opioids

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A large new study that identifies the top risk factors for an overdose involving prescription opioids has inadvertently shown just how low the risk is in the first place.

In a systematic review published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, researchers at McMaster University looked at 28 studies involving nearly 24 million patients in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom who were prescribed opioids for chronic pain.

They found 10 “predictors” associated with a higher risk of a fatal or nonfatal overdose, such as a patient taking high doses, having a substance abuse problem, and having multiple prescribers or pharmacies.

Many of these risk predictors are already well-known. What’s different about this study is that the researchers calculated the odds of an overdose happening in different situations and doses. That’s where things get interesting:

“High-certainty evidence from 14 studies involving 1,315,173 patients showed a linear dose–response relationship with opioid overdose. The association was small at a 50-mg morphine equivalent dose/day (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.50–1.90) and large at 90 mg (OR 2.57, 95% CI 2.08–3.18), with an absolute risk 2.6 per 1000 for fatal overdose and 5.1 per 1000 for nonfatal overdose at a 90-mg morphine equivalent dose/day.”

In plain English, the risk of a fatal overdose at 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) is not “large.” It’s only 0.26% at 90 MME, which is considered a fairly high dose. The risk of a fatal overdose is even lower at 50 MME – just 0.16% -- a level that researchers say is “small-to-trivial.”

I’m not a statistician, but 0.26% and 0.16% seem like pretty small odds – similar to the lifetime risk of dying in a car accident, fire or drowning. Unlike opioids, there is no talk of a ban on swimming pools, motor vehicles or matches.

“I think that most people living with chronic pain would agree with your interpretation,” says co-author Jason Busse, DC, a clinical epidemiologist and professor of anesthesia at McMaster University. “I do think, however, that a minority of patients will place greater value on the possibility of overdose and death even though the absolute risk is small.”

Busse’s involvement in the study is notable, because he was the lead investigator in Canada’s 2017 opioid guideline, which suggest that initial doses of opioids be kept under 50 MME and strongly recommend that they never exceed 90 MME. The CDC opioid guideline in the United States makes similar recommendations.

Given the small risk of an overdose actually happening at 50 or 90 MME, the new study would seem to debunk both guidelines. Busse sees it a bit differently, telling me by email that the overdose calculations will help patients understand the risks associated with prescription opioids.

“Our work in this area has suggested that most people living with chronic pain, who have not found sufficient relief with non-opioid therapy, would be interested in a trial of opioids. Specifically, when provided with the evidence for benefits and harms, including the risk of overdose, that most patients in whom non-opioid therapy has proven insufficient would elect to pursue a trial of opioid therapy,” Busse said.

“By presenting the evidence to patients, and helping them to understand the anticipated benefits and harms, we can help ensure that the decisions they make are the right ones for themselves.”

Unfortunately, pain patients in the U.S. and Canada don’t get to make decisions for themselves. Decisions are made for them by doctors, pharmacists, regulators, and law enforcement. Patients increasingly have trouble finding a provider willing to treat them or getting a prescription filled at a pharmacy.

And because the “voluntary” opioid guidelines are usually treated as mandatory,  patients who are prescribed opioids are often kept at ineffective low doses that are well below 90 or even 50 MME.

‘Opiods Kill and Opioids Are Bad’

Experts say the low risk of overdose from prescription opioids was established in previous studies, but people got caught up in opioid hysteria and ignored the evidence. The new study, they say, is no different.

“This paper examines well plowed ground and provides no new insight. Quite the contrary, it obfuscates through oversimplification of the problem,” says Stephen Nadeau, MD, a Professor of Neurology at the University of Florida College of Medicine. “The essential message is that opioids kill and opioids are bad.”

Nadeau says Busse and his co-authors ignored factors like genetic differences in opioid metabolism and put too much emphasis on the risk of a patient having multiple prescribers or pharmacies. The latter could simply be a sign that they were abandoned by a doctor or turned away by a pharmacy, not doctor shopping. Statistics mined from databases don’t tell you that.

“This paper takes a rigorous statistical approach to explain what is happening in a highly heterogeneous population in which there is a high probability of misconstruing the sources of variance. I think it would have been OK if published in 2015, but we have learned a thing or two since then and now the paper serves only to obfuscate and mislead,” said Nadeau.

Two findings in the study worth highlighting are that researchers found little risk of an overdose when a patient is co-prescribed opioids with benzodiazepines, sedatives or muscle relaxants – the so-called “Holy Trinity.” The overdose risk is also “small-to-trivial” when a patient is given long-acting opioids instead of short-acting ones. Those findings contradict the recommendations made in the U.S. and Canadian guidelines.

“The opioid crisis has generated interest in identifying patients at higher risk of addiction or overdose and has led to the development of several screening tools; however, these instruments have either not been validated or shown poor psychometric properties,” wrote lead author Li Wang, PhD, a researcher at McMaster University. “Our findings suggest that awareness of, and attention to, several patient and prescription characteristics, may help reduce the risk of opioid overdose among people living with chronic pain.”

One of the co-authors of the study is David Juurlink, MD, a member of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group. Like several other PROP members, Juurlink disclosed that he has been a paid expert witness in legal cases involving opioids.

Previous studies have also found that the risk of overdose is small — 0.3% — in Medicaid and Medicare patients prescribed opioids for the first time. Another study of Medicare patients found that over 90% had little to no risk of overdosing. Low risk patients had only 0.006% chance of an overdose.

We Must Overcome Stigma Against Buprenorphine for Pain

By Dr. Stefan Franzen

For years I had a negative impression of buprenorphine as a pain medication, both from personal descriptions I had heard by pain patients and from the scientific and medical literature.

I have since learned that buprenorphine can be effective pain reliever. At a high dose, the efficacy is similar to that of high-dose morphine or oxycodone, which were once commonly used to treat chronic or intractable pain.

Today, high doses of any opioid are shunned by most doctors because they are subject to increased scrutiny by state medical boards or even investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration. The medical and moral justification of alleviating patient suffering appears to be irrelevant to public health authorities, even when they profess to favor a humane policy to treat pain.  

We need a more rational discussion about opioids. Buprenorphine is an opioid that, when used alone, can play a role in pain treatment. Buprenorphine was developed in the United Kingdom in the 1960s and has been used in many countries to treat pain since the 1980s.

We must distinguish pure buprenorphine from Suboxone, which is a combination of buprenorphine and naloxone. Suboxone is given to people with opioid use disorder to help prevent abuse. If a tablet is crushed, extracted or injected by a drug abuser, the naloxone will block the effects of buprenorphine. However, if taken as directed under the tongue, the naloxone has much lower bioavailability.

A pain patient does not necessarily need naloxone and, depending on individual differences in body chemistry, the naloxone may even have negative effects. There is no reason to prescribe Suboxone for pain. It’s use as a pain medication is highly inappropriate, but may be the result of doctor’s fear of DEA action.

Pure buprenorphine is a different matter.

The CDC’s 2016 opioid guideline recommended that daily opioid doses not exceed 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME).  Although voluntary, the guideline was seized upon by other federal agencies and state legislatures to justify draconian new laws and regulations that limited opioid doses to 90 MME or less.

No such limits have been set for buprenorphine. However, few doctors in the U.S. prescribe buprenorphine for pain, despite recent studies demonstrating its efficacy and international recognition that it is an effective analgesic.

For historical reasons, American doctors do not know much about buprenorphine as a pain medication. Moreover, many fear prescribing any opioid in today’s regulatory climate. Patients know that buprenorphine has been used to treat addiction and therefore are suspicious of it as a pain treatment. They are also justifiably concerned about being stigmatized as a drug abuser if they are prescribed Suboxone.

U.S. Opioid Policy Lacks Common Sense

In short, the stigma surrounding buprenorphine is a significant factor preventing development of a rational opioid policy in the U.S.

Many patients with experience taking morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone and other opioids say they are safe and non-addictive. Research shows that is true for a great many pain patients. However, a small fraction of the population is susceptible to opioid abuse and addiction. This is a classic ethics problem.

Should we let 99% of patients suffer because 1% might harm themselves? How do other societies manage this problem? We know what doesn’t work. The “War on Drugs” has been an unmitigated disaster for everyone: drug abusers, doctors, pain patients and their loved ones. Our drug overdose rate is 15 times higher than that the of European Union.

Worse still, our medical system and corporate regulation appear to lack common sense guardrails needed to prevent the diversion of prescription opioids -- even after massive publicity, sensational books, documentaries, and popular miniseries on the opioid crisis.

In case anyone had any doubt, the book “American Cartel” shows that diversion was mainly practiced by large opioid distributors and a few manufacturers, who flooded vulnerable communities with prescription opioids. Theft and deception of doctors by drug abusers also contributed to diversion. Each of these could be controlled in a sensible way, without forbidding people in pain from receiving medication. Yet, at present it appears there is no political will in the U.S. to even treat pain, regardless of the suffering of millions.

Instead, the politicians and media blame opioid prescribing, which implicitly blames doctors and patients. Perhaps as a response to this seemingly hopeless situation, a growing number of medical researchers have begun testing pure buprenorphine for the treatment of pain.

After seeing the effectiveness of buprenorphine, which I discuss in my new book, “Z’s Odyssey,” I became convinced that it is a viable treatment for even severe, intractable pain. This should be a choice, but the problem today is that many patients do not have a choice.

Pure buprenorphine for pain was not available in the United States until 2010, when the low-dose Butrans skin patch became available.

In 2015, a buccal formulation designed for absorption through the cheek became available. Belbuca film is quite convenient and comes in a moderate dose.

For intractable pain, a sublingual formulation of buprenorphine known as Subutex can be prescribed off label for pain. Subutex is also used to treat opioid addiction, but does not contain naloxone.

A Subutex tablet placed under the tongue takes about 20 minutes to be completely absorbed. Because buprenorphine binds to the pain receptors more tightly than any other opioid, the dose in milligrams required for full effect is much lower than similar strength morphine. Many medical researchers have concluded that buprenorphine is an excellent analgesic, with low risk for addiction or overdose. If taken as directed, the risk of respiratory depression from buprenorphine is the lowest of any opioid.

For pain relief, U.S. doctors must prescribe Subutex off-label, which means that they are prescribing for a condition that is not FDA approved.  Subutex is approved for pain in Great Britain and most of Europe. The UK’s National Health Service recommends Subutex and other formulations of buprenorphine for patients “when weaker opioids for pain stop working.”

Of course, buprenorphine is not beneficial for every patient. And there is an issue of dental decay that requires careful monitoring and appropriate procedures. But for people in the most severe pain, who lack any other option because of the opioid prohibition mindset, buprenorphine may offer relief.

Finding a doctor willing to prescribe Subutex off label could be difficult. For severe or intractable pain that requires a high dose, a patient most likely needs to find a psychiatric or addiction treatment doctor licensed to prescribe buprenorphine in formulations such as Subutex that are pure buprenorphine.

Since 2000, the U.S. Congress has passed three laws that make buprenorphine more accessible to people with opioid use disorder.  If Congress can aggressively lower the barriers to prescribing high-dose buprenorphine for addiction treatment, then why shouldn’t pain patients have access to medication that has the same dose of the active agent?

There is an education gap that prevents doctors and society at large from effectively managing this situation. The medical literature is heavily weighted toward studies of buprenorphine for addiction, with almost 97% of studies on opioid use disorder and less than 3% on pain.  Pain patients also fear the stigma associated with buprenorphine as an addiction treatment, rather than an analgesic.

There is no objective reason for this. At the very least, buprenorphine should be an option for those forgotten patients who still live in pain. By overcoming the stigma of buprenorphine, doctors could treat patients with dignity by prescribing a safer and more effective medication. 

Stefan Franzen, PhD, is a Professor of Chemistry at North Carolina State University. Franzen is the author of “Patient Z” – a book that looks at pain, addiction and the opioid crisis through the eyes of a patient who can’t find good pain care. He recently published a sequel to Z’s story, called “Z’s Odyssey.”

Sickle Cell Patients Face Life-Threatening ER Waits

By Sara Hutchinson, KFF Health News

Heather Avant always dresses up when she goes to the emergency room.

“I’ve been conditioned to act and behave in a very specific way,” said Avant. “I try to do my hair. I make sure I shower, have nice clothes. Sometimes I put on my University of Michigan shirt.”

HEATHER AVANT

It’s a strategy to combat discrimination the 42-year-old photographer in Mesquite, Texas, has developed over a lifetime of managing her sickle cell disease, a rare blood disorder that affects an estimated 100,000 Americans.

The hereditary condition can affect a person of any race or ethnicity, but Black patients, like Avant, make up the majority of those afflicted in the U.S.

For people living with the disease, a sickle cell crisis can happen at any time. When it does, their rigid, sickle-shaped red blood cells become stuck in their blood vessels, blocking flow and causing extreme pain or breathing difficulties.

A crisis can escalate into life-threatening complications such as strokes, seizures, and sepsis.

When a pain crisis can’t be managed at home, patients head to the ER to get the high dosage of opioids they need, in addition to IVs to help with dehydration or even blood transfusions. Yet staffers in emergency departments — already overextended and grappling with nursing shortages — don’t always have experience in treating the rare disease. And many doctors, amid a still-raging opioid crisis, remain resistant to prescribing the painkillers necessary to treat sickle cell crises.

As a result, patients with sickle cell disease often face long delays before receiving essential ER care, plus discrimination and suspicion that they are seeking drugs to get high.

“I have to look like I’m not coming in here off the street looking for medication,” said Avant. “I have to put on an entire show to get you to believe that I need care.”

Long Waits

Years of research have documented the delays. A study published in 2013 found that patients seeking care from 2003 through 2008 at an ER for their sickle cell crises waited 50% longer than patients who arrived with broken legs or arms.

Another study published in 2021 found that 50% of sickle cell patients reported having to wait at least two hours before their pain was treated, despite medical guidelines recommending such patients in crisis receive their first dose of pain medication no more than 60 minutes after arriving at the ER.

Medical associations such as the American Society of Hematology, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Emergency Nurses Association have established guidelines for emergency department-based care of sickle cell pain. And, in 2021, the Emergency Department Sickle Cell Care Coalition, a national collaboration of hematologists, pharmacists, and nurses, helped launch a point-of-care tool to help medical professionals manage the disease in the ER.

But patients and sickle cell experts said those best practices haven’t been widely adopted. A 2020 survey of nearly 250 emergency medicine providers found that 75% of them were unaware of the NHLBI’s recommendations, first published in 2014, yet 98% felt confident in their ability to treat patients with sickle cell disease.

Still, ER horror stories abound among adults with sickle cell disease. For Lesly Chavez, 29, a Houston hairstylist, her worst experience occurred a few years ago. She said she spent four hours in a waiting room before getting seen.

“And when they finally got to me, they told me they could help with ‘my addiction,’ but they decided that there was nothing that they could do for me,” Chavez said. “They just flat-out said no and sent me home while I was in crisis.”

Chavez said she has since avoided that hospital even though it’s 10 minutes from her home. Now she drives to an ER 30 minutes away.

Chavez, who is Hispanic, said she confronts “doubt everywhere I go” because sickle cell disease primarily affects Black Americans. (Those who are Hispanic can be of any race.)

Paula Tanabe, a professor of nursing at Duke University who has spent decades researching ways to improve care for sickle cell patients, said a confluence of factors adds to the racial bias patients may face.

“Emergency rooms are incredibly overcrowded, at rates that we have never seen before, and that’s for everyone,” said Tanabe.

‘People Are Going Uncounted’

Legislators are trying to help. A federal bill introduced in June would allocate $8.2 million annually for five years to a program that trains doctors on best practices for caring for sickle cell patients. Another, introduced this spring, would provide funding for community organizations working to spread awareness about the condition and give student loan relief to medical providers who commit to working on the disease. Some state legislatures have established sickle cell task forces to improve physician education and care coordination.

Advocates for sickle cell patients said investment in data collection to track the disease is also important. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that some 100,000 Americans have it, the true number is unknown. That’s because no national system exists to collect data on sickle cell, unlike other conditions such as diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer’s.

“I’m 32 and we’ve been saying it’s 100,000 my entire life,” said Quannecia McCruse, who co-founded the Sickle Cell Association of Houston. “I know there’s more. I know people are going uncounted.”

Eleven state-led data collection programs currently exist and, in February, the CDC opened a new grant application for additional states. Improved data would allow funding to be allocated toward the areas with the greatest need, sickle cell patient advocates said.

Texas had an opportunity to join those efforts. This spring, the state legislature passed a bill with broad bipartisan support to create a sickle cell patient registry, but Republican Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed it, saying it would compromise patient privacy.

“That was a bad excuse,” said McCruse. “We have a cancer registry already, and everyone’s information is safe. That registry would have gone a long way to help.”

While progress grinds slowly, patients like McCruse say they’re forced to balance advocating for themselves during bouts of excruciating pain against the need not to irritate or alienate hospital staffers.

“It feels like someone is taking a Taser and shocking the crap out of me. Or when it’s really bad, and it feels like shards of glass are just moving through my veins,” said the mother of two. “It’s very, very painful. And you’re telling somebody whose body is torturing them that it’s not that bad?”

Alexis Thompson, a hematologist who treats sickle cell patients at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said she works with her pediatric patients to develop self-advocacy skills. But sometimes that backfires.

“The great irony is patients who are well informed and capable of self-advocating are being accused of being manipulative, because they are capable of articulating very clearly what’s effective for them down to the name of the medication or the absolute dose,” Thompson said.

Sickle cell experts recommend that doctors adhere to a patient’s individual pain plan, if available. Thompson said those plans, which document patients’ diagnoses alongside a recommended medication and dosage, can be uploaded to online portals that patients can pull up on their cellphones when visiting an ER to verify what they need.

Patients such as Avant hope such steps can help decrease their ER waits while easing their anxiety about seeking emergency care.

“I don’t fear dying,” said Avant, “but I do fear dying in the hospital.”

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

Drug and Medical Supply Shortages Impacting Patient Safety at ‘Alarming Rate’

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Over half of U.S. hospitals are reporting shortages of drugs and supplies used in anesthesia, pain management and emergency care, according to a new survey by a nonprofit healthcare organization. Nearly nine of out of ten (86%) respondents said they were rationing or restricting the use of medications in short supply.

The survey of nearly 200 hospital administrators, pharmacists and supply chain managers was conducted by the Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI) in July.

“Their responses suggested that providing safe and appropriate drugs, supplies, and equipment has become extremely challenging and led to numerous instances of unsafe practices, compromised care, and potentially harmful errors. Many of the respondents clearly communicated their struggles to address shortages which are occurring at an alarming rate,” the ECRI report said.

Respondents reported shortages of over 20 drugs, single-use supplies, or medical equipment. The shortages primarily affect surgery and anesthetics (74%), emergency care (64%), pain management (52%), cardiology (45%), hematology and oncology (44%), infectious diseases (39%), and obstetrics and gynecology (37%).

“While medication and supply shortages have been widely reported across healthcare, we now know with certainty that these shortages are causing preventable harm and have the potential to cause even more if they are not addressed soon,” Marcus Schabacker, MD, president and CEO of ECRI, said in a statement.

“There are strategies hospitals can use to reduce the impact of shortages, but they are a deviation from standard practice and resource-intensive -- two characteristics that themselves can increase the likelihood of preventable harm.”

Many hospitals (42%) are stretching supplies by using medications after their expiration date, reusing single-use devices, or using drugs for purposes outside of their specific labeling. Nearly a quarter of respondents (24%) said they knew of at least one medical error related to a drug, supply or device shortage.

Specific examples of how shortages have impacted patient care include:

• Interruption or delays in chemotherapy

• Use of more opioid analgesia due to lidocaine shortages

• Incorrect medication instructions given to patients

• Postponement or cancellation of surgeries 

To address shortages of masks, gowns and other personal protective equipment, many hospitals have turned to non-traditional sources that supplied products with “alarmingly poor performance,” according to ECRI.

For example, tests on KN95 masks obtained from nontraditional suppliers found that up to 70% did not filter particulates the way manufacturers claimed. And tests on disposable gowns revealed that over half failed to meet even minimum standards for protection.

“The extent to which medication, supply, and equipment shortages are negatively impacting patient care is inexcusable,” said Rita Jew, PharmD, president of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, an ECRI affiliate. “While pharmacies and hospitals can triage shortages short-term, we need long-term, nationally coordinated solutions to solve the persistent shortages we’ve witnessed repeatedly over the last several years.”

Supply Interruptions

Many respondents also expressed concern about drug shortages worsening after a Pfizer plant in North Carolina was heavily damaged in July by a tornado. The Rocky Mount plant was a leading supplier of sterile injectable drugs used in surgery, pain management and emergency care. Pfizer recently resumed production at the plant, but doesn’t expect full operations to be restored until later in the year.     

“While manufacturing has resumed, it is important to note that some medicines may not be back in full supply until next year,” the company said in a statement.

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) recently expanded its shortage list for injectable morphine to include morphine vials made by Pfizer. The company said the vials are on back order and could not estimate a release date. The lack of supply is having a snowball effect on other drug manufacturers, who say they’re running out of injectable morphine and hydromorphone due to increased demand.

The ASHP recommends that providers use “extreme caution” when switching morphine concentrations or interchanging them with other injectable opioids because patients could react to them differently.

Limited supplies of morphine, hydromorphone and other injectable opioids were being reported long before the tornado damaged Pfizer’s plant or the pandemic disrupted the global supply chain. Despite that, the Drug Enforcement Administration has aggressively cut the supply of many opioids, reducing production quotas for hydromorphone by 71% and morphine by 65% from their peaks in 2016.       

GRAPHIC COURTESY OF MONTY GODDARD

The Food and Drug Administration put injectable morphine and hydromorphone on its drug shortage list in 2017, the year after DEA started cutting the opioid supply.  In recent months, the ASHP added oxycodone and hydrocodone tablets to its drug shortage list, but their limited supply has not yet been acknowledged by the FDA.

A recent federal lawsuit accused the DEA of “incompetence” in its handling of the nation’s drug supply, specifically the production quotas the agency sets for amphetamines used in ADHD medication.

Drug makers are required to report shortages and supply interruptions to the FDA. Doctors, pharmacies and consumers can also report them by email to the FDA at drugshortages@fda.hhs.gov. To report a drug shortage to the ASHP, click here.

Woman Files Civil Rights Lawsuit Over Denial of Pain Treatment

By Madora Pennington, PNN Columnist

In September of 2022, millions watched Tara Rule’s emotional video on TikTok, about a doctor who refused to give her a non-narcotic pain medication because it might cause birth defects. The doctor would not even name the drug, even though Rule told him she has no intention of having children because she has Ehler's Danlos syndrome (EDS), a genetic disorder that causes severe health issues.

The 32-year old Rule recently filed a civil rights lawsuit to better establish the illegality of refusing medical treatment to women simply because they are of childbearing age.

Rule’s fight began when neurologist Jonathan Braiman, MD, steered her away from an effective treatment for her agonizing cluster migraines, a common symptom of EDS. According to Yale Medical School, cluster headaches can hurt more than childbirth.

When Rule realized she was being discriminated against by her doctor, she surreptitiously switched on her cell phone to record their discussion, which is legal in New York state. 

Brainman can be heard in the recording asking Rule intrusive questions about her sex life, while ignoring her answers. Rule explained that she was already on a medication that can cause birth defects -- known as teratogenic drug -- and wasn't well enough to have children anyway.

Brainman patronizingly told her she might change her mind if she were to become pregnant. He recommended that she bring in her boyfriend to consent to any treatment that might cause birth defects. Rule left without getting the pain relief she needed for her migraines.

In the parking lot of Albany Medical Center, where the appointment took place, a distraught and tearful Rule made the video and posted it online. Her raw emotion and disturbing story quickly went viral, not only on social media, but in news stories.

In her lawsuit against Braiman and Albany Medical, Rule alleges she was retaliated against by the hospital system. Rule says she was ejected from an unaffiliated urgent care center because Albany Medical had told other hospitals not to treat her. She believes this was a violation of her medical privacy.  

Rule suspects she was blacklisted by other providers in her area. She tried to make an appointment with another neurologist, but was told she was “not an appropriate patient.” Her primary care provider sent a back-dated letter to Rule and her mother saying he was dismissing them as patients. That doctor gave no valid reason for the patient abandonment.

TARA RULE (TIKTOK)

Rule is on disability and lives on less than $1,000 per month. Being banned as a patient is a real hardship.

“Now I have to go to Connecticut to see physicians in a different hospital system. Or travel three and a half hours to New York City. With hotels and gas, it’s very hard. Some of these specialists outside the state are not fully covered by my insurance,” Rule said.

Traveling is made more complicated because Rule can’t stay just anywhere — she needs accessible hotel rooms. And she is accumulating thousands of dollars in debt.

After posting her video, Rule heard from many other patients who have also been discriminated against by their doctors. She felt motivated to find out what legal remedies existed.

With legal guidance, Rule wrote the civil rights complaint herself in what is known as a “federal question” lawsuit, an action that seeks to clarify a constitutional issue in US federal court. Rule has been advised that the medical care she sought does not fall under “conscience protections,” which allow doctors to refuse treatment on religious or moral grounds.  

In preparation for her lawsuit, Rule obtained her medical and insurance records, to help prove that privacy violations occurred. She discovered she had been billed for services not received, and believes her medical records were forged.

Albany Medical did not respond to a request for comment.

Rule’s lawsuit is potentially precedent-setting. It marks the first federal question case against a medical provider for refusing to provide teratogenic drugs because a woman is of “childbearing age.” Refusing to give routine medical care because a patient might get pregnant is discrimination. Patients cannot be forced into unnecessary restraints on their care.

"I am prepared for whatever happens,” says Rule, who is hopeful her lawsuit will help prevent other patients from being discriminated against by their doctors. 

Madora Pennington is the author of the blog LessFlexible.com about her life with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. She graduated from UC Berkeley with minors in Journalism and Disability Studies. 

Lawsuits Accuse DEA of ‘Incompetence’ in Regulating Drug Supply

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Two federal lawsuits accuse the Drug Enforcement Administration of incompetence and heavy-handed regulation of the nation’s drug supply, which could worsen shortages of ADHD medication and drive a drug manufacturer and specialty pharmacy out of business.

At issue is the DEA’s enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a federal law that gives the agency broad authority to limit the production and sale of opioids, ADHD drugs and other controlled medications that have the potential for abuse. Under the CSA, the DEA decides who can write and dispense prescriptions for hundreds of controlled substances and the amount that drug makers can produce.   

“They shouldn't be playing God with people's medications. And really, that's what's happening here,” says attorney Jim Walden, who recently filed a lawsuit in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Ascent Pharmaceuticals, a leading producer of generic drugs used to treat attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), a condition that primarily affects children.

By its own estimate, Ascent produces about 20% of the nation’s supply of generic ADHD medication. In its 12-year history, Ascent had never been accused of a regulatory violation or faced any sanctions, so it was surprised to learn on September 29 that DEA would not renew its production quota for ADHD drugs because it has doubts about the company’s record keeping.

“After reviewing these records, DEA lacks confidence in the data provided by Ascent in its quota requests,” the agency said in its denial.

Ascent’s lawsuit disputes that claim, saying DEA investigators spent 18 months “bumbling about” its business records, without ever making clear what they were concerned about or why the quota was denied.

“The Quota Denial nowhere explains the basis for DEA’s alleged confidence gap. If that detail resides in the administrative complaint served alongside the Quota Denial, DEA should be embarrassed: the errors in it reveal a fundamental inaptitude with DEA’s own recordkeeping requirements,” the lawsuit alleges.

“This case highlights the perils of a hapless administrative agency, which (ironically) acknowledged the scarcity of ADHD medications on the very day it effectively sought to shutter Ascent, a company with a time-proven capability of quickly getting medicine to children in need. Ascent and patients have been victimized by DEA’s incompetence, having rendered an arbitrary, capricious, and unsubstantiated quota denial based on erroneous conclusions.”

Before going into private practice, Walden spent 10 years as a federal prosecutor, often handling DEA cases. He’s asking the federal appeals court to issue an emergency injunction that forces DEA to approve Ascent’s quota application.

“We're in the middle of a national scarcity crisis that is really putting children at risk. So it's very, very hard to understand what could possibly be motivating DEA, because they're obviously not alleging that there are quality control problems with the drugs or that there's a threat of diversion,” Walden told PNN. “So, by definition, their decision is arbitrary and it should be reversed.”

The DEA’s actions do seem puzzling. Shortages of ADHD drugs began in the early stages of the pandemic and have steadily worsened, as more children and adults sought mental health treatment. Yet in December of last year, when the DEA issued its quotas for 2023, the agency said there was no need to increase production because the supply of Adderall and other stimulants was sufficient to meet demand.

“The majority of the manufacturers contacted by DEA and/or FDA have responded that they currently have sufficient quota to meet their contracted production quantities for legitimate patient medical needs,” the DEA said in the Federal Register. “Based on this trend, DEA has not implemented an increase.”

A few months later, DEA and FDA officials changed their tune. In an unusual joint letter,  FDA commissioner Dr. Robert Califf and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram admitted there was an ADHD shortage, blamed drug makers for not making enough medication, and washed their hands of the problem.

“This is not a problem that the FDA and DEA can solve on our own,” Califf and Milgram wrote. “The FDA and DEA do not manufacture drugs and cannot require a pharmaceutical company to make a drug, make more of a drug, or change the distribution of a drug.” 

DEA production quotas may also be partially responsible for shortages of opioid pain medication. In recent years, the agency has aggressively cut the supply of many opioids, leading to current shortages of hydrocodone and oxycodone.     

Judge, Jury and Executioner

The second lawsuit against DEA involves Simfa Rose Pharmacy, a Pembroke Pines, Florida pharmacy that specializes in making drugs for seniors, palliative care, and cancer patients.

Simfa Rose came under scrutiny nearly three years ago when investigators saw it was filling an unusual number of high-dose, immediate release opioid prescriptions, often in combination with stimulants and muscle relaxants. Some of the prescriptions were paid for in cash.

As far the DEA is concerned, these were signs of “multiple red flags of abuse or diversion” that posed “an imminent danger” to public health. On May 2 of this year, DEA suspended the pharmacy’s license to dispense controlled substances, a move that severely impacts its ability to continue operating.

“It’s affected them greatly. It’s a miracle they are still open at this point,” says Vittorio Penza, a lawyer for Simfa Rose.

Under DEA rules, there is only one recourse for a pharmacy or doctor to challenge a license suspension – an appeal to a DEA Administrative Law Judge. Such appeals are not only time consuming; they are rarely granted. The few that are granted are referred back the DEA Administrator, who then has the final say on whether the license is restored or permanently revoked.

The Simfa Rose lawsuit alleges this is an “unconstitutional administrative process” that denies the pharmacy due process.

“It’s totally nuts what they are doing. You have a judge, jury and executioner system. It’s all in secret. They don’t publish anything until it’s a decision that’s favorable to them. You’re kept in the dark by it,” Penza told PNN. “All you have to do is take someone's license, whether they need it or not. You're still screwed and you're going to go down. Because once your reputation is tainted, you lose your customers and you lose the patients.”

Penza says the expert witness hired by DEA to review the pharmacy’s practices made outrageous claims.

“Their expert says you can't fill immediate release opioids more than two times. If you are a cancer patient or someone on their deathbed, it doesn't matter. It's an unresolvable red flag if you give someone an immediate release opioid,” he said. “And the kicker is he doesn't even look at what the patient's diagnosis is. One of the patients was shot was shot in the back, the bullet is still lodged in there. The other one was wounded overseas in the Gulf War.”

Perhaps the biggest challenge faced by someone seeking to reverse a DEA decision is that federal agencies have sovereign immunity – they can’t be sued for monetary damages. All they can do is challenge the DEA’s statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act and its use of an in-house “kangaroo court” to keep pharmacies, doctors and drug makers in line.        

“I've come to realize that this is a nationwide issue. I've been getting calls ever since we filed from around the country. It pains me to hear some of these stories of doctors and nurses and pharmacists that have just been stripped of their livelihoods because of what the DEA is doing,” Penza said.  

Lack of Education Is Fueling Overdose Crisis

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Anti-opioid activists have long claimed that excessive prescribing of opioids over a decade ago created an “epidemic of addiction” that lingers to this day. Once hooked on prescription opioids, patients turned to stronger and more lethal drugs — like heroin and illicit fentanyl — sending the overdose rate to record levels.

A large new study debunks that theory, showing that socioeconomic factors – particularly lack of education -- play a hidden but central role in the overdose crisis.

"The analysis shows that the opioid crisis increasingly has become a crisis involving Americans without any college education," said lead author David Powell, PhD, a senior economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "The study suggests large and growing education disparities within all racial and ethnic groups --- disparities that have accelerated since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic."

Powell looked at data from the National Vital Statistics System from 2000 to 2021, and identified over 912,000 fatal overdoses for which there was education information on the people who died.

His findings, published in JAMA Health Forum, show that overdose deaths increased sharply among Americans without a college education and nearly doubled in recent years for those who don’t have a high school diploma. The findings are notable because they came during a period when per capita consumption of prescription opioids plummeted, sinking to levels last seen in 2000.

For people with no college education, the overdose death rate increased from 12 deaths per 100,000 individuals in 2000 to 82 deaths per 100,000 in 2021. That rate is sharply higher than Americans who have some college education. In 2000, their overdose rate was 4.6 deaths per 100,000 people, which rose to 18.6 deaths per 100,000 in 2021.

Trends in Overdose Deaths by Educational Attainment

JAMA HEALTH FORUM

Powell is not the first researcher to link socioeconomic factors to overdose deaths. The so-called “deaths of despair” were first reported in 2015 by Princeton researchers Angus Deaton and Anne Case, who found that economic, social and emotional stress were major factors in the reduced life expectancy of middle-aged white Americans, who increasingly turned to substance abuse to dull their physical and emotional pain.

Education plays a significant role in socioeconomic status. People without college degrees are more likely to have blue-collar jobs requiring manual labor, which raise the risk of work-related injuries and conditions such as arthritis. One recent study found that people who did not finish high school in West Virginia, Arkansas and Alabama were three times more likely to have joint pain compared to those with bachelor degrees in California, Nevada and Utah.

“Overall, the analysis suggests that the opioid crisis has increasingly become a crisis disproportionately impacting those without any college education. Research is needed to understand the driving forces behind this gradient, such as isolating the independent roles of differences in income, employment, family composition, health care access, and other factors,” said Powell.

“Overdose death rates grew during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the education gradient increased further, although it is unclear what role the pandemic had relative to changes in fentanyl penetration in illicit drug markets and other factors.”

Powell says education merits further attention in understanding how and why the opioid crisis continues to intensify and lower U.S. life-expectancy.

Sens. Manchin and Markey Want Opioid Research Stopped

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Seven years ago, Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) wrote a letter to the acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, asking for stricter limits on the production of opioid pain medication. They joined with over a dozen of their colleagues with another letter in 2017, asking for the same thing.

The letters said too many Americans were becoming addicted to opioids and that there was “insufficient research body about the effectiveness of opioids when used long term.”

The letters and a personal meeting with the DEA administrator had an impact. The agency embarked on a years-long campaign to slash production quotas for opioid manufacturers, which now stand at their lowest levels in two decades. Since their peak, DEA production quotas have fallen by 65% for oxycodone and 73% for hydrocodone. And the U.S. now has chronic shortages of opioid medication.    

Flash forward to 2023, and Sens. Markey and Manchin are at it again, but in a different way.  

In a new letter --- this time to the Food and Drug Administration – the senators called on the agency to scrap plans for a new clinical trial that could help prove whether opioids are effective long term – the very thing the senators said there was “insufficient research” on just a few years ago.

“Other studies have already evaluated prolonged opioid use,” Markey and Manchin wrote in their letter, which was first reported by STAT.

SENS. JOE MANCHIN AND ED MARKEY

At issue is an FDA plan to use a research design known as enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal (EERW) to study the use of opioids by patients with chronic pain – persistent pain that lasts for over three months.  Such a study would require patients on extended-release morphine to either continue taking the medication or be unwittingly switched to a placebo – which would essentially amount to a rapid taper with no pain relief.  

Markey and Manchin say such a study is biased in favor of opioids and would “needlessly expose” patients on morphine to the risk of addiction. They also make the dubious claim that long-term clinical studies of opioids are no longer needed, citing a controversial Australian study – known as the OPAL study -- that found low dose opioids gave little relief to patients with back and neck pain.

“A recent randomized placebo-controlled study found that prolonged opioid use was ineffective for acute back and neck pain. The study found that after six weeks, there was no significant difference in pain scores for the patients taking opioids compared to those who took a placebo,” the senators wrote.

Critics were quick to note the OPAL study has a number of flaws, the most obvious one being that the treatment period only lasted six weeks. OPAL was a short-term study of opioids for acute pain – not “prolonged opioid use” as Manchin and Markey claimed.   

“The letter by Markey and Manchin is a phenomenon of misinformation and lack of understanding of the opioid crises,” said Stephen Nadeau, MD, a Professor of Neurology at the University of Florida College of Medicine.

“The OPAL study indisputably examined only ACUTE neck and back pain; it is completely inappropriate to apply its results to chronic pain,” said Chad Kollas, MD, a palliative care physician and pain policy expert.

Kollas posted a long thread on Twitter (now known as X) debunking other aspects of the OPAL study, saying its findings were “overstated & oversimplified to support the policy agenda of opioid reductionists.”

“I believe Manchin and Markey are being influenced to shut down any public funding of research that would demonstrate positive benefits for the long-term use of opioids -- of which, enriched enrollment trials are a prime example. By whom, I do not know,” says patient advocate Richard “Red” Lawhern.   

The “whom” in this case appears to be Dr. Andrew Kolodny, the president and founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group that is funded by dark money. Several PROP members, including Kolodny, have repeatedly failed to disclose their conflicts of interest and enriched themselves by testifying as paid expert witnesses in opioid litigation cases.  

Kolodny has worked previously with Manchin on anti-opioid legislation and is apparently doing so again. Manchin is co-sponsoring a bill that would require the FDA to review the use of EERW studies on opioids. Kolodny is quoted in a recent Manchin press release promoting the senator’s bill. 

“The FDA has been putting new painkillers on the market based on improper studies that skew results in favor of approval. The methodology they're using was cooked up in private meetings with drug makers. The time for outside experts to examine the use of enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal is long overdue,” said Kolodny, who is Medical Director of Opioid Policy Research at Brandeis University.  

Coincidentally, when the OPAL study was published in The Lancet medical journal, it was accompanied by an invited commentary from two other PROP members, Drs. Jane Ballantyne and Mark Sullivan, who said the study “raises serious questions about the use of opioid therapy for acute low back and neck pain.”

More Opioid Studies Needed

Although opioids have been used for thousands of years for pain relief, there are surprisingly few placebo-controlled clinical studies of their long-term effectiveness. That is mainly due to the ethical issues involved in giving a placebo to someone in pain. Few pain patients would want to participate in a long-term study in which there’s a good chance they don’t get any pain relief. And few studies duplicate the real world experiences of pain sufferers.

“Depriving patients of benefits they might gain from receiving LTOT (long term opioid therapy) ethically precludes using randomized controlled studies (RCTs) as a research method in studying LTOT. This necessitates using other types of research, including the type of research that the senators seek to eliminate,” Kollas told PNN.

“The reason that RCTs of opioids for chronic pain have failed is very simple:  the trial design is fundamentally flawed. It is simply not adequate to address the scientific question at hand,” says Nadeau. “EERW trials have shown promise, and certainly more evidence of efficacy then the conventionally designed trials, but they have their problems.” 

Nadeau and other have proposed that EERW studies be modified so that patients on opioids are gradually tapered, not just suddenly switched to a placebo. 

“What is glaringly evident is that the gold standard of randomized double-blind trials cannot be applied with opioids because of very high failure rates in the placebo arm, due to breakthrough pain,” said Lawhern. “Moreover, even short-term trials are invalidated by protocols that do not remotely resemble actual clinical use of these medications.”  

As flawed as they might be, EERW studies may be a way to fill in some of the missing gaps in opioid research. Do opioids work long-term? Do they inevitably lead to addiction?  Are chronic pain patients helped or harmed by using opioids? Those are simple questions we still don’t have definitive answers to – and may never know if politicians dictate health policy and try to block much needed pain research. 

“We ask the FDA not to permit the use of EERW to determine the long-term efficacy and tolerability of opioids in chronic pain patients. We also urge you to reject EERW study designs for any future new drug applications for opioids and reconsider past opioid approval decisions using EERW,” Manchin and Markey wrote.

‘A Devil’s Bargain’: Why Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Sticking with Humira

By Arthur Allen, KFF Health News

Tennessee last year spent $48 million on a single drug, Humira — about $62,000 for each of the 775 patients who were covered by its employee health insurance program and receiving the treatment. So when nine Humira knockoffs, known as biosimilars, hit the market for as little as $995 a month, the opportunity for savings appeared ample and immediate.

But it isn’t here yet. Makers of biosimilars must still work within a health care system in which basic economics rarely seems to hold sway.

For real competition to take hold, the big pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, the companies that negotiate prices and set the prescription drug menu for 80% of insured patients in the United States, would have to position the new drugs favorably in health plans.

They haven’t, though the logic for doing so seems plain.

Humira has enjoyed high-priced U.S. exclusivity for 20 years. Its challengers could save the health care system $9 billion and herald savings from the whole class of drugs called biosimilars — a windfall akin to the hundreds of billions saved each year through the purchase of generic drugs.

The biosimilars work the same way as Humira, an injectable treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. And countries such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Poland have moved more than 90% of their Humira patients to the rival drugs since they launched in Europe in 2018.

Kaiser Permanente, which oversees medical care for 12 million people in eight U.S. states, switched most of its patients to a biosimilar in February and expects to save $300 million this year alone.

Biosimilars Are Cheaper

Biologics — both the brand-name drugs and their imitators, or biosimilars — are made with living cells, such as yeast or bacteria. With dozens of biologics nearing the end of their patent protection in the next two decades, biosimilars could generate much higher savings than generics, said Paul Holmes, a partner at Williams Barber Morel who works with self-insured health plans. That’s because biologics are much more expensive than pills and other formulations made through simpler chemical processes.

For example, after the first generics for the blockbuster anti-reflux drug Nexium hit the market in 2015, they cost around $10 a month, compared with Nexium’s $100 price tag. Coherus BioSciences launched its Humira biosimilar, Yusimry, in July at $995 per two-syringe carton, compared with Humira’s $6,600 list price for a nearly identical product.

“The percentage savings might be similar, but the total dollar savings are much bigger,” Holmes said, “as long as the plan sponsors, the employers, realize the opportunity.”

That’s a big if.

While a manufacturer may need to spend a few million dollars to get a generic pill ready to market, makers of biosimilars say their development can require up to eight years and $200 million. The business won’t work unless they gain significant market share, they say.

The biggest hitch seems to be the PBMs. Express Scripts and Optum Rx, two of the three giant PBMs, have put biosimilars on their formularies, but at the same price as Humira. That gives doctors and patients little incentive to switch. So Humira remains dominant for now.

“We’re not seeing a lot of takeup of the biosimilar,” said Keith Athow, pharmacy director for Tennessee’s group insurance program, which covers 292,000 state and local employees and their dependents.

The ongoing saga of Humira — its peculiar appeal to drug middlemen and insurers, the patients who’ve benefited, the patients who’ve suffered as its list price jumped sixfold since 2003 — exemplifies the convoluted U.S. health care system, whose prescription drug coverage can be spotty and expenditures far more unequal than in other advanced economies.

Biologics like Humira occupy a growing share of U.S. health care spending, with their costs increasing 12.5% annually over the past five years. The drugs are increasingly important in treating cancers and autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, that afflict about 1 in 10 Americans.

Humira’s $200 billion in global sales make it the best-selling drug in history. Its manufacturer, AbbVie, has aggressively defended the drug, filing more than 240 patents and deploying legal threats and tweaks to the product to keep patent protections and competitors at bay.

The company’s fight for Humira didn’t stop when the biosimilars finally appeared. The drugmaker has told investors it doesn’t expect to lose much market share through 2024. “We are competing very effectively with the various biosimilar offerings,” AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez said during an earnings call.

How AbbVie Maintains Market Share

One of AbbVie’s strategies was to warn health plans that if they recommended biosimilars over Humira they would lose rebates on purchases of Skyrizi and Rinvoq, two drugs with no generic imitators that are each listed at about $120,000 a year, according to PBM officials. In other words, dropping one AbbVie drug would lead to higher costs for others.

Industry sources also say the PBMs persuaded AbbVie to increase its Humira rebates — the end-of-the-year payments, based on total use of the drug, which are mostly passed along by the PBMs to the health plan sponsors. Although rebate numbers are kept secret and vary widely, some reportedly jumped this year by 40% to 60% of the drug’s list price.

The leading PBMs — Express Scripts, Optum, and CVS Caremark — are powerful players, each part of a giant health conglomerate that includes a leading insurer, specialty pharmacies, doctors’ offices, and other businesses, some of them based overseas for tax advantages.

Yet challenges to PBM practices are mounting. The Federal Trade Commission began a major probe of the companies last year. Kroger canceled its pharmacy contract with Express Scripts last fall, saying it had no bargaining power in the arrangement, and, on Aug. 17, the insurer Blue Shield of California announced it was severing most of its business with CVS Caremark for similar reasons.

Critics of the top PBMs see the Humira biosimilars as a potential turning point for the secretive business processes that have contributed to stunningly high drug prices.

Although list prices for Humira are many times higher than those of the new biosimilars, discounts and rebates offered by AbbVie make its drug more competitive. But even if health plans were paying only, say, half of the net amount they pay for Humira now — and if several biosimilar makers charged as little as a sixth of the gross price — the costs could fall by around $30,000 a year per patient, said Greg Baker, CEO of AffirmedRx, a smaller PBM that is challenging the big companies.

Multiplied by the 313,000 patients currently prescribed Humira, that comes to about $9 billion in annual savings — a not inconsequential 1.4% of total national spending on pharmaceuticals in 2022.

The launch of the biosimilar Yusimry, which is being sold through Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs pharmacy and elsewhere, “should send off alarms to the employers,” said Juliana Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, an industry group. “They are going to ask, ‘Time out, why are you charging me 85% more, Mr. PBM, than what Mark Cuban is offering? What is going on in this system?’”

Cheaper drugs could make it easier for patients to pay for their drugs and presumably make them healthier. A KFF survey in 2022 found that nearly a fifth of adults reported not filling a prescription because of the cost. Reports of Humira patients quitting the drug for its cost are rife.

Inflated Sticker Prices

When Sue Lee of suburban Louisville, Kentucky, retired as an insurance claims reviewer and went on Medicare in 2017, she learned that her monthly copay for Humira, which she took to treat painful plaque psoriasis, was rising from $60 to $8,000 a year.

It was a particularly bitter experience for Lee, now 81, because AbbVie had paid her for the previous three years to proselytize for the drug by chatting up dermatology nurses at fancy AbbVie-sponsored dinners. Casting about for a way to stay on the drug, Lee asked the company for help, but her income at the time was too high to qualify her for its assistance program.

“They were done with me,” she said. Lee went off the drug, and within a few weeks the psoriasis came back with a vengeance. Sores covered her calves, torso, and even the tips of her ears. Months later she got relief by entering a clinical trial for another drug.

Health plans are motivated to keep Humira as a preferred choice out of convenience, inertia, and fear. While such data is secret, one Midwestern firm with 2,500 employees told KFF Health News that AbbVie had effectively lowered Humira’s net cost to the company by 40% after July 1, the day most of the biosimilars launched.

One of the top three PBMs, CVS Caremark, announced in August that it was creating a partnership with drugmaker Sandoz to market its own cut-rate version of Humira, called Hyrimoz, in 2024. But Caremark didn’t appear to be fully embracing even its own biosimilar. Officials from the PBM notified customers that Hyrimoz will be on the same tier as Humira to “maximize rebates” from AbbVie, Tennessee’s Athow said.

Most of the rebates are passed along to health plans, the PBMs say. But if the state of Tennessee received a check for, say, $20 million at the end of last year, it was merely getting back some of the $48 million it already spent.

“It’s a devil’s bargain,” said Michael Thompson, president and CEO of the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions. “The happiest day of a benefit executive’s year is walking into the CFO’s office with a several-million-dollar check and saying, ‘Look what I got you!’”

Executives from the leading PBMs have said their clients prefer high-priced, high-rebate drugs, but that’s not the whole story. Some of the fees and other payments that PBMs, distributors, consultants, and wholesalers earn are calculated based on a drug’s price, which gives them equally misplaced incentives, said Antonio Ciaccia, CEO of 46Brooklyn, a nonprofit that researches the drug supply chain.

“The large intermediaries are wedded to inflated sticker prices,” said Ciaccia.

AbbVie has warned some PBMs that if Humira isn’t offered on the same tier as biosimilars it will stop paying rebates for the drug, according to Alex Jung, a forensic accountant who consults with the Midwest Business Group on Health.

AbbVie did not respond to requests for comment.

One of the low-cost Humira biosimilars, Organon’s Hadlima, has made it onto several formularies, the ranked lists of drugs that health plans offer patients, since launching in February, but “access alone does not guarantee success” and doesn’t mean patients will get the product, Kevin Ali, Organon’s CEO, said in an earnings call in August.

If the biosimilars are priced no lower than Humira on health plan formularies, rheumatologists will lack an incentive to prescribe them. When PBMs put drugs on the same “tier” on a formulary, the patient’s copay is generally the same.

In an emailed statement, Optum Rx said that by adding several biosimilars to its formularies at the same price as Humira, “we are fostering competition while ensuring the broadest possible choice and access for those we serve.”

Switching a patient involves administrative costs for the patient, health plan, pharmacy, and doctor, said Marcus Snow, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

Doctors Reluctant to Switch

Doctors seem reluctant to move patients off Humira. After years of struggling with insurance, the biggest concern of the patient and the rheumatologist, Snow said, is “forced switching by the insurer. If the patient is doing well, any change is concerning to them.” Still, the American College of Rheumatology recently distributed a video informing patients of the availability of biosimilars, and “the data is there that there’s virtually no difference,” Snow said. “We know the cost of health care is exploding. But at the same time, my job is to make my patient better. That trumps everything.”

“All things being equal, I like to keep the patient on the same drug,” said Madelaine Feldman, a New Orleans rheumatologist.

Gastrointestinal specialists, who often prescribe Humira for inflammatory bowel disease, seem similarly conflicted. American Gastroenterological Association spokesperson Rachel Shubert said the group’s policy guidance “opposes nonmedical switching” by an insurer, unless the decision is shared by provider and patient. But Siddharth Singh, chair of the group’s clinical guidelines committee, said he would not hesitate to switch a new patient to a biosimilar, although “these decisions are largely insurance-driven.”

HealthTrust, a company that procures drugs for about 2 million people, has had only five patients switch from Humira this year, said Cora Opsahl, director of the Service Employees International Union’s 32BJ Health Fund, a New York state plan that procures drugs through HealthTrust.

But the biosimilar companies hope to slowly gain market footholds. Companies like Coherus will have a niche and “they might be on the front end of a wave,” said Ciaccia, given employers’ growing demands for change in the system.

The $2,000 out-of-pocket cap on Medicare drug spending that goes into effect in 2025 under the Inflation Reduction Act could spur more interest in biosimilars. With insurers on the hook for more of a drug’s cost, they should be looking for cheaper options.

For Kaiser Permanente, the move to biosimilars was obvious once the company determined they were safe and effective, said Mary Beth Lang, KP’s chief pharmacy officer. The first Humira biosimilar, Amjevita, was 55% cheaper than the original drug, and she indicated that KP was paying even less since more drastically discounted biosimilars launched. Switched patients pay less for their medication than before, she said, and very few have tried to get back on Humira.

Prescryptive, a small PBM that promises transparent policies, switched 100% of its patients after most of the other biosimilars entered the market July 1 “with absolutely no interruption of therapy, no complaints, and no changes,” said Rich Lieblich, the company’s vice president for clinical services and industry relations.

AbbVie declined to respond to him with a competitive price, he said.

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

Moderation – Not Prohibition – Is Key to Treating ER Patients With Opioids

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Over the years many people living with pain have told us that they avoid going emergency rooms because they fear their pain will be ignored and that they’ll be treated as an addict if they ask for opioids.  

“Going to the ER terrifies me and I am an RN,” one patient said. “I was recently there on 2 separate episodes for kidney stones. Over a three-day period they gave me absolutely nothing for pain!” 

“I can't and won't return to an ER even if I am dying because I won't accept being treated like an addict ever again,” said a 60-year-old disabled woman.  

“It took me 12 hours and a staged public fit to get any pain relief at my local ER when I went in with a pinched nerve,” another patient told us. 

“Called suicide hotline and was told to go to ER,” said a woman suffering from a severe flare from rheumatoid arthritis. “Well, that was a waste. Told I was drug seeking and received a hefty bill to pile on top of all the others.”

A new study suggests that moderation – not prohibition -- is the key to treating pain in the ER with opioids. Researchers in Canada found that half of patients discharged from an emergency department needed only a handful of opioid tablets to control their pain.

“Patients are often prescribed too many opioid tablets and that means unused tablets are available for misuse,” Raoul Daoust, MD, a professor of Family and Emergency at University of Montreal, said in a press release. “On the other hand, since the opioid crisis, the tendency in the USA is to not prescribe opioids at all, leaving some patient in agonising pain.

“With this research I wanted to provide a tailored approach to prescribing opioids so that patients have enough to manage their pain but almost no unused tablets available for misuse.”

Daoust and his colleagues surveyed 2,240 adult patients who were treated for acute pain at one of six hospital emergency departments in Canada. All were discharged with an opioid prescription and were asked to complete a pain diary for two weeks.

Their findings, presented over the weekend at the European Emergency Medicine Congress in Spain, showed five or fewer morphine tablets (5mg) were adequate for about half the patients. The rest needed more tablets, depending on their condition. For example, patients suffering from renal colic or abdominal pain needed eight tablets, while a patient with broken bones needed 24 tablets. 

Daoust says emergency room physicians need to recognize that morphine can be “very beneficial” for patients. The key is to individualize treatment and prescribe the right amount to minimize the risk of addiction.

“Our findings make it possible to adapt the quantity of opioids we prescribe according to patient need. We could ask the pharmacist to also provide opioids in small portions, such as five tablets initially, because for half of patients that would be enough to last them for two weeks,” said Daoust.

The researchers plan to apply their findings in a clinical setting to evaluate whether they can reduce the long-term use and misuse of opioids. 

“This study shows how opioid prescriptions could be adapted to specific acute pain conditions, and how they could be dispensed in relatively small numbers at the pharmacy to lower the chance of misuse. This research could provide a safer way to prescribe opioids that could be applied in emergency departments anywhere in the world,” said Youri Yordanov, MD, an emergency physician at Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, who was not involved in the research.

A large 2017 study found that the risk of long-term opioid use is lower for ER patients than it is for patients treated in other medical settings. Researchers found that only 1.1% percent of ER patients taking opioids for the first time progressed to long term use. That compares to 2% of patients in non-emergency settings.