Where Did the Opioid Settlement Money Go?

By Crystal Lindell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minnesota’s ‘Dashboard’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Crystal Lindell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Will Trump’s White House Return Mean for Healthcare?

By Stephanie Armour, KFF Health News

Former President Donald Trump’s election victory and looming return to the White House will likely bring changes that scale back the nation’s public health insurance programs — increasing the uninsured rate, while imposing new barriers to abortion and other reproductive care.

The reverberations will be felt far beyond Washington, DC, and could include an erosion of the Affordable Care Act’s consumer protections, the imposition of work requirements in Medicaid and funding cuts to the safety net insurance, and challenges to federal agencies that safeguard public health. Abortion restrictions may tighten nationwide with a possible effort to restrict the mailing of abortion medications.

And with the elevation of vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Trump’s inner circle of advisers, public health interventions with rigorous scientific backing — whether fluoridating public water supplies or inoculating children — could come under fire.

Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris with 277 Electoral College votes, The Associated Press declared at 5:34 a.m. ET on Wednesday. He won 51% of the vote nationally to Harris’ 47.5%, the AP projected.

Trump’s victory will give a far broader platform to skeptics and critics of federal health programs and actions. Worst case, public health authorities worry, the U.S. could see increases in preventable illnesses; a weakening of public confidence in established science; and debunked notions — such as a link between vaccines and autism — adopted as policy.

Trump said in an NBC News interview on Nov. 3 that he would “make a decision” about banning some vaccines, saying he would consult with Kennedy and calling him “a very talented guy.”

‘Concepts of a Plan’

While Trump has said he will not try again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, his administration will face an immediate decision next year on whether to back an extension of enhanced premium subsidies for Obamacare insurance plans. Without the enhanced subsidies, steep premium increases causing lower enrollment are projected. The current uninsured rate, about 8%, would almost certainly rise.

Policy specifics have not moved far beyond the “concepts of a plan” Trump said he had during his debate with Harris, though Vice President-elect JD Vance later said the administration would seek to inject more competition into ACA marketplaces.

Republicans were projected to claim a Senate majority, in addition to the White House, while control of the House was not yet resolved early Wednesday.

Polls show the ACA has gained support among the public, including provisions such as preexisting condition protections and allowing young people to stay on family health plans until they are 26.

Trump supporters and others who have worked in his administration say the former president wants to improve the law in ways that will lower costs. They say he has already shown he will be forceful when it comes to lowering high health care prices, pointing to efforts during his presidency to pioneer price transparency in medical costs.

“On affordability, I’d see him building on the first term,” said Brian Blase, who served as a Trump health adviser from 2017 to 2019. Relative to a Democratic administration, he said, there will be “much more focus” on “minimizing fraud and waste.”

Efforts to weaken the ACA could include slashing funds for enrollment outreach, enabling consumers to purchase more health plans that don’t comply with ACA consumer protections, and allowing insurers to charge sicker people higher premiums.

Democrats say they expect the worst.

“We know what their agenda is,” said Leslie Dach, executive chair of Protect Our Care, a health care policy and advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. He worked in the Obama administration helping to implement the ACA. “They’re going to raise costs for millions of Americans and rip coverage away from millions and, meanwhile, they will give tax breaks to rich people.”

Theo Merkel, director of the Private Health Reform Initiative at the right-leaning Paragon Health Institute, which Blase leads, said the enhanced ACA subsidies extended by the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 do nothing to improve plans or lower premiums. He said they paper over the plans’ low value with larger government subsidies.

Other Trump supporters say the president-elect may support preserving Medicare’s authority to negotiate drug prices, another provision of the IRA. Trump has championed reducing drug prices, and in 2020 advanced a test model that would have tied the prices of some drugs in Medicare to lower costs overseas, said Merkel, who worked in Trump’s first White House. The drug industry successfully sued to block the program.

Within Trump’s circles, some names have already been floated as possible leaders for the Department of Health and Human Services. They include former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Seema Verma, who ran the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during the Trump administration.

Kennedy, who suspended his independent presidential run and endorsed Trump, has told his supporters that Trump promised him control of HHS. Trump said publicly before Election Day that he would give Kennedy a big role in his administration, but he may have difficulty winning Senate confirmation for a Cabinet position.

While Trump has vowed to protect Medicare and said he supports funding home care benefits, he’s been less specific about his intentions for Medicaid, which provides coverage to lower-income and disabled people. Some health analysts expect the program will be especially vulnerable to spending cuts, which could help finance the extension of tax breaks that expire at the end of next year.

Possible changes include the imposition of work requirements on beneficiaries in some states. The administration and Republicans in Congress could also try to revamp the way Medicaid is funded. Now, the federal government pays states a variable percentage of program costs. Conservatives have long sought to cap the federal allotments to states, which critics say would lead to draconian cuts.

“Medicaid will be a big target in a Trump administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Less clear is the potential future of reproductive health rights.

Trump has said decisions about abortion restrictions should be left to the states. Thirteen states ban abortion with few exceptions, while 28 others restrict the procedure based on gestational duration, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization focused on advancing reproductive rights. Trump said before the election that he would not sign a national abortion ban.

State ballot measures to protect abortion rights were adopted in four states, including Missouri, which Trump won by about 18 points, according to preliminary AP reports. Abortion rights measures were rejected by voters in Florida and South Dakota.

Trump could move to restrict access to abortion medications, used in more than half of abortions, either by withdrawing the FDA’s authorization for the drugs or by enforcing a 19th-century law, the Comstock Act, that abortion opponents say bans their shipment. Trump has said he generally would not use the law to ban mail delivery of the drugs.

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

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

By Pat Anson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘It’s So Hard to Find My Medications’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five Strategies to Support Chronic Pain Caregivers

By Mara Baer

As someone who has lived with chronic pain for ten years, I worry about my health and future. I also worry about my ability to be fully present for my kids and spouse, and the load that he carries in our family life.

When my pain first became chronic, my husband’s expanded role became critical. He did more driving, more cooking, and more laundry. There was always more for him to do. When my pain became so persistent that it impacted my mental health, his responsibilities grew even more.

Fifty million people in America live with chronic pain. We are five times more likely to experience depression and anxiety, and our risk of suicide is twice as high as people without pain. Isolation, elevated stress, and loneliness are also common. Because the healthcare system does not typically address the biopsychosocial nature of pain – the biological, psychological and social factors behind it -- these problems persist and have deep impacts on our relationships and caregivers.

When I was at my darkest times with chronic pain, I felt helpless. Feeling helpless lead to acting helpless, which added to the caregiving burdens of my spouse. Many days I could not get myself out of bed, as the pain and my sadness about it were too great. I avoided family and social activities, and doing chores around the house.

I thought I was allowing my body the rest it needed, but I’ve since learned that avoiding movement and isolating oneself can exacerbate pain, and deepen depression and anxiety. This created a vicious cycle, where lack of activity leads to more pain and worsens mental health.  

My husband watched as I declined and kept picking up the pieces. We spent years like this, but we didn't have to. I now have five key strategies that can help caregivers and their loved ones:

1. Learn about the biopsychosocial nature of pain: The complex nature of pain involves many factors, including the brain’s capacity to become hardwired to pain, as well as social and emotional issues. "The Pain Management Workbook" by Rachel Zoffness provides an excellent tutorial on the biopsychosocial aspects of pain and is a useful tool for caregivers and those living with pain. As caregivers learn more about the multi-faceted nature of pain, it becomes easier find ways to improve pain care.

2. Explore pain reprocessing and other therapies: In "The Way Out" by Alan Gordon, readers can learn about the neuroscience of chronic pain and how Pain Reprocessing Therapy (PRT) can teach the brain to “unlearn” chronic pain. Several pain therapy programs are grounded in this model, which has been found to provide significant pain relief. Caregivers should also evaluate other therapies that can help manage pain, including Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Acceptance Commitment Therapy.

3. Evaluate healthcare stigma: People living with chronic pain often face stigma in the healthcare system. This impacts their access to care and mental health. Caregivers should evaluate whether stigma is occurring, which may result in the undertreatment of pain by providers and skepticism about patient suffering.

4. Assess your own pain and mental health: Like other caregivers, chronic pain caregivers can experience stress, isolation and burnout. That burden is often correlated with a patient’s pain, anxiety, depression, and lower self-efficacy. Over half of caregivers’ struggle with their own pain, which impacts their mental health and ability to serve in the caregiving role. Self-evaluation is important for caregivers to assess their own medical and mental health, and to seek support when needed.

5. Join a support group: Chronic pain is isolating, not only for people living with pain but also their caregivers. Connecting with others who understand these challenges can be incredibly healing and supportive. There are many support groups online. The U.S. Pain Foundation hosts a regular free support group for caregivers, providing opportunities to share challenges and coping strategies.

When I finally became aware of the evidence around the biopsychosocial nature of pain, it was a turning point for me and my spouse. After learning that nearly all chronic pain conditions have a psychological component, I sought mental health support, coaching and counseling. This helped me see that the way I coped with pain would never work, and that moving my body, avoiding isolation and acknowledging my emotions would help me feel better and engage more fully in family life.

There are times my husband may still carry a heavier load, especially when I am having a pain flare, but his caregiving responsibilities are more manageable now. And I am certainly more present in our family and relationship.

Mara Baer has lived with Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome for over 10 years. She is a writer, speaker, and health policy consultant offering services through her women-owned small business, AgoHealth. Mara is a member of the National Pain Advocacy Center’s Science and Policy Council and recently launched a newsletter called Chronic Pain Chats.

Opioids Are Effective at Treating Pain. Just Ask My Family

By Crystal Lindell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benzodiazepines Get Positive Reviews on Twitter

By Pat Anson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Crystal Lindell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Rescheduling Will Mean for Marijuana

By Dr. Chris Meyers

The Drug Enforcement Administration announced in early 2024 that it would act on President Joe Biden’s call to reclassify marijuana, moving it from the tightly controlled Schedule I category that it has been in since 1970 to the less restrictive Schedule III status of the Controlled Substances Act. That triggered a long process of hearings and reviews that will not be completed until after the presidential election in November.

The news drew strong reactions from critics: 25 Republican lawmakers sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland protesting any changes to federal marijuana laws. They argued that the decision “was not properly researched … and is merely responding to the popularity of marijuana and not the actual science.”

As a philosopher and drug policy expert, I focus on assessing arguments and evidence rather than politics or rhetoric. So, what are the arguments for and against rescheduling cannabis?

Scheduling Under Controlled Substances Act

The Controlled Substances Act places each prohibited drug into one of five schedules based on known medical use, addictive potential and safety. Schedule I drugs – which, along with marijuana, also includes heroin, LSD, psilocybin, ecstasy (MDMA) and quaaludes – is the most restrictive category.

Schedule I substances cannot be legally used for any purpose, including medical use or research, though an exception for research can be made with special permission from the DEA. The criteria for inclusion in the Schedule I category is that the substance has a high potential for abuse, is extremely addictive and has “no currently accepted medical use.”

Schedule II, which is slightly less restrictive than Schedule I, includes drugs that are addictive and potentially unsafe but also have some accepted medical use. These include strong opioids such as fentanyl, as well as cocaine, PCP and methamphetamine. Though they are still tightly regulated, Schedule II drugs can be used medically with a prescription or administered by a licensed physician.

Schedule III is much less restrictive and is intended for substances with legitimate medical use and only moderate risk of abuse or dependency. This category includes low-dose morphine, anabolic steroids and ketamine.

Schedule IV – which includes the sedative Valium, the weak opioid tramadol and sleep medicines such as Ambien – is even less restrictive.

The least restrictive category is Schedule V, which includes cough syrups with codeine and calcium channel blockers such as gabapentin and pregabalin. All scheduled drugs require a doctor’s prescription and can be distributed only by licensed pharmacies.

Schedule III Would Only Legalize Some Medical Use

The push to reschedule is largely to make federal laws consistent with state medical marijuana programs that – as of October 2024 – are legal in 38 states plus the District of Columbia.

Moving marijuana to Schedule III would not change its legal status in states where it is banned. It would make marijuana legal at the federal level but only for medical use. Recreational use would still be federally prohibited, even though it is currently legal in 24 states plus Washington.

Rescheduling, however, might not make medical marijuana any easier for patients to access and could even make it much harder for some. Currently, getting a medical marijuana card is quite easy in most states. In Washington D.C., where I live, patients can self-certify.

If marijuana is reclassified as Schedule III, medical marijuana programs will have to start requiring a doctor’s prescription, just like with all other scheduled substances. And it could be distributed only by licensed pharmacies, which would put medical dispensaries that are now selling it without a license from the Food and Drug Administration out of business.

Rescheduling, however, would give medical marijuana legitimacy as a bona fide medicine. And the intent of the move is to increase access, even if it is unclear how rescheduling would achieve that.

So, assuming that rescheduling would have the intended effect of expanding access to medical marijuana, should it be rescheduled?

Medical Uses of Marijuana

Though there are three criteria for Schedule I in the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA in fact relies on only the medical use criterion. This was the basis of the DEA’s proposal to reschedule marijuana. The fact that almost 75% of Americans live in a state with a medical marijuana program suggests that marijuana has an accepted medical use.

More importantly, Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act already includes dronabinol, which is delta-9 THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Although dronabinol is synthesized in the lab rather than extracted from the cannabis plant, it is the exact same molecule. The FDA approved THC in the form of dronabinol in 1985 for treating anorexia caused by HIV/AIDS as well as nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy. Placing marijuana in the same schedule as its primary active ingredient makes a lot of sense.

Another argument in favor of rescheduling is that it would open up new opportunities for medical research into marijuana’s effects, research that is currently hampered by its Schedule I status. This work is critical because the system of cannabinoid receptors through which marijuana causes its therapeutic and psychoactive effects is crucial for almost every aspect of human functioning.

Research has shown that cannabis is effective not only in treating nausea and AIDS but also chronic pain and some symptoms of multiple sclerosis.

There is also good evidence that marijuana can help treat other conditions, including Lou Gehrig’s disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS), glaucoma, irritable bowel syndrome, insomnia, migraine, post-traumatic stress disorder and Tourette syndrome. Keeping marijuana in the Schedule I category severely hampers research that might establish more effective treatments for these conditions.

Balancing Risks and Benefits

Those opposed to rescheduling cite possible health risks associated with marijuana consumption. Heavy use is linked to an increased risk of developing schizophrenia. However, the increased risk of schizophrenia from cannabis use is comparable to that caused by watching excessive television, eating junk food or smoking cigarettes.

Long-term marijuana use can also lead to sleep problems and diminished visuospatial memory. It can also cause gastrointestinal trouble, such as cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, which is characterized by nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. The symptoms, while extremely unpleasant, are temporary and occur only after consuming marijuana. The condition disappears in people who stop using.

Marijuana use can also be addictive. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about three out of every 10 regular marijuana users meet the diagnostic criteria for cannabis use disorder.

All of the concerns above are legitimate, though it is worth noting that virtually no effective medicine is free from undesirable side effects. And although marijuana can be habit-forming, it is not as addictive as alcohol, tobacco, oxycodone, cocaine, methamphetamine or benzodiazepines. None of those other drugs are categorized as Schedule I, and alcohol and tobacco are not scheduled at all.

Unlike most other prescription medications, marijuana use is associated with many benefits. For example, in states where marijuana has been legalized, worker’s compensation payments have fallen by an average of 21% among people over 40. Researchers think that this is because marijuana helps workers better manage chronic pain. The use of marijuana for pain management also helps to reduce dependency on opioids. One study found that U.S. counties with one or two marijuana dispensaries had an average of 17% fewer opioid-related fatalities compared with counties with no dispensaries.

Research also shows that marijuana use can help to prevent Alzheimer’s by blocking the enzymes that produce amyloid plaques. It also shows promise for reducing a person’s risk of developing Type 2 diabetes by helping the body regulate insulin and glucose levels.

All of these benefits add up to marijuana users having an overall lower rate of premature death than nonusers.

Chris Meyers, PhD, is an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University. His main area of research is in moral psychology, moral theory, and applied ethics/public policy. Meyers is the author of “Drug Legalization,” a textbook that looks at the pros and cons of prohibiting recreational drugs.

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

Women with Endometriosis Often Miss School and Work Due to Pain

By Dr. Rasha Al-Lami

More than two-thirds of women with endometriosis missed school or work due to pain from the condition, in a study of more than 17,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the U.S. That is a key finding of new research published in the Journal of Endometriosis and Uterine Disorders.

Our study also found that Black and Hispanic women were less likely to be diagnosed with endometriosis compared with white women. Interestingly, women who identified as part of the LGBTQ community had a higher likelihood of receiving an endometriosis diagnosis than heterosexual women.

We used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which is administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for the period 2011 to 2019. The survey data use adjusted weights to account for the racial composition of U.S. society, meaning our sample of 17,619 women represents 51,981,323 women of the U.S. population.

We specifically examined factors related to quality of life, such as poverty, education and functional impairment, as well as race and sexual orientation.

Endometriosis is a chronic, often painful condition that affects approximately 10% of reproductive-age women worldwide. It occurs when tissues that would normally line the inner surface of the uterus instead occur outside the uterus, such as on the ovaries or even in distant organs such as the lungs or brain. These abnormally located lesions respond to hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle, causing pain when stimulated by the hormones that regulate the menstrual cycle.

Black and Hispanic Women Less Likely to Be Diagnosed

Our study sheds light on how endometriosis, despite its prevalence, remains underdiagnosed and underresearched. We found that 6.4% of reproductive-age women in the U.S. had an endometriosis diagnosis. More than 67% reported missed work or school, or having been unable to perform daily activities, due to pain associated with endometriosis.

Our study highlights disparities in the diagnosis and management of endometriosis among different racial groups. Black women had 63% lower odds of getting an endometriosis diagnosis, and Hispanic women had 55% lower odds compared with non-Hispanic white women. This disparity may reflect historical biases in health care, pointing to the need for more equitable practices.

In addition, our study underscores the importance of considering women’s health across diverse population subgroups, with particular attention to sexual orientation. We found that non-heterosexual lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer women had 54% higher odds of receiving an endometriosis diagnosis compared with straight women. Our study was the first to examine endometriosis likelihood among non-heterosexual women at the national level in the U.S.

We found no significant association between endometriosis and other quality-of-life indicators such as poverty, education or employment status, which suggests that the condition affects women across various socioeconomic backgrounds.

Our work adds to the growing body of evidence that Black women are less likely to be diagnosed with endometriosis and that their reported pain symptoms are often overlooked.

Explanations for this inequity include health care bias against minority women and limited access to medical care among Black women. Research also shows that many medical professionals as well as medical students and residents believe that Black women have a lower pain threshold compared with the white population.

This is another possible reason that pain symptoms among Black women with endometriosis get neglected. Researchers from the U.K reported the same findings, attributing these disparities to systemic bias and inequitable medical care.

Another study estimates that the lifetime costs associated with having endometriosis are about $27,855 per year per patient in the U.S., costing the country about $22 billion annually on health care expenditures.

Rasha Al-Lami, MD, is a women’s health researcher at Yale University. 

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

Flawed Mayo Clinic Study Promotes Opioid Myths

By Crystal Lindell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pain Patients More Likely Than Doctors to Favor Greater Access to Cannabis

By Pat Anson

Americans living with chronic pain are significantly more likely to support greater access to cannabis than the physicians who treat them, according to a new survey that found broad support for cannabis education in medical schools.

Rutgers Health surveyed over 1,600 adults with chronic pain and 1,000 physicians in states with medical cannabis programs. The survey results, recently published in JAMA Network Open, show that 71% of  pain patients support federal legalization of medical cannabis, compared to 59% of physicians.

Patients are also more likely to support nationwide legalization of recreational cannabis (55%), compared to about a third of physicians (38%).

"Cannabis is unique in terms of the complicated policy landscape," said lead author Elizabeth Stone, PhD, an Instructor at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. "Depending on what state you're in, it could be that medical cannabis is legal, it could be that medical and recreational use are legal, it could be that neither is legal, but some things are decriminalized.”

Currently, 38 states and Washington, DC have legalized medical cannabis and 23 of those states (plus DC) have legalized its recreational use. Cannabis remains illegal under federal law as a Schedule I controlled substance, but the DEA is considering a proposal from the Biden Administration to reclassify cannabis as Schedule III substance, which would allow for limited use of cannabis-based medication.

Personal experience plays a significant role in shaping attitudes about cannabis. The Rutgers survey found that people who used cannabis for chronic pain had the highest levels of support for expanding access, while physicians who don’t recommended cannabis for pain management had the lowest levels of support.

Although they have different attitudes about legalization, about 70% of patients and physicians favor requiring medical schools to train future doctors on cannabis treatment of chronic pain. There is also broad support for training that would allow physicians and nurse practitioners to recommend cannabis to their patients.  

"I think it points to the need for future guidance around cannabis use and efficacy," Stone said. "Is it something they should be recommending? If so, are there different considerations for types of products or modes of use or concentration?"

Nearly two thirds of patients (64%) and about half of physicians (51%), favor requiring insurance companies to cover cannabis treatment of chronic pain.

Support for Cannabis Policies

JAMA NETWORK OPEN

Previous surveys have also found distinct differences in patient and physician attitudes about cannabis. A recent survey of primary care doctors found that nearly one in five (18%) would not accept a new patient using medical cannabis. And 40% said they would not accept a patient using non-medical or recreational cannabis.

Many doctors are worried what their colleagues will think or what law enforcement will do if they prescribed or recommended cannabis. A 2019 survey of oncologists and pain management specialists found that nearly two-thirds (65%) were concerned about the legal repercussions of recommending medical cannabis to their patients. And 60% were worried about professional stigma.

Many patients who live with chronic pain are turning to cannabis as an alternative to opioids. A recent PNN survey found that over 30% of pain patients said they had used cannabis for pain relief. Many did so because they couldn’t get an opioid prescription or had problems getting one filled.

The Whims of Pharmacy Pricing

By Crystal Lindell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She insisted there was nothing they could do about it. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muscle Relaxants Ineffective for Low Back Pain and Fibromyalgia

By Pat Anson

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

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

• Carisoprodol (Soma)

• Baclofen

• Tizanidine

• Cyclobenzaprine

• Eperisone

• Quinine

• Orphenadrine

• Chlormezanone

• Methocarbamol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey Finds Patients and Doctors Unsatisfied with Treatments for Acute Pain

By Pat Anson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 70% Limited their ability to walk and exercise

• 69% Limited their sleep

• 65% Limited their hobby or leisure activity

• 65% Made them feel irritable or emotionally drained

• Missed an average of 19 work days annually

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

• 49% of patients concerned about opioid addiction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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