How Supporters of CDC Opioid Guideline Hijacked Public Hearing

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A public hearing on the CDC’s controversial opioid guideline was dominated by anti-opioid activists, who took most of the speaker slots after being tipped off about the hearing by CDC insiders, PNN has learned.   

At issue is a January 28, 2016 public hearing in Atlanta by the CDC’s Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), an advisory panel that later voted unanimously to recommend the agency’s guideline, which discourages doctors from prescribing opioids for chronic pain. At the time, the CDC was under growing criticism for the secretive process used in drafting the guideline, which allowed for little input from the public, pain specialists and patients.

Faced with a congressional inquiry and accused of “blatant violations” of federal law, CDC postponed release of the guideline, opened a 30-day public comment period, and announced plans for a public hearing. But that hearing was essentially hijacked by anti-opioid activists who were alerted by Dr. Roger Chou, one of the guideline’s co-authors.

PNN has obtained a January 8, 2016 email from Chou to Dr. Andrew Kolodny, Executive Director and founder of PROP (Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing), PROP president Dr. Jane Ballantyne, PROP vice-president Dr. Michael Von Korff, and PROP board member Dr. Gary Franklin. Chou wanted to make sure PROP members and other guideline supporters spoke at the Jan. 28 hearing.

“I was hoping you could help spread the word for folks who are willing and able to help provide some balanced public comments; otherwise much of the public comments are going to be dominated by pharma. The CDC guideline is going to come under a lot of scrutiny by Congress and others so comments coming from credible people would be of great help,” Chou wrote in his email.

“The public comment period at the meeting is 90 minutes long and those who wish to speak must sign up in advance; the slots are first come, first serve, so those who want to do this they will need to sign up quickly as I’ve been told that pharma is already gearing up to take as many slots as they can.”

Kolodny responded quickly to Chou’s email, urging Ballantyne and the other PROP members to sign up as speakers. Although a public notice about the CDC hearing was not officially published in the Federal Register until January 11 -- three days later – the notice was put on “public display” in the Federal Register on Jan. 8, along with a link that allowed speakers to sign up early.

“We need to register ASAP if we hope to get a spot to give oral remarks (which can be done over the phone). I think it’s best for Jane to give remarks for PROP,” Kolodny wrote in an email of his own. “You don’t need to include a full written statement, just mention that you intend to speak in favor of the draft guideline and the need for promoting more cautious opioid use.”

Although the public notice asked that “each organization register one speaker to represent their organization,” PROP wound up having four speakers at the Jan. 28 hearing: Kolodny, Ballantyne, Franklin and Dr. David Juurlink. Franklin registered on Jan. 8, identifying himself as a representative of “Washington State public agencies.” Juurlink signed up as a representative of the “University of Toronto and American College of Medical Toxicology” and Kolodny identified himself as “Chief Medical Officer, Phoenix House Foundation.” Only Ballantyne signed up as representative of PROP.

The four PROP members were joined by over two dozen other guideline supporters, including Gary Mendell, Judy Rummler, Pete Jackson and other anti-opioid activists who have lost children to opioid overdoses. They urged CDC not to change the guideline by “watering it down” or removing dose limits.  

“The CDC guideline is urgently needed. The guideline was very carefully crafted using the best available evidence, expert opinion from a group of individuals with extensive experience of writing practice guidelines, and stakeholder input from a broad and balanced group of stakeholders,” Ballantyne said in her written comments.

“Primary care needs guidance on opioid prescribing that is free of industry bias. The CDC guideline accomplishes this. Evidence shows that the widespread use of opioids for chronic pain is harming more people than it is helping,” said Kolodny, according to minutes of the hearing.

Only four people spoke in opposition to the guideline. One was Howard Techau, a pain patient who pointed out that most overdoses were caused by illicit fentanyl, not pain medication. “Many chronic pain patients are suffering more now due to the (opioid) restrictions that are already in place,” said Techau, according to the hearing minutes.

The hearing ended with BSC chair Dr. Stephen Hargarten thanking the participants for their “extraordinary discussion and input from a variety of perspectives.”

‘Stacking the Deck’

A pain patient who registered for the hearing but was not given a chance to speak was Anne Fuqua. She encouraged dozens of other patients to attend and register as speakers, helping some to fill out their online registration forms. When the hearing ended and none of them were called upon to speak, she remembers feeling the hearing was rigged and stacked against patients

“The whole process felt like such a concerted effort to railroad patients,” Fuqua told PNN. “I remember at the time us saying we felt like it was beyond the realm of chance that they randomly selected the speakers.

“Aside from the 4 PROPers, it just doesn’t seem possible that supporters would have been this successful in flooding the sign-in ahead of everyone else.”

The CDC disputes the notion that anyone at the hearing who was pre-registered was denied an opportunity to speak.

“A total of 37 individuals pre-registered for the meeting and, of those, 30 requested to give oral public comment.  During the 90 minutes allotted for public comment, participants were called on in the order that they registered.  After individuals that had pre-registered were given the opportunity for public comment, public comment was opened to others for the remaining time. One additional person provided public comment at that time,” Courtney Leland, a CDC spokesperson, said in a statement to PNN.

“I don’t understand how they could possibly say only 30 registered to provide public comments. There were so many patients who told me they registered at the time and I registered way more than 30 people myself,” says Fuqua, who provided dozens of donated cell phones to nursing home residents so they could call in.

Others questioned the “first come, first served” process used by CDC to sign-up speakers, which could be easily manipulated by anyone given advance notice.

“The first come-first served method necessarily gives advantages to groups that hire lobbyists to track Federal Register postings, and, apparently, groups that have an inside connection who can alert them to the opportunity,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, former Executive Director of the American Academy of Pain Management. “Individual patients and even patient advocacy organizations are not going to have the resources to find out about these opportunities until the very limited number of slots are filled. CDC needs to seriously re-think this method of filling spots if they do anything like this in the future.”

‘Forward This Announcement to Others’

At least five PROP board members were involved in advising the CDC during the guideline’s development, so it is not clear why they were given yet another chance to express their opinions. Ballantyne and Franklin were members of a key guideline advisory panel known as the Core Expert Group; Dr. David Tauben was on the guideline’s peer review panel; and Kolodny and Juurlink were on a stakeholder review group.

Kolodny has tried to downplay PROP’s role in drafting the opioid guideline, but Chou’s email is direct evidence that there was some degree of collusion.

When asked why he contacted PROP and other organizations to give them an early heads-up about the hearing, Chou said he did so at the request of the CDC. A CDC staffer emailed Chou and other “Partners” involved in the guideline process, urging them to “forward this announcement to others who may be interested in commenting.”

“The information I forwarded to those folks and others was from an email that I received from CDC on January 8 that had been sent out widely to partners/stakeholders. Not sure why there would be any prohibition on sharing that information, which was public,” Chou wrote in an email to PNN.

But the information was not yet public, at least not widely. CDC never sent out a press release about the hearing and the public notice that was in the Federal Register probably wasn’t seen by many people outside of lobbyists.      

“Chou can say all he wants that this justified his efforts to stack the deck, but it also shows CDC was complicit,” says Fuqua.

“The fact that CDC would encourage people to publicize the availability of this speaking opportunity prior to publication in the Federal Register, especially when they were using a first come-first served selection method, is problematic,” said Twillman. 

“It is shameless that Roger Chou gave PROP a head start to prepare. It’s like an author writing their own book reviews,” said Julie Killingworth, a pain patient and independent researcher who helped PNN track the 2016 emails, which were obtained by another journalist through the Freedom of Information Act.  

“PROP members and their cohorts like Chou have proven beyond doubt they will always resort to cheating and lying to promote and profiteer their destructive scientifically faulty agenda. The CDC has unapologetically shacked up with a shadowy lobbying group, endangering the health and well-being of all citizens.”  

As for Chou’s warning that pharma was “gearing up to take as many slots as they can” at the hearing -- not a single representative from the pharmaceutical industry spoke. Pharma did not “dominate” the hearing as Chou predicted, PROP and other guideline supporters did.

Outspoken Critic of Opioids

All of this happened six years ago and may seem like “inside baseball” trivia to people unfamiliar with the CDC and its opioid guideline. But for this reporter and others who have followed the issue for years, it has a familiar ring.

Chou is a prolific researcher who heads the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, which over the last five years has received over two billion dollars in research grants from the federal government, much of it spent studying pain management therapies.

Most public health researchers keep a low profile to avoid accusations of bias, but Chou has long been an outspoken critic of opioid prescribing. In a 2019 podcast, for example, Chou said the benefits of opioids were “clinically insignificant” and that the medications are often harmful.

Chou has also collaborated on several prior occasions with PROP. In 2019, he co-authored an op/ed with Ballantyne and PROP board member Dr. Anna Lembke that encourages doctors to consider tapering “every patient receiving long term opioid therapy.”

DR. ROGER CHOU

In 2011, Chou wrote another op/ed with Kolodny and Von Korff, calling for a major overhaul of opioid prescribing guidelines, which were then mostly developed by pain management societies. That major overhaul came in 2016, when the CDC released its own guideline, which was quickly adopted by many states, insurers, physician groups and even law enforcement agencies.

Opioid prescribing fell dramatically as a result, yet drug overdoses rose to record levels, and many pain patients were tapered off opioids or abandoned by doctors who feared prosecution for prescribing the medications. Patients who once led productive lives while on opioids became unable to work, disabled and bedridden. Even the CDC admits the guideline has been harmful to patients and is in need of overhaul.    

Patients may be suffering and overdoses keep rising, yet several members of PROP have done well for themselves. At least six PROP board members have worked for plaintiff law firms involved in opioid litigation, making as much as $850 an hour. Kolodny, by his own admission, was paid up to $500,000 for testifying in one trial.

‘Compromised by Conflicts’

To this day, Chou remains heavily involved with the CDC. He is one of five co-authors drafting a revised and more “flexible” version of the guideline, which is expected for release later this year. He is also now a member of the CDC’s Board of Scientific Counselors. Critics say Chou’s biases and conflicts of interest are excessive and he should be removed from both roles.

“Based on growing evidence from our own research and many credible sources, the CDC inappropriately collaborated with Chou and leaders from the advocacy group PROP, to create and vigorously promote unfocused reductions in opioid prescribing,” says Dr. Chad Kollas, a palliative care physician who co-authored research critical of Chou’s “undisclosed” conflicts and PROP's role in helping to draft the guideline.

“The creation process for the 2016 Guideline lacked transparency and repeatedly violated CDC’s internal rules and policies addressing relevant conflicts of interest, thereby compromising its scientific integrity and its authors’ credibility. While the draft of CDC’s 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline on Prescribing Opioids for Pain seeks to mitigate growing patient harms from the 2016 Guideline, it is difficult to understand why CDC continued to allow Chou, compromised by ongoing conflicts of interest, to lead its effort to improve its failed opioid policy.”

Distrust of the CDC runs deep in the pain community. In a PNN survey of over 2,500 patients, providers and caregivers earlier this year, nearly 96% said they do not trust the agency to handle the revision of the guideline in an unbiased and scientific manner.

This week, an open letter signed by over 35,000 people was delivered by patient advocate Tamera Stewart to the office of Chris Jones, Acting Director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The letter says the 2016 guideline is so deeply flawed and compromised by ethical violations that it should be completely withdrawn and revoked, without any revisions.

Stewart, who is Policy Director for the P3 Alliance, is also asking Congress to investigate the CDC’s alleged violations of federal procedure and scientific methods during the development of the original and revised versions of the guideline.

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky recently announced plans to reorganize the agency due to mistakes made during its handling of the Covid pandemic, with the goal of improving communication with the public and changing CDC culture. Walensky put three senior CDC officials in charge of a “top-to-bottom review” of the agency.

One of them is Acting Deputy Director Dr. Deb Houry, the former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, who oversaw the drafting and rollout of the 2016 guideline. Houry will likely be reviewing the work of Dr. Deborah Dowell, who was chief medical officer for the CDC’s Covid Response team. Houry is already very familiar with Dowell, who co-authored both the 2016 guideline and the revised guideline that is awaiting release.  

Kolodny Returns as PROP President

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

After an eight-year hiatus, much of it spent testifying as a paid expert witness in opioid litigation trials, Andrew Kolodny, MD, has been reappointed as president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), the anti-opioid activist group that he founded. Kolodny succeeds Dr. Jane Ballantyne, who remains with the organization as VP for Clinical Affairs.

“I am delighted to serve in this role again, especially at a time when the need for more cautious opioid prescribing in the United States and abroad is becoming increasingly clear to clinicians, policymakers and the public,” Kolodny said in a press release.

Kolodny served as PROP’s first president from 2010 until 2014, when he was Chief Medical Officer at Phoenix House, a nationwide chain of addiction treatment centers. He is currently the Medical Director of Opioid Policy Research at Brandeis University.

Although Kolodny is a psychiatrist with a background in addiction treatment and lacks expertise in pain management, he has played a prominent role in reducing the use of opioids to treat pain. He lobbied Congress and federal health agencies for years to limit opioid prescribing, and is often quoted making sensational anti-opioid comments in the media, calling them “heroin pills” or saying that over-the counter drugs like ibuprofen “are as effective and in some cases more effective than opioids.”   

He stopped talking to this reporter years ago, saying he doesn’t like my questions and hasn’t had “a good experience” answering them.

Paid Expert Witness

Kolodny’s reinstatement as PROP’s president comes at a time when many opioid litigation cases are wrapping up against drug manufacturers and distributors, resulting in multi-billion dollar settlements with states, cities and counties. The plaintiff law firms who filed and pursued those cases stand to make billions of dollars themselves in contingency fees.

Kolodny was a paid expert witness or consultant for at least four of those law firms (Motley Rice, Nix Patterson, Cohen Milstein and Scott & Scott), making as much as $500,000 when he testified at a rate of $725 an hour in Oklahoma’s lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson.

That case, which resulted in a $425 million verdict against the drug maker, was overturned last year by Oklahoma’s Supreme Court, which ruled that J&J was not the “public nuisance” that Kolodny and the state attorney general portrayed it to be.  

A similar ruling was made by a California judge, who said opioid manufacturers did not use deceptive marketing and were not liable for the state’s opioid crisis. Dr. Anna Lembke, a Stanford psychiatrist and PROP board member, testified as a paid witness for plaintiffs in that case, but Judge Peter Wilson said her testimony about opioid addiction was unreliable.

DR. ANDREW KOLODNY

Court records show that Lembke was paid up to $800 an hour for her testimony in a New York opioid litigation case.

Public records also show that Kolodny was hired as an “expert consultant” by at least one state. In 2020, he signed a contract with the New York State Department of Financial Services to provide “consultation on medical issues and trends regarding the prescription of opioids” at a rate of $600 an hour. In one invoice, Kolodny billed the state $1,500 for making two phone calls. The maximum amount to be paid to Kolodny was later set at $174,999.

In addition to Kolodny and Lembke, at least five other PROP board members have testified as paid expert witnesses or consultants in opioid litigation: Ballantyne, Dr. Danesh Mazloomdoost, Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, Dr. Mark Sullivan and Dr. David Juurlink. Mazloomdoost was paid a rate of $850 an hour for his testimony.

PROP members have failed on repeated occasions to disclose these business relationships, but when questions were raised about them, they filed revised conflict of interest statements — without providing details on who they worked for or the amount they were paid.

PROP itself has not been transparent about its finances. PROP is not a public charity and has never filed a tax return. It takes advantage of a loophole in IRS law by having the Steve Rummler Hope Foundation as its “fiscal sponsor,” which allows donors to make tax-deductible donations anonymously.

PROP says it does not accept funding from “pharmaceutical companies and other life sciences corporations.” Kat Marriott, PROP’s Executive Director, did not respond to an email asking if the organization accepted money from law firms, medical device makers, drug testing companies or other industries that have profited from the opioid crisis.  

(Update: This story contains several updates relating to PROP members working as paid expert witnesses and consultants in opioid litigation cases. )

Does U.S. Have Opioid Crisis or Overdose Crisis?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A lot of people were surprised by an alarming report from the CDC last week, showing that a record 100,306 Americans died of a drug overdose in the 12-month period ending in April, 2021. That’s a 28.5% increase in a single year.

Among those who were caught off-guard was Andrew Kolodny, MD, an opioid researcher at Brandeis University and founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group.

“I was surprised by the latest tally from the CDC showing that for the first time ever, the number of Americans who fatally overdosed over the course of a year surpassed 100,000,” Kolodny wrote in an op/ed for The Conversation that’s been republished in several major newspapers.

“The soaring death toll has been fueled by a much more dangerous black market opioid supply. Illicitly synthesized fentanyl – a potent and inexpensive opioid that has driven the rise in overdoses since it emerged in 2014 – is increasingly replacing heroin. Fentanyl and fentanyl analogs were responsible for almost two-thirds of the overdose deaths.”

It’s refreshing to see Kolodny finally address the elephant in the room – illicit fentanyl – instead of always blaming prescription opioids for America’s addiction and overdose problem. But he continues to frame the drug crisis as an “opioid crisis” when repeated studies show that multiple substances are usually involved in overdoses, including non-opioid drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine.  

“It is especially tragic that these deaths are mainly occurring in people with a disease – opioid addiction – that is both preventable and treatable. Most heroin users want to avoid fentanyl. But increasingly, the heroin they seek is mixed with fentanyl or what they purchase is just fentanyl without any heroin in the mix,” Kolodny wrote.

“Opioid-addicted individuals seeking prescription opioids instead of heroin have also been affected, because counterfeit pills made with fentanyl have become more common.”

Here Kolodny sidesteps the fact that many pain patients are turning to street drugs because of government and law enforcement policies that restrict the prescribing of opioid medication – policies that Kolodny and PROP had a significant role in creating. They’re not addicts “seeking prescription opioids instead of heroin.” They’re patients seeking pain relief.

“Our misdirected efforts to solve the overdose epidemic have led to even more deaths. As long as we myopically focus on reducing prescription opioids for people in pain, the overdose epidemic will continue and worsen,” says Lynn Webster, MD, a pain management expert, Senior Fellow at the Center for U.S. Policy (CUSP) and Chief Medical Officer of PainScript.  

“Some of those who need opioids will be driven to the streets where they will find illicit and, potentially, lethal opioids. Some people may even choose to end their own lives. Your readers may have seen the recent article that described a suit against a physician for denying opioid treatment of a patient. The patient committed suicide as a result.” 

Webster says it is wrong to single out opioids – legal or illicit – for America’s escalating drug problem when the causes are complex and embedded in society. 

“We do have an overdose epidemic. Unfortunately, policymakers and the media have wrongly categorized it as an opioid epidemic rather than a drug overdose epidemic,” says Webster. “The roots of the overdose crisis are deep and seeded in despair from major shifts in socioeconomic conditions and lack of adequate and affordable healthcare. The Covid pandemic has made clear that social and mental health issues must be addressed if the overdose crisis is to be reversed. 

“The only solution to the overdose epidemic is to lower the demand. This will require a broad approach that involves addressing socioeconomic and mental health drivers of demand. More affordable and accessible treatment is important but will not solve the crisis.” 

Invested in Opioid Crisis 

Changing the narrative about the overdose crisis won’t be easy, since so many lawyers, politicians, healthcare companies and media outlets have invested in perpetuating the “opioid crisis.” Kolodny and other PROP board members have lucrative side hustles testifying as expert witnesses in opioid litigation cases for plaintiff law firms, which stand to make billions of dollars in contingency fees if their lawsuits are successful. 

One such case was decided by a federal jury in Cleveland today, which found that Walgreens, CVS and Walmart substantially contributed to addiction and overdoses in two Ohio counties by dispensing opioids in their pharmacies. The companies said they would appeal. 

“Plaintiffs' attorneys sued Walmart in search of deep pockets while ignoring the real causes of the opioid crisis-such as pill mill doctors, illegal drugs, and regulators asleep at the switch,” Walmart said in a statement. “And they wrongly claimed pharmacists must second-guess doctors in a way the law never intended and many federal and state health regulators say interferes with the doctor-patient relationship.”

Judges in Oklahoma and California recently ruled that opioid manufacturers are not “public nuisances” and can’t be held responsible for what people ultimately do with their drugs.  

10 Reasons for Lawmakers To Oppose Limits on Rx Opioids

By Matthew Giarmo, PhD, Guest Columnist

1. Government Leaders Have a Choice

History may record one day that politicians and policymakers had a choice: They could champion the rights of 50 million Americans in chronic pain who desperately need a hero or they could be scorned for unnecessary cruelty and playing politics with people's pain.

The gathering storm is a backlash to the heightened regulatory and surveillance culture that has commandeered our nation’s healthcare system. It will not go unanswered. We no longer allow government into our bedrooms to police sexual behavior, gender identity and abortion rights. And we sure as hell will not allow government to spy on our doctors and medicine cabinets.

The government has blood on its hands from chronic pain patients resorting to suicide and street drugs after being abandoned by physicians who fear imprisonment by DEA agents who have no medical training or patient knowledge.

2. Opioids Misunderstood

Opioids are not only cheap; they are uniquely effective in restoring quality and functionality to millions of Americans who suffer from chronic or intractable pain. Opioid medication is safe when used properly, while long term use of ibuprofen and acetaminophen is toxic.

When we examine data on efficacy, toxicity, dependency, teen use, mortality and preventable causes of death, opioids do not warrant consideration as a threat to national health security. There is no opioid "crisis" or "epidemic."

I believe any determination to the contrary is a byproduct of inappropriate agency regulation (the 2016 CDC Opioid Guideline) and biased and conflicted advice from an extremist sect (Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing) operating at the fringes of the medical community. The growing realization among doctors and patients is that "the fools are in charge" and "the foxes are guarding the hen house.”

Inappropriate prescribing that resulted in spikes of opioid abuse, such as pill mills and dentists disposed to trade 60 Percocet for wisdom teeth, ended several years ago. So did the marketing of extended-release formulations like OxyContin.

3. Junk Science

You may have been seduced by contrived overdose statistics (“500,000 people died from an opioid overdose”) that remain viral, despite the CDC itself acknowledging that 48% of deaths due to illicit fentanyl were erroneously counted as deaths due to a prescription opioid.

When we break down the politically convenient and alarmist statistics into deaths involving polysubstance use, suicide, reckless dosing out of frustration with pain, and drugs that were never prescribed to the decedent, the 125 deaths per day initially claimed by the CDC looks more like 5 deaths a day.

It would be more appropriate to attribute these fatalities more to pain itself than to pain medication, as well as drug experimentation, depression or diversion. Most of those who abused OxyContin reported never having a valid script. That is no basis on which to separate chronic pain patients from their medication.

But as long as an opioid shows up in a post-mortem toxicology screen, deaths are being classified as an opioid overdose; even when the opioid was one of several drugs consumed, when it cannot be determined whether the opioid was consumed in a medically relevant way, and even when the decedent was hit by a bus.

The overdose numbers had to be gamed, which makes sense when you consider that in 70% of cases, rulings on causes of death are made before the toxicology data is even available. Especially when you consider that those sky-high opioid fatalities seem out of step with the low rates of dependency (6% for chronic pain patients, 0.7% for acute pain and less than 0.1% for post surgical pain).

As a social psychologist, government analyst and research critic, I have identified about a dozen ways the science of opioids has been corrupted for financial gain, professional survival or advancement, and in service of a political cause.

One example is the claim that “80% of heroin users first misused prescription opioids.” That canard was violently ripped from a SAMHSA report and is misleadingly used to imply that 4 in 5 patients prescribed painkillers eventually use heroin. On the contrary, less than 4% of prescription opioid users turn to heroin. 

Incidentally, 67% of heroin addicts reported that their prior use of prescription painkillers had not occurred in the past year. Hardly seems like an irresistible urge to me.

4. Not Knowing When to Say When

Much like Sen. Joe McCarthy wreaked havoc on a nation with reckless claims about communist infiltrators, opioid McCarthyism is killing our most vulnerable and innocent populations -- veterans, senior citizens, persons with disabilities and the chronically ill.

Regulations complicate and delay the dispensing of legal scripts for these patients at the pharmacy, creating a "what's-it-gonna-be-this-time" syndrome in which patients endure a new burden every month.

Prescriptions for opioid painkillers have declined 40% since 2011, while overdoses on heroin and illicit fentanyl have soared. As National Public Radio falsely reported that doctors are “still flooding the U.S. with opioid prescriptions,” solid research offers definitive evidence that prescriptive austerity is helping to drive the spike in overdose fatalities.

A recently published study found that among 113,000 patients on long-term opioid therapy, the incidence of a non-fatal overdose among those subjected to tapering was 68% higher than those who were not tapered. The incidence of a mental health crisis such as depression, anxiety or attempted suicide was 128% higher among those who were tapered.  

5. The Inherent Absurdity of MME Thresholds

Forced tapering is undertaken to achieve an arbitrary one-size-fits-all threshold that makes no sense. There is no basis in science or nature for determining how much medication is too much. As long as patients are started at the lowest effective dose and titrated up gradually, as dictated by unresolved pain and any side effects, there is no limit to how much a patient might need 5, 10 or 15 years downstream.

Arbitrary dose limits defined in terms of morphine milligram equivalents (MME) ignore the importance of individual differences in medical diagnosis, treatment history (tolerance), and enzyme-mediated (genetic) sensitivity to pain and to pain medication. MME thresholds falsely assume that all opioids are equal and impact all patients the same way.

MMEs may be convenient for bureaucrats and expedient for politicians, but their scientific utility -- and by extension the CDC guideline itself -- is nullified by differences in the half-life of different drugs, differences in their absorption into the bloodstream, and differences in their rate of metabolism in different people.

6. Without Liberty or Justice for All

For arguments sake, let us suppose that we lose as many souls to prescription opioids as we do to car accidents. What have we done to rein in this other preventable cause of death? We create laws requiring safety belts, air bags, annual inspections, and compliance with speed limits. We do not criminalize the sale, operation and distribution of Honda Civics. We do not restrict the number of cars on the road. And we do not drop DEA teams behind enemy lines in Detroit.

But at a time when Americans are growing weary with a drug war that has lasted longer than our wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan -- and when Americans have softened their views on marijuana -- the DEA, perhaps in a desperate search for new bogeymen, expanded its theater of operations to treat pharmaceutical companies as drug cartels, doctors as dealers, and patients as addicts.

As we speak, your state is creating a mini-DEA inside its Department of Health or Medical Board that weaponizes the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program as a surveillance and detection tool, to spy on and red flag each patient and doctor whose script or “NARX Score” exceeds an arbitrary limit for which no basis in science or nature exists.

Think about all the sacred ideals we’ve abandoned to support our failed effort to bring a specious “opioid crisis” under control: the Constitution; a compassionate care system that had been the cornerstone of a civilization; a physician’s right to exercise clinical judgement; their right to due process; and a system of individualized, patient-centered care.

Government is obliged to ease civil unrest -- not foment it. But federal and state governments are hell bent on driving wedges between groups of stakeholders: physicians against patients; patients and physicians against pharmacists; patients against the public at large; physicians against their own office staffs; patients against employers; and physicians against medical boards. That is McCarthyism.  

All too commonplace on social media are acrimonious altercations between the grieving survivors of overdose victims and those caring for friends or family living with chronic pain. There's no reason we can't simultaneously provide the medicine, assistance and requisite sympathy to Americans who need addiction treatment and Americans who need pain medication -- especially when we consider that only 6% of chronic pain patients prescribed painkillers develop dependency.

The NARX Score itself, a deeply flawed hotdog of a composite that ostensibly assigns a number to a person based on their supposed risk of overdose, is morally and intellectually offensive. It does little to assuage those who use the term “pain patient genocide" and compare it to the demonization and murder of 11 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and criminals in Germany during the Second World War.

7. Opioid Crisis As a Scapegoat

Have we as a nation become more addicted to the "opioid crisis" than we ever were to opioids? For our nation’s leaders, opioids have become an irresistible diversion and scapegoat. It’s a means to repair a tarnished reputation (see Chris Christie) or display rare bipartisan unity to disarm a cynical and frustrated constituency.

In a striking reversal of cause and effect, government officials would have you blame opioids for the loss of jobs, identities, finances and relationships that have come to define life in 21st century America. In reality, we have two crises: a crisis of chronic pain estimated to involve 50 million Americans and a psychosocial crisis linked to the combined effects of economic disparity, globalization, automation, immigration, social media, terrorism, pandemics, and the dissolution of national unity into political sects and interests.

Opioid critics like to point out that opioids only mask painful symptoms rather than address the underlying cause. But isn’t that what government officials do when they attempt to conceal or compensate for the true ills of our nation by playing whack-a-mole with prescription pain relievers?

8. The One-Track Mind

Last year a record 93,331 Americans died of a drug overdose, the vast majority involving illicit fentanyl and other street drugs, not prescription opioids.

We observed a 190% rise in cocaine overdoses and a 500% rise in overdoses involving methamphetamine. We have also seen increases in the abuse of alcohol and OTC substances like dextramorphan, diphenhydramine, ibuprofen, acetaminophen and loperamide, a drug used to treat diarrhea.

How many of those deaths can we blame on Purdue Pharma? Will collecting billions of dollars in settlement money from opioid distributors solve our overdose problem? Or will it enrich plaintiff law firms just like the Tobacco Settlement did?

9. An Unfair Fight

I was inspired to write this by a family -- MY family. I know what it’s like to see a patient’s treatment plan forcibly altered and how it affects not only the patient, but all those who cherish and depend on them. Children get less attention. Spouses assume a greater share of household responsibilities. Employers deal with lower productivity.

This memo and a lengthier report will go out to families and physicians across the country with the aid of hundreds of patient-advocate communities I mobilized on social media platforms. Still, it hardly seems like a fair fight. The meek of the Earth versus an army of federally funded Type A regulators and paid expert witnesses falling over one another to advance their careers and pad their bank accounts by making life harder for people to treat their pain.

10. Taking the Battle to the States

You may decide against reading my report, but you will likely hear about it from peers, co-workers or constituents in the months to come. It is making the rounds. State legislatures. Medical boards. Medical associations. Patient advocacy groups. Defense attorneys (I was twice asked to serve as an expert witness by physician counsel). Federal agencies.

In the past two weeks, my associates have disseminated my report to the American Medical Association, AARP, federal and state officials, members of Congress and the White House.

I invite readers to do the same by downloading my report, “There Is No Crisis.” We’re just getting started.

Matthew Giarmo, PhD, is a social psychologist who has worked with terminally ill cancer patients. Matthew authors research-based reports in social phenomena, including the impact on workforce development of the Software Revolution and Great Recession, and the degradation of science by professional and institutional requirements. 

Patient Z and the Criminalization of Pain Care

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Dr. Stefan Franzen is not a physician or pain patient, but his new book is likely to open some eyes about the poor quality of pain care in the United States and the consequences of criminalizing opioid medication.

“Patient Z” is Franzen’s pseudonym for a family member who lives with ankylosing spondylitis, a severe form of arthritis, who was cut off from opioids when his longtime doctor came under investigation and was forced to stop prescribing. Patient Z struggled for years to find a new doctor and effective treatment, at times contemplating suicide during bouts of intense pain.  

When Franzen, a chemistry professor at North Carolina State with an extensive background in biomedical research, tried to help by speaking with doctors – he came to the realization that Patient Z and millions of others like him had been stigmatized, terrorized and abandoned in the name of fighting opioid addiction.   

“There are doctors who would like to help patients like Patient Z, but they feel that matters are out of their hands. There is not likely to be major change until the citizens of the United States realize that the denial of pain management care is an attack on patients’ rights and that what happened to Patient Z can happen to anyone,” Franzen writes.

Franzen’s book is comprehensive and well-researched, with several chapters dedicated to debunking some of the myths about opioids, such as addiction and overdoses being inevitable after high doses and long-term use. Those myths have been codified into medical guidelines, laws and regulations to a point where many doctors are now afraid to prescribe opioids or even see pain patients.

“It feels like the tribe is moving on and leaving the patients behind. Our attitude is ‘everybody for themselves’ and the doctors are saying, ‘Hey, I could go to jail.’ And the patients are screwed, which is absurd. The criminalization of medicine is a big part of this problem,” Franzen told PNN.

“My book looks at this from the point of view of the pain patient. What does this look like? And to realize what it’s like when you’re rejected. You’re afraid you’ll be called an addict. You’re afraid someone is going to cut you off at any time.”

Franzen says the war on drugs has been a misguided failure that has only made drug trafficking worse, with pain patients caught in the crossfire. As an example, he points to Florida’s crackdown on pill mills a decade ago.

“When they finally cracked down, there was this massive switch to heroin. It was in 2011 and the heroin numbers shot up. And of course, everyone went to draw the conclusion that the prescription drug crisis caused the heroin crisis. It’s the wrong conclusion,” says Franzen.

“I think the reason the heroin numbers went up is the way they clamped down. They were shutting down methadone clinics. They were making it as hard as possible for anyone with an addiction problem to get help. Here are all these people who got hooked and they’re shutting every single door. What choice do those people have? They can either go cold turkey and go into withdrawal or, suddenly, there’s a lot of heroin available.”

PROP’s ‘Lack of Ethics’

Franzen acknowledges that at one time opioid prescribing was excessive and it was too easy to get opioid medication. But he says the reaction to that by government regulators and law enforcement was “draconian and just absurd.”

Much of the blame for that, according to Franzen, lies with Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group that questioned whether opioids were even effective in treating pain. That led to what Franzen calls a “medical coup d’état” in which PROP bypassed the FDA and persuaded the CDC to release its controversial opioid guideline in 2016.

Franzen says if PROP founder Dr. Andrew Kolodny, PROP president Dr. Jane Ballantyne and PROP board member Dr. Anna Lembke were in his chemistry class, he’d give them all F’s.  

“They’d get an F because they misrepresented the facts. And they did things that were intellectually dishonest. I’d actually not give them a grade. I’d kick them out of the class. They cheated,” says Franzen. “Their academic papers are bunk. Part of what I do in this book is debunk them. I do exactly what I would do if I was writing about somebody in chemistry, which is my area of research, who I thought had written something that did not make sense and was not supported by the data.

“They’re ignoring all of these facts or even contradicting themselves. They’re suggesting that a patient has to admit they’re an addict before you can treat them. Huh?”

As PNN has reported, Kolodny and Ballantyne have been well-paid expert witnesses for law firms that stand to make billions of dollars in contingency fees from opioid litigation. But they neglected to mention that conflict-of-interest in several papers and had to make new disclosure statements.

“That too is just stunning to me. The lack of ethics by Kolodny and Ballantyne, specifically, is just jaw dropping,” says Franzen. “I hope they read my book and come after me. I want them to know what I said about them and try to defend themselves, because I don’t think that they can.”   

As for Patient Z, Franzen says he is in palliative care and getting opioids again. He needs to use a walker and wheelchair to get around, but the pain is at least tolerable. Patient Z has also become a fierce advocate for patient rights.      

It’s Time for People in Pain To Be Heard

By Carol Levy, PNN Columnist

I just had my second “there's an issue with filling your codeine prescription” incident.

I have been on codeine, on and off, for over 30 years. Initially, I was allowed refills. When that was no longer permitted, my doctor gave me a new prescription, each and every month, for 120 pills.

When my trigeminal neuralgia pain became somewhat better as a result of various surgeries, I often took only 1 or 2 pills per day.

I am now about 90% housebound. Part of it is due to Covid, but mostly it’s because I do not want to go out and make the baseline pain worse. As a result, some days I take no codeine at all. My last prescription was for 120 pills. It was a month’s supply that lasted for 9 months.

The first incident was last year, when my pain management doctor decided, without discussing it with me, that he was no longer writing scripts for 120 codeine pills a month. Instead, he changed it to 10 pills a month.

I was told he didn’t like me having extra pills, a nonsensical excuse as I had no history of giving them away or taking too many. Prescriptions for 120 pills just made it easier for everyone, including the insurance company, since they would be paying less for fewer doctor appointments.

Fortunately, I was able to go to my family doctor, who had no problem writing for 120 pills. They trusted me there, knowing I would not abuse them.

But when I took the script to the pharmacy, I was told, “We can only fill a 7-day supply per your insurance company.”

The worst part about that was not that I would have to repeatedly go back to the pharmacy, but that the cost for each 7-day supply was much more for me out-of-pocket than if they just filled the whole prescription at once.

My Physician Assistant called the insurance company to ask for a pre-authorization. This would allow the pharmacy to fill the entire amount at one time. They immediately allowed it for the next 12 months, which seemed odd.

If they think I should only be getting a 7-day supply, then why allow the whole script to be filled for an entire year? Either I am untrustworthy or I'm not.

I am lucky. I don’t rely on daily opioids to get me out of bed, go to the store or be able to work. So many of us have no other option but to take them. My annoyance is tame compared to what other patients go through, who have been unable to get what they need due to restrictions on prescribing.

Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) recently sent a letter to the AMA saying the organization shouldn’t be calling for changes in the CDC opioid guideline, even though far more people are dying from street drugs than prescription opioids.

“Medically prescribed opioids remain a common gateway to illicit opioid use and are themselves frequent causes of opioid addiction and overdose, even if illicit opioids currently cause the greater number of deaths,” PROP said.

PROP founder Dr. Andrew Kolodny even said that prescriptions “still have a very long way to go” and should be reduced even further.

PROP’s reach is loud and strong. We complain so much to each other, patient support groups, Twitter and other social media about how awful this is, how unfair and inhumane.

A number of people have started online petitions to send to the FDA or CDC, asking that the guidelines be changed so they stop hurting chronic pain patients. Many say, “This is a great idea.” Yet few actually sign.

Nothing will change if we don’t band together and make our voices heard. The call keeps going out, “Something must be done!” But too often the answer is, “Oh yes, somebody must do something. But I'm too busy.”

Whispering in the wind won’t help. It is long past time for us to become a true force, with a voice that is louder and stronger than PROP’s. 

Carol Jay Levy has lived with trigeminal neuralgia, a chronic facial pain disorder, for over 30 years. She is the author of “A Pained Life, A Chronic Pain Journey.”  Carol is the moderator of the Facebook support group “Women in Pain Awareness.” Her blog “The Pained Life” can be found here.

New European Guideline Says Opioids ‘Do Not Work’ for Many Types of Chronic Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Calling opioid medication a “two edged sword,” the European Pain Federation (EFIC) has released new guidelines that strongly recommend against using opioids to treat fibromyalgia, low back pain, migraine, irritable bowel syndrome and other types of chronic non-cancer pain.

“The new recommendations advise that opioids should not be prescribed for people with chronic primary pain as they do not work for these patients,” the EFIC said in a statement.

However, the guideline states that low doses of opioids may be suitable for treating “secondary pain syndromes” caused by surgery, trauma, disease or nerve damage, but only after exercise, meditation and other non-pharmacological therapies are tried first.

“Opioids should neither be embraced as a cure‐all nor shunned as universally dangerous and inappropriate for chronic noncancer pain. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non‐pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed,” the guideline states. “In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients.”

Opioid pain relievers are not as widely used in Europe as they are in the United States or Canada. The EFIC said it was trying to “allay concerns over an opioid crisis” developing in Europe, as it has in North America.       

“As the leading pain science organisation in Europe, it is crucial that EFIC sets the agenda on issues such as opioids, where there are growing societal concerns. These recommendations clarify what role opioids should play in chronic pain management,” EFIC President Brona Fullen said in a statement.

The guideline’s lead author, Professor Winfried Häuser, said he and his colleagues tried to strike a middle ground on the use of opioids.

“The debate on opioid-prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain has become polarized: opioids are either seen as a dangerous risk for all patients, leading to addiction and deaths, or they are promoted as most potent pain killers for any type of pain,” said Häuser, who is an internal medicine specialist in Germany.

“Opioids are still important in the management of chronic non-cancer pain – but only in some selected chronic pain syndromes and only if established non-pharmacological and non-opioids analgesics have failed or are not tolerated.”

PROP Consulted for European Guideline

The guideline was developed by a 17-member task force composed of European experts in pain management, including 9 delegates selected by EFIC’s board “who advocate and who are critical with the use of opioids.” Only one delegate from Pain Alliance Europe represented patients.

The recommendations developed by the task force were reviewed by five outside experts, including Drs. Jane Ballantyne and Mark Sullivan, who belong to Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group in the U.S.  Ballantyne is PROP’s President, while Sullivan is a PROP board member. Several changes suggested by the outside experts were adopted.

Coincidentally, Ballantyne, Sullivan and three other PROP board members were involved in the drafting of the opioid guideline released in 2016 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That controversial guideline is now being rewritten by the CDC after voluminous complaints from patients and doctors that the recommendations led to forced tapering, withdrawal, uncontrolled pain and suicides.

Sullivan and two other PROP board members were also involved in drafting Canada’s 2017 opioid guideline, which was modeled after the CDC’s and provoked similar complaints from Canadian pain patients.

90 MME Recommended Limit

The CDC and Canadian opioid guidelines appear to have been used as resources by the EFIC task force, which adopted many of the same recommendations, even while acknowledging the low quality of evidence used to support them.   

One recommendation is straight out of the CDC guideline, advising European doctors to “start low and go slow.” Prescribers are urged to start patients on low doses of 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) or less a day and to avoid increasing the dosage above 90 MME/day.

One significant difference with the North American guidelines is that the EFIC recommends that opioids not be prescribed for fibromyalgia, migraines and other chronic “primary pain” conditions for which there is no known cause – suggesting those disorders have an emotional or psychological element that will lead to opioid abuse.

“Prescription of high doses of opioids to patients with primary pain syndromes might have been a factor driving the opioid crisis in North America,” the EFIC guideline warns.

“This was further compounded by patient characteristics that included physical and psychological trauma, social disadvantage and hopelessness that served as a trigger for reports of pain intensity prompting prescriptions of more opioids.”

Secondary pain conditions for which opioids “can be considered“ include multiple sclerosis, stroke, restless leg syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, phantom limb pain, non-diabetic neuropathy, spinal cord injuries and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). 

Unlike the North American guidelines, the EFIC acknowledges that there are physical and genetic differences between patients. Some patients who are rapid metabolizers “might require higher dosages of opioids than the ones recommended by the guidelines.“

EFIC GRAPHIC

The EFIC also warns that its guideline should not be used to justify abruptly tapering or discontinuing opioids for anyone already prescribed at higher dosages. The recommendations are also not intended for the management of short-term acute pain, sickle cell disease or end-of-life care.

AMA Scolded for Seeking Changes in CDC Opioid Guideline

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Eight months after the American Medical Association told the CDC that its controversial opioid guideline has “harmed many patients” and needs to be revised, an anti-opioid activist group has accused the AMA of employing false moral arguments to justify using opioid medication to relieve human suffering.

The letter from Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) to AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, takes issue with the AMA’s position that the U.S. “no longer has a prescription opioid epidemic” and instead faces an overdose crisis fueled by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

“These statements send a strong message that opioid prescribing for pain is no longer problematic, and that the CDC’s recommended guardrails are no longer needed. Nothing could be further from the truth,” says the PROP letter, which was signed by the organization’s board of directors.

“There is compelling evidence that many of those currently struggling with opioid dependence and addiction were introduced to opioids through use of medically prescribed opioids used to treat chronic pain. Medically prescribed opioids remain a common gateway to illicit opioid use and are themselves frequent causes of opioid addiction and overdose, even if illicit opioids currently cause the greater number of deaths.”

The CDC’s 2016 guideline was only intended for primary care physicians treating chronic pain, but its voluntary recommendations on opioid prescribing have been widely adopted as policy by federal agencies, states, insurers, pharmacies and doctors of all specialties. The guideline has not only failed to reduce drug deaths – which now stand at record highs – but federal health experts admit that widespread misuse of the guideline has caused “serious harm” to patients, including forced tapering, withdrawal, uncontrolled pain and suicide.    

PROP’s letter to the AMA goes even further than the CDC recommendations, suggesting that opioid medications should only be used for short-term acute pain and end-of-life care.  

“All moral, ethical, regulatory, legal and political arguments that opioids are needed so that people do not suffer needlessly should apply specifically to short-term pain management where there is proven benefit, and not to long term pain management where evidence of benefit is largely anecdotal, and there is compelling evidence of harm,” PROP said.

“Why then is the AMA applying the moral argument to the false premise that people will suffer needlessly if they do not have unrestricted access to opioids? By all means apply moral arguments and principles to make sure opioids are available for the right indications, but it makes no sense at all to suggest that removing guidance on opioid dose and duration is needed so that people with chronic pain do not suffer.”

AMA: ‘Misguided Focus’ on Opioids Harms Patients

To be clear, opioid addiction is rare in patients and the AMA never said that people should have “unrestricted access to opioids.” The AMA called for balanced and individualized care based on patient need, not one-size-fits-all guidelines that dictate dosages or the type of treatment everyone should get.    

In a February 19th letter to PROP, AMA President Dr. Susan Bailey said the group mischaracterized the AMA’s position on opioid treatment.

“When policies or organizations focus only on the restriction of a legitimate pharmacologic option to help patients with pain, they miss the chance to address the complexity of policies needed to truly help patients with pain. That misguided focus also has led to harmful stigmatization and other stressors,” Bailey said.

“That is why the AMA provided comprehensive recommendations on the 2016 CDC Guideline and why we continue to advocate for policies that support comprehensive, multidisciplinary, multimodal pain care, including opioid therapy when appropriate.”

“Patients with chronic pain and patients with substance use disorder both need access to multimodal treatments for their medical care,” said Dr. Chad Kollas, a palliative care specialist who is an AMA delegate and Secretary of American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM).

“AMA and AAHPM have recognized the importance of pursuing balanced opioid policy, policy that protects access to opioid analgesics for patients with medically legitimate needs for those medications, while also protecting the public safety and reducing potential harms of prescribed medications.”

Kollas said PROP’s belated response to the AMA’s position may be an attempt to deflect attention away from a recent report that found deaths due to illicit fentanyl soaring, while overdoses involving prescription opioids remained flat.  The research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting the CDC opioid guideline was ineffective and misdirected.

Although opioid prescribing is at 20-year lows, PROP founder Dr. Andrew Kolodny has said prescriptions “still have a very long way to go” and should be reduced even further. Kolodny recently advised the World Health Organization in the development of a new guideline for treating chronic pain in children, which recommends that opioids only be given to children who are dying or in palliative care.

Slow Progress on Guideline Update

Faced with growing criticism of its own guideline, the CDC announced in 2019 that it was working on an update or possible expansion of its recommendations. Progress has been slow since then.  An advisory group appointed by the agency last summer has had only two preliminary meetings and will not review suggested changes to the guideline until next month, according to an update given Tuesday to the CDC’s Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC).

Draft guidelines are not expected to be available for public comment until the end of this year, meaning any revisions will likely not be finalized until 2022. Patient advocates told the BSC they were disappointed by the lack of progress.

“I would like to urge the members of this panel to please take seriously the issue of timely revision of the CDC guidelines for chronic pain. We have a catastrophe welling out across the country in a wholly marginalized and invisible group. On top of that, we are losing working physicians at a steady rate,” said Terri Lewis, PhD, a patient advocate and rehabilitation specialist. “Everybody is in the gun sights of policy that is not working for anybody. I beg you to please make this an urgent priority.”

PROP Plans to Hire New Executive Director

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

An influential anti-opioid activist group -- Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) – is raising money to hire a new Executive Director to replace Dr. Andrew Kolodny, PNN has learned.

There is no indication that Kolodny is leaving PROP, a volunteer organization that he founded in 2011 to “turn the tide of opioid overprescribing.” But in an unsigned email sent to supporters this week, PROP asked for donations so it could hire a new Executive Director, a position long held by Kolodny.

“We’ve retrenched and brainstormed and have great plans to expand our reach and impact. Our next big step is to hire a paid staff person. Will you help to make this plan a reality? We are trying to raise $100,000 by December 31st to ensure that we can hire an executive director with resources to take PROP's work to the next level. Please help by donating what you can,” the email said.

Supporters who click the donate button on the email will be taken to a PayPal account operated by the Steve Rummler Hope Foundation, which is PROP’s “fiscal sponsor.” PROP is not a charity, but can collect tax deductible donations under the foundation’s non-profit status.

Like PROP, the Rummler foundation’s main goal is to reduce opioid prescribing. Kolodny works closely with the organization and serves on its Medical Advisory Committee, along with PROP President Dr. Jane Ballantyne.   

Kolodny declined to talk with this reporter about what his future role with PROP will be.

“I haven’t had a good experience answering questions from you in the past, so I’m not going to talk with you,” Kolodny told me in a brief phone call.

‘Heroin Pills’

It would be hard to overstate the influence that Kolodny and PROP have had on opioid prescribing in the United States. A psychiatrist who specializes in addiction treatment and former Chief Medical Officer at Phoenix House, Kolodny is the public face of PROP. He lobbied Congress and federal health agencies for years to limit opioid prescribing, and gives frequent media interviews on opioid-related issues.

In a 2015 C-SPAN interview, Kolodny called opioid painkillers “heroin pills” and suggested pain patients shouldn’t trust their own doctors.  

“I wish I could tell you that you should trust your doctor and talk to your doctor about this, but that may not be the case,” he said. “We have doctors even prescribing to teenagers and parents not recognizing that the doctor has just essentially prescribed the teenager the equivalent of a heroin pill.”

PROP achieved its greatest success in 2016, when the CDC released its controversial opioid prescribing guideline, which several PROP members helped draft. Although voluntary, the guideline was soon adopted as mandatory policy by many states, insurers, law enforcement and health organizations

DR. ANDREW KOLODNY

Opioid prescriptions were declining even before the guideline was released and now stand at their lowest level in over a decade. But overdoses keep rising, fueled largely by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs, not pain medication.

PROP’s fundraising pitch takes credit for the decline in prescriptions and doesn’t even mention the role of street drugs in the overdose epidemic.

“PROP has helped turn the tide of opioid overprescribing.The good news is that opioid prescribing has decreased. The bad news is that the US still leads the world in opioid consumption, drug companies continue to undermine progress, and -- since the SARS CoV-2 pandemic -- opioid overdose deaths are on the rise again while prescription opioid use remains a route to opioid addiction and death,” the PROP email states.

‘Killer Kolodny’

Kolodny has drawn the ire of many pain patients, who blame him for their increased suffering, loss of access to opioids, and anecdotal evidence of a rising number of suicides in the pain community.  A small group of patient advocates recently staged a “Killer Kolodny Rally” outside Brandeis University, where he co-directs opioid research at the Heller School for Policy and Management.   

Kolodny dismissed the rally, telling the Brandeis student newspaper that the protestors who want him fired worked for the opioid industry or had fallen under its sway, and were “trying to controversialize science.”      

“There were climate change scientists who were similarly attacked and their universities stood by them, and I think that Brandeis would stand by science,” Kolodny said. 

Many pain patients believe Kolodny has enriched himself by promoting the use of Suboxone, an addiction treatment drug. That unproven allegation led Kolodny to ask for and receive a letter from Indivior, Suboxone’s manufacturer, stating that he does not have a financial interest in the company.    

As PNN has reported, Kolodny has made a substantial amount of money working as a consultant and expert witness for law firms involved in opioid litigation. During Oklahoma’s lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, Kolodny testified that he was being paid $725 an hour and would collect up to $500,000 for his services in that trial alone.  

Kolodny has not always been upfront about who is paying him. Last year he revised his conflict of interest statements on two medical journal articles to include his work in malpractice lawsuits. The articles were co-authored with former CDC director Thomas Frieden.

‘You Ruined My Life’: Patients Blame CDC for Poor Pain Care

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Nearly 5,400 people have left comments in the Federal Register sharing their experiences and concerns about the quality of pain care in the United States. Tuesday was the final day for people to make public comments, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will consider as it updates and possibly expands its controversial opioid prescribing guideline.

Most of the respondents are patients who blame the CDC for their poorly treated or untreated pain. Although the 2016 guideline was only intended for primary care physicians treating chronic pain, the CDC’s recommended limits on opioid prescribing have been widely adopted as policy by federal agencies, states, insurers, pharmacies and many doctors — who use the guideline as excuse to take people off opioids or greatly reduce their doses.  

“The day the CDC guidelines came out, I was taking 400mg oxycodone and leading a productive life. Then I was taken completely off all my medication. I went through hell and wanted to kill myself,” wrote Wren Lum. “I lost my job because I couldn't work anymore. I could no longer get out of bed. Lost my house because I could no longer pay the mortgage. CDC, you ruined my life.”

“I am not being prescribed the right dose of pain medication and it’s all because of the CDC guidelines. I used to be on three times the amount of oxycodone that I am now on and it’s taken away my ability to walk. I’m only 34 years old. This is devastating to me and my family, and now have such a lack of quality of life,” wrote Holly Letendre.

“I was given opioid medicine for 8 years. I could work, volunteer, socialize, care for my children, my husband, my home, and importantly, myself. I now shower every 10-14 days, it's too painful. When I do, I am curled up in horrendous pain for hours afterwards,” said Donna Johnson. “This is due to the CDC’s guidelines. It was then that doctors became afraid to prescribe, even to compliant patients living happy lives. I want my life back.”

The CDC is planning to update or expand the guideline to include recommendations for treating short-term acute pain and tapering patients safely off opioid medication. It took the agency three years to acknowledge that some patients were being taken off opioids too rapidly, putting them at risk of withdrawal, uncontrolled pain and suicide.

“My life has become miserable. I suffer every day after my doctor cut my dosage by almost 90 percent. Ninety percent! My blood pressure meds have had to be tripled. I have gained weight since I am now for all intents and purposes nearly bedridden,” said Kendal Rice in her comment to the CDC. “You people are just monsters. Every one of you. You certainly are not healers.”

PROP ‘Urgent Action Request’

Thousands of people – mostly pain patients and their loved ones – left comments critical of the CDC guideline. That prompted anti-opioid activists to launch their own campaign in support of the agency.

Dr. Andrew Kolodny, founder and Executive Director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), emailed an “urgent action request” to supporters last night, urging them to leave their own comments. He claimed without any evidence that the backlash against the CDC was bankrolled by drug companies.

“The CDC has been receiving pressure to weaken the recommendations in its 2016 CDC Guideline,” wrote Kolodny. “Not surprisingly, much of this pressure is coming from pain organizations funded by drug companies and from opioid-dependent pain patients. Many of these patients are fearful and angry because they're having a harder time finding clinicians willing to prescribe opioids aggressively.” 

In a joint letter to CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield, Kolodny and several PROP members said the guideline was “tremendously helpful” to primary care physicians and has led to “downward trends in inappropriate prescribing.” The letter also claimed that long term use of opioids often makes pain worse and leads to “intolerable negative mood changes” in patients. 

“We know from clinical experience and from controlled studies that opioids are rarely beneficial for chronic pain,” Kolodny wrote. “Now is not the time to reverse the gains of the 2016 guideline. The focus now should be twofold: to find better ways to help people already on opioids and improve access to better means than opioids to treat chronic pain.” 

Alternative Treatments

Many patients say they’ve already tried non-opioid treatments and found them ineffective for severe pain. 

“The majority of antidepressant and anti-seizure medications available today pose just as much a risk for dependency, withdrawal and death as opioids, if not more. Yet these medications are prescribed 1,000 times more and have much more severe side effects and withdrawal effects,” wrote Lois Luesing, who says her 36-year old son is housebound and unable to work because of chronic pain.

“He’s tried numerous available Rx meds, creams, alternative treatments, supplements, patches, etc. and nothing works. The only medication that will work to relieve his pain and give him his life back are opioids, yet we can’t find a doctor to prescribe this life-saving medication for him. It’s not his fault that’s the only thing that works. There are millions of others that this is the same for.”

Some patients have found alternatives that do work.  Although the herbal supplement kratom isn’t even mentioned in the CDC guideline, hundreds of kratom users left comments in the Federal Register asking the CDC not to regulate kratom.  

“Kratom is a life saver for me. I was being personally prescribed opiates for almost 20 years due to chronic pain. Although I always took as directed and never let them ruin my life, there's a very fine line to not go over the edge with them. They are so addictive and pretty dangerous for that matter. Since finding kratom this past year, I've been able to stop taking the opiates,” wrote Michael B. “Please don’t take this wonderful plant away from us. I assure you it will end up destroying many people's lives.” 

An update to the CDC guideline is not expected until late 2021, nearly six years after the initial guideline was released.  The agency has funded a series of new studies on opioid and non-opioid treatments for chronic pain.

The report on opioids was released in April. It concluded that opioids were no more effective in treating pain than nonopioid medication, and that long-term use of opioids increases the risk of abuse, addiction and overdose.

PROP Linked to New Federal Opioid Study

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A small but influential group of anti-opioid activists continues to play an outsized role in guiding federal policy on the use of opioid pain medication.

The latest example is a new report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) on the effectiveness of opioids in treating chronic pain. In a lengthy review of over 150 clinical studies, AHRQ researchers concluded that opioids were no more effective in treating pain than nonopioid medication, and that long-term use of opioids increases the risk of abuse, addiction and overdose, especially at high doses.

The findings are essentially the same as those in a draft report released by the AHRQ last year. What’s different is that the agency finally disclosed the authors of the report and the outside advisors they consulted with. They include a cabal of academic researchers and physicians with biased views about opioids that federal agencies keep bringing in as consultants.   

The AHRQ’s report confirms what PNN reported in November. The study was led by Dr. Roger Chou, a primary care physician who heads the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University.

Most public health researchers keep a low profile to avoid accusations of bias, but Chou has been a vocal critic of opioid prescribing for years. In a 2019 podcast, for example, Chou said the benefits of opioids were “clinically insignificant” and the medications were often quite harmful.

“The impact of prescription opioids in terms of mortality and substance use disorder and all the other things that come along with it have really been quite staggering,” he said.

Chou also served on a state task force last year that supported a rigid opioid tapering policy. If adopted, the policy would have forced thousands of Oregon’s Medicaid patients off opioids.

DR. ROGER CHOU

“I don’t think there’s anything compassionate about leaving people on drugs that could potentially harm them,” Chou said.

Collaboration with PROP

Chou has collaborated on several occasions with members of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an advocacy group that seeks to reduce the use of opioid medication. PROP has never disclosed its donors or funding.

Last year Chou co-authored an op/ed with PROP President Dr. Jane Ballantyne and PROP board member Dr. Anna Lembke that encourages doctors to consider tapering “every patient receiving long term opioid therapy.”

In 2011, Chou co-authored another op/ed with PROP founder Dr. Andrew Kolodny and PROP vice-president Dr. Michael Von Korff. 

The article was prescient because it called for a major overhaul of opioid guidelines that were then primarily developed by pain management specialist organizations.

“Guidelines for long-term opioid therapy should not be developed by the field of pain medicine alone.”

— Kolodny, Chou, et al 2011

“Guidelines for long-term opioid therapy should not be developed by the field of pain medicine alone. Rather, experts from general medicine, addiction medicine, and pain medicine should jointly reconsider how to increase the margin of safety,” they said.

That major overhaul came in 2016, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released its controversial opioid guideline, which soon displaced all of the other guidelines. Chou was one of the co-authors of the CDC guideline – so it’s not altogether surprising that the AHRQ study reaffirms many of the CDC’s conclusions.

“Findings support the recommendation in the 2016 CDC guideline that opioids are not first-line therapy and to preferentially use nonopioid alternatives,” Chou and his colleagues wrote.

In preparing the AHRQ study, researchers sought input from a dozen outside experts, who served as technical experts and peer reviewers. Three of the 12 are PROP board members: Drs. Mark Sullivan and David Tauben were technical experts, and PROP vice-president Dr. Gary Franklin was a peer reviewer. Sullivan, Tauben and Franklin are all professors at the University of Washington, and played prominent roles in the development of Washington state’s opioid prescribing regulations, which are some of the toughest in the nation.

Another peer reviewer was Dr. Erin Krebs, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School. Krebs was the lead author of a controversial 2018 study that found non-opioid pain relievers worked better than opioids in treating osteoarthritis pain. While some critics said the study was poorly designed and amounted to junk science, it drew praise from Chou.

"The fact that opioids did worse is really pretty astounding," Chou told the Chicago Tribune. "It calls into question our beliefs about the benefits of opioids." 

In addition to her work as a researcher, Krebs also appeared in a lecture series on opioid prescribing funded by the Steve Rummler Hope Foundation, which lobbies against the use of opioids. The non-profit foundation is the fiscal sponsor of PROP, and Kolodny and Ballantyne both serve on its medical advisory committee.

If these intertwining connections are making your head spin, there’s more.

Core Expert Group

Ballantyne, Franklin and Krebs served on the “Core Expert Group” that advised the CDC when it drafted its opioid guideline, and Tauben was on the CDC’s peer review panel. Kolodny and yet another PROP board member, Dr. David Juurlink, were part of a “Stakeholder Review Group” that provided input to the CDC.

When PNN filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to see what kind of advice the Core Expert Group gave to the CDC, we were stiff-armed by the agency. The CDC sent us nearly 1,500 pages of documents, but most were so heavily redacted they were completely blank.    

Even financial conflict of interest statements were scrubbed of information, with the CDC citing “personal privacy” and “deliberative process privilege” as reasons not to provide them in full.

At least two unidentified members of the Core Expert Group worked for or consulted with organizations with an interest in opioids or other controlled substances. One of those individuals also provided “expert opinion or testimony,” which has become a lucrative sideline for some PROP members.

Critics wonder why federal health agencies keep bringing in consultants with obvious biases and conflicts of interest.

“The AHRQ review presents itself as an objective scientific analysis of the medical literature. In my opinion, the document is arguably contaminated with a political agenda,” says Dr. Dan Laird, a physician attorney in Las Vegas. “Some of those involved in the review could be perceived by the chronic pain community as having strong anti-opioid political views and biased ideas about the meaning and treatment of chronic pain.

“Most importantly, there is no input whatsoever from the chronic pain community in the review. There are certainly chronic pain patients with academic credentials that would qualify them to conduct a literature review. Several highly regarded academic physicians and scientists, known for opioid moderatism, are conspicuously absent as investigators, peer reviewers, or technical experts; these include pain medicine academicians such as Drs. Michael Schatman, Sean Mackey, Stefan Kertesz, and Vanila Singh.”

AHRQ Conflict Policy

If a peer reviewer or technical expert has a financial or professional conflict of interest, that does not automatically disqualify them in the eyes of the AHRQ, which will retain them “because of their unique clinical or content expertise.”  

It’s also been a long-standing AHRQ policy not to disclose the names of advisors or authors until its reports are finalized.

“This policy is aimed at helping the authors maintain their independence by not being subject to lobbying by industry reps or others with conflicts of interest, either financial or intellectual,” AHRQ spokesman Bruce Seeman explained in an email.

But others wonder if the policy damages the agency’s reputation and the credibility of its research, by not giving the public a chance to review and comment on possible biases before a final report is released. The American Medical Association urged the AHRQ to change its policy last year.

“We would suggest that AHRQ publish the list of all those involved in any aspect of the report during the comment period to help remove any perception of potential conflict,” Dr. James Madara, the AMA’s Executive Director and CEO, wrote in a letter to the agency last year.

CDC Guideline Update

It might be tempting to dismiss the work of an obscure federal agency that produces wonky reports that are mostly read by public health researchers and government bureaucrats. That would be a mistake. It was a 2014 AHRQ report on opioids – co-authored by Chou – that played a foundational role in the CDC guideline.

Although the CDC guideline is voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians treating chronic pain, it has become mandatory policy for doctors in all specialties, as well as other federal agencies, dozens of states, insurers, pharmacy chains and law enforcement agencies. In effect, the guideline has delivered on the goals sought by Kolodny, Von Korff and Chou in 2011. The standard of care in pain management is no longer determined by pain specialists.

Chou and his colleagues hope the new AHRQ report will have a similar impact, not just in government, but throughout the healthcare system.

“The information in this report is intended to help healthcare decision makers — patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others — make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of healthcare services,” they said.

In addition to its report on opioid treatments for chronic pain, AHRQ has also finalized studies on the effectiveness of Nonopioid Medications for Chronic Pain and Nonpharmacologic Treatments for Chronic Pain, such as acupuncture and meditation.

All three reports will be utilized by the CDC as it prepares an update and expansion of its opioid guideline, which is expected in late 2021.  That effort is being overseen by the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC’s Center for Injury Prevention & Control.  Roger Chou happens to be one of its members.  

What Is CDC Trying to Hide?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made little attempt at openness and transparency when it released a draft version of its controversial opioid guideline in September 2015.

No public hearings were held. Only a select audience was invited to a secretive online webinar in which CDC officials hurriedly outlined the guideline and then refused to answer any questions about it. The guideline wasn’t posted on the CDC website and no copies were made available.

Even more puzzling is that the CDC refused to disclose who wrote the guideline or served on advisory panels such as the so-called “Core Expert Group” that played a key role in drafting the recommendations. Their names leaked out anyway.

What was the agency trying to hide?

Those issues were important five years ago, just as they are today.  While the opioid guideline was only intended as a recommendation for primary care physicians treating chronic pain, it has effectively become the law of the land for all doctors in every specialty – and adopted as policy by states, insurers, pharmacy chains and law enforcement agencies.

As a result, in the name of preventing addiction, millions of pain patients have been cut off from opioids and gone without adequate pain treatment, with an untold number of suffering souls committing suicide.

Only when threatened with a lawsuit and a congressional investigation of the guideline process did the CDC back down, delaying the release of the guideline for a few months. Hearings were held, public comments were accepted, and CDC revealed the names of its experts and outside advisors, including some who had strong biases against opioids.

Five were board members of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), a small but influential advocacy group founded by Dr. Andrew Kolodny, a psychiatrist who was then-medical director of Phoenix House, an addiction treatment chain. PROP President Jane Ballantyne, MD, and Vice-President Gary Franklin, MD, were members of the Core Expert Group, while board member David Tauben, MD, served on the CDC’s peer review panel. PROP member David Juurlink, MD, and Kolodny himself were part of a “Stakeholder Review Group” that provided input to the CDC.

Concerned about the apparent one-sided approach to the guideline, a bipartisan group of congressmen on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee wrote a letter to then-CDC director Thomas Frieden, a longtime associate of Kolodny.

“We expect CDC’s guidelines drafting process to seek an appropriate balance between the risk of addiction and the need to address chronic pain,” wrote Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). “The CDC has utilized a ‘Core Expert Group’ in the drafting and development of opioid prescribing guidelines, raising questions as to whether CDC is complying with FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act).”

Chaffetz and his colleagues asked Frieden to supply documents and information about the guideline process “as soon as possible.”

‘Some Information Was Withheld’

We were curious about Frieden’s response and filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the CDC last year, asking for “copies of all documents, emails, memos and other communications” that the agency sent in response to Chaffetz’s letter.

The CDC’s reply, received a few weeks ago, is just as puzzling and secretive as the agency’s actions in 2015.  Nearly 1,500 pages of documents provided to PNN were heavily redacted or scrubbed of all information. As a result, over 1,200 pages were completely blank.

“We located 1,449 pages of responsive records and two Excel workbooks (108 pages released in full; 103 pages disclosed in part; 1,238 pages withheld in full). After a careful review of these pages, some information was withheld from release,” Roger Andoh, who heads the CDC’s FOIA Office, wrote in a letter to PNN.

Andoh cited two FOIA exemptions to justify withholding the information. The first exemption protects material under a broad declaration of “deliberative process privilege.” Material that’s in draft form, including a reviewer’s comments and recommendations, can be withheld by the government because they are “predecisional and deliberative.”

The second FOIA exemption cited by Andoh protects information that is private because releasing it would be “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”  

The privacy exemption was applied often to documents from a June 23, 2015 meeting of the Core Expert Group. We can see from the agenda that it was an important meeting, with clinical evidence about opioids reviewed in the morning, followed by a lengthy panel discussion in the afternoon. But we don’t know who said what because the minutes from that meeting have been deleted.

Whenever you see the notations “(b)(5)” or “(b)(6)” appear means that some information was withheld.

SOURCE: cdc foia office

The privacy exemption was also applied to the financial conflict of interest statements filed by all 17 members of the Core Expert Group (CEG). Their names and signatures were redacted, so we have no idea who they were or what conflicts they declared.

One CEG member checked a box indicating they did consulting work for “a commercial entity or other organization with an interest related to controlled substances.” Opioids are a controlled substance and so is Suboxone, an addiction treatment drug. It would be important to know who that person was, but their name was redacted, along with name of the organization they worked for.

The same individual also checked a box indicating they “provided an expert opinion or testimony.” But because the information was redacted, we don’t know if the person was paid for their testimony and, if so, who they were paid by and what the amount was.

Information was also withheld about other CEG members who were given grants, honoraria, and reimbursement for travel and lodging by organizations with an interest in controlled substances. One CEG member was actually employed by such an organization, but we don’t know who that was or who they worked for..

In short, several members of the Core Expert Group had a financial conflict of interest and disclosed it to the CDC, but the agency has decided – five years later -- that information should not be made public.

‘There Was a Cover-Up Here’

We asked three advocates in the pain community to review the documents CDC provided to PNN. All three were puzzled why so much information was withheld.

“I think what they sent is an embarrassment. There is no reasonable or rational explanation to redact any part of a suggested guideline process especially since the CDC admits the guidelines were misapplied and misinterpreted,” said Julie Killingworth, a disabled activist. “I believe the ridiculously heavy number of redactions is a clear admission of guilt. The CDC has committed at least one or multiple federal crimes and the House Oversight Committee needs to closely revisit their December 18, 2015 letter of concern to Dr. Tom Frieden.”

“There was indeed a cover-up here, grounded primarily on the escape clauses in the FOIA enabling legislation which exempts the government from revealing its internal processes or consultations to the public,” said Richard “Red” Lawhern, PhD, who heads the Alliance for the Treatment of Intractable Pain. “Unfortunately, this broad exception to full public disclosure permits agencies to hide their own biases, failures of transparency, or arbitrary decisions.    

“Masking the identities of individuals who contribute to policy can also make it practically impossible to assess bias, conflict of interest, or outright misrepresentation. The extensive redacting of documents raises concern that the reviewing office has engaged in a broad cover-up by masking the identities and professional or personal affiliations of those who contributed to the CDC Guidelines." 

“It could well be that there would be nothing surprising or unseemly in the redacted information. But if you don't want people to think you are trying to hide something nefarious, then the old saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant certainly would seem to apply here,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, a former executive director of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management, who was also a member of the CDC’s Stakeholder Review Group. 

“It's mystifying and sad to me that CDC will not reveal who was involved in the deliberations that led to the issuance of its opioid prescribing guideline, even though they have publicly revealed much of this information elsewhere.” 

Twillman points out that the identities of the Core Expert Group, as well as other advisors and contributors to the guideline, were all published in a JAMA article and by the CDC itself when the final guideline was released in 2016.  

Redacting their names and conflicts of interest, as well as minutes and notes from their deliberations, is likely to fuel long-standing suspicion in the pain community that the guideline process was tainted by bias and that much of the clinical evidence was cherry-picked.

“What's worse for me is the refusal to help people understand the deliberative process that went into drafting the recommendations in the guideline,” says Twillman. “An interesting issue that is probably covered by the redacted material is the decision to reject any evidence except RCTs (randomized controlled trials) when evaluating benefits of opioids, but to accept weaker types of evidence when evaluating harms of opioids. Why did the group decide this was acceptable, and not insist on a level playing field for evidence regarding these two questions?” 

The CDC recently announced plans to update and expand its opioid guideline, most likely to include the treatment of short-term, acute pain. Whether the agency will use more transparency and openness in that process remains to be seen. The updated guideline is expected in 2021.

CDC Considering ‘Update or Expansion’ of Opioid Guideline

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released its controversial opioid prescribing guideline in March 2016, it pledged to study the impact of the guideline on patients, doctors and pain treatment in the United States.

“CDC is committed to evaluating the guideline to identify the impact of the recommendations on clinician and patient outcomes, both intended and unintended, and revising the recommendations in future updates when warranted,” the agency said.

Three and a half years later, after widespread reports of patient suffering, abandonment and suicide, the CDC may finally be getting around to an update. But it may not be what patients and doctors were hoping for.

In a meeting next week of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), guideline co-author Dr. Deborah Dowell is scheduled to give a 30-minute presentation entitled “Background for Updating the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids.”

According to the agenda for the December 4 meeting in Atlanta, Dowell’s presentation will be preceded by an update from NCIPC Director Dr. Debra Houry, who oversaw development of the opioid guideline. Presentations are also planned on overdose prevention and the formation of an “Opioid Workgroup.”

“CDC is scheduled to give a background presentation for a potential update/expansion of the CDC Guideline,” Courtney Lenard, a CDC spokesperson, said in an email to PNN. “CDC will also request that NCIPC’s BSC establish an Opioid Workgroup to provide expert input and observations on a possible update or expansion of the guideline.”

Public pressure has been building on the CDC to clarify the guideline — but not to expand it. Although voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians treating chronic pain, the guideline’s recommended limits on opioid prescribing have been widely adopted as policy by federal agencies, state governments, insurers, pharmacy chains and many doctors.

The guideline has also been applied to short-term acute pain situations, such as patients being treated for post-surgical pain or emergency room trauma. Last year, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said he wanted the agency to develop opioid prescribing guidelines for acute pain and to use a new enhanced data system to track overdoses in hospital emergency rooms.

“I hope this does not become CDC Prescribing Guideline 2.0. In the original CDC Guideline, the identity of the key expert group was unknown, there were concerns over conflict of interest and secrecy, and legislatures or regulatory agencies eventually adopted the guideline and treated it as gospel despite the limitations stated in the report,” said Stephen Ziegler, PhD, a Professor Emeritus at Purdue University.

Last year the American Medical Association took a stand against the “misapplication” and “inappropriate use” of the guideline -- and adopted a resolution stating that some patients “can benefit from taking opioids at greater dosages than recommended by the CDC.”   

In April, the Food and Drug Administration warned that many patients were being tapered off opioids inappropriately, putting them at risk of withdrawal, uncontrolled pain and suicide. That was followed days later by a pledge from Redfield to re-evaluate the guideline and “clarify its recommendations.”

A clarification is long overdue. In a PNN survey early this year of over 6,000 pain patients and healthcare providers, an overwhelming majority said the guideline was harmful to patients and should be revised.

“Cannot understand or know why the CDC will not speak out on the harm done to undertreated, denied and abandoned patients,” one patient told us.

“The guidelines were written in secret, and the carnage that we predicted has come to pass,” said an emergency medicine physician.

“They should be revoked. People are suffering and committing suicide due to inability to tolerate suffering. This is inhumane,” another provider wrote. “It blemishes CDC’s reputation.”

CDC Funding AHRQ Studies

Instead of getting input from doctors and patients on the impact of the guideline, the CDC appears to be focused on more research to help expand its use. PNN has learned that the CDC is funding three new studies on the effectiveness of opioid and non-opioid therapies — essentially doubling down on previous research that found little evidence that opioids are effective for chronic pain.    

“CDC is funding the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) through an interagency agreement to conduct systematic reviews of new scientific evidence that has been published since the Opioid Prescribing Guideline was released,” said CDC’s Lenard. “The reviews will evaluate the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of opioids, non-opioid pharmacologic therapy, and nonpharmacologic therapy for chronic and acute pain.

“Results of these reviews will help CDC determine whether evidence gaps have been addressed and if the Opioid Prescribing Guideline should be updated or expanded. If a Guideline update or expansion occurs, the development process would include consideration of findings from the systematic reviews and an additional public comment period through the Federal Register once an update or expansion is drafted.”

All three AHRQ studies were awarded on the same day – at an estimated cost of $1.1 million – to the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, which is headed by Dr. Roger Chou, one of the co-authors of the CDC guideline.

As PNN has reported, Chou is a primary care physician and longtime researcher who has publicly aligned himself with Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an influential anti-opioid activist group that seeks drastic reductions in the use of opioid medication.  

Chou recently co-authored an article with PROP President Dr. Jane Ballantyne and PROP board member Dr. Anna Lembke that encourages doctors to consider tapering “every patient receiving long term opioid therapy.”

Chou also consulted with PROP founder Dr. Andrew Kolodny and other PROP members for Oregon Pain Guidance, an advisory group that claims opioid tapering “will improve the quality of life for the majority of patients.”

DR. ROGER CHOU

It is not clear if PROP members are also involved in the three AHRQ studies, as they were in drafting the CDC guideline. But critics say Chou’s continuing association with PROP raises questions about his impartiality as a researcher.

“For years, we have called out a ‘False Narrative’ that prescription opioids drive the current overdose crisis; current data shows this is demonstrably false,” said Dr. Chad Kollas, a palliative care specialist in Florida. “We have not done as well calling out a “Hidden Narrative,” where PROP-affiliated physicians have wrongly influenced and encouraged the misapplication of federal policy in a way that has systematically harmed vulnerable patients in pain. We must call out their conflicts of interest loudly now.”

As a matter of policy, AHRQ does not release conflict of interest statements or disclose the names of its consultants, investigators and peer reviewers until after its reports are finalized. The AMA is recommending that the agency end that policy.

“We would suggest that AHRQ publish the list of all those involved in any aspect of the report… to help remove any perception of potential conflict,” Dr. James Madara, the AMA’s Executive Director and CEO, wrote in a letter to AHRQ. The letter also urges the agency to clearly state that the opioid epidemic was not fueled by prescription opioids and that its research should not be used to justify tapering.

Draft versions of the three AHRQ studies have been completed and were recently posted for 30 days on the agency’s website. They were removed after a public comment period ended, which is another AHRQ policy. Fortunately, PNN was able to obtain copies before the draft reports were withdrawn from public view.

• Opioid Treatments for Chronic Pain

• Nonopioid Pharmacologic Treatments for Chronic Pain

• Nonpharmacologic Treatment for Chronic Pain

What did Chou and his researchers conclude? The three draft reviews support many of the same conclusions as the CDC guideline — hardly a surprise since Chou helped write the guideline.

“For patients with chronic pain, opioids are associated with small beneficial effects versus placebo but are associated with increased risk of short-term harms and do not appear to be superior to nonopioid therapy. Evidence on intermediate-term and long-term benefits remains very limited and additional evidence confirms an association between opioids and increased risk of serious harms,” one draft says. 

“Findings of this review, with expansion of scope to include short-term trials, support the recommendation in the 2016 CDC guideline that opioids are not first-line therapy for chronic pain and to preferentially use nonopioid alternatives.”    

The AHRQ expects to release final versions of the three pain management reports in early 2020. A list of experts and informants will be released at that time, along with any conflicts of interest. 

Still unclear is what the CDC will do with the reports and what kind of “update or expansion” the agency is considering for its opioid guideline.

PROP President Discloses Conflicts of Interest

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) – an influential anti-opioid activist group – has worked as a paid consultant for the national law firm of Motley Rice, which stands to make billions of dollars in contingency fees from opioid litigation.

Dr. Jane Ballantyne disclosed her work with Motley Rice in a revised disclosure statement recently made public by the Annals of Internal Medicine, a prominent medical journal. Ballantyne co-authored an op/ed in the journal in September that called for “every patient receiving long-term opioid therapy” to be assessed by doctors for tapering off the drugs.

In her original conflicts of interest statement, Ballantyne did not disclose her work for Motley Rice, her affiliation with PROP or any other conflicts. 

“In a recent Ideas and Opinions commentary, Dr. Ballantyne did not disclose that she has received personal fees for the multidistrict opioid litigation because her consultancy in the litigation was under a confidentiality agreement. Dr. Ballantyne has now updated her disclosure because her role in the multidistrict litigation has since become public knowledge,” the medical journal said in a statement.

Ballantyne did not disclose the amount of compensation she received from Motley Rice.

Dr. Anna Lembke, a Stanford psychiatrist who co-authored the Annals article, said in her initial disclosure statement that she was also a paid expert witness in opioid litigation, but did not reveal what law firm she works for. In a new statement, Lembke discloses that she is a PROP board member.

“In the spirit of full transparency, Drs. Ballantyne and Lembke have decided to disclose their involvement in Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) as well. PROP is a 501c3 charitable organization. Their roles are volunteer positions without financial remuneration,” the journal said.

The claim that PROP is a 501c3 non-profit organization is puzzling because PROP is not a registered charity with the Internal Revenue Service. Instead it uses the Steve Rummler Hope Network as its "fiscal sponsor" -- an IRS designation that allows PROP to piggyback onto another organization’s 501c3 status. Because it is not a charity, PROP has never filed a federal or state tax return and is not required to disclose anything about its revenue, donations or spending.

Ballantyne and Lembke are not the first PROP members to revise their financial disclosure statements or to work as paid consultants in opioid litigation. PROP founder and Executive Director Dr. Andrew Kolodny recently revised his conflict of interest statements for the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) to include his work in opioid malpractice lawsuits.  

DR. JANE BALLANTYNE

Ballantyne, a retired anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, is a controversial figure in the pain community because of her role in drafting the CDC’s controversial 2016 opioid prescribing guideline. Many blame the guideline for a surge in suicides by patients who were abandoned by their doctors or forcibly taken off opioids.

Although Ballantyne was known to have strong negative opinions about prescription opioids and worked in the past as a paid consultant for Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll  -- another law firm involved in opioid litigation – she was still allowed to serve on the “Core Expert Group” that advised the CDC when it drafted the guideline. Several other PROP members also served as advisors to the CDC, which the agency did not disclose until it was threatened with a lawsuit.

Lucrative Sideline

As PNN has reported, working as a paid consultant or expert witness has become a lucrative sideline for Kolodny and other anti-opioid activists. The lawyers that hire them are eager to have them testify in opioid litigation cases that will likely reward their law firms with billions of dollars in contingency fees.  

Kolodny recently testified as the “star witness” for Oklahoma in its opioid negligence lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. For that, he was paid $725 an hour by Nix Patterson & Roach, one of three law firms hired by Oklahoma to handle the case against J&J. Kolodny, who stands to make up to $500,000 for his testimony in the Oklahoma case, also acknowledged working as a consultant for Cohen Milstein at a rate of $725 an hour.

Cohen Milstein and Motley Rice are lead counsels in a national opioid litigation case in Cleveland that has consolidated about 2,600 lawsuits filed by states, cities and counties against opioid manufacturers and distributors. According to Legal NewsLine, the law firms could take home 40% of any settlements, which are projected to reach about $50 billion.

“The firm that stands to win the most will likely be Motley Rice, which pioneered the strategy of joining forces with government attorneys to sue the tobacco industry in the 1990s. Motley Rice name partner Joe Rice has never revealed his personal take from the $260 billion tobacco deal but private lawyers in total will receive $14 billion from the multi-year agreement,” Legal Newsline reported.   

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has complained that legal fees in the opioid litigation case are too high. The judge has also warned attorneys to fly coach and limit their hotel rooms to $450 a night.

Many of the lawyers involved in the case are major political donors. Motley Rice attorneys gave over $700,000 to political candidates in 2018, while the law firm of Simmons Hanly Conroy donated over $1 million, much of it going to Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) in her failed bid for reelection.

Coincidentally, McCaskill released a report last year that was sharply critical of physician and patient advocacy groups for accepting money from opioid manufacturers. Three organizations cited in the McCaskill report — the American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Geriatric Society, and the American Pain Society — were named as defendants in opioid lawsuits filed by Simmons Hanly.  

Kolodny Clarifies His Conflicts of Interest

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Dr. Andrew Kolodny has revised his conflict of interest statements for two articles he co-authored in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) to include his work in malpractice lawsuits involving opioid medication.

Kolodny, the founder and Executive Director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), is a longtime critic of opioid prescribing. He recently testified as the “star witness” for Oklahoma in its opioid negligence lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, a case the state won with a $572 million judgement against J&J.

“I am writing to provide additional information to clarify conflict of interest disclosures in 2 articles I published in JAMA in 2017 and 2018.  During this time, I received compensation for work as an expert in malpractice litigation involving opioid prescribing,” Kolodny wrote in a Sept. 4 letter to JAMA’s editors.

“When the articles were first published, I did not believe this work could be perceived as a potential conflict of interest. My view has since changed. In the spirit of full transparency, I am requesting a correction to my disclosure statements.”

The two JAMA articles in question, which were co-authored by former CDC director Thomas Frieden, MD, both dealt with the opioid crisis and the federal policy response to it.

JAMA disclosure policy is very clear and requires authors to list “all relevant financial interests, activities, relationships and affiliations,” including payments for employment, consultancies and expert testimony.

During the Oklahoma trial, Kolodny admitted under questioning by J&J lawyers that he was being paid $725 an hour by Nix Patterson & Roach, one of three law firms hired by Oklahoma to handle the case against J&J. Kolodny anticipated being paid up to $500,000 by the end the Oklahoma trial.

“I don’t think it should be a secret that I’m being compensated,” he said.  

Kolodny also acknowledged working for the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in a similar capacity, also for $725 an hour. Cohen Milstein is heavily involved in opioid litigation in New Jersey, Indiana, Vermont, California and Illinois. 

Kolodny’s work in opioid litigation was disclosed in the April 2018 JAMA article.

DR. ANDREW KOLODNY

His revised disclosure statement for that article is vague, stating that he worked as “a medical expert for states and counties that have filed suits against opioid manufacturers and as an expert witness in malpractice cases involving opioid prescribing.” It does not identify which states, counties and law firms he worked for or what companies were being sued. 

JAMA policy calls for “complete disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest” covering a three-year period prior to an article being submitted. If an author received funding from the pharmaceutical industry, for example, he or she would be expected to identify the company involved.   

“It is encouraging that Dr. Kolodny has recognized that his very profitable work supporting plaintiffs in opioid lawsuits might constitute a conflict of interest when he writes about opioid policy and clinical practice,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, a healthcare policy consultant and former Executive Director of the Academy of Pain Management. “Of course, these aren't the only two articles Dr. Kolodny has co-authored, and he has done numerous presentations at professional meetings as well, so I wonder if he will seek to correct all the rest of those relevant disclosure statements.

“I think it's also interesting that, when I disclose my conflict, I am always required to specifically name the entity involved, yet Dr. Kolodny names neither the jurisdictions nor the law firms for which he was working. It seems a little like a double standard to me, and I wonder how the editorial boards of the relevant journals feel about that.”

In March 2017, Kolodny co-authored a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine on a study he designed that looked into funding that patient advocacy groups and professional organizations received from opioid manufacturers. Many of those organizations publicly opposed the CDC’s controversial opioid prescribing guideline, which Kolodny and other PROP members helped draft.

“The CDC did not prompt or require organizations to disclose their financial associations as part of their comments. Disclosure, however, is one means of managing conflicts of interest,” Kolodny and his co-authors wrote. “Our findings demonstrate that greater transparency is required about the financial relationships between opioid manufacturers and patient and professional groups.”

Kolodny’s disclosure statement for the 2017 article states that he was a member of PROP and Chief Medical Officer for the addiction treatment chain Phoenix House (which he has since left). It makes no mention of his work in opioid litigation or malpractice lawsuits, which may have begun at a later date.

Lucrative Sideline

Kolodny is not the only critic of opioid prescribing to develop a lucrative sideline as a medical expert or paid witness. Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, Director of PharmedOUT, a program at Georgetown University that seeks to expose deceptive healthcare marketing practices, has also been paid handsomely for her testimony.

In August, Fugh-Berman testified in California that she was paid $500 an hour for her work in a pelvic mesh liability trial of Johnson & Johnson. She received about $120,000 for her work on the case, according to Northern California Record.

Fugh-Berman has written several op/eds claiming that “industry-funded attacks” on the CDC guideline by physician and patient advocacy groups were part of a “coordinated attempt by opioid manufacturers to use third parties to undermine, discredit, and smear the guideline.”

Fugh-Berman discloses on PharmedOUT’s website that she is a paid expert witness, but she won’t say who funds her organization.

“(We) are funded primarily by individual donations, mostly small donations but we have several major donors. We do not provide the names of our individual donors,” she said in an email to PNN.  

Dr. Timothy Munzing, a Kaiser Permanente family practice physician in California, has also stoutly defended the CDC guideline and warned against excessive opioid prescribing.

“Most prescribing physicians feeding the opioid epidemic are well meaning, naïve, or just too busy to recognize the dangers,” he wrote in a physician guide for opioid prescribing published by Kaiser Permanente.

Over the past decade, Munzing has established a profitable career as an expert witness for the Medical Board of California, DEA, FBI and DOJ, working mostly on cases that involve doctors flagged for overprescribing opioids.

According to GovTribe.com, which tracks payments to federal contractors, Munzing has been awarded nearly $1.3 million in DOJ contracts since 2017 and is currently working on over two dozen DEA investigations.

After he left Phoenix House, Kolodny became the co-director of an opioid research program at Brandeis University that is funded with over $8.5 million federal grants, according to GovTribe.com.