Chronic Pain Surged in U.S. After Pandemic

By Pat Anson

Rates of chronic pain and disabling pain surged in the United States after the Covid pandemic, reaching the highest levels ever recorded, according to a new study.

In 2019, about 20.5% of Americans (50 million people) had chronic pain and 7.5% had high-impact pain, which is pain strong enough to limit daily life and work activity.

Pain prevalence remained stable during the pandemic, and by some measures even declined, but in 2023 the chronic pain rate surged to 24.3% of Americans, while high-impact pain rose to 8.9% of the population.

That brought the total number of people who have chronic pain to 60 million, with 21 million having high-impact pain.

“We found that chronic pain, already a widespread health problem, reached an all-time high prevalence in the post-pandemic era, necessitating urgent attention and interventions to address and alleviate this growing health crisis,” wrote co-authors Anna Zajacova, PhD, at Western University in Ontario and Hanna Grol-Prokopczyk, PhD, at the University of Buffalo..

The study is based on results from the 2019, 2021 and 2023 National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS), a federal survey conducted every two years. A preprint of the study was released last year and has now been published in the peer-reviewed journal PAIN.

The 2023 surge in pain was observed in all age, gender, racial/ethnic groups, education levels, and in both rural and urban areas.

Pain increased in almost all body areas, including the back and neck; arms, shoulders and hands; hip, knees and feet; headache or migraine; and in the abdominal, pelvic, and genital areas. The lone area where pain declined was in the jaw or teeth.

Why did pain increase after the pandemic, but not during the pandemic — when people saw doctors less often and postponed or cancelled many health procedures?

One possible explanation is that Covid relief payments, expanded unemployment benefits, and eviction moratoriums eased financial stress.

Working from home and commuting less also lessened physical demands, while giving remote workers more opportunities for self-care.

PAIN journal

“The big question is why we saw this substantial increase in pain prevalence after the pandemic. We examined the role of long COVID and found that it explained about 13% of the increase,” said Grol-Prokopczyk. “None of the other measures we examined — including changes in income or physical health conditions — explained the increase.

“We speculate that abrupt termination of pandemic-era policies, such as remote work arrangements and expanded unemployment benefits, may have played a role.”

In addition to long Covid, researchers also noted an uptick in rates of health conditions that can cause pain, such as arthritis, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, depression, and anxiety.

The finding of an increase in pain rates conflicts with an FDA analysis that predicted the “medical need” for hydrocodone, oxycodone and other pain relieving Schedule II opioids would decline by 5.3% in 2023. The FDA also predicted a 7.4% decline in the medical use of opioids in 2024 and a 6.6% decline in 2025.

Those FDA projections are important because they are used by the DEA to establish annual production quotas for opioids, which have fallen for nine consecutive years. Since 2015, the DEA has reduced the supply of oxycodone by 68% and hydrocodone by 73%.

When short-term, acute pain is poorly treated, it can have long-term consequences for patients who may transition to chronic pain. Healthcare visits for non–Covid health issues declined dramatically in 2020 and 2021, particularly at hospitals and emergency departments, which are often the first site of care for acute pain management.

Researchers say the lack of adequate and timely pain management during the pandemic may have contributed to more people having chronic pain and high-impact pain in 2023.

“These findings highlight the importance of expanded epidemiological and clinical research on chronic pain to better understand population-level drivers of pain, and to improve national pain prevention and treatment efforts for the many Americans at risk of or affected by pain,” said Grol-Prokopczyk.

Brains Control Pain Differently, Depending Where It’s Felt

By Crystal Lindell

Different parts of the brain are more active when relieving pain — depending on where the pain originates — according to a new Australian study. The finding could lead to more targeted and effective treatments that utilize the body’s own pain relief system.  

Researchers  at the University of Sydney made the discovery while studying the placebo effect. They used MRI brain scans to monitor 93 healthy participants, while exposing them to painful heat on various parts of the face, forearm and leg. 

Before the test, participants were given a placebo analgesic cream and told it would help relieve their pain. In reality, the “lidocaine” cream was a placebo and researchers secretly lowered the temperature of the heat, tricking the participants to believe the cream was easing their pain. 

The heat stimulus was applied to the placebo-treated area, as well as a separate untreated area for comparison. Up to 61% of participants reported less pain in the area where the cream was applied, typical of a placebo response.

The MRI scans showed how the brain responded to the placebo effect. Researchers found that upper parts of the brainstem were more active when relieving facial pain, while lower regions of the brainstem were engaged for arm or leg pain. 

“This is the first time we’ve seen such a precise and detailed pain map in the human brainstem, showing us that it tailors pain relief to the specific part of the body that’s experiencing it,” lead author Lewis Crawford, PhD, a Research Fellow at the University of Sydney, said in a press release. 

Understanding which brainstem areas are linked to different parts of the body may open new avenues for developing non-invasive therapies that reduce pain.   

“The brain’s natural pain relief system is more nuanced than we thought,” said Crawford. “Essentially, it has a built-in system to control pain in specific areas. It’s not just turning pain off everywhere; but working in a highly coordinated, anatomically precise system.”     

“We now have a blueprint for how the brain controls pain in a spatially organised way,” said senior author Luke Henderson, PhD, a Professor in the School of Medical Sciences and the Brain and Mind Centre. “This could help us design more effective and personalised treatments, especially for people with chronic pain in a specific area of their body.”

It is important to note that none of the “healthy” participants had chronic pain, and thus these results may only apply to short-term, acute pain that is treated with a placebo.

Nevertheless, the study challenges long-held assumptions about how pain relief works. Instead of relying on medications that target opioid pain receptors in the brain, researchers say receptors in the brainstem could be targeted with cannabinoids. 

“Opioid-based pain relief typically activates central areas of the brain and can affect the whole body, whereas the cannabinoid circuit that we identified appears to operate in more targeted regions of the brainstem,” said Crawford. “This supports the idea that cannabinoids may play a role in localised, non-opioid pain control.”

Most oral pain medications today – including acetaminophen, ibuprofen and opioids – work by telling the brain to relieve pain throughout the entire body. This research opens the door to more targeted therapies that relieve pain in specific parts of the body.

Back Pain Will Cost Australia Billions, but Rx Opioids Dismissed as a Remedy

By Crystal Lindell

A new study is sounding the alarm about lost worker productivity in Australia caused by chronic back pain, but an inexpensive remedy is being dismissed as “low-value or harmful.” 

Published in JAMA and led by researchers at Monash University, the study projects massive losses in productivity in Australia caused by long-term back pain. In 2024, nearly 3 million Australians had chronic back problems. That’s projected to grow to nearly 3.3 million by 2033.

The researchers estimate that back problems will result in an estimated loss of 3.4 million productivity-adjusted life-years over a 10-year period. That equates to a loss of more than $638 billion in Australian dollars in the country’s gross domestic product. That’s about $414 billion in US dollars.

That’s a lot of lost productivity and money. Just a 10% reduction in the number of workers with long-term back problems would save over $41 billion Australian dollars 

“Substantial economic gains could be achieved from reducing the prevalence and impact of the condition,” wrote lead author Sean Docking, PhD, a health economist at Monash University. “Action is needed to reduce the prevalence and burden of long-term back problems, with a focus on better-quality care and supporting people of working age to remain in the workforce and working productively.”

Indeed, there is a need to reduce the “impact of the condition.” I completely agree. However, while the authors call for interventions, they ignore an obvious tool that used to be widely available in Australia until 2018: codeine. 

That’s when Australia made codeine available by prescription only. Until then, the opioid was sold over-the-counter, and no doubt was often used to help people with back pain get out of bed, go to work, and be more productive.

While pop culture has often crafted a view that opioid medications are sleep inducing and that people who take them are lazy, the reality is that millions of people take them so that they can work and be productive. That’s especially true for mild, low-risk opioids like codeine.

The Monash researchers also point out that calling in sick and working less creates “considerable financial stress and may disproportionally impact already disadvantaged communities.”

Again, I agree. Not being able to work because of chronic pain can definitely result in a huge financial burden. And effectively treating that pain can literally make it possible for people to continue working and not rely on public assistance programs.

Unfortunately, rather than addressing this or offering practical solutions, the researchers dismiss all opioids as a “low-value” care option. Instead, they recommend “high-value” care, which basically consists of vague advice to “stay active” and get back to work as soon as possible. 

“A major way of addressing the burden of long-term back problems is to reduce the proportion of individuals who receive low-value or harmful care,” researchers said. “However, contrary to evidence-based guidelines, low-value care is prevalent. Examples of low-value care have been associated with longer absences from work. By contrast, high-value care could prevent chronicity, improve patient health outcomes, and result in productivity gains that benefit society.”

Perhaps the use of opioids is associated with “longer absences” because the pain medications are only given out when patients have severe back pain and really should stay at home.

It’s frustrating that, like many pain studies these days, the Monash researchers found a way to work in a negative view of opioids and suggest that they don’t “benefit society” or improve patient health.  

The fact that they left out how the crackdown on opioid prescribing contributes to lost productivity is also disheartening, especially when opioids are an inexpensive remedy.

When people have adequate pain relief, they can be productive. When they don’t, they can’t. Chronic pain patients understand this. Now we just need medical professionals to understand it too.

The Strange Denial of Complications Caused by Poorly Treated Pain

By Drs. Forest Tennant and Scott Guess

There has been no shortage of controversy, scandal and fraud regarding the opioid and pain crises of the past decade. One standout in the debate over opioids and pain treatment has been a lack of an honest, objective discussion of the benefits of pain care.

A basic tenet in medical practice and therapeutics is what is called the “risk-benefit” ratio. This is a simple analysis of whether a specific drug or therapeutic measure has more benefit than risk.

For example, the risk-benefit of drugs taken during pregnancy is well-known and established. But strangely, the debate over whether opioids have more benefit than risk in the treatment of pain has never been broached.

None of the parties involved, especially the anti-opioid zealots, will discuss any benefit that opioids may bring. In fact, essentially their only discussion is that opioids are a risk for overdose and addiction, so they have no benefit and shouldn’t be used.  

This risk is overrated and overstated in relation to opioids prescribed and monitored by a physician. According to the CDC, total opioid overdose deaths in the US (including deaths from illicit opioids) were 24 deaths per 100,000 population in 2023.

That compares to the overdose death rate for prescribed opioids, which was 4 per 100,000 population. That is a raw number for prescribed opioids.  Some data reports opioid deaths among physician monitored chronic pain patients to be as low at 0.1 per 100,000 population. 

In other words, the overdose risk of evidence with prescription opioid is minuscule.

Pain has a number of pathological complications that benefit from opioid therapy. In addition to physical relief, there are humanitarian benefits, such as a reduction in suffering, and the ability to mentally and physically function as a productive person.

When poorly treated or left untreated, chronic pain has profound negative and deleterious effects on the cardiovascular and endocrine (hormonal) systems. Pain puts the cardiovascular system into overdrive, which raises blood pressure and pulse rates. Coronary artery spasm may also result from severe chronic pain.

We can personally attest to prescribing blood pressure medication and nitroglycerin to many pain patients at risk of cardiac arrest or heart failure.

Hormonal suppression and deficiency of cortisol, testosterone, estradiol and other hormones are also common in undertreated chronic pain patients. Cortisol levels can drop below levels that sustain life. We have administered emergency cortisone to pain patients who were severely ill, debilitated, and near collapse because they had inadequate cortisol levels.

Among Dr. Thomas Addison’s eleven reported original cases of Addison’s Disease in 1855, about half had serious intractable pain conditions such as adhesive arachnoiditis.

Chronic pain has also been found to alter blood glucose and lipids (cholesterol). Sleep deprivation is another major problem in pain patients.  And anorexia with malnutrition is common.

Given the medical complications induced by pain, one would logically think that there would always be a discussion of risk-benefit when discussing opioid therapy. But we’ve never heard or seen such a discussion in medical literature or in political circles.

As if denial of benefits over risks weren’t bad enough, an even stranger denial has occurred. We have searched the major medical textbooks used in medical schools today, and couldn’t find a single word that chronic pain is a risk for hypertension and cardiac disease, much less hormonal deficiencies.

Isn’t it time we quit denying that chronic pain has medical complications that can be easily treated with opioids and other medicinals? The risks of opioid therapy simply don’t outweigh the benefits. 

Forest Tennant, MD, DrPH, is retired from clinical practice but continues his research on the treatment of intractable pain and arachnoiditis. Readers interested in learning more about his research should visit the Tennant Foundation’s website, Arachnoiditis Hope. You can subscribe to its research bulletins here.   

Scott Guess, PharmD, operates an independent pharmacy and clinic in Atascadero, CA that specializes in pain management and arachnoiditis.

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

When Headlines Lie: Misleading News About Opioids and Chronic Pain

By Neen Monty

The headline in Physician’s Weekly screams alarm:

“Rising Use of Potent Opioids in Chronic Pain Management”

And then the sub heading:

“Long-term opioid use for chronic pain doubled, with potent opioids rising, underscoring the need for stronger guideline adoption”

Terrifying, right? We must do something!

But now, read the article. It’s based on a study recently published in the European Journal of Pain on the prevalence of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) when treating patients with chronic non-cancer pain.

The Dutch study looked at opioid use over a ten-year period, from 2013 to 2022, using a large dataset drawn from primary care records in the Rotterdam region. This database covered more than half a million patients and included data from over 240 general practitioners.

The researchers focused on adults aged 18 and over who had been prescribed opioids continuously for at least three months. They tracked how common LTOT was over time, and also explored which diagnoses, co-existing conditions, and other medications were associated with it. They reported their findings using basic descriptive stats and calculated LTOT prevalence per 100 patient-years to show trends over the decade.

And what did they find?

“The prevalence of LTOT increased twofold from 0.54% (95% CI: 0.51–0.58) per 100 patient years in 2013 to 1.04% (95% CI: 1.00–1.07) in 2022. The proportion of LTOT episodes solely involving potent opioids slightly increased between 2013 and 2022”

In plain English, the prevalence of long-term opioid use by patients at the end of the study was just over 1%.

Yes, that’s right: 1%.

And the prevalence increased by just half a percentage point over a decade.

Hardly a crisis. Hardly anything to scream about.

But we can’t have that! We need a clickbait headline to demonize opioids and stop their prescribing! So, instead of reporting accurately on the very small increase in opioid prescribing, they focus on the “twofold” increase. Trying to manufacture a crisis where there is none.

It’s true, the prevalence of LTOT did double, from half a percent to one percent. And that’s what the headline highlighted, to try and make it sound like there is an opioid crisis in Europe. There is not.

This tactic is often used in presenting medical research – using relative percentages rather than the actual numbers. That is because relative percentages -- “Opioid Use Doubled!” -- sounds worse than “Opioid Use Increased by Half a Percent.”

It’s a trick that researchers and the media use all the time.

Why do this? It’s dishonest. It’s deceptive. And it destroys our trust in science. They are trying to manufacture a crisis when there is none.

Why not research and report an actual crisis? Instead of making one up?

The Physician’s Weekly headline exemplifies the worst of scientific spin: inflating tiny fractional changes and omitting context. It potentially harms patients by reinforcing the myth that opioids don’t work long term and should be withheld. That myth persists because of misleading reporting like this.

Finally! An Honest Headline

It was nice to see some accurate reporting in Scimex, an Australian online news portal that tries to help journalists cover science. Instead of the usual deceptive, sensationalist headlines, this one tells the truth:

“Pain Reprocessing Therapy (PRT) could help those with mild chronic back pain”

This was so refreshing to see! Because it’s so very, very rare.

Most reporting on PRT glosses over a critical point: It has only been studied in people with mild, non-specific back pain. An average of 4 on the zero-to-10 pain scale.

That nuance is often lost in the hype about alternative treatments like PRT, cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness and TENS.

You do not treat 8/10 back pain the same way you treat 4/10 back pain.

What happens when people are misled about PRT? It gets recommended to people with severe, pathological pain — often with clearly identifiable causes — and everyone acts surprised when it doesn’t work.

Let’s be clear:

• PRT is not for severe back pain

• PRT is not for pain caused by pathology

• PRT is not a cure-all

But you wouldn’t know that from most headlines about PRT, such as “New therapy aims to cure back pain without drugs, surgery” and “A New Way to Treat Back Pain.”

Then you read the small print: All the participants in PRT studies had non-specific back pain from an unknown cause. And they had mild pain.

The researchers are often complicit, cherry-picking and hyping their own data. Why? Because they need funding. Because they’re writing a book. Because professors have to "publish or perish" to keep their jobs. Because it’s easier to mislead the public than to admit a therapy has limits. And you don’t get to be a guru if your therapy only works for a minority of patients with mild pain.

This kind of spin harms people with severe chronic secondary pain. It feeds the narrative that if you're still in pain, then it’s your fault. You didn’t try hard enough. You’re catastrophizing. You need to retrain your brain.

It feeds the stigma that all chronic pain is mild and easily curable. And that anyone who says their pain is severe has psychological problems.

No. Maybe their pain is caused by pathology, like tissue damage or herniated discs. Maybe their pain is nociceptive or neuropathic.

This is why chronic pain patients must be included on every research team. Someone with real-world, high-impact chronic pain would never let this kind of misrepresentation slide. And the rest of the team wouldn’t be able to claim ignorance.

We need more honesty and integrity in research and the media. We need headlines that reflect the actual findings. We need conclusions that match the data, not some predetermined narrative. Right now, most media coverage doesn’t even try.

Read the study, then read the headline. They rarely match. That’s how we ended up with a generation of healthcare providers who think opioids are bad, all chronic pain is primary pain, and that PRT is some miracle therapy.

It’s not. PRT may be helpful to people who are depressed or have anxiety, but should not be a first-line treatment for everyone. It’s only been tested in people with mild back pain for which there is no known physical cause. It has not been shown to work for people with severe pain or structural pathology.

But the researchers usually gloss over that. And the headlines and conclusions rarely reflect those facts or spell out who PRT is for and who it is not for.

Because here’s the truth: Pain Reprocessing Therapy is not a treatment for chronic pain. It’s a treatment for anxiety and depression.

That’s the real headline.

Neen Monty is a patient advocate in Australia who lives with rheumatoid arthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP), a progressive neurological disease that attacks the nerves.

Neen is dedicated to challenging misinformation and promoting access to safe, effective pain relief. She has created a website for Pain Patient Advocacy Australia to show that prescription opioids can be safe and effective, even when taken long term. You can subscribe to Neen’s free newsletter on Substack, “Arthritic Chick on Chronic Pain.”

Hydromorphone Injections Can Quickly Relieve Intractable Pain

By Dr. Forest Tennant

I recall the time over a decade ago when Anazao Laboratory in Tampa, Florida informed me they had developed ultra-high potency (50 mg/ml) hydromorphone for palliative pain care. Anazao Labs was well aware of my patients’ needs, since they formulated my endocrine medicinals. 

In contrast to the other injectable opioids, Anazao’s hydromorphone formulation could be injected subcutaneously under the skin rather than intramuscularly.  The injection required a very small amount of fluid (.1 to .2 ml) that was administered with an allergy or insulin syringe.

My patients’ pain was called “intractable” to meet California’s Medical Board guideline and legal definitions.  The criteria for patients to enter my clinic was a determination that there was a high risk of death within one year unless opioid treatment could be administered. The top causes of intractable pain were adhesive arachnoiditis, traumatic brain injury, severe neuropathies (CRPS), autoimmune disease, and post-cancer care.

I recall the first patient to whom I prescribed ultra-high potency hydromorphone.  She was not receiving adequate pain relief with long-acting and breakthrough opioids, so she was referred for an intrathecal implanted device (pain pump) for opioid administration.  Due primarily to its cost and insurance reasons, she could not obtain this expensive treatment, so I chose to experiment with the new ultra-high potency hydromorphone. 

It worked remarkably well.  In fact, she soon found she didn’t require a long-acting or breakthrough opioid. Using the new hydromorphone formulation, she dropped her daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) dosage from over 500 to less than 100 MME per day.

After success with this patient, I prescribed the hydromorphone formulation to other patients on high dose oral opioids, who could not obtain intrathecal opioids or an implanted electrical stimulator.  All the patients tolerated and adjusted well to it.  Ultra-high dose hydromorphone became an alternative to intrathecal opioids at my pain clinic.

When I later prescribed the hydromorphone formulation to other patients with intractable pain, I found that I could eliminate or reduce their use of high dose opioids through oral, patch or sublingual administration, and obtain equal or superior pain relief.

I have since retired from clinical practice, but still believe this is a major reason for using ultra-high potency hydromorphone for patients in severe pain.  My initial experience told me that the hydromorphone formulation could be an alternative to standard intractable pain care, which is the combined use of a long-acting opioid with a short-acting opioid for breakthrough pain. That therapy has shortcomings, because long-acting opioids suppress endocrine levels, which can lead to a wide range of health problems.

My procedure in prescribing hydromorphone was to instruct both the patient and a live-in family member on proper injection technique, secure storage, and maintaining sterility.  At the time I closed my clinic, I probably had about 2 dozen patients who successfully used this innovative formulation.

I have come to some conclusions that go against common beliefs about opioid therapy.  First and foremost, high potency hydromorphone can usually substitute in most cases for long-acting opioids such as OxyContin, transdermal fentanyl, and methadone.  Effective pain relief occurs within minutes after the injection, so the patient doesn’t have a proclivity to follow the opioid dose with a sedative or neuropathic drug such as a benzodiazepine. 

Seldom did my patients use over 3 to 4 injections a day.  To date, I know of no overdoses occurring.  I attribute this to hydromorphone’s rapid, potent, short-acting activity, which doesn’t invite the use of other drugs (including alcohol), to help the patient achieve pain relief.  Blood levels of the hydromorphone don’t stay elevated longer than about two hours, which protects against overdose. Pain relief remains much longer, however, likely because it is hydrophilic in neurologic tissues.

In summary, I have found ultra-high potency hydromorphone to be a significant advance in palliative pain care for intractable pain patients.  It has proven to be a bonafide alternative to intrathecal opioid delivery and to high opioid dosages necessary when combining the use of long and short acting opioids.  Its unique properties seem to reduce the risk of overdose. 

Families and patients can be trained to safely and effectively use this medicinal to relieve suffering from the most severe forms of intractable pain.  Unfortunately, it is an under-recognized and underused treatment for the palliative care of intractable pain patients.

Forest Tennant, MD, DrPH, is retired from clinical practice but continues his research on the treatment of intractable pain and arachnoiditis. Readers interested in learning more about his research should visit the Tennant Foundation’s website, Arachnoiditis Hope. You can subscribe to its research bulletins here.   

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

Limits on Rx Opioids Led to Unintended Consequences in Australia

By Pat Anson

An Australian study highlights some of the benefits and unintended consequences of efforts to limit the prescribing of opioid pain medication.

Like the United States, there’s been a fair amount of controversy in Australia about opioid medication and the role it played in the so-called opioid crisis. In response, Australian regulator took two steps in 2020 to limit prescribing: creating prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), and limiting the amount of opioids and repeat prescriptions subsidized by the government.

To see how well the changes worked, researchers analyzed emergency department (ED) visits by patients prescribed opioids by primary care doctors in Victoria, the second most-populated state in Australia with over seven million people. Victoria was the first state to adopt a mandatory PDMP, which doesn’t stop a doctor from prescribing opioids but alerts them to possible misuse by a patient.

The research findings, published in the Medical Journal of Australia, show that ED visits by patients on prescription opioids fell by 11.8 visits per 100,000 people after opioids restrictions were implemented. At the same time, however, researchers identified a short-term but statistically significant increase of 7.3 ED visits per 100,000 people that were linked to non‐opioid substances.

The study didn’t identify what those non-opioid substances were, but researchers suspect that some were uncontrolled medications, such as pregabalin and antidepressants, which are often prescribed as alternatives to opioids for pain relief.

“As we expected, the new policies were associated with reduced opioid‐related harm; the reduced availability of prescription opioids presumably explains this change. We also expected that the changes would have unintended effects, and found an immediate increase in the non‐opioid substance‐related ED presentation rate that was greater among people prescribed opioids than in the control group,” researchers reported.

“One possible mechanism underlying the increase in non‐opioid substance‐related harms could be related to increased prescribing of unmonitored pain medicines, such as pregabalin and tricyclic antidepressants, following the introduction of the prescription drug monitoring program.”

PDMPs have also had unintended consequences in the United States. In a 2021 study, the Reason Foundation found that opioid prescribing declined in states that adopted PDMPs, but that overdoses involving heroin, illicit fentanyl and cocaine significantly increased – suggesting that some patients were substituting illicit drugs for prescription opioids.

The focus on prescription opioids may have been misplaced in Victoria. According to a 2023 report by the state’s coroner, the anti-anxiety medication diazepam was the lead drug involved in fatal overdoses (213 deaths) in Victoria, followed by heroin (204 deaths), methamphetamine (164 deaths), alcohol (153 deaths) and pregabalin (78 deaths). In contrast, oxycodone was involved in 41 deaths and codeine in 24 deaths.

Canada Facing Nationwide Shortages of Opioid Pain Medication

By Pat Anson

Pain patients in the United States have been dealing with persistent shortages of opioid pain medication for years. Now their counterparts in Canada face a similar issue.

Health Canada has issued a warning about nationwide shortages of oxycodone and acetaminophen combinations, along with medications that combine codeine with acetaminophen. Acetaminophen and oxycodone are sold under the brand names Percocet and Endocet, while acetaminophen-codeine combinations are often sold as Tylenol #3.

While the opioid shortages in the U.S. appear to be largely driven by a national opioid settlement that rations pain medication at the pharmacy level, the Canadian shortages are being blamed on manufacturing disruptions and increased demand.

“We recognize the importance of having acetaminophen with codeine or oxycodone products available for patients. Addressing this shortage is a top priority,” Health Canada said in a statement.

“We're communicating with health care providers, provincial and territorial governments, and distributors to coordinate the sharing of information about this shortage. We're also working with manufacturers and stakeholders to monitor the supply of acetaminophen with codeine or oxycodone and looking at options for increasing access to these products.”

The Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPA) expects the shortages to last a few more weeks, when a “significant resupply” is expected.

“The shortage is the result of manufacturing issues affecting one major supplier, which has increased pressure on other manufacturers. While the supply situation is expected to improve by mid-August, supply constraints are expected to continue until the end of September,” the CPA said in a statement.

A patient advocate says the opioid shortages don’t appear to be causing many problems for patients, at least not yet.

“As far as the shortages go, at least for those I was able to speak with, they are coping with it,” Barry Ulmer of the Chronic Pain Association of Canada told PNN.

“The real problem is the lack of actual doctors who will prescribe (opioids) and in doses needed. Even though Health Canada and the provincial regulators say opioids are O.K. to use, they still warn doctors about overprescribing and tapering is still a very real reality. Almost every doctor that I have known over the years have now retired or just plain quit because of this ongoing problem.”

Smaller Doses and Tapering Recommended

Until the shortages ease, the CPA is advising pharmacists to suggest non-opioid pain relievers for patients suffering from acute short-term pain, such as headaches and muscle strains.

For long-term pain patients already using oxycodone and codeine combinations, the CPA recommends limiting doses to 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) a day. Switching to another opioid and/or tapering is another alternative.

“If the current dose is high, give 50% or less of the new opioid converted to morphine equivalents. Otherwise, start with 60–75% of the previous dose converted to morphine equivalents,” the CPA said.

In the United States, either scenario would be considered a rapid taper, which can raise the risk of an overdose or mental health crisis. The CDC recommends more cautious tapering of patients, with a dose reduction of just 10% a month.

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) first reported U.S. shortages of oxycodone-acetaminophen combinations in the summer of 2023. Not much has changed in the last two years.

In its June report, the ASHP said several drug manufacturers have oxycodone-acetaminophen combinations on back order, with no estimated resupply date. Only one drug maker, Major Pharmaceuticals, anticipates having new supplies in early August.

Some companies are phasing out the production of opioid medication. Endo Pharmaceutical stopped making Percocet in 2024, while Teva Pharmaceuticals discontinued production of immediate release oxycodone in 2023 and Transmucosal Immediate-Release Fentanyl Medicine (TIRF) in 2024. Opioid litigation has been very costly to Teva and other drug makers. In 2022, Teva paid $4.25 billion to settle thousands of opioid liability lawsuits.

Continued Blaming of Purdue Pharma Won’t Solve the Opioid Crisis

By Lynn R. Webster, MD

On July 15, The Washington Post published an editorial urging states to use opioid settlement funds to expand naloxone access and addiction treatment programs.

These are sound public health goals. But the editorial’s framing — tying these investments to reparations for damage attributed to Purdue Pharma — rests on an oversimplified and misleading narrative that has shaped policy and public opinion for over a decade.

Purdue Pharma aggressively market OxyContin and contributed to early overprescribing. However, it was never the dominant supplier of prescription opioids. Analyses of pill counts, morphine milligram equivalents, and regional variation show that Purdue’s market share was often far less than one-third. While its actions were consequential, the disproportionate focus on Purdue distracts from the broader, ongoing drivers of the crisis.

Addiction is not caused by the availability of opioids alone, but also by the conditions that make people vulnerable: poverty, trauma, housing instability, and untreated mental illness. By fixating on corporate actors, we risk mistaking the spark for the fire — and neglecting the deeper issues that sustain the epidemic.

The editorial also perpetuates confusion between physical dependence and addiction. The former is a predictable response to long-term opioid use; the latter involves compulsive behavior and impairment. Blurring the two has led to harmful policies, including forced opioid tapers and abandonment of stable pain patients.

These policies have not reduced deaths. As prescription opioids became harder to obtain — often due to regulatory pressure — some patients turned to illicit alternatives; not to get high, but to avoid withdrawal or manage pain. This shift laid the groundwork for the explosion of heroin and illicit fentanyl use. Today, illicit synthetic opioids are involved in more than 70% of overdose deaths.

Framing settlement spending as payback reinforces a punitive narrative rather than advancing evidence-based solutions. Naloxone, youth prevention, and addiction treatment should be pursued because they work — not because they symbolize restitution.

The real challenge lies in addressing the conditions that lead to substance use in the first place. Reforming housing policy, expanding mental health care, and ensuring access to meaningful employment are more difficult— but are far more essential — than litigating against a defunct company.

We should also be asking why the healthcare system permitted aggressive opioid marketing, why insurers incentivized pill volume over outcomes, and why evidence-based addiction care and harm reduction remain chronically underfunded.

Managing the crisis requires more than blame. It requires accurate explanations, structural change, and sustained investment in public health — rather than narratives that feel satisfying but obscure the truth.

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a pain and addiction medicine specialist, and serves as Executive Vice President of scientific affairs at Dr. Vince Clinical Research, where he consults with pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Webster is the author of the forthcoming book, “Deconstructing Toxic Narratives – Data, Disparities, and a New Path Forward in the Opioid Crisis,” to be published by Springer Nature.

Poor Pain Treatment in ER Raises Risk of Opioid Misuse Later

By Pat Anson

Patients with acute pain who are dissatisfied with their pain treatment in emergency departments are more likely to misuse opioids three months later, according to a new study. The findings are particularly true for black patients, who are more likely to be unhappy with their treatment and to be sent home without an opioid prescription.

“While a great deal of studies on opioid misuse focus on overprescribing, this study flips the script by showing that under-prescribing—or more precisely, ignoring a patient’s pain treatment preferences—can also lead to harmful outcomes, especially when patients are dissatisfied with their care,” said Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, an assistant professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and lead author of the study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

Previous studies have found disparities in pain treatment between white and black patients in emergency rooms, with white patients 26% more likely to get opioid medication. This new study has similar findings, but went a step further to see what the long-term consequences of poor treatment could be.

Nguemeni Tiako and his colleagues analyzed data for 735 ER patients treated for acute back or kidney stone pain, and surveyed them about their experiences 90 days later. The survey asked a series of questions about their medication use, appointment problems, emotional/psychiatric issues, and drug misuse --- and then assigned a current opioid misuse (COMM score) based on their answers.

Researchers found that black patients (21.8%) were more likely than white patients (15%) to have an “unmet opioid preference” when they were discharged from the ER. They were also more likely to be dissatisfied with their pain treatment overall.

Black patients with poor satisfaction and unmet opioid preferences had higher COMM scores compared to white patients. Both blacks and whites who were highly satisfied with their pain treatment had low risk of opioid misuse.

“The finding that unmet opioid preference had a unique effect on opioid misuse risk among Black participants is consistent with our prior analyses of this cohort, in which we found that receiving a prescription for opioids at discharge was associated with lower odds of reported non-prescribed opioid use,” researchers reported.

“Similarly novel to our study is the finding that satisfaction with pain treatment significantly mediates the impact of unmet preference on opioid misuse, especially among Black participants.”    

While an unmet preference for opioids may lead some patients to seek relief through nonprescribed opioids, researchers think other factors in the ER could mitigate such risks, such as more empathy by providers, more patient-centered communication, and patient education about effective therapies and opioid risks.

Scientific Review Dismantles Myths Behind ‘Opiophobia’

By Crystal Lindell

“There is little evidence that physicians and surgeons prescribing opioids for short-term pain relief leads to substantial levels of opioid use disorder (OUD), addiction, or death.”

That one sentence, found in a new scientific review, cuts straight to the heart of America’s irrational fear of opioids — also known as opiophobia.

Published in ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science and authored by John Bumpus, PhD, the paper looks at the irrational fear that prescribing opioids in any capacity is harmful – and how little evidence there is to back up such claims. 

Bumpus opens his report by saying that there is a false narrative that “even short-term (seven days or less) use of opioids under medical supervision to treat acute pain will often lead to opioid use disorder (OUD) and/or addiction.”

As a result of that narrative, many healthcare professionals and policy makers believe that the best way to address this problem is to “avoid using opioids altogether or to severely limit the use of prescription opioids, especially after surgery.” 

Bumpus says many providers also assume that limiting prescriptions will significantly reduce overdose deaths. Then he adds the line that cuts to the heart of opiophobia: 

“There is, however, substantial evidence that this is not the case.”

In that one sentence, Bumpus dismantles the main argument that’s often used to claim that opioid restrictions are necessary: the idea that such restrictions are “evidence-based.” 

His report lays out how opioid-related misconceptions have led to policy decisions that are not only unsupported by evidence — but are often harmful. Anyone who has had trouble accessing needed opioid medications over the last few years will find the article both cathartic and affirming.  

Bumpus, who’s a Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Northern Iowa, starts the paper by defining "'opiophobia'" based on the definition shared in a 2023 paper, “Opiophobia and the tragedy of needless pain”

Opiophobia led many patients and providers to “fear, avoid or condemn the use of these compounds,” which Bumpus calls ‘the most effective family of analgesics known.”

While large chunks of the report focuses on surgical patients in post-operative pain, Bumpus says that many chronic pain patients use opioids “successfully and appropriately,” but have been “adversely affected by the catastrophization of issues and misinformation surrounding the use of opioids and the opiophobia it has generated."

Bumpus asserts that anti-opioid zealots have gone too far. 

“Although opioid-free protocols and policies may have their benefits and role, for some physicians, researchers, administrators, and politicians, the elimination of opioids appears to have become a goal in and of itself,” he warns. 

Bumpus says there's an underlying assumption "that physicians and surgeons are currently overprescribing opioids." He then adds, "Nationally, this does not appear to be the case."

While the number of opioid prescriptions decreased by about 50% from 2010 to 2022, Bumpus says deaths involving prescription opioids have remained constant. Meanwhile, fatal overdoses from illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids have skyrocketed.

“It does not appear that prescription opioids are the major problem here,” Bumpus concludes

He says those advocating for severe opioid limitation often ignore the adverse effects of alternatives like acetaminophen.

"For example, annually in the U.S., acetaminophen overdose is responsible for over 56,000 emergency department visits, 2600 hospitalizations and 500 deaths,” he writes. “Acetaminophen overdose is also the most common cause of acute liver failure and the most common reason for liver transplants in the U.S."

He says that "the narrative that the opioid crisis is caused by the prescribing habits of ethical, conscientious, and caring physicians is patently untrue."

Rather, what is true is that the “undertreatment of postoperative pain is a serious ongoing concern.”

Misleading Data Used to Justify Opioid Restrictions

While opioid-restricting polices may be well-intentioned, Bumpus says there is little evidence that physicians prescribing opioids for short-term pain leads to substantial levels of misuse.

For example, some of the claims used to justify opioid restrictions rely on a study that found 30% of Medicaid patients prescribed an opioid for the first time developed opioid dependency.

That is claim is misleading. The researcher was simply citing the fact that 30% of patients who filled a single opioid prescription needed a refill 3 to 9 months later. Getting a refill alone hardly meets the criteria for opioid dependency, much less addiction.

Bumpus says opioid restrictive policies have had the unintended effect of encouraging patients to store leftover opioids at home, which only makes them more likely to be misused by someone else. 

"Ironically, programs aimed at reducing access to opioids and their long-term storage may actually incentivize the hoarding of these medications," he says. 

People storing leftover opioids is understandable though, when patients fear their future pain will be untreated or they won’t be able to see a doctor.

"Long-term storage of opioid medications and self-medication may not be behaviors endorsed by the medical profession,” Bumpus says. “However, such behaviors are understandable human reactions, and they undoubtedly occur." 

Bumpus argues that while it’s illegal and medically unsupervised, using leftover prescription opioids is safer than turning to street drugs:

“These drugs serve as a relatively safe supply of opioids for people who use them,” he writes.

Ultimately, Bumpus says the public “should have access to information that accurately portrays the benefits as well as the risks associated with the medicinal use of opioids.” 

His paper is heavily researched and includes over 200 footnotes, including several PNN articles that debunk the narrative about opioid misuse being common. 

Bumpus says his paper is important for administrators, policymakers, and lawmakers to read, “so that mistakes of the past are not repeated, making sure that ill-conceived laws and policies are not put in place that do more harm than good.”

Bumpus is correct, of course, and his message is urgent. Now the medical community and policymakers just need to actually listen to him. 

OxyContin Fueled the Opioid Crisis, But Not How You Might Think

By Crystal Lindell

Attorneys General from 55 U.S. states and territories recently accepted a $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, potentially ending over a decade of legal wrangling over the company’s role in the opioid crisis.  

But much of the media coverage still doesn’t seem to grasp what Purdue Pharma actually did wrong with its marketing of OxyContin. Purdue Pharma’s original sin was not flooding the market with too many OxyContin pills – it was too few.

OxyContin’s share of the opioid market was never more than 4 percent. That small share, however, was magnified by higher dose pills, which made OxyContin more likely to be misused. 

The company drove misuse by claiming that OxyContin pills lasted for 12 hours. In reality, they only lasted 4-6 hours. I know, because I’ve been on them myself for chronic pain.

This is how the Los Angeles Times described Purdue’s marketing campaign in 2016: 

“Purdue tells doctors to prescribe stronger doses, not more frequent ones, when patients complain that OxyContin doesn’t last 12 hours. That approach creates risks of its own. Research shows that the more potent the dose of an opioid such as OxyContin, the greater the possibility of overdose and death."

So if a patient wasn’t getting steady relief from two 10mg OxyContin a day, the doctors would be encouraged to up it to two 20mg OxyContin pills a day. In reality, it would have been better to keep the dose at 10 mg and increase the frequency to four pills a day.

Purdue was well aware of the problem. They knew the pills did not last the full 12 hours. But it was OxyContin’s 12-hour dosing regimen that was its main selling point. It was supposed to set it apart from much cheaper opioid options like hydrocodone, morphine and oxycodone. 

Here’s what happened when doctors prescribed more OxyContin pills to give patients relief, according to the LA Times:

“When many doctors began prescribing OxyContin at shorter intervals in the late 1990s, Purdue executives mobilized hundreds of sales reps to ‘refocus’ physicians on 12-hour dosing. Anything shorter ‘needs to be nipped in the bud. NOW!!’ one manager wrote to her staff.”

Purdue then encouraged doctors to prescribe higher dose 80mg pills, because the higher the dose, the more Purdue made off the pills. While the company charged wholesalers about $97 for a bottle of 10mg pills, a bottle of the 80mg version went for $630. 

The company also based the commissions and performance evaluations for its sales team on the proportion of high-dose pills they sold. 

‘The Dose Makes the Poison’

Over 500 years ago, Swiss physician Paracelsus coined the phrase, “The dose makes the poison.” For Purdue Pharma, that was especially true. It was the high doses at long intervals that made OxyContin so dangerous.

Patients would go through cycles of withdrawal as their high doses wore off early, or they would just take a few extra pills each day. That meant they would run out of their prescription early, leaving them to go through days or even weeks of withdrawal. 

And make no mistake, even short intervals of withdrawal from 80mg OxyContin would make anyone feel like hell. God forbid you run out early and have to go through that. It’s the perfect recipe for driving patients to seek other sources of relief, whether that means buying pills from someone else or buying street opioids. 

Understanding that the root cause of OxyContin’s danger was not that doctors were prescribing too many pills, but prescribing too few of them challenges the popular narrative of how the opioid crisis started.  

The actual problem was not that doctors were treating pain with opioids. They were treating pain with opioids at the wrong intervals. 

Media coverage of Purdue still often frames OxyContin as the same as every other opioid though. But OxyContin isn’t fentanyl and it’s not hydrocodone, either.

Low and frequent doses of hydrocodone are relatively safe for the vast majority of patients. Which makes sense, since the reason OxyContin led some patients to misuse was because it was literally the opposite: High doses taken infrequently. 

That message seems to get lost in current opioid-phobia coverage. Just last week, the LA Times ran a column headlined, “Surgeons give patients too many opioids. A few simple steps could curb excess prescribing”

The column is authored by Zachary Wagner, PhD, a health economist at USC, and Craig Fox, PhD, a psychology professor at UCLA who specializes in studying behavioral risk. Neither of them are medical doctors.

In their op/ed, Wagner and Fox spread the misinformation that it’s leftover post-op pills that are driving opioid deaths. They think surgeons should be encouraged to prescribe fewer opioids. 

“If we could get surgeons to prescribe only the number of pills patients need for their own use, this could greatly reduce the number of excess pills available for diversion and misuse,” they wrote. 

This is dangerous and misleading. Opioids are so difficult to get today that pain patients are far more likely to hoard their “excess pills” than to sell or divert them. Opioid diversion rates are quite low, according to the DEA, which estimates less than half of one percent of oxycodone (0.493%) and hydrocodone (0.379%) are used by someone they are not intended for. 

Do surgeons really need lectures from economists and psychology professors about what they should prescribe?

I have seen first-hand how many surgeons already give post-op patients a regimen of only ibuprofen or acetaminophen due to opioid-phobia laws and regulations. Providing adequate post-op pain relief isn’t just the ethical thing to do, it’s also important for the healing process and to prevent acute pain from becoming chronic.. 

The bottom line is that pain refuses to be ignored. People will find ways to treat it, regardless of whether or not their doctor helps them. Simply refusing to give people opioids won’t solve anything. It will, however, drive people to street drugs or to self-medicate with alcohol and other substances. 

If doctors actually want to help patients, they should still be prescribing low-dose opioids, which are relatively safe. And they should prescribe high-dose opioids to people who really need them, just at realistic intervals.

Purdue Pharma’s sins were real – but letting that justify complete bans on pain treatment only results in more suffering, not less.

Dose and Type of Opioid May Increase Risk of Constipation

By Pat Anson

Constipation is one of the most common – yet least talked about – side effects of opioid pain medication. About 80% of patients on daily opioid therapy experience constipation, even when taking laxatives, which can severely impact quality of life and sleep.

But talking about constipation brings little sympathy and often starts a round of potty jokes. When AstraZeneca aired a commercial during the 2016 Super Bowl promoting its opioid induced constipation (OIC) drug, the ad was greeted with derision..

“The Super Bowl is known for inspiring lots of eating and lavish spreads of food. So why would advertisers pay millions to air ads focusing on constipation?” asked Eric Deggans of National Public Radio.

“Was that really an ad for junkies who can’t sh**? America, I luv ya but I just can’t keep up,” comedian Bill Maher wrote on Twitter.  

All jokes aside, constipation really is a health problem. Which makes a new study at the UK’s University of Manchester all the more valuable because it identifies which opioid painkillers are most likely to be associated with constipation and which ones are not.

"Constipation is a frequent adverse event associated with opioid medications that can have a considerable impact on patients' quality of life,” says lead author Meghna Jani, PhD, an epidemiologist and Senior Clinical Lecturer at The University of Manchester. “Opioid-induced constipation has also been associated with longer hospital stays, higher hospital costs, and increased emergency department visits."

Jani and her colleagues analyzed hospital health records for over 80,000 non-cancer patients on opioids in England between 2009 and 2020. About 8% suffered from constipation severe enough to require an enema or suppository.

The study findings, recently published in BMC Medicine, show that morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl and combination opioids were associated with a significantly higher risk of severe constipation compared to codeine. Tramadol and buprenorphine had the least amount of constipation risk.

Tramadol and buprenorphine have different mechanisms of action than other opioids, which may explain their lower risk, while codeine and tramadol are considered less potent opioids.

The risk of constipation was also found to be dose-dependent. Patients taking less than 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) a day had the lowest risk of constipation, while those taking 50 to 120 MME daily had a risk twice as high. Fifty MME per day is roughly equal to taking either 50mg of morphine or 33 mg of oxycodone each day.

The Faculty of Pain Medicine of the Royal College of Anaesthetists says the dose above which opioid harms likely outweigh their benefits is 120 MME per day. Guidance in the U.S. and Canada is more cautious, recommending that opioid doses be kept at or below 90 MME.

This is believed to be largest study of its kind to evaluate constipation risk based on types of opioids, and one of the first to assess the impact of doses. Researchers say previous estimates of constipation rates probably under-represent their true prevalence, because constipation is often not seen as a serious issue and may not be coded in medical records. Patients may also be reluctant to openly talk about their bowel habits with a healthcare provider.

"Previously, we didn't know enough about the risk associated with specific opioids, given the different ways they act on the body, as well as the effect of daily dose,” said Jani. "This study will allow clinical prescribers and patients to make better shared decisions about what pain relief is best for them, to minimize the risks of this side effect of opioids, and thus improve patients' quality of life.

"If patients need to be on opioids, we urge prescribers to be cautious with opioid dosing, and aim for the lowest effective dose to manage pain while mitigating the risk of constipation and other side effects."

People Who Live in Rural Areas Have More Pain and Less Access to Treatment

By Crystal Lindell 

A new study by researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington found that people living in rural areas have significantly higher rates of chronic pain than those who live in big cities. They’re also at a big disadvantage when it comes to getting their pain treated.

As a rural resident myself for the last 11 years, I have some thoughts as to why this might be. I think one of the causes may be a little different than what researchers often assume. 

The study used data from a national health survey of over 10,000 people in 2019, and then followed up with them a year later in 2020. 

Respondents were split into four pain categories; those with no pain, nonchronic acute pain, chronic pain, and high-impact chronic pain (HICP), which is pain that significantly impacts daily life.

Participants were then assigned to one of four urban-rural metro areas based on where they live: Large Central Metro (big cities with at least one million people), Large Fringe Metro, Medium and Small Metro, and Non-Metropolitan (Rural).

The chart below shows that the highest rates of chronic pain (27.8%) and HICP (10.4%) were found in rural non-metropolitan areas. Pain rates were progressively lower in metro areas with more people. 

Notably, 43.1% of the people living in big cities had “no pain,” while only 34% of those in rural areas were pain free. That’s a statistically big difference.

The Journal of rural health

“We already know about the rural-urban gap in mortality and life expectancy,” said Feinuo Sun, PhD, an assistant professor of kinesiology at UT Arlington and lead author of the study in The Journal of Rural Health.

“But when you look at pain, especially chronic pain, it becomes clear that rural residents face additional burdens.”

Sun and her colleagues say their findings highlight the rural disadvantage that exists in pain development and treatment. Due to health care shortages in rural areas, people have limited access to pain treatment and lower quality services.

They also found that the percentages of people transitioning from milder pain conditions in 2019 to more severe ones in 2020 were highest in rural areas. Even when starting from the same baseline pain status, people in rural areas fared worse after one year compared to those in urban areas.

“Without early intervention, (chronic pain) can have serious long-term consequences, including premature mortality. That's why targeted outreach and early pain management strategies are so important," said Sun.

Rural residents are also more likely to work physically demanding jobs and experience higher poverty rates, both of which contribute to chronic pain.

Those are definitely contributing factors. People who live near me in northern Illinois tend have more physically demanding work, such as farming and construction, and they have a much harder time accessing good healthcare. 

Personally, I have to drive almost two hours each way just to see my primary care physician, because I have to get more complex pain care. That’s where the closest university hospital is to my house. 

Lower Cost of Living

But there’s another reason that is easy to overlook if you don’t live out here: Rural areas are much cheaper than urban ones. 

That’s literally the reason I choose to live in a rural area. The rent in my area is astronomically cheaper than nearby metro areas, and much less compared than a big city like Chicago. 

If you're managing a life with chronic pain, you’re going to be less likely to be able to work and you’re also going to be more likely to spend more of your income on medical expenses. You’ll need a cheaper place to live.

Additionally, many people move out to rural areas like mine because it’s easier to live on Social Security, disability or pensions. None of those benefits increase based on your local cost of living, so it makes sense to live in a rural area where the same amount of money can go much further. 

So it’s not always physically demanding labor that causes more pain in rural areas. It’s being in chronic pain that makes it more likely you’ll move to or stay in a rural community.

Of course, the researchers also found an association with opioid medication, because what would a pain study be in 2025 if the authors didn’t link it in some way to opioids?

The UT researchers think that  “elevated pain levels, along with fewer treatment options, may help explain the heavier reliance on opioids” in rural communities. They’re already working on a follow-up study to examine disparities in pain care. I can already tell them some of the answers they seek. 

People in rural areas are more likely to take opioids for pain care because they are incredibly cheap and accessible. Even if a rural area doesn’t have a local pharmacy, you still have access to mail-order pharmacies. 

And if a rural area doesn’t have a physical therapist, acupuncturist or a massage therapist, there are few alternatives besides opioids. Opioids also require fewer appointments with providers, which are at a premium when doctors are 2 hours away or more.

In the end, geography shapes both our pain and standard of living. Rural areas need better access to healthcare and more populated areas need lower costs of living. We can help people, we just have to work in both directions.  

Should Pharmacists Tell Your Doctor How to Treat Pain?

By Pat Anson

Would you like a pharmacist to consult with your doctor about how to treat your chronic pain before you even see the doctor?

Given all the problems that pain patients already have getting pharmacies to fill their opioid prescriptions, that sounds counter-intuitive. But embedding a pharmacist in doctors’ offices and giving them advice is the premise behind a new article published in the Drug Topics Journal, written by Sarah Schang and Madison Irwin, who both have medical degrees in pharmacy (PharmD).   

They think giving pharmacists a prominent and early voice in your pain care will lead to better treatment and reduce the risk of controlled substances being misused. In their eyes, pharmacists “play key roles in educating other health care professionals and patients about safe and effective chronic pain management.”

Under federal law, pharmacists have a “corresponding responsibility” when filling prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances – a legal right to refuse to fill prescriptions they consider unusual or improper. Usually that “responsibility” begins at the pharmacy level, but Drs. Schang and Irwin think it should start before prescriptions are even written for chronic pain conditions.

“Despite the high prevalence of chronic pain and its far-reaching consequences, it often has suboptimal management, typically involving a combination of pharmacotherapy that can quickly become complex and require expertise. Pharmacists are uniquely well positioned to provide this expertise and optimize medication management for chronic pain,” they wrote.

“There is an immense need for safe and effective medication management in chronic pain, and pharmacists have a unique role to play in meeting this need.”

Schang and Irwin cite several old pilot studies to support their claims. One study, published in 2018, involved 45 pain patients on high-dose opioids being treated at a large family medicine practice. A few days before their appointments, two pharmacists embedded in the practice reviewed patient charts and pain management plans, and recommended changes to their treating physicians.

Almost always, the recommendations were to taper the patients off opioids, switch to non-opioid analgesics, refer the patients to a pain specialist, and offer them a naloxone prescription to reverse overdoses. Those recommendations were often implemented.        

How did that work out for the patients? According to Schang and Irwin, there was a 14% average decrease in their daily dose of opioids in morphine milligram equivalents (MME), a tapering that was achieved “without impacting pain scores.”  

Is that what happened? Not really. A close look at the study itself shows that the average pain score went up after doses were lowered, from 5.3 before the pharmacists’ intervention to 5.5 afterward, based on a zero to 10 pain scale.

It’s also worth noting that these “high-risk” patients were on relatively high opioid doses before the intervention (135 MMEs daily). Even with the 14% reduction in dose, they were still getting an average of 116 MMEs daily – a dose that’s unattainable for most patients today due to fears about “overprescribing” opioids. Most patients in 2025 get less than 90 MME, in many cases substantially less.

Another pilot study cited by Schang and Irwin dates back to 2016. It involved a community pharmacy in an academic medical center in southern California. Pharmacists there reviewed the treatment plans of 23 patients on high dose opioids and recommended changes in their treatment, such as tapering, regular drug tests, and naloxone.

How the changes impacted the patients’ pain levels was apparently not evaluated, but particular attention was paid to their mental health. The most common problems identified by the pharmacists were “untreated” depression, anxiety, insomnia, and substance misuse.

“Notably, substance misuse was identified in nearly a third of patients, which allowed for subsequent referral to substance use disorder treatment when appropriate. Similar interventions in the community pharmacy setting also demonstrated significant value, with pharmacists identifying unaddressed issues with mood in nearly two-thirds of patients and increasing the uptake of naloxone,” Schang and Irwin wrote.

Being referred to addiction treatment or a psychiatrist probably isn’t the goal of most pain patients, who simply want their pain managed. That would go a long way toward resolving their “unaddressed” mental health issues.

Many pain patients today are already frustrated with pharmacists. They can’t get their opioid prescriptions filled due to opioid rationing, and are tired of the stigma and hostility they often face at pharmacies. The pharmacy industry itself is also going through a major contraction, with big chain pharmacies closing thousands of stores, leaving behind a dwindling supply of overworked pharmacists who are just as frustrated as the patients.

This is probably not a good time to embed pharmacists in clinical practices, and make a bad situation even worse.