Doctors More Likely to Use Negative Terms for Sickle Cell Patients

By Crystal Lindell

Sickle cell patients are more likely than other patients to have negative descriptions in their medical charts, such as “noncompliant” and “noncooperative,” according to a new study published in JAMA Network Open.

The results are concerning because prior research has shown that such descriptors make doctors less likely to aggressively treat pain, a common symptom of sickle cell disease. The genetic disorder causes red blood cells to form in a crescent or sickle shape, which creates painful blockages in blood vessels. About 100,000 Americans have sickle cell disease, primarily people of African or Hispanic descent.

Researchers at the University of Chicago used artificial intelligence to analyze electronic health records and clinician notes for over 18,000 adult patients. They looked for seven negative words in patient charts: aggressive, agitated, angry, nonadherent, noncompliant, noncooperative, and refuse.

The descriptive words for sickle cell patients were then compared to those of four other groups without sickle cell disease: Black patients, patients diagnosed with chronic pain, patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD), and non-Black patients. 

They found that patients with sickle cell disease had higher odds of having negative descriptions than Black patients, non-Black patients and patients with chronic pain, but had similar odds of negative descriptors as patients with opioid use disorder. Non-Black patients had the fewest negative descriptors than the other patient groups.

Black patients with sickle cell disease, chronic pain, and OUD had the highest frequency (19%) of negative descriptors in their medical notes.

The researchers said their findings suggest there is bias against patients with sickle cell disease, particularly when opioids are involved.

“Although patients with sickle cell disease routinely use opioid medications to manage their chronic pain, the vast majority do not have an opioid use disorder,”  said senior author Monica Peek, MD, a Professor for Health Justice at University of Chicago Medicine. 

“It is a testament to the strength of their character that they do their best to live full lives while managing debilitating pain with the minimum amount of medication. And yet, within health professions and society as a whole, there is a persistent bias that stereotypes these patients primarily as ‘drug-seekers’ rather than regular people managing a chronic disease.”

The bias and stigma have real life consequences: If a doctor or nurse sees negative descriptors in a patient’s chart, they are less likely to effectively treat their pain.

When it comes to terms like “noncompliant,” the issue can be a bit of a chicken-egg situation — it’s difficult to know what came first. 

Prior research has shown that patients with sickle cell disease who experience discrimination in health care are less likely to follow physician recommendations. These same patients may then be labeled as “noncompliant,” which could perpetuate discriminatory behavior against them. 

The researchers said that clinicians should work to understand why a patient may not want to take a medication or has trouble adhering to treatment, and then adjust their treatment plan to support the patients from there. And they should avoid using negative terms in patient charts.

Researchers Say Opioid Risk Tool Has ‘Too Many False Alarms’ 

By Pat Anson

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to grow in healthcare, with patient health data and behavior increasingly being used to assess whether a patient is at risk of an illness or chronic health condition.

NarxCare and Epic, for example, scan electronic health records and prescription drug databases to create Opioid Risk Scores (ORS) for patients, which are then shared with healthcare providers to flag patients at risk of opioid misuse or an overdose. Patients deemed to be at high risk may not be able to get a prescription for opioids or they may be abandoned as “too risky.”

But a new study – the first of its kind – suggests that using opioid risk scores to predict patient outcomes is flawed, with unacceptably high rates of false positives.   

The study, recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, looked at Epic’s opioid risk scores for over 700,000 U.S. patients being treated by primary care providers. The vast majority of patients (99.6%) were classified as low risk, with only 0.4% considered at high risk of an overdose or OUD.

It’s reassuring to see so many patients deemed low risk. But how accurate is the risk score in predicting patient outcomes? 

Of the 702,099 patients deemed low risk, only 2,177 went on to have an overdose or OUD diagnosis within the next 12 months. That means the system correctly predicted outcomes 99.7% of the time.

Conversely, of the 2,665 patients deemed high risk, only 185 later had an overdose or OUD diagnosis. That means Epic’s scoring system correctly predicted outcomes only about 7% of the time. 

Researchers say the false positive rate of 92.2% in the high risk category means that Epic’s ORS “produces too many false alarms” and is of little value to providers.  

“In this study, most high-risk patients were false positives, and most who developed OUD or overdosed were false negatives. Because these outcomes are rare, achieving adequate PPV (the proportion of cases that are accurate) is challenging. The ORS’s misclassification could undermine its external validity, leading to misallocated resources and missed interventions,” wrote lead author Stephanie Hooker, PhD, a Research Investigator at HealthPartners Institute.

“Missed interventions” in this case could mean a patient being denied opioid medication or being referred to addiction treatment, when neither move is justified.

On the flip side, Epic’s 99.7% success rate in identifying low risk patients also isn’t foolproof. 

Of the 2,362 patients who experienced an overdose or OUD diagnosis, Epic’s system flagged only 185 of them as high risk — which suggests that over two thousand were incorrectly labeled as “low risk.”

Maybe the lesson here is that “low risk” doesn’t mean no risk, and “high risk” doesn’t provide any certainty either.  

Pain management expert Dr. Lynn Webster says no opioid risk score — whether Epic’s or NarxCare’s – should be viewed as authoritative by doctors and pharmacists in making clinical decisions.     

“Both tools can be harmful if used punitively. The NarxCare scores have shown that overestimated risk may lead to forced tapering, abandonment, or other punitive responses, which could paradoxically increase overdose risk. With Epic, the harm is a bit different: the score can both stigmatize flagged patients and falsely reassure clinicians about the much larger group labeled low risk,” said Webster, a Senior Fellow at the Center for U.S. Policy (CUSP).

In 2023, CUSP petitioned the FDA to take Narxcare’s ORS software off the market as an unproven and misbranded medical device. The FDA rejected the petition on procedural grounds. 

In the case of Epic’s ORS, Webster says it is a mistake to count OUDs and overdoses in the same prediction model because they are distinct events. Someone can overdose without having OUD, while someone can have OUD without ever experiencing an overdose.   

“Opioid risk tools will always struggle to predict overdose death risk because overdoses can occur in patients who have no opioid use disorder and no aberrant drug-related behavior,” Webster told PNN. “Some patients overdose even when they take their medications exactly as prescribed. Overdose can also occur because of comorbid medical conditions or other factors unrelated to OUD.”

As flawed as they might be, Epic and NarxCare are already embedded in the U.S. healthcare system. Data on over 190 million patients has been collected by Epic’s MyChart software, while NarxCare is used by Walmart, Rite Aid, CVS and other major pharmacy chains to analyze patient risk.

“Whether the score comes from NarxCare or Epic, the core danger is the same: once a proprietary risk label is embedded in the chart, it can take on a false authority that changes how patients are treated,” says Webster.

Co-Prescribing of Opioids and Gabapentinoids Grows Despite Warnings

By Pat Anson

In 2019, the FDA warned that serious breathing problems can occur in patients who take gabapentinoids with opioids or other medications that suppress the central nervous system. The agency said elderly patients and those with pre-existing lung problems were at highest risk of respiratory depression, which can lead to a fatal overdose.

Those warnings went unheeded by many doctors, according to a new study that found the co-prescribing of gabapentinoids to patients on long-term opioid therapy increased over the past decade, rising from 47% in 2015 to 58.7% in 2023.

Gabapentinoids are a class of nerve medication originally developed to prevent seizures, but are widely prescribed off-label to treat pain. They include gabapentin (Neurontin) and pregabalin (Lyrica), as well as generic versions of the drugs.

Not only did co-prescribing with gabapentinoids increase, but the age of patients on long-term opioids also rose, from 52.5 years in 2015 to 60.5 in 2023. Nearly half of those patients (48.7%) are on Medicare. 

“Because older adults are at higher risk of adverse events from polypharmacy, the increased rates of coprescribing, particularly with gabapentinoids, raises additional safety concerns,”  said Thuy Nguyen, PhD, Assistant Professor of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health.

Nguyen and her colleagues' findings, published in a JAMA research letter, also document a steady decline in long-term opioid use, which coincides with federal and state guidelines that were imposed to limit opioid prescriptions.  

Between 2015 and 2023, the number of U.S. patients on long-term opioid therapy for at least 90 days fell from 5.6 million to about 4.2 million — a 24.3% decrease. 

At the same time, the average daily dose of opioids also declined, from 47.9 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) in 2015 to 38.6 MME in 2023 – which is in line with CDC guidelines that recommend caution when doses exceed 50 MME.

Researchers think more work is needed to reduce opioid use and to find alternative ways to relieve pain.

“With almost 5 million Americans on long-term prescription opioids for chronic pain, and likely millions more who are taking shorter courses of prescription opioids for acute pain, most clinicians are likely to care for someone using prescription opioids for pain, highlighting the pressing importance for investing in better treatment models for pain,” said senior author Pooja Lagisetty, MD, Associate Professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School.

In addition to gabapentinoids, researchers tracked overlapping prescriptions for other controlled substances. They found that co-prescribing of long-term opioids with benzodiazepines declined from 43.8% in 2015 to 33.5% in 2023; while co-prescribing for stimulants rose from 5.9% to 6.7%.

In short, polypharmacy is relatively common with patients on long-term opioids, despite the known risks of combining certain drugs. 

Common side effects from gabapentin include brain fog, dizziness, weight gain, headache, fatigue, and anxiety. The drug has also been linked to a higher risk of dementia.

Those side effects may lead to a “prescribing cascade,” in which doctors mistakenly prescribe unnecessary medications to patients that cause even more side effects – never suspecting that gabapentin was the cause and they should consider discontinuing the drug.

In 2024, gabapentin was the fifth most prescribed drug in the U.S., with prescriptions nearly tripling since 2010. The number of patients prescribed gabapentin reached 15.5 million in 2024.

The off-label prescribing of gabapentin is legal and, in some cases, appropriate. But it has reached extreme levels, with studies estimating gabapentin is prescribed off-label up to 95% of the time

Iran War Creates ‘Perfect Storm’ for Drug Shortages 

By Pat Anson

The Iran war has disrupted the global supply chain so much that it could worsen shortages and raise prices of painkillers and other commonly used medications, according to experts. 

In addition to supplying much of the world with oil and natural gas, the Middle East serves as a crucial transportation hub for pharmaceutical companies. Ships and planes are being rerouted to avoid the region, which creates delays and higher shipping costs. 

“If the instability really persists, you’ll probably see lead times, transportation costs that can impact direct items that we need for our medicines, including the key starting materials into active pharmaceutical ingredients,” Gerren McHam, vice president of external affairs at the API Innovation Center, told The Hill.  

Even before the war, the UK was dealing with shortages of aspirin and co-codomal, a combination of paracetamol and codeine. Other drugs in short supply include those used to treat arthritis, diabetes, epilepsy and cancer.

The UK is reportedly “a few weeks away” from running out of some generic medicines. Like the United States, the UK relies heavily on generic pharmaceuticals produced in India.

“It’s the perfect storm. We have the conflict in the Gulf that caused the strait of Hormuz to shut down, and India is known as the pharmacy of the world. They produce a lot of the generic drugs and APIs (active pharmaceutical ingredients). With the geopolitical situation, it’s harder and harder to get those out,” said David Weeks, director of supply chain risk management at Moody’s. 

Before the war, Canada was also dealing with shortages of drugs used to treat pain and arthritis, according to a new report from the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance (CAPA). 

CAPA interviewed arthritis sufferers and their caregivers, who reported “profound disruptions to their physical and mental well-being” due to shortages of pain relievers such as Percocet, hydromorphone, Tylenol 3 and acetaminophen, as well as anti-inflammatory drugs and biologics used to treat arthritis. 

Patients and caregivers said they often had to make multiple trips to pharmacies before finding one that had their medications in stock.

“What happens to people who don’t have someone to support them through this? Would they just be waiting in the pharmacy while in immense pain - I would hate for my mom to be stuck in a situation like this on her own,” one caregiver told CAPA.

One bright spot is that shortages of oxycodone and acetaminophen with codeine that began last summer in Canada have largely ended. The drugs are now “generally available in pharmacies,” according to Health Canada.

The Iran war so far has had little immediate impact on pain patients in the U.S. – who have already been dealing with persistent shortages of opioid medication for several years. 

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) continues to report shortages of oxycodone-acetaminophen tablets, oxycodone immediate release tablets, hydrocodone-acetaminophen tablets and morphine immediate release tablets; as well as injectable opioids used in surgery and emergency medicine. 

A new study published in JAMA Health Forum highlights how vulnerable the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is to global supply chain disruptions. 

Researchers at Yale University looked at stimulant shortages in 2022 and 2023, when many  patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) had difficulty filling their prescriptions. 

Although the limited supply was often blamed on increased demand and tight DEA production quotas, researchers say the more likely cause was a “historically unprecedented” decrease in US imports of amphetamine and other chemicals used to make stimulants. The shortfall in imports led to sudden production cutbacks by several stimulant manufacturers.

“Supply chain disruptions can occur in many places in the supply chain. However, descriptive evidence indicates that the most recent ADHD drug shortage may be associated with a disruption in the sourcing of raw ingredients from abroad,” researchers reported..

“More broadly, this economic evaluation reframes the discussion of ADHD medication shortages beyond DEA quotas, highlighting the vulnerability of US pharmaceutical manufacturing to international supply chain disruptions.” 

U.S. Overdose Deaths Down Significantly

By Pat Anson

The number of fatal drug overdoses fell sharply in the U.S. in 2024, led by a significant decline in deaths involving illicit fentanyl, according to a new analysis.

Over 79,000 Americans lost their lives to a drug overdose in 2024, compared to 105,000 in 2023, a 24.5% decline in one year. Over 54,000 of the deaths in 2024 involved an opioid of some kind. 

The analysis by KFF further demonstrates the declining role of prescription opioids in the nation’s drug crisis. Prescribed opioids are now involved in about one in seven (13.6%) drug overdoses. 

In 2024, 10,851 Americans died from an overdose involving a natural or semi-synthethic prescription opioid, compared to 47,735 deaths involving synthetic opioids, mostly illicit fentanyl. 

Deaths from prescription opioids peaked at 17,029 in 2017 and have steadily declined.

U.S. Opioid Overdose Deaths 2004-2024

SOURCE: KFF

“Since the opioid epidemic was declared a public health emergency in 2017, it has claimed more than half a million lives. While the epidemic was initially driven by prescription opioids and heroin, it has evolved in recent years, to be dominated by illicit synthetic fentanyl — a substance significantly more potent than morphine,” KFF said. “Provisional CDC data suggest opioid deaths have continued to decline through 2025.”

The KFF analysis also looked at deaths involving alcohol, suicide and firearms.

In 2024, 48,824 American lives were lost to suicide, down slightly from the previous year. Firearms accounted for 57% of those deaths. There were 46,714 “alcohol-induced” deaths in 2024 caused by health conditions attributed to excessive alcohol use, about the same number of fentanyl overdoses.

Those deaths greatly outnumber fatal overdoses involving prescription opioids.

U.S. Deaths in 2024

Source: KFF

As PNN has reported, a recent study ranked alcohol as the 5th most harmful drug In the United States, behind illicit fentanyl, methamphetamine, crack and heroin. Prescription opioids ranked as the 7th most harmful drug in the U.S.

The analysis not only looked at the direct harm to drug users, but the indirect harm to families, communities and society at large caused by excessive drug use.

A panel of experts said the analysis shows how misdirected U.S. drug policy is, which is focused on crime and punitive measures to stop drug use, rather than public health measures to address substance use disorders. Criminalizing drug use may also be making the drug crisis worse, by taking legal drugs away from people who benefit from them.   

“All drugs have benefits to people who use them at least initially, and some may have ongoing benefits. For legal drugs, there may be social benefits like employment in related industries and taxation to fund public services,” wrote lead author Michael Broman, PhD, an Assistant Professor at The Ohio State University College of Social Work.

“Redirecting resources towards harm reduction may reduce social harms by reducing the economic cost of policing and surveilling people who use drugs. Concurrently, PWUD (people who use drugs) could remain contributing members of their families and communities.”

Every Chronic Pain Patient Should Have Their Hormone Levels Tested

By Dr. Forest Tennant

Periodic hormone panel testing should be a standard procedure in chronic pain care. Why? Some specific hormones are essential for pain control and others for healing and restoration of damaged tissues. 

Unfortunately, both chronic pain and opioid medications can suppress hormones, which the body needs for pain control and tissue healing. Nerve receptors in the brain that control pain, such as the opioid/endorphin, dopamine, GABA, and serotonin receptors, use hormones as energizers – the same way gas is needed to fuel your car. 

One of the first signs that your hormone levels are deficient — and that you’re running out of gas —- is when your pain relief medication seems to be losing its effectiveness. If that is the case, hormone panel testing should be performed and hormone replacement may be necessary. 

Six hormones that you should test for:

  • Pregnenolone

  • Progesterone

  • Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA)

  • Estradiol

  • Testosterone

  • Cortisol

Opioids can suppress all of these hormones. Long-acting opioids like oxycodone, morphine, methadone, fentanyl patches, and intrathecal opioids are the worst.

Short-acting opioids like hydrocodone and hydromorphone are less disruptive, because they do not constantly remain in the blood, so they give the pituitary and other hormone-producing glands time to recover. 

Long-acting opioids constantly suppress the pituitary and other glands. Consequently, any person who takes a long-acting opioid needs hormone panel testing at least every 6 months. All deficiencies must be replenished.

Hormone Therapies

Given the importance of hormone testing and hormone replacement therapy, I recently published a new book, “Hormone Therapies in Chronic Pain Care.”

I wrote the book because I strongly believe it is time to incorporate hormonal therapies into the care of essentially every chronic pain patient.  

Despite an imperfect pain care system that admittedly has some supply, regulation, and financial issues, modern pain management has achieved great success.  

Recently developed medications, physical therapies, and surgical procedures have brought pain relief and recovery to millions around the world.  Hormones can and will build on this foundation. 

The book is designed to help both medical practitioners and patients identify hormone therapies that can improve their current treatment. You can’t control pain or acquire healing and restoration with deficient hormone levels.

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. 

Tapering Plan Led by Pharmacists Shows No Benefit for Seniors

By Crystal Lindell

If pharmacists helped taper elderly patients off opioids and benzodiazepines, would that reduce their risk of falling?

Turns out, the answer is no. Having pharmacists get involved in a senior’s treatment plan doesn’t significantly reduce fall risk or prescriptions for the medications, according to research recently published in JAMA..

Falling is a significant risk factor for seniors, because their bones fracture more easily and it takes longer for them to recover. Medications that impair balance – such as opioids and anti-anxiety drugs – raise the risk of falling, especially in seniors who take them concurrently. 

Researchers at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine recruited 15 primary care clinics to participate in the study. Nearly 2,100 patients at the clinics met the study criteria, which was being over the age of 65 and having a long-term prescription for opioids and/or benzodiazepines. 

Over 95% of the patients on opioids had chronic pain and about a third of them had a fall in the past year..

Pharmacists for about half the patients were encouraged to “deprescribe” them, when appropriate, by recommending a voluntary taper plan to their doctors  The other patients received usual care from their doctors, without any tapering recommendations, and served as a control group.

A year later, doctors followed the pharmacists’ advice by tapering 21.4% of patients off of opioids. But that was only slightly more than the control group, which saw opioids discontinued for 19.9% of patients. The tapering rates for benzodiazepines were similar and “not statistically significant."

Notably, there was little difference in falls between the two groups, which were essentially “unchanged” by the tapering.

In other words, having a pharmacist make tapering recommendations to doctors had very little, if any, impact. Tapering occurred in both groups, whether a pharmacist was involved or not.

“Although reductions occurred in both groups, the intervention did not significantly reduce prescribing or falls at 1 year. Still, pharmacist recommendations were feasible to implement and accepted more often than rejected, indicating general practitioner receptiveness,” researchers concluded. “These results suggest that a consultant pharmacist–led intervention is feasible to implement in primary care clinics.”

Note the word, "feasible" rather than "effective." Sure, it can be done, but that doesn't mean it should be done.

I would guess that the program did not reduce prescriptions for opioids and benzodiazepines anymore than the control group because prescribing had already been reduced. At the start of the study, the average daily dose of opioids was 23.6 morphine milligram equivalents (MME), which is a low to moderate dose.

Given how much these medications are already being restricted, few patients are getting opioids or benzos if they don’t desperately need them – not even seniors.

Beyond that, I think it’s really important to take a step back when looking at research like this and consider the patient’s perspective. 

How were the tapering plans presented to patients? Were they asked to weigh the pros and cons? Did they have a voice in their treatment?  

I suspect if they were given the option of staying on a medication or reducing their fall risk, many seniors would choose to stay on the medication. 

Unfortunately, the study authors seem to take the wrong lesson from the research, at least in my opinion. Although their study failed to prove much of anything, they concluded there should be “more intensive or sustained deprescribing strategies.”

There are a lot of studies looking at ways to reduce opioid prescriptions — I suspect because those are the easiest to fund — and I’m honestly glad this one failed. 

The biggest problem many seniors face today is that they cannot get access to effective pain and anxiety treatment. If anything, researchers should be working to address that problem, rather than making it worse.

Instead of working on blanket reductions for these types of medications, I wish they would look at finding alternatives that actually work.

If you lost a loved to suicide after a change in their prescription pain medication, please consider participating in a survey to help researchers learn more about these tragic situations. Click here or on the banner below for more information.

Opioids Effective for Many Acute Pain Conditions

By Pat Anson

As pharmaceutical companies scramble to develop new non-opioid treatments for pain, a large new review found that opioid analgesics are effective for many acute pain conditions and come with little risk.

Led by researchers at the University of Sydney, the study looked at 59 clinical studies for dozens of short-term acute pain conditions.

They found “high-certainty” evidence that opioids were effective in treating abdominal pain, postpartum pain and dental pain; “moderate-certainty” evidence that they relieve pain from sciatica, post-operative pain and ten other acute conditions; and “low-certainty” evidence that they work on nine other short-term pain conditions.

There was no high quality evidence that opioids are ineffective for acute pain, but there was moderate and low quality evidence that they provide little relief for some acute conditions, such as pain from minimally invasive surgeries.

Adverse events were limited to vomiting and nausea, with no serious events like overdose, death, or addiction reported in any of the 59 studies.

“This paper is best understood as a broad evidence map, not a simple yes/no verdict on opioids for acute pain. It shows that opioids have helped in some acute pain conditions, but benefits are mixed, often modest, and vary by condition and timepoint,” said Lynn Webster, MD, a pain management expert and Senior Fellow at the Center for U.S. Policy, who was not involved in the study.

“The authors did not find a significant increase in serious adverse events in these short-term trials, but they also emphasize that harms reporting was incomplete.”

In short, opioids work for many acute pain conditions, depending on the dose, and pose no serious risk of harm, at least over the short-term.

“There was no high certainty evidence showing that opioids were not efficacious,” researchers reported in the journal Drugs. “There was no significant increased risk of serious adverse events in any review.”  

‘Opioids Aren’t Effective’ 

But that is not how the study was portrayed in a University of Sydney press release, which warned in a headline that “opioids aren’t effective for many acute pain conditions.”

The release quoted one author as saying opioids work “only slightly better than a placebo” and are not worth the risk.

“Our review found that they did not provide large or lasting pain relief compared with placebo for the vast majority of acute pain conditions, with pain relief typically lasting only a few hours,” said lead author Christina Abdel Shaheed, PhD, an Associate Professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney. 

“By showing that the benefits are generally small, short-lived, absent for many common conditions, and sometimes harmful, our research challenges the widely held belief that opioids are the most effective ‘go-to’ option for acute pain.”

Shaheed and several of her co-authors have participated in other studies that take a dim view of opioids. One is a controversial 2023 trial, known as the OPAL study, which found that low doses of oxycodone work no better than a placebo in relieving acute back or neck pain. 

“Opioids should not be recommended for acute back and neck pain, full stop,” said Christine Lin, PhD. a Professor of Public Health at the University of Sydney, who was the lead investigator of the OPAL study and a co-author of the new study. 

Critics complained the OPAL study’s conclusions were too broad, not supported by evidence, and “misplaced and dangerous.”  In reply, Lin agreed that they may have gone too far and that their findings “might not be generalizable to all patients.”

Dr. Webster takes a similar view of the new study, saying it would be wrong to draw conclusions about the effectiveness or harm caused by opioids, given the low quality of most studies that were reviewed.

“The paper is best viewed as a map of evidence gaps and variable-quality evidence, not a final word,” Webster told PNN. “Most of the underlying reviews were rated critically low quality, so the paper is very useful for mapping what we know and what we still don’t know. Broad conclusions about opioid efficacy would be inappropriate.” 

One of the co-authors of the new study is Jane Ballantyne, MD, a former President and current Vice-President of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group. Ballantyne reported no conflicts of interest, although in the past she has acknowledged serving as a paid expert witness in opioid litigation cases.

Can Fentanyl Be ‘Rewired’ to Make It Safer?

By Pat Anson

Scientists at Scripps Research have found a way to change fentanyl’s molecular structure to reduce the risk of overdosing, while at the same time preserving its pain-relieving properties. 

The findings, published in the ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, suggest that next-generation synthetic opioids could have less risk of addiction, respiratory depression, and death. 

Fentanyl has been used safely and effectively for over 50 years as a surgical analgesic, and by patients with severe pain from cancer and other intractable pain conditions. Only in the past decade has illicit fentanyl emerged as a potent and deadly street drug that fueled the U.S. overdose crisis.

That has given fentanyl a bad name – and led to efforts to “rewire” fentanyl and other opioids to make them safer, but still effective as pain relievers.

“For decades, the pharmaceutical industry has been constrained by the assumption that major structural changes to opioids would eliminate their analgesic properties,” says senior author Kim Janda, PhD, Professor of Chemistry at the Skaggs Institute For Chemical Biology. 

“Our research has identified a different possibility—that fundamental structural redesign can preserve pain relief while improving safety.”

Janda and his colleagues used a medicinal chemistry strategy known as “bioisosteric replacement,” a method used to redesign molecules to have different effects than the original molecules. 

To engineer the change in fentanyl, scientists replaced the central ring structure of fentanyl molecules with an entirely different one called “2-azaspiro[3.3]heptane.” The new compound doesn’t bind as much to nerve receptors in the brain that regulate breathing. 

When the redesigned fentanyl was tested on laboratory mice, the team arrived at a dose that remained effective as an analgesic, while the mice “appeared normal with no indication of distress or signs of acute toxicity.” 

Slowed breathing in the mice occurred only at very high doses and was temporary, with breathing returning to normal within 25-30 minutes. The new analog has a short half-life of about 27 minutes – the amount of time it takes for the liver to metabolize and break down the drug. Other medicines have a long half-life of several hours or even days — which makes them potentially more toxic.

“Finding ways to preserve the analgesic properties of the synthetic opioids without encumbering the perils of respiratory depression could help derisk the toxicity associated with synthetic opioid use while providing a new conduit for pain management,” says Janda.

The research appears promising and may someday benefit pain patients, but it overlooks the fact that illicit fentanyl is involved in most overdoses. The drug cartels and street dealers that sell it will have little interest in changing the chemical structure of illicit fentanyl to make it safer.

Can Long-Term Opioid Use Be Predicted Before Surgery?

By Pat Anson

Patients on Medicaid and those who have a history of anxiety, mood disorders, or benzodiazepine use are significantly more likely to use opioids long-term after surgery, according to a new analysis.

The study, published in the journal Pain Medicine, could provoke fresh debate over whether opioid addiction can be predicted, and whether risk assessments unfairly stigmatize patients and affect how they are treated.

“Identifying who is at risk before the first incision is made is a critical step in combatting the opioid crisis,” said lead author Yoonjae Lee, DNP, a second-year PhD student at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Nursing..

“Our findings provide a roadmap for clinicians to implement targeted interventions, ensuring that high-risk patients receive enhanced monitoring and alternative pain management strategies.”

Lee and her colleagues analyzed data from 27 clinical studies to see what raises the risk of patients new to opioids becoming long-term users after surgery. 

They found that “opioid-naïve” patients with Medicaid coverage and those with a history of taking benzodiazepine anti-anxiety medication had 77% higher odds of developing new persistent opioid use (NPOU). 

Patients with a history of depression or other mood disorders had 24% higher odds, while those with anxiety had a 17% higher risk of persistent opioid use.

Based on these findings, researchers say every patient should be screened before surgery for the risk of long-term opioid use, so that changes can be made in their treatment.

“Minimizing the development of NPOU requires a thorough preoperative medication review, as our findings indicated that certain drugs including antidepressants, muscle relaxants, anticonvulsants, and sedatives are linked to a higher risk of NPOU. Among these risk factors, preoperative benzodiazepine use stands out as the strongest,” researchers concluded.

“With respect to clinical implications, clinicians should adopt a comprehensive and individualized approach to assessing and managing these predictive factors in each surgical patient, given the complex interaction of multiple factors affecting the development of NPOU. Although insurance status cannot be changed, mood disorders, anxiety, and benzodiazepine use can be modified preoperatively.” 

The idea of pre-screening surgery patients is similar to female patients being screened for potential opioid misuse through a questionnaire called the Opioid Risk Tool. In some cases, the questionnaire has been used as an excuse to deny opioids to women who have a history of childhood sexual abuse.

Penn Nursing researchers may have an exaggerated notion of just how common long-term opioid use is after surgery. They cited a study claiming that “up to 65% of patients” continue to use opioids 90 days after surgery, a “significant postoperative complication” that leads to higher healthcare costs, as well as opioid misuse, diversion, overdose and addiction.

That’s a misleading reference to a 2024 analysis, which found that 2% to 65% of surgery patients are at risk of long term opioid use. That assessment is based on a review of over 30 clinical studies, which came up with a wide range of estimates on the risk of persistent opioid use. The Penn Nursing study only cited the higher 65% estimate, while ignoring the lower ones. 

Other studies have found that surgery patients rarely misuse opioids or become long-term users. A large 2018 Harvard Medical School study found that only 0.6% of patients had signs of opioid misuse after surgery.

A large 2016 study in Canada put the risk of long-term opioid use after one year at only 0.4% of surgery patients. “Our study thus provides reassurance that the individual risk of long-term opioid use in opioid-naive surgical patients is low,” researchers reported.

Neither the Canadian or Harvard study were included in the Penn Nursing analysis because researchers didn’t include studies conducted prior to 2019.

It’s fairly common for patients to need pain management for months after surgery. Post-operative pain becomes chronic in about 10% to 50% of surgery patients, depending on the type and invasiveness of the surgery. That’s why opioids and other analgesics are essential in post-op care. 

UK researchers say “great efforts must be made to provide effective post-operative pain relief for a long enough period” to prevent acute post-op pain from becoming chronic.

The Penn Nursing study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

The Most Dangerous Drug in Canada Is Not Prescription Opioids

By Pat Anson

The most dangerous drug in Canada doesn’t require a prescription. You can’t smoke, vape, snort, or inject it. It doesn’t come in a pill, patch or edible.

It’s responsible for as many as 18-thousand deaths every year in Canada and can result in a lifetime of addiction. It ruins marriages, families, friendships and careers, and costs society about $20 billion a year in added healthcare expenses and lost productivity.

Yet it is readily available in most stores and can be purchased by anyone over the age of 19. In some provinces, the age limit is 18.

By now you’ve probably guessed that I’m talking about alcohol.

A new report by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) found that alcohol causes more harm in Canada overall than any other drug — ranking well above tobacco, illicit fentanyl, cocaine, cannabis, methamphetamine and, yes, prescription opioids.

CAMH put together a diverse panel of 20 experts in public health, epidemiology, addiction, criminology, psychology and public policy to assess the short and long-term impact of 16 commonly used psychoactive drugs. In addition to the direct “harm to users” – such as addiction and overdose – they evaluated the indirect “harm to others” – families, communities and society at large.

“This is the first time this approach has been used to assess drug harms in Canada, and it gives us a much more complete picture than we had before,” said Jean-François Crépault, Senior Policy Advisor at CAMH and lead author of the study published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology. 

“When we look at harm to people who use drugs and harm to others together, alcohol clearly stands out. Our findings highlight a major gap between the harms linked to alcohol and the way it is currently regulated in Canada.”

Based on a ranking system of 0 to 100, with zero meaning no harm and 100 being the most harmful, alcohol was given a score of 79, followed by tobacco (45) and non-prescription opioids (33). The latter category includes illicit fentanyl, xylazine, and other opioid-based street drugs.

Cocaine (19), methamphetamine (19), cannabis (15) and crack (10) are next, with “prescription opioids” (8) ranked as the eighth most harmful drug category.

Even that ranking is a bit misleading, as it includes morphine, oxycodone and other pharmaceutical opioids that are diverted and used without a prescription – which probably should be counted as non-prescription opioids.

Prescription opioids were ranked so low in terms of harm, they barely beat out ENDs (7), an acronym for electronic nicotine delivery systems, more commonly known as vapes or e-cigarettes.

Most Harmful Drugs in Canada

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY

The finding that alcohol causes the most harm aligns with previous studies in the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand.

In the United States, a recent study that used a slightly different methodology ranked alcohol as the 5th most harmful drug, behind illicit fentanyl, methamphetamine, crack and heroin. Prescription opioids ranked as the 7th most harmful drug in the U.S.

Experts say these studies point to a clear need for government drug policies to better align with the actual harm that a specific drug causes – and not be based on laws, guidelines, class action lawsuits, or whatever drug hysteria is popular at the moment. 

Despite all the harm it causes, no one talks about banning alcohol, yet natural leaf kratom and the kratom extract 7-OH are being demonized as “gas station heroin” and “legal morphine” that should be banned. Never mind that there is little solid evidence they are dangerous when used appropriately. Neither substance made the “harmful” list in Canada, United States, or anywhere else.

“The key message here is that harm is not just about what a drug does to the body,” said Crépault. “How a drug is regulated shapes who uses it, how it is used, and how much harm it causes. Evidence-based policy can significantly reduce harm, and governments have a real opportunity to use regulation to protect public health.”

CDC Opioid Guideline Raised Cost of Pain Care

By Pat Anson

The CDC’s 2016 opioid prescribing guideline not only had disastrous consequences for many pain patients, but raised the cost of treating them in primary care practices, according to a new analysis.

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison studied the budget impact of four different strategies used at primary care clinics to comply with the guideline, which strongly encouraged doctors to reduce opioid prescribing. 

The strategies primarily relied on prescriber education, evaluations and auditing to see if the clinics were successful in reducing the use of opioids. Whether patient safety and pain relief improved were not part of the study.

The cost per clinic for implementing the strategies ranged from $4,416 to $8,358, with prescriber education being the cheapest approach. However, while education alone cost less upfront, the clinics that used it had the largest increases in downstream expenses, such as greater use of urine drug tests (UDTs), treatment agreements, and depression screening. That made it the most costly approach overall.       

The 2016 guideline recommended that doctors limit daily opioid doses to no more than 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), conduct regular drug testing of patients, and have patients sign “pain contracts” promising to follow their doctor’s treatment plan.

The CDC’s recommendations were not only costly and burdensome to providers, according to researchers, but resulted in “no significant decrease” in MME for patients on long-term opioid therapy. Patients on opioid therapy for less than 3 months saw their doses decline by 6%. 

“In summary, from 2016 to 2022, no evidence emerged showing that UDTs were effective in improving long-term outcomes such as decreased overdoses or better pain management,” wrote lead author Andrew Quanbeck, PhD, an Associate Professor in the University of Wisconsin's Department of Family Medicine and Community Health.

“Over time, treatment agreements and UDTs have emerged as low-value care that imposes significant costs for primary care physicians and patients. Results suggest that health systems have an opportunity to shift focus from costly surveillance tools to inexpensive, holistic screening for pain, function, and quality of life and careful initiation of opioids for new patients.”  

The study, published in the Annals of Family Medicine, is one of the few to analyze the long-term impact of the original CDC guideline.  

It’s important to note that the CDC updated its guideline in 2022 to give more “flexibility” to doctors prescribing opioids. However, many of the agency’s 2016 recommendations were so stringently adopted by states, healthcare systems, insurers, and even law enforcement agencies that they remain unchanged – even though there were many reports of patients being harmed by them.

“It is clear that the CDC Guideline has harmed many patients,” the American Medical Association wrote in a 2020 letter to the CDC. “In many cases, health insurance plans and pharmacy benefit managers have used the 2016 CDC Guidelines to justify inappropriate one-size-fits-all restrictions on opioid analgesics while also maintaining restricted access to other therapies for pain.”

The Food and Drug Administration also warned the CDC guideline was causing “serious harm” to patients, including forced tapers, uncontrolled pain, psychological distress and suicide.    

In a 2022 PNN survey of over 2,500 patients and providers, nearly 85% said the CDC should not have created guidelines for opioid prescribing and pain treatment. Over 93% said the guidelines made the quality of pain care in the United States worse.

Prohibition Medicine and the Collapse of Patient Safety

By Michelle Wyrick

For more than a decade, the United States has been running a vast, uncontrolled policy experiment in medical care. Under the banner of “opioid reduction” and “overdose prevention,” regulators have steadily restricted, stigmatized, and in many cases effectively eliminated access to stable, physician-supervised treatment for pain, anxiety, and other chronic disabling conditions.

The results of this experiment are now visible everywhere, and they are not subtle. Patients are sicker, more desperate, more marginalized, and more exposed to dangerous unregulated substances than at any point in modern medical history.

This outcome should not surprise anyone. It is not an accident. It is the predictable result of applying prohibition logic to medicine.

When legitimate patients are cut off from stable, supervised, pharmaceutical-grade treatment, they do not stop having pain. They do not stop having anxiety, severe depression, neurological disease, connective tissue disorders, autoimmune conditions, or the many other illnesses that produce chronic suffering.

They look for substitutes. And there will always be substitutes.

This is not a moral statement. It is a basic fact of human biology and behavior.

Demand for relief from suffering is not eliminated by supply restrictions. It is merely displaced into less safe, less predictable, and less medically supervised channels.

This dynamic is not unique to opioids. It is a universal feature of prohibition systems. Alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century did not end drinking. It drove production into unregulated, often toxic forms and empowered criminal supply chains. Modern drug prohibition has not eliminated drug use. Instead, it has ensured that the drugs people do use are increasingly potent, adulterated, and dangerous.

The same pattern is now playing out inside medicine itself.

For decades, physicians used opioid analgesics, benzodiazepines, and other controlled medications in a personalized, risk-benefit framework. This was not perfect medicine, but it was recognizable medicine. Doctors assessed individual patients, monitored them, adjusted doses, and discontinued treatment when risks outweighed benefits. The vast majority of stable patients used these medications without chaos, without dose escalation, and without the kinds of outcomes now routinely attributed to the “opioid crisis.”

Beginning in the mid-2010s, this model was replaced with something very different. Guidelines were transformed into rigid limits. Clinical judgment was replaced by fear of regulators. Medical boards, insurers, pharmacies, and hospital systems began enforcing population-level dose ceilings and forced tapering policies that took little or no account of individual patient physiology, genetics, or clinical history.

This shift was justified using public health language, but it was not actually evidence-based medicine. It was administrative medicine.

The core assumption behind this approach was simple and deeply flawed. If you reduce access to prescription opioids, you reduce addiction and overdose.

In the real world, the opposite happened.

As prescription access fell, overdose deaths rose. Not slowly. Not ambiguously. They rose sharply and continuously, driven almost entirely by illicit synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and its analogues. This is not a coincidence. It is substitution.

When patients and non-patients alike lose access to regulated, dosed, known substances, the market does not disappear. It mutates. It becomes more concentrated, more dangerous, and more lethal.

From a pharmacological standpoint, this is exactly what one would predict. When supply is restricted, traffickers move to higher potency products that are easier to transport and conceal. This is why fentanyl replaced heroin, and why heroin replaced opium, and why alcohol prohibition favored spirits over beer. The same pressure operates everywhere prohibition is applied.

In medicine, this has produced a grotesque paradox. The very policies sold as “harm reduction” have forced more people into the most dangerous drug environment in history.

But the harm does not stop with overdose statistics.

For millions of legitimate patients, the new regime has meant something quieter but equally devastating. Forced tapers. Sudden discontinuations. Blacklisting by pharmacies. Doctors who will not treat pain at all. Clinics that advertise only “non-opioid” care, regardless of diagnosis, severity, or prior response.

These patients are often described in policy discussions as if they were abstractions. In reality, they are people with connective tissue disorders, spinal injuries, advanced arthritis, neuropathies, autoimmune diseases, post-surgical damage, and complex multi-system conditions. Many were stable for years or decades. Many were functional. Many worked, raised families, and lived ordinary lives.

When their treatment is removed, they do not return to some baseline healthy state. They collapse.

Some become housebound. Some lose the ability to work. Some develop severe depression and suicidality. Some are driven, reluctantly and fearfully, to seek relief outside the medical system.

This is the part of the story that is still not being honestly confronted.

People do not seek unregulated substances because they want to. They seek them because the medical system has left them with no humane alternative.

This is not “addiction” in the simplistic, moralized sense that is often implied. It is survival behavior in the context of untreated suffering.

From a systems perspective, the current policy framework violates one of the most basic principles of risk management. If you remove a safer, regulated option while demand remains constant, you do not eliminate risk. You increase it.

Pharmaceutical-grade medications have known dosages, known purity, known pharmacokinetics, and some degree of medical oversight. Gray and black market substances do not. They vary wildly in potency. They are often contaminated. They are frequently misrepresented. The margin for error is small, and the consequences of error are fatal.

This is why the shift from prescription opioids to illicit fentanyl has been so deadly. It is not because fentanyl is uniquely evil. It is because unregulated supply chains, extreme potency, and unpredictable dosing is a perfect storm.

A rational harm-reduction strategy would aim to pull people into safer, supervised, medically controlled channels. Instead, current policy does the opposite.

It pushes people out.

There is also a deeper scientific problem with the one-size-fits-all approach that now dominates pain and psychiatric care. Human beings do not respond to drugs uniformly. Genetics, metabolism, receptor expression, enzyme function, comorbid conditions, and prior exposure all profoundly shape both benefit and risk. Pharmacogenetics has made this increasingly obvious, yet policy continues to pretend that a single dosage threshold can define safety for everyone.

This is not medicine. It is bureaucratic simplification masquerading as science.

Some patients tolerate and benefit from opioid therapy at doses that would be excessive for others. Some cannot tolerate even low doses. Some respond better to one class of medication than another. The same is true for benzodiazepines, antidepressants, stimulants, and nearly every drug class in existence.

The proper response to this variability is individualized care, not blanket restriction.

Instead, clinicians are now taught, implicitly and explicitly, that avoiding regulatory risk matters more than relieving suffering. The result is widespread medical abandonment.

From an ethical standpoint, this should be alarming. Medicine is supposed to be organized around the care of the patient in front of the clinician, not the appeasement of distant agencies.

From a public health standpoint, it is also failing by its own stated metrics. Overdose deaths continue. Illicit markets continue to grow. Patients continue to be driven out of care.

This is not because the problem is unsolvable. It is because the framing is wrong.

We are not dealing with a battle between “medicine” and “drugs.” We are dealing with a battle between regulated, supervised, accountable systems and unregulated, chaotic, lethal ones.

History has already shown us how this ends. Every time.

Prohibition logic has never worked in any domain. Not alcohol. Not drugs. Not sex work. Not abortion. Not gambling. It does not eliminate demand. It ensures that demand is met in more dangerous ways.

If policymakers actually cared about safety and harm reduction, they would reverse course.

They would restore rational, individualized medical prescribing. They would protect clinicians who practice careful, documented, patient-centered care. They would stop forcing stable patients into destabilizing tapers. They would bring people back into the healthcare system instead of pushing them into gray and black markets.

They would also start telling the truth about what has happened.

The current crisis is not the result of doctors prescribing too compassionately. It is the result of a system that replaced medicine with fear, and then called the outcome “public health.”

We can continue down this path, and watch the death toll and human suffering rise year after year. Or we can admit what history, pharmacology, and basic systems theory already tell us.

You cannot ban your way to safety.

You can only regulate, supervise, and care your way there.

And right now, we are doing the opposite.

Michelle Wyrick is a Board Certified Psychiatric Registered Nurse and a Clinical Hypnotist in Gatlinburg, Tennessee.

Treating Pain Cost an Addiction Medicine Doctor Her Job

By Aneri Pattani, KFF Health News

Elyse Stevens had a reputation for taking on complex medical cases. People who’d been battling addiction for decades. Chronic-pain patients on high doses of opioids. Sex workers and people living on the street.

“Many of my patients are messy, the ones that don’t know if they want to stop using drugs or not,” said Stevens, a primary care and addiction medicine doctor.

While other doctors avoided these patients, Stevens — who was familiar with the city from her time in medical school at Tulane University — sought them out.

She regularly attended 6 a.m. breakfasts for homeless people, volunteered at a homeless shelter clinic on Saturdays, and on Monday evenings, visited an abandoned Family Dollar store where advocates distributed supplies to people who use drugs.

One such evening about four years ago, Charmyra Harrell arrived there limping, her right leg swollen and covered in sores. Emergency room doctors had repeatedly dismissed her, so she eased the pain with street drugs, Harrell said.

Stevens cleaned her sores on Mondays for months until finally persuading Harrell to visit the clinic at University Medical Center New Orleans. There, Stevens discovered Harrell had diabetes and cancer.

She agreed to prescribe Harrell pain medication — an option many doctors would automatically dismiss for fear that a patient with a history of addiction would misuse it.

ELYSE STEVENS

But Stevens was confident Harrell could hold up her end of the deal.

“She told me, ‘You cannot do drugs and do your pain meds,’” Harrell recounted on a Monday evening in October. So, “I’m no longer on cocaine.”

Stevens’ approach to patient care has won her awards and nominations in medicine, community service, and humanism. Instead of seeing patients in binaries — addicted or sober, with a positive or negative drug test — she measures progress on a spectrum. Are they showering daily, cooking with their families, using less fentanyl than the day before?

But not everyone agrees with this flexible approach that prioritizes working with patients on their goals, even if abstinence isn’t one of them. And it came to a head in the summer of 2024.

“The same things I was high-fived for thousands of times — suddenly that was bad,” Stevens said.

Flexible Care or Zero Tolerance?

More than 80% of Americans who need substance use treatment don’t receive it, national data shows. Barriers abound: high costs, lack of transportation, clinic hours that are incompatible with jobs, fear of being mistreated.

Some doctors had been trying to ease the process for years. Covid-19 accelerated that trend. Telehealth appointments, fewer urine drug tests, and medication refills that last longer became the norm.

The result?

“Patients did OK and we actually reached more people,” said Brian Hurley, immediate past president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine. The organization supports continuing flexible practices, such as helping patients avoid withdrawal symptoms by prescribing higher-than-traditional doses of addiction medication and focusing on recovery goals other than abstinence.

But some doctors prefer traditional approaches that range from zero tolerance for patients using illegal drugs to setting stiff consequences for those who don’t meet their doctors’ expectations. For example, a patient who tests positive for street drugs while getting outpatient care would be discharged and told to go to residential rehab.

Proponents of this method fear loosening restrictions could be a slippery slope that ultimately harms patients. They say continuing to prescribe painkillers, for example, to people using illicit substances long-term could normalize drug use and hamper the goal of getting people off illegal drugs.

Progress should be more than keeping patients in care, said Keith Humphreys, a Stanford psychologist, who has treated and researched addiction for decades and supports involuntary treatment.

“If you give addicted people lots of drugs, they like it, and they may come back,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean that that is promoting their health over time.”

Flexible practices also tend to align with harm reduction, a divisive approach that proponents say keeps people who use drugs safe and that critics — including the Trump administration — say enables illegal drug use.

The debate is not just philosophical. For Stevens and her patients, it came to bear on the streets of New Orleans.

‘Unconventional’ Prescribing

In the summer of 2024, supervisors started questioning Stevens’ approach.

In emails reviewed by KFF Health News, they expressed concerns about her prescribing too many pain pills, a mix of opioids and other controlled substances to the same patients, and high doses of buprenorphine, a medication considered the gold standard to treat opioid addiction.

Supervisors worried Stevens wasn’t doing enough urine drug tests and kept treating patients who used illicit drugs instead of referring them to higher levels of care.

“Her prescribing pattern appears unconventional compared to the local standard of care,” the hospital’s chief medical officer at the time wrote to Stevens’ supervisor, Benjamin Springgate. “Note that this is the only standard of care which would likely be considered should a legal concern arise.”

Springgate forwarded that email to Stevens and encouraged her to refer more patients to methadone clinics, intensive outpatient care, and inpatient rehab.

Stevens understood the general practice but couldn’t reconcile it with the reality her patients faced. How would someone living in a tent, fearful of losing their possessions, trek to a methadone clinic daily?

Stevens sent her supervisors dozens of research studies and national treatment guidelines backing her flexible approach. She explained that if she stopped prescribing the medications of concern, patients might leave the health system, but they wouldn’t disappear.

“They just wouldn’t be getting care and perhaps they’d be dead,” she said in an interview with KFF Health News.

Both University Medical Center and LSU Health New Orleans, which employs physicians at the hospital, declined repeated requests for interviews. They did not respond to detailed questions about addiction treatment or Stevens’ practices.

Instead, they provided a joint statement from Richard DiCarlo, dean of the LSU Health New Orleans School of Medicine, and Jeffrey Elder, chief medical officer of University Medical Center New Orleans.

“We are not at liberty to comment publicly on internal personnel issues,” they wrote.

“We recognize that addiction is a serious public health problem, and that addiction treatment is a challenge for the healthcare industry,” they said. “We remain dedicated to expanding access to treatment, while upholding the highest standard of care and safety for all patients.”

Not Black-and-White

KFF Health News shared the complaints against Stevens and the responses she’d written for supervisors with two addiction medicine doctors outside of Louisiana, who had no affiliation with Stevens. Both found her practices to be within the bounds of normal addiction care, especially for complex patients.

Stephen Loyd, an addiction medicine doctor and the president of Tennessee’s medical licensing board, said doctors running pill mills typically have sparse patient notes that list a chief complaint of pain. But Stevens’ notes detailed patients’ life circumstances and the intricate decisions she was making with them.

“To me, that’s the big difference,” Loyd said.

Some people think the “only good answer is no opioids,” such as oxycodone or hydrocodone, for any patients, said Cara Poland, an addiction medicine doctor and associate professor at Michigan State University. But patients may need them — sometimes for things like cancer pain — or require months to lower their doses safely, she said. “It’s not as black-and-white as people outside our field want it to be.”

Humphreys, the Stanford psychologist, had a different take. He did not review Stevens’ case but said, as a general practice, there are risks to prescribing painkillers long-term, especially for patients using today’s lethal street drugs too.

Overprescribing fueled the opioid crisis, he said. “It’s not going to go away if we do that again.”

‘The Thing That Kills People’

After months of tension, Stevens’ supervisors told her on March 10 to stop coming to work. The hospital was conducting a review of her practices, they said in an email viewed by KFF Health News.

Overnight, hundreds of her patients were moved to other providers.

Luka Bair had been seeing Stevens for three years and was stable on daily buprenorphine.

After Stevens’ departure, Bair was left without medication for three days. The withdrawal symptoms were severe — headache, nausea, muscle cramps.

“I was just in physical hell,” said Bair, who works for the National Harm Reduction Coalition and uses they/them pronouns.

Although Bair eventually got a refill, Springgate, Stevens’ supervisor, didn’t want to continue the regimen long-term. Instead, Springgate referred Bair to more intensive and residential programs, citing Bair’s intermittent use of other drugs, including benzodiazepines and cocaine, as markers of high risk. Bair “requires a higher level of care than our clinic reasonably can offer,” Springgate wrote in patient portal notes reviewed by KFF Health News.

But Bair said daily attendance at those programs was incompatible with their full-time job. They left the clinic, with 30 days to find a new doctor or run out of medication again.

“This is the thing that kills people,” said Bair, who eventually found another doctor willing to prescribe.

Springgate did not respond to repeated calls and emails requesting comment.

University Medical Center and LSU Health New Orleans did not answer questions about discharging Stevens’ patients.

‘Patients Will Die Without Her’

About a month after Stevens was told to stay home, Haley Beavers Khoury, a medical student who worked with her, had collected nearly 100 letters from other students, doctors, patients, and homelessness service providers calling for Stevens’ return.

One student wrote, “Make no mistake — some of her patients will die without her.” A nun from the Daughters of Charity, which ran the hospital’s previous incarnation, called Stevens a “lifeline” for vulnerable patients.

Beavers Khoury said she sent the letters to about 10 people in hospital and medical school leadership. Most did not respond.

In May, the hospital’s review committee determined Stevens’ practices fell “outside of the acceptable community standards” and constituted “reckless behavior,” according to a letter sent to Stevens.

The hospital did not answer KFF Health News’ questions about how it reached this conclusion or if it identified any patient harm.

Meanwhile, Stevens had secured a job at another New Orleans hospital. But because her resignation came amid the ongoing investigation, University Medical Center said it was required to inform the state’s medical licensing board.

The medical board began its own investigation — a development that eventually cost Stevens the other job offer.

In presenting her side to the medical board, Stevens repeated many arguments she’d made before. Yes, she was prescribing powerful medications. No, she wasn’t making clinical decisions based on urine drug tests. But national addiction organizations supported such practices and promoted tailoring care to patients’ circumstances, she said. Her response included a 10-page bibliography with 98 citations.

Abandoning People

The board’s investigation into Stevens is ongoing. Its website shows no action taken against her license as of late December.

The board declined to comment on both Stevens’ case and its definition of appropriate addiction treatment.

In October, Stevens moved to the Virgin Islands to work in internal medicine at a local hospital. She said she’s grateful for the welcoming locals and the financial stability to support herself and her parents.

But it hurts to think of her former patients in New Orleans.

Before leaving, Stevens packed away handwritten letters from several of them — one was 15 pages long, written in alternating green and purple marker — in which they shared childhood traumas and small successes they had while in treatment with her.

Stevens doesn’t know what happened to those patients after she left.

She believes the scrutiny of her practice centers on liability more than patient safety.

But, she said, “liability is in abandoning people too.”

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

DEA Cuts Oxycodone Supply, But Raises Production of Morphine in Surprise Move

By Pat Anson

The Drug Enforcement Administration is moving ahead with its plan to reduce the supply of oxycodone by over 6% in 2026, while at the same time significantly raising its production quota for morphine. There will be small reductions in the supply of hydrocodone, codeine and other Schedule II opioids this year.

The move to increase the supply of morphine by 10.5% is surprising, as the agency proposed cutting morphine production by over half a percent a little over a month ago. 

The DEA officially announced its plans January 5 in the Federal Register, 35 days after a December 1 deadline set for the agency in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Under the CSA, the DEA has broad legal authority to set annual aggregate production quotas (APQs) for opioids and other controlled substances. 

The December 1 deadline is important because it gives the pharmaceutical industry time to prepare for the coming year by adjusting drug manufacturing and distribution schedules. The DEA’s chronic failure to meet that deadline in previous years has contributed to shortages, according to drug makers.

Over 5,000 public comments were received by the DEA in response to the agency’s initial APQs for 2026. Most comments pleaded with the agency not to make any further cuts in the supply of opioids, many of which are already in short supply at pharmacies and hospitals. 

“I oppose cutting production for controlled medications at this time as there is already a shortage for many of these medications and patients are often not able to obtain their prescriptions. Cutting production during a shortage will only exacerbate the problem and increase patient suffering,” Hannah Khalil wrote in a public comment echoed by many others. 

The DEA, however, was dismissive of claims about opioid shortages, saying it was not responsible for them.

“Drug shortages may occur due to factors outside of DEA's control such as manufacturing and quality problems, processing delays, supply chain disruptions, or discontinuations,” the DEA said. “Currently, FDA has not listed on its Drug Shortage website any nationwide shortages of oxycodone and hydrocodone products.”

While it is true the FDA does not currently have oxycodone or hydrocodone on its shortage list, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) has listed both opioids on its shortage list since 2023. Limited supplies of oxycodone and hydrocodone are available from some manufacturers, according to the ASHP, while others have the medications on back order.

The difference between the FDA and ASHP shortage lists is that the FDA relies on drug manufacturers to report shortages, while the ASHP proactively surveys both pharmacies and drug makers about their inventories. That arguably makes it superior to the FDA’s methodology.

Ironically, the DEA itself has challenged the reliability of the FDA’s drug shortage list.

“DEA has made it clear it does not trust FDA’s information, as it does not consider many of the shortages that FDA verifies to be legitimate,” the General Accountability Office (GAO) said in a 2015 audit report. “They do not believe FDA appropriately validates or investigates the shortages.”

Increased Morphine Production

The DEA offered no explanation for the increase in morphine production. The production quota for morphine is 10.55% higher than last year's quota and the highest amount since 2021.

One likely reason for the DEA’s decision is that the FDA recently added morphine tablets and injectable morphine solutions to its shortage list, due to discontinuations and short supplies. The ASHP has listed morphine in shortage for several months. 

Morphine solutions and other injectable opioids are an important resource in hospitals, emergency rooms and surgery centers, where they are used in post-op care, sedation and anesthesia.

Morphine tablets are most often used to treat severe chronic pain.

I fear there will be continued shortages resulting in many patients suffering from the DEA’s quota decisions.
— Dr. Lynn Webster, pain management expert

“In 2025, there were major shortages of morphine immediate release (15-mg, 30-mg tablets) and morphine extended release (mostly 30-mg tablets) that lasted 3-4 months and were disruptive to care. I mentioned morphine in my personal, submitted comments (to the Federal Register),” said Chad Kollas, MD, a palliative care physician in Florida.

“I suspect that others also complained about last year’s morphine shortages, which may have led to the increase in production of morphine in 2026. It is also the cheapest of the traditional opioids, which may have played a role in the decision. I’m disappointed that they held the line on the oxycodone reduction.”

“I don't know why the DEA would reduce oxycodone while increasing the morphine quota. It seems illogical since there are reports that both are in shortage at the clinical level,” says Lynn Webster, MD, a pain management expert and former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. “I fear there will be continued shortages resulting in many patients suffering from the DEAs quota decisions.  

“They know patients are struggling to get access to both medications but they may think oxycodone is more likely to be abused than morphine. It appears they are trying to tell providers what they should prescribe. Yet they are not supposed to be involved in determining how medicine is practiced. Whether intentional or not, that is exactly what they are doing.”

Even with this year’s increase in morphine production, DEA has reduced the supply of morphine by over 63% since 2015. Steep declines have also been made in quotas for hydrocodone (-73%), oxycodone (-71%), and codeine (-70%) over the past decade.  

The DEA began cutting the opioid supply in response to pressure from Congress and anti-opioid activists, who claimed that prescription opioids were responsible for soaring overdose rates. While that claim has been largely debunked, opioid prescribing has continued to fall, as doctors became fearful of being accused of “overprescribing.”

The DEA says the “medical usage” of opioids fell by 10.5% in 2024 alone. The agency expects  that trend to continue, while dismissing claims that its shrinking opioid production quotas have interfered with the practice of medicine. 

“DEA's regulations do not impose restrictions on the amount and the type of medication that licensed practitioners can prescribe. DEA has consistently emphasized and supported the authority of individual practitioners under the CSA to administer, dispense, and prescribe controlled substances for the legitimate treatment of pain within acceptable medical standards,” DEA said.