Medicare Planning to Adopt CDC Opioid Guidelines

By Pat Anson, Editor

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced plans to fully implement the opioid prescribing guidelines released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which recommend that doctors not prescribe opioid medication for chronic non-cancer pain.

CMS is taking the CDC’s voluntary guidelines one step further, however, by mandating them as official Medicare policy and taking punitive action against doctors and patients who don’t follow them.

“When CDC released its guideline, I predicted that policymakers and payers would quickly move to convert CDC's voluntary recommendations into mandatory regulations, and my prediction appears to be coming true, both with CMS and with private payers,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, Executive Director of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management.

As Pain News Network has reported, CMS is adopting a “Big Brother” approach to fighting opioid abuse by developing a strategy that will encourage pharmacists to report doctors who may be overprescribing opioids and patients who may be abusing them. Information about these “potential opioid overutilizers” would be shared with insurance companies, which would be empowered to “prevent opioid overuse at point of sale at the pharmacy.”

CMS contracts with dozens of private insurance companies – known as sponsors -- to provide health insurance to about 54 million Americans through Medicare and nearly 70 million in Medicaid.

“To address the opioid epidemic, CMS has implemented a medication safety approach by which sponsors are expected to reduce beneficiary overutilization of opioids and maintain access to needed medications,” the agency said in a statement.

Saying it wanted to “better align” its policies with the CDC guidelines, CMS is proposing a daily ceiling on prescribed opioids at 90 mg morphine equivalent dose (MED). Any dosage above that level would be considered excessive. Patients who receive opioids from more than 3 prescribers and more than 3 pharmacies during a 6 month period would also be red-flagged.

Insurers would be expected to police pharmacies, doctors and patients who do not follow CMS policies, potentially dropping them from Medicare coverage and their insurance networks.

“Under the Part D opioid overutilization policy, sponsors are expected to implement appropriate plan-level claim controls at POS (point of sale) for opioids, use improved retrospective drug utilization review to identify beneficiaries at high risk for an adverse event due to opioids, and perform case management with the identified beneficiaries’ prescribers followed by beneficiary-specific POS edits to prevent Part D coverage of opioid overutilization,” CMS said.

Such a policy change would have a sweeping impact throughout the U.S. healthcare system because so many insurers and patients are involved. The Veterans Administration is the only other federal agency to adopt the CDC guidelines – and many veterans have complained that they are no longer able to obtain adequate pain relief at VA facilities.

Critics of the CMS strategy say it is even more draconian than the CDC guidelines, which are intended only for primary care physicians.

“CDC's ‘soft limit’ of 90 MED in treating chronic pain was a recommendation aimed at treatment of some people with chronic pain by primary care specialists. CDC stated that all of its recommendations were voluntary, and in this case, further provided prescribers with the option to use a higher dose if indicated by a careful risk/benefit analysis,” Twillman said in an email to PNN.

“In light of these limitations, it seems inappropriate for CMS to ask Part D providers to institute opioid dosing limits for people with pain who don't have cancer or are receiving hospice care, and for all prescribers, both primary care and specialists. 

Strategy Developed by Insurance Industry

The agency’s proposed “Opioid Misuse Strategy” was released publicly in early January.  It closely follows a 62-page “white paper” prepared by the Healthcare Fraud Prevention Partnership (HFPP), a coalition of private insurers, law enforcement agencies, and federal and state regulators formed in 2013 to combat healthcare fraud. 

The white paper, however, goes far beyond fraud prevention by recommending policies that will determine how a patient is treated by their doctor, including what medications should be prescribed. 

The number of Medicare patients who “overutilize” opioids is relatively small – just 15,651 beneficiaries in 2015 – which represents just 0.13% of Part D opioid users.

CMS is seeking public comment on the proposal in its 2018 Advance Notice and Draft Call Letter, which outlines a number of other changes the agency is making to its Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug programs. Comments will be accepted through March 3rd, with final versions published on April 3, 2017.

Comments can be emailed to: AdvanceNotice2018@cms.hhs.gov. 

Flu and NSAIDs Increase Heart Attack Risk

By Pat Anson, Editor

With the cold and flu season in full swing, many people take over-the-counter pain relievers like Advil and Aleve to ease their aches and pains, and to help them sleep.

What many don’t know is that they may be increasing their risk of a heart attack.

In a study of nearly 10,000 people hospitalized in Taiwan after a heart attack, researchers found that patients who took non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) during an acute respiratory infection tripled their risk of an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack).  The study was published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

Respiratory infections and NSAIDs were both already known to raise the risk of cardiovascular problems, but this was the first time they were studied together.  

"Physicians should be aware that the use of NSAIDs during an acute respiratory infection might further increase the risk of a heart attack," said lead author Cheng-Chung Fang, MD, of National Taiwan University Hospital.

“This approach should raise clinical concern because NSAIDs use during ARI (acute respiratory infection) episodes is highly common in real-world practice.”

Fang and his colleagues found that using NSAIDs while having a respiratory infection was associated with a 3.4-fold increased risk for a heart attack. The risk was 7.2 times higher when patients received NSAIDs intravenously in the hospital.

Another commonly used pain reliever, acetaminophen, which eases pain in a different way than NSAIDs do, was not evaluated in the study. But researchers say it may be a safer alternative, at least in terms of cardiac risk, for relief from cold and flu symptoms.

NSAIDs are widely used to treat everything from fever and headache to low back pain and arthritis. They are found in so many different over-the-counter products -- such as ibuprofen, Advil and Motrin -- that many consumers may not be aware how often they use NSAIDs. 

In 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered warning labels for all NSAIDs to be strengthened to indicate they increase the risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke. The revised warning does not apply to aspirin. The FDA said people who have a history of heart disease, particularly those who recently had a heart attack or cardiac bypass surgery, are at the greatest risk.

European researchers released an even stronger warning last year, saying there was no solid evidence that NSAIDs are safe.

Exactly how the pain relievers damage the heart is unclear, but a recent study on animals at the University of California, Davis found that NSAIDs reduced the activity of cardiac cells and caused some cells to die.

We Need to Admit Opioid Medications Are Dangerous

By Fred Kaeser, Guest Columnist

If chronic pain patients want continued access to opioid medications, we're going to have to admit they can be dangerous

There, I said it.

This has been bothering me for some time now, the apparent inability of many opioid medication users to admit that opioids can be dangerous. Read through the comments here at PNN or any other chronic pain forum and you'll hear a continuous drumbeat from many that opioids are safe when used for chronic pain. No ifs, ands, or buts.

The truth is no one really knows how safe or unsafe long-term opioid use is. No one knows because those studies have never been done.

But what many of us chronic pain patients do know is that popping a 10 mg oxycodone or its equivalent will pretty much do the job for us for a few hours or more.

And for many of us, it will do the job better than any other complimentary or alternative pain modality you can throw at us.

Of course, there are those who will tell us that opioid medications are dangerous. If you happen to be one of the 2.2 million people suffering from opioid medication addiction (OMA) you know they're dangerous. If you're one of the 4 million or so parents whose son or daughter suffers from OMA, you know they're dangerous. And if you're one of the nearly 30,000 parents whose son or daughter died last year from an opioid medication interaction, you really know they're dangerous.

So, opioid medications are dangerous – to them. But what about us chronic pain patients? If you are genetically predisposed to addiction, opioid medication is potentially dangerous to you. But even if you're not predisposed, opioid addiction is still possible. If the addiction rate is just 1% (which some believe), that means for the 11 million Americans who use opioid medication daily, they're dangerous for 110,000 of us. And if you believe the addiction rate is 10%, they're dangerous for 1.1 million of us.

Ever experience opioid withdrawal? Some of us have. How did you like going through that? Many would admit that was pretty dangerous. And if we didn't think it was, we sure thought that it sucked. And how about opioid medication misuse? Misuse our medications and risk respiratory distress or some other negative consequence? It can all be pretty dangerous.

Why do we need to admit opioids are dangerous?

Because to the average Joe and Jane America, we’ll seem pretty stupid if we don't. Policy makers and most of America have bought into the idea that opioids (legal and otherwise) pose a huge problem. If we don't jump on that bandwagon and work together to see how this problem can be effectively handled, we're only going to be left further behind. That train left the station and it isn’t coming back.

Continue to resist admitting that opioid medications can be dangerous, and all those that believe they are will continue to turn a deaf ear when we say we need them for pain relief. We only sound like the addict who is equally convinced that they need their drugs.

We can no longer afford to be seen as part of the problem. It is time that we are seen as part of the solution. And that starts with an open and honest dialog about the dangers of opioids, along with a similar dialog as to how chronic pain sufferers gain a quality of life when we take our medications responsibly -- which is the case the vast majority of the time.

We can argue that chronic pain patients should continue to have access to opioid medication, while at the same time agreeing that they can be dangerous and have created a problem for many in our society.

We can continue to lobby and fight for our right to adequate pain relief, while at the same time lend our efforts in the fight to minimize and reduce the horrors of addiction and death.

By doing so we will enhance our plight in the eyes of those that do not know what it is like to suffer daily the burdens of debilitating chronic pain.

By doing so we will be seen as reasonable and responsible in wanting to thwart the opioid problem. And even though we suffer, we are willing to fight for the greater good.

Most of us are pretty good at standing up and saying we deserve the medications that serve us so well. We can still do that when we also admit that they can be very dangerous.

Fred Kaeser, Ed.D, is the former Director of Health for the NYC Public Schools. Fred suffers from osteoarthritis, stenosis, spondylosis and other chronic spinal problems. He taught at New York University and is the author of What Your Child Needs to Know About Sex (and When): A Straight Talking Guide for Parents.

Pain News Network invites other readers to share their stories with us.  Send them to:  editor@PainNewsNetwork.org.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Lyrica and Cymbalta Advised for Diabetic Neuropathy

By Pat Anson, Editor

New guidelines by the American Diabetes Association for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy strongly discourage the use of opioids to treat nerve pain, while recommending pregabalin (Lyrica) and duloxetine (Cymbalta).

Nearly 26 million people in the United States have diabetes and over half have some form of neuropathy, which often causes a painful stinging or burning sensation in the hands or feet.  Nerve pain is often the first symptom that prompts people to seek medical care before getting a diabetes diagnosis.

Researchers at the University of Michigan led a group of internationally recognized endocrinologists and neurologists, and teamed up with the American Diabetes Association (ADA) to craft a new position statement on the prevention, treatment and management of neuropathy. The ADA last released a statement on diabetic neuropathy in 2005.

"Our goal was to update the document so that it not only had the most up-to-date evidence, but also was easy to understand and relevant for primary care physicians," said lead author Rodica Pop-Busui, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Michigan Medicine Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes.

"Treatment of neuropathy pain is specifically relevant because, unfortunately, there has been much overprescribing of narcotics for neuropathic pain."

Although opioids like oxycodone and tramadol are effective in relieving nerve pain, they are not recommended by the ADA as a first, second or even a third-line treatment.

“Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of opioids in the treatment of neuropathic pain, there is a high risk of addiction, abuse, sedation, and other complications and psychosocial issues even with short-term opioid use. For these reasons, opioids are not recommended in the treatment of painful DSPN (distal symmetric polyneuropathy) before failure of other agents that do not have these associated concerns,” the guideline states.

Instead of opioids, the ADA recommends either pregabalin (Lyrica) or duloxetine (Cymbalta) as an initial treatment for neuropathic pain. Gabapentin (Neurontin) can also be considered.

PNN readers often complain of side effects from all three drugs – such as depression, fatigue, nausea, headache and weight gain -- yet the ADA statement only vaguely warns that their “adverse effects may be more severe in older patients.”

"Lyrica did help with my nerve pain but the side effects were intolerable and the withdrawal was absolute hell," said Laura.  "I gained 20 pounds in a month and was even more of a zombie than when I was on gabapentin. I had no personality, no interest in anything, and had completely lost motivation to do anything."

"I have been on Cymbalta a couple of years. It has helped overall with depression, anxiety and pain. I also can't miss a dose or try to quit cold turkey," wrote Rebecca Williams. "I become very dizzy, nauseated, night sweats, crazy dreams, electrical zaps in my head. I don't know how I would ever get off of it because the withdrawal symptoms are unbearable."

The ADA guidelines recommend that physicians try different therapies to prevent or slow the progression of diabetic neuropathy, most of which focus on controlling high blood sugar (glucose), which can cause irreversible damage to small nerve fibers. Insulin, regular exercise and a low-calorie, low-fat diet can help regulate glucose levels.

To see the ADA’s recommendations, click here.

Insurers Behind Medicare’s ‘Big Brother’ Opioid Policy

By Pat Anson, Editor

The insurance industry appears to have played a major role in the development of a new strategy by the federal government to combat the abuse of opioid pain medication.

As Pain News Network has reported, the plan calls on pharmacists to report suspicious activity by doctors who prescribe opioids to Medicare and Medicaid patients (see “Medicare Takes ‘Big Brother’ Approach to Opioid Abuse”). Individual profiles of patients, their behavior, and opioid use would also be created and shared among insurance providers.

The plan was outlined earlier this month by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in the agency’s proposed “Opioid Misuse Strategy.” 

The CMS plan closely follows a 62-page “white paper” prepared by the Healthcare Fraud Prevention Partnership (HFPP), a coalition of private insurers, law enforcement agencies, and federal and state regulators formed in 2013 to combat healthcare fraud. 

The white paper, however, goes far beyond fraud prevention by recommending policies that will determine how a patient is treated by their doctor, including what medications should be prescribed.  It states that all physicians should follow the opioid prescribing guidelines released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, even though the guidelines are voluntary and explicitly state they are not intended for all prescribers.

The white paper was drafted largely by insurance companies – called “Partner Champions” -- including Aetna, Anthem, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Highmark, Humana, Kaiser Permanente and the Centene Corporation.

“These HFPP Partner Champions have committed themselves to the creation of an HFPP White Paper that describes the best practices for serious consideration by all healthcare payers and other relevant stakeholders to effectively address and minimize the harms of opioids,”  the white paper states.

“Through coordinated action, payers, including members of the HFPP, have the opportunity to dramatically influence and reduce opioid misuse in the U.S. Simple actions performed systematically across a large group of stakeholders can considerably decrease the toll of prescription opioid misuse and OUD (opioid use disorder) in the U.S.”

Physicians and Patients Left Out

No other stakeholders in healthcare, such as physicians, pharmacists, hospitals or patients, were involved in a “special session” of the HFPP last October that led to the drafting of the white paper.

“It’s concerning that CMS appears to have developed a policy proposal regarding opioid prescribing solely on the basis of advice from a group dominated by the insurance industry, without asking for input from affected healthcare professional groups,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, Executive Director of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management, an organization of physicians who specialize in pain care.

“We have to be mindful of the vested interests of insurance companies in this issue. Some advocates have argued that pharmaceutical manufacturers have wielded outsized influence in previous policy decisions, but there has been precious little focus on the influence of payers, which seems obvious in this case.”

CMS contracts with dozens of private insurance companies to provide health coverage to about 54 million Americans through Medicare and nearly 70 million in state-run Medicaid programs.

“Who exactly are the individuals who put this information together for CMS… and what is their true aim?” asks Ingrid Hollis, the mother of a chronic pain patient. “It looks to me like collusion between insurance companies and federal agencies to cut costs.

“Senior citizens and those disabled with progressive painful diseases or injuries deserve better treatment than this. To single this community out for draconian policies based on what looks like purely profit motives in the name of ‘harm reduction’ is inhumane. Who is truly being harmed here?”

“When they describe insurance companies involved in their efforts as ‘Champions,’ it calls to mind comic book and movie heroes like Superman.  Superman was noble, his motives pure.  I don't think of profit-conscious insurers as being noble or pure in motive,” said Anne Fuqua, a disabled nurse, pain patient and patient advocate. 

“Involving insurance companies in setting policies that directly or indirectly impact prescribing and/or reimbursement presents a conflict of interest.”

Stewards, Stockers and Demanders

Under the proposed CMS policy, information about doctors and patients who’ve been red flagged by pharmacists for suspicious prescribing would be shared through a CMS database with all insurers. The companies would then be empowered to “investigate provider and beneficiary behaviors that may be indicative of fraud or abuse.” Violators could be dropped from insurance networks or lose their coverage.    

The HFPP white paper goes further, recommending that insurers develop profiles of each patient and classify them in one of three groups based on their behavior:

1. “Stewards” (patients who follow guidelines)
2. “Stockers” (patients who stockpile unused medications)
3. “Demanders” (patients who ask for medication)

“Segmenting patients by intentions/behaviors with regards to opioid prescriptions could help payers better target messages and disseminate tailored communications that are most salient to the recipient,” the white paper states.

“For example, stewards may be those who are more likely to adhere to the CDC guideline and seek non-pharmacologic or non-opioid pharmacologic therapies for chronic pain and stockers may be those who are likely to ask for an opioid prescription/have received an opioid prescription for chronic pain in the past.”

A data analysis of patients and doctors, according to the white paper, could also be used by insurers to develop computer models to identify “problematic actors and schemes” and “deny payments for prescriptions that do not conform to general prescribing practices.”

“The HFPP strongly encour­ages collaborative efforts to develop and widely disseminate effective strategies to identify: patients at risk of opioid misuse or OUD, providers whose opioid prescribing patterns fail to comply with quality indicators (such as the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain), and methods that are particularly ef­fective at preventing or treating OUD,” the white paper states.

But critics say the profiling of patients and doctors, as well as the sharing of data from prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), amounts to an invasion of privacy.

“PDMP data contains some of the most sensitive health information that is produced.  When PDMPs were introduced, confidentiality protections were stressed and prescribers and pharmacists could review the information,” says Anne Fuqua.

“Now, CMS is discussing their plan to provide open access to insurers participating in their database.  They flip between arguments that this will help insurers make sure people get needed treatments for addiction and fraud detection.  It's clear that detection of fraud and conserving on drug costs is the primary focus.”

Non-Opioid Treatments Encouraged

Like the CDC guidelines, the white paper discourages the use of opioid pain medication, and recommends that over-the-counter pain relievers such as aspirin, acetaminophen and ibuprofen be used as an alternatives, as well as “non-pharmacological” treatments like cognitive behavioral therapy and chiropractic care. Addiction treatment drugs such as buprenorphine and methadone are strongly recommended for anyone showing signs of opioid use disorder.

“Clinicians should consider opioid therapy only if expected benefits for both pain and function are anticipated to outweigh risks to the patient. If opioids are used, they should be combined with non-pharmacologic therapy and non-opioid pharmacologic therapy,” the paper states.

Critics say the recommendations – and threats of sanctions against those who don’t follow them -- could interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.

"Proposals, like CMS' Opioid Misuse Strategy, aimed at combatting the prescription drug abuse crisis, while important, must be careful to not leave patients with a legitimate medical need without access to the treatments they and their doctors have determined are the best course of care,” the Alliance for Patient Access, a national network of physicians, said in a statement to PNN.

“Patient access can be impeded when physicians and patients feel threatened that they are being watched, may be reported, or their personal information shared by pharmacists and insurers. When that happens patients suffer and the physician-patient relationship, one based on trust, is strained.” 

“It should not be a surprise that insurance companies have been aggressively opposing the use of branded opioids. Their fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders, not to patients,” said Lynn Webster, MD, past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. “Decisions by insurance companies are causing many patients to suffer. This is not right.”

“Patients and doctors don’t want insurance companies and other parties determining what is best for them.  Doctors have a medical degree, the experience, the knowledge and treatment plans are determined by the medical condition they are treating,” says Ingrid Hollis.

“They act in the best interest of the patient, and have pledged the Hippocratic Oath of ‘Do no harm.’ Can the same be said of the bean counters in the insurance industry? Insurance is interested in cost cutting and maximizing profits.  Doctors are trying to save lives.”

CMS has not said when it plans to implement its Opioid Misuse Strategy or if public hearings would ever be held on them. The agency has only said that in coming weeks it would release “statements reflecting the agency’s Medicare and Medicaid goals.”

The HFPP white paper was released publicly for the first time Tuesday on the CMS website, without any explanation of its broader meaning or impact on Medicare and Medicaid policies.

An HFPP infographic urging people "to fight healthcare fraud, waste and abuse" was also released on the government-run website, without any indication that it was largely developed by the insurance industry.

Pain Patients Sound Off on Opioid Cutbacks

By Pat Anson, Editor

In our last newsletter, we asked readers if their doctors had recently reduced or stopped prescribing opioid pain medication, and to share their stories with us.

We heard back from dozens of people, all of them angry and frustrated with the state of pain care and the government agencies that regulate pain medication in the U.S.

“We are disgusted with the DEA and uneducated callous physicians' war on chronic pain patients and their doctors. Suicides are skyrocketing and lives are being destroyed,” wrote Connie Potter, a registered nurse in New Mexico.  “The number of people I see whose lives are worthless and destroyed is appalling.” 

Connie said that her husband, who suffers from severe back pain, dystonia and fibromyalgia, is being prescribed about a third of the pain mediation he used to get.

“No one wants to give pain meds in southern New Mexico. My friend with acute MS (multiple sclerosis) has had his already pathetic meds dosages halved,” she said.

Many pain sufferers are being told by doctors that they are required to reduce or eliminate opioid prescribing, even though guidelines released last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are voluntary, not mandatory.

“I was told in November that as of January 1, 2017 my medication would be reduced by half because the government is mandating this across the United States,” wrote 46-year old Cindy, who has suffered from back and pelvic pain since childhood. 

“I am still trying to grasp how this could happen!  I am every doctor's dream patient. I do whatever they ask whatever they suggest - anything!  How the hell am I supposed to make it through a day of work when I can't sit? This is crazy!  Do I seriously not have any recourse?”

“These doctors don't give a s*** anymore, all they care about (is) lowering their opiates prescriptions, so they don't have to deal with the backlash from our stinking government,” said David Cole, who has perineural neuropathy.

“I've been using opioids for the last 14 years to control to my pain and manage my life,” wrote Eli. “Then came the infamous CDC 'recommendations' and in March of 2016 I was cut down 50% on my dosage. Was difficult to do it, and couldn't have pulled it off without the help of cannabis.”

Even though medical marijuana is legal in California, where Eli lives, most doctors don’t want to prescribe opioids to someone using cannabis. So he's been tapered again to a lower dose. And he may be on his last refill.  

“My life began falling apart when they cut my dose in half, and hasn't been the same since. I've grown much more dependent on help from others and can barely shop. This anti-opioid madness has got to stop," he says.

Treated Like Addicts

Many readers say they are tired of being treated like criminals or addicts.

“Being treated like an incompetent, drug seeking/selling, whiny and lazy hypochondriac by non-medical and/or elected individuals is not an issue I anticipated,” wrote Ellen Rames, who is disabled at the age of 65. “It feels like the eyes of judgment are on me every day. It shouldn't be this way.”

“Twenty five years of taking opioids without a problem and now I feel like criminal trying to get them,” said Kaye Ingram, a disabled coal miner. “I (am) just sick of being piss tested every month and being threatened.”

“I'm tired of being treated like a druggie or addict when I ask for relief,” said Mike Schmidt, who has chronic pain after 15 surgeries on his neck and back. At the age of 72, the retired drug and alcohol counselor says he’s not worried about addiction.

“I have always taken medication at the prescribed dosage or less,” says Schmidt.  “I found morphine to be an effective pain relief for me after trying different medications and not liking the side effects.”

“It angers me to no end that I can't get decent sleep and that I spend most days in a chair because some people abuse medications that I legitimately need, and for which I have a proven record of responsible use,” said G.D. King, who has suffered from chronic back pain for over 25 years.

“Clearly I understand that the government doesn't want citizens dropping dead willy-nilly from overdoses.  But the fact that these deaths are the result of abusive and/or illegal activity for which I must pay a very steep personal price does not incline me toward sympathy for those who engage in these activities.”

Illegal activity is what some patients are considering to get pain relief.

“Pot isn't legal where I am so guess I'd have to break the law, or well, heck, since heroin is easier to get than a legitimate pain prescription, I guess that might be another choice.  Do these people have any common sense?” asked Donna.

Suicide is seen as an alternative by some.

“The government needs to get out of our doctor’s offices and our pharmacies and quit attempting to practice medicine by lumping all persons into the same category.”

“I feel that there needs to be more reporting on the suicide rate among chronic pain sufferers.  These people who are pushing for stopping opioid use to prevent overdose and death from opioids are only trading one form of death for another,” said Sam, a retired counselor who has worked with suicidal clients.  “I support euthanasia and the legalization of physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill, but I think it should also be allowed for those who suffer chronic pain that are not getting relief.”

Others believe the campaign against opioids is more about corporate profits, not healthcare or preventing addiction.

“This is strictly a dollars and cents issue, with the insurance companies not wanting to fulfill their contractual obligations. I know firsthand, as my insurer cut me off completely in 2016,” wrote Russ. “My family already is prepared that when I die because of their incompetence, the major lawsuits will begin unabated against any agency or company that was implicit in this conspiracy, and a conspiracy it is.

“The government needs to get out of our doctor's offices and our pharmacies and quit attempting to practice medicine by lumping all persons into the same category.”

Would you like to subscribe to the PNN newsletter? Click here to answer a few questions and share your email address.

‘Confusing’ Email Warns of Drug Shortages in Florida

By Pat Anson, Editor

The Florida Department of Health is apologizing for a “confusing” email sent Friday that warned of possible prescription drug shortages in the state due to the recent suspension of a wholesale drug distributor.

Earlier this week, the McKesson Corporation agreed to pay a record $150 million fine for failing to track and report suspicious orders of opioid pain medication and other controlled substances.   As part of the settlement with the Drug Enforcement Administration, McKesson suspended sales of controlled substances from wholesale distribution centers in Colorado, Ohio, Michigan and Florida.

Late Friday morning, the Florida health department sent an email with the subject line “Emerging Health Threat” to pharmacists in the state warning of possible drug shortages.

“The DEA recently suspended McKesson Corporation’s sales of controlled substances from distribution in Florida. This suspension could impact your patients’ ability to fill their prescriptions and you may want to advise them about the potential implications. As a practitioner, you should be aware of the possibility of drug shortages and consider alternative treatment options when prescribing controlled substances.”

About six hours later, the health department sent out a second email, apologizing for the first one:

"A recent message that was sent out regarding the DEA’s suspension of McKesson Corporation’s sales of controlled substances from distribution in Florida was found to be confusing. This suspension will impact one distribution center in Florida and impacts only the handling of hydromorphone. The Florida Department of Health and Division of Medical Quality Assurance apologize for any confusion that may have resulted from that message.”

There was no explanation for why the first “confusing” email was sent or why there was such an abrupt change in tone in the second one. No press release was issued by the health department warning of possible drug shortages in Florida. 

A spokesperson for McKesson confirmed that the suspension of its Florida distribution center will only impact hydromorphone, an opioid medication sold under the brand names Dilaudid and Exalgo.

"We do not anticipate our pharmacy customers will experience any negative impacts as a result of the temporary suspension," wrote Kristin Hunter in an email to PNN.

"The Lakeland, FL distribution center will be suspended for one year from distributing hydromorphone ONLY (not ALL controlled substances). There will be no change to the distribution of non-controlled pharmaceutical and over-the-counter products. Customers that typically receive controlled substances from an affected distribution center are now being served by one of the other 28 DCs (distribution centers) in McKesson’s network with no interruption in service."

This is the second time McKesson has been accused of violating the Controlled Substances Act. In 2008, the company paid a $13.25 million fine after it failed to identify and report suspicious orders for opioid pain medication from independent and small pharmacies. 

As part of a settlement with the DEA, the company agreed to implement a system to detect such orders.

However, the DEA says McKesson “did not fully implement or adhere to its own program” and continued to supply pharmacies with “an increasing amount of oxycodone and hydrocodone pills, frequently misused products that are part of the current opioid epidemic.”

From 2008 to 2013, the company processed over 1.6 million orders for controlled substances in Colorado, but reported only 16 of them as suspicious, according to the DEA.

A pharmacist told WFTX-TV in Naples that suspending distribution centers and potentially disrupting the supply of opioids isn’t helpful because it only makes it harder for chronic pain patients to get their medications.

 "It's a terrible way of policing, essentially what they're going to try do is, rather than go in and physically shut down what they call 'pill mill physicians' or 'dirty doctors' they cut the supply," said Fort Myers pharmacist T. J. Depaola, who says some patients unable to get medication turn to the black market for pain relief.

"You have patients that were being treated for chronic pain; all of a sudden they couldn't get meds, they went to heroin because that's the closest thing to what they were on before."

Finding pain relief in Florida is already difficult. Because of the state’s crackdown on pill mills, many doctors are now unwilling to prescribe opioids and patients report pharmacies are often reluctant to fill legitimate prescriptions.  

A pharmacist who asked to remain anonymous told Pain News Network that many Florida pharmacies already operate under a strict quota system, in which they are allotted a certain number of painkillers per month. He predicted McKesson’s suspension will have a snowball effect, driving patients from one pharmacy to another in search of a dwindling supply of opioids.

“With the DEA restriction on McKesson hydromorphone supplied pharmacies, and with a shift of patient population to pharmacies using alternative suppliers, the latter pharmacies will now exceed the (quota) sooner and exhaust the supplies sooner. It is crazy,” he said.

Further tightening the supply are plans by the DEA to reduce the amount of almost every Schedule II opioid pain medication manufactured in the U.S. by 25 percent or more in 2017. The quota for hydrocodone, which is sold under brand names like Vicodin, Lortab and Lorcet, is being reduced by a third. The DEA said it was cutting the opioid supply to prevent diversion and because of declining demand for painkillers.

I Lost a Good Doctor Because of CDC Guidelines

By Roger Bigelow, Guest Columnist

My doctor responded quickly to the CDC opioid prescribing guidelines by sending a letter to all his patients informing them he would no longer prescribe any opiates to patients in his practice. He gave patients about 4 months’ notice to either find alternative treatment or a doctor who would prescribe opiates.

He had been my general practitioner for about 15 years and had even taken opiates himself when he battled a rare form of cancer recently. He is now in remission.

My doctor and I were friends. In fact, we were members at the same country club. He confided in me. He is by all accounts an outstanding provider. You would be hard pressed to find a better practitioner. Skilled and caring.

He told me the sole reason for changing his opiate policy was fear of the CDC. He demonstrated a "What do you want me to do?" kind of attitude that I suspect is common.

I had expected him to align with his patients, as he has taken an oath to do so. I didn't expect him to cave in so easily. He made no exceptions. I was even more taken aback, given he was a cancer survivor.

As a result, I have had to change doctors, as he left little option. The only pain doctor near where I reside in southern Vermont does not write maintenance prescriptions. I've lost a very good doctor and am now under greater scrutiny.

It's pretty sad when you lose a doctor you had been with for so long. I feel somewhat fortunate to have found another doctor, but it's not a positive change. Not at all.

It's a pretty sad situation we have, where political powers push a false agenda upon the public. If you listen to our "media," you would soon come to the belief that the heroin abuse crisis is solely caused by careless doctors overprescribing. And of course it’s Big Pharma’s fault for developing such effective medications. All it takes is young Jimmy taking two leftover Percocet tablets from the medicine cabinet -- and next thing you know, young Jimmy is plunging a needle into his vein.

Never mind the open borders, drug cartels, counterfeit medications, internet transactions and problems with wholesale distribution. And, of course, young Jimmy (and his divorced parents) are not accountable because addiction is a disease, not a conscious act. So addicts get Suboxone and free needles, while patients with documented medical conditions get cut off -- ironically driving many to street drugs like heroin.

They don't seem to care about the 11 million chronic pain patients who use opioid medication daily.

It's clearly about the money. It always is. With the government paying more and more people (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare) and facing an aging population, this is really all about saving our social health programs from destruction.

Prior to accident driven disability, Roger Bigelow worked for nearly 20 years with the New York State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, where he helped develop the world’s first prescription drug program designed to curb diversion and fraud. Roger is a national expert on the subject of drug diversion, as well as a chronic pain patient who has endured 17 surgeries.

Pain News Network invites other readers to share their stories with us.  Send them to:  editor@PainNewsNetwork.org. 

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

CDC Guidelines Study: The Devil Is in the Details

By Stephen Ziegler, PhD, Guest Columnist

JAMA Internal Medicine has published a research letter that purports to be an examination of the relationship between funding from opioid manufacturers and opposition to the prescribing guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in March of 2016.

The authors examined the written comments made to the CDC during the open comment period, asserted that those who had received funding were more likely to oppose the CDC guidelines, and concluded that their “findings demonstrate that greater transparency is required about the financial relationship between opioid manufacturers and patient and professional groups.”

The following commentary, while critical of information contained in the article written by Caleb Alexander, Andrew Kolodny and others, nevertheless concludes with some positive suggestions for the future.

Illicit Opioids: The Harms Associated With Conflation of Data

The research letter, like many articles authored by those who are rightly concerned about addiction and overdose, begins by asserting that an association exists between increases in opioid prescribing and “large increases in addiction and overdose deaths in the United States.”

However, there are several problems with such a statement. First, association is not causation. For example, while a positive association exists between the size of a fire and the number of fire engines on the scene, fire engines for the most part do not cause fires -- they are only associated with it. Further, it is misleading and harmful to lump all opioids, prescription and illicit, together.

While conflating the two may help create better headlines and fuel the hysteria, such conflation is misleading because studies continue to indicate that two opioids, illicit fentanyl and heroin, are major drivers in the alarming increase in addiction and overdose, not prescription opioids.

Moreover, lumping all opioids together can be harmful because it ignores the size and complexity of the problems associated with the use and abuse of illicit and licit drugs. Because drug abuse remains a moving target, it is important to draw distinctions between a variety of factors and sources so that solutions can be tailored and refined. One size does not fit all.

Unclear Methodology Used to Classify Comments

Another problem with the JAMA article was the lack of measurement clarity regarding content analysis and how the authors categorized (coded) the comments that were submitted to the CDC during the open comment period.

According to the authors, the comments were classified as belonging in one of four mutually exclusive categories: “supportive, generally supportive with recommendations, generally not supported with recommendations, and not supportive.”

While it is unclear whether the coding occurred before or after the comments were reviewed, one section of the paper the authors pointed out that about 6% of the comments “were coded as supportive by 1 reviewer and not supportive by the other; a third reviewer adjudicated these cases.”

The first question that comes to mind is: who was the reviewer? Since it is likely that the authors were not randomly selected, it remains unclear what criteria was used to adjudicate disputes related to coding, especially when we know that two reviewers were at opposite ends of the spectrum and the coding scheme was central to the study.

Along these same lines, what constitutes opposition to the CDC guidelines? Was opposition binary (yes/no), was it mixed (and if so, where was the line), or did opposition exist along a range (strong or weak)?

When dealing with qualitative data (words as opposed to numbers), there are tendencies in terms of direction, but the devil is in the details. This is notable because there were likely many different reasons commentators and organizations were not supportive of the CDC prescribing guidelines, such as, but not limited to:

1. The secretive nature of the entire process
2. The short time frame the CDC allotted for public comments (initially less than 24 hours)
3. Allegations that the process violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act
4. Strong recommendations based on weak evidence
5. Committee membership that lacked balance and broad stakeholder involvement
6. An anti-prescription opioid agenda or bias by some committee members
7. The fixation on dosing limits ignored the problems associated with converting dosage from one opioid to another, the differences in patients, and the potential for unintentional overdose at any dosage level
8. The lack of balance and selective nature of the literature cited in the guidelines
9. The failure to recognize that non-pharmacologic therapy and alternatives to opioids may not be effective or covered by insurance
10. An ironic lack of transparency and full disclosure concerning potential conflicts of interest among those involved in the guidelines at various levels from start to finish

Conclusion

While the reduction of harms associated with the use of prescription drugs and illicit opioids such as heroin remains essential to improving the public health, it serves no laudable purpose to continually lump all opioids together.

Drug abuse is a highly complex bio-psycho-social phenomenon that requires recognition that not all people, nor problems, are the same. We must also not lose sight of the fact that millions of Americans are suffering from chronic pain, alternatives to opioids may not be as effective or covered by insurance, and the overwhelming majority who take prescription opioids use them responsibly.

In regards to the conflicts of interest issue, while the authors eventually admitted that the “CDC did not prompt or require organizations to disclose their financial associations as part of their comments,” I agree that disclosing real or potential conflicts of interest in the future is good for all involved. However, such disclosure should not be limited to just the pharmaceutical industry. It should also include government agencies and those in the substance abuse community.

I have and continue to provide consultation to government and the pharmaceutical industry about the need for balanced solutions that help ensure appropriate access, while at the same time prevent abuse. I care about the under-treatment of pain, as I am sure that those in the substance abuse community care about those suffering from addiction.

Consequently, what both the pain community and the substance abuse community need to focus on is finding common ground and forging balanced solutions, since finger pointing, bullying or taking a zero-sum game approach only impedes progress.

Stephen J. Ziegler, PhD, is a Professor Emeritus of Public Policy at Indiana University-Purdue University in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Dr. Ziegler conducts research, provides continuing medical education, and consults on the topics of opioid risk management and the impact of drug regulation and enforcement on the treatment of pain. He has been published in several peer reviewed journals and serves as a reviewer for several journals such as the Journal of Opioid Management, Pain Medicine, Cancer, and the Journal of Medical Ethics. Prior to obtaining his law degree, Dr. Ziegler worked as a police detective and as a Task Force Officer for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Bias and Conflict of Interest in Opioid Guidelines Study

By Pat Anson, Editor

A new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine is claiming that some patient advocacy groups and medical organizations that opposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s opioid prescribing guidelines had a conflict of interest.

Ironically, the two main authors of the study appear to have a conflict of interest themselves, as well as a bias against opioid pain medication.

In their review of 158 organizations that made public comments on the CDC guidelines – which discourage doctors from prescribing opioids from chronic pain – researchers found that about one third (38%) of those that accepted funding from opioid manufacturers opposed the guidelines. This alleged conflict of interest should have been disclosed, they say.

“A major concern is that opposition to regulatory, payment, or clinical policies to reduce opioid use may originate from groups that stand to lose financially if sales of opioids decline,” wrote senior author G. Caleb Alexander, MD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“Our findings demonstrate that greater transparency is required about the financial relationships between opioid manufacturers and patient and professional groups.”

One of the co-authors who designed the study is Andrew Kolodny, MD, the founder and Executive Director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid group that helped draft the CDC guidelines and was itself accused of numerous conflicts of interest. Kolodny is the former chief medical officer of Phoenix House, which runs a chain of addiction treatment centers and was PROP’s chief source of financial support until recently.

Alexander, who is a widely published researcher who has collaborated several times with Kolodny on other opioid-related studies, failed to disclose in the JAMA study that he has accepted funding from Otsuka Pharmaceuticals. The Japanese drug company makes Abilify, an anti-psychotic medication prescribed off-label to treat chronic pain. The amount paid to Alexander in 2015 was relatively small, a $668 fee for consulting, but according to the criteria used in his own study, it represents a conflict of interest.

Any amount of money accepted from an opioid manufacturer was considered a conflict of interest in Alexander and Kolodny’s study, whether it was a grant, gift, advertising or some other material support. No evidence was required to prove the money swayed an organization one way or another. In fact, nearly two-thirds (62%) of the organizations that accepted funding from opioid makers supported the CDC guidelines, disproving their own theory.   

“I’ll be the first to say that our method of assessing financial relationships is somewhat imprecise,” Alexander told Pain News Network. “This study was not designed for causal inference. This study doesn’t permit us to say what the effect of these funding relationships has been. But one has to wonder, when this amount of money is being spent, what the effects are.”

PROP and the “Opioid Lobby”

The claim that many medical organizations and patient advocacy groups have come under the influence of the “opioid lobby” has long been used by Kolodny.

“CDC’s plan was effectively blocked by intense pressure from the opioid lobby, which sees more cautious opioid use as a financial threat,” wrote Kolodny in a newsletter sent to PROP supporters in December 2015, after the CDC guidelines were temporarily delayed after a public outcry and threats of a lawsuit.

Kolodny’s smear campaign was widely covered uncritically by the news media, even though there was no evidence cited to support it.

“This is a big win for the opioid lobby,” Koldony told the Associated Press.

“The story here is how the opioid lobby is using the Cancer Action Network to discredit a public health effort to limit opioid prescribing,” Kolodny told The Hill.

“Here’s background on shady organization now attacking CDC’s draft opioid guideline,” Kolodny posted on Twitter.

Kolodny did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Like his co-author, Alexander also is convinced there is a quid-pro quo between opioid manufacturers and groups that they fund.   

“The biggest myth out there is that there’s a conflict between reducing our dependence on opioids and improving care for patients in pain,” Alexander told the AP last year. “It’s an artificial conflict, but there are lots of vested interests behind it.”

Does the opioid lobby even exist? Are patient advocacy groups so easily swayed by their funding sources? Kolodny and Alexander’s study presented little evidence of either, yet they still managed to get it published in an influential journal published by the American Medical Association.

“No one in the pharmaceutical industry has ever asked me or anyone that is on our voting board to publicly state a specific stance on any issue regarding treatment options. Not one pharmaceutical representative has ever asked anyone from iPain to comment on the CDC guidelines,” said Barby Ingle, a PNN columnist who is President of the International Pain Foundation (iPain), a patient advocacy group.

Ingle, who did submit her own personal comments on the CDC guidelines, says it is very difficult to get funding from drug makers.

“We have gotten to the point of not even applying for funding unless we are contacted,” said Ingle. “Even when notified of funds available, iPain did not receive the funding requested and it turned out to be a waste of time on our part.”

What is a Conflict of Interest?

“These people perhaps don’t quite understand what is the definition of a conflict of interest,” said Richard Samp, chief counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation, which threatened to sue the CDC for violating federal law when it drafted the opioid guidelines.

“As I understand conflict of interest under federal law, that generally means that somebody has been appointed to serve in one position, but they have some other financial or ideological interest that conflicts with the interests that they’re supposed to have,” Samp told PNN.

“That was the focus of our criticism of the process that CDC went through in adopting its draft guidelines, which were written with the assistance of an advisory group that included people who had very severe conflicts of interest. For example, one particular member of the group, Jane Ballantyne, was a paid consultant for a plaintiffs’ law firm that had a vested interest in suing opioid manufacturers.”

Dr. Ballantyne is the President of PROP, the organization founded by Kolodny. At least four other board members of PROP, including Kolodny himself, served on various CDC panels that advised the agency during the drafting of the guidelines, a matter that the agency refused to disclose for several months.   

“What they are talking about (in the JAMA study) is not a conflict of interest. They’re just talking about the fact that some people who file comments with federal agencies have a particular point of view,” said Samp. “Every citizen regardless of his or her point of view and regardless of his or her background has a right to comment on what our government is doing.”

Another way to look at whether there is a conflict of interest is offered by Stephen Ziegler, PhD, in a commentary for Pain News Network (see "CDC Guidelines Study: The Devil Is in the Details").

“Association is not causation. For example, while a positive association exists between the size of a fire and the number of fire engines on the scene, fire engines for the most part do not cause fires -- they are only associated with it,” Ziegler wrote.

Ziegler says it’s time for the pain community and the addiction treatment community to end the finger pointing and bullying over opioids, and start finding common ground.

“It is misleading and harmful to lump all opioids, prescription and illicit, together. While conflating the two may help create better headlines and fuel the hysteria, such conflation is misleading because studies continue to indicate that two opioids, illicit fentanyl and heroin, are major drivers in the alarming increase in addiction and overdose, not prescription opioids,” Ziegler wrote.

The American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM), an association of pain management physicians, also released a statement about the JAMA study, saying it agreed that “disclosure is one means of managing conflicts of interest.” 

While the AAPM cautiously supported the CDC guidelines, it also warned that their widespread implementation could lead to problems.

“It is incumbent upon us all to monitor the deployment of the guideline to ensure that it does not inadvertently encourage under-treatment, marginalization, and stigmatization of the many patients with chronic pain that are using opioids appropriately,” the AAPM said.

Since the guidelines were released in March 2016, many pain patients have complained to PNN that their opioid doses have been reduced or eliminated, and that it’s become difficult to find a doctor willing to treat chronic pain. Others have said they are contemplating suicide because their pain is going untreated.

Pain Community Reacts to ‘Big Brother’ Medicare Policy

By Pat Anson, Editor

Here we go again.

That’s seems to be the reaction from many in the pain community to plans by the federal government to have pharmacists report suspicious activity by doctors who prescribe opioids to Medicare and Medicaid patients. (See “Medicare Takes Big Brother Approach to Opioid Abuse”)

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) says its new strategy to fight opioid abuse is aimed at “incentivizing prescribing behavior” by having pharmacists identify and report doctors who may be overprescribing opioids and patients who may be abusing them. 

“It is a terrible idea to pit pharmacist against physicians. It is an unbelievably perverse way to solve a serious healthcare problem that requires trust and collaboration among all the stakeholders,” said Lynn Webster, MD, past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. “Many, many people with pain and addiction are going to be harmed by this decision.”

“This will only serve to further increase stigma and increase distrust between patients, their prescribers, and pharmacists,” says Anne Fuqua, a former nurse, chronic pain sufferer and patient advocate.

“Just the words ‘incentivized prescribing’ makes me shudder.  It may well help root out a limited number of substance abusers and decrease pharmacy claims for Medicare Part D and Medicaid, but this is neither an effective manner to intervene when substance abuse does exist nor an ethical way to decrease prescription drug benefit claims.”

CMS contracts with dozens of private insurance companies to provide health coverage to about 54 million Americans through Medicare and nearly 70 million in state-run Medicaid programs. Under the new policy, information about doctors and patients who’ve been red flagged by pharmacists would be shared through a database with all insurers. The companies would be empowered to “investigate provider and beneficiary behaviors that may be indicative of fraud or abuse.” Violators could be dropped from insurance networks or lose their coverage.    

“A policy like this, that encourages pharmacists to report the prescriber or patient to the insurer for investigation, is dubious enough.  It's even more serious that the allegations would be entered in a database whether or not they are proven,” said Fuqua. “This would be like your doctor saying they think it's possible a patient is misusing medication and then emailing this to all the doctors in your state.  Every element of this reeks of big brother and directly contradicts treating addiction as a health issue.”

“It appears that CMS is dictating that pharmacists perform activities that are both outside of their training and the legal authority granted to them under the state's practice act,” said Steve Ariens, a retired pharmacist and patient advocate. “Pharmacists don't have access to the patient's entire medical records. They are being told by CMS to both diagnose and prescribe what is right for a patient.”

“Many of the pharmacists I know are already overworked with other regulations to the point of PDMP’s not being updated in a timely manner. I know of patients who have been affected by this personally,” said Barby Ingle, president of the International Pain Foundation and a PNN columnist.   

“What a pharmacist believes about a medication’s appropriateness should not come into play when they are not trained on the medical aspects of chronic conditions. Pharmacists know about medication, but not in-depth information on diseases we are living with and therefore should not be making the call on what they deem suspicious on behalf of a prescriber.”

Medicare Policy Based on CDC Guidelines

CMS is basing many of its policy decisions on opioid prescribing guidelines released last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The guidelines, which discourage doctors from prescribing opioids for chronic pain, are voluntary and meant only for primary care physicians. But they are being widely adopted by insurers and doctors throughout the country as a “standard of care,” even though the scientific evidence supporting many of the guidelines is weak.

CMS seems unconcerned by that lack of evidence.

“Where sufficient evidence was not available, the CDC guidelines are based on expert opinion, as noted by the CDC,” the agency said in a 30-page briefing paper on its Opioid Misuse Strategy.

“The guidelines were formed by consensus of mostly people with agendas, biased against opioids, and totally insensitive to the needs of people in pain. The dose limits suggested by the CDC guidelines are arbitrary, not evidence based,” said Dr. Webster. “

“Let's be clear about the CDC guidelines.  A major reason the guidelines were developed was to reduce cost of drugs for payers.  If Medicare and Medicaid patients have an increasing incidence of opioid use disorder it is because these people do not have any alternative treatments for their pain other than an opioid. 

“If CMS is going to endorse the guidelines that have little to no science basis, then they should mandate all of the alternative therapies to opioids have unlimited coverage and that payers be mandated to provide adequate coverage for the underlying reasons that lead to opioid use and mental health disorders.  This would more likely reduce the incidence of an opioid use disorder.”

CMS is not requiring insurers to cover alternative pain therapies, such as massage and acupuncture, but says it is a prioritizing efforts to develop more evidence to support their use.

Public Not Informed

CMS convened a “cross-agency working group” to develop its opioid misuse strategy, and says it is “working closely” with other federal agencies such as the CDC, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Members of the working group were not identified.

“CMS sought representatives from every component of the agency to ensure a broad range of expertise and perspectives. This diverse group assessed the benefits, limitations, and improvement opportunities within CMS’s current policies and programs. The group then defined desired outcomes from the perspective of CMS’s unique role as a leading payer of health care and identified key actions to achieve those outcomes,” the agency said in a statement on its website.

But CMS never held a public hearing or sought public comment prior to the strategy’s release last week. Several medical organizations and patient advocacy groups contacted by Pain News Network were unaware the policies were even being developed. 

“I was not even aware that these new CMS policies were being created and as a patient on Medicare, I think that we should have been notified at minimum,” said Barby Ingle. “Our opinion as patients in the program should have been a part of the voice of something that will affect proper and timely access to care.”

“Society would never tolerate any other patient group being treated in this manner,” said Anne Fuqua. “It's no accident that this provision has been given so little attention.”

On its website, CMS says it now welcomes “input from clinicians, patients, consumers, caregivers, manufacturers, researchers and others.” But it never makes clear how interested parties can comment or participate, such as a notice or public comment period published in the Federal Register.

The secretive actions of the agency – so far – are similar to those used by the CDC in developing its opioid prescribing guidelines. For several months, the CDC refused to identify members of a “core expert group” that helped draft the guidelines, which were released in September 2015 to a small and mostly selected online audience.

Initially, the public was given only 48 hours to comment on the CDC guidelines -- a decision that was reversed after a public outcry and threats of a lawsuit. Over 4,300 public comments were later received online, most of them in opposition to the guidelines, which were released virtually unchanged in March 2016.

CMS has not responded to repeated requests for an interview about its opioid misuse policies. It is not clear when the policies will be initiated, who was involved in drafting them, or where the idea came from.

CMS caved into political pressure last year when it agreed to drop pain related questions from patient satisfaction surveys. Politicians, hospitals, the American Medical Association, and other health organizations all claimed the questions encouraged the overprescribing of opioids. CMS officials said there was no evidence that was true, but agreed to eliminate the questions in 2017 patient surveys. The agency is still working on a future set of questions to replace them.

Medicare Takes 'Big Brother' Approach to Opioid Abuse

By Pat Anson, Editor

A new strategy being developed by Medicare to combat the abuse of opioid pain medication will encourage pharmacists to report physicians who may be prescribing opioids inappropriately. Patients that a pharmacist believes are abusing opioids could also be referred for investigation.

The strategy, which has yet to be finalized, was outlined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) last week in a 30-page report on the agency’s “Opioid Misuse Strategy.”  It has not been widely publicized by CMS or reported in the news media.

“Many Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and their families have experienced opioid use disorder, commonly referred to as addiction,” the agency says in the report’s executive summary.

“Given the growing body of evidence on the risks of misuse… CMS is outlining our agency’s strategy and the array of actions underway to address the national opioid misuse epidemic.”

One strategy CMS will explore is “incentivizing prescribing behavior” by encouraging physicians and pharmacists to consult with prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) to review each patient’s prescription drug history. The use of PDMPs is fairly widespread already, but CMS would take it a step further by encouraging pharmacists to report suspicious activity by prescribers and patients.

“Pharmacies would be able to identify prescribers with potentially illicit prescribing practices or beneficiaries (patients) who may be overusing opioids. This information can be referred to health plans to investigate provider and beneficiary behaviors that may be indicative of fraud or abuse.”

Investigations of abuse or inappropriate prescribing would be shared with insurers enrolled in the giant Medicare/Medicaid system, even if the allegations are never proven. CMS contracts with dozens of private insurance companies to provide health insurance to about 54 million Americans through Medicare and nearly 70 million in Medicaid.

“Part D plans can use CMS’s information sharing platform to identify leads for their own internal investigations and can report actions they have taken. For example, if one plan sponsor suspects a provider of inappropriate prescribing behavior, it can alert other plans to that possibility so that those plans can conduct their own evaluations and take coordinated action if warranted.

“The results of these projects are provided to plan sponsors so that additional actions can be taken, including initiating new investigations, conducting audits, or terminating physicians and pharmacies from their network.”

“It looks like ‘Big Brother’ is going to watch everyone,” says Rick Martin, a retired Las Vegas pharmacist who suffers from chronic back pain.

“Pharmacists are going to be even more paranoid than they already are," Martin wrote in an email. “Retail pharmacists don't have time for this. They aren't the police. Nevada has a PDMP. It already shows a significant decrease in prescribing patterns over the last several years, so it is working.  With the CMS, just who decides what are appropriate quantities and proper prescribing habits?”

CMS Using CDC’s Prescribing Guidelines

In developing its strategy, CMS is relying heavily on prescribing guidelines released in 2016 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which discourage doctors from prescribing opioids for chronic pain. CMS says it will use the “evidence-based guidelines” to determine what constitutes inappropriate prescribing. The guidelines include a recommendation that opioids be limited to no more than 90 mg of morphine equivalent milligrams a day, a dose that many patients in severe chronic pain consider inadequate. 

The CDC maintains the guidelines are “voluntary” and intended only for primary care physicians. However, under the CMS strategy, the guidelines would apply to all prescribers, except those treating cancer or patients in palliative care.

“I just hate to see something that CDC itself said was voluntary, was a recommendation, and really isn’t all that specific if you really read it, get turned into something that creates bright red lines. And if you step across the line, you’re going to get yourself in trouble. I don’t think that’s right,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, Executive Director of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management, the nation's largest pain management organization.

CMS says the additional scrutiny of doctors and patients is needed because “the Medicare population has among the highest and fastest-growing rates of diagnosed opioid use disorder,” which the agency estimates at 6 out of every 1,000 beneficiaries. Addiction rates are higher among Medicaid beneficiaries, at 8.7 patients for every 1,000, a figure 10 times higher than patients covered by private insurance plans.

“Because there is no systematic policy of screening for opioid use disorder and patients are unlikely to volunteer that they are misusing their medication or are using opioids like heroin because of discrimination and stigma, these rates are likely underestimates,” CMS says.

Rick Martin believes the Medicare policies will make physicians even less likely to prescribe opioids and pharmacists less likely to fill legitimate prescriptions.

“Pharmacists, like the docs, are just plain scared. If they don't know you, many are reluctant to fill,” said Martin, who is enrolled in Medicare's Part D prescription drug plan.

“One pharmacy I went to refused to fill my bona fide legitimate prescription because it exceeded an arbitrary amount. The manager didn't want any extra scrutiny from DEA, the home office, the PDMP, the board of pharmacy, or the (drug) wholesaler. Even though I was in the system for over 2 years and had previously had even higher amounts filled.

“One of the pain docs I am working with told me he has gotten numerous letters from Humana and one other (insurer) because he is in the upper 1% of dispensing opioids. Well, duh!  He is an exclusive pain management doctor. They didn't compare him with other pain doctors, just ALL doctors. Stupid. What will the CMS do on top of what goes on already?”

Bob Twillman worries the CMS strategy will create distrust between physicians and pharmacists.

“We’ve been trying to make efforts over the last few years to get pharmacists and physicians to work more closely together. I’m concerned this could increase suspicion between the two and be counter to that effort,” said Twillman. “Getting prescribers and pharmacists to work together is an important thing in enhancing patient safety and if we do something like this and short circuit that effort we’re doing more harm than we are good.”

CMS did not say when it planned to implement its Opioid Misuse Strategy or if public hearings would ever be held on them. The agency only said in coming weeks it would release “statements reflecting the agency’s Medicare and Medicaid goals.”

Also unclear is why CMS and the Department of Health and Human Services would take a major step affecting the healthcare of tens of millions of patients and their doctors in the final days of the Obama administration.

“The fact that this is coming out a couple of weeks before the new administration comes in does make it a little bit odd. It makes me wonder how many legs it has or whether it will carry over into the next administration,” said Twillman.

FDA Approves New Long Acting Painkiller

By Pat Anson, Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new extended release opioid pain medication with abuse deterrent properties.

Egalet Corporation announced Monday that the FDA has approved Arymo ER – a long-acting version of morphine -- for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock opioid treatment. It comes in the form of a pill that is very difficult to crush or liquefy, methods used by abusers to speed the release of an opioid into the bloodstream.

"With the majority of ER opioids in easy to abuse forms, it is important that healthcare professionals have additional treatment options like Arymo ER that are resistant to different methods of manipulation using a variety of tools," Bob Radie, president and CEO of Egalet said in a news release.

“Arymo ER has physical and chemical properties expected to make abuse by injection difficult which is important given it is the most common non-oral route of morphine abuse and the most dangerous.”

An FDA advisory panel recommended in a 18-1 vote last August that Arymo be approved. It is is the 7th opioid with abuse deterrent properties approved by the FDA. The other medications are OxyContin, Targiniq, Embeda, Hysingla, Morphabond, and Xtampza.

Arymo has been approved in three dosage strengths: 15 mg, 30 mg and 60 mg. Egalet plans to make the drug available in the first quarter of 2017.

Arymo is the first commercial product developed with Egalet’s Guardian technology, which incorporates the medication into a polymer matrix tablet to make it difficult to misuse or abuse.

“Guardian Technology results in tablets that are extremely hard, very difficult to chew, resistant to particle size reduction, and inhibit/block attempts at chemical extraction of the active pharmaceutical ingredient,” the company says in a statement on its website.

“In addition, the technology results in a viscous hydrogel on contact with liquid, making syringe-ability very difficult. These features are important to address the risk of accidental misuse (e.g., chewing) in patients with chronic pain, as well as intentional abuse using more rigorous methods of manipulation. “

The approval of abuse-deterrent medications is still somewhat controversial. Some medical professionals and anti-opioid activists say the technology does not completely prevent abuse and the drugs are still being misused by addicts.

Few Pain Patients Become Long-Term Opioid Users

By Pat Anson, Editor

Less than two percent of patients with prescriptions for opioid pain medication become long-term opioid users, according to a large new study published online in the journal Pain.

Researchers at Indiana University studied a nationwide database of over 10 million patients who filed insurance claims for opioid prescriptions between 2004 and 2013. The study was designed to look at opioid use by patients with psychiatric and behavioral problems, but in the process uncovered data indicating that the overall risk of long term opioid use for six months or more was relatively rare for most patients.

“Of the 10,311,961 incident opioid recipients, only 1.7% received long-term opioids during follow-up,” wrote lead author Patrick Quinn, PhD, of Indiana University, Bloomington.

“The probability of transitioning from first fill to long-term opioids was 1.3% by 1.5 years after the first prescription fill, 2.1% by 3 years, 3.7% by 6 years, and 5.3% by 9 years. Fewer than half of long-term recipients met a stricter long-term definition (at least 183 days supply) during follow-up. The likelihood of receiving long-term opioids by this stricter definition was 1.0% by 3 years.”

Addiction treatment specialists and public health officials have long claimed that even short-term use of opioid medication quickly raises the risk of addiction and death.

“The bottom line here is that prescription opiates are as addictive as heroin. They’re dangerous drugs,” CDC Director Thomas Frieden recently told the Washington Post. “You take a few pills, you can be addicted for life. You take a few too many and you can die.”

The Indiana University researchers did find a “relatively modest” increase in long term opioid use by patients with depression, anxiety and other mental health conditions, and those taking psychoactive drugs. Rates of long-term use were 1.5 times higher for patients taking medications for attention-deficit disorder (ADHD); three times higher for those with previous substance use disorders other than opioids; and nearly nine times higher for those with previous opioid use disorders.

Ironically, the strongest risk for long-term opioid use was in patients being treated with buprenorphine (Suboxone), an addiction treatment drug.

“Patients with OUDs (opioid use disorders) and buprenorphine or naltrexone prescription fills were at substantially greater risk of transitioning to long-term opioids earlier in follow-up than were patients without these conditions or medications,” Quinn wrote.

The researchers also found that patients with a history of suicidal or self-injuring behavior were at greater risk of using prescription opioids long-term.

 “It is likely that patients with psychiatric problems are more likely to experience more severe pain symptoms or greater pain-related functional impairment, perhaps leading providers to prescribe more aggressively to address pain-related concerns,” Quinn said. “It is also possible that patients with comorbid pain and psychiatric conditions may be more likely to seek care repeatedly or from multiple treatment providers because of their greater symptom severity or perceived need for care, resulting in a higher rate of opioid receipt in aggregate.”

Quinn and his colleagues do not rule out opioid therapy for pain sufferers with psychiatric problems, but recommend that they be given mental health counseling “in conjunction with the use of long-term opioid therapy.”

Frieden to Resign as CDC Director

By Pat Anson, Editor

Dr. Thomas Frieden, who has headed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for nearly eight years and played a pivotal role in the agency’s opioid prescribing guidelines, plans to submit his resignation on January 20, the day of President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.   

Frieden disclosed his plans in a year-end interview with Reuters. The former New York City health commissioner did not say what he planned to do next.

Frieden’s resignation is not surprising, as incoming administrations usually do not retain the heads of federal agencies, most of whom are political appointees.  Food and Drug Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, who has only been in office for 10 months, has not been contacted by the Trump transition team and is also expected to be replaced, according to The Washington Post.

President-elect Trump has not yet said who his nominee will be to succeed Califf or who he will appoint to replace Frieden.

Frieden has an extensive background in epidemiology and infectious diseases, and his tenure at the CDC was marked by major efforts to combat outbreaks of the Ebola virus, fungal meningitis, influenza and the Zika virus. He also doggedly pursued a controversial campaign to put prescribing limits on opioid pain medication, an area traditionally overseen by the FDA.

“One of the most heartbreaking problems I’ve faced as CDC director is our nation’s opioid crisis,” Frieden recently wrote in a commentary published by Fox News. 

“This crisis was caused, in large part, by decades of prescribing too many opioids for too many conditions where they provide minimal benefit and is now made worse by wide availability of cheap, potent, and easily available illegal opioids: heroin, illicitly made fentanyl, and other, newer illicit synthetic opioids. These deadly drugs have found a ready market in people primed for addiction by misuse of prescription opioids.”

thomas frieden, md

But Frieden’s campaign to rein in opioid prescribing has failed to slow the soaring number of overdose deaths, which continued to rise throughout his tenure at CDC, killing 52,000 Americans last year alone.

His repeated claim that the use of prescription opioids by legitimate patients is “intertwined” with the overdose epidemic is also not supported by facts. Only a small percentage of pain patients become addicted to opioid medication or graduate to heroin and other illegal street drugs.

Yet Frieden remains a staunch supporter of the CDC guidelines, calling them an “excellent starting point” to prevent opioid abuse, even though the guidelines themselves state they are based on scientific evidence that is "low in quality."

“There are safer drugs and treatment approaches that can control pain as well or better than opioids for the vast majority of patients. We must reduce the number of Americans exposed to opioids for the first time, especially for conditions where the risks of opioids outweigh the benefits,” Frieden wrote.

“We must not forget what got us here in the first place. Doctors’ prudent use of the prescription pad and renewed commitment to treat pain more safely and effectively based on what we know now about opioids—as well as healthy awareness of the risks and benefits among patients prescribed these drugs—can change the path of the opioid epidemic.”

Frieden undoubtedly had good intentions, but his agency repeatedly showed a penchant for arrogance and contempt for the public while drafting the guidelines.  The CDC held no public hearings, and secretly consulted with addiction treatment specialists and special interest groups, but few pain patients or pain physicians.

The CDC finally unveiled the guidelines publicly in September 2015 to a select online audience. The agency didn’t make the guidelines available on its website or in any public form outside of the webinar, and allowed for only a 48-hour comment period. Only when faced with the threat of lawsuits and growing ridicule from patients, physicians and other federal agencies, did the agency reverse course and delay the guidelines for several months. They were released virtually unchanged in March 2016.

Although “voluntary” and meant only for primary care physicians, the guidelines have been widely adopted by pain specialists and other prescribers, and have even become law in several states. This was always the goal of the CDC.

Within a few months of their release, an online survey of nearly 2,000 pain patients found that over two-thirds had their opioid medication reduced or stopped by their doctors. Over half said they had contemplated suicide.

There have been anecdotal reports of suicides increasing in the pain community. A recent story we did about the suicide of a Vermont man who was cut off from opioids and abandoned by his doctor provoked quite a response from readers.

“This situation has got to be stopped before any more people commit suicide to escape the pain. I also suffer from chronic pain and my medications have been cut back so far they no longer work worth a damn,” Michael wrote to us.

“I'm facing the very same thing right now. I'm in utter agony,” said LadyV. “In my doctor’s office I was told I have to reduce you, wean you off. I through no fault of my own suffered a horrible spinal injury and now no one cares.”

“When I was forcibly weaned off my pain meds last spring, due to the push by the DEA and CDC, I wrote a letter to the White House,” wrote Judith Metzger. “I mentioned a need for them to be watching suicide statistics related to uncontrolled chronic pain. There was never any mention that I was suicidal. Still, I got several calls from a suicide crisis team in DC! Reading this tragic story makes it clear that my prediction was sadly correct. When will they ever listen?”

In his commentary for Fox News, Frieden said it was “important that we look upstream and prevent opioid use disorder in the first place.”

In his final weeks at the CDC, now may be a good time for Frieden to look downstream at the havoc his prescribing guidelines have created.