CDC: Opioid Prescriptions Drop in 3 of 4 U.S. Counties

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released another study documenting how prescriptions for opioid medication have fallen dramatically in recent years. The study partially credits the CDC’s own guideline for the drop in opioid prescribing, but makes no mention of the suffering and suicides of pain patients who’ve been cut off from opioid medication.

Researchers at the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control – which developed the agency’s controversial 2016 guideline -- looked at opioid prescribing trends nationally from 2015 to 2017.

They found significant declines in high dose opioid prescribing and in the average daily dose, which fell from 48.1 MME (morphine milligram equivalent) to 45.2 MME, a 6% decline. The guideline recommends that doses not exceed 90 MME except in rare instances.

Nearly 3 out of 4 counties experienced a reduction of 10% or more in the amount of opioids prescribed – the counties colored green in the map below. Relatively few counties, primarily in the Midwest and northern Rockies, had a 10% or more increase in opioid prescribing – counties that are marked in orange.

JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE

“The reduction in opioid prescribing that began in 2012 has accelerated in the United States. The amount of opioids prescribed decreased an average of 10.0% annually with reductions in 74.7% of counties from 2015 to 2017,” CDC researchers reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Recent reductions could be related to policies and strategies aimed at reducing inappropriate prescribing, increased awareness of the risks associated with opioids, and release of the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States, 2016. Despite reductions in prescribing, opioid overdose rates continue to increase and are driven largely by illicitly manufactured fentayl.”

A similar CDC study in 2018 also documented a decline in prescriptions, but made no effort to measure the guideline’s impact on patients and whether it had improved the quality of their pain care or worsened it.  There is only a brief acknowledgement that both studies are limited by “the inability to determine the appropriateness of opioid prescriptions” -- a belated and backhanded admission by the CDC that its guideline is built on the false premise that it knows what an appropriate dose is.

Had the CDC looked in its own Twitter feed touting the latest study, it could have found insight from patients on the guideline’s effect on the quality of pain care.

“Yea this is why my wife has been bedridden for over 2 YEARS now as her doctor does NOT BELIEVE in pain medication.  And when we call all the other practices in the area its more of the same response. Either we don't prescribe opioids or we don't take pain patients,” one poster wrote.

“Let's not forget skyrocketing suicide and patients turning to the streets for relief. Good job you now have a #OpioidCrisis of your own making,” another poster wrote.

“When the numbers of a drug are more meaningful than the human lives they help. So caught up in numerical reduction people who once had managed pain are forced to suffer or #SuicideDueToPain. I guess this makes you folks very proud, to kill off the disabled,” said another.

“And here we see the CDC touting what they think is a great thing. Ironically of course they are likely NOT tracking how many patients committed suicides after being forcibly tapered for no medical reason,” said Dave Wieland, a pain patient and advocate.

“And you can bet they are NOT tracking how many patients who had been able to work on their stable medication dosage, have now been forced to apply for disability after having their medication also taken away for no medical reason. Oh yea that's right the CDC doesn't care about those things.”

When the CDC released its guideline nearly 3 years ago, it pledged to “revisit this guideline as new evidence becomes available" and to evaluate its impact on doctors and patients.

How has the CDC guideline affected you? As the third anniversary of the guideline approaches, PNN is conducting a new survey of patients and healthcare providers. Is the guideline working as intended?

Click here to take the survey, which should only take a few minutes.

‘Mexican Oxy’ Flooding U.S. Black Market

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

New York City police and DEA agents have announced the seizure of 20,000 counterfeit oxycodone pills made with illicit fentanyl. The pills, which have an estimated street value of $600,000, are blue in color and stamped “M” on one side and “30” on the other, making them virtually indistinguishable from prescription oxycodone.

The fentanyl pills are believed to have originated in Mexico. Known on the street as “Mexican Oxy,” the highly potent counterfeit pills are often cheaper and easier to obtain than pharmaceutical-grade oxycodone. Black market 30 mg oxycodone pills sell on the street for $9 to $30 each and are surfacing around the country.

“If you take prescription pills that did not come directly from a pharmacy, you are risking your life,” said New York City Special Narcotics Prosecutor Bridget Brennan. “Throughout New York City, we have seen a spate of cases involving tens of thousands of potentially lethal fentanyl pills masquerading as oxycodone.

“Just because black market pills have the same color and design as legitimate pills, it does not mean they are safe. The ingredients and potency are all unknown, and minuscule amounts of fentanyl can cause overdose or death. Consuming a counterfeit pill is akin to playing Russian Roulette.”

Overdose deaths in New York City are at record-high levels and fentanyl is involved in over half of them. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine. A customer accustomed to taking oxycodone would not necessarily have the tolerance to ingest illicit fentanyl without suffering an overdose.

DEA PHOTO

Fentanyl powder is typically produced by illicit labs in China and then smuggled into the U.S. through Mexico. The powder is transformed into tablets by pill presses purchased online and then sold by drug traffickers. Four arrests in New York were made in connection with the latest seizure.

“These arrests highlight a growing trend in illicit street drugs which increases the risk of drug overdose,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge Ray Donovan. “Traffickers are mass producing pseudo-pharmaceutical pills made of heroin, fentanyl and other illicit drugs in makeshift laboratories throughout New York City. These pills attract users because they are more convenient and less conspicuous; but users should beware because they are unregulated and lethal.”

Fentanyl Seizures at Mexican Border

Mexican Oxy is also blamed for a rash of overdoses in Arizona, where fentanyl deaths have tripled in recent years.

“It’s the worst I’ve seen in 30 years, this toll that it’s taken on families,” Doug Coleman, DEA Special Agent in Charge of Arizona told the Associated Press. “The crack (cocaine) crisis was not as bad.”  

Last month, the U.S. Border Patrol announced its biggest fentanyl seizure ever — over 250 pounds were found in a truckload of cucumbers at a border crossing in Nogales, Arizona.

Most of the fentanyl was in powder form and over two pounds were made up of pills. Together, they had the potential to kill millions of people.  

“Just because black market pills have the same color and design as legitimate pills, it does not mean they are safe.”

— Bridget Brennan, NYC Narcotics Prosecutor

Most of the fentanyl seized by law enforcement is found hidden inside vehicles at official border crossings around Nogales and San Diego, according to the AP. Smaller shipments of fentanyl are sent directly to the U.S. from China through the mail. The Postal Service’s Inspector General recently reported that over 90 percent of illegal online pharmacies use the mail to ship illicit drugs.

The Postal Service is prohibited from opening packages without a search warrant and is obligated to accept inbound international mail. This makes it more difficult for postal inspectors to identify and track packages suspected of containing illicit drugs. By comparison, private carriers are able to open and inspect packages and can track shipments from beginning to end.

The Inspector General recommended that Congress pass legislation that would give postal inspectors authorization to open and inspect domestic packages suspected of carrying illicit drugs.

FDA Warns Drug Distributor

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has sent a warning letter to a wholesale drug distributor rebuking the company for its handling of several tampering cases involving oxycodone and other medications.

The letter to the CEO of the McKesson Corporation involves incidents in 2016 when pharmacies notified the company about the tampering and theft of medications it had supplied them with.    

In one such case, a Rite Aid pharmacy in Michigan found that the seal to a bottle labeled as containing 100 tablets of oxycodone had been broken. Inside the bottle a pharmacist found 15 tablets of Aleve, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory pain reliever.  Two other Rite Aid pharmacies also reported to the company that oxycodone bottles had been tampered with. McKesson investigated the reports and determined the tampering and thefts likely occurred while the bottles were in its possession.  

Similar tampering incidents involved drugs used to treat bipolar disorder, high blood pressure and HIV.

According to the FDA, McKesson did little to identify and quarantine other products in its distribution system that also may have been tampered with and failed to warn other pharmacies that illegitimate products were in the supply chain.

"This is simply unacceptable. A distributor’s failure to have systems in place to investigate and quarantine suspect and illegitimate products within their control is a violation of the law," said FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, in a statement.

"But this is even more concerning given that we’re in the midst of a widespread opioid crisis. Opioids that leave the legitimate supply chain could end up being sold illegally, or a patient who was appropriately prescribed these drugs to treat pain may not get the treatment they need or may unknowingly take a medication that’s not meant for them."

The FDA did not say why it waited so long to send the warning letter or notify the public about the 2016 tampering incidents. McKesson is the first company to receive a warning letter under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), which was enacted by Congress in 2013.

McKesson is one of the largest wholesale drug distributors in the country. It is being sued by dozens of states, cities and counties for its role in the opioid crisis. In 2017, McKesson was fined $150 million for failing to report suspicious orders for oxycodone, hydrocodone and other controlled substances. In 2008, the company agreed to pay $13.25 million in penalties for similar violations.

FDA: Pain Patients Dependent On Opioids Are Not Addicted

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has released new guidance to drug makers to streamline the development of buprenorphine products to treat opioid addiction. Commonly known by the brand name Suboxone, buprenorphine has long dominated the market for addiction treatment.

Of importance to pain patients is a statement about the guideline by FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, that seeks to clarify the difference between opioid addiction and patients who need opioids for pain relief.

Gootlieb said there is still stigma and misunderstanding – even in the medical and addiction fields – about the difference between opioid addiction and dependence.

“Because of the biology of the human body, everyone who uses a meaningful dose of opioids for a modest length of time develops a physical dependence. This means that there are withdrawal symptoms after the use stops,” Gottlieb said. “A physical dependence to an opioid drug is very different than being addicted to such a medication.

“Addiction requires the continued use of opioids despite harmful consequences on someone’s life. Addiction involves a psychological preoccupation to obtain and use opioids above and beyond a physical dependence. But someone who is physically dependent on opioids as a result of the treatment of pain but who is not craving the drugs is not addicted.”

“Someone who is physically dependent on opioids as a result of the treatment of pain but who is not craving the drugs is not addicted.”

— Dr. Scott Gottlieb, FDA Commissioner

In recent years new and generic formulations of buprenorphine have been released in tablets, sublingual films, injections and implants, and the FDA is trying to promote the development of more of them.

The guidance released by the agency basically tells drug makers they may be able to submit new drug applications for buprenorphine products without conducting the safety and efficacy trials that are usually required for other medications.

“The guidance we’re finalizing today is one of the many steps we’re taking to help advance the development of new treatments for opioid use disorder, and promote novel formulations or delivery mechanisms of existing drugs to better tailor available medicines to individuals’ needs,” Gottlieb said. “Our goal is to advance the development of new and better ways of treating opioid use disorder to help more Americans access successful treatments.”

There are currently only three drugs approved by the FDA for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) – buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone. Physicians wishing to prescribe buprenorphine to patients must have a special certification from the DEA and are limited in the number of patients they can treat.

Buprenorphine is an opioid that is also used to treat pain. When combined with naloxone, buprenorphine reduces cravings for opioids and lowers the risk of abuse.

Some addicts have discovered that buprenorphine can also be used to get high or to ease their withdrawal pain from heroin and other opioids. Buprenorphine is such a popular street drug that the National Forensic Laboratory Information System ranked buprenorphine as the third most diverted opioid medication in the U.S. in 2014. 

Federal Prosecutors Warn Top Opioid Prescribers in Wisconsin

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Wisconsin’s two U.S. Attorneys have sent letters to 180 physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners in the state warning them that their opioid prescribing practices could result in prosecution.

None of the prescribers have been charged with a crime and it’s not clear if any are under investigation or have been linked to overdoses. Copies of the letters were not released and the recipients were not identified.

According to a news release, the letters warn doctors that they are prescribing opioids at “relatively high levels” that could lead to addiction and that “prescribing opioids without a legitimate medical purpose could subject them to enforcement action, including criminal prosecution.”

“We know that for many, addiction began with opioids prescribed by a medical professional,” said Matthew Krueger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. “By sending these letters, we are asking medical professionals to join the fight against addiction and ensure they prescribe no more opioids than are necessary.”

“Opioid addiction has touched the lives of far too many families in our state,” said Scott Blader, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin. “Medical professionals play a pivotal role in stemming the flow of legal opioids into unlawful channels.”

According to a spokeswoman, the 180 recipients of the warning letters were selected based on a review of Medicare prescription drug claims, which found that they prescribed opioids above the CDC’s highest recommended dose of 90 MMEs (morphine milligram equivalent). 

“They were identified through Medicare data for two years,” Myra Longfield, a public information officer in the Western District of Wisconsin, told PNN. “And from that data, practitioners were identified where they prescribed on average 90 MMEs (or more) per patient per day. That’s the threshold where the CDC and the Wisconsin Medical Examining Board say there is no real evidence to suggest that above that amount has any better effect on chronic pain.” 

The 2016 CDC opioid guideline is voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians. Longfield said warning letters were not sent to pain management physicians, oncologists or those working in hospice or palliative care, where higher opioid doses may be needed to control pain. 

Chilling Effect on Prescribers

Federal prosecutors in Georgia and Massachusetts have sent similar warning letters to high prescribers. While the intent is to urge caution, critics say the letters are likely to intimidate other doctors.

“This will have a totally chilling effect. The abuse of statistics is pathetic. It would only be an ignorant person that would take the top prescribers and say that they are endangering lives,” said Mark Ibsen, MD, a Montana doctor who nearly lost his medical license over allegations that he overprescribed opioids.  

“After they lop off the top prescribing doctors, guess what that leaves? More top prescribing doctors. Until there are none. Soon we will be seeing tattoos on physicians, similar to POWs.”

“This is an egregious overreach and will lead to more deaths not fewer,” said Lynn Webster, MD, a pain management expert and past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. “Using the CDC guidelines as a goal post is not what even the CDC recommended. Most opioid addictions do not begin with a legal prescription of opioids. It usually starts long before exposure to a prescription opioid. The major problem is with illegal opioids smuggled in from Mexico and China. 

“I am worried for tens of thousands of patients in Wisconsin. Many of them will be at risk of suicide or seek illegal drugs, where the real harm exists. Sad. Very Sad.”

Last year, the American Medical Association adopted resolutions opposing the “misapplication” and “inappropriate use” of the CDC guideline. The resolutions by the AMA House of Delegates warn that “no entity should use MME thresholds as anything more than guidance” and that physicians should not be disciplined or prosecuted for prescribing opioids at levels above those recommended by the CDC. The AMA said some patients “can benefit from taking opioids at greater dosages” and “such care may be medically necessary and appropriate.” 

Most opioid overdoses in the United States are now linked to illicit fentanyl and heroin, not prescription opioids. In Wisconsin, 916 people died of opioid overdoses in 2017. Most of those deaths involved either heroin or fentanyl.

How Sackler Family Built an OxyContin Fortune

By Christine Willmsen and Martha Bebinger, WBUR

The first nine months of 2013 started off as a banner year for the Sackler family, owners of the pharmaceutical company that produces OxyContin, the addictive opioid pain medication. Purdue Pharma paid the family $400 million from its profits during that time, claims a lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts attorney general.

However, when profits dropped in the fourth quarter, the family allegedly supported the company’s intense push to increase sales representatives’ visits to doctors and other prescribers.

Purdue had hired a consulting firm to help reps target “high-prescribing” doctors, including several in Massachusetts. One physician in a town south of Boston wrote an additional 167 prescriptions for OxyContin after sales representatives increased their visits, according to the latest version of the lawsuit filed in Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston.

The lawsuit claims Purdue paid members of the Sackler family more than $4 billion between 2008 and 2016. Eight members of the family who served on the board or as executives as well as several directors and officers with Purdue are named in the lawsuit.

This is the first lawsuit among hundreds of others that were previously filed across the country to charge the Sacklers with personally profiting from the harm and death of people taking the company’s opioids.

WBUR along with several other media sued Purdue Pharma to force the release of previously redacted information that was filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court case. When a judge ordered the records to be released with few, if any, redactions, Purdue filed two appeals and lost.

The complaint filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey says that former Purdue Pharma CEO Richard Sackler allegedly suggested the family sell the company or, if they weren’t able to find a buyer, to milk the drugmaker’s profits and “distribute more free cash flow” to themselves.

That was in 2008, one year after Purdue pleaded guilty to a felony and agreed to stop misrepresenting the addictive potential of its highly profitable painkiller, OxyContin.

At a board meeting in June 2008, the complaint says, the Sacklers voted to pay themselves $250 million. Another payment in September totaled $199 million.

The company continued to receive complaints about OxyContin similar to those that led to the 2007 guilty plea, according to unredacted documents filed in the case.

While the company settled lawsuits in 2009 totaling $2.7 million brought by family members of those who had been harmed by OxyContin throughout the country, the company amped up its marketing of the drug to physicians by spending $121.6 million on sales reps for the coming year. The Sacklers paid themselves $335 million that year.

The lawsuit claims Sackler family members directed efforts to boost sales. An attorney for the family and other board directors is challenging the authority to make that claim in Massachusetts. A motion on jurisdiction in the case hasn’t been heard. That attorney hasn’t responded to a request for comment on the most recent allegations.

Purdue Pharma, in a statement, said the complaint filed by Healey is “part of a continuing effort to single out Purdue, blame it for the entire opioid crisis, and try the case in the court of public opinion rather than the justice system.”

Purdue went on to charge Healey with attempting to “vilify” Purdue in a complaint “riddled with demonstrably inaccurate allegations.” Purdue said it has more than 65 initiatives aimed at reducing the misuse of prescription opioids. The company says Healey fails to acknowledge that most opioid overdose deaths are currently the result of fentanyl.

Purdue fought the release of many sections of the 274-page complaint. Attorneys for the company said at a hearing on Jan. 25 that they had agreed to release much more information in Massachusetts than has been cleared by a judge overseeing hundreds of cases consolidated in Ohio. Purdue filed both state and federal appeals this week to block release of the compensation figures and other information about Purdue’s plan to expand into drugs to treat opioid addiction.

The attorney general’s complaint says that in a ploy to distance themselves from the emerging statistics and studies that showed OxyContin’s addictive characteristics, the Sacklers approved public marketing plans that labeled people hurt by opioids as “junkies” and “criminals.”

Richard Sackler allegedly wrote that Purdue should “hammer” them in every way possible.

Addiction Treatment ‘Attractive Market’

While Purdue Pharma publicly denied its opioids were addictive, internally company officials were acknowledging it and devising a plan to profit off them even more, the complaint states.

Kathe Sackler, a board member, pitched “Project Tango,” a secret plan to grow Purdue beyond providing painkillers by also providing a drug, Suboxone, to treat those addicted.

“Addictive opioids and opioid addiction are ‘naturally linked,'” she allegedly wrote in September 2014.

According to the lawsuit, Purdue staff wrote: “It is an attractive market. Large unmet need for vulnerable, underserved and stigmatized patient population suffering from substance abuse, dependence and addiction.”

They predicted that 40-60 percent of the patients buying Suboxone for the first time would relapse and have to take it again, which meant more revenue.

Purdue never went through with it, but Attorney General Healey contends this and other internal documents show the family’s greed and disregard for the welfare of patients.

This story is part of a reporting partnership between WBUR, NPR and Kaiser Health News. 

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Overdose Crisis Will Worsen, But Not Due to Rx Opioids

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The opioid crisis will “substantially worsen” in coming years and could result in the overdose deaths of over a million Americans by 2025, according to an eye-opening new study. Because most of the deaths will involve illicit opioids, researchers say limiting the supply of prescription opioids will have only a “modest” effect in reversing the trend.      

The study, published in JAMA Network Open, is based on mathematical models developed by a team of researchers at Harvard Medical School, Boston University School of Medicine, Pennsylvania State University and other academic institutions.

“Our study also highlights the changing nature of the epidemic. The opioid crisis is expected to worsen in the next decade owing to multiple factors,” said lead author Jagpreet Chhatwal, PhD, a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“First, the number of individuals using illicit opioids is expected to increase substantially. Second, unlike historical trends where prescription opioid use has served as a path to heroin use, more people are directly initiating opioid use with illicit opioids. Third, there has been a rapid increase in illicit opioid lethality, likely mainly driven by the infiltration of the heroin supply with the highly potent synthetic opioid fentanyl.”

Under a “base-case” scenario, with the opioid crisis stabilizing by 2020, researchers project that over 700,000 Americans will die from opioid overdoses from 2016 to 2025. Nearly 80 percent of the deaths will involve fentanyl, heroin and other illicit opioids. Overdoses involving prescription opioids would decrease by about 10% during that period.

JAMA NETWORK OPEN

A “pessimistic” scenario developed by researchers is even more jaw dropping. If the opioid crisis does not stabilize until 2025, they project over 1.2 million Americans will die from overdoses. Over 88% of the deaths will involve illicit opioids.

In either scenario, efforts to reduce the misuse of opioid medication, such as limiting the dose and supply of prescription opioids, will only reduce the number of overdose deaths by 3 to 5 percent.

“State and local governments have instituted several interventions aimed at preventing individuals from exposure to prescription opioids, including a recently proposed goal to lower opioid prescriptions by one-third in the coming 3 years,” said Chhatwal.

“Our study does not devalue these efforts and it is possible that their effect could improve over time, which may ultimately yield a substantial benefit in the long term. However, given the large number of individuals who have already engaged in prescription opioid misuse or illicit opioid use, our study indicates that prevention efforts, in isolation, are unlikely to have the desired level of effect on opioid overdose deaths the near term.”

The researchers say a strong, multi-pronged approach is needed to reduce overdoses, including greater scrutiny of patients for signs of opioid use disorder (OUD).

"It could include implementation of screening for OUD in all relevant health care settings, improving access to medications for OUD such as methadone and buprenorphine, increasing OUD training programs at medical and nursing schools, improving access to harm-reduction services, and controlling the supply of illicit opioids,” they concluded.

Another recent study also predicts that reducing the supply of prescription opioids will have little effect on the overdose rate and could lead to increased use of heroin.   

Pain Management Association Shutting Down

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

An association of pain management providers that was a leading advocate for patient access to pain care is closing its doors. The board of directors of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management (AIPM) voted unanimously this week to cease operations, largely due to financial problems.  

“This is an incredibly difficult and sad decision,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, AIPM’s Executive Director. “Our message has never been more relevant than now, amid the nation’s opioid crisis, yet we have found it increasingly difficult to maintain the resources needed to sustain our efforts.”

For over three decades, AIPM promoted an “integrative model” of pain care that utilizes a variety of different treatments, including both drug and non-drug therapies.

Although that model has become a standard of pain care, AIPM’s membership has steadily declined due to demographic and other industry trends. With doctors under increasing scrutiny for opioid prescribing, pain management is not an attractive specialty for recent medical school graduates.

“Joining associations like ours just is not a high priority for younger health care providers, and decreased interest in attending in-person educational events has contributed to significantly decreased conference revenues for AIPM,” said W. Clay Jackson, MD, President of the Board of Directors.

The demonization of opioid medication by policymakers and politicians also played a major role, causing many drug makers to limit or drop their support for medical associations and patient advocacy groups.

“My understanding is that the decreased industry support is not limited to the pain space, but it is especially acute here because for many years it was the opioid manufacturers who were the greatest source of funding,” Twillman wrote in an email to PNN. “As recently as five years ago, it would not be unusual for a company to drop nearly $100,000 at a single conference, between big exhibit hall booths, grants for continuing education programs, sponsored meal programs, and items such as bags, lanyards, key cards, etc.

“But when the lawsuits against opioid manufacturers started to ramp up, the logical response from the manufacturers was to withdraw support. After all, if they are being accused of using groups like ours as ‘front organizations,’ then it is completely logical for them to stop any behavior that might be perceived that way.”

A 2018 report by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) even accused the AIPM and other industry supported groups of playing “a significant role” in starting the opioid epidemic.

“These financial relationships were insidious, lacked transparency, and are one of the many factors that have resulted in arguably the most deadly drug epidemic in American history,” McCaskill's report alleged.

"Sen. McCaskill and the others haven’t spent the necessary time talking to us to understand how we do things and what we have to offer," Twillman said at the time. "It appears that they’ve simply looked at how much money we got from a set of pharma companies, constructed a narrative about what that means, and published it."

Over a five-year period, McCaskill’s report found that AIPM received over $1.25 million in support from opioid makers. But the report failed to mention that AIPM also accepted funding from chiropractors, yoga therapists, acupuncturists and massage therapists.

“We’re all very sad at this turn of events, but we’re also very proud of what we accomplished.”

— Dr. Bob Twillman

Among other things, those donations helped AIPM host the 2017 Integrative Pain Care Policy Congress, a meeting that united dozens of providers, insurers, patients, researchers and policymakers.

The Congress adopted a consensus definition of integrative pain management that is “person-centered and focuses on maximizing function and wellness.”

Twillman says AIPM — formerly known as the American Academy of Pain Management — had less of a financial cushion than other pain organizations and was not able to adjust to changing times or the backlash against pain management.

“I fear for the future of those organizations, because I'm not sure this set of problems is going to get better, and I don't see the other organizations adapting as quickly as perhaps they should,” said Twillman, who has long stood up for patient rights and been a reliable source of common sense for PNN.

“I very much want to remain in a pain policy position if possible, because that is my real passion,” he said. “We're all very sad at this turn of events, but we're also very proud of what we accomplished, and can only hope that others will pick up the baton and continue the race while we look for ways to keep pursuing our passion.”

Civil Rights Case Gives Hope to Pain Patients

By Richard Dobson, MD, Guest Columnist

People with chronic disabling pain frequently complain that doctors discharge them from their practice because of the medications they take. Sometimes doctors refuse to accept patients who are taking opioid pain medications, even though the medications treat a legitimate medical condition.

There may be hope that such actions will be considered violations of the civil rights of patients.

This week the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) signed a formal agreement with Selma Medical Associates, a large primary care practice in Virginia, that may open the door for people with chronic pain to regain their full access to medical care.

Selma Medical refused to schedule a new patient appointment for a man who was taking the addiction treatment drug Suboxone. He filed a civil rights complaint asserting that his rights were violated because has a disability.

According to the complaint, Selma Medical “regularly turns away prospective new patients who are treated with narcotic controlled substances such as Suboxone.”

The DOJ and Selma Medical settled the complaint out-of-court. The full agreement can be read here.

In essence, Selma Medical agreed to stop discriminating on the basis of disability, including opioid use disorder (OUD). The settlement identifies several specific ways that Selma Medical was violating the civil rights of people with disabilities.

“By refusing to accept the Complainant for a new family practice appointment solely because he takes Suboxone, Selma Medical discriminated against him by denying him the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of Selma Medical.

By turning away the Complainant and other prospective patients who are treated with narcotic controlled substances, including Suboxone, Selma Medical imposed eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with OUD.

Further, Selma Medical failed to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities.”

In the agreement, Selma Medical agreed to stop discriminating now and in the future. The staff and administration are also required to undergo intensive training on the implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Importantly for pain patients, the agreement applies to people taking “narcotic medications” for any reason and is not limited to people who are taking Suboxone for OUD. The agreement does seem to imply that people taking opioid medications also have their civil rights violated if they are refused medical care on the basis of their diagnosis and their use of opioids.

A former staff attorney in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division agrees.  

“This formal settlement agreement from DOJ affirms that discrimination in access to medical treatment based solely on an individual’s use of a particular medication — in this case, a narcotic controlled substance — may violate the law,” says Kate Nicholson, a pain patient and civil rights attorney who helped draft federal regulations under the ADA.

Anyone who has chronic pain and who is discharged from a practice or refused admission to a medical practice should let the medical staff know that this is a violation of the ADA. Show them the agreement between Selma Medical and the DOJ. Then if the medical practice still refuses care, file a formal complaint with the Office of Civil Rights. Instructions on filing can be found here.

As part of the settlement agreement, Selma Medical had to pay $30,000 to the complainant for “the discrimination and the harm he has endured, including, but not limited to, emotional distress and pain and suffering.” Selma Medical also had to pay a civil penalty of $10,000.

It seems to me that the substance of this agreement gives real hope to the chronic pain community that discrimination based on disability, even if the disability is based on pain, is illegal and violates their civil rights.

Richard Dobson, MD, worked as a physician in the Rochester, New York area for over 30 years, treating and rehabilitating people suffering from chronic pain, mostly as the result of work or motor vehicle accidents.  He is now retired.  

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.

Doctors Call Probe of Opioid Deaths a ‘Witch Hunt’

By Cheryl Clark, Kaiser Health News

The Medical Board of California has launched investigations into doctors who prescribed opioids to patients who, perhaps months or years later, fatally overdosed.

The effort, dubbed “the Death Certificate Project,” has sparked a conflict with physicians in California and beyond, in part because the doctors being investigated did not necessarily write the prescriptions leading to a death. The project is one of a kind nationally, although a much more limited program is operated by North Carolina’s board.

So far, the board has launched investigations into the practices of about 450 physicians and referred the names of 72 nurse practitioners, physician assistants and osteopathic physicians to their respective licensing boards.

To date, the regulators have formally accused at least 23 doctors of negligent prescribing, and more accusations are expected. Some of the accusations, like one 63-page document filed against Dr. Frank Gilman, a San Diego internist, detail hundreds of prescriptions for one patient over four years, most of them by him. Gilman did not respond to a request for comment.

The project, first reported by MedPage Today, has struck a nerve among medical associations. Dr. Barbara McAneny, the American Medical Association president and an Albuquerque, N.M., oncologist whose cancer patients sometimes need treatment for acute pain, called the project “terrifying.” She said “it will only discourage doctors from taking care of patients with pain.”

Using terms such as “witch hunt” and “inquisition,” many doctors said the project is leading them or their peers to refuse patients’ requests for painkiller prescriptions — no matter how well documented the need — out of fear their practices will come under disciplinary review.

The influential California Health Care Foundation also has pushed back against the project, saying it could harm patients.

Unusually aggressive for the board, the program is a reaction to the by now well-known phenomenon of physicians overprescribing opioids. Nationally, a host of policy changes and educational efforts have driven down the rate of opioid prescriptions in recent years.

The goal of California’s program, quietly launched four years ago, is not necessarily to link a doctor’s specific prescription to a specific patient’s death — although many of the cases do — but to find doctors whose patterns of prescribing are so dangerous they may lead to patients’ ultimately fatal addictions.

Sometimes a doctor was earmarked for investigation even though the cause of death included multiple drugs prescribed by many physicians, or suicide by overdose, board documents indicate.

Kimberly Kirchmeyer, executive director of the Medical Board of California, defended the project. She said the effort has found patterns of “gross negligence,” incompetence and excessive prescribing.

“I understand their frustrations,” she said of the complaining doctors, “but we do have to continue our role with consumer protection.”

She noted that part of the point of the project is to educate doctors and, through probation requirements, change the behavior of those who prescribe excessively.

“That’s education that could potentially save patients in the future,” said Kirchmeyer, whose agency licenses some 141,000 doctors.

Some consumer groups consider the board’s bold effort to find overprescribing doctors not aggressive enough.

“It’s long overdue,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog. The board should investigate opioid-related deaths that occurred more recently, she said: “They need to get their act together and speed things up.”

The agency thus far has looked at deaths only in 2012 and 2013 in which opioids were confirmed as a cause or contributing cause. It matched the names of the dead with the prescription drugs they filled, which are listed in the state’s prescription database. The database also shows the names of the doctors who prescribed to them. Physician experts reviewed those doctors’ prescribing history and selected those who appeared to prescribe drugs heavily.

Some doctors said they were especially angered that the letters they received concerned prescriptions they wrote as long as nine years ago.

McAneny, of the AMA, noted that prescribing practices now deemed unacceptable came out of public policies years ago that “compelled doctors to treat pain more aggressively for the comfort of our patients.” Also, payers have measured quality of care by whether their patients answered surveys about whether their pain was well-controlled.

“We’re [already] doing a lot of education to undo the damage” from those policies, she said.

Similarly, Dr. David Aizuss, a Los Angeles ophthalmologist who is president of the California Medical Association, said state and federal guidelines that took effect in 2014 and 2016 impose much more stringent prescribing precautions than “what was going on six or seven years ago.”

Many insurance plans and pharmacies in recent years have restricted dosages and durations of certain painkillers a physician may prescribe at one time.

Afraid to Prescribe

The crackdown on doctors has created fear, said Dr. Robert Wailes, a pain medicine specialist in Encinitas and chair of the California Medical Association’s Board of Trustees.

“What we’re finding is that more and more primary care doctors are afraid to prescribe and more of those patients are showing up on our doorsteps,” he said.

Officially, the CMA stops short of saying the medical board should stop the project, perhaps to avoid any perception that the association condones overprescribing. But it has asked the board to hire an independent reviewer to assess the criteria the board is using to decide which physicians to investigate, and whether physicians in certain specialties or regions of the state are being targeted more than others.

Dr. Ako Jacintho, a San Francisco addiction medicine specialist, was notified by the board that he was in trouble over a year ago. A patient for whom he had prescribed methadone fatally overdosed in 2012. The letter said “a complaint” had been filed against him, and asked him to respond to the allegations or, if he delayed, face a citation or fine of $1,000 per day. (The medical board can file its own complaints against a doctor.)

The letter said the patient had died of “acute combined methadone and diphenhydramine intoxication.” Jacintho had refilled the patient’s prescription for methadone the day before but said a 10-milligram pill was not a toxic dose. And he said he never prescribed diphenhydramine, the antihistamine sold as Benadryl.

“The only way he would have died was if he had not taken it as directed, or had mixed it with a medication that was not prescribed,” Jacintho said.

As of Dec. 21, Jacintho was still waiting to hear if he would face a formal accusation.

Last year, the board rewrote those letters in a less accusatory tone — describing the “review” as routine — although it still threatens doctors with $1,000 fines.

In a much smaller subset of cases, it finds problems that result in formal accusations that can result in discipline, such as public reprimands or restrictions on a physician’s ability to practice.

“You can’t even begin to understand how disrupting and upsetting this is. It’s not just a threat on your license; it’s a threat that you’ve not been a good physician.”

— Dr. Paul Speckart

Despite its designation as a “Death Certificate Project,” the California effort has not focused only on doctors whose patients died. In an unknown number of overdose cases, the board has sent letters to living patients asking them to authorize their doctors to relinquish their medical records to the board, adding that those documents would otherwise be subpoenaed.

Dr. Paul Speckart, a San Diego internist, said three of his patients last year received board letters that seemed to question his quality of care when all he did was try to relieve their well-documented pain. The board has not filed any accusations against him.

“You can’t even begin to understand how disrupting and upsetting this is,” Speckart said. “It’s not just a threat on your license; it’s a threat that you’ve not been a good physician.”

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Some California Pain Patients Forced to Buy Naloxone

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new state law that mandates new prescription pads isn’t the only headache faced by doctors and pain patients in California.

Over a dozen bills passed by the state legislature and signed into law by former Gov. Jerry Brown are aimed at addressing the opioid crisis. One of them -- AB 2760 -- requires doctors to “offer” a prescription for naloxone to any patient deemed at high risk of an opioid overdose.  Naloxone (Narcan) rapidly reverses the effects of an opioid overdose and has been credited with saving thousands of lives.

The naloxone law does not require patients to fill the prescription, but some pain sufferers are being forced by pharmacists to buy naloxone if they want to get their opioid medications filled. For one patient, it was a choice between pain relief and putting food on the table.

“A medication I don't want, don't need, and didn't ask for, is being forced on me. As in holding my other medication hostage. And each dose of Narcan is $75 for the uninsured. Which I am, because my insurance company won't pay for it,” one reader wrote on PNN’s Facebook page.

“I had to go without groceries to purchase a medication I didn't want, need or ask for. Nine years of never ever breaking a rule, having any adverse effects EVER, and never failing all those ‘gotcha’ tests they inflict on pain patients. So now, in addition to being in pain, I'm hungry. This cannot be.”

Another pain sufferer said she felt treated like a drug addict when a pharmacist forced her to buy Narcan, a nasal spray that contain naloxone.

“Blackmailed by Kaiser to pay $50 for Narcan before they would give me my pain meds. I am retired, disabled, and on fixed income,” wrote a woman who lives with severe arthritis. “I was an RN who worked holidays, weekends, nights, etc. Now this ‘greatest’ country treats me like some scum addict who shoots up illegal drugs.”

The requirement that doctors offer a naloxone prescription applies to so-called “high-risk” patients taking over 90 MME (morphine milligram equivalents) of opioids a day or those who are co-prescribed benzodiazepines, an anti-anxiety medication. Patients who have previously overdosed or have a history of substance abuse are also considered high risk.

But whether high-risk or low-risk, nothing in the law requires a patient to buy naloxone or empowers a pharmacist to withhold medications.

“The law does not make it mandatory for the patient to accept a prescription for naloxone or to fill it but only for the patient and physician to have a thoughtful conversation about whether it would be in the best interest of the patient,” Assemblyman Jim Wood, the bill’s sponsor, said in a statement to PNN.

“The law does not make it mandatory for the patient to accept a prescription for naloxone or to fill it.”

— CA Assemblyman Jim Wood

“We are beginning to hear circumstances where patients are being required to fill the naloxone prescription, and will investigate the circumstances where this is happening because that is not what the law states.”

Naloxone costs only pennies to make and syringes containing generic versions of the drug typically cost about $15 each. Branded and formulated versions such as Narcan are more expensive.

Evzio, a kit that contains two auto-injectors of naloxone, retails for about $3,700 and its manufacturer has been accused of price gouging.  The company reportedly raised Evzio’s price by over 600% to “capitalize on the opportunity” of a “well established public health crisis.”

Whether it comes in a spray, injector or syringe, its impractical to expect anyone to give themselves a dose of naloxone.

“What the state and others fail to realize is many pain patients live alone. Even if one were to accidentally overdose and lose consciousness how are they supposed to administer the Narcan?” asks PNN columnist Rochelle Odell, who lives in California. “No one clearly thinks these grandiose ideas through.”

Law enforcement groups, pharmacists and the Medical Board of California supported passage of AB 2760, but the bill was opposed by the Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Emergency Physicians and the California Medical Association (CMA).

“Mandating that a specific medication be prescribed in a variety of situations, regardless of the individual patient characteristics, is inappropriate and places the government between a patient and his or her physician,” the CMA said.

Despite that warning, AB 2760 was passed unanimously by the state Assembly and Senate, signed by the governor, and became law on January 1st.

Prescription Pad Chaos

As PNN has reported, the law of unintended consequences also applies to AB 1753, which requires California doctors to use customized prescription pads for opioids that have uniquely serialized identification numbers.

The idea was to prevent counterfeiting and get more prescriptions filed electronically, but instead the early weeks of the law’s implementation have been marked by chaos. Many doctors were unaware of the new law or unable to get new prescription pads ordered before January 1st. As a result, pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions written on old pads and patients have been sent away empty-handed.

“I just got my new prescription pads (Monday) at a cost of several hundred dollars, and the change is trivial,” Dr. Richard Buss, a family practice physician in Jackson, told the Sacramento Bee. “At the hospital here, I was next to a doctor who was trying to send a patient home after knee surgery, and the pharmacy wouldn’t honor his prescription because they were old forms.” 

Buss said this is the second year in a row that California doctors were not given proper notification of changes in their prescription pads. 

“They’re just changing prescription requirements, and then the doctors have to jump through the hoops suddenly, and I’m left with thousands of prescription blanks that are unusable, and that’s probably true for a lot of other doctors,” he said. 

Assemblyman Evan Low, who sponsored AB 1753, was unavailable to comment to PNN. In a January 7 letter to California’s Attorney General, Low blamed state regulators for the “unanticipated” confusion caused by his legislation. 

“I have been informed that numerous pharmacies have already turned away individuals holding prescriptions written on unserialized forms that are otherwise valid; in the face of possible discipline, dispensers are forced to decide between denying care to their patients and risking action against their license,” Low wrote. 

The California Medical Association is drafting new legislation to ensure a smoother transition to the new prescription pads, a process that usually takes weeks or months.

Are Opioid Prescriptions for Pets Diverted to Humans?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Opioid prescriptions for pets have soared over the past decade and may have helped fuel the opioid epidemic in humans, according to a small and speculative study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine say there was a 41 percent increase in opioid MMEs (morphine milligram equivalents) prescribed to dogs, cats and other pets at an acute care veterinary hospital at Penn’s School of Veterinary Medicine from 2007 to 2017.  Some of the increase was attributed to more complex procedures performed in veterinary medicine, as well as a greater awareness of the importance of pain management in animals.

But the authors took their analysis a step further by suggesting -- without offering any evidence -- that some of the opioids were diverted for human use.

"As we are seeing the opioid epidemic press on, we are identifying other avenues of possible human consumption and misuse," said senior author Jeanmarie Perrone, MD, a professor of Emergency Medicine and the director of Medical Toxicology at Penn Medicine.

"Even where the increase in prescribed veterinary opioids is well intended by the veterinarian, it can mean an increased chance of leftover pills being misused later by household members, sold or diverted, or endangering young children through unintentional exposure. The results of this study suggest that by assessing the rate of veterinary opioid prescriptions, we can develop strategies to reduce both human and animal health risks associated with increasing use."

Perrone was one of three peer reviewers who helped the CDC develop its controversial 2016 opioid prescribing guideline. One of her co-authors is Lewis Nelson, MD, a longtime critic of opioid prescribing practices who belonged to the “Core Expert Group” that drafted the CDC guideline.

The researchers reviewed pharmacy records at Penn Vet's Ryan Hospital during the 10-year study window, analyzing trends in four opioids prescribed to animals: tramadol, hydrocodone, codeine and fentanyl. The vast majority of animal patients were dogs and cats, along with an assortment of rabbits, snakes and birds.

"We found that the increased quantity of opioids prescribed by our hospital was not due to increased patient volume alone. It is likely that our goal of ensuring our patients are pain-free post-operatively, particularly for those requiring complex and invasive procedures, has driven our increased prescribing practices during this period," said lead author Dana Clarke, VMD, a professor of Interventional Radiology at Penn’s School of Veterinary Medicine.

"At the national level, we don't know the potential or extent of prescription diversion from animals to humans, and what impact this could have on the human opioid crisis."

Although the evidence of veterinary opioids being diverted to humans is largely anecdotal, many states have adopted measures that require background checks on pet owners. Twenty states require veterinarians to report their opioid prescriptions to a drug database, just as medical doctors do.

Maine and Colorado require background checks on a pet owner’s drug use before a veterinarian can even write a opioid prescription; while Alaska, Connecticut and Virginia limit the amount of opioids any one veterinarian can prescribe to a single animal.

Last year the Food and Drug Administration warned veterinarians to be cautious when prescribing opioids and be alert for people who may be using their pets to gain access to the drugs.

“We recognize that opioids and other pain medications have a legitimate and important role in treating pain in animals,” said FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD. “But just like the opioid medications used in humans, these drugs have potentially serious risks, not just for the animal patients, but also because of their potential to lead to addiction, abuse and overdose in humans who may divert them for their own use.”

A small study published in the American Journal of Public Health suggested that some pet owners are purposely injuring their animals to gain access to opioids. In a survey of 189 Colorado veterinarians, 13 percent reported they suspected an animal owner of purposefully injuring a pet to obtain opioid medication.

The 7 Golden Rules of Opioid Prescribing for Patients

By Jeffrey Grolig, MD, JD, Guest Columnist  

“Don’t do it!” is the advice often given to brand new physicians about whether to specialize in pain medicine. Increasing numbers of doctors are being fined, disciplined or arrested due to scrutiny caused by the nation’s opioid crisis. Every single opioid prescription, even the mildest painkiller, is being tracked, and prescription drug database searches tell the DEA and state board investigators who to watch.  

The unfortunate innocent victims of this crisis have been those legitimate patients who suffer in chronic pain, with up to 100 million in the United States alone. Each time a physician or pharmacy is attacked, thousands of pain patients must pay the price.

A pharmacy in my northern California town recently closed after the owner was charged with 200 counts of failing to properly keep records. Each count carries a $20,000 fine.

A local physician’s license was restricted for failure to warn in writing about the risks of combining sleeping pills with opioids. This family physician had already spent $56,000 in legal fees for previous documentation lapses.

A pulmonary specialist with English as his second language was arrested for prescribing codeine-containing cough syrup to four undercover DEA agents posing as patients. He is facing 20 years in prison and $2 million in fines.   

I still accept pain patients, but my background as an attorney compels me to use “universal precautions,” something I advise every physician who prescribes opioids to do. This boils down to following what I call “The 7 Golden Rules of Opioid Prescribing.” If you, as the patient, understand that your doctor must follow these 7 golden rules, it will make it much easier for you to obtain excellent pain management, including opioids.  

I developed the 7 golden rules by analyzing the most common documentation lapses of doctors who were disciplined or prosecuted. I included them when I wrote the “Physician Primer: Prescribe Like a Lawyer” to empower doctors to think and practice like a lawyer and not lose their careers over simple documentation errors.

If you write a cover letter like the one below to your current or prospective physician, touching on each and every one of these 7 golden rules, your pain control will vastly improve, I promise. 

Dear Doctor,

#1 I have a legitimate medical reason for needing opioids. My medical diagnosis is… (be specific: examples include diabetic neuropathy, failed spine surgery, spinal stenosis, CRPS, etc.). Attached is my MRI report (or EMG, CT, X-ray, Bone Scan, lab test, etc.) proving this.  

#2 I am not now, nor have I ever been addicted to prescription medication, illegal drugs or alcohol.   

#3 I have no depression, psychosis or bipolar disorder.  

#4 I understand all the risks of opioids and related medications, as well as my options for all non-opioid alternative treatments.  

#5 I am not taking benzodiazepines and drinking alcohol.  

#6 I have attached my last 12 months of medical records (not applicable if you have been with the same physician for one year).  

#7 These records reflect that I am an honest, compliant and responsible patient.  

Respectfully,  

Pain Patient

If you do not meet these criteria, it means you are in a higher risk category and would be better managed at a university medical center or a teaching hospital. To my knowledge, the DEA or state medical board has never raided a teaching hospital or university medical center. 

The best way a patient can signal to me they are responsible and low risk is to write a letter covering each of the 7 golden rules, attached to one year’s worth of medical records. This essentially does my work for me, and it makes it easy for me to decide whether or not to accept the patient.

If your doctor still won’t budge, hand him my free “Primer Flyer,” a pamphlet that explains risk management, that’s available on my website: ​ThePhysicianPrimer.com​.

If all else fails, have him watch my YouTube video on The 7 Golden Rules of Opioid Prescribing for Doctors. 

Jeffrey W. Grolig, MD, JD, is a board-certified specialist in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. He has taught at UC Davis Medical Center in both the departments of Family Practice and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. Dr. Grolig has formerly worked as a licensed attorney and has authored 6 books.

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.

Sen. Wyden Wants to Censor Pain Experts’ Opinions

By Lynn Webster, MD, Guest Columnist

In 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) created an advisory panel called the Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force and charged it to “develop a set of best practices for chronic and acute pain management and prescribing pain medication.”

The task force has just released its first draft report that makes several recommendations. One is to update the scientific evidence on which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s controversial 2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain was based. Another goal is to expand areas already included in the guideline.

On December 18, 2018, just before the report was published, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) wrote a letter to Alex Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). In it, he questioned the ability of several experts to serve impartially on the task force because of their alleged connections to the pharmaceutical industry. Specifically, Sen. Wyden worried that opioid manufacturers could exert “financial influence” on those task force members.

Wyden’s concerns about the HHS’s vetting practices would be understandable if the individuals who had been appointed to the advisory panel actually were receiving funds directly from industry. However, that is not the case.

Wyden’s letter specifically mentions Dr. Jianguo Cheng, president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM), and Dr. Rollin Gallagher, editor-in-chief of the journal Pain Medicine.

In his letter, Wyden opposes Drs. Cheng and Gallagher’s participation primarily because of their association with AAPM, a professional medical organization that has registered concerns about the impact of the CDC’s opioid prescribing guideline on people in chronic pain.

Dr. Josh Bloom, the American Council on Science and Health’s Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, recently shared written communications from Drs. Cheng and Gallagher that make it difficult to see any logical reason to object to their participation on the panel.

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR)

Since he became president-elect of the AAPM at the end of 2016, Dr. Cheng has had no financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Similarly, to ensure Pain Medicine’s editorial independence, Dr. Gallagher voluntarily ended his relationships — consulting or advisory— with the industry when he became editor-in-chief more than 10 years ago.

Ironically, the AAPM has long advocated for alternatives to opioids and generally supported the CDC guideline. However, they did have concerns about lack of evidence for some of the CDC’s recommendations. Other organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), have also criticized components of the CDC guideline.

Wyden has previously lodged a similar complaint with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, also challenging members selected for an FDA advisory panel because of a perceived conflict of interest. Following his complaint, Dr. Mary Lynn McPherson, professor at Maryland University School of Medicine, and Dr. Gregory Terman, who was the president of the American Pain Society, were removed from the panel. Here again, neither Dr. McPherson nor Dr. Terman personally received funds from Pharma. The University of Maryland and the American Pain Society, with which they were associated, did.

If Wyden’s reasoning were taken to its logical conclusion, no member of the AMA or any professional organization of pain experts critical of the CDC opioid guideline would be an acceptable member of the advisory panel. Also, most university faculty members would be disqualified because their universities accept funding, in one form or another, from industry.

Some people assume that any association with industry must create bias and cause conflicts of interest. Perhaps so, but that does not apply to the people Wyden is trying to silence. Further, membership in a professional association or serving as a faculty member of a university that receives industry support should not necessarily disqualify an individual to make an important contribution to committees. The goal should be to seek out the most qualified individuals.

There is danger associated with Wyden’s persistent efforts to purge advisory panels of members who have expressed views he doesn’t share. In essence, eliminating people with differing views from advisory panels stacks the deck. It creates a special-interest group that is empowered to influence policy without having to consider differing opinions. The irony is that this very attempt to limit bias creates bias.

Prohibiting experts with no direct connections to industries, like Drs. Cheng, Gallagher, McPherson and Teman, from participating on advisory panels seems to be a punitive gesture. Physicians and researchers, such as these four individuals, who actually care for patients are uniquely equipped to help advisory committees set best practices for pain management. And these panels cannot afford to lose the expertise that these individuals can provide.

If the vetting process includes removing all potential conflicts of interest, then it should also flag anyone who has ties to insurance, including Medicare. Clearly, insurance companies have a financial interest in which treatments are recommended.

Today, Wyden and others are calling to ban anyone with direct or indirect ties to Pharma from serving as a government adviser. Tomorrow, another industry could be targeted. For example, people who work in energy or university researchers who receive industry grants to study the weather might not be permitted to advise the government on climate change. This would likely mean the committees would be comprised of the least knowledgeable individuals.

Hopefully, the HHS and other governmental bodies will consider viewpoints from a broad swath of qualified experts and not just those whose perspectives they endorse. A functioning democracy must value and listen to all views.  

Lynn Webster, MD, is a senior editor at Pain Medicine. He is also a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with pharmaceutical companies. Webster is a former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine and author of “The Painful Truth: What Chronic Pain Is Really Like and Why It Matters to Each of Us.”

You can find him on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD. 

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.

$2 Million in Donations Misused at U.S. Pain Foundation

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Over $2 million in funds were misappropriated by former U.S. Pain Foundation CEO Paul Gileno or used in questionable transactions with his family, according to a statement and tax returns released Thursday by the Connecticut based non-profit. Some of the money was paid to Gileno’s wife, sister and brothers.

The misuse of donor funds by Gileno was discovered in April 2018, which led to his resignation the following month. Until now, the extent of the fraud has not been disclosed to U.S. Pain’s staff, volunteers and donors.

“The former CEO was widely respected and beloved in the pain community, and took advantage of that trust in him. He was able to do this by both withholding key information and providing dishonest information that deceived staff and volunteers in leadership positions,” interim CEO and board chair Nicole Hemmenway said in a statement that curiously avoided using Gileno’s name.

“He controlled the organization’s operations, finances, records and bank accounts, as well as the Board process. His mismanagement and dishonesty left the records in disarray.”

According to Hemmenway, Gileno misappropriated nearly $1.9 million from U.S. Pain from 2015 to 2017. The non-profit raised over $7 million in donations during that period, meaning almost a third of it was misused by its founder and CEO.

The misuse of funds was characterized as an “excess benefit transaction” on U.S. Pain’s delinquent tax returns for 2016 and 2017, which were filed late last month with the IRS. An excess benefit transaction is when a payment made by a tax-exempt organization exceeds the actual value of that benefit.

The tax returns indicate the misappropriated funds were spent on “related party vendors” and “personal expenses,” but disclosed no other details. Hemmenway said additional excess benefits would be reported on U.S. Pain’s 2018 tax return.

Gileno did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but has previously admitted misusing donor funds. “I made some big mistakes over the past few years and took money from US Pain for my personal use,” Gileno wrote in an email sent to U.S. Pain’s leadership last year.

Payments to Family Members

In addition to the nearly $1.9 million in misappropriated funds, U.S. Pain’s 2017 tax return indicates that about $160,000 was spent in transactions involving Gileno’s family.

Nearly $48,000 was paid to Gileno’s wife and nearly $12,000 to his sister. The tax return does not explain what those payments were for. Another $100,000 was spent on an investment in SMJ Homes Inc., a real estate investment company controlled by Gileno’s brothers. The tax return indicates the investment has already lost over half its value.  

There was apparently very little oversight or financial controls at U.S. Pain and Gileno was permitted by the board — which has legal and fiduciary responsibilities — to spend money as he wished.

“The former President/CEO controlled the board process. The records maintained under his leadership list the officers and directors… but contain no evidence that election of officers and directors occurred,” the tax returns said.

Gileno was paid a salary of $94,000 in 2017 and no salary in 2016. A $403,000 salary paid to Gileno in 2015 is now being characterized as an excess benefit.

PAUL GILENO

Hemmenway was paid a salary of $49,900 in 2017 for her work as vice-president. She has been a key member of U.S. Pain since its founding in 2011. So have board members Wendy Foster and Ellen Lenox Smith.

Smith’s daughter-in-law, Shaina Smith, was paid a salary of $76,700 in 2017 as director of state advocacy for the non-profit.

‘I Never Mislead Them’

Multiple sources familiar with U.S. Pain have questioned how Gileno was able to misappropriate funds for so long without Hemmenway or the board being aware.  Gileno himself has said they were kept informed.

“I never mislead them. They were part of US Pain for over 10 years and I talked with them daily,” Gileno wrote in an email to PNN last month. “Nicole and I were close like a brother and sister and I never hid one thing. I feel bad they are trying to use me as an excuse.”

Some insight into how U.S. Pain and its board operate is provided in a blog post by former board member Suzanne Stewart, who resigned last September after serving on the board for only a few months.    

“I don’t feel safe being involved with voting on big decisions yet being left in the dark much of the time. I don’t really know where money is going or where it comes from in all honesty,” she wrote.

In Thursday’s statement, Hemmenway acknowledged that “the organization should have had stronger financial controls” and said a “robust system of checks and balances” now requires U.S. Pain’s chair and chief financial officer to approve all expenditures.

“With these checks and balances in place, the organization is stronger than ever before,” Hemmenway said. “U.S. Pain fills a vital gap in support for the pain community and refuses to let the actions of one individual impede its efforts to educate, connect, empower, and advocate for those living with chronic pain.”

The statement gave no indication if others were implicated in the misuse of funds or if Hemmenway and the remaining board members will resign or be replaced.