Today, our legislators are debating the issue of health care. Among
the more difficult problems is how to pay for the treatment of the massive
number of people who are suffering from opioid abuse.
By now we all know that the opioid epidemic was visited on the
nation by pharmaceutical manufacturers, physicians and the federal government.
It is an astonishing story, but, what is being done to shut this down?
Apparently, not very much. Is anyone going to be held accountable for what appears to be drug trafficking? Apparently, not.
Cathryn Jakobson Ramin has written a new book, called
Crooked, that examines the problem. Within her discussion of her own experience
with back pain, Ramin explains how we got to this point.
In her words:
In the
first five years that OxyContin was on the market, Purdue Frederick, the
pharmaceutical company that had launched the drug in 1996, conducted over forty
national pain management and speaker training conferences. Physicians who were
willing to spread the word could expect to make up to $3,000 for telling their
colleagues, often at lavish dinner meetings or continuing education medical
seminars, why Oxy worked so well for them. The strategy could not have been
more successful; in record time, ordinary musculoskeletal pain, long understood
to be a normal part of life, was recast as an enemy to be battled and subdued.
For
decades, physicians had recognized that opioids were highly addictive drugs,
and that to prescribe them to any patients other than those who suffered from
terminal cancer was illegal. But with Oxy, the tide had turned: suddenly,
physicians who allowed patients to “suffer needlessly” from back pain were
labeled as lacking in compassion. For general practitioners, who found
themselves with “failed” back surgery patients entrusted to their care,
OxyContin offered an answer to their prayers.
And then, the federal government protected everyone:
Under
pressure not only from the pharmaceutical business, but also from physicians
who wanted to be sure they had the federal stamp of approval for this rampant
prescribing, the Joint Commission declared pain to be “the fifth vital sign,”
adding it to measurements of pulse, blood pressure, core temperature, and
respiration. This would turn out to be a grave error. The standard vital signs
were readily quantified—either they were normal, or they were not—but only the
patient could identify his pain level. Nevertheless, the Joint Commission
directed all accredited US hospitals and health care facilities to instruct
personnel to monitor pain and to provide compassionate care. In the Joint
Commission’s monograph, published in 2001, the organization noted that “in
general, patients in pain do not become addicted to opioids.”
And so did Bill Clinton:
Even
the DEA climbed on board, signing an agreement with 21 medical professional
societies that allowed doctors to prescribe the drugs without fear of prosecution.
If physicians had lingering doubts, and some did, these were dispelled in
president Bill Clinton’s last weeks in office, when he signed legislation
declaring the upcoming decade, 2000 to 2010, to be the Decade of Pain Control
and Research.
New York Magazine has reported on a recent study that showed
that opioids are not just being prescribed for chronic pain. They are being
given to patients having psychiatric conditions. How many prescriptions for opioids are written for anxiety and depression? The research says that the number is 50%:
The
study’s researchers (led by Brian Sites, a professor of anesthesiology and
orthopedics at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine) also found that adults
with anxiety and/or depression were more than three times as likely to use
prescription opioids as those without: 18.7 percent versus 5 percent,
respectively. While some people with anxiety and depression undoubtedly suffer
chronic pain, these disorders may make it difficult for patients to accurately
rate their own suffering — whether because the pain is made more acute by the
mental illness which accompanies it, or because the patient is less able to
cope with that pain.
In an
interview with the Washington Post,
Sites said that while someone without anxiety or depression might report their
pain level “as a two out of ten, someone with mental-health disorders —
depression, anxiety — may report as a ten out of ten.” This disparity between
the overprescription of opioids and the undertreatment of mental illness makes
for a dangerous correlation — and with a gutted Medicaid budget, it’s likely to
get worse.
Have a nice day!
6 comments:
The "medicaid budget" is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Do we have alcoholics because bar visits are too expensive? And how does "treatment" (which is notoriously ineffectual, I might add) for a voluntary, self-inflicted condition become my problem via tax dollars?
Re: $100B "back pain industry"...
https://qz.com/1010259/the-100-billion-per-year-back-pain-industry-is-mostly-a-hoax/
"Gutted medicaid budget"????WTF the want to cut back the increase from 5% to 3% and the thieves in Washington, DC think this is a cut?
In other news the Washington Redskins are going to drop the offensive part of their name and be simply called the Redskins.
Sobering news. You'd think the clear answer is to go back to the old standards of opioids only for terminally ill patients.
NYM: In an interview with the Washington Post, Sites said that while someone without anxiety or depression might report their pain level “as a two out of ten, someone with mental-health disorders — depression, anxiety — may report as a ten out of ten.” This disparity between the overprescription of opioids and the undertreatment of mental illness makes for a dangerous correlation.
The idea that we experience pain differently is suggestive of a problem, whether stress or psychological pain or physical pain. If you just can't handle pain at all, surely that's a sign that pills are most dangerous.
Anon, that was a GOOOOOOOD one!
"the Joint Commission declared pain to be “the fifth vital sign,” adding it to measurements of pulse, blood pressure, core temperature, and respiration."
What is more striking here is that the Joint Commission added this as an unnecessary, subjective qualitative criterion. The other four are objective. Unless the fix was in, and then it makes total sense.
People will do anything to avoid pain, which is why this is such an ethical/moral scandal. It's like selling snake oil remedies. In pain? Here... take this. Feel better? Want to keep feeling better? Keep taking it...
It's an inside scam, just like legal gambling (where the house is statistically guaranteed to make money). Follow the money. I guarantee it's a bipartisan problem, which means it will never be investigated. It's the way our modern Federal government works.
This scandal has a haunting similarity to the mortgage crisis, with its CDOs, MBSs, etc. The government makes these kinds of contagions and epidemics possible by making the implicit explicit. Again, follow the abnormal subsidies. They're built into legislation, written by the lobbyists. The government gave its endorsement, and it was open season on the public they "serve." Real work is for suckers.
The only reason no one will be prosecuted, hunted down and hauled in front of a Congressional committee (let alone prosecuted) is because the government aided, abetted and amplified the entire enterprise. Corporate welfare, in technicolor.
Reprehensible. Again, I ask: What does government do well? What a terrible, inefficient way for us to allocate our resources. And in this case, it's a form of organized crime... perpeatrated on the entire U.S. population.
Post a Comment