Tag: Opioids

  • UnitedHealth, CVS and Cigna helped fuel opioid crisis

    UnitedHealth, CVS and Cigna helped fuel opioid crisis

    [Editor’s note: I am reposting this piece because it brilliantly exposes how the drug middlemen “PBMs,” who are supposed to be delivering value to Americans, deliver value primarily to themselves and the insurers they work for. They push opioids to vulnerable Americans without prior authorization because they make hundreds of millions of dollars doing so, even when they know that these opioids are killing people.]

    A recent Barron’s exposé detailing pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBMs) backroom dealings in the opioid crisis should be read by everyone. PBMs, which most Americans encounter only indirectly through their health insurance plans, have quietly amassed enormous power over which medications we have access to — and how much they cost. This power extends not only to routine prescriptions but also, as it turns out, to some of the most devastating public health crises of our time.

    The report reveals that the largest PBMs — CVS Caremark, UnitedHealth’s Optum Rx, and Cigna’s Express Scripts — were heavily involved in the distribution of OxyContin, a drug at the center of the opioid epidemic. Between 2016 and 2017, these companies raked in more than $400 million in fees and rebates from Purdue Pharma, OxyContin’s manufacturer. That these rebates were essentially tied to the volume of opioids sold is not just alarming — it’s emblematic of how these middlemen prioritize profit over public health.

    The role of PBMs in drug pricing and availability has been contentious for years. The middlemen argue that their rebate system helps lower costs for employers and insurance plans, but this claim often falls apart under scrutiny. As Barron’s found, PBMs received as much as 19.75% in rebates from OxyContin sales, depending on the dosage and the number of pills prescribed. The higher the dosage, the bigger the rebate and profits. This system, which rewards higher utilization of a dangerous opioid, contradicts the PBMs’ – like CVS Caremark’s – own professed claims of fighting opioid abuse.

    For years, PBMs have presented themselves as crucial gatekeepers, using their clout to negotiate lower drug prices. But the reality, as the article highlights, is far murkier. PBMs, including CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, claim they pass the majority of rebates back to their clients — figures as high as 99%. Yet, these rebates are negotiated in secret, and consumers rarely see the benefits. The rebates often serve to maintain PBMs’ relationships with drugmakers, who want to secure prime placement on formularies — the list of drugs an insurance plan covers.

    The opioid crisis, as Barron’s demonstrates, could be a chilling preview of how PBM-driven rebate schemes might contribute to other drug pricing scandals. If PBMs have been willing to accept massive rebates from Purdue Pharma in exchange for keeping OxyContin widely available during a deadly opioid epidemic, what other drugs have been pushed to the forefront based on financial incentives rather than medical necessity or effectiveness?

    The documents that Barron’s obtained, many of which were previously confidential, show that PBMs had ample opportunity to stem the tide of opioid overprescribing. They could have placed stricter limitations on OxyContin or required prior authorization (which they make significant use of for medically necessary medications) to ensure that the drug was being prescribed appropriately. Instead, they allowed Purdue to maintain a stronghold on the market. According to memos, PBMs even demanded higher rebates as the opioid epidemic worsened.

    As the article suggests, this isn’t merely a historical issue. The opioid crisis may have peaked in the late 2010s, but its effects are still being felt today. And the practices of PBMs — opaque rebate deals, backroom negotiations and a relentless focus on profit — are still very much in place. While Purdue Pharma and its executives have been held accountable through legal settlements, PBMs have largely escaped similar consequences. The lawsuits against PBMs for their role in the opioid crisis are still ongoing, and CVS Caremark’s $5 billion settlement, finalized last year, didn’t even require an admission of wrongdoing.

    This begs a larger question about the pharmaceutical supply chain as a whole. If PBMs have the power to negotiate how drugs like OxyContin are covered, and if their decisions are driven by maximizing profits through rebates, can they really claim to be stewards of affordable health care? (Regular readers of this newsletter should roll their eyes at that question.)

    For too long, PBMs have operated with little transparency. As the Barron’s investigation shows, this secrecy has allowed them to profit handsomely from one of the deadliest public health crises in U.S. history. The opioid crisis could be the most egregious example of PBM malfeasance, but it’s far from the only one. As long as PBMs continue to operate without appropriate oversight, the American public will remain vulnerable to their influence over drug prices — and, by extension, their health.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Teva found partly responsible for opioid crisis in New York

    Teva found partly responsible for opioid crisis in New York

    To be sure, multiple actors are responsible for the opioid crisis in the US, some are finally being held to account, others not. Last month, we reported on a federal jury that found three chain pharmacies partly responsible for the opioid crisis in Ohio. More recently, StatNews reports that a jury found Teva Pharmaceuticals partly responsible for the opioid crisis in New York.

    The New York State Attorney General brought the case against Teva and several other pharmaceutical companies.  The other pharmaceutical companies settled. The jury found that Teva misled the public about the real threats of opioids and engaged in a “public nuisance” with deadly results.  Are you surprised? We still don’t know what Teva will be expected to pay in damages, if anything.

    Teva is protesting, unwilling to take responsibility for its acts and saying it will challenge the verdict. It thinks that New York State should have needed to prove a more direct link between the tens of thousands of deaths from opioids and Teva. It must believe that pushing opioids on people and claiming they were neither addictive nor potentially deadly is kosher. It must think that it is OK to instruct doctors to prescribe high level doses of their opioids as a painkiller.

    Of course Teva claims it did nothing wrong. How could its executives and marketing people sleep at night if they deigned to admit that the untold profits they earned for the company from massive opioid sales cost so many thousands of people their lives? In addition, it cost New York State taxpayers millions of dollars in health care treatments for people who became addicted to opioids.

    Make no mistake. Our federal government is also to blame for the opioid crisis, along with the insurers that approved payment on opioid prescriptions when they were unnecessary, knowing that they were addictive and potentially dangerous. With a single public health care plan such as Medicare for All, the government could have restricted coverage of opioids, limiting access to the drug. That’s what Germany did, and it was able to avoid an opioid crisis.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Chain pharmacies found responsible for opioid crisis

    Chain pharmacies found responsible for opioid crisis

    After a six-week trial and five days of deliberation, a federal jury in Ohio recently found that three very large chain pharmacies were responsible in a significant way for the opioid crisis in two Ohio counties. Jan Hoffman reports for The New York Times that CVS Health, Walmart and Walgreens were found accountable for opioid overdoses and deaths. The insurers covering the opioids that were dispensed should also be found accountable.

    Germany never had an opioid crisis. The federal government in Germany controls the drugs that insurers cover and restricted coverage of opioids by health insurers. It’s unfathomable that corporate health insurers in the US, allegedly in business to manage people’s care, approved coverage of opioids in millions of cases where alternative non-addictive pain relievers were available to treat pain.

    Thousands of lawsuits have been filed across the United States against pharmaceutical companies for fueling the opioid public health crisis and creating a “public nuisance.” California and Oklahoma judges have not bought the argument, saying that the opioid manufacturers were not directly linked to the overdoses and deaths.

    Unfortunately, most of these lawsuits are still working their way through the system. And, opioid overdoses and deaths are on the rise. Many of those overdoses were of illegal opioids such as heroin and fentanyl bought on the street. But, those purchases are a bi-product of people becoming addicted to opioids that were legally prescribed.

    Over the summer, Nassau and Suffolk counties in New York State settled an opioid case with Walgreens, Rite Aid, CVS and Walmart for $26 million.

    In the Ohio case, the chain pharmacies claim that they will appeal. As far as they are concerned, they were just doing what they are supposed to do, fill legal prescriptions. In the process, of course, but left unsaid, they were profiting wildly.

    Of note, the lawyers defending the pharmacies in the Ohio lawsuit laid blame with manufacturers and doctors but did not blame the health insurers approving coverage of the opioids. CVS Health, Walmart and Walgreen are also insurers or linked to them.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Avoid opioids to treat dental pain

    Avoid opioids to treat dental pain

    Teresa Carr writes for Consumer Reports on the best drugs to treat dental pain. Hint: Avoid opioids. Percocet, Oxycontin, Codeine, and Vicodin are highly addictive and, for the most part, not as good at relieving pain as over-the-counter medicines. Advil and Motrin (ibuprofen) and Aleve (naproxen) are often more effective and come with fewer side effects.

    People continue to die of opioid overdoses. In fact, last year, 31 percent more people died of an opioid overdose than in 2019. The Sackler family just settled a major lawsuit against Purdue for its responsibility in fueling the opioid crisis, essentially promoting opioids as safe pain relief when over-the-counter medicines would be as effective and non-addictive.

    Back in July, several state attorneys general settled a lawsuit against a series of companies that distribute prescription drugs, including McKesson, Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen. Johnson & Johnson was also a defendant. They had been charged with significant responsibility for the opioid epidemic in the US. Interestingly, the health insurers, who claim to “manage” people’s care, got off easy, even though the buck stopped with them–they could have denied coverage for opioids except in the most limited of circumstances, as insurers in Germany did.

    Many people do not realize that dentists have been one of the biggest prescribers of opioids. They have also been far more responsible for opioid overdoses–two and a half times more responsible–than other prescribers of opioids, according to one recent analysis published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. (N.B. Keep in mind that sometimes dentists perform costly dental procedures that you might not need. Dental fraud is more common than you might think. So, try to get a second opinion before getting dental surgery.)

    The researchers found that dentists prescribed an opioid to more than one in four people, including teenagers, who received dental surgeries between 2011 and 2018. Millions of people who visited the dentist ended up filling opioid prescriptions. And, nearly six in 10,000 overdosed. The researchers posited that we would see 1,700 fewer opioid overdoses each year if dentists stopped prescribing opioids.

    People with Medicare often do not get to see a dentist because Medicare does not cover dental care and the costs can be prohibitive. But, Congress is working on legislation that is likely to add a dental benefit to Medicare. It should make it easier for older people and people with disabilities to see a dentist.

    When you go to the dentist, keep in mind that there’s generally no need for you to take opioids to relieve dental pain. Over-the-counter medicines are safer and as or more effective than opioids for the majority of people. Drugs like Advil and Aleve are able to keep your gums from swelling. And, Tylenol keeps you from feeling pain.

    Side effects from over-the-counter drugs are also fewer and milder than side effects from opioids. In addition to being addictive, opioids can cause drowsiness, constipation and nausea.

    Talk to your doctor about the drugs you need to relieve any pain you might have from dental care. Remember that even over-the-counter medicines should not be taken in excess. And, if an opioid is warranted because of the intensity of the pain from your dental procedure, make sure to limit your use to what’s needed. Generally, you should be over the harsh pain in two or three days and can then switch to Advil or Tylenol if you still need some pain relief.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Health insurers in Germany help prevent opioid crisis

    Health insurers in Germany help prevent opioid crisis

    Shefali Luthra reports for Kaiser Health News on how health insurers in Germany have helped prevent an opioid crisis there. How? They require doctors to prescribe alternate treatments before prescribing opioids. Not surprisingly, Germans are far less likely to die from opioid overdoses as Americans. In 2016, ten times as many Americans died of opioid overdoses as Germans.

    The US, unlike most European countries, leaves it to local actors to decide whether and how to implement prescription drug protocols. In Europe, generally, national protocols are implemented throughout the country. These protocols tend to be developed by independent experts, scientists and patients.

    In Germany, opioid protocols were developed with input from many scientific societies and patient groups. In addition to the protocols, Germany and other countries rely on patient education campaigns.

    In the US, every state except Missouri has a prescription drug monitoring program, electronic databases that require reporting on and tracking of opioids and other controlled substances, such as benzodiazepines and amphetamines. But, some states have far more lenient reporting requirements than others. Those states that do not have reporting mandates show no sign of reducing opioid use.

    States with comprehensive mandates requiring every provider to register and use these programs have lower rates of use of these drugs. One recent study reported in Health Affairs found a nearly 9 percent decrease in opioid prescriptions, as well as 4.27 percent fewer hospital stays and 17.75 percent fewer opioid-related emergency department visits in states with comprehensive mandates.

    Still, unlike in Germany, addiction rates are rising in the US, even in states with comprehensive mandates. Experts suggest that the reason is that Germany has a different approach to health care and treatment for substance abuse. The primary distinction it appears is that health insurers in Germany, unlike the US, do not support opioid prescriptions in many instances unless other forms of treatment do not work. And, doctors in Germany must get special permission to prescribe opioids.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Opioids can kill you

    Opioids can kill you

    We all know the pleasures of a good painkiller.  We often don’t know the risks.  If we’re talking opioids, such as Vicodin, OxyContin and Percocet (hydrocodone, morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl in their generic form) those risks are huge. Opioids can kill you.

    According to Consumer Reports, every year 17,000 Americans die from opioid overdoses.  And, another 500,000 Americans end up in the emergency room.

    It’s relatively easy to become addicted to or heavily dependent on opioids. They ease short-term pain. And, doctors are prescribing them more and more.  For sure, it’s unsafe to mix them with alcohol, tranquilizers and other drugs, or to take the drugs for too long.

    A report by Express Scripts reveals that almost six out of ten patients are mixing opioids with muscle relaxants and anti-anxiety medications, a dangerous combination. The most frequent cause of accidental deaths from drug overdose stem from mixing an opioid with a benzodiazepine.

    There are other drugs such as acetaminophen, ibuprofen or naproxen to treat pain that have substantially fewer risks.  For your health, before you take an opioid, it’s important to talk to your doctor about the other drugs you’re taking, including sleeping pills. If possible, you should minimize the use of opioids.  And, of course, you should only take them as prescribed.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Oregon may cut off opioids from Medicaid patients in chronic pain

    Oregon may cut off opioids from Medicaid patients in chronic pain

    At the height of the Tea Party and Republican campaign against the Affordable Care Act, the GOP raised a false alarm about “death panels”that would purportedly kill the disabled based on a subjective judgment and “pull the plug on Grandma.”

    But to real grandmothers like 60-year-old Wendy Morgan, who has suffered excruciating back and neck pain in the wake of two botched surgeries, degenerative disc disease and severe pain from MS for decades, there’s now a genuine death panel:  the Oregon Health Authority’s pain and evidence committees. They were slated on March 14 in Salem to finalize mandated opioid cut-offs to zero for Medicaid patients with chronic back and neck pain conditions, plus fibromyalgia.

    “This is going to come as quite a shock to a lot of people,” Wendy said before the vote. She had made preliminary plans with her husband to kill herself last spring after her opioid dosages were already cut 97 percent under pressure from government  agencies. “I never did anything wrong, always followed the doctor’s orders, but I was treated like a drug addict.” She managed to function as a homemaker even after she was forced to quit her sales job in 2009 and go on disability, but after her primary care doctor dropped her for using high doses of opioids and her pain specialist started a drastic taper in 2016, “I felt like killing myself,” she said. She went weeks without sleep, remained housebound, unable to even shower without agony and sunk into a deep depression. “It was an absolute nightmare,” she says.

    Her husband, Larry Gordon, a retired postal worker, briefly but angrily testified on her behalf at a hearing in January before OHA’s Health Evidence Review Committee (HERC), as his wife of over 40 years sat quietly next to him.

    If the plans are eventually voted in, the agency will target overwhelmingly disabled patients with 170 separate medical conditions that cause spine and neck pain for a total forced cut-off to zero opioids; these draconian limits  go far beyond even the CDC’s 2016 recommended voluntary 90 Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME) upper limits for new — not long-term — pain patients. These voluntary guidelines have been “weaponized” in drastic cut-offs nationwide and spurred a wave of suicides by chronic pain patients.

    Larry, dressed in a blue ball cap, windbreaker and blue jeans, proclaimed, “Doctors are abandoning patients left and right. Look at what’s happening in the real world: there’s people dying. If you take opioids away from intractable pain patients, they only thing they have left is to go straight to suicide. I had to tell my children that their mom’s going to kill herself because no one else will help her.”

    Larry and his family have been petitioning local stakeholders, including the Oregon Medical Board and local newspapers, in order to bring attention to chronic pain patients’ access to painkillers. Click Here To Read The Gordon Family’s Full Story In Letters

    Fortunately, Wendy recently found through a network of pain patients a Portland clinician willing to quietly resume her high dosages of methadone and occasional oxycodone pills, amounting to a quite rare medication level of 1100 MME. It’s not clear how long this arrangement will last, but for now, she says, “This nurse practitioner saved my life.” Her pain is worse than before because the years of forced tapering worsened her MS, but at least she can visit her grandchildren, go to their recitals and ball games, take a shower. “I can live a normal life.”

    Now that the Oregon panel has tabled the vote, she can breathe a sigh of relief if her other supply of medication fails — for now.

    That option was about to be closed off to a significant portion of patients –variously estimated between 60,000 and 80,000 chronic pain patients — who are part of the 25 percent of  all Oregonians who are on Medicaid. This latest delayed Oregon action flies in the face of mounting alarms by three former White House drug czars and over 300 leading health professionals and academics who warned in an open letter to CDC and Congress about the dangerous, unintended consequences of the  harsh crackdown on opioids for legitimate pain patients, as chronicled recently in The New York Times. These professional critiques have been joined by over 120 pages of anguished testimony from patients across the country about the agonizing impact of the resulting  hard-line approaches in their lives.

    True, rigorous evidence that such policies are driving up suicides rates is relatively scarce, even though there are horrifying examples of patients like Jay Lawrence in Tennessee shooting himself on a park bench with his wife holding his hand. However, an important study published in 2017 in the peer-reviewed journal General Hospital Psychiatry found that veterans cut off from opioids after long-term use engaged in suicidal actions and thoughts at a rate nearly 300 percent higher than the overall veterans community, whose members are already killing themselves at a rate of 20 people a day.

    Oregon’s proposed but now tabled actions are even more extreme than the CDC guidelines spurring such tragedies, says the organizer of that open letter, Dr. Stefan Kertesz, a noted addiction researcher and primary care doctor specializing in vulnerable populations at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “They’re gambling with the lives of a subset of patients,” he says. “There’s something cruel in going after patients with these conditions: it’s completely untested and there’s no evidence that you can swap in yoga and cognitive therapy across the state for opioids.” (Note: Like Kertesz, most, but not all, of the hundreds of clinicians across the country protesting the national and Oregon opioid cut-offs actually don’t have a history of sleazy ties to the drug industry.)

    Look, for instance, at the dangers facing people like Sierra Brown, a former nurse who once had private insurance but is now a disabled Medicare-Medicaid patient who was denied pain medication for her damaged spine resulting from previously undiagnosed lupus and Sjorgen’s auto-immune disease . She fears she will continue to be treated like a drug-seeking addict if the influential Medicaid policies are eventually voted in. (She and others point out that Medicaid’s prescribing standards also influence private insurers.) Yet she has been given a reprieve of sorts: after showing up vomiting in agony at an ER last month, she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, but only after the admitting doctor first told her, “If you’re here for pain medications, we’re not giving you any.” Now, she is viewed as a near-angelic victim of cancer, and was generously provided with all pain medications she needed to be taken every few hours, from Dilaudid to Tramodol. “Pain-wise, I’m fine,” she says, relatively speaking. “Their attitude totally flipped. It’s totally disgusting.” But once she achieves her hoped-for remission  because they spotted her cancer early, “I’m scared I won’t be getting any pain medicines because of the law’s crackdown.”

    In Oregon, making the case for keeping opioids away from patients like Sierra when they don’t have cancer, is the alternative medicine community. Some of them don’t seem to be much more immune from conflicts of interest than drug company shills, critics say. In fact, the ad-hoc Chronic Pain Task Force, an advisory subcommittee that’s helping drive Oregon’s move to shut off opioids for pain patients, is dominated by holistic practitioners with a financial stake in ending opioids by hyping a smorgasbord of alternative therapies that have weak or limited evidence that they work for any chronic pain patients at all  — let alone with that minority of long-term chronic patients who use opioids.

    Indeed, OHA commissioned the nationally respected Oregon Health and Sciences University (OHSU) to do a review of the skimpy evidence on the efficacy of tapering and alternative therapies. In its rush to back alternative therapies as an “evidence-based” replacement for the removed opioids, the Medicaid agency brushed aside the OHSU findings that concluded the studies’ quality were variously “very low” for tapering, and “limited” or “insufficient” for the alternative therapies. Even the agency’s own summary of the available  evidence branded all of the holistic therapies, some with potentially major  new funding streams, as having “no clinically significant impact” on long-term pain. Instead, the agency seems to be relying in part on a 12-year-old survey of the personal opinions of an earlier OHA advisory panel that found these alternative medicine  treatments as somehow having “fair” to “good” evidence for “moderate benefit.” In addition, Kertesz asks about the OHA’s dismissive approach to the new OHSU review it commissioned: “Why are they ignoring their own report that says there’s no evidence that a mandatory taper has been properly assessed, and certainly hasn’t been proven to be safe and effective?”

    As of this writing, the OHA press office didn’t reply to repeated emailed and phoned requests for comment or rebuttal to the criticisms aimed at the now-tabled opioid proposal.

    Oregon-style forced taperings continue unabated, with doctors across the country reacting to mounting pressure from agencies including state licensing boards and the DEA to slash their opioid prescribing — and then kicking out their chronic pain patients who have become known as pain or opioid “refugees.” Human Rights Watch recently issued a stinging report condemning such actions: “Many patients are involuntarily cut off medications that improve their lives or say they are unable to find a doctor willing to care for them.” Yet Oregon is the only state — so far — that tried to move so decisively to adopt these potentially deadly practices as official state policies. One possible factor, argues University of Southern Illinois rehab specialist, Terri Lewis: The financially-strapped Oregon Medicaid system is moving under a Medicaid waiver to reduce spending and limit care for disabled chronic pain patients who merit palliative care but aren’t actually getting it.

    This proposed punishing crackdown doesn’t stem primarily from what patients often see as sheer sadism on the part of officials. Instead, it’s driven apparently both by a desire to save money and  a well-meaning yet misguided, simplistic and wrong-headed response to the alarming rise of opioid-related drug overdoses, largely from illegally manufactured fentanyl — not legally prescribed pills. It’s an oft-told story:  how Big Pharma companies and their crooked distributors ramped up an oversupply of opioid pills starting in the late 1990s, but much of the flooding of the marketplace was clearly fraudulent and intended to hook a new generation of substance abusers who already had addiction histories. Why else flood one West Virginia town of 9,200 people with nearly 21 million pills?  Yet while prescriptions have fallen nationally nearly 20 percent since 2012, overdose deaths haven’t been stemmed at all, rising to as high as 70,000 deaths in 2017, more than AIDS, guns and car crashes killed people in any one year. Yet as few as 15 percent of opioid deaths today are due to prescription drugs, often stolen — even as 75 percent of  new heroin users started by using  “diverted” opioid pills they weren’t prescribed. Kertesz has pointed out that today’s prescription drug dosage limits are  a “funhouse mirror image” of the drug industry’s earlier propaganda to lower the “pain score” of patients and give out way more pills: it is still a focus on a number, not on the actual well-being of  patients.

    Meanwhile, Oregon’s chronic pain patients remain political orphans whose plight is largely ignored by people across the political spectrum. They are scrambling on their own in blog posts, on Twitter and Facebook to try to get other people — or even their own factionalized pain community —  to fight back against the steamrolling impact of the Oregon Medicaid rules that will surely flatten them if the tabled rules come up for another vote.  Amara is a disabled Medicaid patient and co-founder of the Oregon Pain Action Group. She is suffering from a host of severe disc injuries following a botched epidural during childbirth and lives in intractable pain.  She told Tarbell, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation, “It’s catastrophic and things are already so bad.”

    She and others have been given a reprieve, but the specter of this cutoff still looms in the future if Oregon decides to go ahead with their plans in a future date. Pain patients know that their quality of life — if not their lives — are hostage to a delayed state vote. Tarbell will keep monitoring this proposed vote to see if it returns.

    This article was originally published on Tarbell.org

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Clearing the air on marijuana use

    Clearing the air on marijuana use

    United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions just announced that he would reverse the Obama-era decision to not prosecute federal marijuana-related crimes in states where the drug has been legalized. And so again, marijuana is in the headlines. But amidst all the buzz, what do we actually know about the health effects of marijuana? This controversial topic could use an injection of calm, rational, fact-based discussion. As a psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of serious mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders, I can provide a little clarity.

    First, although nowhere near as damaging to public health as other drugs including tobacco, alcohol, and opioids, we can’t let cannabis completely off the hook. Many people can use pot safely in moderation, but there are several highly vulnerable groups who should avoid it. Despite numerous claims and even some state medical marijuana laws, there is little-to-no scientific evidence that weed helps any mental illness, and it can be addictive. In fact, there are studies showing that cannabis can make depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder worse. So, people with psychiatric problems should probably steer clear of that joint. When the brain is forming in the womb, even the slightest external disruption can cause major problems for the child later on, so pregnant women should not use cannabis. Adolescence is another period of rapid and critical brain development, so it’s little surprise that cannabis use – especially frequent or heavy use – can disrupt academic achievement and lower IQ. Parents and teachers need to help young people make healthy choices about marijuana.

    Second, speaking of adolescents, cannabis use raises the risk of developing a psychotic disorder, like schizophrenia, and lowers the age at which psychosis begins. This risk is higher with heavier use as well as use that begins at a younger age. There are also risk factors that make people much more likely to become psychotic after smoking weed, including a family history of schizophrenia, experiencing abuse or trauma in childhood, and growing up in an urban environment. Since psychotic disorders like schizophrenia cause massive disability worldwide, this is an important public health concern.

    For older adults without a history of psychiatric problems, moderate marijuana use may be relatively safe for their mental health. However, cannabis smoke has many toxins including carbon monoxide and particulate matter that could cause and exacerbate medical problems. For instance, marijuana has recently been linked to increased risks of stroke and heart failure. Vaporizing or eating pot may be safer options, though we aren’t completely sure.

    But aren’t there benefits to cannabis use? Maybe. There is some evidence that marijuana can provide relief for certain, specific medical conditions, such as severe pain from neurological problems, anorexia from HIV/AIDS, or maybe even seizures. And certain compounds in the marijuana plant – like cannabidiol – may help with some psychiatric symptoms.

    So what to do? Avoid marijuana entirely? Support Jeff Sessions in his quest to start locking people up again for marijuana possession? On an individual level, the decision whether to use cannabis for medical or recreational purposes is highly personal, but people should at least be informed by scientific evidence rather than media hype, anecdotes, and strong opinions. On a societal level, my opinion is that the War on Drugs has been a complete failure for all drugs, but especially marijuana, causing many more problems than it has purported to solve. Rather than prosecute marijuana users, we should take a public health approach to help people who have a pot problem and work to prevent cannabis use in vulnerable populations like adolescents. And we should pursue rigorous scientific research to find effective ways to prevent harm from marijuana, and search for new medical treatments that could be hiding in this multi-faceted and fascinating plant.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • New FDA chief has ties to the pharmaceutical industry

    New FDA chief has ties to the pharmaceutical industry

    The nation’s new head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Scott Gottlieb, is a 44-year-old physician, cancer survivor, and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. His ties to the pharmaceutical industry are a big concern for consumer advocates.

    What can we expect from Dr. Gottlieb? He has said that he wants to focus his energies on opioid overdoses, from which 91 Americans die every day. But, he has little ability to address this issue since the FDA cannot keep doctors from prescribing opioids.

    He has also argued that the FDA needs to give patients access to drugs more quickly through a process called “conditional approval.” This process would allow people to get drugs that had proved safe in Phase 1 trials only. Health care expert, Shannon Brownlee, sees these approvals as undermining patient safety. As it is, nearly one in three drugs that make it through Phase III clinical trials and are approved have been found to be safety risks to patients.

    Gottlieb suggests that he wants to see a speedier FDA approval process of generic drugs as a way to bring down drug prices. But, that requires adequate FDA staff, and President Trump has proposed steep budget cuts to administrative agencies. Gottlieb also wants to change the FDA rules for approval of generic biologics.  Today, the FDA rules make it difficult to approve generic versions of costly biologics, which treat cancer and autoimmune diseases, keeping their prices sky high.

    Gottlieb does not support Trump’s proposal to allow the importation of drugs from Canada and other countries as a way to bring down drug prices. He claims it won’t work.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Cures Act threatens drug safety and efficacy

    Cures Act threatens drug safety and efficacy

    After an intense lobbying campaign heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry and featuring sick children and pleading parents, a bill called the 21st Century Cures Act (“Cures Act”) easily passed through both houses of Congress this month, and the President is expected to sign it into law. Everyone wants cancer and other dire diseases cured, but will this 996-page bill, largely fashioned by politicians and their corporate allies really work towards those ends? Many consumer advocacy groups, such as the National Center for Health Research and Public Citizen, as well as some doctors in universities who don’t take funding from drug companies, believe that the legislation will do more harm than good.

    The bait that hooked the vote of many of those in Congress is the increased funding for cancer and other research at the National Institutes of Health, although Congress still may not appropriate this funding each year. Members of Congress also liked the idea that the bill would streamline the FDA approval process for prescription drugs and medical devices. But, our FDA approves these products faster than its counterparts in other part of the world and approves almost 90% of products put forward. And, it does so already increasingly and worryingly under lower standards than in the past. Many drugs are approved that turn out not to work at all. These drug often stay on the market nonetheless.

    As a result, we all pay higher drug and health costs.

    The 21st Century Cures Act would actually set some standards at the FDA back to the 20th century, as less reliable evidence would be accepted, such as anecdotes or patient experience, and observational studies, notoriously less trustworthy than randomized, controlled clinical trials.

    While more than 200 patient groups supported the Cures Act, most of these groups receive a substantial portion of their support from the pharmaceutical companies that stand to benefit most from the bill.

    As StatNews reported, most of the 1,300 (!) lobbyists pushing for the Cures Act worked for the pharmaceutical industry. Not surprisingly, the primary congressional sponsors of the bill, Representatives Fred Upton (R-Mich), and Diana DeGette (D-Colo) received some of the largest donations from pharmaceutical companies among members of Congress.

    Although the increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health hardly needed to be linked to the provisions of the bill likely to harm public health, there are other provisions that may be beneficial. Some funding will be allocated to help states fight the opioid drug epidemic, ironically created in large part by marketing campaigns by the drug industry. A rider to the bill also boosts funding for mental health care.

    Here’s more from Just Care: