Search

Correct use of terms in a manuscript or policy statement is important to meet the objectives of the paper. Inappropriate terms can be counter-productive. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the following: 'Terminology in national drug control legislation and policies should be clear and unambiguous in order not to confuse the use of controlled medicines for medical and scientific purposes with misuse' and terminology should always be respectful. This commentary lists English language terminology that can impair access to controlled medicines for the treatment of pain and suffering (an objective of the international substance control conventions), including pain management and the treatment of opioid dependence. The commentary also suggests alternative wording. Assessment of terminology correctness is language sensitive and should therefore be conducted by native speakers. In all language communities, advocates should explore and discuss the terminology with health-care professionals and their clients/patients, and they should promote the use of correct vocabulary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The escalation of prescription drug abuse in the U.S. has attracted the attention of public health and safety officials as well as others puzzled by how such a tightly regulated enterprise could so easily be breached by those seeking controlled substances for nonmedical use. Prescribers and patients who use, misuse, or, in some cases, redistribute or divert these drugs have figured prominently in government strategies aimed at addressing this issue. This review departs from this paradigm and focuses on wholesale drug distributors, a highly efficient and largely behinds-the-scene link in the supply chain of controlled substances. By law, distributors are required to identify and report to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) orders for controlled substances that are suspicious and may indicate drug diversion. Ten cases are examined in which distributors were each charged with failing to prevent the diversion of millions of doses of controlled substances. Special attention is given to a payment system employed by the industry that may encourage this unlawful commerce. Court records, agency and industry reports, and other published sources are used to document referenced cases and their disposition, and recommendations are offered for improving distributors' compliance with the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the complexity of drug regulation for pain care in the U.S. He examines the jurisdiction of federal versus state regulation over the manufacturing, packaging, labeling and distribution of drugs. He also mentions three trends that challenge the regulatory system including compounded medications, unapproved medications for symptom control like marijuana for pain and seizures, and dietary supplement.

The 114th Congress (2014–2016) has received recent attention for the high number of legislative bills directed to the public health crisis in prescription opioid abuse. The US government does not have a single source for determining public policy; however, the people expect that there will be some level of efficiency and coordination between federal and state leaders to improve the nation's health. A search of the National Library of Congress database to analyze legislative bills introduced between 1973 and 2016 and which contain the term “opioid” identified 127 bills that characterize consistency and coordination with other governmental efforts in prescription opioid abuse. Despite the recent number of introduced bills, there does not appear to be a close coordination between Congress and Federal Administrative agencies regarding this crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Lindsey Wahowiak's late-2014 article discussing the status of pain management in the United States references findings from the University of Wisconsin Pain & Policy Studies Group's (PPSG) policy evaluation reports as supporting her conclusions. This commentary clarifies that the PPSG reports do not gauge the extent of pain care in each state, but rather how they relate to the quality of policies governing such treatment. This commentary also further supports Ms. Wahowiak's emphasis that influencing clinical pain outcomes is multifaceted and requires a multifaceted response. Importantly, policy change, along with its broad and continued communication and implementation, should be considered as only one of many crucial elements in providing quality pain management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers news briefs. A U.S. national survey sponsored by the American Pain Foundation revealed physicians' misperceptions about the misuse and abuse of opioids by patients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA’s) Advisory Committee rejected a proposed risk mitigation and evaluation strategy (REMS) supported by the American Pain Society (APS). A study by German researchers investigating pain in hospital patients revealed poor pain control in German hospitals.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is issuing this statement of policy to provide guidance under existing law regarding the proper role of a duly authorized agent of a DEA-registered individual practitioner in connection with the communication of a controlled substance prescription to a pharmacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is common for physicians who prescribe opioids for chronic pain to drug test their patients. This practice may soon be mandated by the State of Washington as a result of passage of their new law ESHB 2876. Random drug testing of people simply because they seek treatment for chronic pain arguably constitutes a suspicionless and warrantless search that violates both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Issues discussed include consent, circumstantial coercion, and ''special needs'' searches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has in recent years engaged in flip-flopping over important policy decisions. The most recent example involved whether a pharmacist can correct a written schedule II prescription upon verification with the prescriber. For several years the DEA's policy permitted this practice. Then the DEA issued a conflicting policy statement in 2007 in the preamble to the multiple schedule II prescription regulation, causing a series of subsequent contradictory statements ending with the policy that pharmacists should follow state law or policy until the Agency issues a regulation. It is doubtful that the DEA's opinion in the preamble would in itself constitute legal authority, or that the Agency would try to enforce the opinion. Nonetheless, these flip-flop opinions have confused pharmacists, caused some pharmacies to have claims rejected by third party payors, and most likely have inconvenienced patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On January 18, 2005, DEA published in the Federal Register a solicitation of comments on the subject of dispensing controlled substances for the treatment of pain. Many of the comments that DEA received asked the agency to elaborate on the legal requirements and agency policy relating to this subject. This document provides such information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent administrative actions taken by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in Florida have prompted an articulate and detailed discussion of the pharmaceutical supply chain for controlled substances. Current practices in commercial distribution systems may have a partial nexus to the proliferation of opioid prescription drug abuse in Florida. No single factor or entity is responsible for this abuse proliferation, and there is no intent to harm consumers; however, distribution practices are adding risk to public health. This commentary extends a discussion on supply chain practices that seem misaligned in the promotion of legitimate business objectives and advancing public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on an increasing disagreement between clinicians and regulators in the U.S. He mentions that this distance between clinicians and regulators has been increased by attempts of the federal government to claim questionable authority over drug regulation. He encourages other health care professionals to work together when regulators act in an injustice manner that is harmful to the welfare of patients.