Tag Archives: HIV

Navigating Patient Assistance Programs

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

Since HEAL Blog began publishing, we have striven to provide information about Hepatitis C (HCV) treatments, news, and issues surrounding the disease. We have also, on occasion, provided information related to Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs) that can help patients living with Hepatitis (HCV), HIV, or virtually any other illness afford the cost of their medications and treatments if they are unable to do so. Continuing along this line of thinking, today’s blog will be dedicated to three such organizations: NeedyMeds, the Patient Access Network (PAN) Foundation, and the Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF and NPAF).

Money flowing out of an open pill capsule

Photo Source: Chemistry World

NeedyMeds is a 501(c)(3) national non-profit information resource dedicated to helping people locate assistance programs to help them afford their medications and other healthcare costs (NeedyMeds, 2017a). They provide a NeedyMeds Drug Discount Card designed to lower the cost of prescription medications by up to 80% (NeedyMeds, 2017b). The discount card can be used cannot be combined with insurance or Medicaid/Medicaid drug coverage plans, but can be used in lieu of those plans to reduce the out-of-pocket costs of the medication. In some cases, using the NeedyMeds card instead of insurance may result in a lower cost to the patient than their insurance co-pay.

In addition, NeedyMeds’ website offers a variety of resources to help connect patients to other programs and organizations. These links include information pertaining to various drug-specific PAPs, a “Help with Paperwork” assistance service, a searchable database of both independent and manufacturer PAPs, and local resources to help patients apply for these programs (NeedyMeds, 2017c).

The PAN Foundation is an independent, national 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to helping federally and commercially insured people living with life-threatening, chronic and rare diseases with the out-of-pocket costs for their prescribed medications. Partnering with generous donors, healthcare providers and pharmacies, PAN provides the underinsured population access to the healthcare treatments they need to best manage their conditions and focus on improving their quality of life. Since its founding in 2004, PAN has provided more than 700,000 underinsured patients with over $2.5 billion dollars in financial assistance, through over 50 disease-specific programs. PAN has an administrative fee of only 5%. This means that $0.95 of every dollar PAN receives goes directly toward helping patients. For the last eight years, PAN spent less than one penny of each dollar it received on fundraising (PAN Foundation, 2016a).

The PAN Foundation has nearly sixty disease-specific assistance programs that help patients pay for out-of-pocket healthcare costs, including deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance, travel expenses, and health insurance premiums, all of which are listed in a convenient, searchable database listed by condition (PAN Foundation, 2016b). This list also indicates the enrollment status of each program as Open (accepting applications for new and renewal patients), Renewal Only (accepting applications for renewal patients, only), and Fully Allocated (no longer accepting or processing applications for new or renewal patients). As of May 31, 2017, the programs for both HIV and HCV are open to new enrollees and renewals.

The Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) is a national 501(c)(3) non-profit organization which provides professional case management services to Americans with chronic, life threatening and debilitating illnesses. PAF case managers serve as active liaisons between the patient and their insurer, employer and/or creditors to resolve insurance, job retention and/or debt crisis matters as they relate to their diagnosis also assisted by doctors and healthcare attorneys (PAF, 2012a). These services are vital to patients who may not be familiar with the complex workings of the American healthcare system (and let’s face it – most of us aren’t).

One of the primary goals of PAF (and their advocacy arm, National PAF – NPAF) is to reduce the financial burden by assisting patients in finding potential assistance that provide financial support for co-pays, discount and indigent drug programs, transportation, housing, food, utility shut offs, and by helping negotiate payment plans for treatment providers. They also assist patients by assessing eligibility and helping with enrolling patients in the various programs, as well as providing a baseline of employment-related support as needed.

As with all PAPs and independent and government programs, there are financial and other prerequisites that clients must meet in order to qualify. One of the biggest barriers to enrollment in co-pay assistance programs (both organizational- and manufacturer-funded) is enrollment in a government-funded healthcare program, such as Medicaid. Being enrolled in Medicaid generally disqualifies applicants from receiving assistance, even if the out-of-pocket expenses with Medicaid coverage are more than what patients can afford. There seems to be little “wiggle room” in PAPs that allow these patients to receive assistance, and this is a significant barrier that has yet to be addressed in any meaningful way.

Patient Assistance Programs are vital tools that can help patients afford the medications and treatments they need in order to survive. Moreover, they are resources that most patients, and even healthcare workers, rarely know about or reference, which makes them a potentially untapped source of aid in today’s volatile healthcare market. HEAL Blog will continue to monitor PAPs and to provide more information over time.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Heroin and Hepatitis Go Hand in Hand

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

Over the past year, HEAL Blog has paid a lot of attention to heroin, particularly in relation to the massive increase in heroin and prescription opioid overdoses in Appalachia, the Midwest, and the Northeast. While the purpose of HEAL – “HEAL” standing for “Hepatitis: Education, Advocacy, and Leadership” – is to specifically address issues related to Viral Hepatitis, and particularly Hepatitis C (HCV), when we cover issues related to prescription opioid abuse and heroin, we sometimes fail to connect the dots between the two topics. There is, in fact, a very high correlation between Injection Drug Use (IDU), People Who Inject Drugs (PWIDs), and the transmission of HCV: most new HCV infections in the three previously listed regions are related to IDU.

Sources of Infection for Persons with Hepatitis C

Photo Source: Pinterest

HCV and HCV-related co-morbidities (e.g. – Cirrhosis, Advanced Liver Disease) kill more Americans each year than any other infectious disease (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). It is also one of the most expensive diseases to treat, with Direct Acting Agent (DAA) drug Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WACs) ranging between $50,000 and $100,000 for twelve weeks of treatment. This makes preventing the spread of HCV not only a matter of physical health, but one of fiscal health.

Despite pharmaceutical manufacturers’ arguments that the one-time cost of a regimen to achieve a Sustained Virologic Response (SVR – “cure”) is far cheaper than the long-term costs of other diseases, not to mention the long-term costs that arise if HCV goes untreated, state and Federal healthcare budget departments remain unconvinced. Budgeting processes generally focus on a single year, rather than accounting for multi-year spending, so arguing that long-term expenditures “cost” more hasn’t been an effective argument. Even with the clandestine pricing agreements and rebates – clandestine, because they are not made public due to “trade secrets” laws – states have yet to begin treating every HCV-infected client on their government-funded rosters. To do so would blow through entire pharmacy budgets several times over, in many states.

With PWIDs representing the highest number of new HCV infections between the ages of 18-35, state legislatures are starting to come around to the realization that the best way to avoid spending that money on expensive treatments is to put into place Harm Reduction measures that are shown to prevent the spread of blood borne illnesses. As it is very difficult and unfeasible to stop IDU, syringe exchanges can be put into place that allow PWIDs to inject using clean needles, rather than sharing them.

Syringe exchanges have, for much of the past forty years, been largely reviled by politically conservative politicians and states; many Republican politicians have repeatedly argued that state-sponsored syringe exchanges will only encourage bad behavior, serving as a tacit endorsement of IDU. Now that prescription opioid and heroin abuse has moved outside of the urban areas and into the suburban and rural areas that serve as bastions of the Conservative ideal, suddenly, these politicians are coming around to the idea.

Medical technician counting needles.

Photo Source: Daily Beast

In the past two years, several considerably conservative states have passed laws allowing syringe exchanges to be established – Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia, to name a few – largely in response to a relative explosion of new HIV and HCV infections related to IDU. The problems that politicians and their constituents once relegated to the big cities have come to their quiet towns, and have done so right under their noses. The lessons out of Scott County, Indiana, where nearly 200 people tested positive for HIV near the end of 2015 and into 2016, are still reverberating throughout the region, and people are starting to look at ways to prevent the spread of disease, rather than punish the behavior.

It is clear that the opioid and heroin abuse epidemic is not going away, anytime soon. Since we aren’t likely to stop currently addicted people from injecting drugs, the smartest path forward is to at least make certain they can do so safely.

References:

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2016, May 04). Hepatitis C Kills More Americans than Any Other Infectious Disease. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Newsroom Home: Press Materials: CDC Newsroom Releases. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p0504-hepc-mortality.html

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

An Imperfect Prison Health System

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

One of the primary issues for people in America’s vast prison system is the issue of healthcare rights and treatment. In fact, prisoners are the only Americans who are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to treatment for health conditions under the 8th Amendment, specifically the “cruel and unusual punishments” clause (Estelle v. Gamble, 1976). This ruling has been used since 1976 to ensure that inmates who are infected with HIV, and now, Hepatitis C (HCV), receive the appropriate medical treatment to which they are guaranteed under that decision. Additional arguments can be made that using a “Treatment as Prevention” (TAP) model in incarceration settings will help to stem the spread of various Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) and Infection (STIs), including both HIV and HCV.

Over the past two years, HEAL Blog has covered various aspects of the HCV treatment provision for inmates in various states. Several states, including Tennessee, Nevada, Missouri, Washington state, and Pennsylvania, are currently facing lawsuits brought my inmates and advocates in state and Federal courts to force their respective Departments of Corrections to provide treatment to HCV-infected patients. Unfortunately for the states – and more specifically, their budgets – courts have seemed inclined to agree with both advocates and inmates: providing treatment and a cure for HCV is mandatory, regardless of the expense.

Nurse administer care to an inmate.

Photo Source: Prison Protest

The primary argument used by states and their respective Departments of Corrections is that the high cost-per-patient/per-cure is simply an unreasonable expenditure, given the long-term nature of the disease (meaning the length of time from gestation to serious illness to death). The cheapest Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) of the newer Direct Acting Agents (DAAs) to treat HCV – Zepatier (Merck) – is $54,600 for twelve weeks of treatment, before any discounts, rebates, or pricing agreements struck between states and the drug manufacturers. Viekira XR (AbbVie) and Epclusa (Gilead) cost $83,319 and $74,760, respectively, which makes treating inmates with HCV incredibly expensive in one go.

Gilead and other manufacturers have argued – with only moderate success – that the short-term high cost of a cure actually ends up costing less in the long-term, when compared to both the co-infections and –morbidities (co-existing conditions) that can accompany untreated HCV infections, and the long-term cost of treating other serious chronic illnesses, which over a course of several years, account for far more money being spent to treat them. While this argument may look great on paper for the manufacturers, for government employees and elected representatives who are tasked with prepared, appropriating, and allocating funds in a budgeting process, it’s simply not a feasible one. By their way of thinking, long-term illnesses represent costs that can be spread out over time, while HCV manufacturers expect a cure, right up front, set at a budget-breaking price.

States have found a unique way of getting around the 8th Amendment statute that courts have ruled guarantees treatment: they simply fail or refuse to screen incoming and existing inmates. Many states require that inmates only be screened for HIV during the intake process, allowing prison officials to essentially feign ignorance about their prisoners’ health – if they don’t know, they don’t have to treat. Unfortunately for the state, prisoners are getting wise to this tactic, and are taking them to court to force treatment. Nevada, for example, reported 593 inmates with HCV, including just two who were receiving treatment (0.34%) in 2015 (Botkin, 2017). By March 2016, a total of only nine inmates were receiving treatment.

Given the vast budget constraints placed upon states, we at HEAL Blog understand that the cost of treating every HCV-infected inmate is a potentially financially disastrous proposal, and a non-starter in virtually every state. Attempting to get around those costs by ignoring the problem is simply an unacceptable way for state and Federal prisons to operate. Yes – treatments are expensive; but, when lives are at stake, trying to get around a Constitutional obligation to treat is simply unacceptable.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

HIV and Hepatitis C Counterindication Conundrum

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

In two separate posts in 2016, HEAL Blog covered the complex world of treating Hepatitis C (HCV) infections in people co-infected with HIV. While both HIV and HCV treatment regimens have reached groundbreaking levels over the past decade, negative drug interactions between regimens to treat the two conditions still leaves something to be desired.

A recent study published in the Journal of Hepatology found that one of the most popular drugs to treat HCV, Sovaldi (sofosbuvir, Gilead), can have serious drug interactions when used in combination with Viread (tenofovir disoproxil, Gilead), as well as other drugs used to treat HIV (Semedo, 2016 & Shen, 2016). The primary issue discovered by this study (as well as other studies) is that Sovaldi and other Direct-Acting Agents (DAAs) containing sofosbuvir, such as Harvoni (Gilead) and Epclusa (Gilead), can cause liver or kidney toxicity when co-administered with Viread and other HIV drugs. This is of particular concern, as one of the main health issues caused by HCV is liver fibrosis.

The study’s co-author, Bingfang Yan (Ph.D.) suggests that a potential method of getting around this counterindication would be to administer the regimens at different times, or by using different delivery methods (e.g. – administering the HIV regimen first, or through the skin, and the HCV regimen taken orally at a different time).

One issue facing both physicians and patients is that only a handful of long-term or longitudinal studies have been conducting, meaning that both physicians and patients have only counterindication warnings to go upon, that only suggest potential side effects may occur without definitive scientific proof. This can create considerable consternation for all parties involved, as one recommendation is clear: HIV treatment should not be suspended in order to treat HCV infections. The nature of HIV is such that ceasing regimens can lead the virus to develop immunities to the components of the therapy, meaning that a new treatment option will need to be selected. While the negative side effects of HIV drugs has eased over the past thirty years, each patient’s individual body chemistry is unique, and it can take time to find the right regimen for each patient.

A fantastic resource for checking counter-indications between HIV and HCV drugs is HEP Drug Interactions, a project of the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom. This free website allows users to use the HEP Drug Interaction Checker to see which HCV regimens have counter-indications with drugs to treat virtually any medical condition. The site is sponsored by Janssen, Gilead, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, each of which make drugs to treat HCV. The site also offers mobile apps for both Apple and Android devices, where users can access the same HEP Drug Interaction Checker information that is available on the full site.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Lessons Learned About HCV and Aging

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

On Thursday, December 8th, the Community Access National Network (CANN) hosted a community roundtable on Hepatitis C (HCV) and Aging at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America® (PhRMA) headquarters in Washington, D.C. The event featured four presenters – Ambrose Delpino (PharmD, practicing HIV pharmacist [AAHIVP], Senior Manager, Virology, Walgreens), Fabian Ancar (a patient who successfully achieved a Sustained Virologic Response [SVR] while co-infected with HIV and HCV), Marissa Tonelli (Senior Manager of Capacity Building, HealthHIV, and Senior Manager of HealthHCV), and Chris Taylor (Senior Director, Hepatitis, National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors).

Of the four presenters, Dr. Delpino presented the most statistically pertinent presentation (as the others spoke primarily about their experiences, research, and how their organizations engage in advocacy on the local, state, and Federal levels), and the statistics that we’ll be reporting, here, are from his slides. Some of the issues raised during this panel will be further explored in further posts, so this entry will serve as a summation of his main points.

On the basics of infection, Dr. Delpino’s presentation reported that 2.7–3.9 million Americans are estimated to be infected with HCV, with an estimated 17,000 new infections annually. Both he and HEAL Blog note that this estimation is likely very low, as HCV screening, disease monitoring, tracking, and reporting are notoriously problematic, as capturing certain populations (e.g. – Rural, People Who Inject Drugs (PWIDs), et cetera) is difficult at best. It is also estimated that one in thirty Baby Boomers (people born between 1945-1965) are infected with HCV – five times greater incidence than other adults. The estimated cost to the healthcare system, including HCV-symptom-related hospitalizations and treatments is estimated to be over $80 billion over the next ten years.

The primary reason why Baby Boomers (the “birth cohort”) are so much more likely to be infected is related to the facts that HCV is a relatively new discovery in terms of diseases, blood supplies were not adequately screened for HCV prior to 1992, and universal precautions related to sanitation were not, prior to the discovery of HIV, necessarily the standard of care (SOC). This means that anyone who received a blood transfusion or any other blood product prior to 1992 is at risk of having contracted HCV; this also means that anyone who received transplanted organs or had improperly sterilized equipment used on them prior to universal precautions being in place is also at risk.

Outside of the birth cohort, it is estimated that 60% of all HCV infections are believed to be related to injection drug use (IDU). For every 100 people infected with HCV, 75-85% will develop a chronic infection, 60-70% will develop liver disease, 5-20% will develop liver cirrhosis, and 1-5% will die as a result of their infection. What makes this frustrating for HCV advocates is that the cost per SVR in a single 12-week round of the most popular treatment (Harvoni – $94,500) is far less expensive in the short term than the long-term costs associated with chronic HCV infection.

In future posts, we will be examining the pipeline process that it often takes for patients infected with HCV to receive medications to treat their disease, one of the most compelling slides in Dr. Delpino’s presentation. We will also be sharing some of the personal testimony of the patient, Fabian Ancar, whose story was presented at the panel.

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Rural Americans Still Lack Access to Syringe Exchange Programs

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

The HEAL Blog  covers the expansion of Syringe Exchange programs as an effective and proven method of Harm Reduction to prevent the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C (HCV). While there have been some notable successes over the past few years, especially in states where rural transmission of both HIV and HCV is increasing, the stark reality is that these areas largely lack access to the Syringe Exchange programs that could help to stanch the spread of deadly diseases that are easily spread through sharing and reusing needles.

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), decreases in HIV diagnoses in People Who Inject Drugs (PWIDs) indicate success in HIV prevention. However, emerging behavioral and demographic trends could reverse this success (Wejner, et al, 2016). In terms of demographics of PWIDs, both African-Americans and Hispanic populations have seen consistent and rapid downward trends in all three areas: HIV diagnoses among PWIDs, those who shared syringes to inject drugs, and people who reported injecting drugs for the first time. Whites, but urban and non-urban, however, did not fare well in these measures.

In both Urban and Non-Urban settings, new HIV diagnoses amongst white PWIDs saw a slight increase; the same is true of whites who shared syringes to inject drugs; whites made up over 50% of people who reporting injecting drugs for the first time. This shouldn’t come as a big shock to those who have been following drug usage trends – the abuse of opioid prescription drugs and heroin in rural and suburban areas has spiked significantly, over the past twenty years, as we have covered in previous posts – areas where the population tends to skew heavily to the White.

Sign reading, "HIV Needle Exchange"

Indiana Needle Exchange

While Syringe Exchange Programs (SEPs) have grown more common in urban areas, people living in largely rural states, rural areas, and suburban areas have again fared poorly in this regard. A 2015 report from the CDC surveyed 153 SEP directors (out of the then 204, in March 2014), and found that only 9% of SEPs were in Suburban areas and only 20% in Rural areas (Des Jarlais, et al., 2015). The areas hardest hit by the increase in PWIDs – the Northeast, South, and Midwest – had a total of 11 SEPs in Rural areas; the West, by comparison, had 18 in Rural areas. While this data is from 2013, and more SEPs have been opened, it is difficult to get a definitive count of the number of operative SEPs.

From a health emergency perspective, we have a White HIV crisis brewing in rural and suburban America. Beyond the issues related to PWIDs, there is also the increase risk of sexual transmission from PWIDs to those who do not inject drugs. Whites have consistently represented the largest number of new infections, since the beginning of the epidemic (not to be confused with the disproportionate rate of infection amongst minority groups), and for the first time in 2014, White PWIDs had more HIV diagnoses than any other racial or ethnic population in the country (Sun, 2016). State and Federal laws – especially in rural states – continue to present barriers to establishing and funding SEPs in areas that are the hardest hit.

One of the most frustrating aspects of reporting healthcare statistics is the reporting lag; the references used in this post present data that is at least two years old. This problem exists because of the time it takes for states to finalize data, in addition to the time it takes for peer reviewing before publication. While there were 204 operating SEPs in the U.S. in 2013/2014, it’s now 2016, and we could use some updated numbers.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

An Argument Against “Pain”

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award

By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

Last week, I posted a link from The Week, about John Oliver’s take on the prescription opioid epidemic. In his NSFW video, he does a largely comprehensive retrospective of how America became quickly addicted to opioid painkillers as the “go to” pain remedy beginning in the late-1990s, of course with his trademark British fire, ire, and expletive-laden delivery. Generally, this type of post generates a few laughs from my friends and agreeing comments from healthcare professionals who understand the scope of the epidemic. This time, however, I was surprised by a treatise on the perils of this type of video.

When it comes to issues where someone clearly feels “wronged” by legal prescribing guidelines, I often take a logical approach. Prescribing guidelines for opioids aren’t written to punish “responsible” patients who adhere to the dosage instructions listed on the label for medically necessary prescriptions. But, the argument that was made, in this case, was that, “…like anabolic steroids,” the risks associated with these drugs has been blown way out of proportion, and videos like these instill in physicians a sense of fear that prevents them from prescribing medically necessary drugs.

For whatever reason, friends of mine who know I work in research related to HIV, HCV, and Harm Reduction frequently come to me with their gripes about opioid prescribing guidelines. In this example, my friend had undergone oral surgery, and his physician refused to prescribe a three-day prescription for an opioid pain reliever in the state of California. My friend said that he was “forced” to get his medications on the “black market,” because his physician was “afraid to prescribe” him the drugs. Mind you, this person is not, in fact, a physician; he is, however, a bodybuilder who openly admits to taking anabolic steroids to get bigger (as per his earlier reference).

What frustrates me about this type of argument is that it presupposes that whatever type or level of “pain” someone is in requires the use of prescribed opioid painkillers; that, regardless of the prescribing guidelines, or even best practices or medical advice, their pain makes an opioid prescription “medically necessary.” It is an unfortunate consequence of living in a society with a U.S. Food and Drug Administration and prescribing guidelines that what one person, who is not a physician, believes to be medically necessary may not, in fact, be.

In a similar vein, another friend of mine, knowing that a segment of my research has to do with opioid prescribing guidelines, asked me if I knew a physician who would prescribe them to her, against her current physician’s recommendations. She believes that the pain management alternative he suggests is not long enough lasting, and that, because she doesn’t have an “addictive personality,” she should be prescribed opioids on a continuing basis to deal with her chronic pain.

For the record: I am not a physician, nor am I in touch with physicians who would violate their respective states’ Doctor Shopping laws or Lock-In regulations. I do not know where to get opioids on the “black market,” nor do I have any connections who can “hook you up” with some illegal prescription drugs. For whatever reason, my well-meaning friends, who may or may not have “addictive personalities,” have it in their heads that they know better about what drugs they should be taking than the licensed professionals who spent several years and hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to obtain their advanced medical degrees.

These prescribing guidelines aren’t just made to make individuals’ lives more complicated; they are designed to address very serious addiction issues that are leading people to their literal graves. I get it: you think your pain is great enough that you deserve special treatment. Well, you don’t. At some point, it became an issue of grave importance that no one, ever, feel any sort of pain, and that all pain needed to be treated with drugs meant to be reserved for people who were in severely unbearable pain. That is simply not the case, regardless of what your black market drug dealer tells you. Suck it up, a bit, and you will live, just as humans have managed to survive with a modicum of pain for tens of thousands of years.
__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized