Answer Addiction

Tag: addiction treatment funding

  • Will Nearly 2,000 Pending Opioid Lawsuits End In A Master Settlement?

    Will Nearly 2,000 Pending Opioid Lawsuits End In A Master Settlement?

    Attorneys are attempting to put together a settlement that would make a “meaningful impact on the deeply tragic opioid crisis.”

    There are now nearly 2,000 opioid lawsuits pending in federal court. States, counties and cities across the U.S. are seeking to hold drug companies like Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson and McKesson accountable for fueling the national opioid epidemic.

    The companies are accused of aggressive and improper marketing of opioid drugs like OxyContin and downplaying the risks of developing a drug use disorder.

    With so many lawsuits seeking money damages for the devastating impact that opioid abuse has inflicted on American communities, the question of how they will be dealt with remains.

    The Master Plan

    In June, a group of attorneys representing 1,200 counties, cities and towns proposed a plan to reach a settlement with two-dozen drugmakers and distributors. One of the attorneys, Joe Rice, was the architect of the 1998 Master Settlement between 46 states and major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, WBUR reported. “Tens of billions of dollars would be needed to make a significant—a real significant impact on this epidemic,” said Rice.

    The plan is “ambitious and creative but fundamentally flawed,” according to attorney Mark A. Gottlieb, executive director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law. Gottlieb, wary of its potential impact, emphasized the importance of making a strong statement with the massive settlement that would provide closure for both parties. Ideally it would be a symbolic end to the opioid crisis.

    “While any new ‘master settlement’ must primarily compensate the plaintiffs for their losses, a settlement that simply moves money around, as the tobacco settlement did, has no chance at having a meaningful impact on the deeply tragic opioid crisis,” wrote Gottlieb in his commentary.

    Safeguarding The Future

    Gottlieb proposed securing a portion of the settlement that will go to future safeguards against similar crises. He suggests an independent foundation to serve as a watchdog over the pain management and addiction treatment industries, to provide opioid prescribing education, to fund treatment and prevention programs, to fund addiction-related medications such as naloxone and buprenorphine, and to advise policymakers on relevant legislation.

    “We must ensure that we do not squander the opportunity to address the opioid crisis through a coordinated public health approach in the next settlement,” Gottlieb wrote.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Should Big Pharma Cover The Costs Of The Opioid Crisis?

    Should Big Pharma Cover The Costs Of The Opioid Crisis?

    A new poll revealed that 70% of Americans believe drug companies should cover the cost of naloxone and addiction treatment.

    More than half of Americans believe that drug companies should be held liable for their role in fueling the national opioid epidemic, according to a new poll by NPR and the global market research firm Ipsos.

    Drug companies like Purdue Pharma (the maker of OxyContin), Johnson & Johnson and McKesson are facing more than 1,600 civil lawsuits filed by city, state and county officials across the United States.

    These companies are accused of putting profits over public health—whether they aggressively marketed opioids without regard to the risk of addiction or failed to report unusually large amounts of opioids going to pharmacies.

    The poll found that 1 in 3 Americans have been affected by the opioid epidemic. “One in three have been personally affected in some say, either by knowing someone who has overdosed or by knowing someone with an opioid addiction,” said Mallory Newall, lead Ipsos researcher on the survey.

    And 57% of Americans believe that the drug companies should be held responsible for their role in exacerbating the drug crisis.

    “It’s something, no matter your age, your gender, no matter where you live, your party affiliation, that people believe in large numbers,” said Newall.

    Even more people than that—70%—said they believe the drug companies should cover the cost of naloxone, the opioid overdose-reversing drug, as well as addiction treatment.

    On Tuesday (April 23), a drug distributor and two former executives were hit with drug-trafficking charges.

    “This prosecution is the first of its kind: Executives of a pharmaceutical distributor and the distributor itself have been charged with drug trafficking—trafficking the same drugs that are fueling the opioid epidemic that is ravaging this country,” said U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman at a news conference.

    Rochester Drug Cooperative, one of the 10 largest drug distributors in the U.S., allegedly ignored suspicious activity from pharmacy clients who ordered excessive amounts of opioids. According to the indictment, under the direction of former CEO Laurence Doud III, who retired in 2017, the company became “the knight in shining armor” for pharmacies that could not get business elsewhere.

    Doud and other top Rochester executives “made the deliberate decision” to turn a blind eye to red flags or alert federal regulators that clients were ordering opioids to distribute for non-medical use, AP News reported.

    Doud has surrendered to New York authorities and is awaiting arraignment on two counts of conspiracy related to drug trafficking. If convicted, Doud faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • States Need Long-Term Opioid Response Funding, Report Finds

    States Need Long-Term Opioid Response Funding, Report Finds

    Areas with the highest overdose rates are receiving funding while rural areas struggle to received adequate funding. 

    The United States is spending more money than ever on addiction treatment, particularly focused on the ongoing opioid crisis. However, the federal response is hindered by one-time grants and limitations on the programs that they can fund, according to a new report by the Bipartisan Policy Center. 

    The report found that federal spending on addiction interventions more than doubled between 2017 and 2018, rising from $3.3 billion to $7.4 billion. However, more federal coordination is needed to streamline how these funds are delivered to states and help determine how they can best be used. 

    “The sheer volume of grants going to the states has made it challenging for state officials to track and coordinate these funding streams and monitor the quality of treatment that is being provided,” Dr. Anand Parekh, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s chief medical advisor, said in a news release. “Congress and the administration must provide greater oversight to ensure these federal resources are better coordinated and well spent, so states can respond effectively to this crisis.”

    Looking at how funds were utilized in Arizona, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Ohio and Tennessee, researchers found that the money was making it to areas with the highest overdose rates, but that rural areas received less funding. 

    One way to avoid this is by having a state system, often directed by the governor, to coordinate opioids response. 

    “A statewide coordinating body, typically convened by the governor, is an essential part of developing a strategic opioid epidemic response,” the report authors wrote. 

    “Governors are on the front lines of the opioid epidemic and keenly aware that the crisis is multifaceted and demands the same response,” said Hemi Tewarson, health division director for the National Governors Association.

    These state agencies can also help coordinate more in-depth tracking of outcomes for intervention programs. 

    In addition, the report pointed out problems with the current funding model. With states only getting grants, it’s difficult to plan for a long-term response to the drug crisis. 

    “With one-time funding, we are treating the problem of addiction in our country as an acute condition rather than a chronic condition,” said Regina LaBelle, a consultant for the policy center and former chief of staff of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. “Substance use disorders are not going away. Federal funding must be provided over the long-term instead of in annual budget cycles.”

    In addition, the terms of funding need to allow for flexibility in how states handle substance use disorder, she said. 

    “Flexibility in funding ensures that while states are responding to today’s opioid epidemic, they are also prepared for other emerging drug threats, such as methamphetamine and cocaine,” the report reads. 

    View the original article at thefix.com