Answer Addiction

Tag: opioid crisis

  • Insys Execs Found Guilty Of Bribing Doctors To Prescribe Fentanyl Spray

    Insys Execs Found Guilty Of Bribing Doctors To Prescribe Fentanyl Spray

    This is the first-ever successful prosecution of a drug company exec tied to the opioid crisis.

    Five former executives of the opioid maker Insys Therapeutics were found guilty of federal racketeering charges last week.

    The criminal charges were brought by federal prosecutors in the state of Massachusetts and stem from allegations that the company bribed doctors to prescribe Subsys, a fentanyl nasal spray.

    “Just as we would street-level drug dealers, we will hold pharmaceutical executives responsible for fueling the opioid epidemic by recklessly and illegally distributing these drugs, especially while conspiring to commit racketeering along the way,” Andrew E. Lelling, the U.S. attorney who tried the case, told The New York Times.

    The verdict came after a lengthy legal battle: the trial lasted 10 weeks, and the jury deliberated for 15 days. During that time, sometimes shocking allegations came to light, including that one Insys sales executive who had previously worked as an erotic dancer gave a lap dance to a doctor who was selling Subsys. 

    On other occasions the company paid for doctors to go to shooting ranges and visit VIP rooms of strip clubs, according to Vice. Insys also paid high “speaking fees” to the doctors who prescribed the most Subsys, and invited them to lavish dinners. 

    “They were a farce really,” Gavin Awerbuch, a doctor convicted of distributing Subsys illegally. 

    Yale law professor Abbe Gluck said that the case highlights the extreme lengths that companies would go to to sell opioids. 

    “The case paints a picture of the kind of troubling industry practices that helped fuel the opioid epidemic,” Gluck said, adding that the verdict “shows that a jury is willing to punish for them.” 

    In addition to unscrupulous sales practices, the company also misled insurance agents in order to get prescriptions covered, even though Subsys was only officially supposed to be used for cancer patients. 

    “Insurers were told about medical things that never happened. They told deception after deception after deception on recorded lines,” prosecutor K. Nathaniel Yeager said during the trial. 

    The company even produced a rap video that was used to promote Subsys. In it, a rapper mentions titrations, the process of putting patients on a higher and higher dose of a medication. 

    “I love titrations, yeah, that’s not a problem, and I got new patients, yeah, I got a lot of ‘em,” the rapper says in a parody of A$AP Rocky’s 2012 single “F—in Problems.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Feds Undertake Four-State Study to Address Opioid Crisis

    Feds Undertake Four-State Study to Address Opioid Crisis

    The $350 million research project aims to find a way to reduce opioid deaths by 40% within 3 years.

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is gearing up to dole out $350 million to Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio to figure out how to stop opioid deaths by 40% in those states over the next three years.

    By disbursing the money to the University of Kentucky, Boston Medical Center, Columbia University and Ohio State University, the NIH hopes to curb fatalities from drugs like fentanyl and heroin, which took the lives of about 47,600 people in the U.S. in 2017.

    Researchers will get deeply involved with 15 communities that have been hit hard by the opioid crisis to figure out how best to effectively prevent and treat addiction there. They’ll also take a hard look at how factors like unemployment and the justice system contribute to the continued crisis, and experiment with distributing anti-overdose medications to first responders, police, and even schools.

    “The most important work to combat our country’s opioid crisis is happening in local communities,” said Alex Azar, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary. “We believe this effort will show that truly dramatic and material reductions in overdose deaths are possible, and provide lessons and models for other communities to adopt and emulate.”

    The program will proceed no matter what kind of budget cuts the NIH faces, according to Azar. This is welcome news as some experts believe there is no time to waste.

    “We are in such a period of crisis that we need to know in real time what is working and what is not working,” said Dr. Alysse Wurcel of the Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

    The opioid crisis is a major issue that requires a multi-faceted approach to solve. On his show, Last Week Tonight, John Oliver called for holding members of the Sackler family, the minds behind OxyContin, accountable for their alleged aggressive and irresponsible marketing of their powerful opioid painkiller. Oliver had several celebrities dramatize testimony given by Richard Sackler.

    “The launch of OxyContin tablets will be followed by a blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition,” performed Michael K. Williams, repeating Sackler’s infamous proclamation. “The prescription blizzard will be so deep, dense and white.”

    Some solutions to the opioid crisis may seem unorthodox and unintuitive, such as a Canadian public health expert’s suggestion to install opioid vending machines in Vancouver, home to “one of North America’s densest populations of injection drug users.” Only proven chronic drug users could scan themselves to get clean drugs for safer consumption.

    “We’re acknowledging people will go to any extreme to use this drug. To tell them not to use because it’s unsafe is ridiculous,” said program mastermind Dr. Mark Tyndall.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Opioid Lawsuits Pile Up Against Family Behind Purdue Pharma

    Opioid Lawsuits Pile Up Against Family Behind Purdue Pharma

    A string of lawsuits seeks to hold the Sackler family, who own Purdue Pharma, responsible for the opioid crisis.

    The Sackler family is withdrawing from the public sphere, including ending their philanthropic initiatives, as legal pressure rises to hold them responsible for the opioid crisis.

    Their charity arm, the Sackler Trust, has historically donated millions but announced it was ceasing all such activity now that they’re receiving bad press and alleging that “false allegations” are being made against them.

    “The current press attention that these legal cases in the United States is generating has created immense pressure on the scientific, medical, educational and arts institutions here in the U.K., large and small, that I am so proud to support. This attention is distracting them from the important work that they do,” said Sackler Trust chairwoman Theresa Sackler. “The Trustees of the Sackler Trust have taken the difficult decision to temporarily pause all new philanthropic giving, while still honoring existing commitments. I remain fully committed to all the causes the Sackler Trust supports, but at this moment it is the better course for the Trust to halt all new giving until we can be confident that it will not be a distraction for institutions that are applying for grants.”

    Purdue Pharma is the manufacturer of the opioid painkiller OxyContin, a drug for which they stand accused of downplaying the negative effects of while encouraging doctors to prescribe as much as possible in the name of profit.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control, opioids caused about 218,000 American deaths between 1999 and 2017. A recent study found that people are now more likely die from an opioid overdose than in a car accident. The Sacklers say they recognize that action needs to be taken.

    “We recognize that more needs to be done and that’s why we launched a long-term initiative that continues to build as we pursue a range of solutions that we believe will have a meaningful impact,” wrote Theresa Sackler.

    The Sacklers have suspended a $1.3 million grant to the United Kingdom’ National Portrait Gallery as to “avoid being a distraction.” Some other organizations, like the art gallery Tate, the Guggenheim, and the hedge fund Hildene Capital Management, have cut ties to the Sacklers preemptively.

    “The weight on my conscience led me to terminate the relationship,” said hedge fund manager Brett Jefferson.

    Some have called for removing the Sacklers’ name from buildings they funded, including Harvard University’s Arthur M. Sackler Museum and the Smithsonian’s Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, which were funded by the Sacklers long before the invention of OxyContin. Spokespeople for both museums have said they are not going to remove the Sackler name from their buildings.

    “Museums (are) white washing the reputation of a family that is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people … But the tide is turning against them,” said L.A. Kauffman of accountability group Sackler PAIN.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • How The Opioid Crisis May Negatively Affect The US Workforce

    How The Opioid Crisis May Negatively Affect The US Workforce

    A recent op-ed explored how the opioid epidemic may be driving down the number of employees in the US workforce.

    The opioid crisis is affecting the workforce—especially when it comes to men, according to an opinion piece in Bloomberg. 

    The op-ed, written by columnist Noah Smith, states that the number of men in the workforce has been decreasing for years—especially since the 2000s. Since 2009, women’s participation has also been decreasing. 

    “Much of the decline is due to educated people taking early retirement, or to people staying in school longer as education becomes more important,” Smith writes. “But a sizable chunk may be due to drug problems, especially among men.”

    In 2017, Smith notes, a Princeton University economist named Alan Krueger looked into the relationship between the use of pain medication and not being in the workforce.

    Krueger’s findings showed that in early 2010, 43.5% of males aged 25 to 54 who were not in the labor force admitted to using a pain medication the day before. In contrast, Krueger found that for those who were currently working or searching for work, that percentage fell to about 20%. 

    Krueger also noted that in countries with a higher opioid prescription rate, the number of those in the workforce fell accordingly. 

    However, Smith points out, it can be difficult to determine the cause in situations like this. “It might be that people started using drugs because they were disabled or had no chance of finding a job, rather than the reverse,” he writes.  

    Smith also cites a recent study from economists Dionissi Aliprantis, Kyle Fee and Mark Schweitzer at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland which examined the cause more deeply.

    The economists argue that if those without a job turn to opioids, then areas affected most by the Great Recession would likely have seen a larger jump in use. But they state that this was not the case, suggesting that drug use is actually the cause of decreasing workforce numbers. 

    However, Smith points out that the results of their study are by no means conclusive.

    “First of all, the authors’ measure of temporary changes in labor demand could have statistical problems that make it unreliable for this sort of measurement,” he writes. “Second, the effect of weak labor markets on drug use might be longer term—people who think they’ll be unemployed only briefly might not turn to drugs, while people who see no prospects might start using heroin or fentanyl.”

    In conclusion, Smith notes that evidence points strongly to the idea that the opioid epidemic is negatively affecting the U.S. economy and workforce, and that more action is needed to address it.

    “It will be a generation before the impact of the horrendous opioid epidemic fades from the national statistics,” Smith concludes. “But with the right steps now, the U.S. might at least be able to end it more quickly.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Does Gender-Based Violence Affect Opioid Misuse?

    Does Gender-Based Violence Affect Opioid Misuse?

    Many women who experience violence and other traumatizing situations use opioids to self-medicate, an expert suggests.

    Gender-based domestic violence plays a role in the opioid epidemic—as it relates to why women use opioids, when they access treatment, and how they are treated during overdose emergencies. 

    Writing for The Conversation, Nabila El-Bassel, professor of social work at Columbia University, said that just like women were at increased risk during the HIV epidemic because of domestic partner violence, they are at increased risk for opioid misuse today. 

    El-Bassel shared the story of Tonya, who used heroin when she anticipated being abused by her boyfriend. 

    “Tonya is only one of the hundreds of women I’ve interviewed for my research with similar stories in the span of my nearly 30-year career studying the links between intimate partner violence, sexual coercion, substance use disorders and HIV,” El-Bassel writes. 

    Many women who experience violence and other traumatizing situations use opioids as a way to self-medicate, just as Tonya did. Women who deal regularly with domestic violence often use opioids as a way to help control their emotional pain. 

    “Treatment must address the need for escape that these women seek,” El-Bassel writes.

    Yet, many women in abusive relationships have trouble accessing treatment. Partners—especially those contending with substance abuse themselves—will often undermine a woman’s attempt to get sober. This becomes yet another way that abusive partners exert dominance over the women in their lives. 

    “They can control their ability to engage in treatment, deny them potential sources of protection, and jeopardize the custody of their children to maintain control over them and, for some men, have women take care of them,” El-Bassel writes. 

    Women who are in abusive relationships often don’t feel that they can protect themselves by demanding safe sex or clean needles. Oftentimes, their partners don’t give them a choice in the matter. Because of this, harm-reduction strategies like needle exchange fail to help the most vulnerable, El-Bassel writes. 

    “Studies have shown that women are often physically or sexually abused when negotiating safe sex or refusing to engage in drug risk,” she said. 

    Alarmingly, it’s not just intimate partners who put women at higher risk for opioid abuse. Systematic gender biases also affect access to treatment, El-Bassel writes. She points to a recent study that found that women are three times less likely than men to be treated with naloxone during an overdose. 

    This “is likely due to their being devalued,” El-Bassel writes. “Emergency responders and police officers as well as family members and peers must be trained to overcome this gendered barrier and recognize signs and symptoms of overdose.”

    Overall, the treatment community needs to do a better job of understanding risk factors unique to women and providing interventions that work for this population, El-Bassel says. 

    “These issues must be changed if we are serious on addressing the opioid epidemic among women,” she writes. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • New York Invests In 14 New Addiction Treatment Centers

    New York Invests In 14 New Addiction Treatment Centers

    Recovery Community Centers will focus on long-term recovery and offer ongoing support to combat relapse.

    New York State is investing more than $5 million to support the opening of 14 new drug addiction treatment and recovery centers, bringing the total number of new centers opened since 2016 to 25. At the same time, two of the state’s existing addiction treatment facilities will be expanded.

    The funds were awarded by the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) as part of a statewide effort to combat the current opioid epidemic.

    The new treatment centers, called Recovery Community Centers, will focus on long-term recovery, offering ongoing support to combat relapse, which is a common part of addiction recovery.

    “Treatment alone is not enough for people dealing with addiction, and we need to make sure that the proper recovery supports are available,” said OASAS Commissioner Arlene González-Sánchez. “These new centers will offer people in recovery a chance to meet their peers going through the same challenges, receive help to reclaim their lives from addiction, and build a new life in recovery.”

    According to Niagara Frontier Publications, these centers will offer peer support, skill building, recreation, wellness education, employment readiness, and social activities with the help of professional staff, peers in recovery, and volunteers. This is just one part of a “multi-pronged approach” put into action by Governor Andrew Cuomo.

    “We are committed to investing in recovery centers across the state to help individuals and families struggling with addiction,” said Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul during her announcement of the funding plan.

    “This funding will establish 14 new recovery community centers and expand services at two existing centers across the state. We want to ensure people have access to the resources and services they need to lead healthy and safe lives and continue our efforts to combat the opioid epidemic.”

    This new grant comes on the heels of funding secured by Cuomo in December of 2018, when over $9 million was directed toward opioid addiction treatment services, including $2.1 million for new treatment facilities in high-risk areas. Prior to that, over $25 million was allocated to address the opioid epidemic in 19 counties in the state of New York in September.

    All of this funding is part of a national effort to halt the rising rates of opioid-related overdose deaths, which have increased six-fold from 1999 to 2017.

    Thankfully, preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) appear to show that these deaths are beginning to level off, likely due to comprehensive efforts by states across the country to expand addiction treatment and distribute the opioid overdose reversal drug, naloxone.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Melania Trump: Media Should Focus On Opioid Crisis, Not "Gossip"

    Melania Trump: Media Should Focus On Opioid Crisis, Not "Gossip"

    The First Lady addressed the opioid epidemic at a recent town hall meeting in Las Vegas. 

    First Lady Melania Trump called on the media this week to spend more time focusing on the opioid epidemic and less time on frivolous reporting. 

    “I challenge the press to devote as much time to the lives lost and the potential lives that could be saved by dedicating the same amount of coverage that you do to idle gossip or trivial stories,” she said during a town-hall meeting in Las Vegas on Tuesday (March 5).

    The meeting was part of a three-stop tour highlighting her “Be Best” campaign, which focuses on well-being for young people by touching on topics including the dangers of opioids, according to NBC News.

    The first lady continued, “I wish the media would talk about more and educate more children, also adults, parents, about the opioid crisis that we have in the United States. They do it already, but I think not enough.”

    Trump said that coverage of the opioid epidemic should focus on the human toll of drug addiction. 

    “When we see breaking news on TV, or the front pages of newspaper — it is my hope that it can be about how many lives we were able to save through education and honest dialogue,” she said. 

    In her own home, she warns her son Barron, 12, that “drugs are dangerous. It will mess up your head. It will mess up your body and nothing comes positive out of it,” according to Time.

    Mrs. Trump is focusing on the opioid epidemic as part of overall wellness for young people, and feels that education is a key component of that. 

    “As a mother and as first lady, it concerns me that in today’s fast-paced and ever-connected world, children can be less prepared to express or manage their emotions and oftentimes turn to forms of destructive or addictive behavior such as bullying, drug addiction or even suicide,” she said last year. “I feel strongly that as adults we can and should be best at educating our children about the importance of a healthy and balanced life.”

    At the Las Vegas event Trump spoke with Eric Bolling, a former anchor for Fox News. Bolling’s son Eric died at 19 from a drug overdose, and Bolling has spoken publicly about the loss, including in a White House video. 

    “We never saw it coming,” Bolling said. “We never thought we would get that call.”

    In the video Bolling emotionally warns parents that they need to be aware that anyone’s child can fall victim to opioids. 

    “Not-my-kid syndrome is a killer. Because you just don’t know. It could very well be your kid,” he said. “So do us all a favor. Do yourself a favor. Do your family a favor. Do your children a favor. Have the discussion with them and do it again. And again. Get involved in your kids lives. …You could save a life. “

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Former Commissioner Blames FDA For Opioid Crisis: "No One Stopped It"

    Former Commissioner Blames FDA For Opioid Crisis: "No One Stopped It"

    “There are no studies on the safety or efficacy of opioids for long-term use,” said former FDA commissioner David Kessler in a recent “60 Minutes” interview.

    The former Food and Drug Administration commissioner expressed regret that the agency allowed drug companies to promote the idea that opioid painkillers were safe for long-term use in a recent 60 Minutes interview.

    Dr. David Kessler was FDA commissioner during the ’90s, when Purdue Pharma’s prescription opioid OxyContin was approved. Shortly after, Purdue began an aggressive marketing campaign to both prescribers and consumers, including chronic pain patients. 

    In 2001, the FDA changed the indication on the label for prescription opioids to say that it was safe for long-term use, allowing drug companies to market them as such. However, Dr. Kessler now says that there were no studies on the long-term effects of regular, ongoing opioid use at the time.

    “There are no studies on the safety or efficacy of opioids for long-term use,” said Kessler in the interview. “The rigorous kind of scientific research the agency should be relying on is not there.”

    The former commissioner also appears to regret allowing the methods of the OxyContin marketing campaign, which were unprecedented in the prescription drug market. Soon, companies like Purdue were convincing doctors to prescribe more pills at higher doses — something that experts believe fueled the current epidemic of opioid-related addiction and overdoses.

    Dr. Kessler is now on retainer by cities and counties that are suing Perdue Pharma and other drug companies for the damage caused by the opioid crisis. He officially left the FDA before the drugs were proclaimed safe for extended use, but laments that no one stopped it from happening.

    “You have a system of pharmaceutical promotion that changed the way medicine practiced and no one, all right, stopped it,” he said. He later blames this on understaffing in the FDA marketing department.

    Current FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb declined to be interviewed, instead providing a written statement.

    “Many mistakes were made along the way,” it reads. “While the agency followed the law in approving and regulating opioids, we at the FDA include ourselves among those that should have acted sooner.”

    On another 60 Minutes segment three days later, drug manufacturer Ed Thompson indicted “his own industry” and agreed with Dr. Kessler’s assessment that the label change was what sparked the opioid epidemic.

    “The root cause of this epidemic is the FDA’s illegal approval of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain,” Thompson said. “Without question, they start the fire.”

    Thompson himself is now suing the FDA in an attempt to force the administration to change the label on prescription opioids once again to say that it’s only safe for short-term use. As a maker of these drugs, he stands to lose billions if he’s successful. Thompson is going ahead with the suit, however, refusing to sell what he calls “snake oil” to consumers.

    “You’re using high-dose, long-duration opioids when they’ve never been designed to do that,” he explained to the 60 Minutes host. “There’s no evidence that they’re effective. There’s extreme evidence of harms and deaths when you use them.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Inside Elizabeth Warren's Plan To Address The Opioid Epidemic

    Inside Elizabeth Warren's Plan To Address The Opioid Epidemic

    Warren is one of the few 2020 presidential candidates to have discussed a plan to confront the opioid epidemic.

    As more names are being thrown into the hat for the 2020 presidential race, only one has spoken up about her plans to address the opioid epidemic.

    Elizabeth Warren has made some strides to combat the opioid crisis during her time as a U.S. Senator, according to Vox, and plans to continue to do so during her run for presidency.

    In her time in Congress, she has made a push for additional research into alternatives to opioids. She has also voiced her opinions about President Donald Trump’s response to the epidemic, calling it “pathetic.” 

    In 2018, Warren and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) introduced the Comprehensive Addiction Resources Emergency (CARE) Act to Congress. If put into play, the bill would spread $100 billion to various states and organizations to fight the crisis over a 10-year period.  

    “Our communities are on the front lines of the epidemic, and they’re working hard to fight back,” Warren tells Vox. “But they can’t do it alone. They can’t keep nibbling around the edges.”

    Warren is one of the few 2020 presidential candidates to have discussed a plan to confront the opioid epidemic. This could be because her state of Massachusetts has been hit particularly hard by the crisis with its drug overdose deaths at 31.8 per 100,000 in 2017, compared to the national average of 21.7.

    The CARE Act, according to some experts, is one of the only plans presented with potential to make a difference in the epidemic. Keith Humphreys, a drug policy expert at Stanford University, tells Vox that Warren’s bill “is the only one that really grasps the nettle of how big the problem is.” 

    “Whatever else people might say about it, this is the first thing that really recognizes that [the opioid crisis] is a massive public health problem, like AIDS, and is not going to be solved by a tweak here, a tweak there,” he adds.

    The $100 billion involved in the CARE Act would be used in various ways, according to Vox. Some would be given to local government and nonprofits and some would be spread to numerous states, territories and tribal governments.

    This could be determined by overdose levels in certain areas, but some funding would also be given through a competitive grant process. Remaining funding would be dedicated to treatment, research, training and more access to overdose antidote naloxone. 

    Despite the support of some experts, Warren and Cumming’s bill has not made great progress in Congress. In the House, according to Vox, it received only 81 cosponsors, and in the Senate, it got none. Still, the two plan to reintroduce the bill in coming months. 

    Warren hasn’t hesitated to point out President Trump’s failure to deliver on his promises. In 2016, Trump said he would “spend the money” to confront the opioid epidemic. 

    “The Trump administration has treated this crisis like a photo op,” Warren tells Vox. “They talk a good game and produce nothing.”

    Although the CARE Act likely would not be able to address the entire epidemic on its own, it would be a start, Warren says.

    “Resources make a difference,” Warren tells Vox. “Not strong words. Not photo ops. But real money. Without real resources, the opioid crisis will continue to grow.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Who Should Be Held Responsible For The Opioid Epidemic?

    Who Should Be Held Responsible For The Opioid Epidemic?

    A new op-ed suggests that to receive “true justice” for the opioid epidemic, “we need to root out all the villains regardless of whether they have famous names.”

    When it comes to the opioid epidemic, no name brings frustration and anger like Purdue Pharma. It is commonly accepted that the maker of OxyContin contributed to the growth of the opioid epidemic by using aggressive and misleading sales tactics meant to get more powerful opioids into the hands of more Americans. 

    The Sackler family, members of which founded the company that would become Purdue Pharma, have also come under fire for their perceived role in the epidemic. Not only did the family profit vastly from the sale of OxyContin, but new court documents assert that they were directly involved with pushing for more sales.

    When it became clear that OxyContin was addictive they even considered making medications to assist in the treatment of addiction, which would have allowed them to double dip, profiting from both ends of the crisis. 

    The actions of Purdue Pharma were reprehensible, Robert Gebelhoff writes in an opinion piece for The Washington Post. However, he argues that in addition to punishing them, the country needs to seek punishment and retribution for others who contributed to the crisis.

    “The opioid epidemic is one of the worst systematic failures of health care in our country. For true justice, we need to root out all the villains, regardless of whether they have famous names,” he writes. 

    Gebelhoff calls for holding the medical community and other accountable. 

    He writes, “Even if states are able to turn these latest charges into some form of punishment for the Sacklers themselves, what about all those who promoted their cause? What about the researchers who accepted funding from drug manufacturers and carried out campaigns to destigmatize opioid painkillers? What about the officials at the Food and Drug Administration who not only approved OxyContin without any clinical studies on how addictive the drug might be, but also approved a package insert declaring the drug safer than its rival painkillers?”

    He also points to government officials who failed to intervene in the crisis, and even made it more difficult for the Drug Enforcement Administration to pursue concerning opioid sales.

    At the same time, government policy made it difficult for people to access medication-assisted treatment, which is widely accepted as the best treatment for opioid use disorder. This pattern continues today, according to recent VA research that shows too few people are getting access to medication-assisted treatment. 

    “Who holds such practitioners accountable?” Gebelhoff asks. 

    Gebelhoff points out that the Sacklers and Purdue are a good target, because they have enough money to help fund access to treatment and other interventions into the epidemic. However, he says it’s important that other entities be held responsible even if they don’t have deep pockets. 

    “The opioid saga — stemming from prescription painkillers — has irreparably damaged the lives of countless Americans over the past few decades,” he writes. “Don’t they deserve better?”

    View the original article at thefix.com