Answer Addiction

Tag: opioid epidemic

  • Patients On Opioids May Have A Harder Time Finding Primary Care

    Patients On Opioids May Have A Harder Time Finding Primary Care

    According to a new study, more than 40% of clinics said that they would not take a new patient who was using opioids to manage pain.

    Patients who use prescription opioids to manage their pain may have a harder time accessing primary care, according to a new study. 

    The research, published in the journal JAMA Network Open, found that primary care clinics who were accepting new patients were less likely to take a patient who said that they were using opioids. In fact, more than 40% of clinics said that they would not take a new patient who was using opioids to manage pain. 

    Finding Care

    “These findings are concerning because it demonstrates just how difficult it may be for a patient with chronic pain searching for a primary care physician,” lead study author Pooja Lagisetty told the blog of the University of Michigan. 

    For the study, researchers cold-called clinics that were accepting new patients. The callers said they were looking for a new provider for their parent, who took a Percocet (oxycodone) each day to manage pain. 

    The findings confirmed the researchers’ hypothesis that people on opioids have a harder time accessing primary care. Forty percent of the clinics said they would not take the patient, while two-thirds said they would require a preliminary visit before deciding. Seventeen percent said they would need additional information to make a decision. 

    Pain Refugees

    “Anecdotally, we were hearing about patients with chronic pain becoming ‘pain refugees,’ being abruptly tapered from their opioids or having their current physician stop refilling their prescription, leaving them to search for pain relief elsewhere,” Lagisetty said. “However, there have been no studies to quantify the extent of the problem.”

    Surprisingly, the researchers found that whether a patient had private insurance or Medicare did not make a difference in whether or not they were accepted as a new patient. 

    “Our results did not differ by insurance status, which was surprising because previous studies on primary care access have showed that patients on Medicaid tend to have lower access to primary care than those with private insurance,” Lagisetty said. “This may indicate that providers and clinics are not making these decisions to restrict access based upon reimbursement. Larger clinics and community health centers were more likely to accept new patients suggesting that there may be some system level factors that affect access to care.”

    The lack of access to primary care is especially concerning in this case because the researchers who called clinics said that the patient was also on medication for high blood pressure and high cholesterol, both of which require regular treatment from a provider.

    In addition, having a primary care provider can help people manage their use of opioids and taper off them, if possible. 

    “We hope to use this information to identify a way for us to fix the policies to have more of a patient-centered approach to pain management,” Lagisetty said. “Everyone deserves equitable access to health care, irrespective of their medical conditions or what medications they may be taking.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Trump Celebrates Overdose Death Decline, But Drug Policy Remains Chaotic 

    Trump Celebrates Overdose Death Decline, But Drug Policy Remains Chaotic 

    While the decline is a positive step, many remain concerned about drug research and the lack of leadership in the DEA.

    President Trump is celebrating—and claiming credit for—the first drop in the overdose death rate in decades, but political insiders say that his White House remains unorganized, especially when it comes to drug policy. 

    During an event last month that highlighted the overdose death decline, Trump said, “This is a meeting on opioid[s] and the tremendous effect that’s taken place over the last little period of time.”

    “They’re going to make the political argument that they’re winning,” Regina LaBelle, Obama-era chief of staff for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), told STAT News. “Which they can say, since deaths are down. But I get concerned that we’re going to take our eye off the ball on the broader issue of addiction.”

    One major concern that some people have is that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remains without a leader. It’s been that way for more than two years, which Clinton-era “drug czar” General Barry McCaffrey finds absurd. 

    “The White House is so disorganized and dysfunctional that they can’t pluck an apple sitting at eye level in front of them,” he said. “Why wouldn’t you have a DEA administrator, for God’s sake? In 14 workdays, you could come up with a dozen superlative people with political chops who would take that job.”

    The Fight For Drug Research

    While the DEA does not have a leader, the agency finds itself at odds with other government agencies. On June 20, one DEA official asked Congress to classify all fentanyl analogues as Schedule I substances. The DEA has argued that this is necessary for law enforcement, but others, including a researcher from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), say that this would inhibit research on opioids and treatment for opioid use disorder. 

    As part of the process, the DEA expressed its desire to control drug classifications without input from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the NIDA.

    Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) was so concerned by this power grab that he led a group of eight Senators (including one Republican) who authored a letter expressing their worries. 

    “We are concerned that the failure to engage necessary health experts vests far too much authority to a law-enforcement agency and may result in action that will deter valid, critical medical research aimed at responses to the opioid crisis,” the senators wrote. 

    Michael Collins, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, said that the agency is “playing on people’s fear in order to make a power grab that predates the fentanyl crisis.”

    “We are being asked to give DEA control of the scheduling process and give up due process and allow more prosecutorial power—and give up researching these substances and potentially saving lives as a result of that research,” he said. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Artists, Activists Hold Anti-Sackler Protest At The Louvre

    Artists, Activists Hold Anti-Sackler Protest At The Louvre

    Celebrated photographer Nan Goldin led Europe’s first anti-Sackler protest at the Louvre this week.

    P.A.I.N. arrived in Paris over the weekend and gathered at the Louvre on Monday (July 1) to protest the Sackler family’s role in fueling the opioid crisis.

    Led by photographer Nan Goldin, who organized similar rallies at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York City, the P.A.I.N. activists (Prescription Addiction Intervention Now) were there to protest the Sackler family, members of whom own Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin.

    Purdue Pharma is facing more than 1,600 lawsuits from American cities, counties and “nearly every U.S. state” for its alleged aggressive marketing of OxyContin and downplaying the risks of becoming dependent on the opioid painkiller.

    Goldin Organizes

    Goldin herself fell victim to the drug. Originally prescribed for surgery, she described becoming “addicted overnight” in a January 2018 essay published in Artforum. Since sharing her own battle with prescription painkiller abuse, Goldin launched protests against the Sacklers where they have donated millions and where their name is displayed prominently—inside major institutions like the Met and the Louvre.

    By rallying at these institutions, Goldin is urging them to stop accepting money from the Sackler family and to remove their name from their walls. “Twelve rooms in the Louvre (in the Oriental Antiquities wing) are named after the Sacklers, following their donation of 10 million francs in 1997,” reads a statement by P.A.I.N. provided to Artforum.

    “We do not accept that the Louvre bears the name of a family complicit in crime. We demand that the Louvre rename the Sackler wing and commit to refusing any criminal donations in the future.”

    Sackler Trusts Halts New Donations

    Since Goldin’s protests, the Sackler Trust has paused all new charitable giving. And the Met, the Guggenheim, the National Portrait Gallery and the Tate have agreed to stop accepting money from the family as well.

    Ultimately, Goldin wants the Sacklers’ fortune to be “clawed back” by the courts, and to be re-distributed toward treatment and outreach programs, as Artforum reported.

    In June, California, Maine and Hawaii joined the long list of plaintiffs suing Purdue Pharma. “The opioid crisis is devastating our communities and killing our loved ones,” said California’s attorney general Xavier Becerra. “Purdue Pharma and Dr. [Richard] Sackler started the fire and then poured gasoline on the opioid crisis with practices that were irresponsible, unconscionable and unlawful.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Autoworkers Union Pushes For Better Opioid Treatment 

    Autoworkers Union Pushes For Better Opioid Treatment 

    “The issue demands that we get involved, and it demands that we set an example of combating it in a positive way,” said the union’s VP.

    The United Automobile Workers union (UAW), which has nearly 400,000 active members, is making access to addiction treatment a priority in negotiations with the major automotive companies this year. 

    “The issue demands that we get involved, and it demands that we set an example of combating it in a positive way—the union and the company,” the union’s Vice President Rory Gamble told Automotive News. “We have to grab this thing and address it now.”

    Like many people in the industry, Gamble has been touched by addiction. His granddaughter died in January of an opioid overdose. For other workers the connection is even more personal, as long days and assembly-line work lead to injuries that are often treated with opioids. 

    Working With The Union

    Scott Masi lost his automotive job after he was found sleeping on the job, a complication from opioid use disorder. Now in recovery, Masi works with the union and employers to help them better integrate employees who need treatment. 

    “If I was struggling with diabetes and I wasn’t getting my medication, and I was sleeping because of that, do you think they would have fired me? No,” he said. “I had no recourse to save my job, get the help that I needed or utilize the insurance that I had worked for.”

    Consultant Pamela Feinberg-Rivkin would like to see automakers be proactive to increase access to treatment for employees. 

    “If one or all three of [the automakers] would invest—not only in recovery; they need to have treatment first—but invest in the detox treatment and then a recovery community where they can live and work and receive that long-term care—that’s a model that should be created in the state,” she said. “Many workers that we have could benefit from having that whole continuum of care.”

    Ford’s Pilot Program

    Ford is leading the way, with an initiative to provide a point-stimulation therapy device that helps people overcome the pain of withdrawal. As part of a pilot program, more than 200 employees and family members will have access to the device. 

    “This device is not a miracle, but it is the next best thing,” said Todd Dunn, president of a local UAW chapter. “It’s a positive, disruptive solution to opioid treatment. I think you’re going to see GM, Chrysler, a lot of companies and organizations look at this device as a game changer.” 

    Jeremy Milloy, a researcher who has studied American workplaces, said that it’s important that employer health plans offered by automotive makers cover devices like this and other medication-assisted treatment. For too long, he said, the companies’ generous health plans contributed to people having easy access to opioids. 

    “It’s a really obvious time for them to say that policies based on surveillance and stigmatization have failed,” he said. “They can’t work in a system where the No. 1 most-abused drug is a licit one being prescribed through company health plans.”

    Gamble, the union’s vice president, said that the union, employers and employees are all willing to work together to help improve access to treatment. However, it’s a matter of finding an option that works for all parties. 

    “I am not against any type of solution that makes sense,” he said. “But when you sit down with a company, you have to craft that where it makes economic sense.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • 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

  • Two-Thirds Of Global Drug-Related Deaths Were From Opioid Use

    Two-Thirds Of Global Drug-Related Deaths Were From Opioid Use

    The 2019 World Drug Report highlighted the devastating global reach of the addiction epidemic.

    Drug use continues to rise—not only in the United States, where fentanyl and painkillers have devastated many lives, but in the Middle East, Africa and India.

    The numbers are provided in the 2019 World Drug Report released by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

    The report detailed the extent of the drug problem in the United States and Canada. Opioid drugs such as fentanyl, heroin and prescription painkillers contributed the most to widespread substance use disorder (addiction) and death. In 2017, more than 47,000 people in the U.S. and 4,000 Canadians died from opioid overdose, the report showed.

    “Drug overdoses have really reached epidemic proportions in North America,” said UN research chief Angela Me.

    Around 271 Million People Used Drugs In 2017

    Globally, drugs are a problem as well. An estimated 271 million people used drugs in 2017—30% more people than in 2009. The same year, 585,000 people died from drug use—with opioid drugs accounting for two-thirds of global drug deaths.

    And while around 35 million people live with drug use disorder, not enough people receive help for it. “Prevention and treatment continue to fall short in many parts of the world, with only one in seven people with drug use disorders receiving treatment each year,” according to the UN.

    The report found a lack of treatment options across the world, and urged world leaders to do better. “Effective treatment interventions based on scientific evidence and in line with international human rights obligations are not as accessible as they need to be, and national governments and the international community need to step up interventions in order to address this gap,” according to a statement by the UN.

    It was noted that the overall increase in drug use and people with substance use disorder was partly due to improved reporting in India and Nigeria, two of the most populous nations.

    Cannabis Is The Most Widely Used Drug In The World

    Other findings of the World Drug Report included the fact that cannabis is still the most widely used drug in the world with an estimated 188 million people having used it in 2017. And global cocaine manufacturing hit a record high in 2017 with 1,976 tons counted—a 25% increase over the previous year.

    “The findings of this year’s World Drug Report fill in and further complicate the global picture of drug challenges, underscoring the need for broader international cooperation to advance balanced and integrated health and criminal justice responses to supply and demand,” said Yury Fedotov, UNODC Executive Director.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • David Sackler Speaks Out: My Family Didn’t Cause The Opioid Crisis

    David Sackler Speaks Out: My Family Didn’t Cause The Opioid Crisis

    The third-generation Sackler defended his family, Purdue Pharma and OxyContin in an eye-opening interview with Vanity Fair.

    David Sackler — a former board member at Purdue Pharma and son of Richard Sackler, whose infamous comments about opioids have been made public this year — says that his family’s role in the opioid epidemic is misunderstood. 

    Speaking with Vanity Fair, Sackler called the focus on the family “vitriolic hyperbole” and “endless castigation.” However, he said that his entire family has the utmost sympathy for people whose lives have been upended up opioid abuse. 

    “We have so much empathy,” he said. “I’m sorry we didn’t start with that. We feel absolutely terrible. Facts will show we didn’t cause the crisis, but we want to help.”

    Sackler decided to speak out because he felt that by staying silent the family has let other people take control of the story about Purdue Pharma, his family and opioid abuse. He wanted to begin “begin humanizing” the family. 

    “We have not done a good job of talking about this,” Sackler said. “That’s what I regret the most.” 

    Sackler said that it was true that Purdue was one of the first companies to emphasize the pain-relieving qualities of opioids. 

    “We were. But as the science changed, we put safeguards in place,” he said. 

    Although OxyContin is often pinpointed as the start of the epidemic, Sackler said that idea is inaccurate. 

    “To argue that OxyContin started this is not in keeping with history,” he said. 

    He added that people are judging the company’s actions through a modern lens, without taking into account the prevailing wisdom at the time. 

    “I really don’t think there’s much in the complaints, frankly, that’s at issue that’s not just, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t have marketed these things at all,’” he said. “Right? And I guess that’s a hindsight debate one can have.”

    Sackler argued that OxyContin is not as addictive as is often portrayed, but also said that regulatory bodies share the blame for allowing the drug to move forward. He said that ultimately the Food and Drug Administration decided that the pain relief benefits of OxyContin outweighed the addiction risk.

    “The FDA approved this medication with that balance in mind,” Sackler said. “So like any medication that has unintended side effects, you knew that this was one. It was approved as one. Doctors understood it, right?”

    When the risks became clear, Purdue put protective measures in place, including barring sales reps from contacting doctors who operated pill mills, Sackler said. 

    “None of the facts support the notion of these craven people just blithely ignoring the risks,” he said. “The company was trying to do the right thing under incredible stress.”

    Sackler revealed that his father Richard, who once referred to people abusing OxyContin as “reckless criminals,” has poor communication skills. 

    “He just cannot understand how his words are going to land on somebody,” Sackler said. That is made even worse when Richard’s written remarks are released to the public, he noted. “For a person like that, email is about the worst medium possible to communicate in, because there is no other cue. And so he’s saying things that sound incredibly strident and sound incredibly unsympathetic, and that’s not the person that he is.”   

    He emphasized that while Purdue was not responsible for the opioid epidemic, the family certainly should not be held personally responsible. 

    “The suits are grasping at the notion that the Sacklers were in charge of the operation,” he said. “That’s just so not true. I was on the board from 2012 to 2018, and I was voting on information I was given.”

    Sackler insisted that Purdue and his family have done good over the years. 

    “It’s overwhelming what the company over the years was trying to do to fix this problem, and the money they spent,” he said. “And it’s heartbreaking for all of us in the family, not only to be attacked personally for this, but just to know the truth, and to know what the rest of the industry did in comparison—nothing. Nothing at all. Not a thing at all.”

    He continued, “We have gone past the point where no good deed goes unpunished into the theater of the absurd.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Drug Distributor Didn’t Report Large Opioid Orders To DEA, Document Reveals

    Drug Distributor Didn’t Report Large Opioid Orders To DEA, Document Reveals

    Evidence in an opioid lawsuit reveals that instead of complying with DEA regulations, Cardinal Health took enforcement into its own hands.

    A major drug distributor that is facing lawsuits for allegedly contributing to the opioid epidemic was warned as early as 2008 that it was not following protocol in reporting suspicious drug orders to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), according to a document obtained during the discovery phase of those lawsuits. 

    According to NBC News, Cardinal Health hired a consultant in 2007 who had formerly worked for the DEA as chief compliance officer. The consultant warned the company’s lawyer that the firm was not in compliance with DEA regulations in regards to suspiciously large orders.

    The DEA required firms to report any orders that were unusually large, frequent, or otherwise different from a customer’s established ordering patterns. 

    Instead of doing that, Cardinal Health took enforcement into its own hands. It established a cap for the amount of pills that could be ordered—three times the amount of a customer’s previous order. Although the company did not fill orders larger than that, it also did not report the large orders to the DEA. 

    “Customer orders that are in excess of three times the average (which would be the threshold) would be held for further investigation,” Ronald Buzzeo, the consultant, wrote to a lawyer for Cardinal Health on Jan. 23, 2008. “Orders that were held would be reduced to the threshold and sent to the customer. Delayed orders would be investigated. If the order was cleared of suspicion, the remainder of the order would be furnished to the customer. If the order was not cleared of the suspicion, the order would not be filled above the threshold limit; however, no report would be made to the DEA.”

    Buzzeo pointed out that this did not meet federal requirements. Rather than taking this approach, the company should begin to “report all orders to the DEA that cannot be cleared of suspicion and cancel the entire order,” he wrote. 

    It’s not clear whether Cardinal Health took Buzzeo’s advice. However, the company was later fined $44 million for not reporting suspicious orders from 2009-2012, so it appears no major changes were made. 

    Cardinal Health said that Buzzeo’s letter was taken out of context. Hiring the consultant was an effort to meet the “significantly changing guidance” from the DEA about how large orders should be handled, the statement said. They insist that the company was in compliance with the Controlled Substances Act. The statement also claimed that the company has stopped millions of dosages by reporting suspicious orders to the DEA. 

    “Cardinal Health has learned from our experience and the threats the pharmaceutical supply chain faces, and as a result of the transition and a constantly adaptive approach, our anti-diversion program today is stronger and more effective as it continues to evolve,” the statement said. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Overdose Deaths Dip For The First Time In Decades

    Overdose Deaths Dip For The First Time In Decades

    The national overdose toll declined by about 3,000 between 2017 and 2018.

    Overdose death rates were slightly lower in 2018 than in 2017, the first time in decades that the overdose rate has declined.

    Despite that positive news brought about by preliminary data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) experts emphasized that with more than 69,000 Americans dying of an overdose in 2018 the nation is still in an epidemic.

    Robert N. Anderson, chief of the Mortality Statistics Branch at the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics told The American Journal of Managed Care that the national overdose toll was reduced by about 3,000 people between 2017 and 2018. That could indicate that “we may have reached a peak in the epidemic,” he said.

    Still, he cautioned, the overdose death rate remains extremely high.

    “That said, the number of deaths for 2018 is still predicted to be nearly 70,000. That is a lot of people dying much too young. Even if the decline holds once the data are final, it is too soon to declare victory,” Anderson said.

    The data is based on preliminary models and predictions of what the final data will look like. Anderson said that the models are usually accurate, however, so the trend will likely be confirmed.

    Increased access to the opioid-overdose reversal drug naloxone may have helped save lives and contributed to the lowered death toll. However, that means many people are still using drugs, and Anderson emphasized that the drug epidemic needs ongoing monitoring and interventions.

    “It is really impossible to predict what will happen for the next few years,” he said. “This may just be a lull in the epidemic or some new deadly drug will be introduced that exacerbates the situation.”

    For example, meth use is becoming more popular among opioid users. While there are established medication-assisted treatment options for opioid use disorder, there are fewer options available for people who abuse methamphetamines.

    Although the national overdose rate declined, that was not universal among states. Some states, like Ohio, saw a significant decrease in overdose rates. Others, including Missouri and New Jersey, had more overdoses in 2018 than they did in 2017.

    In general, the CDC data showed that overdoses increased in the west and southwest, and decreased in the east.

    The overdose rate national remains very high compared with previous decades. In 1999 overdoses accounted for 6.1 deaths per 100,000. In 2018, they made up 20.7 deaths per 100,000.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Surgeons Are Still Prescribing Too Many Opioids

    Surgeons Are Still Prescribing Too Many Opioids

    Though opioid prescriptions have declined, surgeons are still prescribing more than the recommended number of pills.

    Surgeons are still prescribing far too many opioids to their patients following surgical procedures, increasing their risk of long-term opioid use or addiction. 

    According to a recent analysis by Kaiser Health News and Johns Hopkins, surgeons still prescribe many times the recommended amount of pain medications. By analyzing Medicare data, the researchers found that some patients who undergo coronary bypass and knee surgeries took home more than 100 pain pills for the first week following their operations. Thirty pills would be the maximum amount recommended by current standards, researchers noted. 

    Andrew Kolodny, director of the advocacy group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, said, “Prescribers should have known better.” 

    The researchers looked at data from 2011 to 2016. Even though opioid prescriptions started to decline during that time, the number of pills being prescribed was well above the recommended safe levels. Dr. Chad Brummett, associate professor at the University of Michigan, said that even if the prescription amounts have continued to fall since 2016 they are likely still too high. 

    “When prescribing may have been five to 20 times too high, even a reduction that is quite meaningful still likely reflects overprescribing,” he said. 

    Members of the medical community pointed out that surgeons were taught for years to mitigate pain by using opioids, but now they are being asked to drastically change the way they manage patients’ pain. Dr. David Hasleton, senior medical director in Utah said that it can be difficult to talk to doctors about their prescribing habits. 

    “Globally, we were overprescribing by 50%,” he said Dr. David Hasleton, senior medical director. “If you go to a prescriber to say, ‘You are overprescribing,’ it never goes well. A common reaction is, ‘Your data is wrong’ or ‘My patients are different than his.’”

    In fact, that’s exactly what happened when Kaiser reached out to the top prescribers. Most didn’t comment, but some expressed surprise that they were prescribing more opioids than their colleagues. Others said that their patients are not at risk for long-term opioid use, although data shows that 6% of people who receive opioids after a surgery will go on to use them long term. 

    “I can absolutely tell you I don’t have even 1% who become long-term opioid users,” said Nebraska surgeon Janet Grange.

    Oregon surgeon Audrey Garrett, was surprised to learn that she was a top prescriber, and equally surprised to hear that 6% of patients given opioids will develop long-term use. 

    “That is a shocking number,” she said. “If it’s true, it’s something we need to educate physicians on much earlier in their medical careers.”

    View the original article at thefix.com