Answer Addiction

Tag: opioid epidemic

  • 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

  • Does Binge Drinking Increase Chances Of Opioid Misuse?

    Does Binge Drinking Increase Chances Of Opioid Misuse?

    A new study examined the possible connection between binge drinking and opioid misuse.

    Binge drinking and opioid misuse are closely related, according to a new study examining drinking patterns and prescription pill misuse.

    The study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, aimed to examine the connection between drinking and using opioids. It drew on information from more than 160,000 people who provided information on their substance use as part of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) from 2012-2014 as well as socioeconomic information. Researchers found that binge drinking increased the chances that people misused opioids.

    “More than half of the 4.2 million people who misused prescription opioids during 2012–2014 were binge drinkers, and binge drinkers had nearly twice the odds of misusing prescription opioids, compared with nondrinkers,” study authors wrote.

    This is especially alarming since opioids and alcohol are a dangerous combination physically.

    “Binge drinkers who misuse prescription opioids are likely to be at substantially increased risk of overdose because of the combined effect of high blood alcohol levels and prescription opioids on the central nervous system,” they wrote. “The high prevalence, frequency, and intensity of binge drinking among adults and adolescents in the U.S., along with the heightened prevalence of prescription opioid misuse among binge drinkers, emphasizes the importance of adopting a comprehensive and coordinated approach to addressing both binge drinking and prescription opioid misuse to reduce the risk of opioid overdoses.”

    The study found that opioid misuse was most common among men, people with an annual family income of $20,000 or less, and people ages 18-34. Binge drinking was also most common among men in that age bracket, although it was also associated with people with some college education, according to The American Academy of Family Physicians.

    About two-thirds of people who misused opioids and binge drank were older than 26. However, among younger adults the connection between binge drinking and opioid misuse was especially strong: 8.1% of teenage binge drinkers misused opioids, compared with just 1% of nondrinkers and 3.6% of people who used alcohol but did not binge drink.

    Since family medical providers are often on the front lines of dealing with patients with problematic drinking, they could also help interrupt this pattern of opioid misuse, said Dr. Roger Zoorob.

    “Family physicians are well-positioned to identify and address binge drinking and opioid misuse,” he said.

    Sometimes that can be as easy as pointing out that a patient’s drinking habits are veering toward unhealthy.

    “Many times, patients are unaware that their drinking patterns are harmful, and a simple, brief intervention by the family physician has been shown to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in the primary care population,” Zoorob said.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Focus On Opioids Leaves States Struggling To Find Money To Treat Other Addictions

    Focus On Opioids Leaves States Struggling To Find Money To Treat Other Addictions

    Restricting funds to covering opioid-related treatments mean that some treatments will become more easily accessible while others remain hard to come by.

    Although the phrase “opioid epidemic” has become mainstream, experts on substance use disorder say that the country’s drug problem is about more than just opioids, and states are struggling to adequately address that with federal funds that have been earmarked specifically for opioid-related interventions. 

    “Even just the moniker — ‘the opioid epidemic’ — out of the gate, is problematic and incorrect,” Northeastern University professor Leo Beletsky, who teaches law and health sciences, told NPR. “This was never just about opioids.”

    Still, much of the $2.4 billion that the federal government has sent to states since 2017 has come in the form of grants that require states specifically address opioid use. Even the names of the federal grant programs make show their focus on opioids: the State Targeted Response to the Opioid Crisis and State Opioid Response are two major sources of funding. 

    That has left people like David Crowe looking for other options for funding to do more comprehensive drug use prevention. Crowe is the executive director of Crawford County Drug and Alcohol Executive Commission in Crawford County, Pennsylvania. He says that opioids are a major factor there, but so is methamphetamine, and he needs funds to address that as well. 

    “Now I’m looking for something different. I don’t need more opiate money. I need money that will not be used exclusively for opioids,” he said. 

    Opioids remain a prevalent problem, but in 11 states that class of drugs were responsible for less than half of opioid overdose deaths, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

    Restricting funds to covering opioid-related treatments mean that some treatments will become more easily accessible — like medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. Yet, interventions for other drugs, like methamphetamines, might continue to be hard to come by. 

    This is especially concerning since use of specific drugs tends to come and go, while pervasive drug use continues nationally, said Bertha Madras, a professor at Harvard Medical School and former member of the President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis.

    “I think we have to really begin to self-examine why this country has so much substance use to begin with,” she said. 

    Still, proponents of the programs say that even opioid-targeted funds can help address gaps in the treatment of mental illness and addiction. Those gaps contribute to the use of all drugs, including opioids, according to Marlies Perez, a division chief at the California Department of Health Care Services. 

    “This funding is dedicated to opioids, but we’re not blindly just building a system dedicated just to opioids,” Perez said. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Austin Eubanks, Columbine Survivor, Died Of Heroin Overdose

    Austin Eubanks, Columbine Survivor, Died Of Heroin Overdose

    In the wake of the 1999 Columbine school shooting, Eubanks struggled with opioid use. Eventually, he began speaking publicly about his struggles.

    A well-known addiction advocate and survivor of the Columbine shooting has died of a heroin overdose, reports have confirmed. 

    Austin Eubanks was found dead last month after failing to answer his phone during a welfare check, CNN reports. The coroner’s office has confirmed that the 37-year-old’s death was due to “acute heroin toxicity.”

    “I’m very sad about it myself,” Routt County, Colorado Coroner Robert Ryg tells CNN. “We were hoping for something else, heart attack or something.”

    In the wake of the 1999 Columbine school shooting, which left 13 dead and many injured, Eubanks struggled with opioid use. Eventually, he began speaking publicly about his struggles. 

    “An injured survivor of the Columbine shooting, Austin’s traumatic experience as a teen was the catalyst to his painful journey through addiction,” his website reads. “He has since devoted his career to helping those who have turned to substances as a result of trauma. Austin has spoken to millions across the nation regarding his personal journey as well as strategies for addressing the issues of substance abuse that are plaguing the nation.” 

    Eubanks’ family told KMGH in a statement that he “lost the battle with the very disease he fought so hard to help others face.”

    On the day of the shooting, Eubanks, then 17, was in the library with friends when gunshots broke out.   

    “A teacher ran through the same doors that we just entered into the library, yelling at everybody to get under the tables, that somebody had a gun, and I remember just being in shock,” Eubanks said. 

    Eubanks and his friends hid under the tables in the library, but when the two shooters began firing, Eubanks was struck in the knee and hand and his best friend was fatally wounded.

    “As a result of my injuries, I was pretty significantly medicated about 45 minutes after being shot,” Eubanks said. “I remember immediately being drawn to that feeling, because it took the emotion away.”

    Despite continuing to struggle with opioid use through his 20s, Eubanks eventually settled into long-term recovery and chose to share his experiences to help others. 

    In the wake of more recent school shootings, Eubanks said that he recognizes some differences. 

    “One of the things that I think is so inspiring and so different about the aftermath of the Parkland tragedy is the activism that I’m seeing in the student body, and I think that that’s wonderful,” he said. “What I’m fearful of is that if they get so laser-focused on trying to impact societal change, they’re going to detach from their own healing, and that is a form of medicating.”

    Eubanks’ family plans to continue his work in his memory, according to CNN.

    “Helping to build a community of support is what meant the most to Austin, and we plan to continue his work,” his family said in their statement. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Is The Opioid Lobby Behind Attacks On The CDC Prescribing Guidelines?

    Is The Opioid Lobby Behind Attacks On The CDC Prescribing Guidelines?

    “Opioid manufacturers stand to lose substantial profits with the widespread adoption of the CDC guideline. Public health, however, benefits from the guideline, and attacks on it bear industry’s fingerprints.”

    Since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines around prescribing opioids in 2016, there has been controversy over whether the recommendations are appropriate. One group believes that this skepticism is being fed by a coordinated effort by the pharmaceutical industry to undermine the guidelines.

    Writing for STAT News, Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, Judy Butler and Ben Goodwin point out the many ways that the pharmaceutical industry has influenced organizations that have spoken out against the CDC guidelines.

    The authors are all associated with PharmedOut, an initiative from Georgetown University Medical Center that aims to bring awareness to pharmaceutical marketing and promotes evidence-based prescribing.

    The authors point out that no one has disputed the crux of the CDC guidelines.

    “Criticism of the guideline follows a consistent pattern: no evidence provided to refute any statement in the guideline and no evidence provided for the critics’ claims,” they write.

    Yet, the constant criticism points to a coordinated effort.

    “The eerily similar attacks on the guideline, and the subsequent spinning of the CDC’s we-meant-what-we-said responses to critics as some kind of admission of error or inadequacy, raise the question of whether this is a coordinated attempt by opioid manufacturers to use third parties to undermine, discredit, and smear the guideline,” the authors wrote.

    Groups including the American Academy of Pain Management and even the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, which spoke out against the guidelines, received funding from industry groups, the authors note.

    In fact, a 2017 analysis found that “opposition to the guidelines was significantly more common among organizations with funding from opioid manufacturers than those without funding from the life sciences industry.” It also found that no groups disclosed their opioid-related funding when formally submitting comments on the CDC guidelines.

    The authors also pointed out that a 2019 letter against the recommendations drafted by Health Professionals for Patients in Pain and signed by 300 providers received extensive press coverage, while a similar letter in support of the guidelines drafted by PharmedOut received very little coverage.

    Even chronic pain patients can have their stories hijacked for the bottom line of opioid manufacturers, the authors said.

    “It is essential that we not abandon patients on long-term opioids—but it is also important that we not create more of them,” they wrote.

    Ultimately, the CDC guidelines will cut down on profits, and that has the industry fighting against the guidelines, the authors wrote.

    “Opioid manufacturers stand to lose substantial profits with the widespread adoption of the CDC guideline,” they said. “Public health, however, benefits from the guideline, and attacks on it bear industry’s fingerprints.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Massachusetts Construction Companies Stop Work To Protest Fatal Overdoses

    Massachusetts Construction Companies Stop Work To Protest Fatal Overdoses

    Between 2011 and 2015, construction workers accounted for around 25% of all fatal overdoses among workers in Massachusetts. 

    Construction companies and labor unions across Massachusetts held work stoppages on June 5th to protest rising numbers of fatal opioid overdoses among their members.

    A recent state Department of Public Health report found that construction workers make up nearly a quarter of all opioid-related deaths in the Bay State, and are six times more likely to incur a fatal overdose than other employees. That information spurred labor and trade groups to draw attention to the problem through the work stoppage, and to highlight efforts within their own industry to assist their workers through support programs and extended health care coverage.

    As Boston’s NPR news station reported, tackling the situation is not only a health imperative for Massachusetts, but also a financial necessity: their coverage cited statistics from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation that showed that the state lost more than $15 billion in productivity, health care costs and other expenses due to the opioid epidemic in 2017 alone.

    To that end, trade groups like the Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts are prioritizing safety and health measures for its members. Their opioid safety program, developed in conjunction with Boston Medical Center’s Grayken Center for Addiction, helps employers recognize the signs of drug dependency among workers, provides information on the proper way to respond to an overdose and links them to outside resources for dependency treatment.

    Other organizations are following suit: the New England Carpenters Benefits Funds began covering up to 90 days of substance abuse treatment in a residential facility for union members, and the Massachusetts Laborers Benefit Funds is connecting workers with treatment and other dependency services.

    According to representatives from both groups, 25 workers have been placed in treatment through the Carpenters Benefits Fund, while the Laborers Benefit Fund has assisted more than 130 members and their families.

    Robert Petrucelli, CEO of the Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts, spoke about the need for such programs at one of 50 work sites across the state that participated in the stoppage on June 5th. After reviewing the Department of Public Health report, he said, “It was clear we had to do something. No one talks about this, but it permeates our industry.”

    As WBUR‘s coverage noted, the problem of addiction in the construction business is not unique to Massachusetts. It cited a feature by the Cleveland Plain Dealer from 2017 that found that construction workers in Ohio were seven times more likely to die of an opioid overdose between 2010 and 2016 than workers in any other line of work. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Expert: Johnson & Johnson Played Bigger Role In Opioid Crisis Than Purdue Pharma

    Expert: Johnson & Johnson Played Bigger Role In Opioid Crisis Than Purdue Pharma

    Johnson & Johnson is less well-known as an opioid manufacturer, but the company makes Duragesic, a fentanyl patch, and produced Nucynta, an opioid, until 2015.

    The company may be best-known for its sweet-smelling baby washes and lotion, but Johnson & Johnson has a sinister side, according to an expert witness who said that the company may have played an even bigger role in the opioid epidemic than Purdue Pharma. 

    Johnson & Johnson “did everything it possibly could to get doctors to prescribe more and more opioids,” said Dr. Andrew Kolodny, co-director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management, according to Bloomberg. 

    “In some ways,” the company was “worse” than Purdue, Kolodny said, according to CNN. 

    Kolodny was speaking as an expert witness for the state of Oklahoma, which is suing Johnson & Johnson for contributing to the opioid epidemic. The state previously reached settlements with Purdue Pharma for $270 million and with Teva Pharmaceuticals for $85 million, although neither company admitted to wrongdoing. 

    Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, has become well-known for its deceptive marketing practices and lavish rewards to doctors who prescribed lots of opioid pills. The Sackler family, members of whom own the company, have been vilified for what many see as their active management of misinformation. 

    Johnson & Johnson is less well-known as an opioid manufacturer, but the company makes Duragesic, a fentanyl patch, and produced the opioid pill Nucynta until 2015, when it sold the product for $1 billion. Johnson & Johnson had products that were natural, semi-synthetic and synthetic opioids, meaning it was active in many spaces around opioid marketing. 

    “Until I had an opportunity to review discovery documents I really was not aware of how bad Johnson & Johnson was,” Kolodny said. 

    When he had tried to visit Tasmanian Alkaloids, a former subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Kolodny said it was “clear” that the company did not want him around. Kolodny also said that despite the fact that he has played a prevalent role in crafting opioid policy in response to the epidemic, no one from Johnson & Johnson ever reached out to him. 

    Despite the state’s assertion that Johnson & Johnson contributed to opioid abuse in Oklahoma, the company continues to deny responsibility. 

    “The testimony of the State’s witness, Dr. Kolodny, was filled with rampant speculation and conclusions not derived from facts,” the company’s attorney John Sparks said in a statement. “The evidence remains that Johnson & Johnson and its former subsidiaries appropriately and responsibly met all laws and regulations on the manufacturing, sale and distribution of active pharmaceutical ingredients and pharmaceutical products and did everything you’d expect a responsible company to do.”

    However, Kolodny maintained that the public needs to know about the role that Johnson & Johnson and other manufacturers played in the opioid crisis. 

    “All of that helped change the attitudes in this country about smoking,” he said. “I believe we can see the same benefit [from] opioid litigation.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Medical Schools Rethink Training Amid Opioid Epidemic

    Medical Schools Rethink Training Amid Opioid Epidemic

    Some medical schools around the country have begun to change the conversation around pain management.

    Medical schools are rethinking how they train doctors in pain management and addiction treatment, in hopes of graduating a generation of medical professionals that are better able to serve the needs of patients living amid the opioid epidemic. 

    In a recent role-play exercise at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, students talked to a patient about her back pain, and learned to ask an important question: “Have you ever taken any medications that weren’t prescribed to you?” 

    “To be perfectly honest I stopped buying the Percs because they were too expensive, and I started buying heroin, because it was cheaper. I’ve been doing the heroin for the past 5 months,” the woman playing the patient replied. 

    Dr. Paul George, associate dean of medical education at Brown, told WBUR that the exercise is a realistic representation of what pain doctors may face. “The point of that workshop is for the students to work together to show it really does take a team to care for folks who are using substances inappropriately,” he said. 

    Recently, Brown and the University of Massachusetts (UMass) were both recognized by the Association of American Medical Colleges for their proactive approaches to teaching medical students about pain management and addiction. 

    At UMass, Jill Terrien teaches graduate-level nursing students to talk to their patients about pain. Rather than treating pain as the fifth vital sign and aiming to mitigate it, Terrien encourages nurses to tell patients that they should expect some pain after undergoing major procedures like surgery. 

    “In our curriculum now, we’re more deliberate about [telling patients] ‘you’re going to have pain,’” she said. “That way patients don’t expect that a) they’re going to get opioids because that’s what they’ve always gotten, and b) that might not be the best treatment for them.”

    In addition to changing the conversation around pain management, UMass and Brown both provide all medical students the training they will need to prescribe buprenorphine, a medication commonly used for medication-assisted treatment.

    Currently, under 7% of doctors hold the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine, and the medical schools feel that needs to change. 

    “They can prescribe Oxycontin, they can prescribe morphine. It seems almost unfair they can’t prescribe a medication that is used to treat some of the consequences of prescribing opioids,” said Sarita Warrier, associate dean of medical education at Brown.

    Paul Wallace, who recently graduated from medical school at Brown, agreed. 

    He said, “It helps dispel the notion that treating opioid use disorder is purely the domain of addiction specialists or primary care doctors, when truly all different types of physicians are going to encounter patients with opioid use disorder, whether it’s an emergency physician seeing a patient after an overdose or an obstetrician working with a patient with opioid use disorder.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Pain Patients Express Hope Amid Revised Opioid Policies

    Pain Patients Express Hope Amid Revised Opioid Policies

    Some medical professionals are finally starting to understand that cutting pain patients off opioids abruptly causes more harm than good. 

    After years of having their access to opioids restricted, some chronic pain patients feel that they are finally being heard, as the medical community becomes more open to the idea that tapering opioids, especially after long-term use, needs to be done slowly and carefully. 

    In April, the FDA warned that cutting off patients’ opioids too quickly could be detrimental to their health. The organization went so far as to recognize that not being able to control pain could lead to suicide in chronic pain patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made a similar change in policy. 

    Andrew Kolodny, who co-directs Brandeis University’s Opioid Policy Research Collaborative at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management, recently told OZY that it is “exceptionally cruel to abruptly withdraw a patient from opioids.”

    Many pain patients feel that the medical community and regulatory commissions are just now beginning to talk about that openly.

    Lelena, a woman who was given opioids to deal with pain from fibromyalgia, was dismissed from her pain clinic after testing positive for heroin, a result that was later proved to be a false positive. Despite that, she was not able to access pain medications and had to go through opioid withdrawal, in addition to coping with her pain. 

    Laura Mills, who works with Human Rights Watch, said that experiences like Lelena’s are unnecessary and discriminatory. 

    “We always emphasize that the risk for harm [from suddenly stopping opioid medication] is huge, given that an approximate 13 million Americans are still on opioids long-term,” she said. 

    That’s why people like Kate Nicholson, a civil rights attorney who previously worked at the U.S. Department of Justice, turned their attention to helping people with legitimate medical needs access opioid medications. Although Nicholson said that the government’s new, more nuanced approach is needed, she also feels that there is a lot of work still to be done. 

    “It was hard in some ways to get the CDC to change,” she said. “And in some ways, it was the easiest first step.”

    Still, many people who have seen the negative impacts of opioids feel that it is only natural for prescribers to be extra cautious. Kolodny pointed out that Lelena, like many people on opioids, should never have been given the pills in the first place. 

    “There’s no debate,” he said. “You don’t give opioids for fibromyalgia. It’s the fault of this campaign that encourages people to prescribe opioids, a highly addictive drug you become easily dependent on.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Minnesota Makes Move To Get Drug Companies To Indirectly Pay For Addiction Treatment

    Minnesota Makes Move To Get Drug Companies To Indirectly Pay For Addiction Treatment

    The new plan is anticipated to help put about $20 million annually toward the prevention of substance use disorders, as well as treatment for them.

    Minnesota is increasing fees for drug companies in an effort to pay for the effects of the opioid epidemic in the state. 

    On May 29, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed into law a bill that will drive up fees for both prescription drug manufacturers and distributors, the Star Tribune reports.  

    The new plan is anticipated to help raise about $20 million annually toward the prevention of substance use disorders, as well as treatment for them.

    For drug manufacturers and distributors, the new plan isn’t a minor change. It will drive their annual licensing fees from about $200 annually to $305,000 annually. After five years, the Star Tribune reports, those fees will decrease to $5,000 if state funding hits the goal of $250 million. This could be through the increased fees for companies, or via a settlement from existing lawsuits against such organizations. 

    “The opioid epidemic is devastating communities across Minnesota—claiming lives and leaving heartbroken families in its wake,” Walz said in a statement. “This law will help more families access the treatment they need and prevent addiction in the first place.”

    The Star Tribune reports that an advisory council made up of 19 members will monitor the funding and be responsible for issuing grants for programs that aim to combat the opioid crisis and prevent additional deaths as a result. The funding will also be allocated to various law enforcement areas, programs that work to provide nonnarcotic pain treatment and county services for children who have been affected by the opioid epidemic. 

    “This is unusual,” said Carmen Catizone, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, according to Kaiser Health News. “We keep seeing the states trying to find new ways to finance the costs of the opioid crisis. But this is a new angle, although it follows a pattern of states and municipalities assessing costs for disposing of unwanted or unused medicines.”

    However, the new legislation wasn’t supported by everyone. There was some pushback from chronic pain patients, as well as pharmaceutical companies themselves. 

    “Unfortunately, what’s being proposed—taxing legitimately prescribed medicines that patients rely on for legitimate medical needs to raise revenue for the state—ignores evidence-based solutions, sets a dangerous precedent and ultimately won’t help patients and families,” Nick McGee, director of public affairs for the industry trade group PhRMA, said earlier this year.

    According to the Star Tribune, such opposition in past years kept similar ideas from being enacted. However, increasing awareness around the opioid epidemic and the role of manufacturers and distributors helped to sway the dynamic. 

    View the original article at thefix.com