Preview Newsletter
Opioid daily media report 9/18/17
-
Opioid Comission Letter to Donald Trump on Extending Final Report Deadline
Sep 13, 2017 | The White House
By Gov. Chris Christie
Dear Mr. President: As Chairman of your Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, I am extending the deadline to submit our final report recommendations to you from October 1, 2017 to November 1, 2017. -
Christie to Spend $200M on New Substance Abuse Initiatives
Sep 17, 2017 | Associated Press
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie plans to spend $200 million on new initiatives that he hopes will significantly improve the way the state approaches substance abuse treatment and prevention. -
Exclusive: Christie to announce $200M plan to fight heroin epidemic
Sep 17, 2017 | NJ.com
By Stephen Stirling
Gov. Chris Christie will announce this week $200 million in new initiatives to target the opioid crisis, primarily designed to overhaul addiction services, as he makes a final push on the issue he hopes will define his legacy -
Lackawanna County to lead path in suing pharmaceutical companies over opioid crisis
Sep 15, 2017 | Scranton Times Tribune (PA)
By Jeff Horvath
Flanked by law enforcement, county officials and victims of the opioid crisis plaguing the region, Commissioner Patrick O’Malley made a bold statement today: “It’s Lackawanna County versus the pharmaceutical companies.” -
Tacoma latest to file legal action over opioids (UPDATE)
Sep 16, 2017 | Associated Press
The city of Tacoma is suing three large manufacturers of prescription opioids seeking to hold them accountable for problems the city has faced related to opioid addiction. -
Rapides and Avoyelles sheriffs taking a stand against opioid crisis
Sep 17, 2017 | KALB
By Max Lindsey
The Rapides and Avoyelles Parish Sheriff's Offices are taking a stand against the opioid crisis by filing lawsuits against drug companies. -
Valerie B. Calistro: Pharmaceutical companies share blame for opioid deaths epidemic (OPINION)
Sep 15, 2017 | NewsTimes (CT)
By Valerie B. Calistro
The National Opioid Crisis will only get worse if we cannot stop the pharmaceutical companies who value profit over people. -
Lackawanna county plans lawsuit against pharmaceutical companie
Sep 18, 2017 | WBRE (PA)
By Eric Deabill
Lackawanna County is taking on the opioid epidemic in a new way. The county is going to court. -
County joins opioid fight
Sep 18, 2017 | The Leader Herald (NY)
By Mike Anich
The Fulton County Board of Supervisors on Monday took action on several matters related to the opioid crisis, assessment reductions, and the county’s correctional facility. -
Anne Arundel County moving ahead to file lawsuits in the opioid distribution chain
Sep 17, 2017 | Eye on Annapolis
By EOA Staff
Anne Arundel County Executive Steve Schuh, along with other county officials, announced the County has hired the law firm Motley Rice to pursue legal action against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and local “pill mill” doctors. Anne Arundel County is the first jurisdiction in Maryland to file such action. -
Pocket-lining Litigation Should be Avoided in Opioid Epidemic (OPINION)
Sep 15, 2017 | Legal Reader
By Sara E. Teller
Many of the top drug manufacturers have recently taken heat for the crippling opioid epidemic and as more and more litigation surfaces, the number of overdoses is gradually decreasing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported that prescriptions written for opioid painkillers dropped more than 13 percent between 2012 and 2015. However, this is not an issue that can be resolved overnight and many believe that the focus primarily on manufacturers is misdirected and the use of trial lawyers should be avoided. -
Are Opioids The New Tobacco? (OPINION)
Sep 15, 2017 | Law 360
By Richard Scruggs
Is the rising spate of opioid litigation comparable to the litigation that resulted in the mega-billion dollar settlement with Big Tobacco? The answer is, sort of. This article highlights the similarities and differences in these two public health initiatives. -
These mothers saw the opioid epidemic before anyone else. No one listened
Sep 18, 2017 | The Guardian
By Chris McGreal
Emily Walden was looking for answers even before the death of her son. Walden, from Louisville, Kentucky, first wanted to know what led TJ into the grasp of prescription opioid painkillers when he was still a teenager. But she soon latched on to another question -
Price says working toward declaring opioid crisis national emergency
Sep 15, 2017 | The Hill
By Rachel Roubein
Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said his staff is working with the White House to officially declare the opioid crisis a national emergency. -
HHS funnels $340 million to battle opioid crisis, but no national emergency declaration
Sep 15, 2017 | Modern Healthcare
By Steven Ross Johnson
This week HHS has provided a total of more than $340 million for programs aimed at providing greater access to addiction treatment. And while that's generous, many are wondering when the Trump administration plans to call the epidemic a national emergency. -
Health Secretary Tom Price: You Can’t Punish People Out Of A Disease
Sep 18, 2017 | CBS Philly
By Roch Zeoli
Regarding the ongoing battle against opioid addiction in this country, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, says its been decades where individuals have felt that anybody that was addicted was simply breaking the law, as opposed to suffering from a chronic disease. Price spoke with Rich Zeoli on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT saying that addiction is a disease, and the vast majority of individuals who are addicted don’t have a choice in the matter. They are suffering from a disease and need treatment. -
Amid Opioid Crisis, Insurers Restrict Pricey, Less Addictive Painkillers
Sep 18, 2017 | The New York Times
By Katie Thomas and Charles Ornstein
At a time when the United States is in the grip of an opioid epidemic, many insurers are limiting access to pain medications that carry a lower risk of addiction or dependence, even as they provide comparatively easy access to generic opioid medications. -
KIRO 7 News at 4:30am
Sep 18, 2017 | KIRO (CBS)
By Seattle. WA
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/29426074?token=2d1903d0-fa3f-4e01-8949-75309776398f -
WOLF 56 News First at 10pm
Sep 15, 2017 | WOLF (FOX)
By Wilkes-Barre, PA
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/29426115?token=2d1903d0-fa3f-4e01-8949-75309776398f -
WLS 7 Eyewitness News at 9am
Sep 16, 2017 | WLS (ABC)
By Chicago, IL
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/29426142?token=2d1903d0-fa3f-4e01-8949-75309776398f -
WYOU Eyewitness News at 11pm
Sep 18, 2017 | WYOU (CBS)
By Wilkes-Barre, PA
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/29426154?token=2d1903d0-fa3f-4e01-8949-75309776398f -
WBRE Eyewitness News at 5:30pm
Sep 18, 2017 | WBRE (NBC)
By Wilkes-Barre, PA
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/29426160?token=2d1903d0-fa3f-4e01-8949-75309776398f
Traditional Media Coverage
Broadcast Media Coverage
-
Opioid Comission Letter to Donald Trump on Extending Final Report Deadline
Sep 13, 2017 | The White House
By Gov. Chris Christie
Dear Mr. President: As Chairman of your Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, I am extending the deadline to submit our final report recommendations to you from October 1, 2017 to November 1, 2017.
When you appointed me as Chairman, you stressed the importance of providing thorough recommendations to help turn this public health crisis around. In the interest of submitting these sound recommendations, our research and policy development are still in progress. Accordingly, and pursuant to the Executive Order establishing the Commission, we are seeking an additional four weeks to finalize our work.
My fellow commissioners and I will be holding events in the coming weeks to do just this. We will be meeting with Secretary Shulkin of the Department of Veterans Affairs to visit a medical center in Ohio with innovative pain management strategies. We also will be hosting the pharmaceutical industry in New Jersey to talk about partnership opportunities with the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. On September 27, we will hold our third meeting of the full Commission at the White House. This meeting will focus on innovative pain management and prevention measures for diversion. Additional outreach opportunities to better inform our final recommendations continue to be identified and scheduled.
Thank you again for your confidence and support. I look forward to presenting our final recommendations to you in the coming weeks.
-
Christie to Spend $200M on New Substance Abuse Initiatives
Sep 17, 2017 | Associated Press
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie plans to spend $200 million on new initiatives that he hopes will significantly improve the way the state approaches substance abuse treatment and prevention.
Christie told NJ.com (http://bit.ly/2fsu6uM) the money will target programs for underserved populations — the uninsured, Medicaid recipients, babies born with addiction and their mothers. He said the money will come from the budgets of eight state departments.
The Republican governor said the initiatives will put more emphasis on making sure care is geared toward sustained sobriety. That will be done by standardizing data collection and building seamless channels for holistic care for addicts through incentive-based programs that reward providers who focus on the long-term.
Christie said he plans to announce the programs in a series of events in the next few days. The term-limited governor has told his staff to look for any more loose ends that could be tied up before he leaves office in January.
"I said I don't want you to worry about money, and I want you to come back to me with a wish list," Christie said, referring to his cabinet and senior policy. "It's probably about $200 million worth of spending, but it's stuff that needs to be done."
Christie has made battling opioid abuse a centerpiece of his second term in office. He was named by President Donald Trump to chair a commission tasked with combating drug addiction and the opioid crisis.
-
Exclusive: Christie to announce $200M plan to fight heroin epidemic
Sep 17, 2017 | NJ.com
By Stephen Stirling
Gov. Chris Christie will announce this week $200 million in new initiatives to target the opioid crisis, primarily designed to overhaul addiction services, as he makes a final push on the issue he hopes will define his legacy
In a 90-minute interview with NJ Advance Media on Friday, Christie said the funding will be targeted toward underserved populations -- the uninsured, individuals on Medicaid, babies born with addiction and their mothers. The money will come out of the budgets of eight state departments, he said.
The governor said he hopes the initiative will significantly improve the way New Jersey approaches substance abuse treatment and prevention by putting more emphasis on making sure care is geared toward sustained sobriety. That will be done by standardizing data collection and building seamless channels for holistic care for addicts through incentive-based programs that reward providers who focus on the long-term.
"It's changing the way we do this stuff to evidence-based treatment," Christie said. "You say your methods are great, every treatment center out there says they've got the right way to handle it. Well, prove it."
Christie said he plans to announce the programs in a series of events in the coming week. The initiative is likely the capstone in what has been an aggressive push by the governor to address the opioid crisis in New Jersey, which NJ Advance Media estimates killed more than 2,000 people in 2016 alone.
Christie has directed hundreds of millions of dollars toward prevention, treatment and recovery initiatives during his second term, and said he instructed his staff to look for loose ends that could be tied up before he leaves office in January.
"I said I don't want you to worry about money, and I want you to come back to me with a wish list," Christie said, referring to his cabinet and senior policy. "It's probably about $200 million worth of spending, but it's stuff that needs to be done."
Among the more than two-dozen plans included in the new initiative:
About $40 million will go toward establishing an incentive-based treatment program for those without insurance or on Medicaid. The Division of Mental Health and Addiction Services will use $36 million to provide housing and support for adults with substance abuse disorders. Nearly $35 million will go toward several programs supporting opioid-addicted mothers, their babies and broader families. The recovery coach program, which pairs recovering addicts with recent overdosesurvivors, will be expanded to every county in New Jersey for $21 million.
Christie said he would like his work in New Jersey to become a national model. He chairs the opioid commission empaneled by President Donald Trump and expects its final report to be issued in the coming months.
Many of the proposals in the panel's interim report, issued in late July, mirror his efforts in New Jersey. Christie said he expects Trump to support and enact much of what's put forth by his panel, but acknowledged others, like Attorney General Jeff Sessions, disagree with his approach to substance abuse.
"He's got a number of different voices in his ear, I'm just going to make sure mine's the loudest. I'm usually pretty good at that," he said.
He said Trump's staff is doing the necessary work to declare the opioid crisis a national emergency, which would open a direct door to federal assistance on the opioid crisis. Trump has come under criticism for not formally signing the declaration despite voicing his support for doing so.
Christie said he spoke to Trump as recently as Wednesday on the issue, and planned to again this weekend while the president is in New Jersey.
"I think the president is where we need him to be and is going to be strong on this, but it's taking a little time," he said.
Perhaps most notably, Christie said he hopes to soon get New Jersey a waiver from the Medicaid provision barring the federal health program from covering inpatient treatment at most facilities.
"Once we get the waiver, I'll be very public about it. And I think there will be lots of other governors who, if they haven't applied for the waiver already, will," he said. "That will open up, literally, tens of thousands of beds across the country."
Elimination of the provision, known as the Institutes for Mental Disease Exclusion, which bars treatment facilities with more than 17 beds from receiving federal support, would undoubtedly be a costly move at a time when Trump and Republicans are trying to decrease healthcare spending.
But Christie said it's a cost worth bearing.
"The deaths in 2016 (nationally) are going to be about 64,000," Christie said. "Every three weeks we have a 9/11 due to drug overdoses in this country. Are you really willing to put up with that level of death, to have 17 9/11s a year? I'm not."
-
Lackawanna County to lead path in suing pharmaceutical companies over opioid crisis
Sep 15, 2017 | Scranton Times Tribune (PA)
By Jeff Horvath
Flanked by law enforcement, county officials and victims of the opioid crisis plaguing the region, Commissioner Patrick O’Malley made a bold statement today: “It’s Lackawanna County versus the pharmaceutical companies.”
O’Malley made the remarks at a press conference announcing the county’s intent to sue 14 pharmaceutical companies for what it sees as their role in fueling the opioid crisis that claimed the lives of 231 county residents between 2014 and August of 2017. The move would make Lackawanna County the first county in the state to file such a suit, O’Malley said.
New York-based law firm Marc J. Bern & Partners LLP will represent the county in the impending legal battle at no cost, but will receive 25 percent of whatever money the suit nets. Local attorney Todd O’Malley will serve as co-counsel.
Pharmaceutical companies the county plans to sue include: Purdue Pharma L.P.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Orho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Allergan PLC; Actavis, Inc.; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Endo Health Solutions, Inc.; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health, Inc.; and AmerisourceBergen Corporation.
Attorney Joseph Cappelli, a senior partner with the law firm representing the county, said they intent to file the suit at the Lackawanna County Courthouse in the coming weeks. A forensic audit will be conducted to determine the amount the county will seek in damages, but it will likely be multiple millions of dollars, Cappelli said.
As for the basis of the suit, county officials contend the pharmaceutical companies that produce opioid painkillers misrepresented the addictive nature of the drugs when marketing them in the 1990s.
“They lied about how addictive the medication actually was,” Commissioner Laureen Cummings said, arguing that disingenuous Big Pharma marketing campaigns pushed the false idea that patients weren’t being treated well enough in terms of pain management.
The suit will also allege the pharmaceutical companies misrepresented the affects of the drugs to the doctors and medical professionals that prescribed them.
“The problem is that the ones that are giving the doctors and nurses the information about the drug is the drug manufacturers,” Cappelli said. “We believe that the testimony that we’ll be able to elicit in this case will show that ... that information was at best slanted, and at worst it was very misleading.”
-
Tacoma latest to file legal action over opioids (UPDATE)
Sep 16, 2017 | Associated Press
The city of Tacoma is suing three large manufacturers of prescription opioids seeking to hold them accountable for problems the city has faced related to opioid addiction.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court alleges that Purdue Pharma, Endo Health Solutions and Janssen Pharmaceuticals made false and misleading statements about the benefits and risks of opioids to doctors and patients over the past two decades.
The city of about 210,000 people alleges that the drug manufacturers falsely claimed that the risk of opioid addiction was low and deceptively marketed abuse-deterrent properties of their painkillers, among other things.
Tacoma has suffered significant economic damage, in public safety, health care, and other costs as well as a human toll, the lawsuit alleges.
City Manager Elizabeth Pauli said Tacoma wants to hold the opioid manufacturers liable for the harm to the community and financial burden to taxpayers.
The city said in the lawsuit that it has spent a lot of money providing human services to the community “as a result of the epidemic Defendants have created.”
Tacoma’s homeless population has increased over the past decade and that the jump “is undoubtedly caused in part by the opioid epidemic,” the lawsuit said
The city estimates that at least half of the city’s homeless population is addicted to opioids.
“Prescription opioids have not only helped to fuel the homeless crisis, but have made it immeasurably more difficult for the City to address,” the lawsuit said.
In a statement, Purdue Pharma, which makes the prescription painkiller OxyContin, vigorously denied the allegations. It said it shared public officials’ concerns about the opioid crisis and was committed to working together to find solutions.
Endo, which makes the painkiller Percocet, declined to comment on litigation but said its top priorities include patient safety. It said it shares in the FDA’s goals of “appropriately supporting the needs of patients with chronic pain while preventing misuse and diversion of opioid products.”
A message left with Janssen, which makes Duragesic, was not immediately returned Wednesday.
Tacoma joins other cities and states in suing drug manufacturers for their alleged role in the nation’s opioid epidemic.
In January, Everett sued Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, seeking to hold it accountable for social and economic damages to the community due to illegal trafficking of the powerful painkillers.
The company has asked a federal judge in Seattle to throw out the lawsuit. A federal judge in Seattle is expected to hear arguments Monday.
Tacoma’s lawsuit asks for an unspecific amount in damages.
-
Rapides and Avoyelles sheriffs taking a stand against opioid crisis
Sep 17, 2017 | KALB
By Max Lindsey
The Rapides and Avoyelles Parish Sheriff's Offices are taking a stand against the opioid crisis by filing lawsuits against drug companies.
News Channel 5 learned on Sunday that Sheriff William Earl Hilton and Sheriff Doug Anderson will hold a joint press conference Monday afternoon to announce the filing of lawsuits by both sheriff's offices.
The suits will be against a number of pharmaceutical companies and physicians for “their role in the opioid drug and addiction crisis that has devastated their communities and the country.”
The defendants in the lawsuit are: Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Dr. Randall Brewer; Dr. Perry Fine; Dr. Scott Fishman and Dr. Lynn Webster.
Both sheriffs will be represented by attorneys from Laborde Earles.We'll be following this story as it develops on Monday. Make sure to stay with us for the latest.
-
Valerie B. Calistro: Pharmaceutical companies share blame for opioid deaths epidemic (OPINION)
Sep 15, 2017 | NewsTimes (CT)
By Valerie B. Calistro
The National Opioid Crisis will only get worse if we cannot stop the pharmaceutical companies who value profit over people.
It’s estimated that more than 55,000 Americans die each year from a drug overdose, which has become the leading cause of death of individuals under the age of 50. Sixty percent of these deaths are caused by opioids. The rise in fatalities over the past 15 years has been staggering — a greater than three-times increase.
In addition to the devastating toll this epidemic is taking on the addicts, family and friends, the monetary cost to governmental agencies is in the tens of billions of dollars each year for increased costs in public health care, treatment facilities, law enforcement, criminal justice and jail expenses.
It is time the cities in Connecticut seek to recover the immense damages they have sustained as a result of the drug companies’ creation of the current opioid epidemic through their callous and fraudulent actions of misrepresentation about the effects of these drugs.
Opioid painkillers are powerful narcotics derived from opium, meant for the short-term treatment of severe pain. For years, thousands of individuals have been prescribed opioid painkillers for chronic pain, and have become addicted or dependent on these drugs. It is well-known that long term use of opioids leads to addiction, and millions of people have had their lives ruined — or lost — from addiction and overdose.
The most commonly prescribed opioids include hydrocodone (such as Vicodin, Lorcet & Lortab), Oxycodone (such as OxyContin, Percodan & Roxicet), methadone, fentanyl and morphine.
Since 1999, the number of prescription opioids sold in America has almost quadrupled. Over the same period, prescription opioid deaths have more than quadrupled. In their marketing, opioid manufacturers misleadingly downplayed the fact that patients may become addicted when they take these drugs long-term. A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shows patients may become addicted after taking OxyContin for just 10 days.
Addiction is an incurable, progressive and potentially fatal brain disease if left untreated. Pharmaceutical companies knew many people would become addicted to powerful narcotic painkillers, but instead hid the risks to protect their profits. As a result, opioid addicts often face a lifelong struggle as they try to kick their habit, a struggle that can have not only psychological repercussions, but also severe economic loss. Addiction costs include not only the expense of rehabilitation and therapies, but also potentially lost wages and more.
The lawsuits against the country’s largest opioid distributors such as Purdue Pharma, McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen, Janssen Pharmaceuticals (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Endo International, Teva Pharmaceutical, Allergan (formerly Actavis), Watson Pharmaceuticals, and Covidien, have the potential to be one of the largest cases ever litigated against the pharmaceutical industry.
The claims against the manufacturers are based on allegations that the companies exaggerated the benefits of the medication and knew the drugs were being overly prescribed, yet failed to warn doctors of the extremely addictive nature of the narcotics and the need to strictly limit the dose.
Approximately 2 million Americans are currently addicted to opioids, with more than 90 million Americans having used a prescription painkiller in the past year. The modern-day addict is not your stereotypical homeless person living on the streets. Instead, they are individuals of all ages, race, ethnicity, education and socioeconomic status in every city throughout the country.
This is not going stop until the pharmaceutical companies are stopped and pay for the harm they have caused.
Valerie B. Calistro is the Managing Partner of Ventura Law, a national law firm based in Danbury, representing individuals and governments against pharmaceutical companies.
-
Lackawanna county plans lawsuit against pharmaceutical companie
Sep 18, 2017 | WBRE (PA)
By Eric Deabill
Lackawanna County is taking on the opioid epidemic in a new way. The county is going to court.
Commissioners announced plans Friday to file a civil lawsuit against several pharmaceutical companies they believe are responsible for the crisis.
Within the last year, more than two dozen other cities, counties and even states across the country have filed lawsuits against pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors.
Lackawanna County believes it will become one of the first areas in Pennsylvania to file such a lawsuit. Another community outside of Philadelphia has already announced similar lawsuit plans.
"I've been working at this so long and I can't believe that I'm actually standing here telling all of you that we're going to actually go out and do something!" Lackawanna County commissioner Laureen Cummings said.
Cummings, who is also a nurse, was emotional Friday as Lackawanna County formally announced plans to file a civil lawsuit against 14 pharmaceutical companies due to the opioid crisis.
The county will get help from the New York-based law firm of Marc J. Bern & Partners.
"We intend to show that these pharmaceutical companies knew from the very beginning when they started to market these opioid drugs that they were addictive!" attorney Joseph Cappelli with Marc J. Bern & Partners LLP said.
Marty Henehan lost his daughter to an overdose in April 2016.
He's glad Lackawanna County is shining a light on the issue.
"To sit back idly and pretend that it's just not happening if it hasn't directly affected you, it doesn't really make any sense to me!" Marty Henehan said.
Outside the courthouse, 231 grave markers were set-up on Friday.
They represent the Lackawanna County residents who died from overdoses in the last three years.
While many of the pharmaceutical companies believe they can't be held responsible for what happens when pills go down the supply chain, this group disagrees.
"The information that the doctors receive about the drug that they are prescribing is given to them by the pharmaceutical company so the pharmaceutical company is the one who is educating the doctor!" Cappelli said.
Commissioners say the lawsuit will not cost the county any out-of-pocket expenses but if it is successful the law firm will take a 25-percent fee on money obtained.
District Attorney Shane Scanlon says given other lawsuits nationwide there could be strength in numbers.
"The more pressure that is applied really can force the drug companies to change their ways and hopefully save a few of our lives," Scanlon said.
Lackawanna County expects to file its civil lawsuit in the next few weeks.
Some speculate all the lawsuits nationwide could rival what happened with the big tobacco industry in the 1990's which led to a $200 billion settlement.
Lackawanna County is planning a forensic audit from the last decade or more to determine a dollar amount of the opioid crisis.
They believe it could be in the tens-of-millions of dollars.
-
Sep 18, 2017 | The Leader Herald (NY)
By Mike Anich
The Fulton County Board of Supervisors on Monday took action on several matters related to the opioid crisis, assessment reductions, and the county’s correctional facility.
Supervisors authorized a county contract with Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC of Alton, Ill. for legal services to join a class action suit against pharmaceutical companies to recover costs incurred from the opioid crisis. The Illinois firm is handling cases on behalf of municipalities, and is working with the Albany law firm of Dreyer Boyajian.
“There is a growing and serious concern with the opioid crisis across the nation,” Monday’s resolution states. “There is indication that pharmaceutical companies may have benefited financially from the opioid crisis by misleading doctors, patients and the medical community.”
The retainer agreement between the county and Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC says any payments to the firm will be based on a contingency fee not exceeding 25 percent of the county’s net share of any recovery. There will be zero cost to Fulton County if there is no settlement or award.
Gloversville 5th Ward Supervisor Greg Young said 77 percent or heroin users start with prescriptions.
“Our taxpayers have to bear the cost of the opioid crisis,” Young said. “It’s time we joined all the states and counties that are holding these companies accountable.”
Gloversville 1st Ward Supervisor Marie Born said most local doctors are aware of the danger of the opioid crisis.
In another legal matter, the board authorized county participation in the legal defense of two assessment reductions in the county.
Fiber Conversion Inc. in the town of Broadalbin has taken legal action to reduce assessments for five parcels from $1.94 million to $654,498.
Walmart is requesting reduction of assessments on three parcels in the cities of Johnstown and Gloversville from $57.5 million to $26.4 million.
Young called Walmart’s litigation to reduce its assessments by over $31 million “outrageous.”
“I think it’s really disgraceful,” he added.
The board also authorized a $5,000 settlement payment in the legal matter of Matthew O’Brien vs. Fulton County. The county received the proposal from its insurance carrier, the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal, to settle a lawsuit related to a 2011 incident at the Fulton County Jail. The settlement is with Horigan, Horigan & Lombardo P.C. on behalf of its client, O’Brien.
Details of the case were unavailable this week.
-
Anne Arundel County moving ahead to file lawsuits in the opioid distribution chain
Sep 17, 2017 | Eye on Annapolis
By EOA Staff
Anne Arundel County Executive Steve Schuh, along with other county officials, announced the County has hired the law firm Motley Rice to pursue legal action against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and local “pill mill” doctors. Anne Arundel County is the first jurisdiction in Maryland to file such action.
“We need to send a message in one strong, united voice that misleading and deceptive marketing practices and unethical prescribing practices are unacceptable in this County and this Country,” said Schuh. “Those who have had a hand in this epidemic must be held accountable.”
The Motley Rice law firm and its 90 attorneys have led and secured landmark outcomes and monumental settlements in some of the most significant health, environmental and consumer fraud litigation in state and federal courts throughout the last 30 years. The firm is working on a contingency fee basis and there are no immediate costs to tax payers. Motley Rice will only get paid if the suit recovers funds.
Over the coming months, the firm will gather data to help identify possible plaintiffs in the pharmaceutical and medical fields. Possible legal claims against the parties include:False Claims Act claimsMaryland Consumer Protection Act claimsNuisance law claimsOther claims such as unjust enrichment, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty
Despite record investments in education, prevention, and public safety, the opioid crisis in Anne Arundel has steadily gotten worse in recent years. Within the first quarter of 2016, drug and alcohol overdose deaths increased more in the county than any other Maryland jurisdiction. The County’s opioid prescription rate remains above the national average and nearly three times higher than in 1999. There were as many opioid-related overdose deaths suffered in the county within the first three months of 2017 as the entire year of 2016
-
Pocket-lining Litigation Should be Avoided in Opioid Epidemic (OPINION)
Sep 15, 2017 | Legal Reader
By Sara E. Teller
Many of the top drug manufacturers have recently taken heat for the crippling opioid epidemic and as more and more litigation surfaces, the number of overdoses is gradually decreasing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported that prescriptions written for opioid painkillers dropped more than 13 percent between 2012 and 2015. However, this is not an issue that can be resolved overnight and many believe that the focus primarily on manufacturers is misdirected and the use of trial lawyers should be avoided.
The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), based in Washington, D.C., is the only national organization dedicated exclusively to tort and liability reform through public education and the enactment of legislation. Its members include more than 300 nonprofit organizations and companies, as well as trade, business and professional associations from the state and national level. Founded in 1986, ATRA strives toward promoting transparency and accountability.
ATRA is actively seeking reform to the blame-game in the opioid epidemic, claiming trial attorneys for plaintiffs generally make one-third of any compensation won plus expenses. This means it’s highly lucrative to represent companies in such matters, a fact which was well researched by plaintiff lawyers before deciding to push for involvement. The attorneys have an incentive to maximize their pay out regardless of whether they are litigating for the public’s best interest. Therefore, the use of these attorneys should be avoided.
“The hiring of outside counsel by state attorneys general may be appropriate in some instances. But there have been many well-documented abuses of these arrangements,” explained ATRA president Tiger Joyce. “So it is most important that litigation initiated by state or local governments truly serves the public interest, and does not ultimately serve the self-interest of the plaintiffs’ bar. Drawing a bright line between these obviously conflicting interests has been an ATRA policy priority for more than a decade, animating our drive to enact common sense statutes – in 18 states thus far – that promote accountability and transparency when public authorities feel compelled to hire outside counsel to run major lawsuits.”
ATRA has been actively involved in Astroturfing – creating fake grassroots campaigns – geared toward tort reform, leading to the creation of regional groups including Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) and Sick of Lawsuits. The organization also worked to develop reforms such as placing limits on contingency fees. Government officials who rely on private contingency fee attorneys to represent public interest, such is the case with the opioid crisis, also put their own reputations on the line, according to ATRA leaders. Such practices should be avoided.
“After all, public health and safety must be the ultimate goals. Elected legislators and executives, and the expert regulators they appoint, must not leave such important policy making to trial lawyers, especially when there are such obvious conflicts between public and private interests”, Joyce said. “We must avoid ‘regulation through litigation,’ which has long been recognized as a corrosive.” In letting trial lawyers and their mission to line their pockets take over the crisis, important policy changes will not be enacted. The focus needs to be redirected to the proper sources in order for the issue to be successfully resolved.
-
Are Opioids The New Tobacco? (OPINION)
Sep 15, 2017 | Law 360
By Richard Scruggs
Is the rising spate of opioid litigation comparable to the litigation that resulted in the mega-billion dollar settlement with Big Tobacco? The answer is, sort of. This article highlights the similarities and differences in these two public health initiatives.
As a refresher, the tobacco litigation was a legal action by state attorneys general, public health advocates and outside counsel to recover smoking-related health costs and to reform the marketing practices of the tobacco industry. The principal defendants were the five tobacco companies which accounted for nearly all of the cigarette sales in the United States.
Mississippi filed the first suit in May 1994, followed by Minnesota, West Virginia and Florida. Early successes in those suits prompted more than 40 states and territories to join the fight over the following two years. In early 1996, Liggett Group (L&M) settled, dispelling the myth of Big Tobacco's solidarity and invincibility and prompting a dozen more states to join the litigation. In June 1997, a global settlement was reached with the remaining companies, an agreement that required them to pay $368.5 billion to the states and federal government. It also severely curtailed the marketing of tobacco products, especially advertising appealing to minors.
The global settlement fell apart a year later when Congress failed to pass enabling legislation. The settlement was restructured several months later, however, so as to eliminate federal involvement. In the resulting Master Settlement Agreement, the amount was reduced to approximately $206 billion for 46 states, with another approximately $40 billion for four states that had separately settled in the interim.
The states' respective legal theories varied, but nearly all contained counts for consumer fraud, public nuisance, restitution and unjust enrichment. Some states, like Florida, asserted civil RICO claims. In general, however, the operative theories were equitable claims or consumer protection claims that only an attorney general had standing to bring.
Most states made strategic choices to bring their suits in state courts and assert only claims based in state law. There was a feeling among the states' counsel that federal courts (after 12 years of business-friendly judicial appointments under Presidents Reagan and Bush) would not be receptive to litigation that threatened a large industry. Since states themselves are not considered "citizens" for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the tobacco companies could not remove the cases to federal court.
Although the scientific case had largely been made that cigarettes caused lung cancer, heart disease and high levels of general morbidity, quantifying the medical dollar cost of smoking was a daunting challenge. Luckily for the states, researchers at the University of California had independently developed reliable statistical methods to determine the "tobacco-attributable fraction" of overall health care costs. The industry furiously attacked the use of statistical models for assessing legal damages, but the credentials, scientific rigor and peer review of the work of the team at Cal generally withstood the industry's evidentiary challenges.
Of considerable help to the states (and vice versa) was the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 1995 initiative to classify cigarettes as drugs (nicotine delivery devices) and thereby assert jurisdiction over cigarette manufacturing. This effort was an existential threat to the tobacco industry because FDA jurisdiction would likely have meant the banning of cigarettes. While not formally connected to the states' suits, the FDA's action added to the public sense that Big Tobacco was in trouble.
The states' suits also got huge boosts from leaked internal documents and testimony from corporate insiders. The so-called "Brown and Williamson" documents were a treasure trove of smoking guns (pun unavoidable). One of these, penned by a former corporate general counsel, boasted that the tobacco industry "was in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug useful in the treatment of stress mechanisms."
As portrayed in the Academy Award-nominated movie "The Insider," Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, a former tobacco company vice president of research, provided documents and testimony that his company was lacing cigarettes with ammonia compounds and other dangerous chemicals to "boost the bioavailability" of nicotine. Dr. Wigand's revelations were the subject of two "60 Minutes" segments and a Pulitzer Prize-winning story for the reporters at The Wall Street Journal.
Of arguably greater significance were serendipitous factors without which the tobacco litigation would likely not have succeeded: Then-Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, at the time president of the National Association of Attorneys General, commanded the respect of the other state AGs, many of whom joined the litigation on the strength of Moore's recommendation.The "mainstream media" seemingly held a grudge toward Big Tobacco for past bullying and threats of ruinous lawsuits. The states' lawyers often got favorable press even when they fouled up. On the other hand, revelations and documents embarrassing to the industry usually got front page coverage.
In Mississippi and other states represented by the same private lawyers, great care was taken in the selection of co-counsel. Political affiliation and prestige were important factors in selecting a legal team. Big Tobacco had cultivated powerful law firms and politicians in every state, such that it was crucial to neutralize the industry's ability to undermine the litigation through vexing legislation and cronyism.
As it turned out, the personal relationships between AG Moore and the writer of this article with President Clinton, FDA Commissioner David Kessler, Presidential Adviser Dick Morris, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott proved to be key serendipitous factors in starting and nurturing the negotiations that led to the settlement.
The value of the litigation experience and financial resources of many of the outside firms retained by the states cannot be overstated. Most of these firms agreed to contingency-like contracts where they carried all expenses and charged no fees unless there was a recovery.
So, how does the opioid litigation compare?
First off, the opioid litigation is not yet sufficiently mature to make an unequivocal comparison with tobacco. This author, moreover, has no special insight into the strategy and planning of the opioid initiatives. Still, given the commonalities of outside counsel, legal theories, and political and attitudinal factors, it is possible to make some cautious comparisons with the tobacco litigation:
Like the tobacco suits, the principal parties plaintiff are governmental entities: Thus far, seven states, 13 counties, five cities, and at least one large Indian nation (the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma) have filed suit. There is also a parallel nongovernmental class action pending in Arkansas. The profusion of county and municipal plaintiffs (and a tribal nation) is different from tobacco, where only a few governmental subdivisions sued when their state attorneys general refused to join the litigation.
Whereas there were only five principal defendants in Big Tobacco who accounted for nearly all cigarette sales, there are at least 20 opioid manufacturers and 13 distributors sued to date. The plethora of defendants complicates strategy for both the plaintiffs and defendants. Big Tobacco was highly unified in its legal, political and public relations strategies, even after Liggett broke ranks and settled. It is unclear how unified the opioid defendants will become.
Similarly, it is unclear how unified the opioid plaintiffs are or might become. Whereas in tobacco, Mississippi Attorney General Moore, Arizona's Grant Woods and Florida's Bob Butterworth, along with their unified legal teams, were the putative center of gravity among the state attorneys general, it is unclear whether Moore and Woods, despite their past success and reputation, will have the same valence in the opioid litigation. At this stage, the litigation sounds more like musicians warming up than an orchestra playing a symphony.
Like the tobacco suits, the opioid plaintiffs assert claims sounding in state consumer protection statutes and equitable principles (rather than tort), the latter theories being predominantly claims for public nuisance, restitution and unjust enrichment.
These equitable, non-tort-based claims are the most threatening to the opioid defendants, in this author's judgment, because they do not hinge on fault, but rather on who should pay when the public is damaged by the conduct of a legal business. These non-fault-based equity claims enable the states to say "so what" to the industry's defensive claims that the FDA preemptively regulated opioids and that their addiction warning labels were ipso facto sufficient.
Unlike tobacco, many of the opioid plaintiffs are asserting claims for "diversion," charging that the defendants breached duties to secure the distribution chain from diversion of large quantities of opioid-containing prescription drugs to criminals. The diversion theory was not used in the tobacco litigation and seems to be unique to the opioid cases. The Cherokee Nation asserts only diversion claims against the opioid distributors — curiously leaving the manufacturers out of their litigation entirely.
The essence of the opioid claims is that the manufacturers and distributors of opiate-containing drugs fostered the explosion in the abuse of all types of addicting drugs — whether manufactured by a defendant or resorted to by addicted patients when their prescribed drugs became legally unavailable. Having allegedly caused the epidemic, the plaintiffs want the manufacturers and distributors to pay for the enormous governmental costs of treatment and law enforcement.
The defenses asserted by the opioid defendants prominently include federal "preemption" by dint of FDA approval of opioids and the labels/warnings accompanying their sale. This is similar to the argument made by the tobacco industry that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempted state-based claims that cigarette warnings were insufficient. In addition to preemption and the standard technical objections to the specificity of the states' factual pleadings, the opioid defendants challenge factual causation, i.e., that there's a causal connection between the defendants' opioids and the epidemic of drug abuse sweeping the nation. Causation will be an issue for the states unless they develop statistical or other methods of linking opioids with the epidemic of general drug abuse.
It is significant that the states have retained many of the key lawyers from the tobacco litigation. Former Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, who originated and led the tobacco litigation, now represents Mississippi and Ohio. Former Arizona Republican Attorney General Grant Woods is another leader from the tobacco wars. Law firms like Motley Rice LLC of South Carolina and Nix Patterson & Roach LLP of Texas were leaders in the tobacco litigation. These and other firms bring experience and deep pockets to the opioid cases. (Ironically, the Cherokee Nation is represented by William Ohlemeyer of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, who formerly defended Big Tobacco and was associate general counsel of Altria Group[formerly Phillip Morris]).
The opioid defendants likewise have retained tobacco and mass tort-experienced lawyers in addition to the usual blue-chip firms. Sheila Birnbaum of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, who is defending Purdue Pharma, is a particularly able and experienced mass tort litigator who also has a vision for resolutions.
Importantly, it is not yet clear how the states and governmental plaintiffs will calculate damages. Governmental entities undoubtedly bear heavy costs in law enforcement and medical treatment resulting from the opioid epidemic. It seems more than a stretch, however, to claim that all of the costs of law enforcement are related to illegal opioids, or that all government-borne health care costs are opioid-related. After all, there are other addicting drugs that might not follow from the use of opioids, such as methamphetamine, barbiturates and benzodiazepines.
This issue was addressed in tobacco (as discussed above) through the use of statistical models comparing the health costs of smokers with those of nonsmokers, controlling for other factors that drive health expenditures such as obesity, alcohol and risky lifestyles. Whether it is feasible with similar statistical methods to derive an opioid-attributable fraction of law enforcement and medical costs is not apparent. Perhaps the states will prove up damages in other ways?
A related uncertainty is whether all potentially liable opioid defendants have been joined in the suits. In tobacco, there were only five well-known companies who sold cigarettes. In contrast, there are at least 20 opioid manufacturers and a dozen distributors sued so far. While there are overlaps in opioid defendants among the different suits, the lack of uniformity creates the potential for "empty chair" defenses where the missing defendant gets blamed by the others for causing the problem. This seems to be a vulnerability in the Cherokee Nation's suit against only distributors.
It is likely that the mainstream media will be sympathetic to the states' litigation. Given the daily headlines of drug company price gouging and false advertising, of drug-related violence and overdoses resulting in the deaths of increasing numbers of young Americans, Big Pharma is not a very appealing defendant. Moreover, unlike Big Tobacco, the manufacturers and distributors of opioid-containing drugs have been heavily sanctioned by federal and state regulators. (Purdue Pharma has already paid more than $600 million and pleaded guilty to misbranding the opioid drug OxyContin by falsely touting it as less addictive than rival products.) These factors could create a de facto presumption of liability.
Long before the first state tobacco case was filed, the states' lawyers conducted extensive opinion research better to inform their legal claims and strategy. Public attitudes about tobacco, litigation in general, and many other relevant issues were polled and focus-grouped. The tobacco industry had for years conducted extensive attitudinal research about smoking and health. Presumably, the lawyers for both sides of the opioid litigation have similarly conducted opinion surveys and have shaped their strategies accordingly.
In conclusion, the success of the opioid cases will depend upon whether the plaintiffs can muster sufficient legal, political and public relations pressure to force a settlement. That will not likely happen without a perceptibly higher degree of coordination among the plaintiffs and their outside counsel. The plaintiffs should already be discussing and agreeing on what it is that they want the industry to do (other than pay lots of money). The industry is not likely (and would be foolish) to settle piecemeal on ad hoc terms.
In the meantime, the plaintiffs must develop a methodology for reliably estimating the dollar cost to the public of the opioid epidemic. This will be harder for the opioid plaintiffs than in tobacco, where there were only five defendants who sold all the cigarettes. Preferably, the plaintiffs should enlist the scientific community to develop a tobacco-similar statistical model that also controls for costs attributable to addicting non-opioid-containing drugs, such as methamphetamines, barbiturates and benzodiazepines.
The defendants, on the other hand, should also decide upon a unified legal, political and public relations strategy. In tobacco (save Liggett), the largest four defendants had developed very concerted and sophisticated responses on each of these fronts. The tobacco industry was not quick, however, in realizing that the essential claims were non-tort-based equity claims where warnings and risk assumption were legally insufficient. Fault was not important in a case for unjust enrichment — only who should pay as between the general public and the industry whose otherwise legal products caused the epidemic.
Bottom line, it's too early to pick winners and losers. -
These mothers saw the opioid epidemic before anyone else. No one listened
Sep 18, 2017 | The Guardian
By Chris McGreal
Emily Walden was looking for answers even before the death of her son. Walden, from Louisville, Kentucky, first wanted to know what led TJ into the grasp of prescription opioid painkillers when he was still a teenager. But she soon latched on to another question
How was it that a powerful narcotic pulled from sale in the 1970s as too dangerous – oxymorphone – was back in pharmacies and TJ’s pocket until it killed him at the age of 22?Obama’s former drug czar calls to ban high-grade opioids at center of epidemic
Read more
Walden waded through documents fat with technical language. She talked to doctors, regulators and politicians. The more she learned, the more outraged she became, and the more determined to call those responsible to account. “I’m very persistent,” she said. “Our federal government has been controlled by these pharmaceutical companies for years. They spend $80m a year on lobbying. So when parents like me go to Washington, they just nod their heads and move on.”
Walden was relentless. She banged on politicians’ doors. She wrote letters. In meetings, she told members of the Food and Drug Administration, responsible for licensing opioids, that it put pharmaceutical company profits before American lives.
Through it all, Walden was patronized by doctors and dismissed by opioid manufacturers as a hysterical mother too traumatized by the death of her son to see reason.
As it turned out, Walden was right. And she was not alone. She is part of a large band of parents bereaved by the opioid epidemic, which now claims close to 60,000 American lives a year. Some retreat into grief; others hide their tragedy behind a veil of shame over addiction.
Walden is among those who came out fighting.
*In the early years it was a struggle just to bring attention to what was evolving into the biggest health emergency since HIV/Aids as the medical profession’s caution about the prescribing of opioids fell away. Drug companies and some specialists pushed the notion that opioids were not addictive when used to treat pain based on the flimsiest of evidence, including a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine citing a small study that its authors say was misused. Out of that flowed a policy of treating pain as a “fifth vital sign” that corralled hospitals and doctors into mass prescribing opioids. Deaths from opioid overdoses quadrupled between 1999 and 2015; ninety-one Americans die from opioid overdoses every day.
“For me, that was a horrendous crime that nobody wanted to listen,” said Sherrie Rubin, whose son Aaron overdosed in 2005 on OxyContin, a high dose opioid which kickstarted the addiction crisis in the mid-1990s. “I could see this epidemic coming, and I could see a train that was not going to stop. Nobody would listen in the first five years.”
ereaved parents across the US couldn’t understand the deaths of children at the hands of routinely prescribed drugs. Some were following those prescriptions when they died. Others were sucked into a nether world of buying the same pills on the black market or switching to heroin to meet the craving for ever higher doses.Advertisement
April Rovero was blindsided by an epidemic she didn’t even know existed until it smashed into her family. Her son, Joey, died from drugs prescribed by the only doctor so far convicted of murder for illegally supplying opioids, Lisa Tseng.
Rovero sat through every day of Tseng’s two-month trial. “Probably the most difficult day for me was when they showed a particular photo of Joey found in his bedroom and he was deceased. I had never seen that photo,” she said. “To listen to the devastation, all these beautiful lives lost, that was for me the biggest takeaway.”
Rovero came out of it determined to educate others and set up the National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse. “If you wait until the end when people have an addiction problem it is so hard to turn that around,” she said.
She quickly discovered that not many in her upmarket community of San Ramon, California wanted to hear her message. She counted nearly 40 opioid deaths in the surrounding valley over five years but little public acknowledgement of it. “People don’t want to talk about it. More and more brave people are actually putting stuff in their obituaries but it used to be zero. You just weren’t hearing about it,” she said.
Rubin saw the same thing near San Diego. “I started hearing about these kids dying supposedly because their heart had just given out. I know these kids in our community, they were healthy and athletic,” she said.
With stigma and ignorance came fear. Rubin’s son, Aaron, survived an OxyContin overdose but his brain was starved of oxygen. He was left paralyzed and only able to communicate using two fingers. Aaron collapsed after taking the pill for fun at a friend’s house but the family delayed calling the emergency services because her son bought the drugs illegally in Mexico. The parents of Aaron’s friend finally drove him to the hospital but pretended not to know what was wrong with him.
“They offered no information that would help save my son’s life because of fear,” said Rubin, her voice breaking. “My son isn’t buried in the ground, he’s buried above ground. He’s buried inside his own body, fighting every day to break out. It’s hard for me every morning to wake up to the son that used to carry me around, dance with me, joke with me and I have to turn him, I have to change him, I have to feed him. And he can’t even say ‘good morning mom’ verbally.”
Rubin, now the executive director of Hope2gether, channelled her pain into pushing through a Good Samaritan law in California to protect a person from being arrested for possession of illegal drugs when summoning help for someone who is overdosing.
Local victories have had a significant impact in pushing back against the epidemic and saving lives. They have led to pharmacies being forced to monitor opioid prescriptions and wider access to life-saving antidotes. But for all the success, quite a few of the parents felt that while they were winning local battles they were losing the war to change national policy in the face of the considerable power of the pharmaceutical companies. So they drew their disparate organizations together under an umbrella group, Fed Up!, to press for change in Washington.Advertisement
Fed Up! quickly made its mark with rallies, speaking up at public meetings and letter writing to demand national political leadership.
Parents were dismayed that President Obama had so little to say, only addressing the epidemic in 2015. But the focus of Fed Up!’s anger was directed at two institutions: Congress and the FDA (the US Food and Drug Administration), which stood accused not only of failing to take the crisis seriously but of facilitating the spread of addiction.
Several years after TJ’s death, Walden learned his addiction was rooted in surgery for a broken at arm at 11, for which he received a string of opioid painkiller prescriptions. “Your child is in pain and you want them to feel better. You don’t know there are dangers,” said Walden.
In high school, TJ experimented with OxyContin, which was so widely prescribed pretty much anyone who wanted it could get it from a doctor or the black market. The drug was pushing against a door opened by the earlier prescriptions and it quickly got a grip on TJ.
Before long, he was using an even more powerful narcotic pill, Opana. In 2003, the manufacturer, Endo, sought approval from the FDA for a new high strength version of the drug, Opana ER. The FDA rejected the application because of safety issues exposed in clinical trials; the agency then changed the rules for the trials and three years later Opana was approved.
How the rules came to be rewritten remains a subject of controversy. Suspicion has focused on meetings between the FDA, doctors with close ties to drug companies and opioid manufacturers. Pharmaceutical companies funded the meetings and paid up to $35,000 to attend as the procedures were drawn up.
AdvertisementCritics accused the FDA of rigging drug trials in favor of pharmaceutical companies. The FDA denied improper influence but Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia called the meetings a “pay-to-play scheme”. Walden does too.
“Opana did not change between 2003 and 2006. The only thing that changed was the clinical trial,” she said.
Walden began banging on doors on Capitol Hill demanding an investigation. Her first stop was her own senator, Mitch McConnell, at the time the Republican minority leader in the Senate. “He said that he had met with many parents who had lost their children to an overdose,” she said. Walden heard all the right things but walked away wondering. “I believed that he was going to help when I left that meeting. I believed it for a year or two after that. Now I can’t really say that Mitch McConnell’s come through for me,” she said.
At least Walden got the meeting. The other senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, has declined to see her even though she is a constituent.
“Rand Paul never spoke about opioids until he was up for reelection. Kentucky was number two in the country for overdose deaths and he never said a word until the election. Then he said that if people had jobs they wouldn’t be doing heroin. He’s a doctor and he sits on the (Senate) health committee. It’s unbelievable he said that,” she said.
Walden did not give up. She typed up everything she had learned about Opana and the role of the FDA, and dropped it off at senators’ offices. She rang politicians offices every week but was mostly rebuffed.
Other parents were equally persistent.
Sandra Kresser’s son Josh was given a painkiller prescription for a back injury at work and was drawn into addiction. He died in 2006 at the age of 25, killed by a prescription cocktail of painkillers, an anti-anxiety drug and a muscle relaxant. One of the doctors treating Josh lost his licence to practice medicine because he was held responsible for a total of five deaths.
“After Josh died, I did not want to see another mother bury their child from this epidemic,” said Kresser. “I am absolutely dumbfounded at what’s going on. The outcry is getting louder and louder but how did we ever allow it to get to the point that it’s at now?”
A few months after Josh’s death, Kresser contacted one of her senators, Orrin Hatch of Utah. “Orrin Hatch told me he had heard nothing of an epidemic that was sweeping through the country but if in the future he heard anything about it he would be sure to get back to me. I never heard anything back,” she said. “By 2006 the epidemic had already been going for at least seven years in West Virginia and Kentucky.”
By 2012, Hatch had heard about the epidemic and was co-chairing a Senate finance committee investigation of the role of the pharmaceutical companies in the spread of opioid addiction. Kresser and other parents thought that finally the truth would be laid bare.
“They spent months doing research but the report has never been released,” she said.
Hatch said information gathered from drug companies was confidential. The parents see a cover-up.
Walden took Dr Andrew Kolodny, the leader of a group of physicians opposed to mass prescribing of opioids, along to her first meeting with McConnell. Kolodny concluded that McConnell was unwilling to go against the financial power of the drug companies.
“Democrats and Republicans are very cautious about upsetting big pharma because they’re dependent on pharma for campaign contributions,” he said.
Some members of Congress did work hard to change policies but most politicians adhered to the opioid makers’ claims that mass prescribing was necessary to combat an epidemic of untreated pain in America, and that only those who abused the drugs became addicted. The FDA also accepted those claims, even though they were increasingly challenged by doctors, and kept approving new opioid drugs.
“I would argue that we wouldn’t have an opioid addiction epidemic today if the Food and Drug Administration had being doing its job from the beginning,” said Kolodny.
To the bereaved parents, the relationship between the FDA and the industry it was supposed to be regulating looked far too cozy. The opioid manufacturers were paying for one on one meetings and FDA officials sat on panels alongside the drug manufacturers. Meanwhile, the people whose children were claimed by the epidemic struggled to be heard. And when they were, all too often they were dismissed as unreasoned by grief.
“A lot of it was really patronizing,” said Walden.
In 2012, the familiar pattern began to play itself out at an FDA hearing in 2012 to consider approval of the most powerful hydrocodone pill to date, Zohydro ER.Advertisement
The agency convened an advisory committee, made up mostly of doctors, to make a recommendation on whether the drug should be approved.
FDA officials indicated that they regarded approval as a formality, but times were changing. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declared an opioid epidemic.
The parents stood up to speak. Avi Israel told the hearing about his son, Michael, who shot himself while addicted to hydrocodone prescribed for Crohn’s disease.
“My son took his last breath while in my arms. Half his face was plastered all over the wall, and he was struggling to breathe,” Israel told the committee. “My son Michael had a medically sanctioned addiction. He wasn’t out on the street looking for drugs. He got his prescriptions from a doctor and then he filled them at our local pharmacy.”
Israel, who found an organisation named after his son, Save the Michaels of the World, said that an earlier FDA committee had approved the drug Michael was addicted to “without knowing or thinking of the consequences”.
“So here you are today, and you could be making the same mistake. But you need to ask yourself a question: is this medication really going to help somebody? Do we really need another pill in this country?” he said.
The panel also heard from people grappling with almost unbearable pain and how they believe prescription opioids help them control it. Members of the review committee repeatedly raised questions about safety and the need for another opioid pill.
But the FDA had a different focus.
The meeting was overseen by the head of its anesthesia, analgesia, and addiction products section, Dr Bob Rappaport. He spoke about the manufacturer’s right to make money and said the law required the FDA to approve Zohydro if similar drugs were already on the market – even if it was “in best interest of patients and the public health” not to do so.
In other words, the committee was not expected to consider whether Zohydro was necessary or safe, only whether it was any worse than Opana and OxyContin.
Israel grew so agitated at this he held a $20 bill over a picture of his dead son and shouted at Rappaport. “I said: ‘The FDA, they don’t see people, they see money’. I just wanted to let them know that a lot of the decisions the FDA is making are not based on the good of the people. It’s based on the commercial interest of pharmaceutical companies,” he said.
The committee voted 11 to two against approving Zohydro. Israel was delighted. “It was really a good feeling to know we were able to do that,” he said.
Months later, the FDA leadership brushed aside the committee’s decision and approved the drug anyway.Advertisement
“I never ever thought that the FDA would go back and approve it. That was the work of people in the FDA with very strong ties to pharmaceutical companies,” said Israel.
Manchin called the FDA’s decision “shameful” and accused it of compromising patient safety for the financial benefit of pharmaceutical companies. He proposed legislation to ban Zohydro and to force the FDA to explain to Congress any future decisions to override its own review committees’ recommendations.
Attorney generals of 28 states wrote to the FDA commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, pleading for the withdrawal of Zohydro. “Those on the front lines of the battle against the worsening opioid drug addiction epidemic recognize that the reckless decision to approve Zohydro represents a remarkable failure to act in the best interests of protecting public health,” they said.
But the ground was shifting. Last year, the CDC issued guidelines urging doctors not to prescribe opioids as a first stop for chronic pain. Through it all, Walden kept up her campaign against Opana. Earlier this year, the FDA finally held a hearing about the drug. Walden addressed it.
“I was able to look Endo executives in the eye and I felt I had to do that for my son,” she said. “I think that the FDA put profits over American lives. They need to make some serious changes or we will never get past this epidemic. Never. It started with the FDA. It needs to stop with the FDA.”
In June, the FDA asked Endo to remove Opana from pharmacy shelves. The FDA’s reversal was tantamount to an admission that Walden had been right all along. Opana should never had been on the market.
The new FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, went a step further in July when he endorsed a report which recommended that approval of new opioids take into account “the public health effects of the inappropriate use of these drugs”. Zohydro would never have been approved if that policy had been in place. It remains to be seen if it will meet a similar fate to Opana.
Earlier this month, Gottlieb phoned Walden. It was the first time an FDA commissioner heard her out. “He laughed and said you must be a pretty persistent person to get this phone call with me,” she said.
-
Price says working toward declaring opioid crisis national emergency
Sep 15, 2017 | The Hill
By Rachel Roubein
Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said his staff is working with the White House to officially declare the opioid crisis a national emergency. "The president has talked recently about raising the level of the opioid crisis to an emergency, and we're working on that with his staff literally as we speak," Price said Thursday, WMUR reported. Last month, Trump said his administration was working to draft paperwork to officially declare the opioid epidemic a national emergency — which was the "first and most urgent" recommendation the president's opioid commission gave in its interim report.
The comments from Price came at a New Hampshire event where he was touting more than $200 million of grants to health centers for mental health and substance use disorder services. The funds were appropriated in the fiscal 2017 omnibus bill.
-
HHS funnels $340 million to battle opioid crisis, but no national emergency declaration
Sep 15, 2017 | Modern Healthcare
By Steven Ross Johnson
This week HHS has provided a total of more than $340 million for programs aimed at providing greater access to addiction treatment. And while that's generous, many are wondering when the Trump administration plans to call the epidemic a national emergency.
On Friday, HHS announced more than $144 million in grants through the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will fund six initiatives that provide training and medication to first responders for emergency treatment of opioid overdose, support family-based services for pregnant and postpartum women with a substance use disorder, and expand residential substance abuse treatment for single mothers.
The move follows an announcement made on Thursday to provide more than 1,100 community health centers across the country with more than $200 million from the Health Resources and Services Administration.
"Those supporting prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts in our local communities are heroes in our nation's battle against the opioid crisis," HHS Secretary Dr. Tom Price said in a statement. "Together, we can heal communities and save lives."
Over the last five months, a total of more than $1 billion in HHS funding has been allocated toward the fight against opioid abuse. But the vast majority of those funds come from last year's legislative actions. Passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act in July authorized $181 million a year in new funding, while the 21st Century Cures Act passed in December 2016 included $1 billion to spend over the next two years on opioid prevention and treatment programs.
The Trump administration has not yet taken steps to request additional funding from Congress or present strategies beyond the president's creation of an opioid commission back in March.
That panel submitted an initial report in July that called for the president to declare the opioid epidemic a national emergency in light of more than 64,000 drug overdose deaths in 2016 alone.
On Aug. 10, Trump said he would declare a national emergency, but has not yet drawn up a formal order.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the chairman of the commission, was reported on Thursday as indicating a timetable for the declaration has not yet been set.
That delay spurred a group of 10 Democratic senators to send a letter to Trump this week that questioned his "intentions regarding the crisis".
"Regardless of whether you choose to declare and emergency, continued inaction on this issue is deeply concerning," the letter stated. "In order to effectively treat this crisis with the urgency it demands, we believe you must take action immediately to expand treatment capacity, increase prevention efforts, improve data sharing, and support detection and interdiction efforts to address the supply side of this epidemic—all recommendations for action proposed by the Commission you created."
The declaration would release millions in emergency funding and resources that could quickly be distributed to states that have been hardest hit by the epidemic. -
Health Secretary Tom Price: You Can’t Punish People Out Of A Disease
Sep 18, 2017 | CBS Philly
By Roch Zeoli
“And that’s the way you approach this so you can get folks cured. You can’t punish people out of a disease, it just doesn’t work that way. A lot of the treatment science has come so far so that we know that the vast majority of folks if they have access, and they are given the kind of opportunity, and have the will to be able to get through this then, they are able to move through this phase of their life with this disease and get treatment so that they can recover and move on again to those productive lives.”
Price says the opioid crisis is a crisis, and President Donald Trump believes it’s a crisis, a national emergency. The Department of Health and Human Services and others within the Trump administration who are charged in this area have been working on exactly what that means.
“In terms of resources that will be brought to bear, in terms of assets that will brought to bear, what will structure of a team coming together to battle this emerging challenge look like. And I think the battle be done in short order so the President, as I say is absolutely committed to making certain that he stands up for those who need help in this area, and were working diligently to make sure it happens.”
-
Amid Opioid Crisis, Insurers Restrict Pricey, Less Addictive Painkillers
Sep 18, 2017 | The New York Times
By Katie Thomas and Charles Ornstein
At a time when the United States is in the grip of an opioid epidemic, many insurers are limiting access to pain medications that carry a lower risk of addiction or dependence, even as they provide comparatively easy access to generic opioid medications.
The reason, experts say: Opioid drugs are generally cheap while safer alternatives are often more expensive.
Drugmakers, pharmaceutical distributors, pharmacies and doctors have come under intense scrutiny in recent years, but the role that insurers — and the pharmacy benefit managers that run their drug plans — have played in the opioid crisis has received less attention. That may be changing, however. The New York State attorney general’s office sent letters last week to the three largest pharmacy benefit managers — CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx — asking how they were addressing the crisis.
ProPublica and The New York Times analyzed Medicare prescription drug plans covering 35.7 million people in the second quarter of this year. Only one-third of the people covered, for example, had any access to Butrans, a painkilling skin patch that contains a less-risky opioid, buprenorphine. And every drug plan that covered lidocaine patches, which are not addictive but cost more than other generic pain drugs, required that patients get prior approval for them.
In contrast, almost every plan covered common opioids and very few required any prior approval.
The insurers have also erected more hurdles to approving addiction treatments than for the addictive substances themselves, the analysis found.
Alisa Erkes lives with stabbing pain in her abdomen that, for more than two years, was made tolerable by Butrans. But in January, her insurer, UnitedHealthcare, stopped covering the drug, which had cost the company $342 for a four-week supply. After unsuccessfully appealing the denial, Ms. Erkes and her doctor scrambled to find a replacement that would quiet her excruciating stomach pains. They eventually settled on long-acting morphine, a cheaper opioid that UnitedHealthcare covered with no questions asked. It costs her and her insurer a total of $29 for a month’s supply.
The Drug Enforcement Administration places morphine in a higher category than Butrans for risk of abuse and dependence. Addiction experts say that buprenorphine also carries a lower risk of overdose.
UnitedHealthcare said Ms. Erkes had not exhausted her appeals, including the right to ask a third party to review her case. It said in a statement, “We will work with her physician to find the best option for her current health status.”
UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest health insurer, places morphine on its lowest-cost drug coverage tier with no prior permission required, while in many cases excluding Butrans. And it places Lyrica, a non-opioid, brand-name drug that treats nerve pain, on its most expensive tier, requiring patients to try other drugs first.
Ms. Erkes, who is 28 and lives in Smyrna, Ga., is afraid of becoming addicted and has asked her husband to keep a close watch on her. “Because my Butrans was denied, I have had to jump into addictive drugs,” she said.
Matthew N. Wiggin, a spokesman for UnitedHealthcare, said that the company was trying to reduce long-term use of opioids. “All opioids are addictive, which is why we work with care providers and members to promote non-opioid treatment options for people suffering from chronic pain,” he said.
Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, who led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under President Obama, said that insurance companies, with few exceptions, had “not done what they need to do to address” the opioid epidemic. Right now, he noted, it is easier for most patients to get opioids than treatment for addiction.
Leo Beletsky, an associate professor of law and health sciences at Northeastern University, went further, calling the insurance system “one of the major causes of the crisis” because doctors are given incentives to use less expensive treatments that provide fast relief.
The Department of Health and Human Services is studying whether insurance companies make opioids more accessible than other pain treatments. An early analysis suggests that they are placing fewer restrictions on opioids than on less addictive, non-opioid medications and non-drug treatments like physical therapy, said Christopher M. Jones, a senior policy official at the department.
Insurers say they have been addressing the issue on many fronts, including monitoring patients’ opioid prescriptions, as well as doctors’ prescribing patterns. “We have a very comprehensive approach toward identifying in advance who might be getting into trouble, and who may be on that trajectory toward becoming dependent on opioids,” said Dr. Mark Friedlander, the chief medical officer of Aetna Behavioral Health, who participates on its opioid task force.
Aetna and other insurers say they have seen marked declines in monthly opioid prescriptions in the past year or so. At least two large pharmacy benefit managers announced this year that they would limit coverage of new prescriptions for pain pills to a seven- or 10-day supply. And bowing to public pressure — not to mention government investigations — several insurers have removed barriers that had made it difficult to get coverage for drugs that treat addiction, like Suboxone.
Experts in addiction note that the opioid epidemic has been changing and that the problem now appears to be rooted more in the illicit trade of heroin and fentanyl. But the potential for addiction to prescribed opioids is real: 20 percent of patients who receive an initial 10-day prescription for opioids will still be using the drugs after a year, according to a recent analysis by the C.D.C.
Several patients said in interviews that they were terrified of becoming dependent on opioid medications and were unwilling to take them, despite their pain.
In 2009, Amanda Jantzi weaned herself off opioids by switching to the more expensive Lyrica to treat the pain associated with interstitial cystitis, a chronic bladder condition.
But earlier this year, Ms. Jantzi, who is 33 and lives in Virginia, switched jobs and got a new insurer — Anthem — which said it would not cover Lyrica because there was not sufficient evidence to prove that it worked for interstitial cystitis. Ms. Jantzi’s appeal was denied. She cannot afford the roughly $520 monthly retail price of Lyrica, she said, so she takes generic gabapentin, a related, cheaper drug. She said it does not manage the pain as well as Lyrica, which she took for eight years. “It’s infuriating,” she said.
Ms. Jantzi said she wanted to avoid returning to opioids. However, “I could see other people, faced with a similar situation, saying, ‘I can’t live like this, I’m going to need to go back to painkillers,’ ” she said.
In a statement, Anthem said that its members have to meet certain requirements before it will pay for Lyrica. Members can apply for an exception, the insurer said. Ms. Jantzi said she did just that and was turned down.
With Butrans, the drug that Ms. Erkes was denied, several insurers either do not cover it, require a high out-of-pocket payment, or will pay for it only after a patient has tried other opioids and failed to get relief.
In one case, OptumRx, which is owned by UnitedHealth Group, suggested that a member taking Butrans consider switching to a “lower cost alternative,” such as OxyContin or extended-release morphine, according to a letter provided by the member. Mr. Wiggin, the UnitedHealthcare spokesman, said the company’s rules and preferred drug list “are designed to ensure members have access to drugs they need for acute situations, such as post-surgical care or serious injury, or ongoing cancer treatment and end of life care,” as well as for long-term use after alternatives are tried.
Butrans is sold by Purdue Pharma, which has been accused of fueling the opioid epidemic through its aggressive marketing of OxyContin. Butrans is meant for patients for whom other medications, like immediate-release opioids or anti-inflammatory pain drugs, have failed to work, and some scientific analyses say there is not enough evidence to show it works better than other drugs for pain.
Dr. Andrew Kolodny is a critic of widespread opioid prescribing and a co-director of opioid policy research at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University. Dr. Kolodny said he was no fan of Butrans because he did not believe it was effective for chronic pain, but he objected to insurers suggesting that patients instead take a “cheaper, more dangerous opioid.”
“That’s stupid,” he said.
Ms. Erkes’s pain specialist, Dr. Jordan Tate, said her patient had been stable on the Butrans patch until January, when UnitedHealthcare stopped covering the product and denied Ms. Erkes’s appeal.
Without Butrans, Ms. Erkes, who once visited the doctor every two months, was now in Dr. Tate’s office much more frequently, and once went to the emergency room because she could not control her pain, thought to be related to an autoimmune disorder, Behcet’s disease.
Dr. Tate said she and Ms. Erkes reluctantly settled on extended-release morphine, a drug that UnitedHealthcare approved without any prior authorization, even though morphine is considered more addictive than the Butrans patch. She also takes hydrocodone when the pain spikes and Lyrica, which UnitedHealthcare approved after requiring a prior authorization.
Ms. Erkes acknowledged that she could have continued with further appeals, but said the process exhausted her and she eventually gave up.
While Dr. Tate said Ms. Erkes had not shown signs of abusing painkillers, her situation was far from ideal. “She’s in her 20s and she’s on extended-release morphine — it’s just not the pretty story that it was six months ago.”
Many experts who study opioid abuse say they also are concerned about insurers’ limits on addiction treatments. Some state Medicaid programs for the poor, which pay for a large share of addiction treatments, continue to require advance approval before Suboxone can be prescribed or they place time limits on its use, both of which interfere with treatment, said Lindsey Vuolo, associate director of health law and policy at the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. Drugs like Suboxone, or its generic equivalent, are used to wean people off opioids but can also be misused.
The analysis by ProPublica and The Times found that restrictions remain prevalent in Medicare plans, as well. Drug plans covering 33.6 million people include Suboxone, but two-thirds require prior authorization. Even when such requirements do not exist, the out-of-pocket costs of the drugs are often unaffordable, a number of pharmacists and doctors said.
At Dr. Shawn Ryan’s addiction-treatment practice in Cincinnati, called BrightView, staff members often take patients to the pharmacy to fill their prescriptions for addiction medications and then watch them take their first dose. Research has shown that such oversight improves the odds of success. But when it takes hours to gain approval, some patients leave, said Dr. Ryan, who is also president of the Ohio Society of Addiction Medicine.
“The guy walks out, and you can’t blame him,” Dr. Ryan said. “He’s like, ‘Hey man, I’m here to get help. What’s the deal?’”
-
Sep 18, 2017 | KIRO (CBS)
By Seattle. WA
Rough Transcript: this week - state health officials will take a step to fight the opioid epidemic.the first of seven public meetings will be held wednesday night -- in tumwater. the goal is to develop new rules for medical professionals who prescribe the drugs.last year -- governor inslee declared the epidemic a critical health issue. last week -- we told you tacoma is now suing several pharmaceutical companies.city officials say purdue endo and janssenpharmaceuticals helped create the epidemic by pushing opioids on doctors and patients -- without giving real warnings about the dangers. tacoma says half its homeless population is addicted and the fire department deals with overdoses daily.the city says it's spent millions on the crisis.
-
Sep 15, 2017 | WOLF (FOX)
By Wilkes-Barre, PA
Rough Transcript: jamie: the district said it has challenges such as a budget deficit last year. >>> lackawanna county officials are fed up and are taking action by suing big drug companies including johnson and johnson over all the overdose deaths in their county. they want to recoup the costs of the deadly opioid crisis. alex belr has more on the argument the lawyers plan to make. >> enough is enough. >> reporter: county commissioners say they have 10:06 PMchosen a law firm to sue 14 pharmaceutical companies. their goal is recover all costs associated with the opioid -related deaths that have killed 231 residents in the county since 2014. represented this display on the courthouse lawn. >> this affect everything that goes on in lackawanna county. prison, division of youth servicesyou name it, all department >> reporter: their attorney said they intend to do a forensic audit and identify potential hundreds of millions of dollars going back at ast 12 years, milar to the fight agnst big tobacco. >> people smoke cigarettes, they got addicted, people take opiates, they get addicted. and what happens to both companies when they get addicted? ofits go through the roof because more and more cigarettes are need, more and more opiates are need. >> porter: officials say the student cost the county anythi. counsewill get 20 percent of any recovery. similar losses and started in other states but this is the first one here. 10:07 PM>> am asking other counties in pennsylvania tjoin this fight. >> reporter: commissioner lorraine cummings used to be a nurse criticized using pain as a vital sign in the 90s where people are asked to rate their pain on 0 to 10. e said. gave way to stronger meds li morphine and oxyctin. >> it's a big marketing push and they said we were treating our americancitizens well enough ipain. >> we intend to show that these pharmaceutical companies new om the very beginning when they started marking these ioid drugs that they were addictive. that they were unnecessary check commissioner pat o'malley spoke about a close friend who ran out of doctors and went to thstreets. >> reporter: some dr dealer says to him ether, why don't you just buy a bag of heroin. it's ly five bucks. and you know hdid? he bought a bag of heroin. and his life completely crash. >> reporter: his family helped and he got clean but others end up dying. like this n's. >> we are not embarrassed of it or ashamed of the fact that you suer with the disease. >> reporter: in scranton, alex belser, fox56 news first at 10:00. >> jamie: the lawsuit is said to be filed in the next few weeks. the luzern county manager was there to lend support and said his county is interested in hiring its own lawsuit.
-
Sep 16, 2017 | WLS (ABC)
By Chicago, IL
Rough Transcript: happening today chicago is taking another step in the fight against the opioid epidemic. the mayor is set to announce the city has freed up $700,000 to provide addiction treatment to a thousand people. the money was collected from newly acquired pharmaceutical licensing fees. the new requirements came out of a lawsuit the city filed against drug manufacturers for deceptive marketing of opioids.
-
Sep 18, 2017 | WYOU (CBS)
By Wilkes-Barre, PA
Rough Transcript: lackawanna county is tackling the opioid epidemic by taking "big pharma" to court. coty commissioners announced plans today to file a civil lawsuitagainst 14 pharmaceutical companies. 231 gravemarkers were set-up outside the courthouse to demotrate the deadly toll the opioid cris has taken in lackawanna county. many pharmaceutical companies claim they can't be held responsbile for what ppens when the pills leave their possesion -- but the lawsuit claims otherwise. (attorney joseph cappelli, marc j. bern & partners llp) "we intend to show that these pharmaceutical companies knew from the very beginning when they started to market these opioid drugs that they were addictive."(marty henehan, lost daughter to an overdose) "to sit back idly and pretend that it's just not happening if it hasn't directly affected you -- it doesn't really make any sense to me!" lackawanna county dirict torney shane scanlan says the more pressure applied to the pharmaceutical industry will hopefully save more lives.
-
WBRE Eyewitness News at 5:30pm
Sep 18, 2017 | WBRE (NBC)
By Wilkes-Barre, PA
Rough Transcript: commissioners in lackawanna county announced plans to file a civil lawsuit against 14 pharmaceutical companies. they blame the companies for the opioid cris. the coty expects to file the suit within the next few weeks.
Traditional Media Coverage
Broadcast Media Coverage
Add recipients
Suggested