Opioid Litigation Daily Media Report - 3/27/18

Commentary and FYIs

1. Why Houston and other cities want nothing to do with the massive national opioid lawsuit

   Mar 27, 2018 | STAT News

   By Andrew Joseph
   
   
   There are hundreds of cities and counties involved in the mass opioid litigation being hammered out in Ohio. Pegi Block wishes them the best. But for now, the Houston prosecutor has no interest in joining their effort.
2. American Dental Association backs seven-day limit on opioids

   Mar 26, 2018 | The Hill

   By Rachel Roubein
   
   
   The American Dental Association (ADA) wants to put a seven-day limit on dentists' opioid prescriptions for acute pain, a position that puts the group in line with federal guidelines but goes further than recommendations from the nation’s top association of doctors.
3. Why Do Americans Use More Painkillers Than Other Countries?

   Mar 26, 2018 | The Fix

   By Beth Leipholtz
   
   
   While Americans take more prescription opioids than any other country’s population, research suggests it’s not because Americans are facing higher levels of pain.
4. Congress can't punish Chinese drug dealers, but we can stem the flow of synthetic opioids (Opinion)

   Mar 27, 2018 | The Hill

   By Former Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas)
   
   
   Opioids are now the greatest developing threat to our country, causing approximately 65,000 deaths each year. Deaths from vehicle crashes and gunfire are dwarfed by comparison. Nearly everyone in this country knows someone who has been impacted by this deadly scourge.
5. The People Trump's War on Drugs Will Actually Punish (Opinion)

   Mar 26, 2018 | The Atlantic

   By Vann R. Newkirk II
   
   
   The War on Drugs 3.0 began in earnest just last week. And it could have the same devastating effect on communities of color as the ones that came before.
6. What Trump doesn't understand about the opioid epidemic (Opinion)

   Mar 26, 2018 | Houston Chronicle (TX)

   By Katherine Neill Harris
   
   
   Last week, President Trump announced his "Initiative to Stop Opioid Abuse" during a speech in New Hampshire, one of the states hardest hit by the opioid epidemic.
7. Trump plan to execute ‘big drug pushers’ will do nothing to stop opioid overdoses (Opinion)

   Mar 27, 2018 | The Conversation

   By Angélica Durán-Martínez
   
   
   On March 19, President Donald Trump unveiled his administration’s plan to stem the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, which has claimed some 350,000 lives since 2000. Among other measures, it proposes severe punishment for people involved in the illegal drug trade, including longer minimum jail sentences and potentially the death penalty.

Northeast (PA, NY)

8. Lehigh County files civil suit against pharmaceutical companies

   Mar 26, 2018 | 69 News (PA)

   By Bo Koltnow
   
   
   The website of Purdue Pharmaceuticals states the Connecticut-based company's commitment in addressing the nation's prescription drug and opioid abuse crisis.
9. Lehigh County sues pharmaceutical firms over opioid crisis

   Mar 26, 2018 | The Morning Call (PA)

   By Laurie Mason Schroeder
   
   
   Lehigh County has joined hundreds of other municipalities across the U.S. in taking steps to force the pharmaceutical industry to take responsibility for allegedly starting the opioid epidemic.
10. Five Philly Unions Seeking Damages From Drug Companies For Opioid Promotion

    Mar 26, 2018 | CBS Philly (PA)

    By Pat Loeb
    
    
    Five Philadelphia unions have joined in the quest to recover costs from drug companies connected to the over prescription of opioids. And more suits are on the way.
11. NATIONAL LAW FIRM FILES SUIT IN FIGHT AGAINST OPIOID ADDICTION

    Mar 26, 2018 | Fulton County Express (NY)

    By Dusten Rader
    
    
    Fulton County has joined the fight against manufacturers of prescription opioid painkillers. According to a Simmons Hanly Conroy release, the firm on Monday, March 26, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Fulton County, New York City and 13 other counties across the state “against pharmaceutical companies and physicians over the aggressive and fraudulent marketing of prescription opioid painkillers that has led to a drug epidemic in the county and throughout the nation.”

Southeast (GA, AL)

12. Dougherty County could be next to join opioid lawsuit

    Mar 26, 2018 | WFXL (GA)

    By Mary Green
    
    
    Dougherty County could join some of its Southwest Georgia neighbors in the legal fight against the nationwide opioid epidemic.
13. Shelby County files opioid suit, following other Alabama cities, counties

    Mar 26, 2018 | Alabama.com (AL)

    By Lawrence Specker
    
    
    As a possible sweeping settlement deal on opioids crawls forward in a federal court in Cleveland, Shelby County has joined the ranks of Alabama jurisdictions angling for a piece of it.

Midwest (IN, MI)

14. Zionsville joins communities suing opioid manufacturers

    Mar 27, 2018 | WTHR / AP (IN)

    By Staff
    
    
    Zionsville is joining the long list of Indiana communities suing opioid manufacturers.
15. Grand Rapids’ city officials sue big pharma for racketeering, escalating opioid crisis

    Mar 26, 2018 | Fox 17 (MI)

    By Dana Chicklas & Michael E. Martin
    
    
    The City of Grand Rapids is suing several major pharmaceutical companies, accusing them of racketeering and further unlawful behavior, regarding the marketing and distribution of opiate pain medication in the area.

West (ID)

16. Canyon County considering class action lawsuits against opioid distributors

    Mar 26, 2018 | Idaho Press (ID)

    By Nicole Foy
    
    
    Two separate groups have invited Canyon County to join class action lawsuits against opioid distributors and manufacturers and large pharmaceutical companies.

Broadcast Media Coverage

17. Action 2 News at 10

    Mar 27, 2018 | Green Bay, WI

    By WBAY (ABC)
    
    
    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858073?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3
18. Fox 29 Morning News at 4a

    Mar 27, 2018 | Philadelphia, PA

    By WTXF (Fox)
    
    
    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858062?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3
19. FOX 17 Morning News

    Mar 27, 2018 | Grand Rapids, MI

    By WXMI (Fox)
    
    
    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858080?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3
20. 69 News Sunrise - 7:00am

    Mar 27, 2018 | Philadelphia, PA

    By WFMZ (WFMZ)
    
    
    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858084?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3
21. Fox News First Early Edition

    Mar 27, 2018 | San Antonio, TX

    By KABB (Fox)
    
    
    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858087?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3
22. KBJR 6 and Range 11 News Today

    Mar 27, 2018 | Duluth, MN

    By KBJR (NBC)
    
    
    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858089?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3
23. News10 in the Morning

    Mar 27, 2018 | Albany, NY

    By WTEN (ABC)
    
    
    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858099?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3
24. CBS4 Morning News at 6

    Mar 27, 2018 | Indianapolis, IN

    By WTTV (CBS)
    
    
    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858117?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3

Commentary and FYIs

1. Why Houston and other cities want nothing to do with the massive national opioid lawsuit

   Mar 27, 2018 | STAT News

   By Andrew Joseph

   There are hundreds of cities and counties involved in the mass opioid litigation being hammered out in Ohio. Pegi Block wishes them the best. But for now, the Houston prosecutor has no interest in joining their effort.

   Harris County, where Block is an assistant county attorney, sued opioid manufacturers and drug distributors in December, alleging — like other plaintiffs around the country — that they flooded communities with addictive painkillers while downplaying the risk of the medications. But the county, the country’s third largest, is fighting to keep its case in state court and separate from the so-called multidistrict litigation being overseen by a federal judge in Cleveland.

   “The damages were incurred here,” Block said in an interview at the county attorney’s Houston offices. “We believe that our judge, our county, our juries in Harris County not only have the right, but that they should be the ones to decide the fate of this lawsuit. This is where it happened.”

   Harris County is one of at least two dozen counties, cities, and towns pursuing cases in state court apart from the national litigation. They are drawn to the local judges and juries in their home courts, experts say, and fear getting lost in the crowd of plaintiffs in the national case, particularly if claims brought by states are eventually going to be considered in a global settlement. But there are risks, too, including a loss of influence in negotiating that potential settlement and a lack of resources to wage a legal battle against deep-pocketed defendants.

   Many of the defendants — which include opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies — would rather wage the battle in one court. But they face an ever-growing legal barrage, as public officials at all levels of government aim to wring money from the companies and show their constituents that they are fighting an addiction crisis killing tens of thousands of people each year. The defendants have generally denied the accusations, noting that they are making and selling medications approved and regulated by the federal government.

   In Cleveland, Judge Dan Polster has said he wants to resolve the multidistrict litigation, or MDL, involving hundreds of cities, counties, and tribes this year — an ambitious timeline for such a sprawling tangle of cases. The Trump administration has also filed a “statement of interest” in the litigation, backing up the plaintiffs.

   There are many other suits around the country. About a dozen states have filed their own cases, and some Native American tribes have sought to keep cases in state or tribal courts. In Louisiana, an attorney has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of children born with neonatal abstinence syndrome, which occurs when babies are exposed to opioids during pregnancy. In Kentucky, two rural health clinics have sued drug makers in federal court. More than 40 state attorneys general are also investigating prescription opioid players but have not filed a suit.

   Counties and towns can file in state court if at least some of the defendants are “citizens” of the state. “Generally speaking, counties would prefer to be in state court, but they can only be in state court where there’s a jurisdictional basis to be in state court,” said Paul Hanly, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys negotiating the MDL, who is also representing Connecticut municipalities and New York counties suing in their respective state courts.

   There are strategic issues at play as well, experts say. Suing in state court means local officials are more likely to get familiar judges who know firsthand how a given place has been affected by the opioid crisis. And some officials think they might be able to get ahead of the national litigation — no matter how fast Polster intends to reach a deal — so they can either get a separate settlement or go to trial before a global settlement is reached. Already, a trial date has been set for May 2019 in a state case brought by Oklahoma.

   An individual county might also worry that its claims would get drowned out in the sea of the national case. The fact that so many cities and counties have filed suits — and not just states — shows that local officials are trying to protect their own interests, instead of just hoping money allotted to their state gets filtered down to them, said Abbe Gluck, the faculty director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale.

   “The judge’s goal is to achieve a global settlement,” Gluck said. “He wants to resolve the claims in one shot. If I were a county, I might be concerned that the judge wouldn’t consider the individual harms suffered by each county.”

   Then again, there is a strength-in-numbers strategy at play in joining the MDL, particularly for smaller counties that might not have the resources to fend off the defense attorneys hired by the drug companies. As part of any global settlement reached in Ohio, the defendants can also try to demand that it end all of the lawsuits, not just the federal ones. (This is why the group of state attorneys general who haven’t sued are still involved in the MDL.) If a county’s case gets roped into the MDL as a settlement nears, then its interests might not be given as much priority as they would have if they’d been there from the beginning.

   “They want closure,” Elizabeth Burch of the University of Georgia School of Law said of the defendants. “For their stockholders, being able to announce that they’ve put this to bed is important.”

   The overlapping lawsuits have led to some turf skirmishes. In Tennessee, Attorney General Herbert Slatery last week argued that local lawsuits were interfering with his ability to work with the other state attorneys general in negotiating an opioid settlement. Local officials countered that their communities miss out when suits get lumped into one massive settlement.

   Here in Texas, the Harris County case was kicked up to federal court in February, and if it remains there, it will likely be absorbed into the MDL. But the county has filed a motion to send the case back to state court, arguing that it belongs there because 10 of the defendants are Texas “citizens.”

   Meanwhile, a group of drug distributors — including AmerisourceBergen, McKesson, and Cardinal Health — is arguing to keep the case in federal court and for it to join the MDL, saying the Harris County case “is substantially identical to the more than 400 federal actions pending nationwide.”

   At least two Texas counties, Dallas and Hopkins, have successfully gotten their cases sent back to state court. That means that the 36,000 people of Hopkins County have some chance of taking on opioid distributors and manufacturers themselves.

   “There’s certainly no question that we’re dealing with very big companies on the other side that have enormous resources and a bevy of talented lawyers,” said Jeffrey Simon, an attorney at Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, who is representing Hopkins and other Texas counties in their opioid lawsuits. “Time will tell whether Hopkins County is served well enough by little old me and my co-counsel. But we believe that Hopkins County’s claims should be decided in Hopkins County.”

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. American Dental Association backs seven-day limit on opioids

   Mar 26, 2018 | The Hill

   By Rachel Roubein

   The American Dental Association (ADA) wants to put a seven-day limit on dentists' opioid prescriptions for acute pain, a position that puts the group in line with federal guidelines but goes further than recommendations from the nation’s top association of doctors.

   Prescriber limits are contentious in the provider community. Some doctors have been wary of them, instead saying the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, and the American Medical Association has not supported such limits in the past.

   The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has nonbinding guidelines, recommending that for acute pain an opioid prescription of three days or less is “often sufficient,” and more than seven days “is rarely” needed.
   
   

   New research shows that 6.4 percent of all opioid prescriptions were written by dentists in 2012, but that rates increased slightly from 2010 to 2015.

   The ADA, an association comprised of more 160,000 dentists, also announced Monday its support for mandatory continuing education on prescribing opioids and other controlled substances for dentists, as well as encouraging them to use databases monitoring opioid prescriptions to help flag people requesting multiple prescriptions.

   “As president of the ADA, I call upon dentists everywhere to double down on their efforts to prevent opioids from harming our patients and their families,” Joseph Crowley said in a press release. “This new policy demonstrates ADA’s firm commitment to help fight the country’s opioid epidemic while continuing to help patients manage dental pain.”

   The move comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill are working to send legislation combatting the opioid epidemic to President Trump’s desk. The crisis shows no sign of slowing down, as deaths involving opioids increased nearly 28 percent from 2015 to 2016, according to the latest CDC data.

   Last week, Trump unveiled a new plan aimed at combatting the epidemic, which includes curbing opioid prescriptions by one-third in three years.

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. Why Do Americans Use More Painkillers Than Other Countries?

   Mar 26, 2018 | The Fix

   By Beth Leipholtz

   While Americans take more prescription opioids than any other country’s population, research suggests it’s not because Americans are facing higher levels of pain.  

   This information comes from Keith Humphreys via the Washington Post. Humphreys is a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University and an affiliated faculty member at Stanford Law School and the Stanford Neurosciences Institute.

   In 2008, a team of researchers studied pain in 18 countries, using the same methods. In the United States, chronic pain prevalence was at 43%. The two countries closest to the United States in that aspect were Italy, at 42.8%, and France, at 47.8%. 

   However, Humphreys states, that is where the similarities end. He writes that United Nations data for 2012 through 2014 demonstrates that the number of daily doses of opioids per capita are similar in Italy (6,246) and in France (8,706). However, that number jumps dramatically in the United States, at 50,142.

   “In other words, despite suffering chronic pain at a similar rate as Italians and the French, Americans consume six to eight times as many opioid painkillers,” Humphreys writes. 

   One argument, Humphreys says, is that France and Italy do not have good healthcare systems and do not provide patients with medication as needed. However, statistics prove otherwise. Specifically, Humphreys writes, life expectancy at age 65 is higher in Italy and France than it is in the U.S.

   A second argument, according to Humphreys, is that the pain levels in the United States would be higher if opioid consumption was lower. But, Humphreys says, nothing supports the idea that pain in the U.S. is at higher rates than it was before opioid prescribing quadrupled in the late 1990s.

   “The reason that Americans consume so many opioids is therefore not because they suffer more pain than people in other countries,” Humphreys writes. “A more likely explanation is that the United States regulates opioid manufacturers and distributors far less rigorously than do Italy, France and, indeed, virtually all other developed countries.” 

   Finally, Humphreys states, the U.S. allows opioid manufacturers to market “aggressively” and to “donate generously to political causes and regulatory bodies.”

   “It is those features of American exceptionalism, and not exceptional physical pain, that sparked the worst prescription opioid epidemic in history,” Humphreys affirms. 

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. Congress can't punish Chinese drug dealers, but we can stem the flow of synthetic opioids (Opinion)

   Mar 27, 2018 | The Hill

   By Former Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas)

   Opioids are now the greatest developing threat to our country, causing approximately 65,000 deaths each year. Deaths from vehicle crashes and gunfire are dwarfed by comparison. Nearly everyone in this country knows someone who has been impacted by this deadly scourge.

   According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2016, 116 people a day died from opioid-related drug overdoses. The National Institute on Drug Abuse found that the Midwest saw opioid overdoses increase 70 percent from July 2016 through September 2017” and “[o]pioid overdoses in large cities increased by 54 percent in 16 states.”

   While the origins of this epidemic stemmed from the abuse of prescription opioid pills, it has since morphed into a different threat for many Americans. A report from Vice News titled,“As The U.S. Focused on Painkillers, Fentanyl Caused a 30 Percent Spike in Overdoses,” summarizes recent findings from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). It states, “That finding is starkly at odds with how the government — including the CDC itself — has tried to combat the opioid crisis thus far, by cracking down on doctors who prescribe opioids and making it much harder for people get access to pain medications.” This follows a recent announcement by the Attorney General “targeting opioid manufacturers and distributors who have contributed to the epidemic.”

   But the federal government’s attempt to curtail the nation’s opioid plague by focusing solely on doctors and pharmaceutical companies alone is off-the-mark, if you believe the government’s own CDC data which points to fentanyl (and other synthetic opioids) being used to make counterfeit pills. It’s important to note that synthetics like fentanyl can be up to 50 times more potent than heroin.

   A recent Washington Post article looked at a situation in Macon, Georgia – where dozens of people “flooded” a local emergency room after suffering from life threatening conditions caused by taking what they perceived to be prescription painkillers. In reality, the pills ingested by these unlucky individuals were counterfeits made of synthetic opioids by unscrupulous drug dealers.

   According to the Post, “The rise of counterfeit pills is in part a consequence of well-intentioned actions taken to prevent overdose deaths; as states enact strict prescription limits and closely monitor doctors, fewer authentic painkillers are available. While some opioid abusers turn directly to heroin or fentanyl, the cartels and drug dealers are filling the void, and meeting demand, with pills they have manufactured to look like the originals.”

   The article went on to point out that, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency, that, [o]ne kilogram of illicit fentanyl — far cheaper than heroin or oxycodone — can produce 1 million counterfeit pills, netting $10 million to $20 million in revenue.” The combination of the high demand for pills by opioid addicts, plus gargantuan profits for drug dealers, is a recipe for disaster and one that is likely to keep getting worse.

   Consider a Baltimore Sun article from last year, that began, “[i]n a laboratory somewhere in China, a chemist is producing the fentanyl that will kill an opioid user in Maryland.” The Sun continued, “From China — the largest producer of fentanyl worldwide — the drug is sent daily by plane or ship to Mexico, where traffickers and truckers push it along well-worn paths of illicit narcotics north to the United States. In Baltimore and other cities, well-established gangs push the powder and pills to consumers.”

   The problem is, right now, there is little the federal government can do to punish these Chinese drug dealers. Last year, the Department of Justice indicted two Chinese nationals that it believed were responsible for flooding areas of North Dakota and Mississippi with fentanyl that killed at least four people. However, these individuals remain in China and the government there has not taken them into custody. In fact, the Chinese government is denying their role in the fentanyl crisis in America.

   Thankfully, some members of Congress are taking action. Just last week, Republican Sens.Tom Cotton (Okla.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John Kennedy (La.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Dean Heller (N.M.) and Ben Sasse(Neb.) introduced legislation to strengthen penalties for fentanyl distribution and trafficking.

   Because it is such a profitable business, stemming the flow of Chinese fentanyl crossing into the U.S. from our southern border will not be easy. As a Member of Congress, I represented about 700 miles of the Texas-Mexico border, so I understand just how difficult it is to police our massive border with Mexico.

   But, my former colleagues in Congress, and the Administration, must realize that the current state of the opioid epidemic means that targeting fentanyl and other synthetic opioids must be a top priority. If we put a dent in this illicit trade route, we will save the lives of some American caught up in their terribly sad, and misfortunate addiction to opioids. In the meantime, thousands of American lives continue to hang in the balance.

   Henry Bonilla was a Republican Member of Congress from south Texas (1993–2007). He is a lobbyist for The Normandy Group. During his time he Congress, he was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture and a senior member of the Subcommittee on Defense. In his role as chairman, Bonilla was responsible for funding America's agriculture industry, food safety and inspection, the Food & Drug Administration and food distribution programs in foreign countries. In addition, Bonilla served on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. The People Trump's War on Drugs Will Actually Punish (Opinion)

   Mar 26, 2018 | The Atlantic

   By Vann R. Newkirk II

   The War on Drugs 3.0 began in earnest just last week. And it could have the same devastating effect on communities of color as the ones that came before.

   In Manchester, New Hampshire—the hardest-hit city in a state that’s become the epicenter of America’s opioid crisis—President Trump announced a new plan ostensibly designed to combat the epidemic. The president played something of a warrior king, promising a far-reaching campaign to curtail prescriptions and a crackdown on illegal drug use. “Drug traffickers kill so many thousands of our citizens every year, and that’s why my Department of Justice will be seeking much tougher penalties than we ever have,” he pledged. “That penalty is going to be the death penalty.”

   Trump’s rhetoric is, of course, familiar. Like his predecessors Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan—who presided over the last major escalations in anti-drug policy—Trump anchored his appeal with a promise to return to law and order. And he vowed to use a similar tool: a federal dragnet to stop dealers with force, even lethal force if necessary.

   But it’s the places where Trump’s strategy differs from his predecessors’ that marks a truly novel turn in policy. On the demand side, the administration proposed some new public-health-oriented policies for treating substance use that advocates have clamored for. And on the supply side, Trump pushed strongly for capital punishment—a measure that is legal, but has rarely been used within a drug-trafficking context. On the whole, the new War on Drugs endorses developments in drug policy that may only deepen the vast racial divides within the American criminal-justice system: sympathy for a mostly white base of users, and naked aggression toward people of color.

   These two visions for federal drug policy have been on display from the start of Trump’s presidency, when the White House began its slow, meandering path toward confronting the opioid crisis, the most deadly drug epidemic in American history and one that now kills more people than breast cancer. In his joint address to Congress in 2017, Trump distinguished dealers, who should be dealt with harshly, from users, who simply needed help—promising to “stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth,” and to “expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted.”

   Until last week, the most significant action Trump had taken on opioids was the creation of a commission on drug addiction, chaired by former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. The commission’s final report, released in November, urged a broad set of reforms, including: an overhaul of the federal funding system for substance-abuse programs, tighter prescribing guidelines and regulations, heavier federal monitoring of patient drug use and abuse, more research, and greater access to “medication-assisted treatment” and the anti-overdose drug naloxone. Taken together, it was a group of ideas with deep traction in the public-health and advocacy communities. Armed with $6 billion from Congress’s two-year budget agreement to fight the opioid crisis, the White House has started applying some of them.

   On the criminal-justice front, however, Trump’s approach goes much further than the commission’s. The commission recommended a number of highly punitive measures, including beefed-up drug-trafficking surveillance and “the enhancement of federal sentencing penalties for the trafficking of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues.” Reflecting the bifurcated nature of the health-related and criminal-justice recommendations, public-health officials expressed conflicted feelings about the report. “The opioid commission was a mixed bag, with some good public-health recommendations,” said Grant Smith, the Drug Policy Alliance’s deputy director of national affairs. But “the question now is: How will [those recommendations] stand up to President Trump’s punitive approach to the opioid-overdose crisis?”

   The Department of Justice has already begun mobilizing on Trump’s new drug-enforcement agenda. Writing in a memo on Wednesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions made clear to U.S. attorneys that there’s legal support for using the death penalty in specific drug cases. He told them: “Congress has passed several statutes that provide the Department with the ability to seek capital punishment for certain drug-related crimes. I strongly encourage federal prosecutors to use these statutes, when appropriate, to aid in our continuing fight against drug trafficking and the destruction it causes in our nation.”

   The infrastructure for enhanced punishment in drug cases—including the death penalty—was first put in place in 1988, through Reagan’s Anti-Drug Abuse Act. Those guidelines allow for the execution of two categories of offenders: so-called kingpins who traffic large amounts of drugs, and those who commit murders during drug-related activities.

   Still, despite this legal foothold, it isn’t likely U.S. attorneys will suddenly act on the president’s endorsement. Federal death-penalty cases are exceedingly rare, in part, because the Supreme Court has generally held that the death penalty only applies to cases where someone is killed. Absent a new policy device to ramp up its use, Trump’s endorsement was “a little less than it seems,” as a Washington Post explainer put it.

   Indeed, the death-penalty threat could have little effect on the behaviors of dealers. “The idea behind this is that if you blow a lot of smoke about the death penalty, it will deter people from taking those actions,” said Mark Osler, a law professor and former federal prosecutor. But “that’s a pretty weak theory of deterrence.” In fact, it may be the weakest theory. As Vox’s Dara Lind notes: “The deterrent effect of being sentenced to death, as opposed to a long prison sentence, is either so small it hasn’t yet been captured in the research or it’s totally nonexistent.”

   But it would be a mistake to think that Trump’s rhetoric—even if that’s all it amounts to—is meaningless. The federal government has a major role in shaping national consensus, especially at a time when public opinion has only recently begun shifting toward treating drug use as a public-health issue.

   “My sense is that he’s certainly using rhetoric in a way that he hopes to galvanize the public around this issue, and attempt to show that he’s addressing it,” said Lindsay LaSalle, a senior attorney with the Drug Policy Alliance.

   Trump’s reinforcement of the most Hammurabian pieces of drug policy could, over time, derail the new public-health understanding. Even if it doesn’t stop dealers from their work, it could affect how individual Americans think about drug policy, how juries consider drug cases, and how legislators (not to mention law enforcement) react. In other words, just as activists have begun pushing the pendulum away from the most punitive excesses of the ongoing drug wars, with the right amount of influence government could move Americans toward supporting those punishments again.

   For example, the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act was critical in the proliferation of so-called Len Bias Laws—named after the standout Maryland college-basketball player who died from a cocaine overdose in 1986—in states across the country. Those laws allow for state death-penalty prosecutions for suppliers whose drugs lead to overdose deaths. Since a flurry of those measures passed in the 1980s and 1990s, they have gradually fallen out of favor. But as the opioid epidemic has worsened in recent years, they appear to be on the rise again. It’s difficult to track death-penalty prosecutions for drug-induced homicide—because some states simply started pursuing them under existing murder and manslaughter laws—but according to the Drug Policy Alliance, some measures indicate they’ve spiked over the past five years. “In 2011, there were 363 news articles about individuals being charged with or prosecuted for drug-induced homicide, increasing over 300% to 1,178 in 2016,” states a 2017 report from the group.

   “We’ve seen those policies and practices increase significantly over the past five years,” LaSalle said. “One thing that Trump’s rhetoric does is that—even if it doesn’t specifically result in more death-penalty cases—is to legitimize what otherwise was an outlying view.”

   If the public-health project continues to derail, the most important consequence would be this: Racial disparities within the criminal-justice system would dictate which Americans are disadvantaged most.

   On the campaign trail through to today, part of Trump’s angle in opioid-ravaged areas of the country has been to paint the problem as one brought on by outside invaders. Instead of connecting New England’s rampaging opioid crisis to the more widespread “epidemic of despair” linked to deindustrialization, in New Hampshire last week Trump blamed dastardly felons from across the U.S.-Mexico border. As he’s told it, criminals use sanctuary cities as bases to get ordinary Americans hooked on drugs. The president employs a strategy similar to the one well-utilized by Maine Governor Paul Le Page. The governor blamed black dealers directly for drug problems in his state—saying, famously, that “guys with the name D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty” were responsible.

   The reality is that drug dealers and drug users aren’t easily separable categories of people, no matter their race. For starters, it’s well-known that many people who supply drugs also use them. And in the fluid nature of drug transactions at the local level—where drugs are often passed informally between acquaintances, and people can share heroin laced with fentanyl without knowing it—many of the people caught with large quantities of drugs or subject to enhanced fentanyl sentences aren’t really distributors at all. And that’s not to mention the people operating in the murky boundaries between the legal and illegal sides of opioid distribution, where people often make money selling their own prescription drugs. It stands to reason that in mostly white communities, the drug supply chain is at the very least partially white, and also probably full of people with their own substance-use needs.

   But reality doesn’t matter very much when one’s endeavor is to divide people in two: creating state protection and sympathy for one group of people, while wielding the full resources of the most advanced carceral state in history against another. White users have increasingly become the face of the opioid epidemic, while black victims in particular are largely discounted from public consideration, despite data showing shocking rates of drug deaths in the black community. This disparate treatment could have public-health implications, with new resources funneled primarily to white communities. And it could have drastic law-enforcement implications, too: Black and Latino people are already much more likely to be policed, arrested, and sentenced than their white counterparts. Black Americans especially still face criminalization from the last two major iterations of the drug war, two campaigns that never really stopped. It doesn’t exactly take a leap in logic to determine who’s most likely to get caught up in an anti-opioid dragnet: black and Latino victims and suppliers alike.

   But perhaps the most remarkable consequence of the Trump plan is how it may not even help many white people. Criminalization will inevitably destabilize some white communities, too, and federal and state criminal-justice initiatives will only siphon funds and attention away from public-health programs, which even with the addition of $6 billion in federal money are woefully underfunded. It’ll largely be up to states to choose between joining in the administration’s harsh prosecutorial campaign, or firmly rejecting it in favor of the public-health paradigm.

   A year ago, Donald Trump in his inaugural address made a promise to stop the “American carnage” of  “the crime, and the gangs, and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.” But it’s clear from his track record—his exhortations to police to brutalize suspects, his invocation of the specter of crime in Chicago, his accusations about black protesters being fueled by drugs, and now, his drug policy—that all that’s in front of the country is more of the same, or worse.

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. What Trump doesn't understand about the opioid epidemic (Opinion)

   Mar 26, 2018 | Houston Chronicle (TX)

   By Katherine Neill Harris

   Last week, President Trump announced his "Initiative to Stop Opioid Abuse" during a speech in New Hampshire, one of the states hardest hit by the opioid epidemic.

   The broad plan includes recommendations for reducing demand for opioids, expanding access to treatment and targeting the illicit drug supply with beefed-up law enforcement efforts. While several of the recommendations, if adequately funded, would address unmet needs created by the epidemic, a large portion of the plan recycles failed drug war policies, reflecting a lack of understanding about the nature of this crisis and causing concern among public health experts.

   The initiative calls for expanding first responders' access to the overdose reversal drug naloxone, increasing availability of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders and improving data collection to better track overdose and drug supply trends. These provisions are critical to the national response to the epidemic.

   However, the White House initiative does not include a price tag for these measures, and it is unclear whether Congress is willing to make the hefty investment needed to implement such recommendations in a meaningful way. An omnibus spending bill released by Congress on March 22 includes $3.3 billion in funds for addressing opioid use and mental illness, but, by some estimates, an adequate response to the epidemic would require spending in the range of $45 billion.

   Responding to the epidemic will require significant investment, but there are tools not mentioned in the plan that can reduce the harms of opioid use and do so at a low cost. Syringe-exchange programs are a proven and inexpensive way to limit the spread of communicable diseases among people who inject drugs, yet the U.S. continues to have one of the lowest rates of access to these programs in the developed world.

   Drug testing services are another low-cost program that can mitigate the risks of drug overdose. In Houston and around the country, law enforcement agencies are reporting an increasing number of counterfeit prescription pills containing the deadly opioid fentanyl. Many individuals are under the impression that using prescription pills is safer than heroin because pills are "pure" and unadulterated.

   This is no longer the case. Free and anonymous drug testing services would allow users to learn the contents of the drugs they purchase before they ingest them, causing some to think twice about the dose they consume.

   A second component of the Trump administration's initiative is to increase prevention efforts. These recommendations focus primarily on raising public awareness about the risks of opioid use, increasing research into nonopioid pain management alternatives (medical cannabis shows promise in this area, yet research on its medicinal properties continues to be stymied by the federal government) and reducing the number of opioid prescriptions by one-third within three years.

   This last recommendation is not good news for the chronic pain community, which already feels squeezed by efforts to curb prescriptions. Responsible prescribing practices need to be encouraged, and fake pain clinics should be shut down, but doctors must maintain discretion in making treatment decisions for individual patients. Cutting prescriptions by a third is an arbitrary goal that does not account for variation in patients' needs.

   The third piece in the White House plan, and the part Trump himself has most strongly emphasized, involves increasing law enforcement crackdowns on the flow of drugs from China and Mexico and through U.S. mail. The recommendation grabbing the most headlines suggests the death penalty be used against some drug traffickers. This is a rather alarming recommendation that would do little to stem the current epidemic, would be extremely difficult to implement in practice and would likely face legal challenges for violating the U.S. Constitution's 8th Amendment.

   For these reasons, it is doubtful that this recommendation will be adopted, but there are other troubling and more achievable aspects to the president's supply-side approach to opioid use.

   For example, the initiative calls for increasing federal mandatory minimums for drug traffickers. This ignores the realities of drug transactions, the vast majority of which involve low-level dealers, many of whom use the products they sell. Tough penalties for selling drugs was a fundamental weapon in the war on drugs. Over the last four decades, such penalties have had almost no effect on supply or demand for drugs, and there is no reason to think that they would start to have an effect now.

   What the White House initiative's focus on drug interdiction fails to understand is basic economics: As long as there is demand for a product, enterprising individuals will find a way to meet that demand, legal consequences be damned.RELATEDCommentary: Opinion must have freedom to thriveTrump administration to seek stiffer penalties against drug dealers, reduce opioid prescribingLetter to the Editor: I applaud you President Trump

   Reducing drug supply has a place in responding to the opioid epidemic — but a small place. Even with unlimited resources, it is impossible for the federal government to stop the flow of illicit drugs into and around the United States.

   In the current environment, with very limited resources, overinvestment in supply-side efforts diverts those precious resources away from treatment and demand-based interventions that are proven to reduce harms associated with drug use.

   Speaking of demand, it is now well-recognized that root causes of the opioid epidemic extend far beyond misleading pharmaceutical marketing campaigns and negligent prescribing practices. To genuinely address the underlying sources of opioid misuse and addiction — poverty, lack of economic opportunity and lack of access to affordable, high-quality health care that addresses both mental and physical health needs, to name a few — will require long-term, costly and systemic changes that transcend traditional policy boundaries.

   On this challenge, the Trump administration's opioid initiative is silent.

   Dr. Katharine Neill Harris is the Alfred C. Glassell, III, Fellow in Drug Policy at the Baker Institute at Rice University.

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Trump plan to execute ‘big drug pushers’ will do nothing to stop opioid overdoses (Opinion)

   Mar 27, 2018 | The Conversation

   By Angélica Durán-Martínez

   On March 19, President Donald Trump unveiled his administration’s plan to stem the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, which has claimed some 350,000 lives since 2000. Among other measures, it proposes severe punishment for people involved in the illegal drug trade, including longer minimum jail sentences and potentially the death penalty.

   This is an extreme version of what’s actually an old approach to combating substance use: Attacking the supply side of the drug trade.

   From banning Chinese immigration in 1882 – supposedly on the grounds that Chinese people promoted vices like smoking opium – to the mass incarceration that followed the 1980s-era crack panic, the United States has long sought to reduce drug consumption by clamping down on drug sources. It has never killed citizens for trafficking drugs, though.

   Worldwide, 33 countries have laws prescribing the death penalty for drug offenses, according to Harm Reduction International, a nonprofit group that advocates to end this practice.

   Ample evidence shows that harshly punishing drug trafficking does not end drug consumption. Instead, my research suggests, it creates the spillover effect of criminalizing everyone associated with drugs – including drug users and, in particular, people from the most marginalized sectors of society.Where is the death penalty used?

   International human rights law mandates that the death penalty only be imposed for the “most serious crimes.” And many of the countries that allow capital punishment for drug crimes rarely apply this punishment in practice. A few – including Myanmar and Laos – never do.

   Currently, seven countries regularly execute their citizens for drug offenses, according to Harm Reduction International: China, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Singapore.

   Between January 2015 and December 2017, at least 1,320 people worldwide were executed after being convicted of drug-related offenses, many of them for nonviolent crimes like street dealing.

   It’s noteworthy, I think, that all of these countries are either authoritarian regimes or democracies where civil liberties are seriously threatened. Among the 33 countries that punish drug offenses with death, only three – India, South Korea and Taiwan – are considered democratic by the watchdog group Freedom House.China and Iran: High drug use despite death penalty

   Typically, governments that kill their citizens for drug offenses don’t publish good statistics on drug use. That makes it difficult to document the effects of these policies.

   Most of the information I use in this analysis comes from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and from reports by international human rights organizations. Taken together, this data shows little correlation between harsh criminal sanctions and rates of drug use.

   Iran has persistently high opioid consumption despite the government’s relentless persecution of drugs. In 2017, Iran accounted for 242 of 280people executed worldwide based on death penalty laws for drug crimes.

   Over 2 percent of Iranians report having used heroin or other opioids in the past year. That’s higher than the global average, which is just 0.73 percent.

   In China, researchers from Amnesty International estimate that least 13 percent of all executions between 2011 and 2016 were related to drug offenses. Nonetheless, global statistics suggest that the country has one of the world’s largest population of injection drug users.Singapore and Philippines: No evidence of progress

   Singapore, which executed three people for drug offenses in 2017, claims that the death penalty has worked to reduce drug use. But this position is difficult to verify.

   Government data there indicates that just 0.3 percent of Singaporeans have taken drugs in the past year – which is a low consumption rate. But the most recent available estimates also show that opioid use in Singapore is now rising. If the death penalty actually deterred drug use, consumption rates should have either decreased or remained steady.

   Then there’s Philippines, home to the world’s deadliest war on drugs. Since Rodrigo Duterte became president in 2016, government forces have killed an estimated 12,000 Filipinos accused of using and selling drugs. Most of them were poor. None were given due process or allowed to defend themselves in court.

   President Trump has praised Duterte, saying “he has done an unbelievable job on the drug trade.”

   Little suggests that this bloody campaign is stemming drug consumption in the Philippines. In 2012, years before Duterte came to power, the country already had generally low rates of drug use, according to government data. And between 2008 and 2012, consumption of marijuana – the most widely used drug in the Philippines – decreased 17 percent.

   These numbers call into question Duterte’s claim that “drug abuse” in the Philippines is a symptom of “virulent social disease.”Minimum sentences and mass incarceration

   Globally, more countries are introducing reforms to treat drug use as a public health problem rather than a criminal matter. At the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, many nations voiced strong opposition to punishing drug crimes with execution.

   The Trump administration has stipulated that the death penalty would only be used against “big drug pushers.” But, historically, United States drug laws have primarily punished the lowest-level people in the drug trade.

   In 1986, the Reagan administration enacted mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. Under these laws, judges were required to give at least five years of jail time to people convicted of possessing just 5 grams of crack, for example – about 10 or 20 doses. By law, the judges could not account for mitigating factors such as addiction, mental health or poverty.

   As a result, minimum sentencing guidelines have primarily swept up not violent kingpins but street dealers, mules, couriers and users who have occasionally sell drugs to maintain their own habit.

   In 2016, 50 percent of federal inmates were drug offenders. Three-quarters of them were serving mandatory minimum sentences. Roughly half of those people had no or little criminal history prior to their drug convictions.

   Mandatory minimums helped the U.S. prisoner population explode. Between 1986 and 2000, the number of people in jail almost quadrupled, though incarceration rates have somewhat slowed since the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act.

   None of these policies led drug use in the United States to drop. Cocaine consumption, for example, decreased in the late 1980s, peaked in the 1990s and declined again starting in 2006. Meanwhile, heroin use has risen dramatically.

   The real reasons for these trends remain under-researched but likely include demographic, social and economic factors, as well as changing perceptions of drugs.

   Punitive drug policies have not helped countries deal with drugs. They’ve just created lasting social harms, both in the U.S. and worldwide.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Northeast (PA, NY)

8. Lehigh County files civil suit against pharmaceutical companies

   Mar 26, 2018 | 69 News (PA)

   By Bo Koltnow

   The website of Purdue Pharmaceuticals states the Connecticut-based company's commitment in addressing the nation's prescription drug and opioid abuse crisis.

   However, a civil lawsuit filed by Lehigh County District Attorney Jim Martin, The People of Lehigh County, and the county itself says differently.

   The suit, which targets about a dozen companies around the country, alleges the use of unfair deceptive acts and practices in distributing, marketing and selling opioids. 

   The suit adds these practices were known by the companies and fueled the opioid epidemic.

   The CDC estimates in 2016 there were more than 60,000 overdose deaths in the U.S. fueled in large part to prescription opioids.

   In 2017 in Lehigh County, around 200 people died of drug overdoses, a 20 percent increase from the year before.

   The suit says that brand manufacturers aggressively pushed high-addictive opioids, falsely telling doctors that patients would rarely succumb to drug addiction. It also adds they turned patients into drug addicts for their own corporate greed.

   Endo pharmaceuticals, one of the companies named in the suit, said in a statement in late 2016 it voluntarily ceased opioid promotion and eliminated its entire product sales force.

   Healthcare Distribution Alliance, the national trade association representing wholesale distributors, said:

   "Given our role, the idea that distributors are responsible for the number of opioid prescriptions written defies common sense and lacks understanding of how the pharmaceutical supply chain actually works and is regulated. Those bringing lawsuits would be better served addressing the root causes, rather than trying to redirect blame through litigation.” 

   Lehigh County's high-dollar suit seeks restitution for the prosecution, housing and the overall effects of the issue.

   More than 100 counties nationwide have filed similar suits, including Philadelphia. Lehigh County's is the second such lawsuit in Pennsylvania.

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Lehigh County sues pharmaceutical firms over opioid crisis

   Mar 26, 2018 | The Morning Call (PA)

   By Laurie Mason Schroeder

   Lehigh County has joined hundreds of other municipalities across the U.S. in taking steps to force the pharmaceutical industry to take responsibility for allegedly starting the opioid epidemic.

   District Attorney Jim Martin named eight defendants in the suit, filed Friday in Lehigh County Court, including Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Cephalon and Johnson & Johnson.

   Saying that the lawsuit was “in the public interest,” Martin accused the companies of unfair and deceptive business practices in the distribution and marketing of prescription opioids. The suit alleges that opioid manufacturers breached their legal duties by failing to investigate and report suspicious opioid orders.

   Martin said the suit was intended to “illuminate the hazard to the public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic,” and to recoup money that the county has spent fighting the crisis.

   Opioid makers are facing hundreds of lawsuits from cities and counties for their alleged role in the addiction epidemic. Last month the Department of Justice filed a "statement of interest" in the lawsuits, a show of support that also allows the federal government to claim part of any potential settlement.

   The opioid epidemic, fueled by widespread prescriptions for opioid painkillers and cheap and easy access to heroin, has claimed record deaths in recent years and shows no signs of waning. In 2017, Lehigh County recorded about 200 drug-related deaths, an increase of about 40 from the previous year.

   The suit is just the latest effort in the county to combat the epidemic. Last month, Martin announced Blue Guardian, a program that sends police officers and addiction recovery specialists to the homes of people who suffer an overdose to offer support and information about entering treatment.

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Five Philly Unions Seeking Damages From Drug Companies For Opioid Promotion

    Mar 26, 2018 | CBS Philly (PA)

    By Pat Loeb

    Five Philadelphia unions have joined in the quest to recover costs from drug companies connected to the over prescription of opioids. And more suits are on the way.

    Two city workers unions, the carpenters, the bricklayers and allied craft union and food services union UNITE HERE have filed suits in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. One of the attorneys representing the group, Harris Pogust, says the suits name more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies as defendants.

    “The suit alleges conspiracy among the drug companies to push opioids onto the public,” Pogust explained, “and have doctors prescribe them and overprescribe them and claim that they’re safe and effective when, in fact, the science states otherwise.”

    He says the union had to pay not only for the prescriptions but then for rehab when members got addicted. He anticipates filing several more suits this week. He had no estimate on total damages. 

    The companies have been named in multiple other suits filed by government entities. Most have denied the charges or noted changes in manufacturing or promoting the drugs.

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. NATIONAL LAW FIRM FILES SUIT IN FIGHT AGAINST OPIOID ADDICTION

    Mar 26, 2018 | Fulton County Express (NY)

    By Dusten Rader

    Fulton County has joined the fight against manufacturers of prescription opioid painkillers.
    According to a Simmons Hanly Conroy release, the firm on Monday, March 26, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Fulton County, New York City and 13 other counties across the state “against pharmaceutical companies and physicians over the aggressive and fraudulent marketing of prescription opioid painkillers that has led to a drug epidemic in the county and throughout the nation.”

    Simmons Hanly Conroy, one of the nation’s largest law firms focused on consumer protection and mass tort actions, filed the suit against defendants including: 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 Pharmaceutica, Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Insys Therapeutics, Inc.; Dr. Perry Fine; Dr. Scott Fishman; and Dr. Lynn Webster.
    The counties are seeking relief in compensatory and punitive damages for the millions of dollars it spends each year to combat the public nuisance created by the drug companies’ deceptive marketing campaign that misrepresents the safety and efficacy of long-term opioid use, the release states.

    
    Simmons Hanly Conroy shareholder Paul J. Hanly, Jr., is serving as lead counsel for the county in this case. Hanly was appointed in July 2017 as co-lead counsel overseeing the consolidated New York State opioid litigation.
    In January 2018, Hanly was appointed co-lead counsel of the Multidistrict Opioid Litigation, to oversee all federal litigation brought against pharmaceutical companies and physicians involved in the marketing of prescription opioids. Those cases are being heard in federal court in Ohio.

    
    “Fulton County is the latest to conclude that drug companies must be held responsible for their role in creating the opioid crisis in this country,” Hanly stated in the release. “Together, with county representatives, we will work to get justice for the residents of Fulton County who have suffered profound losses.”

    
    The filing follows similar action taken by Simmons on behalf of New York City and 14 other counties in New York. The lawsuits, which were filed in each county’s state supreme court, have been consolidated in Suffolk County Supreme Court and are being heard by State Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo.

    
    “Fulton County, like many others across the state, is committed to holding drug manufacturers and physicians responsible for the misrepresentations and harms to society they have caused,” Fulton County Attorney Jason Brott stated in the release. “The pharmaceutical companies named in the complaint ignored the impact that their drugs were having on individuals and families across the county.”

    
    According to the complaint, heroin-related deaths in Fulton County doubled between 2015 to 2016, and the number of overdoses more than quadrupled during that time. In Fulton County, more than 18 residents suffered opioid-related overdoses fatalities between 2003 and 2014. In 2014, there were 94 opioid-related emergency department admissions, a 40.3 percent increase since 2010, and 207 inpatient hospital admissions. Furthermore, 157 Fulton County residents were admitted to chemical dependence treatment programs in 2015 and even more in 2016.
    Apart from the toll on human life, the crisis has financially strained the services the county provides its residents and employees, according to the release. Human services, social services, court services, law enforcement services, the office of the coroner/medical examiner and health services, including hospital, emergency and ambulatory services, have all been severely impacted by the crisis.

    
    As a direct and foreseeable consequence of the defendants’ egregious conduct, the county has paid, and continues to pay, millions of dollars for health care costs stemming from prescription opioid dependency, the release continues. These costs include unnecessary and excessive opioid prescriptions, substance abuse treatment services, ambulatory services, emergency department services, and inpatient hospital services, among others.
    The defendants’ conduct also caused the county to incur substantial economic, administrative and social costs relating to opioid addiction and abuse, including criminal justice costs, victimization costs, child protective services costs, lost productivity costs, and education and prevention program costs, among others, the realize concludes.
    The lawsuit alleges, “The defendants sought to create a false perception in the minds of physicians, patients, health care providers and health care payors that using opioids to treat chronic pain was safe for most patients and that the drugs’ benefits outweighed the risks. This was allegedly perpetrated through a coordinated, sophisticated and highly deceptive promotion and marketing campaign – including unbranded messaging to evade extensive regulatory framework governing branded communications.

    
    These communications, which began in the late 1990s, became more aggressive around 2006 and continue today. Specifically, the complaint details how the defendants allegedly poured significant financial resources into generating articles, continuing medical education courses and other ‘educational’ materials, conducting sales visits to doctors, and supporting a network of professional societies and advocacy groups – all of which were successful in the intended purpose of creating a new and phony ‘consensus’ supporting the long-term use of opioids.”
    In addition to Fulton County, Simmons has filed similar ongoing litigation in New York State on behalf of New York City and the counties of Broome, Dutchess, Erie, Greene, Monroe, Orange, Oswego, Schenectady, Seneca, Suffolk, Sullivan, St. Lawrence, Ulster and Wyoming. Simmons has filed similar litigation on behalf of more than 150 other counties and municipalities in Connecticut, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Southeast (GA, AL)

12. Dougherty County could be next to join opioid lawsuit

    Mar 26, 2018 | WFXL (GA)

    By Mary Green

    Dougherty County could join some of its Southwest Georgia neighbors in the legal fight against the nationwide opioid epidemic.

    At their meeting Monday, county commissioners heard from five different law firms that could represent the county in potential upcoming litigation.

    County Attorney Spencer Lee said several law firms had reached out to Dougherty County about representation in these suits, and Lee sent back a questionnaire to each.

    The five who returned the questionnaire were the ones present at Monday's meeting, he said. One firm is based out of Valdosta, while the others are from across Georgia and the Southeast.

    But Lee said nothing is final just yet.

    "What the county is doing is they're considering whether or not to join against the opioid, the pharmacies, the pharmaceutical industry and pill abusers and pill mills and those kind of things that help cause the problem," he said.

    Other local governments to join these lawsuits include Lee County and Sumter County.

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Shelby County files opioid suit, following other Alabama cities, counties

    Mar 26, 2018 | Alabama.com (AL)

    By Lawrence Specker

    As a possible sweeping settlement deal on opioids crawls forward in a federal court in Cleveland, Shelby County has joined the ranks of Alabama jurisdictions angling for a piece of it.

    The Montgomery-based Beasley Allen law firm announced Monday that it had filed a complaint on behalf of the county in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

    "Shelby County is one of the most important counties in Alabama, economically, job wise and in number of residents," said Beasley Allen attorney Rhon Jones in the firm's announcement. "This crisis has impacted Shelby County in a major way and those responsible for this crisis should be held accountable. People are dying on a regular basis due to this crisis. It is time for that to stop or at a minimum be greatly reduced."

    A national wave of litigation has targeted opioid manufacturers and distributors over the course of the last year. States, cities, counties and other governmental entities, as well as some hospitals and other institutions, have argued that they should be able to recoup costs related to an epidemic of addiction. They've accused the companies of raking in profits while turning a blind eye to the social costs resulting from excessive use -- and misuse -- of their addictive products. The companies have denied wrongdoing: Distributors, for example, have argued that they work within a tightly regulated framework and do not give out prescriptions.

    In Alabama, Birmingham filed such a suit as far back as August 2017. Through the fall, a number of other cities and counties followed suit. The general trend has been for such suits to be rolled into a multi-district litigation process being overseen by Judge Dan A. Polster in Cleveland.

    Even before the consolidation, the process was drawing comparisons to the litigation that led to a far-reaching settlement with tobacco manufacturers in the early '90s. Polster has expressly urged participants to work toward a settlement -- but also has barred them from revealing detail about the ongoing negotiations.

    Alabama municipalities whose suits already have been consolidated into the Cleveland process include Birmingham, Butler, Cherokee, Decatur, Demopolis, Enterprise, Fort Payne, Gadsden, Greenville, Marion, Mobile, Moulton, Ozark, Phenix City, Selma, Trussville, Union Springs, Mobile and Opp.

    Counties whose suits have been consolidated include Baldwin, Barbour, Bullock, Calhoun, Cherokee, Clarke, Clay, Coffee, Cullman, Etowah, Fayette, Greene, Houston, Lamar, Lawrence, Lowndes, Marengo, Marion, Marshall, Mobile, Morgan, Sumter, Talladega, Tallapoosa, Tuscaloosa, Washington and Wilcox.

    The state also has filed a suit, against one manufacturer, that has been consolidated into the Cleveland proceedings. Mobile-based Infirmary Health is party to a suit as well, as is the Mobile County Emergency Medical Services System.

    There usually is a lag between the time a suit is filed and the time it is consolidated, so there may well be additional Alabama suits working their way toward Cleveland.

    The last in-court conference was held March 6. Afterward, the court record suggests, Polster was still seeking input on the "scope and timing of a litigation track and the contents of a case management order."

    Return to headline | Return to top

Midwest (IN, MI)

14. Zionsville joins communities suing opioid manufacturers

    Mar 27, 2018 | WTHR / AP (IN)

    By Staff

    Zionsville is joining the long list of Indiana communities suing opioid manufacturers.

    The mayor announced the lawsuit Monday, saying the goal is to hold these companies accountable for fueling the opioid crisis.

    The suit claims the distributors failed to monitor, report and stop suspicious shipments of prescription drugs.

    In December, officials of two Indiana counties and one city announced plans to join the lawsuit.

    The city of Bloomington and the counties Lake and Monroe have signed off on an agreement with Cohen and Malad, an Indianapolis-based law firm, to file a lawsuit. The county commissioners didn't know when the suit will be filed.

    The agreement says that the lawsuit will seek to recover funds from those companies to cover costs that government entities have incurred due to the epidemic.

    Indianapolis filed a similar suit in November. Several states and dozens of U.S. municipalities have also filed similar complaints.

    Several of the companies accused in the suit have denied any wrongdoing, saying they're trying to help solve the abuse problem.

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Grand Rapids’ city officials sue big pharma for racketeering, escalating opioid crisis

    Mar 26, 2018 | Fox 17 (MI)

    By Dana Chicklas & Michael E. Martin

    The City of Grand Rapids is suing several major pharmaceutical companies, accusing them of racketeering and further unlawful behavior, regarding the marketing and distribution of opiate pain medication in the area.

    In the 156-page lawsuit filed Thursday, city officials outline negative impacts the opiate crisis has on society nationwide and accuse the companies of “corporate malfeasanse.”  It aims to become part of more than 64 class actions, filed by local governments, against pharmaceutical companies in what’s called In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation. This will streamline the lawsuits’ goal to settlement or trial.

     

    The lawsuit continues:

     

    “As patients throughout the country became addicted to opioids, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of opioids similarly became addicted to the immense profits associated with the widespread consumption of opioids… If corporate actors had only followed federal law, however, the torrential flow of prescription opioids into American homes, schools, towns and cities might have been slowed to a trickle.”

     

    The City suggests that the plaintiffs-manufactures and distributors of pharmaceutical drugs-knowingly marketed opiate pain drugs as non-addictive or less addictive than they actually were.  They say this is where the “present-day opioid crisis” began, saying the companies worked to “normalize” opiate use in the United States.

     

    The lawsuit says the City of Grand Rapids is disproportionately impacted by the opiate addiction crisis.  It claims Michigan is the tenth-leading state in the country for opioid usage, according to a 2016 statistic. It goes on to explain the massive toll the drugs’ usage take on first responders citywide: for instance, forcing them to shift their attention and resources away from other potentially important issues.

     

    Throughout the 156-page filing, the city outlines how these manufactures of opiate pharmaceuticals allegedly chose to use misleading research in recent decades to minimize the idea that their drugs were potentially habit-forming.

     

    Pharmacies are also listed as defendants in the lawsuit. City officials write these pharmacies failed to act with due diligence to supervise patients taking opiate pain medication. The lawsuit states these companies failed to abide with federal law that places a legal duty on pharmacies to maintain effective controls against prescription opiates being diverted into illegitimate channels.

     

    The lawsuit makes several claims against the defendants, including: being a public nuisance, negligence, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

     

    The City is asking for several things in the lawsuit, including ensuring the listed defendants do not fail in reporting “suspicious orders” of pharmaceuticals in the future. They are also asking for damages on several different points: to reimburse the cost of addressing damages already caused by the epidemic and to fund future efforts.

     

    The defendants listed in the lawsuit are:

     

    ·        Purdue Pharma L.P.

    ·        Cephalon, Inc.

    ·        Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.

    ·        Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    ·        Endo International PLC

    ·        Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    ·        Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    ·        Insys Therapeutics, Inc.

    ·        Mallinckrodt PLC

    ·        Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals

    ·        Allergan PLC

    ·        Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    ·        Watson Laboratories, Inc.

    ·        Actavis LLC

    ·        Actavis Pharma, Inc.

    ·        AmerisourceBergen Corporation

    ·        Cardinal Health, Inc.

    ·        McKesson Corporation

    ·        Omnicare Distribution Center LLC

    ·        Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.

    ·        CVS Health Corporation

    ·        Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.

    ·        Rite Aid Corporation

    ·        Costco Wholesale Corporation

    Return to headline | Return to top

West (ID)

16. Canyon County considering class action lawsuits against opioid distributors

    Mar 26, 2018 | Idaho Press (ID)

    By Nicole Foy

    Two separate groups have invited Canyon County to join class action lawsuits against opioid distributors and manufacturers and large pharmaceutical companies.

    Canyon County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Sam Laugheed explained the two proposals at the monthly Canyon County elected officials meeting Monday morning. One lawsuit is led by Dan Chadwick, former director of the Idaho Association of Counties, and the other by former Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court Jim Jones in conjunction with the law firm Parsons, Behle and Latimer.

    They plan to file tort claims for public nuisance and negligence on behalf of several groups and local governments across the country, according to Laugheed.

    City and county officials across the country have begun to sue pharmaceutical companies for damages caused by opioid abuse in their areas. This month, the Associated Press reported that officials of Summit County in Northern Utah filed a lawsuit in Utah district court against 25 companies and individuals.

    Purdue Pharma, a private pharmaceutical company based in Stamford, Connecticut, is currently one of the planned defendants, according to Laugheed.

    Canyon County Sheriff Kieran Donahue said joining the lawsuit could possibly serve as a deterrent to opioid sale and abuse in the county, if it succeeded.

    “Anything you do that could slow down that onslaught would be helpful,” Donahue said.

    Laugheed and Bryan Taylor, prosecuting attorney for Canyon County, said joining the lawsuit would draw on significant time and personnel resources from the staff in the county clerk and sheriff’s office. Canyon County would need to provide data that quantified the damages caused by opioid abuse in Canyon County.

    County Clerk Chris Yamamoto expressed concern regarding the effectiveness of a successful lawsuit.

    “I think we need to stay out of this,” Yamamoto said.

    Officials present at the meeting Monday unanimously voted to invite both groups to present more information in public hearings before the board of commissioners. Both hearings have yet to be scheduled.

    Return to headline | Return to top

Broadcast Media Coverage

17. Action 2 News at 10

    Mar 27, 2018 | Green Bay, WI

    By WBAY (ABC)

    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858073?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3

    Rough Transcript: it's a first-of-its kind for the american dental association- as it takes a nation-wide step against the opioid epidemic. new at ten - britany schmidt walks us through its new policy changes-- and tells us why sconsin is already a few steps ahead of the recommendations announced today. in an unprecedented move-- the american dental association comes out in support of thre new policies to stop the overprescribing of opioids to patients. two of which-wisconsin dentists are already doing. the a-d-a now supports continued opioid education for dentists----along with use of the state's monitoring program. brittany 51:38-on a monthly basis dr. jansen says he gets about 2-3 people coming through that door, looking for opioids but that's where he says the prescription drug monitoring program comes in hand 51:48 dr. janssen 34:14 anytime we write a prescription for an opioidproduct 34:17 34:20there's a database that the 11:15 PMstaff accesses and we se if the individual is obtaining it from multiple providers, 24:28 dr. crum 1:52 wisconsin has been doing that, has ben promoting member dentists to use the prescription drug monitoring program since 2012, so this is nothing new for wisconsin 2:02 the third policy now encouraged by the a-d-a - is limiting the number of opioids prescribed at one time-- sugesting a supply for up to 7 days. dr. janssen 40:48-i think the least amount we can get by with, the better this is not yet required by law- but it is something considered by many. dr. janssen 45:24 my go to is 100 milligrams of acetaminophen or tylenol with 800 milligrams of ibuprofen and when they are used together, they have a synergistic effect which gets you close to a tylenol 3 or a vicodin or one of those 45:40 dr. crum 6:57 i realy think the oral surgeons have found this too, you can accomplish a great deal of pain relief with the use of non-narcotics and almost better pain relief 7:1 dr. janssensays 11:16 PMhe suports the new recommendations- however-- he knows it won't fix the issue. dr. janssen 42:20-it's a societal problem that will require more but representative john nygren says it keeps the fight against opioids- moving forward. rep. nygren 1:21-wisconsin has seen a 20 percent reduction in opioid prescriptions from 2015- 2017 so i think we are heading in the right directions,1:28 however, i guess from our standpoint, as long as we are seeing significant los in life, we do ned to continue our efforts 1:40 in bellevue-- brittany schmidt- action 2 news the opioid crisis was at the center of coversation today in la crose. democratic senator tamy baldwin hosted a roundtable with law enforcement and health officials-- to understand the efforts being made to combat the epidemic. prevention efforts, crime and treatment option shortages were among the topics discussed during the hour-long meeting. senator baldwin says one of her top priorities is bringing more federal funding to the state to help fight the crisis. wisconsin) : "what i see is such incredibl colaboration and people steping forward to give their all to this epidemic. and i feel like we are on the verge of turning the corner, but it remains a dire public health crisis and it impacts us generationally and acros the state." the federal government will spend a record four-point-six billion dolars this year to fight the epidemic.

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Fox 29 Morning News at 4a

    Mar 27, 2018 | Philadelphia, PA

    By WTXF (Fox)

    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858062?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3

    Rough Transcript: lehigh county joining us fight to force pharmaceutical, industry to take responsibility for allegedly, starting the opioid epidemic. the suit was filed friday in lehigh county court, it names a number of companies including purdue pharma and johnson and johnson. that suit claims opioid manufacturers used deceptive business practices when marking and distributing the drug, in 2017, there were about 200 drug-related deaths in lehigh county an increase of about four from the previous year.

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. FOX 17 Morning News

    Mar 27, 2018 | Grand Rapids, MI

    By WXMI (Fox)

    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858080?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3

    Rough Transcript: the city of grand rapids is joining more than 60 local goverments suing big pharma for the opioid crisis. nicole didonato joins us with more on that and some of today's headlines. the pharmaceutical companies are acused of racketeering to profit from highly-addictive opioids. while lying to the public for decades about how powerful these drugs realy are. grand rapids city oficials accuses 24 pharmaceutical companies of 'prioritizing profit over legal duty'.. city officials say 'by 2012, there were more opioid prescription in michigan than residents.' they claim it harms people and the local economy and forced the city to spend its resources, including first responders, medical staff and police, combating the opioid epidemic. chris hastings/wmu cooley law school profesor 2:40 'they do have teeth and theyre not alone. theyre a group of over 60 municipalities that are filing similar lawsuits that are sought to be consolidated in ohio.' :50butt to chris hastings/wmu cooley law school professor 6:40 'when the first of these lawsuits were filed they were comparing them to the handgun lawsuits, which were rather unsuccessful. and now theyre being compared to the tobaco lawsuits, which ended up being very sucesful. so its a big battle, but its worth fighting.' :52 the city is asking the court to ensure the drug companies report suspicious opioidorders, and to be paid for damages.

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. 69 News Sunrise - 7:00am

    Mar 27, 2018 | Philadelphia, PA

    By WFMZ (WFMZ)

    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858084?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3

    Rough Transcript: lehigh county district attorney jim martin is focusing on pharmaceutical companies in the fight against opioids. he filed a civil lawsuit targeting 12 drug makers from around the country. the suit alleges the companies aggressively pushed highl-addictive opioids, while misleading doctors and patients about the harmful effects. lehigh county is the second county in the state to file such a lawsuit.

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. Fox News First Early Edition

    Mar 27, 2018 | San Antonio, TX

    By KABB (Fox)

    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858087?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3

    Rough Transcript: texas attorney general ken paxon says his attorneys and investigators are 7:04 AMworking with 41 other states to help feed the opioid epidemic. they have issued investigative subpoenas to find out what manufactures of opioids are doing. this includes prescription painkillers hike hydrocodone and heroin. paxon says so much is prescription drug oriented and they are looking into what role manufacturers and distributors are playing. >> we want to understand what they knew and whether they knew they were basically causing a cris for the sake of profits. >> ernie: last week president trump called on congress to toughen sentencing guidelines for fentanyl. paxon said they will enforce the law. while texas is working with 41 other states on an opioid investigation the state at some point could file its own lawsuits against potential manufacturers and distributors of opioids or just take part in a joint lawsuit.

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. KBJR 6 and Range 11 News Today

    Mar 27, 2018 | Duluth, MN

    By KBJR (NBC)

    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858089?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3

    Rough Transcript: the lac courte oreilles band of chippewa joined other communities across the u-s in filing suit against prescription drug manufacturers and distributors in the opioid epidemic. the band says the epidemic has caused more deaths and devastation to their tribe than any other prescription or non- prescription drugs, which includes heroin. tribe leaders say many of the children are also being impacted, including infants being born with opioidaddiction, and the removal of children from addicted parents. the tribe aleges that it has also suffered economic loss due to the epidemic.

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. News10 in the Morning

    Mar 27, 2018 | Albany, NY

    By WTEN (ABC)

    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858099?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3

    Rough Transcript: a local county teaming up with the u-s attorney's office for an event focused on fighting the ongoing opioid epidemic. "the united to fight it" information session is heading to maple hill junior and senior high school in rensselaer county tonight. organizers will show "chasing the dragon: the life of an opiate addict"- a movie about drug adiction and its effects. that will be followed by a panel discusion. this is just one of several information sessions happening at schools across the county. for a ful list-- head to our website- news10-dot-com. fulton county is filing a lawsuit- going after the manufacturers of opioids and the doctors that prescribe them. the county claims pharmactical companies and physicians have aggressively and fraudulently pushed opioids leading to the drug epidemic curently griping the country. it seeks millions of dolars in damages- seeking to recoup the money lost fighting this epidemic.

    Return to headline | Return to top

24. CBS4 Morning News at 6

    Mar 27, 2018 | Indianapolis, IN

    By WTTV (CBS)

    Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/33858117?token=dad27ed8-c116-40cf-bc0d-f7e795a972e3

    Rough Transcript: zionsville becomes the latest indiana community to join a lawsuit suing opioid distributors. communities are suing drug manufacturers and distributors for failing to monitor, identify and report suspicious activity in the size and frequency of opioid shipments to pharmacies and hospitals. this makes for a total of 24 indiana communities and cities who have now filed suit. there have been nearly 100 similar lawsuits filed across the united states.

    Return to headline | Return to top