Involvement of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in the FDA’s plans for an opioid-REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy) initiative is still unknown. However, if what is happening with the prescribing of buprenorphine is any example, practitioners prescribing opioids for pain may be headed for considerable aggravation in the name of “regulatory responsibility.”
During the past several years, practitioners in the U.S. have been strongly encouraged to acquire the necessary training — usually a one-day course, often conducted at conferences in the pain field — to become authorized by the DEA to prescribe buprenorphine (Subutex® or Suboxone®) for treating opioid addiction, including dependence on opioid analgesics. About 18,000 physicians currently have obtained authorization, called a “waiver.” Now, according to a news feature from Join Together [Curley 2009], a letter from the DEA sent to these physicians has sparked concerns about intimidation and a perceived attempt to suppress the number of practitioners prescribing the medication. The letter sent late last July from DEA diversion manager Barbara A. McGrath said that the agency was developing plans to inspect buprenorphine-waiver recipients.
The letter noted, "…we are attempting to discern whether the DATA-waived portion of your medical practice will need to be inspected." Recipients of the letter choosing to discontinue prescribing the drug could exit the program simply by filling out an attached form. Continuing physicians were informed to complete a questionnaire and to prepare for an inspection visit by having a variety of documents on hand, including DEA forms, licenses, treatment documentation, and waiver certificates. While the Join Together article concedes that the letter could be viewed as a simple administrative procedure, it observes that “… given DEA's reputation among some doctors for choosing heavy-handed enforcement over patient needs — along with a perceived hostility toward buprenorphine and other opiate-replacement therapies — the letter resulted in an immediate outcry from recipients.”
More from Join Together: According to Richard Saitz, MD, at the Boston University School of Medicine, the letters may have led some doctors to conclude that "it is the last straw and not worth it to them to put up with all of the challenges one needs to surmount to prescribe buprenorphine." Charles O'Keeffe a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine noted that the majority of letter recipients were family practitioners and internal-medicine specialists who "went to the trouble to take the courses and get certified to prescribe" — in other words, just the kind of providers that buprenorphine proponents were hoping would embrace the drug as a way to treat addiction in office-based practices. "Overall, the feeling was that it was inappropriate to single out these physicians," who may be especially vulnerable to feeling pressured by the DEA, O'Keeffe said.
Tom McLellan, deputy director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), acknowledged to Join Together, "The problem is if you get a letter from the IRS or the DEA, it evokes strong emotional reactions." He said that the administration is working on a followup response to belay fears and that acting DEA administrator Michelle Leonhardt understood how the letter could have been misinterpreted. "They [the DEA] are merely trying to carry out their regulatory responsibilities," McLellan noted.
Followup comment: While the vast majority of buprenorphine prescribers would probably have nothing to fear from DEA inspections, healthcare providers are understandably loathe to have government agencies scrutinizing their practices for any reason. Many will no doubt opt out of the buprenorphine program. Is this what the future might hold in store for opioid analgesics under REMS initiatives?
Already, there are some otherwise qualified practitioners who do not prescribe opioid analgesics, rather than risk any possibility of running afoul of regulatory agencies. Also, we have previously noted that recently announced REMS programs for Onsolis® (see blogpost 7/17/09) and Exalgo™ (see 9/26/09) involve special prescriber registration and education (of unknown extent), but the ultimate enforcement of adherence to REMS requirements and restrictions is still largely undetermined; especially, what role the DEA may play. This is worthy of consideration, because if the mandated requirements and perceived regulatory risks of prescribing opioids become overbearing many healthcare providers will simply not do so. And, unknown numbers of patients will suffer as a result. Do you think all of this is of concern, or are we overreacting? (You can comment below.)
Reference: Curley B. DEA letter sparks fears about intimidation of buprenorphine docs. Join Together (online from the National Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse [CASA] at Columbia University). October 1, 2009 [article available here].
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)







7 comments:
I do not think you are over reacting in the least way. The DEA has already proven they like to think they qualify as doctors trying to say whom should get opiates and who shouldn't. This is just a step away from further regulating doctors who are trying to help the suffering people in this country. It makes me madder than rabid dog to think of them sticking their big Bureaucratic nose in my medical records where they don't have the slightest idea of what I have been through in my life with my back. The doctor doesn't have enough room in his file cabinets to keep the volumes most of us have on all we have gone through to finally find some help. If we do not join together to help these doctors out we are going to find ourselves with some chicken crap meds that wouldn't stop the ache of a stubbed toe. I for one am going to write more letters in hard copy to these stupid congressmen and senators who think they can reform health care and they can't even pass a Bill to help the Chronic pain suffers that has been in Washington for 4 years. Bill S. 660 has changed numbers and years to make it look new every since 2004. Who the heck do they think they are fooling we have nothing but a bunch of Rich BOZO'S in Washington and that includes our new President who is spending money like there's no tomorrow. My Great Grandchildren will never dig us out of the pit he's putting us in. REFORM Health Care My Rear End.
the only thing in your article that needs to be changed is that the word "majority" should be in place of "some" in your sentence:
'Already, there are some otherwise qualified practitioners who do not prescribe opioid analgesics, rather than risk any possibility of running afoul of regulatory agencies'
I don't think this reaction is inapperopriate or unnecessary. Rather, it seems that the FDA is taking yet another step to discourage physicians from practicing pain medicine to the best of their abailities. This "Bg Brother" approach has to be toned down so that physicians can feel reasonably secure that good medical practice involving opiods will not put them at risk of unnecessary or additional regulatory review.
"Give a young boy a hammer and soon he will discover that the whole world needs pounding." Well, give a bureaucrat the power to control things and soon he will discover that everything needs to be controlled. Those of us that live the nightmare of chronic, debilitating pain and have finally found some relief with opoid analgesics need to take EVERY opportunity to support our prescribing physicians, as well as make our cases known to every lawmaker, every bureaucrat and anyone else who thinks they have authority over our lives. It's not right that they do, but they do none the less, so never miss an opportunity to educate them, to convince them, to pursuade them to leave medicine to the doctors.
i think the only ones who suffer from this is the doctors who really do care for thier patients. and the patients who are truly suffering with chronic pain. The pill mill dr's will still sell their prescriptions to the abusers. constantly moving around. I feel like the government no matter what agency it is has absoulutely no business in mine or anyone elses medical care. Where will it end? It will not help those who need it. I find it very difficult to find a decent pain dr. these days and once the immplement this it will be next to impossible. I already have to fight with the V.A. just to get proper care. It is a nightmare. I think every chronic pain sufferer should send a letter to their congressman or senator. I think i will write up a petition to bring to my local V.A. clinic and start having all the vets. sign it before turning it into my congressman. I sure hope enough of us complain so this can be stopped.
There are over 1 million practitioner registrants. For anyone interested the cases that have resulted in administrative action by DEA or the criminal cases in which the DEA was involved are available with outcomes and summaries on the DEA's Diversion Control website. Compared to the total registrant population the number of cases is very small. The DEA is a government agency that must carry out regulatory responsibilities. Unfortunately, many people have a strong reaction to governmental authority. Plenty of people slow down when they see a blue light in the rear view mirror whether they are speeding or not. That doesn't mean the police should not be on the roads.
What is described immediately above is the well-known "chilling effect" government agencies often exert. Drivers slowing down because of police presence is safe practice. Analgesic prescribers slowing down because of concerns about DEA sanctions, real or imagined, results in the needless suffering of many persons with pain. Yes, the DEA serves a vital role; however, in our opinion, there needs to be more attention paid to unintended consequences that affect innocent practitioners and patients. --SBL
Post a Comment
Comments are reviewed before posting. Advertising messages or links, vulgarity, and personal health descriptions or questions are not allowed. To learn more, please see our Comments Policy.