Drug & Device News

Congress Moves to Control Opioid Abuse Epidemic

In May, Congress passed a slate of bills aimed at combating the growing opioid abuse problem in the United States. Unfortunately, no monies were allocated to implementing them. One of the measures is H.R. 4641, a proposed law whose fairly self-descriptive title is: “To provide for the establishment of an inter-agency task force to review, modify, and update best practices for pain management and prescribing pain medication, and for other purposes.” It calls for the formation of a task force ' made up of patients, medical professionals, hospitals, pain advocacy groups, state medical boards and federal agencies ' which will be asked to consider current best practices in prescribing opioids and formulating improvements that will result in fewer overdoses and fewer people becoming addicted. According to a release issued by one of the sponsors of H.R. 4641, Rep. Susan Brooks (R-IN), the United States loses 78 Americans each day to opioid overdose. “We have to act now to stem the tide of opioid abuse in this country, and it starts with giving prescribers, law enforcement, treatment professionals and communities the tools they need to prevent opioid abuse, treat substance abuse and addiction, and prevent illegal drugs from being bought and sold,” said Brooks.

'

Defense May Hire Plaintiffs' Treating Physicians

In the lawsuit against Benicar maker Daiichi-Sankyo (In re Benicar (Olemesartan) Products Liability Litigation), the drug company defendant has been given permission to hire the plaintiffs' prescribing physicians as experts or consultants for the defense. The multidistrict litigation concerning the blood pressure drug is currently in federal court in Camden, NJ, where it is being overseen by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. In granting the motion, Judge Schneider allowed that, “[a]t bottom, defendants' right to retain qualified experts may be impaired if plaintiffs' treating and prescribing physicians are completely off-limits.”

Judge Schneider was less sympathetic to the defendants' motion to restrict the prescribing doctors' ex parte communications with the plaintiffs and their attorneys ' a motion that was based, in part, on the allegation that the plaintiff side might attempt to influence their doctors' recollections of the relevant events. The court found no evidence of any such witness coaching in the case.

'