6 ms·

After the pharmacies got sued for filling opiate prescriptions (which were written by abusive doctors, but the pharmacies are the ones who got sued)[1], is it a

After the pharmacies got sued for filling opiate prescriptions (which were written by abusive doctors, but the pharmacies are the ones who got sued)[1], is it any surprise that Xanax and Adderall are being limited? If pharmacies are at risk for filling prescriptions that are more complex than antibiotics, the end result is that they make it harder to fill them. [1] https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/finance/federal-jury-holds-cvs-walgreens-and-walmart-responsible-for-role-opioid-crisis https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/finance/federal-jury-holds-...

dsfyu404ed 3y ago
>which were written by abusive doctors, but the pharmacies are the ones who got sued Must be nice to have a professional organization that acts like a cartel and makes lesser people pay for the sins of all but the worst of the worst actors.
runnerup 3y ago
> is it any surprise that Xanax and Adderall are being limited? That depends on who is doing the limiting — if the pharmacy corporations are self-limiting then I would understand they are limiting their potential exposure/liability to whatever risk level they are comfortable with. I’ll still be able to find my necessary drugs at another chain which doesn’t limit. If the government is doing the limiting, then yes, that would be surprising. That seems to be the case here, and I think it’s a very inappropriate response — totally attacks the wrong part of the system.
- kevviiinn 3y ago
  The DEA needs to justify their existence somehow
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- zamnos 3y ago
  The article goes to lengths to describe how the government, specifically the DEA are limiting supply by issuing edicts to pharmaceutical companies. Corporations don't generally defy government edicts, especially ones that lead to raids and jail time, so we really can say it's the government's doing here, rather than particularly self-limiting behavior on the part of the pharmaceutical companies. That the government is threatening defiance of edicts with fines and jail time and not using direct means to stop additional production is not a distinction worth making - the government is limiting the supply of these medications.
  - landemva 3y ago
    Can you please provide a cite? I tend to think this coercion probably is happening. Agency rule making should be public and published in federal register. I don't know what the effective recourse would be. The easy track is to go to Mexico and load up on what your Dr. prescribed.
    - zamnos 3y ago
      I agree should be, but unfortunately that's not the case. Not in proper detail. Broadly, the DEA's power comes from the Controlled Substances Act, originally passed in 1970 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act, but the modern day limits themselves are secret. The medications described are Schedule II, which is defined as "The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions." One citation for the limits being secret are: Ike Swetlitz, I (2023) "Xanax and Adderall Access Is Being Blocked by Secret Drug Limits". Bloomberg, Online edition. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-03/adderall-shortages-are-made-worse-by-the-opioid-crisis https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-03/adderall-... > Xanax and Adderall Access Is Being Blocked by Secret Drug Limits > The Drug Enforcement Administration regulates the manufacturing, distribution and sale of controlled substances, which can be dangerous when used improperly > the limits themselves are secret. > A Cardinal Health document reviewed by Bloomberg News says that limits are calculated on a daily, monthly, and quarterly basis.
pyuser583 3y ago
My understanding is that pharmacists are highly trained care providers. They aren’t simply some retailer who fills a doctors order.
- cvalka 3y ago
  They should have no business overriding prescriptions.
  - zenexer 3y ago
    They can and should—that’s their area of expertise. I’ve had pharmacists catch dangerous but obscure drug interactions that my doctors failed to catch, typically because the two interacting medications were prescribed by two different types of doctors. Even though both would’ve had access to the same medical records and my full medication list, and even though that data was being checked by a computer, mistakes happen and databases are sometimes incomplete.
    - hombre_fatal 3y ago
      That's the only happy case. I've had pharmacists deny me because I was paying for amphetamine without insurance. They said it was suspicious and refused to call my doctor to confirm that I wasn't some sort of criminal. That's the kind of unreasonable power that they shouldn't have. Finding bad drug combos? I don't think anyone has an issue with that. If you find a customer to be suspicious (I was wearing a black t-shirt, to be fair), you should be required to call the customer's doctor office and confirm the prescription.
      - hammyhavoc 3y ago
        Oh no, not a black t-shirt.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        > That's the kind of unreasonable power that they shouldn't have. Then the government should come out and say they will not go after pharmacists for filling any and all prescriptions. The government wants it both ways, keep doctors and pharmacists liable and randomly nail, but not clearly publish standards of rules so no one can accuse the government of intervening in people’s right to healthcare. Government gets plausible deniability and someone to throw under the bus. No reason for the people that can get thrown under the bus to stick their neck out.
zackees 3y ago
[dead]
brandonmenc 3y ago
It’s amusing watching the hn commentariat freak out that they can’t get their amphetamine after years of telling chronic pain sufferers to just tough it out because opiates and the Sacklers are bad.

dsfyu404ed 3y ago

>which were written by abusive doctors, but the pharmacies are the ones who got sued Must be nice to have a professional organization that acts like a cartel and makes lesser people pay for the sins of all but the worst of the worst actors.

runnerup 3y ago

> is it any surprise that Xanax and Adderall are being limited? That depends on who is doing the limiting — if the pharmacy corporations are self-limiting then I would understand they are limiting their potential exposure/liability to whatever risk level they are comfortable with. I’ll still be able to find my necessary drugs at another chain which doesn’t limit. If the government is doing the limiting, then yes, that would be surprising. That seems to be the case here, and I think it’s a very inappropriate response — totally attacks the wrong part of the system.

kevviiinn 3y ago
The DEA needs to justify their existence somehow
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zamnos 3y ago
The article goes to lengths to describe how the government, specifically the DEA are limiting supply by issuing edicts to pharmaceutical companies. Corporations don't generally defy government edicts, especially ones that lead to raids and jail time, so we really can say it's the government's doing here, rather than particularly self-limiting behavior on the part of the pharmaceutical companies. That the government is threatening defiance of edicts with fines and jail time and not using direct means to stop additional production is not a distinction worth making - the government is limiting the supply of these medications.
- landemva 3y ago
  Can you please provide a cite? I tend to think this coercion probably is happening. Agency rule making should be public and published in federal register. I don't know what the effective recourse would be. The easy track is to go to Mexico and load up on what your Dr. prescribed.
  - zamnos 3y ago
    I agree should be, but unfortunately that's not the case. Not in proper detail. Broadly, the DEA's power comes from the Controlled Substances Act, originally passed in 1970 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act, but the modern day limits themselves are secret. The medications described are Schedule II, which is defined as "The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions." One citation for the limits being secret are: Ike Swetlitz, I (2023) "Xanax and Adderall Access Is Being Blocked by Secret Drug Limits". Bloomberg, Online edition. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-03/adderall-shortages-are-made-worse-by-the-opioid-crisis https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-03/adderall-... > Xanax and Adderall Access Is Being Blocked by Secret Drug Limits > The Drug Enforcement Administration regulates the manufacturing, distribution and sale of controlled substances, which can be dangerous when used improperly > the limits themselves are secret. > A Cardinal Health document reviewed by Bloomberg News says that limits are calculated on a daily, monthly, and quarterly basis.

pyuser583 3y ago

My understanding is that pharmacists are highly trained care providers. They aren’t simply some retailer who fills a doctors order.

cvalka 3y ago
They should have no business overriding prescriptions.
- zenexer 3y ago
  They can and should—that’s their area of expertise. I’ve had pharmacists catch dangerous but obscure drug interactions that my doctors failed to catch, typically because the two interacting medications were prescribed by two different types of doctors. Even though both would’ve had access to the same medical records and my full medication list, and even though that data was being checked by a computer, mistakes happen and databases are sometimes incomplete.
  - hombre_fatal 3y ago
    That's the only happy case. I've had pharmacists deny me because I was paying for amphetamine without insurance. They said it was suspicious and refused to call my doctor to confirm that I wasn't some sort of criminal. That's the kind of unreasonable power that they shouldn't have. Finding bad drug combos? I don't think anyone has an issue with that. If you find a customer to be suspicious (I was wearing a black t-shirt, to be fair), you should be required to call the customer's doctor office and confirm the prescription.
    - hammyhavoc 3y ago
      Oh no, not a black t-shirt.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      > That's the kind of unreasonable power that they shouldn't have. Then the government should come out and say they will not go after pharmacists for filling any and all prescriptions. The government wants it both ways, keep doctors and pharmacists liable and randomly nail, but not clearly publish standards of rules so no one can accuse the government of intervening in people’s right to healthcare. Government gets plausible deniability and someone to throw under the bus. No reason for the people that can get thrown under the bus to stick their neck out.

zackees 3y ago

[dead]

brandonmenc 3y ago

It’s amusing watching the hn commentariat freak out that they can’t get their amphetamine after years of telling chronic pain sufferers to just tough it out because opiates and the Sacklers are bad.