Lawrence John: Legislation another barrier to opioid addiction treatment |
Featured Commentary

Lawrence John: Legislation another barrier to opioid addiction treatment


Last year, Pennsylvania took a major step forward in helping those addicted to opioids by becoming the first state in the nation to remove the prior authorization insurance requirement for medication-assisted treatment (MAT). Unfortunately, our state Legislature is now considering a measure that would set us back in helping those same people receive the most effective, evidence-based treatment.

MAT is the use of medications combined with counseling and behavioral therapies, and has become the gold standard for treating those suffering from opioid use disorder.

While there is a national push to remove barriers to MAT, Pennsylvania Senate Bill 675 would add additional hurdles for physicians to prescribe and dispense buprenorphine, including a $500 annual fee.

Senate Bill 675, introduced by Michele Brooks, R-Erie, passed the Pennsylvania Senate in June and now moves to the House of Representatives. The Pennsylvania Medical Society, Pennsylvania Psychiatric Society and Pennsylvania Society of Addiction Medicine oppose it.

While proponents of SB 675 say buprenorphine has the potential to be misused, it contributed to only one out of 900-plus opioid-related deaths in Allegheny County in 2016, according to a report from the Alle­gheny County Department of Human Resources. The Wolf administration and the city of Philadelphia are among those that have actively worked to support its growth.

It would be a shame to slow the hard-earned progress Pennsylvania has made in battling the opioid epidemic. While the battle is far from over, the Wolf administration and General Assembly have enacted — and the medical community has supported — several measures that are making a difference.

Recent data from the American Medical Association shows that Pennsylvania’s physicians are writing fewer opioid prescriptions and increasing their usage of the state’s prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP).

Since Pennsylvania strengthened its PDMP in mid-2016, the ability of physicians to monitor patients’ use of opioids has greatly improved and doctor shopping has been virtually eliminated.

As a practicing family physician, I have witnessed a culture shift in the public’s view on opioids.

My patients no longer expect primary care physicians to instantly relieve chronic pain with medication. If the need for opioids arises, our office refers patients to pain management specialists and then monitors their progress through the PDMP.

Reducing the supply of physician-prescribed opioids has led to the rise in the use of illicit opioids such as fentanyl and heroin. These drugs are now a primary reason overdose deaths in Pennsylvania remain above the national average, according to data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Reducing fentanyl and heroin-­related overdoses and deaths requires further harm reduction efforts — such as continued expansion of naloxone — and increased access to treatment for patients.

Policymakers, insurers, medical professionals and the public must work together to continue making progress. SB 675 would do the opposite — create an additional barrier that prevents physicians and other health care professionals from helping patients with opioid use disorder.

Dr. Lawrence John, president-elect of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, practices in Aspinwall.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.