[1] https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/finance/federal-jury-holds-...
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.
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.
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.
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-...
> 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.
As a person with adhd, why would i want to sue my provider? They have nothing to do with why there's been an adderall shortage since october. it seems to me the last thing I want to do is make providers feel averse to treating adhd out of concern for being sued.
This sort of thing is better handled through regulatory and legislative means. Perhaps it's not being handled particularly well at the moment, but the status quo seems preferable to establishing precedent that one can successfully sue a doctor for writing appropriate prescriptions for drugs that are scarce due to supply chain bottlenecks.
I believe you can only do this with unscheduled drugs so it is not a successful strategy for opiates and amphetamine.
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.
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.
These secretive DEA limits just underline a weird "moral judgment" of people who have conditions that benefit from stimulant medications. Almost like its our faults for having neurochemistry's that don't uphold the perceptions of a protestant work ethic.
The worse part is that its mostly separated from any particular religion nowadays but agencies like the DEA that essentially self-reinforce this lopsided moral code.
For one thing, pharmacists aren’t just retailers. For example, I take a very powerful medication. It’s essential to get the dose just right.
My health care organization employs a pharmacist who sepecializes in the medication, and sets the doses for patients in the program.
This pharmacist doesn’t dispense medication. She instructs the physicians on what dose to prescribe.
I recently had an extremely painful medical event. I was given hydrocodone, but it didn’t have any effect. A pharmacist was called in, and they figured out a drug cocktail that addresses the pain.
Pharmacists really are medical experts and a knowledgeable part of the care team. Doctors should use their expertise more than they do. And it’s completely appropriate for a pharmacist to assertively demand an explanation for what’s going on.
I guess I’m confused - are you saying pharmacists should not be able to refuse to fill a script or they are not able?
As it stands they are able, and can be held accountable for doing so.
Maybe the law should change to where pharmacists are simply agents of the prescribed. But that’s not current law or custom.
[1] https://www.goodrx.com/healthcare-access/pharmacies/why-phar...
Short of life and death situations I don't think I will be seeking any kind of medical care in the US. If it isn't urgent I'll make a vacation out of it and travel to cheaper more humane countries.
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.