The government and your prescription privacy

[lesliepear]

Take a look at this LJ entry:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/exileinparadise/151551.html?view=128255#t128255

I'm not too thrilled with government seeing all anexity, depression, sleep and painkiller prescriptions, especially since many of them can be for short term chronic conditions.

Comments

[christilyn.livejournal.com]

Charming...

Ugh.

[scarlett75.livejournal.com]

Well. That article is right and wrong. The government is going to put small GPS tags on some medications (oxycodone, paxil, and ambien) so that they can be tracked from the manufacturer to the distributor. A great, great number of those pills go "missing" between those two points. Think of this as quality control. Once the pills come out of the original packaging and into your prescription bottle, they will no longer be "tracked". TIME magazine had a very large article about this a few weeks ago.

[hel_ana]

Actually, this is a seperate measure from the tagging of certain medications.

If you'd like to read the bill in question, you can find the four versions of it here.. The version that has been sent to the Senate should be the relevant one.

You can find an HTML version of the Controlled Substances Act here. The affected drugs are found in Schedules II, III, and IV.

[scarlett75.livejournal.com]

Ok. But, even if they tagged all of the packages... they still won't be tracking it once it goes into your little brown bottle at the pharmacy and heads out the door. The government already overseas controlled narcotics (pain killers) and requires pharmacies to keep records of who they fill prescriptions for. I don't see what all the hype and worry is for over certain manufacturers tagging their medications.

I use pain control for my lupus and have yet to have a government agency tracking me down. :)

[hel_ana]

I have to ask, if you read the links I posted, why are you still confusing this law with the tagging of three drugs?

I will put it simply for you. The tagging of three medications, specifically Viagra, OxyContin, and another by GlaxoSmithKline, is a measure taken largely by the manufacturers of each drug. This is a separate initiative that has nothing to do with Radio Frequency Identification tags on drugs.

What this bill does is state that in order to get money for a controlled substance monitoring program, states must set up a database of all drugs in Schedules II, III, and IV, including the following information:

(A) Drug Enforcement Administration Registration Number of the dispenser.
(B) Drug Enforcement Administration Registration Number and name of the practitioner who prescribed the drug.
(C) Name, address, and telephone number of the ultimate user or research subject.
(D) Identification of the drug by a national drug code number.
(E) Quantity dispensed.
(F) Estimated number of days for which such quantity should last.
(G) Number of refills ordered.
(H) Whether the drug was dispensed as a refill of a prescription or as a first-time request.
(I) Date of the dispensing.
(J) Date of origin of the prescription.

The information in the state's database must be shared, upon request, with

(2) any local, State, or Federal law enforcement, narcotics control, licensure, disciplinary, or program authority, who certifies, under the procedures determined by the State, that the requested information is related to an individual investigation or proceeding involving the unlawful diversion or misuse of a schedule II, III, or IV substance, and such information will further the purpose of the investigation or assist in the proceeding;

(3) any agent of the Department of Health and Human Services, a State medicaid program, a State health department, or the Drug Enforcement Administration who certifies that the requested information is necessary for research to be conducted by such department, program, or administration, respectively, and the intended purpose of the research is related to a function committed to such department, program, or administration by law that is not investigative in nature; or

(4) any agent of another State, who certifies that the State has an application approved under this section and the requested information is for the purpose of implementing the State's controlled substance monitoring program under this section.

[lesliepear.livejournal.com]

Anyone know where you can find out what drugs are:
Schedules II, III, and IV?

[hel_ana]

I linked to it above, in my first response to scarlett75

[lesliepear.livejournal.com]

I saw that but I was hoping to find something with specifc drug names. I highly doubt any of the medications I'm currently on would be found there (unless they start putting in things like xanax and zoloft).

[secanth.livejournal.com]

"Schedule III, IV, or V — drugs with an abuse risk less than Schedule II. These drugs also have safe and accepted medical uses in the United States. Schedule III, IV, or V drugs include those containing smaller amounts of certain narcotic and non-narcotic drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, tranquilizers, sedatives, stimulants, and non-narcotic analgesics. Some examples are acetaminophen with codeine (Tylenol® No.3), paregoric, hydrocodone with acetaminophen (Vicodin®), diazepam (Valium®), alprazolam (Xanax®), propoxyphene (Darvon®), and pentazocine (Talwin®)."

This is from a Texas website, but that's about all they have on that type of thing. Schedule 1 are the 'non-legal/medical' drugs, II includes most of the more powerful painkillers.

[hel_ana]

Found this:

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/listby_sched/sched2.htm
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/listby_sched/sched3.htm
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/listby_sched/sched4.htm

And Xanax is the first drug in the schedule 4 list.

[lesliepear.livejournal.com]

I don't recognize too many of them (I'm guessing most of them are serious pain killers or mental health drugs?). Still, if they start tracking them, they'll probably find a lot of people who have acute conditions vs. chronic abusers. They'd have to somehow figure out which doctors prescribe this stuff - because for some doctor's a high rate of those Rx's may be normal (pschyatrists or surgeons - especially a top notch specialized surgeon that people are referred to).

[hel_ana]

A whole bunch of them are anabolic steroids.

And of course, the illegal drugs (cocaine, LSD, etc) are on there too.

But yes, this whole thing will require masses of number crunchers.

Bureaucratic Nightmare

[lesliepear.livejournal.com]

They'd probably monitor some OB/GYN who prescribed too much percoset for c-sections!

Re: Bureaucratic Nightmare

[hel_ana]

Well, to be honest with you, I suspect they're going to be more concentrating on things like

"oh, look.. Jimmy here got a prescription for a 30 day supply of OxyContin on February 5, then on February 12th, he got a second prescription for the same thing from a different doctor/pharmacy, and on the 19th, he got a third. Perhaps we should talk to jimmy"

[scarlett75.livejournal.com]

Wow. Someone is snippy today.

I wasn't meaning to start an argument, and I hardly think that what I said was incentive for the lengthy response.

And, as to your comments above; are you nieve enough to believe that stuff isn't already recorded? Futhermore, the information CAN be shared at any time (ALREADY) with due cause and/or a search warrant. I guess I just fail to see what the problem is. But, I'm sure you'll clarify this for me.

[hel_ana]

Wow. Someone is snippy today.

::rolls eyes:: You're neither my mother nor my grandmother, so I really don't feel the correction is necessary.

And yes, I do tend to get testy when people can't be bothered to read what's written.

I wasn't meaning to start an argument, and I hardly think that what I said was incentive for the lengthy response.

::shrugs:: Then consider it not aimed at you. Consider it aimed at people reading, who might think you knew what you were talking about.

And yes, that's snippy too. But you were patronizing, so now I feel completely justified.

Futhermore, the information CAN be shared at any time (ALREADY) with due cause and/or a search warrant. I guess I just fail to see what the problem is. But, I'm sure you'll clarify this for me.

No, not really. I don't need my forehead flattened any more than it has been after 10 years on the Net.

[scarlett75.livejournal.com]

I read it.

I give what I get (in terms of patronization).

And, it's always amazing to me how people refuse to justify their stance. Buh' bye.

[tahoebean.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting this link -- I wrote my senators. I don't want to be labeled as a "possible criminal" for being bipolar, either. :)

[secanth.livejournal.com]

I'm all for tracking from manufacturer to final destination, but once it hits my pharmacy, the 'tracking' tag should come off. As with any type of medical information, who the pharmacy fills the perscription for should be on a 'need to know' basis. In other words, they'd better have some damn good 'probable cause' to go sticking their noses into my medicine drawer...one certified by a judge.

[scarlett75.livejournal.com]

I suspect that since there's no way to actually "Tag" a pill (well, no way that would pass FDA regulations), that won't actually be a problem. :)

I also suspect that they're not going to look that specifically at any ONE person getting a drug. It will most likely be used for statistical purposes/data analysis/market research. Kind of a "more people in their 40's use this drug more than people in their 20's". Regardless of any Bill passed, your medical records and prescription information will still fall under the Patient Privacy Act of 1976. This would require that you must sign a special document allowing the release of your medical records OR a judge must have a supena for your records.