This Media Outlet Just Sued the Pentagon Over its New Policy
Tim Walz Can Dish It Out, but He Can't Take It
Guess How Many Democrats Voted Against Protecting Our Schools From Chinese Influence
Pope Leo Tells Europeans Worried About Islam to Be Less Fearful
Occam's Bazooka
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 297: Biblical Time Keeping – BC and AD...
Democratic Lawmakers Big Mad That Trump Admin is Fighting NarcoTerrorists
Trump Admin Sweeping Minneapolis For Illegals After Somali Fraud Exposed
Maryland Man Sentenced for Scheme Helping Foreign IT Workers Pose as U.S. Citizens
Arizona Father-Son Duo Sentenced for Massive Cross-Border Narcotics and Money Laundering S...
Two Miami Men Get 57 Months for Nationwide Sale of Diverted HIV and...
Federal Jury Finds Texas Resident Guilty in $150K PEMEX Bribery Plot
Another Person Stabbed on Charlotte Light Rail; Illegal Alien Arrested
The Dangerous Joy of Christmas: Standing With Persecuted Christians This Season
America First, Christian Nationalism, and Antisemitism
OPINION

The Costs of Monitoring Your Prescriptions

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

Prescription drug monitoring programs do not seem to be very effective at preventing abuse of opioids or other controlled substances. Yet PDMPs amount to a massive invasion of patient privacy, inviting unconstrained government snooping that violates our Fourth Amendment rights.

Advertisement

The number of states with PDMPs tripled between 2001 and 2012, from 16 to 49. These programs are aimed mainly at reducing deaths involving prescription analgesics by preventing "doctor shopping," the practice of obtaining multiple prescriptions from different physicians and filling them at different pharmacies.

But as John Lilly, a family doctor in Springfield, Missouri, notes in the latest issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, doctor shopping was never very common, and PDMPs do not seem to have curtailed it. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the percentage of "nonmedical" users who directly or indirectly obtained opioids through multiple prescriptions rose from 3.6% in 2011 to 4.8% in 2014.

The survey's questions about prescription drugs changed in 2015, so the numbers for more recent years are not directly comparable. But Lilly calculates that doctor shopping that year accounted for 2.3% of prescription opioid "misuse," a rate that fell to 1.7% in 2016 before rising to 2.5% in 2017.

"Since doctor shopping was the source of only 2.5% of misused pain medicine in 2017," Lilly writes, "it is clear that the problem is not doctor shopping. Even with the entire country under a PDMP, this small percentage is increasing, but 97.5% of the misused opioids will never be identified by a PDMP."

Meanwhile, deaths involving prescription analgesics continued to rise from 2011 through 2017, while deaths involving all opioids -- primarily illicitly produced heroin, fentanyl and fentanyl analogs -- more than doubled. PDMPs may have contributed to that trend by deterring analgesic prescriptions and driving nonmedical users, along with some legitimate patients, to the black market, where the drugs are much more dangerous because their potency is highly variable and unpredictable. Several studies have found that PDMPs are associated with increased deaths involving illicit drugs.

Advertisement

Related:

DRUGS

The privacy cost of PDMPs is harder to measure but nevertheless undeniable. New Hampshire is currently engaged in a legal battle with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, which asserts the authority to obtain PDMP information through administrative subpoenas rather than the probable-cause warrants required by state law.

Relying on the "third-party doctrine," the DEA argues that it does not need a warrant because examining PDMP records does not qualify as a search under the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that no warrant is required to obtain information that people voluntarily share with third parties such as banks and phone companies.

But last year, the Court declined to extend the third-party doctrine to cellphone location data, noting that such information is collected automatically and "provides an intimate window into a person's life." The American Civil Liberties Union, joined by the New Hampshire Medical Society, argues that the logic of that decision clearly applies to information about the medications people take.

The ACLU notes that patients do not in any meaningful sense consent to the collection of their prescription records. If they seek medical treatment and it involves a prescription drug covered by New Hampshire's PDMP law, that information is automatically added to the database, where it stays for three years.

Furthermore, the ACLU says, a patient's prescription records include highly sensitive information that "can reveal her physician's confidential medical advice, her chosen course of treatment, her diagnosis, and even the stage or severity of her disorder or disease." Letting federal drug warriors peruse those records at will not only compromises patients' privacy; it could have a chilling effect on medical treatment, deterring people from seeking care and confiding in their physicians.

Advertisement

It's debatable whether these burdens would be acceptable even if PDMPs worked as intended. Given their actual track record, the sacrifices they entail are even harder to justify.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement