The US Congressional “Decade on Pain Control and Research” 2001–2011: A Review

REFERENCES

• Pain Relief Promotion Act 2000. Title VI, Sec. 1603.
   Google Scholar
• Pain Relief Promotion Act 2000. Title VI, Sec. 1603.
   Google Scholar
• Pain Relief Promotion Act 2000, s. 2(5).
   Google Scholar
• Pain Relief Promotion Act 2000, s. 2(1).
   Google Scholar
• Pain Relief Promotion Act 2000, s. 2.
   Google Scholar
• Washington v Glucksburg 117 S Ct 2258 (1997). Supreme Court of the USA.
   Google Scholar
• Vacco v Quill 117 S Ct 2293 (1997). Supreme Court of the USA.
   Google Scholar
• Burt R. The Supreme Court speaks. N Eng J Med. 1997;337:1235.
   Google Scholar
• Weinman BP. Freedom from pain—establishing a constitutional right to pain relief. J Leg Med. 2003;24:405–539.
   Google Scholar
• Burt R. The Supreme Court speaks. N Eng J Med. 1997:337:1236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Washington v Glucksburg 117 S Ct 2258 (1997) at pp. 2311–2312. Supreme Court of the USA.
   Google Scholar
• Washington v Glucksburg 117 S Ct 2258 ( 1997).
   Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans, 2006. Hyattsville, MD.
   Google Scholar
• Van Den Beuken-van Everdinglen MH, de Rijke JM, Kessels AG, et al. Prevalence of pain in patients with cancer: a systematic review of the past 40 years. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1437–1449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. New York: United Nations; 1972.
   Google Scholar
• Gilson AM, Joranson DE, Maurer MA, et al. Progress to achieve balanced state pain policy relevant to pain management and palliative care: 2000–2003. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2005;19:13–26, at pp. 16–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gilson AM, Joranson DE, Maurer MA, et al. Progress to achieve balanced state pain policy relevant to pain management and palliative care: 2000–2003. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2005;19:13–26, at p. 23.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organization. Achieving Balance in National Opioids Control Policy: Guidelines for Assessment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Joranson DE, Gilson AM, Ryan KM, et al. Achieving Balance in Federal and State Policy: A Guide to Evaluation. Madison, WI: Pain & Policy Studies Group, University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Drug Enforcement Administration, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine et al. A Joint Statement from 21 Health Organizations and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Washington, DC. Promoting Pain Relief and Preventing Abuse of Pain Medications: A Critical Balancing Act, 2001. http://wwwaspmn.org/documents/A_JOINT_STATEMENT_FROM_21_HEALTH_ORGANIZATIONS.pdf. Accessed August 23 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Drug Enforcement Administration, Last Acts, Pain & Policy Studies Group. Prescription Pain Medications: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers for Health Care Professionals and Law Enforcement Personnel. Washington, DC: Drug Enforcement Administration.
   Google Scholar
• DEA letter to David E. Joranson, Director, Pain & Policy Studies Group, University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison. October 4, 2004. Available at: http: //www.medsch.wisc.edu/painpolicy/DEA/Mr. %20David%20Joranson. Accessed xxx.
   Google Scholar
• Drug Enforcement Administration. Dispensing of controlled substances for the treatment of pain. Federal Register. November 16, 2004. 69 FR 67170.
   Google Scholar
• Joranson D. Letter to Michelle Leonhart, Deputy Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. November 24, 2004. Available at: http: // www.painpolicy.wisc.edu/sites/www.painploicy.wisc.edu/files/ IPSresponse.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Attorneys General. Letter from the National Association of Attorneys General to the Drug Enforcement Administration Regarding the DEA Withdrawal of Pain Management Prescription Guidelines.” January 19, 2005. Available at: http://www.naag.org/news/ pdf/so-20050119-prescription-pain-med.pdf. Accessed xxx.
   Google Scholar
• State Attorneys General comment on dispensing of controlled substances for the treatment of pain. Letter to Michelle Leonhart, Deputy Administrator of the DEA. March 21 2005. Available at: http://naag.org/issues/pdf/20050321-final-DEA-Comment.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Fishman SC. President's message—the politics of pain and its impact on pain medicine. Pain Med. 2005;6:199–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drug Enforcement Administration. DEA clarification of existing requirements under the Controlled Substances Act for prescribing Schedule II controlled substances. 70 FR 50408.
   Google Scholar
• Heit HA. Health care professionals and the DEA: trying to get back in balance. Pain Med. 2006;7:72–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drug Enforcement Administration. Issuance of multiple prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances. 21 CFR 1306.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Justice, DEA, Office of Diversion. Issuance of multiple prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances, rules—2007. Available at: http: //www. deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2007/fr1119.htm.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Justice, DEA, Office of Diversion. Issuance of multiple prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances, rules—2007. Final Rule, Section 1306.12(b) (iii). Available at: http: //www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2007/fr1119. htm.
   Google Scholar
• Pain and Policy Studies Group. Achieving Balance in Federal and State Pain Policy: A Guide to Evaluation. 4th ed. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Paul P. Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Drug Enforcement Administration. Issuance of multiple prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances. Fed Regist. 2007;72:6491–6493.
   Google Scholar
• Cited in: Drug Enforcement Administration, Last Acts, Pain & Policy Studies Group. Prescription pain medications: frequently asked questions and answers for health care professionals and law enforcement personnel. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2005;19:71–84, at p. 72.
   Google Scholar
• Gilson AM, Joranson DE, Maurer MA, et al. Progress to achieve balanced state pain policy relevant to pain management and palliative care: 2000–2003. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2005:19:13–26 at pp. 23–24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meier B. OxyContin deaths may top early count. New York Times. April 13, 2002;A14.
   Google Scholar
• Libby RT. Treating Doctors as Drug Dealers: The DEA's War on Prescription Painkillers. Policy Analysis. Washington, DC: Cato Institute; June 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Baumrucker SJ. OxyContin, the media and law enforcement. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2001;181:215–232.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration. Diversion control program, action plan to prevent the diversion and abuse of Oxycontin. Available at: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugs_concern/oxycodone/ abuse_oxy.htm. Accessed xxx.
   Google Scholar
• DEA Administrator Karen Tandy. Quoted in Roosevelt M. Why is the DEA hounding this doctor? Time Magazine. July 25, 2005;49.
   Google Scholar
• Joranson DE, Gilson AM. Drug crime is a source of abused pain medications in the United States. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;30:299–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess F. Pain treatment, drug diversion, and the casualties of war. Pain Med. 2006;7:474–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States. Model Guidelines for the Use of Controlled Substances for the Treatment of Pain. Euless, TX: Federation of State Medical Boards; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Pain & Policy Studies Group. Achieving Balance in State Pain Policy: A Progress Report Card. Madison, WI; University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Weinman BP. Freedom from pain—establishing a constitutional right to pain relief. J Leg Med. 2003;24:405–539 at p. 501 in fn. 29.
   Google Scholar
• Cited in: Roosevelt M. Why is the DEA hounding this doctor? Time Magazine. July 25 2005;48.
   Google Scholar
• Battin MP, Luna E, Lipman AG, et al. Drugs and Justice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008:191.
   Google Scholar
• Fingerhut LA. Increases in methadone-related deaths: 1999–2004. Health E-stats. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2006. Available at: http: //www.cdc. gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/methadone1994.04/ methadone1999.04.htm.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Methadone-Associated Mortality: Report of a National Assessment. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2004:26. SAMHSA Publication No. 04-3904.
   Google Scholar
• Finn S, Tuckwiller T. The killer cure. The Charleston Gazette. June 4–9, 2006;1A, 1E.
   Google Scholar
• Paulozzi LJ, Budnitz DS, Xi Y. Increasing deaths from opioid analgesics in the United States. Pharmcoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:618–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Background information for methadone mortality—a reassessment. July 20, 2007. Available at: http: //www.dpt. samhsa.gov/pdf/MethadoneBackgroundPaper_72007_2_pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Brower V. Patients see proposed FDA opioid rules as painfully restrictive. Nat Med. 2009;15:827.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peppin JF, Coleman JJ, Kirsh KL. Considerations for the upcoming FDA REMS proposal. J Opioid Manage. 2011;7:173–176.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• American Pain Society. American Pain Society Policy related to the FDA REMS decision. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2011;25:91–92.
   Google Scholar
• Weissman DE. Doctors, opioids and the law: the effect of controlled substances regulations on cancer pain management. Semin Oncol. 1993;20(1 Suppl A):53–58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pain and Policy Studies Group. Achieving Balance in State Pain Policy: A Progress Report Card. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Paul P. Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Gilson AM, Joranson DE, Maurer MA, et al. Progress to achieve balanced state pain policy relevant to pain management and palliative care: 2000–2003. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2005:19:13–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• California statues (2006) AB 2198. Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2151-2198_bill_20060920_chaptered.html. Accessed September 21, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Joranson DE, Cleeland CS, Weissman DE, at al. Opioids for chronic cancer and non-cancer pain: a survey of state medical boards. Fed Bull. 1992;79:15–49.
   Google Scholar
• Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States. Model Guidelines for the Use of Controlled Substances for the Treatment of Pain. Euless, TX: Federation of State Medical Boards; 1998. Available at: http://www.fsmb.org.
   Google Scholar
• Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States. Model Policy for the use of controlled substances for the treatment of pain. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2005;19: 73–78.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fishman S, ed. Responsible Opioid Prescribing: A Physician's Guide. Washington, DC: Waterford Life Sciences; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl JL. The State Cancer Pain Initiative Movement in the United States: Successes and Challenges. In: Meldrum ML, ed. Opioids and Pain Relief: A Historical Perspective. Progress in Pain Research and Management. Volume 25. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 2003:163–174.
   Google Scholar
• Office of Diversion Control, US Department of Justice. A closer look at state prescription monitoring programs. Questions and answers. Available at: http://www. deadiversion.usdoj.gov/faq/rx_monitor.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Simeone R, Holland L. An evaluation of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs. September 1, 2006. Accessible at: http://simeoneassociates.com/simeone3.pdf. Accessed August 23 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Katz N, Houle B, Fernandez KC et al. Update on Prescription Monitoring Program Administrators. Pain Medicine 2008;9:587–594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manchikanti L. National drug control policy and prescription drug abuse: facts and fallacies. Pain Physician. 2007;10:399–424.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dahl JL. Legal and regulatory aspects of opioid treatment: the United States experience. In: Bruera ED, Portenoy RK, eds. Cancer Pain—Assessment and Management. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010:583–596.
   Google Scholar
• Forman RF, Woody GE, McLellan T, et al. The availability of Web sites offering to sell opioid medications without prescriptions. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163:1233–1238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rannizzisis JT, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, DEA, US Department of Justice. Congressional Testimony. May 16, 2007. Available at: http://www.dea.gov/divisions/hq/2007/ct051607p.html. Accessed August 23 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Public Law No: 109-60 H.R. 1132. Approved August 11, 2005. Available at: http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109/ d109laws.html. Accessed August 23, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• The American Pain Foundation's Position on: H.R. 3015. The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act (“NASPER”).
   Google Scholar
• 66 Fed. Reg. 56608 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• 126 S.Ct 904.
   Google Scholar
• California Health and Safety Code, s.124960, 124961.
   Google Scholar
• California Bus. and Prof. Code, s.2190.5.
   Google Scholar
• California Bus. and Prof. Code, s. 2241.6 and 2313.
   Google Scholar
• California Bus. And Prof. Code, s.2089.
   Google Scholar
• California Health and Safety Code, s.1254.7.
   Google Scholar
• Quoted in: Charatan F. New law required doctors to learn care of the dying. BMJ. 2001;323:1088–1089.
   Google Scholar
• Assembly Bill 10407, N.Y. 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Fishman SM. From balanced pain care to drug trafficking: the case of Dr William Hurwitz and the DEA. Pain Med. 2005;6:162–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung B, Redenberg MM. The risk of action by the Drug Enforcement Administration against physicians prescribing opioids for pain. Pain Med. 2006;7:353–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldenbaum DM, Christopher M, Gallagher RM, et al. Physicians charged with opioid-anagesic prescribing offenses. Pain Med. 2008;9:737–747.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann DE, Tarzian AJ. Achieving the right balance in oversight of physician opioid prescribing for pain: the role of State Medical Boards. J Law Med Ethics. 2003;31:21–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Sates v Hurwitz 459 F. 3d 463 (4th Cir. 2006).
   Google Scholar
• Brushwood DB. The “General Recognition and Acceptance” standard of objectivity for good faith in prescribing: legal and medical implications. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2007;21:35–38.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fishman SM. Risk of the view through the keyhole: there is much more to physician reactions to the DEA than the number of formal actions. Pain Med. 2006;7:360–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estate of Henry James v. Hillhaven Corporation No. 89 CVA 64 (North Carolina Supreme Court Division, Jan 15, 1989).
   Google Scholar
• Bergman v Chin No. H205732-1 (Cal. App. Dep't Super Ct Feb 16, 1999).
   Google Scholar
• Decision in the Matter of the Accusation Against Eugene B Whitney MD. Case No 12 2002 133376, Decision of Medical Quality of the Medical Board of Pain Relief Promotion Act 2000.
   Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium: index of pain related information. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2005;19:79–84.
   Google Scholar
• Lipman AG. Drug policy, politics, and the law. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2009;23:2–3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anon. National physician survey of opioids reveals misperceptions. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2011;25:90–91.
   Google Scholar
• Gavrin JR. The American Medical Association “Pain Management the Online Series” J Pain Palliative Care Pharmacother 2006;20:71–77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Federation of State Medical Boards. Continuing medical education, overview by state. Available at: http://www.fsmb. org/pdf/GRPOL_Continuing_med_Ed.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• American Academy of Pain Medicine (APS). The use of opioids for the treatment of pain. A consensus statement from the American Academy of Pain Medicine and the American Pain Society. Available at: http://www.ampainsoc.org/ advocacy/opioids.htm. Published 1996.
   Google Scholar
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Adult cancer pain 2007. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician.gls/ PDF/pain.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• International Association of Hospice and Palliative Care (IAHPC), Worldwide Palliative Care Alliance (WPCA). Joint Declaration and Statement of Commitment on Palliative Care and Pain Treatment as Human Rights (2008). Available at: http://www.hospicecare.com/resources/pain_pallcare_hr/docs/ jdsc.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• xxx. International Pain Summit (IPS) of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP). Declaration of Montreal. Pain. 2011;152:2673–2674.
   Google Scholar
• Cousins MJ, Lynch ME. American Academy of Pain Medicine Council on Ethics. Ethics charter from American Academy of Pain Medicine. Pain Med. 2005;6:203–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuehn BM. Opioid prescriptions soar: increase in legitimate as well as abuse. JAMA. 2007;297:249–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar