IBJNews

Indiana board considers 1-year delay of patient tests

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana's Medical Licensing Board is considering delaying for one year a proposed new rule that would require physicians to conduct annual toxicology tests on some patients as part of a larger state effort to crack down on prescription drug abuse.

Board members on Thursday discussed the pros and cons of making the drug-testing requirement a recommendation for the first year before it would become mandatory in 2015.

Some board members said they were concerned that physicians might need the extra time to adjust to the proposed emergency rules the panel must adopt as part of a state law passed this year calling for standards for prescribing potent medications such as painkillers.

"The market needs to know what we are going to require as part of this testing," said board member Bharat Barai, a physician in the northern Indiana city of Merrillville.

Board Chairman Stephen Huddleston questioned whether delaying the proposed mandatory urine or saliva tests for some patients to detect potent painkillers would satisfy the Legislature's instructions that the panel draft emergency rules to help curtail rampant prescription drug abuse.

Prescription drugs were blamed for 718 overdose deaths in Indiana in 2011, a nearly 10-percent increase from 2010's 654 deaths.

The results of the drug tests would determine if a patient is actually taking their prescribed medications or possibly selling them illegally to people hooked on those drugs.

"That was a big piece of the Legislature's concerns, that we have people out there selling this stuff," Huddleston told the board. "We've had dramatic testimony from a nurse who watched the patient go into the parking lot to sell the drugs he'd just gotten. And then he came back the next month and the physician gave him another prescription."

Board member John McGoff, an Indianapolis physician, said doctors who've already adopted best practices for spotting patients who might be selling their medications already perform periodic tests on patients and wouldn't be affected by the new rules.

"They aren't going to see a change. They've worked it out and it's part of their overhead," he said.

Huddleston said the panel, which also discussed other issues Thursday related to the proposed rules, would hold a public hearing in September on those rules and likely vote during its October meeting on adopting them.

The state law passed earlier this year requires the board to adopt temporary emergency rules by Nov. 1, and have permanent ones in place by November 2014.

State Attorney General Greg Zoeller said last week that more people in Indiana now abuse prescription drugs than abuse cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens and inhalants combined.

The new rules will be part of a state prescription drug crackdown that's also targeting so-called "pill mills," where doctors churn out prescriptions to addicted patients.

Zoeller said his office has taken action against more than 15 doctors since January 2012 for prescribing addictive painkillers for purposes not considered medically appropriate.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Freedom is Good
    Mandatory testing of precious bodily fluids is an important and vital component of personal freedom. Also, it's better than asking dangerous questions like why some people are so unhappy that they are willing to risk injury, imprisonment, or death to escape from their miserable lives for a few hours. Those folks need to accept that they are losers and should be made to face their fate rather than avoiding it. All spoils to the victors and none to the losers - there is no greater moral imperative. All else is theft.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT