In Case You Haven't Heard…

Abstract

You have, certainly, heard about the problems with the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) “suspicious ordering” policy that has led pharmaceutical distributors to identify buprenorphine as a medication that needs to be reported if a pharmacy orders “too much” (whatever that means). The result, according to a stern letter from Rob Morrison, executive director of the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD) to the DEA's administrator, Anne Milgram, has been “shortages of buprenorphine” at the pharmacy level. In other words, patients who need it, can't get it. “The intent behind the suspicious ordering policy was to address large amounts of opioids being supplied to certain pharmacies,” noted the May 15 letter, a copy of which was obtained by ADAW, adding that “we have become aware that state and territorial boards of pharmacy, state pharmacy associations, pharmacy owners, and practicing pharmacists face confusion around the suspicious ordering regulations.” Great. This is not the kind of confusion that is needed during an opioid addiction epidemic. “NASADAD is extremely concerned with this development given that inadequate access to medications for opioid use disorders can jeopardize treatment, recovery, and overall health outcomes,” Morrison noted. If the DEA is truly part of an “all‐hands‐on‐board” approach to the opioid overdose epidemic, as Milgram has repeatedly stated it is, something needs to be done, now, about the DEA crackdown on buprenorphine, intended or not. We are currently living in a well‐established era of unintended consequences.