Menu Close

Researchers Consider Non-Drug Therapies Over Opioids

When it comes to non-drug therapies for back pain, U.S. insurance plans vary widely in what they will cover, claims a new study reported by Reuters Health..

Private and public insurers are missing important opportunities to promote alternatives to opioids, the investigators write in JAMA Network Open.

In fact, researchers found, insurers often provide little or no coverage for evidence-backed interventions for chronic pain such as acupuncture and psychological counseling.

“Insurers can be part of the problem or part of the solution,” said study coauthor Dr. Caleb Alexander, an associate professor at the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. “We see a lot of variability in coverage of non-drug treatments for chronic pain. We have a long way to go.”

Alexander and his colleagues examined the 2017 versions of 45 insurance plans – 15 Medicaid, 15 Medicare Advantage and 15 major commercial plans – to see what non-drug treatments for low back pain were covered. Nearly all the plans covered physical and occupational therapy.

But despite evidence in the literature to support use of acupuncture, 30 of the 45 plans explicitly did not cover it.

Of the 15 Medicaid plans, just three covered psychological interventions for chronic pain. The researchers could not determine the coverage policies regarding psychological interventions for the Medicare or commercial plans.

Therapeutic massage was almost never covered.

While certain types of non-drug therapies were covered by most policies, some insurers had steep co-pays. “You can provide all the coverage in the world, but if it’s not affordable for patients nobody is going to use it,” Alexander said.

Even in the case of physical therapy, a well-established treatment for low back pain, the researchers found barriers to use. Some plans covered two visits, some six, some 12. Some allowed patients to refer themselves for physical therapy, while others required referral by a doctor.

Ultimately, it can be easier to prescribe a medication.

“All too often doctors reach for the quick solution, prescription drugs, especially opioids, to manage pain that would be more effectively and safely treated with non-pharmacological approaches,” Alexander said. “This is a system that is designed with, and fosters, the idea that there is a pill for every ill. And we’re here 20 years after the start of the opioid epidemic, paying the price for that.

The new study is underscores a “very relevant problem, given the public health crisis we’re in now,” said Dr. Alka Gupta, co-director of the Integrative Health and Wellbeing Program at NewYork-Presbyterian and an assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“Low back pain is the second most common reasons for primary care visits,” Gupta said. “Over the last several years we’ve seen more and more effective treatments coming out. Those were included in the updated guidelines released by the American College of Physicians in February. We’ve also seen that insurers have been slow to adapt their policy coverage to reflect that information.”

Dairy Worker Sentenced for Faking Injury

Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig and Colusa County District Attorney Matthew Beauchamp announced that 32-year-old, Daniel Ayala, of Colusa, was sentenced to 365 days of county jail, 5 years felony probation, and an $890 fine.

Ayala plead no contest to one count of felony workers’ compensation insurance fraud. As part of the plea agreement, Ayala’s remaining felony counts were dismissed in the interest of justice. The defendant’s county jail time is stayed pending successful completion of probation and a monthly restitution payment of $350 per month to fulfill his court-ordered restitution in the amount of $19,324.68.

While working for Greenwood Dairy in Orland, CA in January 2014, Daniel Ayala claimed he was injured while working.

Ayala received $15,876.63 in workers’ compensation benefits due to his reported injury. Based on Ayala’s medical complaints from his reported industrial accident in January 2014, Ayala was diagnosed with cervical strain and disc herniation according to his probation report.

Zenith Insurance contracted a private investigations company who recorded Ayala performing activity and tasks not consistent with his reported injury and his clinical symptoms. Ayala intentionally misrepresented his industrial injury in order to obtain workers’ compensation benefits that he would not otherwise be entitled to.

This case was investigated by the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office. The Fresno County Superior Court determined this case would be best prosecuted in the county of Colusa. The Colusa County District Attorney’s Office is a member of the Yolo County DA’s multi-jurisdictional Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fraud Program which covers the counties of Colusa, Sutter, and Yuba.

The Yolo County multi-jurisdictional Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fraud unit works to prevent and investigate claimant fraud, medical provider fraud, premium fraud, and uninsured employers. The most common type of workers’ compensation insurance fraud is claimant fraud, which Daniel Ayala was convicted of. Claimant fraud occurs when an employee lies or omits a material fact in order to obtain benefits that they would not have otherwise been entitled to. Examples would be to lie about how an injury occurred, the extent of their injury, or not to report outside employment and income.

Coventry Reports on Topical and Specialty Drugs

Coventry recently announced the release of the fourth part of its 2017 Drug Trends Series, which is based on all calendar year transactions billed through its PBM Program, First Script, as well as transactions from medical bill review to reflect the total pharmacy experience for their client base.

This fourth installment of the series is dedicated to topicals, specialty medications, and regulatory development. Although topicals and specialty drugs represent only 6% of total aggregate prescriptions, they account for 17.9% of total aggregate cost, thus warranting increased attention.

Although topicals and specialty drugs represent only 6% of total aggregate prescriptions, they account for 17.9% of total aggregate cost, thus warranting increased attention. Topicals represent 4.8% of total prescriptions and 12.8% of total drug cost and are being prescribed as an alternative to some oral medications; however, the lack of clinical efficacy and exorbitant pricing eliminates them as a favorable first-line therapy option. While they are declining in the managed environment due to utilization controls they continue to increase in the unmanaged space.

Specialty medications, which are typically used to treat patients with complex, chronic conditions, have become widely discussed in workers’ comp due to their significant costs. Although they represent approximately 1% of drug utilization, they account for nearly 5% of prescription drug costs. Key trends from this fourth part included:

Managed Topical Medications
– Cost per claim has decreased modestly over the last 2 years, 0.3% (2016) and 1.9% (2017).
– Utilization has fallen by at least 6% per year over the last 2 years.
– Cost per script has increased for the last 3 years, from a high of 20.9% (2015) to a low of 4.9% (2017).

Unmanaged Topical Medications
– Cost per claim has increased over the last 2 years, 9.1% (2016) and 29.4% (2017).
– Increasing utilization has occurred for the last 2 years (1.5% in 2016 and 9.8% in 2017).
– Cost per script has increased at least 7% each year spiking at 17.9% in 2017.

Managed Specialty Medications
– 7-8% increases in cost per claim per year.
– Specialty usage, although less than 1% of all scripts, has increased by at least 9% per year.
– Cost per script has experienced a 3-year downward trend (1.7% in 2017), influenced by declining use of hepatitis C medications

Unmanaged Specialty Medications
– Significant fluctuations in cost per claim trending up 22.1% in 2016 and down 22.5% in 2017.
– Specialty usage accounted for less than 2.5% of all scripts and has decreased between 2-6% per year.
– Cost per script, influenced by varying usage of medications used to treat anemia, rose 24.6% in 2016 and fell 17.8% in 2017.

Drugmaker Faces Uphill FDA Battle on New Opioid

The FDA put out its in-house assessment of Trevena’s new pain med, now up for review, and at first blush it’s not looking good for the biotech today.

In an assessment of the drug’s efficacy and safety, insiders tagged Trevena’s treatment for a mixed set of data that highlighted how morphine often produced better pain relief for the target patient population. The biotech’s opioid, furthermore, has “high abuse potential,” according to the FDA, raising a red flag for analysts who have watched lawmakers and the FDA organize a nationwide campaign against opioid abuse.

Investors added up the warnings, and beat a hasty retreat. Trevena’s shares $TRVN lost more than half their value in a short time, with most betting against the biotech at their upcoming outside panel review this week.

Trevena was cited by the FDA on the trial design, chided for creating an endpoint on the comparative respiratory safety burden of their drug and morphine – which has well documented problems on that score – uncertain over its clinical meaningfulness.

The FDA called out the drug for causing adverse events, including “hepatic adverse events and QT prolongation.”

Efficacy was also a mixed bag, with morphine significantly outperforming their drug at key doses.

In FDA’s analysis for Study 3002, two of the three doses of oliceridine (0.35 mg and 0.5 mg) demonstrated a statistically greater reduction in pain intensity than placebo, but the 0.1 mg dose did not. In Study 3002, morphine demonstrated a greater reduction in pain intensity relief than two of the doses of oliceridine (0.1 mg and 0.35 mg) that was statistically significant. The reduction in pain intensity by morphine was not greater than that of the highest oliceridine dose (0.5 mg). Currently, Trevena is only seeking approval of the 0.1 mg and 0.35 mg doses.

There have been questions circulating about this drug, their data and the company as a whole since early 2017, when analysts first started questioning the Phase III results and the way it stacked up – or didn’t – against morphine. The company was forced to undergo a painful restructuring and the CEO, Maxine Gowen, officially stepped down at the beginning of this month.

It’s not unusual for in-house reviews to take the most skeptical view of a drug, but Trevena appears to have fallen well short of the kind of grade needed to win over outside experts on Thursday. We’ll see what the experts say, leaving the FDA to come to a final decision. But Trevena is fighting an uphill battle.

Riverside Jury Convicts Former QME for $90K Fraud

A Riverside County jury has convicted a doctor from Menifee in a four-year scheme to defraud workers’ compensation insurance companies by billing them $90,000 for unneeded medical-legal reports, and lied when he claimed he was certified to prepare them, the Riverside County District Attorney’s office said.

87 year old Benjamin Gould Cox, was convicted on Oct. 4, 2018, of seven counts of insurance fraud and seven counts of perjury for lying to the California Medical Board in relation to his performance during his disciplinary probation. Dr. Cox is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 13, 2018, in Dept. 64 at the Hall of Justice in Riverside. He could face up to 18 years in state prison when he’s sentenced.

Prosecutors said that the defendant, who has been practicing medicine since the early 1960s and has been previously disciplined for professional violations. The Medical Board placed Cox on probation in 2013, restricting his practice, because of documented instances in which he had failed to appropriately diagnose and establish treatment plans for a number of patients. Cox completed his probation in 2016.

The California Department of Industrial Relations brought to the attention of the Riverside County District Attorney’s Insurance Fraud Team that Dr. Cox was billing for fraudulent medical-legal reports. Medical-legal reports are used by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. They are created when an injured worker and the insurer have a dispute that needs resolution. Most medical-legal reports are prepared by a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME).

The Department of Industrial Relations certifies who may be a QME and provides them to the parties in dispute. The insurance companies are required to pay for the reports generated by a QME. Even though Dr. Cox was not a QME and there were no disputes that required a medical-legal report, he nonetheless billed multiple insurance companies including Berkshire Hathaway,Hartford, Liberty Mutual, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Zenith Insurance, Zurich Insurance, and Employers Insurance for more than $90,000 in medical-legal reports.

In addition to violating numerous rules and regulations regarding the creation and content of medical-legal reports, Dr. Cox perjured himself in California Medical Board disciplinary probation reports regarding his status as a QME. As part of his disciplinary probation, the Medical Board required Dr. Cox to provide quarterly statements to ensure that he was complying with his terms of probation.

For years after his QME certificate expired Dr. Cox wrote that he was a “Qualified Medical Evaluator” on his quarterly reports.

The Superior Court issued an Order on February 1, 2018         prohibiting him from practicing medicine during the pendency of his criminal case.

Cox remains free on $30,000 bail.

Convicted Claimant Residence Restrictions Overbroad

Howard William Neel was a mobile driver for Elite Security. His car was hit while he was pumping gas on December 12, 2009. He made numerous false statements regarding his injuries and what caused them to several doctors. Based on the false representations, defendant submitted and received workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries.

Neel was found guilty by jury of six counts of insurance fraud. (Ins. Code, § 1871.4, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on a three-year term of formal probation.

Among the terms and conditions, Neel was required to maintain his residence as approved by the probation officer and not to change his residence without prior written approval of the probation officer; defendant was also prohibited from leaving California without written permission from the probation officer. The trial court also ordered defendant to cooperate with any psychological or psychiatric testing or counseling suggested by the probation officer, and to authorize the release of any records from a psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor, or physician.

Defendant contends on appeal that general condition No. 4’s requirement to “maintain [his] residence as approved by the probation officer and not change [his] residence without written approval of the probation officer” is unconstitutionally overbroad and impermissibly restricts his right to travel.

The Court of Appeal agreed in the unpublished case of People v Neel, and the matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to either strike general condition No. 4 or to revise it in a manner consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

He relies in large part on People v. Bauer (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 937, where the First Appellate District, Division Two, found unconstitutional a probation condition that required the defendant to obtain the probation officer’s approval of his residence. (Id. at pp. 943-945.) The condition was evidently intended to prevent the defendant from residing with his overprotective parents. (Id. at p. 944.) The court explained: “The condition is all the more disturbing because it impinges on constitutional entitlements — the right to travel and freedom of association. Rather than being narrowly tailored to interfere as little as possible with these important rights, the restriction is extremely broad. The condition gives the probation officer the discretionary power . . . to banish [the defendant].”

The Supreme Court noted in People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 384 (Olguin) that even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long as the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.

The probation condition at issue in Olguin was different in key respects from that presented here. First and foremost, the condition in Olguin required the probationer to notify and inform the probation officer, not to obtain prior permission and approval. Second, the dispute in Olguin centered on pets, not residences. Here, in sharp contrast, condition No. 4 confers open-ended authority to the probation officer to prevent defendant from changing his residence.

October 1, 2018 Edition


John Castro is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: WCAB Must Follow Rating Schedule Steps, Claimant Sentenced for Working While on TTD, Hospital Chain Settles Fraud Case for $260M, BBSI Pays $1.5M Penalty -CFO Faces 20 Years in Fraud Case, CDI Streamlines Adjuster Licensing Process, DWC Adopts Geographic Practice Cost Index, Meeting Set to Discuss Med Legal Fee Pushback, Governor Brown Signs and Vetoes Work Comp Bills, Paraplegic Walks With Mayo Clinic/UCLA Implant, Medical Malpractice Now 3rd Leading Cause of Death.

MSP Class Action Rejected in Court of Appeals

MSP Recovery LLC, a law firm out of Miami, Florida has been initiating class action litigation country-wide as assignees on behalf of Medicare Advantage Plans (MAPs) alleging that various primary payers have failed to reimburse MAP conditional payments allegedly giving rise to a Private Cause of Action under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP), specifically located at 42 USC §1395y(b)(3)(A).

In a decision just issued out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Ocean Harbor Cas. Ins. v. Claims, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 13569 (September 26, 2018), the Court found that the trial court erred in certifying the class of Florida MAPs. Because MSP Recovery asserts that Ocean Harbor was responsible as a primary plan not due to pre-existing settlements, but simply due to the entry of no-fault insurance contracts under Florida’s no-fault statutes, this would involve a series of mini-trials which would need to be assessed on a case by case basis, and accordingly class certification was not appropriate.

Franco Signor LLC notes that there are a few interesting discussions in this 3rd Circuit decision which primary plans should take away, particularly if the primary plan is currently subject to litigation by MSP Recovery involving no-fault claims:

–  MSP Recovery (or Medicare Advantage Plans) recovery rights are not automatic without “demonstrated responsibility.” The MSP does not eliminate the terms and conditions of an underlying state No-Fault law or supersede an existing state insurance policy. Here, MSP Recovery has attempted to show “demonstrated responsibility” under the MSP by “the other means” language of the MSP (since there is no settlement, judgment or award). Demonstrated responsibility by other means must be demonstrated under the state’s no-fault laws and the actual no-fault policy and must be proven on a case-by-case basis.

–  What is also interesting about this decision is the discussion of whether Ocean Harbor failed to exhaust administrative remedies. MSP Recovery claims that it made an “organization determination” that Ocean Harbor owed the conditional payments and it could have challenged these payments pursuant to 42 CFR § 422.566. The court noted that there is nothing in the regulations that provides a federal administrative remedy for a primary plan like Ocean Harbor to challenge such an “organization determination.” The regulation cited by MSP Recovery only applies to claims by an enrollee (MAP beneficiary) against the MAP. While the SMART Act did finally afford primary plans with formal appeal rights, this appeals process only applies to conditional payments made under traditional Medicare Parts A and B. Accordingly, there is no method for primary plans to administratively contest an allegation by MSP Recovery/MAPs that it was responsible to make a particular payment.

This decision reinforces the current conundrum facing primary plans in MAP private cause of action double damages litigation. Medicare Advantage Plans desire the benefits of acting like traditional Medicare in seeking the ability to sue and recover double damages for unreimbursed conditional payments.

But, MAPs cannot have the benefits of acting like Medicare without carrying the burdens and providing due process to primary plans. MAPs need to afford primary plans with a formal appeal process if they want to act like Medicare.

And even more importantly, primary plans need a reliable source to determine whether their claimants are enrolled in a MAP. Currently, Medicare only returns traditional Medicare enrollment to primary plans.

New Injection Stops Knee and Spine Osteoarthritis

Scientists at the Krembil Research Institute have developed a novel therapeutic treatment that has the potential to stop knee and spine osteoarthritis in its tracks.

A team led by Principal Investigator Dr. Mohit Kapoor, Arthritis Research Director at UHN, published the results in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases in a paper titled “microRNA-181a-5p antisense oligonucleotides attenuate osteoarthritis in facet and knee joints.”

“This is important because there are currently no drugs or treatments available to patients that can stop osteoarthritis,” says Dr. Kapoor, a Krembil Senior Scientist.

Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis. It affects about five million Canadians and is characterized by a breakdown of the protective cartilage found in the body’s spine, hand, knee and hip joints.

Current treatments for osteoarthritis address the symptoms, such as pain, but are unable to stop the progression of the disease,” says Dr. Kapoor. “The blocker we’ve tested is disease modifying. It has the ability to prevent further joint destruction in both knee and spine.”

Utilizing a variety of experimental models, including animal models and human tissue samples, the Krembil team zeroed in on a biomarker, or molecule, called microRNA-181a-5p, which is believed to also cause the inflammation, cartilage destruction and collagen depletion.

Using a blocker consisting of Locked Nucleic Acid-Antisense Oligonucleotides (LNA-ASO), the team was able to stop destruction and protect the cartilage.

“The blocker is based on antisense technology. When you inject this blocker into the joints, it blocks the destructive activity caused by microRNA-181-5p and stops cartilage degeneration,” said Dr. Akihiro Nakamura, first author of the paper and a post-doctoral research fellow in the Kapoor Lab.

In addition to testing with animal models, the research team applied this approach using cells and tissues from Toronto Western Hospital patients who have knee and/or spine osteoarthritis.

“The technology in osteoarthritis is in its infancy, but the research has now taken a big step forward. If we are able to develop a safe and effective injection for patients, this discovery could be a game changer,” said Dr. Raja Rampersaud, an orthopedic spine surgeon and clinician scientist at Toronto Western who collaborated with the Kapoor team.

Next steps for the research team include commencement of safety studies, determining proper dosage and developing a method for injecting the blocker directly into the knee and spine joints.

Funding for this study was provided by the Krembil Foundation, The Toronto General & Western Hospital Foundation and The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

Congress Passes $8.5B Opioid Addiction Package

On Wednesday, the United States Senate accomplished a rare feat – passing a bipartisan bill with a vote of 98-1. The bill now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk, following the vote in the Senate and a prior vote in the House of Representatives of 393-8.  This legislation adds multiple resources to the opioid epidemic as well as restrictions intended to aid in the fight against the spread of the epidemic. The bill is a combination of dozens of smaller proposals sponsored by hundreds of lawmakers. Here are some of the 41 key components of the Opioid Package (H.R. 6):

Law Enforcement

  • Reauthorization of Key Law Enforcement Programs (Section 8205-8212) – Reauthorizes law enforcement programs through the Office of National Drug Control Policy, such as programs such as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area programs, drug courts, COPS Anti-Meth Program, and COPS anti-heroin task force program;
  • First Responder Training (Section 7002) – Expands first responder training, authorized through the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, to include training on safety around fentanyl and other synthetic and dangerous substances;
  • Public Health Laboratories Detecting Fentanyl and Other Synthetic Opioids (Section 7011) – Improves coordination between public health laboratories and laboratories operated by law enforcement to improve detection of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids;
  • Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention (Section 8006, 8007) – Improves Federal agencies ability to detect synthetic opioids and other substances from entering the United States through the mail;
  • Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention (Sections 8021-8023) – Subjects those who engage in unfair or deceptive acts with respect to substance use disorder treatment services or substance use disorder treatment products to civil penalties for first time violations by the FTC; includes a savings clause for existing FTC and FDA authorities.
  • Reauthorization of the comprehensive opioid abuse grant program (Section 8092) – Reauthorize the comprehensive opioid abuse grant program at the Department of Justice;

Ending Illegal Patient Brokering

  • Criminal penalties (Section 8122) – This provision makes it illegal to pay or receive kickbacks in return for referring a patient to recovery homes or clinical treatment facilities;

Healthcare Integration

  • Treatment, Education, and Community Help To Combat Addiction (Section 7101) – Expands medical education and training resources for healthcare providers to better address addiction, pain, and the opioid crisis;
  • Preventing Overdoses While in Emergency Rooms (Section 7081) – Improves emergency departments ability to effectively screen, treat, and connect substance use disorder patients with care;
  • Alternatives to Opioids in the Emergency Department (Section 7091) – Explores alternative pain management protocols in order to limit the use of opioid medications in emergency departments;
  • Inclusion of opioid addiction history in patient records (Section 7051) – Requires HHS to develop best practices for prominently displaying substance use disorder treatment information in electronic health records, when requested by the patient;

Treatment Capacity Expansion

  • IMD CARE Act (Section 5052) – Expands Medicaid coverage up to 30 days for individuals between 21 and 65 years old receiving care in a treatment facility for all substance use disorders, lifting the 16 bed restriction;  
  • Expansion of Telehealth Services (Section 1009, 2001, 3232) – Expands access to substance use disorder treatment and other services through the use of telehealth;
  • Comprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers (Section 7121) – Establishes model comprehensive treatment and recovery centers to ensure individuals have access to quality treatment and recovery services;
  • Supporting family-focused residential treatment (Section 8081, 8083) – Enhanced family-focused residential treatment; $20 million in funding for HHS to award to states to develop, enhance, or evaluate family-focused treatment programs to increase the number of evidence-based programs;

Medication Assisted Treatment

  • More Flexibility for Prescribing Medication Assisted Treatment (Section 3201, 3202) – Increases the number of waivered health care providers that can prescribe or dispense treatment for substance use disorders, such as certified nurses and accredited physicians;
  • Grants to enhance access to substance use disorder treatment (Section 3203) – authorizes grants to support the development of curriculum that will help health care practitioners obtain a waiver to prescribe MAT;
  • Delivery of a Controlled Substance by a Pharmacy to be Administered by Injection or Implantation (Section 3204) – Allows pharmacies to deliver implantable or injectable medications to treat substance use disorders directly to health care providers;
  • Expanding Access to Medication in In-Patient Facilities (Section 5052) – Expanded Medicaid coverage up to 30 days for inpatient facilities applies to providers who provide a minimum of two types of medicines to treat opioid use disorder;

Prescription Medication Safety and Disposal

  • Empowering Pharmacists in the Fight Against Opioid Abuse (Section 3212) – Develops and disseminates training resources to help pharmacists better detect fraudulent attempts to fill prescription medications;
  • Safe Disposal of Unused Medication (Section 3222) – Allows hospice workers to dispose of unused medications on site or in patients homes;
  • Access to Increased Drug Disposal (Section 3251-3260) – Awards grants to states to enhances access of prescription drug disposal programs;    
  • Safety-enhancing Packaging and Disposal Features (Section 3032) – Requires certain opioids to be packaged into 3 or 7 day supplies and requires safe prescription drug disposal options to be given to patients upon receiving medications;

“We have an urgent, bipartisan consensus, a virtually unanimous agreement, to deal with the most urgent public health epidemic facing our country today in virtually every community,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate health committee and lead sponsor of the bill.

.