Prescription database law will curb abuse

An important new public health and safety bill became law on June 9, the Prescription Database bill (SB 196), sponsored by Senate President Lyda Green. Alaska joins 40 other states in combating the rise of opiate-based medications from being illegally sold and abused. Several other state legislatures are joining the fight with similar databases, which are expected their to be signed into law within the year.

This database gives pharmacists, doctors and hospitals the ability to make sure that certain potentially addictive prescribed medication are being used properly and enables law enforcement personnel an effective new tool to stop abuse and keep these medications out of the hands of drug dealers, all while preserving the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

Nearly 6.4 million U.S. citizens misuse prescribed painkillers and sedatives every year. According to 2004-2005 health survey data, nearly 6 percent of Alaska residents admitted abusing prescription drugs in the past year. However, amongst Alaskans age 18 to 25 years, a shocking 11 percent reported misusing at least one prescription drug within that same survey duration.

That same survey report states that nearly 60 percent of abusive drug users say that they received the drug from a friend or relative. A majority of illicit drug users stated that other forms of drug acquirement came from: 1) within the scope of a normal doctor visit, 2) illicit “doctor shopping” (going from doctor to doctor in search of drugs), 3) frivolous emergency room visits, 4) theft, or 5) traditional drug dealing.

Features of the database include the following:

• It is easier for pharmacist to detect patterns of abuse or any potential drug toxicity from information that is already on record.

• Patient privacy is maintained and only medical professionals will have access to records.

• Law enforcement agencies are required to get a court order to access the database, which is the same legal system that is in place now.

• The Board of Pharmacy is required to submit a report on database security and patient privacy to the Alaska Legislature by the first day of the 2009 session.

A prescription database has been a top priority of the Bush Administration. The White House applauds Senator Green for her vision and leadership on this issue. The director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy (ONDCP) strongly supported this bill because of the overwhelmingly serious prescription drug abuse in Alaska as well as the entire country.

ONDCP Director John Walters commended Senator Green by stating, “The introduction of SB 196 shows your clear understanding of the magnitude of this problem that we face together and I applaud your efforts to protect the citizens of Alaska.”

Local support for this legislation came from law enforcement organizations as well as medical groups and dental societies.

Regrettably, this important legislation became law without Gov. Sarah Palin’s signature or approval.

How can that be when 39 other governors gladly supported it; many others await its passage? Why is our governor apparently not interested in supporting the war against drug abuse? Did this legislation not come from the efforts of one of our own that has served our needs?

The governor admitted that there is a significant drug problem but she refused to have her name attached to the legislation. The reason for her refusal was that she was fearful of a potential abuse of privacy. I submit that potential abuse of privacy may be an emotional concern for the governor but not an objective one because the database security meets the highest level of scrutiny and oversight including HIPAA enforcement.

Therefore logic concludes that there must be another reason for disapproval of such important and worthy legislation. However her statement gives us no clue to her true intent. And in the language of logic this is called “begging the question.”

So, it begs the question whether the governor refused to sign the bill because: 1) she loathes Senator Green (true, but likely not relevant to this argument), 2) she has a liberal attitude toward drugs (likely untrue), or 3) she is plainly old-fashioned, fence sitting (most likely).

“Fence sitting,” sometimes called pandering, is a tendency by which an elected official attempts to please all parties while remaining uncommitted to an issue that is bound to make someone mad.

This allows the unscathed panderer to keep a high approval rating while allowing true leaders to put their necks on the line. Besides, taking responsibility for difficult tasks downgrades one’s approval ratings. Therefore, it is easier for the panderer to get rid of accountability-oriented leaders and install “yes” people at election time.

Sadly, it is too late to support Senator Green for re-election, but we should at least recognize her for never sitting on the fence when our welfare was at stake. Thank you Senator Green.

Catherine Mormile is a Wasilla resident, doctor of physical therapy and author of the book “Temporomandibular joint disorders,” in which Senator Green has been acknowledged for health care leadership.