New Not-Quite-NASPER Law

[Aether2000]

A very diluted version of the original NASPER was signed into law by Bush on Aug 11, 2005 with ASIPP taking credit on their website, and on nasper.org , a website created by ASIPP to promote their cause. Here is what 4 years of legislative efforts, 1200 congressional visits by ASIPP members, thousands of letters written, visits by the CEO of ASIPP to have his picture taken with Bush at the White House, and countless hours have produced:
1. The bill does not establish a national monitoring program, but instead gives grants of money to states who wish to apply in order to voluntarily develop state by state, their own monitoring programs. The programs are all volunatary, not mandatory.
2. The amount of money provided in the grants which have many requirements and stipulations is $125,000. per year per state (about as much as it costs to pave a road in my neighborhood). Additional moneys may be granted up to an average of $375,000 per year per state for each of the first two years, then the total granst drop to $300,000 per year for the next two years. [It will likely cost each state millions of dollars each year to set up and run this program.]
3. The bill has many security issues and privacy issues that must be solved by the state including HIPAA compliance issues.
4. The bill requires information sharing with only one other state
5. For states that elect to establish such a monitoring program, every Schedule II, III, or IV prescription written will have the following information entered into a databank (for states that elect to participate): Pharmacy DEA number, Physician/NP/PA DEA number, name of the prescriber, name/address/telephone number of the patient, identification of the drug by a national drug code system, quantity dispensed, estimated number of days the quantity should last, number of refills ordered, whether the drug is a refill or is a first time request, date of dispensing, date of original script.
6. Who may view the information? Any practitioner or agent of the practitioner certifying the information is for medical treatment purposes. Any local, state, federal law enforcement agency, licensure, disciplinary, or program authority who certifies the purpose is for investigation of MISUSE or diversion of the drugs. Many entities for research purposes are permitted access.

It should be interesting to see how this law is implemented, to examine the hidden costs, to determine whether it will have any impact on physician practice, and to discover whether it will stand up to court scrutiny

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[paz5559]

A very diluted version of the original NASPER was signed into law by Bush on Aug 11, 2005 with ASIPP taking credit on their website, and on nasper.org , a website created by ASIPP to promote their cause. Here is what 4 years of legislative efforts, 1200 congressional visits by ASIPP members, thousands of letters written, visits by the CEO of ASIPP to have his picture taken with Bush at the White House, and countless hours have produced:
1. The bill does not establish a national monitoring program, but instead gives grants of money to states who wish to apply in order to voluntarily develop state by state, their own monitoring programs. The programs are all volunatary, not mandatory.
2. The amount of money provided in the grants which have many requirements and stipulations is $125,000. per year per state (about as much as it costs to pave a road in my neighborhood). Additional moneys may be granted up to an average of $375,000 per year per state for each of the first two years, then the total granst drop to $300,000 per year for the next two years. [It will likely cost each state millions of dollars each year to set up and run this program.]
3. The bill has many security issues and privacy issues that must be solved by the state including HIPAA compliance issues.
4. The bill requires information sharing with only one other state
5. For states that elect to establish such a monitoring program, every Schedule II, III, or IV prescription written will have the following information entered into a databank (for states that elect to participate): Pharmacy DEA number, Physician/NP/PA DEA number, name of the prescriber, name/address/telephone number of the patient, identification of the drug by a national drug code system, quantity dispensed, estimated number of days the quantity should last, number of refills ordered, whether the drug is a refill or is a first time request, date of dispensing, date of original script.
6. Who may view the information? Any practitioner or agent of the practitioner certifying the information is for medical treatment purposes. Any local, state, federal law enforcement agency, licensure, disciplinary, or program authority who certifies the purpose is for investigation of MISUSE or diversion of the drugs. Many entities for research purposes are permitted access.

It should be interesting to see how this law is implemented, to examine the hidden costs, to determine whether it will have any impact on physician practice, and to discover whether it will stand up to court scrutiny

So let me understand this logic properly - becuase Congress watered down and underfunded the final bill, this somehow reflects badly on ASIPP?

 

[Aether2000]

ASIPP is touting the passage of this law as a resounding success on their website. They are also listing the pain management organizations and legislators on their websites that did not support the legislation as though these were the enemy. Clearly, ASIPP does not speak for all of pain medicine. My view is that all the time, effort, and membership fees of a solely interventional pain organization spent on this legislation were unsuccessful in passing a law that makes sense. Effectively, the millions that are required to run these programs are unfunded, yet the federal government will impose massive regulation on running these programs. This is ASIPP's baby...says so on their website.