Speaker 1: States across the country maintain prescription drug monitoring programs, which
Speaker 1: contained data about prescriptions for controlled substances and supports state's
Speaker 1: efforts to combat prescription drug abuse. In light of the
Speaker 1: opioid crisis and the increasing number of deaths across the
Speaker 1: country from opiate to opioid abuse, states are struggling with
Speaker 1: the question of how much accent access law enforcement officials
Speaker 1: should have to these databases. New Jersey is currently considering
Speaker 1: a bill that would allow police and process prosecutors to
Speaker 1: access its database without a core order, but Governor Chris
Speaker 1: Christie opposes the bill. Here to talk with us about
Speaker 1: it and the issue more generally is Robert Mints, a
Speaker 1: partner at um at Carter and English Bob, Can you
Speaker 1: describe for us what is in these databases and why
Speaker 1: states have them? Uh? Sure, Michael, Um. The information that
Speaker 1: are in these databases is really quite extensive. It would
Speaker 1: it requires. It contains information on every prescription for a
Speaker 1: controlled substance that is dispensed by pharmacies in the state.
Speaker 1: So that can include everything from highly addictive prescription opioids
Speaker 1: such as vigodin and OxyContin to stimulants such as Adderall
Speaker 1: can It includes anti anxiety drugs, also common pain killers,
Speaker 1: and costs of presence with cody, and these are things
Speaker 1: that are all subject to becoming addictive narcotics. But at
Speaker 1: the same time, as you can see, it covers a
Speaker 1: very broad spectrum of potential health issues. Bob. But we've
Speaker 1: often talked about court cases getting warrants for cell phones.
Speaker 1: Here it is the most personal of a person's records,
Speaker 1: their medical records, and for things they might not want
Speaker 1: people to know. Why not have to get a warrant
Speaker 1: for this? Well, that's a good point, and you find
Speaker 1: that even state medical boards and medical societies, uh surprisingly
Speaker 1: are coming down on the side of privacy advocates because
Speaker 1: there is some concern that if individuals know that prescription
Speaker 1: drugs that they may be taking for all the host
Speaker 1: of issues that I just mentioned, if that information is
Speaker 1: going to be readily available to law enforcement without even
Speaker 1: a judge taking a look at it and determining whether
Speaker 1: there's probable cause, that that may drive those individuals underground
Speaker 1: and away from the medical care that they need. So surprisingly,
Speaker 1: it's the doctors themselves who are objecting to this and
Speaker 1: who are saying that we want to make sure that
Speaker 1: the relationship between doctor, between patients and doctors is not
Speaker 1: in any way tampered with, and we don't want to
Speaker 1: take patients and drive them away from dealing with doctors
Speaker 1: who are in the best position to help these individuals
Speaker 1: with their addictions. Well, on the other side, there are
Speaker 1: legislators and prosecutors who think that the police and prosecutors
Speaker 1: should be able to get access to this information very readily.
Speaker 1: What's the argument from them, Well, the argument from them
Speaker 1: is that there is an epidemic out there. There's no
Speaker 1: question about that. Death from opioid drugs top thirty thousand
Speaker 1: in which was nearly double the rate from a decade ago.
Speaker 1: And it's very easy in many states for individuals to
Speaker 1: go doctor shopping, in other words, walk down the street
Speaker 1: and get the same prescription from multiple physicians, and the
Speaker 1: physician who maybe the third in line, will prescribe an
Speaker 1: opioid having no knowledge that two other doctors have previously
Speaker 1: prescribed the same drugs, and the person then can get
Speaker 1: triple the dose that there that they ought to be
Speaker 1: actually taking. Bob. In California, the Supreme courts the state
Speaker 1: Supreme Court rule recently that the state Medical Board can
Speaker 1: dig through those prescription drug records without a warrant or
Speaker 1: a subpoena. What's the weighing process to be used to
Speaker 1: determine whether or not a subpoena or a warrant is required. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it depends June to some extent on who's
Speaker 1: gaining access. In some states, the Medical Board can have
Speaker 1: that access. In Missouri, for example, there's a new state
Speaker 1: law or an executive order I should say that gives
Speaker 1: the state Department of Health the information. Um, But this
Speaker 1: is this law in New Jersey is taking one step
Speaker 1: further saying that law enforcement can itself gather this information
Speaker 1: without a warrant, and that is what has some privacy
Speaker 1: advocates concerned about it. In about a minute, we have
Speaker 1: left The New York Times reporting today about prosecutors charging
Speaker 1: drug dealers who are selling up yards with the death
Speaker 1: of people who have used them. What's the theory there
Speaker 1: that prosecutors would follow. Well, there's two things going on here.
Speaker 1: There is a concern about individuals who are addicted, and
Speaker 1: that's what these UH databases are designed to protect. But
Speaker 1: there's also situations where doctors and pharmacists are actively supplying
Speaker 1: people and these prosecutions are unique because they are actually
Speaker 1: going after doctors who are knowingly providing pain killers to
Speaker 1: people who they know to be addicts, and prosecutors are
Speaker 1: trying to tie them in in a criminal case on
Speaker 1: saying that they're criminally responsible for these deaths. Well our
Speaker 1: thanks to Bob Mints, a partner at mcarter and English,
Speaker 1: for being here to talk about the balance between privacy
Speaker 1: and law enforcement needs to know about prescription drug abuse.