Posted on 08/10/2022 8:32:53 PM PDT by BenLurkin
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said Walgreens “substantially contributed” to one of the nation’s deadliest public health crises by not stopping suspicious orders and dispensing drugs that were diverted for illicit use, causing a public nuisance in a major city that is among the hardest hit by addiction and overdoses. Walgreens, responsible for shipping nearly 1 out of every 5 oxycodone and hydrocodone pills distributed nationwide during the height of the opioid crisis, was the only drug company sued by San Francisco that did not settle, going to trial in April.
“Walgreens has regulatory obligations to take reasonable steps to prevent the drugs from being diverted and harming the public,” Breyer wrote. “The evidence at trial established that Walgreens breached these obligations.”
Walgreens spokesman Fraser Engerman said the company was “disappointed” with the decision and would appeal.
“As we have said throughout this process, we never manufactured or marketed opioids, nor did we distribute them to the ‘pill mills’ and internet pharmacies that fueled this crisis,” he wrote in an email. “We stand behind the professionalism and integrity of our pharmacists, dedicated healthcare professionals who live in the communities they serve.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yep, Stephen Breyer’s brother, also nominated by Clinton.
Why Walgreen’s still has any operating stores in the city of San Francisco is beyond me. They should have closed all of them once city hall declared open theft regulations.
Thanks! Was wondering if there was a connection.
Walgreen’s will fill an opiate prescription, but don’t you dare try to get a hydroxychloriquine or Ivermectin prescription filled.
OK - if the prosecution/plaintiff could prove that Walgreens (I assume this is not just against a single location, but the corporation) willfully and knowingly dispensed these drugs to obvious fake prescriptions... I might see a case.
But where is that proof in this? In fact - I might even question if a pharmacy even has the authority to just choose to ignore what appears to a reasonable eye to be a real prescription from a real doctor. Other than watching for known drug interaction/contradictions or giving patients instructions on the taking of medications that are new to them... I really don’t see it being Walgreens (or any other pharmacy’s) business.
There are TWO entities that ought to be in the crosshairs of these cases:
1 - Doctors who continued to prescribe (and over-prescribe) these opioid pain medications, particularly after it became glaringly obvious that they actually are extremely addictive and damaging in many ways to a patient’s health...
2- The pharmaceutical companies themselves (who seem to often get a free pass in this) - who submitted that these drugs were incapable of causing dependency (despite the family of chemicals they are synthetic analogs of are some of the most addictive substances on earth - opiates). Drug makers who swore under oath. Who submitted false study data, who paid huge amounts of money and went to amazing lengths to conceal the truth about them from both the public and the FDA (which itself was negligent in its approval of the drugs).
Sounds like an absurd ruling. A pharmacist is presented with a valid prescription from a licensed, practicing physician - what is the pharmacist supposed to do, overrule the physician and refuse to dispense the medication because the order is “suspicious”, whatever that means?
BOY, that’ll get em to move back to the City!
They screw ne around for a week or more every month. I have taken pain meds since 95 daily. I am considering taking them to the NC attorney general and court for misconduct and pain and suffering.
Walgreens makes you contact them every day after turning in a prescription and then cites first come first serve for filling them. They are a sad joke. If I call and they don’t presently have my medication and then get it 15 minutes later I have to call multiple times a day in case of delivery. Suck BS.
On second thought they deserve getting sued for holding patients in contempt and hostage.
Stupid judge
How about including the doctor shopping pill junkies as the primary cause
Because it is absurd
Tell them to fill the prescription as written or you will sue them for oracticing medicine without a license. Even better would be for your doctor to write them a letter to the same effect.
Also, make sure your refill gets in 15 days in advance.
Well, some did refuse to fill Ivermectin prescriptions from doctors.
Many insurance companies will not allow the pharmacy to fill prescriptions for addictive drugs more than a couple of days before they run out.
This is to prevent diversion and abuse.
Deep Pockets
When I had my cervical stenosis I was on low dose oxy for 6 weeks. Started at 4 a day but. After first neck shot was able to slow that down to 1-2 a day and then after second shot none. Never got a buzz, never high just relief from serious pain. Talked to army buddy with similar experience. Ofc I was not drinking any alcohol during that time or for the 10 days after the last one.
My prescriptions were for 1 week at a time.
Ghasp......!!!!! Holding people personally responsible??? How DARE YOU!!!
I know. I’m a horrible human being
When I was on private insurance, they approved a 90 supply of Adderall for cancer-related fatigue. When I started using my VA benefits, I can only get a 30 day supply and had to get the prescriptio from a doctor in the Mental Health Department. Fortunately, the Pharmacy Department Head hooked me up with a psychiatrist in the Mental Health Clinic a few years ago. Saw him once and I now only need to send him a message that it’s time for a refill.
This doctor believes one of his life’s most importent calling is to serve and help Veterans. He is a real blessing to me and the Vets at the hospital in which he works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.