Oklahoma Senate committee defeats proposal to restrict pseudoephedrine
BY WAYNE GREENE World Senior Writer & BARBARA HOBEROCK World Capitol Bureau
Friday, February 17, 2012
6/19/12 at 2:50 PM
Correction: A Friday Tulsa World story incorrectly reported the potential impact to the state economy if a pseudoephedrine policy change results in a 4 percentage point increase in the number of people going to doctors because of viral respiratory infections. A report by the Economic Impact Group and funded by the trade group for over-thecounter drug manufacturers estimates the economic impact at $59 million. This story has been corrected.
Read the Tulsa World’s continuing coverage of the meth epidemic.
OKLAHOMA CITY - Efforts to restrict access to pseudoephedrine, the popular over-the-counter allergy medicine that is a key ingredient in most Oklahoma meth labs, lost a crucial Senate committee vote this week.
The 3-3 Senate Appropriations Public Safety Subcommittee defeat of Sen. Kim David's proposal to require a prescription to purchase the drug essentially ends consideration for Senate bills on the topic this year.
"I'm extremely disappointed," David said Thursday. "I'm pretty passionate about it. I understand it's an inconvenience to people but ... we just can't afford to continue the way we're currently doing things."
Meth addiction and meth labs are running up horrendous costs for police, prisons, foster care, health care and many other burdens, all of which are being borne by taxpayers, David said.
Meanwhile, House bills on the topic have been assigned to a committee led by a skeptic of the prescription restriction.
Rep. Sue Tibbs, R-Tulsa, is the author of a House pseudoephedrine restriction bill. She said she was very surprised that her proposal was assigned to the House Public Health Committee, which is led by Rep. John Enns, R-Enid.
Enns is skeptical about the effectiveness of a prescription restriction. Last year, bills on the same topic were assigned to the House Public Safety Committee, which is led by Tibbs.
Tibbs said she has asked House Speaker Kris Steele, R-Shawnee, and Majority Floor Leader Dale DeWitt, R-Braman, to reassign her bill to her committee. She said she expects to hear back on her request sometime next week.
When asked about the committee assignment, Steele said all bills on the topic had been sent to Enns's committee.
Steele said he remains open-minded on the pseudoephedrine issue.
Enns said he isn't convinced that making it harder for law-abiding Oklahomans to buy pseudoephedrine is the right step to combat meth labs.
"It's taking a freedom away from us because of some bad folks," he said. "A lot of people use (pseudoephedrine) and they don't use it maliciously. That's the concern I have."
Enns said he doubts restricting the drug will have any permanent effect on the number of meth labs in the state.
Meth cooks would either find doctors to prescribe the medicine or will find a different recipe for meth, he predicted.
"If it passes, the meth labs will drop off for a short time, and then they'll be right back up," Enns said.
Committee chairmen have the authority to refuse hearings, essentially vetoing proposals, but Enns said he plans on allowing prescription restriction to be heard by his committee this year, despite his doubts.
He said he also will grant a hearing to a bill to allow local governments to restrict pseudoephedrine sales and a third to put the state on a multistate drug registry so police could track cross-border purchases.
If bills introduced this year don't survive the committee process, one bill on the topic remains alive from last year.
The proposal by Rep. Ben Sherrer, D-Chouteau, was approved by the House Public Safety Committee last year but was never considered by the full House.
A report by the Economic Impact Group, a policy study company run by two Oklahoma City University business professors, shows a potential $59 million hit to the state economy if a pseudoephedrine policy change results in only a small percentage increase in the number of people going to doctors because of viral respiratory infections.
Currently, about 22 percent of those infections result in visits to the doctor. If that went to a little more than 26 percent, it would mean 296,775 additional doctor's visit, the report shows.
That would translate into $27.7 million in costs to health insurance companies, $5.3 million in out-of-pocket costs to individuals, $12.9 million in additional costs to Medicare, $3.5 million in additional federal Medicaid expenses and $1.6 million in additional state Medicaid expenses.
A prescription restriction would also inevitably lead to an increase in lost productivity in the state, although the report doesn't specify an amount.
The report does not consider savings to the state if the number of meth labs goes down.
Estimates prepared by the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control put the cost to the state at $350,000 per lab, including $3,500 in cleanup costs, $5,000 in law enforcement costs, $5,000 in court costs, $252,000 in prison costs, and property damage, treatment, mental health and child welfare costs.
The Economic Impact Group report was funded by the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, the trade group for over-the-counter drug manufacturers, but Economic Impact Group retained full editorial control of the findings, said Russell Evans, one of the report's authors.
Report outlines potential cost in policy change
A report by the Economic Impact Group, a policy study company run by two Oklahoma City University business professors, shows a potential $56 million hit to the state economy if a pseudoephedrine policy change results in only a small percentage increase in the number of people going to doctors because of viral respiratory infections.
Currently, about 22 percent of those infections result in visits to the doctor. If that went to a little more than 26 percent, it would mean 296,775 additional doctor's visit, the report shows.
That would translate into $27.7 million in costs to health insurance companies, $5.3 million in out-of-pocket costs to individuals, $12.9 million in additional costs to Medicare, $3.5 million in additional federal Medicaid expenses and $1.6 million in additional state Medicaid expenses.
A prescription restriction would also inevitably lead to an increase in lost productivity in the state, although the report doesn't specify an amount.
The report does not consider savings to the state if the number of meth labs goes down.
Estimates prepared by the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control put the cost to the state at $350,000 per lab, including $3,500 in cleanup costs, $5,000 in law enforcement costs, $5,000 in court costs, $252,000 in prison costs, and property damage, treatment, mental health and child welfare costs.
The Economic Impact Group report was funded by the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, the trade group for over-the-counter drug manufacturers, but Economic Impact Group retained full editorial control of the findings, said Russell Evans, one of the report's authors.
Original Print Headline: Panel nixes prescription requirement
Wayne Greene 918-581-8308 Barbara Hoberock 405-528-2465
wayne.greene@tulsaworld.com barbara.hoberock@tulsaworld.com
Associated Images:
Change is needed
Kim David (left) and Sue Tibbs: Both are for restricting the allergy medicine used in most meth labs. "I understand it's an inconvenience but... we just can't afford to continue the way we're currently doing things," David said.
|
