Im in ur medicine cabinet, counting ur drugz
Think your meds are just between your doctor, your pharmacist and you? Wrong. Unbeknownst to most of us, the government has enacted a tracking database of those taking any scheduled drug. The program is called NASPER, a federalized compilation of state databases which were started under the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring grant Program used by the states.
From the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) website:
What is NASPER?
On August 11, 2005, President Bush signed into law the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act of 2005 (NASPER). The act creates a grant program for states to create prescription drug monitoring databases and enhance existing ones, similar to the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring grant program. NASPER authorizes $60 million for the program through fiscal 2010. While the Harold Rogers Grant Program is placed within the Department of Justice, the NASPER program is placed within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
…The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Report Act of 2005 (NASPER), housed within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), requires states to meet requirements in order to receive grant funding. NASPER requires states to collect information on Schedules II, III, and IV. Additionally, NASPER requires states to be capable of sharing information and prescription data among states.
The states are in on it, too. As of November 2006, 33 states had enacted legislation which required prescription monitoring programs: 25 of those programs are currently operating and 8 are in the start-up phase.
The 33 states with Prescription Monitoring Programs and/or enacted legislation are: Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Currently, the state of Washington uses their program only for disciplinary purposes, however legislation has been introduced to expand the program statewide.
They claim they’re tracking us for our own good.
Prescription monitoring programs are being used to deter and identify many types of illegal activity including prescription forgery, indiscriminate prescribing and “doctor shopping” -which is a felony in some states. Most programs provide patient specific drug information upon request of the patient’s physician or pharmacist. Some state programs proactively notify physicians when their patients are seeing multiple prescribers for the same class of drugs. This assists health care professionals in enhancing patient care by allowing them to intervene on the patient’s behalf and assist them in obtaining appropriate treatment. It has been an extremely successful program to thwart diversion in a number of states.
How big would that database be?
The system would be required to collect data from in excess of 673 million prescriptions annually from the nations 61,000 DEA registered pharmacies and respond to requests for information from more than 900,000 DEA-registered practitioners.
Who is affected by this? A whole lot more people than you might expect. Many commonly prescribed drugs are Schedule 4, meaning mandatory reporting. The major tranquilizers used to treat severe anxiety are on the list: Xanax, Valium, Klonapin, Ativan, and most other benzodiazepines. The psych drugs Librium and Halcion. Common painkillers your doctor might give you: Vicodin, Darvon, Darvocet, Tylenol 3. Prescription cough syrups containing codeine, such as Robitussin. The sleep aid Ambien. The ADD/ADHD drug Ritalin. The hormone testosterone. Ever taken one of these? The government knows about it.
I’ve taken many of these drugs and a couple of them long term, like Ativan. How long before antidepressants and anti-psychotics like my Geodon are added to the list, if they aren’t there already? Doesn’t the government have a right to know who might be unstable?
The government claims that access to the database will be limited, but they don’t have a good track record of confidentiality. Just ask all the vets whose social security numbers have reached the public.
ABC News reports that “senior federal officials” informed them that Va Tech shooter Cho’s name didn’t appear on the drug list, admitting that “this does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources, or a gap in computer databases, but the sources say theirs is a reasonably complete search.” They voluntarily gave that information to the press - some confidentiality, huh. Since the question involved antidepressants, how many of those are tracked without our knowledge?
How long before universities and employers begin to get access for “screening purposes” to avert another massacre?
Best of all, you don’t get to know every drug in the database. The website contains this disclaimer: This document is a general reference and not a comprehensive list.
I find this very frightening, and you should, too.
Via Have Coffee Will Write. I urge you to leave comments there, too.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:28 am
This is frightening. There are enough misconceptions about folks who have to take certain drugs without the gov’t stepping in to track it all. I wonder if I’m being paranoid? Maybe I need meds.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Brilliant title.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
[...] NASPER, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act of 2005. Surf over now to I See Invisible People and prepare to be out raged. We’re not talking just hard drugs here [...]
April 26th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Umm.. I am probably in that database
April 26th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Wow that is very disturbing. The government monitors far too much of our personal lives as it is, we don’t need more.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:44 am
You’re right, Billie - this thing gives me nightmares. It’s bad enough having to explain my drugs to nurses without worrying about judgment from the government, too. If you’re paranoid, so am I. Here, have an Ativan.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Cynthia, I think a lot of us are, and most are unaware of it. That’s frightening.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Natalie, they’re into everything. Our phone records, bank records, peace protests … civil liberties have eroded to a dangerous point. Who know who will have access to it?
April 26th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
This is completely scary as I am taking Xanax and frequently get prescribed Ambien (which doesn’t work). Also scary because what happened to HIPPA or any other dr/client privacy acts!
I’m scared because now I’m taking a hardcore anti-psychotic drug called Seroquel to help me sleep (works like a charm).
But through medicaid they probably know all ready.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Ambien doesn’t work for me, either, Burrow. While it might be ok for someone with normal insomnia, it can’t break a manic sleep disturbance. I take generic Elavil, an old tri-cyclic. It literally shuts my brain down and lets me rest, without nightmares. It’s a lifesaver.
As for anti-psychotics, my Geodon is in the same class as Seroquel. Having those tracked is a major concern to me, too. I don’t dare ever try to apply for a government job or try to go back to finish college. I thought once about applying for work as a 911 operator, but my medical records would be an instant no-go.
Instead of worrying about us who are taking them, they’d be better off concerned about those who need them but can’t get them. My drugs lets me live a (mostly) normal life - without it, I’d be a mess.
And above all, those of us taking psych drugs are primarily a danger to ourselves, not to anyone else. In the reaction to Va Tech, that distinction is getting lost.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
In the reaction to Va Tech, that distinction is getting lost.
Honestly, I don’t think that distinction was ever strongly understood by most people, certainly not by most popular culture outlets.
I’m not sure why a prescription record would prevent you from finishing college, though. Medical records aren’t usually part of the application/screening process, I don’t think.
April 28th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
My concern, A, is that because these databases exist, it becomes easier and easier to justify giving access to them. When I first applied to college in 1978, I had to take a psychological profile test and as well as have a full physical (including pelvic exam) and a blood test to prove I didn’t have syphilis. I don’t believe my daughters had to do this in 2001 and 2005, though.
Already applicants to college are run through databases to prove they’re registered for the draft and have no convictions for illegal drugs - it would just be another step to run them through one to see if they take psychotropic drugs. Once an information source exists, it seldom lingers unused, in my experience.
I’m probably a little paranoid about it, given the reactions I’ve run across from uneducated people, including some who should know better, even medical personnel.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Educational institutions tread a fine line between FERPA, ADA, and their massive vulnerability to liability for the actions of thousands of — often immature — individuals. I agree that paranoia is justified, but there’s also some real protection in the law at the moment which should be the foundation of our self-defense against irrational datamining.
April 29th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
It just so happens HNN has a piece covering some of the same ground.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Thanks for the link, A. I’m particularly disturbed to see Jonathon Kellerman advocating more involuntary commitment when, except in rare emergency cases, patients are best treated within the community.
I hope we don’t see the VA law forbidding schools from expelling students for making use of mental health services. It’s a very necessary piece of legislation, I believe, particularly after all the cases reaching the public consciousness through lawsuits. Punishing those who get help is barbaric, and, if there is true concern about danger, detrimental to the public good.