But the SAMHSA study did not examine how many of those heroin users had a valid prescription for opioids, so the DEA claim about users "first obtaining these drugs from their health care providers" is untrue. SAMHSA also notes that "the literature on transition from NMPR to heroin use is relatively sparse" and that the "vast majority" of people who abuse opioid medication never actually progress to heroin.

The abuse of opioid medication by heroin users also varies considerably by time, region and demographics -- so must users don't fit neatly into the 80% claim. A review article in The New England Journal of Medicine reports that prior nonmedical use of opioid medication was found in 50% of young adult heroin users in Ohio, in 86% of heroin users in New York and Los Angeles, and in 40%, 39%, and 70% of heroin users in San Diego, Seattle, and New York respectively.

Conversely, studies on the medical use of opioid analgesics show very low rates of opioid addiction. A review in the journal Addiction concluded that “The available evidence suggests that opioid analgesics for chronic pain conditions are not associated with a major risk for developing dependence.”



A 2016 article in The New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of NIDA, also explains that “addiction occurs in only a small percentage of persons who are exposed to opioids—even among those with preexisting vulnerabilities.”

‘Opiophobia’ Returns



But despite this well-established information, the 80% statistic is being used to set policy and justify a supply-side approach to the opioid addiction crisis. States are citing the number as they pass new legislation to restrict opioid prescribing, health insurers are using it as they enact new policies to limit medical opioid use, and doctors are telling patients it’s one of the reasons they won’t prescribe opioids.

According to one addiction treatment specialist, the goal of the DEA quota reductions should be to take opioid prescribing back to levels where they stood two decades ago.

“We‘re back down to 2006 levels, but the goal should be to get us back down to 1995 levels. So this means many Americans are still going to be addicted until prescribing becomes more cautious,” Andrew Kolodny, MD, founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), told STAT.



But this assumes that pre-1995 opioid prescribing levels were adequate. According to Jeffrey Singer, MD, a Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute, that would be a mistake.

“It must be remembered that numerous studies throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s documented that patients were being undertreated for pain because of an irrational fear of opioids,” Singer wrote. “Policymakers need to disabuse themselves of the notion that the prescription of opioids to patients by doctors is at the heart of the problem. That notion has made too many patients suffer needlessly as the old ‘opiophobia’ of the 1970s and 1980s has returned.”



Moreover, it assumes that opioids have no clinical benefit. But they are medically very useful, not only in the acute and surgical setting, but also for a variety of chronic pain conditions, such as neuropathy and restless leg syndrome.

The 80% statistic is misleading and encourages faulty assumptions about the overdose crisis and medical care. It is shifting resources away from the public health interventions that would most likely help in the crisis and removes a valid medical treatment for people with a wide range of ailments.

To read and comment on the DEA’s quota proposal, click here. All comments must be received by May 4, 2018.