Reference to a current Michigan bill or law that relates in some way to your proposal:
Why this proposal will make a difference in the lives of students of all ages across Michigan, or a significant subgroup (by age, background, economic status, and/or region, etc.) of students in Michigan:
How and where did you learn about the issues underlying your proposal?
How has your service activity influenced your thinking about this proposal?
Link to your media artifact(s) giving background on the issue:
The entire state of Michigan is being decimated by the drug trafficking epidemic. Year after year cities in Michigan, such as Detroit or Flint rank among the most dangerous cities in the nation. In fact, in 2015 the FBI released a record listing the most dangerous cities country-wide and Detroit was considered the 2nd most dangerous city and Flint the 11th. Much of this instability arises from the rapid usage and crime associated with drugs. Consequently, Michigan as a state has the 10th largest drug problem nationwide. What comes most alarming is the negative correlation in the state between drug usage and drug sentencing. Michigan is among the most active using states in America, yet the legal punishments in sentencing rank among the last in the country.
This epidemic is impacting everyone. Cities that drive economic stability in Michigan are falling victim to the suffocation of drug addiction. Students in elementary schools are blinded to reality of their elders, high schools and colleges exposed to drugs like cocaine and heroin, and many urban and non-urban citizens are dropping like flies to the harsh wrath of these intense drugs. The lack of synergy between usage and punishment lingers.
Much of the confusion in the legal system stems from using vs. possessing. For some reason, officials perceive possession of drugs like heroin or cocaine to be a considerably more dangerous offense than actually using the drugs themselves. Possessing 50 grams of heroin can sentence someone to 4 years in prison and up to $25,000. The consequences intensify as the quantity increases, respectively. However, what truly doesn’t add up is how actually using the heroin is only a misdemeanor or a maximum fine of $2,000. In Michigan, one’s license is suspended for six months upon a drug conviction, yet the restricted license duration lasts a miniscule 30 days. In essence, a person using these harmful drugs can walk away 30 days later still operating a vehicle. A solution to mitigate the usage of drugs in Michigan is to double down on sentencing and to alter some of these laws which insufficiently punish users. Thus, people have more incentive to not use the drugs since the consequences intensify; therefor mitigating the epidemic and future frequency of crime.
SOLUTION 1: Institute revisit system for older patients prescribed opioids
Perhaps the largest impediment to drug-related crime is the simple limitation of a criminal’s ability to acquire drugs for resale. Recently, such offenders have turned to new markets in order to source popular opioids - the elderly. Oftentimes, older individuals finish their medication cycles, and still retain huge stockpiles of opioids. Due to the high resale value of such drugs on the street, individuals often see no issue with re-selling their remaining medication to supplement their incomes. In other cases, family members may pilfer drugs from older relatives, and similarly, explore resale opportunities with local drug dealers. Because federal investigative efforts focus on derailing the efforts of large-scale drug distributors, these local opioid pushers often go unscathed, AARP research indicates. Individuals aged 60 years or older now constitute over 16% of the state’s entire population, up 2.5% from 2010, with this figure expected to increase. As new regulatory measures continue to limit the ability of prescribers to engage with drug traffickers, and Michigan’s population continues to age, proponents of drug related crime will source product from this new market. In order to protect the state’s elderly population, and reduce the ability of criminals to operate, individuals at/above a delineated age (potentially 60 or older) should be required to revisit with their prescriber at more regular intervals (to be determined after future research) to determine the necessity of additional prescriptions. This measure would increase accountability on the part of the patient, and mitigate the risk of resale.
SOLUTION 2: Bolster rehabilitative programs for individuals in relevant age range
While common socio-cultural assumptions typically paint teenagers and individuals in their early 20s as the main perpetrators of drug-related crime, Penn State-led research indicates that in the United States, the offenders that commit such crimes are primarily in their early 30s. The nuance of this age disparity demands subsequent nuance in terms of policy making. As other states hurl millions from regional coffers to bolster after-school programs, giving up on their older citizens, Michigan should not. Young adults, disheartened by failed economic policy and lacking social welfare optionality, should not feel as if they must facilitate the distribution of controlled substances in order to provide for their families. Thus, the passage of increased funding for new and pre-existing rehabilitative efforts must be at the forefront of the state’s agenda. Specifically, rehabilitative programs for incarcerated individuals must increase, in addition to other necessary policy changes to address non-incarcerated individuals. National Institute of Health research demonstrates that 80-85% of prisoners who could benefit from drug-related treatment do not receive subsequent treatment. The state must catalyze the large-scale rehabilitation of individuals predisposed to committing drug related crime, instead of affording them no alternative.
SOLUTION 3: Mandate that statewide pharmacies/hospitals enter into partnership with MAPS database
In 2015, the state of Michigan staunchly addressed the presence of drug-related crime within the state by launching the Michigan Automated Prescription System (MAPS) to better regulate the movement of prescription drugs after point-of-sale interactions. Fortunately, this past year saw the outmoded system undergo a complete overhaul, thanks to a combined $4 million in grants from the state legislature. The database stores prescriber information, recent prescription request history, and considerable other data points that serve as key indicators of illicit activity concerning prescription drugs. Notably, Kroger has partnered with MAPS, and facilitated the full integration of data from their 105 pharmacies across the state to better manage the distribution of prescription drugs. In order to fully realize the potential of the bolstered MAPS system, the state legislature should require that remaining pharmacies/hospitals operating in Michigan also partner with MAPS. In addition to providing millions of additional data points with which to track the movement of prescription drugs, this measure would also allow for data scientists to examine regions within the state that experience high levels of unlawful activity, allowing politicians to more efficiently allocate tax dollars based on the regional severity of the respective problems.
1. Carter Barnhart Vice President of Referral Relations at Newport Academy
We were greatly appreciative of Ms. Barnhart taking the time to give her take on the opioid epidemic, drug crime and the overall vicious wake it has left in its path. Ms. Barnhart works at Newport Academy, a leading drug rehab facility in the United States. As an expert in the field of opioids, we thought her perspective would be invaluable.
After providing Ms. Barnhart with the implementation of the MAPS system in pharmacies, she responded by saying: “There needs to be a double-edged sword in approaching the epidemic. A legislative approach and an educational approach, which I excel in. Your solution, in my belief, is comprehensive and isn’t all that different from what is being done in many states nationwide. I would combine it with an educational approach if you are trying to reduce the epidemic on all fronts.”
After hearing her response, we wished to learn more about her ‘educational’ approach and she followed by providing us with a rather brilliant response: “I think the drug crisis is fundamentally rooted in ignorance and specifically ignorance in education. The youth aren't educated properly when it comes to drugs. Here are the substances, and here are the benefits of each substance. Heroin is an opioid and was once sold over the counter for arthritis, and here is where things can get very bad with drugs. The D.A.R.E campaign was ignorant and harmful. If you walk into a middle school and tell a group of thirteen year olds whose brains are telling them to deviate and deny deny deny, "I dare you not to use drugs," What did you think was going to happen? Dare a thirteen-year-old not to eat a cookie and he'll eat twelve of them. Because we are so drug averse, we aren't even discussing drugs period. it's like out of sight out of mind, but the elephant in the room is that there are drugs, people are going to try and experiment. The question is can we decrease the rate of addiction. There's the difference.”
Ms. Barnhart ultimately educated us on the topic through a different lens that allowed us to further our understanding of the issue and develop a fully developed analysis. Her knowledge and expertise differentiated her from any consultant.
2. Michael James, Practicing Healthcare Attorney
We loved hearing the insights of Michael James, a practicing attorney in the state of Michigan with a law degree from the University of Miami. He was helpful because he allowed us to better understand the shortcomings of our proposal. Mr. James, having represented dozens of pharmaceutical distributors and physicians alike, has a robust understanding of the legal landscape as it pertains to healthcare in the state of Michigan: “I represent a number of pharmacies, independent ones, and I’ve done work over the years for Arab-American Pharmacies, (AAPA) out of the Detroit market, and there’s a host of issues. First, there exist privacy concerns. Patients, people with prescriptions, must provide some sort of informed consent to this agreement. I would suspect that when Kroger did this, they probably didn’t make that decision without informing their customer base about it, though I doubt they did it overtly.”
Again, the points made by Mr. James were extremely helpful in recognizing potential counter-arguments to our proposal. In understanding the inevitable counters to our proposal, we were also better equipped to adjust our solution, to maximize its chance at becoming enacted legislation. One such facet that James helped to clarify was the murky reconciliation that would need to take place in order to ensure that our proposal did not violate current HIPAA laws. “HIPAA concerns exist. The patient’s information, even just their name, and the fact that they receive a drug, is considered protected health information. For you to give out that information, it goes back to the consent argument - has a patient agreed that you can give out this information? Hopefully the entity receiving this information would be HIPAA compliant. Need an agreement that outlines the confines, and the specific regulatory agreement/nuanced changes that you would be making.”
One of the final concerns that James addressed was how different pharmaceutical distributors might react to the proposed legislative amendment, given his experience in representing clients of varying size. “It might be easier to get bigger firms, for smaller firms, you’re adding an additional administrative requirement, a regulatory requirement, and they may not have the resources to file these regulatory papers, because they simply can’t afford the overhead costs.”
The financial burden of complying with additional government regulation, on the part of corporations, was a consideration that we had overlooked prior to this consultation. This issue led to manifested changes in our counter-arguments, as we revised our work to suggest potential financial incentives for firms that comply with new regulatory measures. We are especially grateful for the insight of Mr. James, as the questions that he raised allowed us to thoroughly strengthen our proposal.
3. Mr. Adam Glucksman, Former Corporate Lawyer at Schulte Roth & Zabel and Current Managing Director with the Carlyle Group
We are grateful to Mr. Glucksman, a highly experienced lawyer previously employed at Schulte Roth & Zabel, for reviewing our proposal and its solution. He began by noting the importance of the crisis we are trying to solve and then responded to the legal ramifications of establishing a database that includes much sensitive information about patients and their medical history. We specifically asked him if such a database would violate a person’s right to privacy and if there were other concerns that he could anticipate.
According to Mr. Glucksman, “while all US citizens have a certain right to privacy guaranteed by the constitution, that right is not unlimited in nature.” He illustrated his point by describing how the Fourth Amendment guarantees our right to be secure in our homes, but if authorities have “probable cause” (good and legal reason) to search your home, they can do so and infringe on your privacy so that they can protect the well being of other people by confiscating illegal weapons and/or illegal drugs.
He feels similarly about the privacy issues of a prescription drug database. “The opioid epidemic generally provides probable cause for higher regulation and transparency with respect to drug abuse/over prescription,” said Mr. Glucksman. While this database would intrude on both patient and doctor privacy, he emphasized that the positive effects of this legislation would surmount the impact caused by disclosure of this information.
One note of caution, according to Mr. Glucksman: the inclusion of mental health related prescriptions on the prescription drug database is problematic and could likely been seen as serious and unnecessary violations of patient privacy. Therefore, he advises that prescriptions related to the treatment of mental illness be excluded from the database. Although "there is a separate issue brewing in this country related to foreseeable violence associated with certain people [with mental illness] having access to firearms,” Mr. Glucksman advises that issue be separately dealt with outside of this legislation.
Overall, Mr. Glucksman provided us with invaluable and specific information that helped us understand the larger picture of our proposed solution and enabled us to anticipate counterarguments. He also provided us with an extremely important point-of-view that we had not previously considered: how prescriptions related to the treatment of mental health issues should be excluded from the database.
Advice from Topic Coordinator:
You must solicit a critique from a topic coordinator, and explain the impact that advice has had on the final draft of this proposal.
Throughout our proposal process we prioritized the extraordinary help of many of the topic coordinators through attending office hours of: Luke Hoffman, Lizzy Stone, Ben Heller and Glen Stegman. We gained unique advice from every coordinator in regard to specific research ideas, topics to explore, and overall methods to most effectively produce the best proposal possible. However, Luke Hoffman clearly stood out as the topic coordinator most devoted to our development.
We started meeting with Luke in the last week of February where we sat down and presented him with the general topic of our proposal: drug crime. Luke provided us with advice that truly helped our progression when he told us to narrow it down to a specific drug and not over generalize drug crime. As the weeks continued we began to learn more about prescription drugs and opioids, which ultimately enabled us to come up with our solutions.
We met with Luke after the three solutions were due and he shed light on the opioid crisis as he informed us about how he did his proposal on opioids. He said he focused on restricting doctor prescription power through legislature and avoided the funding aspect. He told us it was essential to narrow your focused solution to amending a bill, instead of creating programs or whatnot. That is why we feel so highly about mandating MAPS, a preexisting system into the pharmaceutical network.
Describe your research process — indicate who you talked to (including but not limited to consultants), what you read, what your thinking was, how it changed over time, and how your consultants changed your thinking. This description of your research process definitely could include “dead ends,” or ideas you had that didn’t ultimately bear fruit. In short, we want to know what you did and how it led to your legislation, and we also want you to give us a window into your thought process.
Looking back on our research process, we experienced and learned so much. We initially started out trying to mitigate drug crime in general. We were focusing more on cocaine because we researched and discovered the state of Michigan has a huge cocaine drug problem. This ultimately lead us into researching prisons and ways to mitigate crime through a prison lens. So, we began to create a solution early on based off of online reading which involved creating programs in prison to help rehabilitate the communities around them. At first we thought this was a good idea, but as time went on we started to come into many dead-ends. We met with Luke Hoffman during office hours, as noted above, and he advised us to look more into the legislative process and pinpoint a specific bill and drug. So, we started to worry about the indefinite amount of counter arguments that could arise such as funding issues when it came to our prison program system. We traversed that avenue for a couple weeks only to end up struggling to find legitimate, inexpensive solutions.
Then we contacted Andrew’s Uncle who is a lawyer himself and he started to talk about the opioid crisis. He told us he believes there is no greater narcotic threat to this country than the damage the opioid crisis is causing. So, we began to research on the web, reading hundreds of articles over the course of the process. For those few weeks after feeling as if we wanted to pursue the opioid crisis, our goal was to become as knowledgeable on the subject as possible. As we continued our research, we also were devoted to meeting with many topic coordinators to receive help and to listen to their advice. Luke Hoffman and Ben Heller told us they both researched the crisis themselves, so hearing from them was as valuable as reading the many articles. Glen Stegman told us to consult a person outside of the typical realm of the legislative issue such as a lawyer. That sparked our idea later on to look into rehab specialists who deal with opioids through a different perspective and could offer us other insights that we previously might not have known. The combination of intense online readings, tireless meetings with topic coordinators and a phone call with Andrew’s uncle allowed us to create three valid solutions.
After creating all three solutions, we presented the caucus with valuable information to receive feedback on. Additionally, we continued meeting in office hours with the topic coordinators to hear their thoughts on the issue. From all the researched feedback, we realized solution 1 is an excellent idea that rightfully avoids the costs and funding section. We were pleased with that solution although we started to learn that only targeting a specific age range would limit our proposal’s effectiveness so we reached a dead-end with that solution and had to focus on others. Solution 2, although an extremely effective solution, costs a lot of money and the topic coordinators and members of the caucus most definitely brought that to our attention. Solution 3 focused on mandating, by law, that the MAPS system must be used by all pharmacies. We felt this solution was the absolute best combination of overall effectiveness and inexpensiveness due to the program already existing.
Consulting two lawyers who both gave us relatively opposing viewpoints was hugely beneficial as well. Mr. James countered our solution and ultimately made us take a step back to research and find new ways to respond to implementing solution 3. He taught us about the various privacy concerns that will inevitably come up in our progression so without his input, our research process wouldn’t have fully developed. On the other hand of the spectrum, Mr. Glucksman reassured to us how highly he feels on our solution 3. He essentially provided us with an answer to a major counter-argument we were facing- over regulation and privacy issues. Without Mr. Glucksman’s consultation we feel we would be missing a vital part of our proposal’s excellence. All three of our consultations played prominent roles in our research process.
Please delineate--in detail--who made what contributions to the process and to the finished proposal? Who took on which responsibilities in researching ideas, drafting language, etc.?
Throughout our proposal process, we ensured that each of us would work similarly in terms of hours, research, writing, etc. The research was composed as a team and then we would devise information into its respective places in the proposal. Thus, research on the three solutions and prospectus was done together.
Andrew was responsible for writing the following sections: The Prospectus, Consultation 2 &3, Preambulatory Clauses, Costs and Funding, Research Process, “Why this proposal will make a difference in the lives of students of all ages…”, Author Contributions.
Austin was responsible for writing the following sections: Consultation 1, Three Solutions, Operative clauses, Counter-arguments, Current Bill, Advice from Topic Coordinator, “How and where did you learn…”, “How has your service activity influenced…”.
We then checked over the entire proposal to edit and revise sections. This process was performed together. Both of us met with Michael Fahy during office hours together during the research process. We also attended multiple Topic Coordinator office hour sessions together to further our research and understanding of the issue. Throughout the entire process, we never came across any difficulty to meet since we live together. Since the proposal process started we met once a week for as long as need be to talk about the research we found in the past week and further our understanding of the crisis. In these meetings we then would plan out the schedule for the next week. As the proposal process heated up, we began to meet more and sign up for topic coordinator office hours together. Since we live in the same house we were able to write our parts during similar times. Due to constant communication, we feel that we were able to excel in maximizing the success of our proposal.
The sections below should comprise your final proposal language, submitted for consideration by your peers and potential inclusion in the MSC Platform.
Why this proposal will make a difference in the lives of students of all ages across Michigan, or a significant subgroup (by age, background, economic status, and/or region, etc.) of students in Michigan:
This proposal has a clear impact on Michigan’s student population, given that young adults are most susceptible to drug addiction. Because cerebral development doesn’t finish, especially in the male brain, until the individual’s early-to-mid 20s, people are predisposed towards engaging in risky behavior, like Ms. Barnhart hinted at. Based on research from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, young adults begin abusing drugs most often during periods of transition. This includes transitioning jobs, switching educational institutions, or entering into new, serious relationships. No age range better defines these circumstances that our very own peers, who juggle the pressures of finding a job and finding a partner, while still fulfilling their academic responsibilities. In removing the accessibility of prescription opioids statewide, we minimize the risk that our peers will be exposed to the most addictive drugs offered by the pharmaceutical industry.
Further National Institute of Health (NIH) research clearly indicates the linkage between non-medical usage of opioid medications, and recreational usage of heroin. These substances are inherently addictive. By reducing the ability of individuals to obtain prescription opioids from the onset of their adolescence, we also reduce the likelihood that Michigan residents will be susceptible to eventual heroin usage and addiction.
This problem is not exclusive to Michigan students, but rather, it afflicts students nationwide. Data from the NIH indicates that the number of opioid prescriptions written has tripled in the last 20 years, while emergency room visits induced by abuse of opioid prescriptions has doubled. The impact of opioid prevalence can be further visualized through the fact that the number of recreational heroin users has nearly doubled over the last decade. Again, the fact that young adults are more inclined to engage in risky behaviors must not be understated, given these upward trends. Furthermore, Michigan’s individual data in these areas remains higher than national averages. With that in mind, we believe that our solution is a necessary compromise, between continuing to allow ailing patients to realize the benefits of opioids, while eliminating the risk that young people develop addictions to opioids in any form.
How and where did you learn about the issues underlying your proposal?
We both watched the movie Heroin(e) in the beginning of the year and we were incredibly moved by it. When we were debating which topic to research for our proposal we really came down to two: the opioid epidemic and concussions in high school sports. We chose the opioid crisis because we felt there was more for us to learn about since we both played sports in high school. We chose to rewatch the movie and this confirmed to us our motivation to help these people who are struggling. There have been family members we know that have been affected by this crisis and we felt morally inclined to help find a solution to this incredibly impactful epidemic. We learned so much through reading articles about the severity of the issue and also through interviewing consultants on the epidemic who were quite informed.
How has your service activity influenced your thinking about this proposal?
As part of our service activity we both chose to volunteer for Jewish Family Services. We collected food through food drives and then worked with Jewish Family Services to provide them with all the necessary material. We really enjoyed walking through their facility and seeing first hand, the behind the scene actions. This service activity significantly opened our minds up to the struggling world. Although hunger isn’t necessarily similar to the opioid crisis, they both share the same desperation: help. Both are massive crisis’ that are killing and ruining people’s lives. We went into our service activity with the same moral desire to help and find solutions, as we did in researching our proposal on decreasing the crime associated with the opioid epidemic. So, since the activity woke us up to the struggling world, it helped us greatly in our proposal. In a sense, it enhanced that spark and desire to find a solution to a group of people who are in need of help.
These set up the problem, not the solution. Whereas: The problem of drug-related crime in Michigan, especially as it relates to the resale of prescription painkillers, has skyrocketed in recent years.
- Whereas: Data from the Michigan Automated Prescription System (MAPS) reported 11.4 million prescriptions for painkillers in 2015 were written, about 115 opioid prescriptions per 100 people.
- Whereas: The US Justice Department has issued press releases stating that a majority of the prescription drug traffic in the American Midwest and South originates in Michigan.
- Whereas: 2017 reports by Grand Traverse County indicate that levels of fentanyl found in trafficked drugs are rising, specifically in Northern Michigan.
- Whereas: From 1999 to 2013, opioid related deaths have increased 385% in the state of Michigan.
- Whereas: According to CDC reports, more than 63,000 people died from drug overdose (homicide related included), mostly caused by opioids. The national rate for drug overdose deaths was 19.8 per 100,000 compared to Michigan at 24.4 deaths per 100,000. The opioid drug overdose rate far outpaces firearm death tolls of 12.2 per 100,000 in Michigan.
Given that the state of Michigan has recently poured millions of taxpayer dollars into revamping the MAPS database, we believe that this tool should be utilized to its fullest extent. Currently, pharmaceutical distributors choose whether or not to opt in to this system. While firms like Kroger have pioneered information sharing in this space, other corporations have expressed reticence towards allowing governmental oversight over their customers. Through our proposed legislation, we suggest amending this provision in order to allow MAPS full access to prescription-related statistics, to better address this issue.
- All pharmaceutical distributors in the state of Michigan should be required to cooperate in full with the MAPS database.
- Use data scientists currently on government payroll to constantly analyze statewide trends in usage and distribution, given the newfound capability of MAPS to update in real time.
- Reallocate tax dollars apportioned to combat drug crime based on regional afflictions, following the analysis of MAPS data points.
- Release collected data from the state of Michigan to the national Center for Disease Control (CDC) to offer insight as to how to better address the concurrent national opioid-crime epidemic.
Despite the obvious societal benefits that would result following the implementation of this proposal, we recognize that information sharing, especially as it relates to personal medical information, is controversial. Thus, the following counterarguments illustrate our understanding that parties to this issue may contend with our solution.
- Noting the presence of HIPAA laws in the state of Michigan, which regulate the dissemination, privacy, and security of medical information for patients, we recognize that we may face pushback in mandating firms to turn over such data to the government, given recent hacking scandals. Though the intent of this proposal seeks to maximize social welfare, jeopardizing the medical information of law-abiding citizens with legitimate health issues remains a potential byproduct that we must acknowledge.
- We recognize that corporations will be hesitant to provide us with medical data on their customers without legitimate incentive to do so. While ideally, such a change would be mandated through legislation, if this proves infeasible, firms could be swayed through financial incentive. Preferably, companies would cooperate with MAPS without any added financial cost, but tax breaks may serve as potential middle ground if firms are disagreeable.
- When people become equipped with the knowledge that databases like MAPS are being more stringently implemented, some may believe users will resort to third party vendors to obtain their drugs, thus perpetuating the black market presence. Additionally, if prescription opioid drug supply is more restricted, users may also switch to equally dangerous drugs that receive less regulation (cocaine, crack cocaine, etc) in order to induce similar bodily responses.
Costs and Funding:
Since we are proposing altering specific legislation, there are no significant costs or funding worth noting. Unlike other proposals which demand government support to fund programs, our proposal strictly urges the state to mandate all pharmacies implement the MAPS database and its affiliates to strengthen tracking the prescription drug network, thus reducing opioid related crime. The MAPS system is already in place so there are no start-up costs associated with the program. In terms of the legislative process, there are few costs, if any to revising the current bill. Due to the prior existence of the MAPS program and this proposal’s specific model, costs and funding seem avoidable.
“(3) Beginning June 1, 2018, before prescribing or dispensing to a patient a controlled substance in a quantity that exceeds a 3-day supply, a licensed prescriber shall obtain and review a report concerning that patient from the electronic system for monitoring schedule 2, 3, 4, and 5 controlled substances established under section 7333a. This subsection does not apply under any of the following circumstances: (a) If the dispensing occurs in a hospital or freestanding surgical outpatient facility licensed under article 17 and the controlled substance is administered to the patient in that hospital or facility. (b) If the patient is an animal as that term is defined in section 18802, the dispensing occurs in a veterinary hospital or clinic, and the controlled substance is administered to the animal in that hospital or clinic. (c) If the controlled substance is prescribed by a licensed prescriber who is a veterinarian and the controlled substance will be dispensed by a pharmacist. (141) Act No. 248 Public Acts of 2017 Approved by the Governor December 27, 2017 Filed with the Secretary of State December 27, 2017 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 2017 2 (4) Beginning June 1, 2018, before prescribing or dispensing a controlled substance to a patient, a licensed prescriber shall register with the electronic system for monitoring schedule 2, 3, 4, and 5 controlled substances established under section 7333a. (5) A licensed prescriber who dispenses controlled substances shall maintain all of the following records separately from other prescription records:
The intent of this bill was to outline the original guidelines for information sharing between licensed pharmaceutical providers and the operators of the MAPS database. Specifically, this bill indicates the proper channels through which drug providers must go, in order to understand the medical history of their consumers, before allowing point-of-sale interactions. Though clearly a positive step in the fight to combat prescription drug-related crime, the language of this bill should be altered to mandate that all providers collaborate with the government. In replacing the word “shall” with “must” we can enforce this regulation to the fullest extent of the law, and keep the citizens of Michigan as healthy as possible.