Same Day Multiple Prescriptions
 Why is Our Government Pursuing a War on Doctors?

Free Electronic Newsletter

Summary of State statutes: Consistent with the goal of the model Pain Relief Act, the following state intractable pain statutes seek to decrease barriers to necessary drug therapy for patients suffering from chronic or intractable pain. To accomplish this goal, the statutes generally shield physicians, who prescribe controlled substances or other dangerous drugs to treat their patients’ pain, from criminal investigation or medical board disciplinary scrutiny. Many states require that the patient be informed of the risks of controlled substances, and that the physician meticulously document the treatment. Additionally, some states require that physicians consult with pain specialists on the diagnoses prior to prescribing, and other states prohibit the prescription of these drugs to individuals with known substance abuse problems. For state statutes dealing specifically with medical marijuana, click here.

State begins with: [A] [C] [F] [M] [N] [O] [R] [T] [V] [W]

Arizona
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-3412.01 [Findlaw] $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]

• Summary: This provision becomes applicable only if medical marijuana is approved by use by Congress, or if it is reassigned to a schedule other than Schedule I. Under this statute, physicians may also prescribe other Schedule I drugs to relieve pain as indicated by professional medical standards provided that they document the appropriateness of the prescription and obtain the written statement of a second physician verifying the legitimacy of the prescription. The medical board may examine a physician only if she fails to comply with these requirements. This provision is effectual notwithstanding federal law such as the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Controlled Substances Act.

• Summary: The California Intractable Pain Treatment Act allows physicians to prescribe controlled substances to manage pain which cannot be removed or otherwise treated without being subject to disciplinary action by the board of medicine. The Act is not applicable if the patient has a chemical dependency or is using the drugs for non-therapeutic purposes.

• Summary: This provision recognizes the physician’s duty to relieve pain as well as the legitimacy of opiates in pain treatment. The statute allows physicians to prescribe opiates in a dosage deemed medically necessary provided that they comply with the California Intractable Pain Treatment Act.

• Summary: The Pain Patient’s Bill of Rights affirms the patient’s right to choose opiates in the management of pain. Physicians may prescribe opiates provided that they comply with the two statutes listed above.

• Summary: This statute delineates the requirements for prescription of various controlled substances that a practitioner may dispense in the ordinary course of his profession. Additionally, no criminal or civil liability may be imposed on a pharmacist for filling a prescription that she reasonably believed was legitimate.

• Summary: Florida allows the prescription of drugs in Schedules II-V in cases where intractable pain has been diagnosed. The prescription must be in accordance with the level of care, skill and treatment recognized by a prudent physician under similar circumstances.

• Summary: This statute authorizes a practitioner to posses and administer controlled substances for the alleviation of pain. Practitioners are required to keep and maintain inspec records detailing what was prescribed and to whom.

• Summary: This provision creates an advisory committee on pain and symptom management.

• Summary: This provision recognizes that intractable pain is an appropriate issue for legislative consideration.

• Summary: The Michigan legislature’s goal to facilitate adequate treatment of pain is outlined here, and the statute states that controlled substances are appropriate in the treatment of intractable pain. The statute also states that the official prescription form required by Michigan was intended to control diversion of controlled substances, not to limit their accessibility for the treatment of pain.

• Summary: This provision requires the Departments of Consumer and Industry Services and Consumer Health to develop an informational booklet on intractable pain.

• Summary: This statute allows a physician to prescribe drugs in Schedules II-V in the course of treatment of patients suffering from intractable pain. A physician is not subject to disciplinary action by the board of medicine if she keeps accurate records, writes accurate prescriptions and discusses the risks of controlled substances with the patient.

• Summary: Intractable pain is defined here as that which cannot be removed or otherwise treated.

• Summary: This statute provides that a physician is not subject to medical board disciplinary action for prescribing controlled substances to a patient whose diagnoses with intractable pain is documented in her medical records. The statute also states that drug dependency or the possibility thereof is not a reason to withhold controlled substances.

• Summary: Despite the above provision, the medical board may still take action against a physician who prescribes controlled substances without a therapeutic purpose, fails to keep records or writes fictitious prescriptions.

• Summary: The Nebraska legislature recognizes here the usefulness of controlled substances in effective pain relief.

• Summary: This statute provides that a practitioner who administers controlled substances is immune from medical board discipline and criminal prosecution provided that the dosage was warranted in the professional judgment of the physician, the prescription was not for assisting suicide and the dosage conforms with medical board guidelines.

• Summary: This statute gives the Nevada medical board authority to define intractable pain by regulation.

• Summary: A physician is not subject to disciplinary action for administering a Schedule II-V controlled substance in the treatment of intractable pain if such administration is in accordance with accepted medical standards.

• Summary: § 24-2D-2 defines intractable pain as a state in which efforts to remove or remedy a patient’s pain have failed or have proven inadequate. No provider is subject to disciplinary action or criminal prosecution if she can demonstrate that her practice complies to accepted practice guidelines (§ 24-2D-3). Notwithstanding, a physician may be disciplined for failure to keep adequate prescription records, writing fictitious prescriptions or diverting drugs (§ 24-2D-4) and does not expand the authorized scope of practice of health care providers (§ 24-2D-6).

• Summary: Intractable pain is defined as that which cannot be removed or treated.

• Summary: Physicians are allowed to prescribe controlled substances for intractable pain provided that they keep records about their patients and the reasons for the prescription of the substances.

• Summary: Hospitals may not restrict the use of controlled substances.

• Summary: The medical board may not discipline a physician for prescribing controlled substances in the course of treatment of a patient with intractable pain.

• Summary: These provisions are not applicable in cases where the patient has a chemical dependency or where the physician knows that the patient is using the drugs for non-therapeutic purposes.

• Summary: Notwithstanding the above provisions, the board may still discipline a physician for writing non-therapeutic prescriptions, failing to keep records or writing false or fictitious prescriptions.

• Summary: This statute defines intractable pain as that having a cause with no treatment or cure. A physician may use dangerous drugs to treat such pain, provided that the patient is examined by a specialist of the area, system or organ believed to be the source of the pain. The physician is also required to keep detailed records about the patient and the drugs prescribed.

• Summary: This statute recognizes that Schedule II-V substances have legitimate medical purposes and that Oklahoma citizens have an interest in access to appropriate pain relief. Accordingly, a physician is not subject to disciplinary action for administering controlled, dangerous drugs, even though they may increase the risk of death.

• Summary: Intractable pain is defined as the state in which the cause of the pain cannot be removed or otherwise treated.

• Summary: A physician may administer controlled substances in the treatment of intractable pain without subjecting herself to disciplinary action by the medical board. The patient must first be examined by a specialist in the condition believed to be the source of the pain.

• Summary: Exceptions under which a physician may still be disciplined.

• Summary: Before prescribing controlled substances, a physician must provide a written notice to the patient disclosing the risks of such substances.

• Summary: A physician may prescribe controlled substances, without fear of disciplinary action, for intractable pain cases in which the condition has been documented in the patient’s medical records. The statute also contains self-negating provisions under which a physician may still be subject to medical board discipline (§ 5-37.4-3 ).

• Summary: This statute defines intractable pain as that which cannot be removed or otherwise treated, and the statute recognizes that opiates are an accepted treatment for pain. No physician will be subject to disciplinary action by the medical board for prescribing a dose of controlled or dangerous drugs that she deems medically necessary.

• Summary: Texas’ Intractable Pain Treatment Act allows a physician to prescribe dangerous drugs or controlled substances without subjectivity to disciplinary action by the board. The statute contains provisions for record-keeping and exceptions in cases where the patient has a chemical dependency.

• Examines, since enacting the Intractable Pain Treatment Act in 1989, how the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and state legislators have sought to improve pain management through rules governing practice and pain education.

• Summary: Under this statute, a physician may exceed the recommended dosage of a pain-relieving agent in cases of intractable pain. The physician must certify a medical necessity for the dose, and that it was administered in good faith for accepted medical purposes.

• Summary: The Washington Secretary of Health and regulatory boards should create guidelines for opiate use in the treatment of pain.

• Summary: A medical practitioner may dispense or deliver controlled substances for the medical treatment of intractable pain. A pharmacist is not subject to sanction or legal liability for relying on what she reasonably believed was a legitimate prescription.

• Summary: Intractable pain is a state of pain with a cause that cannot be removed.

• Summary: This statute presents the conditions under which a provider is not subject to disciplinary sanctions by licensing boards or criminal punishment by the state for prescribing pain-relieving controlled substances.

• Summary: Actions that may still subject a provider to discipline or prosecution include failure to examine the patient, writing false prescriptions, diverting drugs or violating applicable federal laws.

• Summary: This article does not condone assisted suicide.