[W]ASHINGTON — Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are seeking more information from the Drug Enforcement Agency on efforts to combat the opioid crisis in the wake of media reports that questioned whether a 2016 law had a chilling effect on enforcement efforts.
The law, spearheaded by Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa., and co-sponsored many others, including Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., purported to clarify regulations around distribution of pharmaceuticals, such as prescription opioids.
However, a joint report by the Washington Post and 60 Minutes last month asserted that the law, heavily supported by major players within the pharmaceutical industry, hindered the DEA’s ability to swiftly interfere when pharmaceutical companies, doctors or pharmacists were improperly diverting pills to the black market.
Welch has questioned whether the law in fact chilled DEA enforcement, as was portrayed in the media reports. However, Welch said, the law raised questions about the influence of pharmaceutical lobbying and the revolving door in Washington. Welch also acknowledged that he has received contributions from companies involved in supporting the bill.
At a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing last week on the opioid crisis, Welch and other lawmakers questioned Neil Doherty, a deputy official at the DEA, about whether the law had hindered the agency’s activities.
“This story shocked folks, and rightly so, because everybody in America is just devastated by what’s happening to friends, to family to loved ones,” Welch said.
Doherty, who holds the job formerly occupied by the DEA official who raised concerns about the impacts of the 2016 law, told lawmakers the agency would be happy to work with Congress. Though when asked for legislative recommendations, he did not provide any specifics.
The committee has not yet scheduled hearings on the impacts of the law, as Welch requested in a letter to chair Rep. Greg Walden, R-Or. But Welch took the opportunity to press Doherty on the article.
Welch challenged the view that the 2016 law led to a decrease in the number of times the DEA used a particular administrative tool to crack down on rogue prescription drug distribution chains.
The trend, Welch pointed out, showed that the DEA used 65 immediate suspension orders against doctors, pharmacies and drug companies in fiscal year 2011, which then dramatically decreased to just five in 2015 — which was the year before the law was passed and signed by President Barack Obama.
“Unless the effect of the law occurred before the passage of the law, the law that we passed was after there had been already a decline in the use of that tool,” Welch said to Doherty.
Doherty agreed with Welch’s assessment.
“The law that was passed in April of last year, it’s too early to tell what the demonstrative impact (is),” he said.
Throughout the hearing, committee members asked, but were not satisfied by answers, about how millions of prescription pills were diverted through a pharmacy in a small town in West Virginia. Doherty also was pressed why the agency had not yet turned in a report on the law in question.
Many on the panel, including Welch, expressed frustrations about getting information from the DEA about efforts concerning opioids.
In an interview this week, Welch said he and other Congress members want more information from the DEA on the law and other opioid diversion prevention efforts. However, he said that he was satisfied by Doherty’s answers that the law did not impact the downward trend on the use of suspension orders, as the Post and 60 Minutes report suggested.
“In the case of this particular law, there was not a cause and effect,” Welch said.
However, Welch said he believed the article raised fair points about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on lawmakers and the rotation of employees between the public sector and related lobbying fields.
Welch has received contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, including many of the key players identified in the Post investigation.
In total, during the 2014 and 2016 election cycles, Welch received about $76,000 from eight groups the Post identified as involved with lobbying efforts in support of the law, according to OpenSecrets.gov.
Welch received a total of $27,000 from three pharmaceutical distribution companies that were involved with lobbying for the new law, according to the Post. The companies are Cardinal Health, McKesson and Amerisource-Bergen.
The remainder of the contributions came from other players in the pharmaceutical industry that lobbied for the law, such as Walgreens and the National Community Pharmacists Association — groups that have lobbying interests beyond pharmaceutical distribution.
Asked about the contributions, Welch said that they are immaterial to his involvement with the legislation.
Welch said he sponsored the bill at the request of Burlington Drug, a Chittenden County-based pharmaceutical distribution company, not because of any influence from donors involved in the industry.
He said that he does not know why those companies chose to support him, and defended his acceptance of the contributions as necessary in the country’s campaign finance system.
“I have to raise money for my reelection and I have to do it in the post-Citizens United world,” Welch said.
Welch said he has been a vocal adversary of the pharmaceutical industry, and reducing prescription drug pricing is one of his priorities.
Last week, he went directly to the hearing where he questioned the DEA official after a press conference outside of the Capitol where, alongside other lawmakers, he called on President Donald Trump to take steps to lower the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare.
Welch noted that his objective has been to clarify the regulations for pharmaceutical companies and distributors who act lawfully while ensuring enforcement efforts are robust.
“The goal here is to make certain that the DEA can get between a drug dealer and an addict whether the drug dealer is a rogue doctor or a pill mill,” Welch said.
