How to Localize These Findings

HOW TO LOCALIZE THESE FINDINGS

·  Which candidates in your state received the most in contributions? Have any of them proposed or championed legislation favorable to the industry, or set the agendas for it as a committee chair, senate president or house speaker?

·  Which of these groups contributed the most in your state? How have contributions changed over time?

·  Did the number of lobbyists in your state change?

·  Use your state’s lobbyist registration website to see if the groups hired particularly influential lobbyists, such as former lawmakers?

·  If your state has considered opioid-related legislation, do the legislators who backed it or opposed it appear in the data?

·  Did lawmakers who opposed strict opioid rules get contributions from pharmaceutical companies? Or did those who support pharmaceutical-friendly legislation (such as abuse-deterrent bills) receive money from the industry? What about the legislators who control agendas: senate presidents, house speakers, majority and minority leaders and chairs of relevant committees, such as health. How does that compare with the lawmakers’ past history with the industry? Did anyone get a contribution just after shelving a bill the industry opposed? Did anyone stop getting industry money after opposing a bill?

·  Was the legislation pushed, or even authored, by pharmaceutical companies or other members of the Pain Care Forum?

·  How have drug overdose deaths and prescription numbers in your state changed over time?

·  Have any of the advocacy groups in the Pain Care Forum testified in your state on opioid issues? If so, did lawmakers consider them unbiased sources?

·  If your state requires disclosures of which topics/bills lobbyists were following and which lawmakers they lobbied, what do those show?

Additionally, here are some other places to look for possible stories:

·  ADVOCACY REPORTS

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network:

Here are the last four annual advocacy reports from the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. The group cites work on opioid and other drug issues in a handful of states each year:

2015: http://www.acscan.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ACS-CAN-Advocacy-Accomplishments-Report-2015.pdf

2014: http://www.acscan.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2014-Advocacy-Accomplishments-Report.pdf

2013: http://www.acscan.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/acscan-accomplishments-report-2014.pdf

2012: http://www.acscan.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ACS-CAN-Accomplishments.pdf

·  Academy of Integrative Pain Management

(formerly known as the American Academy of Pain Management):

http://www.painmed.org/advocacy/state-updates/

And the group’s project State Pain Policy Advocacy Network:

http://sppan.aapainmanage.org/states

·  The following 21 bills contain nearly identical language calling for required coverage of abuse-deterrent formulations of opioids — a move that would benefit pharmaceutical companies. Lawmakers in at least five of the states said drug company lobbyists provided or helped with the language for the legislation:

CA / AB 1977 / 2016
GA / SB 245
IN / SB 270 / 2016
IL / SB 1802 / 2015
KS / SB 102 / 2015
KY / HB 330 / 2016
MI / HB 5598 / 2016
ME / LD 919 / 2015
MD / SB 606 / 2015
MN / SF 917 / 2015
NC / HB 744 / 2015
NJ / SB 1313 / 2016
NY / A10478 / 2016
NY / A7427 / 2015
OK / SB 661 / 2015
PA / SB 1305/HB 1698 / 2015
RI / H 7163 / 2016
TN / HB 746
WA / SB 5695 / 2015
WV / HB 4034 / 2016
WV / HB 4146 / 2016

·  In 2016, these four states have adopted laws limiting the initial supply of opioids for acute pain patients:

·  Connecticut

·  Massachusetts

·  New York

·  Rhode Island