AirTalk weighs the advantages Medicare's attempt to curb the opioid epidemic with the impact it may have on chronic pain patients. We also examine the latest on the Uber's fatal driverless car crash in Arizona; debate whether the EPA’s ‘secret science’ ban proposal is a reflection of research transparency or an attack on science; and more.
Medicare considers issuing limits on opioid prescriptions
Medicare officials are poised to approve a crackdown on opioids that could affect more than a million-and-a-half patients managing chronic pain. Medicare would refuse to pay for long-term, high-dosage, prescriptions.
The new limit would go into effect next January 1.
More than 200 pain and addiction specialists have signed a letter opposing the limit. They say it could lead patients to black market sellers, or even suicide.
Critics further claim the proposed limit is based on a misreading of Centers for Disease Control recommendations aimed at new opioid prescriptions, not ongoing ones.
We’ll talk to doctors about the tradeoffs they’d have to weigh with this new policy.
Guests:
Anna Lembke, M.D., associate professor at Stanford University School of Medicine and chief of the Stanford Addiction Medicine Dual Diagnosis Clinic; her latest book is “Drug Dealer, MD: How Doctors Were Duped, Patients Got Hooked, and Why It’s So Hard to Stop” (Johns Hopkins University Press, October 2016)
Lynn Webster, M.D., former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine and author of the book “The Painful Truth: What Chronic Pain is Really Like and Why It Matters to Each of Us” (Oxford University Press, 2016)
EPA ‘secret science’ ban proposal: research transparency or attack on science?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a proposal that would restrict the research available to it when writing environmental regulations unless the underlying raw data is made public for independent review.
The move, seen by scientists as an attack on science, will leave environmental regulators at a disadvantage when it comes to accessing crucial decades-old studies such as linking air pollution to premature deaths or work that measures human exposure to pesticides and other chemicals. Supporters argue that Americans deserve to see the science for themselves and other scientists should be able to review the work. Critics, however, say the proposal would undermine the science that underpins modern environmental regulations such as those governing clean water and clean air.
What do you think, is it research transparency or an attack on science?
AirTalk reached out to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for comment but as of the airing of this segment, we have not received a response to our request.
Guests:
Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, D.C.; he also led President Trump’s E.P.A. transition team
Yogin Kothari, Washington representative with the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists
Stormy Daniels’ attorney seeks for Trump to testify in deposition – will the court allow it and what implications would it have?
An attorney for Stormy Daniels filed a motion Wednesday seeking to question President Donald Trump and his attorney under oath about a pre-election payment to the porn actress aimed at keeping her quiet about an alleged tryst with Trump.
If successful, it would be the first deposition of a sitting president since Bill Clinton in 1998 had to answer questions about his conduct with women.
Attorney Michael Avenatti is seeking sworn testimony from Trump and Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, about a $130,000 payment made to Daniels days before the 2016 presidential election as part of a nondisclosure agreement she is seeking to invalidate. Avenatti's documents were filed in U.S. District Court in California.
Avenatti wants to question Trump and Cohen for "no more than two hours." In the filing, he says the depositions are needed to establish if Trump knew about the payment, which he refers to as a "hush agreement," and if he consented to it.
Will the deposition move forward? What questions would be asked of Trump and Cohen? And what would be the implications?
With files from the Associated Press.
Guest:
Zachary Clopton, assistant professor of law at Cornell Law School; one of his specialties is civil procedure; he has served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Chicago
What video footage can and can’t tell us about the fatal Uber driverless car accident
Video of the self-driving Uber car crash that resulted in the death of a pedestrian was released publicly last Wednesday, showing a woman walking her bike across a dark road, the vehicle rider looking down right before the crash.
The incident has sparked questions about whether the pedestrian was at fault, or whether the LIDAR system used to detect objects by the car should have sensed her coming (or both). There have also been reports that Uber disabled the Volvo SUV’s collision-avoidance technology before the crash – but it’s common to disable other autonomous driving systems when developing and testing your own system.
In California, Uber will lose its permit to test self-driving cars on the road.
There’s also some question about the video itself – graphic in nature, released during a police investigation – and whether it has value or just adds to confusion.
What is the pedestrian detection tech in driverless vehicles and was it faulty in this situation? What is the value of releasing this video the public? And what about the larger trend of video footage being released to the public? What are the inherent limitations of camera footage and how is it perceived?
Guests:
Tim Higgins, reporter for The Wall Street Journal covering technology and autos; he covered the story; he tweets
Jeffrey Miller, expert in driverless vehicle systems and computer science education; associate professor of engineering practice at the University of Southern California
Jack Bratich, associate professor of journalism and media studies at Rutgers