a hi Oa cD 0 n.j U, to N t cJ C tO C (U U x Is tO (U - PDF document

r n.j Lt} N >z — tO (U a hi Oa cD 0 n.j U, to N t cJ C tO C (U U x Is tO (U (U a

Prescribed Opioids • Codeine (only available in generic f o r m ) 4.. • F e n t a n y l (Actiq, D u r a g e s i c , Fentora) • Hydrocodone (Hysingla ER, Zohydro ER) • H y d r o c o d o n e / a c e t a m (Lorcet, Lortab, Norco, Vicodin) i n o p h e n / • H y d r o m o r p h o n e (Diiaudid, Exalgo) • Meperidine (Demerol) • M e t h a d o n e (Dolophine, Methadose) • Morphine (Astramorph, Avinza, Kadian, MS Contin, Ora-Morph SR) • Oxycodone (OxyContin, Oxecta, Roxicodone) • Oxycodone and acetaminophen (Percocet, Endocet, Roxicet) 4 • O x y c o d o n e a n d naloxone (Targiniq ER) t I . FERRER POIROT FEARS NACHAWATI The Opioid Epidemic WANS BRO UGH I. A W F I Ii M ill,, CnLtI n,i,nII, 2

Opioid Addiction I m p a c t By t h e _ N u m b e r s opioid Drug Overdose 6 O u t estimate of the 650,000 $ 7 8 . 5 prescriptions deaths involve an economic burden of of 10 opioid. dispensed daily B i l l i o n the epidemic to the country in 2013. About one third is Americans have $28.9 from higher health died from drug people daily 500,000 care and addiction 580 initiate heroin overdose in the Billion treatment costs last 17 years. use Of non-working people die every day $20 in lost productivity men in the prime 7S 31% from overdose in nonfatal cases. of their lives are B i l l i o n taking opioids Source: National center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC ![!REI POIROT FEARS NACFL4WATI The Oplaid Epidemic WAHSBRDUGH I. A W F I P IA ii lb.., I.,HI. 3

______ -C” H I ‘ Probability of continuing use (96) 0 0 QtflO ttlOtfl Otfl OLn 0 I I I I I I I I I I t—.— I I II r 4% —. — I 4’ m I 0 0 gg — : 3, I I 0 C — I o0 4% Oj t “ —. - —. 0 ‘-3 a tic 3 —. z I I - a n I 0 tic Z “Ii tTI — F Eji C

Lfl Ln Ln S — U, 0-c 0) Co -U bo° uc E In x._ 0)—. Coo, tic cE .2 S - 0)0 ctCt & —0) 00 a-o >-o QO a_C. CD 0 N r 0 n CJ 0 N S C4 4.’ C (U N a) a) C vi C N 0 e -ø a) e ‘I 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 2’ 0 01 C N 0 a) N g 1... a) N a) C I C a) C 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 I- 6 0 o o C U’ 0 N — CD-S taj C0 a

____ _ ___ _ _ ___________________________________ _______________ ______________ _________ _ _ _ _ ; C f l ’ n i -C— a 0 r Accidenwi O D s p e r 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 %J 0 C C h - C - a X a a -J -. -c ‘4 — Og— C-.. a U ( S c 1 O I t .4c:dzr r o a -______________ d II *1 -a a ri-I * : C.’

__________ —v cc deaths per 100,000 10 15 20 25 30 I I I I I Ni 0 o C I I I I I I N C- / o g (3, I ID / ‘I) Ni 0 / -& o n i / I 0 • — • - 0 — z a N e . Ct 0 0. 0 — -k 0 t — —---— I e e — deaths per 100.000 200 250 300 350 400 450 I I to. — CD — 0 ci, B C -t CD I) 0 2 H1 tij tJ1 P3 0 Ui t..a > C > C corn z u m co I -J

Oxycodone consumption, 2015 I n kilograms 60.000 - 20. 000 So,ncc: I,,wr,j,nionai A,,rouc.c C o n , m I horny. counesv o f — ——— 0 Unircrsitv o f JJ’tcconsin Pain — a n d Pniin S t u d i e s G m u p _e ‘? S C? FERR [ I ROT I P01 FEARS NACHAWATI The Opioid Epidemic W A N S E R O U C K ‘dli, Qinel ‘Liii Iii. t A W F I P M S

W o r l d O x c o d o n C e o n s u m p t i o n 1 9 8 0 2 0 1 5 - 250 - 200 -e Europe ( E U R O ) o x y c o d o n e U S A o x y c o d o n e . 5 0 - a- eape,->c...c.o Sources: I n t e r n a t i o n a l N a r c o t i c s Control B o a r W o r l Organization d ; d Health p o p u data l a t i o n By: Pain & P o l i c y S t u d i e s Otoup. University Wisconsin/WHO o f C o l l a b o r a t i n g C e n t e r . 2 0 1 8 F E R R E R PUIROT PEARS NACHAWATI The Opioid Epidemic WANSRbUGII I. A W P M e..h,h A F I N. 9

0 C C w q VI :2 •!. 0 .a. • —• ‘a C Qi 4- 0 € I VI 0) .1 S C S I C) ci S 4-’ U i e C . 1 - C CD = 0 0 9 = 0. 5 U 03 1-s 0 r C o o ‘—‘ U). =

0) •1—’ D C Os- —C) Cu C Lflro b.O 0)0) • — _0 (/) — C a — — 41 1. • a ‘I. UI 4.J Lfl .. a) too- — F-02 1.C .o I— N Em a ,0 E 0) — F-co 0) 0 to-’ C 0 — e —l

‘ I , < 1 = Ct 0 I , “ U — S — U _4Ll_ — , , a — , — = —s as — a, , 4 w o . s sz ciD t S — Lu U, ‘ IP 0. E 0 sq C = 2 - I - : C = ;4C C I , 2 D a ) ii 2 U o

m m u1 >.. C 0 E 4-I a,. 1.. (a C 0 I LI) LI) a) I b.C C 0 e 1 I-) I e .E .2 e E 4-’ a) U I SC 0 .3 w -C 1 C 9 - OOj o-. taJ COE a

D C 0 = C C = E .2 .2 00 = — I- In Wi 0) C o 0 E Lu U 0. .4_a w Lu 0 U C — — - 0) it — U E 5 >1 t 0 I- C t 0) 0 o VI t d & U- 4.0 3 0) I 2 •0 ft It a E C . 0 E 0 I 0 • U a) 0 C In I.. I— LL 0 I b.O 0 0 C ‘I. + C 4_a 0 a), 1 ft 0) In C I— V U. I- ‘UI I- . . O It w o- 0 u a) C en .2 bOt — — Wi wxEnt O.W tuft = .

Lfl (1) a 4-J 0) CD C CD U) I 0 .1 4-’ a) e I a I S S 0 U) S I 4-’ S U) 13 z 4- 0 Ci in vi us w 0 UI I- o oo a. Cfla LaJ I_I La— a

Its Getting_Better, Right? Jonathan N o v a k , p a r t of our litigation team w a s f e a t u r e d o n b o t h 60 M s and i n u t e a r e c e n t S e n a t e Hearing explained t h a t a t t h e height of the DEA’s efforts enforce existing regulations, they were s h u t down. P o l i t i c a l pressure from o n high e n d e d DEA enforcement. • T h e Marino Act finalized t h e efforts o n b e h a l f o f drug t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r s and distributors by r e m o v i n g the DEA’s t e e t h , e f f e c t i v e l y stripping t h e DEA of their enforcement ability. • Leaving only t h e Civil justice System to hold t h e m a c c o u n t a b l e FERRER POIROT FEARS NACHAWATI The Opioid Epidemic WANSBROUGH LAW FIRM O.•J.I Ii..iII. lbn,, 16

N — 4_i C 0 .2 D 4-’ L U 4-’ <or d1 S Ucr crew, S tu S U, S F S . .4_i cj 5 Ln -C —r u cuD t Q4J%_4J D uun-’c co suG) C 0 L U C (0 -J 8 Ut) 6b o D ., - z U E C -c tn 5 50 D CD a U a. a. cc: taJ . . . . . . . B B B L1

Damages — — — — — — • Actual D a m a g e s • Cost of indigent care • Cost of any County supported drug relief • L a w enforcement cost, jails • L i t i g a t i o n cost • Punitive D a m a g e s • E x e m p l a r y d a m a g e s ( g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e ) • T r e b l e d a m a g e s • E q u i t a b l e relief ( a n d t h e costs o f t h e equitable relief) • Injunction • Abatement • Attorney’s f e e s FERRER POIROT FEARS NACHAWATI The Opioid Epidemic WA N S BR 0 (JO H I A W F I A M—-— Jk. OIIkJ huT 18

0, I (0 ci) > ci) a Cl) S 4J C (-‘.4 D 0 U a) 4J C C ‘a 0 C U, z L.. ci) 0 a U S 0) S In a 3% S C e S e (5 C 0 U > x . ‘a 0 I vi 0 U, a (N In U, > C (0 S ‘_. C U, Ia-I = = Ia-i! - a

0 n.j C La In E 0 0 S. (/D r4 It’ U I 0 0 U 0 cij -c S 3J E E 0 ‘SD, 4- 0 U, r ‘4- 0 I C) 41 0 4-J (5 It’ C) C,., In E 0 0 S \ S... V 4- I.. C) 0, S C) In e 0 0 ‘I S 0 ‘S . S.. a) \ > bO 0 ‘S 1 0 0 >, >% .0 4-’ -c C 4J 10 z a) ‘S 0 -CU, 4-v- 00 In 3% I- ‘S (5 -CI Ci InC 4-’ vi Wa” o CD = U0” o 0! —J -

ni -C LI C .2 4., U UI • — C .2 ‘I U, U C in .2 Os a) 4., SE a 41 0 S U) C S a) 4-. S 4., ‘C e 4., to e a) a) E 2 0 U, LU 0 SD 0 a) t a) “2 £ - .., - 0 %J ‘L- C CD LI-i LIZ a - LI- a

r%J 0 : 9 m 0 Co 0 0 z 0 0 U , a) E C -U a ) a ci .i D — U, C E C) — CI) -4 C o U tø 0 0 eq a ) o Ct 0 a U - di C -z 0 0 . 5 2 a I- di — 0 z U, t 4 t . ‘ C U, -z C 0 C o - a) — (0 (V H . a) 0 . o — 0 • 0 t — :9 . 0 CV I 4’ 0 D a ) >, t > > a . z (V — 2 o_ C) 0 _ , . 1 ) > It 0 ;;% 0 0 : LJJ (fl LU