Exploring the term “needle jockey” in modern context

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

gaseous_clay

New Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
748
This term has historically had negative connotations associated with it, often invoking an image of a greedy physician who will inject any patient to make money. However, in light of the opioid epidemic, where does that leave the practitioner who is the opposite of a needle jockey? I.e., the provider who exclusively prioritizes non-interventional therapies (meds, PT, biofeedback, CBT, etc.). In private practice, many patients simply do not have access to or are unwilling to explore biofeedback and CBT, have already failed PT, NSAIDs, neuropathic drugs, or have been specifically referred for intervention treatment. Does this make me a needle jockey if I recommend a procedure at the first visit as opposed to starting a pharmaceutical-based treatment modality? This is more of a philosophical discussion as to the role of the pain practitioner in modern times.
 
This term has historically had negative connotations associated with it, often invoking an image of a greedy physician who will inject any patient to make money. However, in light of the opioid epidemic, where does that leave the practitioner who is the opposite of a needle jockey? I.e., the provider who exclusively prioritizes non-interventional therapies (meds, PT, biofeedback, CBT, etc.). In private practice, many patients simply do not have access to or are unwilling to explore biofeedback and CBT, have already failed PT, NSAIDs, neuropathic drugs, or have been specifically referred for intervention treatment. Does this make me a needle jockey if I recommend a procedure at the first visit as opposed to starting a pharmaceutical-based treatment modality? This is more of a philosophical discussion as to the role of the pain practitioner in modern times.
Never considered needle jockey a bad term, sort of like "chest cutter", no harm, no foul. But i never liked the term pain doctor, prefer "interventional pain". Because there were a lot of bozos who just gave out pain meds for years and did nothing else and i never wanted to be associated with them. The leaders of the pain world messed up public relations, i feel sorry for the drug companies, it sure wasn't 100% their fault. I remember an MD bozo out of Oregon who was advocating long acting narcs for fibromyalgia. I think he had a university appointment. i was appalled, but i knew docs who thought this was another opportunity to help people. my medical group actually had him as a speaker. :-(
 
This term has historically had negative connotations associated with it, often invoking an image of a greedy physician who will inject any patient to make money. However, in light of the opioid epidemic, where does that leave the practitioner who is the opposite of a needle jockey? I.e., the provider who exclusively prioritizes non-interventional therapies (meds, PT, biofeedback, CBT, etc.). In private practice, many patients simply do not have access to or are unwilling to explore biofeedback and CBT, have already failed PT, NSAIDs, neuropathic drugs, or have been specifically referred for intervention treatment. Does this make me a needle jockey if I recommend a procedure at the first visit as opposed to starting a pharmaceutical-based treatment modality? This is more of a philosophical discussion as to the role of the pain practitioner in modern times.
Broke.

or hospital employee.
 
Never considered needle jockey a bad term, sort of like "chest cutter", no harm, no foul. But i never liked the term pain doctor, prefer "interventional pain". Because there were a lot of bozos who just gave out pain meds for years and did nothing else and i never wanted to be associated with them. The leaders of the pain world messed up public relations, i feel sorry for the drug companies, it sure wasn't 100% their fault. I remember an MD bozo out of Oregon who was advocating long acting narcs for fibromyalgia. I think he had a university appointment. i was appalled, but i knew docs who thought this was another opportunity to help people. my medical group actually had him as a speaker. :-(
It was 100% the drug company fault. Fake studies, fake data, manipulating doctors, paying off “thought leaders”.. all drug company actions.
 
British East India Company. Supported by England and their quest for “free” trade.

got Chinese addicted. Chinese immigrants to US brought opium dens to US.
 
British East India Company. Supported by England and their quest for “free” trade.

got Chinese addicted. Chinese immigrants to US brought opium dens to US.

I bet you agree that Remington can be sued for gun violence.
 
It was 100% the drug company fault. Fake studies, fake data, manipulating doctors, paying off “thought leaders”.. all drug company actions.

Do you believe in any kind of individual responsibility or is it always someone else's fault for everything? The companies made a product. That's it. They did not prescribe it, dispense it, or drag people to the "doctor" for a prescription. A drug company didn't pen that initial letter to the editor that was so often quoted to start the epidemic. The "thought leaders" had to agree to become speakers. Were they ignorant to the effect of opiates?

Interestingly, in your world the doctor is responsible for improving gun control, helmet use, and seatbelts, but opiate use is 100% the fault of someone other than the doctor that inserted the stuff into people's lives.
 
the doctor is not technically responsible for improving those measures. he is responsible for the health and safety of his patients. by extension, if that means informing patients of safe choices, then he has a role. obviously, the patient chooses whether to implement those actions.

prescription medications are not that way. we prescribe, and we expect/demand that patients take their pills. so doctors are by default the major part of the decision making process (yes, with patient input, but the doctor is still who writes the prescription). the majority of doctors expect that patient to take the opioid and doctors take actions based on that implication.

no one on this forum starts people on COT and then will decide later on whether they should make a follow up appointment depending on whether the patient takes it - we schedule the follow up, the PMP review, the UDSs based on the assumption that the patient will take them.

getting back to your original point - you completely missed the 90s, I guess. doctors were duped into believing that these medications did not cause addiction, did not cause dependence, did not cause significant respiratory depression, death, disability. just some mild constipation. (and those are essentially the exact words a Purdue rep tried to convince me in the late 1990s, & I was one of the lucky 15,000 doctors that got the infamous DVD of how oxycontin helped people "get their life back").
 
fwiw, Portenoy was paid by Oxycontin all those years ago.


Portenoy acknowledged he had contracts and grants with numerous pharmaceutical companies including Purdue Pharma and Endo. In his court statement he denied that drug company payments influenced his public statements on opioids. But he said industry funding of his work was directed only to areas that would help promotion of the drugs. The pain specialist said opioid makers selectively quoted his work to highlight the positives about opioids while stripping out cautionary qualifications.

so go ahead and blame portenoy - he was clearly part of the problem. but he specifically stated that the drug company also acted to encourage widespread use.

and fwiw, here is the original Portenoy article:


Pain. 1986 May;25(2):171-86.
Chronic use of opioid analgesics in non-malignant pain: report of 38 cases.
Portenoy RK, Foley KM.
Abstract
Thirty-eight patients maintained on opioid analgesics for non-malignant pain were retrospectively evaluated to determine the indications, course, safety and efficacy of this therapy. Oxycodone was used by 12 patients, methadone by 7, and levorphanol by 5; others were treated with propoxyphene, meperidine, codeine, pentazocine, or some combination of these drugs. Nineteen patients were treated for four or more years at the time of evaluation, while 6 were maintained for more than 7 years. Two-thirds required less than 20 morphine equivalent mg/day and only 4 took more than 40 mg/day. Patients occasionally required escalation of dose and/or hospitalization for exacerbation of pain; doses usually returned to a stable baseline afterward. Twenty-four patients described partial but acceptable or fully adequate relief of pain, while 14 reported inadequate relief. No patient underwent a surgical procedure for pain management while receiving therapy. Few substantial gains in employment or social function could be attributed to the institution of opioid therapy. No toxicity was reported and management became a problem in only 2 patients, both with a history of prior drug abuse. A critical review of patient characteristics, including data from the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire in 24 patients, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory in 23, and detailed psychiatric evaluation in 6, failed to disclose psychological or social variables capable of explaining the success of long-term management. We conclude that opioid maintenance therapy can be a safe, salutary and more humane alternative to the options of surgery or no treatment in those patients with intractable non-malignant pain and no history of drug abuse.
if you read it closely, you see that most were on very low dose therapy, and 1/3 got no benefit at all, 4/5 were off by 7 years, and Few substantial gains in employment or social function could be attributed to the institution of opioid therapy.
 
the doctor is not technically responsible for improving those measures. he is responsible for the health and safety of his patients. by extension, if that means informing patients of safe choices, then he has a role. obviously, the patient chooses whether to implement those actions.

prescription medications are not that way. we prescribe, and we expect/demand that patients take their pills. so doctors are by default the major part of the decision making process (yes, with patient input, but the doctor is still who writes the prescription). the majority of doctors expect that patient to take the opioid and doctors take actions based on that implication.

no one on this forum starts people on COT and then will decide later on whether they should make a follow up appointment depending on whether the patient takes it - we schedule the follow up, the PMP review, the UDSs based on the assumption that the patient will take them.

getting back to your original point - you completely missed the 90s, I guess. doctors were duped into believing that these medications did not cause addiction, did not cause dependence, did not cause significant respiratory depression, death, disability. just some mild constipation. (and those are essentially the exact words a Purdue rep tried to convince me in the late 1990s, & I was one of the lucky 15,000 doctors that got the infamous DVD of how oxycontin helped people "get their life back").
So if a used care salesman told you a car he was selling was more reliable than a new one you would believe him/her? What is the point of a medical education then? I never believe anything a drug rep tells me. Now the stuff i hear at conferences is different, and there were some docs suggesting things they had no evidence for at medical conferences, just like THEY ALWAYS DO. Medicine as practiced has very little basis in science, which is the whole problem, and i see little evidence anyone wants to change that.
 
This term has historically had negative connotations associated with it, often invoking an image of a greedy physician who will inject any patient to make money. However, in light of the opioid epidemic, where does that leave the practitioner who is the opposite of a needle jockey? I.e., the provider who exclusively prioritizes non-interventional therapies (meds, PT, biofeedback, CBT, etc.). In private practice, many patients simply do not have access to or are unwilling to explore biofeedback and CBT, have already failed PT, NSAIDs, neuropathic drugs, or have been specifically referred for intervention treatment. Does this make me a needle jockey if I recommend a procedure at the first visit as opposed to starting a pharmaceutical-based treatment modality? This is more of a philosophical discussion as to the role of the pain practitioner in modern times.
You seem conflicted my brother.... that means you already know the answer.
Keep doing what you do. Follow Aristotle’s regression to the Mean. Was that deep enough for you?
 
So if a used care salesman told you a car he was selling was more reliable than a new one you would believe him/her? What is the point of a medical education then? I never believe anything a drug rep tells me. Now the stuff i hear at conferences is different, and there were some docs suggesting things they had no evidence for at medical conferences, just like THEY ALWAYS DO. Medicine as practiced has very little basis in science, which is the whole problem, and i see little evidence anyone wants to change that.
you are one of the outliers that don't believe what drug reps tell you. I don't.





I also learned that drug reps have a list of slang terms for doctors, all based on how valuable they could be for the company. A “high writer” referred to a doctor who wrote many prescriptions, whereas a “low writer” wrote very few, and was unlikely to be worth visiting. A “spreader” wrote prescriptions equally among all medications in a particular class of drugs, and therefore would need a marketing pitch designed both to push the rep’s drug and undermine the competition. A “no see him” was a doctor who refused to see reps at all, while a “sample grabber” didn’t see reps but still requested that they drop off free samples of medications.
 
You seem conflicted my brother.... that means you already know the answer.
Keep doing what you do. Follow Aristotle’s regression to the Mean. Was that deep enough for you?
I’m not conflicted. I will continue to practice the way I know best. I just wanted to hear other docs’ opinions on this even though this thread has gone off on a slight tangent.
 
I don't speak with drug reps as a matter of policy. They get no face time with me.

First two years of practice I was signing for samples of a topical I only wrote for maybe one Rx. Other guys in the clinic use it a lot, and I guess I was signing for everyone. I thought you just had to sign for samples weekly if you had them in your clinic. I eventually quit signing for them after I stopped and thought about it and now the rep refuses to speak to me. He's always somewhere in the clinic getting other doctors to sign for samples but he has no access to me.

I'm telling you complete 180 once I quit signing. No more hey man what's up...
 
My policy is no drug reps except ones that I invite. I invite the ones who have something new I want to learn more about or want to try.
 
no more drug reps, no more samples here
for a while they (admin) were really restricting the stim reps too
 
I'm curious why does the Admin care who you talk to?

Keeping up appearances. They don’t want anyone to think we’re biased towards any particular pharma or device company.

Meanwhile they instituted a $10/ pay period automatic withdrawal from all physician pay checks to support the United Way and to fund some equipment purchases for the hospital. They sent out an email notification about this (for which I’m sure half the staff physicians never read) with a link to a website to go to in order to opt out of this.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN
 
Keeping up appearances. They don’t want anyone to think we’re biased towards any particular pharma or device company.

Meanwhile they instituted a $10/ pay period automatic withdrawal from all physician pay checks to support the United Way and to fund some equipment purchases for the hospital. They sent out an email notification about this (for which I’m sure half the staff physicians never read) with a link to a website to go to in order to opt out of this.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN

Does anyone think the Admin are being hypocrites?
 
Yes of course


Sent from my iPhone using SDN
 
A needle jockey is someone who does one more ESI than the speaker.
 
Top