For too long, America’s seniors have been caught in the crosshairs of a public health crisis we all recognize—but have yet to fully fix. The opioid epidemic has devastated families, strained our healthcare system, and cost countless lives. Yet even as awareness has grown, one of the most practical, commonsense solutions remains just out of reach: giving patients real access to safer, non-opioid alternatives for pain.
That is why Congress should act—swiftly and decisively—to pass the Alternatives to PAIN Act.
This isn’t an abstract policy debate. It’s about what happens every day when a senior walks into a doctor’s office after surgery or injury and needs relief. Too often, the easiest and cheapest option presented is an opioid. Not because it’s the best option—but because our system is structured that way.
Right now, Medicare Part D frequently makes non-opioid pain treatments significantly more expensive than opioids—sometimes 10 to 20 times more in out-of-pocket costs. That’s not just bad policy; it’s a perverse incentive. It nudges both doctors and patients toward riskier medications, even when safer alternatives exist.
And the consequences are staggering.
Each year, more than 1.1 million seniors are diagnosed with opioid use disorder, and over 50,000 suffer overdoses. These aren’t just statistics—they represent parents, grandparents, veterans, and neighbors. People who trusted the system to help them manage pain, not put them at risk.
We should be asking a simple question: why are we making it easier—and cheaper—for seniors to access addictive opioids than non-addictive treatments?
The Alternatives to PAIN Act fixes this imbalance in a straightforward way.
First, it ensures that seniors pay no more out of pocket for FDA-approved non-opioid pain medications than they would for opioids. That’s not a subsidy—it’s fairness. Patients should be able to choose the safest, most appropriate treatment without being penalized financially.
Second, the legislation removes unnecessary bureaucratic barriers that currently push patients toward opioids. Today, some seniors are required to “fail first” on an opioid before gaining access to a non-opioid alternative. Others face prior authorization hurdles that delay care and frustrate physicians. These policies don’t improve outcomes—they simply reinforce outdated prescribing patterns.
This bill says enough is enough.
Critically, this isn’t a partisan issue. More than 100 organizations—including medical societies, mental health providers, veterans groups, and patient advocates—have rallied behind this effort. They understand what policymakers must now acknowledge: expanding access to non-opioid treatments is one of the most effective ways to prevent addiction before it starts.
And it’s fiscally responsible.
Opioid misuse doesn’t just harm individuals—it drives billions in avoidable healthcare costs, from emergency care to long-term treatment for addiction. By encouraging safer alternatives upfront, we can reduce downstream spending while improving patient outcomes. That’s a rare win-win in today’s healthcare debate.
Some critics may argue that opioids still have a place in pain management. That’s true. This legislation doesn’t eliminate opioids or restrict physicians’ judgment. It simply restores balance—ensuring that safer options are accessible, affordable, and free from unnecessary red tape.
In other words, it gives doctors and patients the freedom to make better decisions.
At its core, this is about dignity and choice.
Seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our country deserve access to the best care available—not the cheapest option dictated by flawed incentives. They deserve a healthcare system that prioritizes their safety, not one that unintentionally steers them toward harm.
The opioid crisis didn’t happen overnight, and it won’t be solved with a single bill. But the Alternatives to PAIN Act represents a meaningful, immediate step in the right direction.
Congress has an opportunity here to lead—to show that we’ve learned from the past and are willing to act on that knowledge.
The question is whether we will.
For the sake of millions of American seniors—and the families who love them—we must choose a better path forward.