REPORT OF

The Attorney General’s
Steroids Study Group
July 7, 2011

State of New Jersey
Office of the Attorney General

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary …………………………………………………………………. 1
Discussion …..……………………………………………………………. 3
Anabolic Steroids …………………………………..……………. 3
Human Growth Hormone …..……………………………………. 7
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin ………………………………… 11
How Are These Substances Distributed and What Is Their Connection
To Law Enforcement ……………………………………………………

13

Publicly Reported Information ………………………………….. 13
How Are These Substances Being Distributed? ………………… 13
Perception from the Ground …………………………………….. 14
Government’s Legal and Financial Burden ……………………………

14

What Are the Legal Liability Risks for Government ……………
Testing …………………………………………………………..
Municipal Drug Testing ………………………………………....
Prosecution ………………………………………………………
How Are Other Governmental Entities Addressing
This Issue ………………………………………………………..
Financial Costs to Government ………………………………….

14
16
17
18

Recommendations

……………………………………………………

Improving Oversight Through Existing PBM Resources ……….
Amend the Attorney General’s Drug Policy Guidelines ……….
Propose Legislation to Criminalize Unlawful Prescription
Of Medications by Doctors ……………………………………..
Draft A Legislative Fix Specifically Incorporating Steroids
As A Schedule III under the New Jersey Controlled Substances
Act ………………………………………………………………
Modify Administrative Code to Prohibit the Prescription of
HGH for Anti-Aging Purposes and Utilize Existing
Administrative Authority More Affirmatively …………………
Implement the NJPMP …………………………………………
Distribute Law Enforcement Wide Letter/Memorandum Advising
All Members of Law Enforcement of Changes to Drug Testing
Policy and Penalties for Improper Acquisition of These
Prescription Drugs ……………………………………………….
Institute Regular Meetings Among Agencies With Oversight
Responsibility ……………………………………………………

18
20
21
22
24
26

26

27
28

28
29

Summary
Recent reporting done by the Newark Star-Ledger suggests that some members of law
enforcement have sought anabolic steroids, human growth hormone (“HGH”) and/or
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (“HCG”) for purposes of muscle enhancing and/or
“lifestyle” improvement. While we caution against extrapolating the actions of those
discussed in the newspaper to all law enforcement, the story identified a number of
issues, including:
•

Suspicious, and potentially illegal actions of a now-deceased doctor, Dr. Joseph
Colao, in prescribing, to at least 248 public safety employees (primarily police
officers, fire fighters, sheriff’s deputies and correctional officers), a variety of
substances, including anabolic steroids, HGH, and HCG.

•

Allegations that certain individuals seeking prescriptions for these medications
did not have a legitimate medical need for them and utilized their public health
benefits to have the medication improperly covered, resulting in the expenditure
of significant public funds to pay the costs of these prescriptions.

•

Failure to prosecute cases of purported fraud by public safety personnel who were
suspected of acquiring steroids and other substances improperly, including a case
involving roughly a dozen Trenton police officers who received steroids and
HGH over the Internet but were never prosecuted.

•

Lawsuits that have been filed against public safety officers who were also clients
of Dr. Colao’s and who may have violated the civil rights of individuals through
excessive force or police brutality potentially attributable to so-called “steroid
rage” – a phenomenon tied to side effects of steroid usage that results in impaired
judgment and an inability to control one’s temper.

•

The absence, at least until very recently, of health insurer scrutiny of prescription
claims filed by officers receiving steroids, HGH, HCG, or other substances
potentially improperly prescribed.

•

The State Board of Medical Examiners (“SBME”) insufficient regulatory pursuit
of physicians for improperly prescribing steroids or growth hormone during the
past 5 years and a nearly 6 year delay in the implementation of a prescription drug
monitoring program.

Taken together, this reporting revealed potential criminal conduct on the part of Dr.
Colao (who is now deceased), public safety officers (if they knowingly obtained
prescriptions improperly), and the risk of civil liability based on lawsuits filed by citizens
who allege they were the victims of police brutality. Moreover, the articles indicate that
there may be a small, but burgeoning industry of doctors known to law enforcement

2

personnel who will prescribe steroids1 and other growth hormones based on bogus
diagnoses. Filling these prescriptions places a significant burden on health plans and is a
substantial expense to programs like the State Health Benefits Plan, which is self-insured
and pays claims out of collected tax dollars.
As the authors note, in 2007, Jersey City spent more on treatments associated with
growth hormone deficiency, which, according to the American Association of Clinical
Endocrinologists (“AACE”) afflicts only 1 in 100,000 people nationwide, than it did “on
any other medical condition, including high cholesterol, high blood pressure or diabetes
….” Finally, the reporting strongly suggests that there has been an absence of any
focused investigation of doctors prescribing these medications and thus, insufficient
development of evidence that would support disciplinary or prosecutorial action against
doctors or patients suspected of either fraudulently prescribing or receiving steroids or
growth hormone.
In response to this report, you formed a Study Group to look into, among other things,
steroid use in law enforcement, the cost to the public where public health benefits were
used to acquire these substances, the role of doctors in prescribing these medications and
recommendations for strengthening monitoring, testing and prosecution of individuals
either prescribing, dispensing or improperly acquiring these substances.
Within the State Legislature, several lawmakers have spoken publicly about the StarLedger story. Deputy Assembly Speaker John McKeon (27th District) requested a
criminal probe based on this reporting; Senator Loretta Weinberg (37th District) stated
that she would introduce legislation making it harder for police and firefighters to
“fraudulently obtain the drugs with the aid of doctors”; and Senator Weinberg, along with
Senator Richard Codey (27th District), announced her intent to hold hearings on this
issue.
On January 10, 2011, Deputy Assembly Speaker McKeon introduced two legislative
proposals. A3737 would require police officers who are prescribed steroids or HGH to
report such a prescription within five days to a designated physician and to have a fitness
for duty examination. AR136 is a resolution encouraging the Attorney General to add
steroids and other “designer drugs” to the list of drugs tested for under the Attorney
General’s Drug Policy. On the same day, Assemblyman Herb Conaway (7th District)
introduced A3698, which would require the Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs
to include HGH as a prescription tracked in its prescription monitoring program.2 A3698
passed the Assembly 78-0 and has been referred to the state Senate for its consideration.

1

For the purposes of this memo, we are using the term “steroid” to refer to the sex hormone class of
steroids which have anabolic and androgenic effects as opposed to the corticosteroid class of hormones.
2
As more fully discussed below, the New Jersey Prescription Monitoring Program, when it comes online
later this year, will track the prescription of all controlled substances filled by registered pharmacies in the
State of New Jersey and out-of-state pharmacies that are registered in the system.

3

Discussion
I.

Background on Anabolic Steroids, HGH and HCG

Anabolic Steroids
Anabolic steroids are defined by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) as
“synthetically produced variants of the naturally occurring male hormone testosterone.”
The term “steroid” is used to define the class of drugs that provide both an androgenic
(characterized by promotion of virility, enhancement of male secondary sex
characteristics) and anabolic (characterized by cell and bone growth and the development
of muscle mass) effect in its users.3 All steroids at issue here have both an anabolic and
androgenic effect on the body; however, the effect ratio of steroids differs depending on
the substance. For example, testosterone has a 1:1 anabolic to androgenic effect ratio.
By contrast, stanozolol has a 30:1 anabolic to androgenic effect, making its use for the
purposes of muscle growth far more potent than testosterone or other steroids with closer
(i.e., 3:1 or lower) anabolic to androgenic ratios.
Anabolic steroids do have valid medical uses and are typically prescribed for
hypogonadism (low testosterone), decreased muscle mass due to chronic diseases like
HIV/AIDS and cancer. They are also properly prescribed to males incapable of
producing sufficient testosterone due to pituitary malfunction or loss of their testes. In
cases where individuals are illicitly acquiring steroids, they are overwhelmingly being
abused for the purpose of increasing muscle mass, strength training and other activities
associated with weight lifting, body building and physical enhancement. When
prescribed appropriately, doctors typically incorporate regular monitoring of testosterone
levels during treatment, including follow-up examinations within 3-6 months of initial
prescription, prostate examination and dexa-scanning to assess bone density. These
follow-up tests are rarely if ever utilized where patients are improperly using steroids.
Moreover, an initial diagnosis of legitimate testosterone deficiency should be predicated
on the combination of symptoms, physical exam and blood testing of hormone levels.
Diagnosis should not be made simply based on blood test results that are merely
indicative of traditional declines in testosterone levels as men age.
The DEA has noted that abusers may take dosages of anywhere between 1 and 100 times
a normal therapeutic use, take multiple steroids simultaneously (termed “stacking”) and
stay in steroid cycles of between 6 and 16 weeks of high dosage followed by a dormant
period of low or no dosing.4 Because steroid abuse typically involves dosing at levels far
beyond therapeutic use, can involve taking multiple steroids at one time (something that
is rarely, if ever, prescribed as part of normal treatment) and may also incorporate illicit
forms of steroids, the health risks are substantial. They include liver disorders, prostate
3

It should be noted that “testosterone” and “stanozolol,” which were referenced in the Newark StarLedger article, are steroids and classified as Schedule III substances. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(41)(A)(xliv)
(xlvii).
4
See Steroid Abuse in Today’s Society, U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration –
Office of Diversion Control, www.deadiverson.usdoj.gov/pubs/brochures/steroids/professionals.

4

cancer, enlargement of the heart, stroke, and sexual dysfunction, among many other
adverse side effects.
Regulation
Pursuant to the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990,5 anabolic steroids were added to
Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act6 and are defined as “any drug or hormonal
substance chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens,
progestins, corticosteroids and dehydroepiandrosterone).” 21 U.S.C. § 802(41)(A). The
statute then lists 49 separate chemical substances that are considered anabolic steroids. 21
U.S.C. § 802(41)(A)(i)-(xlix). Under federal law, possession or sale of anabolic steroids
without a valid prescription is illegal and simple possession of illegally obtained steroids
is subject to a maximum penalty of a year in prison and a minimum $1,000 fine for a first
offense. 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). A first offense for trafficking steroids is punishable by up
to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000.7 For second offenses, the prison
time and fine can double.8
New Jersey has adopted by reference the federal Schedule I-V Lists of Controlled
Dangerous Substances. N.J.S.A. 24:21-3(c); N.J.A.C. 13:45H-10.1. While the current
version of New Jersey’s statute does not specifically include anabolic steroids on the list
printed in the statute at N.J.S.A. 24:21-7, N.J.S.A. 24:21-7(b) provides that the list in the
statute is subject to any revision and republishing pursuant to N.J.S.A. 24:21-3(d). The
Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs recently updated and re-published the list,
now found at N.J.A.C. 13:45H-10.1. That regulation specifically adopts the federal
schedule, along with any changes thereto. As such, anabolic steroids are listed on both
the federal and the New Jersey Schedules. Under our criminal code, prosecution is
permitted for possession of a Schedule III CDS9 and/or for manufacturing, distributing or
dispensing a Schedule III CDS.10
The SBME has promulgated both general regulations regarding the prescription and
dispensing of drugs and specific regulations addressing the prescription and dispensing of
anabolic steroids and HGH. See N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.1A; N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.9. Generally, no
prescription drug can be given unless, among other things, it is given after “an
appropriate history and physical examination” and is “based upon the examination and all
diagnostic and laboratory tests consistent with good medical care.” N.J.A.C. 13:357.1A(a)(1)(2).
SBME has a clear enforcement provision regarding the prescription, administration and
dispensing of drugs, including steroids and HGH. N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.10. Violations of
5

21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.
A Schedule III controlled substance is one that has less potential for abuse than a Schedule I or II
substance, has an accepted medical use but that abuse of the drug or substance “may lead to moderate or
low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.” 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(3).
7
www.justice.gov/dea/agency/penalties.htm.
8
Id.
9
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10, a third-degree crime subject to potential prison time and a fine of up to $35,000.
10
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5, a third-degree crime subject to potential prison time and a fine of up to $25,000.
6

5

SBME regulations can result in suspension or revocation of a doctor’s license to practice
medicine for a variety of reasons, including distributing or dispensing a controlled
dangerous substance “in an indiscriminate manner, or not in good faith, or without good
cause,”11 for “gross or repeated malpractice, neglect, or incompetence,”12 for
“professional misconduct,”13 or for failing “to comply with the provisions of an Act of
regulation administered by the Board.”14 Finally, medical licensees have an obligation,
upon the issuance of a subpoena by either the SBME or the Office of the Attorney
General, to produce medical treatment records of their patients.15
With regard to steroids and HGH specifically, the SBME prohibits the prescription,
ordering, dispensing, administering, selling or transfer of anabolic steroids or HGH “for
the purpose of hormonal manipulation intended to increase muscle mass, strength or
weight.” N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.9(a). Moreover, the regulations specifically preclude as a
“valid medical purpose” the use of these substances for “body building, muscle
enhancement, or increasing muscle bulk or strength … by a person in good health for the
intended purpose of improving performance in any form of exercise, sport or game.” Id.
Under SBME regulations, doctors are also required to prepare and maintain a medical
record when steroids or HGH are prescribed that reflects the specific substance
prescribed, the diagnosis justifying the prescription, and the purpose for which the drug is
being prescribed. N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.9(b). Finally, the SBME lists a number of steroids
and HGH that are subject to this regulation.16
Steroid Rage
With regard to “steroid rage,” research is equivocal regarding the prevalence of this
phenomenon. Generally speaking, “steroid (or ‘roid’) rage” is a term of art used to
describe elevated levels of aggression and violence exhibited by individuals abusing
steroids. Because steroids are essentially synthetic forms of testosterone, utilizing these
substances results in a significant elevation of male hormones and, particularly in
younger men, can lead to violent outbursts and uncontrolled anger. Two types of studies
have been conducted to determine the prevalence of steroid abuse: (1) studies where
subjects receive a defined quantity of steroids and whose behavioral changes are
compared to a control group that receives a placebo;17 and (2) studies where users selfreported changes in mood and behavior.18
11

N.J.S.A. 45:1-21(m).
N.J.S.A. 45:1-21(c) and (d).
13
N.J.S.A. 45:1-21(e).
14
N.J.S.A. 45:1-21(h).
15
N.J.A.C. 13:35-6.5(d)(1).
16
The regulation notes that the list is “not exhaustive or exclusive,” but “includes many of the generic and
brand-name anabolic steroids and human growth hormones subject to this section.” N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.9(c).
17
See Pope, H., Kouri, E, and Hudson, J., Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Mood and
Aggression in Normal Men, Archive of General Psychiatry, Vol. 57 p. 133-140 (Feb. 2000), Tricker, R.,
Casaburi, R. et al., The Effects of Supraphysiological Doses of Testosterone on Angry Behavior in Healthy
Eugonadal Men, Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 81 No. 10, p. 3754-58 (1996).
18
See, e.g., Strauss, R., Liggett, M., and Laaese, R., Anabolic Steroid Use Perceived Effects on WeightTrained Men, Physician Sports Medicine, Volume 11, p. 86-96 (1983); Strauss, R., Liggett, M., and
12

6

Each type of study has its benefits and drawbacks. The former allows for controlled
dosing of specific substances over defined periods; however, the tests may not accurately
depict the amount, quantity (no “stacking” is done) or type(s) of steroid(s) users may
actually use, which tend to be higher. Conversely, the latter has few if any controls as the
subjects are not uniform in their use, dosage or type of steroids utilized, but may be more
likely to accurately depict usage among abusers. In addition, self-reporting on one’s own
behavioral changes may not be particularly reliable.
In one controlled study, researchers found that instances of mania and aggression went up
among a group of subjects during periods where those subjects received testosterone
injections; however, this collective rise in mania and aggression was largely attributable
to a small subset of the study group (8 out of 50 members). The majority of the
participants (42 out of 50) exhibited minimal psychiatric effects.19 Another study stated
that it “failed to detect any significant effects of testosterone treatment on mood or the
subsets of angry behavior ….”20 Of particular significance was the fact that subjects who
received steroids were given “the highest dose used in any clinical trial designed to
examine the effect of testosterone on body composition or behavior.”21
Comparatively, in studies that rely on self-reporting, incidences of aggression and rage
are more commonplace. For example, in a study of 24 steroid users and 14 non-users,
self-reporting among the steroid users of verbal and/or physical fights with their
girlfriend/spouse was “significantly higher” than among non-users.22 In another study of
32 men who were using steroids while weight training, 56 percent reported “increased
irritability and aggression.”23 Yet another report, utilizing structured clinical interviews
of 88 athletes who admitted using steroids, revealed that 23 percent “reported major
mood syndromes – mania, hypomania, or major depression – in association with steroid
use.”24 These individuals also experienced mood disorders in greater numbers during
steroid cycles than when steroids were not being used.25
In short, conflicting evidence exists regarding steroid rage – controlled studies where
subjects are administered measured doses that may not accurately reflect amounts taken
by abusers have failed to show a medically significant difference in the behavioral
patterns of steroid users and non-users; studies that rely on self-reporting among a group
Laaese, R., Anabolic Steroid Use Perceived Effects on Weight-Trained Women Athletes, Journal of the
American Medical Association, Vol. 253, p. 2871-73 (1985).
19
See fn. 17, supra, Pope, H., Kouri, E, and Hudson, J., Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone
on Mood and Aggression in Normal Men at p. 133.
20
See fn. 18, supra, Tricker, R., Casaburi, R. et al., The Effects of Supraphysiological Doses of
Testosterone on Angry Behavior in Healthy Eugonadal Men, at p. 3756.
21
Id.
22
See Choi, P. and Pope, H., Violence Towards Women and Illicit Androgenic-Anabolic Steroid Use,
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, Volume 6, No. 1, p. 21-25 (1994).
23
See fn. 18, supra, Strauss, R., Liggett, M., and Laaese, R., Anabolic Steroid Use Perceived Effects on
Weight-Trained Men, Physician Sports Medicine.
24
See Pope, H. and Katz, D., Psychiatric and Medical Effects of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Use, A
Controlled Study of 160 Athletes, Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 51 No. 5, p. 375-82 (May 1994).
25
Id.

7

of individuals not taking uniform amounts of these substances appear to show a much
stronger correlation between steroid abuse and negative emotions.26
Testing
Testing for anabolic steroids can be done by drawing blood or taking urine samples.27
The basic test to determine whether a person is abusing steroids gauges the ratio of
testosterone to epitestosterone in the body. One obstacle to medical testing for steroid
use is the magnitude of the ratio that would clearly indicate an abnormality in this ratio.
As an example, there is general agreement that an epitestosterone to testosterone level of
10:1 or even as low as 8:1 is a clear indicator of steroid abuse; however, ratios in the 5:1
or 4:1 range are more equivocal. As more fully discussed below, the state outsources its
steroid testing to Aegis Laboratory, a nationally-recognized company in the field of
steroid testing.
Steroid testing can be effectuated with little difficulty; however, and as an example, as
opposed to testing for the substances in the Attorney General’s Drug Testing Policy,
which can be screened quickly with a high level of accuracy, steroid testing is more time
and labor intensive, in addition to being more costly. Whereas a basic screening for the
substances under the Drug Testing Policy costs $35, Aegis charges the state $250 for
each specimen it tests for steroids.
Human Growth Hormone
HGH is a naturally occurring hormone secreted from the pituitary glands and plays an
important role in body growth. In 1985, researchers were able to manufacture a synthetic
form of HGH which stimulates the production of insulin like growth factor (“IGF-1”),
resulting in the secretion of hormones that promote bone growth and also play a key role
in muscle and organ growth. In recent years, HGH has been utilized by bodybuilders and
athletes who seek to reduce body fat and increase skeletal muscle mass and by adults
interested in arresting the effects of aging, such as reduced muscle mass, libido, energy,
and other indicators of old age.
Unlike steroids, HGH use is not thought to be connected to overt aggressiveness and its
casual usage among middle-aged men for “lifestyle” improvement as opposed to primary
use among body builders, bouncers, weight lifters and others, reflects an important
distinction between the two substances.
Regulation
HGH is not restricted pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act; rather, it is regulated by
the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Under federal statute, it is a felony,
punishable by up to five years in prison, to possess and distribute with the intent to
26

As the DEA notes, “anger, hostility, aggression and/or violent behavior occurs in some but not all
anabolic steroid users.” www.deadiverson.usdoj.gov/pubs/brochures/steroids/professionals.
27
Case law limits law enforcement drug testing to the analysis of urine samples.

8

distribute HGH “for any use … other than the treatment of a disease or other recognized
medical condition, where such use has been authorized by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services .…” 21 U.S.C. § 333(e)(1).28 Among the limited purposes the FDA has
approved HGH for are, in children, those suffering from poor development or growth due
to Turner’s Syndrome, Prader-Willi Syndrome, chronic renal insufficiency, for children
born at low gestational weights and for idiopathic (having no known cause) short stature.
In adults, the uses are even more limited. HGH is only approved in adults for three
general purposes: (1) to counter the effects of HIV/AIDS wasting syndrome (approved
effective 1996); (2) for short bowel syndrome (a condition where nutrients are not
digested due to intestinal disease) (approved effective December 2003); and (3) for adult
growth hormone deficiency, either alone or in association with hormone deficiency due
to pituitary disease, hypothalamic disease, surgery, radiation therapy or trauma (approved
effective August 1996). It is for this third purpose that the overwhelming majority of
improper diagnoses and prescriptions appear to be utilized.
As noted above, the SBME strictly limits the prescription and dispensing of HGH and
prohibits its prescription “for the purpose of hormonal manipulation intended to increase
muscle mass, strength or weight.” N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.9(a). The SBME specifically
references somatrem and somatropin, the generic names for HGH, on its list of
substances subject to this regulation. See N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.9(c). Thus, improper
prescription and dispensing of HGH is subject to the SBME’s enforcement provisions
and can result in suspension or revocation of a doctor’s license to practice medicine.
N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.10.
Medical Uses and Abuses
According to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (“JCEM”), “as
defined by strict hormonal criteria, idiopathic (no known cause) growth hormone
deficiency (“GHD”) is very rare.”29 Indeed, it has been noted that the total incidence of
GHD in the general adult population is approximately 50,000, with roughly 6,000 new
cases yearly.30 That fact notwithstanding, because idiopathic GHD has ambiguous
symptoms, including “decreased lean body mass, increased visceral fat and subcutaneous
fat, decreased bone mass, and hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol),”31 as well as “decreased
energy and quality of life,”32 it has been the diagnosis utilized to justify the improper
28

Although prescription for HGH is limited in this way, the U.S. Attorney Civil Resource Manual
indicates that if evidence of a physician-patient relationship exists, prosecution of illegal distribution of
HGH based on 21 U.S.C. § 333 in the treatment of disease or other medical conditions not recognized by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services may be problematic.
29
Molitch, Clemmons, et al., Evaluation and Treatment of Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency: An
Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline, Journal of Clinical and Endocrinology and Metabolism,
Vol. 91, No. 5 p. 1621-1634 (2006).
30
Owens, Balfour et al., Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis: Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults, The
American Journal of Managed Care, Vol. 10, Number 13, October 1, 2004. A separate study referenced in
the Newark Star-Ledger series reporting GHD as occurring in 1 in 100,000 adults was conducted in
Denmark, not the United States. See Stochholm, Gravholt et al., Incidence of GH Deficiency – A
Nationwide Study, European Journal of Endocrinology, July 2006.
31
See fn. 23 supra.
32
See fn. 24 supra.

9

prescribing of HGH to those seeking nothing more than anti-aging benefits. HGH is
properly prescribed after fairly aggressive blood testing in patients to confirm cases meet
the “strict hormonal criteria” for a diagnosis.
As both the Star-Ledger and a cursory search of other newspaper articles and websites
confirm, HGH is advertised as an anti-aging medication.33 Practitioners in this
burgeoning field, which includes the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
(“A4M”), a professional group of more than 22,000 doctors nationwide, believe that
HGH and other substances are appropriately prescribed to combat the effects of aging
and can extend lifespan.34 An influential article published in the New England Journal of
Medicine in 1990 is oft-cited by HGH proponents to illustrate the benefits of hormonereplacement treatment.35 In this study, 12 healthy men between the ages of 61-81 with
low IGF-1 relative to men ages 20-40 received growth hormone injections over a sixmonth time period. At the end of the study, these men had increased their lean body
(muscle) mass, on average, by nearly 9 percent and reduced their body fat, on average, by
nearly 15 percent.36
While this study has been cited in nearly 200 subsequent articles, its reliability was called
into question in 2003.37 The 1990 study, for example, dosed individuals with twice the
typical amount of HGH prescribed to adult men, was not double blind, which is the
generally accepted medical practice, did not measure muscle strength, endurance or
improvement in quality of life and was based on measuring IGF-1 of elderly individuals
against those levels in much younger men.38 Conversely, subsequent double-blind,
placebo-controlled studies on elderly men and women showed “no change in muscle
strength or maximal oxygen uptake during exercise.”39 Moreover, a second study that
incorporated strength training in addition to either growth hormone or a placebo showed
that “growth hormone did not result in any further improvement.”40 These findings are
consistent with the most recent American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists’
guideline for prescribing HGH:
[N]o data are available to suggest that GH [growth hormone] has
beneficial effects in treating age and age-related conditions and the
enhancement of sporting performance; therefore, we do not recommend

33

See, e.g., Mattingly, D. and Estrada, I., HGH in Forefront to Remain Young, articles.cnn.com, January
24, 2008, Garreau, J., Holding Back the Years: Scientists Say Extended Youth May Be Near, The
Washington Post, October 19, 2002.
34
http://www.worldhealth.net/about-a4m.
35
Rudman, D. et al., Effects of Human Growth Hormone in Men Over 60 Years Old, New England Journal
of Medicine, July 5, 1990.
36
Id.
37
Vance, M.L., Can Growth Hormone Prevent Aging?, New England Journal of Medicine, February 27,
2003.
38
Id.
39
Id.
40
Id.

10

the prescription of GH to patients for any reason other than the welldefined approved uses of the drug.41
Because symptoms of GHD can be vague, if doctors opt to test an individual’s blood to
confirm a diagnosis of idiopathic GHD, JCEM advises using one of two tests – either the
Insulin Tolerance Test (“ITT”) or the GHRH-arginine Test. Both tests stimulate
hormone production to measure the body’s ability to produce same. In the ITT, patients
are dosed with insulin and then have blood samples taken 6 times over the course of two
hours to measure hormone production. In the GHRH-arginine test, the process is similar,
but instead of using insulin, this test utilizes GHRH (a natural hormone that stimulates
the release of growth hormone) produced in the brain, and arginine, an amino acid that
also stimulates hormone production. While the ITT is considered the “gold standard” for
GHD screening,42 with an accuracy rate of more than 96 percent, the GHRH test is
considered an acceptable alternative, with an accuracy rate of above 90 percent.43 While
these tests have high accuracy rates, because of their intrusiveness and time intensive
nature, it is unlikely they are utilized in meaningful ways by treating physicians.
Testing
The World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”), an independent agency that conducts
testing for, among others, the International Olympic Committee, began blood testing for
HGH during the 2004 Athens Olympics. In the hundreds of thousands of samples
WADA-accredited laboratories tested in 2009, however, only 1 came back positive for
HGH. This is likely due to the fact that HGH is metabolized and excreted by the body
very quickly. Dr. Anthony Butch, who leads one of the two WADA-accredited
laboratories in the United States, advised us that testing for HGH should occur within 2436 hours after usage; otherwise, a test is unlikely to come back positive even if the person
in question is using HGH.
HGH testing is expensive. Dr. Butch advised that testing a single blood sample would
cost about $1,400 and that even if “batch” samples of more than 15 were analyzed at one
time, testing each sample would cost about $130. This would not include follow-up
testing that is typically done when an initial sample comes back positive. In addition to
the exorbitant cost, because HGH is metabolized by the body quickly and can be
rendered undetectable as quickly as 24-36 hours after dosing, effective testing can only
be accomplished if done randomly without prior notice or immediately upon receiving
information that the individual has very recently (i.e., within the past day or two) used
HGH.

41

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice for Growth
Hormone Use in Growth Hormone-Deficient Adults and Transition Patients – 2009 Update.
42
Id.
43
Id.

11

Human Chorionic Gonadotropin
HCG is a hormone naturally produced in the early stages of pregnancy during the
formation of the placenta, helping to ensure the stability of the embryo post-conception
and in the early stages of gestation. Indeed, most home pregnancy tests rely on detection
of HCG as a means of confirming pregnancy. HCG is also a marker for certain tumors,
including those formed in the placenta, ovaries, and testes and during ectopic
pregnancies.44 HCG can be obtained by extracting it from the urine of pregnant women
or it can be produced synthetically by recombinant DNA technology.45 HCG’s primary
usage is to induce fertility in women who are having difficulty conceiving children.
HCG is regulated by the FDA and is not a substance listed on the federal Controlled
Substances Act. The FDA has approved HCG for three basic purposes: (1) to induce
ovulation in women;46 (2) to treat prepubertal cryptorchidism (failure of the testes to
descend); and (3) selected cases of hypogonadatropic hypogonadism47 secondary to
pituitary deficiencies in men.
For our purposes, it is important to note that HCG does not provide the specific musclebuilding or anti-aging benefits that anabolic steroids and HGH provide. Rather, HCG
acts as a “masking” agent that is typically used by individuals completing a “cycle” of
steroid usage to elevate testosterone levels that become depleted once steroids are no
longer being taken. The presence of HCG in men, therefore, is ordinarily indicative of
steroid abuse and as such, is banned by major athletic organizations including the
International Olympic Committee, the National Football League and Major League
Baseball.
Of the three main substances at issue, HCG is in a way the easiest to categorize, as it is
not a substance that is typically used in isolation by men or prescribed by doctors for
anything other than severe hormonal issues tied to very specific ailments. Rather, it is
used almost exclusively as an add-on to steroid use and for the purpose of elevating
reduced testosterone levels.
Regulation
As noted, HCG is regulated by the FDA and has been approved for treating only a few
conditions. Dispensing HCG, or any other prescription drug without a valid prescription
by a licensed practitioner is deemed by statute to be an act which causes the drug to be
“misbranded” while held for sale. See 21 U.S.C. § 353(b)(1)(B)(iii).
44

Handelsman, D, The Rationale for Banning Human Chorionic Gonadotropin and Estrogen Blockers in
Sport, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 91 (2006).
45
Recombinant DNA is created by taking two forms of DNA that do not normally occur together and
merging them through gene splicing.
46
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2007/017692s018lbl.pdf.
47
Hypogonadatropic hypogonadism is generally defined as the absence or decreased function of the male
testes or female ovaries. It is considered a secondary form of hypogonadism associated with a problem
with the pituitary or hypothalamus glands and is generally associated with pubescent boys and infertile
men. http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/hypogonadotropic-hypogonadism/overview.html.

12

At the state level, as a prescription drug, HCG is subject to the same restrictions and
limitations on its usage as any other drug that is prescribed by a doctor. In this way,
doctors would be subject to sanction under any/all of the SBME’s enforcement
mechanisms. See N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.10.
Medical Uses and Abuses
HCG is primarily prescribed as a treatment for female infertility. Prescription use in
males appears limited to severe instances of medical abnormality, such as delayed onset
of puberty and where the testes do not descend properly from the body. On a somewhat
unrelated note, the main “off label” use for HCG is for weight loss. People such as
“infomercial” personality Kevin Trudeau pitch HCG as a supplement to a calorierestricted diet in books such as “The Weight Loss Cure They Don’t Want You To Know
About” and “naturopath” doctors encourage similar use.48 For example, the FDA requires
a specific warning label for HCG that notes, “HCG has not been demonstrated to be
effective adjunctive therapy in the treatment of obesity.”
As a masking agent for steroids, HCG has gained prominence in recent years when two
well known athletes, Manny Ramirez (Major League Baseball) and Brian Cushing
(National Football League), both received suspensions due to drug tests that revealed
elevated levels of HCG in their systems.49 HCG is favored by steroid users because HCG
stimulates the production of testosterone, allowing steroid users to avoid the severe dropoff in this hormone as they complete a steroid cycle. For longer-term abusers of steroids
who experience suppression of the pituitary gland, and thus, a reduction in their ability to
naturally produce testosterone, HCG can temporarily stem this problem, although such
treatment does not abate long-term pituitary damage.50
Testing
As mentioned previously, the most common testing device for HCG is a home pregnancy
test. More generally, basic urine and/or blood testing can be used to measure HCG levels
in a person’s body.

48

See Alltucker, K., HCG Diet Popular in Valley, But Could Be Risky, The Arizona Republic, October 24,
2010.
49
See Weir, T., Report: NFL’s Brian Cushing Suspended For Same Drug Manny Ramirez Used, USA
Today, May 11, 2010.
50
See Drakeley, A et al., Duration of Azoospermia Following Anabolic Steroids, Fertility & Sterility, Vol.
81 p. 226 (2004).

13

II.

How Are These Substances Distributed and What Is Their Connection to
Law Enforcement

Publicly Reported Information
It is difficult to extrapolate how pervasive the problem of anabolic steroid and/or HGH
use is among law enforcement based solely on the Star-Ledger reporting. The report
indicated that a substantial number of the 248 patients under Dr. Colao’s care held law
enforcement positions in Hudson County51 with smaller numbers, typically less than 10,
coming from a wide range of law enforcement agencies and fire departments in other
parts of the state. It is also important to note that the reporting done by the Star-Ledger
focused solely on instances where law enforcement personnel were seeking
reimbursement from their health benefit plan for the cost of these prescriptions. The
prevalence of steroid and/or HGH use by individuals who acquire these medications
illicitly or pay out of pocket was beyond the scope of the investigation.
As the Star-Ledger noted, even after Dr. Colao’s death, other “wellness” and “anti-aging”
centers exist and treat people with HGH. One doctor interviewed, Dr. Henry Balzani,
openly treated patients with testosterone and HGH out of a clinic in Clifton.52 Dr.
Balzani, however, did not accept insurance and required people to pay out of pocket,
often in amounts of between $6,000 and $12,000 per year. The Star-Ledger noted that
this was due in part to the fact that insurers are becoming more vigilant in flagging HGH
and testosterone prescriptions for potential fraud.53 Similarly, Dr. Colao’s former office
manager, Victor Biancamano, is the registered officer of Total Life Rejuvenation, an antiaging company with offices in New Jersey, New York and Florida.54 Finally, although
not reported in the Star-Ledger, a cursory examination of a recent issue of NJ COPS
magazine included two full-page advertisements for “wellness” centers marketing
hormone replacement treatment.55
How are these substances being distributed?
All three categories of substances require a doctor’s prescription. Research conducted by
our office indicates that symptoms for which these substances are prescribed are, in many
cases, generic enough that a doctor uninterested in following more rigorous medical
protocols to confirm a diagnosis of, for example, low testosterone levels or adult growth
hormone deficiency, could plausibly justify the prescription of steroids or HGH. A
screening exam from Abbott Laboratories, a large pharmaceutical company that markets
testosterone treatment, identifies such symptoms as “lack of energy,” “a decrease in your
enjoyment of life,” “falling asleep after dinner,” and “decrease in libido,” as potential
indicators of low testosterone.56 Such indicators are so vague that they can be used as a
51

107 patients worked for some component of law enforcement or a fire department in Hudson County.
According to the Division of Consumer Affairs, Dr. Balzani is no longer in business.
53
Brittain, A. and Mueller, M., Booming Anti-Aging Business Relies on Risky Mix of Steroids, Growth
Hormone, Newark Star-Ledger, December 14, 2010.
54
Id.
55
See NJ COPS, November 2010.
56
www.isitlowt.com.
52

14

basis to prescribe these substances in a large variety of cases without the rigorous testing
required.
Notwithstanding the diagnostic issues surrounding the prescription of steroids, HGH
and/or HCG, it should be noted that even in situations where one or more of these
medications are prescribed, the quantity (dosage) and duration (length of prescription
and/or refilling of same) would be obvious indicators for abuse. While legitimate steroid
and/or HGH prescriptions are typically done at low doses and tied specifically to a
person’s body weight, those who abuse these substances tend to take them in high doses
or take multiple medications (“stacking”).
Perception from the Ground
The Study Group found that officers have a number of different ways of getting
information regarding steroids and HGH and acquiring same, including: (1) publications
such as NJ COPS magazine and other federal or state periodicals that advertise hormone
replacement treatment and “wellness centers” that provide such treatment;57 (2) mail
ordering using an alias; (3) internet message boards dedicated to steroids and/or HGH or
police/fire personnel; (4) conventions and conferences; (5) references from doctors
directing law enforcement to out-of-state pharmacies; (6) overseas mail order; and (7)
gyms. While some departments do conduct random testing, the Study Group learned that
in at least one location where random testing is utilized, more than two years have passed
since officers were last tested.
III.

Government’s Legal and Financial Burden

What are the Legal Liability Risks for Government?
The Star-Ledger reported that in at least one case in Trenton, the city settled a lawsuit for
$500,000 brought by a man who alleged that two officers (one of whom received steroids
and HGH through the mail) severely beat him because he refused to stay in his home
while the officers conducted an investigation outside.58 A second case in Jersey City
involving two officers accused of participating in a “roid rage” fueled beating is in
binding arbitration after the charges against the citizen for resisting arrest were dropped.59
In total, the Star-Ledger uncovered five cases alleging either brutality or civil rights
violations by law enforcement personnel who were treated by Dr. Colao.60
A more recent investigation was not criminal in nature per se, but rather, was in regards
to drug testing mandated by the Jersey City Police Department (“JCPD”) against a
number of its officers who were suspected of acquiring steroids at Lowen’s Pharmacy,
57

See fn. 55 supra.
Brittain, A. and Mueller, M., N.J. Taxpayers Get Bill for Millions in Steroid, Growth Hormone
Prescriptions for Cops, Firefighters, Newark Star-Ledger, December 13, 2010.
59
Brittain, A. and Mueller, M., N.J. Doctor Supplied Steroids to Hundreds of Law Enforcement Officers,
Firefighters, Newark Star-Ledger, December 12, 2010.
60
Id.
58

15

the same pharmacy that was implicated in the Dr. Colao investigation. The initial
investigation was led by the New York Police Department (“NYPD”) based on tips they
received that Lowen’s was using “foreign, federally unapproved components of drugs”
that may have been used to fill steroid prescriptions. Kramer v. City of Jersey City, 2010
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56449 *7 (D.N.J. June 3, 2010). The NYPD investigation turned up
the names of more than 50 JCPD officers who were prescribed steroids. Id. This
information was passed along from a captain in the NYPD to JCPD Chief of Police
Thomas Comey. Comey, concerned that elevated steroid levels are linked to aggressive
behavior, required the officers to be drug tested and to provide a list of all medications
they had taken in the past 60 days. Id. at *8-9. Those officers whose testosterone levels
were deemed too high to be fit for duty were placed on restricted duty until subsequent
testing showed their testosterone range was within an acceptable range. Id.
The officers sued, claiming various violations of their constitutional and civil rights. In
an unpublished decision, their case was dismissed. While the matter focused primarily
on the question of immunity from suit, the underlying discussion confirmed several
important legal concepts. For example, the court found that reasonable suspicion existed
to require the testing and that no federal law was violated where Chief Comey, acting on
a tip from a fellow law enforcement official, required the drug testing and then placed
those whose testosterone levels were elevated, on restricted duty. Id. at *15. The court
further confirmed that law enforcement officers have a lowered expectation of privacy
based on the sensitivity of their positions and, balancing the need for the government to
ensure that those who they permit to carry firearms and enforce the law are not inhibited
by drugs or alcohol, provides the needed authority to drug test such individuals. Id. at
*19; see also Carroll v. City of Warminster, 233 F. 3d 208, 211 (3d Cir. 2000).
Moreover, the court rejected the officers’ contention that the testing was improper
because steroids are not listed on the Attorney General’s Drug Testing Policy. Id. at *2122. The court reasoned that the government’s “compelling interest in assuring that police
officers are medically fit for duty is not proscribed because of the AG Policy.” Id. at 22.
Further, the court found that merely because a state policy does not mention a substance
does not create the permissible limit of what the government can test for because “any
drug impairment that affects a police officer’s abilities is a significant concern.” Id. In
short, the court upheld the drug testing conducted by the JCPD and dismissed the case.61
There is limited case law involving attempts to hold municipalities liable for civil rights
violations where an officer engaged in civil rights violations stemming, at least in part,
from steroid abuse. In one case from Tennessee, a federal district court rejected a
Monell62 claim against the City of Shelbyville where a plaintiff attempted to sue that
municipality on the theory that it did not adequately drug test its officers to determine
61

It is important to note that the Court did not reach the question of whether random testing of officers
would be permissible as the case before the Court involved testing based on individualized suspicion. See
Kramer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56449 at *17.
62
Under Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), plaintiffs can sue
municipalities for civil rights violations of their employees if the action in question stemmed from an
“official policy or custom.” See Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 370-71
(2001).

16

which of those officers had a propensity for violence based on their use of steroids.
Pamplin v. City of Shelbyville, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21276 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 17,
2006). This failure, according to the plaintiff, resulted in excessive force being used by
an officer, resulting in injury to the litigant. The Court dismissed the claim, reasoning
that (1) the officer was treated for steroid abuse after the incident; (2) that a random drug
testing policy was in effect and the officer had not failed a test; and (3) there was no
evidence that the officer’s supervisors knew or had reason to know of the officer’s drug
abuse or that he presented a threat to the public. Id. at *7.
In another case, a federal district court threw out civil rights claims filed by plaintiffs
based on allegations of steroid rage by a police officer. Coury v. Helmer, 2009 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 85092 (W.D.Okla. September 17, 2009). In Coury, a complaint against the city
of Oklahoma City, the local Fraternal Order of Police and an officer of the Oklahoma
City Police Department was dismissed as to the plaintiffs’ argument that the City, by
failing to implement a steroid drug testing program when, according to plaintiffs, use of
steroids was known in the department, resulted in a deprivation of the plaintiffs’ civil
rights. Id. at *10. The plaintiffs claimed that the officer, who was alleged to be using
steroids, acted in an aggressive manner toward one of the plaintiffs, “handcuffed him too
tightly, physically manhandled him, and placed him in the back of a patrol car.” Id. at *4.
The court did not think there was sufficient evidence to meet the evidentiary burden for
plaintiffs to overcome the defendants’ motion to dismiss; however, the court allowed the
case to proceed as to the plaintiffs’ state-law claim for assault against the officer. Id. at
*10, *14-*15.
Testing
Current Procedures for Testing – Attorney General Policy Guideline
The Attorney General’s Law Enforcement Drug Testing Policy (“Drug Testing Policy”)
was initially enacted in October 1986 and was most recently revised in June 2001. The
policy permits drug testing of veteran law enforcement officers under one of three
conditions: (1) where reasonable suspicion exists to believe that the officer is using
illegal drugs; (2) as part of a random drug test where all officers have an equal chance of
being selected to be screened; and (3) as part of a regularly scheduled and announced
medical exam or a fitness for duty exam. The current policy screens for:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Amphetamines/methamphetamine
Barbiturates (sedatives)
Benzodiazepine (anxiety, anti-depressants, sleep aids)
Cannabinoids (Marijuana)
Cocaine
Methadone
Phencyclidine (PCP)
Opiates (Morphine, Codeine, etc.)

17

Urine specimens are not screened for steroids; however, as to New Jersey State Police,
the “unauthorized” use of steroids is prohibited. In addition, the policy does not preclude
local law enforcement from testing for anabolic steroids and indeed, some do test for
steroids as part of their random drug testing program. The primary purpose of the Drug
Testing Policy was to establish uniform criteria for the collection and analysis of
specimens collected for drug testing by law enforcement agencies. In addition, the Drug
Testing Policy mandated uniform discipline (i.e., termination) for officers who tested
positive. The policy provided officers accused of testing positive with due process rights
and required that a database be created that contains the names of all officers who test
positive under the policy. The Drug Testing Policy covers all law enforcement personnel
under the Attorney General’s purview – state, county and municipal law enforcement
agencies. The Policy does not cover other public safety officers such as corrections
officers, firefighters or public transit workers. While a decision to conduct random drug
testing is considered a managerial prerogative not subject to collective bargaining, the
method of random selection may be subject to collective bargaining.
All testing of drugs referenced in the Drug Testing Policy is conducted by the State
Toxicology Laboratory. As the sole facility for law enforcement drug testing, the State
Toxicology Laboratory has been responsible for analyzing specimens submitted to it for
the eight substances outlined above, reporting the results of its analysis to individual law
enforcement agencies, providing testimony in support of its results at disciplinary hearing
and providing expert services as requested. The lab charges a fee of $35 for each
specimen tested.
Every positive test result at the Toxicology Lab is examined by a medical review officer
who compares the test result with medical information, including the prescription
disclosure information officers submit when they are tested. A report is generated for
each specimen tested. Negative results indicate that no controlled dangerous substances
were detected. Positive test results indicate whether the test result was consistent with
the information submitted by the officer. When the prescription(s) disclosed by the
officer explains the test result, the police department is advised to verify the prescription.
When there is no information provided to explain the test result, it is presumed that the
officer is illegally using the drug and the officer’s agency is advised of that fact.
The lab does not test for steroids; rather, when a specimen needs to be screened for
steroids, it is sent to Aegis Laboratory. Aegis charges $250 per specimen with additional
fees levied if other services (e.g., discovery, expert testimony, etc.) are needed. The
annual cap on services Aegis can charge in any one year is approximately $40,000.
Municipal Drug Testing
There are some police departments in New Jersey that have instituted drug testing for
steroids. The Study Group contacted one of those departments to ascertain the manner in
which it tests its officers. The Study Group was advised that this department added
steroids to its random drug testing policy due to the department’s concern over the
increased availability of anabolic steroids and other growth hormones in recent years.

18

The random screening for steroids is done in concert with random testing for substances
referenced in the Drug Testing Policy and the sampling is conducted at the Chief of
Police’s discretion, with no pre-determined date/month and with officers being selected at
random via a software program. The tests are conducted at different points during the
year. While the police department noted that testing for steroids resulted in a “modest”
additional cost to its budget, it was the department’s belief that the benefits far outweigh
the nominal additional expenditure associated with the expanded testing protocol.
Prosecution
Prosecuting individuals who have received medication through a licensed practitioner
presents certain challenges. For example, in the Kramer case discussed above, the lead
plaintiffs argued that they “suffered from various medical conditions that required them
to seek medical treatment.” Kramer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56449 at *5. These
conditions included erectile dysfunction, hypogonadism, impotence and fatigue. Id. The
response from officers interviewed as part of the Star-Ledger report was similar – that is,
if a doctor was prescribing the medication and the insurer approved payment for it, the
officers did not think they did anything wrong.
The Office of Insurance Fraud Prosecutor (“OIFP”) can prosecute individuals for health
care claims fraud pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4.2. Prosecuting individuals for health care
claims fraud requires that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person: (1)
knowingly; (2) made a false, fictitious, fraudulent or misleading statement; (3) which is
material; and (4) which is submitted for payment or reimbursement for health care
services. Fraud can be committed by any party to the health care transaction or by an
accessory to the transaction.
OIFP prosecutions can include situations where doctors submit bogus insurance claims,
where prescriptions are done outside the norms of good faith, where patients misrepresent
their medical conditions or where pharmacies submit bogus claims or where pharmacy
employees engage in fraudulent activity. In addition, OIFP works with Medco, our
pharmacy benefits manager, when Medco identifies potential incidences of fraud in the
system.
How are other governmental entities addressing this issue?
Steroid use among law enforcement personnel is an issue that other governmental entities
have examined in recent years, typically in response to direct reports of criminality or
investigations that indicated either usage or trafficking of steroids, and to a lesser extent,
HGH, within the public safety sector. For example, during the course of an FBI
investigation into a cocaine distribution ring in Boston, it was discovered that one of the
defendants (who was a police officer) was also a steroid user. That fact led to an
expansion of the investigation, which culminated in eleven Boston police officers being
disciplined, including seven officers who used steroids. Further, BPD modified its drug
testing program, which previously only tested for steroids during police academy, to
make those who test positive for drugs as officers be subject to testing for their entire

19

career63 and began training supervisors to spot signs of substance abuse, particularly
steroids.
In New York City, in the wake of a police scandal that police officers were involved in
purchasing steroids through illegal sources, random drug testing of the entire 36,000
member New York Police Department began in 2008 at a cost of roughly $1 million per
year.64 Similarly, the Phoenix Police Department instituted one of the first steroid testing
programs in 2005 after several incidents either directly or indirectly involving officers
accused of abusing anabolic steroids. The PPD now tests all applicants for steroids and
randomly tests its officers, but in doing so, tripled its drug testing costs.65 Other large
police departments that test for steroids include Dallas and Albuquerque; however, at
least one other big city department, Portland, recently decided against randomly testing
for steroids due to cost concerns and instead modified its drug testing procedure to allow
for individualized steroid testing when a reasonable suspicion exists that an officer is
using the substances.66
In the military, the uniform branches have similar policies with regard to steroid testing.
In the Army, random drug testing is not done for steroids, but can be done when a
commander has “probable cause” to suspect abuse.67 Information provided by the U.S.
Army indicated, however, that in 2008, while more than 450,000 soldiers were drug
tested, only about 300 of them were tested for steroid use.68 In the Navy and Marine
Corps, only a commander within the Navy’s Personnel Command can request that a
steroid test be performed.69 In the Air Force, random steroid testing of all cadets and
civilian employees at the Air Force Academy in Colorado began in 2004 and, in addition,
for active duty members, the Air Force can screen for steroids in a manner similar to the
other branches of the military.70
Some states have also passed laws specifically targeting the illegal prescription or
dispensing of steroids and/or growth hormone.71 For example, in Rhode Island, it is a
misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in prison and/or a fine of $1,000 for a
medical practitioner to “prescribe, order, distribute, supply or sell an anabolic or human
63

It should be noted that the Boston Police Department only tests its recruits for steroids, not its officers.
The Associated Press, NYPD to Test for Steroid Abuse, April 9, 2008.
65
Humphrey, K. et al., Anabolic Steroid Use and Abuse by Police Officers: Policy and Prevention, The
Police Chief, Vol. LXXV, No. 6, June 2008.
66
Bernstein, M., Portland Police Contract Includes Random Drug Testing, But Delays Testing for
Steroids, Oregon Live, February 2, 2011.
67
Bernton, H., Steroid Use in the Army on the Rise, Seattle Times, November 22, 2010.
68
Id.
69
Giordono, J., Despite Better Tests, Some Drug Users Slipping Through Gaps in the System, Stars and
Stripes (Pacific Edition), July 17, 2003.
70
Jacobson, T., Air Force’s Random Checks for Steroids Are Unusual, Colorado Springs Gazette, July
22, 2004.
71
While this discussion relates to states that have specific laws on their books dealing with steroids or
growth hormone, steroids are a federal Schedule III CDS and, as of 1999, at least 22 states had adopted the
federal CDS standard as part of their criminal code. Therefore, states, including New Jersey, without
specific laws related to illegal steroid prescription, sale or distribution have felony penalties based on their
classification of steroids as a Schedule III CDS.
64

20

growth hormone” for the purpose of “enhancing performance in an exercise, sport, or
game, or hormonal manipulation intended to increase muscle mass, strength or weight
without a medical necessity.”72 In Louisiana, anabolic steroids cannot be prescribed for
“bodybuilding, muscle enhancement, or increasing muscle bulk or strength.” The statute
subjects those convicted of illegal manufacture or distribution with up to ten years at hard
labor or a fine of up to $15,00073 (or both) and those convicted of illegal possession with
up to five years at hard labor or a $5,000 fine (or both). Other states that have
specifically criminalized the improper prescription or dispensing of steroids or HGH by
medical practitioners include Ohio,74 Oklahoma75 and Delaware.76
Financial Costs to Government
Medco has provided us with data regarding the anabolic steroid, HGH and HCG
prescriptions it filled in 2010. The total cost to the state benefit plan for anabolic steroids
and HGH was $11,275,944.82. Of that amount, $6,345,157.96 was spent on a total of
6,012 patients who were prescribed steroids at an average cost of $1,055.41 per person,
and $4,930,786.86 on a total of 210 patients who were prescribed HGH at an average cost
of $23,479.93 per patient. Member costs totaled $1,643,734.15, with the patients
receiving HGH having average out of pocket expenses of $4,877.88, and patients
receiving steroids having average out of pocket expenses of $103.22.
For calendar year 2010, payment for prescriptions of steroids ranked 45th among the 172
subcategories of prescriptions filled by Medco. Payment for prescriptions of HGH
ranked 53rd. With regard to HCG, disaggregating that data was made more difficult
because of its primary use as a fertility treatment; however, we were advised that of 713
people who were prescribed HCG in 2010, 89, or slightly more than 12 percent, were
men. Utilizing those figures, we estimate that of the $129,468.87 spent on HCG
prescriptions ($102,529.12 paid by the plan, $26,939.75 paid by patients), approximately
$12,303.49, or $139.81 per patient in plan costs are attributable to men who were
prescribed HCG, and $3,232.77, or $37.15 per patient in out-of-pocket expenses were
incurred.
The Star-Ledger report confirms that the cost of filling steroid, HGH and HCG
prescriptions through self-financed prescription plans is significant. The Star-Ledger
cited several specific figures in its reporting, most prominently, the fact that in 2007,
Jersey City spent more on treatments associated with growth hormone deficiency than it
did “on any other medical condition, including high cholesterol, high blood pressure or
diabetes.”77 Moreover, the Star-Ledger was provided documents from a lawsuit related to
a purported incident of “roid rage” by a Jersey City Police Officer which showed that
while treatment for growth hormone deficiency was the number one ailment for which
72
73
74
75
76
77

R.I. Gen. Law § 21-28:401(e) (2011).
La. Rev. Stat. Title 40 § 968 (2011).
Or. Stat. Ann. 2925.06 (2011).
63 Okl. St. § 2-312.1 (2011).
16 De. C. § 4752 (2011).
See fn. 53 supra.

21

the city’s prescription drug manager filled prescriptions in 2007, the same ailment ranked
43rd among the drug manager’s other governmental clients.78 The total cost in Jersey City
for growth hormone deficiency skyrocketed from $255,000 in 2006 (itself a high number)
to $677,000 in 2007, when Dr. Colao’s practice was at its height.
Additional figures referenced by the Star-Ledger show that reimbursement was provided
for nearly $300,000 in steroids and HGH received by a small group of Trenton police
officers between 2002 and 2004 and slightly more than $7,000 for one officer who
received steroids, HGH and HCG in a roughly eight month time period in 2007.79 The
Star-Ledger conducted follow-up reporting with prescription drug plan managers who
confirmed that oversight of the dispensing of these medications has increased in recent
years due to a greater awareness of the propensity of people in general to seek out these
medications and to have the costs covered by their prescription drug plans. As the StarLedger noted, Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Medco have both become more
aggressive in challenging the information given them by providers before signing off on
prescriptions for steroids and/or HGH.
IV.

Recommendations

Our recommendations take into account several important factors. First, steroids, HGH
and HCG are legal compounds subject to regulation and criminal prosecution where they
are improperly dispensed, prescribed, possessed or used. We are mindful of the fact that
not every person who is prescribed one of these medications is committing a crime and
indeed, we want to ensure that people who are receiving these medications for a valid
medical purpose are not swept into the net of those who are not. Second, our
recommendations focus primarily on ways to discourage the improper prescribing and
dispensing of these medications by practitioners. If we are able to dramatically reduce
the number of prescriptions being issued for dubious purposes, we will see a significant
reduction in the cost to the taxpayer, an increase in the investigation and prosecution of
doctors acting in nefarious ways and stem the flow of these substances not only to law
enforcement, but to the general public. Third, our recommendations take into account
laws, policies and procedures that are already in existence or are being expanded to
strengthen existing authority. One of the clear results of our investigation was that
authority already exists to investigate both doctors and patients engaged in this type of
conduct but a combination of difficult criminal proofs, the general regulatory approach of
initiating investigations based on patient complaints rather than the cultivation of sources,
lack of communication among agencies and the possibility that the actions are not as
widespread as has been publicly reported, all conspired to limit the number of
investigations and prosecutions the state and its entities might have otherwise engaged in.
Finally, it is clear that prosecutions of individuals who receive prescriptions from medical
practitioners pose challenges that we do not encounter when individuals acquire these
substances from “black market” sources.

78
79

Id.
Id.

22

More generally, our recommendations are informed by several issues regarding gaps in
detection: (1) prescription drug plan managers who have not scrutinized data to detect
irregular, inappropriate or anomalous levels of prescriptions of steroids, HGH, and/or
HCG; (2) the SBME’s decision to focus on matters brought to its attention via patient
complaints as opposed to initiating investigations based on existing regulatory
prohibitions and its oversight authority; (3) the SBME’s inability to track prescription
medications through a centralized database; and (4) the absence of a drug testing
procedure that includes screening for steroids. Our recommendations target each of these
gaps and seek to create “chokepoints” throughout the system that will reduce the
improper prescription, dispensing and use of steroids and growth hormones.
Improving Oversight Through Existing PBM Resources. There are several potential
chokepoints where improper prescriptions for steroids, HGH and/or HCG can be flagged.
First, insurers review prescription forms and, as noted by a spokesperson for Horizon
Blue Cross/Blue Shield, can “challenge and seek additional information from the
provider making a request for the prescription of a human growth hormone or steroid.
Awhile ago, that would have just gone through the system.”80 When clear spikes in the
prescription of these substances occur, as happened in Jersey City where spending on
growth hormone went from $255,000 in 2006 to $677,000 in 2007, or where a clear
anomaly exists, as where Express Scripts, Jersey City’s pharmacy benefits manager,
found that while treatment for hormone-related deficiencies ranked 1st in Jersey City, it
ranked 43rd among its other government clients,81 more aggressive intervention by the
health insurer approving these prescriptions is necessary.
To that end, the Study Group initiated discussions with the Division of Pensions and
Benefits (“DPB”) to discuss the oversight of our prescription drug benefits plan. In New
Jersey, the “Pharmacy Benefits Manager” (“PBM”), who oversees the prescription drug
plan for both active and retired state employees and many local governmental employees,
is a company called Medco. In addition, the state allows municipalities and school
districts to participate in the state benefits plan. DPB advised us that of the 1,976 nonstate public employers in New Jersey, 1,063 participate in our health plan (Horizon
BC/BS), and of those, 921 utilize our PBM (Medco), while the rest (142) purchase a
prescription plan elsewhere. In total, DPB estimates that roughly 855,000 employees,
retirees and family dependents are covered by the state plan. As of June 30, 2010, there
were 543,880 active state workers in our various pension funds, of which, 252,923, or
46.5 percent, were enrolled in the health benefits plan (including the prescription drug
plan). In addition, there were 255,813 pensioneers (including widows and widowers)
receiving pension benefits, of which, 145,035, or 55.9 percent, were enrolled in the health
benefits plan (including the prescription drug plan).82
The design of our prescription drug plan is created by the State Health Benefit
Commission, a group comprised of appointees from the Department of Banking and
80

See fn. 53 supra.
Id.
82
The balance of those covered by the prescription drug plan are local governmental employees and family
dependents.
81

23

Insurance, Department of Treasury, Civil Service Commission, and representatives from
the AFL/CIO who, working with DPB and its Office of Policy and Planning, create the
plan specifics, from which drugs are covered, to what the co-pay for each medication will
be, among many other issues. DPB works in collaboration with Medco and ultimately
maintains oversight authority over the PBM and retains the ability to modify/alter
requirements during the contract period.
Recently, Medco instituted a “protocol” that became effective on March 1, 2011 placing
several new restrictions on the distribution of anabolic steroids and HGH. First, Medco
now requires pre-authorization before a prescription for steroids will be approved.83 Prior
authorization requires the prescribing physician to fill out a form related to the
prescription in question, the diagnosis, symptoms and other information to confirm that
the prescription is appropriate before Medco will approve the medication. Depending on
the medication, each form requires the doctor to confirm a specific diagnosis consistent
with those treatments Medco provides reimbursement for (see below).
Second, coverage for testosterone treatment is explicitly limited to: (1) patients with a
testosterone level of less than 300 nanograms/deciliter (“300 ng/dl”) as confirmed by a
blood test;84 (2) treatment for the delayed onset of puberty; and (3) for females suffering
from metatastic inoperable breast cancer.
Third, anabolic steroid prescriptions85 are only covered for: (1) the treatment of hereditary
angioedema;86 (2) to promote weight gain;87 and (3) for the treatment of
anemia/stimulation of erythropoiesis.88
Finally, Medco will not approve HGH
prescriptions for use in reversing or delaying the aging process or for conditions where
the effectiveness of HGH is unknown, including treatment of constitutional delayed
growth, infertility, and severe insulin-resistant diabetes or less severe forms of IGF-1
deficiency.
This heightened level of scrutiny for HGH and steroid prescriptions is also subject, as all
prescriptions requiring pre-authorization and filled by Medco are, to two levels of
examination.
The first, termed “coverage review,” attempts to flag improper
prescriptions based on the doctor’s representations. Coverage review requires a doctor to
83

Medco already requires pre-authorization for HGH and HCG.
The 300 ng/dl standard is recognized among endocrinologists as an appropriate level to diagnose
legitimate incidences of hypogonadism. In a study of men ages 30-69, less than 7 percent of men had this
level of testosterone. A second study of men in their 60s, 70s and 80s, indicated that the hypogonadal
range was 20 percent, 30 percent and 50 percent respectively.
85
As part of our discussion with Medco, they compared the list of 49 anabolic steroids referenced in the
federal Controlled Substances Act with those available through our prescription drug plan. Medco advised
us that only five of the 49 types of steroids referenced in the CSA are available through our plan.
86
A disorder passed by parents to children involving swelling in tissues of the body, particularly of the
larynx.
87
This particular treatment would be given to patients with cachexia (wasting syndrome) which is often
associated with severe auto-immune diseases or cancer, chronic infection, surgery, prolonged corticosteroid
use or severe trauma.
88
Anemia occurs when the body fails to produce enough red blood cells. Erythropoiesis is the process by
which new red blood cells are generated.
84

24

fill out a form that asks questions to confirm that the diagnosis upon which the
medication is being prescribed is one that is covered by the plan sponsor (State of New
Jersey). For example, now that the protocol is in place, a doctor prescribing testosterone
will have to confirm that the patient’s testosterone level is below 300 ng/dl or, if
prescribing an anabolic steroid, that the patient presents with one of the ailments for
which the State of New Jersey permits reimbursement. For prescriptions that are filled
directly by Medco (typically by mail), a second level “safety review” occurs. The safety
review drills deeper into the patient history, including a review of what other
prescriptions the patient is taking, whether the doctor has been flagged as one who may
be improperly prescribing medications and other security checks. Medco’s “safety
review” is only done by Medco where prescriptions are filled directly by it. We
recommend that the new protocol and the proposed changes discussed herein be shared
with other insurers who provide prescription drug coverage in New Jersey.
Building on the March 1, 2011 protocol, we recommend that Medco be engaged to limit
the dispensing of steroids and growth hormone to “mail order” only. By restricting the
filling of these prescriptions in this way, the more stringent “safety review” conducted by
Medco will be triggered and there will be no question or concern regarding compliance
with the March 1, 2011 protocol. With regard to HGH, such a conversion would not be
unduly burdensome. According to Medco, slightly more than 97 percent of the
prescriptions it filled for HGH in 2010 were done by mail. Conversely, Medco only
filled about 20 percent of steroid prescriptions by mail in 2010. If requiring all steroids
prescriptions be filled by mail is deemed impractical, we recommend the mail order
protocol be instituted based on certain delivery methods. For example, 71 percent of
retail steroid prescriptions are for transdermal89 methods of drug delivery and close to 16
percent are for intramuscular methods of delivery. Requiring mail ordering for these two
types of steroids, when added to those prescriptions already filled by mail order, would
subject 90 percent of all steroid prescriptions filled by Medco to heightened levels of
scrutiny.
Lastly, as it relates to enhancing oversight, one area where improved collaboration is
already happening is between Medco and OIFP. Medco has referred several cases of
potential fraud to OIFP and we would like to see this partnership continue and deepen as
greater scrutiny is placed on the misappropriation of steroids and HGH.
Amend the Attorney General’s Drug Policy Guidelines to add steroids to the list of
substances screened for and require supporting documentation by law enforcement
personnel when they self-disclose that they are taking certain medications under a
doctor’s prescription.
We recommend that the current Attorney General’s Law Enforcement Drug Testing
Policy, which applies to applicants, trainees and sworn law enforcement officers who
come under the jurisdiction of the Police Training Act and are authorized to carry a
firearm, be amended to add steroids to the list of substances screened for and require
supporting documentation by law enforcement personnel when they self-disclose that
89

Transdermal delivery is “across the skin,” e.g., medication delivered by a patch.

25

they are taking anabolic steroids or HGH under a doctor’s prescription. Adding steroids
to the list of substances subject to testing will allow those agencies that have random drug
testing policies to test for steroids90 and authorize such testing if departments implement
random testing in the future. While we recognize that adding steroids to the testing list
may place a financial burden on police departments that randomly test, we think that
expressly allowing for random anabolic steroid testing will have a deterrent effect on
those officers who now believe that their use of such drugs will go undetected.
Adding steroids to the list of substances screened for under the Attorney General’s Drug
Policy Guidelines is not a modification subject to the collective bargaining agreement in
effect with unions representing police officers; however, the manner in which officers are
selected to be randomly tested may be subject to collective bargaining. While testing for
steroids will add cost to those samples screened for steroids, we think this modest
financial burden is appropriate in light of the significant amount of money potentially at
risk where officers are having prescriptions improperly filled and/or when considering
the risk of liability associated with “roid rage” accusations leveled at officers as part of
civil litigation.
Next, we recommend that the Drug Testing Policy, whether referring to random or
reasonable suspicion testing, be clarified in the following respect. Currently, it is unclear
whether, after confirming a positive result from a controlled dangerous substance, the
State Toxicology Laboratory must notify the submitting agency that it compared the test
results with the medical questionnaire submitted by the officer and determined that one or
more substances currently being used by the officer explained its findings. We think that
it is imperative that a police department know whether one of its officers is ingesting a
controlled dangerous substance or steroid for at least two reasons: (1) given the degree to
which substances such as steroids, oxycodone or HGH are illegally trafficked, police
departments have an obligation to ensure that its officers are obtaining them for
legitimate medical reasons from a licensed medical provider; and (2) given the powerful,
and sometimes deleterious effects these substances have on the human body, the
department – and the public – need to know that the officer is fit for duty. While there
are legitimate medical privacy issues involved in such disclosure, we do not think any of
those issues outweigh the public health and welfare that would be put at risk by armed
policemen patrolling our streets while under the influence of narcotic or other drugs,
whether lawfully obtained or otherwise.
Therefore, we further recommend that whenever a department is advised by the State
Toxicology Laboratory that an officer, after testing positive, is, according to his/her
medical history, taking a CDS or steroid, the Drug Testing Policy should provide that the
officer be required to produce a legally-obtained prescription, along with a letter from the
prescribing physician that: (1) the CDS/steroid is being administered for a medicallyrecognized ailment/condition that was diagnosed following appropriate diagnostic
procedures; and (2) the officer is not rendered unfit for duty due to the administration of
90

The current policy mandates drug testing when reasonable suspicion exists to think that an officer is
using drugs and permits random drug testing. Moreover, it references the fact that as to the New Jersey
State Police, the “unauthorized” use of steroids is prohibited.

26

the CDS/steroid. Should the officer’s treating physician fail or refuse to provide the
necessary documentation set forth above, the department would have the right to have the
officer examined by an independent physician or expert. We caution that in accepting
this recommendation, you will be requiring police departments to more affirmatively
scrutinize the medical treatment of officers using certain substances since current
procedure tends to rely on the prescription “speaking for itself” with regard to it having
been properly given.
With regard to fitness for duty, we recommend that you adopt a policy that would
encourage police departments to require officers self-report the use of substances that
may render them unfit for duty.91 While we understand that such a policy may require
greater definition, we think it worth consideration and as an expression of the legitimate
concerns underlying it should at least have a place at the collective bargaining table.92 At
a minimum, we think self-reporting as to the use of steroids, HGH and their derivatives is
warranted, relying on your authority to determine fitness for duty as it relates to an
officer’s authority to carry a firearm pursuant to the exceptions contained in N.J.S.A.
2C:39-6. We think such a policy would have a strong deterrent effect.
Lastly, we recommend that whatever modifications you agree should be made to the
Drug Testing Policy be shared with those who have authority over other public safety
officers in the state (e.g., correctional officers, firefighters, etc.) for their consideration of
whether changes to their drug testing procedures are warranted.
Propose legislation to criminalize unlawful prescription of medications by doctors.
While our criminal code currently provides for certain penalties for health care claims
fraud93 and the improper dispensing of Schedule III substances,94 we recommend that you
propose legislation that will criminalize the prescribing, dispensing and receipt of
steroids, HGH and other controlled dangerous substances when there is no reasonable
basis to believe that the patient-consumer has a medically-recognized need for the
medication in question.
While the specific language should be subject to discussion with interested legislators and
prosecutors, such legislation has already been enacted in other states, which could both
inform the drafting of proposed legislation and serve as a way to identify and mitigate
litigation risks if the bill is enacted into law.
Draft a legislative fix specifically incorporating steroids as a Schedule III under the
New Jersey Controlled Substances Act, N.J.S.A. 24:21-1 et seq. We recommend that
you call for the adoption of legislation that clearly incorporates anabolic steroids under
the New Jersey Controlled Substances Act. While the Controlled Substances Act vests in
91

State Police SOP C33 already requires State Police to report all prescription medications and SOP A4
requires that they disclose all medications taken within the 14 days prior to taking a drug test.
92
Such self-reporting would not necessarily be limited to steroids, but could also include other
medications such as painkillers, muscle relaxers, and other mood-stabilizing medications that could affect
fitness for duty.
93
N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4.1 to 4.6.
94
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5.

27

the Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs the responsibility for updating and republishing our state list of Schedule III substances (which does include anabolic
steroids), the Study Group thinks that harmonizing in statute what is reflected in the
federal Controlled Substances Act will avoid any possible confusion.
Modify Administrative Code to prohibit the prescription of HGH for Anti-Aging
purposes and Utilize Existing Administrative Authority More Affirmatively.
Currently, SBME regulations strictly limit the prescribing and dispensing of HGH and
prohibit its prescription “for the purpose of hormonal manipulation intended to increase
muscle mass, strength or weight.” N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.9(a). However, HGH is now being
marketed aggressively for its purported “anti-aging” benefits, a use that is inappropriate
under FDA guidelines. See 21 U.S.C. § 333(e)(1). Accordingly, we recommend that you
direct the SBME to undertake a review of its current regulation after convening a panel of
medical experts to propose amendments that will curtail prescription of HGH for antiaging purposes. Further, one recommendation we would like to see the panel incorporate
is the need for doctors who prescribe HGH to clearly identify, either in their records or as
part of the prescription process, which of the permitted purposes under FDA guidelines
HGH is being prescribed, or, if one of the three recognized treatments is not present, for
what other, medically recognized purpose, HGH is being prescribed.
In terms of existing oversight authority, both the number of refills and the dosages
prescribed would be two logical places where greater scrutiny could also result in
detection of anomalous prescription and/or usage. For example, Schedule III substances
cannot be refilled more than 5 times after the date of the initial prescription and all fills
and refills must take place within 6 months unless renewed by the practitioner.95 N.J.S.A.
24:21-15. Also, where medication is distributed directly at a doctor’s office, such
medications are limited to seven day supplies. N.J.S.A. 45:9-22.11; N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.5.
While these limits generally restrict Schedule III drugs, no further regulation of Schedule
III substances has been promulgated by the Director, even though more rigorous
oversight of Schedule II controlled substances has been in place since 2003. See
N.J.A.C. 13:35-7.6. Moreover, the 2007 amendments to the state’s Controlled
Substances Act gave the Director of Consumer Affairs oversight and regulatory authority
over controlled substances. N.J.S.A. 24:21-31. This authority, when coupled with the
SBME’s general mission to discipline licensees who do not comply with established
standards of practice, provides ample power to implement and enforce greater restrictions
on the prescription of these substances.
Finally, where individuals are filling prescriptions without utilizing their prescription
plans, the same level of attention and, where appropriate, investigation of doctors or
pharmacies that provide these medications must be done.

95

Such oversight is particularly important as the Star-Ledger report indicated that at least one officer,
Jersey City police officer Victor Vargas, alleged to have been involved in a “steroid rage” incident, filled at
least six prescriptions for HGH and steroids between January and August 2007.

28

Implement the NJPMP. The SBME will be able to more effectively monitor the
doctors under its authority through the New Jersey Prescription Monitoring Program
(“NJPMP”) that is scheduled to be online later this year. In-state and out-of-state
prescribers and pharmacists who register with the NJPMP will submit information to the
Division of Consumer Affairs on a regular basis on Schedule II-V medications, including
the name, date of birth, address and phone number of the patient receiving the
medication, the date the drug was prescribed, the National Drug Code of the drug,
prescriber’s name and DEA registration number, name, strength and quantity of the drug,
whether it was refilled, the source of payment, and other useful tracking information.
Moreover, state law permits the Director to collect and track prescription information on
non-CDS drugs following the promulgation of a drug-specific regulation. N.J.S.A. 45:147. Under this statute, the Director is permitted to add to the NJPMP non-CDS provided
certain criteria are met, including issues such as the potential for abuse of the substance,
scientific evidence, if any, of the substance’s pharmacological impact, the scope, duration
and significance of abuse.96 Once a determination has been made that the non-CDS
should be added to the NJPMP, it is added on a temporary basis with a follow-up
determination made by the Director, as to whether it should be added permanently. As
noted above, A3698, a bill pending in the Legislature, would require that HGH be added
to the NJPMP. Regardless of whether the bill passes, DCA Director Calcagni is prepared
to move forward and add HGH to the list of prescriptions tracked by the NJPMP.
The NJPMP is also intended to be used as a tool by prescribers and pharmacists, who
must register with the Division of Consumer Affairs to gain access to the system, to
combat prescription drug abuse and/or fraud. Authorized users, including Division
personnel, will be permitted to conduct patient-specific inquiries of NJPMP data. The
system will allow the Division to analyze the data for indications of fraud or abuse
through system reports, permitting early detection of diversion or indiscriminate
prescription of medication through prescriber-specific inquiries. The NJPMP has also
been designed to enable the Division to flag abnormal patterns of prescribing.
Specifically, the Division is obligated to notify law enforcement when a violation of a
law or regulation has occurred or when a breach of an applicable standard or practice has
occurred. N.J.S.A. 45:1-45. Further, the Division is obligated to turn over information
that may be relevant to an investigation of any of these allegations. Id.
Distribute law enforcement wide letter/memorandum advising all members of law
enforcement of changes to the Drug Testing Policy and penalties for improper
acquisition of these prescription drugs. Once changes to the Drug Testing Policy are
adopted, we recommend that you issue a law enforcement-wide directive clearly advising
all members of the public safety community about the changes to the Policy and more
generally, that: (1) anabolic steroids are a Schedule III CDS with limited appropriate
medical uses; (2) HGH has limited, FDA-approved uses; and (3) HCG is understood to
be a masking agent in men abusing steroids and that improper acquisition of any of these
substances is both a federal and a state crime punishable, in some cases, with prison time.
96

As noted above, S3698 would require the Director to add growth hormone to the list of drugs tracked by
the NJPMP.

29

Moreover, the letter or memorandum should clearly state that we will aggressively
prosecute individuals suspected of attempting to, or acquiring these medications
improperly.
Institute regular meetings among agencies with oversight responsibility. We
recommend that a working group of investigators, prosecutors and attorneys who work
for agencies charged with licensing, oversight, investigation and/or prosecution of those
involved in prescription drug fraud meet on a quarterly basis to share information, update
counterparts on any new reporting being received about those who are involved in
prescription fraud and to encourage an open dialogue about what is being learned through
discussions with informants, defendants seeking plea deals and other “word on the street”
anecdotal information that might be of use in identifying and investigating people
suspected of illegal activity.

30