--- title: Why Doctors Are Last to Know What’s in the Drug Supply description: The FDA should create an expedited pathway for clinical tests targeting emerging drug threats, write Dr. Shravani Durbhakula and Jeremy Kourvelas. canonical: https://time.com/article/2026/11/01/why-doctors-are-last-to-know-what-s-in-the-drug-supply/ author: Dr. Shravani Durbhakula article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2026-11-01T11:00:03.151Z article:modified_time: 2026-11-01T11:00:12.502Z article:section: Ideas og:title: Why Doctors Are Last to Know What’s in the Drug Supply og:description: The FDA should create an expedited pathway for clinical tests targeting emerging drug threats, write Dr. Shravani Durbhakula and Jeremy Kourvelas. og:url: https://time.com/article/2026/11/01/why-doctors-are-last-to-know-what-s-in-the-drug-supply/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt6d4e9a9bdc90d732/6ae3500eac57f9d4423d59bb/drug-supply-testing-doctors.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 1024 og:image:height: 576 og:image:alt: drug-supply-testing-doctors.jpg og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Why Doctors Are Last to Know What’s in the Drug Supply twitter:description: The FDA should create an expedited pathway for clinical tests targeting emerging drug threats, write Dr. Shravani Durbhakula and Jeremy Kourvelas. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt6d4e9a9bdc90d732/6ae3500eac57f9d4423d59bb/drug-supply-testing-doctors.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  IDEAS Time ideas # Why Doctors Are Last to Know What’s in the Drug Supply > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=0d647be0-8c06-4f2c-a729-54c56b962b78&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Weekdays | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Weekly | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Twice a week | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | Source: TIME, August 2026. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=0d647be0-8c06-4f2c-a729-54c56b962b78&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=0d647be0-8c06-4f2c-a729-54c56b962b78&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (health, weekdays), Worth Your Time (culture, weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, twice weekly), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=0d647be0-8c06-4f2c-a729-54c56b962b78&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1) by [Dr. Shravani Durbhakula](https://time.com/author/dr-shravani-durbhakula/) and [Jeremy Kourvelas](https://time.com/author/jeremy-kourvelas/) Nov 1, 2026 11:00 AM UTC  Drug tests used to detect fentanyl and xylazine in New York City on May 25, 2023. Drug tests used to detect fentanyl and xylazine in New York City on May 25, 2023. Angela Weiss—AFP via Getty Images by [Dr. Shravani Durbhakula](https://time.com/author/dr-shravani-durbhakula/) and [Jeremy Kourvelas](https://time.com/author/jeremy-kourvelas/) Nov 1, 2026 11:00 AM UTC Listen 00:001.0x04:23 Narrated by TIME AI. The illicit drug supply has changed rapidly over the last few months, with nitazenes, medetomidine, cychlorphine, and other novel synthetic substances appearing in rapid succession. Rapid tests for emerging substances are being developed and marketed with impressive speed, and these can return results within minutes. Law enforcement, medical examiners, employers, community organizations and even the general public can use them, if their states have [decriminalized](https://legislativeanalysis.org/knowledge-lab-state-maps/fentanyl-tests-strips/) them. Physicians treating overdoses cannot. The contrast is hard to ignore: A test can be used to fire someone or support a criminal case, yet it remains unavailable to the physician in an emergency room trying to save that person’s life, when minutes are essential. The divide is largely regulatory. Many tests for emerging drugs are labeled for forensic use only, and clinical tests for living patients require approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a diagnostic tool. As such, they cannot legally be used by medical clinics that adhere to federal law and funding policies. Tests used in patient care must meet FDA requirements for clinical diagnostics. [Point-of-care testing](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40794850/)—testing performed at or near the bedside—also requires an additional determination that the test is simple and low-risk enough to qualify for waived status under the [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments](https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/clinical-laboratory-improvement-amendments) (CLIA). There is a legitimate reason for that regulatory distinction. Tests used to make medical decisions should be accurate, reliable, and interpreted appropriately. A rapid screen is not definitive toxicology, and it should not be treated as such. Fentanyl shows why speed matters. In early 2023, [we pointed out](https://smart.ips.tennessee.edu/drug-policy-analysis/need-point-care-testing-all-illicit-substances) that rapid fentanyl tests already existed outside clinical medicine, yet hospitals relied on expensive spectrometry testing that could take an hour or longer, if the equipment was available onsite at all. By the time FDA-cleared and CLIA-waived rapid fentanyl tests arrived, the illicit market had already changed again. Starting in [2020](https://www.cfsre.org/nps-discovery/public-alerts/xylazine-a-toxic-adulterant-found-in-illicit-street-drugs), [xylazine](https://time.com/7334846/hidden-opioid-crisis-nitazenes-testing-gap/) spread through the [fentanyl supply](https://time.com/6280860/xylazine-fentanyl-philadelphia-addiction-crisis/), introducing a new clinical hurdle: [naloxone](https://time.com/6203115/narcan-how-to-use-opioid-overdose/) reverses opioids, but not xylazine. Patients can remain dangerously sedated or unstable even after naloxone is given. Further, xylazine is associated with necrotic skin wounds that increase risk of [sepsis](https://time.com/collections/time100-health-2025/7279656/bobby-reddy-jr/), and withdrawal syndromes that are more complex to treat than opioids alone. Not long after, [medetomidine](https://time.com/collections/time100-health-2026/7362584/nabarun-dasgupta-health/) overtook xylazine supplies. It, too, does not react to naloxone, causes profound sedation and cardiovascular instability, and its withdrawal syndrome—which can come on just hours after someone stops using it—can trigger extreme hypertension and [tachycardia](https://time.com/7020749/hypertrophic-cardiomyopathy-complications/) that has been connected to heart attacks in younger people. Knowing these facts could significantly alter a patient’s treatment or discharge plan. There are no point-of-care tests for either of these drugs or other alarming and novel chemicals like [cychlorphine](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13367459/), an opioid that does not show up on fentanyl tests. Because of that, [clinicians](https://ijpds.org/index.php/ijpds/article/view/2632) have to follow [information](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31298141/) from law-enforcement seizures, public-health alerts, and months-old fatality [data](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12498330/) rather than from tests at the bedside. These data are in siloes and not easy to access or combine. The result is a system that can identify emerging drugs in seized samples and autopsies before clinicians can identify them in living patients. There is a better approach. The FDA should establish an expedited pathway for clinical tests targeting emerging drug threats, triggered when agencies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the Office of National Drug Control Policy identify a substance of significant and growing public-health concern. The agency already has a [dual pathway](https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/recommendations-clinical-laboratory-improvement-amendments-1988-clia-waiver-applications) through which manufacturers can seek a special clearance and a CLIA waiver together. That framework could be prioritized and adapted for emerging drugs rather than forcing each new threat through the ordinary timeline. Federal agencies could also help fund independent validation. The economics of emerging drugs are unusual: a substance can appear quickly, spread unevenly, and be replaced by something else before a manufacturer can justify the cost of extensive clinical studies. Federal and state agencies could make up this gap if the threat of the new drug is significant. A small market does not mean a small public health or public safety need. None of this requires pretending a test strip is mass spectrometry. Point-of-care testing should be explicitly treated as presumptive. Positive results can be confirmed when necessary. Clinical care rarely rests on a single perfect source of information, anyway. Physicians already make decisions by combining an imperfect history, physical examination, vital signs, laboratory results, and response to treatment. A rapid drug screen would simply be another tool in that toolbox that helps dispel the fog of drug supply changes. Further, the value extends beyond the individual patient. Better hospital data could become an early-warning system rather than a retrospective record of a crisis already underway. Emergency departments are on the front lines of the overdose crisis; they should have access to the most innovative testing tools at the bedside, when minutes can make a difference. [TIME Ideas](https://www.time.com/ideas) hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/article/2026/11/01/why-doctors-are-last-to-know-what-s-in-the-drug-supply/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/article/2026/11/01/why-doctors-are-last-to-know-what-s-in-the-drug-supply/"},"headline":"Why Doctors Are Last to Know What’s in the Drug Supply","datePublished":"2026-11-01T11:00:03.151Z","dateModified":"2026-11-01T11:00:12.502Z","description":"The FDA should create an expedited pathway for clinical tests targeting emerging drug threats, write Dr. Shravani Durbhakula and Jeremy Kourvelas.","url":"https://time.com/article/2026/11/01/why-doctors-are-last-to-know-what-s-in-the-drug-supply/","keywords":["health"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt6d4e9a9bdc90d732/6ae3500eac57f9d4423d59bb/drug-supply-testing-doctors.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Dr. Shravani Durbhakula","jobTitle":"Dr. Shravani Durbhakula is an anesthesiologist and pain physician in Nashville, Tenn.","url":"https://time.com/author/dr-shravani-durbhakula/"},{"@type":"Person","name":"Jeremy Kourvelas","jobTitle":"","url":"https://time.com/author/jeremy-kourvelas/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt6d4e9a9bdc90d732/6ae3500eac57f9d4423d59bb/drug-supply-testing-doctors.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"drug-supply-testing-doctors.jpg","caption":"","creditText":"Angela Weiss—AFP via Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/tag/health/","name":"health"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/article/2026/11/01/why-doctors-are-last-to-know-what-s-in-the-drug-supply/","name":"Why Doctors Are Last to Know What’s in the Drug Supply"}}]}] ```