Frequently asked questions

IntellaRx is the Compassionate Compliance Program of Sevadar Foundation Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity. It works with public agencies on the opioid crisis, supplying the clinical context that prescription-count analysis lacks and closing the identification gap in the medication chain. See what IntellaRx is, in one page.

None of those. IntellaRx does not prescribe, dispense, diagnose or treat. It works with licensed pharmacy and laboratory partners who do the regulated activity. See what a program is and is not.

Public agencies — health departments, Medicaid programs, corrections and reentry health services, county and municipal public-health authorities, and the multi-agency task forces they convene. It is not a consumer service. See for agencies and what an agency should and should not see.

No component of this program exists to watch people who are in pain. Monitoring, identification and toxicology exist to prevent diversion, identity theft and misattributed results, and to give clinicians information they currently do not have. Every component page carries an explicit “what this is not” section. See what positive identification is for.

No. That is a legal determination about your organization and it belongs to your counsel. We describe what data the program touches in enough detail for them to make it. Be cautious of any vendor who answers that question for you. See questions worth asking a vendor.

No. Scope varies enormously with population size, components deployed and existing systems, so a published figure would mislead. Cost is discussed in scoping against a defined scope. See what a scoping conversation covers.

No, and prescribing volume is explicitly not one of its outcome measures. That is the metric the last two decades optimized, with the results described in step four. The program aims at overdose, continuity of care and diversion. See what a prescribing limit actually does.

Then we say so on that component’s page and on what is not established. Urine drug testing is the clearest case: a federal systematic review found that no study evaluated whether it mitigates risk, and that is published at full prominence. See absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.