Archive for the ‘Doctors Behaving Badly’ Category

Office-based Opioid Addiction Treatment: Raising the One-hundred Patient Limit

aaaaaaaaaawait

The hearts of addiction medicine doctors nationwide are aflutter at rumors that the limit on office-based buprenorphine patients may be raised or lifted. As it is now, the DATA 2000 law says each doctor who prescribes buprenorphine from an office setting for the treatment of opioid addiction can have no more than one hundred patients at any one time.

DATA 2000 was a big deal. Until it passed, it was illegal for any doctor to prescribe any opioid to treat opioid addiction, unless they worked at a specially licensed opioid treatment program. In other words, doctors in an office setting had to refer opioid-addicted patients to opioid treatment centers for medication-assisted treatment. And the only medication available was methadone.

Then DATA 2000 allowed Schedule 3 opioids to be prescribed from physicians’ offices for the purpose of treating opioid addiction, as long as these medications were FDA-approved for this purpose. Thus far, buprenorphine is the only medication that meets the DATA 2000 requirements.

But the law had other limitations. For example, each physician had to get a special DEA number to prescribe buprenorphine. And as above, no physician could have any more than one hundred patients on buprenorphine at any one time.

My office gets multiple calls each week from people seeking treatment for opioid addiction in an office setting. These callers say they’ve already been to the websites that list doctors. (http://buprenorphine.samhsa.gov and http://suboxone.com . They’ve made multiple calls and discovered these doctors aren’t taking new patients because they’re already at their one hundred patient limit. This is happening all over the country; patients want treatment but can’t get it. For many such people, opioid treatment centers are geographically impractical, so that’s not an option either.

Since addiction is a devastating and potentially fatal disease, government officials feel pressure to do something to help our nation’s opioid addiction problem. Lifting the one- hundred patient limit has been suggested as one option to improve the situation. This would seem to be the best, easiest, and quickest way to get more people into treatment. At least, most Addiction Medicine doctors like me think it makes sense.

Not everyone agrees.

Opposition has come from some unexpected sources. I went to an opioid addiction treatment conference in a neighboring state lately and heard the president of AATOD (American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence), Mark Parrino, MPA, speak against lifting the limit.

First let me say I admire Mr. Parrino immensely. He has been and continues to be a huge advocate for this field. He’s done more good in the field of opioid addiction treatment than most people I can think of, and has been doing this good work long before I ever even entered the field.

But that doesn’t mean I agree with him on everything.

When he spoke at the conference, he said he was opposed to expanded buprenorphine treatment in the office-based setting because patients don’t get the counseling that they need, so it really isn’t medication-assisted treatment, it’s just medication assistance. He says opioid treatment programs provide on-site counseling, drug testing, and other services that can help patients, and that most office-based programs don’t offer such comprehensive services. He also said diversion of buprenorphine from office-based practices is a huge problem, and that much of the black market use is actually abuse of the medication. He raised the uncomfortable issue of price gouging by some unscrupulous buprenorphine doctors who charge large fees and deliver little care.

You can read a statement on the AATOD website that fully describes their opposition – or at least call for caution – regarding raising the one hundred patient office based treatment limit:

http://www.aatod.org/policies/policy-statements/increasing-access-to-medication-to-treat-opioid-addiction-increasing-access-for-the-treatment-of-opioid-addiction-with-medications/

I don’t completely disagree with the points Mr. Parrino made at the conference, but I do think the same arguments can be made against OTPs if one were inclined to do so.

What about opioid treatment programs that pay lip service to the counseling needs of the patients? What about OTPs that hire people to be counselors with little or no experience in the counseling field? Just as Mr. Parrino can point to the worst examples of office-based buprenorphine treatment, I can point to OTPs who aren’t doing a great job. How can an OTP counselor provide Motivational Interviewing as a therapeutic technique if that counselor has never even heard of MI? Yet I’ve seen these problems at opioid treatment programs.

Don’t paint all office-based practices with the same brush. Many of us want to provide good treatment with adequate counseling. For example, my office has a therapist who is a Licensed Professional Counselor with a Master’s in Addiction Counseling. He does a great job, and as an added bonus has great legs. (He’s my fiancé, before you assume I’m sexually harassing him at the workplace).

Alternatively, if the patient prefers to do only 12-step meetings, I’m OK with that, so long as they provide me with a list of meetings they’ve attended each month. Or if they’re already working with a therapist, it’s OK with me if they want to continue, as long as they agree to allow me to speak with their therapist about issues directly relating to the treatment of their addiction.

Diversion of buprenorphine to the black market is a big problem. Not all office-based buprenorphine doctors are as careful as we should be. We will never be able to get rid of all diversion of any controlled substance that we prescribe, but all buprenorphine doctors should be doing drug screens and have diversion controls in place to limit the problem.

Not as much methadone is diverted, but only because of the very strict regulations on methadone take- home doses at the OTP. Many patients – and OTP personnel – feel present regulations on methadone take- home doses are overly strict and limit flexibility of treatment for patients who are doing well. Is the answer then to regulate take -home doses of buprenorphine as closely as methadone?

What about the predatory doctors who prescribe buprenorphine just for a quick buck, sensing they can charge exorbitant fees from desperate opioid addicts? I can’t say anything in their favor. They embarrass me. As with many things in life, the actions of a few give the rest of us a bad reputation. But I do think these doctors are in the minority.

And don’t believe everything you are told about office-based practices; I’m sometimes told by patients that I’m in it “for the money” though I charge the same for an office visit for a buprenorphine patient as I would for any other medical ailment. Some patients feel like their treatment should be free, but the U.S system of medical care is not usually free for any disease.

In short, though I recognize there’s some truth in many of Mr. Parrino’s statements, I still think most buprenorphine doctors try very hard to do things right so that they provide good care for opioid addicts who can’t or won’t go to an opioid treatment program. Expanding access by raising the one-hundred patient limit will allow more people to get addiction treatment.

Opioids and Benzodiazepines Prescribed More Frequently in the South

aaaaaaaaaaaacdcdata

Last month, the CDC released information comparing rates of opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions by state and by region. It did not surprise me to learn the South had the highest rates of benzodiazepine and opioid prescribing of the entire nation.

U.S. citizens already receive twice the number of pain pills per capita than our Canadian neighbors. But in addition to that difference, there’s a 2.7-fold difference between the state with the lowest opioid prescribing rate per capita (Hawaii) and the states with the highest rate per capita (Tennessee and Alabama tied for first place). [1]

The same held true for benzodiazepines, with even more difference in prescribing rates. In Hawaii, doctors prescribed benzodiazepines 19.3 times for every 100 people. But in Tennessee, doctors prescribed benzodiazepines 61.4 times for every 100 people. That’s over a three-fold difference between these states.

Alabama, Tennessee, and West Virginia were the top three prescribers for both opioid and benzodiazepines. We already know that higher prescribing rates are associated with higher overdose deaths rates from these medications. Incredibly, these three states were more than two standard deviations away from mean prescribing rates for the entire country.

Even more disturbing, Tennessee doctors prescribed oxymorphone (Opana) at an amount 22 times that of doctors in Minnesota.

That’s just bizarre. It could also explain why so many of the patients I admit to OTPs in the mountains of North Carolina mention Opana as their drug of choice.

The CDC authors of this report admit it’s unlikely there’s much difference in rates of disorders needing treatment with opioids or benzodiazepines. My interpretation of this statement is that it’s an indirect way of saying doctors in the South are overprescribing opioids and benzodiazepines. The authors allude to the problem of overprescribing in the South, mentioning that the South also has higher rates of prescribing for antibiotics, stimulants in children, and medications known to be high risk for the elderly.

How did my state of North Carolina compare to the rest of the nation? Our data isn’t as embarrassing as that for Tennessee, but there’s certainly room for improvement. In NC, doctors prescribed around 97 opioid prescriptions per 100 people, and 45 benzo prescriptions per 100 people.

Benzodiazepine co-addiction complicates induction onto methadone and buprenorphine done by opioid treatment programs for the treatment of opioid addiction, and this co-addiction also predicts poorer treatment outcomes. [2, 3]

This supports what I’ve long suspected: the treatment of opioid addicts with MAT is different in the South than in the West. My colleagues in California, inferring from the CDC’s report, don’t have to deal with benzodiazepine co-addiction as often as I do in the mountains of North Carolina. That co-occurring addiction changes the clinical picture, and makes induction onto methadone particularly more risky.

This is not the South’s finest hour. We must do more to educate doctors about appropriate prescribing, starting in medical school and continuing throughout the physicians’ professional careers. If doctors don’t start this change, someone else will surely do it for us.

1. http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/opioid-prescribing/index.html
2. Brands et al, 2008, Journal of Addictive Disease
3. Eiroa-orosa et al, 2010, Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Drug Arrest for Doctor

aaaaaaaaaaadoc

Last week, news outlets in my area were all aflutter about a physician in a small town who was arrested for prescription medication fraud. It was alleged that he prescribed opioid pain pills to seven of his wife’s friends and acquaintances, none of whom were his patients, so that they could pick up the pills and deliver them to the doctor and his wife.

I’m not giving the name of the doctor, his wife, or the other people arrested, though you can get those if you click on the link below. I figure all of them are getting enough bad press without me piling on too. Besides, this bizarre situation has addiction written all over it. [1]

The SBI investigated this case for four months and finally arrested the eight involved people last week.

The doctor’s wife was a teacher, and she was accused of convincing coworkers at her school to become involved in the illegal activity. These people were teachers, teacher’s assistants, or administrative aides at the school. The illegal prescriptions were filled from late 2012 until early 2014, and totaled around 200 prescriptions and 25,000 doses of hydrocodone. According to the news reports, some of the people filling the prescriptions were using some of the pills, and delivering some back to the doctor and his wife. Others say they thought they were helping people get access to pain pills by using their names.

If this news report turns out to be true, I have a hard time believing the doctor and his wife would take such a risk unless one or both are addicted to opioids. No one is immune to addiction, as we know. And I doubt the people filling the prescriptions would participate in this mess unless they were getting something out of it, too. Claiming to have filled phony prescriptions just to help someone out…I call bullshit on that. These people could also be pill abusers or addicts, or maybe were getting paid to pick up the pills, but I can’t imagine anyone would do this highly illegal thing without some sort of remuneration.

This was a big news story because people were shocked that this drug ring (allegedly) involved a doctor and schoolteachers. But as we know, addiction is an equal opportunity destroyer. For too long, society has imagined that drug addicts are people lying in the gutter with a needle hanging out of their arm. In reality, opioid addicts today look like our next door neighbors.

I reacted to the story with sadness, and with curiosity. I was sad because I think it’s highly likely all the people who were arrested suffer from addiction, and are in need of treatment. But maybe they’ll get lucky, and will be mandated to treatment instead of jail.

I was curious because I wonder why the doctor prescribed only hydrocodone. Why not advance to a more powerful opioid, if you are going to break the law anyway? If you know what you are doing is illegal, why not splurge, and prescribe Dilaudid, or OxyContin? Or maybe he’s smart, thinking that higher powered opioids would call more attention to the scheme. But surely he knew this could not remain secret, with seven other people involved.

This story may illustrate, again, that we don’t do our best thinking in the midst of addiction.

1. http://www.wtvm.com/story/25968161/dr-orrin-walker-abby-walker-rss-bostian-elementary-drug-scheme

My Occupational Pet Peeves

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapet

I feel like venting. It’s my blog, so I can if I want to. These things annoyed the stuffing out of me this week:

 Opioid treatment programs who list themselves as capable of dosing patients with both methadone and buprenorphine, but when the counselor calls to set up guest dosing for her bupe patient, they don’t really use buprenorphine.

That’s false advertising. Why do you waste everyone’s time by advertising something you don’t provide?

 Pharmacies who list prescriptions for patients in the North Carolina Controlled Substance Reporting System (my state’s prescription monitoring program) BEFORE the patient picks up the prescription.
I called the patient in to see me, and she denied filling the prescription listed on the NC CSRS. I called the pharmacy, and the patient is right. This pharmacy chain enters data as being filled before it’s picked up by the patient because they can’t do it any other way with their computer system.

If this database is worth doing, isn’t it worth getting it right?

 Patients being prescribed controlled substances by the VA (Veterans Administration) in my state don’t have their medication listed on our prescription monitoring site.
This is a patient safety issue. Why won’t the VA protect their patients?

 I call the doctor for one of my opioid treatment programs to discuss how best to coordinate his care. After spending five minutes on hold on the phone, a nurse comes on the line and says “Doctor is in with a patient right now. He can call you when he’s done.”
What the flip does Doctor think I’ll be doing when he calls me back? Sitting with my feet on the desk, playing free cell on my computer, waiting breathlessly for his phone call? No, I’ll be talking with my next patient.

This is doctor one-upmanship. When Doctor does call me, I’ll interrupt the patient I’m with, come to the phone, and it will be Doctor’s receptionist who says, “Hold for Doctor, please,” and I’ll have to wait a few more minutes if I’m lucky.

 New patients who don’t keep their appointments with me.
I don’t have many office- based Suboxone openings, what with the 100 patient limit. I can’t take every new patient who calls, so if you call at the right time and do get an appointment, please keep it, or at least call to let me know you won’t be there. There are other people I could see during the hour I set aside for you. And if you don’t keep that first appointment or call to cancel it, don’t call for another. I can’t afford to have you in my practice. Sounds harsh? Yes, maybe so, but I have financial realities to meet.

 Insurance denials of coverage for buprenorphine products (Suboxone, Subutex, Zubsolv, etc.)
Coventry (that’s right, I’m calling you out, you lame excuse for an insurance program) recently denied coverage for Suboxone films because my patient was found to have received a prescription for tramadol from a dentist.

First of all, my patient told the dentist not to prescribe any opioids because he was in recovery from addiction and had to be careful. My patient took the prescription his dentist gave him, on which was written both tramadol and an anti-inflammatory medication. He called my office and asked if he could take the anti-inflammatory. He didn’t ask about the tramadol because he didn’t intend to take it.

When we found his insurance company refused to pay for his monthly Suboxone prescription because he had filled a tramadol prescription, he told me he still had the tramadol at home, if it made a difference. I said yes, and asked him to bring it in, which he did. I did a pill count. All the pills were there, and I watched him discard those pills, and wrote a letter to his insurance company, appealing their decision to stop paying for his Suboxone.

That was last week. I haven’t heard back. For now, my patient is paying out of pocket for his medication, which as readers know, is not cheap.

Ah, I feel much better now….

A Really Good Book – For Free

aaaaaabook

If you haven’t read CASA’s (Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, at Columbia University) masterpiece publication from June, 2012, titled “Addiction Medicine: Closing the Gap between Science and Practice,” you should do so. This publication can be downloaded for free, and has essential information about addiction and its treatment. http://www.casacolumbia.org/addiction-research/reports/addiction-medicine

Casa also has other free and informative publications about other issues, like how to reduce the risk of addiction in teens (“The Importance of Family Dinners” series), the cost and impact of untreated addiction on society (“Shoveling Up”), substance abuse and the U.S. prison population (“Behind Bars” series), and the availability of drugs on the internet ( “You’ve got Drugs” series). All of these contain useful and thought-provoking data.

“Addiction Medicine: Closing the Gap between Science and Practice” outlines all aspects of what is wrong with addiction treatment in the U.S., along with recommendations about how we can fix this broken system. When it was published in June of 2012, I thought it would be would be widely read and discussed. However, I’ve only heard it mentioned once, and that was at an ASAM meeting. I wish popular press, so eager to write sensationalistic pieces about addiction, would write more fact-based information.

Every politician should read it. Every parent should read it. Physicians and treatment center personnel should read it. Anyone who is concerned about the extent of addiction and its poor treatment in the U.S. should read it.

CASA describes their key findings of the drawbacks of the U.S. system – or non-system – of addiction treatment. This nation is doing many things wrong, to the detriment of people afflicted with addiction, their families and their communities. Our mistakes are based on ignorance, misperceptions, and prejudice. All of these impede our ability to help our people with addiction. The CASA report describes these factors and how they have contributed to our present situation.
Our nation hasn’t waged a war on drugs, but rather on people who use drugs.

The CASA report describes how public opinion about addiction isn’t based on science. Science proves addiction is a brain disease, yet this fact is still debated. We know that continued use of addicting substances alters the structure and function of the brain, affecting judgment and behavior about the continued use of drugs even when bad consequences occur. We know that half of the risk for developing addiction is determined by genetic makeup. Yet surveys show that about a third of U.S. citizens still feel addiction is due to lack of willpower and self-control. Why are public attitudes so disconnected from science?

Addiction is a complicated diagnosis, existing as it does at the end of the continuum from occasional drug use to regular use to compulsive use. People often compare a drug user with a drug addict. They say that since the drug user was able to stop when he wanted that the drug addict should be able to stop when he wanted. This compares apples to oranges. If someone can comfortably stop using drugs when given a good enough reason to do so, this person isn’t an addict. They may be a drug abuser, a problem user, and at high risk for addiction, but they haven’t crossed the line into uncontrollable use.

The CASA report pointed out that most addiction treatment and prevention isn’t done by physicians and health professionals. Most addiction treatment is provided by counselors who, for the most part, aren’t required to have any medical training. Only six states require a bachelor’s degree to become an addiction counselor, and only one (Alabama, go figure) requires a master’s degree.

Even when physicians are involved in the treatment of addiction, most of us have very little, if any, training in medical school or residencies about addiction prevention or treatment. Ironically, most of our training focuses on treating the consequences of addiction.

In medical school and residency, I spent countless hours learning about the proper treatment of cirrhosis, gastritis, anemia, pancreatitis, dementia, and peripheral neuropathy from alcohol addiction. I had little if any training about how to treat alcohol addiction, and none about how to prevent it.

We know brief interventions by physicians during office visits can reduce problem drinking and are an effective way to prevent problems before they occur. Yet few physicians are trained to do this brief intervention. Even if they are trained, primary care physicians and physician extenders are being asked to do more and more at each visit with patients, and asked to do it with less and less time. Primary care providers may not be adequately paid for screening and brief intervention for problem drinking and drugging, and valuable opportunities are lost. Yet that same patient may consume hundreds of thousands of healthcare dollars during only one hospital admission for medical consequences of problem alcohol use.

When I practiced in primary care, I often thought about how I never got to the root of the problem. I would – literally – give patients with serious addiction strikingly absurd advice. “Please stop injecting heroin. You got that heart valve infection from injecting heroin and you need to quit.” I could see it was ineffective, but I didn’t know any better way at the time. I assumed if there was a better way to treat addiction, I’d have learned about it in my training.

Wrong. The doctors who trained me couldn’t teach what they didn’t know themselves.

In my Internal Medicine residency, I admitted many patients to the hospital for endocarditis (infected heart valve) contracted from IV heroin use. Each time, this required six month of intravenous antibiotics. Back then we kept such patients in the hospital the whole time. You can imagine the cost of a six week hospital stay, not that these addicts had any money to pay. Just a fraction of that amount could have paid for treatment at a methadone clinic, the most effective way to treat heroin addiction, and prevent dozens of medical problems.

But I never referred them to the methadone clinic available in that city. I didn’t know anything about methadone or the medical-assisted treatment of opioid addiction, and apparently my attending physicians, responsible for my training, didn’t know about it either. It was a shame, because in those years, the late 1980’s, we were making new diagnoses of HIV almost daily among IV drug users. Since then, a study showed a patient using IV heroin drops his risk of contracting HIV by more than threefold if he enrolls in a methadone clinic.

I didn’t learn about the evidence-based treatment of opioid addiction until I agreed to work at a methadone clinic for a few days, covering for a friend of mine when he wanted to go on vacation. I was amazed to learn about decades of evidence showing the benefits of such treatment.

Most addiction-related medical expenses are paid for from public funds. In fact, over ten percent of all federal, state, and local government dollars are spent on risky substance use and addiction problems. Sadly, over 95% of this money is spent on the consequences of drug use and abuse. Only 2% is spent on treatment or prevention.

Untreated addiction costs mightily. People with untreated addiction incur more health care costs than nearly any other group. An estimated one third of all costs from inpatient medical treatment are related to substance abuse and addiction. Untreated addicts (I include alcohol addicts with drug addicts) go to the hospital more often, are admitted for longer than people without addiction, and require more expensive heath care than hospitalized non-addicts. The complications these people suffer could be from underlying poor physical health and lack of regular preventive healthcare, but most of the cost is incurred treating the medical problems directly caused by addiction and risky substance use.

Family members of people with untreated addiction have higher health costs, too. Families of people with addiction have 30% higher health care costs than families with no addicted member. I presume that’s from the stress of living and dealing with a loved one in active addiction. Often family members are so caught up in trying to control the chaos caused by active addiction that they don’t take time for routine health visits.

The costs of untreated addiction aren’t only financial. Addiction and risky drug use are the leading causes of preventable deaths in the U.S. Around 2.9 million people died in 2009, and well over a half million of these deaths were attributable to tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. Overdose deaths alone have increased five-fold since 1990.

We know addiction is a chronic disease, yet we spend far less on it than other chronic diseases.
For example, the CASA report says that in the U.S., around 26 million people have diabetes, and we spend nearly 44 billion dollars per year to treat these patients. Similarly, just over 19 million have cancer, and we spend over 87 billion for treatment of that disease. In the U.S., 27 million people have heart disease, and we spend 107 billion dollars on treatment.

But when it comes to addiction, we spend only 28 billion to treat the estimated 40.3 million people with addiction, and that includes nicotine!

Most of the money we do spend is paid by public insurance. For other chronic diseases, about 56% of medical expenses are covered by private payers, meaning private insurance or self-pay. But for addiction treatment, only 21% of expenses are paid from private insurance or self-pay. This suggests that private insurance companies aren’t adequately covering the expense of addiction treatment. Indeed, patients being treated with private insurance for addiction are three to six times less likely to get specialty addiction treatment than those with public insurance such as Medicaid or Medicare. Hopefully we will see a change since the parity law was passed. (which told insurance companies they had to cover mental health and substance addiction to the same degree they cover other health problems)

In the U.S., we don’t treat addiction as the public health problem that it is. Some people still don’t believe it’s an illness but rather a moral failing. Doctors, not knowing any better, often have an attitude of therapeutic nihilism, feeling that addiction treatment doesn’t work and it’s hopeless to try.

Families and medical professionals often expect addiction to behave like an acute illness. We may mistakenly think addiction should be resolved with a single treatment episode. If that episode fails, it means treatment is worthless. Families want to put their addicted loved one into a 28-day treatment program and expect them to be fixed forever when they get out. They’re disappointed and angry if their loved one relapses.

This reminds me of an elderly man I treated for high blood pressure many years ago. I gave him a month’s prescription of blood pressure medication, and when he came back, his blood pressure was good. I was pleased, and I wanted to keep him on the medication. He was angry. He said he was going to find another doctor. He thought the one prescription should have cured his high blood pressure so that he would never have to take pills again, and was disappointed with my treatment.
If we keep our same attitude toward addiction treatment, we are doomed to be as disappointed as my patient with high blood pressure. Addiction behaves like a chronic disease, with period of remission and episodes of relapse.

We have a lot of work to do. As this CASA publication shows, we have to change public attitudes with scientific information and do a much better job of training physicians and other health care providers. We should pay for evidence-based, high-quality addiction treatment, rather than spend billions on the medical problems caused by addiction as we are now doing.

Check out this landmark publication at CASA’s website: http://www.casacolumbia.org

Inspired at AATOD

aaaaaaatod

I just got back from the AATOD (American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence) conference, and I feel inspired, enthusiastic, and relaxed.

Several days before I left for the conference, I talked to a pregnant patient at one of the opioid treatment programs where I work. This patient, dosing on methadone, said her obstetrician insisted she taper down on her dose during pregnancy. When she told me that, my shoulders slumped with fatigue and disappointment. This was a doctor I’ve called on the phone a few times, and met in person once. We’ve talked collegially, and I physically, personally handed her a copy of ACOG/ASAM (American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, American Society of Addiction Medicine) position paper on the treatment of opioid-addicted pregnant patients.

Needless to say, that document does NOT advise taper of methadone during pregnancy. When I talked to this obstetrician, I’d explained why we usually need to increase the dose during pregnancy. Yet now she’s telling a patient to lower her dose. This is not best practices.

I felt tired, and hopeless about improving physician education in my area. Do these doctors have Teflon brains, and all the information I’ve been trying to provide keeps sliding off their cortexes, into the ozone somewhere?

Yesterday at the AATOD conference, I heard a lecture by one of the main authors of the MOTHER (Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research) trial, Dr. Karol Kaltenbach. I’ve posted blogs about this trial (see Dec 16, 2010, March 23, 2013), which randomized opioid-addicted pregnant women to treatment with either methadone or buprenorphine. The goal was to compare outcomes of the babies born to moms maintained on methadone versus buprenorphine.

Dr. Kaltenbach opened her lecture by making an excellent point: use of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco during pregnancy are viewed as public health problems, even though they cause as much or more harm to the fetus as illicit drugs. Yet the general public demonizes moms who use illegal drugs. Pregnant women who use illegal drugs are faced with harsh moral judgments, and punitive responses.

Alcohol, a legal drug, causes harm to 40,000 kids per year, and is the leading preventable cause of developmental disabilities. Consistently, research shows physical and behavioral effects in the children born to moms who drink alcohol. Even though researchers have stated that there’s no safe amount of alcohol during pregnancy, according to the 2011 NSDUH (National Survey of Drug Use and Health), 9% of pregnant women said they were current drinkers, 2.6 said they were binge drinking, and .4% were heavy drinkers.

Pregnant smokers of tobacco are more likely than non-smokers to have a variety of complications, including spontaneous abortions, placenta previa and placental abruption, retardation of fetal growth, low birth weight babies, and preterm labor and birth. After delivery, the risk of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) is six times higher than for babies of non-smoking moms. Their babies are more likely to have ADHD, inattention disorders, ear and respiratory infections.

Yet newspapers now publish sensational articles about “addicted babies” born to mothers with opioid addiction, while ignoring the more common and more harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco. Remember the “crack baby” scare of the 1990’s, which was a media creation with no backing by science?

From the MOTHER study we learned that babies born to moms on buprenorphine have about the same risk of withdrawal, called neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), as babies born to moms on methadone. In both groups, fifty percent of the babies had NAS severe enough to need medication to treat opioid withdrawal. The babies were scored on the Finnegan scale, which grades the babies on many signs of withdrawal to indicate when treatment is needed. (By the way, at the AATOD conference I sat near Loretta Finnegan, creator of the Finnegan scale and internationally recognized for her many contributions to the field of alcohol and drug abuse!)

So in both groups, about half of the babies needed medication for withdrawal symptoms. However, the babies with NAS born to the moms on buprenorphine required 89% less medication (morphine solution) and spent 43% less time in the hospital as compared to the babies with NAS born to moms maintained on methadone. The babies born to moms on buprenorphine also spent 58% less time being medicated to treat their NAS.

That’s a significant benefit.

This study was very important for many reasons, but after these results, buprenorphine is slowly becoming the standard of care for pregnant opioid-addicted moms, if it’s available. True, there was a higher drop out of the moms on buprenorphine, but it was not statistically significant, and the moms didn’t leave treatment; they dropped out of the study for whatever reason.

Now for the exciting part: a supplemental study of these children is being completed. This data hasn’t yet been published, but Dr. Kaltenbach says it will show that kids of moms on methadone and buprenorphine were compared and assessed at three months, six months, twelve, twenty-four, and thirty-six months. A standardized scoring system for infant development called the Bayley Scale was used to study these children, and the groups were compared to scores for normal children.

Dr. Kaltenbach says there are no differences between the babies born to methadone versus buprenorphine, and better yet – both groups showed scores in the normal ranges on this scale. The scale measured things like language and motor skills, cognitive abilities, and conceptual and social skills.

The kids are alright!

This data is going to be a huge comfort to worried moms, dosing on methadone or buprenorphine.

And I got inspired at the AATOD conference. I heard one speaker tell the audience “you do it until they get it. You tell them over and over and over again. Whatever it takes.” And I thought to myself, this is correct. I can’t give up on the obstetricians in my area. Maybe they don’t agree with me, but I am not out on a limb with what I’m saying. It’s backed up with fifty years of studies and science. I am listening and reading information from the experts in the field. I need to be persistent, and keep repeating the data, mailing the data…skywriting the data…whatever.

It’s refreshing to be around people who understand opioid addiction and its treatment. It’s encouraging to hear how workers in the opioid addiction field are finding new ways to help our patients and advocate for them.

I’m going to call this OB – again –and re-inform her – nicely – about what’s found in that position paper, co-authored by doctors from her own specialty. I’m also going to suggest she direct some of her concern towards her patients who use the legal drugs of alcohol and tobacco, since they cause significant harm to infants.

And yes, I know most of the patients enrolled in OTPs also smoke, and I am going to help them with that, too…if they want it.

1. http://www.asam.org/docs/publicy-policy-statements/1-opioids-in-pregnancy—joint-acog-4-12.pdf?sfvrsn=2

2. “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome after Methadone or Buprenorphine Exposure,” by Hendree Jones, Karol Kaltenbach, et. al., New England Journal of Medicine, December 9, 2010, 363;24: pages 2320-2331.

Each State Gets a Report Card

aaaaaaaaaa

You have got the check this out…an organization called Trust For America’s Health, or TFAH, supported by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation, has released a report called, “Prescription Drug Abuse 2013: Strategies to Stop the Epidemic.” You can find the report at their website at: http://www.healthyamericans.org

This report grades each state on its policies for managing the prescription pain pill epidemic.

The report begins with a description of the scope of the problem: current estimates say around 6.1 million U.S. citizens are either addicted to or misusing prescription medications. Sales of prescription opioids quadrupled in the U.S. since 1999, and so have drug overdose deaths. In many states, more people die from drug overdoses than from motor vehicle accidents. The costs of addiction and drug misuse are enormous; in 2011, a study estimated that the nonmedical use of prescription opioids costs the U.S. around 53.4 billion dollars each year, in lost productivity, increased criminal justice expenditures, drug abuse treatment, and medical complications.

The report identifies specific groups at high risk for addiction. Men aged 24 to 54 are at highest risk for drug overdose deaths, at about twice the rate of women, although the rate of increase in overdose deaths in women is worrisome. Teens and young adults are at higher risk, as are soldiers and veterans. (Please see my blog of October 19th for more information about veterans.) Rural residents are twice as likely to die of an overdose as urban residents.

TFAH’s report declares there are ten indicators of how well a state is doing to fix the opioid addiction epidemic. This report grades each of the fifty states by how many of these indicators each state is using. TFAH says these ten indicators were selected based on “consultation with leading public health, medical, and law enforcement experts about the most promising approaches.”

Here are their ten indicator criteria:
 Does the state have a prescription drug monitoring program?
 Is use of the prescription drug monitoring program mandatory?
 Does the state have a law against doctor shopping?
 Has the state expanded Medicaid under the ACA, so that there will be expanded coverage of substance abuse treatment?
 Does the state require/recommend prescriber education about pain medication?
 Does the state have a Good Samaritan law? These laws provide some degree of immunity from criminal charges for people seeking help for themselves or others suffering from an overdose.
 Is there support for naloxone use?
 Does the state require a physical examination of a patient before a prescriber can issue an opioid prescription, to assure that patient has no signs of addiction or drug abuse?
 Does the state have a law requiring identification to pick up a controlled substance prescription?

 Does the state’s Medicaid program have a way to lock-in patients with suspected drug abuse or addiction so that they can get prescriptions from only one prescriber and pharmacy?

I thought several of these were bizarre. Several are great ideas, but others…not so much. For example, I think a law against doctor shopping leads to criminalization of drug addiction rather than treatment of the underlying problem. The addicts I treat knew that doctor shopping was illegal, but still took risks because that’s what their addiction demanded of them. Such laws may be a way of leveraging people into treatment through the court system, however.

And where are the indicators about addiction treatment? Toward the very end of this report, its authors present data regarding the number of buprenorphine prescribers per capita per state, but make no mention of opioid treatment program capacity per capita for methadone maintenance. Buprenorphine is great, and I use it to treat opioid addiction, but it doesn’t work for everyone. And there’s no data about treatment slots for prolonged inpatient, abstinence-based treatment of opioid addiction.

Expanded Medicaid access for addiction treatment is a nice idea… but not if doctors opt out of Medicaid because it doesn’t pay enough to cover overhead. If expanded access is not accompanied by adequate – and timely! – payment to treatment providers for services rendered, having Medicaid won’t help patients. Doctors won’t participate in the Medicaid system. I don’t. I have a few Medicaid patients whom I treat for free. It’s cheaper for me to treat for free than pay for an employee’s time to file for payment and cut through red tape.

In one of the more interesting sections in this report, each state is ranked in overdose deaths per capita, and the amount of opioids prescribed per capita.

The ten states with the higher opioid overdose death rates are: West Virginia, with 28.9 deaths per 100,000 people; New Mexico, with 23.8 deaths per 100,000; Kentucky with 23.6, then Nevada, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri; then in eighth place is Tennessee, with 16.9 deaths per 100,000. In ninth and tenth places are Utah and Delaware. Florida came in at number 11, with 16.4 deaths per 100,000.

North Carolina placed 30th in overdose death rates. We’ve had a big problem with prescription drug overdose deaths. From 1999 until 2005, the death rate rose from4.6 per 100,000 to 11.4 per 100,000. But at least our rate has not increased since 2005. The rate in 2010 was still 11.4. It’s still way too high, but many agencies have been working together over the past six years to turn things around. In a future blog, I intend to list the factors I think helped our state.

Use of the ten indicators does appear to correlate with reduced rate of increase of overdose deaths. In other words, states with more laws and regulations have had a slower rise in overdose deaths than states with fewer laws and regulations, though there are some exceptions.

This report also compares states by the amount of opioids prescribed per year, in kilograms of morphine equivalents per state per 10,000 people. Florida, not surprisingly, came in at number one, with 12.6 kilograms per 10,000 people. Tennessee and Nevada tied for second and third place, with 11.8 kilos per 10,000 people. The next seven, in order, are: Oregon, Delaware, Maine, Alabama, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Washington. Kentucky was 11th, with 9.0 kilos per 10,000. North Carolina doctors prescribe 6.9 kilos of opioids per 10,000 people per year, in 27th place and less than the national average of 7.1 kilos.

It appears to me that amount of opioid prescribed per capita does correlate, somewhat, with overdose death rates.

Let’s look closer at Tennessee, the state who, just a few months ago, rejected a certificate of need application for an opioid treatment program to be established in Eastern Tennessee. In 1999, Tennessee had an overdose death rate that was relatively low, at 6.1 per 100,000 people. By 2005, it zoomed to 10.4 per 100,000 people, and by 2010, rocketed to 16.9 per 100,000 people, to be in the top ten states with highest overdose death rates. Furthermore, Tennessee is now second out of fifty states for the highest amount of opioids prescribed per 10,000 people. Only Florida beat out Tennessee. And lately Florida has made the news for its aggressive actions taken against pill mills, which may leave the top spot for Tennessee.

West Virginia is no better. It was the worst state, out of all fifty, for overdose deaths, at 28.9 per 100,000 people in 2010. Wow. If you think lawmakers are asking for help from addiction medicine experts…think again.

West Virginia legislators recently passed onerous state regulations on opioid treatment programs. That’s right, lawmakers with no medical experience at all decided what passed for adequate treatment of a medical disease. For example, they passed a law that said an opioid addict had to be discharged from methadone treatment after the fourth positive urine drug screen. In other words, if you have the disease of addiction and demonstrate a symptom of that disease, you will be turned out of one of the most evidence-based and life-saving treatments know to the world of medicine. West Virginia passed several other inane laws regulating the medical treatment of addiction.

Getting back to the TFAH study, the report calculates that there are 21.6 million people in the U.S. who need substance treatment, while only 2.3 million are receiving it. This report identifies lack of trained personnel qualified to treat addiction as a major obstacle to effective treatment.

This report makes the usual recommendations for improving the treatment of addiction in the U.S… They recommend:

 Improve prescription monitoring programs. Nearly all states have them, except for Missouri and Washington D.C.

States should be able to share information, so that I can see what medication my North Carolina patients are filling in Tennessee. Right now, I have to log on to a separate website to check patients in Tennessee, so it takes twice as much time. Tennessee is already sharing data with several other states, but not with North Carolina, or at least not yet.

TFAH also recommends linking prescription monitoring information with electronic health records.

 Easy access to addiction treatment.

Duh. The report accurate describes how underfunded addiction treatment has been, and says that only one percent of total healthcare expenditures were spent on addiction treatment. We know how crazy that is, given the expense of treating the side effects of addiction: endocarditis, alcoholic cirrhosis, hepatitis C, gastritis, cellulitis, alcoholic encephalopathy, emphysema, heart attack, stroke, pancreatitis, HIV infection, gastrointestinal cancers, lung cancer…I could go on for a page but I’ll stop there.

Access to treatment is limited by lack of trained addiction professionals. Doctors abandoned the field back in 1914, when it became illegal to treat opioid addiction with another opioid. Even with the dramatic success seen with methadone and buprenorphine treatment of opioid addiction, there are relatively few doctors with expertise in this treatment.

This reports shows that two-thirds of the states have fewer than six physicians licensed to treat opioid addiction with buprenorphine (Suboxone) per 100,000 people. Iowa has the fewest, at .9 buprenorphine physicians per 100,000 people, and Washington D.C. had the most, at 8.5 physicians per 100,000 people.

North Carolina has 3.2 buprenorphine physicians per 100,000 people, while Tennessee has 5.3 physicians per 100,000. This makes Tennessee look pretty good, until you discover than many of Tennessee’s physicians only prescribe buprenorphine as a taper, refusing to prescribe it as maintenance medication. If these doctors reviewed the evidence, they would see even three month maintenance with a month-long taper gives relapse rates of around 91% (1)

I’m really bothered by the lack of attention to the number of methadone treatment slots per capita. That’s information I’d really like to have. But the authors of this report did not deign to even mention methadone. Even with forty-five years’ worth of data.

**Sigh**

 Increased regulation of pill mills.

 Expand programs to dispose of medications properly. In other words, make sure citizens have a way to get rid of unused medication before it’s filched by youngsters trying to experiment with drugs.

I know many tons of medications have been turned in on “drug take-back” days. But I’ve never seen any data about how much medication is addictive and subject to abuse, versus something like outdated cholesterol lowering pills.

 Track prescriber patterns. Another benefit of prescription monitoring programs is that officials can identify physicians who prescribe more than their peers. Sometimes there’s a very good reason for this. For example, a doctor who works in palliative care and end-of-life care may appropriately prescribe more than a pediatrician.

I get uneasy about non-physicians evaluating physicians’ prescribing habits, though. I think this is best left up to other doctors, enlisted by the state’s medical board to evaluate practices. Other doctors are better able to recognize nuances of medical care that non-physicians may not understand.

 Make rescue medication more widely available. In this section, the report’s authors make mention of Project Lazarus of Wilkes County, NC, a public health non-profit organization dedicated to reducing opioid overdose deaths, not only in that county, but state-wide. Project Lazarus is well-known to me, since I work at an opioid treatment program in Wilkes County.

 Ensure access to safe and effective medication, and make sure patients receive the pain medication they need. Obviously, we want opioids available to treat pain, especially for acute pain. Hey, you don’t have to convince me – read my blog from this summer about how grateful I was for opioids after I broke my leg. Opioids were a godsend to me in the short-term, and knowing what I do about opioids, I didn’t use them after the pain subsided.

It was an interesting report, though I saw some unfortunate gaps in their information, particularly regarding opioid addiction treatment availability.

But at least this is another agency looking at solutions and making some helpful recommendations.

1. Weiss et al, “Adjunctive Counseling During Brief and Extended Buprenorphine-Naloxone Treatment for Prescription Opioid Dependence,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 2011;68 (12):1238-1246.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 478 other followers