Archive for the ‘Government Behaving Badly’ Category

Trump and the Opioid Grants: What Will Happen Next?

"Du-oh!"

“Du-oh!”

 

 

 

 

 

The front page article in the January 9, 2017 issue of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly is the jumping-off point for this blog entry. This excellent article outlines in plain language how the $ 1 billion Cures Act allocations were supposed to be used.

But on January 20, 2017, President Trump placed a sixty-day freeze on regulatory actions and executive orders that have been published but not yet taken effect. I scoured the internet to try to figure out if Obama’s Cures Act falls into this category. I’m still not certain it does.

The Cures Act, passed in late December as one of President Obama’s last actions had strong bipartisan support. Under this act, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is to administer funding for grants to each state. These grants are called State Targeted Response to the Opioid Crisis Grants, or Opioid STR for short.

The amount allotted to each state isn’t based on opioid overdose death rates, but rather on treatment gaps in each state. “Treatment gap” is a term for how many people need addiction treatment in a state compared to how many people are actually getting it. The bigger the gap, the more money that state will be allotted out of the $1 billion pot, to be disbursed over two years.

The states with the biggest treatment gaps are California, due to receive nearly $45 million, and Texas and Florida, both to receive around $27 million.

If dollars were spent based on per capita overdose death rates, the three top states would be West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Kentucky. This, of course, led to some criticism of the way money allocations were decided. Some people feel that the states that need money most desperately won’t get a big enough piece of the money pie.

As the ADAW article points out, some people feel the method of allocation is unfair to states where action has already been taken to treat substance use problems, out of their own state budget. By proactively treating problems, these states won’t qualify for as much of this federal money as states that ignored their opioid problem.

Other complaints are that states which decided not to expand Medicaid will now be awarded more than their share of this federal money, since their treatment gap is wider due to fewer citizens with substance use disorder who qualify for Medicaid to pay for substance use disorder treatment.

Probably no method of dividing the money can be perfectly fair to all states. I think the Cures Act does as good a job as is possible under the circumstances.

However, I am troubled by one aspect of this money distribution.

Each state can spend their federal money as they see fit.

In the ADAW article, H. Westley Clark, past director of SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, said, “State attitudes towards agonist medications will be a controlling factor.”

Oh dear. This could be bad.

States which have held a strong bias against methadone or buprenorphine as treatment for opioid use disorders may decide not to spend money on this evidence-based form of treatment.

But now, with President Trump’s sixty-day moratorium on new legislation, no one knows what will come to pass. There are so many uncertainties.

In the January 23, 2017 issue of ADAW, the front page article outlines how the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could adversely affect the treatment of opioid use disorders. As we know, Trump campaigned on a promise to kill this healthcare Act. No one knows what he will decide to do, or how it will affect the 30 million people who have health insurance through the ACA now.

As the ADAW article points out, much of the gains in funding for treatment of substance abuse and mental health illnesses came from the ACA, and from the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act which preceded it. This last Act made it illegal for insurance companies to cover physical health problems while denying coverage for mental illness and substance abuse. Other laws made it illegal to refuse coverage for pre-existing illnesses. Denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions was common practice until relatively recently. When insurance companies could pick and choose who they wanted to insurance, patients who needed health insurance the most couldn’t get it.

Would canceling the ACA affect patients with substance use disorder who are already in treatment? Yes, of course, though I’m not sure to what degree. I know it would be more of an issue for my patients in office-based treatment with buprenorphine than for my patients enrolled at the opioid treatment program.

In the opioid treatment program setting, I don’t know of any patients with Obamacare who were able to get reimbursed for what they paid to our treatment program. These patients paid out of pocket even if they had insurance. I don’t know what the problem was, but I do know I had some bizarre conversations with physician reviewers. One physician said my patients with opioid use disorder, treated with methadone, needed to go a cheaper route, and get methadone prescribed in a doctor’s office. Of course, this is illegal, and has been since 1914, but that fact didn’t budge the reviewer.

Some of my office-based buprenorphine patients were able to enter treatment only because they got Obamacare. I would estimate I have eight to ten patients on Obamacare at present. They get reimbursed for the office visit and drug screening charges they pay to me, and get their medication paid for at the pharmacy, except for a co-pay.

Some of these patients have high deductibles, and still have to pay out of pocket for part of the year, but once they meet the deductible, have their opioid use disorder treatment paid for.

We’ve had the usual difficulties with prior authorizations with these patients, but it’s been no more difficult than patients with traditional insurance.

What would happen to my patients with Obamacare if it suddenly disappears? I assume most couldn’t afford treatment and would drop out. Data about patients who leave treatment for any reason shows relapse rates in the 85-90% range, so most of these people would go back to active addiction. I’ve become very attached to these patients, and this idea breaks my heart.

About a month ago, I was talking to Kristina Fiore, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, who has done some outstanding reporting on the nation’s opioid use disorder epidemic. She called me for some background information for an article she was researching. Near the end of our conversation, she said something to the effect that everyone is always talking so negatively about our present opioid addiction situation, and she needed to know about reasons for optimism.

I thought about what she said for a few moments. Then I told her the only positive thing I saw was more money being released for desperately needed treatment.

Now, even this one positive aspect feels very uncertain.

 

 

Medical Board Action Against Telemedicine Buprenorphine Physician

Telemedicine

 

 

 

Telemedicine is all the rage these days. For medically underserved areas, telemedicine could help reduce physician shortages and provide care to people without medical specialists in their area.

As appealing as the idea may be, physicians must be careful to conform to their states’ medical board regulations.

Of course, buprenorphine can now be prescribed in the office setting to treat opioid use disorders. Even with the increased prescribing capacity DATA 2000 gave us, less than a quarter of people who need treatment for opioid use disorder receive it. In fact, modifications to DATA 2000, passed last year, allow buprenorphine prescribers to have up to 275 patients at a time, if they fulfil various criteria. Also, physician extenders can now get certification to prescribe buprenorphine after taking proper training.

But what about telemedicine? Can it be used to meet the demand for opioid use disorder treatment in underserved areas? We now have clearer guidance, thanks to a recent ruling by the NC Medical Board.

Here’s the condensed story:

A physician, who lived and practiced in the middle of the state, also prescribed Suboxone via telemedicine for patients in the Western part of the state. The medical board was displeased this physician didn’t examine his patients in this second location in person, prior to initiating the Suboxone. The physician stated he felt buprenorphine could be prescribed safely without an in-person exam, but the board didn’t agree.

The medical board faulted the physician for not giving adequate attention to patients’ use of other drugs, and their mental health history. The board said patients were not examined for track marks or withdrawal signs, and that the physician accelerated their doses too quickly. Patients were seen every four weeks from the start, and the medical board opined that was not frequent enough in early treatment.

In other words, there were clearly other issues besides the lack of initial face-to-face contact, but this lack was cited as a departure from the standard of care.

I’ve been contacted by at least a half dozen mental health agencies who wanted to hire me to start treating patients with opioid use disorder with buprenorphine, using telemedicine. I’ve turned them all down, mainly because it wasn’t good medical care, and also because I didn’t want to do anything to violate medical board’s telemedicine policy. They have had published guidelines surrounding telemedicine since 2010, and update it periodically. You can read it here: http://www.ncmedboard.org/resources-information/professional-resources/laws-rules-position-statements/position-statements/telemedicine

You will note that the policy says “This evaluation need not be in-person if the licensee employs technology sufficient to accurately diagnose and treat the patient…”

So it is a little confusing, in view of their recent ruling against a doctor prescribing buprenorphine.

In September of 2016, another Addiction Medicine physician got a public letter of concern from the NC Medical Board, for using the telephone to stay in contact with a patient who had moved out of state. I only know the circumstances of the case from what the medical board listed in their public letter of concern, but I do know the physician. He is well-trained, cautious, and has excellent judgment.

His patient of over three years moved out of state and couldn’t find a new buprenorphine prescriber. So his NC doctor agreed to continue to prescribe for him, and did phone sessions with this patient every two weeks for thirty minutes at a time. He issued buprenorphine prescriptions for only two weeks at a time. This happened over several years without a face-to-face visit. Apparently the physician enlisted the aid of a local pharmacist to do medication counts, and the medical board opined this was “insufficient.”

Wow. This ruling should give every physician a reason to avoid telemedicine. Because I think that doctor did a good thing. Every patient should have such a doctor, willing to go the extra mile to help. I don’t think the physician’s actions were “insufficient” in any regard, though I’ll admit I’m probably not what our NC medical board considers an expert.

I’ve used pharmacists to do pill counts for me if the patient says he is out of town when called for a pill count. Sounds like I’m going to have to stop doing that, given the medical board’s statement.

At least once at an opioid treatment program, I was pressured to admit patients using telemedicine.

Several years ago, I had surgery for a broken leg. At the time, I worked for two opioid treatment programs. One was located an hour away, and the other was two hours away. Driving was going to be cumbersome, of course.

As soon as I was able, I called the program managers of each to let them know I might be out of work for the next week or two. At the first OTP, the program manager said I should take all the time I needed, and intakes could be postponed. Obviously, this is not an ideal situation, since we want to admit patients as soon as possible, but this was one of those things that were out of our control. I was still available by phone, of course.

At the second, the program manager said being out of work for several weeks was “not acceptable.” The program manager pushed me to admit patients via Skype or other technology. I refused, citing quality of care issues. In retrospect, I made the right decision.

I hear about “Doctor on Demand,” advertised by Dr. Phil on his show, and I wonder how these doctors get around this telemedicine issue. These doctors aren’t examining patients face to face on the first visit. Also, to practice medicine in NC, you must have a NC license, and surely all these doctors don’t have NC licenses.

I sent an email to Doctor on Demand asking about these issues. They sent me an email back, saying someone would be in contact with me. This was about four weeks ago and I haven’t heard anything else. I’ll let you know what they say in the unlikely event that they do contact me.

In the meantime, I think all physicians, and specifically buprenorphine prescribers, need to be very careful with telemedicine. Given these two recent rulings by the NC Medical Board, we could be cited for improper medical practice. Telemedicine seems like it could be a wonderful way to get care to people with opioid use disorders who live in remote places, but physicians need to protect their medical licenses first, or we won’t be able to prescribe anything to anybody.

 

 

Judges Behaving Badly

aaaaaaaaaaaaStepping Stone memo from Judge Ginn (2)

 

Methadone and buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorders saves lives. Over five decades, we’ve accumulated more studies to support this treatment than any other medication, device, or intervention that I can think of. And yet, opioid use disorder appears to be the only disease where medically untrained people dictate medical treatment. The above memo from a judge of the 24th District Court in North Carolina illustrates this all too well.

Let’s change that sentence in the middle of Judge Ginn’s memo: “Therefore, effective immediately, the use of insulin as a treatment for diabetes will no longer be allowed as a part of any probationary sentence in the 24th Judicial District.”

It wouldn’t make any sense, would it? People would wonder why a judge was involved in a patient’s medical care. They might even be tempted to believe a judge had no authority to dictate medical care.

I worked in Boone, North Carolina, when this memo was issued, and it caused a great deal of suffering for patients. These patients, contrary to the judge’s beliefs, were doing well on medication-assisted treatments. They were no longer injecting drugs or committing crimes to support their active addiction. Their involvement with criminal justice system almost always pre-dated their entry into treatment. Yet the judge proclaimed they must stop the very medications that were helping them become productive members of society again!

I wrote letters of advocacy and information, citing studies that support MAT. I encouraged patients, and told them to expect their lawyer to advocate for them on this issue. The patients said their lawyers often advised them just to do what would make the judge happy. Patients, understandably, were timid about pushing against a judge with so much power over their lives.

Ironically, many of the people Judge Ginn thought were doing well in his court were also our patients. It was widely known that probation officers’ drug tests didn’t detect methadone or buprenorphine at that time. Unless the offender told the truth about being in treatment on buprenorphine or methadone, the court never knew. I’d estimate that dozens of people successfully passed through Judge Ginn’s court while being treated with buprenorphine or methadone, without him ever knowing about it, due to inadequate drug testing. The people who told the truth were penalized by being told to quit life-saving medication.

I know Judge Ginn is now retired, but I suspect attitudes and beliefs of the judiciary in that area haven’t changed much.

One of the opioid treatment programs in the area tried to advocate for their patients, by seeking some sort of censure against Judge Ginn, but I don’t know what came from that.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) both strongly recommend expanding opioid addiction treatment with medications to criminal justice participants. Congress just passed a bill that recommends spending money to treat opioid addiction in jails and prisons That bill pushes for people with opioid use disorder to get treatment instead of jail sentences. Experts everywhere advocate for expanding medication-assisted treatments to patients involved with the legal system, whether in jail, on parole, or on probation.

All of these actions are great. But Judge Ginn is an example of the many obstacles to implementation of the evidence-based treatments that experts recommend. Particularly in rural Appalachian areas, people in positions of power actively thwart life-saving medical treatments.

I don’t understand how judges can get away with such irresponsible actions. To me, it appears Judge Ginn practiced medicine without a license. If I somehow lost my medical license but continued to practice, I’d be committing a felony.

What if Judge Ginn commanded a patient stop buprenorphine or methadone, and the patient died in a relapse? Would Judge Ginn have any liability, civil or criminal?

I don’t know what can be done about judges like him, but don’t they have to answer to someone? Are they appointed, or elected? If elected, perhaps we need to start understanding judges’ positions on medical treatments before we vote for them.

Inmate Dies From Withdrawal, FBI will investigate

aaaaaaaaaades

An interesting article from this week’s issue of Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly caught my eye today. On page 4 is the article, “Video of jail drug-withdrawal death leads to FBI inquiry.” This seized my attention, since I view the awful treatment of U.S. prisoners as one of our nation’s biggest moral failings. I get particularly agitated when patients enrolled in medication-assisted treatment for addiction are denied access to medical care.

This story is heart-wrenching.

In June of 2014, David Stojcevski , 32 years old, was jailed in the Macomb County, Michigan, jail for thirty days for failure to pay a traffic ticket. He was denied access to his usual medications; news sources said he was being prescribed methadone, Klonopin, and Xanax for the treatment of addiction. No mention was made of whether he was a patient of an opioid treatment program.

David died seventeen days into his thirty day sentence. His autopsy listed the cause of death as “Acute withdrawal from chronic benzodiazepine, methadone, and opiate medication,” and also mentioned seizures and dehydration as contributing factors.

A jail nurse, noting his medical condition upon intake to the jail, recommended he be sent to a medical detox unit, but her recommendations were not heeded. Instead, when Mr. Stojcevski began behaving in unusual ways, he was sent to a mental health cell, where he was monitored with video around the clock. He was supposed to have personnel checking on him every fifteen minutes. Apparently his withdrawal symptoms were so severe he declined meals and lost 50 pounds within these eleven days. He had what appear to be seizures as he lay on the jail floor dying.

Understandably, David’s family was livid. In order to illustrate the jail’s indifference to their son’s suffering, they posted all 240 hours of the video monitoring on the internet, where it went viral. David’s family is seeking to change the way prisoners on medications are treated, to avoid senseless deaths like David’s. They have also filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the county and against Correct Care Solutions, the company which was supposed to have provided medical care to prisoners in the county jail.

I have often heard my patients describe the callous indifference jailers have toward them as they withdrawal from legally prescribed medication, but it’s quite another thing to actually watch this man die slowly. I only saw a few clips from the local news program above, and was horrified. It does not take any medical knowledge to see how this man was suffering. He became thinner, wasn’t eating, and didn’t get off the jail floor for the last two days of his life. At the very end, he has some agonal respirations, what looks to me like seizure activity, and then becomes still.

Then jail personnel crowd into his cell.

Too little, too late. He’s already dead and can’t be revived.

Some of the frames were televised on the area’s local news segment and can be seen here: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/man-jailed-for-ticket-dies-in-custody/35452790
Be warned this segment is not for the faint of heart.

This man died from a treatable condition, opioid and benzodiazepine withdrawal.

An addiction expert interviewed by the area’s local television statement called the treatment of this man “unconscionable.”

I could quibble about the appropriateness of prescribing two benzodiazepines to a person with addiction in the first place, but since that’s not the point of this blog post, that’s all I’ll say about that.

Just yesterday, local TV news said the ACLU had filed a request for a formal Justice Department investigation of the Macomb County jail, saying prisoners are having their civil rights violated by the actions at the jail. The ACLU has also asked for an investigation into the judge’s decision to imprison David after he was unable to pay his traffic ticket, creating what was in essence a “debtor’s prison.”

A representative of the ACLU said anyone watching the video could deduce there was “Something systemically wrong at the Macomb County Jail.”

Recently, the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. contacted the FBI, asking them to investigate this case for evidence of criminal behavior on the part of Macomb County jail staff.

Macomb County officials steadfastly maintain they did nothing wrong, have nothing to hide, and welcome investigations into David Stojcevski’s death.

What I saw on this video clip appears criminal to me. The neglect, the reckless disregard for the wellbeing of another human is a far more serious crime than David’s traffic ticket. Every person who worked in that jail who turned a blind eye to the dying man belongs on the other side of the bars.

I am grateful to David’s family for their decision to post this painful video. That had to be a hard decision, but David’s graphic suffering causes more impact than written descriptions. I wonder if the ACLU, Justice Department, and FBI would have gotten involved had his family not publicized David’s gradual death, and had it not gone viral.

This behavior on the part of law enforcement is stupid, inhumane, and egregious. Do these law enforcement personnel have no shame, no basic human decency? Are we in a third world country where prisoners have no rights?

I will follow this story and give updates when possible.

I’d love to see the FBI investigate, and I hope criminal charges are filed. I hope the family sues and wins millions of dollars. I hope something can finally change in county jails across the nation, so that people who are incarcerated are no longer denied medical care.

A Letter to Law Enforcement About Medication-assisted Treatments

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapopo

Dear Officer Zealous:
First of all, thank you for patrolling our streets and highways and your efforts to keep them safe. I know you have a hard job and I deeply appreciate your willingness to take on this responsibility.

However, please stop arresting my patients for whom I’ve prescribed methadone and buprenorphine (better known under the brand names Suboxone, Subutex, or Zubsolv). You mistakenly think all people taking these medications have no right to be driving, and you are wrong. I’m writing this letter to give you better information that you can use to do your job better.

Our nation is in the middle of a crisis. Opioid addiction is an epidemic, and too often its sufferers die of overdoses. Medication-assisted treatment with methadone and buprenorphine works very well to prevent overdose deaths, and it’s been proven to help patients have a better quality of life in recovery.

I doubt you’ve been provided any information about medication-assisted treatment, so I want to help you learn some facts. Methadone has been around for fifty years and has a proven track record. It’s been studied more than perhaps any other medication, and we know it does a great job of treating opioid addiction. Buprenorphine has only been available in the U.S. for about 13 years, but has been used in Europe for decades.

With both methadone and buprenorphine, the proper dose of medication should make the patients feel normal. Patients should not feel intoxicated or high, and should not feel withdrawal symptoms. Methadone and buprenorphine are both very long-acting opioids, and they both give the opioid addicts a fairly steady level of opioid, compared to short-acting opioids usually used for intoxication. Therefore, using methadone to treat opioid addiction is not “like giving whiskey to an alcoholic,” as has incorrectly been asserted. The valid difference lies in the unique pharmacology of methadone. Opioid addicts can lead normal lives on this medication, when it is properly dosed.

In addition, both of these medications block other opioids at the opioid receptor. When a patient is on an adequate dose, she won’t feel euphoria from another opioid. Both methadone and buprenorphine deter use of other opioids for the purpose of getting high.

Treatment of opioid addiction with methadone and buprenorphine is endorsed by the CSAT (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment) branch of SAMHSA, by the U.S.’s Institute of Medicine, by ASAM (American Society of Addiction Medicine), by AAAP (American Association of Addiction Psychiatry), and by NIDA (National Institute of Drug Addiction. In study after study, methadone has been shown to reduce the risk of overdose death, reduce days spent in criminal activities, reduce transmission rates of HIV, reduce the use of illicit opioids, reduce the use of other illicit drugs, produce higher rates of employment, reduce commercial sex work, and reduce needle sharing. Medication-assisted therapy is also high cost effective.

Indeed, the current debate of government officials at the highest levels has been how best to expand medication-assisted treatment with methadone and buprenorphine, not to make it less available. So please don’t do anything which may discourage opioid addicts from receiving life-saving treatment.

Over the years, many studies have been done on methadone and buprenorphine to see if patients are able to drive safely on either of them. In study after study, data show patients on stable doses of both medications can safely drive cars, operate heavy equipment, and perform complex tasks. Please see the list of references at the bottom of this letter if you wish to investigate for yourself.

I’m not saying, however, that patients on methadone or buprenorphine can’t become impaired. Impairment can occur if patients are given too high a dose of methadone or buprenorphine, which most often occurs during the first two weeks of treatment. For that reason, patients are warned not to drive if they ever feel sedated or drowsy.

Patients on medication-assisted treatment can also become impaired if they mix other drugs or medications with their methadone or buprenorphine. In fact, benzodiazepines (like Xanax, Valium, Klonopin) and alcohol act synergistically with maintenance opioids. They can cause impairment with smaller amounts of alcohol or benzos than expected. And of course, patients can still become impaired with other drugs, such as marijuana.

As you probably know, a urine drug screen isn’t adequate to detect impairment. The urine screen only tells you if the person has taken a given drug or medication over the last few days to weeks. Drugs are detectable in the urine long after the impairing effect wears off, so you must demonstrate the presence of drugs with a blood test at the time of the questioned impairment.

My family and I drive these roads too, and I don’t want impaired drivers on our highways any more than anyone else. I just think you have mistakenly targeted patients on medication-assisted treatment for the disease of opioid addiction.

I know you have formed bad opinions about methadone and buprenorphine patients from seeing both drugs misused on the street. I hate that, because you probably rarely get to see more typical patients on medication-assisted treatments.

The vast majority of my patients have jobs, families, and responsibilities that they meet, despite having this potentially fatal illness of opioid addiction. If you are fortunate enough to encounter one of my patients on a random traffic stop, please don’t give them a hard time. Please congratulate them on having the courage to find recovery from addiction, and tell them to do what works for them. In some patients, that’s medication.

Thanks for reading this long letter and thanks for all you do in the name of keeping our roads safe. If you want to know more about how we treat opioid addiction at our facility, please call our program manager at xxx-xxx-xxxx and we would be happy to provide you with an after- hours tour and lots of information.
Sincerely,

Jana Burson M.D.
Member of the American Society of Addition Medicine
Board certified in Internal Medicine
Certified by the American Board of Addiction Medicine

P.S. And please don’t attempt to intimidate patients from coming to get help for this fatal illness of opioid addiction by parking your squad car just outside our facility’s entrance. Some of these patients may have old warrants, but by stalking them where they come for help, you discourage people who want to escape addiction and want to better their lives. If you do park near us, you should expect a staff member to approach you with a smile, a cup of coffee, and a pile of information about opioid addiction and its treatment.

ATTACHMENT:

Methadone and Driving Article Abstracts
Brief Literature Review
Institute for Metropolitan Affairs
Roosevelt University 2/14/08

1. DRIVING RECORD OF METHADONE MAINTENANCE PATIENTS IN NEW YORK STATE
BABST, D., NEWMAN, S., & State, N. (1973). DRIVING RECORD OF METHADONE MAINTENANCE PATIENTS IN NEW YORK STATE. DRIVING RECORD OF METHADONE MAINTENANCE PATIENTS IN NEW YORK STATE,
When a comparison was made within specific age groups, it was learned that the accident and conviction rates were about the same for methadone maintenance clients as for a sample of New York City male drivers within the same period. The findings from other related studies discussed in this booklet are consistent with the results in this study.

2. The effects of the opioid pharmacotherapies methadone, LAAM and buprenorphine, alone and in combination with alcohol, on simulated driving.
Lenné, M., Dietze, P., Rumbold, G., Redman, J., & Triggs, T. (2003, December). Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 72(3), 271.
These findings suggest that typical community standards around driving safety should be applied to clients stabilized in methadone, LAAM and buprenorphine treatment.

3. Maintenance Therapy with Synthetic Opioids and Driving Aptitude.
Schindler, S., Ortner, R., Peternell, A., Eder, H., Opgenoorth, E., & Fischer, G. (2004). Maintenance Therapy with Synthetic Opioids and Driving Aptitude. European Addiction Research, 10(2), 80-87
Conclusion: The synthetic opioid-maintained subjects investigated in the current study did not differ significantly in comparison to healthy controls in the majority.

4. Methadone-substitution and driving ability
Forensic Science International, Volume 62, Issues 1-2, November 1993, Pages 63-66
H. Rössler, H. J. Battista, F. Deisenhammer, V. Günther, P. Pohl, L. Prokop and Y. Riemer
The formal assertion that addiction equals driving-inability, which is largely practiced at present, is inadmissible and therefore harmful to the therapeutic efforts for rehabilitation.

5. Methadone substitution and ability to drive. Results of an experimental study.
Dittert, S., Naber, D., & Soyka, M. (1999, May).
It is concluded that methadone substitution did not implicate driving inability.

6. Functional potential of the methadone-maintenance person.
Gordon, N., & Appel, P. (1995, January). Functional potential of the methadone-maintenance person. Alcohol, Drugs & Driving, 11(1), 31-37.
Surveys on employability and driving behavior of MTSs revealed no significant differences when compared to normal population. It is concluded that MM at appropriate dosage levels, as part of treatment for heroin addiction, has no adverse effects on an individual’s ability to function.

New Book About the War on Drugs

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaChasing-the-Scream

I’ve got a great new book to recommend to anyone interested in the U.S.’s failed war on drugs. It’s “Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs,” by Johann Hari. Published in 2015, I heard about this book at an Addiction Medicine conference when it was highly recommended by one of my colleagues.

As the title implies, the first part of the book describes how the war on drugs was initiated, not by the Reagans, but by Harry Anslinger, our first drug war general, back in the 1930’s. Anslinger is portrayed as an arrogant man, close-minded, filled with hubris, and lacking in compassion. He played on the public’s worst prejudices in order to get draconian drug laws passed, and showed no mercy enforcing them. He fanned the flames of public fears of drug-intoxicated minorities in order to expand his scope of power and prestige. His statements, preposterous from a medical point of view, still echo in the mouths of politicians today.

The author says Anslinger helped to create U.S.’s first drug lord, Arnold Rothstein, who is only the first of many ruthless gangsters to follow. Demand for drugs in the face of strict drug laws creates irresistible opportunities for criminals. The book describes how the war on drugs re-incarnated Anslinger and Rothstein with each generation; the names change but the tactics and destruction remain the same.

It’s an interesting concept.

Part Two of the book describes the lives of drug addicts. The author shows how people with addiction are forced to behave like sociopaths in order to maintain their supply of drugs. For example, many addicts deal drugs on a small scale to help finance their own drug use, an action they would be unlikely to undertake without the strong motivation of their own addiction.

The author goes on to illustrates how police crackdowns on drug dealers actually lead to increased gang violence. When top drug-dealing gang members are jailed, it creates a power vacuum, which leads to increased violence as rival gang members jockey for positions of power. Ultimately, the amount of drug dealing remains the same.

His reasoning does make sense, and is backed by interviews from urban bystanders in the violence of drug wars, both in the U.S. and Mexico.

This section of the book also discusses the inequalities of the drug war. The war on drugs is really a war on people who use drugs, and minorities are much more likely to targets of the drug war. Black drug dealers are more likely to be arrested than white dealers. People with money and influence aren’t targeted, while police go after the downtrodden, less likely to mount legal defenses if treated unfairly. Police do this in order to meet arrest quotas with less trouble from those targeted.

I could believe this, but then in the same section, the author also accuses police of expanding their budgets by confiscating high-dollar cars and homes from the rich people caught in the drug wars. So that was a little contradictory.

The author points out how a youngster who gets arrested for a drug offense is unemployable for the rest of his life, and how he can’t get student loans or public housing. To me that sounded a little overblown, since I know people who have managed to go to school, get their GED, then get a college education and even an advanced degree. I’m sure having a crime in one’s background makes this more difficult, but not impossible. That makes me question the accuracy of the author’s other assertions. For example, I have no idea if a drug charge eliminates all possibility of public housing.

Part three of the book is hard to read. In it, the author describes inhumane treatment of addicts who have been jailed. Arizona is noted for being a particularly brutal state for addicted inmates.
Inmates in general in the U.S. are treated horribly but no one seems to care, since few people have compassion for criminals.

This same section of the book also describes the horrible violence in Mexico brought about by the U.S. demand for illicit drugs. With so much profit to be made, drug cartels become ruthless. The author says in order to make sure other potential rivals stay in fear, dealers must engage in ever-increasing violence and depravity.

The fourth section of the book presents interesting ideas. First of all, the author claims the desire to get high is nearly universal. Far from being a deviant desire, the author advances the theory that the desire for intoxication is found in all humans in all civilizations at all times of human existence. He questions the goal of eliminating all drug use, and says it isn’t realistic.

I agree with him. The desire for euphoria is hard-wired into humans. When that urge runs amok, we may seek to satisfy that desire incessantly with drugs or other destructive behaviors.

The author then describes how life events affect the risk of addiction as if this were something new, but we’ve known for years that stress affects addiction risk. People who have experienced abuse and deprivation as children are more susceptible. But then the book connects our society’s present method of dealing with addiction, which is to shame addicts and cause them more pain. This approach is, predictably, counterproductive.

He says the more drug addicts are stressed, forced to live in poverty, are ostracized and shamed, the less likely they are to be able to find recovery.

Then the book goes into a weird tangent, saying that opioid withdrawal really isn’t all that bad, and the withdrawal is mostly mental in nature. He quotes some scientists who say that people living interesting and productive lives don’t get addicted, because they are happy. The book implies that the biological model has been overblown and scientists ignore the psychosocial components that cause addiction.

He’s wrong. Experts in addiction and its treatment haven’t forgotten the psychosocial components of addiction. But for decades, people have argued addiction is just bad behavior. They say addicts need punishment, rather than coddling in treatment programs. These people completely denied scientific components of the disorder. As a result, scientists interested in treating addiction poured money, time, and energy into proving the scientific portion of the disease. But now the same people who said there was no science to support addiction as a disease complain that scientists ignore the role of psychosocial factors that cause addiction.

In reality, both biologic AND psychosocial factors influence who becomes addicted. It isn’t either/or but both/and. It isn’t productive to argue about which is more important, because both types of causative factors need to be addressed in the disease of addiction.

The fifth part of the book is the most interesting. Chapters in this section describe the changes that occurred when drug addiction was treated more as a public health problem and less like a crime.

In a grass roots organization in Vancouver, Canada, a heroin addict managed to mobilize people to approach heroin addiction in a completely new way. This addict unified addicts and the people who care about them to create political pressure. This group attended town meetings, protested, and organized people who cared about the marginalized addicts of Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. Eventually, this organization managed to create such a stink that the mayor of Vancouver met with this addict-leader, and was so impressed by the insights and arguments that he authorized the establishment of a safe injection house.

Ultimately, Vancouver had one of the most progressive and harm-reduction oriented policies on drug addiction. Their overdose death rate plummeted. Health status of addicted people improved.

Similar harm reduction policies were enacted in Great Britain and in Switzerland, with similar reduction in overdose death rates and in improved health status for drug addicts. In Great Britain, physicians could legally prescribe heroin for opioid addicts for a period of time, from the mid-1980’s until 1995, when this program was ended. All of the health gains – reduced overdose deaths, reduced crime, reduced gang activity, and improved physical health for the addicts – were instantly reversed as soon as the program was stopped.

An entire chapter is dedicated to the changes seen in Portugal, where drugs are now decriminalized, but not legalized. This means thought drug use is not a crime, selling these drugs is still illegal. This chapter describes the changes that happened in Portugal, where harm reduction and public health strategies were enacted beginning in 2001. The nation has one of the lowest rates of illicit drug use in the world, though it’s important to understand that heroin has traditionally been the main drug of this country. Addicts’ lives are more productive and death rates are down. Crime rates dropped, and now the whole country supports these harm reduction strategies to the draconian drug laws that Portugal had in the past.

Near the end of the book is a chapter about what is happening in Uruguay, a small South American country where drugs are now not only decriminalized but legalized.

Anyone interested in the creation of a sound drug policy needs to read this book. It’s extensively researched, and the author spoke with many of the key individuals responsible for changes in drug policy all over the world. I haven’t critically researched all data he quotes in his book about the results of drug decriminalization and legalization, but he gives references for much of what’s contained in the book so that any interested reader can do so.

This book is uniquely interesting because the author combines data and statistics with personal stories of various addicts and their families. This technique combines the power of individual story with the facts of a more objective and detached view.

I don’t agree with all of the authors conclusions. For example, when he tries to say addiction is more about a person’s socioeconomic and emotional status rather than about the drugs…nah. Addiction is not all about the addictive nature of the drug itself, but it is a major factor. When you discount the euphoric attraction of opioids, cocaine, and the like, you risk misunderstanding a huge part of addiction. When a substance produces intense pleasure when ingested, it’s more likely to create addiction. After all, we don’t get addicted to broccoli…

It’s important to know this author has been in hot water in the past, accused of plagiarism. Knowing this made me a little distrustful of his interviews with people throughout the book, but I think the ideas illustrated by the interviews are still valid.

It’s a book filled with food for thought.

Methadone and Buprenorphine During Incarceration

aaaaajail

I recently got this comment to my blog and I hope the writer won’t mind that I’m highlighting his comment. This comment represents one of my pet peeves: patients in recovery from opioid addiction who dose with methadone/buprenorphine are frequently denied their medication if incarcerated.

“Hello, i was recently convicted of an addiction related crime that happened over a year ago, since the indecent I’ve cleaned up my act, have been taking suboxone for over 12 months, 8mg, 3 times a day and now have to go to jail were I’m going to be denied my medication by jail officials/laws, I’ve been in jail before and i kno they do next to nothing for withdrawing opioid patients? From what i hear, it could take months for that type of dosage to get out of my system? Now being a former i/v heroin user of about 7 years, I’ve done a#on my body and feel my health isn’t exactly top notch, i am legitimately concerned about this withdrawal! Should there be sum kind of law protecting us patients? Aren’t these dangerous withdrawal symptoms? Thanks in advance for your response in this matter!”
I am so sick of hearing about patients on methadone or buprenorphine being denied their treatment while incarcerated! I’d love to see someone sue the excrement out of a jail or prison for denying this life-saving medical treatment.

Most counties jails in rural North Carolina won’t allow patients who are prescribed methadone or Suboxone for opioid addiction to take their medication while in jail. I hear (second-hand) that some jails allow chronic pain patients with opioid prescriptions to take their medication, though this may vary according to the county.

As a health care provider, of course I’m opposed to any refusal to treatment a patient while incarcerated. I think it’s a violation of the 8th Amendment about cruel and unusual punishment, but since I’m no legal scholar, I’ve searched the internet for more information about this situation. I found a great article co-authored by a doctor and a lawyer. They make the point that opioid addiction is a complex illness, and forced withdrawal causes severe physical and psychological suffering. Also, because opioid withdrawal makes people especially vulnerable, they may be coerced into giving testimony that incriminates themselves. They are less able to make decisions. (1)

Prisons are charged to provide as much care as is available to prisoners as general population, yet opioid addicts are denied access to medication-assisted treatments for addiction. These treatments are, as you probably know if you’re a regular reader of this blog, one of the most evidenced-based medical treatments in all of medicine.

Jails face legal implications for the prisoners under their control if adverse health consequences occur during withdrawal. A healthy young person usually won’t die from opioid withdrawal, but a medically fragile patient may die. Then the jail can be sued successfully for wrongful death, as happened in Orange County, Florida. But what a shame that it has to come to that to see any change in jail protocol.

A few years ago, I wrote to both the Tennessee and North Carolina chapters of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), thinking if any legal organization would be willing to take up this issue, it may be them. One person with the NC chapter wrote back that in order to take up a case, they need a specific person with a specific case, and that person needs a local lawyer with whom they can work.

I other words, as a physician, I can’t get something stirred up. It has to be a person who is denied treatment with methadone or buprenorphine while in jail.

That’s what I’m hoping to do with my blog post. My readers know many people. If you are reading this and know someone facing incarceration who will be denied their usual medical treatment of methadone or buprenorphine while incarcerated, encourage them to get a lawyer, and ask that lawyer to ask for outside help.

Here’s the website for North Carolina: http://www.acluofnc.org/

As one might imagine, Tennessee’s chapter of the ACLU has many issues to keep them busy, so check it out at http://www.aclu-tn.org/ On their homepage, there’s an article about Tennessee’s contract with a corrections company that operates facilities in that state. It’s interesting reading, and may help us make sense of some of Tennessee’s horrible decisions around addiction issues (follow the money!). Also check out the TN ACLU’s article of protest against the recent law that makes using drugs during pregnancy a crime instead of a health issue.

I know that AATOD (American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence) works with the Legal Action Center in New York, and they have a great website: http://www.lac.org You can read about their advocacy efforts nationwide, and check out their blog, which has advocacy information about this specific issue of medication-assisted treatment behind bars. I believe that the Legal Action Center works with local lawyers nationwide to serve as a resource. I don’t think the LAC actually takes on the cases of patients in states other than New York, but they also may be able to offer help and resources to other lawyers.

My patients tell me it’s difficult to find a local lawyer willing to take on the case of medication-assisted treatment behind bars. Often, such patients are seen as “bad” for having the disease of addiction. Some lawyers may not want to risk the working relationships they have with the judges in their area by advocating for an issue that the lawyer may not find compelling.
Additionally, it’s easy to intimidate many patients on MAT because they already feel shame and stigma. They have a legitimate fear of making their situation worse if they protest poor treatment by the criminal justice system.

I understand all of that, and I’d probably feel the same way. But what’s being done to patients on MAT – forced withdrawal from life-saving treatments of methadone/buprenorphine – isn’t right, and it’s an abomination to human rights. Let’s support these patients in every way possible. Get lawyers, ask them to advocate for you. If they won’t, contact some of the above resources and write back to me about what their response was.

If you are a friend or relative of a person in such a situation, make noise. Write politicians, call the jails, and call judges, particularly those that are elected. Tell jailers how appalled you are at the senseless suffering of patients denied their usual medical treatment.

Most importantly for this issue and others: register to vote. Find out your elected officials’ positions on the legal issues surrounding addiction, and vote accordingly. If you are an addict in recovery, vote. If you are a friend or family member of someone in recovery or in addiction, vote. Let politicians know you will vote against them if they fail to make good laws based on science.

As for me, I have a standard letter I’m willing to send to my patients’ lawyers and to the judges hearing their cases, advocating strongly for them to be allowed to continue their evidence-based treatment with methadone/buprenorphine.

And yes, I vote.

1.Bruce RD and Schleifer, RA, “Ethical and Human Rights Imperatives to Ensure Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Dependence in Prisons and Pre-trial Detention, International Journal of Drug Policy, 2008, February; 19(1): 17-23.