Archive for the ‘Governmental solutions to addiction’ Category

Raising the Patient Limit on Buprenorphine Physicians: HHS’s New Proposed Rule

Expanding access

Last month, the Health and Human Services (HHS) department of the U.S. government posted new proposed regulations for doctors who prescribe buprenorphine (better known as Suboxone, Subutex, or Zubsolv) from office-based practices. This rule proposes to raise the number of patients that physicians can treat in their office practice from one hundred to two hundred. They did this to make more treatment available for people with opioid addiction, to combat opioid overdose deaths in our country,

This new proposed rule is now posted online at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/03/30/2016-07128/medication-assisted-treatment-for-opioid-use-disorders#h-63

Anyone can submit a comment about this proposed rule, until May 31, 2016.

I studied this proposed rule at length, and thought I’d give my blog readers my interpretation and my opinion of it.

First of all, I approve of the idea behind the proposed regulation. Too many people with opioid use disorder want treatment and can’t get it. Many doctors are at their one hundred patient limit and have been for some time.

I haven’t taken a new patient in months. And as I’ve grumbled about in previous posts, several practitioners in my area already have well over one hundred buprenorphine office patients. Rogue doctors are going to do what they do no matter what, but us law-abiding doctors would like permission to treat more patients.

This new proposed rule would allow physicians who have had a one hundred patient limit for at least one year to request permission to treat up to two hundred patients at one time.

However, this proposed rule is a little more complicated than it would appear on the surface. Medical practitioners have to meet certain criteria to get approval to treat up to two hundred patients.

First of all, as the regulation is written now, some physicians believe that physicians who are board-certified by the American Board of Addiction Medicine won’t qualify for approval to treat up to two hundred patients. The proposed new regulation says the physician must have “subspecialty board certification.” Apparently, some physicians feel that an exact interpretation of this means only psychiatrists with subspecialty certification in addiction medicine would qualify. I read on the American Society of Addiction Medicine’s website that they want members to protest this wording to allow ABAM-certified doctors to qualify too. Thirty-six hundred doctors, including me, are board certified by ABAM, while only about a thousand psychiatrists have subspecialty board certification in Addiction Psychiatry in this country.

I read the entire DHHS document online, but the way I read it, I thought ABAM certified doctors would definitely qualify, but then maybe I’m a little fuzzy about what, exactly, “subspecialty” means. I think HHS’s intention was to include ASAM/ABAM doctors.

Practitioners seeking approval to treat up to two hundred patients must meet other criteria. In simplified terms, they need to, among other things:

  1. Have professional coverage for after-hours emergencies.
  2. Provide case management services
  3. Have electronic medical records
  4. Use that practitioner’s state prescription monitoring program
  5. Accept third-party insurance
  6. Have a plan to address possible diversion of prescribed buprenorphine medication
  7. Re-apply for permission to treat up to two hundred patients every three years
  8. Supply yearly reports about their practice and their buprenorphine patients

Several of these requirements are fairly obvious and should be standard of care anyway. For example, coverage after hours should be provided no matter if the practitioner has one patient, two-hundred, or a thousand. And I can’t imagine any doctor would prescribe buprenorphine for a patient with opioid use disorder without checking the state prescription monitoring program.

Personally, every night before I see my office-based patients, I look at their data on the prescription monitoring program. That way, if I get any surprises, I can discuss this with my patient at their visit.

All practices should have a plan to detect diversion. In my patient agreement, patients understand they may be asked to do a pill count at any time. I’ve lost some patients who failed pill counts.

Yearly reporting requirements seem reasonable, depending on what the government intends to do with this data. I assume DHH intends to monitor the quality of the care that a buprenorphine physician is delivering, and monitor the results of this care. Such monitoring is to include: average monthly case load of the physician, percentage of patients who are receiving either psychosocial counseling or case management services; number of patients being checked on the state prescription monitoring program; sending year-end reports about the number of patients who have completed treatment, number who have been referred elsewhere, and the number of patients who no longer want this form of treatment.

Physicians can collect that data without too much problem, I think.

However, I worry about how this information could be misinterpreted. For example, if the people who will review these reports expect patients to “complete” treatment for a chronic disease such as opioid addiction, they may mistakenly conclude that doctors with higher numbers of patients who complete treatment provide better care than doctors with lower numbers of patients who complete treatment. In reality, the opposite may well be true, since the standard of care with medication-assisted treatment is maintenance, not detox.

I’m also concerned about submitting the number of patients getting counseling. For maintenance patients, how long should they receive counseling? To me, the answer should be “as long as they need it.” This should be highly individualized.

If patients have been stable on buprenorphine for more than three years, with relapse-free recovery, do they still need counseling? Some of my patients are in relapse-free recovery for longer than that, and they have productive jobs, happy home lives, and no mental health issues. Should I still insist they still go to counseling? I don’t think so, unless counseling can improve the quality of their lives.

I’m not talking about new patients, fresh into treatment. Nearly all of those patients need counseling. But what if they have no insurance, and can’t afford “official” counseling? Is 12-step attendance good enough to meet counseling requirements?

There’s no way to know how people evaluating yearly physician reports will view such topics.

Now let’s talk about some of the requirements which may be deal-breakers for me.

When I read about practitioners having to accept third-party payers, I thought nope, not gonna do it.

My practice is bare-bones. I have three employees: me, my fiancé, and a man who works my front desk for about six hours per week. It’s kind of a mom-and-pop practice. Patients pay me, and I give them receipts with the needed codes to fill with their insurance company so they can be paid back. Since I don’t mess with insurance, I can keep my office costs down, because I don’t have to pay for another person to file insurance. Technically it is not a cash-only practice, since I’m set up to take credit and debit cards, but I am cautious about accepting checks. I have learned the hard way not to accept a check from a new patient.

My fiancé, who is a licensed professional counselor and also a licensed clinical addiction specialist, does the counseling for some of my office patients. He also answers the 24-hour phone, and since we are together most of the time, it’s easy for him to talk to me about whatever is going on. He screens new patients and does scheduling. He also handles most of the prior authorizations for buprenorphine medications (since I tend to get angry and swear).

My other employee, Daniel, works in my office on the one day per week that I’m open. He is terribly overqualified for his job, since he is just finishing his Master’s degree in addiction counseling. He checks patients in, performs drug screens, records the results, checks patients out and takes their money, and schedules their next visit. Besides being smart and savvy, he also knows my patients are sick people getting well.

I have few expenses. My fiancé does all the computer work that I need, and the only bills I have are rent, electricity, and various office expenses.

If I decided to accept third party insurance, I’d have to add another employee. I’ve seen the nightmares that come with billing insurance, having worked in primary care for ten years. Insurance companies deny claims for frivolous and stupid reasons, and take their time paying doctors. I heard this year from a few colleagues that BlueCross/BlueShield, the primary payer in my state, in some cases waits longer than six months to pay doctors, and still denies many claims. I’d have to raise my rates to make up for this, making it more difficult for my patients with no insurance.

Right now I charge $85 to $100 per 20-minute visit. I feel strongly that people with addiction shouldn’t have to pay more to see their doctor than people with other chronic illnesses, so I keep my rates low, relative to other providers. About half of my patients are the working poor, who don’t qualify for Medicaid in my state, and also don’t qualify for Obamacare. They can still afford treatment, because I’m also willing to prescribe generic buprenorphine/naloxone, which is quite a bit cheaper than name brand medication.

Am I willing to take on the headache of accepting insurance in order to be able to treat a hundred more patients? I don’t know if I am. I plan to investigate it further, maybe talk to some other doctors who take insurance currently, to see how big a hassle it is to get paid.

Next let’s talk about electronic medical records (EMRs). EMRs sound better in theory than they work in practice. My doctor friends complain that they cost much money, are not designed to be physician-friendly, and take up more time than they save. They aren’t interoperable, so each practice has a different electronic record. To coordinate care with a provider outside of one specific system means the record still has to be printed out on paper to be faxed or mailed.

Do electronic records provide better care? I have my doubts. I’ve bitched about EMRs in prior blogs, describing how I’ve requested records on my patients from the local hospital. Those records show on the front page, without fail, that the patient has been screened for Ebola. But I have to look at many pages to try to find a final diagnosis and treatment plan from the emergency department physician. Sometimes I find it… and sometimes not.

Privacy is a big issue to some of my patients. I treat several people, prominent in their communities, who see me specifically because I don’t have electronic medical records. They are willing to travel more than an hour one-way to see me, both because they know their records aren’t computerized, and because my office is very private, in the back on a non-descript realty building. Some of these patients may be a little paranoid about their records, but maybe not.

If I worked in an office owned by a big hospital system, how many people could get access to read my records? We all know stigma against substance use disorders and mental health diagnoses exist. It could cause damage to patients with substance abuse issues if details about addiction treatment were leaked. Ironically, my patients who work in healthcare are the ones most concerned about their privacy, and maybe for good reason.

Besides, EMRs are expensive, and probably I couldn’t afford one for my small practice.

Those are my specific objections to the proposed rule. I understand why the authors of the rule included these requirements. HHS doesn’t want bad doctors, running buprenorphine pill-mills, to be able to qualify to treat more patients. But as I’ve complained about at length and repeatedly in my blog…those doctors already thumb their nose at patient limits. So this proposed rule is likely to be followed only by the doctors who are already conscientious about following rules and guidelines.

I’m glad and grateful the HHS proposed this new rule. But I’m not yet sure I will want to increase my patient limit, for the reasons described.

DATA 2000: I’m Not Bitter!

Denial

Recently discussion of expansion of the one hundred patient limit has been in the news. I lost interest in this topic several years ago, when I saw DATA 2000 standards being violated with impunity in my community. Given lack of adherence to DATA 2000 requirements, people who want buprenorphine have no problem getting it.

Is this good or bad? Maybe a bit of both.

At least three physician extenders in my area prescribe buprenorphine for patients with addiction on a regular basis, despite having no “X” number. I don’t know how this happens, but I do know the North Carolina Medical Board investigated this practice, took no action, and these same extenders, still with no “X” number, continue to prescribe buprenorphine for addiction.

Since present DATA 2000 regulations are being ignored, changes in those regulations are moot in my state, or at least in my area.

Do I sound bitter? Yes, I am, or at least I am intermittently. On most days, I’ve got my own patient challenges to deal with, so I don’t have time to worry about other doctors’ practices. But occasionally I do feel some resentment. It’s hard not to fret when other practices get away with things, while I follow regulations.

I also grumble when I’ve got to pick up the pieces for patients expelled from other buprenorphine practices for doing exactly what people with addiction do – take drugs.

I’ve had multiple patients seek admission to our opioid treatment program after they were “fired’ by these other practices. Now, I know I’ll do a better job than they ever did, but it’s a real pain in the ass to try to find out exactly what went wrong. I’ve been hesitant to believe patients’ versions, since they sound incredible, but so far, my patients have told the absolute truth.

Recently I admitted several patients after they were dismissed from the other practice for misuse of their opioids. These patients had been prescribed buprenorphine by the physician extenders, and were apparently doing well. Then on one visit, the nurse practitioner or physician assistant asked the patient about pain, and after being told some pain did remain, these patients were taken off buprenorphine and prescribed powerful opioids instead.

Even the patients thought this action was odd. These patients said they knew they would relapse, but due to their disease of addiction, were unable to refuse this jackpot of opioids when offered.

Events unfolded in a predictable manner. The patients went back into active addiction, and injected the oxymorphone they were prescribed. They ran out early, and when a pill count was demanded, they of course failed. Dismissed for being a bad patient, the confused patients came to the opioid treatment program where I’m left to try to figure out what the hell has gone on.

Thankfully, the people I’ve seen survived their relapses, and were able to re-stabilize on either buprenorphine or methadone. But I wonder how many other people have had worse outcomes.

Perhaps if buprenorphine prescribers had better education about addiction, such relapses could be avoided. That’s one big downside of ignoring DATA 2000 requirements.

After the Overdose

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapic

 

 

 

 

 
I just read an astounding and completely believable study in a recent issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. [1]

This study, done by Dr. Larochelle and associates at Boston University Medical Center, did a retrospective study of prescription opioid overdoses. They looked at patients who were being prescribed opioids long-term for non-cancer pain who had a non-fatal overdose. The study lasted from May 2000 until December 2012, and included over twenty-eight hundred patients. All of these patients had commercial insurance, and were between 18 to 65 years old.

This study found that after having a non-fatal overdose, 91% of these patients resumed getting prescription opioids, and that 70% got them from the same doctor.

The lead author said he was shocked to find so many survivors continue to be prescribed opioids after having an overdose from these very opioids. He had hoped after a near-fatal experience, prescribers would do something different to address pain, in order to prevent future overdose.(https://hereandnow.wbur.org/2016/01/13/opioid-prescriptions-after-overdosing)

From other studies, we know that the best predictor of a future overdose is a past overdose, which is why I ask every patient entering the opioid treatment program (OTP) if he has ever had an overdose.

The author of this study postulated that with our fragmented healthcare system, the prescribers may not have known the patient had an overdose. Not knowing about any problems, the doctor continued to prescribe opioids.

I have no problem envisioning how this happens.

Not long ago, one of my opioid treatment program (OTP) patients missed two days of dosing. Per our protocol, her counselor called her on the first day she missed dosing. The patient told her counselor that she had been admitted to the hospital for trouble breathing, and was being treated for asthma.

Also per out protocol, we request hospital records for every patient of ours who gets admitted to the hospital, and our patient gave permission for this.

When I got the records four days later, imagine my surprise when I read that she had respiratory failure due to an overdose. Her drug screen at the hospital was positive for methadone and also benzodiazepines, and indeed she was now positive for benzos at the OTP too. This information lead to a drastic change in this patient’s treatment plan.

If we had not called to see where our patient was, she could have returned in several days and not told us about her hospital admission.

Our local hospital did not call our OTP to tell us our patient was hospitalized with an overdose. Indeed, they didn’t call to tell us she was in the hospital. To my patient’s credit, she did tell them she was a patient of ours, since it was recorded in her hospital record.

When our patients are admitted to the hospital for medical reasons, the admitting doctors continue to prescribe the usual dose of methadone, and I am happy about that, but they don’t call us to confirm the dose. They take the patient’s word for what the dose has been, instead of making a quick phone call. I worry that someday, one of our patients, in a misguided effort to feel an opioid effect, will tell his hospital doctor he’s been dosing at a higher dose than he actually is, and catastrophe could ensue.

In contrast, the big teaching hospital an hour away, which is where our patients go when they are really sick, routinely calls to confirm each patient’s dose.

The Larochelle study seems to indicate there’s a lack of communication in other medical communities as well. Emergency department physicians may administer Narcan and revive a patient, but no one thinks to take the next essential step: call that patient’s prescriber about the drug overdose.

We can’t assume the patient, now revived from a near-death experience, will tell her doctor about what happened. If that patient has an addiction, she might keep quiet about prescription mishaps, fearing her supply of opioids may be cut off.

Family members might tell the prescribers, and that’s very helpful, but often patients are told the doctor can’t release any information. That is true, but the family can certainly give information to the doctor.

I know hospitals and emergency departments are busy. Healthcare professionals are all busy. We are being asked to do more and more in less and less time. But this is a communication issue, and it need not be a physician- to- physician communication. A nurse or even a social worker from the hospital could call or fax valuable information quickly. Privacy laws can be blamed for some lack of communication, but there are exceptions in life-threatening situations.

And please, let’s make medical records readable. Even when I finally get local emergency department records about one of my patients, I have a hard time deciphering them. I’ll admit to being a bit of a Luddite when it comes to electronic medical records, but partly because most electronic records are not all that helpful.

For example, on our local emergency department records, I quickly can find the results for Ebola screening (it’s on the first page, at the top), but often I am left scratching my head about what the doctor’s final diagnosis and treatment plan was for the patient.

We’ve got to fix this communication problem. It’s great when an overdose is treated and prevented. But let’s do just a little more, and communicate to the prescriber of the overdose medications.

It is life and death.

  1. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(1):1-9. doi:10.7326/M15-0038

Purdue Pharma Settles Kentucky Lawsuit

aaaaaaaaaaapurduekentucky

 

 

 

 

 

 
Since 2007, Kentucky has been litigating a case against Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin. Kentucky was the only state to opt out of a prior settlement offered by Purdue Pharma in 2007, preferring to litigate separately against the company, due to the devastation that state has endured from the opioid addiction epidemic.

Kentucky was offered $500,000 to settle with Purdue in 2007 lawsuit. Last month Purdue agreed to pay Kentucky $24 million to settle the case. This money is earmarked to pay for addiction treatment and prevention.

This does sound like a large sum of money, but it’s a drop in the sea of money Purdue has raked in from sales of OxyContin.

The turning point in the case may have been when Purdue Pharma lawyers were unable to get the case moved out of Pike County, Kentucky. Those lawyers probably knew county residents were likely to be bitter about the drug company’s antics, since the county’s overdose death rate is still extremely high.

In 2014, 51 people out of every 100,000 died from drug overdose, according to data on the state’s website (http://odcp.ky.gov/Pages/Overdose-Fatality-Report.aspx ) Of course, OxyContin is not the only reason for the overdose deaths, but citizens selected as jurors may have jumped at the chance to blame someone. Who better than a drug company? The company lawyers were facing the potential for an astronomically high judgement from jurors with the case heard in Pike County.

The drug company lawyers decided to play it safe, and settled for 24 million dollars. Purdue Pharma and its officials did not admit any guilt in this settlement.

This isn’t Purdue Pharma’s first legal loss. As you will recall from my July 8, 2015 blog post, Virginia won an award of $634 million from Purdue and from its top three executives after they pleaded guilty in May of 2007 to misleading the public about the drug’s safety. It was one of the largest awards against any drug company for illegal marketing…though Purdue made 2.8 billion dollars in sales from the time of its release in 1996 until 2001. How much the company made since 2001 is anyone’s guess but it has to be in the billions.

When I started working at my first opioid treatment program (OTP) in 2001, the only drug I heard about was OxyContin. The majority of the patients entering treatment used only Oxy’s, as they called them. Patients told me how easy it was to remove the time release coating, then crush the pills to snort or inject. All during this time, Purdue Pharma was touting their product as abuse-resistant.

Needless to say, their claims rang hollow in my ears, and the ears of other doctors treating addiction

Eventually, the U.S. General Accounting Office asked for a report about the promotion of OxyContin by Purdue Pharma. By 2002, prescriptions written for non-cancer pain accounted for 85% of the OxyContin sold, despite a lack of data regarding the safety for this practice. By 2003, primary care doctors, with little or no training in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, prescribed about half of all OxyContin prescriptions written in this country. By 2003, the FDA cited Purdue Pharma twice for using misleading information in its promotional advertisements to doctors. [1, 2] Purdue Pharma also trained its sales representatives to make deceptive statements during OxyContin’s marketing to doctors. [3]

Testifying before Congress in 2002, a Purdue Pharma representative said the company was working of re-formulating OxyContin, to make it harder to use intravenously. This representative claimed it would take several years to achieve this re-formulation. The re-formulated OxyContin was finally approved by the FDA in 2010, eight years later. Currently, this medication forms a viscous hydrogel if someone attempts to inject or snort the medication. It isn’t abuse-proof; probably no opioid will ever be so, but it is much more abuse-deterrent than the original.

Did Purdue Pharma drag their feet in this re-formulation? Experts like Paul Caplan, executive director for risk management for the drug company, said there were issues about the safety of incorporating naloxone into the pill to make it less desirable to intravenous addicts. He also pointed out that some delay in approval was due to the FDA.

For comparison, Sterling Pharmaceutical, when it became widely known patients were abusing their pain medication Talwin, re-formulated within a year, adding naloxone to the medication and reducing its desirability on the black market. Since this was in the 1980’s, I would assume there was less technology to help back then, compared to 2002.

I’ll let readers draw their own conclusions.

No one in the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, has been criminally charged with any crimes.

  1. General Accounting Office OxyContin Abuse and Diversion report GAO-04-110, 2003.
  2. 2. United States Senate. Congressional hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, on Examining the Effects of the Painkiller OxyContin, 107th Congress, Second Session, February, 2002.
  3. 3. Washington Times, “Company Admits Painkiller Deceit,” May 11, 2007, accessed online at http://washingtontimes. com/news/2007/may/10/20070510-103237-4952r/prinnt/ on 12/18/2008.

Update

aaanger

Last week, I told my readers about a letter I sent to my local newspaper, trying to explain the usefulness of methadone (and buprenorphine) treatment for opioid addiction. Happily, my entire letter was published in our local paper under the heading of “Guest Columnist.”

I was elated, especially since this piece of writing was on a topic about which I’m passionate.

I checked Friday’s paper to see if anyone had responded to my column. There were no replies, but there was another article in that issue, titled, “Task Force Targets Schools.”

This article was about the meeting of a drug abuse task force formed earlier this year by local people. Before you ask, yes, this is in the same county where Project Lazarus, founded in 2008 in response to high drug overdose death rates, has its headquarters. And no, I do not know why people in this new task force feel the need to re-invent the wheel, particularly in an area where the prior inventors of the wheel have had such success and nationwide praise. Indeed, many other areas of the country have copied the Project Lazarus model of addressing the multifactorial causes and contributors of addiction

Anyway, I don’t know the motivations of this new task force. Interestingly, this quote was found early in the article: “Education and dissemination of information appears to be the greatest way the task force can make a difference.” This was said one of the co-chairmen of the organization. This quote was in the context of providing information to youths to prevent drug use and drug addiction.

I sure as hell wish that statement also applied to facts around treatment of addiction.

At some point, methadone apparently became the topic of discussion, which was a shame, because task force members sound like they don’t know anything about methadone. I wish they would have read my guest column two days prior!

Here’s a quote from the paper from one of the task force members: “From the way I understand it, the methadone clinics are not weaning these people off methadone. They’re going for treatments and they’re just going and going and going,” According to the article, he also said that state government should be involved in requiring plans that give people certain amounts of time to be off methadone and then with helping them.

Then the co-chair of the task force, a law enforcement trainer at the local community college, said methadone clinics are supposed to have personalized plans for people who come in for treatment. “It doesn’t appear that those plans are followed exactly the way they should be,” he added. “It’s a business model.”

I’m not sure what qualifies this man to know how long methadone should be prescribed for the purposes of treating opioid addiction. He’s not a doctor.

Then another person in the task force said the goal is for a person going to one of the clinics to be off methadone in a year, “but that doesn’t happen…. It’s a business.” She said only a small percentage kick their addictions.

Who is this second person? She is – wait for it – a Licensed Clinical Addiction Specialist. She works for a program where we have referred patients in the past.

As all my readers know, I am a calm and patient person who never takes things personally (yeah that’s sarcasm). Even more fortunately, I’m not the litigious type, because when someone says at a public forum that the local methadone clinic keeps patients on methadone because it’s a business model, that’s a defamatory statement. That implies I prescribe methadone to make money and not to help patients. This statement attacks my character as the medical director of that program, and cast dispersions on my professional integrity.

Drug addiction treatment should be about science, not opinion.

I know the right thing to do, the grown-up thing to do… call task force members and politely offer to educate them about MAT.

I’ll get there. But right now, I’m not ready to be a grown up.

Heroin Epidemic versus Pain Pill Addiction Epidemic

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagraph of heroin deaths

I’m surprised at all the coverage heroin addiction has received in the past few months. Breathless headlines are appearing in all forms of media about our “new” addiction problem. Friends send me links to articles about addiction since they know that’s the field I work in. I’m as surprised to see all the media coverage now as I used to be puzzled about the lack of coverage five years ago. I’ve been treating opioid addiction for the last fourteen years, and the opioid addiction epidemic isn’t new. It’s been very well established for years.

Perhaps the idea of using heroin jolts people more than the idea of using prescription opioids. Maybe people don’t understand that prescription opioid addiction has the same physiologic process as heroin addiction. Manufactured pain pills have less variation in content than balloons of black tar heroin, so there may be less risk of overdose. However, the body responds the same to both types of opioids. The body develops addiction and physical dependency in the same way to both heroin and prescription opioids, and withdrawal symptoms and cravings are the same. Both overdose and death happens with both types of opioids.

Perhaps heroin is perceived as the hardest of hard drugs, and therefore data about heroin addiction captures more attention than pain pill use. Maybe the use of heroin crosses a line that’s not perceived by prescription opioid addiction.

Can it be that there are still people who believe if it is a prescription medication, that it’s safe? Or is it just easier to justify the misuse of a pain pill? Communities with years of rampant pain pill addiction are only now wringing their hands because of heroin addiction. These communities are now demanding action from our government.

I’m glad for the attention to the problem of opioid addiction because I’ve seen way too much complacency about this issue for way too long.

I’m also irritated.

In 2009, I wrote a book about pain pill addiction. I was extremely lucky to get an agent, and she shopped my book to four or five mid-level publishing houses. They weren’t interested because they felt the book didn’t have a broad enough appeal. I ended up self-publishing, and sold around 500-600 copies. That’s not too bad for a self-published book, but distribution could have been much broader through a publishing house. Having my book turned down by publishers with an utter lack of interest in the subject matter undoubtedly causes some of my irritation.

I went to the ASAM conference where the head of the CDC pledged to get involved in the treatment and prevention of opioid addiction. Don’t get me wrong; that’s a wonderful thing to hear. The problem is, that was in 2012.

For all who’ve just joined the movement to help opioid addicted people get help, welcome. I’m glad you’re here, and we can use your help. And forgive me for wishing you had been interested in this problem ten years ago.

Mandating Physician Education

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadoc

In May of this year, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey proposed a new bill titled the Safe Prescribing of Controlled Substances Act. This Act, among other things, calls for mandatory education of the nation’s physicians about, as the name implies, safer prescribing of controlled substances. It also calls for mandatory education about identifying patients with substance use disorders.

Physicians get very little education about this tremendously important problem. Some medical schools and residencies have added addiction trainings, but change happens slowly. Plenty of doctors in the U.S. are still mis-prescibing

Physicians are not going to like this legislation. We hate being told we have to do anything, especially by politicians. But obviously, the present generation of physicians is NOT able to prescribe controlled substances properly, as evidenced by our epidemic of prescription drug addiction.

The bill extends to any prescriber of controlled substances, meaning that physician assistants and nurse practitioners will also be required to take this training, at least in states where they are allowed to prescribe controlled substances.

Senator Markey’s bill says the Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for producing this training and that it will be free and available online.

The bill specifies the training should include, “methods for diagnosing, treating, and
managing a substance use disorder, including the use of medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration and evidence-based non-pharmacological therapies.”

If everyone interprets this paragraph as I do, this would mean all doctors who want to prescribe controlled substances should be educated about medication-assisted treatments of opioid addiction, among other things.

That would be wonderful. How nice it would be for my patients to go to their other doctors, and hear, “So glad you are on methadone for the treatment of addiction. Good job.” instead of the usual insults about being on of MAT. How nice for me to be able to call other doctors who don’t think I’m a drug pusher for prescribing MAT!

Also, Senator Markey sent letters to the VA, Defense Department, and IHS, urging them to included prescribing information to their patients on their state’s prescription monitoring program. Many patients being cared for by these agencies are prescribed controlled substances, but doctors outside those systems have no way to know what is being prescribed. Presently, they don’t report to the prescription monitoring programs. I hope these military agencies chose to participate in the PMPs. It would be a way to keep those patients safer when they seek care outside the military system.

On May 15, 2015, the Huffington Post had an online article about another bill, the Recovery Enhancement for Addiction Treatment Act, also sponsored by Senator Markey and Senator Rand Paul. This legislation would lift the one-hundred patient limit placed on office-based buprenorphine doctors.

In the past, I supported lifting the one-hundred patient cap, but I’ve come to believe the cap isn’t all that relevant, at least in my area. Around here, I think the only physicians who honor the cap are conscientious doctors who would do a good job without legislation.

Around here, physicians have more than one hundred buprenorphine patients, and skirt the regulations by saying some of them are prescribed it “for pain.” Physician extenders without DEA “X” numbers already prescribe buprenorphine in this state. When the North Carolina medical board was notified about this, they declined to take any action.

In other words, the present regulations are flouted without consequence, so lifting them isn’t going to make a big difference. (That may not be the case in all areas of the country.) But mandating education about addiction and its treatment may help treatment providers deliver better care.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 758 other followers