Why Primary Care Doctors Are Walking Away From Buprenorphine

 Primary care physicians in Vermont are walking away from prescribing Suboxone, saying that they are ill-equipped to treat the many problems of the opioid-addicted, the Burlington Free Press reported this fall. One physician, John Matthews, MD, with the Health Center in Plainfield, summed it up by saying the eight-hour course required by the federal government to be listed as a Suboxone provider is only “rudimentary” and doesn’t give physicians the training needed to deal with the behavioral problems of opioid-addicted patients. “I don’t want to be listed as a Suboxone provider anymore,” he told the newspaper. “I’m pretty dubious about it. It’s like methadone. It ought to be in the hands of an addictionologist.” Contacted after the Burlington Free Press story was published, Dr. Matthews declined to speak with AT Forum.

But he and other primary care physicians have the sympathy of Peter Cohen, MD, opioid treatment authority for Maryland, where this very problem has occurred in Baltimore.

“Doctors are hesitant to start people on buprenorphine because of the implications for their practice,” Dr. Cohen told AT Forum.

‘Medication in Search of a System of Care’

“When buprenorphine first came out, I thought it was a medication in search of a system of care. The federal government said, ‘We want it in doctors’ offices but it’s up to you to figure out how to do this,’” he told AT Forum. The federal government had guidelines, but it was up to states and local entities to figure out how to implement buprenorphine. In a publicly funded system, especially in an urban area like Baltimore, the solution has proved to be induction centers with intensive case management, where patients go for their first dose, and aren’t referred to private physicians until they are stable and “smelling like a rose.”

One big problem with buprenorphine is that the first dose can’t be given unless the patient is in withdrawal. “Would a doctor who has a busy practice want someone who is going through withdrawal in their waiting room?” asked Dr. Cohen. “I’m not talking about stigma, I’m talking about logistics.”

If a patient calls asking for an appointment to get buprenorphine, the physician is supposed to say to come in immediately—that day—for an appointment. That in itself is not easy for a busy physician, because the exam is time-consuming. And when the patient is scheduled for an exam, he or she is told to stop taking opioids and to come in when withdrawal symptoms begin. The entire process is cumbersome.

Induction centers are best suited to urban areas, Dr. Cohen said. “Vermont is going to be different, because it’s rural.” In private practice, what physicians need is a “supporting structure” if they are going to be providing buprenorphine, he pointed out. That structure is always present in OTPs. “As a physician, I know by experience that there’s more to the person than the medication.”

There are 325,000 to 375,000 patients taking Suboxone at any given time. About 21,500 physicians nationwide are certified to treat a maximum of 30 patients, while an additional 5,560 physicians are approved to treat a maximum of 100 patients.

For additional information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21664789

ASAM Recognizes Addiction as a Brain Disease, Supporting the Need for Medication-Assisted Treatment

On August 15 the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) published its new definition of addiction—one that contradicts some prevailing beliefs. The Society holds that addiction is not a behavioral disorder, nor is it a form of “self-medication” for easing emotional pain. Addiction is a single disease of the brain comprising a group of disorders —addiction to alcohol, opioids or other drugs, food, gambling, or sex.

A Primary, Chronic Brain Disease

The ASAM definition calls addiction “a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry.” (“Primary” means addiction is not the result of other causes, such as emotional or psychiatric problems. “Chronic” means it must be treated, managed, and monitored over a prolonged period, for some people, even a lifetime. “Circuitry” refers to nerve networks within the brain, linked with pleasurable activities and rewards—such as eating, sexual activities, and interactions with others.)

Dysfunction in the circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social, and spiritual manifestations. The individual pathologically pursues rewards, or relief, or both, by substance use and other behaviors.

Addiction is characterized by craving, an inability to consistently abstain from the addictive substance or behavior, impaired behavioral control, a diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission.

Linking addiction with brain disease did not originate with ASAM. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has for years reported that addiction is a “chronic, often relapsing brain disease” that over time causes brain changes that “challenge a person’s self-control and ability to resist intense impulses urging them to take drugs.” The best treatment for most patients, according to NIDA, is “combining addiction treatment medications with behavioral therapy.” Also, the National Quality Control Forum has recognized the implications of brain disease in addiction, and has recommended pharmacotherapy.

Genetic and Environmental Factors

The ASAM definition acknowledges that genetic factors “account for about half of the likelihood that an individual will develop addiction.” Genetic factors can combine with environmental factors and lead to “addiction’s characteristic bio-psycho-socio-spiritual manifestations.” More than 80 physicians specializing in addiction, neuroscience, and neurology worked together to frame the ASAM definition, which was developed over a four-year period. The definition is now out for field review and will be finalized in 2013.

Definition Supports the Need for Medication-Assisted Treatment

ASAM’s new definition of addiction explains why opioid treatment programs (OTPs) and medication-assisted treatment (MAT) help many patients with substance use disorders (SUDs)—and why some fail to benefit from treatment without medications. Methadone is effective treatment because it stabilizes brain function—a process that can take months or years—while comprehensive OTP services help patients cope with the psychosocial aspects of addiction.

Debate and Coverage

Some in the field still consider addiction to be based in behavior, not in differences within the brain. Some question whether addiction is a chronic disease. Some take issue with “spiritual factors” as contributors to addiction.

Press Comments

The following appeared in reaction to ASAM’s definition.

Hot Topics: New View of Addiction Stirs Up A Scientific Storm – The Fix •  A group of leading American addiction experts recently released a sweeping new definition of addiction, sending the powerful psychiatric lobby into a tail-spin.”

Time Healthland •  Although addiction is indeed chronic in some cases, most people diagnosed with addiction or alcoholism “actually recover without treatment or participation in self-help groups.”

SARx UCLA Substance Abuse Pharmacotherapy Unit •  “It’s hard not to ask what took them so long to come to this conclusion . . . but I guess better late than never.”

All Brain and No Soul? – The Fix •  Social factors like unemployment, education level, traumatic life experience, and amount of social support for recovery are currently better predictors of recovery than any brain factors yet discovered.

Addiction doesn’t begin—or end—with “pleasure centers in the brain.” If we’re going to address addiction effectively, we need to recognize this reality and devote as much time and money to studying social factors as intensely as we do the brain.

Implications for Treatment

ASAM has cautioned that it’s “important to focus on the underlying disease process in the brain, and its biological, psychological, social, and spiritual manifestations.” It urges policy makers and funding agencies to remember that “treatment must be comprehensive, and to focus on all aspects of addiction and addictive behaviors, rather than substance-specific treatment.”

By defining addiction as a disease of the brain, and recommending comprehensive treatment, ASAM substantiates the key role treatment programs play in SUDs. While medication helps stabilize brain function, programs monitor regimens, maintain continuing contact, and provide services needed to help with the psychosocial aspects of addiction.

To our readers: Tell us your thoughts about the ASAM definition of addiction. Did ASAM take a bold step, or was it lagging behind the field at large? What is the role of psychosocial treatment? Tell us which services make the difference: Adequate doses of methadone? Counseling? Twelve-Step meetings?

Sources

ASAM’s Definition of Addiction: Frequently Asked Questions. August 2011
http://www.asam.org/pdf/Advocacy/20110816_DefofAddiction-FAQs.pdf Accessed November 10, 2011.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, NIH Publication No. 09–4180, Rockville, MD; 2009 http://www.nida.nih.gov/podat/podatindex.html Accessed November 10, 2011.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. InfoFacts: Understanding Drug Abuse and Addiction. National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD; 2011.
http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/understand.html Accessed November 10, 2011.

National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Drugs, Brains, and Behavior: The Science of Addiction. NIH Pub. No. 10-5605. Bethesda, MD; 2010. http://drugabuse.gov/scienceofaddiction/sciofaddiction.pdf Accessed November 10, 2011.

How Drug Addiction & Other “Highs” Affect the Brain—Phoenix House. August 18, 2011.
http://www.phoenixhouse.org/blog/our-perspectives/how-drug-addiction-other-highs-affect-the-brain/?utm_%20source=Join+Together+Daily&utm_campaign=c55fa841d3-JT+Daily+News%3A+MADD+Natio%20nal+President%3A…&utm_medium=email
Accessed November 10, 2011.

The Next Advancement in Counseling: The Bio-Psycho-Social Model. David M. Kaplan and Sharon L Coogan. In American Counseling Association: Vistas Online.
http://www.counseling.org/Resources/Library/VISTAS/vistas05/vistas05.art03.pdf
Accessed November 10, 2011.

New Resource – Principles of Addiction Medicine: The Essentials

Principles of Addiction MedicineA new handbook from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), Principles of Addiction Medicine: The Essentials, provides a quick reference on virtually all addiction medicine topics. This 600-page handbook extracts and summarizes key clinical points from each chapter of Principles of Addiction Medicine, 4th Edition, and presents them in an easily readable manner. The book is an excellent reference for a wide variety of practitioners, among them psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, social workers, internal medicine and primary care physicians, and substance abuse counselors. Further information including the table of contents and ordering information is available at: http://www.asam.org/PrinciplesEssentials.html#TOC (Publication date May 2011; paperbound edition $67.95 plus shipping and taxes; Kindle price $51.29.)

Methadone Treatment Expansion in Baltimore Reduces Waiting Lists

Baltimore, once called by the Drug Enforcement Administration the “heroin capital of the U.S.,” no longer deserves that epithet, says Yngvild Olsen, MD, MPH, medical director and vice president of clinical affairs at Baltimore Substance Abuse Systems, Inc. (BSAS). More heroin users are getting into treatment, including methadone maintenance, thanks to Maryland’s newly expanded Primary Adult Care (PAC) health coverage program. Maryland Medicaid is now paying, for the first time, for comprehensive medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for everyone who qualifies financially, opening up publicly funded methadone treatment to single men without dependent children.

The revised PAC program took effect in January 2010. It was an expansion of the original PAC program, which allowed uninsured people not eligible for traditional Medicaid—mostly childless low-income men—access to outpatient mental health services, prescriptions, and primary care. The one thing the program did not cover was addiction treatment.

Increased Medicaid Reimbursement Rate for Methadone Treatment

In 2009, the Maryland state legislature voted to take $6.7 million from state substance abuse treatment funds and moved it to Medicaid. In return, Medicaid increased the reimbursement rates for methadone maintenance (MM) treatment, as well as for intensive outpatient and outpatient addiction treatment. Medicaid also made these services part of the PAC benefit package.

“They got rid of the preauthorizations and a lot of other things managed care organizations put up to limit access,” says Dr. Olsen. “Methadone programs now just have to submit notifications of treatment with a clear clinical rationale for why a patient needs this treatment. Every 26 weeks, the program then repeats the process for that patient.”

As a result of these changes to the PAC program, opioid treatment programs (OTPs) have been able to admit new patients and access the higher rates. Some programs expanded their actual physical space, while others maximized patient capacity within their current space. They hired more counselors and expanded their hours. In addition, new private programs opened in Baltimore, or added new sites.

Waiting Lists

The expansion has virtually eliminated waiting lists in the programs that are reimbursed by the higher Medicaid rates under PAC, says Dr. Olsen. There are 12 OTPs in Baltimore that currently receive grant funds in addition to PAC reimbursement. As of October 3, 11 responded to a BSAS query about OTP waiting lists.

Of the 11 programs that responded, three hospital-based programs still have waiting lists as they cannot access the rate structure of the PAC program and are primarily dependent on grant funds.  Because of this, these three programs with waiting lists are representative of how the entire OTP system looked prior to PAC, says Dr. Olsen.

Of the remaining eight community-based programs, three have waiting lists of one to four weeks for uninsured individuals, but no waiting list for those with PAC or another form of insurance.

The other five programs have no waiting lists either for uninsured or insured patients, and are continuing to increase their capacity, by expanding the location and by extending service hours, she says. “These programs also told us that they can expand because uninsured patients often get PAC within 60 days of treatment admission.”

The survey does not include the private programs in Baltimore that do not receive grant funds but do accept PAC, but Dr. Olsen says she doesn’t think there is a waiting list at these clinics for insured patients based on information circulating in the community.

Peter M. Cohen, state opioid treatment authority for Maryland, confirmed that there are no long waiting lists for methadone in Baltimore. And here’s the proof. Baltimore had four interim methadone maintenance programs designed to get people in MM treatment right away. As of July 1, “we determined the need isn’t there for those interim programs.”

There are currently 2,231 methadone slots for the uninsured in Baltimore, and about 500 to 600 patients are maintained on buprenorphine

Baltimore, once called by the Drug Enforcement Administration the “heroin capital of the U.S.,” no longer deserves that epithet, says Yngvild Olsen, MD, MPH, medical director and vice president of clinical affairs at Baltimore Substance Abuse Systems, Inc. (BSAS). More heroin users are getting into treatment, including methadone maintenance, thanks to Maryland’s newly expanded Primary Adult Care (PAC) health coverage program. Maryland Medicaid is now paying, for the first time, for comprehensive medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for everyone who qualifies financially, opening up publicly funded methadone treatment to single men without dependent children.

The revised PAC program took effect in January 2010. It was an expansion of the original PAC program, which allowed uninsured people not eligible for traditional Medicaid—mostly childless low-income men—access to outpatient mental health services, prescriptions, and primary care. The one thing the program did not cover was addiction treatment.

Increased Medicaid Reimbursement Rate for Methadone Treatment

In 2009, the Maryland state legislature voted to take $6.7 million from state substance abuse treatment funds and moved it to Medicaid. In return, Medicaid increased the reimbursement rates for methadone maintenance (MM) treatment, as well as for intensive outpatient and outpatient addiction treatment. Medicaid also made these services part of the PAC benefit package.

“They got rid of the preauthorizations and a lot of other things managed care organizations put up to limit access,” says Dr. Olsen. “Methadone programs now just have to submit notifications of treatment with a clear clinical rationale for why a patient needs this treatment. Every 26 weeks, the program then repeats the process for that patient.”

As a result of these changes to the PAC program, opioid treatment programs (OTPs) have been able to admit new patients and access the higher rates. Some programs expanded their actual physical space, while others maximized patient capacity within their current space. They hired more counselors and expanded their hours. In addition, new private programs opened in Baltimore, or added new sites.

Waiting Lists

The expansion has virtually eliminated waiting lists in the programs that are reimbursed by the higher Medicaid rates under PAC, says Dr. Olsen. There are 12 OTPs in Baltimore that currently receive grant funds in addition to PAC reimbursement. As of October 3, 11 responded to a BSAS query about OTP waiting lists.

Of the 11 programs that responded, three hospital-based programs still have waiting lists as they cannot access the rate structure of the PAC program and are primarily dependent on grant funds. Because of this, these three programs with waiting lists are representative of how the entire OTP system looked prior to PAC, says Dr. Olsen.

Of the remaining eight community-based programs, three have waiting lists of one to four weeks for uninsured individuals, but no waiting list for those with PAC or another form of insurance.

The other five programs have no waiting lists either for uninsured or insured patients, and are continuing to increase their capacity, by expanding the location and by extending service hours, she says. “These programs also told us that they can expand because uninsured patients often get PAC within 60 days of treatment admission.”

The survey does not include the private programs in Baltimore that do not receive grant funds but do accept PAC, but Dr. Olsen says she doesn’t think there is a waiting list at these clinics for insured patients based on information circulating in the community.

Peter M. Cohen, state opioid treatment authority for Maryland, confirmed that there are no long waiting lists for methadone in Baltimore. And here’s the proof. Baltimore had four interim methadone maintenance programs designed to get people in MM treatment right away. As of July 1, “we determined the need isn’t there for those interim programs.”

There are currently 2,231 methadone slots for the uninsured in Baltimore, and about 500 to 600 patients are maintained on buprenorphine.

Methadone Clinic Wins NIMBY Battle

A victory in Warren, Maine for CRC Health Group is a victory for methadone clinics seeking sites across the country. It also means that a community that was staunchly opposed to a methadone clinic will have the chance to see how an opioid treatment program (OTP) can operate as a good neighbor. After a yearlong battle, the town voted to settle a lawsuit filed by the Cupertino, California-based treatment program—and to grant permits and approvals for an OTP there.

The lawsuit also asked the town for $320,000. In September, the town voted to settle the lawsuit for what ended up being only $1—and for the right to operate a methadone clinic. The town’s insurer paid the remainder of the $320,000 to CRC.

Background

Ever since Turning Tide, a methadone clinic in nearby Rockland, was shut down by the Drug Enforcement Administration during the summer of 2010, that area of Maine has been without needed help for people with active addiction to opioids, now a serious epidemic in the state. CRC Health Group tried to open a program in Warren, which is near Rockland, but the town of Warren issued a moratorium on methadone clinics, to block CRC and any others from opening an OTP there.

This was a classic NIMBY (not in my backyard) response, one based on “emotions,” explained Jerry Rhodes, Chief Operating Officer of CRC and past president of its recovery division, speaking to AT Forum in October. But CRC filed suit and won. The company sued based on the Americans with Disabilities Act, which bans discrimination based on disabilities; addiction is a disability. 

Over the course of the past year, CRC officials explained to the town that most of the patients in the OTP would be addicted to prescription drugs and not using needles, and gave scientific presentations on how effective methadone is. The town dug in its heels all through late last year and early this year. CRC’s lawyer wrote a letter to the town last winter warning that if the town did not reinstate the building permit previously given to its methadone program there, and repeal the moratorium, there would be “immense liability” to the town.

One Day of Mediation

“We had to file suit against the city, unfortunately,” Mr. Rhodes said. The resolution came about through mediation. “They came to realize that we were right.” The mediation process did not take a long time, but it was “fairly intense.”

At the August 31 mediation, the town learned that it could be facing two years of costly time in court, and that it would probably lose its case.

In the case of Warren in particular, “it didn’t seem as if they were well-advised, or had thought this out,” Mr. Rhodes commented.

Emotions

The field needs to work harder to educate people about medication-assisted treatment, Mr. Rhodes said. “I’ve done this for a long time, and many people have an emotional, almost visceral, reaction. They don’t have a good understanding of the basis of addiction. People clearly aren’t aware of the gravity of the problems in their own community.”

When people in Maine read the many news stories about the epidemic of prescription opioid abuse in the state, they are somehow not connecting this to the communities they live in. People also need to realize that installing a clinic that provides services for opioid abusers “can be a positive thing for the area,” Mr. Rhodes explained. “Treatment programs reduce crime and help people improve their lives.”

The coming days and weeks will be spent on integrating the clinic into the community, in preparation for the actual opening, said Mr. Rhodes. “I’m not expecting we’ll see any overt negative reaction. Things tend to settle down, and they will realize we’re not the problem they anticipated.”

More NIMBY News

Meanwhile, in Berwyn, Illinois, the Buonauro Clinic is seeking to open a new facility (one already exists in Evanston). Just as in Warren, Maine, the permit was initially granted, and then rescinded after community protests; voters then voted to ban methadone clinics in certain areas. The owners sued the city, claiming it violated the ADA. The lawsuit is seeking $1 million in damages and issuance of a business license.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago by clinic owners Elizabeth Buonauro and Sal R. Sotille.

Evidence was presented at trial in October, with more information to go to the judge over the course of the next couple of months, and a ruling is expected in January.

EEOC Sues Employer for Discriminating Against Methadone Patient

The federal agency charged with keeping discrimination out of the workplace has good news for methadone patients in medication-assisted treatment. In a lawsuit filed last summer by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against United Insurance, a Chicago-based company, the federal government is fighting for the rights of people in methadone treatment for opioid dependence. According to the complaint, United Insurance offered a position as an agent to Craig Burns, who has been in methadone treatment since 2004. The job offer was contingent upon his passing a drug test; Mr. Burns’ test indicated that he had methadone in his system.

Mr. Burns’ treatment provider gave him a letter for the company saying that he was in treatment and taking a legally prescribed medication. When the company got that information, it withdrew the job offer, according to the EEOC, which charges that United Insurance violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Past Drug Addiction is a Protected Disability Under the ADA

The EEOC sued United Insurance in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. “It is unfortunate that many employers still deny the opportunity for work to people who are ready and able simply because of inaccurate perceptions of disabilities,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District, in a press statement in August. “Employers’ decisions are often based on irrational fears or stereotypes about individuals with a record of past substance abuse. The EEOC will continue to fight for the rights of people victimized by such prejudices.”

Events

Events33rd Annual Training Institute on Behavioral Health and Addictive Disorders
February 13-16, 2012
Clearwater Beach, Florida
Contact: www.usjt.com or 800-441-5569

American College of Psychiatrists (ACP) Annual Meeting
February 22-26, 2012
Naples, Florida
Contact: www.acpsych.org

American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) 43rd Annual Medical-Scientific Conference
April 19-22, 2012
Atlanta, Georgia
Contact: www.asam.org/AnnualMeeting.html

American Association for the Treatment Opioid Dependence, Inc. National Conference
April 21-25, 2012
Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: www.AATOD.org

AT Forum Volume 21, #3 – Summer 2011

Addiction Treatment Forum is made possible by an unrestricted educational grant from Mallinckrodt Inc., a Covidien company, St. Louis, MO, a manufacturer of opiate- and alcohol-addiction products.

We’re Going Green and Interactive!

Going green and InteractiveBack in the summer of 1992, we published the premier edition of the Addiction Treatment Forum newsletter. With our next edition, Fall 2011, we’re going exclusively electronic—so this, our 70th newsletter, is the last printed version you’ll receive. And it’s one of our best.

We’re excited about going green, going electronic, and keeping pace with the changing times. We’re helping to conserve our natural resources, and taking part in the many technological innovations that speed the flow of information in the addiction treatment field.

Let’s Blog!

Beginning with our Premier Edition, collaboration has been a key commitment to our colleagues and readers. As publishers, we’ve found communication to be a great way to generate innovative ideas and provide meaningful, practical, and effective solutions for the health care problems voiced by our readers and by the addiction-treatment community.
So, to improve our communication channels, we’re converting the AT Forum newsletter and news updates to a blog format. Each article will have a comments section for you to voice your opinions.

We’ll also be posting online surveys displaying real-time results on hot topics.

Keep in Touch

To keep informed whenever the AT Forum website is updated, sign up on our home page (www.ATForum.com) for e-mail notifications. To ensure that our e-mails arrive safely in your inbox, add ATForum@list.ATForum.com to your address book. If your organization controls spam mail, check with your IT department to make sure ATForum.com is on the “safe sender” list. It’s also a good idea to sign up for e-notifications using your personal e-mail address.

Your friends, colleagues, and patients will find useful and interesting information at our website and in our AT Forum newsletters. Please do them a favor and help us spread the word so they can sign up for e-mail notifications.

Some of our current readers lack Web access. We encourage clinic management to print and display copies of the newsletter, so staff and patients can continue to read them, as before.

Follow Us on Twitter, Facebook, RSS Feeds Follow us on TwitterFollow us on FacebookRSS Feed

social media We know you have a favorite source for accessing information, so we offer you the option of tracking new content at our website by following us on Twitter and Facebook, or through our RSS feed.

Have Questions About MAT?

Please send them to us by clicking on our home page button, Ask AT Forum. We won’t be able to respond to all of the questions, but we value your opinions and they will help guide our choice of topics.

Our Sponsor

For almost two decades, the AT Forum newsletter and ATForum.com website have been funded exclusively by an unrestricted educational grant from Covidien Mallinckrodt. Our sponsor zeroed in on the opportunity to provide evidence-based information on medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid addiction to stakeholders, health care professionals, and patients. With ongoing support from Covidien Mallinckrodt, AT Forum will continue to air and respond to your opinions, and to serve as a platform to highlight the accomplishments of patients and health care professionals alike.

Visit ATForum.com Today

You’ll discover a wealth of information at our website—all 70 newsletters, more than 150 months of news notes and updates, and more than 200 resources. You’ll also find frequently asked questions (FAQs), patient education brochures you can download in English and Spanish, links to more than 200 related websites, and lists of key addiction-related events, including webinars, conferences, and meetings.

We so appreciate your continued interest in AT Forum. As always, we greatly value your feedback, so we can keep in touch with you, our readers.

Sue Emerson, Publisher
ATForum@ATForum.com

Implementing EHR Systems in OTPs: Potential Roadblocks and Lessons Learned – An Interview with Lawrence S. Brown, Jr, MD, MPH

computers linked togetherDespite government incentive programs and a 2014 deadline for establishing a fully electronic health record (EHR) system, most health care transactions continue to be carried out manually, on paper.

Among impediments to EHR implementation:  Financial—What will it cost? Training—How to prepare employees for advanced technology? Selecting a program—Outside vendors, an in-house system, or a combination? Personnel issues—Possible conflicts between confidentiality, privacy issues, and legal provisions?

To answer these questions, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) awarded a grant to Addiction Research and Treatment Corporation (ARTC), one of the nation’s premier substance abuse treatment programs. A community-based, minority-operated, not-for-profit health care system with seven CARF-accredited opioid treatment programs (OTPs), ARTC serves more than 3,000 OTP patients each year in New York State, providing comprehensive methadone maintenance (MM) treatment, including HIV/AIDS services and primary medical care.

Lawrence S. Brown, Jr, MD, MPH, Interim executive director of ARTC, shares with us some challenges and opportunities ARTC encountered while implementing an EHR system under the NIDA grant. (The Journal of the Evaluation of Clinical Practice published a report; see citation at the end of this article.)

Setting up the ARTC EHR System

In 2006, ARTC began setting up EHRs for its general medical system, later interfacing it with the agency’s basic administrative needs.  “We quickly realized we needed an outside consultant, because of the way our operations and systems functioned,” Dr. Brown says. “The project was beyond our in-house programmers’ scope, and rapidly changing technology was dating our software and hardware.

“As a not-for-profit, we obtain over 90 percent of our revenue stream through public funds. Hiring a consultant wasn’t an easy sell to our governing body, but we were successful, and the consultant began work in 2007. All staff received computer assessments, basic computer training, if needed, and specific program training.”

As a large, multiple-site OTP, ARTC needed to choose between upgrading their entire system and continuing to use a largely decentralized system, based on security considerations and operations. “This is a decision OTPs will need to make.  For smaller OTPs, that’s less of an issue.” ARTC decided to upgrade their desktop computers, servers, and network, while ensuring continuity of billing and fiscal processes.

In 2009, ARTC’s general medical system went online. In 2010, behavioral data were integrated with the electronic medical system. Today, major challenges remain, as ARTC continues to integrate what was a largely paper-based information system with electronic clinical, administrative, and fiscal data.

Suggestions for OTPs Starting Out. Dr. Brown advises OTP staff to mentally prepare themselves before converting to an electronic system. “If you fight it, you’ll just become more frustrated.”  Smaller OTPs considering starting a system internally need to carefully weigh the considerable start-up costs.

“Talk with your colleagues—OTPs who’ve set up a system, and those who haven’t—to identify the challenges. Find out how consultants have worked out for your colleagues.

“Do an in-depth needs-assessment of your OTP. Identify strengths, and areas for improvement. Involve all stakeholders, even though that’s a lot of work. Leaving out the governing body or clinicians would be a mistake.”

Some Things ARTC Learned

Importance of Timely Reports. “We began to see the relationships between the quality and timeliness of our reports, and the impact to our bottom line and to patient care,” Dr. Brown told AT Forum. “Before the electronic system, we couldn’t tell if we were getting timely reports. Some clinicians took days to complete their clinical records, and until they did we couldn’t submit bills. Now we are able to assess how promptly our clinicians carry out their clinical responsibilities.

”The electronic data also allow us to assess the quality of our patients’ treatment plans, and to determine if our clinicians meet the treatment requirements of federal and state authorities and professional accreditation organizations.

“Using the data, we’ve identified the items most important to our agency and field staff, leading to a hierarchy of objectives—our 5-point score card: 1) regulatory compliance; 2) financial health; 3) quality of care; 4) satisfaction of our patients and those we serve; and 5) satisfaction of our workforce. Whenever issues come up, we say, ‘Where does this fit in our score card?’ It helps us prioritize.” These scorecards can help an agency evaluate how effectively it meets goals and objectives.

Patient Confidentiality Concerns. “Patient advisory committees conduct ongoing patient satisfaction surveys at each facility. Addiction treatment presents confidentiality concerns, because protections are set to a higher standard than those for general medical care.

“We’ve made it clear that patient care trumps everything else,” Dr. Brown says. “We don’t disclose anything without patients’ permission, except what regulatory bodies require. We tell patients, ‘If your care is funded by a third party, that party has a right to your information. In fact, they have access to it already.’

“Within our agency, every clinician–whether in behavioral health or in the general medical field—has access to patients’ information. We will not allow patients to be harmed because a clinician lacks information.”

Cost Concerns. “Implementing a major change like EHRs always involves a learning curve, with an initial drop-off in productivity. And there are upfront costs for software and hardware, and possibly a consultant. The cost savings—return on investment—will probably take several years, regardless of the size of the OTP.

“Startup costs may be a greater challenge for smaller OTPs, but, importantly, EHRs will allow them to send electronic data to health departments, regulatory agencies, and other providers for care coordination, without increasing their costs. When small OTPs that have postponed going electronic need to send this data electronically, it raises personnel costs for data entry and quality control, and involves programming costs.”

Challenges ARTC Faced

Change Management. Various ARTC divisions had to collaborate in new ways—holding regular meetings for senior staff, formalizing strategic planning, agreeing on an integrated system, and coordinating software and hardware purchases: ensuring system compatibilities by planning installation under expert guidance, and well in advance.

Training Issues. ARTC evaluated all staff for basic computer skills and knowledge, and trained them to use software applications. “We assessed every employee’s computer competency–not to exclude them, but to find out their needs. Some required basic computer training as the stepping-stone to software they needed to do their jobs,” Dr. Brown says. “Over time, staff began to see technology as a way to improve their performance, rather than a threat to their employment.”

Electronic Security. Needs assessment revealed that ARTC was vulnerable to sabotage from within and without. To avoid database theft via flash drives, ARTC limited use of external media, disabled devices that write to media (with a few tightly controlled exceptions), changed the firewall, installed a spam blocker, and set up automatic locking at workstations. Updating electronic security remains a high priority at ARTC.

Conclusions

To successfully implement an EHR system, an OTP must carefully plan each step and involve all stakeholders in communication and collaboration throughout the development and implementation process.  Studies suggest that the payoffs make EHRs worthwhile: better patient care and services, fewer medical errors, lower costs, better control over adverse effects of medications, a marked improvement in outcomes, and permanence of medical records during natural or wartime disasters.

Sources

Louie B, Kritz S, Brown Jr LS, Chu M, Madray C, Zavala R. Electronic health information system at an opioid treatment programme: roadblocks to implementation [published online ahead of print March 18, 2011]. J Eval Clin Pract. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01663.x.

For Additional Information

Government information sites have a wealth of helpful information about EHRs, government incentive programs, and funding details:

Information from the Department of Health and Human Services American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Accelerating the Adoption of Health Information Technology: http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt/community/healthit_hhs_gov__hitech_programs/1487.  Accessed August 1, 2011.

Information on government incentive programs, including definitions, funding details, milestones, and timetables: https://www.cms.gov/ehrincentiveprograms/.  Accessed August 1, 2011.

Buprenorphine Diversion May Signal Need For More MAT and Greater Oversight

obstaclesAs more buprenorphine is prescribed in physicians’ offices to treat opioid addiction, the potential for diversion and misuse increases. But people buying buprenorphine on the street are not generally doing so for its euphoric effects. Most are taking it because they are dependent on heroin or prescription opioids, or both, and want to prevent withdrawal symptoms between “highs,” according to Jane C. Maxwell, PhD. Dr. Maxwell, a research professor at the Addiction Research Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, is an epidemiologist who studies drug abuse trends nationwide. She tells AT Forum that the amount of the drug being prescribed reflects increasing demand for opioid treatment.

Background

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA) made it possible for any licensed physician to treat opioid addiction with Schedule III, IV, and V medications in their private offices by obtaining a federal waiver. Buprenorphine is a Schedule III drug. Methadone, a Schedule II drug, is not covered by DATA.

Two formulations of buprenorphine are approved under DATA: Subutex (buprenorphine), and Suboxone (buprenorphine with naloxone) (naloxone is added as a protection against abuse and diversion). Suboxone, the most commonly prescribed form of buprenorphine, comes as sublingual tablets and as a sublingual film. Both dissolve under the tongue. Generic buprenorphine without naloxone also is available.

As part of DATA 2000, the federal government required additional protection against buprenorphine diversion:

  • An eight-hour training course for physicians approved by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
  • Physician registration with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
  • Regulatory limitations on the number of patients a physician may treat at any one time. DATA’s initial allowance of up to 30 patients was increased to 100 patients in 2006.
  • Physicians must have the capacity to provide counseling, or to refer patients for it.

Buprenorphine Abuse and Supply Increases Linked

Buprenorphine was first approved for treating opioid dependence in 2002. Within two years the DEA was issuing warnings about buprenorphine abuse, especially in the Northeast. Nicholas Reuter, MPH, senior public health advisor for the division of pharmacologic therapies at SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, told AT Forum in May that buprenorphine diversion is a “significant concern.”

Diversion and abuse increase with supply, Mr. Reuter says. The New England and Southern regions have the highest buprenorphine supply, and highest diversion rates. “The more you prescribe and the more that’s available and out there, the more that can bleed out into the illicit market.”

Put in context however, buprenorphine abuse “pales in comparison to other prescription opioids,” says Mr. Reuter. “We have a prescription drug abuse problem in the United States that Suboxone is a part of, but the abuse levels are dramatically less than for other opioids.”

Reasons and Sources For Diverted Buprenorphine

An ethnographic study in Massachusetts and Vermont found that Suboxone is used to avoid opioid withdrawal when preferred opioids are not available or are too expensive, says Mr. Reuter. Sixty percent of study participants obtained Suboxone illicitly from an individual holding a legitimate prescription for the medication. When legitimate access to prescription Suboxone was unavailable, participants went to other sources, including 39 percent who went to heroin dealers to purchase the drug, he says.

Diversion and illicit use of Suboxone are increasingly reported in incarcerated populations. Recent news reports tell of Suboxone pills and the new Suboxone film being smuggled into prisons and jails. The tablets have been crushed and mixed with crayons, used to color pictures, then licked off the paper. The film has been tucked behind envelope seams and stamps.

Many recreational drug users are finding buprenorphine readily available, and naïve opioid users feel some euphoria from Suboxone, especially when taken in combination with alcohol or other sedative drugs.

A study presented at the College of Problems on Drug Dependence in June found that the greatest risk factor for misuse of buprenorphine was being unable to get into treatment.

Recent Ohio Report Confirms Buprenorphine Diversion and Increased Need For MAT

Ohio’s most recent surveillance report found that street availability of Suboxone is high in most regions. It’s not clear where the diverted Suboxone is coming from, but the market for it on the street indicates a need for more treatment for opioid addiction, says Orman Hall, director of the Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services. Mr. Hall tells AT Forum that buprenorphine diversion in the state is now a concern.

The rise in prescription opioid abuse is causing Ohio to change the way it treats addiction, by adding more medication-assisted treatment (MAT), says Mr. Hall. “Historically, Ohio has been anabstinence state. We’re now looking at a number of medications, and we’ll revamp our methadone treatment guidelines as well.”

Should Buprenorphine Regulations Be More Restrictive?

Dr. Maxwell is concerned that if buprenorphine diversion continues to rise, stigma will increase, and policy makers may begin to view it negatively. This would result in heightened controls and reduced
access to all MAT. The unfolding buprenorphine experience with diversion may just reinforce anti-MAT attitudes and make all opioid agonist treatment more restrictive and less accessible.

Finally, while DATA-waived physicians must certify the capacity to refer patients for counseling, counseling is not required with buprenorphine treatment. A SAMHSA/CSAT evaluation conducted in 2007 indicated considerable variation in the amount of counseling provided by DATA-waived physicians. Some prescribing physicians are not providing counseling on a regular basis, according to Mr. Reuter. This could contribute to the diversion of prescribed buprenorphine.

Sources

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Division of Pharmacologic Therapies.  Diversion and Abuse of Buprenorphine: A Brief Assessment of Emerging Indicators: Final Report, November 30, 2006. http://buprenorphine.samhsa.gov/Buprenorphine_FinalReport_12.6.06.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2001.

Information on buprenorphine, the DATA 2000 Act, and other aspects of buprenorphine therapy: CSAT Buprenorphine Information Center.  http://buprenorphine.samhsa.gov/. Accessed August 1, 2011.

Monte AA, Mandell T, Wilford BB, Tennyson J, Boyer EW. Diversion of buprenorphine/naloxone coformulated tablets in a region with high prescribing prevalence. PMID: 2015559. ISSN:1055-0887 print; 1545-0848, online. DOI: 10.1080/10550880903014767 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20155591. Accessed August 1, 2011.

JR Havens, M Lofwall, CG Leukefeld, Individual and network determinants of buprenorphine misuse among rural prescription opioid users. (presented at CPDD 73rd Annual Meeting, June 2011, abstract #282). http://www.cpdd.vcu.edu/Pages/Meetings/CPDD11AbstractBook.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2011.

How Methadone Treatment is Funded in OTPs

fundingOver the years AT Forum readers have asked how methadone maintenance (MM) treatment in opioid treatment programs (OTPs) is funded, and why some patients pay for their treatment while others receive it free.

The answer depends on the patient’s income and insurance status, the state’s funding scenario, and even the program’s status (profit or not-for-profit).

MM treatment is usually financed from a combination of public and private sources and patient self-pay, and the combination varies by state and by OTP.

“Public” funding includes funding from the federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment block grant, the state block grant match, Medicaid, and other state, county, and local funding. Some states have no “public” funding for OTPs.

“Self-pay” means the patient pays out-of-pocket (for some or all of their treatment).

“Private” is what is paid by private insurance companies, private managed care companies, or directly by employers, or by a combination of these.

Public Funding

Medicaid coverage of addiction treatment varies from state to state, according to a 2008 report prepared for the National Council of State Legislatures: Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT)for Opiate Addiction and the Public Financing of that Treatment. Author Suzanne Gelber, PhD, Avisa Group, tells AT Forum that not all states offer Medicaid funding for OTPs. States can opt not to offer Medicaid substance abuse coverage, even under parity. The most recent data were
collected by Dr. Gelber of Avisa in 2005 and published in 2008 by the Avisa and the National Council for State Legislatures on a special website (http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14132). At that time  36 states used Medicaid funding, at least in part, for methadone treatment in OTPs (for the table, go to http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=14144).

Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) funding to each state comes via the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment block grant (see sidebar). Block grants allow states to fund treatment for patients who are not covered by Medicaid, or to supplement Medicaid funding. There is no requirement that any block grant money be used for OTPs or MAT for opioids. Block grant funds from SAMHSA require a state contribution through a complicated formula that varies state by state.

For Profit = Patient Self Pay

Today, some patients are paying for their OTP treatment. Many are going to private for-profit OTPs, a trend that started in the 1990s and has gathered speed in recent years. In 1994, Rick Harwood, now director of research for the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, wrote a definitive analysis of MM funding (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4899&page=162). At that time, only 17 percent of the total estimated cost of MM treatment was funded by patient self-pay. Thirty percent was paid by the block grant, 31 percent by state funds, 12 percent by Medicaid, and 7 percent by local funds, for a total of 80 percent of MM paid by public funds. Only 2.5 percent was paid by private insurance.

But a lot has changed in the MM treatment field since then, and a much bigger portion is now paid by patients directly, Mr. Harwood says. “A whole wave of private for-profit clinics have opened, and their patients pay, often in cash,” he tells AT Forum. Of the 286,000 patients in OTPs in 2008, approximately half attended private for-profit programs, and paid for their treatment out-of-pocket, at posted fees ranging from $13 to $25 a day or more. In fact, he says, due to sliding scales, the fees paid may be lower than advertised rates.

Mr. Harwood confirms that patient fees today definitely represent a bigger slice of the pie, and the pie itself has grown: $480 million a year was spent on MM in 1992, compared to Mr. Harwood’s estimate of about $1 billion a year today. But he points out that nobody really knows, because the information isn’t routinely collected. “It’s disappointing, because this is an important and very understudied topic.”

Only recently has SAMHSA resumed collecting financial data from a sample of its treatmentprograms. But there will be very few OTPs in this system, says Mr. Harwood. Furthermore, there will be no separate estimates for medication-assisted treatment.

Health Care Reform Will Increase Medicaid and Private Insurance Coverage

By 2014, the funding scenario will change once again. Under health care reform, virtually everyone in the country will be eligible to be covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or private insurance–at least, that is what the planners at SAMHSA say. In states that have health care reform now, such as Massachusetts, public funding has still been necessary for substance abuse treatment, since many people who need that treatment have not purchased health insurance. Payers know that MM is cost-effective when it’s part of a system of health care and behavioral health care; using it reduces unnecessary hospitalizations, ambulance costs, mortality, and emergency department visits. Theoretically, OTPs will receive more funding from Medicaid and private insurance, and fewer patients will have to dig into their own pockets to pay. All OTPs, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, will have to be able to bill Medicaid and private insurance companies by 2014.

Resources

For an analysis of how much money is spent per patient per year, depending on whether a program is public, private not-for-profit, or for-profit, see Wechsberg WM, Kasten JJ. Methadone Maintenance Treatment in the U.S.: A Practical Question and Answer Guide, New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co; 2007 (not available online).

Additional information on types of payment sources accepted by OTPs, showing a clear pattern of self-pay, can be found at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/222/222USOTP2k10.htm).

Also see the National Drug Abuse Treatment Utilization Survey (NDATUS), (For a summary of NDATUS gathered financial information circa 1996 based on the work of Rick Harwood and others. For the methadone data, see http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4899&page=162.

Advocates Help New Moms in Methadone Treatment Fight Child Protective Services

advocatesAfter more than 50 years of evidence showing that methadone maintenance (MM) treatment works, the courts—both civil and criminal—are making decisions only a doctor should make, telling patients to stop taking their legally prescribed methadone. These decisions are coming down particularly hard on women, who in some cases are being told by Child Protective Services (CPS) that they have to get off methadone if they want custody of their newborn child.

This happened in a case of a model patient who entered MM treatment, and then found out that she was pregnant. The case, described to AT Forum by Emma Ketteringham, JD, director of legal advocacy for National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), involved a woman who was stable and doing well in MM treatment. “She did everything right, availing herself of all the services the opioid treatment program (OTP) had to offer, including parenting classes,” says Ms. Ketteringham. Yet when her baby was born, and she told the hospital she was receiving MM treatment, and even showed documentation from the program, someone from the hospital reported her to CPS. This report resulted in an immediate investigation, with the CPS caseworker telling her that she had to go off methadone if she wanted her baby back. She wanted to continue her successful MM treatment and regain custody of her child.

The law is on the side of women in MM treatment in OTPs. It is against the law for the court system—or any other government agency—to single out people in medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and require them to stop taking their medication, or to switch to another medication or another form of treatment, according to the Legal Action Center. If a child welfare caseworker tells a woman that she must stop taking methadone in order to gain custody of her child, this is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), says Katie O’Neill, JD, senior vice president of the Legal Action Center. The ADA prohibits disability-based discrimination. “People who participate in MM treatment for opiate addiction are considered to be Individuals with a disability, so you cannot legally prohibit someone from receiving that treatment.”

But the job of CPS is to protect infants and children from abuse and neglect. When a newborn is going through the neonatal withdrawal syndrome, a caseworker who is not knowledgeable about methadone treatment may conclude that the mother has “exposed” her newborn to a drug—methadone. The caseworker interprets that as neglect, and threatens the mother with loss of her baby if she stays in MM treatment.

CPS investigations are secret—the person reporting the “neglect” does so anonymously. “We see cases from all over the country where women are threatened with loss of custody orhave had their children removed because they receive MM treatment during pregnancy,” says Ms. Ketteringham. Family court judges who make decisions about custody do sowithout a jury, and in some states, the mother has no attorney or is discouraged from fighting the charges by her own attorney, says Ms. Ketteringham. Family courts “notoriously make decisions relying on claims made by caseworkers rather than on evidence presented by experts,” she adds.

“Many lawyers appointed to represent women facing a loss of custody in family court are not knowledgeable about clinical or legal realities of MM treatment,” adds Ms. O’Neill.

The best way to prevent any problems after the baby is born is communication between the OTP, the hospital where the baby will be delivered, and the obstetrician. “Although the mother should not have to, she should organize advocacy on her behalf before the baby is born,” Ms. Ketteringham says. “She should make sure someone in her program will advocate on her behalf, have the printed or online literature about MM treatment during pregnancy handy, and contact a lawyer or organization that advocates for pregnant women and parents in the child welfare system.”

The model patient, Ms. Ketteringham’s client, eventually won her case, but it took nine months, during which time her baby was in foster care. When AT Forum went to press, the decision in the case had not yet been published, but the judge had returned the baby to the mother. She is still in MM treatment and doing well.

For Additional Reading

MMT and Pregnancy, an AT Forum patient education brochure, available in English and Spanish: http://atforum.com/patient/education_brochures.php#preg.

A newsletter from the National Advocates for Pregnant Women: http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/.

Know Your Rights, a brochure from the Legal Action Center on the rights of people in MMT, available in English and Spanish: http://www.lac.org/doc_library/lac/publications/Know_Your_Rts_-_MAT_final,_9.28.10.pdf,

SAMHSA Brochure Pregnant Women 2006.080904-39-5315-04-44[1].pdf: http://atforum.com/addiction-resources/documents/SAMHSAbrochurePregnantWomen2006.080904-39-5315-04-44.pdf

Prescription Opioids Account for a Greater Share of Treatment Admissions

prescription drugsOver a ten year-period, admissions to substance abuse treatment for opioids, attributable mainly to prescription opioids, rose from 8 percent in 1999 to 33 percent in 2009, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Overall, opioids accounted for 21 percent of all treatment admissions—second after alcohol (42 percent) and followed by marijuana (18 percent) and cocaine (9 percent).

In 2009, medication-assisted treatment was planned for 19 percent of admissions when the primary drug of abuse was a prescription opioid, compared to 28 percent of admissions when it was heroin.

These data are from Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) 1999-2009, a SAMHSA report released in June. TEDS is based on reporting from treatment facilities across the country. For the data file, go to http://atforum.com/addiction-resources/documents/teds2k9nweb.pdf.

Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use in the U.S.

Societal costs of illicit drug use were $193 billion in 2007, according to a report out this spring from the National Drug Intelligence Center, part of the federal Department of Justice. Included were costs due to crime ($61 million), health costs ($11 billion), and productivity costs ($120 billion).

Public costs of specialty treatment totaled $3.3 billion: $650 million for methadone programs, $1 billion for other outpatient programs, $1.2 billion for residential programs, and $465 million for detoxification. These figures apply to treatment for what the report calls “illicit drug use,” which includes heroin use and prescription drug misuse.

The report also looks at the difference between “instrumental offenses”–such as larceny committed by a heroin addict in order to purchase drugs—with “related offenses,” such as murder committed while under the influence of a drug like cocaine. The report categorizes instrumental offenses as those that would not have occurred absent the addiction—in other words, the heroin addict would not have stolen if he or she had not had to purchase illicit drugs.

For the report, The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society, go to http://atforum.com/addiction-resources/documents/economicimpact.pdf.

Site last updated May 15, 2012 @ 3:33 am