Tag Archives: Hazelden

What makes treatment effective?

This will be my post in response to the NY Times’ series on Suboxone.

This post originally ran on 7/19/13 and addressed a lot of our concerns.

*   *   *

postcard---heroin-lie

I’ve been catching a lot of heat recently for posts about Suboxone and methadone. (For the sake of this post, lets refer to them as opioid replacement therapy, or ORT, for the rest of this post.

One commenter who blogs for an ORT provider challenged my arguments that we should offer everyone the same kind of treatment that we offer doctors and questioned the “it works” argument from ORT advocates. He dismissed the treatment model

Another commenter is an opiate addict who objected to a post about Hazelden’s announcement that they started providing ORT maintenance. She reported suffering greatly from cravings and relapsing after drug-free treatment at Hazelden. She’s been on Suboxone for 50 days and feels like it is a better solution for her.

Another post, that has nothing to do with me, blames abstinence-oriented treatment for the recent overdose death of an actor. (Among the other problems with the article are that she slanders abstinence-based treatment by suggesting that abuse is common. She misleads readers into thinking that ORT is not widely available when federal surveys find that ORT admissions accounted for 26% of all admissions. [Not 26% of opioid addiction admissions. 26% of all addiction treatment admissions.]

So, I thought I’d take a step back and try to address the big picture in one post.

The wrong paradigm?

Red_Drug_Pill---recoveryTo some extent, these arguments remind me of hearing Bill White comment on arguments about cognitive-behavioral therapy vs. motivational interviewing vs. 12 step facilitation. He commented that, “these are all arguments within the acute care paradigm.”

I talk often about the success of health professional recovery programs and their remarkable outcomes. What makes these programs so successful? I’d boil it down to a few factors:

  1. They are recovery-oriented. They treat patients with the expectation that they can fully recover and focus on facilitating and supporting recovery rather than just extinguishing symptoms of addiction.
  2. They have a chronic care model. They continue to provide care and support long after the acute stage of treatment (5 years). They also focus on lifestyle changes the will support recovery and look for ways to embed support for recovery in the patient’s environment.
  3. They provide adequate care. The provide multiple levels of high quality care of the appropriate intensity and duration at different stages of the patient’s recovery.

Many abstinence-oriented treatment providers have provided the first, but not the second and third. (Though one could argue that 12 step facilitation offers a long term recovery maintenance model.) They provide 10 days of inpatient care or 2 weeks of intensive outpatient and offer a passive referral to outpatient care. (Only 2% of all treatment admissions were for long term [more than 30 days] residential.) The end product looks something like a system that treats a heart attack with a few days or weeks of emergency care and then discharges the patient with no long term care plan. (Or, a weak long term care plan.) Then, we’re surprised when the patient has another cardiac event.

Many ORT providers have offered the second element, but not the first or third. The long term nature of ORT could be considered a chronic care model. However, the end product look something like palliative care for a treatable condition. It reduces opiate use (not necessarily other drug use), criminal activity and over dose. But these benefits are only realized as long as the patient is on ORT and drop-out rates are not low. And, ORT research has not been able to demonstrate the improvements in quality of life (employment, relationships, housing, life satisfaction, etc.) that we see in those health professionals who get all three elements. (Also note that opiate addicted health professionals often use VERY large doses and go undetected for long periods of time. Any neurological damage from their use does no appear to interfere with their achieving drug-free recovery in very impressive numbers.)

It’s effective!

photo credit: ntoper

photo credit: ntoper

One of the recurring arguments that I hear is that ORT is effective and there is tons of research that it’s effective. I don’t question that it’s effective at achieving some outcomes–reducing criminal activity, reducing opiate use and reducing overdose. If those are the only outcomes you care about, then you can say it’s effective without any qualifications.

Even with my bias for abstinence-oriented treatment, I can imagine circumstances where ORT might be the least bad option. (For example, if your child had been offered high quality treatment of adequate quality and duration more than once and they continue to relapse and be at high risk for fatal overdose.) A few weeks ago I offered an analogy that attempted to offer an approach to informed consent:

Maybe the choice is something like a person having incapacitating (socially, emotionally, occupationally, spiritually, etc.) and life-threatening but treatable cardiac disease. There are 2 treatments:

  1. A pill that will reduce death and symptoms, but will have marginal impact on QoL (quality of life). Relatively little is known about long term (years) compliance rates for this option, but we do know that discontinuation of the medication leads to “near universal relapse“, so getting off it is extremely difficult. The drug has some cognitive side-effects and may also have some emotional side effects. It is known to reduce risk of death, but not eliminate it.
  2. Diet and exercise can arrest all symptoms, prevent death and provide full recovery, returning the patient to a normal QoL. This is the option we use for medical professionals and they have great outcomes. Long-term compliance is the challenge and failure to comply is likely to result in relapse and may lead to death. However, we have lots of strategies and social support for making and maintaining these changes.

The catch is that you can’t do both because option 1 appears to interfere with the benefits of option 2.

Fixing treatment

Hazelden Monument2_2WEBHazelden’s adoption of ORT has provided fuel to a lot of these arguments.

Hazelden was confronted with poor outcomes for their opiate addicted patients. They saw a problem and decided to act.

One option would have been to declare that a 30 day model for opiate addiction treatment is doomed to fail and build a recovery-oriented, chronic care system that delivers high quality care of the appropriate intensity and duration.

ORT seems to be the easier response, particularly with the market and cultural currents flowing in that direction.

Bill White has argued that ORT can be compatible with a recovery orientation. I’m skeptical, but I’m watching and am willing to learn from any success they have.

However, if you can get what the doctor’s having, why would you want anything else? And, shouldn’t we want every patient to get the same kind of care the doctor would get if she were the patient? If you can’t get that, you’ve got some tough decisions to make.

I’m looking for others to implement the health professional model with others, finding ways to build upon it and make it less expensive, as we have.

UPDATE: In an email exchange with a friend who disagrees, I clarified Hazelden’s options, as I see them. If it were Dawn Farm, I’d imagine we’d look at things like:

  • improving our aftercare referral process–asking ourselves if we can make better active linkages to communities of recovery;
  • evaluating whether the intensity, duration and quality of our aftercare recommendations were appropriate;
  • embedding recovery coaching in cities around the country to provide assertive recovery support;
  • improving post-treatment recovery monitoring and re-intervention.

3 Comments

Filed under Controversies, Dawn Farm, Harm Reduction, Policy, Research, Treatment

What makes treatment effective?

postcard---heroin-lie

I’ve been catching a lot of heat recently for posts about Suboxone and methadone. (For the sake of this post, lets refer to them as opioid replacement therapy, or ORT, for the rest of this post.

One commenter who blogs for an ORT provider challenged my arguments that we should offer everyone the same kind of treatment that we offer doctors and questioned the “it works” argument from ORT advocates. He dismissed the treatment model

Another commenter is an opiate addict who objected to a post about Hazelden’s announcement that they started providing ORT maintenance. She reported suffering greatly from cravings and relapsing after drug-free treatment at Hazelden. She’s been on Suboxone for 50 days and feels like it is a better solution for her.

Another post, that has nothing to do with me, blames abstinence-oriented treatment for the recent overdose death of an actor. (Among the other problems with the article are that she slanders abstinence-based treatment by suggesting that abuse is common. She misleads readers into thinking that ORT is not widely available when federal surveys find that ORT admissions accounted for 26% of all admissions. [Not 26% of opioid addiction admissions. 26% of all addiction treatment admissions.]

So, I thought I’d take a step back and try to address the big picture in one post.

The wrong paradigm?

Red_Drug_Pill---recoveryTo some extent, these arguments remind me of hearing Bill White comment on arguments about cognitive-behavioral therapy vs. motivational interviewing vs. 12 step facilitation. He commented that, “these are all arguments within the acute care paradigm.”

I talk often about the success of health professional recovery programs and their remarkable outcomes. What makes these programs so successful? I’d boil it down to a few factors:

  1. They are recovery-oriented. They treat patients with the expectation that they can fully recover and focus on facilitating and supporting recovery rather than just extinguishing symptoms of addiction.
  2. They have a chronic care model. They continue to provide care and support long after the acute stage of treatment (5 years). They also focus on lifestyle changes the will support recovery and look for ways to embed support for recovery in the patient’s environment.
  3. They provide adequate care. The provide multiple levels of high quality care of the appropriate intensity and duration at different stages of the patient’s recovery.

Many abstinence-oriented treatment providers have provided the first, but not the second and third. (Though one could argue that 12 step facilitation offers a long term recovery maintenance model.) They provide 10 days of inpatient care or 2 weeks of intensive outpatient and offer a passive referral to outpatient care. (Only 2% of all treatment admissions were for long term [more than 30 days] residential.) The end product looks something like a system that treats a heart attack with a few days or weeks of emergency care and then discharges the patient with no long term care plan. (Or, a weak long term care plan.) Then, we’re surprised when the patient has another cardiac event.

Many ORT providers have offered the second element, but not the first or third. The long term nature of ORT could be considered a chronic care model. However, the end product look something like palliative care for a treatable condition. It reduces opiate use (not necessarily other drug use), criminal activity and over dose. But these benefits are only realized as long as the patient is on ORT and drop-out rates are not low. And, ORT research has not been able to demonstrate the improvements in quality of life (employment, relationships, housing, life satisfaction, etc.) that we see in those health professionals who get all three elements. (Also note that opiate addicted health professionals often use VERY large doses and go undetected for long periods of time. Any neurological damage from their use does no appear to interfere with their achieving drug-free recovery in very impressive numbers.)

It’s effective!

photo credit: ntoper

photo credit: ntoper

One of the recurring arguments that I hear is that ORT is effective and there is tons of research that it’s effective. I don’t question that it’s effective at achieving some outcomes–reducing criminal activity, reducing opiate use and reducing overdose. If those are the only outcomes you care about, then you can say it’s effective without any qualifications.

Even with my bias for abstinence-oriented treatment, I can imagine circumstances where ORT might be the least bad option. (For example, if your child had been offered high quality treatment of adequate quality and duration more than once and they continue to relapse and be at high risk for fatal overdose.) A few weeks ago I offered an analogy that attempted to offer an approach to informed consent:

Maybe the choice is something like a person having incapacitating (socially, emotionally, occupationally, spiritually, etc.) and life-threatening but treatable cardiac disease. There are 2 treatments:

  1. A pill that will reduce death and symptoms, but will have marginal impact on QoL (quality of life). Relatively little is known about long term (years) compliance rates for this option, but we do know that discontinuation of the medication leads to “near universal relapse“, so getting off it is extremely difficult. The drug has some cognitive side-effects and may also have some emotional side effects. It is known to reduce risk of death, but not eliminate it.
  2. Diet and exercise can arrest all symptoms, prevent death and provide full recovery, returning the patient to a normal QoL. This is the option we use for medical professionals and they have great outcomes. Long-term compliance is the challenge and failure to comply is likely to result in relapse and may lead to death. However, we have lots of strategies and social support for making and maintaining these changes.

The catch is that you can’t do both because option 1 appears to interfere with the benefits of option 2.

Fixing treatment

Hazelden Monument2_2WEBHazelden’s adoption of ORT has provided fuel to a lot of these arguments.

Hazelden was confronted with poor outcomes for their opiate addicted patients. They saw a problem and decided to act.

One option would have been to declare that a 30 day model for opiate addiction treatment is doomed to fail and build a recovery-oriented, chronic care system that delivers high quality care of the appropriate intensity and duration.

ORT seems to be the easier response, particularly with the market and cultural currents flowing in that direction.

Bill White has argued that ORT can be compatible with a recovery orientation. I’m skeptical, but I’m watching and am willing to learn from any success they have.

However, if you can get what the doctor’s having, why would you want anything else? And, shouldn’t we want every patient to get the same kind of care the doctor would get if she were the patient? If you can’t get that, you’ve got some tough decisions to make.

I’m looking for others to implement the health professional model with others, finding ways to build upon it and make it less expensive, as we have.

 

24 Comments

Filed under Controversies, Dawn Farm, Harm Reduction, Policy, Research, Treatment

Blog love

BLOG.LOVE_.JSIM_1Thanks to a couple of very kind posts from a couple of web-friends.

First, Anna David (quickly becoming one of my faves) has a post about the alliance between Hazelden and Betty Ford. She has a very kind mention of one of my posts. Thanks Anna!

Next, the blog Guinevere Gets Sober has a post linking to me as a “comrade-in-arms”. (I love that!) Her post is about the business of Suboxone and how it’s experienced by addicts seeking help. Thanks Guinevere!

Both or great posts and well worth your time.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

2012′s most popular posts #3 – Hazelden to start opioid maintenance

This has gotten a lot of attention [emphasis mine]:

…for the first time, Hazelden will begin providing medication-assisted treatment for people hooked on heroin or opioid painkillers, starting at its Center City, Minnesota facility and expanding across its treatment network in five states in 2013.  This so-called maintenance therapy differs from simply detoxifying addicts until they are completely abstinent. Instead, it acknowledges that continued treatment with certain medications, which can include some of the very opioid drugs that people are misusing, could be required for years.

What’s their case? [italics mine]

The science, however, is getting harder to ignore. Studies show that people addicted to opioids more than halve their risk of dying due to their habit if they stay on maintenance medication.  They also dramatically lower their risk of contracting HIV, are far less likely to commit crime and are more likely to stay away from their drug of choice if they continue maintenance than if they become completely abstinent.

The first 3 points are not in dispute. Maintenance does reduce risk of overdose, contracting HIV and committing crimes.

However, the last point makes it sound like people put on maintenance are less likely to use heroin than people in drug-free treatment. In truth, she’s referring to the fact that once people are put on maintenance, there was “nearly universal relapse” when researchers tried to taper them off the drug.

Why opiate replacement?

“For most people using opioids daily, they are no longer getting high, even when they are still using.  It’s just become maintenance,” Seppala says. The effect is similar to the tolerance people experience with caffeine.  “If you drink caffeine on a daily basis, after a while, you don’t notice the effect of one cup of coffee,” he says, “But if you drank two, you would.”

Really? They weren’t getting high before they entered treatment? It’s like coffee?

Ok, moving on, but why do they think maintenance is a good idea for opiate addicts?

…with opioids, there is no significant mental, emotional or physical impairment if someone  regularly takes the exact same dose. In fact, research shows that patients addicted to opioids who are on maintenance doses of anti-addiction drugs like buprenorphine can drive safely, work productively and engage emotionally like those who aren’t addicted.

This isn’t our reading of the research. For example, the data on driving is mixed, at best.

On the issue of emotional engagement, the data doesn’t look too convincing either. Further, we know that opioid addicts benefit from talk therapy based addiction treatment, UNLESS they are on buprenorphine.

How long will patients be on the drug? [emphasis mine]

Hazelden will start using buprenorphine maintenance cautiously at first.  The drug will not be provided to people who have been addicted to opioids for less than a year and complete abstinence will remain the ultimate goal for most patients, even as the program recognizes that years or even lifetime maintenance on the drug may sometimes be needed.

Keep in mind, that there’s more than a little money involved:

If an addict is fully informed and wants buprenorphine, I have no objection. But this is a terrible direction for the field to take. As we’ve pointed out before, opioid addiction is relatively common among health professionals, we DO NOT treat them with opioid maintenance, they get 12 step and abstinence oriented treatment and they have great outcomes.

Read our position paper for more on why Dawn Farm does NOT use opioid maintenance treatment.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

2012′s most popular posts #8 – Another Reaction to Hazelden’s Adoption of Suboxone

Perhaps I’m the Wrong Tool by Tall Jerome

Mark Willenbring, a former Director of the Treatment and Recovery Research Division of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism/National Institutes of Health weighs in on Hazelden’s embrace of Suboxone

Hazelden’s new approach is a seismic shift that is likely to move the entire industry in this direction. I told Marv that it was like the Vatican opening a family planning clinic! However, although this is a major positive step, they continue to be wedded to a strictly 12-Step approach along with the medication. I don’t see this ever changing. Hazelden has always seemed to operate like a Catholic hospital: science was ok as long as it didn’t conflict with ideology, and when it did, ideology won out.

His post betrays the trope that 12 steppers control the treatment world.

What are the beliefs driving his celebration of buprenorphine maintenance? In another post he offers what he believes should be the informed consent statement offered to opioid addicts entering treatment. [emphasis mine]

The only treatment proven effective for treating established opioid addiction is maintenance on a medication such as Suboxone or methadone, often with adjunctive counseling. Studies show that maintenance treatment reduces illness, mortality and crime, and is highly cost-effective. Therefore, it is the first-line treatment and the treatment of choice. There is no evidence of effectiveness for abstinence-based treatment.”

Wow. “The only treatment proven effective“? “There is no evidence“?

Mark Willenbring is a doctor. What kind of treatment would he receive if he became an opioid addict? Would he get Suboxone maintenance?

No. He would not.

Why? We don’t treat doctors with Suboxone maintenance. They get abstinence-based treatment.

Wait, what!?!?!? They get treatment for which there is “no evidence of effectiveness”?!?!?!?

Actually, there’s evidence that they have great outcomes with abstinence-based treatment.

All of the finger wagging about maintenance as the treatment approach with the strongest evidence-base raises some important questions:

  • Why do the most culturally empowered opiate addicts with the greatest access to the evidence base reject this evidence base with respect to their own care and the care of their peers?
  • What does this say about the evidence and its designation as an evidence-based practice? That this evidence doesn’t offer a complete picture?
  • What does it say that health professionals get one kind of treatment and give their patients another?
  • Why are some addiction physicians and researchers so indignant when others question their advocacy of a treatment approach that they and their peers refuse to use on themselves?
  • Does this advocacy of a medicalized approach have anything to do with the fact that they are indispensable in this medicalized approach?

 

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Lines are being drawn

English: Caron Treatment Centers logo

 

A major treatment provider, Caron, weighs in on Hazelden’s adoption of buprenorphine maintenance treatment:

 

We use buprenorphine (Suboxone) to assist with the detoxification process from opioids and the length of time can vary depending on the patient’s progress and additional medical issues, such as chronic pain. However, unlike Hazelden’s goal as stated in the article, Caron’s treatment goal is to completely withdraw the patient from buprenorphine.  We do not use burprenophine as an ongoing maintenance medication. Caron has been treating addicts and their families for more than 50 years and our evidence-based practices show that treatment requires medical, physical, behavioral, spiritual and psychological intervention.

At this time, we don’t believe there is sufficient evidence that remaining on a controlled substance, like buprenorphine, for the long term is a healthy approach to recovery. Instead, we focus on the critical role the 12-Steps play in helping individuals and families achieve and retain long-term sobriety and wellness.

 

It’s going to be interesting to see where the lines get drawn.

 

One neglected fact is that there are treatment programs that have already gone the buprenorphine maintenance route and abandoned it because the outcome did not resemble recovery and clients and their families were not satisfied.

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under Controversies, Harm Reduction, Mutual Aid, Treatment

Another Reaction to Hazelden’s Adoption of Suboxone

Perhaps I’m the Wrong Tool by Tall Jerome

Mark Willenbring, a former Director of the Treatment and Recovery Research Division of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism/National Institutes of Health weighs in on Hazelden’s embrace of Suboxone

Hazelden’s new approach is a seismic shift that is likely to move the entire industry in this direction. I told Marv that it was like the Vatican opening a family planning clinic! However, although this is a major positive step, they continue to be wedded to a strictly 12-Step approach along with the medication. I don’t see this ever changing. Hazelden has always seemed to operate like a Catholic hospital: science was ok as long as it didn’t conflict with ideology, and when it did, ideology won out.

His post betrays the trope that 12 steppers control the treatment world.

What are the beliefs driving his celebration of buprenorphine maintenance? In another post he offers what he believes should be the informed consent statement offered to opioid addicts entering treatment. [emphasis mine]

The only treatment proven effective for treating established opioid addiction is maintenance on a medication such as Suboxone or methadone, often with adjunctive counseling. Studies show that maintenance treatment reduces illness, mortality and crime, and is highly cost-effective. Therefore, it is the first-line treatment and the treatment of choice. There is no evidence of effectiveness for abstinence-based treatment.”

Wow. “The only treatment proven effective“? “There is no evidence“?

Mark Willenbring is a doctor. What kind of treatment would he receive if he became an opioid addict? Would he get Suboxone maintenance?

No. He would not.

Why? We don’t treat doctors with Suboxone maintenance. They get abstinence-based treatment.

Wait, what!?!?!? They get treatment for which there is “no evidence of effectiveness”?!?!?!?

Actually, there’s evidence that they have great outcomes with abstinence-based treatment.

All of the finger wagging about maintenance as the treatment approach with the strongest evidence-base raises some important questions:

  • Why do the most culturally empowered opiate addicts with the greatest access to the evidence base reject this evidence base with respect to their own care and the care of their peers?
  • What does this say about the evidence and its designation as an evidence-based practice? That this evidence doesn’t offer a complete picture?
  • What does it say that health professionals get one kind of treatment and give their patients another?
  • Why are some addiction physicians and researchers so indignant when others question their advocacy of a treatment approach that they and their peers refuse to use on themselves?
  • Does this advocacy of a medicalized approach have anything to do with the fact that they are indispensable in this medicalized approach?

 

 

16 Comments

Filed under Controversies, Harm Reduction, Policy, Research, Treatment