Follow this blog:
RSS

Economics of addiction and health reform

By | August 23, 2010, 5:41 AM PDT

Like many people Robert Downey Jr. is an addict.

Addiction is a frighteningly common disease, and for an addict so is relapse. When a wealthy person relapses, they may go to an expensive treatment facility, like Promises in Malibu. Such facilities can cost $1,000 per day. Cheap, if they work, and if you can afford it.

For most of us, those are two big ifs which tell us a lot about medical economics. Even “middle-class” drug treatment can cost $7,500. And it doesn’t always work.

Insurers have learned to tread carefully here. Public and private policies involving addiction are stringent. But, as they say, Alcoholics Anonymous is free. If you’re ready to quit, AA and other self-help groups can work as well as the most expensive hospital.

Bankole Johnson of the University of Virginia believes rehab doesn’t really work at all. (Picture from the University of Virginia.)

He calls addiction a “disease of the brain” and is in trials on a combination of Topiromate (an anti-convulsant sold as Topamax) and Ordansetron (used to treat severe nausea including that from chemotherapy) that might effect a chemical cure.

Supporters of rehab say Johnson is wrong, that rehab works. The point to a National Institutes of Health study of Oxford Houses, and a 2006 study in Alcoholism, showing it to be cost-effective.

Many addicts who have achieved remission, like Downey, say nothing worked until they “hit bottom,” that is until their condition became so bad that their minds changed, and they came to accept what rehab was offering. But not everyone does. Addicts can die of their addictions.

Addicts can also be addicted to anything, not just drugs like heroin, alcohol and nicotine. There are food addicts, video game addicts, sex addicts, exercise addicts, and people addicted to danger. Each addiction carries a cost, each has a process for addicts to “come down,” each has a success or failure rate.

With mental health now given parity with physical health in health reform, these economic questions become more important. They also echo questions we face in physical health.

  1. How much treatment can we afford from a common pool?
  2. What types of treatment should be covered from that pool?
  3. To what extent should patients be able to decide on their course of treatment?
  4. If we find a chemical “cure,” like the one Dr. Johnson is working on, do we go to that first?
  5. No matter the cost?
  6. Can we make people get treatment?
  7. Can we refuse treatment, especially in people who have relapsed several times?

All the questions we have regarding physical health, and health reform, are seen in stark relief when we talk about addiction. Questions of cost vs. efficacy. Questions of success vs. failure. Questions of compliance vs. non-compliance.

These questions are important for those who opposed health reform and continue to oppose it. Rich people can afford Passages, poor ones cannot. We can’t give everyone Passages from a common pool, public or private. So how much should we give them?

Reform opponents have a simple answer. Nothing. Get the treatment you can afford, or shut up and die. Given the low cost of self-help groups like AA, that is a more compelling argument for addiction than it is for, say, cancer.

But in the end it is the same question, and it’s one which, thanks to health reform, we now need to face directly.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Dana Blankenhorn

About Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Contributing Editor, Healthcare

Dana Blankenhorn has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement and founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media. He holds degrees from Rice and Northwestern universities. He is based in Atlanta.

Follow him on Twitter.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
19
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Economics of addiction and health reform
Could not put it better myself. Too often people wait until a condition is past being cheaply treated and now must go the expensive route to obtain poor results if that. Smoking is well known as suicide on the installment plan but rather than pay for gum or shots or pills they wait until a dire condition threatens their lives and then they want cadillac care from their insurance or the medicaid insurance in their states.

And I doubt if it will be an issue under Obama care; if you smoke you won't be getting chemo for lung cancer.
Posted by IMWeira
23rd Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Addiction
The definition of addiction seems to get stretched beyond what is really addiction. The wider definition allows people to be treated for money to relieve them from what is a habit. Addiction to sex is more like a justification for having bad judgement regarding to sex. Addiction to chocolate is probably easier to cure by abstaining from chocolate for 2 weeks and choosing to eat less chocolate afterwards.

My opinion of an addiction is when there are real withdrawal symptoms like shakiness, headaches and even "crawling bugs under the skin". I had a caffeine monkey for a while, but I don't crave coffee and I don't get the headaches afterwards.

What society should do is be more sincere about educating people about addictions. This means doing balanced tests that don't start with the results and looks for the test to prove it. People are different and react to addictive substances differently. There is no one size fits all, probably why therapy is expensive. I heard stories about soldiers in Viet Nam who were using heroin to deal with the stress of battle; most of them were able to kick the addiction as soon as they returned home while some could not.

I voted for the California proposition to use treatment over incarceration for drug offenses. Being addicted is bad enough, but having to be incarcerated for what is a medical problem adds more injury to the addict. Our jails have been mandated to release a large percentage of prisoners due to over crowded prisons. Many of those prisoners are in custody for non violent crimes; treatment instead of prison should be a better cost.
Posted by sboverie
23rd Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Tragic mess. This is an interesting read related to topic.
8 of the 9 people tracked are drug addicts with multiple over doses per week for months at a time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29998460/

Not noted in the story is a later report that a Texas state legislator tried to get an automatic Do Not Resuscitate law passed. It would have placed an automatic DNR on people?s medical records after a certain number of over doses in a given period of time.

The thinking was the people who over dose 2 or 3 times a week for a month or more obviously want to die. Why should the state extend their pain of living against their will? Why not just let them die?

The bill failed to get far, but it started an interesting moral discussion on the right to die that continues today in Texas.
Posted by Hates Idiots
23rd Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
The numbers don't lie
Anyone see the Penn and Teller "********" episode about 12 step programs? Do yourself a favor and go here and watch the three videos of it: http://www.addictioninfo.org/categories/Addiction-Videos/Penn-and-Teller-videos/

In the 3rd video, you'll see how they tried to get AA's numbers on their success rates and couldn't, because AA relies only on member surveys for it, the latest of which was done in 1989. In it, you'll also see that the percentage of folks who kick the habit as a result of AA affiliation is 5%. The percentage of folks who kick the habit on their own? 5%. Also - 40 years of studies do not support the idea of alcoholism as a disease, according to a doctor interviewed in the report, a guy who's spent his career dealing with and researching addictions. Bottom line - addiction treatment is an industry, and those in this industry are addicted to insurance money to run their $1,000 a day treatment programs, which probably enrich them, but do little to nothing for the addicted, that they couldn't do for themselves.
Posted by DJJazzyJeff
23rd Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
12 Step Programs
@DJJazzyJeff
I saw the Penn & Teller episode. They make a good point that 12 step programs do not have a great recovery rate. This was more in line with the court system demanding that people join AA as part of their sentence for DUI or public drunkeness.

The real purpose of a 12 step program is to help provide support to help each other overcome addiction as well as the problems that lead to the use of addictive substances. Forcing people to go to a 12 step program is counter productive; one has to be willing to follow the program to have a chance.

The 12 step program is somewhat free, different groups collect fees to pay for the meeting room or pay for coffee and doughnuts. People come and go and sometimes people are in the 12 step program for years. It is the support that helps people become aware of how other people deal with similar problems. 12 step programs are not magic and only as effective as the person is willing to work it.

The "Do not resuscitate" idea is a really bad idea. To tell hospitals that they should not try to help is counter to their ethic. I would not trust a doctor or hospital that allowed someone to die; this is not a decision for the doctors or legislature to make.
Posted by sboverie
23rd Aug 2010
-1 Votes
+ -
AA is serious about anonymity
It's something that they simply do no compromise on.
Unfortunately, that leads to misunderstandings, snap judgments,
and poor press relations. However, I disagree with the % success
numbers quoted from the 1989 survey. It is incorrect. It's more
than twice that number. Success is much greater when AA is the
focus of recovery and when other programs incorporate the AA
philosophy into their treatment programs - as most of them do.
Please be careful with this. A reader who may need AA could
choose to drop from the program and lose their lives because
they did not have faith in the program due to misinformation. I
have personally seen a lot of lives turned around because of AA.
I cannot comment on other addiction programs - but don't tread
on AA unless you have first hand knowledge of what you are
talking about. John B.
Posted by trymyhr
23rd Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
AA
AA is often thrown at addicts who have not yet made the decision which is at the heart of the program. When you do that, failure is assured.

I want to thank everyone for very thoughtful comments so far. Now if I can just keep myself from trolling and mentioning e-cigarettes (too late).
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
23rd Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Economics of addiction and health reform
Funny you should mention Robert Downey Jr.. After being unsuccessfully treated using 12step facilitation/AA/NA several times, he states that he achieved sobriety using the discipline he learned from Wing Chun, a martial art.

Currently, over 90% of rehabs in this country are 12step based, almost all the rest are Narconon (Scientology-based) or heavily religious. This particular method is little more than 1930s faith healing. Treatment as it exists today is a bad joke. Instead of teaching people they have a disease that they are powerless over, we should be using evidence-based practices.

It doesn't matter if AA is cheap since it does not improve on the rate of natural remission.
Posted by raysny
23rd Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Economics of addiction and health reform
I personally have attended a treatment center after several attempts to ghet clean on my own and thanks to their program have now been clean for over 15 years. I still am active in my recovery as there is no true cure for addiction it is a disease like many others by continually working at staying clean you can stay clean. The facitlity which I attended has a very high success rate their confirmed success rate is 35% much higher than any other facility which I attended prior to going there so the 5% that was stated earlier is maliciously false. If we take away the only mechanism for help that some of theses people who actually want help have we are as guity as if we put a gun to their head and pulled the trigger.
Posted by darkling282
23rd Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
raysny
AA is attractive to courts because it's cheap.It's free. But it doesn't
make the choice to quit for you. Quitting has to be a pre-requisite
for success. And since it doesn't take people across that threshold
perhaps it shouldn't be treated as though it does.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
24th Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Your right Dana.
AA has never said it will make people stop drinking.

It helps people who have stopped and want to stay clean and sober.

I have seen AA help good friends stay clean and sober by teaching them coping skills, helping them face their demons that drove them to drink and providing support, but the person must make the decision to be clean and sober.

It starts with personal responsibility.
Posted by Hates Idiots
24th Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
If the insurance industry has been scared of anything...
...it's this; a virtual blank check for a form of treatment where the
cost/results ratio is even more questionable than for psyche
disorders.

In my personal experience, I have seen very few people who've
beat addiction until they've "hit bottom", no matter how much
money was spent. But now that too many people will be looking
at healthcare as a bottomless resource to pay for such things, I
am not hopeful for cost containment.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
24th Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Economics of addiction and health reform
"...confirmed success rate is 35%"

Sorry, darkling282, there is no treatment or rehab with that kind of success rate. They sold you a bill of goods, but hey, if it's working for you....

http://www.behaviortherapy.com/whatworks.htm
Posted by raysny
24th Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Dr, Johnson
I'm a little disappointed that we haven't had more discussion on this
thread about Dr. Johnson's chemical cure for addiction. I urge
everyone to use the links and learn more.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
24th Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Economics of addiction and health reform
Acamprosate and Naltrexone are both much more effective than AA or 12step facilitation. Bankole Johnson is looking for something better still and is getting grief from those who want to live in the dark ages with their religious program.

Nobody wants to take AA away from those who want it, go hide in the church basements and leave those of us who want better alone and we'll leave you all alone too.
Posted by raysny
26th Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
There is one key problem with drugs..
As with anti psychotic medications for people with anger issues, it still comes down to personal responsibility.

If a person refuses to take the medications the best treatment in the world becomes useless.

They have yet to develop a long-term delivery system for anti psychotic medications that takes control away from the patient.

I?ll bet they have the same issue here.
Posted by Hates Idiots
27th Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Hates Idiots
Compliance is a problem in all areas of medicine, which is why I
have written here about tools aimed at improving it.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
27th Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Economics of addiction and health reform
John B writes:
"...don't tread on AA unless you have first hand knowledge of what you are talking about."

Most of the AA critical people you'll find do have first hand knowledge and that's why they are critical of AA. It is a conceit to claim that those who object to AA have never examined the program.

He also writes:
"A reader who may need AA could choose to drop from the program and lose their lives because they did not have faith in the program due to misinformation."

Pulling out the old "killing alcoholics" gambit, eh? George Vaillant, former Harvard professor, researcher, and AA Trustee set out to prove that AA worked, instead he found, in his own words: " Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling." AA has the highest mortality rate of any recognized alcohol treatment method.
Posted by raysny
24th Sep 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Re: There is one key problem with drugs...
Hates idiots writes:
"They have yet to develop a long-term delivery system for anti psychotic medications that takes control away from the patient."

Noncompliance is an issue that the medical community has been working on for years. Even diabetics are seldom completely compliant knowing that failure to do so could result in blindness, amputations, and death. There are currently many medications available for injection that work for weeks including anti-psychotics and Naltrexone for substance abuse.
Posted by raysny
24th Sep 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!