Monday, February 1, 2016

The Flu, My Inbox, and Opioids

I found myself felled by the flu last week.  I'm glad to be back on my feet and figured it would make my life easier if I caught up on my inbox and blogged about what I found there at the same time... Here's what popped in there while I couldn't stand to stare at a screen:

Vicodin scripts plummeted due to the rescheduling of hydrocodone from SIII to SII.  There were over 26 million fewer scripts (a 22% drop) and over 1 billion fewer tablets (a 16% drop) as a result of the change.  That's a dramatic shift.  But did those scripts disappear?  Or were they replaced by other opioids?  Yeah, that's what I think, too.

US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) is holding up confirmation of a new FDA Commissioner over some of the practices that appear to have caused the last FDA Commissioner to resign.  Markey wants a reformed approach to opioid approvals and for FDA to rescind its approval of oxycodone for pediatric populations.  These are tough tactics.  Whether or not you agree with him, here's a Senator using the power of his office to shine a light on a major issue and trying to create change in an agency that desperately needs it.

Any high school in the US that wants Narcan on hand in case of a drug overdose can now have it free of charge (thanks to the the drug's manufacturer and the Clinton Foundation).  I'm not supportive of a Narcan script along with every opioid script, but having this drug on hand in high schools as standard operating procedure is good public policy.  Why would a high school turn this down?  Any principal that does so risks being hoist by his own petard... and on the front page of his local paper trying to explain why the poor kid died when he might have been saved.

The US Preventative Services Task Force has recommended that all adults >18 be screened for depression.  Some of you are thinking, "whoa... that's gonna be expensive!"  And you're right, it will be.  But you know what the only thing more expensive than diagnosed depression is?  Undiagnosed, untreated depression.  So let's start getting used to this being a good idea.  Quote to take away on this one is from Dr. Keith Humphreys, a professor of psychiatry at Stanford: "The reality of American healthcare is that mental health has to be done in primary care."

So I guess I didn't miss much.

Michael
On Twitter @PRIUM1







Monday, January 18, 2016

Drug Abuse and the 2016 Presidential Election

In last week's State of the Union address, President Obama mentioned prescription drug abuse as an issue where he saw opportunity for bipartisan compromise.  Notably, he mentioned this in the first three minutes of the speech.  And not coincidentally, he mentioned it in the same breath as another, related issue that will be a necessary component of prescription drug abuse mitigation: criminal justice reform.

Governor Chris Christie has made prescription drug abuse a centerpiece of his stump speech.  He regularly shares a personal experience of losing a close friend from law school to an overdose.  Just last week, Christie made headlines by shutting down a New Jersey prison in order to convert it to a drug addiction treatment facility.  "The victims of addiction deserve treatment..." he said.

In last night's Democratic primary debate, Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders both touched on the subject.  After noting that she hears of horrible stories wherever she goes on the campaign trail and after advocating for first responders to carry and be authorized to use Narcan, she closed her comments along the same lines as Governor Christie: "We have to move away from treating the use of drugs as a crime and instead, move it to where it belongs, as a health issue.  And we need to divert more people from the criminal justice system into drug courts, into treatment, and recovery."  Senator Sanders added, after placing at least some of the blame at the feet of the pharmaceutical companies, that "we need a revolution in this country in terms of mental health treatment."

This is clearly going to be a 2016 presidential campaign issue.  Beyond the mere fact that crises often make for strange bedfellows (Clinton and Christie offering nearly interchangeable quotes?!?!), why are we hearing more about prescription drug abuse from candidates now than ever before?

First, New Hampshire.  Everyone knows the Granite State figures prominently as the first primary - on February 9 - in both parties' nomination process (Iowa - on February 1 - is a caucus, not a primary).  What many may fail to recognize is that New Hampshire's citizens have been hit especially hard by the opioid/heroin epidemic over the last several years.  A quarter of New Hampshire voters believe prescription drug and heroin abuse is the single most important issue of the 2016 election, marking the first time in eight years a plurality of voters have ranked any issue more important than jobs and the economy.  If you're going to win the New Hampshire primary - from either party - you better be prepared to address prescription drug misuse and abuse.  

Second, it's not an exaggeration to say that we're losing a material portion of entire generation of Americans to this epidemic.  First, we saw the findings of a recent study from the National Academy of Sciences indicating that the death rate among white, middle-aged Americans has grown over the last two decades while the death rate among almost all other groups has declined.  Now, the New York Times has analyzed nearly 60 million death certificates collected by the CDC and found that the death rate among young, white adults has risen to levels not seen since the AIDS epidemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s.  This generation will be the first since the Vietnam War to experience higher death rates in early adulthood than the generation that preceded it.  The figures indicate that the 2014 death rate from prescription drug and heroin overdose among 25 to 34 year olds was five times its level in 1999.  

We have presidential candidates talking about this issue because it is the preeminent public health issue of our time.  If there's any comfort for us at all, it's that both parties appear to be taking it seriously.  If there's to be a concern, it's that whoever wins will need to make difficult decisions and real progress.  We're losing a generation of Americans.  

Michael
On Twitter @PRIUM1

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Primary Care Physicians Aren't Prepared for Substance Abuse Issues

In the course of consuming news, studies, and other information related to prescription drug misuse and abuse, I sometimes come across seemingly unrelated data sets that paint a picture of broad, systemic issues.  Often, connecting these dots can illuminate a potential path forward, focus our efforts, and create progress toward solutions.  This week's example: 

Data Set #1
First, the CDC's latest data on drug poisoning deaths is disheartening.  After leveling off and even slightly declining in 2010-2013, the opioid death rate jumped considerably in 2014.  Meanwhile, heroin overdose deaths have continued a depressingly steady climb that goes back nearly two decades, but has clearly accelerated within the last 5 years.  Certainly, we have seen better days.  










Data Set #2
Health Affairs published an interesting piece in its December 2015 issue comparing primary care systems across 10 countries.  Primary care doctors were surveyed regarding general capabilities and attitudes.  While the survey was wide ranging, one of the categories stood out to me: the % of primary care doctors who report their practice is well prepared to manage the care of patients with complex needs.  Two key data points:
  1. Patients with substance-use related issues:
    • US primary care docs: 16% are well prepared.  This ranked near the bottom of the 10 country survey.  The UK was at the top of the list with 41% of primary care physicians reporting that they're well prepared to deal with substance-use related issues. 
  2. Patients with severe mental health problems:
    • US primary care docs: 16% are well prepared.  This ranked second to last (just behind Sweden at 14%) among the ten countries.  The UK also topped this category with 43% of primary care docs reporting they feel well prepared to deal with severe mental illness.  
To sum up... 

We have an escalating death rate from opioid and heroin overdose deaths in this country, driven in large part by substance-use related issues and mental illness.  And we have a primary care system not equipped to deal with the complexity of these patients.  

Help may be on the way in form of increased and mandated reimbursement for substance abuse and mental/behavioral health treatment via the Affordable Care Act.  But I'm struck by the fact that the vast majority of opioid prescribing occurs at the primary care level, not in the specialist's office.  If we're to make any progress, we need to focus education, resources, and tools within the primary care community so that a-heck-of-a-lot more than 16% of primary care physicians feel they're well prepared to help this complex group of patients.  

Michael 
On Twitter @PRIUM1


Monday, January 4, 2016

When Opioids Almost Kill You, Chances Are You'll Get More Opioids

I really wanted the first post of 2016 to be positive, uplifting, inspiring... but a study I read over the break was so unnerving, I had to go and ruin "return to work" day, already a day that lives in infamy, with even more depressing news.

Researchers at Boston Medical Center used a national database of prescription information to assess the likelihood of continued opioid prescriptions after a non-fatal overdose.  They looked at prescription information from 3,000 patients who experienced a non-fatal overdose between 2000 and 2012.  These patients were all prescribed opioids for chronic, non-cancer pain. 

Think about this: These 3,000 patients have already overdosed on prescription opioids. They are lucky to be alive. Surely, their healthcare providers will find another way, another mechanism, another approach to managing their pain. The risk here isn't illness or infection or a change in blood pressure... it's death.  

The bad news:
  • Over 90% of these patients continued to receive opioids after their non-fatal overdose event
  • 50% of these continued to receive the prescriptions from the same doctor
  • 7% of the original group experienced a second overdose
  • Two years after the first overdose, those with continuing opioid prescriptions were twice as likely to experience a second overdose event compared to those who were no longer receiving opioids. 
Why is this is happening?  

First, our fragmented healthcare system doesn't make it easy for prescribing physicians to discover the clinical events experienced by their patients outside of their immediate purview.  And patients may not want to disclose an overdose event for fear of having their medications discontinued.  I get that.  And it makes we wonder whether PDMPs should also include the ability for inpatient settings to report both fatal and non-fatal overdose events to the database so doctors can see this information whether its reported by the patient or not.  Linking electronic health records to PDMP systems would be a good start down this path.    

The second phenomenon driving these sorry statistics is that doctors are not comfortable weaning opioid (and other) medications.  No one, least of all me, would ever suggest immediate cessation of opioid therapy in light of a non-fatal overdose.  That's clinically irresponsible and potentially dangerous for the patient.  But the necessary steps forward are complicated: If the patient is on multiple medications that require weaning, which should we weaned first?  What titration steps should be used?  Is medication-assisted-therapy (MAT) an option?  Should I refer the patient or try to handle this myself?  These are hard questions and the primary care community, by far the most frequent prescribers of opioids, is currently ill-equipped to handle them.

Welcome to 2016.  Once more unto the breach, dear friends.  

Michael 
On Twitter @PRIUM1  





Tuesday, December 15, 2015

It's Actually NOT 10% of Doctors Driving the Opioid Epidemic

A brief research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association published just yesterday highlights a fascinating phenomenon in opioid prescribing and does so against the backdrop of workers' compensation data from the California Workers' Compensation Institute (CWCI).

Recall that CWCI data indicates that 10% of prescribers are responsible for nearly 80% of the opioid prescriptions in the California work comp system (and 88% of opioid costs!).  That's an astounding statistic and one that has led many observers and decision-makers to conclude that the solution to mitigating the opioid epidemic is to change the behavior of a small subset of prescribers that were driving the utilization of potentially dangerous medications.  I've heard this from a multitude of sources: "It's a relatively small group of the prescribers who are really responsible for this problem.  How do we change their prescribing behavior?"

The authors of this recent research letter decided to test whether the same ratio was exhibited in a much broader data set: all Medicare claims.  Granted, this is a data set not representative of the work comp injured worker population, but it's still an interesting question: Do we see that 10% of prescribers to Medicare patients drive 80% (or more) of the opioid prescriptions?  The answer would lend itself to opioid misuse and abuse mitigation strategies that go far beyond work comp and speak to the national effort to curb addiction and overdose deaths.  What are we aiming for?  10% of prescribers? Or a broader group?

The answer: the top 10% of Medicare prescribers account for only 56.7% of all opioid claims. Not only is this far below the CWCI data point of 80%, but it's also significantly less than the percentage of overall prescriptions (opioids and non-opioids) written by the top 10% of overall Medicare prescribers (63%).


Does this mean the CWCI data is less accurate or less valuable to us?  Absolutely not.  On the contrary, the CWCI data should help focus our work comp specific strategies for opioid misuse and abuse.  But for those of us concerned with the broader, national (and, increasingly, international) issue of opioid misuse and abuse, this JAMA research letter suggests that a broader, more comprehensive set of strategies that span a wider swath of prescribers will be necessary.  

Perhaps of even greater consequence is the specialty make-up of the prescribers.  The number of opioid claims in the Medicare data set are overwhelmingly from general practitioners (note that this chart is on a log scale... look at the actual numbers... family practice and internal medicine doctors are responsible for about 28 million opioid claims vs. a little over 3 million for pain management and interventional pain management combined).  


Two conclusions:
1) We need broad-based strategies to confront the opioid epidemic, though in work comp our efforts may be focused on a smaller subset of prescribers.  
2) These broad efforts need to focus on education for general practitioners.  Chronic pain is fundamentally an issue of primary care and we would be wise to treat it as such.  

Michael 
On Twitter @PRIUM1


Monday, December 7, 2015

A Sad Addition to our Shared Experiences

Think of the number of truly consequential experiences that Americans have in common.  Not the "mom and apple pie" stuff, but experiences that really impact our lives in deep and meaningful ways.  How many of us know someone affected by cancer?  How many of us are products of our public education system?  How many of us have lost a loved one?  

Thanks to the results of the recent Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, we can now add another shared experience among Americans: more than half of us (56%) know someone connected to prescription drug misuse or abuse.  45% of us know someone who has taken a prescription drug not prescribed to them.  39% of us know someone who has been addicted to prescription drugs.  16% of us know someone who has died from an overdose of prescription painkillers.  (56% of those polled answered "yes" to at least one of these questions).  

Interestingly, the poll reveals a demographic and socioeconomic trend around those who answered "yes" to at least one of the questions (know someone who took a drug not prescribed, know someone who has been addicted, or know someone who has died of an overdose).  The top 8 groups, by percentage of those polled answering "yes" at least once:
  • 63% of whites
  • 63% of those making more than $90k per year 
  • 62% of those aged 18-29
  • 61% of those aged 30-49
  • 61% of those having "some" college education
  • 59% of those with a college degree
  • 59% with residency in a suburban area
  • 59% of males  
That paints a picture of the prescription drug misuse and abuse epidemic.  

And yet, when asked to prioritize public policy goals, reducing drug abuse comes in 6th:
  1. Public education
  2. Affordable/available healthcare
  3. Reducing crime
  4. Attracting and retaining businesses and jobs
  5. Protecting the environment
  6. Reducing drug abuse
  7. Reforming the criminal justice system
In studying this list... I wonder if we can't make a significant impact on #6 by tackling #2, #3, and #7. What if we thought differently about mental healthcare?  What if we thought differently about addiction?  What if we didn't treat addicts like criminals?  It's possible - and the regulatory and private enterprise infrastructure to make that happen is actually developing all around us. 

There is hope.   

Michael  
On Twitter @PRIUM1

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

The Opioid Crisis: A Playbook Arrives

The Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins has published a paper entitled "The Prescription Opioid Epidemic: An Evidence Based Approach." Click here for a copy. Read it. Study it. Commit its recommendations to memory.  This is an important document in the fight against prescription drug misuse and abuse.

What makes it important is its comprehensiveness. The team at Hopkins attacks the issue at every step in the drug distribution value chain: prescribing guidelines, prescription drug monitoring databases (PDMPs), pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and pharmacies, overdose and addiction, and community based prevention strategies.

The document is the summation of work performed by seven sub-committees that discussed, debated, and deliberated the options for addressing opioid misuse and abuse.  The committees were made up of experts in the field and the passion, commitment, and resolve of these individuals is apparent in the resulting recommendations.

Perhaps most impressive, the paper appears to leave politics aside  (as any good public health institution should) and advocates for specific tactics that have long faced strident opposition from well-funded groups. Specifically, the paper calls for mandatory prescriber education and mandatory prescriber use of PDMPs... the American Medical Association has pushed back on the former and while they've recommended the latter, many state level medical associations have balked at mandatory PDMP use.

The paper should also be commended for suggesting innovative (though controversial) ideas, such as:

  • Authorize third party payers to access PDMP data with proper protections
  • Require oversight of pain treatment (through mandatory tracking of pain, mood, and functionality at each patient office visit)
  • Empower licensing boards and law enforcement to investigate high risk prescribers
  • Require that federal support for prescription drug misuse, abuse, and overdose interventions include outcome data
Work like this gives me hope.  

Michael 
On Twitter @PRIUM1

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Why Aren't We Linking PDMPs and EHRs?

The development of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) nationwide is a necessary, albeit insufficient by itself, step in our fight against prescription drug misuse and abuse.  I've long advocated not just for mandatory reporting to PDMPs (which requires doctors and pharmacies to contribute data to the database) but also of mandatory use of the PDMP (by prescribing physicians prior to writing prescriptions for potentially dangerous medications).

Many physicians (and their associated lobbying groups) have pushed back on the notion of mandatory use of PDMPs based on three categories of objections:

First: "I don't get paid for this..."  Fair enough.  One could argue that a surgeon isn't explicitly paid to wash her hands prior to surgery and does so anyway because it's in the best interests of patient safety... though the reality is that our fee-for-service RVU-based system actually does pay the surgeon for that activity.  So I get this argument.  

Second: "The data isn't reliable... it's either not timely or not accurate..."  This is certainly an issue, though one that will resolve itself over time with proper funding and enforcement of reporting requirements.

Third: "The database access is inefficient, the technology isn't robust..."  Also an issue, but one that I think will resolve itself over time as critical mass develops around the need to exchange this data.

But what if we could fix all three issues in a single stroke of technological innovation?  

Ohio is doing just that.  Governor (and Republican presidential candidate) John Kasich is spending the necessary dollars (a whopping $1.5 million) to integrate Ohio's PDMP with the electronic health records systems of doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies.

This is genius.  

"The message to Ohioans, despite the fact that will still see a tsunami of drugs, is that we're not going to give up in this state until we win more and more battles, maybe ultimately the war," Kasich said at a news conference.

Why isn't every governor in the country working on this?  

Michael
On Twitter @PRIUM1

Monday, November 9, 2015

The Case for Physician Education in Light of Rising Death Rates

Two recent and related op-ed pieces in the NY Times lay out the logic I articulated in my last blog post on addiction and mental health.  The two pieces, taken together, offer a glimpse of the crushing reality of contemporary social and cultural circumstances for some population groups in this country as well as at least one clear imperative for how we might begin to fix it.  I don't have the bully pulpit of the Times editorial page (I wish), so I'm happy to defer to a Nobel prize winning economist and a professor from Cornell's medical school, respectively, to lay out this critical message to a much broader audience.

Paul Krugman (he's the Nobel prize winner) puts the recent research on rising death rates of white middle-aged Americans into political and economic context.  While he is a unapologetic liberal, his ultimate conclusion is that our politics didn't necessarily cause this despair, at least not in any direct sense.  Rather, the issues are more existential in nature.  One of the study's authors, Angus Deaton, offers a hypothesis: this group, he says, has "lost the narrative of their lives."  Krugman puts it in his own words this way: "we're looking at people who were raised to believe in the American Dream and are coping badly with its failure to come true."  And one of the most significant and negative coping mechanisms employed by this group?  Prescription painkillers.

Richard Friedman (he's the professor from Cornell medical school) builds a case for mandatory physician education for pain management and does so by building on the same Deaton-Case research from which Krugman's piece is derived.  He writes:
"All medical professional organizations should back mandated education about safe opioid treatment as a prerequisite for licensure and prescribing. At present, the American Academy of Family Physicians opposes such a measure because it could limit patient access to pain treatment with opioids, which I think is misguided. Don’t we want family doctors, who are significant prescribers of opioids, to learn about their limitations and dangers? 
It is physicians who, in large part, unleashed the current opioid epidemic with their promiscuous use of these drugs; we have a large responsibility to end it."
The more I read and write about chronic pain issues, the clearer it becomes to me that when we focus on root case issues, we increase the probability of making a dent in the problem.  This can be hard and depressing work, though.  Tracing chronic pain and drug abuse to root causes remains elusive - the answers are tied to social, cultural, economic, and historical forces we're just beginning to understand and unravel.

But one thing we must certainly do is ensure that the medical professionals charged with the health and well-being of their patients are, in fact, helping and not hurting our progress.

Michael
On Twitter @PRIUM1

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Mental Health and Addiction: What if We Had What We Really Need?

Consider several seemingly unrelated articles that all ended up in my stack of "articles to read" just in the last three days:

First, a report from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that found that the death rate among white, middle-aged Americans has grown since the 1990s, while death rates among the same age cohort within other ethnicities and countries has continued to decline.  From the report: "Rising midlife mortality rates among non-Hispanics were paralleled by increases in midlife morbidity.  Self-reported declines in health, mental health, and ability to conduct activities of daily living, and increases in chronic pain and inability to work, as well as clinically measured deteriorations in liver function, all point to growing distress in this population."  The researchers speculated that relatively easy access to opioid pain killers may be linked to the rise in incidence of mental illness.  While I think they have the cause and effect backward, there's little doubt in my mind that the two are related.

Second, a report from WESH in Orlando on a US government study that estimates there are 4 million baby boomers struggling with addiction.  "Baby boomers," the group of Americans born within the 19 year period following WWII, are now in their 50s and 60s and they're suffering from drug and alcohol addiction at a rate that rehabilitation and recovery services cannot accommodate.  "It's hard to imagine grandma with a heroin problem," says Dr. Heather Luing, medical director at Recovery Village, "but that's the reality we sometimes see."

Third, there was a lot of international coverage of a controversial paper from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) that suggested UN-member countries should consider "decriminalizing drug possession for personal consumption."  The paper was retracted by UNODC leadership with an explanation that it was written by a mid-level policy person simply expressing a viewpoint and was never sanctioned or adopted as a formal UNODC position.  This public policy approach, however, has been tested, perhaps most notably in Portugal.  Despite warnings of potentially dire consequences, Portugal decriminalized the simple possession of all drugs back in 2001.  Since that time, Portugal has seen overall drug use fall, it has the second lowest overdose death rate in all of Europe, and HIV infections among drug users are dramatically lower,  The resources formerly focused on arresting and prosecuting simple drug possession were instead poured into mental and behavioral health, education, and job training/placement programs.  And if you think such a program wouldn't be possible in the US, check out what Worcester, MA is doing.  

What are the common themes here?

  1. People are dying.  That much is statistically evident.  
  2. These deaths appear to be correlated with chronic pain, drug use, mental illness, and addiction. 
  3. Efforts over the last three decades to deal with the issue from a criminal justice standpoint appear to be at least ineffective and at most counterproductive.  
  4. The current supply of mental and behavioral health resources in the US is nowhere near sufficient to meet demand.  

So if the demand is there, why don't we have the mental/behavioral health resources we need? Because we've never devoted the reimbursement dollars necessary, either public or private, to ensure such programs were economically viable.  But now, with the Affordable Care Act's parity provisions, we have legislatively mandated reimbursement policies around mental health coverage offered by private insurers.  The resources haven't yet caught up to the demand, but billions of dollars of private equity investment is being poured into the sector.  Hopefully, it's just a matter of time before the number of trained professionals and the facilities and technologies they need to practice are in place.

And that leads us to an interesting thought experiment: What if we did have the mental and behavioral health infrastructure we so desperately need? Could we fundamentally change how we approach drug abuse in our society?

Michael
On Twitter @PRIUM1