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

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

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