The Senate just voted 92-2 to pass a piece of legislation, one already passed by the House 407-5. Can you remember the last time you saw a vote tally like that in Congress?
The President will now sign the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA), a new law intended to stem the tide of drug misuse and abuse in this country. Given the ubiquitous and devastating nature of the epidemic, it's no wonder the vote was such a slam dunk. Better three hours too late than a minute too soon, I suppose, but this Congress after all.
And yet, this bill nearly died an ignominious death before reaching the President's desk. Even though we all agree that something must be done (and our representatives in Congress see it the same way, at least in principle), there remained the issue of how to pay for it. Obama asked for $1 billion. Lots of numbers were tossed around with respect to appropriations... $500 million... $300 million... $600 million. This surprised even those who watch the sausage making process as a full time profession (from thehill.com: "But the fight over funding threatened to doom the bill, surprising longtime policy watchers who expected the legislation to coast through both chambers as the country faces an epidemic of opioid overdose deaths.")
The final bill allows for $180 million per year for the programs it creates. The Department of Health and Human Services will dole out grants to treatment programs, law-enforcement assisted diversion, prisons, educational programs, and increase the number of patients able to receive medication assisted treatment (MAT).
So how far can we stretch $180 million? What can we expect the public health impact to be? Let's do some simple math.
If we just take the 16 million people in the US who suffer from some form of substance use disorder... that leaves us with about $11 per person per year.
If we just look at the most vulnerable subset of the substance use disorder population, those with concomitant mental health disorders - of which there are 8 million in the US - we're left with about $22 per person per year.
If we take the number of counties (the public health departments of which often compete for and implement these grants), of which there are about 3,000, we get $60,000 per county per year, probably enough to hire a single new public health worker to help those struggling with addiction.
And if we take the population of chronic, non-cancer pain patients in the US, a group at high risk for opioid dependence and addiction - of which there are approximately 38 million - well, that's a little less than $5 per person per year.
Think the math is unfair? Think my analysis isn't framed correctly? I'd love to see an alternative approach that shows this investment can and will make a difference. From my perspective, it's woefully insufficient.
But it's a start... which is why President Obama is going to sign it.
On Twitter @PRIUM1