The following quotes are taken from an article written by Kenneth Anderson[1] who criticizes: “The Training Manual for US Addiction Counselors.” Here’s the link:
http://www.substance.com/the-
The federal “Training Manual” mentioned above says that addiction’s “chronic and relapse nature” is recognized as a part of the “disorder.”: The Manual goes on to say that “Recovery from addictive illness necessitates sobriety and abstinence, relapse prevention programs and continuing supportive intervention for those who become dependent on mood-altering chemicals.”
I agree with this statement from the federal “Training Manual” since it describes a large percentage of hard core heroin addicts with whom I have worked over the last several decades. However, according to Anderson, this statement is false. He says that
“ the NESARC research tells us that most people who recover from alcohol dependence do so by cutting back on their drinking; less than half recover via abstinence (as outlined here by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism). Not only is a return to moderate use after a period of addictive use common among people who drink alcohol, the same phenomenon can be seen with “harder” drugs—even with heroin.”
Here is another quote where Anderson is trying to make the case for remission without treatment:
“NESARC also shows that the lifetime rates of treatment utilization (including AA) for any Drug Use Disorder are 8.1% for Abuse and 37.9% for Dependence. Lifetime treatment utilization (including AA) for Prescription Drug Use Disorders, by drug category, is: tranquilizers, 38.6%; stimulants, 28.6%; sedatives, 35.7%; and opioids, 31.9%. Compare that to lifetime remission rates for these disorders: tranquilizers, 98.3%; stimulants, 99.0%; sedatives, 98.7%; and opioids. 96.1%. The lifetime remission rates for illicit Drug Use Disorders are: 97.2% for cannabis and 99.2% for cocaine. Lifetime treatment utilization rates for these two drugs apparently have yet to be researched, however.”
My challenge to Mr. Anderson, even if I agreed with all he has said, should we eliminate drug treatment programs for those hard core addicts whose life is clearly in a shambles due to their accelerating heroin addiction?” I have worked with these hard core addicts for decades and abstinence from all mind altering and addictive drugs is absolutely the only way to go if your goal is a durable recovery lifestyle over years.
Anderson’s argument of “abstinence vs cutting back” may be the wrong one. Chronic heroin addicts, abusing drugs for many years (10 years or more) have developed a new drug oriented lifestyle just as people moving into a new neighborhood will, over the years, reflect the lifestyle (behavior and attitudes) of that of the surrounding community. It’s hard to live totally independent of those who we call our friends and neighbors. We have a need to belong, to one degree or another, with our surrounding environment and culture.
So it’s not so much about abstinence or cutting back as it is about an entire lifestyle change. This may mean new friends, possibly a different place to live, new positive values, ethics and often a fundamental change in beliefs that include a core of spirituality and faith. I have seen few long term heroin addicts maintain a job and a family while continuing their addiction. Maybe there are a few who can do this but I would strongly recommend against it. Also addicts can’t just stop doing drugs without learning to put another activity in its place. This new activity can’t be alcohol or the use of another drug. Addicts receiving methadone maintenance treatment must be very careful about the concurrent use of alcohol. Those who violate the rules and use alcohol as well have not changed their lifestyle and are likely to relapse, stopping legal methadone to resume heroin use. In a way this is comparable to the present movement from prescription opiate pain killers to heroin abuse and addiction.
Finally, after working directly with addicts since 1965 it would never occur to me that the three reasons people do not want to go to treatment are, as stated by Mr. Anderson, the following.
“As a former consumer of substance abuse treatment and as a person who works with active substance users, I believe that the primary reasons people do not want to go to substance abuse treatment are: (1) they will be disrespected as individuals, (2) abstinence will be forced upon them whether they choose it or not, and (3) spirituality will also be forced upon them. This is a basically accurate description of most of the alcohol and drug treatment currently available, particularly for poor people.”
In fact, this is not an accurate description of why most people don’t want treatment. The way I see it, addicts don’t want treatment because they prefer to “get high.” In fact, for many addicts, the only reason they finally do go to treatment is because, thankfully, they are forced by a judge or their probation or parole officer!
In spite of my disagreements, Anderson’s article below is well worth a read! Here are some points he makes in his article below:
“Research tells us that treatment has some benefit for some people. Indeed, former users report that it saves lives. But research doesn’t tell us who is most likely to benefit—and therefore where the resources should be spent. Are the substance users who have the most severe problems the ones who are most likely to benefit from treatment? Such questions require answers.”
Anderson goes on to quote from federal data that:
“Only 11.8% of people with an Alcohol Use Disorder in 2012 received treatment.”
******************************
Addendum
Here is a blog from Kenneth Anderson worth a reading:
Addiction Treatment: Who Gets It and Who Needs It?
Popular notions about who receives treatment are largely wrong. But what about the conventional wisdom that we should devote more resources to treatment to increase access? Let's look at the data.
Only 11.8% of people with an Alcohol Use Disorder in 2012 received treatment.
Who goes to rehab? Ask the person on the street and you’re likely to be told, on the one hand, celebrities, who spend a month or two at luxury residential rehabs, and, on the other hand, former heroin addicts, who line up every morning at methadone clinics. These popularized notions present an interesting (the very rich and the very poor) but grossly inaccurate picture. The reality, of course, is that problematic substance use cuts across all demographic lines. And so does addiction treatment. Sort of.
We know that factors such as socio-economic status and race influence whether a person gets treatment or gets sent to prison, for example; these factors also influence the type of treatment available. But it may come as a surprise that the drug of choice plays a significant role in determining who receives treatment.
If we look at the data from the large epidemiological studies that have been done nationwide, we can learn more about that—and also about who recovers from problematic substance use on their own, without rehab. This kind of recovery, which falls into the category of natural recovery (also known as spontaneous remission), is common—so common, in fact, that it calls into question the general view that everyone with problematic substance use needs rehab.
Data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) shows that there are large variations in who goes to rehab (private, public and related facilities) based on their drug of choice. This is true both for those with a Substance Use Disorder (SUD) and for all nonmedical substance users, including recreational users.
Figure 1 (seen in the attached full blog) shows the percentages of people with SUDs who utilized “specialty treatment[1]” for addiction in 2012.
Figure 2 gives the percentages of all nonmedical users of a substance who utilized such facilities that year.
“Specialty treatment” for an SUD is defined by SAMHSA as treatment received at any of the following: hospitals (inpatient only), drug or alcohol rehabilitation facilities (inpatient or outpatient) or mental health centers. It does not include treatment at an emergency room, a private doctor’s office, a self-help group such as AA or NA, a prison or jail or a hospital as an outpatient.
We can see from these two graphs that there are significant disparities between who utilized treatment and who did not. The most provocative statistics shows that six out of 10 people with a Heroin Use Disorder were likely to get treatment, compared to six out of 100 people with an Alcohol Use Disorder. In other words, people with problematic heroin use, who constitute less than 2% of all Americans with an SUD, were about 10 times more likely to use rehab treatment than those with an alcohol or marijuana use problem, who comprise over 80% of Americans with SUDs (see Figure 3). Indeed, these alcohol and marijuana disorders are the least likely of all SUDs to be treated.
Figure 4 shows what percentage of users of each substance are recreational users vs. substance abusers vs. substance dependent (the “abuse” percentage was calculated by subtracting the number with “dependence” from the number with “abuse and dependence” in the NSDUH data). As we can see, the vast majority of users of each substance are recreational, or non problematic, users—with the notable exception of heroin: Fully two out of three people who use heroin are dependent on the drug. It is important to note, however, that other surveys, including the Epidemiological Catchment Area Survey (ECA), have found much lower rates of Heroin Use Disorder among users. Although the ECA statistics cover the late 1980s, and therefore offer only a historical comparison, the finding of this large study—44% vs. 65%—is more representative of what the majority of research had found.
So far we have looked at which substance users go to rehab. Now let’s look at how well rehab works. Do those who go to specialty treatment[2] for addiction fare better than those who get no treatment at all and kick on their own?
To explore this question, we turn from 12-month data to lifetime data. According to the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), which included some 43,000 people and was conducted between 2001 and 2005, only 11.8% of people with an Alcohol Use Disorder ever received specialty treatment. If AA attendance is included as a form of help seeking, that percentage only increases to 14.6%. However, in spite of this, the NESARC data also shows that the lifetime recovery rate for Alcohol Dependence is over 90%.
NESARC also shows that the lifetime rates of treatment utilization (including AA) for any Drug Use Disorder are 8.1% for Abuse and 37.9% for Dependence. Lifetime treatment utilization (including AA) for Prescription Drug Use Disorders, by drug category, is: tranquilizers, 38.6%; stimulants, 28.6%; sedatives, 35.7%; and opioids, 31.9%. Compare that to lifetime remission rates for these disorders: tranquilizers, 98.3%; stimulants, 99.0%; sedatives, 98.7%; and opioids. 96.1%. The lifetime remission rates for illicit Drug Use Disorders are: 97.2% for cannabis and 99.2% for cocaine. Lifetime treatment utilization rates for these two drugs apparently have yet to be researched, however.
It is worth noting that nicotine is the hardest of all drugs to kick, with a lifetime remission rate of 83.7%. Yet there are no residential rehabs for cigarette smokers. Although research suggests that smokers who get some form of treatment have higher success rates than those who do not, it also tell us that only about one fifth of smokers get any sort of treatment: Therefore, as with other substances, the majority who kick their nicotine addiction do so without treatment.
What these comparisons of substance use data suggest is that even though the majority of people with problematic use never get rehab treatment or go to AA, the success rate in kicking abuse and/or dependence is very high.
Now, the half-life of an addiction is the amount of time it takes for half of the people who have that addiction to recover from it. NESARC shows that the half-life of Prescription Drug Use Disorders is: stimulants, four years; sedatives, tranquilizers and opioids, five years. The half life for other Substance Dependencies are: cocaine, five years; cannabis, six years; alcohol, 14 years; nicotine, 26 years. It would be of great interest if future researchers using the NESARC data would crunch the numbers to answer the question for us: Does treatment do anything to shorten the half-life of a substance abuse career? Or do those who get no treatment do as well as, or even better than, those who do get treatment? Such an analysis would go a long way toward answering questions about treatment’s effectiveness. The answer lies in the raw data collected by NESARC—all we need is a researcher to tease it out.
As for the rates of spontaneous remission of Heroin Dependence, the NESARC numbers have not been published yet. A number of studies, such as Lee Robins’ classic study of Vietnam veterans in the early 1970s, have shown that natural recovery from heroin addiction is common, but because these are not naturalistic epidemiological studies, we have no truly accurate estimates of remission rates. (Robbins’ findings, which are generally viewed as extraordinary, showed a relapse rate of 5% after one year and 12% after three years.)
One question of great interest that remains to be answered is: How effective is treatment when compared to the rate of spontaneous remission? And what types of treatment are effective? The NESARC study has amassed a huge amount of data that can be used to address this question, but unfortunately no researcher has (yet) crunched the numbers.
Another fascinating fact we find in the NSDUH data is that 84% of the people the government thinks should have treatment do not want treatment, as illustrated in Figure 5.
The government’s criteria for those who should get treatment involves three categories: individuals who met DSM IV criteria for “Substance Abuse,” those who met the criteria for “Substance Dependence” and everyone who received treatment regardless of DSM criteria. Although both the federal government and the addiction treatment industry use these statistics when calling for increased access to treatment—in order to meet this perceived “need”—the vast majority of people with an SUD do not in fact feel this need. And as we see, the data back them up—a fact that is not as widely known as it should be.
The conventional wisdom says that this glaring gap between the perceived need for treatment and the felt need for treatment is a sign that we need to do a better job of persuading substance users to enter treatment. Two of the main reasons typically given for why substance users do not want or do not get treatment are: lack of resources and psychological denial. The Affordable Care Act increases access to mental health and addiction services; public awareness campaigns, media attention and entertainment such as Dr. Drew Pinsky’s franchise, have both reinforced the concept of denial and promoted the act of overcoming it.
It is important to ask whether this enormous—and growing—financial and cultural investment in addiction treatment is wise or wasteful. Research tells us that treatment has some benefit for some people. Indeed, former users report that it saves lives. But research doesn’t tell us who is most likely to benefit—and therefore where the resources should be spent. Are the substance users who have the most severe problems the ones who are most likely to benefit from treatment? Such questions require answers.
As a former consumer of substance abuse treatment and as a person who works with active substance users, I believe that the primary reasons people do not want to go to substance abuse treatment are: (1) they will be disrespected as individuals, (2) abstinence will be forced upon them whether they choose it or not, and (3) spirituality will also be forced upon them. This is a basically accurate description of most of the alcohol and drug treatment currently available, particularly for poor people.
A new treatment paradigm that meets people “where they are at,” encouraging them to pursue goals they choose for themselves, would attract rather than repel people who need help. Patt Denning, Jeannie Little and Andrew Tatarsky have done pioneering work on developing such a paradigm; they report many successes with clients who have been resistant to traditional forms of treatment. My own experience tells me that this paradigm should become the standard of care. At the very least, advocates of the current treatment paradigm would do well to expand specialty treatment to include this approach.
[1] Kenneth Anderson is the founder of HAMS Harm Reduction for Alcohol and the author of How to Change Your Drinking: A Harm Reduction Guide to Alcohol. He has a master’s degree in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Counseling from the New School for Social Research and has worked in the field of harm reduction since 2002, including “in the trenches” doing needle exchange in Minneapolis. He served as online director for Moderation Management and as director of development at the Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center. He hosts a harm reduction podcast and writes a blog for Psychology Today called Overcoming Addiction. His last piece for Substance.com was“The Training Manual for US Addiction Counselors Is Full of Myths.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
No profanity, vulgar language, personal attacks, libel or defamation, nudity of any kind or sexual imagery is permitted on this site. The site's management reserves the right to screen all messages for appropriateness through this venue.