|
According
to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), heroin
use has been increasing over the past several years and the methadone
maintenance treatment system has been criticized for not responding
to the needs of opiate dependent individuals seeking treatment.
The
1997 Uniform Facility Data Set reported approximately 140,000 new
heroin users. The number of young people using heroin is increasing
as well. High-purity heroin is becoming more readily available and
this may account for the increased number of teenagers beginning
to use. “High-purity heroin can be snorted, smoked or otherwise
inhaled, which makes the drug more appealing to those who might
be reluctant to inject drugs.”
An
independent study conducted by ONDCP “found that there were three
times as many hard-core addicts in [one county] than the number
estimated by the Household Survey. These results suggest that the
actual number of chronic heroin users in the United States may be
even larger than ONDCP’s estimate of 810,000”. As for the federal
government’s estimate of opiate dependent people enrolled in methadone
maintenance treatment, the figure has ranged from 117,000 (1993)
to 125,000 (1999), most recently noted in the Notice for Proposed
Rule Making [Docket No. 98N-0617].
The
American Methadone Treatment Association had been receiving conflicting
reports concerning the number of opiate dependent individuals enrolled
in methadone maintenance treatment programs. The Association’s member
states were reporting growth in new treatment programs and increasing
numbers of patients seeking treatment, while the federal government
continued to report that the treatment system remained static.
In
addition, federal agencies continue to craft policy while using
the figure (117,000 patients) published in the Institute of Medicine
Report of 1995 as a guide. The Association decided it was time to
find out what the treatment system consisted of and, in response
to all the varying reports, we conducted a survey.
The
survey requested census and related information from the State Methadone
Authorities and the designated State Methadone Provider Contact
representatives in the forty-two states, (in addition to the District
of Columbia) that provide methadone treatment services.
The
survey was distributed during the late summer months of 1998 and
we received a 100% response rate, which included methadone maintenance
treatment programs in the forty-two states and DC, both public and
proprietary. The 100% response rate was due to thorough follow up
and a cross checking pattern of having State Methadone Authorities
review information from Provider Contact representatives, with the
process being reversed, until all differences were reconciled. The
entire process took six months from the time of the initial request
until the final cross-check. The aggregate data were organized by
December 1998, reviewed by the Association’s Board of Directors
during March of 1999 and the survey was released in April 1999.
FINDINGS
. . .
The
survey revealed that there were 179,329 patients enrolled in methadone
maintenance treatment programs at the end of 1998. This finding
illustrates a significant increase from the previously reported
finding of 117,000 patients in treatment in the United States. The
Association’s survey also revealed that there are a total of 785
methadone maintenance programs throughout the country.
Currently,
947 methadone maintenance treatment programs are registered with
the Drug Enforcement Administration. Our survey findings fall short
of the DEA’s figure of registered programs and we conclude that
this may be due to the fact that a disproportionate number of VA
medical centers/methadone maintenance treatment programs were represented
(in addition to the opening of new programs during 1999).
Even
as the treatment system continues to change, we now have a much
greater sense of the growth that occurred during the past several
years.
OTHER
SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS . . .
Of
the 785 methadone maintenance treatment programs in the United States,
401 or 51% are non-profit programs.
The
survey also revealed that 279 programs or 35% are licensed to dispense
levo-alpha-acctyl- methadol (LAAM).
The
survey indicates that eight states (Idaho, Mississippi, Montana,
New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia)
do not offer access to methadone maintenance treatment services.
Also, at the time of the survey, Wyoming was operating one methadone
maintenance treatment program serving three patients. As of February,
1999 this program closed. Two patients were withdrawn from methadone
and one patient was transferred to a neighboring state (all were
given one-year notice of the program’s closing).
The American Methadone Treatment Association represents 643 treatment
programs or 81% of the nation’s methadone treatment services as
well as 151,329 patients or 84% of the methadone maintenance patient
population in the United States.
This
survey carries clear implications for new direction in national
and state policy. Although the treatment system was able to absorb
thousands of additional patients at its current capacity, it does
not mean that the system should continue to function in this way.
There is a great danger in overextending program staff while trying
to ensure that patients receive good quality treatment. As the scope
of the nation’s heroin addiction continues to change and expand,
so too must the treatment system.
The
new information provided by the Association’s survey will help guide
us in the direction of increasing access to care, expanding medical
maintenance programs and starting new programs where none exist.
The
American Methadone Treatment Association would like to acknowledge
the nation’s State Methadone Authorities and the State Methadone
Provider Contact representatives. Their participation in this survey
and extraordinary cooperation were greatly appreciated. This survey
would not have been possible without their continued support.
Office
of Applied Studies/SAMHSA, October 1997, pg 43.
ONDCP – Policy Paper, Opioid Agonist Treatment, March 1999, pg 1-2.
ONDCP – Policy Paper, Opioid Agonist Treatment, March 1999, pg 2.
Institute of Medicine Report, 1995, pg 154.
|