Alcohol overuse causes 140,000 American deaths annually. Why is it so undertreated?

Melinda Fawcett

Psychiatry.ufl.edu

Originally posted 28 Nov 23

Here is an excerpt:

How to treat the disorder

In the last decade, the medical community has come to recognize AUD as a disease that (like all others) needs medical treatment through a range of interventions. With new treatments coming out every day, hope exists that in the years to come more and more people will receive the care they need.

For those with the most severe forms of AUD, treatment aims at stopping the individual’s alcohol consumption entirely (while recognizing that having a drink or breaking abstinence isn’t a failure, but an almost inevitable part of the recovery cycle).

“What’s happened in the last probably 50 years or so is there’s a more medicalized understanding,” said Humphreys. “So there’s been the rise of neuroscience that looks at things like how the brain changes with repeated administration of alcohol, how that limits things like self-control, how that increases phenomena like craving.”

And as with any other mental health diagnosis, successful treatment for AUD often boils down to a combination of therapy and medication, the experts Vox spoke to said. Just as depression is treated with medication to balance chemicals in the brain, and therapy to help patients unlearn harmful behaviors, AUD often needs the same combination of treatments, said Disselkoen.

The Federal Drug Administration approved the first medication to treat AUD, disulfiram, in 1951. Disulfiram, whose brand name is Antabuse, is a daily pill that causes someone to fall ill — face redness, headache, nausea, sweating, and more — if they drink even a small amount of alcohol. Disulfiram is safe and effective, but the same characteristic that makes it successful (the way it induces illness) also makes it unpopular among patients, said Nixon.

The info is here.

Key points:

• Alarming death toll: 140,000 Americans die annually from alcohol overuse, highlighting a major public health crisis.
• Undertreatment disparity: Unlike other dangerous substances, alcohol issues lack the same attention and treatment resources.
• Neurological changes: Repeated alcohol misuse alters the brain, making it a serious health condition, not just a social issue.
• Market forces: The powerful alcohol industry and its growing revenue contribute to lax regulations and limited intervention.
• Policy gap: Inadequate taxation fails to curb consumption, while other harmful substances face stricter controls.
• Blind spot in drug policy: Recognizing alcohol as a harmful drug with addiction potential is crucial for tackling the problem.

Ethical considerations for psychotherapists participating in Alcoholics Anonymous

Kohen, Casey B.,Conlin, William E.

Practice Innovations, Vol 7(1), Mar 2022, 40-52.

Abstract

Because the demands of professional psychology can be taxing, psychotherapists are not immune to the development of mental health and substance use disorders. One estimate indicates that roughly 30% to 40% of psychologists know of a colleague with a current substance abuse problem (Good et al., 1995). Twelve-step mutual self-help groups, particularly Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), are the most widely used form of treatment for addiction in the United States. AA has empirically demonstrated effectiveness at fostering long-term treatment success and is widely accessible throughout the world. However, psychotherapist participation in AA raises a number of ethical concerns, particularly regarding the potential for extratherapy contact with clients and the development of multiple relationships. This article attempts to review the precarious ethical and practical situations that psychotherapists, either in long-term recovery or newly sober, may find themselves in during AA involvement. Moreover, this article provides suggestions for psychotherapists in AA regarding how to best adhere to both the principles of AA (i.e., the 12 steps and 12 traditions) and the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. 

Here is an excerpt:

Recent literature regarding the use of AA or other mutual self-help groups by psychotherapists is scant, but earlier studies suggest its effectiveness. A 1986 survey of 108 members of Psychologists Helping Psychologists (a seemingly defunct support group exclusively for substance dependent doctoral-level psychologists and students) shows that of the 94% of respondents maintaining abstinence, 86% attended AA (Thoreson et al., 1986). A separate study of 70 psychologists in recovery who were members of AA revealed the majority attained sobriety outside of formal treatment or intervention programs (Skorina et al., 1990). 

Because AA appears to be a vital resource for psychotherapists struggling with substance misuse, it is important to consider how to address ethical dilemmas that one might encounter while participating in AA.

Conclusion

Psychotherapists participating in AA may, at times, find that their professional responsibility of adhering to the APA Code of Ethics hinders some aspects of their categorical involvement in AA as defined by AA’s 12 steps and 12 traditions. The psychotherapist in AA may need to adjust their personal AA “program” in comparison with the typical AA member in a manner that attempts to meet the requirements of the profession yet still provides them with enough support to maintain their professional competence. This article discusses reasonable compromises, specifically tailored to the length of the psychotherapist’s sobriety, that minimize the potential for client harm. Ultimately, if the psychotherapist is unable to find an appropriate middle-ground, where the personal needs of recovery can be met without damaging client welfare and respecting the client’s rights, the psychotherapist should refer the client elsewhere. With these recommendations, psychotherapists should feel more comfortable participating in AA (or other mutual self-help groups) while also adhering to the ethical principles of our profession.

The article is here.

Attorney General James and U.S. Department of Labor Deliver $14 Million to Consumers Who Were Denied Mental Health Care Coverage

Press Release

NY Attorney General

Posted 12 August 21

New York Attorney General Letitia James and the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) today announced landmark agreements with UnitedHealthcare (United), the nation’s largest health insurer, to resolve allegations that United unlawfully denied health care coverage for mental health and substance use disorder treatment for thousands of Americans. As a result of these agreements, United will pay approximately $14.3 million in restitution to consumers affected by the policies, including $9 million to more than 20,000 New Yorkers with behavioral health conditions who received denials or reductions in reimbursement. New York and federal law requires health insurance plans to cover mental health and substance use disorder treatment the same way they cover physical health treatment. The agreements — which resolve investigations and litigation — address United’s policies that illegally limited coverage of outpatient psychotherapy, hindering access to these vital services for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers for whom United administers behavioral health benefits. In addition to the payment to impacted consumers, United will lift the barriers it imposed and pay more than $2 million in penalties, with $1.3 million going to New York state.  

“In the shadow of the most devastating year for overdose deaths and in the face of growing mental health concerns due to the pandemic, access to this care is more critical than ever before,” said Attorney General James. “United’s denial of these vital services was both unlawful and dangerous — putting millions in harm’s way during the darkest of times. There must be no barrier for New Yorkers seeking health care of any kind, which is why I will always fight to protect and expand it. I thank Secretary Walsh for his partnership on this important matter.” 

“Protecting access to mental health and substance use disorder treatment is a priority for the Department of Labor and something I believe in strongly as a person in long-term recovery,” said U.S. Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh. “This settlement provides compensation for many people who were denied full benefits and equitable treatment. We appreciate Attorney General James and her office for their partnership in investigating, identifying, and remedying these violations.” 

New York’s behavioral health parity law — originally enacted as “Timothy’s Law” in 2006 — and the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) require insurance coverage for mental health and substance use disorder treatment to be no more restrictive than insurance coverage for physical health conditions. The agreements are the product of the first joint state-federal enforcement of these laws.  

The pressor is here.

Don't Blame PPC, Blame Poor Ethics

Kyle Infante
Forbes.com
Originally posted on February 2, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

To sum up the entire debacle in a nutshell: Marketing entities would create referral ads and websites to bid on highly sought after addiction keywords, drive traffic to their call centers and send people to facilities-based purely on profit. There was no clinical or medical prescreening being conducted, no thought put into placing that individual with the appropriate level of care. Suffering addicts and alcoholics were being misled by strategic digital marketing tactics and pushed to the highest bidder. Often, these high bidders had a slew of ethical issues. This drove the cost per click for each ad through the roof, and soon enough only the Goliaths could compete on PPC (pay per click). Unless you had the money to hire an advertising agency or had an in-house marketer with extensive digital experience, there was no way to survive.

Recently, Google stepped in and placed restrictions on these ads to curb the gross abuse of the market. In September 2017, Google began to limit the kinds of ads facilities could create and just this year placed a temporary ban on all recovery ads to audit the entire industry.

The article is here.

There may be no worse place for mentally ill people to receive treatment than prison

By The Spotlight Team
The Boston Globe
Originally posted November 25, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

Last year, more than 15,000 prisoners walked out of Massachusetts jails and prisons. More than one-third suffer from mental illness; more than half have a history of addiction. Thousands are coping with both kinds of disorders, their risk of problems amplified as they reenter society.

Within three years of being released, 37 percent of inmates who leave state prisons with mental illnesses are locked up again, compared with 30 percent of those who do not have mental health problems, according to a Department of Correction analysis of 2012 releases. Inmates battling addiction fare worse: About half are convicted of a new crime within three years, according to one state study. And inmates with a “dual diagnosis” of addiction and mental illness, like Nick Lynch, do the worst of all, national studies show.

Despite the vast need — and the potential payoff in reduced recidivism — mental health and substance abuse treatment for many Massachusetts inmates is chronically undermined by clinician shortages, shrinking access to medication, and the widespread use of segregation as discipline. The prison environment itself is a major obstacle to treatment: In a culture ruled by aggression and fear, the trust and openness required for therapy are exponentially harder to achieve.

And when their incarcerations end, many mentally ill and drug-addicted prisoners are sent back into the world without basic tools they need to succeed, such as ready access to medication, addiction counseling, or adequate support and oversight. Such omissions can be critical: The Harvard-led Boston Reentry Study found in 2014 that inmates with a mix of mental illness and addiction are significantly less likely than others to find stable housing, work income, and family support in the critical initial period after leaving prison, leaving them insecure, isolated, and at risk of falling into “diminished mental health, drug use and relapse.”

The article is here.