Narcotics research, rehabilitation, and treatment. Hearings, Ninety ...
Narcotics research, rehabilitation, and treatment. Hearings, Ninety ... Narcotics research, rehabilitation, and treatment. Hearings, Ninety ...
.122admission rate was approximately 50 patients each month, equally divided betweenambulatory and inpatient induction with rather cautious selection of thoseadmitted for ambulatory induction.This year has seen an almost complete reversal in this procedure. The vastmajority of patients are currently being stabilized on an ambulatory basis, andinpatient services are used only for those patients who present unusual problems.As of October 31, 1970, we have under surveillance 13 inpatient induction unitsand 46 active outpatient and ambulatory units. These units cover the four largestNew York City boroughs and lower Westchester County. How many patientsare involved? Table 1 shows the October 31, 1970, census. There have been 4,376admissions to date, and 3,485 patients are under treatment. This is contrastedwith the census as of October 31, 1969, when there were 2,325 admissions and1,886 patients in treatment. This highlights the rapid expansion from approximately50 patients per month to a level of 50 new patients each week. The locationsof the inpatient and outpatient units are listed in appendixes A and B forthose who are interested. The rapid induction group is a relatively new unit,opened in late July 1970, to which a group of approximately 100 patients fromthe waiting list have been offered ambulatory induction to methadone maintenancewith medication only and little or no supportive services at the outset.The success rate in this group is being followed with great interest because Itsinitial objective is to delineate that portion of the accepted patients which canbe maintained with only minimal supportive services.DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLEThe age distribution of patients in the methadone maintenance treatment programhas not changed substantially over the past 5 years despite the change inage criteria for admission. This appears to be the result of two balancing forces.These are (1) the inclusion of a few 18-year-old patients, and (2) the admissionof a small number of oriental patients who are in their late 50's. Therefore, themedian age of all patients remains at about 33.3 years with the average age ofthe black patients somewhat older (35.6)The ethnic distribution remains approximately 40 percent white, 40 percentblack, 19 percent Spanish and 1 percent oriental.We will discuss the "failures" first.RATE OF DISCHARGEThe rate of discharge by month of observation has demained amazingly stabledespite the changes in admission criteria and the change of emphasis from inpatientinduction to ambulatory induction. This is illustrated in figure 1 wherethe rates of discharge for the two groups are contrasted. The two curves areidentical. The Van Etten group, which active tuberculosis as an additional problemto heroin addiction, demonstrate a somewhat accelerated discharge rate asmight be expected.In figure 2 we contrast three cohorts of 500 patients by date of admission, andonce again we find no difference in rates of discharge among these three cohortsrepresenting the first 1,500 patients admitted to the program.Figure 3 contrasts the discharge rate for men and women. The slight differenceshown is not significant due to the much smaller number of women. The rate ofdischarge for men by age at time of admission is shown in figure 4 and onceagain shows no difference between younger and older patients. A small differenceappears in figure 5 between the rate of discharge in the third year betweenblack and white patients. This difference is not statistically significant at thispoint but bears monitoring in the future.SEASONSFOR DISCHARGEAs shown in figure 6 problems with alcohol abuse as a reason for dischargeincreases with age at time of admission for both men and women, drug abuse(primarily amphetamines and barbiturates) as a reason for discharge decreaseswith age and is more common among the women than among the men. Voluntarywithdrawal from the program increases with age particularly among the men.Discharge for behavior or psychiatric reasons is more common among theyounger patients of both sexes. Deaths follow the pattern in the generalpopulation.
:123When we look at reasons for discharge by ethnic group as shown in figure 7,we note that alcohol problems are more common among the black patients anddrug abuse is more commonly a factor among the white and Spanish patients.Voluntary withdrawals and discharge for behavioral reasons account for themajority of dropouts in the first year. Chronic problems with alcohol abuse, andcontinued drug abuse were the major causes of discharge in the second and thirdyear.FOLLOWUP OF DISCHARGED PATIENTSWith the assistance of two medical students, (Michael Lane, Downstate MedicalSchool, and Mary Hartshorn, Medical College of Pennsylvania) during thispast summer, we completed an intensive foUowup on a sample of patients whohad left the program. We selected all patients who were discharged alive byDecember 31, 1969, and who had been in the program 3 months or longer at thetime of discharge. This gave us a pool of 562 persons. We divided this group intotwo segments: (1) those who had left the program voluntarily, and (2) thosewho had been discharged from the program for cause.Our primary source of followup was the New City Narcotics Register whichreceives reports from the police and correction agencies, hospitals, and treatmentprograms, and from private practitioners. Another very useful source wasa series of interviews with patients who left the program and have subsequentlybeen readmitted. This was a major contribution by the medical students.For the sample of 281 patients on whom we could obtain 6 months of followupthe results are shown in table 2.Those patients who left the program voluntarily had a lower arrest and detoxificationrecord, than the rest. They also had a larger proportion admittedto other treatment programs an one-third had been readmitted to the program,contrasted with only 6 percent of those discharged for cause. If one considersthat no record found is roughly equivalent to remaining "clean," one-third ofthis group were still "clean" 6 months after leaving the program.The same sampling procedure was followed for the 396 patients on whom wecould obtain 12 months to followup. These results are shown in table 3. In thisgroup only 21 percent would be considered still "clean." The readmission ratewas somewhat lower (13 percent). Except for arrests and deaths those who leftthe program voluntarily are very similar to the other group.Table 4 shows the results of the followup on our sample of 181 patients onwhich we had a followup of 1 year or more. Here the readmission rate is 22percent and the proportion who appear to have remained "clean" is only 18percent and the death rate reaches 5 percent.These data would tend to indicate that, among those patients who withdrawfrom methadone maintenance treatment, only a small portion have been able to"make it" on their own.Because of the tremendous current interest in "criminality" associated withaddicition, we looked into the previous arrest records of those patients whohave remained in the program, contrasted with those who left the programvoluntarily, and those who were discharged for cause. We contrasted this, in a"before and after" picture, as shown in figure 3. It is interesting to note thatthe past history of those who were discharged for cause with reference to arrestsis worse than either of the other two groups—and that their behavior followingdischarge is as poor or worse than before admission. Those who left voluntarily,demonstrate a short preiod of improvement but also tend to return to theirprevious arrest pattern. Those who remained in the program show a constantand accelei'ated decline in criminal behavior as measured by arrests.Enough of failures. Now let's discuss successes.CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSThe criteria established by our evaluation unit with the approval of the evaluationcommittee for measuring success of the program has resolved around fourbasic measures(1) Freedom from heroin "hunger" as measured by repeated, periodic "clean"urine specimens.(2) Decrease in antisocial behavior as measured by arrest and/or incarceration(jail).(3) Increase in social productivity as measured by employment and/or schoolingor vocational training.(4) Recognition of, and willingness to accept help for excessive use of alcohol,other drugs, or for psychiatric problems.
- Page 84 and 85: ;72taking exceptional measures in t
- Page 86 and 87: )—74pay serious attention to this
- Page 88 and 89: ;76From 1958 to 1961, he served as
- Page 90 and 91: 78deine in painkilling drugs. So if
- Page 92 and 93: ;80ning capabilities, responsibilit
- Page 94 and 95: ;:;82terials. If they could introdu
- Page 96 and 97: 84Figure 1infrared Ektachrome film
- Page 98 and 99: ;86Figure 3.—Tones of wheat (W) a
- Page 100 and 101: 88ers at the poppyfields or at any
- Page 102 and 103: :90;:tional situations has handicap
- Page 104 and 105: ;;92Locating illicit opium cropsDet
- Page 106 and 107: 94Jaffe. Well, there would be some
- Page 108 and 109: 96Mr. Jaffe. Primarily on the fact
- Page 110 and 111: 98in the same ball park about what
- Page 112 and 113: 100Chairman Pepper. Mr, Waldie, do
- Page 114 and 115: ::102agencies and input data would
- Page 116 and 117: 104most facilities are barely able
- Page 118 and 119: ;106We have also studied a ^roup of
- Page 120 and 121: 108Dr. Gearing. Yes, sir; I would n
- Page 122 and 123: 110somethino: in the nei
- Page 124 and 125: 112program is put into the machiner
- Page 126 and 127: I114you have some data there that s
- Page 128 and 129: 116Dr. Gearing. It depends on what
- Page 130 and 131: 118Chairman Pepper. Would you have
- Page 132 and 133: 120it not be so that we could proje
- Page 136 and 137: 124BESULTS(1) Although many of the
- Page 138 and 139: 1262. All the members of the methad
- Page 140 and 141: 128HETHADOHE MAINTENANCE TREATMENT
- Page 142 and 143: 11 1 1 1 1 11130Methadone Halnten?n
- Page 144 and 145: 132TABLE 2.-METHAD0NE MAINTENANCE T
- Page 146 and 147: 134Figure 9 Methadone tlaintenance
- Page 148 and 149: 136Methadone Ka'ntanance Treatmf:nt
- Page 150 and 151: :::.::.138Appendix A^—Methadone M
- Page 152 and 153: 140nance treatment patients showing
- Page 154 and 155: 142Figure 3 •lethadone Kaintenanc
- Page 156 and 157: 144Dr. DuPoNT. 1,760 on methadone m
- Page 158 and 159: :146there are dramatic reductions i
- Page 160 and 161: 148Health insurance coverage for me
- Page 162 and 163: 150Dr. DtjPont. Well, there are no
- Page 164 and 165: 152Mr. Blommer. You would agree the
- Page 166 and 167: 154done. Where is the evidence ? No
- Page 168 and 169: 156There are several reasons a pers
- Page 170 and 171: 158It would seem to me a very busy
- Page 172 and 173: 160we had before. I don't think it
- Page 174 and 175: 162heroin addiction and support all
- Page 176 and 177: 164Dr. DuPoNT. I am reluctant to ge
- Page 178 and 179: 166Using this figure as rule of thu
- Page 180 and 181: )168ment facilities for heroin addi
- Page 182 and 183: .170parole departments. None were c
:123When we look at reasons for discharge by ethnic group as shown in figure 7,we note that alcohol problems are more common among the black patients <strong>and</strong>drug abuse is more commonly a factor among the white <strong>and</strong> Spanish patients.Voluntary withdrawals <strong>and</strong> discharge for behavioral reasons account for themajority of dropouts in the first year. Chronic problems with alcohol abuse, <strong>and</strong>continued drug abuse were the major causes of discharge in the second <strong>and</strong> thirdyear.FOLLOWUP OF DISCHARGED PATIENTSWith the assistance of two medical students, (Michael Lane, Downstate MedicalSchool, <strong>and</strong> Mary Hartshorn, Medical College of Pennsylvania) during thispast summer, we completed an intensive foUowup on a sample of patients whohad left the program. We selected all patients who were discharged alive byDecember 31, 1969, <strong>and</strong> who had been in the program 3 months or longer at thetime of discharge. This gave us a pool of 562 persons. We divided this group intotwo segments: (1) those who had left the program voluntarily, <strong>and</strong> (2) thosewho had been discharged from the program for cause.Our primary source of followup was the New City <strong>Narcotics</strong> Register whichreceives reports from the police <strong>and</strong> correction agencies, hospitals, <strong>and</strong> <strong>treatment</strong>programs, <strong>and</strong> from private practitioners. Another very useful source wasa series of interviews with patients who left the program <strong>and</strong> have subsequentlybeen readmitted. This was a major contribution by the medical students.For the sample of 281 patients on whom we could obtain 6 months of followupthe results are shown in table 2.Those patients who left the program voluntarily had a lower arrest <strong>and</strong> detoxificationrecord, than the rest. They also had a larger proportion admittedto other <strong>treatment</strong> programs an one-third had been readmitted to the program,contrasted with only 6 percent of those discharged for cause. If one considersthat no record found is roughly equivalent to remaining "clean," one-third ofthis group were still "clean" 6 months after leaving the program.The same sampling procedure was followed for the 396 patients on whom wecould obtain 12 months to followup. These results are shown in table 3. In thisgroup only 21 percent would be considered still "clean." The readmission ratewas somewhat lower (13 percent). Except for arrests <strong>and</strong> deaths those who leftthe program voluntarily are very similar to the other group.Table 4 shows the results of the followup on our sample of 181 patients onwhich we had a followup of 1 year or more. Here the readmission rate is 22percent <strong>and</strong> the proportion who appear to have remained "clean" is only 18percent <strong>and</strong> the death rate reaches 5 percent.These data would tend to indicate that, among those patients who withdrawfrom methadone maintenance <strong>treatment</strong>, only a small portion have been able to"make it" on their own.Because of the tremendous current interest in "criminality" associated withaddicition, we looked into the previous arrest records of those patients whohave remained in the program, contrasted with those who left the programvoluntarily, <strong>and</strong> those who were discharged for cause. We contrasted this, in a"before <strong>and</strong> after" picture, as shown in figure 3. It is interesting to note thatthe past history of those who were discharged for cause with reference to arrestsis worse than either of the other two groups—<strong>and</strong> that their behavior followingdischarge is as poor or worse than before admission. Those who left voluntarily,demonstrate a short preiod of improvement but also tend to return to theirprevious arrest pattern. Those who remained in the program show a constant<strong>and</strong> accelei'ated decline in criminal behavior as measured by arrests.Enough of failures. Now let's discuss successes.CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSThe criteria established by our evaluation unit with the approval of the evaluationcommittee for measuring success of the program has resolved around fourbasic measures(1) Freedom from heroin "hunger" as measured by repeated, periodic "clean"urine specimens.(2) Decrease in antisocial behavior as measured by arrest <strong>and</strong>/or incarceration(jail).(3) Increase in social productivity as measured by employment <strong>and</strong>/or schoolingor vocational training.(4) Recognition of, <strong>and</strong> willingness to accept help for excessive use of alcohol,other drugs, or for psychiatric problems.