Drug and alcohol abuse are widespread social, behavioral, and—if we are to believe the National Institutes of Health and most addiction professionals—medical problems. In fact, addiction medicine has evolved into its own specialty, and a large number of other allied health professionals have become engaged in the treatment of substance abuse and dependence.
If addiction is a disease, then we should be able to develop ways to treat addictions effectively, and the costs of accepted treatments can be used to determine how we provide (and reimburse for) these services. Unfortunately, unlike virtually every other (non-psychiatric) disease process—and despite tremendous efforts to develop ways to treat addictions effectively—there are still no universally accepted approaches for management of addictive disorders. And the costs of treating an addict can range from zero to tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars.
I started thinking of this issue after reading a recent article on abcnews.com, in which addiction psychiatrist Stefan Kruszewski, MD, criticized addiction treatment programs for their tendency to take people off one addictive substance and replace it with another one (e.g., from heroin to Suboxone; or from alcohol to a combination of a benzodiazepine, an antidepressant, and an antipsychotic), often at a very high cost. When seen through the eyes of a utilization reviewer, this seems unwise, expensive, and wasteful.
I agree with Dr Kruszewski, but for a slightly different reason. To me, current treatment approaches falsely “medicalize” addiction and avoid the more significant psychological (or even spiritual) meaning of our patients’ addictive behaviors. [See my posts “Misplaced Priorities in Addiction Treatment” and “When Does Treatment End.”] They also cost a lot of money: Suboxone induction, for instance, can cost hundreds of dollars, and the medication itself can cost several hundred more per month. Likewise, the amounts being spent to develop new pharmacotherapies for cocaine and stimulant addiction are very high indeed.
Residential treatment programs—particularly the famous ones like Cirque Lodge, Sierra Tucson, and The Meadows—are also extremely expensive. I, myself, worked for a time as a psychiatrist for a long-term residential drug and alcohol treatment program. Even though we tried to err on the side of avoiding medications unless absolutely necessary (and virtually never discharged patients on long-term treatments like Suboxone or methadone), our services were quite costly: upwards of $30,000 for a four-month stay, plus $5000/month for “aftercare” services. (NB: Since my departure, the center has closed, due in part to financial concerns.)
There are cheaper programs, like state- and county-sponsored detox centers for those with no ability to pay, as well as free or low-cost longer-term programs like the Salvation Army. There are also programs like Phoenix House, a nonprofit network of addiction treatment programs with a variety of services—most of which are based on the “therapeutic community” approach—which are free to participants, paid for by public and private funding.
And then, of course, are the addicts who quit “cold turkey”—sometimes with little or no support at all—and those who immerse themselves in a mutual support program like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). AA meetings can be found almost everywhere, and they’re free. Even though the success rate of AA is probably quite low (probably less than 10%, although official numbers don’t exist), the fact of the matter is that some people do recover completely without paying a dime.
How to explain this discrepancy? The treatment “industry,” when challenged on this point, will argue that the success rate of AA alone is abysmal, and without adequate long-term care (usually in a group setting), relapse is likely, if not guaranteed. This may in fact be partially true; it has been shown, for instance, that the likelihood of long-term sobriety does correlate with duration of treatment.
But at what cost? Why should anyone pay $20,000 to $50,000 for a month at a premiere treatment center like Cirque Lodge or Promises Malibu? Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears can afford it, but few else—and virtually no insurance plans—can.
And the services offered by these “premiere” treatment programs sound like a spa menu, rather than a treatment protocol: acupuncture, biofeedback, equine therapy, massage, chiropractic, art therapy, nature hikes, helicopter rides, gourmet meals or private chef services, “light and sound neurotherapy,” EMDR, craniosacral therapy, reiki training, tai chi, and many others.
Unfortunately, the evidence that any one of these services improves a patient’s chance of long-term sobriety is essentially nil. Moreover, if addiction is purely a medical illness, then learning how to ride a horse should do absolutely nothing to help someone kick a cocaine habit. Furthermore, medical insurance should not pay for those services (or, for that matter, for group therapy or a therapeutic-community approach).
Nevertheless, some recovering addicts may genuinely claim that they owe their sobriety to some of these experiences: trauma recovery treatment, experiential therapy, “male bonding” activities (hat tip to the Prescott House), and yes, even the helicopter rides.
The bottom line is, we still don’t know how to treat addiction, or even what it really is in the first place. Experts have their own ideas, and those in recovery have their own explanations. My opinion is that, in the end, treatment must be individualized. For every alcoholic who gets sober by attending daily AA meetings, or through religious conversion, there’s another addict who has tried and failed AA numerous times, and who must enroll in multiple programs (costing tens of thousands of dollars) to achieve remission.
What are we as a society willing to pay for? Or should we simply maintain the free-market status quo, in which some can pay big bucks to sober up with celebrities on the beaches of Malibu, while others must detox on the bathroom floor and stagger to the AA meetings down the street? Until we determine how best to tailor treatment to the individual, there’s no shortage of people who are willing to try just about anything to get help—and a lot of money to be made (and spent) along the way.