Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Little Progress in Cutting Drug Use as Treatment Resources Continue to Lag
September 18, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Feature
By Bob Curley

The U.S. has made little progress in cutting the rate of illicit drug use since 2002 -- in part because addiction treatment remains difficult to access -- and a pair of prominent and closely watched national surveys offer mixed and sometimes divergent perspectives on adolescent drug-use trends.

The 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), released last week by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), found that the overall rate of current use of illicit drugs remained level at about 8 percent, a figure that has barely budged since 2002, when 8.2 percent of those contacted for the survey acknowledged using illicit drugs.

Progress was reported in certain segments of substance misuse, however, notably those that have received significant public attention in recent years: Nonmedical use of prescription drugs declined from about 2.8 percent of U.S. residents over age 12 in 2007 to 2.5 percent in 2008, for example, and the number of individuals reporting use of methamphetamine fell by more than half between 2006 and 2008. Heavy alcohol use among full-time college students ages 18-22 also declined, from 19.5 percent in 2005 to 16.3 percent in 2008.

"Some of these trends are not huge, but we can't ignore them because they might be the start of a more consistent trend," said Joe Gfroerer, principal statistician for the NSDUH at SAMHSA.

The NSDUH includes data on drug use among adults as well as adolescents, but the Obama administration emphasized a handful of findings about youths, notably that past-month use of illicit drugs fell from 11.6 percent in 2004 to 9.3 percent in 2008, and that reported youth misuse of prescription drugs declined to its lowest level since 2002.

The annual 2009 Pride Survey -- released this week -- drew somewhat different conclusions, finding "small but significant" increases in past-month illicit-drug use among the more than 122,000 6th- to 9th-grade students surveyed between August 2008 and June 2009. "Most of the increases witnessed were small (less than 1 percent)," according to a summary of the Pride Survey findings. "However, they suggest that decreases in adolescent drug use over the last several years may have come to a halt."

(SAMHSA's Gfroerer said that while both surveys are large, the findings aren't comparable because the Pride Survey isn't nationally representative, with data drawn only from schools that choose to take part.)

The NSDUH findings on prescription drugs were seemingly contradictory, at times: while overall and youth misuse of prescription drugs fell, for instance, more Americans began nonmedical use of prescription drugs than initiated use of any illicit drug other than marijuana.

"It's a mixed report, frankly," said Tom McLellan, deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). . "Everyone who has been pushing back against the abuse of pharmaceuticals should be proud that their work is having a positive effect. But I worry about flatlining of declines in drug abuse and young people perceiving drug use as less risky than they used to; in the past, that softening in attitudes has been a sign of trouble on the horizon."

Gil Kerlikowske, director of ONDCP, said that, "Although we see some success in the reduction of overall illicit drug use, methamphetamine and prescription drug abuse among teens, there are indications that progress in other areas may be at a standstill, or even slipping back."

"As we develop the Obama administration's first drug-control strategy, we will emphasize a balanced approach that can respond to current and emerging drug-abuse trends. Improving substance-abuse prevention and treatment systems will be among our priorities," said Kerlikowske.

Of course, past administrations and drug czars have also promised a "balanced" approach to battling the nation's drug problem, but the rhetoric has rarely matched to reality, according to budget analyst and former ONDCP staffer John Carnevale, Ph.D. A new policy brief from Carnevale Associates, "The Continued Standstill in Reducing Illicit Drug Use: Is the Policy-Budget Mismatch to Blame?," cites "the eight-year failure of ONDCP to meaningfully match its federal drug-control budget to the demand reduction goals set forth by its own policy."

The Carnevale report noted that while total federal funding for drug-control activities grew by 39 percent between 2002 and 2009, 90 percent of the increase went to supply-reduction programs, and funding for drug prevention actually declined by 10 percent during the same time period. "Simply put, the only way to reduce the demand for drugs is to pay for programs that do just that," according to the Carnevale policy report.

As Kerlikowske works on his first National Drug Control Strategy -- typically released in January -- Carnevale said that a straightforward reallocation of resources might be necessary in the current budget environment. "A first step in fixing the drug-control budget will mean cutting all wasteful spending, especially for the expansion of supply-reduction programs during this decade, and using those resources instead to offset the cost of expanding long underfunded, critical demand-reduction programs."

The need for increased investment in addiction-treatment services was highlighted in the NSDUH data, which "continues to show a vast disparity between the number of people needing specialized treatment for a substance-abuse problem and the number who actually receive it," according to SAMHSA. The survey found that only 10 percent of Americans who need addiction treatment get help, a figure that has remained basically unchanged since 2002.

"The national data released today confirms that untreated alcohol and drug addiction remains at pandemic levels, with 23 million Americans suffering from the disease, approximately the same number that suffers from type 2 diabetes," said Victor Capoccia, director of the Closing the Addiction Treatment Gap initiative. "But you wouldn't know it from the way our country responds to the problem. Only one in ten Americans affected by addiction is treated, as opposed to four out of five people with diabetes."

Capoccia said that inability to pay for treatment was the biggest barrier cited by those who wanted help but didn't get care, and called for addiction services to be fully covered in national healthcare reform proposals and by all health insurance plans.

SHARE   

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Ross Fishman,Ph.D. on 21 Sep 09 12:10 PM EDT
One approach to getting more users into treatment, similar to the early efforts of the harm reduction movement, is to engage people in solid recovery to reach out to their friends, neighbors and family members who they know are abusing AOD and encourage those users to enter treatment or begin to attend self-help meetings freely available to everyone. This could be part of the larger movement to have people in recovery stand up and be counted and to be more vocal to legislators in seeking additional funding for treatment and prevention. These efforts don't go very far if soem of that 90% of users/abusers don't get to some kind of help. Peers often are more convincing than professionals or public service announcements.

Posted by Diane on 21 Sep 09 12:57 PM EDT
Dr. Fishman, your point about recruiting friends and families into attending self-help meetings is a good way to initiate people into A/D tx in general. In fact, 12-step meetings might be a very important first step to seeking subsequent professional help because it is nonjudgmental and anonymous. In fact, one of the judges in my county doesn't put much credibility in a person's argument that he can't afford tx if he doesn't even go to free 12-step meetings, which are available virtually 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Posted by Dr. John Gardin on 21 Sep 09 01:25 PM EDT
Keeping in mind that most drug abusers don't want treatment, training significant others on intervention techniques is where the action is. There is one EBP in this arena, CRAFT, developed by Dr. Robert Meyers, that has been shown to engage treatment-resistant substance abusers 70% of the time.

Posted by Robin on 21 Sep 09 01:46 PM EDT
People don't get help more often than not because help (treatment, not peer support) is simply not available unless you can afford an expensive 6 week vacation at a fancy resort. Even plain old "detox" is barely available in too many communities and we all know that isn't really treatment. No insurance? forget it. Free treatment? Right, where? No, we would prefer to pay the costs of NO TREATMENT than to subsidize treatment and actually REDUCE society's cost and improve lives. Yes, many can and have recovered through peer support, but everyone is different. Many people can control diabetes for a long time with diet and excercise, but if you CAN'T, we really do want you to get it under control, for your sake and ours, right? How is this different?????

Posted by Profbam on 21 Sep 09 02:11 PM EDT
The CORE student survey data for 71,000+ college students in 2006 shows 55% had at least one 5 drink or more episode during the previous two weeks. This was the same as 2005, but increased substantially over 2000 - 2004. If you use the institute's archives and track their heavy drinking data, it is most disappointing when juxtaposed to the massive amount of publicity and money put into reducing college drinking. The problem of course is not with the colleges or what they are trying to do. The YRBS data shows consistent drinking in the high schools, and those students come to college with "high" expectations. The root of the college problem is in middle school and until the states and the public schools put in meaningful real preventive programs, the colleges are doing nothing more than "plowing the beach at low tide." The schools refuse to do anything other than DARE, which doesn't cost them time or money even though they know it doesn't work. Until the schools change, nothing is going to change.

Posted by QKruse on 21 Sep 09 02:52 PM EDT
In today's world the emphasis is on blaming and shaming - across the board, health care, politics, education all of it....So, blaming the victim and prison is the order of day.....So, we ain't gonna waste much money on treatment....no matter how much money, or how many lives will be saved -

Posted by Rob Fleming on 21 Sep 09 03:37 PM EDT
We need, as Dr. Fishman notes, a movement of people in recovery to be role models of a good life without drugs. To do that, we need to get over our self-imposed stigma excused as "anonymity". True, no one wants to go to treatment, but they do want to stop hurting and "if you want what we have, you'll do what we do" needs to be publicly demonstrated. Also, getting people into treatment isn't cost-effective if they drop out (1/3) or relapse (1/3). We need to make recovery an attractive, sustainable objective, and we can't do that if successful recovery is hidden. It's founders didn't want AA to be a secret society, just a humble one when they recommended anonymity. So folks, join and support Faces and Voices of Recovery and put a human face, not just a statistic, on recovery in your community.

Posted by Kathleen on 21 Sep 09 03:46 PM EDT
As a middle school health teacher, I agree that prevention efforts need to start early, by middle school. There are proven programs that work at this age. The problem is that schools are "rated" on test scores. Those test scores are widely advertised in the media. Naturally, all of the emphasis in schools are on those subjects that are tested. Health education has taken a back seat, with the result being rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and little progress in lowering drug use and pregnancy and STI rates. Until the health of students is included in school ratings, nothing will change. Our society needs to rethink what the basics of education are. First and formeost, we need to ensure that we have healthy students who are ready to learn. That means that health education needs to be a vital part of student's education every year they are in school. I would love to put in place all the programs that have been proven to work, but I need enough contact time with students. The world Health Organization has set minimum contact times for elementary, middle, and commencement level health education programs for quality health education. I don't know of a single school that provides even half of the recommended time. Until this changes, we are going to continue to have adolescents making poor decisions, and those resulting problems following them into adulthood.

Posted by rnewman@icaat.org on 22 Sep 09 09:52 AM EDT
before figuring out how "peers" can help get more drug users inato treatment, and for sure before we accept the common wisdom "that most drug abusers don't want treatment," when's the last time anyone saw/heard a public serv announcement (from fed, state or local govt) urging users to come and receive treatment? For smokers, yes - NYC has been urging people to seek help and has even offered free patches and gum. But opiate users, for example - nada. What's the explanation?

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines