Variation in Initiation, Engagement, and Retention on Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Based on Health Insurance Plan Design.

BACKGROUND: The association between cost-sharing and receipt of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is unknown. METHODS: We constructed a cohort of 10,513 commercially insured individuals with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder and information on insurance cost-sharing in a large national deidentified claims database. We examined 4 cost-sharing measures: (1) pharmacy deductible; (2) medical service deductible; (3) pharmacy medication copay; and (4) medical office copay. We measured MOUD (naltrexone, buprenorphine, or methadone) initiation (within 14 d of diagnosis), engagement (second receipt within 34 d of first), and 6-month retention (continuous receipt without 14-d gap). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between cost-sharing and MOUD initiation, engagement, and retention. We calculated total out-of-pocket costs in the 30 days following MOUD initiation for each type of MOUD. RESULTS: Of 10,513 individuals with incident opioid use disorder, 1202 (11%) initiated MOUD, 742 (7%) engaged, and 253 (2%) were retained in MOUD at 6 months. A high ($1000+) medical deductible was associated with a lower odds of initiation compared with no deductible (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.98). We found no significant associations between other cost-sharing measures for initiation, engagement, or retention. Median initial 30-day out-of-pocket costs ranged from $100 for methadone to $710 for extended-release naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: Among insurance plan cost-sharing measures, only medical services deductible showed an association with decreased MOUD initiation. Policy and benefit design should consider ways to reduce cost barriers to initiation and retention in MOUD.

Factors Affecting Buprenorphine Utilization and Spending in Medicaid, 2002-2018.

OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine is an essential medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), but studies show it has been underused over the last 2 decades. We sought to evaluate utilization of and spending on buprenorphine formulations in Medicaid and to evaluate the impact of key market and regulatory factors affecting availability of different formulations and generic versions. METHODS: We first identified all buprenorphine formulations approved by the Food and Drug Administration for OUD using Drugs@FDA. We then used National Drug Codes to identify each drug in the Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data and extracted annual utilization rates and spending between 2002 and 2018 by drug and according to whether a brand-name or generic version was dispensed. We compared these trends to market and regulatory factors that affected competition, which we identified through searching the Federal Register, Westlaw, PubMed, and Google News. RESULTS: Brand-name buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual tablet and film formulations (Suboxone) were dispensed 2.7 times more (n = 634 213 140) and reimbursed 4.4 times more (n = $4 440 556 473) than all other formulations combined (n = 237 769 689; $1 018 988 133). We identified numerous market and regulatory factors that contributed to an estimated 9-year delay in generic versions of the tablet formulation and 6-year delay for generic versions of the film formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Brand-name buprenorphine formulations have been widely used in Medicaid, leading to substantial costs, in part because generic versions were delayed by multiple years owing to market and regulatory factors. Timely availability of low-cost generics could have helped encourage OUD treatment with buprenorphine during the height of the opioid crisis.

Changes in For-Profit Medication-Assisted Therapy Clinics in an Appalachian City.

OBJECTIVES: This study is a follow-up to previous research regarding buprenorphine medication-assisted therapy (MAT) in Johnson City, Tennessee. For-profit MAT clinics were surveyed to determine changes in tapering practice patterns and insurance coverage during the last 3 years. METHODS: Johnson City for-profit MAT clinics; also called office based opioid treatment centers, were surveyed by telephone. Clinic representatives were asked questions regarding patient costs for therapy, insurance coverage, counseling offered onsite, and opportunities for tapering while pregnant. RESULTS: All of the MAT clinics representatives indicated that tapering in pregnancy could be considered even though tapering in pregnancy is contrary to current national guidelines. Forty-three percent of the clinics now accept insurance as compared with 0% in the 2016 study. The average weekly cost per visit remained consistent. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of tapering buprenorphine during pregnancy appears to have become a standard of care for this community, as representatives state it is offered at all of the clinics that were contacted. Representatives from three clinics stated the clinics require tapering, even though national organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society of Addiction Medicine do not recommend this approach. Although patients who have government or other insurance are now able to obtain buprenorphine with no expense at numerous clinics, the high cost for uninsured patients continues to create an environment conducive to buprenorphine diversion.

Financing Buprenorphine Treatment in Primary Care: A Microsimulation Model.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the financial impact to primary care practices of alternative strategies for offering buprenorphine-based treatment for opioid use disorder. METHODS: We interviewed 20 practice managers and identified 4 approaches to delivering buprenorphine-based treatment via primary care practice that differed in physician and nurse responsibilities. We used a microsimulation model to estimate how practice variations in patient type, payer, revenue, and cost across primary care practices nationwide would affect cost and revenue implications for each approach for the following types of practices: federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHCs in urban high-poverty areas, non-FQHCs in rural high-poverty areas, and practices outside of high-poverty areas. RESULTS: The 4 approaches to buprenorphine-based treatment included physician-led visits with nurse-led logistical support; nurse-led visits with physician oversight; shared visits; and solo prescribing by physician alone. Net practice revenues would be expected to increase after introduction of any of the 4 approaches by $18,000 to $70,000 per full-time physician in the first year across practice type. Yet physician-led visits and shared medical appointments, both of which relied on nurse care managers, consistently produced the greatest net revenues ($29,000-$70,000 per physician in the first year). To ensure positive net revenues with any approach, providers would need to maintain at least 9 patients in treatment, with a no-show rate of <34%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a simulation model, we estimate that many types of primary care practices could financially sustain buprenorphine-based treatment if demand and no-show rate requirements are met, but a nurse care manager-based approach might be the most sustainable.

Cost-Effectiveness of Buprenorphine-Naloxone Versus Extended-Release Naltrexone to Prevent Opioid Relapse.

Background: Not enough evidence exists to compare buprenorphine-naloxone with extended-release naltrexone for treating opioid use disorder. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously reported randomized clinical trial of 570 adults in 8 U.S. inpatient or residential treatment programs. Data Sources: Study instruments. Target Population: Adults with opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: 24-week intervention with an additional 12 weeks of observation. Perspective: Health care sector and societal. Interventions: Buprenorphine-naloxone and extended-release naltrexone. Outcome Measures: Incremental costs combined with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental time abstinent from opioids. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Use of the health care sector perspective and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY showed buprenorphine-naloxone to be preferable to extended-release naltrexone in 97% of bootstrap replications at 24 weeks and in 85% at 36 weeks. Similar results were obtained with incremental time abstinent from opioids as an outcome and with use of the societal perspective. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The base-case results were sensitive to the cost of the 2 treatments and the success of randomized treatment initiation. Limitation: Relatively short follow-up for a chronic condition, substantial missing data, no information on patient out-of-pocket and social service costs. Conclusion: Buprenorphine-naloxone is preferred to extended-release naltrexone as first-line treatment when both options are clinically appropriate and patients require detoxification before initiating extended-release naltrexone. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.

Provision of Buprenorphine to Pregnant Women by For-Profit Clinics in an Appalachian City.

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to confirm that patient reports on buprenorphine medication-assisted therapy in for-profit buprenorphine clinics in our community were personally costly. We contacted all 17 for-profit clinics in our community and confirmed the patient reports that a significant financial payment of ≤$100 was required for each visit. We also found that tapering of buprenorphine dosage in pregnancy was offered by several of the clinics. METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted with the 17 for-profit buprenorphine clinics located in the Johnson City, Tennessee area. The clinic representative who answered the telephone was asked questions regarding patient costs for therapy and availability of tapering programs for pregnant women. RESULTS: Patient reports that the for-profit clinics are costly were confirmed. None of the clinics accepted insurance reimbursement of any type. The most common weekly costs were $100 per visit. A majority of clinics offered biweekly or monthly visits at significantly increased rates. Clinic representatives stated that a majority of clinics would consider buprenorphine tapering programs for pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: The high cost of for-profit clinics is a barrier for patient access to medication-assisted therapy with buprenorphine. Tapering of buprenorphine dosage in pregnant women has penetrated buprenorphine management practice in our community. Further research is needed to determine whether elimination of cost barrier would have a positive effect on the rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome.

Underused Weapon In the War on Addiction.

Buprenorphine could save thousands more lives than it does-if it weren't for legal barriers, a fear of disruptive patients, and insurance red tape. And it can be prescribed in the primary care physician's office.

Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Medicaid-covered Utilization of Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine has been proven effective in treating opioid use disorder. However, the high cost of buprenorphine and the limited prescribing capacity may restrict access to this effective medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether Medicaid expansion and physician prescribing capacity may have impacted buprenorphine utilization covered by Medicaid. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used a quasi experimental difference-in-differences design to compare the pre-post changes in Medicaid-covered buprenorphine prescriptions and buprenorphine spending between the 26 states that implemented Medicaid expansions under the Affordable Care Act in 2014 and those that did not. SUBJECTS: All Medicaid enrollees in the expansion states and the nonexpansion and late-expansion states. MEASURES: Quarterly Medicaid prescriptions for buprenorphine and spending on buprenorphine from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicaid Drug Utilization files 2011 to 2014. RESULTS: State implementation of Medicaid expansions in 2014 was associated with a 70% increase (P<0.05) in Medicaid-covered buprenorphine prescriptions and a 50% increase (P<0.05) in buprenorphine spending. Physician prescribing capacity was also associated with increased buprenorphine utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion has the potential to reduce the financial barriers to buprenorphine utilization and improve access to medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder. Active physician participation in the provision of buprenorphine is needed for ensuring that Medicaid expansion achieves its full potential in improving treatment access.

Interim treatment: Bridging delays to opioid treatment access.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the undisputed effectiveness of agonist maintenance for opioid dependence, individuals can remain on waitlists for months, during which they are at significant risk for morbidity and mortality. To mitigate these risks, the Food and Drug Administration in 1993 approved interim treatment, involving daily medication+emergency counseling only, when only a waitlist is otherwise available. We review the published research in the 20years since the approval of interim opioid treatment. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify all randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of interim treatment for opioid-dependent patients awaiting comprehensive treatment. RESULTS: Interim opioid treatment has been evaluated in four controlled trials to date. In three, interim treatment was compared to waitlist or placebo control conditions and produced greater outcomes on measures of illicit opioid use, retention, criminality, and likelihood of entry into comprehensive treatment. In the fourth, interim treatment was compared to standard methadone maintenance and produced comparable outcomes in illicit opioid use, retention, and criminal activity. CONCLUSIONS: Interim treatment significantly reduces patient and societal risks when conventional treatment is unavailable. Further research is needed to examine the generality of these findings, further enhance outcomes, and identify the patient characteristics which predict treatment response.

Cost-Effectiveness of Injectable Extended-Release Naltrexone Compared With Methadone Maintenance and Buprenorphine Maintenance Treatment for Opioid Dependence.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) compared with methadone maintenance and buprenorphine maintenance treatment (MMT and BMT, respectively) for adult males enrolled in treatment for opioid dependence in the United States from the perspective of state-level addiction treatment payers. METHODS: A Markov model with daily time cycles was used to estimate the incremental cost per opioid-free day in a simulated cohort of adult males aged 18-65 over a 6-month period from the state health program perspective. RESULTS: XR-NTX is predicted to be more effective and more costly than methadone or buprenorphine in our target population, with an incremental cost per opioid-free day gained relative to the next-most effective treatment (MMT) of $72. The cost-effectiveness of XR-NTX relative to MMT was driven by its effectiveness in deterring opioid use while receiving treatment. CONCLUSIONS: XR-NTX is a cost-effective medication for treating opioid dependence if state addiction treatment payers are willing to pay at least $72 per opioid-free day.

Management of opioid-dependent patients: comparison of the cost associated with use of buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone, and their interactions with concomitant treatments for infectious or psychiatric comorbidities.

The objective was to estimate the annual interaction management cost of agonist opioid treatment (AOT) for opioid-dependent (OD) patients with buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone®) (B/N) or methadone associated with concomitant treatments for infectious (HIV) or psychiatric comorbidities. A costs analysis model was developed to calculate the associated cost of AOT and interaction management. The AOT cost included pharmaceutical costs, drug preparation, distribution and dispensing, based on intake regimen (healthcare center or take-home) and type and frequency of dispensing (healthcare center or pharmacy), and medical visits. The cost of methadone also included single-dose bottles, monthly costs of custody at pharmacy, urine toxicology drug screenings and nursing visits. Potential interactions between AOT and concomitant treatments (antivirals, antibacterials/antifungals, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, antidepressant and anticonvulsants), were identified to determine the additional use of healthcare resources for each interaction management. The annual cost per patient of AOT was €1,525.97 for B/N and €1,467.29 for methadone. The average annual cost per patient of interaction management was €257.07 (infectious comorbidities), €114.03 (psychiatric comorbidities) and €185.55 (double comorbidity) with methadone and €7.90 with B/N in psychiatric comorbidities. Total annual costs of B/N were €1,525.97, €1,533.87 and €1,533.87 compared to €1,724.35, €1,581.32 and €1,652.84 for methadone per patient with infectious, psychiatric or double comorbidity respectively.Compared to methadone, the total cost per patient with OD was lower with B/N (€47.45-€198.38 per year). This is due to the differences in interaction management costs associated with the concomitant treatment of infectious and/or psychiatric comorbidities.

El objetivo fue estimar en pacientes con dependencia a opiáceos (DO), el coste anual del manejo de interacciones del tratamiento sustitutivo con buprenorfina/naloxona (Suboxone®) (B/N) o metadona, asociado con tratamientos concomitantes por comorbilidades infecciosas (VIH) o psiquiátricas. Se realizó un análisis de costes (€, 2013), del tratamiento sustitutivo y del manejo de interacciones. El coste del tratamiento de B/N incluyó costes farmacológicos, elaboración, distribución y dispensación, en función del régimen de administración (centro asistencial o domiciliaria) y del tipo y frecuencia de dispensación (centro asistencial o farmacia), y visitas al especialista para prescripción. El coste de tratamiento con metadona incluyó, además, frascos monodosis, coste de custodia en farmacia, determinación en orina y visitas a enfermería. Se identificaron las interacciones para determinar los recursos sanitarios adicionales consumidos por la administración conjunta del tratamiento sustitutivo y concomitante (antirretrovirales, bactericidas/antifúngicos, antipsicóticos, ansiolíticos, antidepresivos y anticonvulsivos). El coste anual/paciente estimado del tratamiento sustitutivo fue de 1.525,97€ (B/N) y 1.467,29€ (metadona). El coste promedio anual/paciente estimado del manejo de interacciones fue de 257,07€ (infecciosas), 114,03€ (psiquiátricas) y 185,55€ (ambas) con metadona, y de 7,90€ con B/N por comorbilidades psiquiátricas. El coste total anual/paciente estimado de B/N fue 1.525,97€, 1.533,87€ y 1.533,87€ comparado con 1.724,35€, 1.581,32€ y 1.652,84€ de metadona, en pacientes que presentan comorbilidad infecciosa, psiquiátrica o ambas, respectivamente. Comparado con metadona, el coste total por paciente con DO de B/N fue menor (47,45€-198,38€ anuales) derivado de la diferencia del coste por manejo de interacciones del tratamiento concomitante de las comorbilidades infecciosas y/o psiquiátricas.

Compared implementation of the long-acting buprenorphine treatment buvidal in four European countries.

BACKGROUND: Buvidal is the only depot buprenorphine currently available in Europe. Buvidal offers a new treatment paradigm, which may require some adjustment in the national regulatory frameworks for opioid agonist treatments (OATs), as well as the national care systems. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data on the national dissemination of Buvidal, types of populations treated, and the national regulatory framework and care organization system through which Buvidal has been implemented were compared between the UK, Finland, Spain, and France, using a qualitative survey. RESULTS: In 2022, the proportion of people on OAT who received Buvidal was 2.1% in the UK, 60-65% in Finland, 1% in Spain, and 0.3% in France. In both Finland and the UK, the cost of the medication is covered by the national health system, whereas, in Spain and France, Buvidal is accessible only in specialized centers, which must carry its cost. Other national features may explain the gaps in Buvidal use, including the baseline level of OAT coverage, which was high in both France and Spain. CONCLUSIONS: Important national discrepancies are found regarding Buvidal dissemination among people on OAT.

Economic burden and dosing trends of buprenorphine buccal film and transdermal patch in chronic low back pain.

Aim: Exploring prescribing trends and economic burden of chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients prescribed buprenorphine buccal film (Belbuca®) or transdermal patches. Methods: In the MarketScan® commercial insurance claims (employees and their spouses/dependents, 2018-2021), the first film or patch prescription date was an index event. The observation covered 6-month pre-index and 12-month post-index periods. Results: Patients were propensity-score matched (708 per cohort). Buprenorphine initiation had stable cost trends in buccal film and increasing trends in transdermal patch cohort. Between-cohort comparisons of healthcare expenditures, cost trends and resource utilization showed significant differences, mostly in favor of buccal film. Buccal film also had higher daily doses and wider dosing range. Conclusion: Buprenorphine film is more cost-effective cLBP treatment with more flexible dosing.

What is this article about? This retrospective study included patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) and commercial insurance in the USA. Only patients treated with Belbuca®, a buprenorphine buccal film, or a buprenorphine transdermal patch were included. Patients were observed 6 months prior to and 12 months after the first buprenorphine prescription. Healthcare costs, cost trends, resource use and buprenorphine treatment characteristics were explored.What were the results? Patients with cLBP on buccal film had lower costs, stable cost trends and less healthcare resources used. Also, they had higher buprenorphine daily doses.What do the results mean? The results imply that buccal film is less costly for cLBP patients than patches. The buccal film had more flexible dosing with higher daily doses, which might be associated with better pain control.

Cost-effectiveness of long-term outpatient buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for opioid dependence in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians with appropriate training may prescribe buprenorphine-naloxone (bup/nx) to treat opioid dependence in US office-based settings, where many patients prefer to be treated. Bup/nx is off patent but not available as a generic. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of long-term office-based bup/nx treatment for clinically stable opioid-dependent patients compared to no treatment. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND INTERVENTION: A decision analytic model simulated a hypothetical cohort of clinically stable opioid-dependent individuals who have already completed 6 months of office-based bup/nx treatment. Data were from a published cohort study that collected treatment retention, opioid use, and costs for this population, and published quality-of-life weights. Uncertainties in estimated monthly costs and quality-of-life weights were evaluated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and the economic value of additional research to reduce these uncertainties was also evaluated. MAIN MEASURES: Bup/nx, provider, and patient costs in 2010 US dollars, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness (CE) ratios ($/QALY); costs and QALYs are discounted at 3% annually. KEY RESULTS: In the base case, office-based bup/nx for clinically stable patients has a CE ratio of $35,100/QALY compared to no treatment after 24 months, with 64% probability of being < $100,000/QALY in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. With a 50% bup/nx price reduction the CE ratio is $23,000/QALY with 69% probability of being < $100,000/QALY. Alternative quality-of-life weights result in CE ratios of $138,000/QALY and $90,600/QALY. The value of research to reduce quality-of-life uncertainties for 24-month results is $6,400 per person eligible for treatment at the current bup/nx price and $5,100 per person with a 50% bup/nx price reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Office-based bup/nx for clinically stable patients may be a cost-effective alternative to no treatment at a threshold of $100,000/QALY depending on assumptions about quality-of-life weights. Additional research about quality-of-life benefits and broader health system and societal cost savings of bup/nx therapy is needed.

[National and regional market penetration rates of generic's high dosage buprenorphine: its evolution from 2006 to 2008, using reimbursed drug database]. / Taux de pénétration des génériques de la buprénorphine haut dosage : principales tendances de 2006 à 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the national market penetration rate (PR) of generic high-dosage buprenorphine (HDB) in 2008 and its evolution since their marketing (2006), and making a point for each dosage and at regional level. METHODS: Retrospective study over data using national and regional health reimbursement database over three years (2006-2008). RESULTS: In 2008, the generic HDB's national MPR was 31%. The PR for each dosage were 45% for 0.4 mg, 36% for 2 mg and 19% for 8 mg. The (PR) based on Defined Daily Dose (DDD) was 23% in 2008, 15% in 2007 and 4% in 2006. In 2008, at the regional level, disparities were observed in the adjusted penetration rate from 15% in Île de France to 39% in Champagne Ardennes Lorraine. CONCLUSION: The national PR of generic HDB has increased. There are differences in MPR in terms of dosage and area. However, this PR is still low (in 2008, 82% of the delivered drugs are generics).

[Reimbursement of opiate substitution drugs to militaries in 2007]. / Remboursement des médicaments de substitution aux opiacés chez les militaires en 2007.

INTRODUCTION: The use of psychoactive drugs by militaries is not compatible with the analytical skills and self-control required by their jobs. Military physicians take this problem into consideration by organising systematic drugs screening in the French forces. However, for technical reasons, opiates are not concerned by this screening with the agreement of the people concerned. The estimated number of militaries who use an opiate substitute may be an approach of heroin consumption in the French forces. This study describes buprenorphine and methadone reimbursements made during 2007 by the national military healthcare centre to French militaries. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Each French soldier is affiliated to a special health insurance. The national military healthcare centre has in its information system, all the data concerning drug reimbursement made to French military personnel. This is a retrospective study of buprenorphine and methadone reimbursements made during 2007 by the military healthcare centre, to militaries from the three sectors of the French forces, and from the gendarmerie and joint forces. Only one reimbursement of one of these two drugs during this period allowed the patient to be included in our study. Daily drug dose and treatment steadiness profile have been calculated according to the criteria of the French monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction. The criteria of the National guidelines against frauds have been used to identify misuse of these drugs. Doctors' shopping behaviour has also been studied. Finally, the nature of the prescriber and the consumption of other drugs in combination with opiate substitute have been analysed. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-one military consumers of opiate substitute drugs (167 men and 14 women) participated. This sample included people from the three sectors of the French forces as well as from the gendarmerie and from the joint forces. The average age of the consumers was 26.6 years (20-42 years). The average length of service was 6.1 years (maximum 22 years service). One hundred and fifty-nine militaries had been delivered buprenorphine, 15 had been delivered methadone and seven had been delivered both. The prevalence of opiate substitute drug consumption by the militaries (52 per 100,000) is lower than in general population. According to the criteria of the National Healthcare Insurance, this population is not affected by abuse or fraud behaviour. Doctors' shopping behaviour is unusual. Opiate substitutes are prescribed by general physicians in 88% of issues. Only one prescriber was a military physician. An analysis of reimbursement of some drugs associated with opiate substitute has been made. The sampled military consume more psychoactive drugs (anxiolytics, antidepressants, hypnotics) than the French population under opiate substitution. CONCLUSION: In our observation, the military physician is almost always excluded the process of substitution. His/her different responsibilities of care, but also in determining the working aptitude, lead to dissimulation behaviour by the militaries. The difficulty for military physicians is to identify such consumption. They have to evaluate the capacity to work through a physical and psychological examination.