The War on Drugs That Wasn't: Wasted Whiteness, "Dirty Doctors," and Race in Media Coverage of Prescription Opioid Misuse.

The past decade in the U.S. has been marked by a media fascination with the white prescription opioid cum heroin user. In this paper, we contrast media coverage of white non-medical opioid users with that of black and brown heroin users to show how divergent representations lead to different public and policy responses. A content analysis of 100 popular press articles from 2001 and 2011 in which half describe heroin users and half describe prescription opioid users revealed a consistent contrast between criminalized urban black and Latino heroin injectors with sympathetic portrayals of suburban white prescription opioid users. Media coverage of the suburban and rural opioid "epidemic" of the 2000s helped draw a symbolic, and then legal, distinction between (urban) heroin addiction and (suburban and rural) prescription opioid addiction that is reminiscent of the legal distinction between crack cocaine and powder cocaine of the 1980s and 1990s. This distinction reinforces the racialized deployment of the War on Drugs and is sustained by the lack of explicit discussion of race in the service of "color blind ideology." We suggest potential correctives to these racially divergent patterns, in the form of socially responsible media practices and of clinical engagement with public policy.

How the war on drugs impacts social determinants of health beyond the criminal legal system.

There is a growing recognition in the fields of public health and medicine that social determinants of health (SDOH) play a key role in driving health inequities and disparities among various groups, such that a focus upon individual-level medical interventions will have limited effects without the consideration of the macro-level factors that dictate how effectively individuals can manage their health. While the health impacts of mass incarceration have been explored, less attention has been paid to how the "war on drugs" in the United States exacerbates many of the factors that negatively impact health and wellbeing, disproportionately impacting low-income communities and people of colour who already experience structural challenges including discrimination, disinvestment, and racism. The U.S. war on drugs has subjected millions to criminalisation, incarceration, and lifelong criminal records, disrupting or altogether eliminating their access to adequate resources and supports to live healthy lives. This paper examines the ways that "drug war logic" has become embedded in key SDOH and systems, such as employment, education, housing, public benefits, family regulation (commonly referred to as the child welfare system), the drug treatment system, and the healthcare system. Rather than supporting the health and wellbeing of individuals, families, and communities, the U.S. drug war has exacerbated harm in these systems through practices such as drug testing, mandatory reporting, zero-tolerance policies, and coerced treatment. We argue that, because the drug war has become embedded in these systems, medical practitioners can play a significant role in promoting individual and community health by reducing the impact of criminalisation upon healthcare service provision and by becoming engaged in policy reform efforts. KEY MESSAGESA drug war logic that prioritises and justifies drug prohibition, criminalisation, and punishment has fuelled the expansion of drug surveillance and control mechanisms in numerous facets of everyday life in the United States negatively impacting key social determinants of health, including housing, education, income, and employment.The U.S. drug war's frontline enforcers are no longer police alone but now include physicians, nurses, teachers, neighbours, social workers, employers, landlords, and others.Physicians and healthcare providers can play a significant role in promoting individual and community health by reducing the impact of criminalisation upon healthcare service provision and engaging in policy reform.

Roundtable on Urban Living Environment Research (RULER).

For 18 months in 2009-2010, the Rockefeller Foundation provided support to establish the Roundtable on Urban Living Environment Research (RULER). Composed of leading experts in population health measurement from a variety of disciplines, sectors, and continents, RULER met for the purpose of reviewing existing methods of measurement for urban health in the context of recent reports from UN agencies on health inequities in urban settings. The audience for this report was identified as international, national, and local governing bodies; civil society; and donor agencies. The goal of the report was to identify gaps in measurement that must be filled in order to assess and evaluate population health in urban settings, especially in informal settlements (or slums) in low- and middle-income countries. Care must be taken to integrate recommendations with existing platforms (e.g., Health Metrics Network, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) that could incorporate, mature, and sustain efforts to address these gaps and promote effective data for healthy urban management. RULER noted that these existing platforms focus primarily on health outcomes and systems, mainly at the national level. Although substantial reviews of health outcomes and health service measures had been conducted elsewhere, such reviews covered these in an aggregate and perhaps misleading way. For example, some spatial aspects of health inequities, such as those pointed to in the 2008 report from the WHO's Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, received limited attention. If RULER were to focus on health inequities in the urban environment, access to disaggregated data was a priority. RULER observed that some urban health metrics were already available, if not always appreciated and utilized in ongoing efforts (e.g., census data with granular data on households, water, and sanitation but with little attention paid to the spatial dimensions of these data). Other less obvious elements had not exploited the gains realized in spatial measurement technology and techniques (e.g., defining geographic and social urban informal settlement boundaries, classification of population-based amenities and hazards, and innovative spatial measurement of local governance for health). In summary, the RULER team identified three major areas for enhancing measurement to motivate action for urban health-namely, disaggregation of geographic areas for intra-urban risk assessment and action, measures for both social environment and governance, and measures for a better understanding of the implications of the physical (e.g., climate) and built environment for health. The challenge of addressing these elements in resource-poor settings was acknowledged, as was the intensely political nature of urban health metrics. The RULER team went further to identify existing global health metrics structures that could serve as platforms for more granular metrics specific for urban settings.

The Physician Clinical Support System-Buprenorphine (PCSS-B): a novel project to expand/improve buprenorphine treatment.

Opioid dependence is largely an undertreated medical condition in the United States. The introduction of buprenorphine has created the potential to expand access to and use of opioid agonist treatment in generalist settings. Physicians, however, often have limited training and experience providing this type of care. Some physicians believe having a mentoring relationship with an experienced provider during their initial introduction to the use of buprenorphine would ease implementation. Our goal was to describe the development, implementation, resources, and evaluation of the Physician Clinical Support System-Buprenorphine (PCSS-B), a federally funded program to improve access to and quality of treatment with buprenorphine. We provide a description of the PCSS-B, a national network of 88 trained physician mentors with expertise in buprenorphine treatment and skills in clinical education. We provide information regarding the use the PCSS-B core services including telephone, email and in-person support, a website, clinical guidances, a warmline and outreach to primary care and specialty organizations. Between July 2005 and July 2009, 67 mentors and 4 clinical experts reported providing mentoring services to 632 participants in 48 states, Washington DC and Puerto Rico. A total of 1,455 contacts were provided through email (45%), telephone (34%) and in-person visits (20%). Seventy-six percent of contacts addressed a clinical issue. Eighteen percent of contacts addressed a logistical issue. The number of contacts per participant ranged from 1-125. Between August 2005 and April 2009 there were 72,822 visits to the PCSS-B website with 179,678 pages viewed. Seven guidances were downloaded more than 1000 times. The warmline averaged more than 100 calls per month. The PCSS-B model provides support for a mentorship program to assist non-specialty physicians in the provision of buprenorphine and may serve as a model for dissemination of other types of care.

Feasibility of using audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) screening in routine HIV care.

We evaluated the feasibility of implementing audio computer-assisted self-interviews (ACASI) as part of routine clinical care at two community hospital-based HIV clinics in New York City. Between June 2003 and August 2006, 215 patients completed 1001 ACASI sessions in English or Spanish prior to their scheduled clinical appointments. Topics covered included antiretroviral therapy adherence, depression symptoms, alcohol and drug use, and condom use. Patients and providers received feedback reports immediately after each session. Feasibility was evaluated by quantitative analysis of ACASI responses, medical chart reviews, a brief patient questionnaire administered at the conclusion of each computer session, patient focus groups, and semi-structured provider interviews. ACASI interviews frequently identified inadequate medication adherence and depression symptoms: at baseline, 31% of patients reported < or =95% adherence over the past three days and 52% had symptoms of depression (CES-D score > or =16). Substance abuse problems were identified less frequently. Patients were comfortable with the ACASI and appreciated it as an additional communication route with their providers; however, expectations about the level of communication achieved were sometimes higher than actual practice. Providers felt the summary feedback information was useful when received in a timely fashion and when they were familiar with the clinical indicators reported. Repeated ACASI sessions did not have a favorable impact on adherence, depression, or substance use outcomes. No improvements in HIV RNA suppression were observed in comparison to patients who did not participate in the study. We conclude that it is feasible to integrate an ACASI screening tool into routine HIV clinical care to identify patients with inadequate medication adherence and depression symptoms. Repeated screening was not associated with improved clinical outcomes. ACASI screening should be considered in HIV clinical care settings to assist providers in identifying patients with the greatest need for targeted psychosocial services including adherence support and depression care.

White opioids: Pharmaceutical race and the war on drugs that wasn't.

The US 'War on Drugs' has had a profound role in reinforcing racial hierarchies. Although Black Americans are no more likely than Whites to use illicit drugs, they are 6-10 times more likely to be incarcerated for drug offenses. Meanwhile, a very different system for responding to the drug use of Whites has emerged. This article uses the recent history of White opioids - the synthetic opiates such as OxyContin® that gained notoriety starting in the 1990s in connection with epidemic prescription medication abuse among White, suburban and rural Americans and Suboxone® that came on the market as an addiction treatment in the 2000s - to show how American drug policy is racialized, using the lesser known lens of decriminalized White drugs. Examining four 'technologies of whiteness' (neuroscience, pharmaceutical technology, legislative innovation and marketing), we trace a separate system for categorizing and disciplining drug use among Whites. This less examined 'White drug war' has carved out a less punitive, clinical realm for Whites where their drug use is decriminalized, treated primarily as a biomedical disease, and where their whiteness is preserved, leaving intact more punitive systems that govern the drug use of people of color.

Patient perspectives on buprenorphine/naloxone treatment in the context of HIV care.

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that buprenorphine/naloxone (bup/nx) is a safe and effective treatment for opioid dependence. Few reports, however, describe the patient perspective on bup/nx treatment and its integration into HIV care settings. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 33 patients to further investigate patient satisfaction and experience with bup/nx treatment and integrated care. Interviews focused on drug use/cessation history; attitudes toward and satisfaction with bup/nx treatment; and perspectives on integrated bup/nx treatment and HIV care. RESULTS: Patients were overwhelmingly satisfied with the pharmacologic effects and treatment outcomes of bup/nx, including effectiveness in blocking cravings and controlling opioid use; decreased fear of withdrawal and/or missing doses; and an overall improvement in quality of life. Patients also described being more engaged with both their substance abuse treatment and HIV care, including greater ability to manage their own treatment, keep, appointments, and adhere to antiretroviral medication regimes. Counseling was seen by some patients as an important component of bup/nx treatment. Nearly all were positive about their experience with integrated care, appreciative of an improved drug treatment environment, convenience, and quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that patients report bup/nx to be a viable treatment and many prefer it to other opioid replacement therapies.

Policy implications of integrating buprenorphine/naloxone treatment and HIV care.

Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers have long recognized the potential benefits of providing integrated substance abuse and medical care services, particularly for special populations such as people living with HIV/AIDS. Buprenorphine, an office-based pharmacological treatment for opioid dependence, offers new opportunities for integrating drug treatment into HIV care settings. However, the historical separation between the drug treatment and medical care systems has resulted in a host of policy barriers. The Buprenorphine and HIV Care Evaluation and Support initiative, a multisite demonstration project to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of integrating buprenorphine/naloxone into HIV care settings, provided an opportunity to evaluate if and how policy barriers affect efforts to integrate HIV care and addiction treatment. We found that financing issues, workforce and training issues, and the operational consequences of some conceptual differences between HIV care and addiction treatment are barriers to the full integration of buprenorphine into HIV care. We recommend changes to financing and reimbursement policies, programs to strengthen the addiction treatment skills of physicians, and cross training between the fields of addiction, medicine, drug treatment, and HIV medicine. By addressing some of the policy barriers to integration, this promising new treatment can help the thousands of people living with HIV/AIDS who are also opioid dependent.

Integration of buprenorphine/naloxone treatment into HIV clinical care: lessons from the BHIVES collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Replication of effective practices requires detailed descriptions of implementation processes, barriers and facilitators, and lessons learned. The experiences of physicians leading the Buprenorphine HIV Evaluation and Support initiative provides valuable information for other HIV providers seeking to integrate medication-assisted treatment services into HIV clinical care. METHODS: Evaluation staff conduced site visits to the 10 funded Buprenorphine HIV Evaluation and Support programs to better understand buprenorphine/naloxone (bup/nx) integration practices; services offered; staffing; provider experiences with and perceptions of bup/nx; perceived barriers, facilitators, and sustainability; and recommendations regarding replication of integrated care program components. Interviews with site principal investigators conducted during the last year of program implementation were transcribed, coded, and analyzed according to both pre-identified and emerging themes. RESULTS: Integrated bup/nx and HIV treatment was successfully introduced to community and hospital-based clinics under the direction of infectious disease, psychiatry, and general internal medicine physicians. All but 1 of the principal investigators interviewed were highly satisfied with integrated HIV and bup/nx treatment, and all anticipated continued provision of the service. Multiple prescribers were necessary to ensure sufficient coverage and a bup/nx coordinator (eg, nurse, counselor) was seen as essential to the provision of quality care. Ongoing challenges included multisubstance use and mental health issues among patients; limited adoption of bup/nx treatment among colleagues; and the necessity of incorporating new procedures, including urine toxicology testing into established practice. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that integrated bup/nx treatment and HIV care is acceptable to providers and feasible in a variety of practice settings.

The BHIVES collaborative: organization and evaluation of a multisite demonstration of integrated buprenorphine/naloxone and HIV treatment.

Substance abuse is associated with poor medical and quality-of-life outcomes among HIV-infected individuals. Although drug treatment may reduce these negative consequences, for many patients, options are limited. Buprenorphine/naloxone, an opioid agonist treatment that can be prescribed in the United States in office-based settings, can be used to expand treatment capacity and integrate substance abuse services into HIV care. Recognizing this potential, the US Health Resources and Services Administration funded the development and implementation of demonstration projects that integrated HIV care and buprenorphine/naloxone treatment at 10 sites across the country. An Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center provided programmatic and clinical support as well as oversight for an evaluation that examined the processes for and outcomes of integrated care. The evaluation included patient-level self-report and chart abstractions as well as provider and site level data collected through surveys and in-depth interviews. Although multisite demonstrations pose implementation and evaluation challenges, our experience demonstrates that these can, in part, be addressed through ongoing communication and technical assistance as well as a comprehensive evaluation design that incorporates multiple research methods and data sources. Although limitations to evaluation findings persist, they may be balanced by the scope and "real-world" context of the initiative.

The cost of integrated HIV care and buprenorphine/naloxone treatment: results of a cross-site evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Implementing integrated HIV and buprenorphine/naloxone treatment requires cost estimates to plan and obtain funding. METHODS: We identified costs incurred at HIV clinical sites participating in a cross-site evaluation of integrated care that followed patients for 1 year. Costs include labor, overhead, and urine toxicology analyses (clinic perspective), buprenorphine/naloxone (payer perspective) and patient time and transportation (patient perspective). Sites provided resource utilization quarterly, and providers estimated time required for each activity. With site as the unit of analysis, results are reported as median (range) of average site costs in 2008 US dollars. RESULTS: The median number of monthly provider encounters for integrated care patients was 3.2 (1.5-13.3) compared with 1.7 (1.1-4.2) for similar patients not in integrated care, but integrated care patients had fewer physician encounters. Median monthly clinic costs per integrated care patient were $136 ($67-$677) for labor and overhead and $8 ($2-$23) for toxicology analyses, $22 higher than clinic costs for patients not in integrated care. Median monthly costs for buprenorphine/naloxone were $209 ($165-$272), and monthly patient costs in integrated care were $11 ($1-$54) higher. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated HIV and buprenorphine/naloxone treatment requires different resources, including costs that are not third-party reimbursed. Implementing integrated care will require funding for training and for new staff such as buprenorphine coordinators, in addition to reimbursement for buprenorphine/naloxone. Further research is needed to identify potential cost offsets outside of the clinic setting.

Factors affecting willingness to provide buprenorphine treatment.

Buprenorphine is an effective long-term opioid agonist treatment. As the only pharmacological treatment for opioid dependence readily available in office-based settings, buprenorphine may facilitate a historic shift in addiction treatment from treatment facilities to general medical practices. Although many patients have benefited from the availability of buprenorphine in the United States, almost half of current prescribers are addiction specialists suggesting that buprenorphine treatment has not yet fully penetrated general practice settings. We examined factors affecting willingness to offer buprenorphine treatment among physicians with different levels of prescribing experience. Based on their prescribing practices, physicians were classified as experienced, novice, or as a nonprescriber and asked to assess the extent to which a list of factors impacted their prescription of buprenorphine. Several factors affected willingness to prescribe buprenorphine for all physicians: staff training; access to counseling and alternate treatment; visit time; buprenorphine availability; and pain medications concerns. Compared with other physicians, experienced prescribers were less concerned about induction logistics and access to expert consultation, clinical guidelines, and mental health services. They were more concerned with reimbursement. These data provide important insight into physician concerns about buprenorphine and have implications for practice, education, and policy change that may effectively support widespread adoption of buprenorphine.

Adherence to HAART: perspectives from clients in treatment support programs.

The development of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has resulted in dramatic decreases in morbidity and mortality for HIV-infected individuals. Because the long-term efficacy of HAART is dependent on near perfect adherence, many providers offer services to support adherence, including education, regimen review, counseling, and reminder tools. Little is known regarding the utilization or efficacy of these services. In this paper, we report on data collected during 32 open-ended interviews conducted with individuals receiving services through the New York State Treatment Adherence Demonstration Project. Participants in the project reported deriving benefits from a broad range of project activities. Educational efforts helped clients to recognize HIV as a manageable, rather than terminal, illness. Information and tools focused on specific regimens provided clients with concrete knowledge and skills. Effective communication with medical providers and pharmacists was facilitated by adherence staff who proactively advocated for client needs. Program-based social support was particularly valuable for many participants, helping them to retain needed motivation and strength. Educational, practical, and supportive services were all considered valuable to clients participating in adherence support programs. A mix of services may best meet the range of needs found among persons taking HAART.

AIDS-related risk among adolescent males who have sex with males, females, or both: evidence from a statewide survey.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the prevalence of AIDS-related risk behaviors among adolescent males with female, male, and both-sex sexual partners and explored factors related to these behaviors. METHODS: Three waves of a population-based survey provided data on male high school students: 3065 with only female sexual partners, 94 with only male partners, and 108 with both. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine AIDS-related outcomes. RESULTS: Youths with any same-sex experience reported less school AIDS education. Bisexual experience predicted multiple sexual partners, unprotected intercourse, sexually transmitted disease, and injection drug use. School AIDS education and condom instruction predicted less AIDS-related risk. CONCLUSIONS: Bisexually active adolescent males report especially high levels of AIDS risk behavior. School-based AIDS prevention should address the needs of all sexually active youths.

A vulnerable population in a time of crisis: drug users and the attacks on the World Trade Center.

In this article, we present preliminary findings from a qualitative study focused on the impact of the World Trade Center attacks on New York City residents who are current or former users of heroin, crack, and other forms of cocaine. In it, we present data describing their responses to and feelings about the attacks, changes in drug use after the attacks, and factors affecting changes in use. Our analysis is based on 57 open-ended interviews conducted between October 2001 and February 2002. The majority of study participants reported that the attacks had a significant emotional impact on them, causing anxiety, sadness, and anger. Several described practical impacts as well, including significant reductions in income. On September 11th and the weeks and months that followed, several participants who had been actively using did increase their use of heroin, crack, and/or other forms of cocaine. Reductions in use were, however, as common over time as were increases. There was some relapse among former users, but this was limited to those who had stopped using drugs within the 6 months immediately preceding the attacks. A diverse set of factors interacted to control use. For some participants, these factors were internal, relating to their individual motivations and drug use experiences. Other participants were essentially forced to limit use by marked reductions in income. For others, access to health and social service professionals, as well as drug treatment, proved to be key.