National Institute on Drug Abuse

RESEARCH

MONOGRAPH SERIES

Impact of Prescription

Drug Diversion Control

Systems on Medical

Practice and Patient

Care

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services • Public Health Service • National Institutes of Health

131
Impact of Prescription

Drug Diversion Control

Systems on Medical

Practice and Patient

Care

Editors:

James R. Cooper, M.D.

Dorynne J. Czechowicz, M.D.

Stephen P. Molinari, J.D., R.Ph.

Division of Clinical Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

and

Robert C. Petersen, Ph.D.

NIDA Research Monograph 131

1993

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This monograph is based on the papers and discussions from a technical

review on “Evaluation of the Impact of Prescription Drug Diversion Control

Systems on Medical Practice and Patient Care: Possible Implications for Future

Research,” held on May 30-June 1, 1991, and on a subsequent meeting of a

Research Advisory Panel held on October 3-4, 1991. Both meetings were

sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). This monograph

was prepared by Robert C. Petersen, Ph.D., Petersen & Cook, Associates,

Silver Spring, Maryland, under an agreement with NIDA.

COPYRIGHT STATUS

The National Institute on Drug Abuse has obtained permission from the

copyright holders to reproduce certain previously published material as noted

in the text. Further reproduction of this copyrighted material is permitted only

as part of a reprinting of the entire publication or chapter. For any other use,

the copyright holder’s permission is required. All other material in this

volume except quoted passages from copyrighted sources is in the public

domain and may be used or reproduced without permission from the Institute

or the authors. Citation of the source is appreciated.

Opinions expressed in this volume are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the opinions or official policy of the National Institute on

Drug Abuse or any other part of the Department of Health and Human

Services.

The U.S. Government does not endorse or favor any specific commercial

product or company. Trade, proprietary, or company names appearing in this

publication are used only because they are considered essential in the context

of the studies reported herein.

National Institute on Drug Abuse

NIH Publication No. 93-3507

Printed 1992

NIDA Research Monographs are indexed in the Index Medicus. They are

selectively included in the coverage of American Statistics Index, BioSciences

Information Service, Chemical Abstracts, Current Contents, Psychological

i i
PREFACE

In the spring of 1990, the White House Office of National Drug Control

Policy (ONDCP) was evaluating the merits of the triplicate prescription

system, already implemented in ten states, in an effort to determine whether

ONDCP should encourage other states to develop similar prescription drug

diversion control systems. In 1989, the previous administration had supported

this method as a means to reduce prescription drug diversion. Hence,

ONDCP sought the advice and counsel of both the Department of Health

and Human Services (DHHS) and the Department of Justice regarding the

relative risk and benefits of the triplicate prescription system. In May 1990,

DHHS indicated that it could not support or recommend the use of such

programs to states at that time since there was a paucity of research data on

which to determine the risks, benefits, or superiority of any particular drug

diversion control system. However, the Office of the Secretary instructed the

National Institute on Drug Abuse (MDA) to immediately undertake an

evaluation study of existing data on the relative merits and disadvantages of

all existing drug diversion control methods and to submit their findings for

deliberation at a subsequent technical review. In response, MDA, in collaboration with Brandeis University, undertook a review of available data on the

effectiveness of existing drug diversion control systems and their impact on

medical practice and patient care.

The specific objectives of this study were:

1. To identify and describe the most prominent diversion control systems

currently in use at the State or Federal levels. The systems of control which

are reviewed include:

Automated Reports and Consolidated Orders System

Drug Investigational Units

Electronic Point of Sale Systems

Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Systems

iii
o Multiple Copy Prescription Programs

o Prescription Abuse Data Synthesis

2. To critique the existing literature on these systems to assess their impact

on medical practice

3. To develop an assessment framework by proposing criteria by which the

various systems can be examined within a system type and compared

across different systems

4. To assess each diversion control system in terms of the proposed criteria

5. To review the concerns of groups impacted by and involved in drug

diversion control

6. To evaluate the availability of data that could be used to carry out a

rigorous evaluation of diversion control systems with particular

emphasis on the impact on medical practice, and

7. To identify the gaps in our knowledge about diversion control systems and

to propose one or more studies needed to fully analyze the impact of

drug diversion control systems.

In planning for the Brandeis study, a preliminary literature search revealed a

dearth of published scientific data on the effectiveness of the various drug

diversion control systems in reducing prescription drug diversion or their

relative cost or impact on medical practice and patient care. Nonetheless,

reasonable people, using identical data bases, made sharply differing interpretations of the same data to argue for–or against–the magnitude of

prescription drug diversion, the effectiveness of a particular drug diversion

control system or the impact of these systems on medical practice and patient

care. Likewise, definitions of drug abuse varied and often were ill defined.

For example, some considered the use of psychoactive medications for unapproved indications or for chronic use a measure of drug abuse. Others

included intentional use of psychoactive medicines in successful or unsuccessful suicide attempts as measure of prescription drug abuse. In view of

the relatively small literature base and the lack of agreement regarding

definitions and outcomes, a NIDA Technical Review was planned subsequent

to the completion of the Brandeis evaluation study.

i v
NIDA staff invited to the Technical Review relevant and knowledgeable

people in medical therapeutics, law enforcement, State regulatory agencies,

and representatives from professional associations and advocacy groups. We

attempted to include many of those who had done research on therapeutic

uses of drugs with an abuse potential, those known to represent a specific

therapeutic bias or those supporting or opposing particular drug diversion

control methods. Various presentations were made on the following six

issues:

1. The medical usefulness of the four major classes of

psychoactive therapeutic drugs for both FDA approved and

unapproved uses

2. The nature, extent and consequences of prescription drug abuse

and the relevant magnitude of the different

sources of retail diversion

3. The advantages and limitations of existing drug diversion control

systems

4. The impact of drug diversion control systems on medical practice and

patient care

5. The findings from the Brandeis University evaluation of the scientific

rigor of existing data supporting or refuting the cost and

effectiveness of these various drug diversion control systems

and their impact on medical practice and patient care

6. Areas needing additional research

There was an opportunity during the technical review for all participants to

present their points of view and question the validity of each others data.

A special note of gratitude is made to Drs. Herbert Kleber and Daniel X.

Freedman and Mr. Stanley Morris. Without the support and active participation of Dr. Kleber and Mr. Morris, this comprehensive review would not

have been possible. Dr. Freedman’s leadership at the Technical Review

encouraged a candid and focused discussion among participants with

disparate data, attitudes and beliefs.

v
This monograph contains most of the information presented at the technical

review. Not all participants provided manuscripts for publication. Two

major sections from the final Brandeis Report, which were presented at the

Technical Review, are also included. The Summary of the MDA Technical

Review attempts to incorporate the essence of the differing opinions

exchanged during the open discussions between participants and the

audience. The papers in the Abuse and Diversion Section illustrate the

marked differences in data interpretation related to the nature and magnitude

of prescription drug abuse and retail diversion. Likewise, the specific reasons

for supporting or opposing a particular diversion control system(s) are made

by the various enforcement and regulatory officials, professional associations

and advocacy groups. The lack of consensus can in large part be attributed

to the differences in perception of the nature, extent and consequences of

prescription drug abuse and retail diversion, and the therapeutic usefulness of

these various classes of psychoactive drugs.

Clearly there is no current consensus on the most appropriate design or

methodologies for evaluating the impact of these various drug diversion

control systems on drug abuse prevalence or on medical practice and patient

care. Most studies have had serious weaknesses in design. Many fail to

consider alternative factors that might affect abuse or prescribing practices.

Likewise there was no consensus reached on defining accepted medical use,

particularly as it relates to prescribing psychoactive medicines for unapproved

indications or for long-term use. However, we now have a basis on which to

design a research program to answer these questions. Furthermore, NIDA

convened a research advisory panel to discuss design and methodological

questions arising from the NIDA Technical Review and to recommend

specific research priorities. The paper by Dr. Dorynne Czechowicz highlights

the outcome of those discussions. NIDA encourages the submission of

research projects in some of the identified research areas.

James R. Cooper, M.D., Editor

v i
Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Impact of Prescription Drug Control Systems on

Medical Practice and Patient Care: A Summary of the

NIDA Technical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Guiding Principles of International and Federal Laws

Pertaining to Medical Use and Diversion of Controlled

Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

David E. Joranson

Session: Medical Use, Therapeutic Rationale–Prescribing

and Control Issues

Therapeutic Use of Opioids: Prescribing and Control

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Russell K. Portenoy

Anxiolytics: Indications, Benefits, and Risks of

Short, and Long-Term Benzodiazepine Therapy

Current Research Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Karl Rickels and Edward Schweizer

Issues and Controversies Regarding

Benzodiazepine Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Carl Salzman

Stimulant Drugs–Medical Needs, Alternative

Indications and Related Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jonathan O. Cole, Lenore A. BolIing,

and Barbara J. Peake

iii

1

18

35

51

68

89

vii
Page

Session: Abuse and Diversion

The Nonmedical Use of Prescription Drugs in the

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Edgar H. Adams and Andrva Kopstein

Drug Diversion Control Systems, Medical Practice, and

Patient Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Gene R. Haislip

Session: Diversion Control Methods

Existing Methods to Identify Retail Drug

Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

G. Thomas Gitchel

PADS Approach to Preventing Prescription

Drug Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

John J. Ambre

Diversion Investigation Units–Methods, Utilities,

and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

R. Keith Bulla

OSTAR–Oklahoma Schedule Two Abuse Reduction: An

Electronic Point of Sale Diversion Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Elaine Dodd

The Illinois Experience in Achieving the Medical/

Regulatory Balance Required to Control

Prescription Drug Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Mark T. Bishop and Ronald J. Vlasty

New York State’s Triplicate Prescription Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

John L. Eadie

Triplicate Prescriptions in Washington State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Donald H. Williams

viii
Page

The Medicaid Prescription Drug Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Thomas Roslewicz

Summary and Conclusions of a Review of Prescription

Drug Diversion Control Methods

Constance Horgan, Jeffrey Prottas, Christopher

Tompkins, Linda Wastila, and Melissa Bowden

Session: Impact on Medical Practice and Patient Care

Professional Association Responses

An American Medical Association Perspective on

Preventing Prescription Drug Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

John J. Ambre

Prescription Drug Regulation: Implications for Nursing

and Health Care Delivery–Response of the American

Nurses’ Association

Madeline A. Naegle

Perspective of the American Pharmaceutical

Association

C. Edwin Webb

Perspective of the Empire State Medical Association

of the National Medical Association

Gerald Deas

Prescribing Practices and Drug Abuse–Perspective of

206

. . . . . 224

228

235

239

the American Society of Addiction Medicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Anne Geller

Response of the American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 246

Nicholas Rock

ix
Advocacy Groups

Page

Impact of Drug Regulation and Diversion Control

System on Legitimate Narcolepsy Patients

Response of American Narcolepsy Association . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Joseph A. Piscopo

State Cancer Pain Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

June L. Dahl

Benzodiazepine Dependence–A Treatment

Program Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

Robert D. O’Connor

A Public Citizen Health Research Group Perspective

on Federal Triplicate Prescription Requirements for

Controlled Substance Prescription Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

Sidney Wolfe

Session: Evaluation of the Impact on Medical Practice

and Medical Care

Consequences of the 1989 New York State Triplicate

Benzodiazepine Prescription Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

Michael Weintraub, Satesh Singh, Louise Byrne,

Kumar Maharaj, and Laurence Guttmacher

Changes in Prescribing Patterns in Long-Term Care

Facilities and Impact on Incidence of Adverse

Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

Sergio I. Zullich, Thaddeus H. Grasela, Jill B.

Fiedler-Kelley, and Francis M. Gengo

Future Research Directions

A Research Agenda for Prescription Drug Diversion

Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Constance Horgan, Jeffrey Prottas, Christopher

Tompkins, Linda Wastila, and Melissa Bowden

x
Page

The Impact of Prescription Drug Control Systems on

Medical Practice and Patient Care–A Summary of

Research Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

Dorynne Czechowicz

Appendix

List of May 30-June 1, 1991 Technical Review

Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

List of October 3-4, 1991 Research Advisory

Panel Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

x i

The Impact of Prescription Drug Control Systems on

Medical Practice and Patient Care: A Summary of the

NIDA Technical Review

INTRODUCTION

In his opening remarks, the meeting chairman stressed this technical review

was not a consensus conference. Rather, its objective was to enable the

National Institute on Drug Abuse to meet its responsibilities in advising the

Department of Health and Human Services of what is known–and not known

–about prescription drug diversion control systems and their impact on

medical practice and patient care. The Deputy Director for Demand

Reduction in the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) noted in

his introductory remarks that arriving at a policy to control prescription drug

diversion requires developing effective ways to prevent diversion while at the

same time minimizing their impact on medical practice and patient care. The

Deputy Director of ONDCP charged with drug supply reduction cited a

“street price” of Dilaudid 40 to 50 times higher than its retail price as one

indication of the success of prescription drug diversion control efforts, but

urged the participants to give the topic their most serious consideration.

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS

An overview of international treaties, Federal and State laws, and regulations

governing controlled psychoactive drugs prefaced the technical review. These

treaties and laws are intended to ensure the continuing benefits of medical

use of these drugs while minimizing their non-medical use. An underlying

principle of international, Federal and State law is to limit drug production of

these drugs to the amounts needed for medical and scientific purposes.

However, in 1990, the World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on

Pain Relief expressed concern that improved methods for controlling inappropriate use not inhibit appropriate prescribing (WHO Expert Committee

Report 1990). In developing federal drug control legislation, the

congressional intent was also not to interfere with medical practice or to limit

the medical purposes for which these drugs are to be used. Regulating

medical practice is a responsibility reserved to the individual States. State

1
laws are usually based on the 1970 Uniform Controlled Substances Act

(UCSA), a model law developed to provide a unified drug control policy.

Because the 1970 UCSA failed to take into account the role of medicine and

science in drug control decisions, new model legislation addressing this and

other deficiencies was prepared in 1990.

State laws are often more restrictive and regulate practitioners in ways

Federal legislation does not. For example, some States limit the number of

dosage units of a drug that may be prescribed. Patients who have become

physically dependent on medically justified prescribed drugs are also

sometimes defined as “addicted” and must be reported to the State regulatory

agency. In one State (South Carolina), prescribing controlled substances for

other than FDA-approved purposes is restricted. State laws governing

Multiple Copy Prescription Programs are also not based on the UCSA

model.

PREVALENCE OF MEDICAL USE OF PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS

Use of prescription psychoactive drugs within the general population was

described (Balter 1991). Several national surveys of prescription drug use in

the general population have been conducted. To date, these surveys have

yielded a uniform conclusion: the vast majority of prescribed use of these

drugs is conservative, therapeutically appropriate, and limited to short periods

of time (<3 months). The usual source of medication (>95 percent) is

through a physician’s prescription; less than 5 percent of users obtained these

drugs from a nonprescription source (usually a friend or relative). Consumer

attitudes toward taking psychoactive prescription drugs are also conservative.

Less than one third of a general population sample surveyed in 1990 were

willing to use such drugs to offset a major emotional problem interfering with

work, down from the 55 percent who indicated they would do so in 1970.

There has also been a significant decline in use by those for whom use is

medically appropriate. The overall conclusion drawn was that the benefit-torisk ratio for these substances is positive with little epidemiological evidence

that abusive use of prescribed medication is common. Populations taking

prescribed psychoactive drugs show little overlap with abuser populations.

Chronic medical use of prescribed psychoactive drugs rarely leads to addiction and addicts have significantly different characteristics from medical users.

2
THERAPEUTIC RATIONALE FOR USE

The treatment rationales for using analgesic, anxiolytic, hypnotic, and stimulant drugs were reviewed by medical experts in each drug area. An expert on

pain relief discussed analgesics with primary emphasis on opioid drugs

(Portenoy 1991). Despite an armamentarium of drugs that can provide

adequate pain relief in 70 to 85 percent of cancer patients (Schug et al. 1990;

Ventafridda et al. 1985, 1987), unrelieved pain continues to be common.

Apart from truly refractory pain, this can be attributed to patient-related and

clinician-related factors. Among the patient-related factors are inadequate

symptom reporting because of stoicism, the belief that pain is inevitable, a

desire to be liked (by medical staff), a fear of opiates, and the cost of drugs

or other factors which limit their availability. Clinician-related factors include

uncertainty about the appropriate role of opioid therapy and undertreatment.

Undertreatment results from inadequate medical assessment, knowledge and

skill deficiencies, overestimating the risk of using opiates, and the impact of

drug regulations. The treatment of chronic pain is often a neglected topic;

the standard therapeutic drug reference text, Physicians’ Desk Reference, is

notably deficient in addressing this problem.

Several examples were given of ways in which regulations can lead to undertreatment. These include prohibiting the use of stimulant drugs to offset the

sedative effects of opiates, limiting amounts that can be prescribed in a single

prescription or as an emergency supply, and the refusal of pharmacies to fill

prescriptions that omit such minor details as the patient’s age or ZIP code.

Although little formal data can be cited, physicians are concerned about

possible sanctions, peer pressure, being investigated for their prescribing

habits and having these habits reviewed by regulators unfamiliar with current

clinical practice. There is, the reviewer noted, a need to reassure clinicians

that their appropriate use of multiple drugs, of opiates, of parenterally

administered drugs, and escalating doses for prolonged periods will not result

in their being investigated or having sanctions applied. Advances in the

understanding of pain mechanisms and of improved pain management based

on work with cancer patients also suggests the belief there is a high risk of

addiction in the long term treatment of nonmalignant chronic pain is overstated. Several studies dealing with long-term use of analgesics have

concluded that problems of toxicity or abuse of these drugs by chronic pain

patients rarely occur (Chapman and Hill 1989; Kanner and Foley 1982; Perry

and Heidrich 1982; Porter and Jick, 1980). Although the potential risk of

addiction resulting from medical treatment is probably exaggerated, it is a

medical issue which should be carefully considered when prescribing for pa3
tients with a history of drug dependence. However, since these patients also

need appropriate pain management, a balance must be struck between the

need to control pain as well as to avoid possible drug abuse. The need for

better communication between physicians and regulators was stressed by this

speaker and several other conference participants.

Two physicians reviewed the role of anxiolytic drugs in current medical

practice with particular emphasis on the benzodiazepines (Rickels 1991;

Salzman 1991). Among the many clinical indications for employing such

drugs are status epilepticus, movement disorders, as muscle relaxants, for

physical injury or trauma, as preanesthetic agents or as anesthetic adjuncts

(to reduce the need for less safe agents), for transient, and short- and longterm treatment of anxiety, and for panic disorders. The treatment of panic

disorder is particularly important since panic disorder is the second leading

cause of suicide and failure to control its symptoms can seriously increase the

risk of suicide. Since anxiety is common in many physical illnesses and

occurs in response to many acute life stresses, benzodiazepines play an

important role in modern therapeutics. Their relative safety, low abuse

potential, and effectiveness must be balanced, however, against possible

adverse effects on memory, tolerance development, possible cumulative

toxicity (especially in the elderly), and, when use is discontinued, withdrawal

symptoms and the return of the original symptoms in more severe form

(symptom rebound). Withdrawal is affected both by pharmacologic characteristics of the drugs used (e.g., their half life) as well as patient characteristics such as concurrent alcohol or other drug abuse, psychiatric and

medical comorbidity, personality, and diagnosis. The rate at which doses are

reduced when treatment is discontinued also affects the severity of withdrawal. The use of benzodiazepines for treating older patients with chronic

illnesses accompanied by anxiety, pain, and sleep disturbance is well established (Rickels 1991). Since these patients rarely abuse these medications or

escalate their doses, benefits significantly exceed the risks. In treating panic

disorders and agoraphobia, the benefit-to-risk ratio is somewhat less

favorable since these disorders often require higher drug doses, and relapse

or symptom rebound often occurs following termination of treatment. For

patients with dysphoria or personality disorders, benzociiazepines offer

sporadic relief although the benefit-to-risk ratio is less favorable since these

patients may escalate doses, self-medicate, or abuse these drugs. With two

other groups, patients with psychoses or chronic sleep disturbances, the risks

outweigh the benefits and use probably should be avoided. There is little evidence that benzodiazepines are effective for these problems.

4
Overall, there is little question that benzodiazepines are therapeutically

useful, especially for the short-term treatment of a range of disorders in

which anxiety plays a role. Questions regarding the differences among the

benzodiazepines and the possibility that high-potency and short-acting

benzodiazepines pose greater withdrawal and dependency risks need to be

studied. The implications of more stringent regulation of these medications

on medical practice and patient care should also be examined, the reviewers

concluded.

The review of hypnotics (Greenblatt 1991) also emphasized that epidemiological data do not suggest we are an overmedicated society. In the past

decade, a range of shorter half-life hypnotic medications have been developed, providing physicians with a wider range of therapeutic alternatives.

Some of the newer drugs are less likely to result in daytime sedation and

impaired performance, although they may affect memory and lose their

effectiveness more quickly. A third of Americans suffer from insomnia;

about one in six can be classified as having a serious sleep disorder. The use

of hypnotics for treating either transient or short-term insomnia (i.e., sleeplessness lasting as long as a few weeks) is clearly justified, although treating

chronic insomnia (lasting months) is not. Both animal data and clinical

observation suggest the efficacy of hypnotics diminishes over time and that

rebound and withdrawal effects are common.

The therapeutic rationale for the use of stimulants was described by a

psychiatrist experienced in this area (Cole 1991). Because of the “speed”

epidemic of the mid-1960s and later concern about stimulant abuses in

weight reduction programs, strict controls and intensive prescriber education

were instituted. Most stimulant abuse now involves illicitly manufactured

methamphetamine, not licit stimulants. The therapeutic use of these drugs

for all but attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and

narcolepsy has come to be regarded as questionable. This may represent an

overreaction since there is a body of clinical opinion, confirmed by physician

surveys, suggesting stimulants are selectively useful for treating adult residuals

of ADHD, chronic fatigue, treatment-resistant depression, AIDS-related

brain dysfunction, idiopathic hypersomnia, and chronic pain (adjunctive use

with analgesics to counteract their sedative effects). A review of 28 longterm patients (with from 1 to 27 years of prescribed use) who were judged to

derive substantial benefit from stimulant maintenance therapy was described

(Cole 1991). Fifteen had received the drug for depression, five for attention

deficit disorder, three to suppress bulimia, two for fatigue, two for idiopathic

hypersomnia, and one for panic disorder. These 28 patients maintained a

5
stable response without developing either tolerance or evidence of drug

abuse.

During the ensuing discussion of the papers addressing the therapeutic uses

of analgesic, anxiolytic, hypnotic and stimulant drugs, it was noted that the

benefit-to-risk paradigm is a useful framework for thinking about these

medications. The danger of confounding drug abusing populations with

clinical populations for whom psychoactive drugs are prescribed for

therapeutic purposes was reiterated. For example, only 4 out of a recent

sample of 11,882 patients who received morphine therapeutically became

addicted (Chapman and Hill 1989). Other studies also support this

observation (Kanner and Foley 1982; Perry and Heidrich 1982; Porter and

Jick, 1980).

Other salient points were made. The rate of use of a drug is a poor index of

risk; the appropriateness of its medical use is a more relevant criterion.

Another relevant aspect is the limited attractiveness of psychoactive prescription drugs to abusers. Most psychotherapeutic drugs are not highly sought

after by addicts. Psychoactive prescription drugs are rarely “starter” drugs.

In a Baltimore study of addicts (Nurco and Balter. 1990), the average age for

beginning use of these drugs (if they were used) was over 18 compared to

age 15 or younger for the initial use of alcohol, inhalants, and marijuana.

There was also little evidence of their compulsive use and they were used

infrequently compared to other, more preferred drugs of abuse. It was

argued that the burden of proof should be upon regulators to demonstrate a

need for regulation rather than upon practitioners to prove further controls

are not needed.

Concern was also expressed that patient complaints that lack a visible

physical basis are less likely to be taken seriously. The psychic pain of

anxiety disorders as well as chronic pain associated with nonmalignant

disorders is sometimes trivialized. However, adequate treatment of patients

experiencing chronic pain can markedly improve their quality of life.

ABUSE AND ASSOCIATED CONSEQUENCES

Relevant data derived from NIDA’s National Household Survey on Drug

Abuse were summarized (Adams 1991). Among 18- to 25-year olds, the age

range for peak drug abuse, 3.6 to 3.9 percent of those surveyed acknowledged

having used nonprescribed stimulants, sedatives and tranquilizers in the

month preceding the 1990 survey. By contrast, 12.7 percent of this age group

6
had used marijuana in the month preceding the survey and 14.7 of this age

group acknowledged current use of any illicit drug.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), which tracks drug-related

emergency room episodes, found a decrease of 20 percent in the number of

reported episodes involving controlled prescription drugs between 1985 and

1989. There is little evidence of a causal relationship between the extent of

drug diversion and changes in DAWN data. Moreover, the extent to which

emergency room episodes are related to drug diversion is also unclear. In

half the incidents reported, the source of the prescription drug was not noted.

Another limitation is that suicide attempts, accounting for a large percentage

of the DAWN-reported incidents, are not an indicator of drug diversion since

most of these suicide attempts involved prescribed medications. DAWN is

also a poor indicator of prescribed drug abuse since it provides no indication

of the proportion of those receiving prescribed drugs who experience adverse

consequences from their use. An unknown percentage of patients tracked by

the DAWN system are likely to be “repeaters,” not new cases. These limitations, some participants noted, render DAWN data of still less value for

establishing the extent of prescription drug diversion.

Other conference participants, in their roles as prescription drug diversion

regulators, stressed that control systems have had a positive impact on

medical practice and patient care by reducing irresponsible prescribing (e.g.,

by establishing minimum standards for patient care) and by limiting the availability of dangerous drugs (Haislip 1991). Examples cited included sharply

restricting amphetamines and methaqualone when they were being prescribed

in “obesity and stress clinics” in excess of any legitimate medical need. The

decrease in DAWN mentions involving prescription psychoactive drugs, it was

argued, is one piece of evidence suggesting that improved control methods

are reducing drug diversion. Despite this reduction, regulators maintained

that the continued diversion of licit drugs into the illicit drug traffic is a

major component of the national drug abuse problem. The fact that one in

three DAWN emergency room mentions in 1990 was for a licitly manufactured drug was offered as one indication of this (Haislip 1991). While restrictions on prescribing have allegedly been detrimental to pain control,

regulators noted that the quotas for narcotic production, have been steadily

increased (e.g., morphine by 400 percent) over the past decade. Diversion

control continues to be important since even a small number of prescription

drug diverters can flood a community with hazardous drugs. Examples of

this were cited (Haislip 1991).

7
During an ensuing discussion, participants pointed out that changing trends in

psychoactive drug prescribing reflect many factors other than the impact of

regulatory changes. Prescribing practices are significantly altered by

physician education, the introduction of new drugs, and by programs such as

cancer pain initiatives, which result in more appropriate patient care. The

sheer number of prescriptions for a drug provides no evidence that it is being

used inappropriately. Similarly, decreased prescribing of a specific drug may

be the result of substituting other drugs rather than of improved treatment

standards.

METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING DRUG DlVERSION

Methods for identifying drug diversion, their strengths and limitations, were

also described. The many ways in which individuals fraudulently obtain drugs

at the retail level were also described.

ARCOS

ARCOS–the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Order Systems–is a

Drug Enforcement Administration data base auditing Schedule II controlled

drug transactions at the manufacturing and wholesale distribution level.

ARCOS can be used to identify geographic areas in which diversion is

occurring and the drugs involved. It is federally run and causes minimal

interference with medical practice since no patient or physician data are

collected (unless the practitioner obtains drugs wholesale). It has reduced

wholesale drug diversion to the point that most diversion is now at the retail

level which is not directly monitored by ARCOS (Gitchel 1991).

Drug Investigational Units (DIUs)

DIUs were State units set up with Federal aid (from 1972 to the early 1980s)

to assist in controlling Schedule II drug diversion. DIUs brought together

individuals and agencies with a shared concern about retail drug diversion in

order to facilitate more effective investigation of the problem. The units

were often successful in improving drug diversion control and some DIUs

were continued even after Federal support for them ended. Their major

drawback is that labor intensive surveys and pharmacy audits are still

required to obtain needed evidence to pursue criminal prosecutions (Bulla

1991).

8
PADS

The Prescription Abuse Data System (PADS) was a system of drug control

developed at the State level with the assistance of the American Medical

Association. The objective was to integrate State data bases to better target

diversion. State agencies and private organizations, aided by a consultant

provided by the AMA, formed a task force consisting of technical, regulatory/enforcement, and professional association components. This task force

then made recommendations to a State PADS policy group to improve

diversion control and professional education. Although a systematic

evaluation of their effectiveness has not been done, PADS had the advantage

of acting as a catalyst to encourage regulatory and professional groups to

work together more effectively. PADS II was an AMA computer-based

initiative to assist states in identifying high prescribers reimbursed under the

Medicaid program, but was never implemented (Ambre, 1991a).

MEDICAID

Medicaid drug diversion control software to assist States in auditing their

Medicaid system was also developed by the Office of the Inspector General

of the Department of Health and Human Services and is now used in 18

states. It analyzes physicians’ drug prescribing, pharmacies’ dispensing, and

patients’ drug use whenever Medicaid reimbursement is involved and identifies statistically exceptional prescription drug patterns, which may justify

further scrutiny (Roslewicz 1991).

An Electronic Point of Sale System–OSTAR

The electronic point of sale system is the newest of the drug diversion control

systems and has just been implemented in Oklahoma under the acronym

OSTAR (Oklahoma Schedule Two Abuse Reduction). OSTAR requires

pharmacists to submit basic information concerning patients and the Schedule

II drug prescriptions they have filled by electronic means or, alternatively,

using a Universal Claim Form. Patients are identified by their drivers’

license numbers. Problems of confidentiality have not arisen in the first

several months of operation. The data being collected were previously

available to investigators (by auditing pharmacy records), but are now much .

more easily obtained. Information is carefully restricted and only divulged in

criminal cases. Any other uses of the data are subject to severe penalties.

OSTAR was described as a fast, accurate tracking system for Schedule II

prescriptions. During its first several months of operation, the State Medical

9
Association reported no physician complaints about OSTAR or any reports it

had negative effects on medical practice. However, no formal evaluation has

been conducted (Dodd 1991).

Multiple Copy Prescription Programs (MCCP)

Ten states (California, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan New York,

Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington) currently operate multiple copy

prescription programs. The first MCPP was initiated in California in 1939.

The systems of Illinois, New York, and Washington State were described by

representatives of each (Bishop 1991; Eadie 1991; Williams 1991). The

Illinois program is unique in being housed in the Department of Alcoholism

and Substance Abuse rather than in a law enforcement or medical setting.

Washington State’s system requires triplicate forms be used only by

practitioners who have been previously disciplined for their prescribing

behavior.

The various drug control systems were also compared by a representative of

the Bigel Institute for Health Policy at Brandeis University (Horgan 1991).

This group has prepared a report reviewing prescription control methods for

NIDA (Horgan et al. 1991). The report is based on a literature review and

interviews with individuals involved with the various systems. The Bigel Institute systematically reviewed all currently used systems, including MCPPs, and

the relevant literature, although no new data comparing the systems was

collected. Most MCPPs share the advantages of simultaneously targeting

physicians, pharmacies, and patients, and of including all population groups in

the State. Their disadvantages include extra work for practitioners as well as

dispensers, the fact that not all psychoactive medications can be tracked (e.g.,

some substituted drugs may not be included) and that MCPPs require laborintensive data entry. State MCPPs vary widely in the agencies and licensing

boards involved and in how well they cooperate with each other and with law

enforcement agencies. These systems are, however, not static. The timeliness of their data can be improved as can the cooperation between professional associations and law enforcement agencies. Increased involvement of

practitioner organizations can also lead to a greater emphasis on professional

education to reduce diversion and more effective use of peer review methods.

1 0
POSITIONS OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Seven participants presented the positions of their respective professional

associations. These included the American Medical Association (Ambre,

1991b), the American Nurses’ Association (Naegle 1991), the American

Pharmaceutical Association (Webb 1991), the American Psychiatric

Association (Peele 1991), the American Society of Addiction Medicine

(Geller 1991), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

(Rock 1991), and the Empire State Medical Association of the National

Medical Association (Deas 1991). The first six generally oppose a Federal

MCPP because of its possible effects on professional practice, concerns about

confidentiality, the lack of convincing evidence of need, and/or because the

proposed system either duplicates existing systems or is not state-of-the-art.

As a group, the professional associations’ representatives stressed the

importance of professional education in preventing diversion and inappropriate prescribing and the need to focus primarily on impaired practitioners and

those few dishonest or incompetent practitioners who require serious

intervention and sanctions. Concern was expressed about regulators

monitoring medical practice arbitrarily because of a lack of adequate understanding of current clinical practice. The professional association representatives emphasized treatment decisions should be made by qualified

practitioners, not by regulatory agencies. The American Nurses’

Association’s representative expressed special concern about the possible

impact of the proposed system on prescribing by nurse-practitioners working

in medically underserved areas. The Federal triplicate prescription system

may have a deleterious effect on the treatment of the patients whom nursepractitioners serve. The Empire State Medical Association representative

discussed the danger of attention being diverted by the drug control issue

from more fundamental concerns about medical care for the poor. These

include providing adequate medical aid for inner city residents, dealing with

their sense of hopelessness, and not relying on band aid solutions to respond

to such fundamental problems as lack of access to medical care and the wide

disparities in the care the poor receive. He stressed the Empire State

Medical Association’s position that New York State’s triplicate prescription

program has produced a dramatic decline in the illicit diversion of prescription drugs, concluding that its overall impact on medical practice was positive.

11
ADVOCACY GROUP POSITIONS

Representatives of the American Narcolepsy Association, Wisconsin Cancer

Pain Initiative, and the Public Citizen Health Research Group discussed the

positions of their groups as well. A treatment program perspective was

provided by a medical director from one of the programs.

The representative of the Narcolepsy Association described the nature of

narcolepsy, pointing out that as many as 375,000 persons may suffer from this

disorder, although only 50,000 have actually been diagnosed and are being

treated (Piscopo 1991). Since the disorder is incurable, stimulant drugs are

required on a lifetime basis. Present regulations sometimes result in patients

having difficulty in finding a physician willing to prescribe stimulants and may

result in the investigation of prescribers, pharmacists, and patients for

“inappropriate” prescribing, dispensing, or use. Restrictions on the quantities

that can be prescribed and a low priority on ensuring an adequate supply has

also sometimes made these essential medications hard to obtain. The

Chairperson of the Wisconsin Pain Initiative emphasized that group’s concern

about inadequate treatment of cancer pain (Dahl 1991). “Opiophobia” on the

part of patients, their families, and the physicians who treat them often

interferes with adequate pain relief. This can lead to serious impairment in

patients’ quality of life, a more rapid disease progression, and to higher

medical costs. She concluded that there is a need to educate all concerned

groups, to examine whether better prescription drug diversion monitoring

systems are really needed, and to determine the potential impact of those

systems on patient care.

The medical director of a private alcohol and drug treatment program

expressed concern that the benzodiazepines can produce dependence even

when used in the recommended dosages and that the effects of aging on drug

response are not taken into account by many practitioners (O’Connor 1991).

Benzodiazepine dependence can also complicate other substance abuse

problems such as alcoholism. Withdrawal from benzodiazepines can lead to

difficulties in cognitive functioning, memory difficulties, feelings of depersonalization, psychosis, tremors, insomnia, and other symptoms which contribute

to their continued use. The combined abuse of alcohol and benzodiazepines

is not an uncommon problem in his facility. He was in favor of triplicate

prescription programs because he believes they serve as a deterrent to excessive and inappropriate prescribing of these drugs.

12
The physician representing the Public Citizen Health Research Group

indicated they strongly support a Federal triplicate prescription program to

curb 1) drug diversion through “pill mills” that indiscriminately prescribe

psychoactive drugs, 2) inappropriate long term use of benzodiazepines, and 3)

the prescribing of these drugs to cope with everyday problems for which their

use is medically inappropriate (Wolfe 1991). While developing practice

parameters is desirable, it is not enough to deter use. He felt the evidence

that regulations interfere with appropriate prescribing is poorly founded.

With respect to patient confidentiality, he pointed out, there is no evidence

that pharmacists have breached confidentiality and little reason to believe law

enforcement personnel are more likely to do so.

IMPACT OF MULTIPLE COPY PRESCRIPTION SYSTEMS ON

MEDICAL PRACTICE AND PATIENT CARE

On the final day of the 3-day conference, several participants evaluated the

impact of the triplicate prescription system on medical practice and patient

care, particularly in New York State where data are available on physicians’

prescribing behavior both before and after benzodiazepines were added to

the State’s triplicate prescription program on January 1, 1989.

The director of the New York State system emphasized the following:

Data on triplicate prescribing is accorded the highest degree of medical

confidentiality.

There is no evidence that the triplicate prescription requirement has

adversely affected medical practice.

Although fewer benzodiazepine prescriptions are now being written, for

every 100 fewer prescriptions, only 10 new prescriptions have been

written for other drugs (Eadie 1991).

Overall, he noted, the data suggests that physicians may be exercising greater

discretion in prescribing benzodiazepines. The widely publicized myth that

New York State requires patients to be seen every 30 days if they are

receiving a Schedule II drug is not true, he also stressed. A patient should be

seen prior to initially receiving a triplicate prescription, but after that, it is up

to the individual physician to determine how often the patient is seen.

A physician from the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine at

the University of Rochester interpreted the New York data somewhat

differently (Weintraub 1991). In January 1989, the first month of the

13
triplicate requirement for benzodiazepines, there was an overall decrease of

44 percent in the number of prescriptions written for the drug. A similar,

although smaller, decline (30 percent) was noted by the Blue Cross/Blue

Shield program. There was also an increase in the use of alternative drugs.

For example, the prescribing of meprobamate, a nonbenzodiazepine

antianxiety agent, more than doubled in New York following the change in

regulations, although it decreased nationwide. However, the increase in

alternative prescriptions in no way compensated for the decrease in

benzodiazepine prescribing. An attempt was also made to relate the

decrease in benzodiazepine prescribing to a change in the hip fracture rate,

but the results were inconclusive because of the small numbers involved.

There is, this speaker pointed out, professional concern about adding the

benzodiazepines to the triplicate prescription system, since it is still unclear

what the public health implications of doing so are. He concluded that more

research is needed.

The impact of triplicate prescriptions in New York was also examined in a

nursing home population (Gengo 1991). The records of 1,200 nursing home

residents were examined. Of the 170 patients who had been taking benzodiazepines 6 months before the change, 62 were taken off the drug. Their

doses were typically not gradually reduced and withdrawal symptoms were

recorded for nearly a quarter of these patients within 1 week of stopping use.

More than half were changed to other medications and most of the substitute

drugs were regarded as less safe and effective than the medications they

replaced.

Data from New York State also indicates that the use of hypnotics declined

following the introduction of the triplicate prescription system. This may

indicate a reduction in their appropriate medical use and possible inappropriate use of alternative drugs (Greenblatt 1991).

In Rhode Island, a multiple copy prescription program has existed since 1979

although it is limited to Schedule II drugs. In that State, if a practitioner

makes the “top 5” in prescribing these drugs, a utilization review is undertaken by a three-member physician review group. An oncologist so classified

would be unlikely to create concern; a family practitioner in the “top 5”

prescribers is likely to be more carefully scrutinized. A survey of 3,000

Rhode Island practitioners (MDs, DDSs, DVMs) was conducted; 22.2

percent of those contacted responded to the written questionnaire (80 percent

were physicians). Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (64.1 percent) agreed

that the law reduced abuse and that it reduced prescription forgeries (62.4

14
percent). Three out of four (74 percent) reported no problem with patients

getting their prescriptions filled. Over half (53.4 percent) reported they

would not choose an alternative drug if a Schedule II drug was needed,

although a third (32.8%) said they would (Campbell 1991).

LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING RESEARCH

A deputy director of the NIDA-sponsored review of prescription drug

diversion control systems discussed the limitations of existing research in

determining the extent to which drug diversion is controlled, at what cost,

and with what impact on prescribing (Prottas 1991). His conclusion was that

most of the studies have had serious weaknesses, asked the wrong questions,

or failed to consider alternative factors impacting on prescribing. He noted

that this is a new area of inquiry, one characterized by strongly partisan

feelings. There is no consensus for operationalizing concepts or methodology. Most of the data available concerns MCPPs; much less with other drug

diversion control programs. The MCPP data is, however, difficult to interpret. For example, attempts to evaluate MCPPs in terms of the number of

disciplinary actions before and after introduction or changes in these systems

ignore the deterrent effect of these systems on inappropriate prescribing. It

is also difficult to know what level of disciplinary action is justified. The

number of physicians ordering forms, especially at intermediate levels, is also

hard to interpret. Street prices of prescribed drugs vary in response to

multiple factors, making it difficult to tease out the effects of regulation.

Epidemiological studies involving the DAWN system have serious shortcomings. The data are many steps removed from the impact of any specific drug

diversion control program, making any connections obscure. The meaning of

decreases or changes in prescription patterns is also difficult to interpret.

While effects on drug substitution are important, studies of this aspect are

methodologically inadequate in that only a limited data analysis has been

done. In the absence of clinical information, it is difficult to know whether

changes that resulted were desirable or not. In short, both the quantification

and the trade-offs involved in drug diversion control are uncertain. Finally,

the existing literature does not deal with the mechanisms involved in changes

in drug prescribing, an important issue if the impact of regulatory changes is

to be gauged.

During a discussion following these presentations, several points were made.

A more adequate inventory and analysis of State laws would be useful,

particularly if it included clear descriptions of the ways in which the various

systems actually work, who reviews prescribing practices, and the criteria

15
employed in doing so. A level of analysis which includes the patient and his

or her clinical diagnosis and medical history would be desirable. The lack of

adequate clinical data on which to draw conclusions about the impact of

diversion control systems on clinical practice is a serious deficiency.

NEEDED RESEARCH

The final afternoon was devoted to describing a needed research agenda

based upon the Bigel Institute’s review of the area (Tompkins 1991) and

comments from the meeting participants during a general discussion. Further

research was urged in order to better specify ongoing diversion control

activities, to consider the possible outcomes from multiple perspectives, and

to get beyond the limitations of anecdotal and impressionistic reports. The

data on the magnitude of diversion is neither very good nor recent, and many

of the underlying assumptions can be questioned (e.g., the source of street

drugs may be diversion, but it can also be illegal importation or illegal

manufacture). Trade-offs involve both positive and negative aspects. These

include not only minimizing diversion, but the costs of doing so both in

financial terms and in terms of medical and social consequences of the

systems employed. The reviewer emphasized that “settling debates regarding

the pros and cons of diversion systems [will] require something beyond

aggregate, proxy variables.” Researchers need to specify dependent variables

that accurately reflect the concepts of both medical diversion and acceptable

medical practice. Empirical findings can confirm or refute specific hypotheses with respect to diversion reduction or to the patterns of medical practice

that are associated with alternative control systems.

In the concluding discussion, several points were raised. A former regulator

said Wisconsin crime lab exhibits have been found to be a useful measure of

drug diversion trends. Other participants pointed out that crime lab data are

affected by changing enforcement patterns and only imperfectly reflect actual

prescription drug diversion patterns. The need for a well-thought out set of

indicators that includes patient care and a more detailed exploration of the

basis for physicians’ therapeutic decision-making was repeatedly emphasized.

It may be desirable to devise some form of composite prescription drug

diversion control system rather than limiting choices to the currently available

alternatives.

In discussing the various control systems, several other major points were

made by participants. There was some agreement that policy must be made

despite the absence of adequate relevant data. There is no question that a

16
drug diversion problem exists, although the indicators of its seriousness and

sources are imprecise and sometimes difficult to interpret. Similarly, there is

little question that drug diversion control systems have impact on medical

practice, although the extent of that impact is also difficult to determine.

Although anecdotal accounts can be cited in defense of one or another

diversion control position, definitive data do not presently exist.

REFERENCES

Chapman C.R., and Hill, C.F. Prolonged morphine self-administration and

addiction liability. Cancer 63:1636-1644, 1989.

Horgan, C.; Prottas, J.; Tompkins, C.; Wastila, L.; and Bowden, M. A

Review of Prescription Drug Diversion Control Methods, Report prepared

by the Bigel Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, Contract

No. 271-89-8576 for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1991.

Kanner, R.M., and Foley, KM. Patterns of narcotic drug use in a cancer pain

clinic. Ann NY Acad of Sci 362:161-172, 1981.

Nurco, D.N., and Baiter, M.B. Progress Report on NIDA Research Grant

DA03766-05, Vulnerability to Narcotic Addiction for the period 4/1/89-

3/31/90.

Perry, S., and Heidrich, G. Management of pain during debridement: a

survey of U.S. burn units. Pain 13:267-280, 1982.

Porter, J., and Jick, H. Addiction rare in patients treated with narcotics. New

Engl J Med 303:123, 1980.

Schug S.A.; Zech, D.; and Dorr, U. Cancer management according to WHO

analgesic guidelines. J Pain Symptom Manage, 5:27-32, 1990.

Ventafridda V; Tamburini, M; Caraceni, A; A validation study of the WHO

method for cancer pain relief. Cancer 59:850-856, 1987.

Ventafridda, V.; Tamburini, M.; and DeConno, F. Comprehensive treatment

in cancer pain. In: Fields, H.L.; Dubner, R.; and Cervero, F. (eds)

Advances in Pain Research and Therapy Vol. 9 Proceedings of the Fourth

World Conference on Pain New York: Raven Press, 1985.

World Health Organization Cancer Pain Relief and Palliative Care: Report of

a WHO Expert Committee. Geneva: 1990.

All other 1991 papers cited represent material presented by their authors at

the May 30-June 1, 1991 meeting.

17
Guiding Principles of International and Federal Laws

Pertaining to Medical Use and Diversion of

Controlled Substances

David E. Joranson

INTRODUCTION

The title of this technical review, “Evaluation of the Impact of Prescription

Drug Diversion Control Systems on Medical Practice and Patient Care:

Possible Implications for Future Research,” poses the question of whether

efforts to reduce diversion of therapeutically useful controlled substances

interfere with their appropriate medical use in patient care.

This paper will examine several sets of laws that shape public policy in this

critical area. These laws create and limit the authority of government to (a)

regulate medical practice, (b) make drugs available for medical use, and (c)

control drug abuse and diversion. Developed over decades of democratic

process, these laws establish the legal principles that determine the desirable

relationship between control of drug diversion and the use of drugs in

medical practice and patient care.

At the outset, it should be recalled that the use of controlled substances has

an indispensable beneficial effect on public health. When controlled substances are used for legitimate medical purposes, they improve the quality of

life for millions of Americans with debilitating diseases and conditions.

However, when controlled substances are diverted from the legitimate

distribution system, their abuse can lead to serious public health problems.

Consequently, it is in the interest of public health to (a) promote and protect

the appropriate medical and scientific uses of controlled substances, and (b)

prevent their diversion and abuse. As will be seen, the laws of the United

States direct that efforts by government to control drug abuse should not

interfere with the legitimate practice of medicine or the availability of

controlled substances for patient care. Achieving both purposes under the

law will be referred to as “balance” (Joranson and Dahl 1990).

18
LAWS RELATING TO MEDICAL PRACTICE, DRUG AVAILABILITY,

AND DIVERSION

Three classes of separate but related law establish a hierarchy of policy that

governs medical use, drug availability, and diversion of controlled substances.

The most fundamental of these laws will be discussed first.

State Law Regulates Medical Practice

The terms “medical practice” or “practice of medicine” as used in this paper

refer to legitimate medical activities that involve the diagnosis and treatment

of disease within a bona fide physician-patient relationship. These activities

include medical decisions such as choice of therapy, choice of drug(s),

amount prescribed, directions for use, and duration of therapy.

The professional practice of medicine is a privilege granted by law in each of

the 50 State legislatures (Federation of State Medical Boards 1988). A

physician’s legal ability to prescribe drugs that are controlled substances

depends on having a license to practice medicine, but also requires a separate

Federal, and in some jurisdictions a State, controlled substances registration.

State licensing and disciplinary boards administer the medical practice laws

and have the principal governmental responsibility to protect the public

health from improper, incompetent, and unlawful practices. Medical boards

define activities that constitute unprofessional conduct, including prescribing

controlled substances for purposes outside of the legitimate practice of

medicine.

Federal Law Approves Drugs for Medical Use

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) is a Federal law that

approves drugs for commercial marketing and medical use in the United

States. This approval concludes an often lengthy process of testing to

determine that a drug is effective for use in treatment of a medical condition

and that it is safe to use in a human population. FFDCA drugs are available

only by prescription and include the stimulants, sedative/hypnotics, hallucinogens, and opioids. These particular drugs have an abuse liability

because they can produce physical and psychological dependence. Consequently, they are also subject to controlled substances law.

The following elements of the FFDCA determine the relationship between

the Federal government and medical practice, and define the basic

19
parameters of how an FFDCA drug may be used by individuals who have

been licensed by the States to practice medicine.

 FDA Does Not Regulate Medical Practice

Although drugs are made available under the FFDCA for use in medical

practice, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has repeatedly determined that neither the FDA nor Congress regulates medical practice “as

between the physician and patient” (Federal Register 1972). FDA policy is

that good medical practice and patient interest require that physicians be free

to use drugs according to their best knowledge and judgment (Federal

Register 1975). The Federal courts have supported the principle that FDA

does not regulate medical practice (U.S. vs. Evers 1981).

FDA Does Not Restrict “Off-label” Uses

The foreword to the Physician’s Desk Reference recognizes that the FFDCA

does not limit the manner in which a physician may use an approved drug.

Once a product has been approved under the FFDCA for marketing, a

physician may prescribe it (although it may not be advertised or promoted)

for uses or in treatment regimens or patient populations that are not included

in the approved labeling (Federal Register 1983).

New uses for drugs are often discovered, reported in medical journals and at medical meetings, and subsequently may

be widely used by the medical profession.... When physicians go beyond the directions given in the package insert it

does not mean they are acting illegally or unethically, and

Congress does not intend to empower the FDA to interfere

with medical practice by limiting the ability of physicians to

prescribe according to their best judgment. (U.S. vs. Evers

1981)

LAWS THAT ESTABLISH DRUG DIVERSION POLICY

Three tiers of law establish policy on diversion of therapeutic drugs to nonmedical uses.

2 0
International treaties

Treaties establish the legal framework for control of international and

domestic production and distribution of drugs that have an abuse liability.

The principal treaties are the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961,

and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. As a party to a treaty,

a government agrees to adopt domestic laws that carry out the provisions of

the treaty. Both treaties clearly recognize that many drugs with abuse

liability are indispensable to the public health and that their availability for

legitimate medical and scientific purposes must be ensured.

Two agencies of the United Nations have expressed concern about the effect

of a country’s drug laws on availability of drugs for medical purposes. The

International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), the agency of the United

Nations that is responsible for monitoring governments’ implementation of

the treaties, has concluded that opioids are not sufficiently available for

legitimate medical purposes throughout the world (INCB 1989). A number

of important economic and social factors are responsible, including antidrug

abuse laws and regulations that unduly restrict the availability of opioids for

medical use. The INCB recommended that individual governments identify

these factors and take corrective action.

A World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee has observed that

concern about drug abuse has curtailed appropriate medical use of opioids

for the treatment of pain (WHO, 1990). In discussing regulatory impediments, the Expert Committee expressed concern that the legal framework adopted by individual governments may govern prescribing so strictly as

to impede the proper medical use of opioids.

Federal Controlled Substances Act

While the FFDCA establishes national policy for availability of drugs for

medical purposes, the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) establishes a

security system to prevent these drugs from being diverted from the legitimate distribution system. Congress designed the CSA with the intent that

efforts by the Federal government to control diversion should not interfere

with medical practice or supersede FFDCA authority over availability of

approved drugs for patient care (U.S. House of Representatives 1970).

The Congress adopted the following laws in order to achieve a balanced

approach to national antidrug abuse policy:

21
1. The CSA clearly recognizes the public health value of controlled substances. Many controlled substances are necessary to the public health. (21 U.S.

Code, Section 801)

2. The CSA does not interfere with the practice of medicine.

This policy is implemented in several significant ways:

a. The authority of law enforcement to regulate controlled substances de

pends on scientific and medical determinations.

1) Under the CSA the Attorney General (AG) must, before

initiating any proceeding to control a drug in the schedules

of the CSA, request a scientific and medical evaluation of

the drug from the Secretary of the Department of Health

and Human Services, along with a recommendation as to

whether the drug should be controlled. Congress determined in 1970 that the recommendation of the Secretary is

binding on the Attorney General in regard to scientific and

medical matters, as is a recommendation by the Secretary

that a drug not be controlled. (21 U.S. Code, Section 811-

(b))

2) The authority of the AG to register practitioners to prescribe and dispense controlled substances depends upon

prior licensing of a practitioner by State boards. With the

exception of limitations on refills, the CSA does not regulate

medical decisions such as the choice of drug, the prescription or the duration of therapy.

3) The authority of the AG does not extend to the routine

review and monitoring of physician prescribing. Under the

CSA, prescribers are not required to maintain prescribing

records. (21 U.S. Code, Section 827 (c))

4) The CSA also provides joint authority for registration and

revocation of practitioners who dispense narcotic drugs for

maintenance or detoxification treatment of narcotic addicts.

While the Attorney General must register an applicant, the

Secretary must first determine that the applicant is qualified

22
and will comply with treatment standards. (21 U.S. Code,

Section 823 (g))

5) The authority of the AG to investigate practitioners

diversion is directed exclusively at the non-medical use of

controlled substances.

Under the CSA, it is unlawful for a practitioner to prescribe or dispense a

controlled substance except in the course of professional practice. The term

“in the course of professional practice” defines the boundaries of practitioner

investigations and prosecutions for DEA. According to the DEA, acts of

prescribing or dispensing of controlled substances which are done within the

course of the registrant’s professional practice are, for purposes of the

Controlled Substances Act, lawful. It matters not that such acts might

constitute terrible medicine or malpractice. They may reflect the grossest

form of medical misconduct or negligence. They are nevertheless legal. On

the other hand, any act of prescribing, dispensing or distributing of a controlled substance other than in the course of the registrant’s professional

practice is an illegal distribution of that controlled substance, subject to the

same penalties as if the drug were sold by the lowest pusher on the street.

(Stone 1983)

The Congress created a “closed distribution system” to help DEA identify

individuals who divert controlled substances to nonmedical uses. It should be

noted that this system authorized the Federal government to monitor distribution only to the retail level, just short of where the physician-patient

relationship begins. The system consists of registration of all handlers of

controlled substances, order forms, record keeping, security requirements and

penalties for unlawful activities.

A computerized information system tracks distribution of many controlled

substances to the retail level and allows identification of unusual patterns of

use which may, upon audit of required records, be found to involve diversion.

These tools are intended to provide the Federal government with the information to detect leaks from the drug distribution pipeline into the illicit

market, and the authority to hold individual registrants responsible for

diversion.

Amendments to the CSA have strengthened the information available to

detect diversion. In 1980, Congress said that it “believes that through vigorous and imaginative use of the ARCOS system, in conjunction with other

23
drug diversion/abuse indicators such as DAWN, retail diversion activities can

be identified and the individuals involved apprehended and prosecuted.”

(Infant Formula Act 1980)

In 1984, the Attorney General was given additional authority to deny practitioner registrations in the public interest, “to work with the States, which

license and regulate physicians,” to assess State diversion control capabilities,

provide advice on how to strengthen controls against diversion, and establish

cooperative investigations. (Dangerous Drug Diversion Control Act 1984)

The CSA is not intended to interfere with patient care or confidentiality.

Patients, the last link in the distribution chain, are defined as “ultimate users”

under the CSA, and are recognized as being lawfully in possession of controlled substances (21 U.S. Code, Section 801 (26)). Ultimate users are not

regulated parties under the CSA and are not intended to be objects of

diversion monitoring systems.

Congress also recognized the importance of patient confidentiality. Under

Federal laws, patient identity may not be released to the Attorney General in

cases where a Federal agency or a State or local government has acted to

protect confidentiality (21 U.S. Code, Section 873 (b)).

Under the CSA, it is outside of the professional practice of medicine (and,

therefore unlawful) for a physician to prescribe a narcotic drug to maintain

an addict, unless the physician is separately registered to treat addiction.

Congress defined “addict” as a person who is a danger to society. Thus,

“addict” does not include a patient who is simply being treated with a controlled substance. This is the case even though the patient may be physically

dependent on an opioid analgesic as a result of medical treatment for pain, a

situation that can be mistaken for “addiction.” DEA regulations and publications make it clear that a physician who prescribes opioids to treat intractable

pain over extended periods is considered to be acting within the professional

practice of medicine. (Code of Federal Regulations, DEA Physician’s Manual)

The CSA is not intended to interfere with the availability of FDCA drugs for

patient care.

The CSA authorizes the Attorney General to set an annual production quota

for Schedule II drugs, including many FDA-approved stimulants, sedative/-

hypnotics, hallucinogens and opioids. The quota must allow for sufficient

24
quantities to meet legitimate medical and scientific needs in the United States

(21 U.S. Code, Section 826).

In a 1988 Federal administrative law proceeding, the administrator of the

DEA acknowledged that his agency had set the production quota for methylphenidate (Ritalin) below the level of legitimate medical need. The official

record showed that patients with legitimate prescriptions for methylphenidate

had been unable to have them filled. The administrator directed his agency

to recalculate the production quota, and stated:

The CSA requirement for a determination of legitimate

medical need is based on the undisputed proposition that

patients and pharmacies should be able to obtain sufficient

quantities of methylphenidate, or of any Schedule II drug, to

fill prescriptions. A therapeutic drug should be available to

patients when they need it...the harshest impact of actual

and threatened shortages falls on the patients who must take

methylphenidate, not on the manufacturers to whom the

quotas directly apply. Actual drug shortages, or even threatened ones, can seriously interfere with patients’ lives and

those of their families. Potential shortages encourage stockpiling by patients and their families as well as by wholesalers

and retailers...diversion of methylphenidate is a serious

problem which DEA must take into account in setting quotas. However, the evidence of diversion of methylphenidate

in 1986 does not support the need for as “lean a pipeline” as

was created by the way the quotas were set in 1986. (Federal

Register 1988)

The intent of Congress to avoid interference with medical practice and drug

availability was restated in 1978 when Congress enacted the Psychotropic

Substances Act to satisfy U.S. obligations under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Congress amended the CSA to say that control of psychotropic substances in the United States “should be accomplished within the

framework of the procedures and criteria for classification of substances

provided in the (CSA)” to ensure that “availability [of FFDCA drugs]...for

useful and legitimate medical and scientific purposes will not be unduly

restricted....” Furthermore, the Congress said that nothing in the treaties is to

“interfere with ethical medical practice in this country as determined by the

2 5
Secretary of Health and Human Services on the basis of a consensus of the

American medical and scientific community” (21 U.S. Code, section 801).

State Controlled Substances Laws

Most State controlled substances laws are based on a model called the

Uniform Controlled Substances Act (UCSA). The UCSA was prepared by

the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1970.

The NCCUSL is a 100-year old national organization of governor-appointed

lawyers who have drafted numerous model laws that have been adopted by

the States. The purpose of the 1970 UCSA was to replace a plethora of antidrug abuse laws that States had adopted since the turn of the century with a

single unified framework in order to achieve consistency in national drug

control policy between the Federal government and the States (Uniform

Controlled Substances Act 1970)

The UCSA was intended to provide the States with a policy framework that

would complement the Federal law. For instance, the UCSA contained a

closed distribution system to monitor drug distribution only to the retail level,

parallel to the Federal system. The importance of maintaining the confidentiality of patient (ultimate user) identity was recognized; a provision stated

that a physician is not required to reveal patient identity to a State agency or

in any State or local civil, criminal, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding (Uniform Controlled Substances Act 1970).

However, the UCSA did not recognize the public health benefits of controlled substances as did the CSA. Nor did the UCSA require that scientific

and medical determinations be made by a competent authority–a responsibility that Congress ultimately gave to the Secretary of the Department of

Health and Human Services instead of to the Attorney General. How this

came to pass is of some historical interest.

The UCSA was modeled after proposed legislation in the U.S. Senate rather

than the final law. The Senate bill, which was the Nixon Administration’s

proposal prepared by the Justice Department, sought to make the Attorney

General responsible for medical and scientific decisions concerning control of

drugs. Considerable controversy arose in the Congress during the summer of

1970 after the medical and scientific communities learned of this plan.

When Congress adopted the final version of the CSA in October 1970, the

Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and not the Attorney General,

2 6
had been given the responsibility for making medical and scientific decisions

concerning drug control (Joranson 1990).

As Members may recall, the scientific and medical community of this Nation were greatly upset over the fact that

scientific and medical decisions in the Senate bill were

centered in the Department of Justice, with the Attorney

General having the responsibility to make scientific and

medical determinations which were not in the competency of

the Department, and admittedly so. We have changed that

so that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

will determine scientific and medical decisions. This is a

most important change in the whole approach as it came

from the Senate.

Congressman Paul Rogers, Congressional

Record, September 23, 1970.

The UCSA had, however, been adopted by the NCCUSL 3 months earlier.

Consequently, while most State controlled substances laws are similar in

regulatory structure to the Federal CSA and the UCSA, they do not define

authority in such a way as to achieve the balance between law enforcement

and medical science that is the hallmark of Federal law. Furthermore, a

number of States have not repealed narcotics statutes that were adopted in

the early 1900s.

A preliminary review of State controlled substances laws has identified a

number of provisions that conflict with the principles established by international, Federal, and uniform law (Joranson February, 1990). Some of these

provisions limit medical decisions and regulate or restrict prescribing and

dispensing of FFDCA drugs in ways that would not be regulated under the

laws of the Federal government and most other States. A summary of these

provisions follows.

1. Prescription monitoring

Multiple Copy Prescription Programs (MCPPs), or “triplicate” prescription

programs, began in the United States as early as 1913 with the program in

New York. MCPPs are amendments to controlled substances laws that

require physicians to use special prescriptions. MCPPs allow government

27
agencies to monitor the appropriateness of prescribing and dispensing of

controlled substances to patients. These programs generally require physicians to reveal patient identity to an agency of State government that is

principally concerned with drug abuse.

MCPP legislation may also require application of Schedule II controls to

prescribing a drug without placement of the drug in Schedule II. Schedule II

prescription controls require that every prescription be in writing (as opposed

to being called in and reduced to writing by the pharmacist) and prohibit

refills. In New York, for instance, when benzodiazepines (Schedule IV

drugs) were added to the triplicate program, Schedule II prescription controls

were imposed on prescribers, dispensers, and patients without the public

procedure to determine the need for increased scheduling that is ordinarily

required under the CSA or UCSA (Resource Guide 1990).

The WHO Expert Committee has commented on multiple copy prescription

programs that are used in some countries and in several States in the United

States. Acknowledging that while these programs may reduce careless

prescribing and “multiple doctoring,” the Expert Committee said “the extent

to which these programmes restrict or inhibit the prescribing of opioids to

patients who need them should be questioned.” Further, the Expert Committee expressed concerns about regulation scrutiny when it said:

Health care workers may be reluctant to prescribe, stock or

dispense opioids if they feel that there is a possibility of their

professional licenses being suspended or revoked by the

governing authority in cases where large quantities of opioids are provided to an individual, even though the medical

need for such drugs can be proved. (WHO 1990)

2. Restricted use of approved drugs

South Carolina’s controlled substances law prohibits the prescribing of any

controlled substance for a use which is not specifically approved by the FDA

and included in the approved labeling (South Carolina Health Code).

3. Restrictions on prescription quantities

A number of State controlled substances laws or regulations limit the amount

of an FFDCA drug that can be dispensed at one time to as little as 100

dosage units or a 5 day supply. These provisions can impede drug availability

28
to patients with chronic conditions that require extended therapy with

controlled substances.

4. Inappropriate definitions

Some States define “addict” or “drug dependent person” to include patients

who are physically dependent on opioids or other controlled substances.

5. Reporting of patients

Several States require physicians to report to the government any patients

who have been treated for more than several months with a Schedule II

controlled substance. New York requires these patients to be reported as

addicts. Failure to report patients as addicts is a violation of State law.

Revision of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (1990)

The NCCUSL revised the UCSA in 1990 and urged States to bring their laws

up to date with many changes that had been made to the CSA since 1970.

The 1990 UCSA updates and refines the basic drug abuse control framework,

provides new legal tools to address drug trafficking, and also addresses

several shortcomings of the 1970 UCSA with regard to medical uses of

controlled substances (Uniform Controlled Substances Act 1990).

1. Benefits of drugs are recognized

The 1990 USCA recognizes that controlled substances are essential to public

health in the prefatory note, although not in the statutory language.

NCCUSL drafting rules generally do not permit the inclusion of findings and

declarations as appear in the Federal CSA. A suggestion for statutory

language for a findings and declarations section has been made (Joranson

1990).

2. Patients are not confused with addicts

As in 1970, the term “addict” is not used. However, since some States still

use such terms, a comment which follows the definition section of the 1990

UCSA urges States to assure that definitions in its controlled substances laws

do not allow patients who are physically dependent on opioids for the

treatment of pain to be confused with addicts, habitual users, or drug dependent persons.

29
3. Use of opioids for intractable pain is recognized

The 1990 UCSA contains a provision which clarifies that opioid treatment of

intractable pain is, for the purposes of controlled substances law, considered

part of the professional practice of medicine and therefore outside the scope

of controlled substances law.

4. A diversion control program is created

A new statutory provision creates an interagency diversion control program to

focus the information and authority of Federal and State agencies on identification and prosecution of individuals who are responsible for diverting

controlled substances to illicit uses. This provision will assist States to make

efficient use of existing resources before considering new and expensive

prescription monitoring programs.

5. Confidentiality is protected

A 1970 UCSA provision that recognized the confidentiality of patient records

is included once again. This provision states that a practitioner is not required to report the identity of patients to a State agency.

The 1990 UCSA has been provided to the legislature in each State for

consideration. Consideration of the 1990 UCSA by a legislature is an opportunity for health professionals to help to improve their State’s overall approach to drug abuse and to address and correct any problems with an

unbalanced approach to the medical use of controlled substances.

SUMMARY OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Several guiding principles can be distilled from the laws that govern medical

practice, drug availability, and diversion.

1. A primary purpose of controlled substances laws is to decrease diversion

of the FFDCA drugs that have an abuse liability. These laws and their

enforcement must not interfere in the practice of medicine or unduly restrict

the availability of therapeutic drugs for legitimate medical and scientific

purposes.

2. The purpose of law enforcement is to administer the controlled substances

law, in some cases jointly with health authorities; to use the information

30
provided by law to identify individuals who divert controlled substances

outside of the lawful practice of medicine; and to use the authority provided

by law to bring violators to justice.

3. The purpose of health authorities is to make all scientific and medical

determinations under controlled substances law. If an issue arises concerning

the appropriate medical use of an FDA-approved drug, it should be resolved

within the medical and scientific community, not by law enforcement agencies.

4. If additional restriction of the prescribing or dispensing of drugs beyond

the level of control associated with a particular schedule is deemed necessary,

such additional control should be accomplished using CSA/UCSA drug

control procedures to increase scheduling. This will assure compliance with

the intent of Congress that the appropriateness of controls on therapeutic

drugs be guided by competent medical and scientific expertise.

5. Although State laws are generally permitted to be more restrictive than

Federal law, States have been urged to use uniform law to achieve a consistent national drug policy framework that balances drug control and drug

availability.

6. The confidentiality of patient-identifying information should be respected.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING DIVERSION

CONTROL PROGRAMS

From the foregoing, two general standards can be proposed for use in

evaluating the diversion control programs that will be discussed during this

technical review. One writer has commented that if it is in the public interest

that drugs meet rigorous standards of effectiveness and safety, it should be of

equal interest to public health that drug laws and regulations be held to the

same standards (Woods 1990). The answers to the following questions will

help to gauge the effectiveness and safety of diversion control programs.

Effectiveness

Is the diversion program aimed directly at identifying and stopping diverters?

How effective is the program? Is the program designed to make use of the

information, authority, and resources that are available from a number of

State and Federal agencies? Is there a cooperative agreement to coordinate

3 1
the use of these resources? Does implementation of the diversion program

result in reductions in valid measures of diversion and abuse of prescribed

controlled substances? Are these reductions significant?

Safety

How safe is the diversion program? Does the program philosophy and

design complement the basic principles of balance as previously outlined?

Or, does the program extend controlled substances law into monitoring

prescribing and ultimate users? Does the program aim to decrease the

availability of controlled drugs or to regulate medical decisions? Does it shift

patterns of prescribing or diversion to other drugs which may be less safe or

effective? Do monitoring and enforcement activities result in identification

of “false positives,” i.e., reporting of patients as addicts, or investigation or

prosecution of practitioners who are simply prescribing according to medical

need?

CONCLUSION

International and Federal law recognize the public health value of controlled

substances and establish a clear expectation that government efforts to reduce

diversion of these drugs should not interfere with their beneficial medical

uses. The overarching purpose is to improve the public health; the war on

drug abuse must not impede the prevention and treatment of disease, pain

and suffering.

REFERENCES

Laws

21 U.S. Code, Section 801 to end.

Controlled Substances Act, Public Law 91-513, 84 Stat 1242.

Dangerous Drug Diversion Control Act of 1984. Report 98-835, 1984.

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Public Law 87-871, 76 Stat 780.

Federal Register 16503 (1972).

Federal Register 15393 - 94 (1975).

Federal Register 2673 (1983).

Federal Register 50591 - 97 (1988).

South Carolina Health Code, Section 44-53-360(c).

32
Other References

Congressional Record Vol. 116, Part 25. p. 33304.

Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States. A Guide to the

Essentials of a Modern Medical Practice Act, 1956, 1970, 1985, 1988.

Infant Formula Act of 1980. House of Representatives Report by the

Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 1980.

Joranson, D.E. Federal and State Regulation of Opioids. J Pain Symptom

Manage 5(1): S12-S23, 1990.

Joranson, D.E. A new drug law for the states: an opportunity to affirm

the role of opioids in cancer pain relief. J Pain Symptom Manage 5(5)

333-336, 1990.

Joranson, D.E. and Dahl, J.L. Achieving balance in drug policy: the Wiscon

sin model. In: Hill, C.S., Jr. and Fields, W.S., eds. Advances in Pain

Research and Therapy, Vol. 11. New York: Raven Press, Ltd. 1989.

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Uniform

Controlled Substances Act, 1970.

Physicians’ Desk Reference. Oradell, NJ: Medical Economics Company

1991.

Stone, S.E. the investigation and prosecution of professional practice cases

under the controlled substances act: introduction to professional

practice case law. Drug Enforcement, Spring, 1983.

United Nations. Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971.

United Nations. International Narcotics Control Board. Demand for and

Supply of Opiates for Medical and Scientific Needs. ISBN 92-1-148079-5

1989.

United Nations. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.

U.S. vs. Evers, 643 F. 2d 1043 (5th Circuit, 1981).

US. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration. Multiple Copy

Prescription Programs Resource Guide, March 1990.

U.S. House of Representatives Report No. 91-1444. Comprehensive Drug

Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Washington, DC: Supt. of

Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off. September 1970.

Woods, J. Abuse liability and the regulatory control of therapeutic drugs:

untested assumptions. Drug Alcohol Depend, 25:229-233, 1990.

World Health Organization. Cancer Pain Relief and Palliative Care,

WHO Expert Committee Report. Geneva, Switzerland, 1990

33
AUTHOR:

David E. Joranson, M.S.S.W.

Associate Director for Policy Studies

Pain Research Group

University of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School

610 Walnut Street

Madison, WI 53705

34
Therapeutic Use of Opioids: Prescribing and Control

Issues

Russell K. Portenoy

INTRODUCTION

The medical use of prescription opioids can relieve human suffering by

ameliorating a particularly compelling symptom, severe pain; illicit use or

misuse damages individuals and contributes to the larger substance abuse

problem in our society. These widely divergent outcomes are emphasized

differently by professional groups whose perspectives derive from the nature

of the problems they must address. Medical practitioners observe that

inadequate treatment of pain is an immense public health problem and support intensive educational efforts that would, if successful, increase opioid

prescribing. Those in regulatory agencies and law enforcement view illicit

use and misuse as the more significant problems and support policies that

limit these activities, usually without careful evaluation of their impact on

medical use.

Although it is evident that the goals of these groups need not be in conflict,

there has been a growing perception that conflicts exist. This is so despite

acceptance by both the clinical and regulatory communities of the need for

balance between the imperatives of clinical practice and the requirements of

opioid regulation. The clinical endorsement of the efforts to achieve this

balance is affirmed in a survey of practitioners (Berina et al. 1985) and policy

statements of the American Medical Association (1990); the regulatory viewpoint is noted in the recognition of opioids as medically essential drugs by the

International Narcotics Control Board and the United States Commission for

the Development of Uniform State Laws (Joranson 1990). The lack of fundamental disagreement suggests that enhanced communication between those

whose primary goal is the improved clinical use of opioids and those who

monitor this use can lead to enlightened regulatory policies that reduce abuse

without compromising the care of patients.

To accomplish this goal, those in regulatory agencies and law enforcement

must become aware of the scope and complexity of clinical pain, the role of

35
opioid therapy in its management, and the types of problems encountered by

legitimate prescribers as they attempt to conform to current regulations.

These issues are discussed in the present review.

THE ROLE OF OPIOID THERAPY IN CLINICAL PRACTICE

Pain is a universal experience and the most common complaint presented to

physicians. lt is an inherently subjective perception, with remarkably varied

manifestations. Although opioids are indisputably effective analgesic drugs,

their acceptability as a primary therapy depends on the clinical setting and

numerous variables specific to the patient and situation. In the broadest

analysis, three clinical settings are relevant: (1) acute pain, (2) chronic cancer

pain, and (3) chronic nonmalignant pain.

Acute pain, which can be defined as pain that has had a recent onset and has

been short-lived or is anticipated to be short-lived, is extraordinarily prevalent

and occurs in association with numerous clinical disorders. Of those acute

pains commonly considered for opioid treatment, postoperative pain is most

prevalent, but other types are prominent as well, including posttraumatic pain

and pain associated with a variety of medical diseases, including sickle cell

anemia, hemophilia, some types of arthritis (such as gout), inflammatory

bowel disease, and others. There are no comprehensive prevalence data that

take into account the large number of clinical situations in which acute severe

pain presents, but the extraordinary frequency with which clinicians encounter

patients with this complaint can be appreciated.

Opioids are generally accepted as appropriate agents for the management of

acute severe pain. With few exceptions, clinicians accept the use of these

drugs for a period that is usually measured in days, during which the process

that incited the pain resolves. Given recent evidence of the important

physiological benefits that may occur with the adequate relief of acute pain

(Yeager et al. 1987), it is clear that the need for opioids in this setting derives

from sound medical goals, as well as the ethical imperative to provide

comfort when the means to do so safely exist.

Cancer-related pain is also a highly prevalent clinical entity. Numerous

surveys have demonstrated that pain is experienced by 30-50 percent of

ambulatory patients or those actively receiving antineoplastic therapies, and

by 75-90 percent of those with advanced disease (Portenoy 1989). Uncontrolled pain in this population has dire consequences. It compromises the

3 6
physical and psychosocial functioning of the patient and may profoundly

worsen the suffering caused by progressive disease and the efforts to treat it.

The use of opioids to manage chronic cancer pain is also widely accepted,

particularly among those patients with advanced disease (American College

of Physicians 1983; Foley 1985; McGivney and Crooks 1984; National

Institutes of Health 1987; Twycross and Lack 1983; World Health Organization 1986). Clinical observation suggests, however, that there may be reluctance to administer effective doses of opioid drugs to patients with limited

disease and those who experience chronic cancer-related pain following

remission or cure of the disease. This reticence may derive from the

perception that the functional status and long life expectancies of these

patients equate them with the chronic nonmalignant pain population, wherein

the use of opioids is far more controversial. Cancer pain experts reject the

view that therapeutic decisions should be based solely on life expectancy and

have a strong bias in favor of opioid use in the latter groups, particularly

those who have early or limited cancer. Although it is true that some

patients with chronic cancer-related pain in the absence of active disease

(e.g., due to cancer treatment) can be likened to those with nonmalignant

pain, most cancer pain experts would not exclude a role for opioid therapy on

this basis alone.

Chronic nonmalignant pain is an extremely prevalent problem. An estimate

based on epidemiologic data drawn from a variety of sources suggests that

more than one-third of the U.S. population has chronic pain and that 50-60

percent of these patients are partially or totally disabled by pain for periods

of days or longer; in 1986, this disability resulted in more than 400 million

work days lost, and this loss, combined with the costs for health care,

compensation, litigation and unproved remedies, approximated $79 billion for

that year (Bonica 1991). A extraordinarily diverse group of disorders may

present with chronic pain. The associated physical and psychosocial impairments vary enormously, both among these disorders and among different

patients afflicted with the same disease. These differences must be

considered in therapeutic decision making.

Traditionally, chronic opioid therapy for nonmalignant pain has been rejected

by the medical community. In recent years, however, there have been efforts

to critically reevaluate this view (Portenoy 1990), a process driven by

advances in the scientific understanding of pain physiology and opioid

pharmacology, extensive experience with long-term opioid therapy for cancer

pain, a small published experience describing chronic opioid treatment of

37
patients without cancer, and increasing recognition that nonmedical influences

(including regulatory policies) may be having an undue influence on therapeutic decisions that should be fundamentally medical. As discussed further

below, the use of opioid therapy for chronic nonmalignant pain remains controversial, but is no longer rejected, a priori, by a substantial segment of the

medical community. The lack of consensus about this therapeutic approach

presents the most difficult challenge for those engaged in the regulation of

opioid drugs, who must assess the potential for illicit activity through an

evaluation of prescribing practices.

OPTIMAL OPIOID THERAPY

The foregoing comments indicate the enormous magnitude of clinical pain

and the potential use of opioids to manage it. Regulatory policies must be

evaluated to confirm that they recognize the extent of the clinical need and

accommodate the prescribing practices that have developed in response.

Since the need to evaluate regulatory policy, or any other factor that may

influence opioid prescribing, would be obviated by evidence that current

prescribing practices were adequate, it is first necessary to compare the

actual efficacy of opioid therapy with the potential of this approach in different settings. It is most illuminating to assess therapeutic efficacy in those

settings that fully accept the need for opioid therapy, specifically, acute pain

and chronic cancer pain treatment settings.

It is widely acknowledged that the optimal administration of an opioid drug is

an extremely effective treatment for acute pain. Studies of patient-controlled

analgesia, for example, document that there is a very strong potential for

adequate pain relief from opioids in the postoperative setting (Lehmann

1990). Given this efficacy, the prevalence of unrelieved pain in surveys of

routine postoperative care, which ranges from 30-70 percent (Edwards 1990),

is striking.

A high prevalence of unrelieved pain also characterizes the cancer

population. The optimal administration of a pharmacologic regimen is

capable of providing adequate relief of pain in 70-85 percent of cancer

patients (Schug et al. 1990; Ventafridda et al. 1985, 1987). Unfortunately,

this potential efficacy is not achieved in routine clinical settings (Brescia et al.

1990; Marks and Sachar 1973; Miransky et al. 1991; Parkes 1978; Portenoy

1989; Schug et al. 1990; Twycross and Fairfield 1982). For example, a sample

of 1,103 patients admitted to a hospital specializing in the management of

advanced cancer patients observed that 78 percent reported pain on

38
presentation and 38 percent reported severe pain (Brescia et al. 1990).

Unrelieved cancer pain, like acute pain, is highly prevalent despite the

availability of the means to manage it successfully in most patients.

DETERMINANTS OF UNRELIEVED PAIN

Clinical observation suggests that a variety of factors may contribute to a

poor therapeutic outcome, among which are regulatory influences. There are

few data to clarify this issue, but hypotheses that relate specific factors to

inadequate results can be fashioned, and this process can help clarify the

potential role of regulation.

Factors contributing to the high prevalence of unrelieved pain include those

related to patient behavior and those related to clinician behavior.

Patient-related factors are seldom discussed, but probably play an important

role. Patients may choose to deemphasize symptoms in discourse with their

physicians due to any of several reasons, including stoicism, a desire to focus

attention on the underlying disease, the need to please the staff, or the

perception that pain is an inevitable consequence of the disease. These

factors may combine with noncompliance, which itself may be induced by a

variety of phenomena. Noncompliance with opioids may be related to the

same factors that undermine other treatments, including cost, complexity of

the therapeutic regimen, and concern about side effects. Additionally, opioid

prescription generates the unique fear of addiction, which is almost universal

and undoubtedly contributes to patient noncompliance as well.

The degree to which the patient-related influences hamper adequate opioid

therapy is net known. It is generally perceived, however, that clinician

behavior is the more important determinant of unrelieved pain. Although it

is likely that the reluctance to prescribe opioids in some situations (e.g.,

chronic nonmalignant pain) derives from justifiable doubts about the role of

this therapy, undertreatment is probably the major cause in those clinical

settings that sanction the use of these drugs.

Surveys suggest that a variety of problems contribute to the systematic

undertreatment of pain. Pam is seldom assessed and most clinicians lack

adequate knowledge of opioid pharmacology (Charap 1978; Donovan et al.

1987; Grossman and Sheidler 1985; Marks and Sachar 1973). The degree of

concern about adverse pharmacologic reactions is great and is perceived by

pain specialists to far exceed the actual risks associated with appropriate

therapy. Fear of producing addiction is very prevalent, notwithstanding data

39
demonstrating that the risk of this outcome in medical patients prescribed

opioids for painful disease is extraordinarily low (Chapman and Hill 1989;

Kanner and Foley 1982; Perry and Heidrich 1982; Porter and Jick 1980).

Regulatory policies that are not sensitive to the requirements of clinical

practice may become another impediment to optimal opioid administration.

Although it is true that there are no regulations that specifically limit the

physician’s right to administer an opioid drug for legitimate clinical purposes,

there is a strong perception that the existence of some policies impedes

appropriate prescribing.

THE IMPACT OF REGULATORY POLICIES ON LEGITIMATE

PRESCRIBING

Empirical research is needed to evaluate specific hypotheses that relate

regulatory influences to prescribing practices. Few data are currently available, but reasonable hypotheses can be developed from those extant and

clinical observation. Specifically, it is likely that the regulatory policies

worsen undertreatment by either limiting patient access to needed drugs or

by negatively influencing prescribing behavior.

Policies Limiting Access to Controlled Prescription Drugs

Policies that limit access to opioids or other controlled drugs used commonly

during opioid therapy can directly prevent appropriate prescribing or exaggerate the propensity to undertreat by increasing the burden on the patient

and clinician. These policies limit the quantities of drugs that may be prescribed or prohibit the use of drugs commonly administered in combination

with opioids.

Some States maintain a 120 dosage unit rule for opioid drugs, which has been

interpreted to mean that no more than 120 tablets can be dispensed to a

patient at any one time. For patients receiving high opioid doses, this

regulation may necessitate very frequent prescription renewals. For example,

a cancer patient receiving the opioid hydromorphone at a dose of 24 mg

every 4 hours must consume 6 tablets per dose, or a total of 36 tablets per

day. The 120 dosage unit rule mandates a new prescription for this therapy

approximately every 4 days, an onerous requirement for both the patient and

the physician.

4 0
Although less problematic than the 120 dosage unit rule, a 30-day maximum

prescription period for opioids can also pose difficulties for some patients

with chronic pain. Patients whose medical condition and pain are stable may

present no medical reason for the monthly visit that may be required as part

of this regulation. This visit increases the cost of medical care for the patient

and is an unnecessary burden for those who live at a distance from the

physician.

Although opioids are not prohibited by any State, some restrict the use of

other controlled drugs that are now considered to be appropriate cotherapy

in some clinical settings. For example, some States prohibit the use

of amphetamine drugs for all but a few conditions, despite their widespread

acceptance as an important adjunctive therapy in the management of

opioid-induced sedation in cancer patients (Bruera 1989).

Policies That Negatively Influence Prescribing Behavior

Probably a more important determinant of undertreatment than policies that

directly limit access to controlled prescription drugs are regulatory influences

that indirectly reduce appropriate prescribing. Physicians are discomforted by

the knowledge that their prescribing practices are intensely scrutinized by

State and Federal authorities. It may be hypothesized that this discomfort is

generated by a “perceived risk of sanctions,” a perception that some personal

risk accrues from the prescribing of these controlled substances. This

perception of personal risk may increase underprescribing.

The perceived risk of sanctions may be sustained by several factors. Most

important, physicians are not confident that those monitoring prescribing are

knowledgeable about opioid pharmacotherapy. Prescribing behavior can be

evaluated fairly only if regulators have a clear notion about the specific

practices that constitute appropriate therapy. Current regulatory policies do

not include a mechanism by which legitimate prescribers can be reassured

about the level of training offered those monitoring prescribing or the specific

guidelines used to decide on the need for further investigation or sanction.

These guidelines do not appear in the medical literature, are not issued or

overseen by clinicians who are expert in opioid pharmacotherapy, and are

subject to change without warning. In such an environment, physicians have

no way of knowing whether their therapeutic decisions could lead to suspicions that might result in the need for uncomfortable and costly interaction

with regulatory agencies. This perception is enhanced by published reports in

the lay press and medical literature that describe physicians who have been

4 1
investigated for the manner in which they administered opioids (Kofoed et al.

1989; Rose 1987).

It is probable that the perceived risk of sanctions interacts with other factors

that influence opioid prescribing. Given the widespread acceptance of opioid

therapy for patients with far-advanced cancer and those with acute tissue

injury, undertreatment in these settings is probably less related to concerns

about drug regulation than other factors, such as a lack of pain assessment or

inadequate expertise in opioid pharmacotherapy. In contrast, it is likely that

the perceived risk of sanctions contributes far more to the negative appraisal

of opioid therapy in patients with chronic nonmalignant pain and the reticence to prescribe opioids when patients demonstrate an atypical course, such

as the patient with postoperative pain that continues beyond the expected

duration (Edwards 1990).

The perception of risk that may be associated with opioid regulation probably

derives most strongly from State policies. Although there may be other

sources for the concerns experienced by physicians, including Federal

regulation, hospital-based review committees and the implicit threat of

malpractice litigation, state oversight is most important for the legitimate

physician. As an informative, albeit controversial, example of the potential

impact from state regulatory policies, it is useful to evaluate the multiple

copy prescription program, which is now active in nine States.

Multiple Copy Prescription Programs

Each State implementing a multiple copy prescription program has noted a

greater than 50 percent decline in statewide prescribing of the controlled

drugs covered by the regulation (U.S. Department of Justice 1987). These

data have been adduced by proponents of such programs as evidence that

they reduce illicit or inappropriate prescribing. There is no evidence to

support this conclusion, however, other than the lack of formal complaints

from patients or clinicians in the states involved. Data from the Federal

Drug Abuse Warning Network do not confirm a decline in prescription drug

abuse in these states (Jacob 1990) and one study observed that legitimate

prescribers reduced their use of Schedule II drugs and increased the use of

non-Schedule II drugs following the start of such a program (Sigler et al.

1984).

42
These data strongly suggest that the reduction in prescribing induced by

multiple copy prescription programs can be attributed, at least in part, to a

decline in legitimate prescribing of opioids and other controlled drugs.

This effect may have several explanations. As the most visible reminder of

the intense scrutiny that accompanies the administration of opioids and other

controlled drugs, these programs may exacerbate undertreatment by enhancing the perception that some personal risk accrues to the legitimate physician who prescribes these drugs. Alternatively, legitimate prescribing may be

reduced through the burden of paperwork associated with these programs,

the cost of the prescriptions, or the potential loss of privacy for patients.

There is a disturbing irony in the debate surrounding multiple copy prescription programs. Proponents of these programs use data demonstrating a

reduction in statewide prescribing to suggest that there has been a reduction

in the abuse of controlled prescription drugs. Presumably, those who

subscribe to this view in regulatory agencies and law enforcement would favor

additional declines of this type, and contrariwise, would perceive an increase

in statewide prescribing as a possible indicator of expanding illicit use. In

contrast, opponents of multiple copy prescription programs, particularly those

concerned about the undertreatment of cancer pain, strongly believe that

opioids are underused and that improvement in clinical practice will require

substantial increments in overall prescribing levels. The latter argument is

supported by experience in the State of Wisconsin. Coincident with the

success of an educational program in the area of cancer pain, known as the

Wisconsin Cancer Pain Initiative, there has been a steady increase in

statewide opioid prescribing while standard abuse indicators simultaneously

continue a decline that began prior to the start of this program (Joranson et

al. 1990). These data provide a direct contradiction to the argument linking

levels of statewide prescribing to illicit use and suggest that educational

programs directed at legitimate prescribers could potentially lessen

undertreatment and increase opioid use, a pattern that would be welcomed

by experts in pain management.

ISSUES IN SPECIFIC SETTINGS

As observed previously, the potential influence of opioid regulation on clinical

outcome probably varies across the clinical settings in which these drugs are

administered. Some issues in this area are relatively specific for one or

another clinical setting, as follows:

43
Treatment of Cancer Pain

The undertreatment of cancer pain is widespread, and regulatory influences

that unintentionally limit access to controlled prescription drugs or increase

the physician’s perception of personal risk from prescribing are among

numerous contributing factors. In the setting of cancer pain management,

physicians may become particularly concerned about the risk of investigation

or sanction because they are aware that the prescribing patterns necessary in

this population are those that can raise suspicion among regulators (Coyle et

al. 1990; Foley 1985; Twycross and Lack 1983; Schug et al. 1990; Ventafridda

et al. 1987; World Health Organization 1986).

Patients with cancer pain are often prescribed more than one controlled

prescription drug, such as an opioid plus an amphetamine, and administration

over many months or years is commonplace. Many patients require parenteral administration. Opioid doses are often high and dose escalation over

time is frequently necessary. Some patients need more than one opioid or

route of administration.

Given the requirements of cancer pain management, regulators who monitor

prescribing patterns to identify opioid misuse or illicit use face a difficult

challenge. Although some cases of diversion may be obvious, the prescribing

behavior of a clinician who appropriately administers multiple controlled

drugs at high doses to patients with cancer pain may be difficult to evaluate,

unless there is adequate foreknowledge of state-of-the-art prescribing

practices. The problem becomes greater when the treating clinician manages

relatively few cancer patients (and, hence, has not become known to the

regulators) and when the clinician is not registered with the State as an

oncologist. Those in regulatory agencies and law enforcement could facilitate

improvements in cancer pain management by addressing this challenge and

providing a method to reassure clinicians that the system established to

evaluate drug use is knowledgeable about recommended prescribing practices

in cancer pain management.

Treatment of Acute Pain

Most patients with acute postoperative pain will recluire opioid analgesics for

several days or less. Prescribing takes place in a hospital environment, and

clinical observation suggests that practitioners are relatively unconcerned

about regulatory influences in the routine administration of this therapy.

Undertreatment during this period is highly prevalent nonetheless (Donovan

44
1987) an observation that provides confirmatory evidence of the multiple

determinants of prescribing behavior.

Regulatory influences could potentially become important, however, in

patients who develop an atypical course for the pain. It has been observed

anecdotally that undertreatment is likely in those with acute pain that requires higher opioid doses for relief or persists beyond the usual period for

the injury in question (Edwards 1990). Despite the enormous variability in

both the pain experienced following acute tissue injury and the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the opioids used to manage it (Austin et

al. 1980; Lehmann 1990), many clinicians treat these pains with an inflexible

opioid regimen. Studies are needed to isolate the impact of regulatory

influences on this type of inappropriate prescribing behavior.

The impact of regulatory policies on the opioid management of other types of

acute pain, particularly recurrent acute pains associated with medical disorders (such as sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, inflammatory bowel disease, and

others) has also never been evaluated empirically. It may be speculated,

however, that the influence of regulatory policies varies in these patients with

the frequency of painful episodes and the specific opioid requirements during

each. It is likely that some patients raise concerns that are similar to those

encountered in the treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain,

Treatment of Chronic Nonmalignant Pain

As noted previously, there has been growing interest among clinicians in a

reevaluation of the role of opioid therapy for nonmalignant pain. This

interest has been evidenced by recent symposia at national scientific meetings

(e.g., American Pain Society, International Association for the Study of Pain,

American Academy of Neurology, and American Society of Addiction

Medicine) and numerous papers in the medical literature. This literature

now includes many clinical series that describe the successful management of

opioid therapy in patients with chronic nonmalignant pain.

On the basis of this interchange, it may now be justifiably concluded

that the traditional rejection of chronic opioid therapy for nonmalignant pain

has been replaced by a true lack of consensus among responsible medical

authorities. Those who eschew the approach are now balanced by experts in

pain management who endorse the view that long-term opioid therapy may

be an appropriate intervention in a selected subpopulation of patients with

chronic nonmalignant pain (Green and Coyle 1989; France et al. 1984;

4 5
Portenoy 1989; Portenoy 1990, 1991; Portenoy in press; Portenoy and Foley

1986; Taub 1982; Tennant and Uelman 1983; Tennant et al. 1988; Turk and

Brody 1991; Urban et al. 1986; Wan Lu et al. 1988; Zenz et al. in press).

Regulators who have previously subscribed to the view that any long-term

prescribing of opioids to a patient without cancer is, a priori, evidence of

misuse must now recognize a changing clinical ambiance, in which a segment

of the medical community accepts a limited role for this treatment. This

clearly places great pressure on the regulatory community, who must develop

guidelines for the monitoring of prescribing practices that are sensitive to

current medical thinking. To avoid inappropriate investigations of legitimate

prescribers who are applying a therapy recommended by some authorities,

the nature of opioid prescribing must be examined much as it is when the

clinical context is cancer pain and the prescriber is identified as an oncologist.

Therapeutic guidelines for chronic opioid therapy in nonmalignant pain have

been proffered in the medical literature (Portenoy 1990) and these may

begin to provide a basis for the kinds of guidelines that should be developed

by regulators. For example, a physician’s decision to administer morphine to

a patient with postherpetic neuralgia cannot by itself be construed as

inappropriate, but the administration of a 6-month supply of this drug is

likely to be in conflict with accepted clinical practice and might be identified

as such by regulators.

The need for better communication between clinicians and those in regulatory agencies and law enforcement is underscored by the potential for

expanded use of opioid drugs in the management of patients with chronic

nonmalignant pain. The inclination of regulators to react negatively to the

mere prescription of an opioid will not diminish until the clinical approach to

opioid therapy is defined by physicians, and the perception of personal risk

that physicians experience when prescribing will not decline unless regulators

make clear their willingness to sanction this approach when it is performed in

an appropriate manner. The interaction that must ensue over this issue may

well benefit the clinical use of opioids in other settings, such as cancer pain.

CONCLUSION

The inadequate administration of opioids is highly prevalent, leading to

unnecessary pain even in those clinical settings in which the use of these

drugs is widely approved. Although opioid regulation is not intended to

interfere with any form of clinical practice, there is evidence that it

4 6
contributes to this outcome. Regulatory policies may reduce patient access to

needed drugs or increase the tendency of practitioners to prescribe in ways

that are clinically suboptimal. Enlightened regulatory policy should recognize

that these outcomes are possible and include efforts to reassure prescribers

that the administration of opioids in clinically appropriate ways will not result

in investigation or sanction. To do this, those in regulatory agencies and law

enforcement must become knowledgeable about currently accepted practices

in opioid pharmacotherapy. Communication must improve, so that clinicians

become aware of the guidelines used by regulators and regulators can

become aware of changing clinical practice. The most challenging area for

the future will be the development of regulatory approaches that recognize

the potential acceptability of chronic opioid therapy for some patients with

nonmalignant pain.

REFERENCES

American Medical Association Curtailing prescription drug abuse while

preserving therapeutic use: American Medical Association recommendations for drug control policy. In: Wilford, B., ed. Balancing the

Response to Prescription Drug Abuse. Chicago: American Medical

Association, 1990. pp. 273-298.

Austin, K.L.; Stapleton, J.V.; and Mather, L.E. Relationship between blood

meperidine concentrations and analgesic response: A preliminary report.

Anesthesiology 53:460-466, 1980.

Berina, L.F.; Guernsey, B.G.; Hokanson, J.A.; Doutre, W.H.; and Fuller, L.E.

Physician perception of a triplicate prescription law. Am J Hosp Pharm

42:857-859, 1985.

Bonica, J.J. General considerations of chronic pain. In: Bonica, J.J., ed. The

Management of Pain. Malvern, PA: Lea & Febiger, 1990. pp. 180-183.

Brescia, F.J.; Adler, D.; Gray, G.; and Ryan, M.A. A profile of hospitalized

advanced cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage 5:221-227, 1990.

Bruera, E.; Brenneis, C.; Paterson, A.H; and MacDonald, R.N. Use of

methylphenidate as an adjuvant to narcotic analgesics. J Pain Symptom

Manage 4:3-6, 1989.

Chapman, C.R., and Hill, H.F. Prolonged morphine self-administration and

addiction liability. Cancer 63:1636-1644, 1989.

Charap, A.D. The knowledge, attitudes and experience of medical personnel

treating pain in the terminally ill. Mt Sinai J Med 45:561-580, 1978.

47
Coyle, N.; Adelhardt, J.; Foley, K.M.; and Portenoy, R.K. Character of

terminal illness in the advanced cancer patient: pain and other symptoms

in the last 4 weeks of life. J Pain Symptom Manage 5:83-93, 1990.

Donovan, M.; Dillon, P.; and McGuire, L. Incidence and characteristics of

pain in sample of medical-surgical inpatients. Pain 30:69-78, 1987.

Edward, W.T. Optimizing opioid treatment of postoperative pain. J Pain

Symptom Manage 5:S24-S36, 1990.

Foley, K.M. The treatment of cancer pain. N Engl J Med 313:84-95, 1985.

France, R.D.; Urban, B.J.; and Keefe, F.J. Long-term use of narcotic

analgesics in chronic pain. Soc Sci Med 19:1379-1382, 1984.

Green, J., and Coyle, M. Methadone use in the control of nonmalignant

chronic pain. Pain Management Sept/Oct:241-246, 1989.

Grossman, S.A., and Sheidler, V.R. Skills of medical students and house

officers in prescribing narcotic medications. J Med Educ 60:552-557, 1985.

Health and Public Policy Committee, American College of Physicians: Drug

therapy for severe chronic pain in terminal illness. Ann Intern Med

99:870-873, 1983.

Jacob, T.R. Multiple copy prescription regulation and drug abuse: evidence

from the DAWN network. In: Wilford, B., ed. Balancing the Response to

Prescription Drug Abuse. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1990.

pp. 205-217.

Joranson, D.E.; Dahl, J.L.; and Angarola, R.T. Cancer pain, opioids and the

law: balancing drug control and availability. Pain [Suppl] 5:S371, 1990.

Joranson, D.E. A new drug law for the states: an opportunity to affirm the

role of opioids in cancer pain relief. J Pain Symptom Manage 5:333-336,

1990.

Kanner, R.M., and Foley, K.M. Patterns of narcotic drug use in a cancer pain

clinic. Ann NY Acad Sci 362:161-172, 1981.

Kofoed, L.; Bloom, J.D.; Williams, M.H.; Rhyne, C.; and Resnick, M.

Physicians investigated for inappropriate prescribing by the Oregon

Board of Medical Examiners. West J Med 150:597-601, 1989.

Lehmann, K.A. Patient-controlled analgesia for postoperative pain. In:

Benedetti, C., Chapman, C.R., and Giron, G., eds. Advances in Pain

Research and Therapy, vol 14 Opioid Analgesia. New York: Raven Press,

1990. pp. 297-324.

Marks, R.M., and Sachar, E.J. Undertreatment of medical inpatients with

narcotic analgesics. Ann Intern Med 78:173-181, 1973.

McGivney, W.T., and Crooks, G.M. The care of patients with severe chronic

pain in terminal illness. JAMA 251:1182-1188, 1984.

48
Miransky, J.; Portenoy, R.K.; Hornung, J.; Bianchi, C.; Cibas-Kong, I.;

Feldhamer, E.; Lewis, F.; and Olivieri, A.P. Epidemiology of pain in

ambulatory patients with lung or colon cancer. Clin J Pain 7:57, 1991.

National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference: The

integrated approach to the management of pain. J Pain Symptom Manage

2:35-44, 1987.

Parkes, C.M. Home or hospital? Terminal care as seen by the surviving

spouse. J Coll Gen Pract 28:19-30, 1978.

Perry, S., and Heidrich, G. Management of pain during debridement: a

survey of U.S. burn units. Pain 13:267-280, 1982.

Portenoy, R.K. Cancer pain: epidemiology and syndromes. Cancer

63:2298-2307, 1989.

Portenoy, R.K. Opioid therapy. In: Tollison, C.D., ed. Interdisciplinary

Rehabilitation of Low Back Pain. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1989.

pp. 137-157.

Portenoy, R.K. Chronic opioid therapy in nonmalignant pain. J Pain Symptom

Manage 5:S46-S62, 1990.

Portenoy, R.K. Chronic opioid therapy for non-malignant pain: A perspective

on the controversy. American Pain Society Bulletin l:l, 1991.

Portenoy, R.K. Opioid therapy for chronic nonmalignant pain: the issue

reprised. American Pain Society Bulletin, in press.

Portenoy, R.K., and Foley, K.M. Chronic use of opioid analgesics in

non-malignant pain: Report of 38 cases. Pain 1986;25:171-86.

Porter, J., and Jick, H. Addiction rare in patients treated with narcotics.

N Engl J Med 302:123, 1980.

Rose, H.L. Letter to the editor. Pain 29:261-262, 1987.

Schug, S.A.; Zech, D.; and Dorr, U. Cancer pain management according to

WHO analgesic guidelines. J Pain Symptom Manage 527-32, 1990.

Sigler, K.A.; Guernsey, B.G.; Ingrim, N.B.; et al: Effect of a triplicate

prescription law on prescribing of Schedule II drugs. Am J Hosp Pharm

41:108-111, 1984.

Taub, A. Opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic intractable pain of

non-neoplastic origin. In: Kitahata, L.M., and Collins, D., eds. Narcotic

Analgesics in Anesthesiology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1982. pp.

199-208.

Tennant, F.S.; Robinson, D.; Sagherian, A.; and Seecof, R. Chronic opioid

treatment of intractable non-malignant pain. Pain Manage Jan/Feb 18-36,

1988.

Tennant, F.S., and Uelman, G.F. Narcotic maintenance for chronic pain:

Medical and legal guidelines. Postgrad Med J 73:81-94, 1983.

49
Turk, D.C., and Brody, M.C. Chronic opioid therapy for persistent noncancer

pain: Panacea or oxymoron? American Pain Society Bulletin 1991;1:4-7.

Twycross, R.G., and Fairfield, S. Pain in far-advanced cancer. Pain

14:303-310, 1982.

Twycross, R.G., and Lack, S.A. Symptom Control in Far Advanced Cancer:

Pain Relief. London: Pitman, 1983.

United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration:

Multiple Copy Prescription Resource Guide. Washington, D.C: Supt. of

Docs. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1987.

Urban, B.J.; France, R.D.; Steinberger, D.L.; Scott, D.L.; and Maltbie, A.A.

Long-term use of narcotic/antidepressant medication in the management

of phantom limb pain. Pain 24:191-197, 1986.

Ventafridda, V.; Tamburini, M.; and Caraceni, A. A validation study of the

WHO method method for cancer pain relief. Cancer 59:850-856, 1987.

Ventafridda, V.; Tamburini, M.; and DeComro, F. Comprehensive treatment

in cancer pain. In: Fields, H.L.; Dubner, R.; and Cervero, F., eds.

Advances in Pain Research and Therapy, vol 9, Proceedings of the Fourth

World Congress on Pain. New York: Raven Press, 1985. pp. 617-628.

Wan Lu, C.; Urban, B.; and France, R.D. [Abstract] Long-term narcotic

therapy in chronic pain. Paper presented at the Canadian Pain Society

and American Pain Society Joint Meeting, Toronto, Canada, November

10-13, 1988.

World Health Organization Cancer Pain Relief Program. Cancer Pain Relief.

Geneva: World Health Organization, 1986.

Yeager, M.P.; Glass, D.D.; Neff, R.K.; and Brinck-Johnsen, T. Epidural

anesthesia and analgesia in high-risk surgical patients. Anesthesiology

66:729-736, 1987.

Zenz, M.; Strumpf, M.; and Tryba, M. Long-term oral opioid therapy in

patients with chronic “non-malignant” pain. J Pain Symptom Manage, in

press.

AUTHOR

Russell K. Portenoy, M.D.

Director, Analgesic Studies

Department of Neurology

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

1275 York Avenue

New York, NY 10021

50
Anxiolytics: Indications, Benefits, and Risks of Shortand Long-Term Benzodiazepine Therapy: Current

Research Data

Karl Rickels and Edward Schweizer

For the past 30 years the benzodiazepines (BZs) have been the most

frequently prescribed anxiolytics and hypnotics in medical practice. They long

ago replaced the barbiturates, bromides, meprobamate, and the neuroleptics

as drugs of choice for the treatment of anxiety (Greenblatt et al. 1983).

Over the last decade several new classes of drugs such as the 5HT1A partial

agonists, have also been developed for the treatment of anxiety (Rickels

1990). This class of drugs offers the first pharmacologic alternative to the

benzodiazepines, but they have not replaced them. Although lacking many 01

the risks of the benzodiazepines, they do not provide all their therapeutic

benefits. Thus, the benzodiazepines remain for many indications an important

treatment option. This is as true today as it was 20 years ago. In several

tables we have summarized both the indications and some of the benefits that

may be derived from the use of benzodiazepines. One main indication for

using these agents is in the short-term treatment of situational anxiety and

insomnia (table 1). They may also be used to provide palliative relief for

anxiety associated with such acute stresses as impending surgery, physical

illness or trauma, or temporary psychosocial stresses. Acute situational uses

of benzodiazepines constitute an estimated 85 percent of all prescriptions

written (Mellinger and Balter 1981), especially by nonpsychiatric physicians,

who prescribe more than three fourths of all benzodiazepines (Beardsley et

al. 1988). This indication for benzodiazepines is the least well-studied.

Benzodiazepines are also indicated for the management of many patients

suffering from more classic anxiety disorders, such as generalized anxiety

disorder (GAD) and panic. GAD has a lifetime prevalence of 3.8 percent,

with an average duration of more than 5 years (Robins and Regier 1990).

GAD has a high comorbidity both with other anxiety disorders, such as panic,

and with affective illness. This means that any use of BZs beyond 6-8 weeks

must be constantly reevaluated. For patients suffering from panic disorder

the benzodiazepine, alprazolam, is the only FDA approved drug, though

other BZs (e.g., lorazepam and clonazepam), in addition to tricyclic

antidepressants (e.g., imipramine) and monoamine oxidase inhibiting (MAOI)

antidepressants (e.g., phenelzine), have also demonstrated comparable

51
efficacy. Panic disorder also has a high comorbidity with GAD and major

depressive disorder and panic patients frequently experience a chronic and

intermittent course of their illness, which tends to be more disabling than

GAD.

In addition to these primary psychiatric indications for the use of

benzodiazepines, there are several other relevant and important indications.

There is, for example, the adjunctive use of benzodiazepines in the acute

management of agitated psychoses, both in manic and schizophrenic patients.

This short-term use represents a rapid and humane way of calming agitated

patients without risking the neurological side effects from neuroleptics. The

benzodiazepines are also the treatment of choice as preanesthetic agents,

both because of their muscle relaxing sedative and anesthetic properties and

because they potentiate the effects of standard anesthetic agents.

Clonazepam has an approved indication for the treatment of epilepsy and

diazepam for the use in status epilepticus. Some of the benzodiazepines are

also used for the treatment of mood disorders. For example, alprazolam is

used for the treatment of major depression (Feighner et al. 1983) and

clonazepam for bipolar disorder (Chouinard 1988; Aronson et al. 1989),

though more research is needed before benefit for these indications can be

confirmed. Finally, diazepam is indicated in movement disorders.

Thus, benzodiazepines are prescribed for a large range of indications, for

some of which better, safer, and more efficacious drugs are not yet available.

Naturally, drugs that are so widely used and beneficial for so many

indications also have certain risks. For acute therapy, these risks include

primarily sedation, psychomotor impairment, cognitive or other CNS effects,

and the behavioral effects of combined use with alcohol (table 2). These

acute adverse effects are generally quite manageable since tolerance tends to

develop within 4 to 6 weeks. The possible contribution of BZs to an increase

in auto accidents is of concern, and patients should certainly be cautioned,

but an etiologic link has yet to be established (Skegg et al. 1977; Rickels

1981). In fact, highly anxious or panicking patients who suddenly feel faint or

who believe a heart attack is impending while driving may be a larger

contributor to car accidents than patients on BZ treatment.

In the past decade, the most controversial issues concerning therapy with BZs

relate to their long-term use, with more than 2 percent of the adult population on BZs daily for at least 6 months (Woods et al. 1988). The risks of

physical dependence and withdrawal should be discussed with each patient

52
prior to initiating even acute therapy, since clear evidence exists that

problems may develop as early as 4-12 weeks (Fontaine et al. 1985; Rickels et

al. 1988). All marketed benzodiazepines appear to possess relatively low

abuse potential, and are rarely the drugs of choice for drug abusers (Woods

et al. 1988), but they do frequently produce varying degrees of physical

dependence (Winokur et al. 1980; Petursson and Lader 1981; Busto et al.

1986; Rickels et al. 1990; Schweizer et al. 1990). Once benzodiazepines are

used for the longer term–that is over 4-6 months–a majority of patients do .

experience a physical dependence phenomenon, even at very low therapeutic

doses, which manifests itself via a withdrawal syndrome that occurs during

and/or after abrupt or tapered benzodiazepine discontinuation (table 3).

After acute benzodiazepine treatment of only 4-6 weeks for anxiety, some

patients, particularly those treated with short half-life benzodiazepines may

experience a rebound of anxiety upon abrupt benzodiazepine treatment

discontinuation (table 4). Such rebound consists of the appearance of the

same symptomatology, but frequently of greater intensity than that present at

pretreatment, and represents clearly a transient phenomenon. Rebound

symptoms may occur with rapid taper in as many as 30 to 50 percent of

patients after a short course of therapy with short half-life benzodiazepines.

To a lesser degree, these symptoms may also occur with long half-life

benzodiazepines. The symptoms may be more severe than before treatment,

are often very frightening to the patient, but usually peak within a few days

and generally disappear within 7 days after the patient has become

medication-free. Rebound insomnia persisting for l-3 days may occur after

less than 1 week of therapy with a short half-life hypnotic benzodiazepine.

Tapering the hypnotic medication will reduce such rebound insomnia (Kales

et al. 1978).

In contrast to rebound and withdrawal phenomena, relapse represents a

return of the original illness, which usually manifests itself as a more gradual

return of the symptoms of anxiety, and is reported to occur in 20 to 80

percent of patients treated for various periods of time. Relapse usually has a

gradual onset, though it may be triggered by an episode of rebound anxiety

occurring transiently in the immediate post discontinuation phase (table 5).

Most patients improve if treatment is resumed either with the same or with

another medication or alternatively, if cognitive-behavioral therapies are

initiated (Michelson and Marchione 1991). It should be stressed that relapse

is a return of anxiety symptoms present before treatment. Unlike rebound

anxiety or panic, relapse has a temporal progression that is not acute and

53
transient but appears more gradually over time and persists without

additional therapy.

For BZ therapy of anxiety disorders, there is as yet no good evidence of a

prophylactic benefit from long-term maintenance therapy. In fact, we found

in a study of GAD patients who were treated for 6 months with diazepam,

that at 1 year followup 65 percent of improved patients reported a return of

anxiety during the followup period, and 45 percent suffered from moderate to

marked anxiety at the time of the followup (Rickels et al. 1986). Clearly,

these findings indicate that many GAD conditions are of a chronic nature.

The longer the anxious patient is treated continuously with a benzodiazepine,

the higher the daily dosage (frequently required for panic therapy); and the

shorter the BZ half-life, the more likely it is that a patient will experience a

withdrawal syndrome (Rickels et al. 1990). After 4-6 months of daily

therapy, a BZ withdrawal syndrome is detectable in at least 50 percent of

patients (Rickels et al. 1983). Gradual taper serves to reduce the differential

effect of short versus long half-life BZs on withdrawal severity (Schweizer et

al. 1990). Table 6 summarizes some of the drug and patient factors which

contribute to the severity of the BZ withdrawal syndrome. Some of the most

commonly reported withdrawal symptoms are given in table 7.

The steps to be taken when discontinuing benzodiazepine therapy are

discussed in table 8. One should taper even after short-term use, and the

longer the treatment, the more gradual the taper. The first 50 percent dose

reduction may be relatively swift, whereas the last 25 percent reduction

usually is much more difficult and protracted.

If the taper period is too extended, discontinuation symptoms may be hard to

distinguish from relapse of the original illness, and one should remember that

gradual taper does not prevent discontinuation symptoms, it only makes them

less intense. During BZ discontinuation, it is frequently beneficial to treat

insomnia, which is often perceived as very disturbing to the patient, with

sedating antidepressants such as doxepin or trazodone. It is also important

to treat psychiatric comorbidity, especially depression and panic, prior to

undertaking BZ taper. One should also consider treatment with adjunctive

medications such as imipramine, buspirone or carbamazepine even in patients

without obvious comorbidity (Schweizer et al. 1991; Rickels et al. 1990).

Pretreatment of patients for several weeks before initiating taper appears, at

present, to be the most effective approach.

54
Benzodiazepine discontinuation after long-term use results in one of four

outcomes: (1) some patients experience minimal to no discontinuation

symptoms and suffer no relapse of their illness; (2) some patients experience

benzodiazepine withdrawal, with or without rebound, but this resolves in 2-4

weeks with no illness relapse, allowing them to remain BZ-free; (3) some

patients will be unable to discontinue BZ therapy fully, either because of

withdrawal severity, return of original symptoms, or because of personality

factors; and (4) all patients, whether they successfully discontinue their BZ or

only partially reduce their dose, may at some time after taper experience a

relapse of their original illness.

The question then should be raised: What are some of the reasons why

benzodiazepines should be discontinued? These are summarized in table 9.

Especially important are either poor or good clinical response. It has been

demonstrated that of chronically anxious patients treated for only 4-6 weeks,

50 percent remain symptom free for at least 3 months (Rickels et al. 1983).

Thus, a fair percentage of even chronically anxious patients do not necessarily

require long-term therapy. Furthermore, patients on maintenance BZ

therapy who have been symptom-free for several months probably deserve a

medication-free trial to assess their continued need for BZ therapy. A subset

of patients, even those with a history of chronic anxiety, benefit most from

intermittent rather than continuous therapy.

SUMMARY

Benzodiazepines are some of the most widely used drugs in medicine today.

There exist appropriate and clear-cut indications which range from

generalized anxiety and panic disorder to such medical conditions as status

epilepticus and use as a preanesthetic agent. Until new replacement drugs

are found, the BZs will continue to represent important tools in the

physician’s armamentarium for managing the many indications discussed in

this paper. They do, however, have liabilities. These liabilities become

particularly obvious during long-term therapy of chronic conditions. For

patients treated for short-term anxiety, the risks are primarily those of a

sedative nature and the accompanying impairment of psychomotor performance and cognition. Patients usually become tolerant to these side effects

while maintaining desirable antianxiety or antipanic effects.

It is when one treats patients for prolonged periods of time that many

patients develop symptoms of low-dose physical dependence. It should be

stressed that when stopping a patient after only a few weeks of therapy,

5 5
whether the patient is treated for anxiety or insomnia, a short taper of the

medications should be carried out to discontinue therapy in order to prevent

rebound insomnia (Kales et al. 1978) or rebound anxiety (Fontaine et al.

1985; Rickels et al. 1988). Astute physicians try to minimize the problems of

physical dependence by using drugs intermittently. However, treating patients

intermittently necessitates patients experiencing at periodic intervals some

withdrawal symptomatology. This occurs when the drug is discontinued

temporarily during its intermittent administration. Even carefully tapered

patients frequently experience some withdrawal symptoms such as insomnia,

agitation, restlessness, fatigue, nausea, sweating, and, at times, even

depersonalization and perceptual disturbances. In addition, for the

management of chronic conditions such as generalized anxiety disorder, some

of the newer anxiolytics such as buspirone may be preferred because of

comparable efficacy and possible absence of dependence potential (Rickels et

al. 1988).

For the chronic treatment of panic disorder, if patients and doctors are

concerned about the development of physical dependence with benzodiazepines, they can use other effective agents such as imipramine or phenelzine.

However, the use of these medications also entails risk. Their side effects

are often intolerable and many patients would rather accept the risk of

developing physical dependence than use these agents for the treatment of

panic disorder. Though many patients suffering from anxiety disorders may

benefit from long-term maintenance therapy with BZs, still the risks of such

use dictate that every attempt be made to first try intermittent therapy. In

either case, the benefit and risk of various treatment options should be

discussed with the patient prior to initiating pharmacotherapy.

56
Table 1

Benzodiazepines

- Benefits -

Treatment of Short-term Anxiety and Insomnia

Acute stress from various life situations may become

severe and incapacitating

Impending surgery, physical illness, or trauma

Temporary psychosocial stressors

PRN use for palliative relief of transient episodes of

anxiety

Treatment of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD)

Excessive anxiety and worry that is pervasive,

persistent and highly distressing

Frequently fluctuates in intensity and is commonly

associated with various autonomic, motor tension, or

arousal symptoms

Frequent co-morbidity

Chronic, intermittent course which may benefit from

long term use of BZs

Treatment of Panic Disorder (PD)

Unpredictable episodes of panic and dread

Prominent somatic symptoms and/or phobic avoidance

Frequent comorbidity as secondary disability

Chronic-intermittent course which may benefit from

long term use of BZs

Acute Treatment of Agitated Psychosis

Acute manic or schizophrenic

Rapid and humane way of calming agitated patients

without risking neurological side effects observed with

neuroleptics

57
Table 1 continued

Use As Preanesthetic Agents

Muscle relaxing, sedative, and amnestic properties

Use As Anesthetic Agents During Surgery

Allows for lower doses of other anesthetics

Treatment of Epilepsy

Emergency treatment of status epilepticus

Use of clonazepam to prophylactically treat various forms of epilepsy

(akinetic, myoclonic, petit mal)

Treatment of Movement Disorders

Muscle relaxants

Stiff man syndrome

58
Table 2

Risks of Treatment with Benzodiazepines

Effect _ _ Time of Use Risk

Sedation

Psychomotor

impairment

Cognitive/memory

impairment

Abuse potential

Physical dependence

Acute

chronic

Acute

chronic

Acute

chronic

Acute

chronic

Acute

chronic

Moderate

Minimal

Moderate

Minimal

Moderate

Minimal to moderate

Minimal*

Minimal*

Some rebound after

4-6 weeks

Moderate to marked

withdrawal after 4-6

months

* Except in patients with history of substance abuse

59
Table 3

Withdrawal Syndrome After BZ Discontiuation

Occurs in 40-80% of patients treated for >= 4-6 months, even after

extended taper.

Occurs with long and short half-life BZs.

Consists of old (rebound) and new (withdrawal)

symptoms.

Peaks toward end of taper and has mainly disappeared

within weeks.

Table 4

Rebound After BZ Discontiuation

Definition

Rebound Insomnia - Hypnotic BZ

Rebound Anxiety - Anxiolytic BZ

Rebound Panic - Antipanic BZ

Occurs with abrupt or rapid taper in as many as 30-50 percent of

patients after short term (4-8 weeks) anxiolytic therapy, primarily with

short half-life BZs.

Sudden symptom return, frequently with greater intensity than pretreatment.

Symptoms are often frightening to patient and may lead to resumption

of BZ intake, mistaking temporary rebound symptoms as a return of

original anxiety.

Symptoms peak at the end of taper and generally disappear within 1

week.

Symptoms are transient; therefore, do not represent a relapse.

6 0
Table 5

Relapse After BZ Discontinuation

Rebound relapse rates range from 20 to 80 percent.

Relapse usually gradual onset and symptoms remain stable without

therapy.

Relapse to the same symptoms that necessitated initial therapy.

Most patients improve if medication is resumed.

61
Table 6

Drug and Patient Factors Contributing

to Withdrawal Severity

Drug Factors

Higher daily dose of BZ

Shorter BZ half-life

Longer duration of daily BZ therapy

Faster rate of taper

Patient Factors

Higher pretaper levels of anxious and depressive

symptomatology

Higher levels of personality psychopathology (e.g.,

dependency, neuroticism)

Younger age

Concomitant alcohol and substance abuse

62
Anxiety/nervousness

Restlessness/agitation

Lethargy/fatigue/lack of energy

Nausea/upset stomach

Loss of appetite

Diaphoresis

Insomnia

Faintness/dizziness

Tremor

Tinnitus

Increased acuity to stimuli

Muscle cramps/twitches

Poor coordination

Difficulty concentrating

Paresthesias

Perceptual distortions

Depersonalization

Confusion

Table 7

BZ Withdrawal Syndrome Symptoms

Note: If drug administration is stopped abruptly, possible convulsion,

delirium, psychotic reactions may occur.

63
Table 8

Discontinuation of Benzodiazepine Therapy

Taper even after short-term use.

The longer the treatment, the more gradual the taper.

The higher the daily dose, the more gradual the taper.

The shorter the half-life, the more gradual the taper.

The first 50 percent reduction occurs relatively swiftly; last 2.5

percent reduction takes the longest period of time

If taper period is too extended, discontinuation symptoms may be

hard to distinguish from illness relapse.

Gradual taper does not prevent discontinuation symptoms, it only

makes them less intense.

Treat insomnia during taper with sedating antidepressants such as

doxepin or trazodone.

Important: Only a 3-5 weeks’ benzodiazepine-free period will

allow clearly distinguishing between rebound, withdrawal

symptomatology and illness relapse.

Relapse has a gradual onset; rebound and withdrawal have a

more rapid onset, greatly determined by drug half-life.

Rebound and withdrawal, but not relapse, are transient,

temporary phenomena.

Treat comorbidity prior to or during taper with appropriate

medications such as imipramine or buspirone, or appropriate

psychosocial therapy.

Consider adjunctive medication use, even without obvious comorbidity, of imipramine, buspirone, or carbamazepine.

64
Table 9

Reasons for BZ Discontinuation

Persistent adverse effects which outweigh clinical benefit

Pregnancy or wish to become pregnant

Apparent sustained remission of anxiety disorder

Concomitant alcohol and/or drug abuse

Patient’s wish to be “drug-free”

Family and social pressure

Poor clinical response

65
REFERENCES

Aronson, T.A.; Shukla, S.; Hirschowitz, J. Clonazepam treatment for five

lithium-refractory patients with bipolar disorder. Amer J Psychiatry 146:77-

80, 1989.

Beardsley, R.S.; Gardocki, GJ.; Larson, D.B.; and Hidalgo, J. Prescribing of

psychotropic medication by primary care physicians and psychiatrists. Arch

Gen Psychiatry 45(12):1117-19, 1988.

Busto, U.; Sellers, E.M.; Naranjo, C.A.; Cappell, H.; Sanchez-Craig, M.; and

Sykora, A. Withdrawal reaction after long-term therapeutic use of

benzodiazepines. N Eng J Med 315-854-859, 1986.

Chouinard, G. The use of benzodiazepines In the treatment of manicdepressive illness. J Clin Psychiatry 49:15-20, 1988.

Feighner, J.P.; Aden, G.C.; Fabre, L.F.; Rickels, K.; and Smith, W.T.

Comparison of alprazolam, imipramine, and placebo in the treatment of

depression. JAMA 249(22):3057-3064, 1983.

Fontaine, R.; Annable, L.; and Beaudry, P. Efficacy and withdrawal of two

potent benzodiazepines: Bromazepam and lorazepam. Psychopharmacol

Bull 21:91-92, 1985.

Greenblatt W., Shader, R.I.; and Abernathy D.R. Current status of

benzodiazepines. N Engl J Med 309:354-358, 410-416, 1983.

Kales, A.; Scharf, M.B.; and Kales, J.D. Rebound insomnia: a new clinical

syndrome. Science 201:1039-1040, 1978.

Mellinger, G.D., and Balter, M.B. Prevalence and patterns of use of

psychotherapeutic drugs: Results from a 1979 national survey of American

adults. In: Tognoni, G.; Bellantuono, C.; and Lader, M., eds.

Epidemiological Impact of Psychotropic Drugs. New York: Elsevier-North

Holland, 1981 pp. 117-135.

Michelson, L.K., and Marchione, K. Behavioral, cognitive, and

pharmacological treatments of panic disorder, agoraphobia: Critique and

synthesis. J Consult Clin Psychol 59(1) 100-114, 1991.

Petursson, H., and Lader, M.H. Withdrawal from long-term benzodiazepine

treatment. Br Med J 283:643-645, 1981.

Rickels, K. Are benzodiazepines overused and abused? Br J Clin Pharmacol

11:71S-83S, 1981.

Rickels, K. Buspirone in clinical practice. J Clin Psychiatry 51(9,[suppl]):51-54,

1990.

6 6
Rickels, K; Case, W.G.; Downing, R.W.; and Fridman, R. One-year follow-up

of anxious patients treated with diazepam. J Clin Psychopharmacol 6:32-36,

1986.

Rickels, K.; Case, W.G.; Downing, R.W.; and Winokur, A. Long-term

diazepam therapy and clinical outcome. JAMA 250(6):767-771, 1983.

Rickels, K.; Case, W.G.; Schweizer, E.; Garcia-Espana, F.; and Fridman, R.

Benzodiazepine dependence: Management of discontinuation.

Psychopharmacol Bull 26(1):63-68, 1990.

Rickels, K.; Fox, I.L.; Greenblatt, D.J.; Sandler, K.R.; and Schless A:

Clorazepate and lorazepam: clinical improvement and rebound anxiety,

Am J Psychiatry 145(3):312-317, 1988.

Rickels, K.; Schweizer, E.; Case, W.G.; and Greenblatt, D.J. Long-term

therapeutic use of benzodiazepines. I. Effects of abrupt discontinuation.

Arch Gen Psychiatry 47:899-907, 1990.

Rickels, K.; Schweizer, E.; Csanalosi, I.; Case, W.G.; and Chung, H. Longterm treatment of anxiety and risk of withdrawal: prospective comparison

of clorazepate and buspirone. Arch Gen Psychiatry 45 444-450, 1988.

Robins, L., and Regier D.A., eds. Psychiatric Disorders in America. New

York: Free Press, 1990.

Schweizer, E; Rickets, K.; Case, W.G.; and Greenblatt, D.J. Long-term

therapeutic use of benzodiazepines. II. Effects of gradual taper. Arch Gen

Psychiatry 47:908-915, 1990.

Schweizer, E.; Rickels, K.; Case, W.G.; and Greenblatt, D.J. Carbamazepine

treatment In patients discontinuing long-term benzodiazepine therapy:

effects on withdrawal severity and outcome. Arch Gen Psychiatry 48:448-

452, 1991.

Skegg, D.C.G.; Doll, R.; and Perry J. Use of medicines in general practice. Br

Med J 1:1561-1563, 1977.

Winokur, A.; Rickels, K.; Greenblatt, D.J.; Snyder, P.J.I.; and Schatz, N.J.

Withdrawal reaction from long-term low-dosage administration of

diazepam. Arch Gen Psychiatry 37:101-105, 1980.

Woods, J.H.; Katz, J.L.; and Winger, G. Use and abuse of benzodiazepines:

Issues relevant to prescribing. JAMA 260(23):3476-3480, 1988.

AUTHORS

Karl Rickels, M.D.

Edward Schweizer, M.D.

Department of Psychiatry

University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, PA 19104-4283

67
Issues and Controversies Regarding Benzodiazepine

Use

Carl Salzman

INTRODUCTION

This paper reviews the following aspects of benzodiazepine use:

(1) The prevalence of anxiety and anxiety-related disorders as a

way of understanding the context of benzodiazepine prescription

(2) The appropriate length of therapy, focussing especially on the

appropriate and inappropriate uses of long-term benzodiazepine

treatment

(3) Current controversies regarding the prescription of

benzodiazepines in the United States

(4) Suggestions for future research

EPIDEMIOLOGY OF ANXIETY DISORDERS

Anxiety is a ubiquitous human experience. In mild degrees of severity,

anxiety can be a motivating force and enhance performance. At higher levels

of severity, anxiety interferes with performance and becomes an inhibiting

and even disabling symptom. Anxiety may develop acutely following a

stressful situation or it can become chronic and worsen over time. Contemporary diagnostic classification schemes now consider anxiety as a disorder

with several disorders (including general anxiety disorder, panic disorder,

agoraphobia, social phobia, simple phobia, obsessive compulsive disorder, and

posttraumatic stress disorder). Considerable information has been gathered

concerning the prevalence of these disorders in the United States as well as

in other countries. Most of the United States data are based on five community surveys of adults aged 18 and older who were interviewed (Eaton et

al. 1984). The total sample size was 18,571; 7.3 percent of the adults surveyed had one or more of these disorders (Regier et al. 1990), most commonly phobic disorders (6.2 percent), followed by obsessive compulsive

68
disorder (1.3 percent), and panic disorder (0.5 percent). If one combines all

categories into anxiety disorder, the 1-month prevalence increases to 7.3

percent with women being nearly twice as likely (9.7 percent) as males (4.7

percent) to develop this disorder. Interestingly, men who are 65 or older

have a decline in 1-month prevalence of anxiety (see below). The 1-month

prevalence of anxiety disorders varies markedly in other countries.

Compared with the 7.3 percent in the U.S., the rates are 2.9 percent in

London, 3.5 percent in Australia, 8.2 percent in Athens, 2.8 percent in

Edinburgh, and 3.4 percent among female Ugandans (Regier et al. 1990).

Anxiety may arise de novo, but is more commonly associated with life stress.

Following bereavement, for example, ECA survey data indicate that there is

an overall rate of 22.9 percent in the first 6 months increasing to 38.9 percent

for the next 6 months after bereavement. Panic disorder rates go from 6.3

percent to 13 percent and social phobia goes from 0 prevalence in the first 6

months to 3.7 percent in the second 6 months. Conversely, simple phobia

starts at 10.5 percent and decreases to 0, and obsessive compulsive disorder

starts at 2.1 percent and goes to 0 (Jacobs et al. 1990). Anxiety in individuals

and in families is common after severe traumatic events (Terr 1991) and is a

regular feature of posttraumatic stress disorder (van der Kolk, 1987). A

lifetime prevalence of 1 percent has been associated with PTSD (Helser et al.

1987).

Anxiety is commonly associated with physical illness as well: HIV infection

syndrome (Fernandez 1989); severe pain associated with cancer (Holland

1989); alcoholism (Linnoila 1989); and coronary heart disease (Rahe 1989).

Overall, 5 to 20 percent of medical inpatients and 4 to 14 percent of general

medical outpatients suffer from anxiety states with anxiety disorders diagnosed in approximately 6 percent of inpatients (Wise and Taylor 1990; Strain

et al. 1981). Anxiety and depression commonly occur with each other, and,

in fact, may be confused with each other. Approximately 66 percent of

patients with panic disorder have a major depression (Clayton 1990; Stein

and Uhde 1988) and 60 percent of patients with depression also report

anxiety symptoms, with 20 to 30 percent of these having clear anxiety attacks

(Clayton 1987). Having several anxiety disorders concurrently, such as

general anxiety and OCD, or social phobias and panic disorder, increases the

likelihood of concurrent depression (Clayton 1990). The comorbidity of

depression and anxiety is especially high in panic disorder patients. Patients

with major depression also often have panic disorder and anxiety, and in the

ECA survey data, 1.9 percent of the population had a diagnosis of both

69
anxiety and depression, anxiety being present in 33 percent of those with

affective disorders.

Anxiety disorders, especially panic disorders, are commonly seen by primary

care physicians. Depending on one’s diagnostic criteria, a large percentage of

patients with adjustment disorder have a psychiatric diagnosis (47 percent)

and more than two-thirds of these have anxious or depressed mood (Schatzberg 1990).

Among elderly patients, anxiety tends to be less common as an initial symptom and also is less prevalent (albeit not uncommon) in older people (Blazer

1991), although it is a common component of physical illness in the elderly

(Cohen 1990) and is a frequent side effect of medications used by the elderly.

Anxiety is common in depression in the elderly, and vice versa, and, indeed,

may be difficult to distinguish between the primacy of either symptom.

Anxiety is commonly seen in dementia, and may be also associated with

alcohol use. The lower rate of anxiety in older men may reflect a developmental change for men who “settle down” and learn to drink responsibly

(Liptzin 1990).

APPROPRIATE LENGTH OF TREATMENT WITH BENZODIAZEPINES

In the United States, most benzodiazepine prescription is in the setting of

acute stress, with the drugs being given for short periods of time. National

household survey data for the United States in 1979 and 1981 showed that 45

percent of benzodiazepines were used for only 1 or 2 days at a time, and in

most cases, for 30 days or less. For 80 percent of all anxiolytic users, the

longest period of daily use was less than 4 months and for 67 percent the

longest use was less than 1 month (APA Task Force 1990). Although there

are no data specifically examining the acute use of benzodiazepines,

worldwide clinical experience suggests that these drugs are remarkably

efficacious and unusually safe as a treatment for acute anxiety, stress, and

insomnia. Their use in general hospitals by physicians, family practitioners,

and surgeons is widespread, and there are no data to suggest that such use

leads to prolonged use, dependence, dose escalation, or abuse (APA Task

Force 1990). Concern, however, has been expressed both in medical publications as well as the lay press regarding long-term use of benzodiazepines, and

the benefit versus risk of long-term use must be carefully examined.

The United States household survey data describe the benzodiazepine usage

patterns of patients who took these drugs on a regular or an occasional basis,

7 0
and thus provide baseline data for estimating the potential incidence of

dependence on a therapeutic dose of a medically supervised benzodiazepine

prescription. The 1979 household survey also reported that approximately 3.5

percent of the total population took benzodiazepines one or more times that

were not prescribed for them (Mellinger et al. 1981; Uhlenhuth et al. 1984).

These pills were usually borrowed from a friend or spouse. In a later survey,

this figure increased to 5 percent (Miller et al. 1983; Smith and Nacev 1978).

Almost all these people took benzodiazepines for symptom relief rather than

recreational purposes, and almost all took the pills only once or twice.

Although data on annual volume of benzodiazepine prescribing and household survey studies of prevalence and pattern of use do not suggest either a

recent increase in the amount of medication consumed or an increase in the

prevalence of use, there is a continuing public perception that benzodiazepine

use is too widespread in the United States as well as in European countries.

In the United States, long-term users (12 months or longer) can be distinguished from shorter term users. They tend to be older, have substantial

psychological distress (including depression), and have significant somatic

health problems, especially cardiovascular disorders and arthritis (Mellinger

et al. 1984a 1984b). Three recent surveys of long-term benzodiazepine prescription in Britain also demonstrated that most long-term benzodiazepine

users were elderly, female, and suffered from physical illness and depressive

symptoms (Catalan et al. 1988; Nolan and O'Malley 1988; Rodrigo et al.

1988).

There appear to be at least live groups of long-term regular benzodiazepine

users. The drugs are prescribed for specific purposes to patients within each

of these groups, although, for some, the rationale for long-term use is less

clear than for others.

The first and most clearly defined group of long-term users consists of

patients who tend to be older (but not necessarily elderly) who suffer from

medical disease. These patients often have chronic illness, are in pain, are

dysphoric or depressed as well as anxious, and have trouble sleeping. They

make many more visits to their physicians than other age-matched people,

and their overall psychosocial as well as physical functioning is compromised.

These patients also take other medications. However, there is no evidence to

suggest they have a dependence associated with their long-term use of benzodiazepines. The side effects of benzodiazepines or drug interactions

represent a clinical problem for these patients. As a group, they tend to

7 1
scrupulously abide by the doctor’s prescriptions, and never escalate their

dose. They do not abuse benzodiazepines, mix them with alcohol or other

sedative hypnotics, nor have toxic consequences from drug interactions.

Rather, patients, as well as their physicians and family members, consider

benzodiazepine treatment to be a beneficial and therapeutic part of an

overall treatment program (Salzman 1991b; Rickels et al. 1984, 1987). In

terms of benefit versus risk, therefore, the benefits of long-term benzodiazepine use clearly outweigh any limited risks for these patients.

The second group of chronic benzodiazepine users are patients who are

treated primarily by psychiatrists for panic and agoraphobic symptoms. Since

panic and agoraphobic disorder is chronic and recurrent, patients who take

benzodiazepines for symptomatic reduction are usually treated on a chronic

long-term basis, and the doses of benzodiazepines necessary for symptomatic

reduction of panic and agoraphobic anxiety are considerably higher than the

usual anxiolytic doses. Most clinical studies suggest that these patients do not

abuse their medication or escalate their dose. However, concern has been

expressed regarding the development of dependence and possible toxicity

from such long-term high-dose use. There is evidence that discontinuation

from long-term high-dose benzodiazepine use among panic and agoraphobic

disorder patients is accompanied by frequent discontinuance symptoms,

sometimes severe (Fyer et al. 1987, Pecknold et al. 1982, 1988). Consequently, the benefits compared to risks for these patients are not as great as

with the first group. Furthermore, since panic and agoraphobic disorder can

be treated with drugs other than benzodiazepines (and possibly treated

better), clinicians must carefully consider benefit versus risk for beginning a

patient on long-term high-dose benzodiazepine treatment. For some, these

drugs may be the most appropriate and least toxic way to reduce symptoms.

For others, however, alternative treatments may be more successful, limiting

the role of benzodiazepines as an adjunct to other treatments.

Those patients with chronic anxiety and dysphoric symptoms, sometimes with

associated personality disorders, appear more typically in psychiatric practice.

There are no survey data specifically focusing on this second population of

patients, and estimates of the number of these patients and their actual

benzodiazepine using habits are not available. Clinical experience suggests

that these chronically dysphoric patients seek regular psychiatric attention or

regular medical attention, and have their benzodiazepine prescriptions

continually renewed. They do not increase their dose (Balmer et al, 1981),

and experimental data suggest that anxietyper se does not increase the risk of

benzodiazepine dependence (de Wit et al. 1986; Winstead et al. 1974).

72
Patients with personality disorder may have greater difficulty discontinuing

benzodiazepines than patients without personality disorders (Golombok et al.

1987; Tyrer et al. 1983).

For the first two groups of patients, the medically ill and the chronic panic/-

agoraphobic group, long-term use appears to be a rational medical therapy.

However, depending on one’s medical opinion, it may be that some of the

third group of long-term users, the chronically dysphoric (a significant

number of people), do not have clear cut indications for ongoing regular

benzodiazepine therapy. Controversy regarding risk versus benefits of longterm benzodiazepine use centers around this very point: Those who emphasize the therapeutic benefit for the majority of long-term user patients

versus those who emphasize the risks of long-term use without clear medical

indication and the development of dependence. One review suggests that the

evidence for long-term anxiolytic efficacy of benzodiazepines is not sufficiently compelling (Rickels 1987) to warrant continuous, uninterrupted use

for months or years. Other authors emphasize the clinical benefit of ongoing

benzodiazepine treatment, especially for the medically ill and clinically

dysphoric, with little risk of serious toxicity (Marks 1985).

A fourth group of patients who take benzodiazepines chronically are those

with sleep disorder. Some patients with chronic insomnia take benzodiazepines on a nightly basis: 2.6 percent of the general population use a medically prescribed hypnotic during the course of the year, and 0.3 percent of all

adults have used hypnotics regularly for 12 months or more (Mellinger et al.

1985). Benzodiazepines given to promote sleep may be associated with the

development of dependence and signs and symptoms of discontinuance.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that benzodiazepine hypnotics

retain their efficacy after more than 30 continuous nights of use. Nevertheless, nightly benzodiazepine prescriptions are commonly found in nursing

homes (Allen 1988; Buch 1988; Avorn et al. 1989) and in general hospital

inpatients (Salzman and van der Kolk 1979; Salzman 1981). Since dependence and discontinuance phenomena may promote ongoing benzodiazepine

use beyond a period of clear efficacy, it is necessary to determine whether

such long-term use is also associated with toxicity. Numerous data attest to

the effect of benzodiazepines in compromising cognitive function, especially

in the elderly. Recent data suggest that chronic benzodiazepine use produces

a cognitive syndrome that resembles mild to moderate dementia that is

reversible when the benzodiazepines are discontinued (Salzman et al. 1991).

Consequently, for chronic sleep disturbance there is limited benefit with

73
demonstrable risk suggesting that the benefit to risk ratio does not favor

routine long-term administration of benzodiazepines for hypnotic purposes.

The fifth group of long-term benzodiazepine users are psychiatric patients

with chronic psychotic illness, usually schizophrenia, who are being treated

primarily with nonbenzodiazepine medications, but who are also being given

benzodiazepines for treatment of coexisting anxiety, for adjunctive antipsychotic effect, for diminution of extrapyramidal symptoms, or for treatment

of tardive dyskinesia. The use of benzodiazepines for control of behavioral

disruption has been well established (Modell et al. 1985; Greenfield et al.

1987; Santos and Morton 1990; Salzman et al. 1991) but there are no data to

suggest that long-term maintenance use of benzodiazepines prevents additional disruptive behavior. There are no data to suggest that benzodiazepines by themselves exert antipsychotic effect, even in high doses, and

there are only limited data to suggest that benzodiazepines in conjunction

with neuroleptics permit the use of lower doses of the latter drug over a long

period of time. The risks of long-term benzodiazepine use in this population

are those of dependence, potential withdrawal, excessive sedation, and, in

elderly psychotic patients, cognitive impairment. Consequently, although the

risks are not as considerable as in the long-term hypnotic users or the longterm dysphoric patients, the benefits do not clearly outweigh the risks,

suggesting that chronic benzodiazepine use in psychotic patients probably

should be avoided.

In summary, it seems clear that short-term use of benzodiazepines for acute

anxiety/stress situations and some long-term use of benzodiazepines is

therapeutic and relatively risk-free compared with other anxiolytic drugs such

as meprobamate, CNS sedatives, and antidepressants. An argument can be

made that many patients with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression are in

fact undermedicated with benzodiazepines: 60 percent of patients who are

legitimate candidates for antianxiety treatment do not seek or obtain treatment for any of their psychological problems (Balter 1988). In cases of both

major depression and generalized anxiety, the treatment rate with these drugs

is under 40 percent (Uhlenhuth et al. 1983, 1984, 1988). Consequently,

anxiolytics may actually be underprescribed to anxious patients (Nagy 1987)

and a substantial majority of patients who report high levels of distress do

not use medically prescribed psychotherapeutic drugs (Mellinger et al. 1974).

The question of whether benzodiazepines are appropriately prescribed or

underprescribed or overprescribed, however, depends both on the physician’s

as well as the patient’s philosophic perspective. Although some patients with

74
anxiety and stress are undermedicated, the question of whether all patients

who have anxiety and stress should be treated with benzodiazepines cannot

be easily answered. For stress or anxiety symptoms that are overwhelming or

compromise clinical function, acute or long-term benzodiazepine treatment

may be considerably more therapeutic than harmful. For less severe states,

or for symptoms that are due to underlying psychological conflict, ongoing

situational distress, etc., medication of any kind may not be indicated. For

some patients, such as the group of chronic dysphoric psychiatric patients,

long-term use of benzodiazepines may actually be antitherapeutic. Consequently, there is probably some truth that although for some patients benzodiazepines are underprescribed, for others they are overprescribed. For

the majority of acute and medically ill long-term users, however, the benefits

of benzodiazepines seem to substantially outweigh their risks.

ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES

There are at least four controversial issues regarding benzodiazepine use and

effect that require discussion. These are:

(1) The misinterpretation and overevaluation of certain benefits

other than anxiolytic and antipanic effects. Examples include their

supposed antidepressant and antipsychotic efficacy.

(2) The concern about rampant overprescribing of benzodiazepines

by physicians, abuse of benzodiazepines by patients and nonpatients

alike, and the misinterpretation of the drug’s risk versus benefit.

(3) The questions of whether the long-term use and/or high-dose

use of some benzodiazepines is more likely to produce dependence,

toxicity, and severe withdrawal than other benzodiazepines.

(4) The increasing regulation and perhaps overregulation of

benzodiazepine prescription and the consequent underuse of these

drugs in legitimate circumstances and the reappearance of more

toxic drugs to substitute for benzodiazepines.

The misinterpretation and over evaluation of the therapeutic effects of

benzodiazepines

In addition to the well-established antianxiety, hypnotic, and antipanic effects

of benzodiazepines, these drugs have been used to treat other psychiatric

7 5
conditions. Most prominently, benzodiazepines have been thought to have

antipsychotic and antidepressant properties.

1. Antipsychotic properties

Studies with benzodiazepines at high doses have suggested significant

therapeutic antipsychotic effect (Nestoros et al. 1983). An initial trial of

alprazolam, for example, was shown to have beneficial effect on negative

symptoms in chronic schizophrenic patients (Wolkowitz et al. 1988). This

result has not been replicated (Csernansky et al. 1988). As a general conclusion, benzodiazepines by themselves probably do not exert any antipsychotic

effect although they may modulate the dopamine system and allow for slight

reduction in total antipsychotic drug dosages (Douyon et al. 1989).

The interpretation of data suggesting that benzodiazepines have antipsychotic

properties illustrates some of the problems that can be found in benzodiazepine research for atypical indications such as psychosis and depression. In

earlier studies, patient samples were small, and diagnostic and outcome

criteria insufficiently described and established. In more recent studies, the

diagnostic and outcome criteria are very specific, but the interpretation of the

results is somewhat questionable. Statistically significant changes in rating

scale scores may have little clinical meaning. For example, BPRS scores

following alprazolam administration decreased by approximately 5 points

(Wolkowitz et al. 1988), but this decrease does not translate to meaningful

clinical improvement in patient’s thought, affect or behavior. Benzodiazepines have been clearly shown to have adjunctive effect in the control of

disruptive behavior associated with psychosis. Retrospective and prospective

studies have demonstrated that psychotic patients who are out of control can

be effectively managed by adding low doses of a benzodiazepine (usually the

high potency lorazepam given intramuscularly) along with low doses of a

neuroleptic. In fact, this combined treatment of severe agitation and

behavioral disruption has become standard throughout many parts of the

United States (Salzman et al. 1991). However, clinical practice has misinterpreted this therapeutic effect to suggest that continued benzodiazepine use

might prevent recurrence of disruptive behavior. There are no data to

support the prophylactic effect of benzodiazepines on behavioral disruption.

Furthermore, benzodiazepines have been shown to be associated with

irritability, hostility, and even aggression in some patients, especially under

conditions of frustration (Salzman et al. 1974; Kochansky et al. 1975; Gardner

and Cowdry 1985; Dietch and Jennings 1988). Therefore, one must question

whether or not continued benzodiazepine use for this purpose is justified.

7 6
2. Treatment of depression

Benzodiazepines have been thought to therapeutically affect depressive

symptoms for many years, and these observations have been supported by

limited data (Salzman et al. 1975). More recently, benzodiazepines with a

triazolo-ring have been thought to have more specific antidepressant effects.

These clinical observations have been supported by double-blind placebocontrolled research. A review of 20 controlled studies of benzodiazepines as

antidepressants concluded that these drugs alone are effective in relieving

anxiety associated with depression and thereby elevate mood somewhat, but

provide little benefit for the core symptoms of major depression (Schatzberg

and Cole 1978). Nevertheless, the triazolo group of benzodiazepines still has

the reputation of therapeutic antidepressant efficacy.

Examination of the data from some of these studies of antidepressant effectiveness illustrates some of the possibilities of misinterpreting these data. In

one study, for example, alprazolam and imipramine, as compared with

placebo, significantly reduced Hamilton depression ratings; it was concluded

that alprazolam was as effective as imipramine for the treatment of depression, both significantly more effective than placebo (Feigher et al. 1983).

Although a statistically correct conclusion, its clinical significance is questionable for three reasons. First, the total Hamilton depression scale score

was reduced to only 15 which indicates a lack of clinically significant antidepressant effect. Second, most of the Hamilton depression score items that

showed improvement were items associated with anxiety, agitation, or sleep,

whereas the core symptoms of depression only changed slightly. Third, the

study was only 6 weeks in duration. The patients who received tricyclics

might have improved more than those who took the benzodiazepine if the

study had been continued for a longer period of time. Similar conclusions

can be drawn from a study of alprazolam compared with amitriptyline and

doxepin with virtually identical data (Feigner 1982).

Controversy regarding the role of benzodiazepines for psychosis and depression continues today. As noted, the antiagitation effect of benzodiazepines is

established, and there may be a further role in the reduction of neuroleptic

doses and diminution of some extrapyramidal side effects. For depression, it

is clear that benzodiazepines are useful drugs to promote sleep and decrease

anxiety and agitation. It may be that the secondary consequences of improved sleep and decreased anxiety is some elevation of mood, but there are

few data to support a meaningful antidepressant effect of these drugs on core

symptoms of depression. Nevertheless, it seems that these drugs and the

77
triazolo derivatives, in particular, are still thought to possess antidepressant

properties. For example, a recent study of estazolam, a benzodiazepine

hypnotic with triazolo-ring structure, was shown to have antidepressant effect

by significantly reducing total scores on the Hamilton depression rating scale

(Ferguson et al. 1990). The authors concluded that these data further

supported the hypothesis that triazolo benzodiazepines possessed antidepressant effect. Examination of Hamilton scores, however, reveal interpretive problems similar to the previous depression studies cited. The total

Hamilton score only decreased to approximately 15, and virtually all of the

items showing improvement with estazolam were on sleep, anxiety, and

agitation items.

It may be true that triazolo benzodiazepines have some antidepressant

properties, but the data are not yet available. Furthermore, clinical experience suggests that benzodiazepines, regardless of their structure, while

not good drugs for use as primary antidepressants, may be useful adjuncts for

treating related anxiety, insomnia, and agitation.

Are There Differences Among Benzodiazepines?

Until recently, it was axiomatic that all benzodiazepines were essentially

therapeutically equivalent for the treatment of anxiety as long as doses were

equalized. The high-potency benzodiazepines were shown to be more effective for treatment of panic disorder, although the low-potency drugs may also

be effective if higher than usual anxiolytic doses are used. The question of

benzodiazepine equivalence with regard to side effects has been controversial. It has also been axiomatic that all benzodiazepines share common

side effects, and all produce a dependence and discontinuance syndrome

following their long-term use. Although the onset of this discontinuance

syndrome is more rapid with short half-life drugs, there may be no difference

in the symptomatic components of the discontinuance syndrome nor in its

intensity between high- versus low-potency benzodiazepines.

Whether or not there were pharmacologic as well as toxic differences between high- and low-potency benzodiazepines was discussed at considerable

length by the APA Task Force members (1990) without clear resolution.

From the pharmacologic perspective, some task force members pointed out

the lack of data suggesting differential receptor binding affinity, and emphasized that the only difference was in the pharmacokinetic property of

elimination half-life. On this basis, short half-life drugs are more likely to

produce a severe discontinuance syndrome when abruptly discontinued than

78
are long half-life benzodiazepines regardless of the clinical potency of the

benzodiazepine being used. Other task force members noted that clinical

experience has suggested otherwise. Alprazolam and triazolam, in particular,

(possibly clonazepam and lorazepam as well) seem to be commonly associated in the clinical setting with severe dependence and more difficult

discontinuance. Many patients find it difficult to wean themselves from these

drugs, and even with gradual dose discontinuation, severe rebound symptoms

are not unusual (Fyer et al. 1987, 1988).

This controversy persists right up to the present. Practicing clinicians are

concerned that the prescription of high-potency benzodiazepines, regardless

of their elimination half-life, may be associated with difficult discontinuation

if the drugs are given for more than a brief period of time, e.g., more than 1

to 4 months. However, research studies have not shown any difference in

dependence and discontinuance between high- and low-potency drugs when

both are gradually discontinued. The controversy is significant not only from

a scientific perspective, but because of the implications for public confidence

in physicians prescribing benzodiazepines and for possible legal consequences

of prescribing these drugs. Critics of benzodiazepine use emphasize the

dependence and difficult discontinuance associated with high potency

benzodiazepines. Researchers emphasize the lack of evidence supporting a

true difference between high and low potency drugs. Furthermore, some

patients who may benefit from high-potency benzodiazepines may be

reluctant to take them out of concern they will become dependent on them.

Consequently, the question of risk versus benefit again becomes central for

the use of these medications.

Recent data have suggested that there may be more than one subtype of

benzodiazepine receptor, and that benzodiazepine receptors and their subtypes may be differentially located throughout the central nervous system.

Furthermore, differential benzodiazepine-GABA receptor complex sensitivity

may exist in different parts of the brain, suggesting that there may be some

pharmacologic basis for different therapeutic efficacy, toxicity, and dependence among benzodiazepines.

Government Regulation of Benzodiazepine Prescription

As noted, benzodiazepines are widely available in the United States, but tend

to be used either primarily for short periods of time or chronically for

specific groups of limited numbers of people. There are also data clearly

indicating that benzodiazepines are not abusable compounds (APA Task

79
Force 1990), although they are widely used among substance abusers who are

taking other drugs of abuse and/or alcohol. Since benzodiazepine use by

substance abusers tends to be highly visible, some public health and drug

enforcement officials have concluded that benzodiazepine misuse and abuse

was widespread. This conclusion may be also bolstered by the apparent

existence of some physicians or physicians’ groups that tend to prescribe large

amounts of benzodiazepines for large numbers of patients, usually for people

treated in clinics supported by Medicaid.

As a consequence, drug enforcement programs have sought to limit the

availability of benzodiazepines by making their prescription more difficult. In

New York State this has led to the use of triplicate forms for benzodiazepine

prescriptions, resulting in reduced benzodiazepine prescribing, especially in

nursing homes and in cancer treatment facilities. However, this regulation

has interfered with legitimate prescribing of benzodiazepines so that some

patients may now have more difficult access to treatment. Nursing home

patients in New York State, for example, are now being prescribed greater

numbers of neuroleptics for control of agitation or insomnia, with consequent

increases in extrapyramidal and cardiotoxic side effects. Cancer patients and

others with chronic disease (a group who are legitimate chronic users of

benzodiazepines) are increasingly being prescribed alternate anxiolytics such

as meprobamate and non-barbiturate sedative hypnotics, two classes of

compounds that are far more toxic and dependence-inducing than benzodiazepines. Physician surveys report a growing reluctance to prescribe

medications even for appropriate patients, for fear of prescription auditing.

Furthermore, the attempt at regulation has failed to affect the primary target

populations, i.e., substance abusers, and there has been no change in the

street availability of these drugs (Schwarz 1991).

There is obviously a controversy regarding whether these compounds are

ultimately helpful or harmful. The clinical perspective, articulated by the

APA Task Force, suggests that although benzodiazepines may be sometimes

overprescribed for certain patient subgroups, and occasionally misprescribed

and misused by some physicians and patients, they are primarily used for

appropriate clinical indications. Furthermore, they are not abused by legitimate patient populations, and with the exception of dependence and discontinuance, are relatively risk-free compared to the considerable therapeutic

potential. From the public safety perspective, however, these drugs are apparently seen quite differently: they are considered to be abusable, widely

misused, and overly prescribed, thus requiring careful regulation (Salzman

1991c).

80
FUTURE RESEARCH

The controversies discussed above clearly point to the need for further

research. In addition to the burgeoning pharmacologic data on benzodiazepine receptors, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics, research is necessary to resolve these controversies.

A. Differences Among Benzodiazepines

It is likely that all benzodiazepines, if given in sufficient doses for sufficient

periods of time, have the potential for producing a discontinuance syndrome

when their use is abruptly terminated. Data from one series of research

studies (Rickels et al. 1984) suggests that approximately four months of daily

therapeutic doses is necessary to produce a state of dependence as defined by

a clinically meaningful discontinuance syndrome. Anecdotal reports, however, indicate that there may be a broad duration of treatment during which

some patients quickly become dependent, whereas others apparently never do

or do not develop dependency for many months. The APA Task Force

Report reviewed factors that may predispose to dependence, such as prior

dependence on sedative hypnotics and advanced age, but there are still

insufficient data to reliably predict the timing of onset of clinically meaningful

dependence when therapeutic doses of benzodiazepines are given over a

period of time.

Three research questions thus arise. First is the need for data timing the

onset of dependence, as defined by appearance of discontinuance symptoms

at different dosage levels, in patients with anxiety symptoms as compared

with panic symptoms. A second perplexing question not resolved by the APA

Task Force Report concerns potential differences among benzodiazepines in

producing dependence and severe discontinuance symptoms. The task force

reviewed the growing body of clinical experience suggesting that short halflife benzodiazepines are more likely to produce dependence at any given dose

and duration of treatment than are long half-life benzodiazepines. It seems

clear that abrupt discontinuation of short half-life benzodiazepines produces

more severe rebound and withdrawal symptoms (and earlier onset of symptoms). The question of whether high-potency benzodiazepines are more

likely to produce dependence and serious discontinuance problems than lowpotency compounds remains unresolved.

The third related question concerns differences among benzodiazepines in

causing withdrawal seizures following their abrupt discontinuation. The task

81
force review suggests that seizures are a serious, although relatively

infrequent, withdrawal symptom that occur almost exclusively after abruptly

discontinuing long-term benzodiazepines use, especially of short half-life

compounds. However, FDA information based on anecdotal reports

provided to the task force, suggests that alprazolam is more likely to be

associated with withdrawal seizures than other benzodiazepines (Nelson

1987). However, there are no research data controlling for dose, duration of

treatment, or presence of other drugs, that compares the relative potential for

withdrawal seizures among different benzodiazepines. Anecdotal reports

should not be taken as a measure of withdrawal seizure frequency or

prevalence because of differential use patterns and reporting rates that may

exist for alprazolam. Therefore, a comparative study of benzodiazepine

withdrawal seizures would have considerable public health significance.

B. Long-term Benzodiazepine Use and Abnormal Brain Imaging

While the task force was preparing its report, several publications suggested

that long-term benzodiazepine use is occasionally associated with cerebral

atrophy as observed on CT scan (Lader et al. 1984; Schmauss et al. 1987).

These observations were criticized because of the small number of patients,

the lack of control of benzodiazepine doses and of concomitant substance use

especially alcohol (Perera et al. 1987; Poser et al. 1983). The task force

concluded that there was no reliable evidence to suggest that long-term

benzodiazepine use was associated with structural or functional central

nervous system damage. Nevertheless, these findings of possible brain

damage continue to be cited by critics of long-term benzodiazepine use.

Further evidence either to refute these conclusions, or in support of the APA

Task Force conclusions is needed. Future studies, however, must be

conducted in patients who have not previously used psychotropic drugs,

substances of abuse, or alcohol.

C. Effects of Long-term Benzodiazepine Use on Cognitive Function

Therapeutic benzodiazepine use may cause an acute decrement of cognitive

functions. There are no data to suggest that long-term benzodiazepine use is

associated with permanent cognitive impairment. Pilot data in older patients

suggest that cognitive impairment associated with benzodiazepine use of more

than several months is reversible when the drugs are discontinued (Salzman

1991). However, because benzodiazepines may be used chronically by some

older patients, it is of considerable public health importance to study the

82
effect of long-term use on cognitive function. In addition, discontinuance

studies should be done to determine whether or not there is improvement or

lack of improvement in cognitive function when long-term use is terminated.

D. Continued Consequences of Benzodiazepine Regulation

Although a reduction of widespread benzodiazepine use in elderly residents

of nursing homes is to be applauded, the clinical consequences of such a

reduction and the possible worsening of care from the use of more toxic

substances must be carefully investigated. What are the consequences of no

benzodiazepine treatment or the use of more toxic replacement drugs in

patients for whom chronic benzodiazepine use is most appropriate, i.e., the

older medically ill patient? Will there be increased benzodiazepine

withdrawal (and even seizures) as more clinicians discontinue benzodiazepines in those patients who had been chronically treated?

Preliminary information suggests that triplicate prescription has not been

entirely successful and may have limited the legitimate use of these drugs.

However, States other than New York are also considering the use of triplicate forms for benzodiazepine prescription. Careful studies of the benefit to

risk ratio of such regulation is necessary.

REFERENCES

Allen, R.M. Tranquilizers and sedative/hypnotics: Appropriate use in the elderly. Geriatrics 41:75-88, 1986.

Avorn, J.; Dreyer, P.; Connelly, K.; and Soumerai, S.B. Use of psychoactive

medication and quality of care in rest homes. N Eng J Med 320:227-232,

1989.

American Psychiatric Association. Benzodiazepine Dependence, Toxicity, and

Abuse. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1990.

Balmer, R.; Battergay, R.; and von Marschall, R. Long-term treatment with

diazepam: Investigation of consumption habits and the interaction

between psychotherapy and psychopharmacotherapy: a prospective study.

Pharmacopsychiatry 16:221-234. 1981.

Balter, M.B. Clinical epidemiology of treatment with prescription

medications with dependent liability. Faculty presentation at Montebello

Conference on Development of Educational Strategies for Prescribing

Drugs with Dependence Liability: Optimal Therapy the Goal, Montebello, Quebec, Canada, June 2-3, 1988.

83
Blazer, D.; George, L.K.; and Hughes, D. The epidemiology of anxiety

disorders: An age comparison. In: Salzman, C., ed. Anxiety in the Elderly

New York: Springer, 1990 pp. 17-30.

Buck, J.A. Psychotropic drug practice in nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc

36:409-418, 1988.

Catalan J.; Gath, D.H.; and Bond, A. General practice patients on longterm psychotropic drugs: a controlled investigation. Br J Psychiatry 152:

399-405, 1988.

Clayton, P.J. The comorbidity factor: Establishing the primary diagnosis in

patients with mixed symptoms of anxiety and depression. J Clin Psychiatry

51(suppl):35-39, 1990.

Clayton, P.J. Anxious depression: A reemerging subtype of depression. In:

Racagni, G., and Smeralde, E., eds. Anxious depression: Assessment and

Treatment New York: Raven Press, 1987.

Cohen, G.D. Anxiety and General Medical Disorders. In: Salzman, C., ed.

Anxiety in the Elderly New York: Springer, 1990, pp 47-62.

Csernansky, J.G.; Riney, S.J.; Lombrozo, L.; Overall, J.E.; and Hollister, L.E.

Double-blind comparison of alprazolam, diazepam, and placebo for the

treatment of negative schizophrenic symptoms. Arch Gen Psychiatry

45:655-671, 1988.

de Wit, H.; Uhlenhuth, E.H.; and Hedeker, D. Lack of preference for

diazepam in anxious volunteers. Arch Gen Psychiatry 43:533-541, 1986.

Douyon, R.; Angrist, B.; Peselow, E; Cooper, T.; and Rotrosen, J.

Neuroleptic Augmentation with alprazolam: Clinical effects and

pharmacokinetic correlates. Am J Psychiatry 146:231-234, 1989.

Eaton, W.W.; Holzer, C.E. III; Von Korff, M.; Anthony, M.C.; Helzer, J.C.;

Burnham, G.L.; Boyd, J.H.; Kessler, L.G.; and Locke, B.Z. The design

of the ECA surveys: The control and measurement of error. Arch Gen

Psychiatry 41:942-948, 1984.

Feighner, J.P. Benzodiazepines as antidepressants. Mod Problems in

Pharmacopsychiatry 18:196-212, 1982.

Feighner, J.P.; Aden, G.C.; Fabre, L.F.; Rickels, K.; and Smith, W.T.

Comparison of alprazolam, imipramine, and placebo in the treatment of

depression. JAMA 249:3057-3064, 1983.

Ferguson, J.M.; Bielski, R.J.; Post, G.L.; Hooston, J.P.; Shu, V.S.; and

Pierce, M.W. Estazolam treatment of insomnia with depression. Paper

presented at annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association,

New York City, May 12-17, 1990.

Fernandez, F. Anxiety and the neuropsychiatry of AIDS. J Clin Psychiatry 50

(suppl):9-14, 1989.

84
Fyer, A.J.; Liebowitz, M.R.; and Gorman, J.M. Discontinuation of

alprazolam treatment in panic patients. Am J Psychiatry 144:303-308,

1987.

Fyer, A.J.; Liebowitz, M.R.; and Gorman, J.M. Effects of clonidine on

alprazolam discontinuation in panic patients: A pilot study. J Clin

Psychophannacol 8:270-274, 1988.

Golombok, S.; Higgit, A.; and Fonagy, P. A follow-up study of patients

treated for benzodiazepine dependence. Br J Med Psychol 60:141-149,

1987.

Greenfield, D.; Conrad, C.; Kincare, P.; and Bowers, M.B. Jr. Treatment of

catatonia with low-dose lorazepam. Am J Psychiatry 144:1224-1225, 1987.

Helzer, J.E.; Robins, J.N.; and McEvoy, L. Posttraumatic stress disorder in

the general population. N Engl J Med 317:1630-1634, 1987.

Holland, J.C. Anxiety and cancer: The patient and the family. J Clin

Psychiatry 50(suppl):20-25, 1989.

Jacobs, S.; Hansen, F.; Kasl, S.; Ostfeld, A.; Berkman, L.; and Kim, K.

Anxiety disorders during acute bereavement: Risk and risk factors. J Clin

Psychiatry 51(suppl):269-274, 1990.

Kellner, R.; Wilson, R.M.; Muldawer, M.D.; and Pathak, MA. Anxiety in

schizophrenia: The response to chlordiazepoxide in an intensive design

study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 32:1246-1254, 1975.

Kochansky, G.E.; Salzman, C.; Shader, R.I.; Harmatz, J.S.; and Ogletree,

A.M. The differential effects of chlordiazepoxide and oxazepam upon

hostility in a small group setting. Amer J Psychiatry 132:861-863, 1975.

Koster van Groos, G.A. Treatment of neurotic and psychotic anxiety with

lorazepam. Curr Med Res Opinion 1:288-290, 1973.

Lader, M. Benzodiazepine dependence. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol

Psychiatry 8:85-95, 1984.

Linnoila, M.I. Anxiety and alcoholism. J Clin Psychiatry 50(suppl):26-29,

1989.

Liptzin, B. Masked anxiety-alcohol and drug use. In: Salzman, C., ed.

Anxiety in the Elderly New York: Springer, 1990. pp. 87-101.

Marks, J. Chronic anxiolytic treatment: Benefit and risk. In: Kemali, D. and

Racagni, G., eds. Chronic Treatments in Neuropsychiatry. New York:

Raven Press, 1985. pp 173-183.

Mellinger, G.D.; Balter, M.B.; and Parry, H.J. An overview of

psychotherapeutic drugs. In: Josephson, E., and Carroll, F.F., eds. Drug

Use: Epidemiological and Sociological Approaches. New York:

Hemisphere Publishing Corp, 1974, pp 333-365

Mellinger, G.D.; Balter, M.B.; and Uhlenhuth, E.H. Insomnia and its

treatment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 42:225-232, 1985.

8 5
Mellinger, G.D., and Balter, M.B. Prevalence and patterns of use of

psychotherapeutic drugs: Results from a 1979 national survey of

American adults. In: Tognoni, G.; Bellantuono, C.; and Lader, M., eds.

Epidemiological Impact of Psychotropic Drugs New York: Elsevier-North

Holland, 1981. pp. 117-135.

Mellinger, G.D.; Balter, M.B.; and Uhlenhuth, E.H. Anti-anxiety agents:

duration of use and characteristics of users in the USA. Curr Med Res

Opin 8S: 21-35, 1984a.

Mellinger, G.D.; Balter, M.B.; and Uhlenhuth, E.H. Prevalence and correlates of long-term regular use of anxiolytics. JAMA 251: 375-379, 1984b.

Miller, J.D.; Cisin, I.H.; and Barnhill, J.G. National Survey on Drug

Abuse: Main Findings 1982. DHHS Publication (ADM) 83-1263.

Rockville, MD: U.S. Public Health Service, 1983.

Modell, J.G.; Lenox, R.H.; and Weiner, S. Inpatient clinical trial of

lorazepam for the management of manic agitation. J Clin Psychopharmacol 5:109-113, 1985.

Nagy, A. Long-term treatment with benzodiazepines: Theoretical, ideological,

and practical aspects. Acta Psychiatr Scand [Suppl] 76S:47-55, 1987.

Nelson, R.C. Estimates of benzodiazepine use, doses, and duration of use;

data on seizures and other reported withdrawal. Denominator of

exposure-How many individuals are exposed to benzodiazepines

(unpublished manuscript), Washington, DC, Food and Drug

Administration, 1987.

Nolan L., and O’Malley, K. Patients, prescribing, and benzodiazepines. Eur

J Clin Pharmacol 35:22S-229, 1986.

Pato, C.N.; Wolkowitz, O.M.; Rapaport, M.; Schulz, S.C.; and Pickar, D.

Benzodiazepine augmentation of neuroleptic treatment in patients with

schizophrenia. Psychopharmacol Bull 25:263-266, 1989.

Pecknold, J.C.; Swinson, R.P.; and Kuch, K. Alprazolam in panic disorder

and agoraphobia: results from a multicenter trial, III: Discontinuation

effects. Arch Gen Psychiatry 45:429-436, 1988.

Pecknold, J.C.; McClure, D.J.; and Fleury, D. Benzodiazepine withdrawal

effects. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 6:517-522, 1982.

Perera, K.M.H.; Powell, T.; and Jenner, F.A. Computerized axial

tomographic studies following long-term use of benzodiazepines. Psychol

Med 17:775-777, 1987a.

Perera, K.M.H.; Tulley, M.; and Jenner, F.A. The use of benzodiazepines

among drug addicts. Br J Addict 82:511-515, 1987b.

Poser, W.; Poser, S.; and Rosher, D.; Do benzodiazepines cause cerebral

atrophy? Lancet 1:715, 1983.

8 6
Rahe, R.H. Anxiety and coronary heart disease in midlife. J Clin Psychiatry

50(suppl):36-39, 1989.

Regier, D.A.; Narrow, W.E.; and Rae, D.S. The epidemiology of anxiety

disorders: The epidemiologic catchment area (ECA) experience. J

Psychiat Res 24, Suppl 2: 3-14, 1990.

Rickels, K., and Schweizer, E. Current pharmacotherapy of anxiety and panic,

In: Meltzer, H.Y., ed. Psychopharmacology: The Third Generation in

Progress. New York: Raven Press, 1987. pp. 1193-1203.

Rickels, K.; Case, W.G.; and Winokur, A. Long-term benzodiazepine therapy:

Benefits and risks. Psychopharmacol Bull 20:608-615, 1984.

Rodrigo, E.K.; King, M.B.; and Williams, P. Health of long-term

benzodiazepine users. Br Med J 296:603-606, 1988.

Salzman, C. Psychotropic drug use and polypharmacy in a general hospital.

Gen Hosp Psychiatry 3:1-9, 1981.

Salzman, C. The American Psychiatric Association Task Force Report on

Benzodiazepine Dependency, Toxicity, and Abuse. J Psyhiatr Res

24:1(Suppl):35-37, 1990.

Salzman, C. Editorial: The APA Benzodiazepine Task Force Report on Dependency, Toxicity, and Abuse. Am J Psychiatry 148:151-152, 1991.

Salzman, C.; Shader, R.I.; and Harmatz, J.S. Response of the elderly to

psychotropic drugs: Predictable or idiosyncratic? In: Gershon, S., and

Raskin A., eds. Aging Volume 2. New York: Raven Press, 1975. pp 259-

272.

Salzman, C., and van der Kolk, B.A. Psychotropic drugs and polypharmacy in

elderly patients in a general hospital. J Geriatr Psychiatry 12:167-176,

1979.

Salzman, C., and van der Kolk, B.A. Psychotropic drug prescriptions for

elderly patients in a general hospital. J Am Geriatr Soc 28:18-22, 1980.

Salzman, C.; Solomon, D.; Miyawaki, E.; Glassman, R.; Rood, L.; Flowers,

E.; and Thayer, S. Parenteral lorazepam versus parenteral haloperidol

for the control of psychotic disruptive behavior. J Clin Psychiatry 52:177-

180, 1991.

Salzman, C.; Fisher, J.; Nobel, K.; and Wolfson, A. Cognitive impairment

following benzodiazepine discontinuance in elderly nursing home

residents. Submitted.

Santos, A.B., and Morton, W.A. Use of benzodiazepines to improve management of manic agitation. Hosp Community Psychiatry 40:1069-1071, 1990.

Schatzberg, A.F., and Cole, J.O. Benzodiazepines in depressive disorders.

Arch Gen Psychiatry 35:1359-1361, 1978.

Schmauss, C., and Krieg, J.C. Enlargement of cerebrospinal fluid spaces in

long-term benzodiazepine user:. Psychol Med 17:869-873, 1987.

87
Schwartz, H. Consequences of benzodiazepine triplicate prescription

Submitted.

Smith, B.D., and Nacev, V. Drug usage as determined under conditions of

anonymity and high questionnaire return rate. Int J Addict 13:725-736,

1978.

Stein, M.B., and Uhde, T.W. Panic disorder and major depression: A tale of

two syndromes. Psychiatr Clin North Am 11:441-461, 1988.

Strain, J.J.; Liebowitz, M.R.; and Klein, D.F. Anxiety and panic attacks in

the medically ill. Psychiatr Clin North Am 4:333-350, 1981.

Terr, L.C. Childhood traumas: An outline and overview. Am J Psychiatry

148:10-20, 1991

Tyrer, P.; Owen, R.; and Dowling, S. Gradual withdrawal of diazepam after

long-term therapy. Lancet 1:1402-1406, 1983.

Uhlenhuth, E. H.; Balter, M.B.; and Mellinger, G.D. Anxiety disorders:

Prevalence and treatment. Curr Med Res Opin 83:37-46, 1984.

Uhlenhuth, E.H.; Balter, M.B.; and Mellinger, G.D. Symptoms checklist

syndromes in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry 40:1167-1173,

1983.

Uhlenhuth, E.H.; De Wit, H.; and Balter, M.B. Risks and benefits of longterm benzodiazepine use. J Clin Psychopharmacol 8161-167, 1988.

van der Kolk, B.A. Psychological Trauma. Washington DC: American

Psychiatric Press, 1987.

Winstead, D.K.; Anderson, A.; and Eilers, K. Diazepam on demand: Drugseeking behavior in psychiatric inpatients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 37:101-

105, 1980.

Wise, M.G., and Tayler, S.E. Anxiety and mood disorders in medically ill pa

tients. J Clin Psychiatry 51(suppl):27-32, 1990.

Wolkowitz, O.M.; Breier, A.; Doran, A.; Kelsoe, J.; Lucas, P.; Paul, S.M.; and

Pickar, D. Alprazolam augmentation of the antipsychotic effects of fluphenazine in schizophrenic patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 45:664-671,

1988.

AUTHOR

Carl Salzman, M.D.

Director of Psychopharmacology

Massachusetts Mental Health Center

74 Fenwood Road

Boston, MA 02115

88
Stimulant Drugs-Medical Needs, Alternative

Indications, and Related Problems

Jonathan O. Cole, Lenore A. Boling, and

Barbara J. Beake

INTRODUCTION

This review of the medical uses of Schedule II stimulant drugs has been

prepared for a meeting to evaluate the impact of prescription drug diversion

control systems on medical practice and patient care. The stimulant drugs

used in conditions other than appetite control–chiefly dextroamphetamine

(Dexedrine), methamphetamine (Desoxyn) and methylphenidate (Ritalin)–fall

under a major diversion control system based on the Controlled Substances

Act of 1970. This act placed these drugs in Schedule II, made refillable

prescriptions illegal, and placed controls and quotas on their manufacture.

This has already had a massive effect on the extent of use of these drugs in

medicine. One source (Grinspoon and Hedblom 1975) claims that over ten

billion tablets of amphetamine-like drugs were made in the United States in

1970. Although no relevant figures or current production or sales of stimulant drugs are available, at least a 90 percent decrease in availability for

prescription purposes in the United States seems likely. This massive

reduction in use has been accompanied by great reluctance on the part of

most physicians to prescribe stimulants, even when the medical indication is

very clear or when the patient’s clinical history clearly documents complete

failure to respond to any other noncontrolled medication.

Clinical studies of the efficacy of Class II stimulants in psychiatric conditions,

other than attentional deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), have almost

completely disappeared over the 20 years since stimulants were moved to

Schedule II. Only recently have there been a small number of papers

describing excellent response to stimulants in depressed or severely anergic

medically ill patients in general hospitals, as well as in the treatment of

depression-fatigue-cognitive impairment in patients with AIDS. There is also

a modest revival of interest in and experience with the use of stimulants in

treatment refractory depressions. A few studies also look at adult patients

with residual ADHD symptoms. At the same time, one hears anecdotal

89
reports from patients with narcolepsy, adult ADHD, and chronic depression

who have done excellently on stable stimulant medication for years. They

complain that they are frequently unable to find a new physician to prescribe

the stimulant once their original doctor moves, dies, or retires. The general

position taken by this review is that stimulant medication is currently

substantially underutilized in American medicine, and that the current level

of control is certainly adequate to prevent any major abuse of prescribed

stimulant drugs. In fact, since most patients who really benefit from stimulant

therapy require maintenance medication for years, the currently nonrefillable

monthly prescription causes frequent problems to patients, physicians and

pharmacists. A special provision allowing selected documented patients

requiring long term stimulant therapy to receive refillable prescriptions of the

sort available under Schedule III would be very helpful. This paper will

consider a number of relevant areas:

I. Changes in stimulant abuse between the 1940s and the present.

II. Available evidence on the way stimulants are currently being used, viz.:

A. Physician survey data for both Ritalin and Dexedrine from their

respective manufacturers.

B. A mail questionnaire survey of the members of the Massachusetts

Psychiatric Association with respect to stimulant prescribing to

adults, conducted by the authors in the fall of 1990.

C. A description of 28 patients (evaluated or treated by the senior

author) who have been maintained on stimulants for 1 to 30 years.

III. The principal officially approved as well as the medically reasonable

indications for the prescription use of stimulants, with estimates of the

number of patients who might reasonably receive trials of stimulant therapy

and the number likely to be receiving such therapy.

IV. Medical need for stimulants

V. The probable impact of new diversion control systems

9 0
I. STIMULANT ABUSE–THEN AND NOW

McLean Hospital, a 300 bed private psychiatric hospital in the Boston area

with a substance abuse program, has not admitted a patient with a discharge

diagnosis of primary stimulant abuse or dependence (other than cocaine) in

10 years. Patients admitted in the preceding 10 years with this diagnosis were

few and marginal, often chronic depressives who had done well on stimulants

and whose physicians were worried about prescribing further stimulants for

them. Real abuse of prescribed stimulants, except by a few younger polysubstance abusers, appears to have disappeared from our inpatient service.

Informal checks with other Veterans Administration and university psychiatric

services reveals the same general picture. Abuse of prescribed stimulants

leading to amphetamine psychosis, violence, or overuse to elicit euphoria

seems to have disappeared. When one reads overviews such as that in

Grinspoon and Hedblom’s 1975 volume, The Speed Control, the world seems

to have been very different in the period before 1970. When amphetamines

were freely and widely prescribed and almost anyone could get legitimate

stimulant medication in enough volume for serious abuse, major problems

occurred in some truckers, prisoners, and drug abusing delinquents. Some

housewives and students also got into serious trouble. Unfortunately, the

available literature cited by authors like Grinspoon and Hedbloom is biased.

There are no extensive studies of large samples of patients prescribed

stimulants for obesity, fatigue or depression in the course of ordinary practice

which could yield any estimates of the proportion of thes patients who

eventually got into serious trouble with stimulants.

The Grinspoon and Hedblom book begins with a distressing self-report of a

man who began using amphetamines to perform better in college and

eventually destroyed years of his life because of a massive, prolonged

amphetamine addiction. Many, many college students then, and sometimes

now, used stimulants for a night or a few nights to cram for exams without

ever going on to malignant abuse of the drugs. The use of drugs to relieve

fatigue and enhance performance on an occasional basis may, in fact, be

useful in some cases, benign in others, and lead to dependence in others, but

this type of use has never been seriously studied. The Armed Services in

World War II used stimulants to avert fatigue in pilots and other personnel.

This may have been unwise or it may, in fact, have been useful to the men

taking the drugs some of the time. We’ll never know. Similarly, we’ll never

know what proportion of the patients prescribed amphetamines for a wide

range of psychiatric and medical complaints in the 1940s and 1950s were

helped, what proportion used them wisely, and what proportion ended up

9 1
abusing them. One suspects the proportion who got into serious trouble was

quite small. The only available study of the clinical patterns of stimulant use

in the period before 1970, a survey of the use of stimulants by family

physicians, was reported in 1962 (Brandon and Smith 1962).

This study was carried out in the United Kingdom. Thirty three doctors

(members of the NE Faculty of the College of General Practitioners)

completed data sheets on all patients receiving an amphetamine-like

medication over a 3-month period. The drugs prescribed were Drinamyl (damphetamine plus amobarbital) (35 percent), d-amphetamine (21 percent),

Durophet (probably a d-amphetamine spansule) (13 percent), and Preludin (9

percent). Dose averaged 10 mg a day and almost never exceeded 20 mg damphetamine or the equivalent a day. Six hundred and twenty (0.8 percent)

of the 79,300 patients covered by the practices received an amphetamine.

The main indications were: obesity (35 percent), depression (20 percent),

tiredness (18 percent), anxiety (14 percent), and lack of confidence (5

percent). Rates of prescribing were much higher for women (85 percent)

than for men (15 percent). Prescribing was highest in the age range 36-55.

No cases of psychosis, toxicity, or dose escalation were observed, the authors

state. One hundred and twenty-seven (20 percent) of the patients had been

receiving stimulants for over two years, mostly for depression or other

psychiatric reasons. The participating practitioners were asked to identify

patients they judged to be “habituated.” Sometimes the authors add the term

“addicted”. No criteria for this judgement were provided. Seventy-three

patients (12 percent) were said to be habituated. Most of these did not fall

into the “psychiatric disability” or “depressed” groups. Of the “habituated”

patients, all but 17 of the 73 were over 35 years of age and 31 were over 65.

At a guess, physicians called patients “habituated” if they felt the patients

wanted to continue the drug but the doctor was not sure it was clinically

useful.

Since Haight-Asbury, most of the serious noncocaine stimulant abuse has not

been of prescription stimulants but rather of illicitly manufactured

methamphetamine, once provided as a powder and now in smokable crystals.

Putting severe diversion controls on prescribed stimulants to decrease “street”

use of methamphetamine is an excellent example of a cure that does not fit

the disease.

92
II. AVAILABLE EVIDENCE ON CURRENT USE

A. Manufacturers’ Survey of Reasons for Stimulant Prescribing

Data provided by CIBA-Geigy based on market data from IMS International,

presumably from prescription audits from panels of cooperating physicians,

give figures on the reasons for prescribing methylphenidate for 1987, 1988

and 1989. For 1989, 47 percent of the prescriptions were for unspecified

disorders of conduct, 31 percent for ADHD, 6 percent for depression and 5

percent for narcolepsy and cataplexy. These figures leave 11 percent of these

patients undescribed.

Smith-Kline Beecham has conducted a nationwide, random sample telephone

survey of Dexedrine use involving 50 pediatricians (30 percent used

Dexedrine), 25 adult psychiatrists (12 percent used Dexedrine) and 23 child

psychiatrists (39 percent used Dexedrine). They then interviewed 100

physicians, all of whom used Dexedrine, including the above three groups

plus primary care physicians and neurologists.

The indications for which these 100 physicians prescribed Dexedrine were:

ADHD (74), narcolepsy (29), weight control (5), ADHD-residual type (17),

depression (13), fatigue (3), AIDS-related brain dysfunction (1), enuresis (2)

stroke (1), and idiopathic edema (1).

B. Survey of the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society

A questionnaire was mailed to the 1,599 members of the Massachusetts

Psychiatric Society in October 1990. Four hundred and thirty or 27 percent,

responded. Two hundred of the 430 responders indicated they were currently

treating patients over 18 with stimulants. Thus, 12.5 percent of the

membership or 47 percent of those responding indicated current use of

stimulants. Numbers of patients in various diagnostic categories were

reported. A total of 655 patients were receiving stimulants: 377 for

depression, 188 for ADHD-residual type, 55 for chronic fatigue, 28 to

counteract sedation due to other drugs, 17 for narcolepsy, 18 for medical

illnesses with depression, 14 for organic brain syndromes (10 due to AIDS), 6

for bulimia, 4 for obsessive-compulsive disorder and 4 for various anxiety

disorders. A number of patients had more than one diagnosis, e.g.,

depression plus chronic fatigue or ADHD, or depression with a medical

illness, such as AIDS. An additional 37 responders said they were not

currently treating anyone with stimulants but had done so in the past, and 11

93
were using stimulants only in children with ADHD. Several also noted

occasional brief stimulant use in hospitalized medical or surgical patients.

C. Patients on Maintenance Stimulant Therapy

The senior author is currently following or has done a detailed evaluation on

28 patients who, in his clinical judgement, derive substantial benefit from

maintenance stimulant therapy. All of these patients have maintained a

stable response without developing tolerance and without any evidence of

drug abuse for periods of between 1 and 27 years. Twenty-one of these

patients have received formal diagnostic reassessments in the last 2 years,

including a SCID-P interview, while seven received a less detailed assessment.

Most patients seen off stimulants originally met criteria for full major

depressive disorder or had been hospitalized for such a severe depression in

the past. One patient had been started on methylphenidate for “fatigue” 27

years earlier by an internist and no records of her state at that time could be

retrieved; she may well have been depressed then. This patient plus a patient

with pure panic disorder are the only ones without a significant history of

depression or dysthymia. However, if one selects one major target symptom

per patient, three have received stimulants primarily to suppress bulimia, two

for fatigue, two for idiopathic hypersomnia, five for attentional deficit

disorder (with or without hyperactivity), 15 for depression and one for panic

disorder. However, two of the depressions also had bulimia, two had some

form of attentional deficit disorder and two had idiopathic hypersomnia. Of

note, three of the depressed patients had also had manic episodes at some

time in the past but never on stimulants. All patients had failed on at least

two antidepressant therapies before, during or after being started on

stimulants. They average six unsuccessful antidepressant trials. Eight of the

patients had first received stimulants in the 1960s before these drugs were

rescheduled. Three of these had used illicit amphetamines bought in Mexico

or on the street when they could not obtain licit medication.

Defining drug abuse for patients whose medical condition or symptoms

clearly benefit from prolonged use of a controlled drug is a problem. Such

patients do not meet current DSM-III-R criteria for substance abuse or

dependence because they, legitimately, do not believe the drugs they are

taking are harmful. Dr. Richard Blum of Long Island, New York (verbal

communication 1990) has suggested the following criteria for abuse of

prescription of drugs:

94
(1) Dosage out of physician’s control

(2) Use causes overt problems (e.g. auto accidents, fights, loss of job)

(3) Patient denies problems obvious to others

(4) Problems increase over time

(5) Quality of life declines on the drug

By these criteria, none of the 28 patients described above have had any

suggestion of drug abuse since they have been receiving reasonable dosages

of prescribed stimulants.

It should be noted that response to stimulants in this population can be very

specific to a single stimulant. Dexedrine will work well, while Ritalin is

either ineffective or highly dysphoric. Pemoline will occasionally suffice.

One patient only responds to biphetamine, one only to methamphetamine.

Some take one pill at a time, two or three times a day. Others take the

whole daily dose on arising and notice no obvious stimulating effect at all.

Several patients have been off stimulants for 1 or more years at a time and

stayed miserable on all other antidepressant therapies, but regained euthymia

when placed back on stimulants. A few patients had fair to good responses

to standard antidepressants but the response had faded after a few months.

Stimulant response in this sample has been maintained for years, a rare

phenomenon in treatment-resistant depression.

III. MEDICAL USES OF STIMULANTS

The Class II stimulants have FDA-approved indications in the treatment of

attentional deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy. Some

amphetamines also have an approved indication in the treatment of obesity.

Their use as anorectics will be ignored in this paper on the grounds that,

although placebo-controlled studies document drug-related weight loss of

about two pounds a week, there is little evidence that prolonged use does (or

does not) benefit obese patients. Other approaches to obesity are available

and are probably preferable.

As with many other psychoactive and nonpsychoactive drugs, stimulants are

commonly used for indications beyond the approved labeling. These uses will

be discussed. Since one of the goals of this paper is to estimate medical

need, this will be attempted. These estimates will be exceedingly crude since

the conditions treated are, by and large, relatively uncommon and some-such

as chronic fatigue, adult ADHD (residual type), or AIDS-related neurasthenia

-have never been the subject of any systematic study of prevalence, much less

9 5
incidence, in any defined population. The authors have conversed with

experts and experienced clinicians in the relevant areas.

A. Narcolepsy

Classical narcolepsy is manifested by involuntarily falling asleep during the

day plus chronic sleepiness, which can interfere with performance when the

patient is awake. About half of the patients are said to also have cataplexy

(sudden loss of muscle strength under stress), sleep paralysis and hypnogogic

hallucinations (Mitler et al. 1990). Such patients show rapid onset of REM

sleep when studied in sleep laboratories. Since the available prevalence

studies were done on the basis of clinical judgement, not supported by

polysomnography, they probably include an unknown proportion of patients

with idiopathic hypersomnia (IH). Patients with IH suffer from recurrent

sleepiness during the day, probably less severe than in Narcolepsy but

nevertheless troublesome. They lack the rapid onset REM. Estimates of the

prevalence of hypersomnia range from 5 to 29 per 1,000 (Roth 1980; Bixler et

al. 1979). Both groups of patients benefit uniquely from stimulants and the

vast majority take medication faithfully and sensibly without abuse or side

effects for years.

One excellent study of narcoleptic patients by Mitler (1987) shows that

Ritalin prevents sleep attacks and improves performance when awake, while

Cylert improves performance when awake without preventing sleep periods.

An antidepressant did neither; tricyclics do prevent cataplexy which stimulants

do not help (Mitler and Hajdukovic 1991). Behavioral approaches to both

narcolepsy and IH have been proposed. Several naps a day are said to

prevent unexpected sleep attacks in narcolepsy. Some IH patients may not

be sleepy during the day if they sleep 12 hours a night. Neither treatment

approach is helpful for patients leading ordinary lives with ordinary jobs and

social lives. The quality of daytime performance during these non-drug

treatments has not been assessed. Given current knowledge, all patients with

diagnosed or presumed narcolepsy deserve long-term maintenance stimulant

therapy. Cylert, currently still in Schedule IV, may work in some IH patients.

On the basis of a little personal clinical experience and conversations with

two clinicians treating large numbers of such patients, I propose for the

treatment of narcolepsy that 10 percent might be on Cylert and 90 percent on

Schedule II drugs. One clinic following 250 such patients has not had any

problems with stimulant misuse or abuse (Mitler personal communication).

9 6
Dement et al. (1973) give a prevalence of one per 1,000 for narcolepsy.

Other figures for the United States are one in 10,000 (Roth 1980). A study

of the rate of diagnosis of new cases done by the Mayo Clinic is said to give

an incidence figure of 5 per 10,000 per year (Piscopo 1991). Piscopo

estimates there are 12,500 new cases of narcolepsy a year for the United

States, based on the unpublished Mayo Clinic data, and proposed a prevalence rate of 0.15 percent for narcolepsy or 375,00 narcoleptics in the United

States. Epidemiological studies in the San Francisco area (Dement et al.

1972) and in Los Angeles (Dement et al. 1973) give total U.S. estimates of

about 115,000, averaging the two studies. Narcolepsy has its onset, on the

average, at age 25 and stimulant therapy is required indefinitely for the life

span. Narcoleptics are the only group of patients with organized national

associations and, therefore, the only source of any data at all on the problems

patients face in obtaining reliable, indefinitely prolonged, stimulant therapy.

The acute shortage of Dexedrine from the spring until the fall of 1990 caused

substantial chaos for patients needing stimulants and for physicians prescribing them. Apparently Smith-Kline Beecham failed to manufacture either

Dexedrine tablets or Dexedrine spansules (5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg size) in

time to prevent a massive supply problem. Patients and doctors had to go to

several pharmacies (while the 4-day limit on Schedule II prescriptions

expired), had to get prescriptions rewritten because the pharmacy only had 5

mg spansules, not 5 mg tablets, etc.

The person answering the phone at Smith-Kline Beecham in the summer of

1990 claimed this was only a supply problem, but there was a chronic

suspicion by local clinicians that the Drug Enforcement Administration may

have been somehow responsible. Certainly the drought lasted for many

months. It caused anxiety, aggravation, and extra work in the Boston area,

but most patients eventually found some pills of some size somewhere.

Independent of where the blame for all this should really fall, it is

inconceivable that such a shortage would have been allowed to occur if the

drug were imipramine or propranolol or even morphine. The Schedule II

almost orphan drug status of stimulants must have contributed to the unreasonable delay with which the problem was handled at the manufacturer’s end.

A similar shortage of methylphenidate occurred in 1986 (Federal Register

1988).

There is no available data on large groups of patients giving actual doses of

Class II stimulants used in either narcolepsy or IH. However, there are two

papers providing information on stimulant dosages needed over the long

periods by narcoleptic patients by Daly and Yoss (1974) and by Honda et al.

9 7
(1979). Daly and Yoss assert that patients with moderately severe narcolepsy

require about 100 mg of methylphenidate a day, with a few requiring up to

200 mg. For methamphetamine, which they observe to be better tolerated

and more effective than d-amphetamine, they use daily doses of 25 mg for

mild narcolepsy and more than 100 mg for severe cases. Honda et al.,

reporting on Japanese narcoleptics, note usual daily doses of methylphenidate

of 20 to 60 mg. Both papers state that stimulants work well for years without

any evidence of tolerance and with very little evidence of abuse or of

psychiatric adverse effects. These papers suggest that average required doses

for narcolepsy may be higher than for ADHD.

B. Attentional Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

This condition, manifested by a variety of behavioral and affective symptoms,

was first shown to respond to amphetamine in the late 1930’s. It affects

predominantly male children from ages 2 to 15, with some amelioration of

the symptoms when these patients reach their teens. Controlled clinical trials

of the efficacy of Dexedrine, Ritalin and Cylert are almost invariably positive,

though only a portion, perhaps 30 percent of the affected children, have

excellent drug response, while another 30 percent show some clinical benefit.

Cylert is less generally effective than the Schedule II drugs. Some children

respond well to one stimulant but not to others. Prevalence is estimated at

about 3-5 percent of school-age children or 1. 5 million cases in the United

States (Biederman and Steingard 1989). Two follow-up studies on children

with ADHD note that 30-50 percent still met criteria for ADHD in

adolescence. Wender, who has published the majority of the papers on

ADHD in adults, estimates that a third of the patients with childhood ADHD

continue to have significant manifestations of the disorder in adulthood

(Wender, personal communication 1991). Hyperactivity may be less of a

problem than difficulties with sustained attention, mood lability, irritability,

and disorganization. In his studies, adult ADHD patients improve substantially on stimulants but often are less aware of the improvement than their

family members. They often stop the medication unwisely and the old

behaviors return (Wender et al. 1981).

There is a related group of children and adults who have attentional deficit

without hyperactivity (ADD). Some of the dysphoric adults evaluated at

McLean who receive stimulant therapy with benefit appear to have something

resembling ADD. They can think more clearly, do organized reading and

work for the first time, and manage their lives and responsibilities much

better. Some depressed patients who benefit from stimulants note that they

98
can go to work, hold jobs, and pay income taxes much more effectively on

stimulants, but that their sad mood is less improved than their coping ability.

As Rapaport (1983) showed, normal children also show improved performance on stimulants. The effects of stimulants on fatigue-induced

performance is well documented (Weiss and Laties 1962). The stimulants

are, therefore, likely to improve cognitive and behavioral functioning in

conditions without obvious relationship to childhood ADD without

hyperactivity. This overlap area will be discussed below.

The area of stimulant use in children with ADHD is an area of chronic

controversy. From time to time, pressure groups try to prevent all stimulant

treatment of children, raising specters of massive chemical restraint or

poisoning of hordes of children. Currently, the evidence that many children

with carefully diagnosed ADHD benefit from stimulants is overwhelmingly

positive, based on information from patients and teachers as well as

physicians. If anything, stimulants may be underprescribed because of

inadequate mental health services for children. It is also likely that stimulant

therapy is stopped prematurely in adolescents when hyperactivity is less

prominent but concentration and adjustment are still poor. The diagnosis

and stimulant treatment of adults with histories of ADHD in childhood and

significant continuing problems is relatively rare and poorly studied. The

survey of Massachusetts psychiatrists described above did, however, show that

29 percent of the patients over 18 receiving stimulants were assigned this

category, suggesting that this use may now be more widespread. However,

the exigencies of prescribing controlled stimulants in Massachusetts may

facilitate the assignment of this “approved” diagnosis.

C. Depression

Although the literature on the efficacy of stimulants in depression remains

equivocal, most controlled, double-blind studies are negative or weakly

positive (Cole and Chiarello 1987); open studies are strongly and convincingly positive. Pooling of data from several studies using a single dose of

Dexedrine or Ritalin in depressed patients as a diagnostic challenge yields a

positive mood-improving response in 280 out of 4% patients (Goff 1986).

There are also 19 recent case reports of rapid, excellent antidepressant

response in depressed patients in general hospitals (Satel and Nelson 1990).

Discussions with psychiatrists from two large local general hospitals suggest

that such excellent responses occur in about half the patients so treated.

9 9
From our survey of Massachusetts psychiatrists, it appears that 58 percent of

the adult patients receiving stimulants are being treated for depression. In the

1962 British survey of family practitioners, 20 percent of the patients were

being given stimulants for depression. Most of the patients receiving stimulants for more than 2 years had depression or other psychiatric conditions.

Interestingly, three quarters of these patients were not judged to be “habituated or addicted” by their doctors, suggesting that the stimulant was judged

to be appropriate treatment for the depression. The senior author’s experience is consistent with this general proposition. Some patients with

depression respond uniquely to stimulants after failing to improve on or to

tolerate standard therapies. In the senior author’s series he considers the

resilience of the improvement–no tolerance, no loss of efficacy over 2 to 28

years–remarkable.

In short, there exists a proportion of depressed patients who fail on standard

therapies but respond very well to stimulants. A few of these have partial

response to standard antidepressants and do very well on the combination of

a standard drug and stimulant. In addition, there are chronically depressed

patients who fail on many, many drugs but obtain limited benefit from

stimulants–able to do a little more, feel less fatigued but are not markedly

improved. Schedule II stimulants occupy a place in the treatment of

depression at least equivalent to that of electroconvulsive therapy–a valuable

option in patients who fail to respond or fail to continue to respond to

standard antidepressants. Stimulants are much more useful than ECT,

because ECT response is often brief while stimulants can provide excellent

maintenance therapy. Since a 20 percent relapse in over 2 years is about as

good an outcome as any antidepressant trial has ever shown (Frank et al.

1990), and a 50 percent relapse in 2 years and 80-90 percent in 3-10 years is

more likely (Cole et al. 1986), excellent maintenance therapies are hard to

find. At a conservative estimate, one fifth of the treatment resistant

depressions will show a good response to one or another stimulant and most

such depressions deserve such trials. Among treatment-resistant depressions

referred to the Affective Disorders Clinic at McLean Hospital, only a third

have had a stimulant trial (even though they average nine previous different

drug trials), and this third have usually only received one stimulant, often at a

dose which had no discernible effect. Such patients might well respond to a

larger dose or to a different stimulant.

Psychiatrists are, in general, reluctant to start new patients on stimulants.

Perhaps 80 percent of depressions are treated by primary care physicians; it

seems likely that these nonpsychiatrists are even less prone to initiate

100
stimulant trials. One can assume that there are six million cases of

depression in the United States in any given year and that three million

actually receive treatment. Of those receiving treatment, 20 percent will turn

out not to improve on at least three adequate trials on standard antidepressants. This leaves about 600,000 patients for whom stimulant therapy would

be clinically reasonable. If one guesses that 20 percent would do well enough

to warrant long-term stimulant treatment, 120,000 patients in the United

States ought to be receiving stimulant therapy.

D. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Patients with chronic, disabling fatigue as a primary symptom have been

described by clinicians for a century. The old diagnosis of neurasthenia is no

longer part of DSM-III or DSM III-R, but the patients exist. Interest in the

syndrome as a possible consequence of chronic viral infection has

reawakened attention to the condition recently. Some such patients, with or

without daytime sleepiness, do respond well to stimulants. Where other

therapies have failed and stimulants provide substantial symptomatic relief,

improve functioning, and are not abused, the use of stimulants is clinically

justified.

At a crude guess, such patients are about one-tenth as common as patients

with treatment-resistant depression and one-third will respond to stimulants,

yielding a national figure of 6,000 patients.

E. AIDS

Patients with AIDS can develop a mixture of depression, fatigue, and cognitive impairment which leaves them more incapacitated than their general

physical status appears to warrant. Perhaps this condition is related to viral

involvement of the basal ganglia. In any event, clinicians in centers treating

AIDS patients, at least in San Francisco, Boston, Miami and Houston, report

using methylphenidate or d-amphetamine to treat such chronic states (Jones,

personal communication 1991; Forstein, personal communication 1991;

Cohen, personal communication 1991; Holmes et al. 1989). The dose may

need to be increased from 20 mg of Ritalin a day to 80 to 100 mg a day as

the disease progresses (Forstein, personal communication 1991). There are

currently almost 200,000 known AIDS cases in the United States. Perhaps 10

percent of AIDS patients will have such a syndrome and benefit from a Class

II stimulant for about a year during the course of their disease. Such patients,

101
even those in methadone programs for heroin addicts, are not observed to

abuse or misuse their stimulant medication.

F. Medical-Surgical Patients

Some local general hospitals (Massachusetts General Hospital, Tufts-New

England Medical Center) have Consultation Liaison Psychiatric Services

which often prescribe stimulants for depressed or inert and apathetic

medical-surgical patients whose psychiatric status appears more incapacitating

than their original medical problem (Woods et al. 1986; Katon and Raskind

1980; Fisch 1985,86). In about half such patients, stimulants cause a rapid

and impressive improvement within 1 to 2 days. AIDS patients also often are

first prescribed stimulants in the same situation, during a hospitalization for

an acute medical complication; they respond equally rapidly. Even if a

standard antidepressant would be eventually as effective, their onset of action

is far slower and they are more likely to cause cognitive difficulties or

delirium in medically ill or brain-impaired patients.

Most medical-surgical non-AIDS patients may stay psychiatrically improved

after a week to a month on stimulants, but perhaps a third may require longterm stimulant therapy to keep depression at bay.

G. Drug-Induced Sedation

Some psychiatric patients require long-term treatment with either antipsychotic or antidepressant drugs that relieve depression or psychosis but

leave the patient chronically oversedated. Lowering the dose of the sedative

drug causes return of symptoms, changing to a less sedative antidepressant or

antipsychotic does not help, and caffeine does not relieve the sedation. In

such patients, stimulants can counteract the sedation and provide an optimal

mix of drug effects.

H. Other Psychiatric Conditions

Occasionally a range of psychiatric conditions will respond uniquely to

stimulants when other standard treatments fail to be of help. Some of these,

bulimia, panic disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, may be helped

because these conditions bear some biological relationship to affective

disorders. In the case of bulimia, perhaps the appetite decreasing effects of

stimulant drugs is relevant. Other stimulant-responsive patients have a

mixture of symptoms-fatigue, trouble thinking or organizing thought or

102
action, impulsivity, or mild brain damage; in these patients perhaps stimulants

are acting in the same way they do in ADHD even though these atypical

patients usually have no history of childhood ADHD. Perhaps brain changes

occurring later in life respond in a similar manner to the brain deficit present

in children with ADHD.

I. Perfomance Enhancement

Some patients with chronic mild dysthymia or concentration difficulty use

stimulants in the same way some college students use them to write term

papers or study for tests. They may or may not need maintenance stimulant

therapy, but they either use higher doses or only use stimulants when they

need to perform at a higher level for a few days to write papers or cope with

unusual stresses or workloads. When used only occasionally for such

purposes, such use does not lead to escalating use or abuse.

Whether or not such stimulant use is legitimate depends on one’s viewpoint.

Pharmacological Calvinists certainly would view such use with great concern.

However, if such occasional use averts failures in professional school or loss

of high-level jobs, the use seems reasonable.

IV. MEDICAL NEED FOR STIMULANTS

Stimulants are still viewed by many physicians as suspect, even illegal drugs.

A survey of doctors’ attitudes toward the use of stimulants by other doctors

done around 1970 by Lewis (1971) is illustrative. Two-thirds of the

physicians surveyed believed that other physicians overprescribed stimulants.

Such attitudes are presumably still common. Some psychiatrists, faced with

difficult, treatment resistant patients, or patients with a convincing history of

past good response to stimulants, will prescribe them to a few patients.

Others will refuse to prescribe stimulants even to patients with classical

presentations of narcolepsy or ADHD, much less to treatment-resistant

depression or bulimia. The hopelessness of dealing with AIDS patients and

the pressures to shorten hospital stays in medical-surgical patients have

probably contributed to the recent apparent increase in the use of stimulants

in medically ill patients with or without AIDS on metastatic cancer (Massie

and Holland 1990).

In the absence of knowledge of the current volume of use of prescribed

stimulants, the figures proposed below may be higher or lower than the

current quotas provide. They are:

103
Narcolepsy = 350,000

Idiopathic Hypersomnia = 350,000

Child and Adolescent ADHD = l,000,000

Attentional Deficit Disorder Without

Hyperactivity, Child and Adult = 250,000

Treatment-Resistant Depression = 120,000

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome = 20,000

AIDS-Related Depression and Fatigue = 20,000

Depression in Medical Patients = 20,000

Other Psychiatric Conditions = 15,000

Total number requiring maintenance stimulant therapy in a year = 1,145,000

Average Stimulant Dose: Ritalin 40 mg

Dexedrine 20 mg

methamphetamine 20 mg

It is impossible to say what proportion of patients should be on each

Schedule II stimulant. Currently Ritalin is viewed as less "bad" and therefore

prescribed a good deal more. However, in ADHD, surveys suggest that nonresponders on Ritalin do better on Dexedrine, while the reverse is less likely

to occur. The spansule form of methamphetamine may have a more even,

prolonged action than equivalent forms of Dexedrine (Wender, personal

communication, 1990).

The average useful dose is only an estimate. Some patients do well on a

single tablet a day, a few need very large doses if any physician has the

courage to go above 80 mg of Ritalin or 40 mg of Dexedrine–upper limits

cited in some texts.

It is impossible to go from current data on prescription use of stimulants to

firm figures on the numbers and types of patients, much less the range of

dosages needed, if one assumes the drugs are used overconservatively at

present. Current use should substantially underestimate real clinical need.

V. THE PROBABLE IMPACT OF NEW DIVERSION CONTROL

SYSTEMS

If, as we believe, many patients with a variety of conditions could benefit

clinically from reasonable, well-monitored prescribing of stimulants and most

of these patients would not do as well on other psychiatric treatments, then

104
any new, aversive program which makes physicians feel that stimulant

prescribing will bring a narcotics agent pounding on their door will, of

necessity, decrease the use of stimulants substantially. Even under current

Federal and State regulations, prescribing stimulants is difficult for both

doctor and patient. Many drugstores do not carry d-amphetamine or

methylphenidate. Druggists sometimes make patients feel as if they are drug

addicts to the extent that they prefer pemoline to a Schedule II drug even

though the Schedule II drug helps them a lot more. Most patients eventually

find a friendly pharmacist and stay with him for years. If supplies of

stimulants dry up, as they have twice in the last 5 years, then chasing from

drugstore to drugstore becomes an agony. When drug enforcement personnel are believed to be punitive, as seemed to be true on Cape Cod in

Massachusetts several years ago, it was impossible to get any doctors on the

Cape to prescribe a stimulant or to get a drug store there to fill a

prescription.

On the other hand, at least two psychiatrists in California who work with

AIDS patients feel very comfortable prescribing Ritalin or Dexedrine, having

lived with a triplicate prescription system for years and, thus, feeling secure

that their prescribing behaviors do not bring the wrath of narcotics agents

upon them. Physicians already comfortable prescribing stimulants to a

number of patients will probably not change their prescribing when a new

diversion control program is imposed on them if the new program does not

attack them. Physicians who occasionally might consider prescribing a

stimulant with trepidation would probably avoid actually prescribing one if

they imagined that a new triplicate prescription system would leave them

open to attack or censure. If the diversion control system means buying

special prescriptions to use Schedule II drugs, many psychiatrists who never

use opiates might never buy any and, therefore, could not prescribe Schedule

II stimulants. As with many systems in the world, the response to a new

system will be determined initially by the doctor’s fantasies and expectations.

Later, the response will be determined by what he or she hears, reads or

believes about the way the system is actually run.

A triplicate prescription system that is mainly used to detect patients getting

controlled substances from two or more physicians would be viewed as a

good thing. A system that threatens well-intentioned, reasonable physicians

with loss of license will spread panic and produce excessive caution in

prescribing. If the system criticizes every physician who prescribes stimulants

to any patient who does not have clearly documented narcolepsy or ADHD,

it will penalize a large number of patients with other conditions which

105
respond well for years to stimulants. If the same standards are applied, but

less aggressively, tired or sleepy depressions will be called narcolepsy and

agitated or muddled patients will be called ADHD just so the patient can

actually get the drug the doctor believes will help him. The issue of

confidentiality will frighten away another group of doctors and also patients.

The idea that one’s name is in some State or Federal computer as a “drug

addict” or “drug pusher” can be quite aversive. If the computer records are

actually used to prosecute or investigate patients or doctors and the

prosecutions are not perceived as unreasonable, then even more doctors and

patients will be deprived of valuable drug options.

The issue of FDA-approved indications is another vexing problem for the use

of Schedule II stimulants. The approved uses miss a substantial number of

responsive patients. Unfortunately, double-blind studies showing efficacy in

well-controlled clinical trials are not available for treatment-resistant

depression, depression in medically ill or AIDS patients, chronic fatigue

syndrome, idiopathic hypersomnia, or even adult ADHD. However, the

patients who respond well do so within a few days and respond dramatically.

The evidence of efficacy for these diagnostic groups as a whole is weak. For

individual patients, the evidence is compelling. Any new diversion control

system must take such evidence into account.

There is no published evidence of the risk of abuse or illicit distribution of

prescribed stimulants. Anecdotally, Ritalin is obtained in Baltimore by drug

abusers who claim they have ADHD children. The Ritalin is then dissolved

and injected intravenously, causing talc deposits in the lungs and serious

respiratory disease. “Ice” abuse is increasing on the west coast, but this form

of methamphetamine is illicitly manufactured and outside any pharmacybased diversion control system. If clear ground rules could be promulgated

for the legitimate use and monitoring of Schedule II stimulants in a wide

range of psychiatric and medical conditions including, but not restricted to,

currently approved indications, then physicians could feel more secure in

prescribing stimulants where standard therapies don’t work as well as for

FDA-approved indications. If the system then allowed for refillable

prescriptions on patients who had done well on stimulants for a year, the

lives of both doctors and patients would be greatly simplified. If the purpose

of expensive, computer-based, statewide or Federal triplicate prescription

systems is to reduce diversion or abuse of Schedule II drugs, we know of no

evidence that more rigorous controls are currently needed for Schedule II

stimulants. Their medical use has dropped dramatically since 1970 and the

shortages of Ritalin in 1986 and Dexedrine in 1990 suggest that current

106
controls or quotas are already too restrictive. Patients who would do well on

stimulants or have in the past done well on stimulants are likely not to get

them. Underprescribing is more of a problem than overprescribing.

Ominous sounding new diversion control systems are likely to cause even less

appropriate use unless combined with benign enforcement procedures and

extensive education of doctors about the right way to use stimulants in

patients with legitimate but non-FDA-approved indications.

REFERENCES

Brandon, S., and Smith, D. Amphetamines in general practice. J Coll Gen

Pract 5:603-606, 1962.

Chiarello, R.J., and Cole, J.O. The use of psychostimulants in general

psychiatry. Arch Gen Psychiatry 44:286-295, 1987.

Cole, J.O.; Chiarello, RJ.; and Merzel, A.P.C. Long-term pharmacotherapy

of affective disorders. McLean Hosp J 11(2):106-138, 1986.

Connell, P.H. Amphetamine misuse. (The present position with regard to

misuse of amphetamine and amphetamine barbiturate mixtures). Br J

Addict 60(1):9-27, 1964.

Daly, D.D., and Yoss, R.E. Narcolepsy. In: Magnus, O., and Lorentz de

Haas, A.M., eds. The Epilepsies-Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Vol .

XV. New York: American Elsevier, 1974. pp. 836-852.

Dement, W.C.; Carskadon, M.; and Ley, R. The prevalence of Narcolepsy II.

Sleep Research 2:147, 1973.

Dement, W.C.; Zarcone, V.; Huddes, E.; Nassau, S.; Jacobs, B.; Brown J.;

McDonald, A.; Horen, K.; Glass, R.; Gonzales, P.; Friedman, T.; and

Phillips, R. The prevalence of narcolepsy. Sleep Research 1:148, 1972.

Fisch, R.Z. Methylphenidate for medical inpatients. Int J Psychiatry Med

15:75-79, 1985-1986.

Goff, D.C. The stimulant challenge test in depression. J Clin Psychiatry

47:538-543, 1986.

Grinspoon, L., and Hedblom, P. The Speed Culture. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 1975. 340 pp.

Holmes, V.F.; Fernandez, F.; and Levy, J.K. Psychostimulant response in

AIDS-related complex patients. J Clin Psychiatry 50(1):5-8, 1989.

Honda, Y.; Hishikawa, Y.; and Takahashi, Y. Long-term treatment of

narcolepsy with methylphenidate (Ritalin). Curr Ther Res 25(2):288-298,

1979.

Katon, W.K., and Raskind, M. Treatment of depression in the medically ill

elderly with methylphenidate. Am J Psychiatry 137:963-965, 1980.

107
Lawn J.C. Ciba-Geigy Corp. and MD Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Aggregate

Production Quota, 1986 Individual Manufacturing Quotas, and 1986

Disposal Allocations for Methylphenidate. Federal Register 53(242):50591-

50597, 1988.

Lewis, D.C. The physician’s contribution to the drug abuse scene. Tufts

Medical Alumni Bulletin 30(2)3-6, 1971.

Massie, M.J., and Holland, J.C. Depression and the cancer patient. J Clin

Psychiatry 51(7[Suppl]):12-17, 1990.

Mitler, M.M. The neuropsychopharmacology of daytime alertness.

Psychopharmacol Bull 23(3):435-439, 1987.

Mitler, M.M., and Hajdukovic, R. Relative efficacy of drugs for the treatment

of sleepiness in narcolepsy. Sleep (in press).

Mitler, M.M.; Hajdukovic, R.; Erman, M.; and Koziol, J.A. Narcolepsy. J Clin

Neurophysiol 7(1):C1-C26, 1990.

Piscopo, J.A. Narcolepsy from a patient’s point of view: A position paper.

National Commission on Sleep Disorders Research 1-18, 1991.

Satel, S.S. and Nelson, J.C. Stimulants in the treatment of depression: A

critical overview. J Clin Psychiatry 50:241-249, 1989.

Weiss, B., and Laties, V.G. Enhancement of human performance by caffeine

and the amphetamines. Psychopharm Reviews 14:1-36, 1962.

Wender, P.H. Attention-deficit disorder, residual type (ADD-RT) or adult

hyperactivity. In: Shader, R., ed. Handbook of Clinical Psychopharmacology. New York: Basic Books, 1989. pp. 357-378.

Wender, P.H.; Reimherr, F.W.; and Wood, D.R. Attention deficit disorder

(minimal brain dysfunction) in adults: A replication study of diagnosis and

drug treatment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 38:449-456, 1981.

Woods, S.W.; Tesar, G.E.; Murray, G.B.; and Cassem, N.H. Psychostimulant

treatment of depressive disorders secondary to medical illness. J Clin

Psychiatry 47:12-15, 1986.

AUTHORS

Jonathan O. Cole, M.D.

Program Director

Affective Disorders Program

Lenore A. Boling, M.D.

Barbara J. Beake

McLean Hospital

115 Mill Street

Belmont, MA 02178

108
The Nonmedical Use of Prescription Drugs

in the United States

Edgar H. Adams and Andrea N. Kopstein

Pharmaceuticals have brought major changes in the health and quality of life

of the population of the United States and the world. Among these changes

have been such milestones as the eradication of polio and small pox, and, on

a broader spectrum, the ability to cure infections with antibiotics. The

development of psychoactive drugs has brought similar benefits, ranging from

the effective relief of pain to the control of mental illness to a point where

massive deinstitutionalization became possible.

Each year, more than 1.5 billion prescriptions or an average of 6.7

prescriptions per person are dispensed from drug stores in the United States.

The psychotherapeutic drugs, analgesics (excluding nonnarcotic analgesics)

and sedative hypnotics account for approximately 215 million prescriptions a

year (Burke et al. 1991). There is no doubt that these potent psychoactive

medications are abused by some people. These drugs may be diverted from

the manufacturing or distribution levels obtained through dishonest or duped

doctors or from dishonest or duped pharmacists. They may also be obtained

via pharmacy thefts, prescription forgery, or by illegal importation from

foreign sources.

Data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), the

primary measure of the use and abuse of drugs in the United States, indicate

that in the United States in 1991, approximately 172 million household

residents reported that they had ever used alcohol, 68 million reported the

use of marijuana, 25 million reported ever using any psychotherapeutic drug,

and 24 million reported ever using cocaine (NHSDA Population Estimate

1991). If current use (any use in the past month) is considered, 103 million

used alcohol, approximately 10 million used marijuana, 3 million used a

psychotherapeutic drug and approximately 2 million used cocaine. It should

be noted that the psychotherapeutic category is summed over four classes of

medicinal agents: stimulants, sedatives, tranquilizers, and analgesics. Of

these, only the current use of analgesics (1.4 million) exceeds 1 million.

109
The issue has been raised regarding the extent to which these data reflect

abuse. In the NHSDA, the question on nonmedical use of drugs is phrased

as follows:

This is a very important point about the next set of questions. We are interested in the nonmedical use of these

prescription type drugs. Nonmedical use of these drugs is

any use on your own, that is either: without a doctors prescription, in greater amounts than prescribed, more often

than prescribed, or for any reasons other than a doctor said

you should take them-such as for kicks, to get high, to feel

good, or curiosity about the pills effect.

The breadth of this definition has caused some to question whether selfmedication is being measured rather than abuse.

This paper uses data from the NHSDA and the Drug Abuse Warning

Network (DAWN). The primary measures associated with drug abuse are

used to describe the current prevalence of abuse of illicit psychotherapeutic

agents. The NHSDA also attempts to measure the consequences associated

with drug use by collecting data on self-reported problems attributed to

selected drugs. These problems include such things as becoming depressed

or losing interest in things, having arguments or fights with family and

friends, feeling alone or isolated and other problems. In total, eleven types

of problems are included.

NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE

The NHSDA has been conducted since 1971 and sponsored by MDA since

1974. The 1991 survey represents the 11th survey in the series. A significant

change in 1991 was an increase in the sample size so that data were collected

from over 32,000 individuals, compared to approximately 9,000 interviews in

1990. Other changes in 1991 include the collection of data from persons

living in some group quarters, e.g., civilians living at military installations,

those living in college dormitories, and homeless shelters (homeless people

not in shelters were not included). Also, Alaska and Hawaii were included

for the first time. The response rate of approximately 84 percent is

consistent with the response rates obtained with previous surveys. As in the

past, the data are based on self-reports and do not include incarcerated

populations.

110
More than 37 percent of the household population in the United States have

tried drugs. The seriousness of the drug problem in the United States is

reflected in part in polls conducted in the early 1970’s as well as the early

1990’s that cite drug abuse as one of the major problems facing our country.

The good news is that while drug abuse remains a significant problem, the

size of the problem appears to be diminishing. However, in some cases the

gains of the last several years appear to have stabilized. For example, the

estimates of any current illicit drug use in the population were the same in

1991 as in 1990; this was also true for marijuana and cocaine. This should be

interpreted with some caution since the time period covered is only one year.

The same is true of the nonmedical use of any psychotherapeutic agent. The

significant decrease in past year use of these agents between 1988 and 1990

was not maintained in 1991.

Table 1

Trends in Nonmedical Use of Any Psychotherapeutic Agents

1988 - 1991

1988 1990

Number* % Number* %

1991

Number* %

Lifetime 23,536 11.9 24,025 11.9 25,463 12.6

Past Year 11,399 5.7 8,567 4.3 9,161 4.5

Past Month 3,393 1.7 2,858 1.4 3,062 1.5

* In thousands Source: NIDA National Household Survey on Drug Abuse

Population Estimates 1989, 1990, 1991

This pattern of stability is also exhibited for each of the classes of psychotherapeutic agents. In 1991, there were no significant changes in either the

past month or past year’s use in stimulants, sedatives, tranquilizers, or

analgesics between 1990 and 1991.

111
Table 2

Trends in Past Month Use of Selected Psychotherapeutic Agents

1988 - 1991

1988 1990 1991

Number* % Number* % Number* %

Stimulants 1,755 0.9 957 0.5 668 0.3

Sedatives 784 0.4 568 0.3 755 0.4

Tranquilizers 1,174 0.6 568 0.3 889 0.4

Analgesics 1,151 0.6 1,534 0.8 1,403 0.7

* In thousands

Source: NIDA National Household Survey on Drug Abuse Population

Estimates 1989, 1990, 1991

Table 3

Trends in Past-Year Use of Licit Psychotherapeutic Agents

1988 - 1990

1988 1990 1991

Number* % Number* % Number* %

Stimulants 4,957 2.5 3,109 1.5 2,709 1.3

Sedatives 3,099 1.6 2,233 1.1 2,130 1.0

Tranquilizers 4,407 2.2 2,538 1.3 3,408 1.7

Analgesics 5,342 2.7 4,999 2.5 5,090 2.5

* In thousands

Source: NIDA National Household Survey on Drug Abuse Population

Estimates 1989, 1990, 1991

112
DRUG ABUSE WARNING NETWORK

DAWN collects data on drug-related emergency episodes in the total

coterminous United States and 21 metropolitan areas. In 1986, the

conversion of DAWN to a probability sample was initiated. Weighted data

are currently available from 1988 forward, making long term trend analysis

impossible. Previous analyses of long-term trends using consistent reporting

panels indicated an increase in the number of total DAWN episodes between

1985 and 1989, but a decrease in the number of episodes associated with

controlled prescription drugs (Table 4) (Adams 1991). In 1985, controlled

prescription drugs accounted for approximately 38 percent of the episodes

compared to 21 percent in 1989.

Table 4

Emergency Room Data: Total Number of Emergency Room

Episodes and Episodes Associated With Controlled

Prescription Drugs According to Year 1985-1989*

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Total DAWN Episodes 76,391 87,388 103,500 114,411 109,400

Controlled Prescription

Drug Episodes 28,840 27,430 27,219 25,292 23,020

* Based on data from 441 consistently reporting facilities with adjustments for

nonresponse.

Table 5 shows the top 20 drugs reported to the DAWN in 1990. Included in

the top 20 are 15 licit pharmaceutical products, including over the counter

products such as aspirin and acetaminophen.

113
Table 5

Drug Abuse Warning Network Weighted Emergency Room Estimates, 1990

Drug Name # of Mentions # of Suicide Mentions Revised # Mentions

Alcohol-incombination 115,162

Cocaine 80,355

Heroin/Morphine 33,884

Acetaminophen 25,422

Aspirin 19,188

Ibuprofen 16,299

Alprazolam 15,846

Marijuana/Hashish 15,706

Diazepam 14,836

Amitriptyline 8,642

Acetaminophen

with Codeine 8,222

O.T.C. Sleep Aids 7,984

Lorzepam 7,625

D-Propoxyphene 7,417

Fluoxetine 6,917

Diphenhydramine 6,483

Methamphetamine/

Speed 5,236

Oxycodone 4,526

PCP and

PCP Combinations 4,408

Lithium Carbonate 44,025

49,125 66,037

5,203 75,152

1,154 37,720

20,938 4,484

15,525 3,663

N/A N/A

10,976 4,870

1,124 14,582

8,604 6,232

6,535 2,107

N/A N/A

6,733 1,251

4,857 2,768

1,164 6,253

6,205 712

5,059 1,424

661 4,571

2,528 2,076

244 4,154

N/A N/A

Source: DAWN Annual Emergency Room Data 1990

114
These data are often cited as evidence of the diversion and abuse of these

products. In fact, the inclusion of many of these agents in the top 20 is due

to an anomaly in DAWN that, unfortunately may now be more misleading

than informative. The anomaly occurs because the DAWN data include

suicide attempts and gestures as one of the motivations listed for DAWN

cases. So, while DAWN data are often quoted as reflecting diversion and

prevalence of abuse, they reflect neither. The impact of the suicide attempts

and gestures category on the top 20, especially licit pharmaceutical agents, is

apparent from Table 5. For example, the number of acetaminophen cases

drops from 25,422 to 4,484 and fluoxetine drops from 6,917 to 712. The

arguments for excluding suicide cases from the analysis of DAWN data have

been expressed previously (Adams 1988, 1991). Furthermore, the DAWN

data are a measure of the consequences of abuse and not prevalence, as is

sometimes implied. Increases in DAWN cases may reflect an increase in the

number of users, but they may just as well reflect a shift in patterns of use

(e.g., from snorted cocaine to smoked crack).

Other Consequences

As previously noted, the NHSDA contains a measure of the problems

associated with the use of drugs. The problems range from health, work or

school problems to drug-related problems with other people, feelings of

depression, isolation, anxiety, and irritability. Respondents were asked to

identify the specific drugs which caused any identified problem. These data

are summarized in Table 6. A review of the data suggests an internal

consistency between the pharmacology of the drug and the problems

reported. For example, difficulty in thinking clearly and having arguments

and lights with family and friends are mentioned more frequently for alcohol

than feeling nervous and anxious and irritable and upset for cocaine. Among

past year cocaine users almost 15 percent reported one or more of these

problems in the 1990 NHSDA. For the licit psycho-therapeutic agents, it was

necessary to combine the data from 1988 and 1990 in order to get reliable

estimates of the problems attributed to these agents. Only 0.2 percent of

past year sedative users and 0.1 percent of past year tranquilizer users

reported at least one of the 11 problems. Two percent of past year stimulant

users experienced at least one problem, while problems reported by analgesic

users were so infrequent that the estimates were unreliable, even with the 2-

year file.

115
Table 6

Problems Associated with Past Year Drug Use

Drug

Percent Reporting at Least

One of Eleven Problems

Cocaine (1990)

Psychotherapeutic Agents

(1988-1990)

Analgesics

Tranquilizers

Sedatives

Stimulants

15%

*

0.1%

0.2%

2.0%

* Estimate unreliable

Source: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse

DISCUSSION

The use and abuse of licit psychotherapeutic agents obtained outside of

normal medical channels is part of the drug abuse problem in this country.

In 1991, an estimated 3 million Americans reported the nonmedical use of

one of these agents at least once during the month prior to being interviewed. A critical question regarding this number is the proportion that

reflects “abuse,” however abuse is defined.

The report of the Shafer Commission includes data from a survey of 3,291

persons age 12 and above conducted in the fall of 1972 (National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse 1973). Respondents were asked to

identify various situations as drug abuse or not drug abuse. The report

concluded that there was a tendency to identify nearly any situation as drug

abuse. For example, 82 percent of the respondents said taking more of a

nonprescription medication than the label directed was drug abuse, while 35

percent said that having a cocktail or highball with lunch or dinner and in the

evening was abuse. However, the following were most often connected with

abuse: use for pleasure, use to help cope with the day, taking more than

prescribed or directed, and occasional use of heroin.

116
The current definition of nonmedical use includes the references to taking a

drug in greater amounts than prescribed or more often than prescribed. It

seems likely that a significant proportion of people reporting nonmedical use

in the NHSDA may be obtaining the psychotherapeutic agents through licit

channels. If abuse is related to problems attributed to the use of these

agents, then the overall problem from a health perspective is relatively small.

The problems are a fraction of those associated with marijuana, cocaine,

alcohol or tobacco. The DAWN data are supposed to reflect consequences

associated with the abuse of drugs, but for the licit psychotherapeutics they

are misleading. The primary reason for this is the inclusion of suicides as

described above.

From a law enforcement perspective, the diversion of these licit psychotherapeutic agents from legitimate practice, whether through forgeries, scams, or

theft, is illegal. Representatives of the law enforcement and health communities often cite, albeit inappropriately, DAWN data as evidence of the size of

the prescription drug abuse problem.

The importance of understanding the magnitude of the problem and the

source from which the drugs are obtained is reflected by the fact that unlike

heroin, for example, these are licit products that are subject to varying

degrees of bureaucratic regulation and control. In fact, ten or more States

are now spending millions of dollars in attempting to control the diversion of

these products through the monitoring of physicians and patients.

In States where multiple copy prescription programs have been implemented,

35 to 50 percent reductions in the prescribing of the medicinal agents covered

by the program have been noted. Some have argued that the reduction

reflected the extent of overprescribing, while others argue that there is a

chilling effect that is having a negative impact on patient care. Oklahoma has

implemented an electronic data transfer program that does not require the

use of a special form although the information sent to the State is the same

as in a triplicate program. Preliminary analysis seems to suggest that this

program does not have a chilling effect on prescribing.

To date, the only empirical evidence would seem to suggest that a chilling

effect does, in fact, exist and that there is a negative impact on patient care.

In Texas, a study demonstrated a reduction in the prescribing of Schedule II

drugs and a corresponding increase in the prescribing of Schedule III

analgesics (Sigler et al. 1984). In New York State there has been an increase

in the prescribing of outdated, less effective, and more lethal drugs such as

117
meprobamate and chloralhydrate instead of benzodiazepines (Weintraub et

al. 1991). In another study conducted in New York, two-thirds of the

population felt that sending copies of prescriptions to the State was a

violation of privacy, and 30 percent of the respondents stated that they would

not take the best drug prescribed if it fell under the triplicate prescription

program (Adams and Palmerini 1992).

Unfortunately, there is a paucity of data either at the national or State level

that can address these issues. The current circumstances only reinforce the

need for the health and law enforcement communities to work in concert.

They must agree on the data that is needed, the best way to collect it and use

it, and to design programs that effectively reduce prescription drug abuse

without impairing health care.

REFERENCES

Adams, E.; Palmerini J. Public concerns about the triplicate prescription

program in New York State, Paper presented at 25th Annual Substance

Abuse Conference, “Prescribing Controlled Substances in the 90’s,”

Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, San Francisco, CA, June, 1992.

Adams, E. H. Interpreting the Data on Prescription Drug Abuse-Balancing

the Response to Prescription Drug Abuse, Report of a National Symposium on Medicine and Public Policy American Medical Association,

1990.

Adams, E. H. Prevalence of Prescription Drug Abuse: Data from the

National Institute on Drug Abuse, NY State J Med, 91(11) November

1991.

Burke, L. B.; Baum, C.; Jolson, M.; and Kennedy, D. L. Drug Utilization in

the United States: 1989. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food

and Drug Administration, Eleventh Annual Review, April 1991

National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Drug Use in America:

Problem in Perspective, Second Report, Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs.

U.S. Govt. Print. Off. Washington, D.C., 1973.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Household Survey on Drug

Abuse: Population Estimates 1991. DHHS Publication No. (ADM)

92-1887, Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs. U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1991.

Sigler, K. A.; Guernsey, B. G.; Ingrim, N. B.; Buesing, A. S.; and Doutre, W.

Effect of a Triplicate Prescription Law on Prescribing of Schedule II

Drugs, Am J Hosp Pharm, 1984.

118
Weintraub, M.; Singh, S.; Byrne L.; Maharaj, K.; and Guttmacher, L.

Consequences of the 1989 New York State triplicate benzodiazepine

prescription regulations, JAMA 266:2392-2397, 1991.

AUTHORS

Edgar H. Adams, Sc.D.

Senior Scientist

Office of the Director

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Andrea N. Kopstein

Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

119
Drug Diversion Control Systems, Medical Practice,

and Patient Care

Gene R. Haislip

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, some persons and corporate representatives have expressed

concern that government-imposed controlled substances controls, especially

multiple copy prescription systems, adversely affect the quality of patient care.

The experience and available information, however, support the position that

the reverse is the case, that such controls help ensure the quality of patient

care and that it is negligent and criminal prescribing that supports excess

drug sales, which are adversely affected. Research in every area affecting the

health and welfare of citizens is desirable and it is no less the case in the

area under review. However, this should not obscure the fact that a great

store of knowledge, wisdom, and experience exists, nor should it be misused

as an excuse to delay needed social action. Moreover, to evaluate drug

diversion control systems on the basis of their impact on medical practitioners tends to obscure the correct focus of these systems. Their impact on

medical practitioners and patient care is only one part of a larger purpose,

which is to protect the public from the consequences of drug traffic and

abuse. Nevertheless, control systems do have an impact on improving

medical practice and patient care and it is worthy of attention. But, before

proceeding in this area, it is desirable to focus at least briefly on the principal

concern for which control systems are created.

THE PROBLEM OF DIVERSION

The diversion of licit drugs into the illicit drug traffic continues to be a major

component of the national drug problem. Evidence of this can be found by

looking at national estimates of hospital emergency room mentions for the

top 20 controlled substances from the Drug Abuse Warning Network

(DAWN). Approximately one out of every three mentions (33.5 percent) In

1990 was for a licitly manufactured substance. The dominant group for licit

drugs continues to be the benzodiazepines. In 1990, there were eight among

the fourteen licit drugs. Over the past few years, they have accounted for

120
approximately 60-65 percent of the mentions for licit drugs. However, there

are also four narcotic analgesics among the top 20 controlled drugs. One of

these is hydrocodone, which has shown a 56 percent increase in mentions in

1990. The influx of licit drugs into illicit channels is further demonstrated by

examining emergency room episodes for cocaine and heroin. Among the

drugs mentioned most often in combination with these are diazepam,

alprazolam, methadone, and oxycodone. This statistical evidence is further

corroborated by the Community Epidemiology Work Group and actual dayto-day State and DEA case investigations.

FEDERAL AND STATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

Today there are approximately 845,000 DEA registrants that fall within the

closed system of distribution of controlled substances. The overwhelming

majority take their responsibilities seriously. Unfortunately, however, a small

percentage of registrants break their public trust and engage in supplying the

lucrative illicit market. The basis of this market is, as every pharmacologist

knows, that these legitimate drugs produce consequences essentially identical

to the purely illicit drugs and are sold for the same extraordinary profit.

Relatively few Federal, State, and local law enforcement resources are

dedicated to apprehending diverters of controlled pharmaceuticals, and yet

we have some notable statistics to share. In 1987, DEA diversion investigators, often working in conjunction with their State and local counterparts,

reported 63 criminal convictions. In 1990, the number of convictions grew to

192. Several recent examples of these investigations are included at the end

of this paper. Further, in 1990, criminal court fines levied against pharmaceutical diverters exceeded $2 million. Finally, another gauge of the extent of

diversion of controlled pharmaceuticals and the cooperative Federal and State

response is the number of civil actions against registrations. From October

1987 through September 1990, the DEA’s Office of Chief Counsel handled

over 1,000 show cause proceedings to revoke, suspend, or deny Federal

controlled substances registrations.

THE FUNCTION OF STANDARDS AND CONTROLS

Before proceeding to examine the impact of the laws designed to control the

distribution of these drugs, it is appropriate to mention the principles on

which they are based. The basic function of government-imposed standards

and controls is to improve the quality of goods and services by establishing

minimum requirements to protect the public from inferior, negligent, or

121
fraudulent practices, e.g., automobiles which malfunction, drugs which do

more harm than good, airline pilots who fly under the influence of intoxicants, or physicians who improperly prescribe or profiteer from the weakness

or ignorance of the public, etc. Controls are limited, however, to establishing

a minimum acceptable level of goods and services and do not guarantee

excellence. Nevertheless, excellence in good medicine is encouraged when it

does not have to compete with unlicensed service which may be offered at a

much reduced price.

An additional issue that is of concern to governments and taxpayers is costeffectiveness. This is a socioeconomic issue which relates to cost as

compared with (1) other alternatives, (2) the availability of funds for the

intended purpose, and (3) the severity of the social problem which they are

intended to correct.

These are principles to bear in mind in any examination of the issues under

discussion. It is evident that any future research will be dealing with some

aspect of the application of these principles. It is also evident that the

possibilities for such research are enormous and could consume the work of

decades. It is for this reason that decisions of the day, as always, must

inevitably be made on the basis of experience, wisdom. and the best available

evidence.

OVERSUPPLY AND EXCESSIVE DEMAND

When we behold the diversity of the world and its history, we must stand in

awe. Not one thing is simple. Not one thing can be damned but what some

useful result can be made of it. Not one thing can be praised but what some

evil or stupidity can be found in it. It is no less so in the matters under

review. We have in view a complex process of controls and standards operating within a dynamic and complex socioeconomic system consisting of industry, commerce, the health professions, the public, and government. Although

it may not have been scientifically validated, I am confident in asserting that

virtually all people hate to be sick or to feel bad. Those who are, or fear the

possibility, hunger after health and happiness and its assurance. Medicine is

viewed as the panacea; medicine for What ails, medicine to prevent the

possibility of ailment.

This need for medicine has led scientists and doctors to produce wonders in

the world, the virtual elimination of smallpox, polio, and numerous other

sources of tragedy and horror. It is estimated that U.S. companies alone

122
spend approximately $8 billion per year to support these efforts. This desire

for medicine has led even larger numbers of people into avenues of profiteering, some of which were bogus and some of which were destructive: the

sale of addictive medicines, “fat clinics” whose activity produces amphetamine

dependence and brain damage, heroin for morphine addiction, “stress clinics”

whose trade results in addiction, stress management for young women which

produces middle-aged benzodiazepine ‘junkies,” or the dumping in developing

countries of out-of-date surplus antibiotics which destroy livers while

providing corporate tax deductions. The excessive desire for medication has

often led to an equally excessive supply. A couple of recent examples

relating to the consumption and utilization of controlled substances will help

to illustrate this latter point.

Prior to the passage of the Federal laws, it was estimated that approximately

eight billion 10 mg doses of amphetamine and methamphetamine were manufactured, prescribed and consumed in the United States. This resulted in the

massive abuse of stimulants throughout the country. They were obviously

available everywhere and under all sorts of conditions, particularly through

weight reduction clinics. As a result of the application of quota reductions

and a variety of enforcement measures, the quantity now available within the

legitimate sector is approximately one-half of 1 percent of the previous

amount. This has had tremendous impact on patient care as well as general

protection of the public. Consider the vast numbers of persons who have not

become drug-dependent, have not been killed in accidents, do not pose social

problems, have not wasted their money, or died of overdose. The tremendous quantities of these stimulants which were previously available would

equate to 6 to 20 million stimulant-dependent persons, depending upon

dosage per day. This compares with present figures of 29 to 115 thousand

persons for whom they are currently prescribed. Thus, the impact of controls

on patient care has truly been significant.

The drug methaqualone provides another interesting example. At one point,

in 1981, the number of deaths and injuries which were reported in connection

with this drug were equal to those involving heroin. It was soon discovered

that the great majority (perhaps 95 percent) of the worlds legitimate production of this substance was being sold into the illicit traffic under the pretext

and assumption of legitimacy. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, a

phenomenon known as “stress clinics” operated in the United States. The

financiers behind these clinics were nonmedical personnel who sought to

profiteer from the prescription and sale of Quaaludes under the guise of

treating patient stress. Clinics were set up in Chicago, New York, Ft. Lee

123
(NJ), Boston, Miami, Los Angeles, and in other cities. Doctors were hired at

all these clinics to write prescriptions for one drug–Quaaludes. Again, the

evidence was clear that most of the Nation’s legitimate manufacture was

actually being used for this disguised illicit purpose.

After extensive investigation over many years, and after many arrests of

doctors, pharmacists, and other conspirators, three ringleaders were convicted

in March of 1983 of operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) and

sentenced to 15, 12, and 10 years in prison with no possibility of parole.

Finally, the drug was taken off the market by Act of Congress In 1984.

THE IMPACT OF COMMERCIAL INTERESTS

Mind-altering drugs create dependence and a desire on the part of substantial

numbers of persons to engage in their habitual consumption in the absence,

and in excess, of any legitimate medical need, with resulting injury and costs

to both the society and the individual. This social behavior is the basis of a

demand for such substances in excess of need. This is precisely illustrated in

the examples cited. If permitted to do so, the market will expand production

and sales to meet this demand, thus generating profits far in excess of those

associated with legitimate medical and social needs.

This fact is the basis on which all substance controls are predicated. Control\

act to reduce the permissible circumstances for consumption, thus restricting

the volume of sales, and thereby conflicting with powerful commercial interests. Thus, we often see that commercial interests seek to resist or reduce

controls, utilizing all the arguments and tactics clever lawyers can devise. A

good example of this was the Federal effort to bring benzodiazepines under

control. This action was first proposed in January 1966 and due to a series

of hearings, delays, legal motions, and appeals, was not finalized until July of

1975, only a short time before the patent expired. Oftentimes much of the

industry involved in the supply of controlled substances behaves In this way.

Such generalizations have to be qualified since the pharmaceutical industry is

by no means homogenous. For example, some manufacturer-s have occasionally sought appropriate control status for new products. The attitudes of

corporate management are as diverse as those of individuals, and the

behavior of some should not be used to characterize all. In the area of

controlled substances, commercial interests sometimes manifest themselves in

several important ways that may threaten the integrity of the health professions and the quality of patient care. These include (1) extensive organized

efforts to influence physician behavior, (2) large expenditures on advertising,

124
and (3) well financed political networking and lobbying activities to influence

government at all levels.

The relationship between the medical practitioner, the drug manufacturer,

and patient drug consumption is complex. Companies use a variety of techniques to increase product utilization by medical practitioners. In the case of

new drugs, this is inevitable because the developer possesses the majority of

the knowledge concerning the product and has usually performed all or most

of the research concerning it. However, promotion is largely the work of

corporate sales departments, advertising, and detail men. Available studies

show that this activity often goes far beyond technical explanation regarding

indication for use of the drug, into all of the marketing techniques associated

with non-drug products. According to the recent report of the AMA Council

on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (1990), companies sponsor medical conferences that may include free lunches, dinners, hospitality suites, cash payments

to attenders, or full cost of family transportation to a resort area with extra

days for vacation. Some companies have provided gifts or cash payments for

every patient who was started on a particular drug. In 1987, the pharmaceutical industry spent $5,000 per U.S. physician to promote its products, or 25

percent of total sales revenues. Moreover, in recent years some firms have

shown a strong desire to extend prescription drug advertising directly to the

consumer in order to stimulate sales. Thus, we see the persistence of

commercial pressure to extend prescription drug consumption through a

variety of techniques that go well beyond professional education.

Political networking is another means of protecting sales and especially of

resisting control measures which threaten them. Thus, for example, most of

the lobbying activity in opposition to control measures such as the multiple

copy prescription systems is organized and initiated by manufacturers. This

includes the sponsorship of seminars and meetings and other devices

designed to create the appearance of alarm on the part of the medical

professional, which might otherwise be absent. The availability of financial

resources allows the employment of consultants whose reputation and

influence within organized medicine and government facilitate these efforts.

These are all practices which should be further researched by those

concerned with patient care and public welfare.

A resort to dilatory tactics is the final defense of commercial interest

professionals and executives. This may take the form of involved legal

proceedings to contest control actions or perhaps simply a call for more

research. In the present circumstances, for example, there is now a great

125
desire to research the impact of multiple copy prescription programs prior to

any further legislative action. These systems have existed since 1940 and have

been further enacted throughout the 1980s, but this sudden concern has

arisen only since the action of the State of New York in now including

benzodiazepines under its triplicate prescription requirement. It is now

obvious that this action dramatically reduced the sale and utilization of these

drugs. Some of their manufacturers claim that this is because many

physicians are now intimidated in prescribing them by fear of government

oppression. But New York State’s action only created a reporting

requirement. It did not change either State or Federal medical standards or

In any way affect the approval for marketing of benzodiazepines.

Claims of reduced availability of drugs have, in fact, been made regarding the

impact of controls on the prescribing and dispensing of narcotics for the

treatment of cancer pain. Yet, the record discloses national quotas for

production of narcotics have steadily increased over the past 10 years. In the

case of morphine, the increase has been by more than 400 percent. It

appears that these claims, as they relate to drug controls, are bogus and

designed to play upon our natural sympathies.

FEAR OF DISCLOSURE

Although demands for research are sometimes used as a dilatory tactic, some

are fearful of what the collection of data might actually disclose. For

example, not long ago I had occasion to address a conference concerned with

the administration of methadone maintenance programs, a difficult undertaking requiring the highest degree of patience, dedication and professionalism. In the course of my remarks, I reminded the conferees of the high

number of death and injury reports in the DAWN system associated with

methadone, an entirely legal drug under stringent quota control, all of which

is supposed to be prescribed for medical need. The evidence does indeed

suggest that it may be the most lethal of controlled drugs, legitimate or

otherwise, on a dosage level kilogram-for-kilogram basis. It is not a popular

thing to say, but it nevertheless needs to be examined and appreciated

especially by those who utilize the drug. I subsequently learned that these

remarks were not appreciated by some, and that one large, well-known

institution which conducts maintenance programs thereafter declined to

participate in the DAWN data collection system, citing my remarks as a

reason not doing so.

126
Certainly we have ample evidence that some practitioners fear the creation of

data systems which wilt expose the nature of their prescribing activity. This is

because a small percentage of such persons may flood a community with

diverted drugs through profiteering or excessive prescribing contrary to

legitimate medical standards. For example, by utilizing national drug

distribution data, we discovered an area in Texas which reported an

enormous consumption of the Schedule II stimulant known as Pretudtn. A

certain Dr. Thomas was the subject of a lengthy DEA/Texas Department of

Public Safety investigation which disclosed that he was responsible for the

dispensing of 46 percent of Preludin in the State, or approximately 33,600

dosage units per month. Prescriptions were issued at the physician’s office in

Nacogdoches, Texas, or from various motels in the Dallas, Texas area. On

April 15, 1983, John Halt Thomas, M.D. a physician from Nacogdoches,

Texas, was sentenced to five years in prison following his conviction for

illegally prescribing Pretudin.

In 1986, national distribution data disclosed that Pennsylvania accounted for

the consumption of approximately 25 percent of all Schedule II amphetamine

and methamphetamine manufactured tn the U.S. and nearly 33 percent of all

the Schedule II phenmetrazine (Preludin) although it had only 4.8 percent of

the Nation’s population.

Operation Quaker State was initiated by the DEA to reverse the upward

spiraling trend. Between 1986 and 1988, over 43 separate investigations were

initiated and completed against Pennsylvania physicians and pharmacies.

Over 60 onsite investigations were conducted after the new 1987 Pennsylvania

anorectic law was passed as a result of this DEA initiative. In addition to

numerous criminal and civil convictions, a number of highly successful

registrant cancellations were accomplished. By 1989, distribution of these

drugs in Pennsylvania had returned to a normal level.

From the above, it may be seen that there are quite a few persons interested

in hiding their activity from official scrutiny. The collection of prescription

data does have an inhibiting effect on their activities, but not for the reasons

usually cited by critics of data collection. These systems make more visible

the malpractice and criminal profiteering which were previously safety hidden

from authorities. The accomplices and wilting victims of such persons never

complain to authorities and may operate without discovery indefinitely

without such data systems. Filling out forms for the use of government and

law enforcement personnel can never be popular with anyone, whether it is

for income taxes or controlled drugs. But it is only those who have no

127
legitimate justification for their income or behavior who are inhibited by

them.

In summary, then, experience supports the following conclusions with regard

to the impact of drug controls on patient care:

1. The actual and potential demand for controlled substances

exceeds legitimate need, thus necessitating the application of

a variety of controls to ensure that production, sales, and

supply do not exceed this need. The dependence-producing

character of controlled substances and the potential for

profits for both licit and illicit suppliers creates pressure to

expand their availability beyond need, as illustrated In the

examples cited.

2. Controls are intended to protect the entire public, of

which patients are a smaller but critically important subset.

3. Controls should accord with the standards of legitimate

patient care and medical practice.

4. Administrative and enforcement practices should not

exceed these parameters.

5. Controls serve to protect patients from either willful or

negligent abuse and excess, even though they may be willing

to consent to such conduct by virtue of ignorance or dependence.

6. Controls help establish minimum standards of patient care

and help sustain the public trust in the medical professions.

7. Data requirements relating to drug distribution, prescribing, and utilization do not establish standards of medical

care, but do assist enforcement and licensing authorities in

discovering incidents in which they are not being adhered to.

128
ADDITIONAL ILLUSTRATIONS OF PRACTITIONER-LEVEL

DIVERSION

John X, M.D.

On May 8, 1991, physician John X was convicted on four counts of violation

of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), charging illegal sale of Schedule IV controlled

substances (Valium). Despite multiple high quality undercover buys, the jury

acquitted Dr. X on eight of the twelve counts of the indictment. Dr. X was

portrayed by the defense as a decent small-town physician being harassed by

the Federal Government. Dr. X was the subject of a 20-month DEA investigation which disclosed he was a significant source of Schedules III through V

controlled substances in the rural Georgia community of Alma. Valium was

the drug named In the indictment, although he was known as an “easy mark”

for generally any drug in the lower schedules. Dr. X is currently awaiting

sentencing.

Buy More Drugs

On December 7, 1990, Peter Doe, the previous owner of “Buy More Drugs”,

a pharmacy in Louisville, Kentucky, was convicted of ten counts each of

illegal distribution and aiding and abetting (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 21

U.S.C. 843(a)(3)). The investigation by the Louisville Resident Office

Diversion Group disclosed that Mr. Doe was illegally distributing Schedules

III through V controlled substances to the addict community in Louisville.

Mr. Doe was charged with illegal distribution of approximately 70,000 dosage

units, primarily of Tylenol with codeine and Valium. Controlled substances

were illegally dispensed to addicts by the pharmacist upon request without

authorization by physicians. Several physicians testified to nonauthorized

prescriptions which were on file at the subject pharmacy. On April 17, 1991,

Peter Doe was sentenced to 51 months confinement and a $10,000 fine.

Michael Y, M.D.

On May 8, 1991, Buffalo physician Michael Y was found guilty in U.S.

District Court on 11 separate counts of unlawful distribution of Schedule IV

benzodiazepines. Sentencing is scheduled for July 18, 1991.

129
A convicted dope peddler/witness explained during the trial how prescriptions written by Dr. Y supplied his busy drug ring. He also explained how

taxpayers-through the Medicaid system-footed the bills.

The witness testified that he made payoffs to the doctor in exchange for

bogus prescriptions that allowed the witness and his associates to buy drugs

at various Buffalo area drugstores. Medicaid cards were used to get the

drugs at tax payer expense and the drugs were, in turn, sold on the street for

many times their commercial value. Dr. Y received up to $1,000 per week

from this one witness.

Basically the doctor took payoffs from several individuals to prescribe drugs

hundreds of times for “patients” the doctor had never even met, much less

examined. Drug of choice-Valium.

Robert Z., M.D. et al.

Three co-conspirators of Dr. Z recruited indigent people and took them to

the doctor’s office to receive Schedule II controlled substances prescriptions

(Biphetamine, Dexedrine and Tuinal) for nonmedical reasons, These

“patients” were then taken to a pharmacy to have the prescriptions filled, paid

a fee, and relieved of the controlled substances which were then resold.

Dr. Z was indicted on 101 felony counts. In August 1990, he was found

guilty in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston), on 89 of

the counts (2 for conspiracy, 1 for obstruction of justice, 28 for Medicaid

fraud, and 58 for illegal distribution). One of the co-conspirators was also

found guilty of conspiracy. The other co-conspirators previously pleaded

guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances.

On November 2, 1990, Dr. Z was sentenced to a maximum of 7 years

imprisonment, a $100,000 fine, and $6,400 reimbursement to Medicaid.

Action against Dr. Z’s DEA registration has been initiated and is currently

pending.

This case represented a cooperative effort of the Houston Diversion Group,

the Houston Police Department, and the Medicaid Fraud Unit of the Texas

Attorney General’s Office.

130
AUTHOR

Gene R. Haislip, J.D.

Deputy Assistant Administrator

Office of Diversion Control

Drug Enforcement Administration

Washington, DC 20537

131
Existing Methods to Identify Retail Drug Diversion

G. Thomas Gitchel

CONTROL SYSTEM GOALS

Diversion of pharmaceutical drugs into the hands of dealers or abusers can

potentially occur at each point in the “closed system of distribution”; thus,

various degrees of control are dictated for participants in the system, from

the manufacturer/distributor through the wholesaler, to the pharmacy, and

on to the patient. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) is the

Federal legislation enforced by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA) designed to create the closed system of distribution within which a

controlled substance must be secured and accounted for throughout its

journey from creation to consumption. Ideally, the system allows the drug to

be traced backward or forward through a trail of controls and accountability

requirements.

The CSA brought together various methods and procedures employed since

the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 to prevent the diversion of licit

pharmaceuticals into the hands of abusers through the establishment of a

closed system of distribution. Each of the act’s provisions was designed to

limit an abuser’s access to abusable drugs. A fully successful control system

would be self-enforcing and totally prevent access to those without a

legitimate need.

Control systems have two basic goals: first, to limit access to the controlled

substances only to those with a legitimate need for access; and second, to

establish, through records and reporting, the ability to track and identify

instances in which the access controls are compromised. Some information

systems assist in the latter–identification after the crime has occurred-which

is, of course, essential for law enforcement to do its job. Some information

systems also prevent or deter simply because some people won’t take the

chance of committing illegal activity for fear of detection. However, few

record or reporting systems actually prevent access to the drug by the abuser.

At the manufacturer/distributor level of control, preventing access to persons

without a legitimate need is relatively clear-cut and strict, that is, vaults and

alarms are required. However, at the dispensing level, finding the balance

132
between preventing or limiting access to the abuser without limiting access to

the legitimate patient is much more difficult. Therefore, as we identify

methods of drug diversion and systems to deal with them, let’s consider them

as access control or identification systems, or both.

The Controlled Substances Act

The first access control of the CSA is registration. It is designed to restrict

access to controlled substances to those with the training, responsibility, and

background needed to handle controlled substances. Prior to granting DEA

registration, at the top of the control system is the background (eligibility)

and security (location, access control) check. This includes the requirement

for extensive vault, alarm, and cage security, along with employee screening

procedures-all to provide access control to prevent employees, visitors, and

burglars from obtaining controlled substances for unauthorized purposes.

Quite obviously, similar restricted access controls do not exist at the retail

level for the pharmacist or doctor.

A second major provision of the CSA is a records requirement. Registrants

must keep track of all transfers of the drug-they must ensure that the

transfer is either to another registrant or to a legitimate patient with a

medical need for the drug. The “certification” for all persons in the chain

except the patient is the registration number. The certification for the final

delivery in the journey from creation to consumption-that of pharmacist to

patient-is the prescription order by a registered medical practitioner.

Another record and access control provision of the CSA for Schedule II controlled substances is the three-part order form, or 222 form, which continues

to be a primary self-enforcing access and identification control, All transfers

of Schedule II controlled substances between registrants must be pursuant to

a three-part control form preprinted at time of issue by DEA with the name,

address, and registration number of the registrant. Schedule II drugs may

only be shipped to the address shown on the form and the 222 is the only

official and acceptable legal accounting record of the transfer. Such a form

has been required for over 50 years for Schedule II drugs to provide limited

access control and identification. The sole exception is the final

transfer-from pharmacy to end user.

The final transfer authorization in this last link in the closed system of

distribution is unique in another significant way. Unlike all other transfers

which essentially involve two parties, this last transfer, at the most critical

133
level for protecting the drug from escaping into the hands of abusers, involves

three parties. The pharmacist cannot distribute to the end user without specific instruction (a prescription) from a registered practitioner. Thus at the

retail level, there are four essential elements to the transfer of a controlled

substance: (1) the doctor, or authorizer; (2) the pharmacist, or dispenser; (3)

the patient, or consumer; and (4) the prescription, or the authorization for

the transfer of the controlled drug.

It is evident, by all available measures, that the tight access and accountability

controls at the wholesale level have all but eliminated diversion at that level,

but that the major problems of diversion occur at the retail level, again

beginning with the “patient” or abuser either in collaboration with, or through

manipulation of, the dispenser/prescriber. When diversion occurs at the

retail level, a determination must be made as to where among the four

elements the breach has occurred. Control systems must be examined to

look, first, at the effectiveness to prevent unauthorized access, second, at the

ability to provide information to correct the breach; and third, to identify

where a system can do both.

Methods of Diversion

In order to apply this principle, let us examine several ways in which

controlled substances exit the closed system of distribution at the retail level.

First, there is prescription forgery, which can take several forms. These

include legitimate prescriptions which are altered to increase the quantity;

prescriptions written on blanks stolen from a doctor, which are not missed

since these authorizations are not accountable; and the creation of false

prescription pads.

This latter form of forgery is most insidious-prescription pads can be printed

at any print shop with any name, address, and phone number requested, with

no verification required. The forms are then “passed” by runners operating

independently or in organized groups. If a pharmacist even attempts to verify

the prescription by calling the physician’s phone number on the prescription,

the runner’s cohort answers “doctor’s office” and verifies the prescription.

This is now even done with cellular phones, so the cohort can sit outside the

pharmacy and alert the runner to any police activity. In this form of

diversion, where among the above mentioned four elements has the breach

occurred? (1) The doctor–no, because a legitimate doctor’s name may be

used although there is no authorization to dispense; (2) the pharmacist-no,

because unless the pharmacist has other indications that the prescription is a

134
forgery, the dispensing occurs pursuant to a false authorization; (3) the end

user-there is no legitimate patient here; and (4) the prescription-here is the

key to preventing the activity. The abuser has created the authorization

without a physician. The prescription itself is that part of the control system

where the breach has occurred.

A second diversion scheme involves the pharmacist who sells controlled

substances illicitly. In order to cover the illicit sales, the pharmacist takes

blank prescription forms available in the store, looks through the files to

identify legitimate patients of legitimate doctors, and simply writes out

enough prescriptions in those names to cover the illicit sales. If the

pharmacist uses enough doctor and patient names, this activity is almost

impossible to detect by looking through the records or reports of the

pharmacy because no one patient or doctor appears unusual. This type of

diversion can only be documented by direct contact with the doctors and

patients listed to verify that they did not authorize or receive the drugs.

Where did the breach occur? (1) The doctor-none involved, although

legitimate practitioners’ names may be used without their knowledge; (2) the

pharmacist-the primary source of the illicit sale with the access to the blank

authorization to hide the illegal transaction; (3) the end user-the name on

the prescription is a legitimate patient who never received the drug; (4) the

prescription-here, again, is the key to preventing the activity. The pharmacist

has created the authorization to cover the illicit sale without a doctor or

patient.

A third scenario is the “doctor shopper.” There are numerous scams frequently encountered to defraud a doctor into authorizing the dispensing of a

controlled substance. These scams vary widely, such as claims of badly rotted

teeth, lower back pain, hyperactive children, and old war wounds. One such

despicable scheme involved an organizer who located several elderly cancer

patients on fixed incomes who had difficulty meeting their bills. Each day the

organizer loaded the patients into a van and went to various cities in a 3-

State area to visit several doctors. The patients took their medical records

and told the doctors they had come to the city to live out the last days of

their lives with a relative in the city. In the move, they lost their pain

medicine. They asked the doctor to take them on as a patient, and they

would make an appointment to come back after he had checked with their

doctor “back home,” but could he please prescribe some hydromorphone until

then. The patients collected 15-20 prescriptions per day, or 300 to 600

hydromorphone tablets per day, worth $50-$60 per pill. Again, where was

the breach in the system? (1) The doctor-in this case the doctor wrote an

135
apparently legitimate prescription for a patient with an apparent medical

need; (2) the pharmacist-the drug is dispensed pursuant to an apparently

legitimate order; (3) the end user-using either a legitimate or feigned

ailment, the user has obtained drugs for illegal safe or abuse through fraud;

(4) the prescription-this is the link between the fraudulent patient, the

prescriber/dispenser, and the method to detect the fraudulent end user

visiting multiple doctors.

A fourth scenario is the one most people think of when the word diversion is

mentioned-the illegal prescriber, or the indiscriminate prescriber. The

indiscriminate prescriber prescribes even though it is apparent the drug is for

abuse purposes. The doctor is an “easy touch” or too rushed to verify the

patient claims, or simply writes the prescription to get the abuser out of the

office. The illegal prescriber makes little or no pretext of medical practice;

the practice consists of selling prescriptions. Variations include thinly veiled

specializations to cover a drug selling operation, such as the “stress,” weight,

or lower back pain clinic in which every “patient” leaves with the same

prescription for the same drug. Where among the elements did the breach

occur in this scenario? (1) The doctor–the doctor is part of the diversion

and issues an authorization without a clear medical need; (2) the pharmacistunless the pharmacist questions the authorization, it will generally be

dispensed; (3) the end user–again, the abuser seeks out such doctors to

obtain drugs for abuse, not medical treatment; (4) the prescription–this is the

authorization common among the other three elements that clearly

documents the pattern of illicit activity.

Diversion Control Systems

This was a brief look at the complexity of retail diversion, not touching on

additional areas such as hospital or nursing home pilferage. Now I would

like to examine diversion control systems vis-a-vis the two issues of access

control and information collection for targeting breaches of the controls.

First, Automation of Reports and Consolidated Order Systems, or ARCOS,

which I will discuss in more detail later. ARCOS is a reporting system

operated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in its current form

since about 1979. Briefly, it requires all manufacturers and distributors of

controlled substances in Schedule II and narcotics in Schedule III, and

limited other drugs required by treaty, to report all transfers of these drugs.

From reported data, DEA produces information related to distribution by

State, ZIP code, and per capita distribution. It provides absolutely no

136
information about doctors unless they buy drugs directly from a wholesaler.

It provides no information about the end user or the prescription. ARCOS

has little impact on access or on preventing diversion at the retail level. With

respect to providing information to identify possible diversion after it has

occurred, ARCOS is one of the best systems for identifying trends, targeting

geographic areas, and identifying possible sources of illegal dispensing.

However, ARCOS does nothing to assist in determining which of the four

elements of retail diversion should be focused upon. ARCOS is invisible to

the doctor, pharmacist, and end user.

The next diversion control system listed on the program is PADS, the

Prescription Abuse Data System. Frequently, there is confusion between

PADS and PADS II, both programs of the American Medical Association.

Rather than a control system, the original PADS program is more

appropriately considered an administrative approach to addressing diversion

at the State level. This approach brought together, at the State level, private

and government concerns with an interest in diversion issues to look at

various systems and resources in the State such as ARCOS, Medicaid,

treatment program information, and DAWN. The parties attempted to

define the nature and extent of the problem within a State and to identify

legislative or administrative approaches to deal with the problem. PADS II

was a theoretical program to collect voluntary submissions from chain drug

stores, Medicaid, and worker’s compensation systems to identify the top five

percent of prescribers in the State. Due to the voluntary nature of the

submissions, the utility of the system was questionable, and due to legal,

technical, and administrative problems the system was never effectively

implemented in any State.

Another State system, the DIU, or Diversion Investigation Unit, is a

specialized, staffed unit to investigate diversion, rather than a control system

as such. As with any crime, medical, public health, or safety issue, attacking

a problem is more effective if dedicated and trained resources are devoted.

Unless we can design self-enforcing control systems which absolutely limit

illicit access and thus prevent diversion, a dedicated and trained work force is

essential. A DIU is the primary user of the information systems designed to

control diversion, and examines the distribution system to identify breaches in

the “closed system.” The DIU is a hybrid State unit with elements of the

State police, and boards of pharmacy and medicine, which examines the

nature of the diversion and determines whether the approach should be a

criminal investigation or licensing board action. Knowledge that such a unit

137
exists within the State and publication of its actions is a deterrent to criminal

activity; thus, there is a preventive element to DIUs.

A very new diversion control system is OSTAR–the system for Oklahoma

Schedule II Abuse Reduction. This is a welcome approach to providing

potential diversion information not available previously due to the lack of

computer capabilities at the pharmacy level. Basically, this system requires

the electronic transfer of information on prescriptions filled to a contract firm

employed by the State, information which is then used to identify

questionable practices. The data, including online access, is provided to the

State enforcement agency. This system is a major advancement in the ability

of the State to identify and attack sources of diversion on a timely basis.

Widespread adoption of the electronic transfer of prescription information

should be encouraged. However, in considering the elements of a control

system, this, as most systems, primarily provides information to identify where

the closed system has been compromised, but does not prevent it or provide

access control. The forgeries are still filled, are reported, and are not readily

detectable; the pharmacist creating false prescriptions to cover illegal sales

still reports them, and they are not readily detectable; and the doctor writing

illegal prescriptions continues, but will hopefully be detected before too much

damage is done.

The MADAS, or Medicaid system, is a recent and welcome innovation.

Similar to the other systems described, it reviews information regarding

Medicaid prescriptions of controlled substances in all schedules which have

been filled to identify unusual or excessive prescribing. Again, this

information is very useful, important, and helpful in identifying possible leaks

in the closed system, but it does not provide access control or prevent

diversion. First, information is limited to Medicaid claims. Second, the

system can be evaded by paying cash for the controlled drug, so the

transaction is not reported in the system, yet Medicaid is billed for services

or drugs which were not provided. Third, forgeries and false prescriptions

created by pharmacists are still reported and are not easily detectable.

Lastly, I would like to discuss multiple copy prescription programs (MCPPs),

or accountable prescription programs. Generally, under these programs,

prescriptions for designated drugs must be written on State-issued, serially

numbered prescription blanks preprinted with the doctor’s name, address,

and registration number. Under a triplicate prescription system, one copy is

retained by the doctor, one by the pharmacy, and one copy is sent by the

pharmacy to the State. Under a duplicate system, the doctor does not retain

138
a copy. Several States are considering a program in which a single-copy

serialized prescription is written by the doctor, retained by the pharmacy, and

electronically reported to the State, thus combining the control/prevention

aspects of the MCPP and the timely reporting of the OSTAR. MCPP

programs are in place in nine States covering approximately 40 percent of the

practitioners in the United States, and seven of the nine State programs have

been in existence for 10 years or more.

Unlike any of the above-mentioned control programs, the MCPP provides a

major element of diversion prevention or access control in addition to its

ability to provide information to identify breaches in the closed system.

Forgeries are essentially eliminated–the prescription blank is a control

document similar to the Federal order form used at all other levels of

distribution. It cannot be altered or falsely printed without easy detection

prior to dispensing. In addition, the pharmacist seeking to create false

prescriptions to cover illegal sales is eliminated-he does not have access to

the authorization document. The pharmacist may still sell illegally but is

substantially deterred since there is no way of covering up the illegal sale

with false records. Also, the illegal or indiscriminate prescriber is

substantially deterred. Only under this control system is the prescriber, at

the time of putting pen to paper, reminded that this prescription is directly

accountable to the prescriber. Illegal prescribers have no doubt that their

activity is now readily detectable. Regarding “doctor shoppers,” the system

does not improve the prevention aspects any better than other systems, but

the patterns are readily identifiable, and the “evidence”–the prescription-does

not have to be randomly searched for throughout the pharmacies in the State.

Nothing in the MCPP dictates, stipulates, regulates, or manipulates the

doctor’s medical judgment. It simply requires that certain controlled

substance prescriptions be recorded on a different authorization document.

Finally, in examining controls, there are those who imply that the problem of

pharmaceutical abuse is declining and, thus, current diversion control efforts

are sufficient. It must be recognized that the problem is declining as a direct

and traceable result of these controls. The attitude that current efforts are

sufficient because of a decline in the problem implies that the United States

is approaching some threshold level of diversion and abuse that is acceptable.

The only appropriate response is that there is no excuse for accepting

diversion that experience has proven to be preventable. Independent of any

other success which may be achieved in reducing the abuse of illicit drugs

such as heroin, cocaine, or LSD, the pressure to divert and the powerful

abuse potential for pharmaceutical drugs will always be with us, because we

139
must ensure that necessary medication is readily accessible to all. But in

consideration of the constant and potentially increasing pressure to divert

pharmaceuticals, it is essential that appropriate access controls be employed

to prevent diversion and abuse. Unlike dealing with illicit drugs of abuse, in

attacking pharmaceutical diversion, we don’t have to deal with helicopters,

foreign diplomacy, and jungle laboratories. The sources of these drugs are

here in this country, listed in the “yellow pages,” and we give them a Federal

and State license. Preventing the diversion of pharmaceutical drugs is the

one abuse problem that is within our direct ability and jurisdiction to control

in the United States, if we have the necessary resolve.

AUTHOR

G. Thomas Gitchel, Chief

Liaison and Policy Section

Office of Diversion Control

Drug Enforcement Administration

Washington, DC 20537

140
PADS Approach to Preventing Prescription Drug

Diversion

John J. Ambre

PADS is an acronym for Prescription Abuse Data Synthesis. This acronym

or label has been used since 1982 to highlight the American Medical

Association’s response to public concern about drug abuse as a national

problem and the impression that diversion of prescription medications was

one source of supply of drugs to the “street” market. I will give a brief

historical overview. I should point out that I am not a figure in that history

since I have been with the AMA only a few months.

The PADS activity involved the use of the resources and influence of the

AMA to aid States in developing a program for evaluation and approach to

the problem of medication diversion within the State. This activity had

several elements:

1) Enhance cooperation among State agencies involved in licensing, regulation and drug enforcement activities. This took the form of aid in creation

of State task forces and interagency committees through the drafting of

interagency agreements and memoranda of understanding. It involved the

organization of meetings of various State agencies such as the State

Department of Health, the State drug abuse agency, the agency administering

Medicaid, police and law enforcement agencies, the field office of the Drug

Enforcement Agency (DEA) in the State, and State medical and pharmacy

Associations. The design was to facilitate the sharing of information from

the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that was already available to various

agencies within the State, primarily ARCOS reports, i.e., reports of wholesale

distribution of prescription drugs to pharmacies or other retailers. Information might also include Medicaid Management Information System Reports

(MMIS) and some pharmacy audit data from State boards of pharmacy but

these were much smaller databases.

2) Improve medical professional education and awareness regarding the

mode of operations of drug diverters posing as patients and identify refreshed

courses on the clinical pharmacology of analgesic and psychotherapeutic

141
medications (the major group of controlled substances and abused drugs) for

physicians identified as needing such. PADS also assisted in the production

of conferences and continuing educational materials for physicians and other

medical professionals-for example, the publication of practice guidelines and

up-to-date information about prescription medications through the AMA Drug

Evaluations textbook.

3) Aid the investigation and prosecution of practitioners suspected of drug

diverting activities. This was accomplished by operation of the AMA master

file for biographic and disciplinary information on physicians.

4) Development of model legislation for diversion control, including involvement in the drafting of a new Uniform Controlled Substances Act that would

include provisions for cooperative interaction of State agencies.

5) Sponsorship of national conferences on impaired health practitioners and

identification of model programs for referral and treatment of these

individuals.

In other words, PADS represented the formalization of AMA staff activities

appropriate for a national professional organization properly concerned about

the public health–specifically a national problem of substance abuse-and the

quality of medical practice.

Over the last few years, considerable effort was devoted to development of

the PADS II concept. This included the development of computer software

for manipulation of electronic databases consisting of medication dispensing

records from State Medicaid systems. Data acquired from pharmacy transactions would be used to generate prescriber and patient specific prescription

profiles. Input would consist of patient identifier, drug code, quantity and

dose information, pharmacy, and prescriber identifying numbers for each prescription Reports would consist of quantity data on each drug or drug class,

such as total weight or dosage units of a drug prescribed, units per prescription or patient, total weight or dosage units received by a patient, and others,

which would allow retrospective review of prescribing volumes and the detection of gross fraud and abuse by prescriber or patient. As I mentioned, the

database of pharmacy transactions to be used would consist of the data

acquired by the State Medicaid system. The database includes all drugs paid

for under the Medicaid program, but PADS would focus only on the

controlled substances.

142
Such a program would collect the same information as other electronic

prescription systems. An analysis would be made in terms of the mass

balance sheet: How much of each product has changed hands. The so-called

“drug exception report” would identify physicians or pharmacists whose

prescribing or dispensing of a particular drug placed them in the top few

percent of all prescribers or dispensers in the preceding quarter. A listing of

frequent recipients would identify patients who filled the most prescriptions

for a particular drug and those who obtained the drugs from various different

dispensers or prescribers. The difference would have been how and by whom

the reports would be reviewed. I will discuss this later when I describe the

principles of utilization review applied to controlled substances. The PADS

II program has not been implemented, although a test project using this

software system may eventually take place in Colorado.

Because the general PADS activities I described earlier are not, in the main,

directed at identification of individual cases of drug diversion, it is difficult to

evaluate their effectiveness. It would not be appropriate to use (as they have

been) total drug mention data from DAWN as an index of the impact of

various programs on prescription drug diversion. Changes, for example, in

Schedule II drug mentions in emergency room visits would include cocaine

mentions, since cocaine is in schedule II. The supply of cocaine to the street

is certainly not from diverted prescriptions. It also is not appropriate to look

simply at changes in volume of Schedule II prescriptions to evaluate the

effectiveness of various alternative programs such as MCPP on drug diversion

because drug use patterns change periodically due to other factors such as

introduction of new alternative medications and new information about old

ones. For example, zomepirac was widely used as a supplement to opioid

analgesics in severe pain until its withdrawal from the market because of liver

toxicity. A new nonsteroidal potent analgesic, ketorolac, may have a similar

impact. The lack of data addressing the question is no reason to use other

data inappropriately.

We do not intend to use the PADS acronym in the future, other than to refer

to past AMA activities. Evolution of the larger issue of quality assurance in

drug therapy dictates a modification in approach. Under the recently enacted

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Federal Medicaid payments for

outpatient prescription drugs will be conditioned on State development of a

Drug Utilization Review (DUR) program by January 1, 1993. A number of

programs, using computers and electronic data collection, are already in

place. DUR computer programs that generate patient and physician medication profiles would also have the capability of identifying inappropriate or

143
illicit usage patterns for controlled substances. Such programs often have

parallel components called Surveillance Utilization Review (SUR) that deal

exclusively with fraud and abuse. Since the PADS II program described

above would be identical, using the same database, the AMA plans to

incorporate the objectives of the PADS program i.e., include SUR in the

overall DUR initiative that addresses the prescribing of all drugs (including

all controlled substances). The AMA strategy on DUR is presently taking

shape, working with Pharmacy organizations and Federal and State Government agencies, and will look to programs that have the primary goal of

improving the quality of patient care through improved physician prescribing,

pharmacist dispensing, and patient compliance, and that are reasonable and

fair to physicians. Model programs will use more complex algorithms for

screening cases rather than simple statistics on script volume. False positives

in the screening process translate into inappropriate investigation, intimidation and even harassment of conscientious and competent physicians. Therefore, every attempt should be made to prevent false positives.

The AMA has been involved in many important and potentially effective

activities, formalized under PADS, that collectively constituted a source of

information and education for physicians and had impact on controlling

diversion of prescription medications. These activities will continue, insofar

as the resources of the AMA permit, but in the future will be part of a

general drug utilization initiative.

AUTHOR

John J. Ambre, M.D., Ph.D.

Director, Department of Toxicology and Drug Abuse

American Medical Association

515 N. State Street

Chicago, IL 60610

144
Diversion Investigation Units–Methods, Utilities, and

Limitations

R. Keith Bulla

Any discussion of diversion should begin with some identification of the

different levels of activity. I break it down as follows:

Activities usually addressed by regulatory action

Overprescribing (long-term use)

Misuse

Abuse

Activities usually addressed by criminal action

Doctor shopping

Prescription forgery

Sale (including practitioner prescription sale)

Embezzlement

Theft

If we compare prescription drug activity with “street” drug activity, we find

the motivation is similar. It is the use of the drug or the sale of the drug, or

a combination of the two. The source is very different. Prescription drugs

begin with legal distribution and access, and at some point the activity steps

outside the legal course. In contrast, the “street” drug source is completely

illegal.

The possession of a prescription drug can be legal or illegal; its sale can also

be legal or illegal. The possession of a “street” drug is illegal and its sale is

illegal. If an individual is found to have heroin in his or her possession, the

person is in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. That same individual

with a bottle of Dilaudid in his pocket poses a different problem. How was it

obtained? What did the person tell the practitioner?

145
The control approach must be different for street drugs versus prescribed

substances. With street drugs, we strive to eliminate the supply and the

demand. With prescription drugs, we cannot eliminate the supply or the

demand. Therefore, we must develop a better control system, a system which

ensures the drug’s availability to those with medical problems requiring it but,

at the same time, identifying those without a medical need. A very critical

element of this system must be adequately training practitioners and

pharmacists to practice their professions. This training must include their

learning to recognize substance abusers and the various ploys they use to

obtain abusable prescribed drugs.

We also need to increase the awareness of the general public that tablets and

capsules in the local pharmacy are drugs. Most people draw a very distinct

difference between medicine and drugs. They do not understand that it is

the use circumstances, not the substance, which distinguishes between

medicine and drugs.

Prior to 1972, there was virtually no law enforcement effort directed at drug

diversion in this country. Many physicians wrote/sold prescriptions with no

hint of the practice of medicine.

The Drug Investigation Unit-DIU-program was developed in 1972 with a

pilot project in three States. In 1974 the program expanded with Federal

funding to more than 30 States. Then, with the decline of Federal funds, the

program also declined. Once again we saw law enforcement directing most

of its resources at street drugs because it was the most visible problem.

Another factor-maybe the most influential-was that the enforcement of

street drug laws was easier.

Some States continued the DIU program in one form or another as did

North Carolina. Even with the decline of identified DIUs we saw an

increasing awareness of the problem. The medical profession in particular

has made great progress. I observe a great reduction in the number of

“script doctors.” Since the mid-1980s we have seen several effective

programs introduced to reduce diversion. However, no single program solves

all the prescription drug diversion problems.

North Carolina began a DIU in 1974 with Federal funds and received State

funding in 1976. It still operates today and has the responsibility for criminal

diversion.

146
If the problem is the “bad practice of medicine,” then it is not a DIU

problem but one for the State Medical Board. On the other hand, if there is

no legitimate medical need and the prescribing is not done in the normal

course of professional practice, then the activity is criminal and a law

enforcement and regulatory board problem.

A third example which occurs more and more frequently, is the “patient”

conning the practitioner. That is also a law enforcement problem. I see

“doctor shopping” as the fastest growing source of drugs in the country.

People are obtaining drugs under the color of medical need and trying to use

patient-physician confidentiality as a shield against exposure. The physician

does not even realize he or she has been conned. This situation places the

practitioner in a difficult position if the particular State fails to distinguish

between a bona fide and bogus patient-physician relationship.

Our responsibility in North Carolina is to conduct criminal investigations of

diversion. At the conclusion of the investigation, the information is made

available to the appropriate regulatory board and court if a health care

professional is involved. If, during the course of the investigation, it is

determined that a criminal violation did not occur but a practice issue was

involved, the information is given to the appropriate regulatory board for

followup or whatever action it deems to be necessary.

The Diversion Investigation Unit operates statewide under one office. This

structure ensures consistent response, action and interpretation across the

State.

I feel a model State approach to diversion should include a six-step process:

(1) Improving the education of health-care professionals,

particularly their formal training. We are seeing medical,

pharmacy, and nursing students who had substance abuse

problems the day they graduated from school and took their

State boards. No one recognized the problem. There must

be time in the curriculum for substance abuse training.

(2) Good, strong, consistent regulatory boards. They should

have an impaired professional program. They should support

enforcement action when necessary.

147
(3) There should be a system to identify and track problem

prescriptions.

(4) Good law enforcement response to prescription drug

diversion should include:

a. Support of regulatory boards.

b. Recognition of the role of education and

treatment.

c. Clear guidelines for operation (law

enforcement must receive specific training

before conducting diversion investigations)

d. Access to the records and prescription

files.

e. Statutory authority and laws addressing

“doctor shopping” and embezzlement (diversion).

(5) Court recognition of the diversion problem.

(6) The medical and law enforcement communities must

learn to work together. The most autonomous profession

(medicine) and the most reviewed profession (law

enforcement) need not butt heads; instead, they should

complement one another’s roles in preventing abuse.

North Carolina is now in the fourth phase of investigative activity with the

DIU. Initially, Phase I was directed at practitioners. We used undercover

investigations and surveys of prescription files. We initiated an educational

program for physicians on controlled substance prescribing. The regulatory

boards increased their activity as they recognized problems in the professions

they regulated.

Phase II was directed at pharmacies and pharmacists. Using ARCOS and

other data sources, we initiated undercover and audit investigations of

selected targeets. From its inception to date, the DIU in North Carolina has

not conducted any random investigations. Nor have we allowed medical

148
complaints to be used in undercover stories without specific authorization

from my office. There is only one circumstance in which I give that

authorization.

Phase III carried us into organized groups of “doctor shoppers” and

prescription forgery rings. The “doctor shoppers” seemed to develop as the

practitioners responded to education, board actions, and law enforcement

investigations of diversion. In short, it became harder for abusers to get

drugs by just asking for them.

Phase IV now has us in the most difficult and unanticipated investigations,

those involving health-care professionals diluting, substituting, denying and

embezzling drugs from facilities and patients. While this activity does not

account for the greatest volume of drugs diverted, it has the potential for the

greatest harm to trusting, vulnerable, and unsuspecting patients.

No health-care facility is immune to this problem, although many fail to

recognize it. The problem may occur in any area of the hospital, from the

pharmacy to the operating room.

Approximately 50 percent of our cases in the last year involved health

professionals diverting drugs by dilution or substitution. We have increased

our educational programs for nursing schools and for hospital administration

and hospital professional staff. Our program includes identification of

tampering techniques and profiles of diverters.

A Diversion Investigative Unit is not a diversion control system. It is an

identified mechanism for conducting investigations based on some form of

information or complaint. I can suggest two advantages of using a DIU in a

State: First, it should provide consistent methods, criteria, and evaluations

for investigations. Second, it probably has the best chance of ensuring

continual emphasis/attention on diversion problems. It is very tempting for

law enforcement to apply its resources to the street drug problem.

A weakness of the DIU concept is that, alone, it has no built-in system for

identifying potential problems. It is limited by the information to which it

has access. A data system is needed. Some options are ARCOS, pharmacy

surveys, excessive purchase reports, multiple copy systems, and electronic

transfer of prescription data. Each system varies in effectiveness-from

ARCOS to multiple copy prescription systems, with surveys and electronic

transfer of data falling between the two. But each system serves only as a

149
pointer to possible problems which then must be investigated. The real key

bit of information is the prescription; most investigations will involve some

examination of the prescription data.

I have heard speakers say that a multiple copy system is an invasion of the

patient’s confidentiality. I fail to see the difference between sending a copy

of a prescription to some State office, allowing investigators to examine

prescription information in a pharmacy’s files, or obtaining it by electronic

data transfer; it is the same information.

I have heard speakers say that a multiple copy system will cause physicians to

hesitate to prescribe their drug of choice for the patient. I think that is

selling physicians short.

As we examine the opposition to prescription data reporting systems, I do not

find individual physicians complaining. On the contrary, I find physicians are

surprised we do not have automated access to prescription files. I also find

the opposition (dollars) to be the drug industry and a national association of

physicians setting the policy for State associations.

In closing, I see drug prices going up. Users and dealers are inventing new

ways to get physicians to write prescriptions through subterfuge. Our health

messages are working. Drugs are dangerous, intravenous drug use is risky,

and street drugs are unsafe. People are therefore turning to prescription

drugs. I feel diversion attempts will continue to increase.

Again, we need a system to identify problems, and a defined investigative

process and action when appropriate. This can occur without restricting

prescribing for legitimate medical purposes. Law enforcement is not trying

to tell physicians how to practice medicine; we simply say practice medicine

with an awareness of the problem of prescription drug diversion.

AUTHOR

R. Keith Bulla

Special Agent in Charge

North Carolina State Bureau of

Investigations

Box 18243

Greensboro, NC 27401

150
OSTAR–Oklahoma Schedule II Abuse Reduction: An

Electronic Point of Sale Diversion Control System

Elaine Dodd

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

For several years, Oklahoma law enforcement officials attempted to obtain

approval of legislation for a Multiple Copy Prescription (MCP) program.

The sheer numbers of fraud, forgery, and doctor scam cases made it clear

that some sort of tracking program was essential to curb the great numbers

of licit drugs diverted to street use.

Oklahoma narcotic agents continued to see large amounts of legal manufactured drugs available for sale on the street. Manpower for diversion

investigations is limited in Oklahoma, and there are manpower shortages

across the Nation. For an investigator to follow leads on a diversion care, he

or she had to second-guess which of the 900 pharmacies in Oklahoma might

have prescriptions, then spend days manually reviewing files. If someone had

a prescription filled in the panhandle of Oklahoma, it required at least 5

hours of driving time from central Oklahoma to visit those pharmacies. One

felony investigation on a physician required two investigators 3 weeks just to

determine where the pertinent prescriptions were. As it turned out, all of the

prescriptions in question were in the metropolitan Oklahoma City area.

Diversion investigators were facing an impossible task in trying to identify

locations of prescriptions and ultimate consumers of those prescriptions.

From 1986 through 1989, different versions of MCP programs were presented

to the Oklahoma Legislature, and each attempt failed dismally. Such a

program was strongly opposed by drug manufacturers and physicians, and it

became clear that passage of MCP was not likely. Some opposing physicians

made statements to the effect they were uncertain as to the basis for their

opposition and even admitted they felt some sort of tracking program would

deter diversion.

In preparation for the 1990 legislative session, a study was contracted by the

University of Oklahoma which confirmed the belief that Oklahoma was

151
extremely high in the use of several Schedule II drugs, including amphetamines, and there was no logical rationale behind these high numbers. A

meeting between the Governor and his staff, the Oklahoma Bureau of

Narcotics (OBN), State health regulatory boards, the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), and professional associations was held to discuss any

proposed legislation. Oklahoma Pharmacy Board Executive Director Bryan

Potter suggested that electronic transmittal of Schedule II information might

be a viable alternative to MCP. The decision was made to study the

feasibility of such a system.

The Oklahoma Department of Corrections computer experts assisted OBN in

a study of whether the electronic transmission concept would work in our

State. Expertise was also drawn from many other sources, including a major

third-party claims adjudicator. Other systems were reviewed to rule out the

possibility of using existing data systems. There was no existing system within

Oklahoma (or any combination of existing systems) which would serve to

identify the groups which scam physicians and pharmacies to divert controlled

drugs. Any combination of systems excluded persons who pay cash for drugs,

which are then diverted. In the final analysis, OBN came to the decision that

OSTAR was a concept that was both needed and could be wholeheartedly

supported. The change from MCP to OSTAR legislation allowed various

groups, which had previously been entrenched in “camps”, to unite in support

of a system which could benefit all parties. Legislation was passed on May

15, 1990, and OSTAR became effective January 1, 1991, with little or no

opposition.

OBN first considered an in-house program but, due to the lack of a large

internal computer system, on-staff programmers, and technicians capable of

handling phone line difficulties, it was determined that OSTAR could be

handled more efficiently and with less expense by an outside vendor.

Development of an in-house program would also have slowed its initiation by

the several years that would have been required to develop programs which

were already in existence in companies handling third-party pharmacy

payments.

Prior to the beginning of this system, bids were accepted for an outside

vendor. The main criteria for selection included the ability to function in a

“real-time” environment and flexibility in reporting. A Bureau of Justice

Federal Assistance block grant was secured by OBN, which paid 75 percent

of the $270,000 committed for first-year operation. In this period, Argus

Health Systems agreed to process all Schedule II prescriptions, pay all line

152
costs and generate all necessary reports. Of these monies, $100,000 were

considered as front-end development costs, and $40,000 of this total was set

aside for payments to software vendors with existing programs in Oklahoma

pharmacies after they had proven modification. (Unless a State mandates

strictly electronic transmission, software vendors are not obligated to modify.

Because we did not choose to mandate only electronic transmission, we

added this as an incentive.) It should be noted the American Society for

Automation in Pharmacy (ASAP) was instrumental in providing communication between the State program and vendors, and helping to see that industry

standards were incorporated. Software updates are crucial to this system as

they not only allow for quicker transmission but also reduce the work

required of each pharmacist in order to submit this information.

CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROGRAM

The Anti-Drug Diversion Bill required all Oklahoma pharmacists and dispensing

physicians to submit information on all Schedule II controlled drugs dispensed.

The bill was framed in such a manner to be as noninvasive to the pharmacists

as possible, allowing for transmission by means of computer (through modem,

disk or tape), by “black box” (intelligent modem), or by Universal Claim Form.

The ability to submit by paper was considered necessary at the inception of the

program for pharmacies that have very few Schedule 11 prescriptions per month

and may never be computerized. It also allowed for a means of transmission at

the onset of the program for the pharmacies that had not yet received the

computer modifications to transmit electronically.

Information may be submitted by point-of-sale (real time) and must be submitted within a 14-day time period. If a pharmacy fails to submit, there are civil

penalties.

All information is submitted to Argus Health Systems, a Kansas City private

vendor who has had extensive experience with medical claims processing.

Argus was selected through the State bidding process and is responsible for the

generation of exception reports. These reports are received on a monthly and

quarterly basis. A computer at OBN headquarters allows online accessibility to

the data.

Information submitted conforms to NCPDP standards and includes:

153
1. Patient ID number (driver’s license number followed by

two-digit numeric State code, which requires pharmacist to

obtain positive identification through photo ID)

2. NDC (National Drug Code, which also tells strength and

form)

3. Date prescription is filled

4. Amount dispensed

5. Pharmacy ID number (National Association of Boards of

Pharmacy number)

6. Prescriber ID number (DEA number)

By far, the most difficult issue revolved around whether to try to transmit alpha

characters to capture the name and, if not, what number would be most useful

as an identifier. A number of pharmacies are using the actual black boxes and

the transmission of alpha characters by this means is very difficult and would

place an unfair burden on those pharmacists. It was finally determined that the

State driver’s license number, followed by the two-digit State code, would be a

number that could be identified by law enforcement officials while enhancing

confidentiality, since information about individuals cannot be easily interpreted

by other sources using this number. The State code was made available to the

pharmacists in a manual distributed by OBN. Persons from other countries are

identified by a 98 suffix. If the patient is terminally ill or home bound, the

pharmacy identifies this customer using a 99 suffix.

DEA numbers and NABP numbers are translated into actual names for investigators through the use of look-up tables. Other look-up tables identify the

practitioners by medical specialty, with this information being provided by the

medical boards.

Questions of confidentiality have not arisen, in part because law enforcement is

simply accessing information that was previously available but much harder to

obtain. Access to the on-line OSTAR computer is limited to just three agents

and records are kept of requests. If the agent does not know the requester

personally, a callback is made to the police agency or health regulatory board

where they are employed. Information from this system is only divulged in

154
criminal cases; other use of the data is prohibited by State law, with severe

penalties for violation.

OSTAR queries are possible by member number, pharmacy name or NABP

number, or by physician name or DEA number. Exception reports are generated based on a number of factors, with the most active category at present

being patients with multiple physicians/ multiple pharmacies. Meetings have

been held with a committee of regulators and other professionals formed by the

enabling legislation to determine which reports are most effective. As more

data becomes available, additional parameters will be set by this group for

reports on physicians by specialty.

EVALUATION OF SYSTEM

Although the OSTAR system has been operational for only a few months, there

are clear indicators that the system is a successful tool for the prevention of licit

drug diversion. In the past, physicians have been frustrated in their efforts to

attempt to determine whether a “patient” is only in their office to obtain CDS.

A phone call to law enforcement officials would be successful if the possible

scammer was already known to that officer, or had a history which included

arrests and convictions. Even with a criminal history, officers would have to use

a combination of intuition and blind luck to locate the multiple pharmacies from

which this person had been obtaining drugs to build a viable case for prosecution. The OSTAR program provides a means to identify the pharmacies and

physicians that the scammer has frequented.

A recent lecture concerning appropriate prescribing and scams before a group

of Oklahoma physicians prompted two phone calls the next day. Both physicians

gave a patient’s name and their reasons for their suspicions. Both names were

queried through OSTAR by driver’s license number. Each had a history of

obtaining controlled drugs from multiple pharmacies and physicians (more than

10 each in less than 3 months). Criminal cases were opened on both subjects,

and will be investigated in a minimal amount of time, as the pharmacy locations

are already pinpointed for the case agents.

Involvement in cases such as these has increased the support of the physician

and pharmacy communities and gained their support for maintaining, and possibly increasing, the reporting of possible “scammers” to OBN.

A full 4-month collation of data (with only one full quarterly report) does not

lend itself well to statistical evaluation of OSTAR, as there was no similar data

155
base in the past. However, attempts have been made to survey other State data

bases to establish what impact OSTAR has had on Schedule II dispensation.

The State insurance system compared a 3-month period in 1990 with the first

quarter of 1991. This data showed large decreases in oxycodone, methylphenidate and morphine sulfate. The Medicaid data for the same period is directly

contradictory, indicating large increases in oxycodone, methlylphenidate and

hydromorphone (with a small decrease in morphine sulfate). Both programs

were affected by external factors unrelated to the OSTAR program, but strong

enough to skew the data for purposes of using it for verification of OSTAR.

State insurance changed from a co-pay system to an 80-20 percent split and

established a drug utilization review. The Medicaid system opened its formulary

in September of 1990 and payments were drastically increased in all categories

(not just Schedule II). Efforts are currently being made to cormpare data in

other existing data bases to verify whether OSTAR has changed statewide

prescribing. At this time, the argument can simply be made that negative

“chilling effects” do not appear to have occurred under the new system.

A study on a much smaller scale was conducted by a pharmacy in an area of

Oklahoma which has always had a large diversion problem, including numerous

groups of doctor scammers. This small study showed a decrease in all Schedule

II prescriptions since the inception of OSTAR, and the pharmacist indicated he

had not seen a corresponding increase in Schedule III prescriptions. This

particular pharmacy is an interesting case because of its geographic location.

In the 75 days preceding OSTAR, it filled 128 prescriptions for Schedule II

drugs, for 4,848 total dosage units. During the first 75 days of 1991, that

pharmacy filled 62 Schedule II prescriptions, totalling 2,314 dosage units.

Practitioners were not writing each prescription for higher totals (in both

periods an average 37.5 dosage units per prescription was prescribed). This

pharmacist felt this validates the theory that there has not been a chilling effect

on the physicians’ prescribing, but the results simply reflect a drop in the

number filled for scammers and forgers. Intelligence from informants shows

that “patient” scammers are now keenly aware of the new tracking system.

OSTAR, like MCP programs, is limited by the geographic boundaries in which

it has jurisdiction. As in the past, when patient scammers came north from

Texas to fill prescriptions in Oklahoma in hopes of avoiding detection in their

triplicate system, we now expect Oklahomans to move their illegal activities to

border States. This could easily be solved by a nationwide uniform tracking

system.

156
SUMMARY

In its short history, OSTAR has proven to be a fast, accurate tracking system for

Schedule II prescriptions within Oklahoma. Information is available immediately in many cases and, having been entered into the system by the pharmacist,

is very accurate, Approximately SO percent of the information is being transmitted through electronic means at this time, and that percentage is increasing

daily due to software companies making modifications to their pharmacy programs.

System deficiencies have proven to be minimal, even less than anticipated.

Efforts are still underway to ensure that data is received in a uniform manner;

i.e., some data systems include zeros at the end of the patient number, which

causes investigators to have to query in more than one form. These pharmacies

and companies are currently being notified and are making the necessary

changes. The technical problems usually encountered with a new system have

been limited, and data has been useful from the first month of the program.

Feedback from impaired physicians has indicated they would not have been so

free to divert Schedule II substances through prescriptions if this system had

been in place. OBN has active cases involving a large number of physician

scammers that are a direct result of OSTAR and it has enhanced cases on at

least one physician and provided valuable information for search warrants.

Agents are able to make better cases for prosecutors while completing

investigations in much shorter periods of time. Local law enforcement

personnel who have accessed OSTAR have become convinced that it is a most

effective tool, and use of the system has complemented their investigations.

OSTAR has coalesced the various groups in Oklahoma, each having a reason

to prevent diversion of controlled drugs and allowed all alternative which all felt

they could leave their diverse “camps” to support. Physician and pharmacy

support increases with each successful case completed using this system. At

long last, there is a means by which ultimate consumers/potential abusers can

be tracked in Oklahoma.

There is no corollary indication that OSTAR has had any “chilling effect” on

prescribing for valid pain. This can be attributed to the fact that physicians will

continue to use their best judgment in prescribing for those in need of

medication. Educational efforts by OBN continue to stress that our goal is

never to prohibit a patient who truly needs medication from receiving it, but

instead, to encourage appropriate prescribing while discouraging diversion for

157
abuse and resale. As of May 1991, the Oklahoma State Medical Association

had yet to receive a single complaint from a physician regarding OSTAR and

any supposed negative effects on their practice.

OSTAR addresses the much-needed informational gap in Schedule II dispensation in Oklahoma, which could not have been solved by the use of existing

data systems or even by greatly increased manpower alone. It is an experiment

in technology that works better than was anticipated and is one of the most

productive programs in antidrug diversion law enforcement today.

AUTHOR

Elaine Dodd

Chief Agent, Compliance

Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and

Dangerous Drug Center

Suite 11

4545 North Lincoln Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

158
The Illinois Experience in Achieving the

Medical/Regulatory Balance Required to Control

Prescription Drug Diversion

Mark T. Bishop and Ronald J. Vlasty

INTRODUCTION

Each year, thousands of Illinois patients are treated for a variety of diseases.

Their treatment regimen may include the use of prescription drugs whose

therapeutic benefits are often accompanied by psychoactive effects. While

these drugs have positive and effective medical uses, misuse or abuse of these

drugs can produce a variety of adverse consequences such as drug

dependence, overdose, and death.

In an effort to strengthen controls over prescription drug misuse and abuse,

Illinois revitalized its Triplicate Prescription Control Program in 1984 by

transferring the operation of the program from the Illinois Department of

Registration and Education to the Illinois Department of Alcoholism and

Substance Abuse (DASA). The new program was created to achieve a

balance between the appropriate medical availability of “designated product”

Schedule II prescription drugs and the need to limit their potential for

diversion and abuse. This program has virtually eliminated forgeries and

mechanical alterations by requiring that Schedule II drugs only be prescribed

on official forms which are serially numbered on counterfeit-proof paper and

registered to an individual physician. By controlling the form, the Triplicate

Program has reduced the number of stolen and stolen/cashed prescriptions.

The program has also been able to significantly reduce the fraudulent

acquisition of hydromorphone (Dilaudid) and phenmetrazine (Preludin), two

of the most sought after “street” prescription drugs in Illinois.

The Triplicate Program has also served to deter indiscriminate prescribing.

When physicians are required to complete the necessary prescription form,

they often evaluate whether another equally effective drug might be suitable

for their patient, yet offer the patient less risk of dependence or abuse.

159
The department has operated the Triplicate Program since July 1, 1984, and

has achieved the following remarkable results:

In 1984, Illinois added the drug glutethimide (Doriden) to

the Triplicate Program and, in effect, virtually eliminated

deaths attributed to the overdose of this drug. Between

1982 and 1984, 36 deaths had been reported in the 3 years

prior to the rescheduling of glutethimide. Since then, only

one death has been reported in Illinois which is in clear

contrast to the rest of the Nation which reported 523 deaths

during the same time period. Recently, the Federal Government followed Illinois’ lead and reclassified glutethimide

under Schedule II to increase control over this drug.

A 90 percent reduction in the amount of hydromorphone (Dilaudid)

diverted through fraudulent use of the triplicate form.

A 100 percent reduction in the amount of fraudulently diverted

phenmetrazine (Preludin).

A 90 percent reduction in the fraudulent cashing of triplicate

prescription forms.

Developed and implemented the Pharmacy Inventory Control (PIC)

Program which enabled the Department to track and monitor

activities of out-of-State medical practitioners who issue Schedule II

controlled substance prescription orders that are filled by licensed

Illinois pharmacies.

This program has caused a number of States outside of Illinois to initiate

regulatory actions and it has blocked out-of-State physician avoidance of

home State prescribing constraints. In the part, some physicians took the

opportunity to have their patients fill illicit prescriptions “across the border”

in Illinois to avoid detection in their local State.

Provided data targeting practitioners involved in illicit or illegal

prescribing/dispensing activities. To date, 140 cases have resulted in

licensure sanctions.

Provided research data to the Illinois State Medical Society and the

Illinois Pharmacists Association to contribute to the development of

160
educational programs on the prescribing responsibilities associated

with controlled substances, anorectic drugs, benzodiazepines, and

anabolic steroids.

Participated at the national level on prescription drug control policy

forums. The Illinois program has been recognized as a national

model. Indiana and Michigan, which have recently installed triplicate

programs, have designed significant portions of their programs based

on the Illinois model.

On an annual basis, it is estimated that the Triplicate Prescription

Control Program saves other local, State and Federal agencies an

estimated $170,000 annually in administrative costs that ordinarily

would have been spent on laborious onsite prescription file and

medical record reviews.

Identified a self-dispensing physician who was averaging over 300

prescriptions/500,000 mg of amphetamines. Some of this physician’s

patients had received amphetamine prescriptions for periods iii

excess of three years. After further investigation, this physician

received 2-years’ probation against his medical license because of his

indiscriminate prescribing practices.

Identified one physician in southern Illinois who was selling his

triplicate prescription blanks to “professional patients” from the

Chicago area. The physician originally reported that his prescription

forms had been stolen, but after reviewing the forms received from

the pharmacy, it was found that the physician was actually writing

these prescriptions. This physician was eventually arrested and

sanctioned for his illegal activity.

Provided information to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on four Illinois physicians who have been prescribing large quantities of Dilaudid for “professional

patients” over the past 3 years. It is estimated that the drugs

diverted through these prescriptions have a street value

totalling over $12 million. The DEA is confident that these

four physicians will be indicted for their illegal activity.

Provided data targeting 150 to 200 criminal drug traffickers who

regularly prey on unsuspecting Illinois physicians. These known drug

161
diverters “score” from 60-100 prescriptions per month and have been

known to make in excess of $200,000 annually which is, of course,

also “unreported” income. Illinois now estimates that only 25 “doctor

shoppers” are still active in this State, a 90 percent reduction since

1985.

The Illinois Triplicate Program is the only program of its kind in the

nation with the full support of its State medical society and its State

pharmacy association.

HISTORY OF THE ILLINOIS TRIPLICATE PROGRAM

The Illinois Triplicate Prescription Control Program was enacted in 1961

under the administrative authority of the Illinois Bureau of Investigation

(IBI). The IBI was superseded by the Department of Law Enforcement

(DLE), which, in 1984, again had its name changed to the Department of

State Police (DSP). In 1974, as a result of reports on widespread fraud and

illegal prescribing and dispensing of prescription drugs in Illinois, an Illinois

Legislative Investigating Commission recommended that this program would

be more capably administered by the agency that was responsible for the

regulation of professional licenses issued in accordance with the Illinois

Medical Practice Act and the Illinois Pharmacy Practice Act. In 1975, the

responsibility for the administration of the Triplicate Program was transferred

from the Department of Law Enforcement to the Department of Registration

and Education (DRE), which, in 1987, was subsequently renamed the

Department of Professional Regulation (DPR).

In 1982, and in response to media investigations of blatant Medicaid

prescription fraud and diversion, Governor Jim Thompson’s convened a

Prescription Drug Abuse Task Force. The Task Force recommended that

the Illinois Dangerous Drugs Commission be charged with the responsibility

of developing a new automated triplicate system to provide for the more

efficient distribution, receipt, and tracking of triplicate prescription forms and

information. On July 1, 1984, the Department of Alcoholism and Substance

Abuse (DASA) was created to address growing concerns over the problems

of alcoholism and substance abuse in the State of Illinois. The Dangerous

Drugs Commission and the operation of the Triplicate Prescription Control

Program were incorporated under the mandate of the new department and

immediate implementation of the new system began. Additionally, placing

the administrative authority for the Triplicate Program with DASA ensured

162
that there would be a balance between the law enforcement community and

the medical professions.

The Triplicate Prescription Control Program was designed to deter the

misuse, abuse, and diversion of Schedule II “designated product” prescription

drugs in Illinois. The prescription drugs in Schedule II of the Illinois

Controlled Substances Act have a currently accepted medical use for treatment, but also have an extremely high potential for abuse that may lead to

severe psychological and physiological dependence. A drug with “designated

product” status requires the use of an official triplicate prescription form and

includes narcotics, amphetamine, phenmetrazine, methamphetamine, glutethimide, and pentazocine. There are also “nondesignated product” prescription

drugs under Illinois’ Schedule II classification, which include amobarbital,

pentobarbital, secobarbital, and methylphenidate, and these drugs do not

require the use of the triplicate prescription form.

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

The Illinois Controlled Substances Act (III. Rev. Stat. 1988, ch. 56 1/2)

provides that physicians/surgeons, dentists, podiatrists, and veterinarians are

the only medical practitioners who can prescribe Schedule II controlled

substances. The Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) currently

licenses 43,794 of these practitioners, of whom 36,929 hold Controlled

Substances licenses. Since August of 1985, DASA has issued triplicate

prescription forms to 23,917 practitioners in Illinois. DPR also currently

licenses 11,731 pharmacists and 2,824 pharmacies that participate in the

triplicate prescription program. Excluding retirees, teaching, and all other

nonpracticing physicians, approximately 90 percent of licensed Illinois

physicians participate in the program.

PROGRAM OPERATIONS

Forms Issuance

In August 1985, DASA developed an inventory subsystem which permitted

the Triplicate Program to issue preprinted triplicate forms to all requesting

medical practitioners in the State. The use of this new form has eliminated

many of the previous problems encountered with forged and stolen blanks.

To date, DASA has issued over 5 million forms to Illinois medical practitioners and has collected over $465,570 in issuance fees.

163
Forms Processing

In September 1986, the development of a new automated triplicate form processing system was completed. It allowed the collection of timely and

accurate information based on prescription data submitted by Illinois

pharmacies. This data is being used to more accurately identify and analyze

patterns of drug use and misuse. To date, DASA has processed over one

milion triplicate forms. On average, medical practitioners, issue 11 triplicate

prescriptions per year, pharmacies fill 66, and pharmacists dispense 15.

Since DASA assumed responsibility for the triplicate prescription program on

July 1, 1984, the total number of prescriptions for Schedule II designated

product prescription drugs has remained relatively constant. While FY 1991

statistics indicate a decrease in the total amount of triplicate prescriptions

compared to FY 1985, triplicate prescriptions written for analgesia and

cancer pain management have significantly increased. Morphine sulfate

prescriptions increased from 10,841 in FY 1985 to 36,489 in FY 1991.

Oxycodone with acetaminophen also increased from 26,012 prescriptions in

FY 1985 to 39,046 in FY 1991. Increases also occurred in the total number of

milligrams prescribed per prescription.

Changes resulting from effects of the new program and other concurrent

factors (e.g., professional education, improved pain control) on the

prescribing of analgesics to control chronic/cancer pain has been mixed.

The number of prescriptions for morphine sulfate has steadily

risen–from 10,841 in FY 1985 to 36,489 in FY 1991.

The number of prescriptions for oxycodone/acetaminophen

preparations rose from 26,012 in FY 1985 to a peak of 41,164 in

FY 1988 and has slightly declined since to 39,046 in FY 1991.

Reductions in the number of triplicate prescriptions are most noticeable with

respect to the target drugs–amphetamines, glutethimide and hydromorphone.

Regulatory efforts initiated against the diversion of these drugs account for a

reduction of 11,264 triplicate prescriptions from FY 1985 levels.

Reductions attributed to regulatory initiatives are indicated in the following

tables; they demonstrate the rankings of the top ten Schedule II designated

product prescription drugs according to the number of prescriptions written

as well as the total milligrams dispensed:

164
TOP 10 SCHEDULE II PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

NUMBER OF TRIPLICATE PRESCRIPTIONS ISSUED*

DRUG NAME FY FY FY FY FY FY FY

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

AMPHETAMINES 19.5 18.2 15.5 13.9 12.4 11.8 12.9

CODEINE 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.6

DOLOPHINE 5.4 5.0 4.5 4.5 3.9 3.0 2.4

GLUTETHIMIDE 2.7 2.7 1.9 1.5 .97 .79 .56

HYDROMORPHONE 16.3 16.7 16.7 16.1 14.6 13.1 13.8

MEPERIDINE 22.7 24.6 22.2 21.8 19.2 18.3 16.8

MORPHINE SULFATE 10.8 14.8 17.4 22.6 26.0 31.7 36.5

OXYCODONE/ASPIRIN 43.0 41.7 35.5 31.8 27.5 22.0 19.7

OXYCODONE/ACET. 26.0 33.6 36.5 41.2 40.3 39.3 39.0

PENTAZOCINE 5.8 3.1 .71 .68 .42 .45 .3

Numbers are in thousands

165
Years are fiscal years

TOP 10 SCHEDULE II PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

TOTAL DRUG AMOUNT

(IN MGS)*

166
PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

Stolen/Cashed Triplicates

The number of stolen triplicates which have been fraudulently cashed at

Illinois pharmacies has dropped significantly over the past 7 years. Between

fiscal year 1985 and fiscal year 1991, the number of fraudulently cashed

prescriptions for all triplicate drugs decreased from 380 to 29. The 29

fraudulently cashed prescriptions reported in fiscal year 1991 have been

traced back to a group of known drug traffickers who were working in

collusion with a single physician, and DASA has forwarded this information

to the Drug Enforcement Admininstration for further investigation. The

overall reduction in diversion activities can be attributed to an aggressive

program that provides timely and accurate stolen prescription information to

the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of State Police, the

Department of Professional Regulation, and to networks of Illinois

pharmacies.

STOLEN TRIPLICATE PRESCRIPTIONS VERSUS

STOLEN AND CASHED TRIPLICATE FORMS

167
Fraudulent Acquisition of Hydromorphone and Phenmetrazine

In a majority of cases, stolen triplicate prescriptions are used to acquire

hydromorphone (Dilaudid) or phenmetrazine (Preludin), which are two of

the most sought after “street” prescription drugs in Illinois. During the past 7

years there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of diverted dosage

units (capsules, tablets, etc.) of these drugs compared to the total diverted

dosage units in fiscal year 1985. Diverted hydromorphone dosage units

dropped from 29,314 in FY 1985 to 3,600 dosage units in FY 1991. This was

accomplished without limiting medical necessity of this drug for cancer pain

treatment.

Similarly, diverted phenmetrazine dosage units, which totaled 6,090 in FY

1985, dropped to 0 in FY 1991. This reduction and complete elimination

may be attributed to the fact that drug diversion rings in Illinois are

continuing to experience the fear of arrest and prosecution. This is directly

related to the stepped-up efforts and cooperation among Federal and State

law enforcement and regulatory agencies.

FRAUDULENT ACQUISITION OF

DILAUDID AND PRELUDIN

168
Pentazocine Epidemic

In 1977, the Illinois Dangerous Drug Commission began receiving isolated

reports of intravenous pentazocine (Talwin) abuse from its licensed narcotic

treatment programs. By mid-1977 most narcotic treatment programs located

on the south and west sides of Chicago were reporting pentazocine abuse

admissions. Pentazocine was being used intravenously with pyribenzamine (a

combination commonly known as “T’s and Blues”). The Dangerous Drugs

Commission’s Advisory Council examined the causative factors of this

epidemic and recommended the classification of pentazocine under Schedule

II of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act as a designated product, thus

requiring the use of an official triplicate prescription blank. In Illinois, the

drug pentazocine was classified under Schedule II in August of 1978. On the

Federal level, pentazocine was and still remains under the Schedule IV

classification. Due to the rescheduling actions of the Dangerous Drug

Commission, the enforcement actions of the Department of Professional

Regulation, the Chicago Police Department, and the Drug Enforcement

Administration, and the introduction of pentazocine with naloxone (Talwin

Nx) by Sterling-Winthrop Pharmaceutical, the pentazocine epidemic was

eliminated in Illinois. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NlDA)

annually produces drug abuse profile information collected through the Drug

Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) which includes emergency room and

medical examiner facilities in 27 metropolitan statistical areas. An analysis of

DAWN data for Illinois indicates that emergency room drug mentions for

pentazocine decreased from 477 in 1978 to 15 in 1989.

Conversely, emergency room drug episodes for the total DAWN network

show a decreasing pattern that significantly lags behind Illinois.

Glutethimide Problem

In 1982, the Illinois Dangerous Drugs Commission was faced with the

widespread diversion and abuse of the drug glutethimide (Doriden), which at

the time was classified under Schedule IV both in Illinois and federally.

After a significant legal battle, it was reclassified under Schedule II of the

lllinois Controlled Substances Act in 1984 and it was also made a “designated

product” requiring the use of the official triplicate prescription form. An

analysis of DAWN data for Illinois indicates that emergency room drug

episodes for this drug decreased from 34 in 1984 to 0 in 1989 and, more

importantly, medical examiner drug mentions (deaths) decreased from 36 in

the 1982-1984 time period to 1 in the 5-year time period following the

169
rescheduling action. Conversely, national DAWN emergency room drug

mentions have continued to demonstrate an increasing pattern of

glutethimide overdoses and persistent reports of deaths.

Triplicate Program Involvement in Disciplinary Actions

Since 1985 the department has been an active participant in the Diversion

Liaison Group (DLG) which acts as a forum for information sharing and

coordination of investigative and regulatory activities. The DLG membership

is comprised of representatives from the United States Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Illinois

Department of State Police (ISP), the Illinois Department of Professional

Regulation (IDPR), the Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA), the

Chicago Police Department (CPD), and the Cook County States Attorney’s

Office (CCSAO). DASA provides support information to the DLG in which

high volume prescribers, high-volume dispensers and suspicious patterns of

distribution and consumption are identified. During FY 1991, DASA

provided 846 investigative profile reports which led to an increase in

sanctions on the professional and controlled substances licenses of medical

practitioners, pharmacists, and pharmacies that have violated provisions of

the Illinois Controlled Substances Act. Investigators from the various DLG

agencies estimated that without the ability to receive automated tracking

reports on the prescription activities of medical practitioners, pharmacies,

pharmacists, and “doctor shoppers” they would spend a minimum of $200 pet

investigation manually gathering the information. In addition, it would be

virtually impossible for law enforcement or regulatory agencies to identify the

activities of sophisticated “doctor shopper” rings without the Triplicate

Prescription Control Program.

The estimated cost savings for FY’91 is calculated at 846 profiles multiplied

by $200 or $169,200. Since 1985 DASA has been directly involved in the

licensure sanctions of 95 medical practitioners, 33 pharmacists, and 30

pharmacies. Information provided by the department has also led to an

increase in the number of arrests and prosecutions of professional patients or

“doctor shoppers.” Currently, the department reports that only 25 of the

originally identified 200 “doctor shoppers” are still active today.

170
PHARMACY INVENTORY CONTROL PROGRAM

One of the major innovative features of Illinois’ Triplicate Program is the

Pharmacy Inventory Control (PIC) program. The PIC program tracks the

filling of out-of-State Schedule II controlled substance prescription orders by

Illinois pharmacies. The PIC Program was originally conceived to allow

patients who live out-of-State in areas close to Illinois, the convenience of

having their prescriptions filled in Illinois border towns. In order to

accomplish this task, the Department of Professional Regulation developed

and implemented the “Pharmacy Inventory Control” (PIC) form. Illinois

pharmacists are required to use a PIC form to collect information similar to

that required on the triplicate form, the only difference is that the physician

does not issue the original prescription on this form.

PIC Program Participation

Since August 1, 1985, the DPR has issued over 135,700 PIC forms to licensed

Illinois pharmacies. Pharmacists are required to submit an (original)

completed PIC form to the Department by the 15th day of the month

following the month in which the prescription was filled. Since August 1,

1985, the department has processed 81,890 PIC forms. During FY 1991 (July

1, 1990 - June 30, 1991), 2,824 pharmacies held licenses in the State of Illinois

and 1,448 of these pharmacies utilized PIC forms.

PIC Program Monitoring and Reporting

Since implementation, the department has been monitoring and reporting on

the dispensing of prescribed drugs pursuant to out-of-State Schedule II

controlled substance prescription orders. We have been providing detailed

Pharmacy Inventory Control Reports to regulatory and law enforcement

officials in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These

reports contain the following information:

1. Practitioner DEA number: The Drug Enforcement

Administration’s registrant number assigned to the medical

practitioner located in the State where the prescription order

originated.

2. Drug code: The Department’s internal drug code that identifies

the Schedule II controlled substance that was prescribed, the

dosage form and the strength of the drug.

171
3. Drug quantity: The quantity, in dosage units, of the drug

dispensed.

4. Drug amount: The total quantity in milligrams of the

controlled substance drug contained within the prescription

By providing PIC Reports to regulatory and law enforcement officials, a

number of investigations have been initiated. The department has assisted

the following agencies with drug diversion investigations:

Denver Board of Medical Examiners

Drug Enforcement Administration - St. Louis Office

Drug Enforcement Administration - Chicago Office

Kentucky Drug Control Branch

North Carolina Bureau of Investigations

West Virginia Board of Medicine

Wyoming State Board of Pharmacy

Nebraska State Police

PIC Program Data

During FY 1991, a total of 4,103 out-of-State medical practitioners had

Schedule II controlled substance prescriptions presented at and fitted by

Illinois pharmacies. Medical practitioners from the States that border Illinois

are responsible for prescribing 81 percent of all out-of-State practitioners

whose prescriptions have been fitted in Illinois.

Also during FY 1991, a total of 15,101 Schedule II controlled substance

prescription orders from out-of-State medical practitioners were fitted by

Illinois pharmacies. Over 92 percent of these prescription orders originated

in the Stales that border Illinois.

ILLINOIS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES MONITORING PROGRAM

The problem of prescription drug abuse still persists throughout the State of

Illinois. Although the Department has made the Triplicate Prescription

Control Program a major success in the deterrence of the diversion and

abuse of Schedule II controlled substances, there remains a vast number of

controlled substance prescription drugs which do not fall under triplicate-like

reporting requirements.

I72
In 1990, Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) report for the Chicago

metropolitan area indicated that controlled substance prescription drugs in

Schedules III through V accounted for 1,100 emergency room episodes. An

“emergency room episode” describes an incident in which a controlled

substance prescription drug may have been abused by a person to the point

where hospitalization was required. Further, the DAWN report indicated

that controlled substance prescription drugs played a leading or contributing

role in the deaths of 53 Illinois residents during the same time period.

Since prescription drug abuse is a serious problem in Illinois, and in other

States as well, the department has recently established the Illinois Controlled

Substances Monitoring Program. This program requires manufacturers and

distributors of Schedule II and Schedule III narcotic prescription drugs to

report transactions on direct sates to Illinois medical practitioners and

pharmacies. The program will provide the following:

An early warning system to detect suspicious purchases and

distributions of controlled substance prescription drugs so that law

enforcement and regularory agencies can be informed immediately of

such activities.

Support information for street drug use research projects intended to

measure the incidence and prevalence of diversion, abuse, and

dependence associated with controlled substance prescription drugs.

This program will also enhance the efficiency of law enforcement and

regulatory agencies in their efforts to sanction the criminal/unprofessional

activities of registrants. In addition, this program will strike a blow against

the professional “doctor shoppers” in Illinois that plague our physicians and

pharmacists with their well-planned and rehearsed scams that enable them to

illegally obtain controlled substance prescription drugs.

Since January of 1991, we have received direct sales reports of controlled

substances from 54 manufacturers and distributors. These reports include a

total of 497,278 transactions.

PLANS FOR FUTURE ACTION

During FY 1993, the Department of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse plans

to undertake the following activities to strengthen the State’s control over

prescription drug diversion and abuse:

173
A. The department will look toward expanding the Illinois

Controlled Substances Monitoring Program in an effort to collect

drug data to ascertain the public health risks associated with other

groups of nontriplicate prescription drugs such as benzodiazepines,

cough syrups, and methylphenidate (Ritalin).

B. The department will continue to work with the Illinois State

Medical Society to identify physicians who prescribe Schedule II

prescription drugs beyond the scope of their practice.

C. The department will continue to evaluate and provide consultation on the feasibility of proposed Federal legislation such as the

“Prescription Accountability and Patient Care Improvement Act.”

This Act was designed to prevent and detect illegal drug distribution by allowing States to collect information on prescription drugs

in all schedules. Pharmacies would be required to electronically

transmit data on controlled substances prescriptions to a central

repository in a designated State health agency.

D. The department will conduct research on the prescription drug

methylphenidate (Ritalin), which is showing up more and more in

reported substance abuse situations. This research will examine

the drug’s distribution and its impact on drug abuse treatment

admissions.

E. The department will expand its participation at the national

level to highlight the success of the Illinois Triplicate Program and

to offer assistance to other States interested in implementing such

a program.

F. The department will continue to evaluate and validate medical

examiner reports as they pertain to drug overdose deaths caused

by licit as well as illicit use of prescription drugs.

G. The department will attempt to integrate prescription drug

data systems to better define the State’s prescription drug abuse

problem. This integration will include Triplicate Program data,

DEA pharmacy theft reports, street drug data from the Illinois

Community Epidemiology Work Group, toxicology data from drug

abuse clients and criminal justice offenders, Medicaid

reimbursement data for prescription drugs, and data on private

174
insurance company prescription drug reimbursements. The results

of this integration will allow Illinois to compile a “prescription

drug abuse profile system.”

H. The department will continue to work with the Illinois State

Medical Society and the Illinois Pharmacists Association to

develop practitioner education programs with curricula specific to

alcohol and other drug abuse and treatment.

CONCLUSION

In reviewing the past 7 years of operation, it is clear that the Illinois

Triplicate Prescription Control Program continues to demonstrate significant

success in controlling the diversion of Schedule II prescription drugs throughout the State. This success must be credited, to a great extent, to the level of

communication and cooperation that has existed among medical professionals, pharmacy professionals, medical societies, pharmacy associations, and

Federal and State agencies. Information sharing has been the most effective

tool in the control of diversion.

However, there exists a continuing need to identify and sanction those

unscrupulous professionals who prescribe and dispense dangerous drugs

outside the law for personal gain. The Department of Alcoholism and

Substance Abuse is committed to the effort of alleviating the suffering and

pain caused by the abuse and misuse of prescription drugs. With cooperation

and communication, DASA will continue to support the statewide effort to

interdict the flow of criminally diverted Schedule II drugs.

AUTHORS

Mark T. Bishop

Deputy Director

Ronald J. Vlasty

Administrator, Regulatory and Support Services Division

Illinois Department of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse

Suite 5-600

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, IL

175
New York State’s Triplicate Prescription Program

John L. Eadie

INTRODUCTION

New York State has found no program, system, or activity as effective in

dealing with the diversion, abuse and misuse of controlled substances as the

multiple copy prescription system. New York State is one of nine States that

has such a system. Of these, Rhode Island and Hawaii have duplicate

systems, while New York, California, Texas, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, and

Indiana have triplicate systems. Contrary to what opponents assert, triplicate

systems do not interfere with the continued legitimate and necessary prescribing of those drugs to meet patients’ needs.

The Triplicate Prescription System

In 1972, legislation was passed in New York State requiring that all Schedule

II drugs be prescribed only upon a State-issued triplicate copy prescription

form. Initially restrained by litigation, this legislation was promulgated in

1978 and became known as the Triplicate Prescription Program. This program requires that a copy of the triplicate prescription form be forwarded to

the New York State Department of Health pursuant to dispensing the drug.

Prescribing of up to a three month supply is permitted on triplicate forms for

a list of conditions where such long term use is medically indicated. Except

for those conditions, prescriptions can only be written for a maximum of a

30-day supply. Refills are not permitted. Patients must receive a new prescription for additional drugs, although continued office visits are not

required and are left to the physician’s discretion in accordance with sound

medical practice. Physicians may mail prescriptions to patients or their

pharmacies, or make the prescriptions available for pickup in the office.

The items of information on a triplicate prescription form are the same as on

a standard prescription except that check boxes are used to denote drug type

and the patient’s gender. The practitioner’s name and address are imprinted

on each prescription by the State. Certain areas of information have been

converted to check boxes or machine readable numbers so the information

176
can be read by optical character readers, thus, expediting our processing of

the volume of prescriptions.

The forms originate with licensed practitioners who retain one copy and

forward the other two to the pharmacy. After dispensing, the pharmacist

retains a copy and forwards the other to the Department of Health where the

information is compiled by computer and analyzed.

The triplicate system stops prescription forgery and counterfeiting.

The New York State triplicate prescription forms are serially numbered and

their distribution is controlled by the State. Only bona fide practitioners can

obtain them as every order is screened by the State to verify its validity. The

forms are printed with special paper, inks and artwork making counterfeiting,

photocopying, and alterations nearly impossible. In contrast, anyone can

print or photocopy thousands of standard prescription blanks and then forge

a physician’s signature.

There has been only one attempt in New York to counterfeit triplicate forms,

and it was identified and quashed immediately. If triplicates are lost or

stolen, the physician simply reports this to the Bureau of Controlled Substances and we notify all pharmacies of the missing forms’ serial numbers. If

the lost or stolen prescriptions are ever filled, they are immediately identified

by the computer, enabling us to investigate.

In New York State before triplicates, 12.5 percent of prescriptions for

Schedule II drugs were forgeries. In the first year of the triplicate system,

only 0.5 percent of the filled prescriptions had been reported lost or stolen

and by 1986, that had dropped to 0.06 percent and remains at that tiny

fraction of 1 percent today.

In New York some have suggested that we consider a PADS II, Voluntary

Drug Utilization Review System or electronic transfer of prescriptions

without a State issued form. However, such systems do not prevent forgery

and counterfeiting, they only count the scrips that are forged and counterfeited.

The triplicate prescription system stops drug diversion and abuse.

The triplicate prescription data is compiled by New York State to create

profiles of prescribing practitioners and pharmacies. This data is used for

177
investigations by the State and the DEA and county medical societies have

very responsibly used the data for peer review to correct improper prescribing by physicians.

State and Federal investigations and peer review have effectively eliminated

major drug diversion and abuse as evidenced by the changes in abuse of

amphetamines, barbiturates and benzodiazepines. The triplicate system

identified 46 physicians writing more than 160,000 amphetamine prescriptions

in 1978. Investigation and prosecutions of many, plus peer review led to a 94

percent reduction in prescribing of these highly abused drugs (Chart A).

Simultaneously, drug abuse was reduced, as measured by the 95 percent

decline in drug overdoses involving amphetamines, as reported for emergency

room admissions in sample New York State hospitals to the National

Institute of Drug Abuse’s Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) (Chart

B).

Once barbiturates were placed on triplicate prescription in 1981, drug

overdose ER admissions reported to DAWN declined by 94 percent while

prescribing declined by 70 percent (Charts C and D).

In January 1989, New York placed benzodiazepines on the triplicate program,

curtailing the massive diversion of these drugs into illicit use as evidenced by:

A group of over 3,400 persons suspected of diverting

benzodiazepines had been receiving as many as 20,000

prescriptions for these drugs each month, almost a quarter

of a million annually. By May 1989, their prescription

claims had been reduced by 95 percent, to only 1,070 scripts

(Chart E).

A group of pharmacies suspected of being “pill mills,” that

were diverting drugs into illicit use, have reduced

benzodiazepine dispensing by 76 percent.

“Street” prices for benzodiazepines have increased two to

five times, indicating a major drying up of supplies “on the

street” for illicit sale (Chart F).

Emergency room admissions for drug overdoses involving

benzodiazepines were reduced by 48 percent in New York

City and Buffalo during the first year (1988 to 1989) while

178
simultaneously decreasing by only 5 percent in the rest of

the country, as reported to the DAWN system and analyzed

by MDA in their 3-year trend analysis. (Charts G reflects

the change in the number of such admissions reported by all

the DAWN sample hospitals in Buffalo and New York City

SMSAs).

Overall, there appears to have been about a 50 percent decline in benzodiazepine prescribing since the regulation was enacted as exemplified in three

publicly funded programs in New York State, the Elderly Pharmaceutical

Insurance Coverage (EPIC) program, the Empire Plan (for public employees

and dependents), and the Medicaid Program (Charts H-J). This change

resulted in savings of approximately $12 million during 1989 and $15 million

in 1990 for New York State’s Medicaid Programs alone through reduced

benzodiazepine prescribing (after accounting for increased use of alternative

drugs).

In addition, greater savings in injuries and costs are expected as a result of

decreased accidents, fractures, drug overdoses and impairment of the elderly.

These findings are more fully described in Epidemiology Notes, a publication

of the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH 1989, 1990).

The triplicate prescription system does not interfere with legitimate drug

use.

In New York State virtually every physician who has a reason to prescribe a

drug on triplicate forms does so. In 1989, more than 27,000 of the 31,000

physicians, or about 90 percent of those in active private practice had issued

triplicate prescriptions. (Note: Not all physicians have a reason to prescribe

these drugs, e.g., dermatologists and general pediatricians have little need to

prescribe them). This data indicates that physicians continue to prescribe the

drugs on triplicate prescription forms when needed by their patients (Chart

K).

Opponents of New York’s triplicate system have argued that the triplicate

system results in physicians denying proper treatment to their patients, such

as terminally ill cancer patients. This argument simply is not valid. It

presumes that physicians will deny their patients proper medical care because

they are afraid of being held accountable for their prescriptions.

179
In reality, the majority of physicians have not reacted inappropriately. The

prescribing of the narcotic analgesics, Percodan, Percocet and their generic

equivalents have been basically unaffected by New York’s triplicate program

as can be seen in the attached Chart L. Use of Dilaudid, a primary narcotic

analgesic used for treating cancer patients, has actually increased while on the

triplicate form (Chart M). What is particularly important is that the

triplicate prescription system has allowed New York to prevent abuse of

these drugs while their prescribing has been unimpeded, as reflected in the

very low levels of DAWN reports of emergency room admissions involving

these drugs (Charts N & O).

Further evidence of the lack of adverse impact on proper prescribing has

been seen following placement of benzodiazepines on triplicate prescriptions.

The use of the drug clonazepam, which is used for treatment of epilepsy, has

not decreased while other benzodiazepines that were abused have decreased

(Chart P).

Based upon New York State’s experience with the triplicate system, physicians have not simply switched their patients to other lower scheduled or

non-scheduled drugs, nor is their evidence patients have increased their

alcohol use as a mode of self-medication.

New York has carefully tracked this issue as part of its implementation of the

regulation placing benzodiazepine drugs on triplicate prescriptions. For

example, in the Medicaid Program, for every 100 fewer benzodiazepine

prescriptions written, only about 20 alternative drugs prescriptions were

issued in 1989. Of these alternative prescriptions, only about 3 were for

chloral hydrate or meprobamate, and could be questioned as to their

therapeutic appropriateness. By 1990, the small number of alternative drug

prescriptions began to decline. Chart Q demonstrates this information for

the Medicaid program.

Also, contrary to claims by opponents, consumption of alcohol has declined

in New York State since implementation of the triplicate program for benzodiazepines. The State Department of Taxation and Finance reports that beer

sales declined 2.3 percent from 1988 to 1990, liquor sales declined 8.1

percent, and wine sales declined 12.8 percent.

Triplicate prescription systems protect patient confidentiality. They can do

so better than third-party payers, physicians’ offices, pharmacies, PADS 11,

or voluntary DUR systems.

180
New York State Law protects triplicate prescription patient information.

Public disclosure of the identity of patients is expressly prohibited and

violators can be penalized by a year in prison and a $2,000 fine. In 12 years

of operation, there has never been a breach of confidentiality.

In the case of Roe v. Whalen, the United States Supreme Court found the

confidentiality safeguards in New York’s triplicate prescription system

acceptable. Since then, New York has added more protections. Triplicate

prescription information is maintained on computer tapes, not online, and the

tapes are only run with the computer in an offline status so no one can break

into the data base. Patients’ names are encrypted on the tapes and only

deencrypted when reports requiring patient names are run, thus preventing

inadvertent observation even by State staff. The triplicate tapes are randomly

filed among thousands of other tapes to prevent unauthorized persons from

finding the tapes. All patient identity is erased after 5 years. Additional

security measures are also employed.

New York State has found no alternative system that is equal to the triplicate prescription system in controlling and preventing drug diversion.

Opponents of New York’s triplicate system have suggested that New York

substitute the American Medical Society’s Prescription Abuse Data Synthesis

(PADS II) system for our triplicate system. More recently, mention has been

made of a voluntary Drug Utilization Review (DUR) system or electronic

transfer of prescription data without a State issued form. While New York

may consider such systems as supplementary adjuncts, we do not consider

them a substitute for a triplicate system because:

Triplicate prescription systems are in operation and have

proven effective over many years of operation.

Triplicate prescription systems are mandatory under law:

every pharmacy must report every triplicate prescription.

No law in New York State requires pharmacies or any other

source to report data on PADS II, DUR, or electronic transfer. Pharmacies involved in drug diversion are certainly not

going to volunteer to report. Under New York law, thirdparty payers have no legal obligation to report and may

jeopardize their participants’ right to privacy by reporting to

PADS II or DUR. Even if all third-party payers cooperate,

181
they pay for only about 50 percent of prescriptions, so

one-half the data would be missing.

Triplicate prescription systems prevent forgery and counterfeiting of prescriptions as described earlier.

Triplicate prescriptions are validated evidence of prescribing.

The State has an actual copy of each prescription. The State

can verify if the physician signing the prescription is the

physician to whom it was issued by checking the serial

number and signature. This not only prevents forgery but

also vastly increases investigative efficiency. The State does

not have to prove who wrote the prescription and does not

have to go to multiple pharmacies to obtain copies of the

prescriptions.

Triplicate prescriptions prevent tampering and altering of

prescriptions. They are printed on special paper with special

inks that will readily disclose efforts to erase, eradicate ink,

or otherwise alter the prescriptions. This prevents patients,

pharmacy staff, or others from altering prescriptions to

obtain larger amounts than those prescribed by the practitioner.

Triplicate prescriptions prevent a convicted practitioner from

prescribing drugs. The State simply does not issue triplicate

forms to such practitioners and requires return of any forms

previously issued. Without the forms, the practitioner

cannot issue prescriptions that will be filled, saving patients

from injury.

Pharmacies are assisted by triplicate prescription systems for

they have assurance when tilling such prescriptions that the

prescribing practitioner is bona fide and qualified to write

controlled substance prescriptions.

182
CHARTS

183
184
185
186

188
189
190
191
192
DISCUSSION

The triplicate prescription system has given New York State an extremely

effective and sensitive tool to control and prevent drug abuse and misuse

while assuring the uninterrupted, legitimate use of controlled substance

medications. The triplicate data permits the monitoring of drug use, education by peer review directed to the physicians who need it most, and

efficient targeting of investigations with less governmental intrusion into

practitioners’ offices and pharmacies. Investigations and prosecutions are

expedited because the prescriptions are already in the State’s possession; the

patterns of prescribing and dispensing are documented.

The controlled distribution of forms prevents forgery and counterfeiting by

assuring that only bonafide practitioners can use the prescriptions. The

privilege of having the forms can be revoked or restricted to specific drugs.

Monitoring of such restrictions is automated. Pharmacies are assisted by the

knowledge that a practitioner who has triplicate prescriptions has been verified by the Department of Health to possess a valid license and Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration.

No other system offers to New York State the advantages of the triplicate

prescription system in reducing prescription drug diversion, abuse, and misuse

without interfering with physicians and other practitioners’ ability to prescribe as they determine.

REFERENCES

New York State Department of Health. Benzodiazepines: prescribing declines

under triplicate program. Epidemiology Notes, December 1989.

New York State Department of Health, Benzodiazepines: additional effects of

the triplicate program. Epidemiology Notes, January 1990.

AUTHOR

John L. Eadie, Director

Division of Public Health Protection

New York State Department of Health

Corning Tower Bldg., Room 742

Albany, NY 12237

193
Triplicate Prescriptions in Washington State

Donald H. Williams

BACKGROUND

The Washington State Board of Pharmacy serves as the drug control agency

for the State of Washington. Besides the licensing of pharmacists, pharmacy

technicians, pharmacies, drug manufacturers, and other drug distributors, the

board also administers and enforces a variety of State drug laws. These laws

include the Legend Drug Act, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, the

Food Drug And Cosmetic Act, the Controlled Substance Precursor Control

Act, and several other drug laws and regulations. The board serves as the

controlled substance scheduling authority and determines which drugs are

prescription drugs and which may be sold over the counter. Also, the board

investigative staff performs all drug-related investigations on all licensed

health professionals. The results of these investigations are usually referred

for disciplinary action to the board that is responsible for licensing the

investigated practitioner. When the cases involve criminal law violations,

these are referred either to the county prosecutor or to the United States

assistant attorney for the jurisdiction in which the offense(s) took place. The

investigators, all licensed pharmacists, are designated as law enforcement

officers with the duty to enforce drug laws. This authority includes the power

of arrest.

The Washington State Triplicate Prescription Program (TPP) had its origin

in the Sunset Review Audit of the Washington State Board of Pharmacy, conducted by the Legislative Budget Committee during 1983. There is nothing

like the threat of extinction to get a State agency moving. During the initial

review, it was noted that, although the board was doing a good job of reacting to drug diversion issues, the board should be doing more to control the

abuse of drugs. The reviewer suggested that the board convene a drug abuse

task force to determine what activities the board and its staff might engage in

to do a better job of controlling drug abuse in the State. The board followed

this advice and invited the participation of licensing boards and professional

associations whose members had drug prescribing, dispensing or administering authority (e.g., pharmacists, physicians, dentists, veterinarians, nurses, and

podiatrists.) The Drug Enforcement Administration and the State Alcohol

and Substance Abuse Agency also participated. After several meetings, the

194
task force made some recommendations. One recommendation was that the

State should adopt a limited triplicate prescription program.

Although some task force members supported a full triplicate program, there

was insufficient support to adopt this as a recommendation. In addition, the

State was recovering from a recession and there was no source of funding for

such a program. It should be noted that, as we enter another recession,

there remains a funding shortfall that precludes adoption of a full triplicate

prescription program by the State of Washington.

The recommendations of the Task Force were made a part of the final

Sunset Review Report and this report was adopted by the 1984 Legislature.

Many recommendations, including reauthorization of the Board of Pharmacy

and the limited triplicate prescription program, were enacted into law by the

Legislature during the 1984 Session (Chapter 69.50.311 RCW.). The law

provided that each licensee with prescriptive authority agree, as a condition

of licensure, to comply with a triplicate prescription program if imposed by

the practitioner’s disciplinary board.

Rules were to be adopted by the Department of Licensing, which was the

parent agency at the time, for all the health professional licensing boards

except the Board of Pharmacy. The Department of Licensing adopted implementing rules in May 1986 (WAC 308-250-010 to -050). (Note: On October

1, 1989, all the health professional licensing and disciplinary boards, including

the Board of Pharmacy, were incorporated into the new Department of

Health.)

The authority to determine which practitioners would be required to participate was left entirely to the disciplinary boards for the individual health

professions. The cost of the prescription forms was made the responsibility

of the practitioners. The original prescription is taken to the pharmacy, with

the prescriber retaining one copy for his/her records and the other copy

transmitted to the department. Unlike other multiple copy programs, the

responsibility for transmitting a copy of the prescription to the State was

assigned to the practitioner rather than to the pharmacist. If the drug is

administered in the office or dispensed by the practitioner to the patient,

both the original and the copy are sent to the department. The rules made

provisions for emergencies so that the prescriber may issue an oral prescription but this is to be confirmed by delivering a written prescription to the

pharmacy within 72 hours. The remaining copies are to be transmitted to the

State or retained as with nonemergency prescriptions.

195
The first licensing board use of the program started in 1987 and there has

been limited use since that time. Each licensing board has the responsibility

for operating its own triplicate program, leading to some inconsistencies and

other problems. The Board of Pharmacy developed a software program for

data entry of prescription information into laptop computers so that board

investigators could collect information at community pharmacies for later

analysis using desktop computers. This system was described by Tony

Zinicola at the American Medical Association symposium, “Balancing the

Response to Prescription Drug Abuse,” held in Washington, D.C. in December 1988. Modifications were made in this program to allow computer entry

of the prescriptions that had been received by the Medical and Dental

Disciplinary Boards. After entering the available data, an analysis of

problems was performed and some recommendations for improvement of the

program were made. Some of these problems included:

1. Boards were not exercising proper security control over the blank

forms.

2. No record was maintained of which blanks went to which prescribers.

3. Completed prescriptions were not being reviewed upon receipt by the

boards.

4. Prescribers were not writing on a solid surface so that the writing from

one prescription carried through to the subsequent prescription,

making it difficult to read.

5. Prescribers were using multiple forms of the same patient name causing

difficulty in determining how many patients were treated. For

example, prescriptions for William M. Smith were written

variously as William Smith, W.M.Smith, Will Smith, Bill Smith,

Willie Smith, etc.

6. Many prescriptions did not include addresses though this is required by

DEA rule, 21 CFR 1306.05(a).

7. The prescriptions received by the boards were reviewed manually

instead of being entered into a computer.

In 1990, the Pharmacy Board staff again gathered all the available completed

triplicate prescription forms and entered them into the computer for analysis.

This data was merged with the data collected in 1988. For this study, we

produced reports to show each drug prescribed by the practitioners in the

program. Although the numbers in our study are small, we believe that we

have had some effect on the prescribing habits of these practitioners.

196
We have surveyed the prescribing of thirteen physicians and two dentists.

Since one practitioner (Doctor No. 3) issued significantly more prescriptions

than the others we computed the average number of prescriptions per prescriber both with and without these numbers. When this prescriber’s data is

included, the average number of prescriptions per practitioner is 442, but only

240 when excluded. The average number of prescriptions per patient is 2.5.

Doctor No. 3’s average of 7.7 Schedule II prescriptions per patient has been

brought to the attention of the Medical Disciplinary Board, where we

anticipate some additional action will be taken.

The reasons for practitioners being required to participate in the program

range from inappropriate prescribing to personal use of drugs. A comparison

of the number of drug-related cases referred to the disciplinary boards and

the number of practitioners who have been placed in the program by their

respective boards leads one to conclude the program is currently being

underutilized by the boards as a disciplinary monitoring tool.

SUMMARY

In summary, I believe that this program, although limited in scope, has been

of value to our State in controlling the inappropriate prescribing of controlled

substances. We have identified several problems that have been or are being

addressed in order to make the program even more effective. The program

targets only those prescribers who have been identified as having drug use or

prescribing problems rather than subjecting all practitioners to a program for

the purpose of finding a relatively small number of violators. Thus, the

intimidation factor alleged to be present in full triplicate programs is absent

in the limited program. It is flexible since the drugs included in the monitoring can range from a single controlled substance schedule, all schedules, or

even to all prescriptions. The program includes both prescribed drugs and

those administered in the office or dispensed by the practitioner. The

responsibility for compliance is placed on the prescribers, not on the

pharmacists.

The way the law is written, the program could be expanded to include a

sample of all prescribers, providing information that could be used to

determine prescribing norms. Overprescribing appears to be in the eyes of

the beholder. A pharmacist may view certain prescribing habits differently

than a disciplinary board. The availability of norms would assist boards in

making more scientific determinations regarding alleged overprescribing

practices.

197
RECOMMENDATIONS

All States should adopt some type of program to identify and control the

diversion and abuse of drugs. The limited triplicate prescription program

described in this paper is one alternative that should be considered. If a

program is adopted, it should be placed in an agency that does not have a

vested interest in the practitioners. States, for example, should have a State

controlled substance registration that can be administered by a controlled

substance authority rather than by the individual licensing boards. This

authority might be in a better position to make decisions regarding which

practitioners should be required to participate in a triplicate program. In

addition, there should be a thorough study of the current drug control

programs to determine which programs are applicable to which problems.

The reduction in the number of Schedule II prescriptions or doses dispensed

after implementation of a triplicate prescription program is not necessarily a

good measure of the effectiveness of such a program. The counterclaims of

physician intimidation or inadequate therapy do not prove that multiple

prescription programs automatically mean inferior patient care. After the

electronic prescription data collection program, now being implemented in

Oklahoma, has been in operation for at least a year, it, too, should be

analyzed to see what effect it has had on controlling the inappropriate use of

controlled substances. Claims for the AMA PADS II program also should be

validated.

There is plenty of data available. Rather than saying, “Ours is the best

program,” we all need to work together to perform the necessary studies to

determine which programs are proven to be most effective in meeting our

needs and goals.

NOTE: The author wishes to thank the research analysts Diana Ehri and

Tony Zinicola for the data analysis necessary to support the presentation of

this paper.

A series of 11 charts providing a detailed analyses of the specific controlled drugs prescribed by physicians and dentists in Washington State,

the 15 practitioners required to participate in the program's prescribing

habits, and the disciplinary actions taken in these cases, is available from

the author upon request.

198
AUTHOR

Donald Williams

Executive Director

Washington State Board of Pharmacy

1300 Quince Street, S.E.

Olympia, WA 98504

199
The Medicaid Prescription Drug Initiative

Thomas D. Roslewicz

I am Tom Roslewicz, Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services of the

Department of Health and Human Services. With me is Pat Marion, an

audit manager in our Philadelphia Regional Office. We have been invited

here to discuss with you the nationwide Medicaid Prescription Drug Initiative

being conducted jointly by the Office of Inspector General and numerous

States. The objective of this initiative is to identify and take action against

traffickers and abusers of prescription drugs purchased under the Medicaid

program.

A computer program, which we developed with the help of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to identify targets for review and investigation, is the driving force behind this nationwide initiative. Pat Marion is

the audit manager in charge and is available at any time to discuss this

initiative. What I would like to do is to:

1. Provide background information on why and how the

Office of Inspector General became involved in this initiative

2. Discuss the capabilities of our computer program

3. Provide examples of the targets identified by our program

4. Present my overall evaluation of the joint initiative to date

BACKGROUND

Why did the Office of Inspector General (OIG) become involved in this joint

initiative? Our involvement goes back many years. In 1983 we made an audit

of controls over prescription drugs purchased under the Medicaid program in

the District of Columbia. We found those controls were weak. We

recommended that the District strengthen its procedures for: (1) identifying

recipients with the greatest potential for drug abuse or misuse, and (2) lock

200
these recipients into a single primary care physician to control their access to

prescription drugs.

We did a followup review in 1990 and found that, although some improvements were made, controls of prescription drugs, for the most part, remained

weak. Although our review was limited to the District, we suspected that the

control problems were not restricted to the District. We also knew that the

Medicaid program is susceptible to drug trafficking and abuse. The National

Institute on Drug Abuse identified the top 20 abused drugs in this country.

Only 5 of the top 20 are illegal drugs, while 15 are prescription drugs

available through the Medicaid program.

We decided to broaden the scope of our review of prescription drugs to

include not only controls over recipients but also controls over physicians who

prescribe the drugs and the pharmacies that dispense them. We also decided

to seek the assistance of the DEA to find a better way of identifying targets

with the greatest potential for trafficking or otherwise abusing prescription

drugs under the Medicaid program.

Working with the DEA, we developed a computer program to identify those

physicians, pharmacies, and recipients most likely to be involved in the

prescription drug trade. We tested the program in the District of Columbia

and concluded that we had a pretty good product. We recognized, however,

that the product was only as good as its user. Our program identifies targets.

The user has to review and investigate these targets. This requires a

commitment of time, personnel resources, and funds.

We recognized that we did not have the resources to do it alone. With that

recognition, the joint OIG/State initiative was born. We decided to forgo the

traditional audit approach and offer our computer program to those States

that wanted to use it.

States are often wary of auditors offering something for nothing, so we

started out slowly and carefully. Pat Marion attended national drug

conferences and offered our computer program to those States in attendance.

The response was good but we realized another, more expansive approach

was needed. We tried something unique, at least unique to the Inspector

General community. We made a 20-minute video in which I explained the

merits of our computer program and we sent it to every State Medicaid

agency and Medicaid fraud control unit in the country. The response to date

has been excellent.

201
Eighteen States have, or shortly will have, run our computer program against

their paid claims tiles. Arkansas, Florida, Montana, Minnesota, New Mexico,

Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have the program up

and running. Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada,

Vermont, West Virginia, and South Dakota are in the process of doing so.

Twenty-one other States and the District of Columbia have requested

technical data on the program. They are reviewing this data and comparing

the capabilities of our program with their existing controls. These States will

decide shortly whether or not they will use our program. The States are

Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana,

Iowa, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,

North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

Six States have responded that they have no interest in our computer

program (Arizona, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, and Wisconsin)

and five other States have not responded at all (Colorado, Mississippi, Rhode

Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming).

We intend to keep the Health Care Financing Administration informed on

the progress of this initiative so that it can direct its oversight resources to

those States with the greatest risk of material internal control weaknesses

over Medicaid prescription drugs.

OIG COMPUTER PROGRAM

I now want to talk about the computer program itself. The program basically

has a single purpose–to monitor drug utilization patterns of prescribers,

dispensers, and users of abusable drugs; and to identify targets with aberrant

patterns in relation to their peers. Some of the main features of our computer program are:

1. The program focuses on Schedule II through V prescription drugs. We obtained and incorporated into the program

over 50,000 national drug codes. These codes represent

about 100 controlled substances, virtually all of which are

considered by the DEA to be subject to abuse and diversion.

2. The program statistically analyzes by controlled substance

the patterns of physicians, pharmacies, and recipients against

the average of their peers and identifies those who exceed

the peer average by two or more standard deviations. This

202
feature is very important in assuring that we are comparing

apples with apples and not applying the standards of say

Boise, Idaho, to New York City. The average is based on

drug volume rather than the number of drug prescriptions.

3. The program prioritizes targets by number of drug parameters and standard deviations exceeded. This is a very

important feature in that prioritization of targets allows user

States to point their scarce investigative resources to those

targets with the greatest potential for wrongdoing.

4. The program provides flexible targeting. It can target a

specific drug, a specific combination of drugs, or a specific

location–such as the city of Philadelphia where a review is

underway. The program can also be modified to meet

requirements of individual State programs.

In summary, our computer program can identify every physician, pharmacy,

and recipient who exceeds the average drug patterns of peers by at least two

standard deviations. Ideally, all should be reviewed to determine if their

patterns are justified medically. Realistically, we cannot expect that because

of a shortage of resources. This is where the capability of the program to

prioritize targets comes into play. Targets that exceed a drug parameter by

five or more standard deviations are clearly the highest volume prescribers,

dispensers, or users of that drug, clearly aberrant in relation to their peers,

and should be reviewed first.

TYPE OF TARGETS IDENTIFIED

Now for some examples of the targets identified by our computer program.

New Mexico was the first State to request our assistance. Our computer

program identified six physicians, or 5 percent of all physicians, who were

major prescribers of 5 to 9 drugs. Let’s look at two of these six.

Chart 1

This physician was one of two who exceeded the parameters for the three

most abused prescription drugs: Valium, Xanax and codeine. He was the

State’s leading prescriber of:

203
Xanax, accounting for 7.5 percent of all Medicaid prescriptions

Codeine, accounting for 3.8 percent of all Medicaid prescriptions

Percodan, accounting for 5.1 percent of all Medicaid prescriptions

He was also a major prescriber of five other drugs–Serax, Darvon, Talwin,

Librium and a codeine mixture. The last we heard, the State was moving

toward an indictment.

Chart 2

This physician was one of eight who exceeded parameters for two of the

three most abused prescription drugs. Aside from being a major prescriber

of Xanax, he was the State’s leading prescriber of:

Valium, accounting for 28.5 percent of Medicaid prescriptions

Darvon, accounting for 26.9 percent of all Medicaid prescriptions

Equinal, accounting for 25.5 percent of all Medicaid prescriptions

Fiornal, accounting for 15.2 percent of all Medicaid prescriptions

Serax, accounting for 15.2 percent of all Medicaid prescriptions

He was also among the leading prescribers of percodan. This physician also

faces a State indictment.

EVALUATION OF INITIATIVE

I believe these two examples clearly demonstrate that our computer program

can identify targets with great potential for involvement in drug trafficking

and abuse of prescription drugs purchased under the Medicaid program. But

I will be the first to tell you that our computer program is not the entire

answer to eliminating fraud and abuse in the Medicaid prescription drug program. As I noted earlier, our program is just the first step in this process.

There is still a tremendous amount of legwork required by utilization reviewers and investigators to follow up and investigate targets identified by our

computer program to determine if actual trafficking or abuse had occurred.

Unfortunately, this takes time.

Criminal investigations underway in Virginia and the District of Columbia are

being conducted jointly by our Office of Investigations, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, and the DEA. We know their work continues, but can say no

more about it.

204
Investigations in Pennsylvania, which were initially concentrated in

Philadelphia, are being conducted by our Office of Investigations and the

State Medicaid fraud control unit. On April 16, 1991, agents obtained search

warrants for 10 physicians and 5 pharmacies. All warrants have been

executed and the records seized from the physicians and pharmacies are

currently being reviewed for criminal intent. The investigation, currently

being expanded throughout Pennsylvania, indicates to us that the investigators

are pleased with the results so far.

Is our computer program better than anything else now being used in the

Medicaid program to detect prescription drug trafficking or abuse? We

honestly do not know, but we are encouraged by the fact that 18 States are

using the program as an internal control over prescription drugs. We are

also encouraged that an additional 21 States and the District of Columbia

have shown initial interest in our program and are now comparing its

capabilities with those of their own internal control systems. This attention

alone could lead to improvements in controls over prescription drugs.

We have asked all States to be honest with us. Tell us the program’s strong

points and tell us its failures. We expect it will be months before we receive

all this information. At that time, we will analyze the results and make

whatever improvements or modifications are needed to our computer program, and once again offer the program to the States and to the Health Care

Financing Administration for use in their oversight functions.

AUTHOR

Thomas Roslewicz

Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services

Department of Health and Human Services

Room 5700

330 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20201

205
Summary and Conclusions of a Review of Prescription

Drug Diversion Control Methods

Constance Horgan, Jeffrey Prottas, Christopher

Tompkins, Linda Wastila, and Melissa Bowden

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the findings from a report

reviewing diversion control systems prepared under a NIDA contract by the

Center for Drug Abuse Services Research of the Bigel Institite for Health

Policy at Brandeis University (Horgan et al. 1991). Four tables are included

summarizing each of four broad criteria areas: impact on diversion, impact

on medical practice, operational aspects, and cost aspects.

These criteria are provided to compare the advantages and disadvantages of

each system on a standardized basis. These summary tables attempt to

describe typical situations. There may be exceptions for some of the systems

which would suggest another classification. Thus, when examining these

tables, the possibility of exceptions should be considered. Because no

operating Prescription Abuse Data Synthesis (PADS) systems were included

in this review, PADS is not included in any of the summary tables.

A. Impact on Diversion

It should be remembered that this study did not empirically estimate the

effects of these systems on diversion activities. Rather, these observations

reflect what might reasonably be expected if evaluations of the roles and

effectiveness of the various systems were undertaken. With regard to diversion control, alternative systems can be useful in any of three ways:

prevention, identification, and investigation.

In many cases, these systems potentially overlap and could act as near

substitutes. For example, an Electronic Point of Sale (EPOS) system may be

weighed against a Multiple Copy Prescription Program (MCPP) by a State

contemplating strengthening its diversion control capability. In other cases,

the systems operate quite differently–often as complements. For example,

the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Order System (ARCOS) is

primarily a tool for identifying potential diversion, whereas a Drug

Investigational Unit (DIU) is primarily an investigative arm of State law

206
enforcement. Many officials involved in diversion control, including DIUs,

make use of ARCOS data. Table 1 provides a summary of prescription drug

diversion control systems in terms of their likely impact on diversion.

Types of Diversion

Patient Intent This type of diversion describes situations in which the patient

is culpable for the diversion activity and the prescriber unwittingly

participates. “Doctor shopping” and feigning illness are common examples of

patient pretense. Systems that collect patient-level data might be capable of

detecting this type of activity.

The Medicaid claims systems (the Surveillance and Utilization Review

System, or SURS, and the Medicaid Abusable Drug Audit System, or

MADAS) can deal with this issue because collecting information at the

individual patient level is part of the process of claims payment. Most

MCPPs also collect information at the individual patient level. Some MCPPs

rarely generate exception reports at the patient level, whereas others do so

routinely. The EPOS system is similar to the MCPPs in that patient-level

data can be collected and analyzed. Oklahoma, the only operational EPOS,

does collect patient identification information, and routinely generates

exception reports at the patient level. ARCOS does not capture patientspecific data. DIUs can identify potential patient level diversion through the

use of labor-intensive audits of pharmacy records.

Prescriber Intent This type of diversion describes situations in which the

prescriber (“script doctor”) intentionally misprescribes in collusion with the

patient, and both the patient and the prescriber are culpable. Systems that

can organize data to show prescriber patterns can identify this type of activity.

For example, excessive overall volumes of controlled substances prescribed or

great numbers of patients receiving prescriptions for controlled substances

can be indicative of possible illegal behavior.

The EPOS type of system, Medicaid claims systems, and MCPPs are all

capable of identifying prescriber pretense because, typically, individual

providers can be identified (e.g., by Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA) registration number). It should be noted that not all MCPPs use

their data to identify aberrant prescribing patterns on a routine basis. In

some MCPPs, the data are accessed and reports are generated only during

preliminary or full-fledged investigations of prescribers already suspected of

diversion. ARCOS does not capture direct information about prescribers

207
unless they are also dispensers. DIUs (and other law enforcement agencies)

are able to investigate providers suspected of diversion, and can collect

information about prescribing behavior through examination of prescription

records stored at pharmacies.

Dispenser Intent This type of diversion describes situations in which licensed

practitioners intentionally dispense controlled substances under unlawful

circumstances. The dispenser may accept a prescription knowing that it is

not proper or valid, or may sell controlled substances to people without any

prescription form at all. To avoid being detected, the dispenser may

fabricate prescription forms that appear legitimate. This activity involves

collusion with the patient and sometimes with the prescriber. Systems that

collect data on individual dispensers may be used to identify this type of

activity, although in many cases it may be difficult to detect without actually

examining prescription records and validating their authenticity.

The ability to recognize dispenser pretense is similar to the findings for

prescriber pretense noted above, with DIUs, EPOS, Medicaid, and MCPPs

all being able to target unusual activity which involves a prescription at this

level. In particular, the controlled prescription forms used by most MCPPs

probably severely hamper the ability of pharmacist diverters to make their

records appear legitimate. Additionally, ARCOS is able to detect dispensers

who order unusually high quantities of certain controlled substances.

Forgeries/Alterations In order to verify this type of activity, it is necessary for

the system to have access to the actual prescription form or possibly a copy.

Potential cases of diversion may be identified, however, by systems that allow

analysis of individuals visiting multiple pharmacies for controlled substances.

DIUs and other law enforcement officials can verify cases of forgery or

alteration through investigations in the field.

MCPPs, in general, can detect prescriptions that are counterfeit through the

serialized numbering system of the multiple copy pads, and that are altered

through the use of tamper-proof pads. Some argue that the hindrance to

counterfeiting or making alterations to prescriptions under MCPPs will lead

to increased theft and forgery of prescription forms (Belizzi 1991). However,

this was not raised as a problem by law enforcement officials whom we

interviewed.

208
Table 1 Summary of Prescription Drug Diversion Control System

IMPACT ON DIVERSION

ARCOS DIUs EPOS MEDICAID MCPPs PADS

Patient

pretense

No Yes*

Prescriber

pretense No Yes*

Dispenser

pretense

Yes Yes*

Forgeries/ No

Alteration

Yes*

Theft/

smuggling

No Yes*

Key: * = with caveats

Yes* I Yes Yes*

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No No Yes*

No No No

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

209
Theft/Smuggling This type of diversion refers to the theft or robbery of

controlled substances from retail supplies (with or without substitution of

another substance) or the illegal transportation of controlled substances into

an area. Most systems reviewed here are unable to deal with theft or smuggling because these activities do not involve retail transactions. ARCOS has

been used to help detect theft within the distribution chain, but does not

track the disposition of drugs after reaching elements of the retail market.

DIUs are authorized to investigate all types of criminal activity related to the

diversion of pharmaceutical products. Law enforcement agencies, and DIUs

in particular, are able to address diversion through theft or smuggling

because of their investigatory capacity across all aspects of diversion.

B. Impact on Medical Practice

This section provides a summary of prescription drug diversion control

systems in terms of their potential impact on medical practice, broadly

defined to include many aspects of health service delivery and utilization.

Table 2 summarizes many of these findings.

Administrative/Cost Burden on Practitioners If a diversion control system

were to impose significant costs or administrative burdens on practitioners,

then practitioners may seek to lessen their activities that invoke those

burdens. Many of these systems are, in fact, rather transparent to

practitioners and therefore may not interfere with decisions regarding

appropriate treatments and services. Some systems, notably EPOS and

MCPPs, do impose costs or other requirements on prescribers and/or

dispensers, which may alter their decisions and behavior. DIUs or other

investigation efforts can involve a burden on the pharmacy, such as when

pharmacy records are audited.

MCPPs require the prescriber to obtain multiple copy pads and, in most

States, maintain copies of these prescriptions. In some States there is a fee

for the purchase of multiple copy pads. MCPPs are viewed by some as

intrusive for prescribers because of these administrative and cost burdens.

MCPPs also require the forwarding of a copy of the prescription to the

appropriate State regulatory agency. This may be viewed by some as

burdensome to the dispenser, although it did not surface as a problem in our

interviews. The only operational EPOS does not involve physician

collaboration, but pharmacists must enter prescription information

electronically or forward it by mail. This may be burdensome to dispensers

210
in terms of time and administrative costs, but again, pharmacists in

Oklahoma apparently do not currently perceive it as such.

Changes in Prescribing Patterns All diversion control systems reviewed in this

study reported having a goal of not interfering in the legitimate and

appropriate prescribing of controlled substances. The most controversy with

respect to diversion control seems to involve the question of impact on

legitimate prescribing patterns. In this context, changes in prescribing

patterns refer to the following:

• reduction in careless or inappropriate prescribing

• decrease or increase in appropriate prescribing

• substitution of drugs not covered by system

• prescribing in different quantities and/or different durations

Some MCPPs and the one operational EPOS aim to affect what might be

described as inappropriate prescribing by involving the peer review process in

educating the prescriber. Unfortunately, there have been no evaluations of

diversion control systems that could shed much light on either positive or

negative effects on appropriate prescribing. If data collection or the potential

for investigation by themselves were to affect prescribing patterns, then every

system may cause changes in the utilization of controlled substances. If that

were true, even ARCOS (which does not collect information at the prescriber

level and, therefore, may not directly affect prescribers) may influence some

pharmacies to limit their purchases of controlled substances. On the other

hand, if active participation by practitioners is more likely to cause changes in

prescribing patterns, then MCPPs may be more prone than other systems to

bring about those changes.

Impact on Medical Care A related issue is whether utilization patterns of

other health care services besides prescription drugs are affected by diversion

control systems. Most diversion control systems have as a goal noninterference in other aspects of medical care, such as increase in physician office

visits. It is unlikely that DIUs have an impact on this aspect of prescriber

behavior. Although there are claims that MCPPs increase physician office

visits, there are no studies to support this claim. Similarly, this issue has not

been studied for EPOS and Medicaid systems.

211
Table 2 Summary of Prescription Drug Diversion Control Systems:

IMPACT ON MEDICAL PRACTICE

Administrative/Cost

burden on practitioners

Changes in prescribing

patterns

? *

Impact on medical care

Key: * = with caveats

? = unknown

ARCOS DIUs EPOS MEDICAID

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

?

Yes

?

?

MCPPs PADS

Yes

?*

?

No

?

?

212
C. Operational Aspects

There are several issues related to the structure and process of diversion

control systems that could influence their effectiveness or their potential for

unintended effects. Table 3 summarizes several subcriteria related to the

operational aspects of prescription drug diversion control systems.

Confidentiality Protection of patient, prescriber, and dispenser confidentiality

is considered of paramount importance for diversion control systems. For

some systems, particularly EPOS and MCPPs which involve construction of

data bases with patient, prescriber, and dispenser identifiers, the

confidentiality issue is most salient. Any system that collects or organizes

sensitive information, including insurance claims or income tax records, must

build in measures to safeguard confidentiality. All systems reviewed for this

study had controls built in to limit access to information.

Not all MCPPs collect and/or enter patient identifier data. This reduces the

threat to patient confidentiality, but also the usefulness of the system to

detect “doctor-shopping” and “pharmacy hopping.”

Comprehensiveness Two aspects of comprehensiveness are included as

important operational aspects of a system: whether the system covers all

patient population groups, and whether all controlled substances are included

under the system.

ARCOS does not address patient level issues, and Medicaid only covers the

population who have Medicaid coverage. The comprehensiveness of

Medicaid is additionally a problem, since Medicaid beneficiaries can purchase

drugs without using the Medicaid system.

Both EPOS and MCPPs cover dispensing for all individuals that takes place

within the State. There is variation in how prescriptions written on State

multiple copy forms are handled by mail service pharmacies which are

located out of State.

Both ARCOS and DIUs are more comprehensive than other systems with

respect to the proportion of all scheduled controlled substances involved.

However, ARCOS does not cover all controlled substances, and law

enforcement personnel interviewed for this study reported a lack of resources

to target all controlled substances. The EPOS and MCPPs, with certain

exceptions, most notably New York’s inclusion of steroids and

213
Table 3 Summary of Prescription Drug Diversion Control Systems:

OPERATIONAL ASPECTS

Key: * = with caveats

214
benzodiazepines, cover only Schedule II drugs. Medicaid covers all controlled substances for which Medicaid pays; however, in some States certain

drugs may not be on the State Medicaid formulary.

Timeliness A system should provide data quickly enough to aid in potential

diversion identification. All systems, except for EPOS, suffer to a greater or

lesser extent from a lack of timeliness. ARCOS has been widely criticized

for the lateness of its reports. MCPPs vary with respect to timeliness, and

speed may vary within a State from year to year related to the vagaries of the

State budget. A major strength of the EPOS system is that most data are

entered electronically at the point of sale, thus, report generation is expedited.

Integration The systems described in this review do not operate totally

independently in a State setting. The degree of integration and collaboration

among interested parties varies both within systems and across States.

ARCOS is a federally operated system and its integration into State diversion

control activities is related to how actively a State chooses to use the ARCOS

system. DIUs, EPOS, and MCPPs collaborate with law enforcement groups

and State professional licensing boards. In some States, MCPPs conduct

some or most investigatory activities.

Education There are two educational components of diversion control

systems that have operational implications at the State level. The first relates

to whether interested parties are given adequate explanations of the purposes

for and operational details of the system, and the implication for patients,

prescribers and dispensers. The second relates to whether questionable, but

not illegal, behaviors of practitioners are referred to appropriate agencies for

peer review.

DIUs, EPOS, and MCPPs all engage in educational activities to varying

degrees. ARCOS and the Medicaid MADAS systems are Federal systems

which may be used in different ways at the State level.

D. Cost Aspects

Certainly States need to weigh the costs imposed by a diversion control

system against any benefits derived. Table 4 summarizes three subcriteria

related to the cost aspects of prescription drug diversion control systems. In

contrast to many operational aspects, cost data proved to be the more

215
difficult to obtain in this review. Thus, the table contains many entries where

it is noted that assessment could not be done because the cost data were

unknown or could not be presented in a manner that allowed comparisons.

Implementation The cost of bringing a program to an operational State is an

important consideration for states that are considering similar systems.

Whether a program can piggyback onto an existing system is one mechanism

for reducing implementation costs. Purchase of computer equipment is a

potentially high implementation cost for an MCPP or EPOS system.

The EPOS system in Oklahoma had lower implementation costs than might

have been expected because it was able to piggyback onto the computer

systems already in many pharmacies. This system is still phasing into its fully

computerized state, as some pharmacies convert to the system. Thus, figures

for implementation must be considered preliminary until this implementation

phase is completed. The cost of implementing an EPOS type system in the

future should decrease, as more pharmacies become computerized as part of

their normal operation.

ARCOS and Medicaid systems have low implementation costs because the

data are already collected for claims processing purposes. Development of

MADAS was done by the Federal Government, thus, the only implementation costs are those associated with the software to run this specialized

controlled substance system on the Medicaid claims data base.

Operation It was very difficult to identify operational costs in a comparative

framework for several reasons. First, many programs, particularly MCPPs,

were parts of a larger operation and their budgets were not separately

available. Second, the activities of programs varied. For example, some

MCPPs perform their own investigatory activities, while others refer all

investigations out to other agencies. Third, even if investigatory costs are

available separately, the costs may need to be adjusted to reflect differences

in population size, etc. Virtually all programs that performed their own

investigatory activities said that more cases could be investigated if there were

greater resources. The largest component of operating budgets for programs

such as DIUs, EPOS, and MCPPs is typically staff salaries.

The costs of operating systems such as Medicaid are relatively low because

the data are already collected for other purposes. In the case of SURS, the

216
Table 4 Summary of Prescription Drug Diversion Control Systems:

Implementation ? ?

Operation

? ?

Cost savings

ARCOS

?

?

?

COST ASPECTS

DIUs EPOS MEDICAID MCPPs PADS

?

?

Yes

Low

Low

Yes

?

?

? Yes ?

Key: * = with caveats

? = unknown

217
mechanism for performing utilization review already exists as part of the

review system for all Medicaid claims.

Cost Savings For this review, the discussion is limited to cost savings related

to the operation of prescription drug diversion systems. As discussed

previously, an examination of the costs to society of such programs, while

important, is beyond the scope of this report.

Within diversion control systems, certain kinds of activities cut down on other

costs. For example, both EPOS and MCPPs are capable of producing

computerized summaries on several different dimensions, such as by

prescriber, dispenser, patient, and geographic area, and thus cut down on the

investigatory time which would have been required for gathering similar

information through the process of pharmacy audits.

There also may be cost savings across systems. For example, under the only

operational EPOS, pharmacists enter the required information directly into

the computerized system without charge, thus eliminating labor costs

associated with data entry. Under MCPPs, data must be entered after the

prescription is received by the State, typically by data entry clerks.

E. Advantages and Disadvantages of Diversion Control Systems

This section provides a brief overview of the advantages and disadvantages of

the six diversion control systems that were reviewed for this report.

1. Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS)

Advantages

• Targets the wholesale level

• Available at low cost to states

• Not intrusive into medical practice

• Can be used to pinpoint problem geographic areas or particular

dispensers

Disadvantages

• Does not target the prescriber or patient level

• Usually more than 1 year before reports are available

218
2. Diversion Investigational Units (DIUs)

Advantages

• Deals with all aspects of diversion of prescribed drugs, including

theft and forgeries

• Can be used to complement other systems

• Not intrusive into medical practice

Disadvantages

• Operation is labor intensive, particularly pharmacy audits

• Pharmacy audits follow prescriptions retrospectively, thus

considerable time may have elapsed from the time of

transactions

3. Electronic Point-of-Sale (EPOS)

Advantages

• Targets diversion activities at patient, prescriber and dispenser

level

• Not burdensome to prescriber

• Includes all population groups in a State

• Electronic entry speeds report generation

Disadvantages

• Somewhat burdensome to dispenser even for selected drugs

• Would be more burdensome to dispensers if all prescribed

controlled substances were included

• Not all pharmacies are computerized

4. Medicaid Claims Systems (SURS and MADAS)

Advantages

• Data are already collected through claims process

• Targets diversion activities at patient, prescriber and dispenser

level

219
• Can target all prescribed controlled substances that Medicaid

covers

Disadvantages

• Includes only Medicaid population

• Does not capture out-of-pocket transactions

5. Multiple Copy Prescription Programs (MCPPs)

Advantages

• Targets diversion activities at patient, prescriber and dispenser

level

• Includes all population groups in a State

• Prevents or reduces prescription counterfeiting and alteration

Disadvantages

• Somewhat burdensome to prescriber and dispenser

• As currently implemented, does not include all prescribed

controlled substances, and thus is not comprehensive

• Data entry at State level is labor intensive

6. Prescription Abuse Data System (PADS)

Advantages

• Not intrusive into medical practice

• Attempts to integrate best approaches in State

Disadvantages

• Impact idiosyncratic to particular states’s approach

• Participation is voluntary

220
F. Conclusions

This final section provides some general comments on prescription drug

diversion control systems.

First, because prescription drug diversion control systems are implemented at

the State level, there is a great deal of variation in the same type of system

from State to State. For example, MCPPs differ on several dimensions.

There are differences regarding which controlled substances are included

under each system and, in particular, only the State of New York includes

benzodiazepines under its program. Not all MCPP States enter patient

identification into the computerized system. MCPPs are located in different

types of agencies, with some having a public health focus and others more

oriented toward law enforcement. This may result in differing philosophical

orientations, such as the public health type agencies having a stronger interest

in inappropriate prescribing. Some MCPPs perform investigations internally;

others identify potential cases of diversion but refer all investigatory activities

to other agencies. Some MCPPs generate exception reports on a routine

basis; others only use their systems to support an investigation.

Another example of State variation relates to the use of Medicaid claims

data. Some States have well developed SURS programs for all aspects of

medical care, including prescription drugs. Other States’ SURS programs are

less efficient and are not used to detect fraud and abuse related to controlled

substances. For these States, a system such as MADAS, which is specific to

controlled substances, can aid in developing a focus on prescription drug

diversion.

Second, prescription drug diversion control systems do not work in isolation.

Many States, including the MCPP states, use more than one approach.

ARCOS was widely mentioned as a useful tool to complement other diversion control activities in a State. Most systems reported cooperation with

many agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, State police,

and professional licensing boards.

Third, the age of a system is important to control for in assessment of

programs. New systems or existing systems with new components will show

larger changes in the short term than older established systems. Older

systems have a tendency to move from one of identification of diversion to

one of prevention of diversion activities. It is, therefore, problematic to use

221
measures such as numbers of investigations as a measure of program

effectiveness.

Fourth, one should distinguish between aspects of a system that are truly

inherent to the program and what is mutable. Systems can be altered to

improve on what now may be viewed as disadvantages to the particular

program. For example, ARCOS has been criticized for a lack of timeliness;

however, computerization of this system would improve its speed. MCPPs

and EPOS can add or delete certain drugs. EPOS could be designed to deal

with the prescription counterfeiting and alteration issue without including

multiple copy pads. This could include requiring that prescriptions be written

on single-copy, tamperproof paper, linking the prescriber into the system by a

computer terminal which would allow access to a patient’s prescription drug

profile, or by sending patient specific reports to prescribers for their review

on a periodic basis.

Finally, the challenge of prescription drug diversion control systems is to

develop techniques that maximize the prevention and identification of illicit

prescribing and dispensing, while at the same time, minimizing any adverse

impact on legitimate medical care. This can only be accomplished by considering this area of prescription drug diversion as one requiring a social algebra

of striking a balance between these two goals.

REFERENCES

Belizzi, J.J. Triplicate prescriptions: Issues and answers, “law enforcement

perspective.” Prepared presentation for Triplicate Prescriptions Issues and

Answers, a Conference sponsored by the Medical Society of the State of

New York, New York City, February 28, 1991.

Horgan, C.; Prottas, J.; Tampkins, C.; Wastila, L.; and Bowden, M. A Review

of Prescription Drug Diversion Control Methods. Unpublished report

prepared by the Center for Drug Abuse Services Research, Bigel Institute

for Health Policy, Brandeis Univerity, under NIDA Contract No. 271-89-

8516, August 1991.

222
AUTHORS

Constance Horgan, Sc.D.

Jeffrey Prottas, Ph.D.

Christopher Tompkins, Ph.D.

Linda Wastila, R.Ph., M.S.P.H.

Melissa Bowden, B.A.

Center for Drug Abuse Services Research

Bigel Institute for Health Policy

Heller School

Brandeis University

415 South Streeet

Waltham, MA 02254-9110

223
An American Medical Association Perspective on

Preventing Prescription Drug Diversion

John J. Ambre

Programs to reduce or eliminate the diversion of medications with abuse

liability are an important undertaking and the American Medical Association

has been encouraging this effort. Although the magnitude of the diversion

problem is undefined, diversion certainly occurs to some extent. Most

physicians, as we heard many times from law enforcement agencys’ representatives, are not involved as diverters but are prescribers of medications

that are classified as controlled substances, because these agents represent

such an essential therapeutic group. Therefore physicians in general are

interested in the existent and proposed systems for control. I have been

asked to comment on four specific aspects of the issue.

Practice parameters or clinical guidelines for the acute and chronic therapeutic use of drugs in the stimulant, sedative-hypnotic and analgesic groups

are available and are well defined. Going back several years, the American

Medical Association and other groups have published guidelines. The

American Medical Association publication, Drug Evalmuations (AMA-DE),

provides comparative evaluations of available medications and a suggested

approach to therapy of medical diseases and syndromes. Consider, for

example, the use of opioid analgesics in the long term therapy of chronic

nonmalignant pain syndrome, a controversial topic. A few weeks ago I

attended a symposium and panel discussion on this topic jointly sponsored by

the addiction medicine and pain therapists societies. At the end of the day I

distilled the days discussion into one paragraph (four points or guiding

principles) that I felt represented the consensus of the panel. Reading the

corresponding paragraph in the AMA-DE, I found each of the four points

concisely stated. There are similar sections in the AMA-DE on the therapeutic use of stimulants and sedatives. Numerous other publications in the

area of pain therapy exist such as the World Health Monograph on Cancer

Pain Relief, the brochure from the American Pain Society on Principles of

Analgesic Use, and others.

224
Concerns about the existing diversion control systems relate to their impact

on medical practice and patient care. We heard earlier about these systems

and they include, in addition to the ARCOS reports, the OSTAR system

recently activated in Oklahoma, the DIU system outlined for the State of

North Carolina and the MCPP systems operative in several states.

The OSTAR (Oklahoma Schedule II Abuse Reduction) system is based in a

law enforcement agency (the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs)

rather than the Department of Health. Obviously, the interdiction of criminal diverters is a law enforcement function and in some cases the evidence of

diversion is blatant, but more often the selection of cases as indicative of

diversion or inappropriate practice is a medical question. In the Oklahoma

system, the criteria for case selection are unknown. They are the province of

either (1) the law enforcement agent administering the system, who has no

medical training, or (2) the commercial drug audit firm providing data manipulation, in which case, the criteria are considered proprietary, are unavailable for evaluation, and are of unknown specificity (some are known to have

poor positive predictive value). Low specificity leads to many false positive

decisions and unwarranted investigation of competent practitioners. Oklahoma officials claim to have convened a coordinating committee of the medical, dental, and pharmacy organizations, but the committee is apparently not

actually involved in the process of case screening.

The Drug Investigation Unit (DIU) system would present similar concerns.

Case selection for investigation is made by law enforcement agents without

medical review. The “exception” report may be a low specificity index. This

approach might be adequate for identifying a patient who is acquiring unreasonable amounts of opioid drugs, but it is not necessarily a valid indicator of

the appropriateness of a physicians prescribing practice. An ethical and

competent prescriber might appear at the top of a product volume list

because of patient composition of his practice and/or his choice of opioid

analgesic. In the same way the DEA record of production quotas showing a

4-fold increase in morphine over the last ten years does not mean that more

morphine is being diverted to the street market. Instead, it probably reflects

an improvement in knowledge of pharmacology on the part of physicians and

recognition of the fact that morphine is the agent of first choice for patients

requiring a strong opioid for pain relief (Bennett 1991; WHO 1986)

The Multiple Copy Prescription Program (MCPP) presents concerns addressed over the past 10 years by the AMA. Of particular concern is the

equation of decreases in the volume of certain prescriptions with a salutary

225
effect on medical practice. The limited evidence available suggests that such

may not be the case. Appropriate agents may be replaced by less effective,

less safe agents. There are well founded concerns about patient confidentiality, a “chilling effect” on the appropriate use of opioid agents, and the

additional unnecessary costs of a system that will be a duplication of

emerging DUR systems.

POSITION OF THE AMA ON EXISTING SYSTEMS

The AMA has been and continues to be opposed to the institution of MCPP

on the basis that they may have an adverse effect on appropriate medical

therapy. Of particular concern is the possibility they exacerbate the

documented underutilization of potent analgesics in the therapy of pain, a

problem entwined in the social and legal milieu of the country, against which

the medical profession has been working for a generation of practitioners. In

addition, the AMA believes that such systems will be rendered obsolete by

the developing DUR/SUR programs. They will be an unnecessary and costly

duplication of drug therapy data bases and quality assurance programs

mandated for the Medicaid system in 1993, and likely to expand subsequently.

The American Medical Association is in the process of drafting a set of

principles of utilization review applied to controlled substances (SUR) that

would set out the elements of the optimal program. Elements will likely

include:

1) Recognizing that reducing diversion of drugs is

paramount, there should be due consideration given to

potential effects of the program on proper medical care.

2) Criteria or standards used in case identification and

evaluation should be derived in cooperation with appropriate

medical and professional groups. There should be particular

sensitivity to effects on and efforts to reverse the

documented underutilization of opioid analgesics in therapy

of pain. Such criteria must be nonproprietary and open to

evaluation and revision by a professional consensus process.

3) Interventions should have an educational focus where

appropriate. In other words, it should be recognized that

not all–in fact very little–practice resulting in diversion is the

result of intentional misprescribing for profit motive.

226
4) Confidentiality of the patient-practitioner relationship

must be protected.

Continued research is recommended on several aspects of these questions.

Almost totally lacking is actual research on the impact of regulatory controls

on the appropriate prescription of the controlled medications. The perception is that the condition of underprescription of opioid analgesics described

in the landmark paper by Marks and Sachar (1973) is still prevalent (Max

1990). We need to understand better the reasons for this so that remedial

action can be focused. Continued research on the pharmacology of analgesics and other drugs is important. The benefits of new understanding are

perhaps exemplified by the recent study suggesting central analgesic action of

acetaminophen but not aspirin (Pilette et al. 1991). Such information will

almost certainly alter our thinking about what constitutes rational analgesic

drug combinations. Likewise, recent studies on the association of defective

codeine demethylation to its active metabolite morphine with lessened analgesic activity may enhance our understanding of variations in patient response

to established medications.

REFERENCES

Bennett, D.E. Drug Evaluations. Chicago: American Medical Association,

AMA, 1991.

Marks, R.M. and Sachar, E.J. Undertreatment of medical inpatients with

narcotic analgesics. Ann Intern Med 78:173-181, 1973.

Max, M. Improving outcomes of analgesic treatment: Is education enough?

Ann Intern Med 113:885-889, 1990.

Pilette, P.; Porchet, H.; and Dayer, P. Central analgesic effect of

acetaminophen but not aspirin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 49:350-54, 1991.

AUTHOR

John J. Ambre, M.D., Ph.D.

Director, Department of Toxicology and Drug Abuse

American Medical Association

515 N. State Street

Chicago, IL 60610

227
Prescription Drug Regulation: Implications for

Nursing and Health Care Delivery–Response of

the American Nurses’ Association

Madeline A. Naegle

Prescribing practices by registered nurses have important implications for the

nursing profession and for the accessibility of high-quality health care for the

consumer. In recent years an increasing number of States have granted prescribing privileges to nurses identified as advanced practitioners. “Advanced

practitioners” are nurses prepared at the graduate level, and/or nurses certified in particular specialties. Most often these specialty practice roles are

nurse practitioner, nurse midwife, and nurse anesthetist. All nurses qualifying

for prescribing privileges must validate advanced education in pharmacotherapeutics.

Individual States have regulated nursing practice in relation to prescribing in

a variety of ways, since each is relatively autonomous in the regulation of the

licensed professions. Prescribing authority can be granted through legislation,

actions of the nursing, medical or pharmacy board, or through special regulations or waivers for certain circumstances, granted by the attorney general.

Currently, over 35 States have granted prescriptive privileges to nurses,

including authority to prescribe controlled substances. Such authority does

not have the same scope in each State; some States have granted independent

prescribing authority to selected groups of advanced practitioners, some

authorize prescribing with physician supervision, and a few have granted

nurses limited site-dependent authority (Pearson 1991).

Bigbee notes that most professions can clearly identify professional functioning that is germane or even unique to the discipline (Bigbee 1983). Drug

prescribing, however, does not fall definitively within the boundaries of only

one profession; dentistry, medicine, pharmacy, and nursing may “prescribe”

not only drugs, but therapeutic regimens as well (Bigbee 1983). Issues of

autonomy, control, responsibility, and competence then emerge around activities related to prescribing. How each profession negotiates such issues will

depend on regulatory practices by the respective State, professional traditions,

educational standards, and norms within professional communities. Achieving

228
prescribing authority has been an important agenda for nurses in advanced

roles, particularly nurse practitioners, because the use of medications and

appliances available only by prescription, such as contraceptive diaphragms, is

an important adjunct to primary care and the management of long-term illness. Prescribing authority is essentially a tool which increases the scope of

practice for the nurse practicing at a level beyond generalist preparation. It

has been estimated that the health problems of 67 to 90 percent of people

who seek primary care could be effectively managed by nurse practitioners

(Coulihan and Sheedy 1973; Record 1979). Generally, nurse practitioners

prescribe fewer drugs than physicians (Batey and Holland 1985), and antiinfective, respiratory agents, analgesics, and hormones accounted for 74.6

percent of all prescriptions in one study.

In addition, 70.5 percent of all prescriptions were given for health problems

in five categories: infectious respiratory system conditions, common genitourinary diseases, primarily infections, family planning and immunizations, and

infections of the skin and cellular tissue. In surveying the mechanisms by

which prescribing took place, it is notable that approximately 85.7 percent of

these prescriptions were issued independent of physician involvement (Batey

and Holland 1985). While the forgoing data was gleaned from only one study

(of 89 nurse practitioners and 7,086 prescriptions), both practice patterns and

prescribing trends are considered to typify the work of most nurse practitioners in adult and family practice. The American Nurses’ Association, of which

6,700 nurse practitioners are members, emphasizes the importance of the

scope of practice identified above and prescribing privileges in meeting

consumer health needs. One nurse, residing in a rural area stated:

I currently reside in Yates County, New York. It has a

population of approximately 21,459.... There are about 5

physicians to serve this population, quite unfortunately,

several of the physicians refuse to treat Medicaid patients....

Thus, there exists reduced availability and accessibility of

health care services for individuals living in this medically

underserved area. In addition, the number of individuals

without health care providers in this county is staggering.

Nurse practitioners would significantly increase the availability and accessibility of health care services (Manfredi

1991).

229
Summative observations about prescription authority utilized by nurses and

information supplied by specialty nursing organizations and State nurses

associations suggest that:

(1) Prescriptive privileges provide a mechanism that increases both

the scope and effectiveness of nursing care delivery.

2) Most prescriptions written by nurses with such authority are for

medications which are not controlled substances.

3) Nurses in advanced practice roles provide important services to

the consumer in a variety of community and institutional settings,

particularly in underserved urban and rural environments.

REGULATION OF PRESCRIPTION PRIVILEGES

The professions, through social contract, are granted the privilege of and

assume the responsibility for self-regulation. Inherent in self-regulation are

the concepts of establishing and implementing educational standards; creating, maintaining and enforcing ethical sanctions; the delivery of services to

the community; and, in return, relative autonomy over practice. Nursing,

while achieving the majority of academic criteria stipulated as requirements

for a profession, still struggles with the concept of autonomy. Since the 1930s

nursing has been practiced primarily in institutions, legitimizing the employeremployee relationship. Despite the passage and implementation of nurse

practice acts which define nursing practice and establish criteria for

independent licensure, institutional control or perceptions of the need for

physician supervision block progress in acknowledging educational advancement and autonomy related to advancement in education and practice. Contradictions between education and perceived credibility in the professional

community surface in the practice arena, and prescription authority emerges

as a related issue.

Organized nursing supports and will continue to promote preparation for and

implementation of advanced and expanded nursing practice roles as a means

of increasing consumer access to health care and broadening consumer

options for choosing providers. In addition, such roles strengthen professional

opportunities for social contribution and the use of nursing expertise. Since

the dispensing and prescribing of drugs, including controlled substances, are

central to many nursing roles, drug diversion and drug regulation

systems–and changes in them–are of interest and concern.

230
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is responsible for the

regulation, registration and control of persons who are legitimately engaged

in handling and distributing controlled substances. Of the 820,000

practitioners registered with the DEA, approximately 1,500 are registered

nurses. In 1990, the Drug Enforcement agency reviewed selected State

regulations and ruled that nurses with prescriptive privileges lacked plenary

authority for the prescription of controlled substances and are not entitled to

hold DEA registration numbers. These efforts apparently derive from

initiatives by DEA to strengthen the system to prevent regulation problems.

The announcement that DEA would seek a rule change consisting of proposed regulations, “Definition and Exemption of Affiliated Practitioners,” was

published in the Federal Register, February 4, 1991. The stated intent of

DEA is to have only parties who, by virtue of the statutory authority vested in

their professions, have plenary authority to administer, dispense, and prescribe controlled substances. The announcement evoked strong protest from

the American Nurses’ Association and specialty nursing groups, especially

when DEA announced the intention to suspend DEA numbers of individuals

whom they deemed “affiliated practitioners,” that is, a nurse whose prescribing authority derives from the authority of the collaborating physician. The

designation of the term “affiliated practitioner” constitutes DEA’s interpretation of State regulations without consideration of the variety of mechanisms

through which prescribing authority is granted. The American Nurses’

Association issued the following formal objections.

(1) The action by DEA does not recognize that case law, regulations

and practice have defined the working relationships of collaborating

health care professionals as collaborative and equitable working

partnerships, not supervisory relationships. The proposed rules treat

the role and scope of the nurse practitioner as subordinate to the

physician.

(2) The proposed comments violate the authority reserved by States

to regulate, license and control the professional activities of health

professionals.

(3) The proposed regulations will limit the natural evolution of the

profession and could reimpose primary liability on physicians

involved in protocol and collaborative relationships.

(4) The arguments made for the rulemaking related to drug

diversion concerns are unfounded and cannot be substantiated.

(5) The proposed rulemaking will limit public access to care. In

addition, the association noted some violations of rulemaking

protocol.

231
While State nurses’ associations immediately began a review of practice acts

and regulations, this action of the Drug Enforcement Administration has

broader and more serious implications for the relationships of the professions

to regulatory bodies, in particular, Federal regulatory bodies. Of primary

concern to the scientific community is the lack of research data to substantiate the need for reducing the numbers of registrations issued. In addition,

the interpretation of nurse practice acts by a Federal authority and the overriding of the States’ authority to license and regulate health care practitioners

encroach upon the rights of the profession to regulate its practice. Other

consequences include limiting access to care; in New Hampshire, for example, about 31,000 people would be affected, raising serious ethical problems

for practicing nurses and barriers to quality care provision. The American

Nurses’ Association has recommended that DEA be required to directly provide all prescription numbers and maintain such records issued to all practitioners. Such registration must be available to each practitioner whose State

law grants prescribing authority, notwithstanding any designation as plenary

or affiliated.

The development of policy to guide the practice of drug regulation has farreaching effects for the professions and the public. Participation in policy

development by representatives of the professions who dispense and monitor

the use of prescription drugs, particularly controlled substances, seems a

reasonable, if not obvious, course of action. Support by scientific institutes

such as NIDA can do much to facilitate a dialog with regulatory bodies and

to demand that changes be based on scientific data and existing knowledge of

drug and prescribing practices.

Further, there is an immediate need for research on prescribing practices by

nurses and their implications for care delivery. At present, little is known

about:

(1) Prescribing patterns and classes of drugs prescribed by nurses

(2) The relationship of prescribing practices to therapeutic outcomes

and patient/client response

(3) Cost factors which support the value of continuity of care by one

nurse provider who offers a full range of services, particularly

primary care services

(4) Data on the prevalence of drug diversion by providers licensed to

dispense controlled substances.

232
Nursing welcomes research opportunities which can demonstrate the contributions of nursing interventions and an expanded nursing role to the delivery

of quality health care. Prescribing practices need to be studied in the broad

nursing context, rather than as isolated functions.

Organized nursing will provide assistance and support the development of

State legislation and the refinement of nurse practice acts in order to

preserve and attain prescribing privileges for qualified nurses. Achievement

of these statutory authorizations for prescribing in one-third of the States

bespeaks the importance of such nursing activity to the practitioner and to

the public. Representatives of the profession will continue to operationalize

the self-regulatory privileges of nursing to advance the profession and provide

services appropriate to the growing body of nursing expertise and skillful

practice.

REFERENCES

Batey, M. V., and Holland, J. M. Prescribing practices among nurse

practitioners in adult and family health. Am J Public Health 75(3):

258-262, 1985.

Bigbee, G. Territoriality and prescriptive authority for nurse practitioners.

Nurs Health Care 5(2):106-110, 1984.

Cohn, S. Prescriptive authority for nurses. Law, Medicine and Health Cure

12(4):72-75, 1984.

Coulehan, J. L. & Sheedy, S. The role training and one year’s experience of a

medical nurse practitioner. Health Serv Rep 88:827-833, 1973.

Gunn, I. P.; Tobin, M.H.; Rupp; R.M.; and Blumenreich, G.A. Nurses and

prescriptive authority. Specialty Nursing Forum Winter:1-6, 1990.

Manfredi, Ada M. Testimony to the American Nurses’ Association, April 5,

1991.

Pearson, L. J. 1990-91 Update: How each state stands on legislative issues

affecting advanced nursing practice. Nurse Practitioner 16(1):11-18,

1991.

Record, J.C. (ed). Provider requirements, cost savings, and the new health

practitioner. In: Primary Care: National Estimates for 1990 Contract No.

231-77-007. Washington, D.C. DHEW, 1979.

233
AUTHOR

Madeline A. Naegle, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N.

Division of Nursing

New York University

50 West Fourth Street

New York, NY l0003

234
Perspective of the American Pharmaceutical

Association

C. Edwin Webb

The letter inviting the participation of the American Pharmaceutical Association (APhA) in this conference noted that there was a current need to

revisit the social policy issue of balancing the legitimate clinical use of many

types of psychoactive medications against the equally appropriate goal of

reducing to a minimum the diversion of such medications for illegitimate use.

The over 40,000 members of the American Pharmaceutical Association, the

national professional society of pharmacists, are strongly in favor of each of

these policy objectives. As pharmacists, we observe on a daily basis in our

practices both the tremendous therapeutic value and the potential adverse

consequences of the use of such medications. And we share a commitment

with our medical colleagues to promote optimal therapeutic outcomes for our

patients from the use of medication.

The challenge we face is to identify approaches which achieve both of the

objectives stated above simultaneously. Either objective perfectly achieved at

the expense of the other will be unlikely to receive broad public or professional support.

APhA believes that systems which focus first and foremost on optimal patient

care outcomes have the best chance of reasonably achieving both objectives

and will garner the greatest degree of support.

Unfortunately, as we have learned from many of the preceding presentations,

there is often inadequate data from which we may derive clear answers to

these questions. As a result, we are currently faced with a myriad of

approaches, varying substantially in nature and intent, which, one must

assume, have not effectively addressed the problems that have prompted the

convening of this conference.

The primary diversion control mechanism to receive the attention of the

Nation’s pharmacists is that of “triplicate” or other “multiple-copy prescription

235
programs.” The APhA House of Delegates adopted a policy in this regard in

1989. That policy states:

The American Pharmaceutical Association opposes federally

mandated multiple-copy prescription order programs.

The American Pharmaceutical Association supports the right

of individual States to develop programs to prevent drug

abuse and drug diversion.

The view of our organization is that the problem of misuse and diversion of

medications with abuse potential is one best addressed at the State level,

using “programs” tailored to meet each State’s individual problems and needs.

It was also clear from the discussion and testimony at the meeting of the

House of Delegates that multifaceted approaches, including patient and

professional education, are to be preferred over purely administrative and

data-gathering systems. APhA believes that this policy is consistent with

good patient care and provides appropriate flexibility in an era of rapid

change in both pharmacotherapeutics and medication systems management.

In particular, the effective management of prescription medication data–from

initiation of the prescription order by the physician through the order

processing, regimen review, and consultation activities of the pharmacist to

the data management, claims processing, and utilization review activities of

payers, is moving rapidly toward total electronic systems. Over 80 percent of

the Nation’s pharmacies now utilize computer-based information systems for

prescription order processing, clinical data review (e.g., duplications,

interactions), inventory purchasing, and control and medication records

storage and retrieval. Even more importantly, models are rapidly emerging

which will provide for the electronic communication of prescription orders

between physician and pharmacist. This will allow simultaneous review by

both professionals of the prescription data, as well as laboratory and other

clinical data, to promote a quality therapeutic outcome while minimizing

adverse effects and interactions of medications, In such an interactive

professional environment, multiple-copy paper prescription forms represent,

at best, an Edsel, if not a Model-T, in a Mercedes-Benz world.

It should be noted that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is currently seeking legislative and regulatory changes which would facilitate its

own movement into the brave new world of electronics. Mechanisms to

allow for the electronic ordering and transfer of Schedule II controlled

236
substances, with the resultant demise of the DEA 222 Order Form, are

currently in development within the Agency. APhA is committed to working

with DEA to foster this type of progressive activity, and finds an ironic

contrast between this portion of DEA’s agenda compared to its support for

multiple-copy prescription order programs at a national level for pharmacy

and medical practitioners.

Other approaches have the potential to better meet both of the public policy

objectives that are the subject of this conference. The rapidly increasing use

of effective drug utilization review (DUR) programs by both public and private entities which provide prescription medication benefits to their clients

offers an effective alternative to multiple-copy prescription order programs.

While the primary goal of effective DUR programs is to promote high quality

patient care as well as more cost-effective drug therapy, such a program may

be able to offer a template to achieve many of the desirable public policy

features we all seek, while working within a structured patient and practitioner-oriented framework.

This is especially attractive since many DUR programs include education and

feedback mechanisms for practitioners regarding prescribing and dispensing

practices that are suboptimal. Such an approach, we believe, is critical to

success in addressing the issue of diversion. APhA has been a participating

member for many years in the AMA’s Informal Steering Committee on Prescription Drug Abuse. Through that process, we have come to believe

strongly in the value of educational strategies for practitioners to assist them

in reducing prescribing and dispensing practices which, knowingly or otherwise, contribute to prescription medication diversion. One of the major

failings, in our view, of the majority of multiple-copy prescription order

programs currently in operation is a lack of effective intervention strategies

which constructively change practitioner behavior.

APhA also remains concerned about the potential for multiple-copy prescription order programs, or other similarly constructed programs, to adversely

effect therapeutic choices that practitioners of pharmacy and medicine make.

I know that some will dismiss this rather traditional “objection” of the

practice community, but it is, I believe, a real issue of concern.

While one may wish that pharmacy and medical practitioners would never

allow nonclinical issues to interfere with their clinical decisionmaking, reality

and experience suggest otherwise in some cases. In high crime areas,

pharmacists regrettably must make a difficult choice between maintaining

237
appropriate inventories of controlled substances for legitimate patient needs

and not stocking such items to reduce the likelihood of robbery and violence

in the pharmacy. Such choices are often a “no-win” situation for the

pharmacist. And while they may be less dramatic in their impact, programs

to eliminate drug diversion often present the same type of “no-win” situation

for practitioners.

I would also submit that the jury is still out as to whether the decrease in

total use of controlled substances observed with some of the current

programs reflects reduced diversion with no risk of reduced access to

legitimately needed medications by patients. When legitimate therapeutic

need is adversely impacted by such programs, their overall public value must,

in our view, be seriously questioned.

Obviously, achieving perfection in both of these policy objectives is a difficult,

if not impossible, task. APhA believes that both objectives are legitimate and

that the intentions of all who participate in this debate are sincere. But

APhA also believes that the first priority in this issue must always be to

assure appropriate drug therapy for the patients we serve. As health professionals, that must always be our first priority. We will continue to encourage

health policymakers to focus on this aspect as well, and to work with our profession to assure that this priority is not lost in a rush to systems which, while

they may reduce medication use, neither foster good patient care nor significantly impact controlled substances diversion. To miss the mark on both

public policy objectives would indeed be the worst outcome for us all.

AUTHOR

C. Edwin Webb, Pharm. D., M.P.H.

Director, Professional Affairs and Policy

American Pharmaceutical Association

2215 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037

238
Perspective of the Empire State Medical Association

of the National Medical Association

Gerald Deas

I am grateful for the opportunity to share my views with the National

Institute on Drug Abuse about how multiple copy prescription programs

protect the public health.

I have been listening with interest to the reasons presented-before MDA and

elsewhere-against triplicate prescription programs. I have heard representatives of organized medicine object to “trip scrip” on the basis that doctors

should not have to worry about regulation, and I have heard political opponents of triplicate prescription say that the program is unnecessary government

intrusion.

As a family physician, I have a different-and I think, a majority-view. I

practice medicine on the front lines of the struggle to rebuild our communities ravaged by poverty and drugs. In the streets of the inner cities-where

“pill mills” and street hustlers prey on our most vulnerable brothers and

sisters-the misuse of prescription drugs is just as devastating as the abuse of

illicit drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

One silent partner in the tragedy of cocaine addiction is the benzodiazepine

class of tranquilizers. People use these drugs to “come down” from a cocaine

high-or they abuse them for their tranquilizing effect.

New York State’s courageous health commissioner, Dr. David Axelrod,

enacted triplicate prescription regulations that led to a dramatic decrease in

illicit diversion of these drugs and the availability of these drugs on the street.

As Dr. Axelrod battles a crippling stroke (which forced him to resign his

post), opponents of triplicate prescription in Albany persist in their attacks on

this life saving measure. Much of what is being said against “trip scrip” is

inaccurate, misleading, and distorted. Family physicians throughout the State

who truly care about the health of their patients and the survival of their

communities are not afraid of a little prescription pad. In fact, we welcome

anything that protects patients from the terrible toll of drug abuse.

239
We have all seen too many fine young women and men “zoned out” on pills,

nodding through their days, ruining their future. As a family physician at

work day after day in communities struggling to survive, I know that abuse of

licit drugs such as tranquilizers can be just as devastating as the misuse of

illicit drugs like cocaine.

Triplicate prescription regulations in New York have, over 2 years, demonstrated their effectiveness, public health benefits, and value. During this

season of close and careful budget watching, Medicaid prescriptions of benzodiazepines have dropped almost 70 percent since 1989 (the year triplicate

prescription regulations for these drugs took effect), and the street price of

these pills has gone up from 200 to 800 percent.

Despite the propaganda campaign being waged by organized medicine and

some industry groups, the truth is that nothing in the regulation prevents the

legitimate prescribing of benzodiazepines. There are still approximately

120,000 Medicaid benzodiazepine prescriptions written each quarter-an

appropriate level in my view.

The drop in Medicaid prescriptions is due to the impact that triplicate prescription has had on “pill mills.” Thanks to this regulation, many of these

deadly places have been shut down.

On the streets where I live and work, the scandal of Medicaid “pill mills” is

particularly devastating, and this abuse of public health horrifies me as a

physician. I know that these so-called pharmacies are doing far more harm

than most outsiders can imagine and they are contributing to the demise of

entire generations.

I wish that anyone who opposes triplicate prescription could walk with me

into the real world where these regulations are saving lives, Many of the

voices raised in opposition to these regulations come from proponents and

allies of big drug companies who are losing revenue and organized medicine

lobbies that just don’t like any kind of regulation.

The voices of the people have not been heard. I wish this committee had

invited the people I know who have been victimized by prescription drugs. I

wish you could hear their cries of pain, as I do, every day.

240
Our young people cannot advance if they go through life as virtual zombies.

They can not do their jobs if they are made sluggish and stupid by drugs

readily available on the street.

Drugs rob us of many precious things: our future, our health, and our pride.

Whenever I make a house call on my patients, I have been impressed that

even in the most humble of homes, I observe one or more old photographs

of distant relatives on their walls. These photographs not only reflect dignity

in dress but dignity in character as well. These photos reflect pride.

I’ve collected these photos, along with some verse, in a book called, “If You

Can’t Remember, Please Don’t Forget.” In the introduction, I write:

We must remove the negative forces that exist in our society

today that seek to destroy us. We must arm ourselves with

dignity and spiritualism. We can’t give up!

I know that the professionals at NIDA, and your colleagues elsewhere in the

government who are examining this issue, are dedicated to the public health

and to serious scholarship. I hope that you will listen carefully to the data

presented by the New York State Department of Health about how effective

triplicate prescription regulations have been, and that you will remember one

thing: What is at stake in this discussion is something very real and very

urgent-the health and the future of our parents and grandparents, our

children, husbands and wives.

For their sake, we can’t give up. They have no powerful lobbies or large

budgets to spend. They only have need-and it’s our responsibility to help

them through sound programs that protect the public health. Triplicate

prescription is good medicine.

AUTHOR

Gerald Deas, M.D.

109-07 197th Street

Hollis-Queens, NY 11412

241
Prescribing Practices and Drug Abuse - Perspective of

the American Society of Addiction Medicine

Anne Geller

With any drug and with any method of prescription control, the concern of

physicians must be for the risks and benefits to our patients. For those

physicians practicing addiction medicine, a specific concern is the risks and

benefits for that subset of the population particularly vulnerable to the effects

of medications which have abuse potential. It is essential that this vulnerable

subset be protected from prescribing practices that are hazardous to them, if

perhaps innocuous for the majority. Nevertheless, in our zeal to protect the

addiction-vulnerable, we should not restrict access to medications in a manner which might harm others, nor should our fear of drug diversion result in

our failing to prescribe appropriate medication when needed.

There are two major questions to which we appear to have only partial

answers. One is how significant are the problems of prescription drug abuse

and diversion? The second is how effective is our current main method of

control (triplicate prescription) in reducing either abuse or diversion?

The larger questions, for which we only have hypotheses, are: (1) to what

extent do our current prescribing practices contribute to the problem of drug

abuse, and (2) how might these practices best be modified to ensure that our

patients obtain the greatest benefit from drugs with abuse potential at the

least risk?

Patients having problems with prescription medications who arrive for

treatment at addiction centers fall into four main categories:

(1) Those with chronic conditions who have been taking

medications as prescribed, but wish to be medication-free

and are experiencing difficulty withdrawing

(2) Those with chronic conditions who have escalated the

dose in an attempt to control symptoms and whose

242
physician, family, or themselves want to reduce or

discontinue the medication

(3) Those who have discovered the reinforcing effects of the

medication in the course of an acute treatment and are now

getting multiple prescriptions or buying the drug illegally in

order to get high

(4) Those who are abusing prescription drugs obtained

legally or illegally as a part of a polydrug abuse pattern

These four groups constitute only a small portion of the universe of patients

for whom potentially addicting medications are prescribed, though together

they account for 15-20 percent of patients in addiction treatment. The

percentage of patients who are abusing only prescription medication is quite

small, probably accounting for less than 5 percent in most addiction centers.

It is not clear what proportion of patients experience difficulty discontinuing

drugs which have been appropriately prescribed and taken. This differs

among classes of drugs, and even among a group such as the benzodiazepines, appears to occur more frequently with some compounds, e.g., the

triazolo-compounds, than others. The most difficulty occurs at the end of the

tapering process (Schweizer et al. 1990). This appears to be an inherent property of the drugs themselves and may be resolved by the development of

medications more specifically targeted toward specific symptoms, i.e.,

noneuphorigenic analgesics and nonsedating anxiolytics.

Appropriate prescribing should take into account the possibility of discontinuation difficulty, but it is unlikely that any administratively applied program

wilt affect this population. Inappropriate prescribing includes: using doses

that are too high or too tow, continuing a drug too long, prescribing a potentially addictive drug where a nonaddictive drug alternative is available (such

as Fiorinal for headaches), prescribing a more hazardous drug such as a

barbiturate when a benzodiazepine would be preferable, and prescribing a

potentially addictive medication to someone with a history or current indication of alcoholism or drug dependence when another treatment would have

a better risk/benefit ratio.

Some of the patients coming into addiction treatment in categories 2, 3, or 4

have been victims of inappropriate prescriptions. It seems unlikely that a

program which makes the writing of certain prescriptions more difficult is

going to improve the quality of pharmacotherapeutic decisions. In fact, it is

243
likely to result in an exacerbation of some prescribing problems, such as

prescribing doses of analgesics that are too low or too infrequent.

In New York State, one of the consequences of benzodiazepines being placed

on triplicate forms has been an increase in the prescribing of more hazardous

hypnotics and anxiolytics such as barbiturates, methyprylon, ethchlorvynol,

and meprobamate (Weintraub 1990). While overall benzodiazepine prescriptions declined, there is no evidence that this decline was a result of reduced

prescribing for the at-risk population or more discriminating medication

choices generally.

It would seem that if the goal is to improve physicians’ understanding of

hypnotics, anxiolytics, stimulants, and analgesics, and their risks, benefits and

appropriate dosages, an educational program would be best suited to do this.

Achieving an overall reduction in prescriptions is meaningless in this context.

In addition to clearly increasing the probability of some types of misguided

prescribing practices, a triplicate program also gives a message that the

category of medications being thus restricted is extremely hazardous.

Benzodiazepines are, in fact, safer than many of the nonrestricted

alternatives.

Physiological dependence with protracted withdrawal symptoms is certainly a

problem. However, human studies thus far would suggest that benzodiazepines are not more reinforcing than placebo except for a group who may be

addiction vulnerable (deWit and Griffiths 1991, Ciraulo et al. 1988).

Certainly, benzodiazepines have less abuse potential than the barbiturates

they replaced, even though they are most definitely abused by some and

overused by others.

To reduce iatrogenically provoked addiction, it is more useful to provide

accurate and up-to-date information about these medications and their

alternatives and more sophisticated training about addiction than it is to

create inappropriate “benzodiazophobia.”

Although the American Society of Addiction Medicine has no formal position

in this area, and the above remarks are my own, the Society is committed to

the general education of physicians regarding addictive diseases and addictive

substances and to the dispelling of myths which are so prevalent in this area

of medicine.

244
REFERENCES

Ciraulo, D.A.; Sands, B.F.; and Shader, R.I. Critical review of liability for

benzodiazepine abuse among alcoholics, Am J Psychiatry 145:1501-

1506,1988.

deWit, H., and Griffiths, R.R. Testing the Abuse Inability of Anxiolytic and

Hypnotic Drugs in Humans Drug and Alcohol Dependence 28:83-111,

1991.

Schweizer, E.; Rickels, K.; Case, W.G.; and Greenblatt, D.J. Long Term

Therapeutic Use of Benzodiazepines II Effects of Gradual Taper Arch

Gen Psychiatry 41:908912, 1990.

Weintraub, M. Paper presented at “Triplicate Prescription: Issues and

Answers,” Medical Society of the State of New York, February 1990.

AUTHOR

Anne Geller, M.D.

President-Elect

American Society of Addiction Medicine

St. Lukes Roosevelt Street

428 West 59th Street

New York, NY 10019

245
Response of the American Academy of Child

and Adolescent Psychiatry

Nicholas Rock

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for the invitation to participate in this National Institute on Drug

Abuse-sponsored technical review on the evaluation of existing prescription

drug diversion systems and their impact upon medical practice and patient

care.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry is a national,

professional association of over 4,500 child and adolescent psychiatrists. Its

members are physicians who have completed a general psychiatry residency

and 2-years’ residency training in child and adolescent psychiatry. This

medical discipline is concerned with the prevention, diagnosis and treatment

of developmental and psychiatric disorders in children, adolescents and their

families.

The use of psychotropic medications as a treatment plan option is important

to our discipline. This technical review is an excellent opportunity to

reinforce the rational and legitimate use of psychotropic medications by

qualified physicians. Any frivolous or needless restrictions placed on the

prescription of such medications will have damaging results. It is important

for many reasons that child and adolescent psychiatrists and their patients

and their patients’ families are not caught up in efforts to control drug

diversion for illicit use.

REASONS FOR RATIONAL DRUG DIVERSION CONTROL SYSTEMS

Practice Parameters

A primary reason to look carefully at the development of new controls is the

ongoing preparation of practice parameters by medical specialty associations,

including the academy. The academy’s Work Group on Quality Issues chose

first to develop parameters for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity

disorder (ADHD). It was the work group’s view that a statement was

246
needed clearly indicating that medication is often appropriate as part of a

thoughtful treatment plan. The work group has recently submitted to the

Academy’s Council its final draft on practice parameters for conduct disorders, and is working on parameters for schizophrenia, eating disorders, and

mood disorders. Each set of practice parameters considers the use of

psychotropic medications for acute or chronic therapeutic needs. These

medications are predominately within the stimulant, sedative/hypnotic, or

antidepressant class. Often they must be prescribed for extended lengths of

time when the condition is chronic. It should be emphasized that medications are not to be prescribed in short- or long-term treatment programs

without proper medical monitoring.

The use of psychostimulants, particularly methylphenidate (Ritalin), for the

treatment of ADHD was carefully considered by the Work Group on Quality

Issues for several reasons, not only because of the controversy surrounding it.

A statement introducing the parameters indicates that the final decision for

each patient must be made by the physician in light of his or her personal

knowledge of the patient’s illness and life circumstances. For the same

reasons, this final decision for using medications and for the length of use

and size of the prescription must be made by the physician, not by drug

enforcement officials. Patients, their families, and physicians should not be

intimidated by reporting requirements that bring suspicion of illegality on

anyone involved in prescribing or taking psychotropic medications.

Triplicate Prescription Forms

A second reason for recommending caution in the development of controls

for certain medications is the ineffective record set by drug diversion systems

such as the triplicate prescription form. This simplistic answer to illegal drug

diversion has the State provide physicians with a prescription form which has

three copies–one to be kept on file, one to be kept on file at the pharmacy

that fills the prescription, and the third is sent to a designated State drug

enforcement agency. This type of response has controlled an insignificant

amount of illegal drug diversion, yet it has had a significant impact on

medical practices and patient care. The Academy has serious concerns about

triplicate prescription forms being mandated on a national level. Problems

are foreseen with confidentiality, access to care, and increased stigma for

patients with mental illness. Treatment of a serious emotional illness which

requires medication is difficult for all patients. To distress them further with

a prescription system designed to raise more barriers to treatment is

unconscionable.

247
Appropriate treatment requires access to all treatment options, including

psychotropic medications. Where States have implemented the triplicate

prescription form enforcement system, the decreases in prescribing come

from the hassle factor of the system, not from the curtailing of abuse.

Patients have had their confidentiality violated when prescription records

were confiscated and examined by drug abuse officers. For child and adolescent patients, this can mean a lifetime of insecurity about their health

records.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry joins with other

medical specialties and advocacy groups to oppose the imposition of the

triplicate prescription form. It has not proven effective, and its effect on the

treatment of children and adolescents with serious emotional disorders,

especially with chronic disorders, could be to implement a form of harassment that contributes to inadequate treatment or a termination of treatment.

The Academy does not have an official policy regarding the existing drug

control systems noted in the draft agenda, but the primary concern of child

and adolescent psychiatrists in any method or system is that families and

patients are granted the right to treatment without restrictions that add

stigma, unnecessarily limit medical decisions regarding prescriptions, and

foster further controversy over the use of psychotropic medications.

Mental disorders and drug abuse are both important and serious problems

for individuals and for society. The evidence so far has convinced us that

hassling physicians’ prescription practices will not disrupt drug abuse but will

disrupt physicians’ ability to treat children and adolescents who suffer from

serious mental disorders.

AUTHOR

Nicholas Rock, M.D.

Member, Committee on Substance Abuse

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

3615 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20016

248
Impact of Drug Regulations and Diversion Control

Systems on Legitimate Narcolepsy Patients

Joseph A. Piscopo

SYMPTOMS AND EPIDEMIOLOGY OF NARCOLEPSY

There are four classical symptoms in the narcoleptic tetrad (Daly and Yoss

1957):

1. Excessive daytime somnolence: inappropriate daytime

sleepiness, sleep attacks or sudden urges to sleep, without

regard to the amount or the quality of prior nighttime sleep

2. Cataplexy: episodes of partial or general muscular weakness induced by emotions, commonly by laughter, anger, or

surprise

3. Hypnagogic hallucinations: vivid, realistic, and sometimes

frightening auditory or visual perceptions at sleep onset

4. Sleep paralysis: episodes of temporary inability to move or

speak, which occur while falling asleep or while awakening

Narcolepsy is a neurological disorder whose etiology is unknown. It is a

lifelong condition that affects both sexes equally. Onset of narcolepsy symptoms commonly occurs in childhood or early adolescence. There seems to be

a familial tendency in one-third to one-half of the cases. Narcolepsy is not

life-threatening, nor is there evidence of shorter life expectancy. There is no

documented case of remission of symptoms (Yoss and Daly 1974).

The prevalence of narcolepsy was estimated at 0.05 percent, or about 125,000

persons, based on a survey in the San Francisco Bay area (Dement et al.

1972), and at 0.067 percent, or about 167,500 persons, based on a survey in

the Los Angeles area (Dement et al. 1973). The preliminary data from an

unpublished study of the incidence of narcolepsy in the Rochester, Minnesota

area over the 30-year period 1950-1979 indicates that the prevalence of

narcolepsy may be as high as 0.15 percent, or 375,000 persons, with an

estimated incidence of 5 per 100,000, or 12,500 new cases per year (Mayo

249
Foundation, personal communication, 1990). Based on these estimates,

narcolepsy is about as common as Parkinson’s disease and more than twice

as common as Multiple Sclerosis. The American Narcolepsy Association

(ANA) estimates that only 50,000 patients are actually diagnosed and treated

for narcolepsy in the United States (ANA personal communication, 1990).

TREATMENT OF NARCOLEPSY SYMPTOMS

There is no known cure or preventive treatment for narcolepsy. The symptoms of daytime sleepiness and sleep attacks are effectively treated with

central nervous system stimulants such as methylphenidate (Ritalin), dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine), or pemoline (Cylert). The symptoms of cataplexy, hypnagogic hallucinations, and sleep paralysis are treated with tricyclic

anti-depressant medications, such as imipramine (Tofranil) and protriptyline

(Vivactil). Research (Mitler et al. 1990) has shown that narcoleptics on 60

mg per day of methylphenidate improved their ability to stay awake to 79.9

percent of the normal control group as compared to only 55.2 percent of

normal with no medication. Narcoleptics on 60 mg per day of dextroamphetamine improved to 70.3 percent of normal controls as compared to only

34.8 percent with no medication. Pemoline was found to be of marginal

benefit.

While methylphenidate is often the drug of choice for the treatment of

narcolepsy, some patients are nonresponsive to that drug. Methamphetamine

(Desoxyn) is an alternative stimulant drug for effective treatment of

nonresponders to methylphenidate. The use of methamphetamine for narcolepsy was first described by Eaton (1943). The efficacy of methamphetamine

for narcolepsy, and its reduced side effects as compared to dextroamphetamine, was again described in great detail by Yoss and Daly (1968, 1974).

Yet, methamphetamine is rarely mentioned in the recent literature or in text

or reference books about narcolepsy.

In a 1990 survey by the American Narcolepsy Association, 1,067 narcolepsy

patients reported using the following drugs and dosage ranges:

49 percent methylphenidate (Ritalin), 5 mg - 400+ mg daily

26 percent dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine), 5 mg - 400+ mg daily

19 percent pemoline (Cylert), 10 mg - 300+ mg daily

5 percent methamphetamine (Desoxyn), 10 mg - 100+ mg daily

1 percent Other amphetamines (Biphetamine), 5 mg - 200+ mg daily

250
In the same survey, 20 percent of the patients reported difficulty in obtaining

a prescription from their physician and 41 percent reported difficulty in getting a prescription filled by their pharmacy (ANA unpublished survey, 1990).

Each of the reported drugs is a controlled substance under Schedule II, except for pemoline, which is under Schedule IV. Only methylphenidate and

dextroamphetamine are FDA-approved indications for narcolepsy, at dosages

from 5 mg to 60 mg per day (Physicians’ Desk Reference 1990).

Virtually all research reports on narcolepsy treatment published in the United

States since 1975 describe the high risk of tolerance, the dangerous side

effects, and the potential for drug abuse and addiction from the use of these

stimulant drugs for narcolepsy. Yet, there is no available research, except for

uncontrolled studies of only one to three patients, which establishes the

scientific basis for such generalizations. In fact, there exists very strong

evidence that patients given higher dosages of stimulants on a long-term basis

show no decrease in effectiveness and no need for progressive increases in

dosages, nor were symptoms of withdrawal, tolerance, dependence, or other

abnormalities observed when treatment was discontinued (Honda et al. 1979;

Yoss and Daly 1974). A recent study of narcoleptic brains with SPECT

found: “It appears that long term, high dose amphetamine use in narcoleptics

is not sufficient, in itself, to result in the diminished cerebral perfusion found

in the stimulant abusers” (Challakere et al. 1991).

Similarly, there appears to be no scientific basis for the frequent stipulation

that “drug holidays” are required for patients on stimulant medications (e.g.,

two days per week or month without drugs is common). There is also no

research confirming that frequent daytime naps are effective as a treatment

alternative to stimulants. Patients understand that there is a vast

difference between “having one’s eyes open” and being fully alert and capable

of performance on the job, in school, at home, or driving a car! The

American Narcolepsy Association proposes a new standard for determination

of treatment effectiveness:

To be considered effective, treatment of narcolepsy should

consist of the minimum drug dosage necessary for the

patient to achieve a normal level of alertness throughout the

day, without the need for daytime naps or “drug holidays.”

251
EFFECTS OF DRUG REGULATIONS ON NARCOLEPSY PATIENTS

Legitimate narcolepsy patients repeatedly encounter problems obtaining their

prescription drugs for narcolepsy, due to a host of costly, impractical, and

unreasonable requirements of the various Federal and State controlled substances regulations and the law enforcement policies of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the State and local drug agents and officials.

In their zeal and pursuit of the national priority to prevent drug abuse, these

officials have often behaved as if there were a “war on drugs,” rather than a

“war on drug abuse.” Narcolepsy patients, their physicians, and their pharmacists frequently encounter harassment and intimidation from Federal and

State drug agents.

There are frequent “investigations” which require specific proof of the diagnosis of narcolepsy and the current requirement for treatment with controlled

drugs, despite the fact that narcolepsy is a lifelong disorder and treatment

will continue unchanged for years or decades, and despite the fact that such

questions have been previously answered one or more times. Narcoleptics

have been referred to as “drug addicts” or “phony” patients. Doctors and

pharmacists have been threatened with loss of their licenses. Yet, the drug

agents are not even required to have “probable cause” to suspect that narcolepsy patients are either drug abusers or sources for the diversion of drugs

for illicit use.

The legitimate use of controlled stimulants for the treatment of narcolepsy is

no different from the treatment of cancer pain with opiates, such as morphine. Each is the result of the legal practice of medicine by licensed

physicians and pharmacists. Narcolepsy patients and cancer victims are each

entitled to obtain the prescribed drugs with no interference, without cause,

from drug enforcement agents. They are entitled to due process of law, privacy and confidentiality of their medical condition, and protection against

discrimination and harassment by drug agents and officials. Yet, narcolepsy

patients have testified before the National Commission on Sleep Disorders

Research that these rights have routinely been ignored. They are often

treated like criminals or drug addicts. They are required to prove their

diagnosis and treatment requirements by having to repeat the very expensive

diagnostic tests every couple of years, even though the costs may not be

covered by Medicare or private insurance!

Efforts to cope with the Federal and State controlled substances regulations

and to deal the drug enforcement officials have been unsuccessful in

252
alleviating these problems. New and amended Federal legislation is needed

to establish and protect the right of legitimate narcolepsy patients to obtain

their prescribed medication without discrimination or prejudice, and without

unnecessary procedures and undue costs. The availability of medications for

narcolepsy must be assured by changing the regulations for setting production

quotas for stimulant drugs. The existing policies neglect to include the anticipated needs for the production of methamphetamine because the drug has

not been formally approved for that indication by the FDA, even though such

approval is not necessary for it to be prescribed for narcolepsy by a physician.

The existing quota policies also neglect to include the production needs for

patients who may require larger dosages of a stimulant drug than is specifically covered by FDA approval, even though such approval is not required

for legitimate prescription of a greater dosage. In some cases, the production

quotas may preclude the availability of generic equivalent drugs at lower costs

to the patients.

New Federal legislation is also needed to institute greater uniformity and

consistency between Federal and State drug regulations. The entire process

of regulations covering the prescription, dispensing, and use of stimulant

drugs for the treatment of narcolepsy should be covered at the Federal level.

The enforcement of the regulations would be enhanced as a result of

uniformity and consistency. It would also eliminate the many unreasonable

requirements, unnecessary procedures and inappropriate limitations at the

Federal or State level, each of which results in either a needless burden or an

extra cost to legitimate patients.

The Controlled Substances Act (1988) and the regulations of the Drug

Enforcement Administration (1990) together constitute the Federal law

governing controlled substances (the “Act”). The Uniform Controlled

Substances Act (1990) is a “model Act” which has been adopted by many

States and is adapted from many of the Federal regulations. Both the

Federal and State acts presently prohibit refills of prescriptions for Schedule

II drugs. However, the Federal law is silent regarding other aspects of

prescriptions, resulting in great disparity between and among the States on

matters such as the required date by which a prescription must be filled or

become void; the prohibition of mailed prescriptions or mail-order pharmacy

services; the requirement for a doctor’s visit to obtain a new prescription; the

restricted availability of specific drugs or the dosage levels which may be

prescribed by a physician; the limitation on the quantity or dosage unit supply

of the prescribed drug to a 30-day maximum; and other provisions which vary

widely from State to State.

253
The American Narcolepsy Association recommends that all aspects governing

prescription drugs for narcolepsy be federalized to eliminate the burdens and

extra costs involved locally. After all, drugs are almost entirely developed,

marketed, distributed, and sold in interstate commerce, which is constitutionally protected from interference by the States. For example, in many

states a prescription for a controlled stimulant must be filled by a pharmacy

within 48 hours of issuance by a physician. That is often impossible, since

many pharmacies do not keep such drugs in their inventory because of security requirements. In such cases, the pharmacy must order the specific drug

from its distributor, which usually takes 3-7 days, assuming adequate supplies

are available. If the distributor’s supply is inadequate, resupply from the

manufacturer may take 2-6 months, since the production quotas severely limit

the inventory available for unanticipated demands (which might result from a

program to stimulate new diagnoses of narcolepsy by the ANA, for example).

In some States a doctor’s visit is required for every prescription written. In

others, a prescription can only be written for a 30-day supply or for 30

dosage-units. Many States limit the partial filling of prescriptions or require

a new prescription form for the unfilled amount.

Each of these requirements adds a significant burden and unwarranted

inconvenience for the narcolepsy patient, his physician, and pharmacist.

More importantly, they necessitate more costs be incurred by the patient,

which may not be covered by insurance, for unnecessary doctor’s visits (up to

12 times a year), and for limiting the quantity to the most uneconomic

amount, at the highest unit cost. The recommended changes in the Federal

Controlled Substances Act and regulations would reduce these costs and

burdens and at the same time, retain their intended purposes related to

prevention of drug abuse and diversion. The Federal regulation on refills

and the various State regulations are extremely discriminatory against

legitimate narcolepsy patients, since narcolepsy is known to be a lifelong

disorder with no known cure or preventive treatment, and whose symptoms

show only minor variation for decades or for life. Specific proposed

amendments to the Controlled Substances Act and regulations are described

in the addendum.

A SUMMARY OF ISSUES AFFECTING NARCOLEPSY PATIENTS

1. Availability of drugs for narcolepsy treatment

2. Federal and State regulations of prescriptions

3. Costs and burdens of drug regulations

4. Abuses of the rights of narcolepsy patients

254
MAJOR CONCERNS OF NARCOLEPSY PATIENTS

1. Is there a war on drugs, or a war on drug abuse?

2. Are narcolepsy patients responsible for illicit diversion?

3. Are abuses of patient rights necessary or justified?

4. Have existing diversion control systems curtailed drug

abuse?

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Establish the rights of legitimate patients by amendments

to the Federal and State controlled substances acts and

regulations (see addendum).

2. Revise the quota regulations in the Federal act to

encourage generic alternatives at lower cost, to permit multiyear quotas for economical production, and to prevent the

occurrence of local shortages (e.g. methylphenidate in 1986

and dextroamphetamine in 1990 (see addendum).

3. Adopt uniform prescription drug regulations at the

Federal level, to eliminate State-to-State inconsistencies and

States’ interference with the availability of medications for

legitimate narcolepsy patients (see addendum).

RECOMMENDATIONS TO NIDA

1. Actively inform Federal and State drug enforcement

agencies about the legitimate use of controlled stimulant

drugs for the treatment of narcolepsy.

2. Allocate funding of research projects to study the present

usage and the long-term effects of the use of stimulant drugs

for the treatment of narcolepsy.

3. Allocate research funding to establish specific scientific

criteria for the objective determination of the safety and

efficacy of stimulant drugs for narcolepsy treatment.

4. Identify the existence and the extent of actual drug abuse

or drug diversion which results from legitimate narcolepsy

patients.

255
5. Educate and inform the drug enforcement officials, health

care providers, and the general public on the findings from

the above research programs.

6. Communicate and interact with the F.D.A. About the

safety and efficacy findings regarding treatment of

narcolepsy with stimulant drugs, with the objective of

proposed FDA approval for narcolepsy indications.

ADDENDUM

Proposed Amendments to the Controlled Substances Act

Specific provisions must be added or amended to protect the rights of

legitimate narcolepsy patients in the following areas:

(1) Generally, the regulations must restate in explicit terms the provisions of

sections 801 and 801a of the Act which state:

“Many of the drugs included within this subchapter have a useful and

legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and

general welfare of the American people” (801(l)), and “nothing in the

Convention will interfere with ethical medical practice in this country as

determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the basis of a

consensus of the views of the American medical and scientific community

(801a(3)(C)).

Additional provisions are necessary that prohibit harassment or interference

without cause, by DEA agents and other law enforcement officials, with the

legitimate practice of medicine by licensed physicians and registered

pharmacists who treat narcolepsy patients. Repeated investigations of

patients, physicians, and pharmacists shall not be permitted without probable

cause that further investigation is related to the suspected diversion of drugs

for illicit use or to suspected drug abuse. Indiscriminate reference to

narcolepsy patients as drug addicts or phony patients is not acceptable.

Further, it must be emphasized strongly that narcolepsy patients are

considered to be legitimate users of Schedule II stimulant drugs under

accepted medical practice. Their right of due process of law and their rights

to privacy and confidentiality of their medical history must be assured and

respected by DEA agents and officials. Their diagnosis of narcolepsy must be

subject to no greater proof than required for other medical conditions, such

as treatment of cancer pain.

256
(2) The provisions regarding the setting of production quotas for controlled

substances used for the treatment of narcolepsy (sections 826 and 1303) must

be amended to specifically include, for the DEA determination of production

quotas for methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine and methamphetamine; the

anticipated increases in demand due to new diagnoses of narcolepsy patients,

the anticipated increases in the prescribed dosages of these drugs for the

treatment of narcolepsy; the need for production and availability of generic

equivalents of these drugs in order to reduce the costs to narcolepsy patients;

and the legitimate prescription and anticipated needs for methamphetamine

to treat narcolepsy, notwithstanding the fact the FDA has not approved such

an indication or the higher dosages typical for narcolepsy treatment. The

DEA must be advised that supply shortages of stimulants for legitimate

patients with narcolepsy, such as of methylphenidate in 1986 and of dextroamphetamine in 1990, will not be tolerated in the future.

(3) The provisions regarding the regulation of prescriptions for controlled

substances used for the treatment of narcolepsy (sections 829 and 1306) must

be expanded to bring about clarity and uniformity between the Federal and

State regulations which govern prescriptions of Schedule II stimulant drugs.

Section 1306.07(c) must be amended to state that “This section is not intended to impose any limitations on a physician or authorized hospital staff to

administer or dispense stimulant drugs to persons with narcolepsy.” Sections

829 and 1306.12 should be amended to permit refills of stimulant drugs for

up to 6 months from the date of the prescription, for up to a 6-month supply

of medication (i.e., two per year with a single prescription). A physician shall

be the sole source for exercising prudent judgment as to the daily dosage unit

or daily total dosage and the sole source for determination of the quantity of

medicine covered by each prescription, within the 6-month maximum with

one refill, or a lesser period with more frequent refills (e.g. l-month supply

with six refills permitted.

The legislation added to sections 829 and 1306.12 is intended to supersede

existing inconsistent State regulations over prescribing practices. The new

regulations should specifically permit prescriptions for narcolepsy treatment

with Schedule II controlled substances to be filled within a reasonable period

after issuance by a physician, such as 7-10 days or sufficient time to permit

the pharmacy to obtain the drugs from a distributor after receiving the

prescription from the patient or physician. The provisions should specifically

state that a physician visit shall not be required more frequently than once

per year, except where determined solely by the physician’s judgment. The

257
partial filling of a prescription by a registered pharmacist should be explicitly

permitted, with the balance of the prescription permitted to be filled by the

pharmacist whenever its inventory permits, without the patient having to

obtain a new prescription from the physician. Finally, the prescription must

explicitly permit prescriptions to be mailed or delivered to the patient, rather

than require a personal pickup or doctor’s visit. Many patients live in remote

locations or rural areas that are far away from their doctor, who is often a

specialist who practices in a wide geographical area. Mail-order pharmacies

and the filling of prescriptions by mail or common carrier must also be

explicitly permitted, so as to preclude interference by the individual States

with interstate commerce and the rights of narcolepsy patients to obtain their

medication.

REFERENCES

Challakere, K.; DuPont, R.; Mitler, M.; Hajdukovic, R.; Lehr, P.; Halpern,

S.; Lamoureux, G.; and Gillin, J.C. Effects of stimulant exposure in

narcoleptics observed with SPECT. Sleep Research, 20:221, 1991.

Daly, D.D. and Yoss, R.E. Criteria for the diagnosis of the narcoleptic

syndrome. Proceedings of the Mayo Clinic 32:320-328, 1957.

Dement, W.C.; Carskadon, M.; and Ley, R. The prevalence of narcolepsy II.

Sleep Research, 2:147, 1973.

Dement, W.C.; Zarcone, V.; Varner, V.; Hoddes, E.; Nassau, S.; Jacobs, B.;

Brown, J.; McDonald, A.; Horan, K.; Glass, R.; Gonzales, P.; Friedman,

E.; and Phillips, R. The prevalence of narcolepsy. Sleep Research, 1:148,

1972.

Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, Controlled

Substances Act, Title 21, United States Code, 1988, as amended. Chapter

13, Sections 801-886.

Drug Enforcement Administration, U. S. Department of Justice. Controlled

Substances Act, Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, 1990, as amended.

Sections 1301-1316.

Eaton, L.M. Treatment of narcolepsy with desoxyephedrine hydrochloride.

Proceedings of the Mayo Clinic 18:262-264, 1943.

Honda, Y.; Hishikawa, Y.; and Takahashi, Y. Long-term treatment of

narcolepsy with methylphenidate (Ritalin). Curr Ther Res 25(2):288-298,

1979.

Mitler, M.; Hajdukovic, R.; Erman, M.; and Koziol, J. Narcolepsy. J Clin

Neurophysiol 7(1):93-118, 1990.

258
Physicians’ Desk Reference, 44th Ed. Oradell, New Jersey: Medical Economics

Company, 1990.

Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Chicago: National Conference of

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1990 draft. 115 pp.

Yoss, R.E., and Daly, D.D. On the Treatment of Narcolepsy. Med Clin North

Am 52:781-787, 1968.

Yoss, R.E. and Daly, D.D. Narcolepsy. In: The Epilepsies, Handbook of

Clinical Neurology 15:836-852, 1974.

AUTHOR

Joseph A. Piscopo, B.S.

Vice Chairman,

National Commission on Sleep Disorders Research,

Director and Treasurer,

The American Narcolepsy Association, Inc.

425 California Street, Suite 201

San Francisco, California 94104

259
State Cancer Pain Initiatives

June L. Dahl

Early in the course of this technical review, Dr. Portenoy discussed the

problem of unrelieved pain. He pointed out that while some pain is truly

refractory to therapy, most pain can be relieved if the drugs and other

therapies which are currently available are used appropriately. Pain is

common with cancer. Unfortunately, cancer pain is often inadequately treated (Daut and Cleeland 1982). The reasons are many, complex, and deeply

rooted in our culture. However, a major factor is that health professionals

are reluctant to prescribe adequate doses of opioid analgesics at appropriate

time intervals. They are excessively concerned about the side effects of these

drugs, about exceeding standard “textbook dosages” and about addiction

(Cleeland et al. 1986). Patients and families share these concerns (Levin et

al. 1985). Morgan has described our society as opiophobic (Morgan 1989).

To make matters worse, often neither those who provide care nor those who

receive care are certain what they mean by addiction. Does it imply

tolerance? Is it synonymous with physical dependence? Addiction has such a

negative connotation in our society that it is critically important to distinguish

it from the other terms (Schuster 1989). State cancer pain initiatives urge

NIDA to work to clarify the meaning of addiction so that patients who take

controlled substances for medical purposes are not erroneously labeled as

addicts.

Physical dependence is an anticipated physiological response to chronic

opioid therapy. It is manifest by the development of a withdrawal syndrome

when opioid analgesics are discontinued or when an opioid antagonist such as

naloxone is administered. Tolerance implies the need for increasing doses of

an opioid to achieve the desired analgesic effect. Not all cancer pain patients

treated chronically with opioid analgesics develop significant levels of

tolerance. But that is not the issue. What is critical is that patients who are

physically dependent or tolerant are not addicted. They do not exhibit

compulsive drug seeking behavior; they do not take opioids to get high; they

take opioids to get pain relief. The quality of their lives is improved by drug

use. The quality of life of those who abuse drugs deteriorates over time.

Ironically, cancer patients whose pain is inadequately treated may display

bizarre behaviors in their efforts to obtain adequate amounts of analgesics for

pain relief–behaviors similar to those seen in individuals who are

260
psychologically dependent (i.e., addicted). Weissman et al. (1991) have

labeled this iatrogenic syndrome “opioid pseudoaddiction,” a paradoxical

problem resulting from health professionals’ unsubstantiated concerns about

addiction in cancer patients receiving opioids for pain. Some professionals

who are involved in the treatment of drug abusers describe any chronic user

of controlled substances as an addict. Those who are concerned about benzodiazepine abuse may do so as well. The symptoms of benzodiazepine withdrawal often resemble those that led patients to seek therapy initially. Does

the desire of the patient to reinitiate therapy to treat those symptoms mean

that the patient is addicted? Those of us in the cancer pain movement would

not rush to make that judgment and urge that the addict label not be applied

to individuals who have panic and acute anxiety disorders and therefore require chronic therapy. Let us not let the medical controversies surrounding

the appropriate use of the benzodiazepines confuse our understanding of

addiction.

State cancer pain initiatives have been created to overcome professional and

public fears about the use of opioid analgesics and the multiplicity of other

factors that account for the undertreatment of cancer pain: deficiencies in

knowledge, inappropriate attitudes, and problems intrinsic to our health care

system (Cleeland 1987). Initiatives are voluntary, interdisciplinary organizations of health professionals. Physicians, nurses, pharmacists, social workers,

psychologists, and medical educators are working to enhance their colleagues

awareness of the cancer pain problem, their ability to assess and treat that

pain appropriately, and to make them aware of the important benefits of

good pain control. Some are also developing and implementing quality assurance guidelines; others are reaching out to patients and families so they will

know that cancer pain can be relieved, that they have the right to demand

adequate pain control, and that they need not fear addiction and the side

effects of potent analgesic drugs. Twenty-five States now have cancer pain

initiatives. Their common goals are to make relief of cancer pain a priority

in the health care system in this country and an expectation of all individuals

with cancer.

The idea for a State cancer pain initiative originated with the Wisconsin

Controlled Substances Board (WCSB), the State’s drug regulatory authority.

The stimulus was the Compassionate Pain Relief Act, a bill introduced into

the Congress in 1984 to make heroin available for the treatment of pain in

terminally ill cancer patients. The board initially looked at the proposed

legislation from a regulatory perspective because its passage would have

required the board to authorize physicians to prescribe and pharmacists to

261
dispense this Schedule I drug. At the same time, the board recognized the

magnitude and severity of the cancer pain problem in the United States.

Furthermore, it realized that it might have contributed to the problem. By

developing a vigorous program to control prescription drug diversion and

abuse in the State (Chi 1983), the board had probably sent strong messages

to physicians: that if they prescribed opioids liberally for pain, they might

come under regulatory scrutiny. Therefore, the board decided to couple its

opposition to the heroin bill with positive action and to develop a program

that would bring improvements in the management of cancer pain in a way

that heroin’s availability could not possibly do.

After almost 2 years of planning, the Wisconsin Cancer Pain Initiative

(WCPI) convened a statewide strategy session at which participants developed an action plan which has guided the program ever since (Dahl et al.

1982). The WCPI has developed educational materials for patients and

families and for health professionals which can be obtained by writing to the

Center (WCPI, 3675 Medical Sciences Center, 1300 University Avenue,

Madison, WI 53706). Numerous conferences and workshops have been held

for doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. The media have played an important

role in bringing public attention to the problem and appropriate solutions. A

newsletter keeps participants informed of current issues and upcoming events.

The WCPI in cooperation with the WCSB reviewed Federal and State laws

and regulations to determine if there were obstacles to the appropriate

prescribing of opioids for cancer pain. Neither Federal nor Wisconsin laws

prohibit physicians from prescribing large amounts of these drugs for

extended periods of time. Nevertheless, physicians fear that they will be

investigated by drug regulators if they prescribe these drugs liberally. Indeed,

this has occurred in other States (Hill 1989). Furthermore, results from a

pilot study of Wisconsin physicians show that they do alter their prescription

practices because of the fear of regulatory scrutiny (Weissman et al. 1991).

They may reduce drug dosage, or quantity, reduce the number of refills, or

choose a drug in a lower schedule. Two Wisconsin regulations were found to

be impediments to the adequate prescribing of drugs for patients with cancer

pain. A Pharmacy Examining Board (PEB) rule limited the amount of a

Schedule II opioid that could be dispensed at one time to 120 dosage units or

a 34-day supply (whichever is less). Physicians and pharmacists were

confused about this rule; some interpreted a dosage unit to mean a tablet.

The increasing use of oral liquid and injectable opioids and flexible dosing

schedules had further compounded the problem. Individuals who needed

large doses of oral opioid analgesics for cancer pain relief had the added

burden of continually arranging for new prescriptions from their physicians.

262
The PEB eliminated the 120 dosage unit restriction on September 1, 1991;

the 34-day supply restriction on prescribing and dispensing remains. A

second regulatory impediment was associated with a rule promulgated by the

Medical Examining Board (MEB) which severely and justifiably restricted the

allowable medical uses of amphetamines. The WCPI and the WCSB worked

with the MEB to incorporate specific language into the amphetamine rule

which indicates that it is appropriate for physicians to prescribe amphetamines to treat refractory opioid-induced sedation.

State initiatives have come together on two occasions to share perspectives

and materials, first in July 1989 and again in February 1991. Drug regulations were a topic of concern at both national meetings. The current emphasis on reducing drug abuse in our society has, at the very least, enhanced the

concerns of the public and health professionals about the potential for

opioids to be abused. As national concerns about drug abuse have increased,

there has been a push for greater control over prescription controlled

substances both at the Federal and the State level. Thus, multiple copy

prescription programs and accountable prescriptions have been strongly

promoted by the DEA and adopted in nine States (Joranson and Dahl 1989;

Joranson 1990). There has been a reduction in the prescribing of Schedule II

controlled substances in States that have instituted those programs. It has

been assumed that this reduction in prescribing is accompanied by a decrease

in diversion and abuse of prescription drugs, but there are no data to

document this assumption. Furthermore, there are no data to indicate what

effect reduction in prescribing rates has on the quality of care of cancer

patients in pain. Anecdotal reports from physicians suggest that multiple

copy prescription programs have a chilling effect on the prescribing of

controlled substances. More recently, electronic data transfer (EDT) systems

have been advocated and implemented in Oklahoma and Massachusetts. The

effectiveness of those programs in reducing prescription drug abuse is not

known nor is it known how they affect practice behaviors.

The participants at the Second National Meeting for State Cancer Pain

Initiatives raised many questions about these and other drug diversion control

programs:

1. Are they needed?

2. What is their impact on diversion and abuse?

3. What is their impact on patient care?

4. How much will they cost and who will pay?

263
They also felt there were many positive actions that State initiatives could

take. They specifically recommended that initiatives:

1. Work for adoption of the Uniformed Controlled Substances Act, particularly because it specifically recognizes the

need to assure the availability of controlled substances for

medical use.

2. Work with State drug regulators to inform them of the

important medical uses of controlled substances and offer

assistance to them in identifying and taking action against

violative practitioners.

3. Oppose adoption of additional multiple copy prescription

programs or other new diversion control programs until

there are adequate studies of the impact of these systems on

the abuse and diversion of prescription drugs and on patient

care.

4. Support studies of the effects of prescription drug control

programs on physician prescribing practices and on the

availability of prescription controlled substances to cancer

patients.

REFERENCES

Chi, K.S. Prescription drug abuse control: The Wisconsin approach. In:

Innovations. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 1983.

Cleeland, C.S. Barriers to the management of cancer pain. Oncology Special

Supplement, April 1987. pp. 19-26.

Cleeland, C.S.; Cleeland, L.M.; Dar, R.; and Rinehart, L.L. Factors

influencing physician management of cancer pain. Cancer 58:796-800,

1986.

Dahl, J.L.; Joranson, D.E.; Engber, D.; and Dosch, J. A report on the

Wisconsin Cancer Pain Initiative. J Pain and Symptom Manage 3:Sl-20,

1988.

Daut, R.L., and Cleeland, C.S. The prevalence and severity of pain in cancer.

Cancer 50:1913-1918, 1982.

Hill, Jr., C.S. The negative effect of regulatory agencies on adequate pain

control. Primary Care and Cancer November, 1989. 47-53.

Joranson, D.E. Federal and State regulation of opioids. J Pain Symptom

Manage 5:S12-23, 1990.

264
Joranson, D.E., and Dahl, J.L. Achieving Balance in Drug Policy: The

Wisconsin Model. In: Hill, C.S., Jr., and Fields, W.S., eds. Advances in

Pain Research and Therapy, Vol. 11. New York: Raven Press, 1989. pp.

197-203.

Levin, D.N.; Cleeland, C.S.; and Dar, R. Public attitudes toward cancer pain.

Cancer 56:2337-2339, 1985.

Morgan, J.P. American opiophobia: Customary underutilization of opioid

analgesics. In: Hill, C.S., Jr., and Fields, W.S., eds. Advances in Pain

Research and Therapy Vol. 11. New York: Raven Press, 1989. pp. 181-

189.

Schuster, C.R. Does treatment of cancer pain with narcotics produce junkies?

In: Hill, C.S., Jr., and Fields, W.S., eds. Advances in Pain Research

and Therapy, Vol. 11. New York: Raven Press, 1989. pp. l-3.

Weissman, D.E.; Joranson, D.E.; and Hopwood, M.B. Wisconsin physicians’

knowledge and attitudes about opioid analgesic regulations. Wisconsin

Med J 90:671-675, 1991.

AUTHOR

June L. Dahl, Ph.D., Chair

Wisconsin Pain Initiative

University of Wisconsin Medical School

3675 Medical Sciences Center

1300 University Avenue

Madison, WI 53705

265
Benzodiazepine Dependence-A Treatment Perspective

and an Advocacy for Control

Robert D. O’Connor

INTRODUCTION

As a board-certified internist, addictionologist, and cardiologist specializing in

the field of addictive diseases for 20 years, I have clinically diagnosed and

treated many patients with benzodiazepine addiction, in withdrawal and in

recovery.

Ever since the controlled studies demonstrated that diazepam and chlordiazepoxide taken for a month in dosages 2-3 times the maximal recommended daily therapeutic dose results in physical dependency and a clinically

significant withdrawal syndrome (Hollister et al. 1961), physical dependence

on higher doses of benzodiazepine has been widely recognized. There is also

concern now, however, that long-term use of benzodiazepines taken within

the usual range of therapeutically prescribed doses can also result in physical

dependency (Lader 1983; Smith and Wesson 1983; Winokur et al. 1980).

My own clinical experience in addictive medicine confirms this clinical and

research evidence. Many individuals take benzodiazepines in therapeutic

doses for months to years and then sharply discontinue them without

developing symptoms that are indicative of benzodiazepine withdrawal.

Other individuals, however, take similar amounts of benzodiazepines, develop

physical dependence, and cannot tolerate the withdrawal symptoms, that are

identifiable, predictable, and protracted. It is also known that the metabolism

of long-acting benzodiazepines is reduced in the elderly, particularly men,

which results in physical dependence at lower dosages than in younger

individuals.

Suffice to say that benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome symptoms wax and

wane in cycles separated by 2-10 days and include anxiety, panic symptoms,

mood swings, restlessness, insomnia, malaise/fatigue, increase in pulse and

blood pressure, impaired memory, short-term concentration, tremor, body

aches, headache, nausea, vomiting, retching, sweating. depression, feelings of

266
depersonalization, paranoid reaction, psychosis, and seizures. Other objective

and subjective symptoms and perceptual changes may be manifested and may

persist for 2-4 weeks.

CLINICAL DATA

In 1989, New York State passed a benzodiazepine Controlled Substance Law

(Triplicate Prescription). The cases presented in this paper are those

patients admitted in 1989 and 1990 to Conifer Park, a 225-bed alcohol and

drug treatment center in Scotia, New York, with a primary diagnosis of

benzodiazepine dependence. Thirty-two cases are presented (1989 census =

2,594 patients and 1990 census = 2,387 patients). The patient statistics and

profile are demonstrated with this data.

BENZODIAZEPINE PATIENT STATISTICS (1989-1990)

Percentage of total admissions

Average length of stay

Average age

Percentage male

Percentage female

Race

Discharge Types:

Routine

AMA

Medical

Average days in withdrawal

Average days on primary care

Medical Source:

Physician

Street

Both

Average Duration of Use

Types of Benzodiazepines:

(Percentage of occurrences)

Valium

Xanax

Librium

Ativan

Dalmane

Family History Positive

267

0.7 percent

25.67 days

42 years

52 percent

48 percent

100 percent white

64 percent

24 percent

12 percent

11 days

6 days

76 percent

12 percent

12 percent

6 years

58 percent

33 percent

9 percent

9 percent

3 percent

24 percent
Medical Complications:

Anxiety/panic

Seizures

Peptic ulcer disease

Hypertension

Depression

Cancers

Eating disorders

Migraine headaches

High blood pressure

Gastritis, irritable bowel

Urinary tract infection

Liver enlargement/cirrhosis

Other

(asthma, vaginitis, etc.)

Lab work positive

High cholesterol/triglycerides

Withdrawal Symptoms:

Insomnia

Nausea

Tremors

High blood pressure

Headaches

Restlessness

Mood swings

Muscle twitches

Reasons for admission:

“I want to get off of drugs, etc”

Interference with work/family

Intervention (family/friend)

12 percent

15 percent

12 percent

6 percent

12 percent

6 percent

6 percent

6 percent

12 percent

15 percent

6 percent

6 percent

6 percent

64 percent

21 percent

45 percent

30 percent

58 percent

24 percent

6 percent

24 percent

24 percent

12 percent

18 percent

21 percent

33 percent

In addition, 14 patients gave a primary history of alcoholism and crossaddiction to benzodiazepines. An additional number of patients were

prescribed benzodiazepines for anxiety and grief reaction in the presence of

known alcoholism. Other patients received benzodiazepines for lumbosacral

disc disease and other low back pathology or were given concomitant prescriptions for opiates (codeine, Percocet, Darvon, etc.). Female patients

received opiates, sedatives, and benzodiazepines in combination for migraine

268
headaches, thereby contributing to and resulting in combined addictions and

more difficult diagnoses and complicated protracted withdrawal syndromes,

SUMMARY

This clinical data is presented to emphasize the clinical seriousness of

benzodiazepine dependence, its relationship to other addictive diseases, the

complicated and protracted nature of its withdrawal syndrome, the various

clinical reasons for prescribing benzodiazepines, and the need for physicians

in all medical specialties to be alert to the possibility of chemical dependence

in their patient population. Those of us prescribing benzodiazepines should

have a clinical knowledge of addictive diseases and not complicate the disease

process by prescribing benzodiazepines when they arc clearly contraindicated.

REFERENCES

Hollister, L.E.; Morzenbecker, F.P.; and Degan, R.O. Withdrawal reactions

from chlordiazepoxide (Librium). Psychopharmacologia 2(1):63-68, 1961.

Lader, M. Dependence on benzodiazepines. J Clin Psychiatry 44(4):121-127,

1983.

Smith, D.E, Prescription drugs and the alcoholic: The benzodiazepines.

Proceedings of the Eisenhower Medical Center Conference on Alcoholism.

Winter: 42-48, 1981.

Smith, D.E., and Wesson, D. R. Benzodiazepine dependence syndromes, J

Psychoactive Drugs 15:1-2 1983.

Winokur, A.; Rickles, K.; Greenblatt, D.J.; Snyder, P.J.; and Schatz, N.

Withdrawal reaction from long term low dosage administration of

diazepam Arch Gen Psychiatry 37:101-105, 1980.

AUTHOR

Robert D. O’Connor, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Medical Director

Conifer Park

150 Glenridge Road

Scotia, NY 12302

269
A Public Citizen Health Research Group Perspective

on Federal Triplicate Prescription Requirements for

Controlled Substance Prescription Drugs

Sidney M. Wolfe

The Public Citizen Health Research Group strongly supports a Federal

triplicate prescription requirement, which we believe is needed to curb:

(1) drug diversion through “pill mills” that indiscriminately

prescribe psychoactive drugs

(2) the inappropriate long-term and/or high-dose use of

benzodiazepines

(3) the prescribing of these drugs to cope with everyday

problems for which their use is medically inappropriate

We strongly commend the now 29-month-old New York State triplicate prescription requirement for benzodiazepines as well as the older systems of the

eight other States which have multiple prescription programs. These programs represent, in our opinion, the most important recent improvements in

the out-of-hospital practice of medicine, in enhancing the quality of physician

prescribing, and in saving hundreds of millions of dollars of dangerously

wasted money.

Given that the number one drug abuse problem in this country–in terms of

the number of people affected and the severity of its total effects–involves

legal prescription drugs, the triplicate prescription programs are the most

successful effort yet in the war on drugs.

In nine States–New York, California, Texas, Indiana, Hawaii, Michigan,

Illinois, Rhode Island and Idaho–laws or regulations are in effect requiring

multiple (usually triplicate) prescription forms to be filled out by doctors

writing prescriptions for any Schedule II controlled substance, drugs such as

morphine, codeine, barbiturates, amphetamines, and other prescription drugs

which are usually addicting, otherwise dangerous, and subject to abuse. By

pressing a little harder on the prescription blank, the doctor makes two extra

270
copies of the prescription, enabling not only the pharmacist but the State

government and the physician to retain copies as well.

According to officials from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), after

these laws had been in effect for several years, there was about a 50 percent

decrease in the number of prescriptions written for controlled drugs. For

example, in Rhode Island in the 7 years following the new requirement, there

was a 56 percent reduction in the number of prescriptions written for

Schedule II drugs. In Texas, during the 10 year period following enactment,

the reduction was 69 percent.

In four of the multiple prescription states–New York, California, Illinois and

Indiana–the State also has the authority to apply the triplicate prescription

regulation to drugs in Controlled Substance Act Schedules III or IV as well

as to Schedule II drugs. Thus far, only New York State has elected to

include all of the benzodiazepines–drugs such as the tranquilizers Valium,

Librium, Xanax, Ativan, and Tranxene and sleeping pills such as Dalmane,

Halcion and Restoril. But New York first had to successfully weather legal

challenges from major drug companies producing these drugs (Roche,

Abbott, Wyeth, and Upjohn) and from the drug industry-funded New York

State Medical Society before the triplicate prescription requirement for

benzodiazepines went into effect on January 1, 1989.

Although most of the remaining remarks apply specifically to benzodiazepines, the principles involved are relevant to legal or illegal misuse or

misprescribing of any of the drugs covered by triplicate prescription laws or

regulations. As noted, we have had much more experience in more States

with triplicate prescription requirements for Schedule II drugs. The record is

clear these programs have been quite successful in reducing the illegal use

and misprescribing of these drugs. Moreover, there is no credible evidence

that either patients or physicians have been prevented from using properly

prescribed controlled drugs for appropriate periods of time.

It has never been the position of the Public Citizen Health Research Group

that benzodiazepine sleeping pill and tranquilizer drugs should be banned;

rather, that they are prescribed more often than is necessary, considering

their limited time period of effectiveness and the serious risks they pose.

Although these risks may be outweighed by their benefits when properly

prescribed, for large numbers who get them by diversion from originally

legitimate or illegal channels, or the probably still larger number for whom

they are prescribed inappropriately, the risks outweigh the benefits. The

271
triplicate prescription regulation is intended to protect those people for whom

benzodiazepines are not properly prescribed.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF OVERPRESCRIBING?

Based on data from published studies done in the United States, we have

estimated the toll from the use of benzodiazepine tranquilizers and sleeping

pills to be:

Ten thousand hip fractures in older adults due to falls

caused by these drugs.

Seventy-five thousand older adults with drug-induced or drug

worsened mental deterioration (dementia) caused by these

drugs.

As noted below, in 1989 alone, according to a study by the

Drug Enforcement Agency, there were 60,148 occasions in

U.S. hospital emergency rooms in which these drugs were

listed in association with drug-overdose problems.

A variety of other kinds of serious impairment, including

addiction, daytime sedation, confusion, increased risk of an

auto accident, slurred speech and, especially in combination

with alcohol, death.

A large proportion of these serious injuries and deaths could be prevented if

the prescribing of these drugs was done more carefully than is now the case.

It would also mean, as strikingly seen in New York, a significant decrease in

prescribing.

HAS THE NEW YORK TRIPLICATE PRESCRIPTION REGULATION

FOR BENZODIAZEPINES WORKED?

The following data were obtained from the New York State Health

Department, the National Prescription Audit (IMS, Inc., Ambler, PA), and

the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency.

Prescriptions for benzodiazepines: U.S. v. New York State

From 1988 to 1989, there was a slight (9.8 percent) nationwide decrease in

the number of benzodiazepine prescriptions filled in American retail drugstores–from 82 to 74 million. However, for the New York State employees,

family and retiree health plan called Empire, during the same period there

272
was a four times larger decrease (37 percent) than that seen nationally. New

York Medicaid experienced a 59.3 percent decrease–from 1.56 million prescriptions in 1988 to 630,000 in 1989, more than six times the national

decrease. This 930,000 prescription decrease was only slightly offset by an

increase of 189,000 in the number of prescriptions written for nonbenzdiazepine tranquilizers and sleeping pills during 1989.

By the end of the first year the regulation went into effect, there was a 40

percent decrease in the percentage of people in New York’s state-subsidized

elderly drug reimbursement plan, EPIC, who received benzodiazepine prescriptions. The percentage of plan members who got a benzodiazepine prescription decreased from 20.9 percent during the last 3 quarters of 1988 to

12.6 percent by the last quarter of 1989.

The case of clonazepam should be of great interest to those who complain–

without evidence–that this kind of program might curtail necessary prescribing of benzodiazepines. Clonazepam is the only drug in the benzodiazepine family that is not a tranquilizer or sleeping pill, but is used instead to

treat seizure disorders. Unlike the sharp decreases in the other benzodiazepines, prescriptions for clonazepam, actually rose from 1988 to 1989 in the

New York State Medicaid program and the State employees program.

Emergency Room Data for Benzodiazepines: U.S. v. New York State

For the entire country, there was no decrease but in fact a slight increase

from 1988 to 1989 in emergency room mentions reported to the Drug Abuse

Warning Network (DAWN) system for benzodiazepines. These data are

based on surveys of the drugs used by patients who wind up with drug abuse

problems in hospital emergency rooms. Nationwide in 1989 there were

60,048 mentions for benzodiazepines, and the number rose slightly to 60,148

in 1989.

In New York State, at least in the metropolitan Buffalo and New York City

areas, there was a 39 percent decrease in benzodiazepine emergency room

mentions following instigation of the triplicate prescription requirement.

From a level of 2,611 mentions in 1988, the number decreased to 1,590 in

1989.

Although there was a slight increase in prescriptions for nonbenzodiazepine

tranquilizers and sleeping pills accompanying the much larger decrease in

benzodiazepines, there was actually a decrease in DAWN emergency room

273
mentions for these drugs in New York State–from 506 in 1988 to 457 in 1989.

Nationally, the number increased from 12,530 to 13,595.

Other gains cited by the New York State Health Department include:

A 95 percent reduction in benzodiazepine use by one group

of about 3,400 patients suspected of diverting almost 250,000

prescriptions annually into illicit use.

A 76 percent reduction in prescriptions dispensed by New

York pharmacies suspected of being “pill mills.”

An increase in “street” prices of 2 to 5 times for benzodiazepines, indicating street supplies were “drying up.”

Cost Saving: New York State

There are many parts to answering the question of cost savings resulting from

the new New York State triplicate requirement, but those measured thus far

are very compelling. There was a saving of $11.2 million in the Medicaid

program alone resulting from diminished State purchases of benzodiazepines.

Although about a third of this saving was offset by increases in the cost of

other nonbenzodiazepine tranquilizers and sleeping pills, there was still a net

saving of $7.4 million in 1 year in this program alone. This does not include

additional savings from the State employees and older citizen plans nor those

resulting from thousands fewer emergency room visits, decreased hip

fractures, memory loss, and other serious adverse effects averted through this

revolutionary program. If one includes all citizens of New York State, not

just those in State-funded programs, we estimate the savings in reduced

purchases of drugs and decreased drug-induced diseases and injuries could

well approach $100 million.

These enormous decreases in the prescribing of benzodiazepines, which cannot solely be accounted for by a reduction in illegal prescribing, are consistent with a decrease in the amount of overly-lengthy prescriptions and a decrease in the third category of misprescribing, treating the normal stress of

daily living with benzodiazepines.

It is clear that causing doctors to pause momentarily as they write triplicate

prescriptions for any of these drugs adds to their awareness that these are

medications having significant risks as well as benefits. To the credit of

doctors in New York State, the first 6 months of the new regulation indicated

a significant statewide decrease in prescribing.

274
THREE KINDS OF MISPRESCRIBING OF TRANQUILIZERS AND

SLEEPING PILLS

There are three categories of benzodiazepine misprescribing which the New

York State regulation attempted to cure:

The first is street diversion of drugs originally prescribed by a physician who

knows, or should usually know, the drugs are going to be diverted and resold

on the street, often for large sums of money. This is often referred to as

“illicit use,” although the initiator is a licensed physician engaging in unethical,

if not illegal, activity. It must be noted that in New York State and the few

other States which are seriously engaged in efforts to discipline doctors for

practices endangering their patients, a common reason for license revocation

or suspension is grossly overprescribing drugs such as benzodiazepines or

narcotics. These kinds of prescribing practices, combined with the willing

filling of these prescriptions by “friendly” pharmacists, are sometimes referred

to as “pill mills.”

Unfortunately, unethical doctors or pharmacists prescribing or dispensing

benzodiazepines, which are not as rigorously controlled as narcotics, are often

not caught until they have prescribed or dispensed enormous quantities which

wind up on the street or in circles of benzodiazepine-addicted people. An

additional type of illegal activity which diverts benzodiazepines is the forging

of prescriptions.

The deterrent effect of a triplicate prescription requirement on those doctors

and pharmacists who supply such drugs inappropriately has already been

demonstrated in New York State during the period since its new regulation

went into effect. A memo from John Eadie, Director of the Division of

Public Health Protection, to Health Commissioner Dr. David Axelrod, dated

March 1, 1989, documents this. In 21 Bronx and Manhattan pharmacies

suspected of being pill mills, there was a marked decrease in the number of

benzodiazepine prescriptions filled in 1 week in less than a month after the

new regulation went into effect. To quote from the memo, “In the center of

the ‘Pill Mills,’ Manhattan and the Bronx, the decrease was 79 percent, in

Queens and Brooklyn, 67 percent, and upstate, where less diversion had been

suspected, 39 percent.”

Although there has been a dramatic decrease in prescriptions for benzodiazepines closely correlated with the extent to which certain geographic areas

275
have pill mills, there is no evidence that the legitimate prescribing of these

drugs has been adversely affected.

A second category of inappropriate prescribing involves prescriptions written

without any intention or much possibility of diversion. These prescriptions

are written for such legitimate medical indications as severe anxiety or sleeping disorders. However, due to carelessness on the part of the doctor or an

unawareness or unwillingness to adhere to approved labeling, the drug regimen is continued for a period of time far in excess of that for which it is

effective.

Using data from national surveys, we estimate that over 3 million adults aged

18 to 79 are being given one or more of these drugs daily for one year or

longer. This pattern of prescribing occurs despite the fact that the Food and

Drug Administration’s approved labeling for these drugs says there is no evidence that any of the tranquilizers work for more than 4 months or that the

sleeping pills work for more than 4 weeks.

The third category of misprescribing involves doctors giving patients benzodiazepines for the normal stresses of daily living–situations which merit attention by doctors, family, friends, clergy, and others, but which should not be

“treated” by these drugs. For the past few years, the labeling for these drugs

has stated that "anxiety or tension associated with the stress of everyday life

usually does not require treatment with an anxiolytic" (Physicians’ Desk Reference 1989). There is no evidence that the large amount of prescribing of

benzodiazepines for everyday problems of living has decreased as much as it

should since this label change was implemented.

HOW CAN THERE BE ANY RATIONAL REASON FOR OPPOSING

SUCH A PROGRAM?

Even the American Medical Association, which strongly opposes laws requiring triplicate prescriptions, admits “diversion of prescription drugs for

purposes of abuse is a significant contributor to this nation’s drug abuse

problem and its attendant morbidity and mortality” (AMA 1989).

Despite admitting the seriousness of the problem, the AMA Board of Trustees

adopted (in December 1989) the above report and its recommendation that

the AMA:

276
Oppose expansion of multiple-copy prescription programs to

additional States or classes of drugs because of their

documented ineffectiveness in reducing prescription drug

abuse and their adverse effect on the availability of

prescription medications for therapeutic uses.

The above AMA statement opposing multiple prescription programs is filled

with false and misleading information. Its degree of misinformation is similar

to that of the failed legal effort by the New York Medical Society and its

partners in the prescription drug industry (Roche, Upjohn, Wyeth, and

Abbott) to stop the New York State Health Department from requiring triplicate prescriptions for benzodiazepines. (A New York Court ordered that the

program could begin in January 1989.)

In summary, the New York State regulation requiring triplicate prescriptions

for benzodiazepines has had an important impact in the 2 years since it went

into effect. In direct proportion to the decreased use of these drugs, there

will be a decrease in preventable adverse effects such as memory loss, falls

and hip fractures, addiction, bizarre behavioral problems such as aggression,

and other serious problems.

We strongly urge passage of Federal legislation that will allow the entire

country to reap the benefits that New York State and, to a lesser extent, the

other multiple prescription States have obtained. This will not only save an

enormous amount of money, but most importantly, bring an increased measure of health protection to the citizens of this country. Although concern has

been expressed by some critics of such measures that medical confidentiality

could be abridged, there is no evidence that pharmacists have breached such

confidentiality and no reason to believe law enforcement personnel are any

more likely to do so.

REFERENCES

American Medical Association. Report of AMA Board of Trustees on

Curtailing Prescription Drug Abuse While Preserving Therapeutic Use, Chicago:

the Association, 1989.

Physicians’ Desk Reference. Oradell, NJ: Medical Economics Company, 1989.

277
AUTHOR

Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D.

Director, Public Citizen Health Research Group

Suite 700

2000 P Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

278
Consequences of the 1989 New York State Triplicate

Benzodiazepine Prescription Regulations

Michael Weintraub, Satesh Singh, Louise Byrne,

Kum`ar Maharaj, and Laurence Guttmacher

INTRODUCTION

Effective January 1, 1989, New York State (NYS) regulations require that all

prescriptions for benzodiazepines be written on special triplicate prescription

forms. For the past 12 years, triplicate prescriptions have been required by

the NYS Department of Health (DOH) for all Schedule II drugs. When

benzodiazepines were added to the program, they became the first Schedule

IV medications to require triplicate prescriptions.

Triplicate prescription pads are printed by the State and sold to registered

practitioners on application. When a physician completes a triplicate blank,

he gives two copies to the patient to take to the pharmacist. The physician

retains the third copy. The pharmacist keeps one copy and forwards the

other to the DOH. From this copy, the following information is entered into

a centralized computer: the practitioner’s name, the patient’s name, age and

address, the product and amount prescribed, and the pharmacist’s name and

address.

Under this program, except for patients with panic and convulsive disorders,

prescriptions for benzodiazepines can only be written for a maximum 30-day

supply. Refills are not permitted. Patients must receive a new prescription

for additional medication. When prescribing for epilepsy and panic disorder,

practitioners must specify on the prescription the condition either by name or

by a designated code issued by the DOH. Pharmacists are then allowed to

fill a prescription written for up to a 3-month supply of medication.

As outlined by the New York State Department of Health, the primary

objectives for inclusion of benzodiazepines into the triplicate prescription

program were to reduce diversion to illicit use, to reduce inappropriate

prescribing, and to educate physicians, pharmacists, and the public about

benzodiazepines (NYSDOH 1990). Secondary objectives included tracking

individual patients, prescribers, and pharmacists who may be using the

279
medications and the system inappropriately as well as decreasing medication

expenditures for the NYS Medicaid System. The DOH viewed maintenance

of legitimate benzodiazepine use as inherent in these objectives. In an

address, John Eadie (1988) of the DOH informed the American Medical

Association that, in the opinion of the New York State government,

benzodiazepines are a major public health danger to the citizens of New

York. He noted that the State believes that the high level of abuse, misuse,

and iatrogenic injury associated with benzodiazepines require monitoring

through the triplicate prescription blank program.

The regulations were not passed without strenuous objections from some

interested parties, such as the pharmaceutical industry. Medd (1986)

predicted that further regulation of benzodiazepines would result in

decreased legitimate use and increased costs to patients, the medical

community, and the State. Morgan (1986) argued that long range programs

of public education would be more valuable in alleviating benzodiazepine

abuse. Studer (1986) was concerned that physician prescribing of less

appropriate medications as well as inappropriate patient self medication

would evolve as a result of the triplicate regulations. Workers in the field of

substance abuse treatment also voiced concern. Khuri (1986) warned of the

possibility that benzodiazepine abuse may be further criminalized and driven

underground. Steinhart (1986) observed that the regulations may result in

synthesis of counterfeit benzodiazepines.

Since the outcome of prescribing regulations cannot be accurately predicted,

they are a form of experimentation. We, therefore, saw a need for an

independent review of the consequences of the triplicate regulations. To

evaluate the effects of the triplicate program, we studied prescribing and

expenditures for benzodiazepines, other anxiolytics, and sedative-hypnotics

considered by prescribers as potential alternatives to benzodiazepines as well

as other psychotherapeutic drugs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Table 1 lists all the psychoactive medications that were studied. We assessed

patterns of prescribing and expenditures both before and after institution of

the regulations. Data for analysis were obtained from three independent

sources: IMS America, New York State Medicaid, and Blue Cross/Blue

Shield of the Rochester Area.

280
Table 1

Medications Studied

Benzodiazepines

Alprazolam, Chlordiazepoxide, Clorazepate, Diazepam, Flurazepam,

Halazepam, Lorazepam, Oxazepam, Prazepam, Temazepam, Triazolam

Antidepressants

Amitriptyline, Amoxapine, Buproprion,* Desipramine, Doxepin, Fluoxetine,

Imipramine, Nortriptyline, Protriptyline, Trimipramine, Trazodone

Antipsychotics

Chlorpromazine, Chlorprothixene, Fluphenazine, Haloperidol, Loxapine,

Mesoridazine, Molindone, Perphenazine, Promazine, Thioridazine,

Thiothixene, Trifluoperazine

Miscellaneous Anxiolytes, Sedatives, Hypnotics and Antihistamines

Buspirone, Butabarbital,* Chloral Hydrate, Diphenhydramine, Ethchlorvynol,*

Ethinamate, l Glutethimide, Hydroxyzine, Mephobarbital, Meprobamate,

Methyprylon, Phenobarbital

* Not listed in the New York State Reimbursable Drug List.

281
IMS America Data Base

The IMS national geographic prescription audit provided data from 1988

through the first quarter of 1990. The national prescription audit utilizes

prescription data obtained from a sample of 10,000 pharmacies located within

the 48 contiguous States (IMS 1990). From these pharmacies, IMS collects

every new and refilled prescription. Centralized computers in several

locations around the country enter prescription data from participating

system pharmacies on a continuous basis. Projections made within geographic regions are added together to create State and national estimates for

the number of prescriptions written and dispensed for each medication. IMS

data, therefore, represents estimated total prescriptions for the entire region

under consideration and includes all income groups and payment plans.

Data on numbers of prescriptions written and dispensed for all the drugs

listed in Table 1 were obtained for New York State. For purposes of

comparison, similar data were obtained for three other States, California,

North Carolina and New Jersey–as well as for the entire United States.

California was selected because it is similar to New York State in its

demographic complexity and population size. However, California has a

semirestrictive Medicaid formulary system. Over 450 drugs are listed

generically in the formulary but the patient’s physician or pharmacist may

request authorization from the local Medi-Cal consultant for approval of

unlisted drugs. By contrast, New York State has a restrictive formulary

system under which payment for medications is limited to those listed in the

authorized Medicaid reimbursable drug list (NYSDOH 1990). Unlike New

York State, North Carolina has an open formulary system for Medicaid

patients. New Jersey was selected because it is geographically contiguous

with New York State.

We obtained Medicaid prescribing and expenditure data for 1987 through

June 1990 from the Division of Medical Assistance, Department of Social

Services of New York State. Data were obtained on all drugs listed in table

1 except those indicated as not reimbursable by New York State Medicaid.

The total number of prescriptions written as well as the total Medicaid

expenditures for each drug were analyzed.

Medicaid is a State-funded medical assistance program. Beneficiaries are

generally lower income or unemployed. The total Medicaid eligible

282
population of New York State is about 2.2 million persons, of whom

approximately 1.3 million receive benefits annually .

The data obtained represent total capture of all prescriptions and reimbursement for the entire New York State Medicaid population.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield of the Rochester Area Data

We obtained Blue Cross/Blue Shield reimbursement data on prescribing for

1987 through 1989. Data were obtained on all medications listed in table 1.

The units (e.g., tablets or capsules) dispensed for each medication were

evaluated.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance coverage is paid for by clients and

their employers. We obtained data from three treatment rider plans. Under

the terms of these plans, the subscriber paid the first $2, $3, or $5 of the

prescription cost. Blue Cross/Blue Shield reimbursed the pharmacist for the

remainder. Total membership for these plans averaged just over 100,000 per

year. Subscribers of BC/BS of the Rochester Area are generally employed,

middle income Americans, and their family members who live in six counties

of New York State: Monroe, Yates, Seneca, Ontario, Wayne and Livingston.

RESULTS

Benzodiazepine Prescribing

A small decrease in total U.S. benzodiazepine prescribing throughout 1988

was seen in the IMS data. This decrease was also noted in California, New

York State, and, to a lesser extent, in New Jersey. In 1989 and early 1990,

gradual decreases continued in total U.S. prescriptions as well as in California and North Carolina. However, during the first quarter of 1989, just

after the triplicate regulations took effect, IMS recorded a 33 percent

decrease in benzodiazepine prescribing in New York State. The trend continued, with total prescriptions falling from 5.3 million in 1988 to 2.96 million

in 1989, and in the first quarter of 1990 to 603,000.

New York State Medicaid data also revealed a small decrease in benzodiazepine prescribing before the 1989 regulations. From 1987 to 1988, there was a

4 percent decline in Medicaid benzodiazepine prescriptions. However, after

the regulations went into effect, benzodiazepine prescriptions for Medicaid

283
patients fell by 60 percent–from 1.5 million in 1988 to 600,000 in 1989. The

large post regulation decrease in benzodiazepine prescribing has persisted

into early 1990 (218,000 for the first 6 months).

Blue Cross/Blue Shield subscribers were already receiving a declining

number of benzodiazepines before the regulations went into effect. After

institution of triplicate regulations, i.e., from 1988 to 1989, there was a further

30 percent decrease.

Medicaid Expenditure Data

Before the triplicate regulations, Medicaid expenditures for benzodiazepines

were decreasing slightly. From 1987 to 1988 expenditures went down 8.3

percent. However, when the regulations went into effect, expenditures

decreased by 51.9 percent, from $21.7 million in 1988 to $10.4 million in

1989. During the first 6 months of 1990, there was a 3 percent increase in

benzodiazepine expenditures from the 6-month mean of 1989 ($5.4 versus

$5.2 million).

Expenditures for alternative sedative hypnotic medications increased 115

percent, from $3.9 million in 1988 to $8.4 million in 1989. This increase has

persisted into 1990.

Expenditures for the other nonsedative-hypnotic psychotherapeutic drugs

studied remained constant until the second 6 months of 1989, when spending

increased 28 percent to $13.4 million from a first 6 month figure of $10.4

million. In the first half of 1990 these expenditures increased a further 16.6

percent, to $15.6 million.

The net effect of these changes on total expenditures for the entire group of

psychotherapeutic medications was a decrease of 2.4 percent, from $46.7

million in 1988 to $45.6 million in 1989. However, in the first 6 months of

1990, total expenditures increased 17.6 percent from the 1989 6-month mean

of $21.3 million to $25 million.

284
Alternative Medication Prescribing Data

From the IMS database (table 2) it is evident that prescribing for a number

of drugs decreased in the United States (excluding NYS) from 1988 to 1989

compared to increases in New York State, e.g., meprobamate, -9 percent

nationally versus + 12.5 percent in New York; methyprylon, -15 percent versus

+84 percent; ethchlorvynol, -18 percent versus + 29 percent; butabarbital,

-15 percent versus + 31 percent; hydroxyzine, -1.1 percent versus + 15 percent,

and chloral hydrate, -0.4 percent versus + 136 percent. Some newer and

more expensive potential alternatives, e.g., buspirone and fluoxetine increased

both nationally and in New York State, but increased to a greater extent in

New York. Increased prescribing of these drugs continued into early 1990.

Since percentage increases from a small base may cause distortions, the

actual numbers of prescriptions for alternative medications are presented in

table 2.

Prescribing of alternatives also increased in the New York State Medicaid

data. From 1988 to 1989, meprobamate increased 225 percent, hydroxyzine

26 percent, chloral hydrate 99 percent, and buspirone 126 percent.

Fluoxetine prescribing increased by 1,250) percent. Unlike the IMS data,

Medicaid also recorded increased diphenhydramine use from 1988 to 1989.

Increased prescribing of potential replacement medications has continued

into early 1990. Methyprylon, ethchlorvynol, and butabarbital are not

reimbursable by New York State Medicaid.

Meprobamate, butabarbital, hydroxyzine, chloral hydrate, buspirone, and

fluoxetine utilization also increased in the Blue Cross/Blue Shield population

As in the Medicaid data, Blue Cross/Blue Shield also recorded increased

prescribing of diphenhydramine.

DISCUSSION

All three data bases indicate that the triplicate regulations have resulted in a

marked decrease in benzodiazepine prescribing in New York State. Medicaid

expenditures for benzodiazepines have also decreased. However, there was

not a corresponding decrease in total expenditures for all sedative and

psychotherapeutic drugs studied. Among the possible reasons are increased

cost of benzodiazepines, the use of more expensive alternative medications,

285
Table 2

Alternative Psychotherapeutic Medications Prescribed,

1988 and 1989, in thousands of prescriptions (IMS Data).

New York State Total U.S. minus N.Y.S.

Medications: 1988 1989 1988 1989

Meprobamate 122 275 2,005 1,826

Methyprylon 22 41 123 104

Ethchlorvynol 17 22 218 178

Butabarbital 46 60 715 608

Hydroxyzine 530 608 6,829 6,756

Chloral Hydrate 43 102 529 527

Buspirone 154 333 1,782 2,194

Fluoxetine 147 356 2,754 5,778

Note: Decimals have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

286
such as buspirone and possibly fluoxetine, as well as changes in Medicaid

payment practices.

Particularly striking is the large percentage increase in the prescribing of

alternative drugs such as meprobamate, ethchlorvynol, methyprylon, chloral

hydrate, and butabarbital in New York State. These medications have been

almost totally replaced by benzodiazepines in modern medical practice. Our

data, thus, do not support the State’s contention (NYSDOH 1990) that

“substitution of alternative drugs has not been a significant issue.” The

Medicaid reimbursable list appears, however, to have “protected” beneficiaries

from receiving some of the alternative medications.

There are potential weaknesses in each of the data bases. IMS, while

comprehensive, uses samples to predict total prescriptions. Thus, the

accuracy of the estimates may be questioned. However, IMS has been collecting and generating this type of data for almost 30 years and its data are

widely used both by academic researchers and by the pharmaceutical industry. The Blue Cross/Blue Shield population is continuously changing as

clients change jobs and employers change health insurance plans. Thus, it

includes a select and variable group of middle income New York State residents who may not be representative of typical prescription recipients. There

may be some bias in the Medicaid data because not all physicians in New

York State see Medicaid patients. However, the concurrence of results from

three different data sources cannot be ignored.

The effects that prescribing regulations have on the use of alternative drugs

are well recognized. Blackwell (1973) commented on the control of minor

tranquilizers and the possibility that it may encourage physicians to revert to

using more “potent and dangerous alternate drugs.” Attempts at controlling

dextropropoxyphene (Shenfield et al. 1980) and antibiotics (Kunin et al. 1973)

have resulted in the use of potentially unacceptable alternatives.

Since their introduction in 1961, benzodiazepines have enjoyed an enormous

popularity among physicians and patients alike. As noted in the current

edition of the standard pharmacology textbook, The Pharmacologic Basis of

Therapeutics, benzodiazepines have a reputation for a low incidence of abuse

and dependence (Rall 1990). The World Health Organization (1982) report

on psychotropic substances noted that “very few use benzodiazepines as their

primary drug of abuse.” In the United States, Ayd (1981) reported that most

long term single benzodiazepine users do so for therapeutic purposes.

Benzodiazepine abuse does not lead to hard drug abuse although the reverse

287
seems to occur (Marks 1985). Mortality from overdosage of benzodiazepines

done is extremely rare (Marks 1985; Finkle et al. 1972; Prescott 1983).

Rall (1990) summarizes the reasons for the decline of barbiturate prescribing

and increased use of benzodiazepines. He notes that barbiturates “lack

specificity of effect in the central nervous system, they have a lower

therapeutic index than do the benzodiazepines, tolerance occurs more

frequently than with benzodiazepines, the liability for abuse is greater and the

number of drug interactions is considerable.”

Other alternative sedative hypnotics have shown deficiencies as well. Meprobamate is preferred to the benzodiazepines by subjects with a history of drug

abuse (Roache and Griffiths 1987; Kaufman et al. 1972). Miller and Gold

(1989) make the arresting comment that “there is really no valid therapeutic

indication for meprobamate.” Habituation, tolerance, physical dependence,

and addiction occurs with methyprylon, chloral hydrate, and ethchlorvynol

(Rail 1990). Intoxication with these agents is quite similar to barbiturate

poisoning. Mortality from barbiturate poisoning has ranged from 2 to 40

percent (Rail 1990). Sudden withdrawal from habitual chloral hydrate use

may result in delirium and seizures with a high frequency of death. Chronic

users of chloral hydrate may suddenly exhibit acute intoxication (Rall 1990).

Death from chloral hydrate may occur as the result of an overdose or, in the

presence of hepatic injury, a failure of the detoxification mechanism (Rall

1990). The medications being prescribed in New York State to replace

benzodiazepines can thus be seen to have major disadvantages.

The use of alternatives has not fully replaced the decrease in benzodiazepine

prescribing. Therefore, there are patients who were previously using benzodiazepines or who would have been prescribed benzodiazepines who are

probably not being prescribed any minor tranquilizer. In some cases, this

will, of course, be excellent medical practice. In others, however, it may

indicate undertreatment of clinically significant insomnia and anxiety.

Some evidence exists that drinking alcohol may be a form of self-medication

acting as an alternative to taking prescription tranquilizers, at least for males

(Mellinger et al. 1978). There are suggestions of beneficial social effects

from the use of tranquilizers both at work (Proctor 1981) and in the

circumstances of general life (Marks 1985). It is, therefore, important to

consider whether potential outcomes from benzodiazepine regulation are

acceptable.

288
According to a New York State Department of Health publication, the Drug

Enforcement Agency (DEA) estimated that emergency room admissions for

both benzodiazepine and alternative sedative-hypnotic overdoses have

decreased from 1988 to 1989 (NYSDOH 1990). However, data from the

New York City Poison Control Center (Maddaloni et al. 1990), indicate that,

although benzodiazepine exposures have decreased, total overdoses with all

sedative hypnotics have not changed. In addition, the Department of Health

reports that DEA estimated an increase of 77.7 percent in meprobamate

overdoses from 18 in 1988 to 32 in 1989 (NYSDOH 1990). A potential result

of the decreased availability of benzodiazepines remains a significant increase

in overdoses from the more toxic alternative sedative hypnotics.

In New York State before the 1989 regulation, only 58 percent of practitioners possessed triplicate prescription pads. This percentage may have increased since the 1989 change (NYSDOH 1990). Physicians may have many

reasons for being reluctant to use triplicate prescriptions including theft. In

New York City, one report indicated that the street price of a single triplicate

pad ranges between $100 and $125 (Rodos 1990). In Texas, the price may be

as high as $150 (Troisi et al. 1989). Although there is a prison term plus a

$2000 fine for any breach of confidentiality (Brahams 1990), computerized

State records of the name of both prescriber and patient, represents, to some,

an unacceptable public intrusion into confidential and private domains. Some

physicians may also resent filling out more forms. By targeting practitioners,

triplicate prescription legislation assumes a significant degree of involvement

by the majority of practitioners in drug abuse and drug diversion (Troisi et al.

1989). Some physicians may find this contention both insulting and lacking

substantiation.

The triplicate benzodiazepine prescription regulations appear to have fulfilled

some of their goals, but not all. In addition, they have generated new problems. The major negative consequence seems to be prescribing less acceptable alternatives, which suggests that State regulations may not be the only

answer to prescription medication abuse or misuse. Tight controls of one

class of medications may, as has been demonstrated here, cause legitimate

transfer to alternative substances. It is important, therefore, to ensure that

too rigorous control of low-risk medications does not encourage movement to

drugs of higher risk. Marks (1985) emphasized that the medication control

actions of legislators may perpetuate the abuse they wish to prevent. Professional and lay education must be considered as alternatives to legislation

(Rodos 1990). Wider dissemination of the sensible, well-referenced data and

289
recommendations of the American Psychiatric Association (APA 1990) would

be an excellent start for educational interventions.

Other States are moving toward regulation of benzodiazepine prescribing.

The Ohio Medicaid system will now only reimburse for Xanax (Upjohn) prescriptions after obtaining a second, concurring opinion (Brahams 1990).

California, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, Washington, and Rhode Island are

currently contemplating triplicate benzodiazepine prescription regulations. At

the Federal level, Congressman Stark (California) has proposed making all

benzodiazepines Schedule II drugs.

Unfortunately, the true benefit-to-risk ratio of the regulations in New York

State remains both unknown and difficult to estimate. However, the wider

public health, patient care, and financial implications of triplicate

benzodiazepine prescribing regulations are of concern and require further

evaluation before wider dissemination.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association, Task Force on Benzodiazepine

Dependency. Benzodiazepine Dependence, Toxicity, and Abuse.

Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1990.

Ayd, E. Diazepam-the question of long term therapy and withdrawal

reactions. Drug Ther, (special supplement) 1981.

Blackwell, B. Tranquilizer control. JAMA :223:798, 1973.

Brahams, D. Benzodiazepine over prescribing: Successful initiative in New

York State. Lancet 336:1372-1373, 1990.

Eadie, J.L. Benzodiazepine abuse and misuse: New York State’s response.

Paper presented at the American Medical Association’s National

Symposium on Medicine and Public Policy, December 1988.

Finkle, B.S.; McCloskey, K.L.; and Goodman, L.S. Diazepam and drug

associated deaths; a United States and Canadian survey. JAMA 242:429-

434, 1979.

IMS America: A company of the Dunn and Bradstreet Corporation.

Customer information literature, 1990.

Kaufman, A.; Phillip, W.; Brickner, M.D.; Varner, R.; and Mashburn, W.

Tranquilizer control. JAMA 221:1504-1506, 1972.

290
Khuri E. Minutes of the Public Health Council public hearing on

benzodiazepines-Requiring triplicate prescriptions for dispensing. Hunter

College School of Social Work Auditorium, November 14, 1986, pp. 69-

73.

Kunin, C.M.; Tupasi, T.; and Craig, W.A. Use of antibiotics: A brief

exposition of the problem and some tentative solutions. Ann Intern Med

79:555-560, 1973.

Maddaloni, M.A.; Hoffman, R.S.; and Wipfler, M.G. The effect of the

triplicate benzodiazepine prescription regulation on sedative hypnotic

overdoses. Vet Hum Toxicol 32:355, 1990.

Marks, J. The Benzodiazepines: Use, Overuse, Misuse, Abuse, 2nd. ed.,

Lancaster, England and Boston: MTP Press 1985.

Medd, B. Minutes of the Public Health Council Public Hearing on

benzodiazepines-Requiring triplicate prescriptions for dispensing. Hunter

College School of Social Work Auditorium, November 14, 1986, pp. 23-

27.

Mellinger, G.D.; Balter, M.B.; Manheimer, D.I.; Cisin, I.H.; and Parry, H.J.

Psychic distress, life crisis and the use of psychotherapeutic medications:

National Household Survey data. Arch Gen Psych 35:1045-1052, 1978.

Miller, N.S., and Gold, M.S. Sedative/Hypnotics. In: Grannini, J.A., and

Slaby, A.E., eds. Drugs of Abuse. Oradell, NJ: Medical Economics Books,

1989, pp. 243-263.

Morgan, J. Minutes of the Public Health Council Public Hearing on

benzodiazepines-Requiring triplicate prescriptions for dispensing. Hunter

College School of Social Work, Auditorium, November 14, 1986, pp. 42-

48.

National Pharmaceutical Council. Pharmaceutical Benefits Under State

Medical Assistance Programs. Washington, DC: the Council, 1990, pp. 160-

164.

New York State Department of Health. Medicaid Reimbursable drugs.

Albany, NY: NYSDOH, 1984.

New York State Department of Health. Bemodiazepines. Epidemiology Notes

1989: 4(12): 1989;5(1):1990.

New York State Department of Health, Division of Public Health Protection.

New York State’s Regulation Placing Benzodiazepines on Triplicate

Prescriptions: The First Year 1989. Albany, NY: NYSDOH, 1990.

Prescott, L.P. Safety of the benzodiazepines. In: Costa E., ed. The

Benzodiazepines: From Molecular Biology to Clinical Practice. New York:

Raven Press, 1983. pp. 252-266.

Proctor, R.C. Prescription medication in the work place. North Carolina

Medical Journal 42;542-547, 1981.

291
Rall, T.W. Hypnotics and sedatives; ethanol. In: Gilman, G.A.; Rall, T.W.;

Nies, A.S.; and Taylor, P. eds. The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeu-tics

8th ed. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, 1990. pp. 345-382.

Roache, J.D., and Griffiths, R.R. Lorazepam and meprobamate dose effects

in human behavioral effect and abuse liability. J. Pharmacol Exp Ther

243:978-988, 1987.

Rodos, J.J. Education not legislation resolves benzodiazepine abuse. J Am

Osteopath Assoc 90:26-30, 1990.

Shenfield, G.A.; Jones, A.N.; and Patterson, J.W. Effects of restrictions on

prescribing patterns for dextropropoxyphene. Br Med J 281:651-653, 1980.

Steinhart, M. Minutes of Public Health Council Public Hearing on

benzodiazepines-Requiring triplicate prescriptions for dispensing. Hunter

College School of Social Work Auditorium, November 14, 1986, pp. 73-78.

Studer R. Minutes of Public Health Council Public Hearing on benzodiazepines-Requiring triplicate prescriptions for dispensing. Hunter College

School of Social Work Auditorium, November 14, 1986, pp. 51-54.

Troisi, A.J.; Picha, N.; and Evans, G.E. Triplicate prescription: An idea

whose time has yet to come. Maryland Med J 38:45-47, 1989.

World Health Organization Report of the 6th World Health Organization

Review of Psychoactive Substances for International Control. Geneva,

Switzerland: WHO 1982.

N.B. A modified version of this paper containing additional graphical

representations of this data has now been published, viz.: Weintraub, M.;

Singh, S.; Byrne, L.; Muharaj, K.; and Guttmacher, L. Consequences of the

1989 New York State triplicate benzodiazepine prescription regulations.

JAMA 266:2392-2397. 1991.

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank the following persons for their

assistance in data collection: Andrew F. Nelson, Division of Medical

Assistance, Department of Social Services, New York State and Elaine Ritter,

Medical Affairs Administrator, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of the Rochester

Area.

292
AUTHORS

Michael Weintraub, M.D.

Satesh Singh, M.B., B.S.(Hons)

Louise Byrne, B.A.

Department of Community and Preventive Medicine

Kumar Maharaj, R.Ph.

Laurence Guttmacher, M.D.

Department of Psychiatry

University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry

Rochester, NY 14642

293
Changes in Prescribing Patterns in Long-Term Care

Facilities and Impact on Incidence of Adverse Events

Sergio G. Zullich, Thaddeus H. Grasela, Jill B.

Fiedler-Kelly, and Francis M. Gengo

INTRODUCTION

It is an art of no small importance to administer medicines

properly, but it is a much greater and more difficult art to

know when to suspend them.

Phillipe Pinel, 1820.

The triplicate prescription program was established 12 years ago in New

York State to control the prescribing of drugs believed to have a high

potential for abuse. Under this program, all Schedule II drugs, such as

narcotics, barbiturates, and amphetamines, must be prescribed on a New

York State Triplicate Prescription form. One copy of this triplicate

prescription is forwarded to the Department of Health; the pharmacist and

prescribing physician retain the other copies. This program provides a

mechanism for monitoring physician prescribing habits and identifying highvolume prescribers of Schedule II medications. New York State Department

of Health officials have stated that this program contributed to the reduction

of abuse and misuse of Schedule II drugs (NYS 1989).

Benzodiazepines have been used extensively for the treatment of anxiety or

insomnia (Bellantuono et al. 1980). It is estimated that 60 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed in the United States alone in 1986 and

these agents have consistently appeared in the list of Top 10 drugs prescribed

(Higgins 1989). Although there is general agreement among practitioners

regarding the benefit of short-term benzodiazepine therapy, there continues

to be controversy regarding the risk of long-term use because of the potential

for dependency and addiction (Mellinger et al. 1984; Uhlenhuth et al. 1988).

In an effort to minimize inappropriate prescribing of the benzodiazepines,

New York State recently passed legislation to regulate the use of

294
benzodiazepines by requiring that they be prescribed using triplicate

prescriptions.

A recent report published by the New York State Department of Health

indicated that the number of benzodiazepine prescriptions written in New

York State decreased from 80 to 53 percent, depending on the population

studied, since the regulation was implemented on January 1, 1989 (NYS 1989,

1990). Conversely, the New York State Department of Health reports that a

review of prescription data from Medicaid; the Empire Plan, which provides

health care insurance for over 423,000 State and local government employees,

retirees, and dependents; and the Elderly Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage

(EPIC) prescription program, a State cost-sharing program that provides

prescription drug insurance to more than 70,000 low- and moderate-income

individuals aged 65 or older, show a marginal increase in claims for potential

benzodiazepine substitute drugs not currently included in the triplicate

prescription program. This increase does not appear to offset the decline in

the number of benzodiazepine prescriptions, suggesting that there has been

either a net decrease in the number of patients receiving sedatives, hypnotics,

or anxiolytics or a reduction in the extent of inappropriate benzodiazepine

use (NYS 1990).

Reports in the literature have shown that the elderly are one of the largest

users of benzodiazepines (Mellinger et al. 1984). One study indicates that up

to 26 percent of the benzodiazepine anxiolytics and 40 percent of the benzodiazepine hypnotics were prescribed for the elderly (Beardsley et al. 1989).

Studies of psychotropic drug use in nursing homes show that benzodiazepines

are used extensively for anxiety and insomnia. It is estimated that one-third

of nursing home residents take benzodiazepines regularly for insomnia

(Beardsley et al. 1989; Buck 1989; Beers et al. 1989; Ray et al. 1980; James

1985). This implies that the elderly, as a group, may be significantly affected

by the recent legislation.

The potential increase in use of benzodiazepine substitutes prompted by the

triplicate legislation requires close evaluation because many of the drugs used

as alternatives to benzodiazepines would be expected to have a greater risk

for toxicity than benzodiazepines. This is especially true in the elderly who

are more susceptible to adverse events associated with the use of the

alternative psychoactive drugs (Beers and Ouslander 1989; Jones 1985). For

example, barbiturates and glutethimide, which might be used as nighttime

sleep aids, have a much more narrow therapeutic index and higher risk for

respiratory depression than benzodiazepines. Neuroleptics and

295
antidepressants have been associated with increased risk of falling, hip

fractures from falls, and abnormal involuntary movement disorders (Sobel

and McCart 1983; Granek et al. 1987; Ray et al. 1987; Ray et al. 1989; Jenike

1983). Antihistamine use has been associated with anticholinergic side effects

such as increased agitation, memory impairment, and urinary retention

(Blazer et al. 1983). Antihistamines may also cause an increase in viscosity of

pulmonary secretions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,

which might increase the risk of pneumonia. Barbiturates are involved in

numerous drug interactions due to changes in hepatic metabolism. They may

increase the clearance and decrease serum concentrations of antiarrhythmics,

antihypertensives, and antibiotics leading to a decrease in efficacy of these

drugs. Barbiturates also have a lower clearance rate in the elderly, which

increases the possibility of adverse effects (Beers and Ouslander 1989).

This study was undertaken because observations of the benzodiazepine

prescribing patterns in a group of nursing homes in the western New York

area after the implementation of the triplicate program suggested that

benzodiazepines were being replaced by other psychoactive agents such as

antidepressants, antihistamines, barbiturates, neuroleptics, and buspirone. If

confirmed, this switching to alternative agents represents an important

consequence of the triplicate program because of the risks attendant to these

agents. The objectives of this study were, first, to assess the impact of the

triplicate prescription legislation on benzodiazepine and “benzodiazepine

substitute” prescribing patterns and, second, to determine the clinical

consequences of alteration in prescribing patterns in terms of significant

adverse events occurring in a nursing home patient population.

METHODS

The records of all nursing home patients who resided in one of ten nursing

homes in the western New York State area during the l-year period from

July 1, 1988, to June 30, 1989, were reviewed for this study. These ten

nursing homes were selected because they were serviced by a single clinical

pharmacy consulting service. The medication administration record, medical

chart, and medical records for all patients were reviewed retrospectively by

one of the authors (SGZ). Data taken from the medication administration

record included age, sex, and information regarding regularly scheduled and

as-needed psychoactive medications as defined by the New York Quality Assurance System (NYQAS 1988). These agents include antidepressants, neuroleptics, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, antihistamines with central nervous

system activity, and sedative/hypnotics. All patients who were prescribed a

296
benzodiazepine during the time period of interest were subsequently included

in the analysis described below.

Patient diagnoses were obtained from the medical chart and coded according

to the International Classification of Diseases Code Book (ICD-9-CM)

(Commission on Professional and Dospital Activities 1978). The first three

diagnoses that included any neurologic or psychiatric disorders were used.

The patient’s medical record and the institution incidence reports were

reviewed to determine the number of adverse events possibly associated with

psychoactive drug therapy. The number of patients who experienced a fall,

hip fracture, hospital admission, behavioral outbursts, or any report of

psychological, somatic, or perceptual changes from baseline occurring within

1 week of discontinuing a benzodiazepine were recorded. Psychological

symptoms included any reported increase in anxiety, agitation, irritability, or

lethargy. Somatic symptoms included insomnia, headache, muscle pain, tremors, and seizures. Perceptual symptoms included incoordination, vertigo,

paranoia, paresthesia, flu-like symptoms, and visual hallucinations (Noyes et

al. 1988; Roy-Byrne and Hommer 1988; Zarr 1989; Kellman 1988). Nursing

homes operate under statutory requirements to document all falls, hip

fractures, and hospital admissions and the administrative records were

reviewed to identify patients who experienced these adverse events. The

information regarding the occurrence of behavioral outbursts or reports of

psychological, somatic, or perceptual changes were collected by review of

medical records and nursing notes. These events were selected as indicators

of exacerbation of underlying chronic medical conditions, withdrawal from

benzodiazepines, or an adverse event to the replacement agent, if any was

used. No attempt was made to discriminate the cause of these events.

Patients who exhibited an emotional outburst during the period of 1 week

prior to discontinuing benzodiazepines were not included in the analysis.

Data collected for the adverse events included date of occurrence, description

of the event, and a list of regularly scheduled medications the resident was

receiving at the time of the event.

Methods to ensure patient confidentiality were approved by the university

investigational review board.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Prescribing patterns and adverse events were recorded for a 6-month period

prior to and after the triplicate prescription program went into effect. The

297
data were analyzed for changes in prescribing patterns on a monthly basis

during the study period to evaluate the impact legislation may have had on

benzodiazepine prescribing in long-term care facilities.

In order to determine the clinical consequences of the triplicate regulations, a

group of patients that had been receiving regularly scheduled benzodiazepine

therapy and who were either discontinued from benzodiazepine therapy or

switched to an alternative agent after the implementation of the triplicate

regulations were identified. For each adverse event studied, the population

risk ratio for the patients who were discontinued from benzodiazepines was

calculated by dividing the number of patients with the particular adverse

event after discontinuing benzodiazepines by the number of patients experiencing the event before discontinuing benzodiazepines (Kleinbaum et al.

1982). The McNemar X2 test for significance of changes was used to test the

hypothesis of no difference between the number of patients having adverse

events before and after benzodiazepine therapy was discontinued. Ninety-five

percent confidence intervals were constructed for the population risk ratio of

each adverse event. Statistical significance was defined as p< 0.05.

RESULTS

Patients residing in 10 long-term care facilities (8 private for-profit and 2

public non-profit facilities) from the western New York State area were

studied. The total number of skilled nursing beds was 1,017 and the number

of health related beds was 170. Out of the total possible nursing home population of 1,187 patients who were residents during the study period, the

charts of 809 residents with complete documentation were available for

review. In the remaining 378 patients, medical records were either missing or

data regarding drug administration were incomplete. There were 583 females

(72.1 percent) and 226 males (27.9 percent). The average age of the residents was 81.7 years old (S.D. = 9.7) with a range of 40 to 103 years. The

nursing home population for all the facilities were similar in distribution of

patients with a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (5.2 percent), organic brain

syndrome (32.4 percent), dementia (21.6 percent), and percent of patients

prescribed benzodiazepines (20.5 percent).

Overall levels of benzodiazepine use did not vary significantly during the

period from July 1988 to December 1988. On average, 25 percent of the

psychoactive drug orders between July 1988 and December 1988 were for a

benzodiazepine. From January 1989 to June 1989, coinciding with the

implementation of the triplicate regulations on January 1, 1989,

298
benzodiazepine use decreased steadily to a low of 10 percent of all psychoactive drug orders. The decline in benzodiazepine use was accompanied by a

steady increase in the number of orders for alternative agents including

chloral hydrate, diphenhydramine, and phenobarbital as sedative/hypnotics,

and haloperidol, buspirone, and phenobarbital as anxiolytics. Overall

antipsychotic drug use increased slightly during January and February, but

then declined to baseline levels.

In July 1988 there were 171 orders for benzodiazepines, with some patients

taking more than one benzodiazepine. The orders included 63 (37 percent)

orders for sedative/hypnotics, of which 20 (32 percent) were for flurazepam,

18 (29 percent) for temazepam, and 25 (40 percent) for triazolam. In addition, there were 108 (63 percent) orders for an anxiolytic, of which 22 (20

percent) were for alprazolam, 27 (25 percent) for lorazepam, 45 (42 percent)

for diazepam, and 14 (13 percent) for other agents.

A total of 166 patients (20.5 percent) had at least one prescription for a

benzodiazepine during the 6-month period before the triplicate prescription

program went into effect. Eleven of these patients were discontinued from

the drug more than 3 months before the triplicate prescription program was

initiated and these patients were excluded from further analysis. Thus, a

total of 155 patients were evaluated; 78 (50 percent) of these patients were

prescribed a benzodiazepine as an anxiolytic, 53 (34 percent) as a sedative/

hypnotic and the remaining 24 (15 percent) received both an anxiolytic and a

sedative/hypnotic.

During the 3-month period prior to the implementation of the triplicate

prescription program, 65 (42 percent) of the 155 patients were receiving

benzodiazepines on an as-needed basis, accounting for 35 percent of the

anxiolytic patients and 42 percent of the sedative/hypnotic patients. Sixtyseven percent of the patients prescribed both an anxiolytic and a

sedative/hypnotic were taking one or both of the drugs on an as-needed

basis. Of the 65 patients receiving the benzodiazepines on an as needed

basis, 56 (86 percent) patients received less than 10 percent of their

maximum possible dose per month. Of the remaining 9 patients, only one

received an average dosing rate for the 3-month period that was greater than

50 percent of the total possible dose. Because of the low usage, patients who

received benzodiazepine(s) on an as-needed basis were excluded from the

analysis of the population risk ratio for adverse events.

299
A total of 102 patients received benzodiazepines on a regular basis, 51 (50

percent) of whom were on anxiolytics, 31 (30 percent) on sedative/hypnotics,

and 20 (20 percent) on both anxiolytics and sedative/hypnotics. Fourteen

patients were prescribed both an anxiolytic and a sedative/hypnotic

benzodiazepine on an as-needed and regularly scheduled basis.

Of 155 patients receiving benzodiazepine therapy at the time of implementation of the triplicate program, a total of 108 (70 percent) patients

discontinued at least one benzodiazepine, whereas only 47 (30 percent)

patients continued their previously prescribed benzodiazepines. Of the

patients who discontinued benzodiazepine therapy, 74 (68 percent) patients

had their benzodiazepine switched to another psychoactive agent, 24 (22

percent) patients were discontinued from their benzodiazepine and not

prescribed an alternative agent, and 10 (9 percent) patients were receiving a

combination of two or more benzodiazepines and had at least two different

outcomes, e.g., one benzodiazepine was switched to an alternative agent and

the other was discontinued entirely.

Sixty patients discontinued benzodiazepine anxiolytic therapy and the

commonly prescribed alternatives included haloperidol (21 percent), buspirone (8 percent), and phenobarbital (8 percent). Only 17 of these 60

patients were discontinued from all anxiolytics. The number of patients not

prescribed an alternative is greater for those with as-needed dosing than

those with chronic, regularly scheduled dosing. Sixty-four patients discontinued benzodiazepine sedative/hypnotic therapy and the most common alternatives for these patients were chloral hydrate (26 percent), diphenhydramine (14 percent), and phenobarbital (12 percent). Only 17 (27 percent) of

these 64 patients were discontinued from all sedative/hypnotics. As noted

previously, it was more common for a patient receiving benzodiazepines on

an as-needed basis to be discontinued from all sedative/hypnotics than for a

patient receiving chronic, regularly scheduled benzodiazepine therapy. The

60 patients discontinued from benzodiazepine anxiolytics and the 64 patients

discontinued from benzodiazepine sedative/hypnotics represented a total of

124 benzodiazepine prescriptions in 108 patients.

In five patients for whom benzodiazepine therapy was discontinued, an alternative agent was prescribed, and after a short period of time, the original

benzodiazepine was prescribed again. Two of these patients were receiving

an anxiolytic on an as-needed basis and three were receiving a regularly

scheduled sedative/hypnotic.

300
The benzodiazepine regimen of 8 of the 108 patients discontinued from

benzodiazepines was apparently tapered prior to discontinuation of the

benzodiazepine. In each case, the patient was changed from a benzodiazepine on a scheduled basis to an as needed basis before discontinuing the drug

altogether. The patients remained on the as-needed regimen for various

lengths of time, ranging from 2 weeks to 6 months.

There was a total of 15 patients who potentially experienced behavioral,

psychological, somatic, or perceptual changes from baseline, representing 14

percent of all patients discontinued from benzodiazepines. Thirteen of these

fifteen cases were on regularly scheduled benzodiazepines before discontinuation of therapy. One of the patients receiving a sedative/hypnotic on a

regularly scheduled basis was tapered to an as-needed basis for nearly 8

weeks, and the day after switching to ethchlorvynol, experienced this

symptom complex. Another patient developed this symptom complex 3 days

after switching from regularly scheduled to as-needed anxiolytic therapy and

starting phenobarbital.

The population risk ratio for adverse events in the 65 patients who were

receiving regularly scheduled benzodiazepine therapy and who were either

discontinued from benzodiazepine therapy or switched to an alternative agent

after the implementation of the triplicate prescription regulations was 0.63 for

falls, 1.38 for hospitalizations, and 1.04 for any adverse event including falls,

hip fractures, behavioral outbursts, or hospitalization for any reason. A value

greater than 1 indicates an increased risk of adverse event after patients were

taken off benzodiazepines. None of the population risk ratios were statistically significantly different from 1. Small sample sizes in the groups of

patients experiencing hip fractures and behavioral outbursts did not permit a

separate analysis of these events. Thus, hip fractures and behavioral outbursts were combined with falls and hospitalization for any reason to create a

combined category. The population risk ratio for this combined category was

1.04 (p>0.05). In general, there was no discernible trend in the number of

adverse events, except for the occurrence of a cluster of behavioral, psychological, somatic, or perceptual changes observed during the month of

January 1989.

DISCUSSION

There are a number of outcomes anticipated with the implementation of a

triplicate prescription control program, including a reduction in diversion of

benzodiazepines to the illicit market, reduction in the costs of prescription

301
medication use, and a reduction in the number of adverse events related to

inappropriate benzodiazepine use such as falls, emergency room visits, and so

forth. In evaluating a program with many possible outcomes, it was necessary to identify an endpoint to measure a single determinant. We chose to

measure the impact of the triplicate program on prescribing patterns and

patient care in nursing homes for several reasons. First, in a nursing home

population, physician concerns about diversion to the illicit market would be

insignificant. Second, the adverse event rate in elderly patients is intrinsically

higher than in younger patients; thus, we would have the greatest likelihood

of detecting a change in the rate of adverse events. Third, nursing homes are

required by law to maintain administrative records documenting drug prescribing and a number of clinical outcomes of interest to this study, and

fourth, benzodiazepines are widely prescribed in nursing homes.

In previous communications, the New York State Department of Health has

claimed that the inclusion of benzodiazepines in the triplicate program

successfully reduced the use of benzodiazepines, with only a slight increase in

use of alternative agents (NYSDH 1989, 1990). The results of this study

suggest that prescribing patterns for benzodiazepines and other CNS drugs in

nursing homes in western New York State were significantly affected by the

triplicate prescription program, and a somewhat different picture emerges

regarding the prescribing of alternative agents. Although benzodiazepine use

declined markedly, nearly half of these patients were switched to alternative

agents not currently included in the triplicate program. This raises the

question of whether the benzodiazepines were initially an inappropriate

choice and the alternative agent represents more appropriate prescribing, or

whether patients appropriately receiving benzodiazepines were changed to

less appropriate medications. The data present herein were collected

retrospectively so that an assessment of therapeutic appropriateness and a

specific evaluation of efficacy was not possible. However, the prescribing

data for insomnia show a clear increase in use of chloral hydrate and

diphenhydramine with the decrease in benzodiazepine use. These alternative

medications have generally fallen from favor among physicians, in general, for

a number of reasons (Gillin 1991). In addition, well-controlled sleep studies

have not shown antihistamines to have an effect on nocturnal sleep latency,

suggesting that they may be unreliable in inducing nocturnal sleep. Furthermore, agents such as brompheniramine and triprolidine can suppress REM

sleep (Nicholson et al. 1989). These data suggest that antihistamines would

be less efficacious than benzodiazepines for patients needing a sedative/hypnotic. Although chloral hydrate has been shown to reduce nocturnal sleep

latency and increase total sleep time acutely, these effects are not long-lived.

302
Most studies show a loss of hypnotic efficacy within 5 days (Kales et al.

1970). When one adds limited efficacy to the additional side effects from the

anticholinergic actions of antihistamines (Nicholson et al. 1989) or narrow

safety range of chloral hydrate (Kales et al. 1970), it is hard to accept that

increased utilization of these drugs constitutes more appropriate prescribing.

A similar argument can be made regarding the alternative use of neuroleptics

as anxiolytic drugs. These agents have been associated with anticholinergic

effects, orthostatic hypotension, lethargy, and extrapyramidal reactions (Ray

et al. 1987, 1989; Solomon and Hart 1978; Lader et al. 1980; Lader 1980;

Moran et al. 1988). The argument that the triplicate prescription program

results in a change toward more appropriate prescribing becomes even more

tenuous based on changes observed in drug prescribing to treat anxiety.

Moreover, the increased utilization of haloperidol, thioridazine, and other

neuroleptics in an aged population seems contradictory with other New York

State programs designed to review neuroleptic use in institutionalized patients

(NSDOH 1988). These programs have been declared successful due to a decrease in neuroleptic use, but it is difficult to acknowledge the triplicate

prescription program for benzodiazepines to be successful if the result has

been increased neuroleptic use by institutionalized elderly patients.

It has been suggested that the reduction in benzodiazepine use following their

inclusion in the triplicate program has resulted in a cost savings to New York

State. This cost savings is attributable in part to reduced falls, hip fractures,

and hospital admissions. In the results reported here, the risk of falling,

hospitalization for any reason, or all combined events were not significantly

altered despite a reduction in benzodiazepine use. The lack of significant

reduction in these gross indices despite reduced benzodiazepine use may

indicate that the alternative agents also contribute to these risks.

It is important to recognize that the adverse events selected for monitoring

were gross indices to assess the clinical impact of the effect of the change in

prescribing patterns. The fact is that the study was performed retrospectively, and the lack of availability of detailed clinical records did not permit a

study of the more subtle endpoints for efficacy or toxicity of the alternative

agents.

Larger population-based studies have demonstrated important differences in

risks of adverse events in the elderly related to their psychoactive drug use.

Important differences in the risk of adverse events have been noted for long

half-life versus short-half-life drugs. In two studies done by Ray et al.

303
(1987, 1989) it was suggested that long elimination half-life psychotropics may

increase the risk of hip fractures. In a case-control study of a population of

elderly Medicaid participants, it was noted that hypnotic-anxiolytics with an

elimination half-life greater than 24 hours were associated with a greater risk

of hip fracture. This included flurazepam, tricyclic antidepressants, haloperidol, and thioridazine (Ray et al. 1987). A nested case-control study of

residents of Saskatchewan 65 years and older was done to assess the relative

risk of hip fractures in long half-life benzodiazepine versus short half-life

drugs. It was observed that individuals receiving long half-life benzodiazepines had a greater risk of hip fracture (Ray et al. 1989).

In the nursing home population examined herein, the majority of patients

were receiving short half-life benzodiazepines prior to the initiation of the

triplicate prescription program. After enactment of the triplicate legislation,

a significant number of patients were switched to long half-life drugs including antidepressants, haloperidol, phenobarbital, and thioridazine. These

patients may be at an increased risk of adverse events as suggested by Ray et

al. (1987), but we were unable to determine agent-specific population risk

ratios because of the small sample size. At the present time, it is unclear

whether one can validly compare the safety of drugs based on the half-life of

drugs, particularly across classes of drugs. It would be important to specifically evaluate the individual agents typically categorized as short half-life

drugs and to specifically compare benzodiazepines versus nonbenzodiazepines.

Our study demonstrated that a significant number of patients were discontinued from regularly scheduled benzodiazepine therapy with no attempt to

taper the dose. It is interesting to note that only 15 patients (14 percent) of

the 108 patients who stopped benzodiazepine therapy experienced minor

symptoms of behavioral, psychological, somatic, or perceptual changes as

recorded in the medical record and no patient required hospitalization during

the l-week period following discontinuation of benzodiazepine. Fourteen of

the fifteen patients received benzodiazepines longer than 3 months and one

patient for at least 1 month before discontinuation of therapy. Of the 15

cases of this symptom complex observed during the study period, 9 occurred

during the month of January. This is undoubtedly an underestimation of the

number of patients who experienced these symptoms because this study relied

on the medical record and entries were not always made on a daily basis.

This lack of documentation also created difficulties in differentiating the

occurrence of symptoms secondary to benzodiazepine withdrawal versus other

etiologies, such as exacerbation of underlying chronic disease or adverse

304
events caused by the replacement drug, if any. It is unlikely that we missed

serious events resulting from benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome, such as

seizures, however, because these would have resulted in an incident report or

hospitalization. In a review of published studies, it is reported that benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome can occur in 40 to 100 percent of patients

who discontinue therapy abruptly (Roy-Byrne and Hommer 1988; Zarr 1989).

These previous findings suggest that minor symptoms of benzodiazepine

withdrawal syndrome were not detected or reported in a substantial number

of the patients examined in this nursing home population,

It is important to consider a number of potentially significant limitations to

this study. A relatively small number of patients representing prescribing

patterns of a small number of physicians are included in this report. Thus,

our ability to safely extrapolate to other nursing homes in New York State is

limited. In addition, this study addresses the importance of triplicate regulations on a subset of patients and does not address the impact of the triplicate regulation on other patient groups. Furthermore, this study makes no

attempt to measure the impact of the regulation on the diversion of benzodiazepines to the illicit market or its impact on unethical physicians who

abuse prescription writing privileges for profit. New York State has evidence,

however, that the triplicate program has had a desired impact in both of

these important areas (NYSDH 1989, 1990). Finally, the data was collected

retrospectively and a number of difficulties were encountered in obtaining

complete records; nearly 32 percent of patients had to be dropped because of

incomplete data. This does not negate the finding of a significant increase in

utilization of benzodiazepine substitutes. In fact, it may represent an

underestimate of the extent to which prescribing patterns have been altered.

The impact of the missing data on the interpretation of the adverse event

data is unknown, however, and can be substantially affected by the missing

data. Thus, our findings with regard to the adverse events must be

interpreted with caution.

SUMMARY

The addition of benzodiazepines to the triplicate prescription program in

New York State was successful in reducing the use of benzodiazepines in a

nursing home population, but the use of alternative agents was substantially

increased. The reduction in benzodiazepine use could not be shown to be

associated with any reduction in risk of adverse events during a retrospective

review. In order to evaluate the impact of a triplicate prescription program

on patient care, endpoints of efficacy as well as toxicity must be identified

305
prior to the implementation of new legislation. It should be incumbent upon

those States considering implementation of triplicate legislation to realize that

the imposition of these regulations is tantamount to forced enrollment in a

clinical trial for the patients affected by the legislation. A mechanism must

be available to prospectively assess changes in prescribing patterns and their

clinical consequences in order to determine objectively whether the legislative

intervention was a success.

REFERENCES

Beardsley, R.S.; Larson, D.B.; Burns, B.J.; Thompson, J.W.; and Kamerow,

D.B. Prescribing of psychotropics in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc

7:327-330, 1989.

Bellantuono, C.; Reggi, V.; Tognoni, G.; and Garattini, S. Benzodiazepines:

Clinical pharmacology and therapeutic use. Drugs 19:195-210, 1980.

Beers, M.; Avorn, J.; Soumerai, S.B.; Everitt, D.E.; Sherman, D.S.; and

Salern, S. Psychoactive medication use in intermediate-care facility

residents. JAMA 260:3016-3020, 1989.

Beers, M.H., and Ouslander, J.G. Risk factors in geriatric drug prescribing: A

practical guide in avoiding problems. Drugs 37:105-112, 1989.

Blazer, D.G.; Federspiel, L.F.; Ray, W.A.; and Schaffner, W. The risk of

anticholinergic toxicity in the elderly: A study of prescribing in two

populations. J Gerontol 38:31-35, 1983.

Buck, J.A. Psychotropic drug practice in nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc

36:409-418, 1989.

Commission on Professional and Hospital Activities, The International

Classification of Diseases. 9th rev. ed. Clinical Modification: ICD-9-CM.

Ann Arbor, Michigan: the Commission, 1978.

Gillin, J.C. The long and the short of sleeping pills. N Engl J Med 324:1735-

1737, 1991.

Granek, E.; Baker, S.P.; Abbey, H.; Robinson, E.; Myers, A.H.; Samkoff, J.S.;

and Klein, L.E. Medications and diagnosis in relation to falls in a longterm care facility. J Am Geriatr Soc 35:503-511, 1987.

Higgins, L.C. “Benzo” brouhaha may subside. Med World News, June 12,

1989, p. 12.

James, D.S. Survey of hypnotic drug use in nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc

33:436-439, 1985.

Jenike, M.A. Tardive dyskinesia: Special risk in the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc

31:71-73, 1983.

306
Jones, J.K. Adverse drug reaction considerations in geriatric drug research.

Drug Inf J 19:459-468, 1985.

Kales, A.; Kales, J.D.; Scharf, M.B.; and Tan, T.L. All night EEG studies of

chloral hydrate, flurazepam and methaqualone. Arch Gen Psychiatry

23:219-225, 1970.

Kellman, A.M. Letter to the Editor: Benzodiazepine withdrawal. Am J Med

85:755, 1988.

Kleinbaum, D.G.; Kupper, L.L.; and Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic

Research. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982 pp. 388-389.

Lader, M.H. The present status of the benzodiazepines in psychiatry and

medicine. Arzneim-Forsch/Drug Res 30:910-913, 1980.

Lader, M.H.; Bond, A.J.; and James, D.C. Clinical comparison of anxiolytic

drug therapy. Psychol Med 4:381-387, 1974.

Mellinger, G.D.; Baiter, M.B.; and Uhlenhuth, E.H. Prevalence and

correlates of the long-term regular use of anxiolytics. JAMA 251:375-379,

1984.

Moran, M.G.; Thompson, T.L.; and Nies, AS. Sleep disorders in the elderly.

Am J Psychiatry 145:1369-1378, 1988.

New York State Department of Health. Benzodiazepines: prescribing declines

under triplicate program. Epidemiology Notes, December 1989.

New York State Department of Health, Benzodiazepines: additional effects of

the triplicate program. Epidemiology Notes, January 1990.

New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Long Term Care Services.

New York Quality Assurance System (NYQAS) Implementation Manual,

Albany, NY: October 1988.

Nicholson, A.; Bradley, C.M.; and Pasco, P.A. Medications: Effects on sleep

and wakefulness. In: Kryger, M.H.; Roth, T.; and Dement, W., eds.

Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine. Philadelphia, PA: W.B.

Saunders, 1989.

Noyes, R.; Garvey, M.J.; Cook, B.L.; and Perry, P.J. Benzodiazepine

withdrawal: A review of the evidence. J Clin Psychiatry 49:382-389, 1988.

Ray, W.A.; Federspiel, C.F.; and Schaffner, W. A study of antipsychotic use

in nursing homes: Epidemiologic evidence suggesting misuse. Am J

Public Health 70:485-491, 1980.

Ray, W.A.; Griffin, M.R.; and Downey, W. Benzodiazepines of long and

short elimination half-life and the risk of hip fracture. JAMA 262:3303-

3307, 1989.

Ray, W.A.; Griffin, M.R.; Schaffner, W.; Baugh, D.K.; and Melton, L.J.

Psychotropic drug use and the risk of hip fractures. N Engl J Med

316:363-369, 1987.

307
Roy-Bryne, P.P., and Hommer, D. Benzodiazepine withdrawal: Overview and

implications for the treatment of anxiety. Am J Med 84:1041-1052, 1988.

Sobel, K.G., and McCart, G.M. Drug use and accidental falls in an

intermediate care facility. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 17:539-542, 1983.

Solomon, K., and Hart, R. Pitfalls and prospects in clinical research on

antianxiety drugs: Benzodiazepines and placebo-a research review. J Clin

Psychiatry 39:823-831, 1978.

Uhlenhuth, E.H., Dewitt, H.; Balter, M.B.; Johanson, C.E.; and Mellinger,

G.D. Risks and benefits of long-term benzodiazepine use. J Clin

Psychopharmacol 8:161-167, 1988.

Zarr, M.L. Letter to the Editor: Benzodiazepine therapy and withdrawal in

elderly patients. Am J Psychiatry 146:1242, 1989.

N.B. A modified version of this paper containing additional tables and

graphical representations of the data has now been published, viz.:

Zullich, S.G.; Grasela, T.H.; Fiedler-Kelly, J.B.; and Gengo, F. M.

Impact of triplicate prescription program on psychotropic prescribing

patterns in long-term care facilities. Ann Psyhopharm 26:539-546, 1992.

AUTHORS

Sergio G. Zullich, Pharm. D.

Department of Pharmacy, Erie County Medical Center

Buffalo, New York

Thaddeus H. Grasela, Pharm. D.

School of Pharmacy and School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences

State University of New York at Buffalo

Buffalo, New York 14620

Jill B. Fiedler-Kelly,

Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research

School of Pharmacy

State University of New York at Buffalo

Buffalo. New York 14620

Francis M. Gengo, Pharm. D.

School of Pharmacy and School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences

State University of New York at Buffalo

Buffalo, New York 14620

308
A Research Agenda for Prescription Drug Diversion

Control

Constance Horgan, Jeffrey Prottas, Christopher

Tompkins, Linda Wastila, and Melissa Bowden

A. Reasons for Further Research

During our review of prescription drug diversion systems (Horgan el al.

1991), several past, ongoing, and proposed studies involving MCPPs or other

diversion control systems were identified. Often it was perceived by people

involved in diversion control that this issue was being “overstudied.” Moreover, many respondents believed that they already knew the answers to evaluation questions being addressed in some or all of the studies. In the light of

these observations, what could justify more research on this topic? There are

four reasons for considering further research on diversion control systems:

To specify ongoing diversion control activities

To consider outcomes from multiple perspectives, including

impact on medical practice and patient care, as well as the

impact on diversion reduction

To go beyond anecdotal and impressionistic data

To explore the nature and role of subjective experiences in

affecting prescribing behavior

First, States appear to employ various combinations of approaches to diversion control. Some States apparently do much more than others to curb drug

diversion. As a result, program directors and others in the field generally

have idiosyncratic experiences. Moreover, prescribing patterns and substance

abuse patterns apparently differ considerably among States, making comparisons of program efficacy across States difficult. Thus, it is important to

describe the circumstances and interventions relevant to any particular State,

including pertinent State laws and regulations.

Second, the perspective taken by people involved in diversion control is often

strongly influenced by their professional responsibilities. Law enforcement

officials are better able to identify actual and potential benefits of alternative

approaches to prescription drug diversion control. Similarly, health

309
professionals are more often aware of potential effects that diversion control

efforts can have on medical practice and patient care. Thus, the perceived

costs and benefits of alternative diversion control systems are determined

greatly by each observer’s vantage point. An objective and comprehensive

evaluation should take into account these multiple perspectives.

Third, many people involved in the field make use of anecdotal and impressionistic data to support their conclusions. However, reliable data have not

been available to quantify the magnitude of diversion or the effects of diversion control in terms of reduced diversion or changes in medical practice. A

lack of formal evaluation results limits available information, and the extent

of current knowledge should not be considered sufficient to warrant definite

conclusions.

Fourth, it would be worthwhile to investigate in more depth the attitudes of

law enforcement and health professionals regarding their perceptions and

experiences with alternative diversion control mechanisms. Many of the same

voices are heard repeatedly on the subject, but it is not clear the extent to

which these views are held by people working in the relevant professions.

Moreover, it would be useful to supplement other evaluation measures with

attitudinal and subjective indicators for representative population samples in

order to enhance interpretation of other findings.

B. Diversion Control Systems: Pluses and Minuses

This study has shown very clearly that prescription drug diversion control

involves a number of interrelated issues and several disparate points of view.

For an evaluation of the alternative public policy options to be comprehensive, it would have to take into account all of the potential benefits and costs

to society attributable to a diversion control program. Policymakers may

have different opinions about the relative importance of each type of benefit

and cost. However, within relevant resource and data constraints, evaluators

must allow for the testing of pertinent hypotheses regarding alternative

diversion control programs.

A necessary starting point is to establish what criteria might be included in a

formal evaluation. Identifying and measuring all relevant benefits and costs

satisfactorily would be difficult. Also, available data may not be sufficient in

all cases to adequately account for certain important factors.

310
1. Positive aspects

a. Reduced diversion

A basic potential benefit of a diversion control system is reduction in the

diversion of prescription drugs. This could result from impeding the

diversion process, reducing the demand for nonmedical use of prescription

drugs, increasing the probability of catching culpable practitioners, stiffening

the penalties given to offenders, and so forth.

Reduced diversion implies a whole set of related potential benefits, including

reductions in:

short- and long term health consequences of substance abuse,

accidents and injuries

productivity losses

unnecessary expenditures for drug products, and prescribing and

dispensing services.

b. More appropriate use of controlled substances

This potential benefit can take the form of reduced inappropriate drug

therapy and increased appropriate drug therapy. Sometimes the difference

between drug diversion, which is the focus of law enforcement, and drug

therapy, which is in the realm of health professionals, is fundamentally

related to standards of care accepted in the medical community. Systematic

attention to prescribing and diversion patterns for controlled substances could

heighten collective and individual awareness among practitioners regarding

the proper use of those drugs. This could have the effect of decreasing

instances of overprescribing (e.g., using drug therapy longer than necessary)

as well as overcoming tendencies toward underprescribing (e.g., failing to

reach optimal therapeutic dosages).

Developing and evaluating prescribing guidelines and increasing the dialogue

among practitioners regarding the care of individual patients could foster

more optimal prescribing patterns. Although reducing over- and underprescribing are both beneficial to society, their effects on aggregate utilization

rates are exactly opposite. This exemplifies the limitations of using aggregate

data on prescription rates exclusively or indiscriminately.

311
2. Negative aspects

a. Implementation and operating costs

Every diversion control system involves the consumption of capital and labor

resources. Systems differ in terms of the mix of inputs or the technologies

involved, and States (or other governments and institutions) differ in terms of

the level of resources allocated to diversion control. The benefits attributed

to diversion control in any given geographic area must be weighed against the

value of the resources consumed for that purpose.

b. Consequences of underutilization and substitution

In this study, it was learned that some physicians and some patient advocacy

groups believe that the quality of care rendered to patients would suffer as a

result of certain diversion control mechanisms. This could result from

physicians being influenced by cost considerations, inconvenience, or the

prospect of scrutiny. Likewise, patients may avoid medically appropriate drug

therapies due to certain apprehensions: that their medical conditions would

become known; that they would be labeled drug abusers; and that their

names would be “in the computer.” Any such outcomes associated with

inferior treatment, both foregone benefits due to underutilization and higher

risks due to questionable substitutions, ideally should be counted as costs to

society, which detract from the value of the diversion control system.

c. Improper use of information

A diversion control system may generate, organize, centralize, or otherwise

facilitate access to data that threaten the confidentiality of physician-patient

relationships. Interviews carried out in this study strongly suggested that

confidential and sensitive information was closely protected. However, just as

a facet of drug diversion involves dishonest or undisciplined practitioners, so,

too, it must be recognized that a small minority of officials with access to

data may misuse information obtained by the system, either advertently or

inadvertently, or may neglect to adequately protect confidentiality.

C. Areas For Further Study

Several studies, or several distinct components of a larger study, would be

necessary in order to provide comprehensive and reliable assessments regarding the major issues delineated in the previous section. In this section, some

312
analytical approaches and data sources are discussed that could be used to

better understand the costs and outcomes associated with diversion control

systems. These are not intended to be detailed research proposals, but rather

to lay out an agenda for answering the interrelated questions surrounding the

use of diversion control systems. Four domains of research are presented:

the nature and magnitude of diversion; costs and processes associated with

diversion control; reductions in diversion and related outcomes; and effects

on medical practice and patient care.

1. Nature and magnitude of diversion

There appear to be disparate views on the nature and magnitude of

prescription drug abuse and diversion in this country. Idiosyncratic

experiences can lead to distorted perceptions of the problem. Understandably, law enforcement officials who are inundated with diversion cases could

view the problem as being immense. Likewise, physicians who practice for

years without observing drug abuse or diversion could conclude that diversion

is, at most, a small problem.

Notwithstanding the perceptions based on experience, there do not appear to

be very good or recent data on the magnitude of diversion. An important

starting point for this research needs to be specific definitions of diversion,

including operational or observable events that can be used to signify

diversion. Toward that end, many assumptions used in the interpretation of

data should be tested. For example, observing certain drug products on the

street does not necessarily pinpoint their source as diversion (versus illegal

importation or manufacture).

In this study, it has been noted that States may differ in terms of the precise

definition of diversion, i.e., where the line is drawn between criminal

diversion per se and defensible behaviors. However, within the category of

criminal diversion, there is a general consensus on its manifestations. These

include forgeries, doctor shopping, impaired professionals, and deliberate

criminal activities among practitioners. Presumably, definitions of diversion

and estimates of its magnitude could be based on one or more of these

categories of diversion.

Having specified the nature and operational definitions of diversion, research

can proceed to estimate its magnitude. There are several reasons for doing

this. First, data regarding the true magnitude of drug diversion will permit

more informed decisions about the potential value of diversion control and,

313
therefore, the extent of public investment that is justified. Second, if the

levels of diversion could be broken down according to method (e.g., forgeries,

etc.), then the type of diversion control system(s) most appropriate might be

clearer. Third, baseline estimates of magnitude can be compared to subsequent estimates to ascertain the effectiveness of diversion control efforts.

The comparisons could be used to evaluate the overall effectiveness in

controlling diversion versus any tendencies for methods to change. For

example, tamper proof prescription forms may greatly reduce forgeries, but

overall diversion would not show a commensurate decline if diverters increased their doctor shopping. Similarly, monitoring the magnitude of

diversion in comparison sites (e.g., other States) would help to isolate the

unique contributions of diversion control systems.

A number of approaches could be taken to give views of the diversion problem from multiple perspectives. The NIDA National Household Survey sample is not large enough to provide reliable estimates of nonmedical use of

prescription drugs for any given State, but a similar population survey could

be administered to sufficiently large samples of residents in selected areas.

This approach offers the unique advantage of being able to explore possible

substitution of other substances (e.g., street drugs and alcohol) for prescription drugs. Surveys of physicians and pharmacists could reveal the levels of

diversion in their own practices that have caught their attention.

Audits of pharmacy records may be a useful approach as well, where either

individual pharmacies or pharmacies in selected geographic areas constitute

the sampling unit. Auditing all relevant records in all pharmacies within

chosen geographic areas may provide a more comprehensive view, since it

will uncover diversion perpetrated in a single pharmacy (e.g., forgeries and

illegal safes) as well as diversion perpetrated in multiple pharmacies (e.g.,

pharmacy and doctor shopping), assuming that scams are likely to concentrate in particular communities for a period of time. Other data sources may

prove useful as well. Medicaid fraud units and pharmaceutical units within

law enforcement agencies, for example, could provide information regarding

which pharmacies, prescribers, and patients have been implicated in diversion

activity.

Using data sources such as these would permit pharmacies, prescribers, and

patients in the sample to be categorized according to the relative volume of

diversion uncovered. In addition, any or all of these units could be

aggregated into geographic or market areas, which could also be categorized

according to relative amounts of diversion. A likely level of aggregation for

314
evaluation purposes would be the State, since diversion control systems often

are implemented at that level. Any approach of direct measurement may underestimate the actual levels of diversion, because some amount of diversion

is likely to go undetected. Information from other States, i.e., those without

the particular system under study, could be used to make comparisons in

terms of relative diversion levels.

The validity of proxy variables for identifying potential diversion could be

assessed as well. Proxy variables such as prescription volume or exceptions

reports may not require such extensive data collection efforts, but they

provide only indirect measures of diversion. Several systems (such as

ARCOS, Medicaid, and MCPPs) can be used to create exceptions reports

that presumably identify probable diversion activities. The logic is that

entities (pharmacies, etc.) that handle relatively large volumes (e.g., many

times the mean for all pharmacies) are more likely to be involved with diversion and are worthy of closer scrutiny. The extent to which relative prescription volume is associated with diversion levels might be tested empirically.

The observed relative diversion levels of pharmacies, prescribers, market

areas, and possibly individual patients could be compared to their rankings in

terms of the exceptions reports. The closer their correspondence, the more

valid would seem to be the process of generating exceptions reports based on

prescription volume. In addition, the research could be used to select alternative parameters for exceptions reporting that would improve the balance

between falsely identifying potential diverters and failing to identify actual

diverters.

2. Costs and processes associated with diversion control

A second area of research would focus on the diversion control systems

themselves. How are their goals defined? What do they do to control

diversion? How much do those efforts cost? In what way are potential

negative outcomes minimized?

Evaluation issues such as these would require detailed program-specific

information. A case study research approach could provide comprehensive

descriptive information about a system. Researchers would conduct interviews and onsite visits for the purpose of documenting relevant aspects of a

system and its environment. Moreover, for some analyses (e.g., cost),

researchers would need to make other special data collection efforts.

315
a. Cost assessments

An issue of clear concern is the cost of operating the system. Case studies

could provide detailed information related to the differential cost associated

with operating the system for diversion control. Differential cost is not

always the same as total cost, since some retail drug diversion control

methods “piggyback” on other programs. For example, the ARCOS system

generates data and provides certain analyses through DADS that are useful

for diversion control. However, it is not the total cost of ARCOS that

appropriately reflects the differential cost of using these data for retail

diversion control. Conceptually, the differential cost is equal to the amount

of direct savings that would be realized if a retail diversion control system

were discontinued (or reduced or altered, if those were the relevant questions

under study).

As part of the cost accounting analysis, it might be pertinent to estimate the

relationship between program costs and the volume of activity observed.

Classifying costs according to the extent they vary with the volume of effort

(e.g., fixed versus variable) would permit estimation of how costs could

change with possible modifications in the scope, scale, or method of a system.

Finally, the degree of financial cost or burden of effort on practitioners and

patients may have implications for the behavioral responses and perceptions

associated with a diversion control system. For example, charging prescribers

for multiple-copy prescription forms may be a convenient source of funding

but might generate bad feelings and, in and of itself, might reduce the

volume of prescriptions for covered drugs. Other types of costs or burdens

are associated with various systems, including dispenser compliance with

EPOS requirements and pharmacy audits.

b. Process evaluations

Process evaluations describe the activities that are associated with the system.

To address issues of confidentiality and potential misuse of information, it

would be necessary to describe data collection, storage, access, and retrieval.

For that reason, and to better understand the contribution of the program to

the prevention, identification, investigation, and prosecution of drug diversion

cases, the flow of information and the general inner workings of the system

would have to be expounded. Issues to be included in a process evaluation

are:

316
Agencies and staff that are involved

Degree of involvement among key individuals and agencies

Coordination among participants

Accessibility of data to those needing it

Timeliness of data accessibility and reporting

Standards/guidelines used to identify potential diversion

As some of these issues indicate, it is necessary to investigate and document

what other diversion control methods are employed in each State under

observation. The varied and multipronged approaches taken by States for

diversion control necessitate some consideration of the State as the unit of

observation rather than a single system. For example, many States are

engaged in educational as well as investigatory efforts to reduce diversion. In

an evaluation of the outcomes of any particular system, it would be important

to acknowledge the rightful contributions of these other activities to outcomes

in the State.

3. Reductions in diversion and related outcomes

Answering many types of diversion control system evaluation questions entails

isolating the unique circumstances attributable to the diversion system itself.

A potentially powerful approach to this is making quantitative measurements

of outcomes, and making inferences about what would have occurred if the

diversion control system had not been operating. The implementation of a

diversion control system constitutes a natural experimental opportunity for

researchers. The choice to implement could be related to a number of potential causes and effects. The confidence with which inferences about outcomes can be made depends on the extent to which other factors affecting

levels of diversion have been taken into account.

In other words, comparisons must be made between data observed under a

diversion control system and data observed under conditions not involving the

particular system under study. For example, surveys of pharmacists could be

conducted prior to and after implementation of a system in a certain State, if

circumstances permitted, to determine whether there was a reduction in forgery attempts. Alternatively, survey samples could be drawn from States with

and without the diversion control system under study to compare levels of

forgery attempts. It is important to account for factors that could affect

differences over time or across areas, including underlying differences in

abuse patterns, other ongoing diversion control efforts, chance, etc. The

317
need for comparison groups and statistical controls results from the interrelationships among naturally occurring events.

In addition, the measures chosen on which to make comparisons must accurately reflect the concept under study. The value of proxy variables such as

relatively high retail sales volume of a drug may be shown to be high,

through analyses like those described earlier. Otherwise, only relatively

direct measures of diversion should be employed. The alternative of assuming that proxy variables primarily reflect diversion levels would not inform

policymakers regarding the differential effects of interventions on actual

diversion versus acceptable medical practices.

There are other potential benefits to diversion control as well. Some of these

measures would require special studies in order to establish their link to

nonmedical use of prescription drugs. For example, research could investigate the relationships between nonmedical use of prescription drugs and job

performance or vulnerability to accidents or injuries. Such studies are often

undertaken in laboratory settings using standardized tasks and extensive monitoring. A second link necessary to infer reductions in these measures is to

establish that nonmedical use of prescription drugs occurs in the workplace,

before or while driving, etc. Surveys and interviews could probe the circumstances in which drugs are abused as well as the frequency and level of abuse.

Similarly, special studies could investigate the effects of prescription drug

abuse on the use of other health services, police and criminal justice activities, and other social services.

One of the most obvious and straightforward benefits of reduced diversion is

lower costs to third-party payers that reimburse prescribers and dispensers

for their products and services. Indeed, some interest in diversion control

systems emanates from concern about the added costs to insurers for unnecessary prescription drug consumption related to diversion.

Studies of the effectiveness of systems to control diversion could make use of

either time-series or cross-sectional data, or both. Statistical comparisons can

be made of diversion levels in pre- and postimplementation periods or between States. A time-series or repeated measures study design would investigate diversion levels before and after the implementation of a control

system, hopefully observing outcome measures continuously or at several

points in time. Repeated observations may be important in order to safely

conclude that observed differences were due to the diversion control system

and not due to underlying trends or chance factors.

318
Many systems currently in operation were implemented many years ago, and

creating data files referring to that period may not be possible. For other

reasons as well, cross-sectional data referring to geographic locations served

by the diversion control system(s) and comparison locations without the

system(s) could be used. In this type of design, the sample of observations

could refer to different States, permitting the establishment of norms and the

inclusion of covariates thought to be related to levels of diversion. Any

State(s) with the system under study could be compared to similar States, and

differences (net of those related to specified covariates) could be subjected to

statistical tests of significance.

Time-series and cross-sectional analyses could be used in other ways to test

for reductions in diversion. For example, geographic areas smaller than

states (e.g., counties or ZIP codes) could be used to investigate relative

increases in diversion levels in areas that border States implementing a

diversion control system. As another example, the relative usage rates for

individual drugs could be compared pre- and postimplementation, and across

areas. Such analyses could test hypotheses that drugs more popular for

diversion are observed in lower quantities with a diversion control system,

whereas less popular drugs for diversion are observed in the same or higher

quantities.

In addition, specific hypotheses could be tested related to patterns of use.

For example, the relative skewness in the distributions of drug quantities by

patients and by prescribers might provide insight about diversion levels. If a

large part of aggregate reductions are associated with a tiny fraction of

prescribers or patients, this may be more indicative of diversion control than

if quantities were lower for patients and providers across the board. Other

comparisons could include the usage rates within a State in settings subject to

scrutiny versus other settings (e.g., outpatient versus inpatient prescription

rates in MCPP States); or different circumstances (e.g., morphine generally

versus morphine for terminally ill patients).

The implementation or demise of a program is essentially a natural experiment, i.e., not arbitrarily manipulated for experimental purposes, as

previously mentioned. The recent implementation of EPOS in Oklahoma

could provide a valuable opportunity for evaluating the effects of that

approach. Other States that may be looking toward adopting EPOS, such as

Massachusetts, may also provide timely opportunities for conducting pre- and

post analyses.

319
Adding or deleting drugs that are the focus of diversion control efforts also

creates opportunities for studying effects on diversion. A good example is

the addition of a class of drugs, namely, benzodiazepines, in the New York

MCPP. Other States have added individual drugs or classes of drugs to their

MCPPs as well. These provide chances to study the patterns for a select few

drugs at a time, whereas program implementation affects a comparatively

large number of drugs at one time.

4. Effects on medical practice and patient care

The effects of diversion control systems can be investigated within another

domain of research, namely, the more general effects on medical practice and

patient care. The questions raised in this aspect of the research revolve

around the issue of whether physicians, when faced with similar medical situations, change the levels or mix of therapies ordered for patients when a

particular diversion control system is operating. Proponents of diversion

control believe that some reductions in prescription rates may result from

some prescribers “reexamining” their choice of therapies, but that appropriate

prescriptions are not affected. The opposing view is that diversion control

systems intentionally or unintentionally cause a “chilling effect” in the medical

community, interfering with acceptable medical practice patterns.

Specific hypotheses reflected in this controversy cannot be tested, nor can

specific conclusions be drawn regarding the nature of changes in prescribing

patterns, without carefully defining valid measures to be used. Consistent

with some criticisms of data analysis for diversion control, development of

valid measures in this domain requires the clinical context within which prescriptions are written. Thus, the preferred data sources will include relatively

detailed records of medical service and prescription drug utilization, such as

health insurance claims files. In certain circumstances, even more detail may

be useful, such as information taken from medical records, interviews of

patients or practitioners, or surveys of prescribers.

The latter may be indispensable for demonstrating that observed changes

were intended by prescribers, and do not simply reflect changes in diversion

patterns. Even while data collection and regulatory monitoring may affect

prescribing patterns, they may also affect diversion patterns. In other words,

there may be reductions in both diversion and legitimate use of drugs that

are subjected to scrutiny. Similarly, drugs that are not being monitored so

carefully may become preferred by both prescribers and diverters. Interpreting the outcomes properly may require that prescribers be asked directly

320
whether prescriptions for their patients are different because of the

regulation.

As with studies of diversion per se, it is necessary to begin with a baseline

from which comparisons can be made. The baseline could reflect data prior

to implementation of the diversion control system or comparable data from

other States. From the baseline or comparison data, several benchmarks can

be established. For drug usage, these include the proportion of patients who

receive the prescribed medications under study and the overall quantities

prescribed. Utilization rates for other types of services, such as physician

office visits and days of institutional care, would also be helpful in order to

test for possible substitutions for prescription drug therapies.

These measures should be calculated on homogeneous clinical subgroups so

that hypotheses about differential effects for differing clinical circumstances

can be evaluated. The homogeneity of subgroups will depend on the richness

of the data base available. Diagnoses, types, and amounts of health services

received (including inpatient services), and the specialties of physicians seen

would be useful criteria for defining subgroups and are likely to be available

from claims data. To be thorough, researchers may wish to confirm that the

patterns of care associated with the subgroup definitions are comparable

between the analysis and comparison data. For example, patients could

change their preferences among different types of specialists at the same time

that prescribing patterns were changing.

For illustration, consider the following hypotheses. Patients identified in

Medicaid claims records who have been treated for chronic pain due to a

slipped disc will have a lower probability of being prescribed the Schedule II

drug hydromorphone (Dilaudid) or will have lower amounts of hydromorphone prescribed when an MCPP is operating in those patients’ State of residence. Conversely, higher proportions of those patients will be prescribed

alternative or substitute drugs such as the Schedule IV drug pentazocine

(Talwin Nx), which is assumed here not to be covered under the MCPP.

Also, under the MCPP, those patients will have higher rates of physician

visits and will tend to see more physicians over the observation period.

One stage in an analysis would be to select data for the subgroup under study

and to determine the patterns relevant to the hypotheses that patients were

being underserved or inappropriately treated as a result of the regulations.

Statistical comparisons of the data before and after implementation of the

system, or between areas with the system and areas without the system,

321
would indicate whether there was empirical support for the hypotheses.

However, those findings would also be consistent with competing hypotheses,

such as diversion being channeled to lower schedule drugs or physicians

making improvements in care by choosing drugs with lower risks.

Other data sources may be required to firmly demonstrate the relative merits

of the competing hypotheses. Ultimately, such decisions may have to be

made on a case-by-case basis, suggesting that relatively small samples of

cases should be investigated thoroughly. An alternative approach that could

assist in interpreting the data would be to survey physicians regarding their

attitudes and behaviors in response to the diversion control system. That

information could be used to document the nature of the incentives brought

about by the system, as perceived by prescribers, and the likely effects of

those incentives in terms of modified prescribing patterns.

D. Summary and Priorities of Research Agenda

There are several reasons for conducting further research in the area of

prescription drug diversion control systems. Thus far, there has been little

research to quantify the potential positive and negative outcomes of diversion

control or in many cases to differentiate among them. Successful diversion

control would be expected to reduce unnecessary costs associated with nonmedical use of controlled substances. The effects of diversion control on

medical practice patterns generally are rather unclear.

Starting and operating a drug diversion control system consumes government

resources. Choosing an optimal size and type of system in any given State is

obviously an important matter.

To a great extent, settling debates about the pros and cons of diversion

control systems would require something beyond aggregate, proxy variables

such as volume of drug sold. Researchers need to separately specify dependent variables that accurately convey the concepts of diversion (such as

number of forged prescriptions) and acceptable medical practice (such as

prescription rates for patients with specified health conditions). Baseline and

followup data, or cross-sectional data involving several States, can be used to

draw inferences regarding differences in diversion or medical practice patterns associated with the existence of a diversion control system. Assuming

that data limitations will exist for evaluators, in many cases empirical findings

can be used to support or refute hypotheses regarding reductions in diversion

322
or effects on medical practice patterns. From those results, indirect evidence

can be brought to bear on the relative merits of competing hypotheses.

This paper has provided a comprehensive discussion of components of a research agenda for prescription drug diversion control. This forms a basis for

the following recommendations for three research priorities.

First, estimates of the nature and magnitude of diversion need to be improved. This is a difficult undertaking because there are data only on what

gets detected and reported; however, several different sources of information

could contribute to better estimates, albeit underestimates, of diversion

activities. This would involve piecing together existing secondary data from

many different sources, including Federal, State, and local levels. Types of

data that might be useful include State crime lab reports, Medicaid data, nonsuicide DAWN emergency room mentions, and DEA data on various activities related to diversion. The estimates generated in this manner may be

quite rough; however, it would be a first step toward quantifying the magnitude of diversion activities. The process of piecing together data would also

allow an assessment of the gaps in our knowledge regarding certain aspects

of diversion and additional data collection activities might be recommended

in order to improve estimates for the future.

Second, a comprehensive assessment of the EPOS system should be undertaken in Oklahoma and the soon-to-be-operational Massachusetts program.

Reasons for selecting EPOS as a research priority are twofold: (1) the timing

is such that a natural experimental opportunity exists and pre- and postimplementation analyses are possible, and (2) the electronic data transfer aspect of

EPOS is, a new innovation for diversion control systems that appears to have

appeal from an efficiency standpoint and has potential for being replicated

elsewhere.

It is important that an assessment of EPOS be comprehensive and address all

four research domains discussed above. These research domains include: (1)

the nature and magnitude of diversion in each State, (2) the costs and processes associated with diversion control efforts in the State, (3) reduction in

diversion and related outcomes, and (4) effects on medical practice and

patient care. An assessment of the nature and magnitude of diversion would

allow the development of better estimates, perhaps through primary data

collection, which might eventually serve as a model for improved data

collection on magnitude at a national level. The costs and processes are

important to determine how these programs affect the balance between the

323
competing goals of maximizing diversion prevention and identification and

minimizing changes in legitimate and appropriate prescribing. An additional

advantage of taking a comprehensive approach to an evaluation of EPOS is

that the State becomes the unit of analysis, thus State laws and regulations

can be put into perspective.

Third, it would be useful to have an evaluation of two MCPPs and two similar comparison States. It probably is not possible at this point in time to

design a pre- and postevaluation strategy for the MCPP States, unless another State institutes such a program in the near future. However, it is important that the four domains described above be evaluated in a similar fashion

to the EPOS. It would then be possible to attempt to make comparisons

across six indepth and comprehensive case studies of prescription drug

control systems: two EPOS programs, two MCPPs, and two control States.

Because of the lack of knowledge about the extent of diversion, and the dual

impact of prescription drug diversion control programs on both diversion

activities and medical practice, it is essential that a research agenda be

comprehensive across the four domains discussed. The focus should be on

carefully selecting the States for evaluation and then developing common

measures so that all four research domains may be addressed expediently and

simultaneously.

REFERENCES

Horgan, C.; Prottas, J.; Tompkins, C.; Wastila, L.; and Bowden, M. A Review

of Prescription Drug Diversion Control Methods. Uunpublished report,

Center for Drug Abuse Services Research, Bigel Institute for Health

Policy, Brandeis Univerity (under NIDA Contract No. 271-89-8516)

August 1991.

AUTHORS

Constance Horgan, Sc.D.

Jeffrey Prottas, Ph.D.

Christopher Tompkins, Ph.D.

Linda Wastila, R.Ph., M.S.P.H.

Melissa Bowden, B.A.

Center for Drug Abuse Services

Research, Bigel Institute for

Health Policy

Brandeis University

415 South Street

Waltham, MA 02254-9110

324
The Impact of Prescription Drug Control Systems on

Medical Practice and Patient Care-A Summary of

Research Recommendations

Dorynne Czechowicz

INTRODUCTION

Early in 1990, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) asked

the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for its position on

multiple copy prescription programs to assist in developing the Administration’s position on this issue. Following a series of meetings between

ONDCP, DHHS, the Department of Justice, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, as well as with congressional representatives, the Office of

National Drug Control Policy asked the National Institute on Drug Abuse

staff to evaluate the impact of prescription drug diversion control systems on

medical practice and patient care. In response to this request, MDA funded

Brandeis University to undertake a review of available data on prescription

drug regulatory programs and to address needed research. The conclusions

and research recommendations from the Brandeis University study are summarized in two papers included in this monograph (Horgan et al. 1991a,

1991b). Then in May 1991, MDA sponsored an open technical review meeting to obtain the views of many experts, researchers, medical practitioners

and other health professionals, professional associations, rep-resentatives

from several State and Federal agencies, and advocacy groups on the current

state of our knowledge regarding the therapeutic usefulness of psychoactive

prescription drugs; the nature, extent and consequences of prescription drug

abuse; the relative magnitude of different sources of diversion; the advantages

and limitations of existing diversion control systems; the im-pact of diversion

control systems on medical practice and patient care and areas needing

additional research.

On October 3 and 4, 1991, MDA convened a research advisory panel to

further define and expand on additional studies needed to determine the

impact of prescription drug regulatory mechanisms on medical practice and

patient care.

325
From the NIDA technical review, the NIDA-funded Brandeis study, and the

Research Advisory Panel meeting, some preliminary evidence emerged that

treatment of patients with chronic and recurrent illnesses may be adversely

affected by health professionals’ fears of drug abuse and addiction when

prescribing abusable drugs for chronic use and by concerns over drug regulatory mechanisms. This sometimes results in undermedication of these illnesses. While there is a need to prevent prescription drug abuse and diversion, it must be balanced against the need to have psychoactive medications

available for legitimate medical and psychotherapeutic indications.

Although there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence suggesting some prescription drug diversion control programs have an adverse impact on patient

care, there are no systematic patient-based clinical research studies. To

effectively evaluate changes in prescribing patterns and the impact of comprehensive prescription drug regulatory mechanisms on patient care, research

is needed incorporating patient medical care data and prescription drug utilization. Patient and practitioner surveys are also necessary to determine how

attitudes, knowledge, and prescribing behavior vary in response to diversion

control systems.

AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The following research agenda areas emerged from the discussion of research

priorities in the recent NIDA-sponsored technical review meetings:

Studies to determine the impact of prescription drug

regulatory mechanisms on medical practice and patient care.

Studies of the nature and magnitude of prescription drug

diversion from both licit and illicit sources, the cost and

processes involved in diversion control, reductions in

diversion, and related outcomes resulting from regulatory

changes.

Cost/benefit studies to determine how prescription drug

regulatory programs affect the balance between the

competing goals of preventing diversion of psychoactive

prescription drugs while minimizing their impact on

legitimate medical care and appropriate prescribing.

326
Studies of the development and testing of an epidemiological

surveillance system model for pharmaceutical drug diversion

that utilize Federal and State data bases having potential for

replication in other States.

Research on the criteria or standards to be used in case

identification, and the evaluation of cases requiring further

review in any prescription drug diversion control system

(encompasses practice parameters and peer review).

Population-based clinical research studies to determine the

impact of diversion control mechanisms on medical practice

and patient care particularly prospective clinical outcome

studies that incorporate prescriber and patient level data

from records of medical services, prescription drug utilization data from health insurance claim tiles, and patient and

practitioner interviews. Population-based clinical studies are

needed that take into account patients’ histories, diagnoses,

treatment, and the clinical appropriateness or inappropriateness of changes in prescribing practice.

Studies of physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and patients to

determine the impact of comprehensive prescription drug

regulatory mechanisms on health care practices, prescribing

behaviors, medication dispensing, and patient care. Studies

of factors influencing prescribing decisions are needed to

develop effective education programs.

Clinical studies of patients taking legitimately prescribed

psychoactive medications for chronic and recurrent medical

and psychiatric illnesses to determine risk factors associated

with drug abuse and addiction (in contrast to dependence).

Studies to develop better screening and assessment instruments to assess the risk of addiction in primary care populations being treated for chronic medical and psychiatric

illness.

Studies to determine whether some patient populations may

be under- or overmedicated or have difficulty obtaining

adequate treatment with controlled substances as a result of

327
prescription drug control programs. Models and instruments

have been developed to measure patients’ satisfaction, their

quality of life, and their functional status.

Additional emphasis must be placed on including minorities

and women of all ages in studies of diseases, disorders, and

conditions that affect them specifically.

Clinical studies of drug-abusing populations in and out of

treatment and in various treatment settings (e.g., primary

care, emergency rooms) to determine the nature, extent, patterns of use, the sources of abused prescription drugs

(including “doctor shopping”), and the consequences of prescription drug use and misuse, abuse and diversion.

Research on innovative skills-based, educational approaches

for physician education in appropriate prescribing of drugs

with abuse liability and to heighten professional awareness

of patients likely to abuse psychoactive drugs.

Research on interventions to change prescribing behaviors

that range from individual approaches to computer-generated strategies. Further study of the effects of these

interventions on prescribing behaviors and patient outcomes

is needed.

Since some States are currently planning to implement an electronic data

transfer system for monitoring Schedule II prescription drugs, this is an

opportunity to conduct naturalistic experiments allowing longitudinal

prospective studies, with pre- and postimplementation evaluation of the drug

regulatory control program. The electronic data transfer aspect of EPOS is

also a new innovation for diversion control systems. Preliminary analysis

suggests this approach may be less labor intensive and less expensive than

less automated approaches. An assessment of prescription drug control

systems should be comprehensive and include the following research areas:

the nature and magnitude of diversion

the cost and processes involved in diversion control

reduction in diversion and related outcomes

effects on medical practice and patient care

328
Studies of the nature and magnitude of diversion should develop better

estimates through primary data collection that might serve as a model for

improved data collection at the national level. Cost/benefit studies are

necessary to determine how these programs affect the balance between the

competing goals of diversion prevention while minimizing impact on

legitimate medical care and appropriate prescribing of psychoactive

medications.

Additional research questions and recommendations will undoubtedly emerge

as public policies designed to control drug abuse evolve in an era of

heightened emphasis on health care cost containment, managed care, and

new regulatory approaches to monitoring prescribing practices.

REFERENCES

Horgan, C.; Prottas, J.; Tompkins, C.; Wastila, L.; and Bowden, M.

Summary and conclusions of a review of prescription drug diversion control

methods, this volume, 1991a pp. 206-223.

Horgan, C.; Prottas, J.; Tompkins, C.; Wastila, L.; and Bowden, M.

A research agenda for prescription drug diversion control, this volume, 19910,

pp. 309-328.

AUTHOR

Dorynne Czechowicz, M.D.

Medical Affairs Branch

Division of Clinical Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

329
APPENDIX

330
List of May 30-June 1, 1991 Technical Review Participants*

John J. Ambre, M.D., Ph.D.

Director, Department of Toxicology

American Medical Association

515 N. State Street

Chicago, IL 60610

Edgar H. Adams, Sc.D.

Senior Scientist

Office of the Director

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, Maryland 20857

*Mitchell B. Balter, Ph.D.

2822 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20008

Carlene Baum, Ph.D.

Epidemiology Branch, HFD-733

Food and Drug Administration

Rockville, Maryland 20857

Mark Bishop, Deputy Director

Illinois Department of Alcoholism

and Substance Abuse

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 5-600

Chicago, Illinois 60601

R. Keith Bulla

Supervising Agent

North Carolina State

Bureau of Investigations

Box 18234

Greensboro, NC 27419

Norman A. Campbell, J.D., Ph.D.

Professor of Pharmacy Administration

College of Pharmacy

University of Rhode Island

Kingston, Rhode Island 20881

*Denotes participant in both this

meeting and October 4, 1961 Research

Advisory Panel

*Jonathan Cole, M.D.

Program Director

Affective Disorders Program

McLean Hospital

11.5 Mill Street

Belmont, Massachusetts 02178

June Dahl, Ph.D., Chair

Wisconsin Cancer Pain Initiative

Professor of Pharmacology

University of Wisconsin

3675 Medical Services Center

Madison, WI 53705

Gerald Deas, M.D.

109-07 197th Street

Hollis-Queens, New York 11412

Elaine Dodd

Chief Agent, Compliance

Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics

and Dangerous Drugs Center

Suite 11, 4545 N. Lincoln Blvd.Oklahoma

City, Oklahoma 73105

John Eadie, Director

Division of Public Health

Protection, New York State

Department of Health

EESP - Corning Tower

Albany, New York 12237

Daniel Freedman, M.D.

Judson Braun Professor of

Psychiatry and Pharmacology

Executive Vice Chairman

Neuropsychiatric Institute

Department of Psychiatry

University of California, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA 90024-1759

Anne Geller, M.D., President-Elect

American Society of Addiction Medicine

St. Lukes Hospital

428 West 59th Street

New York, New York 10019

331
Fran Gengo, Pharm.D.

Associate Professor of Neurology

and Pharmacy

Schools of Medicine and Pharmacy

State University of New York at Buffalo

Director, Dent Neurological Institute

3 Gates Circle

Buffalo, New York 14209

G. Thomas Gitchel, Chief

Liaison and Policy Section

Office of Diversion Control

Drug Enforcement Administration

Washington, D.C. 205037

David Greenblatt, M.D.

Professor of Psychiatry

Clinical Pharmacologist, Chief

Division of Clinical Pharmacology

Tufts-New England Medical Center

171 Harrison Avenue, Box 1007

Boston, Massachusetts 02111

Gene R Haislip, J.D.

Deputy Assistant Administrator

Office of Diversion Control

Drug Enforcement Administration

Washington, D.C. 20537

*Constance Horgan, Sc.D.

Chair, Department of Substance Abuse

Bigel Institute for Health Policy

Brandeis University

415 South Street

P.O. Box 9110

Waltham, MA 02254-9110

*David Joranson, M.S.S.W.

Associate Director

Division of Policy Studies

Pain Research Group

University of Wisconsin

610 Walnut Street

Madison, WI 53705

*Herbert Kleber, M.D.

Deputy Director

Office of National Drug

Control Policy

Washington, D.C. 20050

Patrick Marion

Office of the Inspector General

Office of Audit

U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services

Room 4350, Mail Stop 9

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-4283

Stanley Morris, Deputy Director

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Executive Office of the President

Washington, DC 20500

Madeline A. Naegle, Ph.D., R.N.

Division of Nursing

New York University

Shimkin Hall, Room 429

50 West Fourth Street

New York, New York 10003

Roger Peele, M.D.

Chair, Department of Psychiatry

Room 201A, Barton Hall

St. Elizabeth Campus, CMHS

2700 Martin Luther Avenue, SE

Washington, DC

J. A. Piscopo

Memeber, Board of Directors

American Narcolepsy Association

Vice-Chair, National Commission on

Sleep Disorders Research

18 Natoma Drive

Oak Brook, IL 60521

*Russell Portenoy, M.D.

Director of Analgesic Studies

Pain Services

Department of Neurology

Memorial Sloan Kettering

Cancer Center

1275 New York Avenue

New York, New York 10021

*Jeffery Prottas, Ph.D.

Research Professor and Deputy Director

Bigel Institute for Health Policy

Heller School, Brandeis University

P.O. Box 9110

Waltham. Massachusetts 02254-9110

332
*Karl Rickels, M.D.

Stuart and Emily B.H. Mudd

Professor of Human Behavior

and Professor of Psychiatry

University of Pennsylvania

Suite 203, Piersol Building

3400 Spruce Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104-4283

Nicholas Rock, M.D.

Member, Committee on Substance Abuse

Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry

361.5 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20016

Thomas Roslewicz

Deputy Inspector General for

Audit Services, DHHS

Room 5700

300 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20201

Carl Salzman, M.D.

Director of Psychopharmacology

Massachusetts Mental Health Center

Associate Professor of Psychiatry

Harvard Medical School

74 Fernwood Road

Boston, Massachusetts 02115

Charles R. Schuster, Ph.D.

Director

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, Maryland 20857

Christopher Tompkins, Ph.D.

Senior Research Associate

Bigel Institute for Health Policy

Heller School, Brandeis University

P.O. Box 9110

Waltham, Massachusetts 02254-9110

*Eberhard H. Uhlenhuth, M.D.

Professor, Department of Psychiatry

School of Medicine

University of New Mexico

2400 Tucker, N.E.

Albuquerque, NM 87131

C. Edwin Webb, Pharm D., M.P.H.

Director, Professional Affairs

and Policy

American Pharmaceutical Association

2215 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037

Michael Weintraub, M.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Community and

Preventive Medicine

University of Rochester

P.O. Box 644

Rochester, New York 14642

Donald Williams, Executive Director

Washington State Board of Pharmacy

1300 Quince Street, S.E.

Olympia, Washington 98504

Sidney Wolfe, M.D., Director

Public Citizen Health Research Group

Suite 700

2000 P Street, N.W.

Washington, DC

333
October 3-4, 1991 Research Advisory Panel Participants*

Zili Amsel, Sc.D, Acting Director

Division of Epidemiology and

Prevention Research, NIDA

Rm. 615 Rockwall II Bldg.

Rockville. MD 20857

Robert J. Battjes, D.S.W.

Deputy Director

Division of Clinical Research, NIDA

Rm. 10-A-38, 5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville. MD 20857

Robert J. Chiarrllo, M.D.

Treatment Research Branch, NIDA

Rm. 10A-09, 5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville. MD 20857

Meyer Glantz, Ph.D.

Division of Epidemiology

and Prevention Research, NIDA

Rm. 615 Rockwall II Bldg.

Rockville. MD 20857

*This panel also included additional

members who participated in the

May 30-June 1, 1991 Technical Review

(see list pp. 335-337).

Jonathan Katz, Ph.D., Chief

Psychobiology laboratory

Addiction Research Center

P.O. Box 5180

Baltimore, MD 21224

Elizabeth Lambert

Division of Epidemiology

and Prevention Research, NIDA

Rm. 615 Rockwall II Bldg.

Rockville, MD 20857

Edward Sellers, M.D. Ph.D.

Director, Division of Clinical

Pharmacology

Department of Medicine

University of Toronto

34 Russell Street

Toronto, Canada M5-S2-Sl

Thomas T.H. Wan, Ph.D., M.H.S.

Professor and Director

Williamson Institute for Health Services

Medical College of Virginia

Virginia Commonwealth University

Box 206, MCV Station

Richmond, VA 23298

334
While limited supplies last, single copies of the monographs may be obtained free

of charge from the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information

(NCADI). Please contact NCADI also for information about availability of

coming issues and other publications of the National Institute on Drug Abuse

relevant to drug abuse research.

Additional copies may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office

(GPO) and/or the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) as indicated.

NTIS prices are for paper copy; add $3.00 handling charge for each order.

Microfiche copies are also available from NTIS. Prices from either source are

subject to change.

Addresses are:

NCADI

National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information

P.O. Box 2345

Rockville, MD 20852

GPO

Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

NTIS

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

Springfield, VA 22161

(703) 487-4650

For information on availability of NIDA Research Monographs 1-70 (1975-1986)

and others not listed write to NIDA, Community and Professional Education

Branch, Room 10A-39, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

335
71 OPIATE RECEPTOR SUBTYPES AND BRAIN FUNCTION. Roger M.

Brown, Ph.D.; Doris H. Clouet, Ph.D.; and David P. Friedman, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #89-151955/AS $31.00

72 RELAPSE AND RECOVERY IN DRUG ABUSE. Frank M. Tims, Ph.D.,

and Carl G. Leukefeld, D.S.W., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01302-l $6.00 NTIS PB #89-151963/AS $31.00

73 URINE TESTING FOR DRUGS OF ABUSE. Richard L. Hawks, Ph.D., and

C. Nora Chiang, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01313-7 $3.75 NTIS PB #89-151971/AS $23.00

74 NEUROBIOLOGY OF BEHAVIORAL CONTROL IN DRUG ABUSE.

Stephen I. Szara, M.D., D.Sc., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-1314-5 $3.75 NTIS PB #89-151989/AS $23.00

75 PROGRESS IN OPIOID RESEARCH. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1986

INTER- NATIONAL NARCOTICS RESEARCH CONFERENCE. John W.

Holaday, Ph.D.; Ping-Yee Law, Ph.D.; and Albert Herz, M.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

Not available from NTIS

76 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1986. PROCEEDINGS OF THE

48TH ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS

OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #88-208111/AS $53.00

77 ADOLESCENT DRUG ABUSE: ANALYSES OF TREATMENT

RESEARCH. Elizabeth R. Rahdert, Ph.D., and John Grabowski, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01348-0 $4.00 NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #89-125488/AS $23.00

78 THE ROLE OF NEUROPLASTICITY IN THE RESPONSE TO DRUGS.

David P. Friedman, Ph.D., and Doris H. Clouet, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #88-245683/AS $31.00

79 STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS OF THE CANNABINOIDS.

Rao S. Rapaka, Ph.D., and Alexandros Makriyannis, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #89-109201/AS $31.00

336
80 NEEDLE SHARING AMONG INTRAVENOUS DRUG ABUSERS:

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES. Robert J. Battjes,

D.S.W., and Roy W. Pickens, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #88-236138/AS $31.00

81 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1987. PROCEEDINGS OF THE

49TH ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS

OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01354-4 $17.00 NTIS PB #89-109227/AS Contact

NTIS for price

82 OPIOIDS IN THE HIPPOCAMPUS. Jacqueline F. McGinty, Ph.D., and

David P. Friedman, Ph.D. eds.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #88-245691/AS $23.00

83 HEALTH HAZARDS OF NITRITE INHALANTS. Harry W. Haverkos,

M.D., and John A. Dougherty, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #89-125496/AS $23.00

84 LEARNING FACTORS IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE. Barbara A. Ray, Ph.D.,

ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01353-6 $6.00 NTIS PB #89-125504/AS $31.00

85 EPIDEMIOLOGY OF INHALANT ABUSE: AN UPDATE. Raquel A.

Crider, Ph.D., and Beatrice A. Rouse, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01360-9 $5.50 NTIS PB #89-123178/AS $31.00

86 COMPULSORY TREATMENT OF DRUG ABUSE: RESEARCH AND

CLINICAL PRACTICE. Carl G. Leukefeld, D.S.W., and Frank M. Tims, Ph.D.,

eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01352-8 $7.50 NTIS PB #89-151997/AS $31.00

87 OPIOID PEPTIDES: AN UPDATE. Rao S. Rapaka, Ph.D. and Bhola N.

Dhawan, M.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01366-8 $7.00 NTIS PB #89-158430/AS $45.00

88 MECHANISMS OF COCAINE ABUSE AND TOXICITY. Doris H. Clouet,

Ph.D., Khursheed Asghar, Ph.D., and Roger M. Brown, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01359-5 $11.00 NTIS PB #89-125512/AS $39.00

337
89 BIOLOGICAL VULNERABILITY TO DRUG ABUSE. Roy W. Pickens,

Ph.D., and Dace S. Svikis, B.A., eds.

GPO Stock #017-022-01054-4 $5.00 NTIS PB #89-125520/AS $23.00

90 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1988. PROCEEDINGS OF THE

50TH ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING. THE COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS

OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC., Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01362-5 $17.00

91 DRUGS IN THE WORKPLACE: RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DATA.

Steven W. Gust, Ph.D.; and J. Michael Walsh, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01384-6 $10.00 NTIS PB #90-147257/AS $39.00

92 TESTING FOR ABUSE LIABILITY OF DRUGS IN HUMANS. Marian W.

Fischman, Ph.D.: and Nancy K. Mello, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01379-0 $12.00 NTIS PB #90-148933/AS $45.00

93 AIDS AND INTRAVENOUS DRUG USE: FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR

COMMUNITY-BASED PREVENTION RESEARCH. C.G. Leukefeld, D.S.W.;

R.J. Battjes, D.S.W.; and Z. Amsel, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01388-9 $10.00 NTIS PB #90-148941/AS $39.00

94 PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY OF AMPHETAMINE AND

RELATED DESIGNER DRUGS. Khursheed Asghar, Ph.D.; Errol De Souza,

Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01386-2 $11.00 NTIS PB #90-148958/AS $39.00

95 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1989. PROCEEDINGS OF THE

51st ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING. THE COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS

OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC., Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01399-4 $21.00 NTIS PB #90-237660/AS $67.00

96 DRUGS OF ABUSE: CHEMISTRY, PHARMACOLOGY, IMMUNOLOGY,

AND AIDS. Phuong Thi Kim Pham, Ph.D. and Kenner Rice, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01403-6 $8 NTIS PB #90-237678/AS $31.00

97 NEUROBIOLOGY OF DRUG ABUSE: LEARNING AND MEMORY. Lynda

Erinoff, ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01404-4 $8 NTIS PB #90-237686/AS $31.00

338
98 THE COLLECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA FROM HIDDEN

POPULATIONS. Elizabeth Y. Lambert, M.S., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01407-9 $4.75 NTIS PB #90-237694/AS $23.00

99 RESEARCH FINDINGS ON SMOKING OF ABUSED SUBSTANCES. C.

Nora Chiang, Ph.D. and Richard L. Hawks, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01412-5 $5.00 NTIS PB #91-141119 $23.00

100 DRUGS IN THE WORKPLACE: RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DATA.

VOL II. Steven W. Gust, Ph.D.; and J. Michael Walsh, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-=01458-3 $8.00

101 RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF ABUSED DRUGS ON BEHAVIOR. John W.

Spencer, Ph.D. and John J. Boren, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01426-7 $6.00 NTIS PB #91-172858/AS $31.00

102 ANABOLIC STEROID ABUSE. Geraline C. Lin, Ph.D. and Lynda Erinoff,

Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01425-7 $8.00 NTIS PB #91-172866/AS $31.00

103 DRUGS AND VIOLENCE; CAUSES, CORRELATES, AND

CONSEQUENCES. Mario De La Rosa, Ph.D., Elizabeth Y. Lambert, M.S., and

Bernard Gropper, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01427-3 $9.00 NTIS PB #91-172841/AS $31.00

104 PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING IN THE TREATMENT OF

DRUG ABUSE. Lisa Simon Onken, Ph.D. and Jack D. Blaine, M.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01429-0 $4.00 NTIS PB #91-172874/AS $23.00

105 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1990. PROCEEDINGS OF THE

52nd ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING. THE COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS

OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC., Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01435-4 $22.00

106 IMPROVING DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT. Roy W. Pickens, Ph.D.; Carl

G. Leukefeld, D.S.W.; and Charles R. Schuster, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01439-7 $12.00

NTIS PB #92-105873 Paperback $50.00 Microfiche $19.00

339
107 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION INTERVENTION RESEARCH:

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES. Carl G. Leukefeld, D.S.W., and William J.

Bukoski, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01446-0 $9.00

NTIS PB #92-160985 Paperback $35.00 Microfiche $17.00

108 CARDIOVASCULAR TOXICITY OF COCAINE: UNDERLYING

MECHANISMS. Pushpa V. Thadani, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01446-0 $7.00

NTIS PB #92-106608 Paperback $35.00 Microfiche $17.00

109 LONGITUDINAL STUDIES OF HIV INFECTION IN INTRAVENOUS

DRUG USERS: METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN NATURAL HISTORY

RESEARCH. Peter Hartsock, Dr.P.H., and Sander G. Genser, M.D., M.P.H., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01445-1 $4.50

NTIS PB #92-106616 Paperback $26.00 Microfiche $12.50

110 THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF COCAINE USE AND ABUSE. Susan Schober,

Ph.D., and Charles Schade, M.D., M.P.H., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01456-7 $11.00

NTIS PB #92-14624-0 Paperback $43.00 Microfiche $17.00

111 MOLECULAR APPROACHES TO DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH: VOLUME

I. Theresa N.H. Lee, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01455-

NTIS PB #92-135743 Paperback $35.00 Microfiche $17.00

112 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND NEW DIRECTIONS IN DRUG

ABUSE RESEARCH. Rao S. Rapaka, Ph.D.; Alexandros Makriyannis, Ph.D.; and

Michael J. Kuhar, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01455-9 $11.00

NTIS PB #92-155449 Paperback $44.00 Microfiche $17.50

113 ECONOMIC COSTS, COST EFFECTIVENESS, FINANCING, AND

COMMUNITY-BASED DRUG TREATMENT. William S. Cartwright, Ph.D., and

James M. Kaple, Ph.D., eds.

NTIS PB #92-155795 Paperback $35.00 Microfiche $17.00

114 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CONTROLLED STUDIES ON EFFECTS

OF PRENATAL EXPOSURE TO DRUG ABUSE. M. Marlyne Kilbey, Ph.D., and

Khursheed Asghar, Ph.D., eds.

340
GPO Stock #017-024-01459-l $12.00

NTIS PB #92-146216 Paperback $43.00 Microfiche $17.00

115 METHAMPHETAMINE ABUSE: EPIDEMIOLOGIC ISSUES AND

IMPLICATIONS. Marissa A. Miller, D.V.M., M.P.H., and Nicholas J. Kozel,

M.S., eds.

GPO Stock #/017-024-01460-5 $4.00

116 DRUG DISCRIMINATION: APPLICATIONS TO DRUG ABUSE

RESEARCH. R.A. Glennon, Ph.D., T.U.C. Jarbe, Ph.D., and J. Frankenheim,

Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01470-2 $13.00

117 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN EPIDEMIOLOGY, PREVENTION, AND

TREATMENT RESEARCH ON DRUG-EXPOSED WOMEN AND THEIR

CHILDREN. M. M. Kilbey, Ph.D. and K. Asghar, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01472-9 $12.00

118 DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT IN PRISONS AND JABS. C.G. Leukefeld,

D.S.W. and F. M. Tims, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01473-7 $16.00

119 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE 1991: 53rd ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC

MEETING. The Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Inc. Louis Harris,

Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01474-5 $22.00

120 BIOAVAILABILITY OF DRUGS TO THE BRAIN AND THE BLOODBRAIN BARRIER. Jerry Frankenheim, Ph.D., and Roger M. Brown, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01481-8 $10.00

121 BUPRENORPHINE: AN ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT FOR OPIOID

DEPENDENCE. Jack D. Blaine, Ph.D. ed.

GPO Stock #/017-024-01482-6 $5.00

122 RESEARCH METHODS IN WORKPLACE SETTINGS. Steven W. Gust,

Ph.D., Helan Axel, M.A., and Dennis J. Crouch, M.B.A., eds.

341
123 ACUTE COCAINE INTOXICATION: CURRENT METHODS OF

TREATMENT. Heinz Sorer, Ph.D., ed.

124 NEUROBIOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO BRAIN-BEHAVIOR

INTERACTION. Roger M. Brown, Ph.D., and Joseph Fracella, Ph.D., eds.

125 ACTIVATION OF JMMEDIATE EARLY GENES OF ABUSE. Reinhard

Grzanna, Ph.D., and Roger M. Brown, Ph.D., eds.

126 MOLECULAR APPROACHES TO DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH VOLUME

II: STRUCTURE, FUNCTION, AND EXPRESSION. Theresa N.H. Lee, Ph.D.,

eds.

127 PROGRESS AND ISSUES IN CASE MANAGEMENT. Rebecca Sager

Ashery, D.S.W., ed.

128 STATISTICAL ISSUES IN CLINICAL TRIALS FOR TREATMENT OF

OPIATE DEPENDENCE. Ram B. Jain, Ph.D., ed.

129 INHALANT ABUSE: A VOLATILE RESEARCH AGENDA. Charles Wm.

Sharp, Ph.D., Fred Beauvais, Ph.D., and Rechard Spence, Ph.D., eds.

130 DRUG ABUSE AMONG MINORITY YOUTH: ADVANCES IN

RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY. Mario De La Rosa, Ph.D., ed.

342
131 IMPACT OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG DIVERSION CONTROL SYSTEMS

ON MEDICAL PRACTICE AND PATIENT CARE. James R. Cooper, Ph.D.,

Dorynne J. Czechowicz, M.D., Stephen P. Molinari, J.D., R.Ph., and Robert C.

Peterson, Ph.D., eds.

343
NIH Publication No. 93-3507

Printed 1993