In The New York Times Abby Goodnough wrote
” she got a Vivitrol (naltrexone) shot but it was so expensive — her co-payment was $600 — that she never got another” !!!
This is insane. Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist. It prevents opioids from causing a high (and relieving pain and suppressing coughing and breathing). In no way is it conceivably a drug of abuse. But opioid addicts who wish to cut off all effects of opioids have to pay for their Naltrexone.
Also (as explained in the excellent article) some of the same people who oppose the use of methadone and buprenorphine oppose naltrexone too. I have never understood their logic. I am sure it is based on a moralistic belief that there are no simple easy solutions. It isn’t even “no pain no gain” as cold turkey withdrawal while using naltexone is just as horrible as any other cold turkey withdrawal. Pointless speculation after the jummp.
But for now two practital proposals. Everyone who wants naltrexone for any reason should be given naltrexone (given no co-pay). I think this is obvious. Now somehow a drug which has been around practically forever is expensive, but the cost of paying off the pharmaceutical company whatever they demand for such a program (which will be great for them) is trivial compared to the costs of the opioid epidemic.
My further practical proposal is phased drug assisted therapy. I think it should be
1) whatever you want for a week provided you don’t want a lethal dose (you want heroin — here’s your heorin)
2) second week whatever you want provided you take your methadone under our supervision. All the heroin you want will be none (it doesn’t do anything for someone full of methadone).
3) third week, 50% methadone 50% buprenorphine.
4) fourth week buprenorhine
5) fifth week 50% buprenorphine 50% naltrexone
6) 6th week through death do us part naltrexone.
Why not ?
This is really pointless.
OK so I don’t know anything and I can guess drug treatment specialists aren’t interested in proposals from a macroeconomist. I also guess sociologists aren’t interested in my answer to my question “Why not ?” but I am sure it is based on moralistic logic. I will try to define what I mean by “moralistic”. I mean the theory that virtue shall be rewarded (I really mean that virtue will be rewarded by God).
Pharmaceutical treatments don’t involve making a choice for Jesus, or making a profound born again choice for life, recovery, love, and solidarity. The means is unworthy of the glorious aim. It is offensive to human dignity that a shot could do what love and inspiration can’t do.
As I have made clear, I am sure that the refusal to learn from hard evidence is based on religion. The available evidence gives some support to materialism (original meaning — all that exists are atoms and the void not the translation of the Italian word consumismo into American). Another way of putting it is that it gives some support to reductionism.
People find this deeply offensive.
I think one problem is that religion is not debated or even discussed. When some people say spiritual, they mean cognitive-behavioral. Others mean pertaining to immortal souls which survive the deaths of our merely material bodies. It is hard for the two groups to reach agreement but it is even harder if they are too polite to mention that they disagree on that extremely important question which can’t be settled by science.
OK now I have to talk to my little sister (an MD certified both in internal medicine and specifically in addiction treatment).