Alcohol/Drug Rehabs and You

I've recently added a series of blog posts to the blog for my half-time job, Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers of Massachusetts (no, I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a great deal about them) on the subject of alcohol/drug rehabs, and thought I would highlight here some of the points I made there.  I know that many of those (especially family members) who come to see me (or visit my blog) are thinking about trying to get their loved ones into rehab.  Here are some of the important things to know:

• The term "rehab," in the alcohol/drug field, refers to an extended inpatient stay, usually around a month, that begins with detox (withdrawing the individual from his or her substance while preventing the most serious withdrawal symptoms) and proceeds to a structured daily routine of group therapy, some individual counseling, medical/psychiatric evaluation, often some family contact, and usually exposure to self-help groups.  Aside from the treatment per se, being away from one's usual habitat and immersed in the culture of recovery, while bonding with others in more or less the same situation, can provide a nice inspiration and jump-start to establishing a life free of bondage to addiction (though there is no guarantee and rehab is only one stage of movement toward recovery).

  

  Lindsay Lohan

• With few exceptions, health insurance no longer covers rehab -- usually the only inpatient treatment it will cover for alcohol/drug addiction is the "detox" phase, generally a few days, more or less depending on the severity of withdrawal symptoms.  This means that most of the time at rehab (often payable in advance) must be paid out of pocket, and exceeds $30,000 or $40,000 for the month. There are some less expensive options, which I can discuss with you, which are achieved by cost-cutting means such as (a) a lower percentage of doctoral-level staff; (b) less medical/nursing coverage; (c) locations in areas where it is less costly to operate, including outside the U.S.
• There are some options that emulate aspects of rehab which are often covered by insurance -- mainly, day programs ("partial hospital") offered in such a way that the patient attends daily but lives at home, or pays a reasonable fee for room and board on the facility's grounds.  For those of us without wealth, this is the main intensive kind of option to be considered.  
• Hundreds of rehabs have glossy web sites or brochures -- they are profit-making enterprises and they

  

  Robert Downey, Jr.

  want your business.  It is very difficult to know what facility to choose.  Generally, the more grandiose their claims (very high success rates, "cures" for addiction, no need for abstinence or self-help programs, disparaging other approaches) the more likely they are to be bogus (much like late night infomercials about getting thin with a pill, getting life insurance in old age for pennies, or making a killing in real estate).  Though expensive and by no means perfect, two of the oldest and best known facilities are probably also the most reliable:  Hazelden in Minnesota and Caron Foundation in Pennsylvania (both have satellite programs in other locations as well).  I have also heard positive reviews for Mountainside in Connecticut, which may also be a bit more affordable.  Many facilities will also claim to be covered by insurance, yet demand the up-front payment of a large deposit.  Be wary.
• Rehab can be a great start for those with plenty of money.  It is almost never worth the money for

  

  Amy Winehouse

  families that must struggle or borrow to pay for it.  The fact is that, no matter how wonderful the treatment, alcoholism/addiction is a condition characterized by relapse, and there is no magic. Regardless of their claims, less than half of those graduating from rehab will still be completely alcohol/drug free a few months later, but your poverty will persist.  Inpatient rehab, or some facsimile, becomes more worth considering when other, less intensive measures have repeatedly failed, and when the individual's addiction becomes quite serious.  Even then, however, recovery takes a lot of motivation on on the part of the addict.  I've seen too many people go to a long string of even the finest facilities with no lasting impact, and I've also seen many people who seemed "hopeless" get sober at unpredictable points in time in ways that cannot be attributed to treatment.
• While it can be extremely helpful to be removed for a time from the environment in which the addiction has developed, what makes the biggest difference in the long run is ongoing involvement in a non-addictive lifestyle.  The components of that lifestyle often include:  (a) outpatient therapy/counseling; (b) self-help groups; (c) healthy activities not associated with drinking or drugging; (d) daily structure and routine; (e) frequent contact with healthy friends/family; (f) connection to community and sense of meaning, which can come in many forms; (g) exercise and meditative activities.  (That's not to say that all of these are essential for any individual.)  

Some people come to meet with me (in Newton or Boston) just once or twice to brainstorm about all these options.  I have no obligations or financial connection to any particular facility, group, or treatment, and I respect your ability to make your own decisions (even better when more more informed).

“Don't Trade a Headache for an Upset Stomach” – For Families of Addicts, it's Not Always Black and White

The title quote, from a decades-old Bufferin commercial, captures a situation in which the solution to one problem (headache) causes another (aspirin-induced stomach irritation).  The reality is that similar dilemmas arise frequently in the world of behavioral problems including addictions, though there is never a shortage of people offering black-or-white advice.

It’s usually quite burdensome to be dealing with an actively alcoholic family member.  Aside from the scars that the experience tends to leave on children (who grow up to become ACOAs, Adult Children of Alcoholics), for adults involved there are the unending demands to manage and navigate a situation characterized by irrational and sometimes unpredictable behavior.

The term “enabling” refers to anything that other family members (usually most focally the spouse) do that shield the alcoholic (or addict, of course) from the naturally flowing consequences of his or her behavior.  This concept took off around the 1960s (by my recollection), and treatment providers urged family members to avoid enabling, since it tended to prolong the alcoholism by preventing the alcoholic from “hitting bottom.”  True enough, and generally a good idea, but at the time it was particularly hard for wives of male alcoholics (many of whom did not have their own income) to step out of their enabling roles, since it might well mean not having the means to keep the family fed and sheltered.  In real life, most decisions are not black and white. 

In recent years, I have often found myself addressing the dilemmas and emotional pain faced by parents and (grown) children of alcoholics/addicts.  Take, for example, the parents of a 20-something young adult addicted to opiates (usually a combination of heroin and painkillers).  If they continue, as is their natural inclination, to provide financial subsidies to their child, they may be “enabling”  – it makes it that much easier for the younger person to sustain the addictive behavior.  At some point, the parents may really need to withhold such support until their child is genuinely in treatment and on a path toward recovery.  On the other hand, they also know that withdrawal of financial help could increase the likelihood of their child’s being homeless, engaging in illegal activity to get the substance, and becoming more socially marginalized.  It is one of life’s many no-win situations, and none of us is in a position to judge those who confront it.

Another example is an alcoholic woman I saw, pushing 80 yet still in very good physical and cognitive shape (when sober).  Her adult children, who at my suggestion met with an addiction specialist of their own, moved her from her apartment and into one of their homes indefinitely, well aware that, by track record, on her own she was likely to resume drinking and let her health slide.  While their efforts were potentially life-saving, there was also an element of angry frustration.  (I remember similar feelings, borne of repeatedly being disappointed and lied to, toward my own alcoholic father many years ago, and I was not inclined to be nearly as sacrificing of my own life.)  The other side of the story is that this elderly woman, who herself had made great sacrifices to raise several children (now successful adults) now felt slapped in the face, in a sense imprisoned and robbed of respect and decision-making power in her own life.  In reaction, she became more depressed (though abstinent), and seemed destined to spend the rest of her life that state (but at least alive).  It was sad and ironic for me to feel the greatest sympathy and alliance with my patient, even though I, too, saw that her commitment to sobriety was iffy.  

That story has not yet reached a conclusion.  But I raise these examples to highlight the fact that life, even in cases of severe addiction, there is no one, clear answer.   This is why, as a therapist, I join individuals and families in wrestling with their situations, and attempt to provide information, perspective, and emotional support, but I seldom give one-size-fits-all advice.

Perhaps the Most Useful Studies are Your Own

There are so many internet posts, as well as a number of books, taking polarized and sometimes rabid positions about questions like (a) whether sobriety is necessary for alcoholic/addicted individuals and (b) whether AA [the most widely recognized kind of help] is the greatest vs the most awful resource available for those who do seek sobriety (meaning ongoing abstinence and improved life).  Much like MSNBC vs Fox, it can be very difficult to tolerate both, and each position draws those who are inclined in any case to embrace the perspectives offered. 

Attempts at scientific investigation, while always laudable, so often also seem to fall in line with the expectations or views or those either performing or reviewing studies.  For example, the large scale study known as Project Match (an 8-year effort that began in 1989) is recurrently put forth as proving both that the AA approach is a bit better than others or that AA offers nothing.  (My own reading at the time was that no particular approach was impressively better than any other, and that attempts to predict which approach would work best for a specific person failed.)

Those of us such as myself who work all the time with people trying to overcome alcohol and drug problems develop our own points of view based on experience, but of course our conclusions are also skewed by factors including (a) our own preexisting views and (b) the particular patient population that we see.  (For example, community epidemiologic studies indicate that many people stop drinking on their own; these people rarely show up at my office, and I would never have known.)

But if you have been concerned about your own drinking or drugging, you probably have already been doing your own experiments.  You may have tried changing beverages, using only on weekends, setting a daily limit on amount consumed, seeing a therapist (either with or without specific addictions expertise), attending 12-step meetings, attending SMART meetings, using online recovery resources, acupuncture, various kinds of medications, etc.  Since you are the only one with your unique brain composition, there is something to be said for running your own “studies” on yourself.  Since you’re probably doing so anyhow, why not get a little scientific?  Write down your objectives, and how you will measure success vs failure of your approach; record the things that you have done, how often, when, etc., and keep track of the results.  Trying to remember without keeping records may not be the best method, since memory is so prone to distortion.  At some point, you may decide to pursue this process with the help of a professional with experience in addictions.  Ultimately, what will matter to you is not the opinion of various alcohol/drug pundits (even those who aren’t so angry) but what works for you.

Lessons from Philip Seymour Hoffman

Is it that some of the most talented among us are drawn to opiates, or that we only hear about the famous, admired figures?  Before Philip Seymour Hoffman, who was certainly among my handful of favorite actors, there were others like Health Ledger, Chris Farley, River Phoenix, and Jim Morrison (to turn back time further), and Robert Pastorelli (whom we remember best as “Eldin,” Murphy Brown’s painter who never quite finished the job).

According to the Center for Disease Control, the rates of fatal opiate overdose have more than tripled in the past 2 and a half decades.  Of course, the incidence of death reflects an increase in the number of individuals using these substances.  As I’ve seen in clinical settings during that time, initial exposure to painkillers like Oxycodone (Percocet) or Hydrocodone (Vicodin) too often leads quickly to addiction, characterized by powerful cravings and painful withdrawal symptoms relieved by repeated use.  People who thought they were just following a surgeon’s orders or having fun with drugs in college or neighborhood settings fail to recognize their addictions until they become severe.  Many proceed from pills to heroin, which is much less costly though also more likely to cause overdose (because of unpredictable variations in purity).

If you are concerned about your drug use or that of someone you care about, there are a number of treatment approaches that can help in the very difficult path to sustained recovery.  The process starts with a clinical overview, either with someone in private practice like myself or at an appropriate clinic.  Not every clinician knows much about addictions, which does not prevent them from saying that they do.  Look for either experience working in an alcohol/drug-focused setting or a certification (CADAC or CAS) or alcohol/drug counseling license (in Massachusetts, called LADC).  

If only we had reason to hope that Philip Hoffman’s tragic death would be a turning point for our society, just as the death of Len Bias in 1986 seemed to puncture the myth that anyone was immune to the dangers of cocaine.

Is Procrastination Addictive?

Well, let’s not go quite that far – we are probably already applying the term “addiction” to too many phenomena that really are not equivalent. But, in my view, there is an important aspect of procrastination that overlaps with addictive behaviors.

A key type of procrastination involves a chronic pattern of avoidance at the moment when it is “time to get something done.” The individual says to him- or hersself (as I myself have done countless times), “I’m too [tired, drained, sick, etc] to do this right now. Instead, I’ll [take a nap, watch TV, play a video game, etc] and I’ll do this task at a later time.”

The three central elements here are (1) anxiety [something about this project that gets you nervous], (2) rationalization [as described above] (3) avoidance [the decision to walk away from the assignment].

More than one of my recovering patients has told me that the moment of rationalization when avoiding a task feels very similar to the moment of rationalization (e.g., “This time will be different,” or “I deserve this”) preceding the decision to drink or drug.

These behaviors happen repeatedly (and typically with increasing frequency) because they are highly reinforcing. It is well known in the field of behavioral psychology that immediate reward is much more reinforcing than delayed reward. In this case, in the split-second when the individual decides “I’ll skip this for now,” there is an immediate reduction in anxiety, just as with the first drink, even though the result is likely to be an increase in later stress (just as drinking tends to generate more negative consequences that must be faced later).

That is part of what makes the temptation to avoid so potent. What, then, is to be done? There are too many aspects of the situation to address here, but some key components of working one’s way out of severe procrastination and facing overwhelming tasks are: (1) breaking big projects down, by stages, into smaller and smaller pieces, so small that they are manageable even when one is very anxious; (2) doing one piece at a time; (3) self-rewarding each accomplishment (e.g., making that nap or video game conditional on completing the small task).

Needed: More Sober Settings for the Non-Wealthy

Even for those with health insurance (made possible for more people, though certainly not all, by RomneyCare and hopefully to be enhanced by ObamaCare), when it comes to substantial help for the newly sober, available help is quite limited. 

Health insurance will usually cover something like weekly sessions with someone like myself. But more many, that’s not much more than a drop in the bucket.  Covered inpatient services generally consist of a few nights in detox (just until observable withdrawal symptoms have diminished).  After that, one may be able to access an “intensive outpatient program” (IOP, often 3 or 4 evening groups a week) and, if they have “flunked” IOP recently maybe 2 weeks in a Partial Hospital (Day) program.  Generally speaking, residential options are self-pay, and the options for low to moderate income people are very limited and typically unappealing.  For well-maintained and staffed residential sobriety programs, expect to pay multiple thousands per month.  These are, of course, usually profit making enterprises.  (For less money, there are so-called sober houses, which often are little more than rooming houses.) 

Yet for many, it will be very hard to sustain recovery without a structured sober environment, where they can get more consistent support and avoid the plethora of stimuli that are powerfully conditioned to alcohol or drug use.  Obviously, neither premium payers nor tax payers will feel inclined to foot the bill to subsidize such resources for all who need them.  But the fact is that people who are able to stay sober won’t be committing alcohol/drug related crimes, injuring themselves or others, showing up in emergency rooms (or destroying their organs and generating more medical costs), etc. – my guess is that this is a net savings,  but we tend not to see the big picture.

Thank goodness that at least there are self/mutual help groups like AA and SMART Recovery, driven not by profit but by actual humanistic motives, that to some extent can fill in the gaping holes in funded/covered care to those struggling to overcome addictions.

Bigger than Molly

News of recent deaths linked to the use of “Molly” (a variant of ecstasy)  has generated increased attention to the use and dangers of so-called “club drugs,” frequently used by young adults in music/dance club settings.  The use of these substances has accelerated in prevalence in the past several years.  Deaths may result largely from dehydration and also, importantly, from adulteration with unknown and potentially lethal compounds. 

A 2012 study of university students found that 12.5% had at least tried club drugs at some point in their lives.  But about 20% had used opiate painkillers (such as Oxycontin), representing a much greater danger of serious, life-shattering addiction (and potential overdose).  Not surprisingly, about 25% had at some point taken stimulant pills (ADHD medicine, widely misused by college and graduate students) and 58% had used marijuana.  But another study found (again, to no one’s surprise) that 88% of college students had consumed alcohol in the previous year. 

Alcohol and prescription drugs (when prescribed) are legal, but they destroy many more lives than club drugs or even methamphetamines.  Alcohol, while used safely by most drinkers, has the potential to harm almost every bodily system, and kills people regularly via overdose, impulsive/dangerous and often violent behavior, intoxicated driving, etc.  So yes, we worry about “Molly” and her friends at the club, but some greater dangers lurk closer to home.