ADHD and the Medication Feeding Frenzy in America

CORRECTION: In the post below, I make mention that there has been no U.S. media coverage on the MTA report. But after some further digging, I found coverage from Investor's Business Daily, along with popular sources the New York Post, and Fox News and technical/niche publications like Planet Chiropractic. So there is some American coverage.

But if you click around you can see that the American stories are much more brief than their international counterparts. Each of the stories in the mainstream outlets is more of a newswire dispatch than an actual article, where as the international stories are comprehensive. And while pretty much all of the news sources of record in the U.K. covered the story, the major U.S. outlets--like the WSJ, NYT, Time, Newsweek, etc--seem to have had nothing.

Given that the U.S. is 90 percent of the ADHD drug market, you'd think that MTA's findings would make nation-wide headlines. But instead coverage is scattered and superficial. Stories are relegated to quasi-interest group literature (investors who may lose money on the drugs, chiropractors who have a professional interest in questioning medication), or to the News Corporation (which owns both the Post and Fox news)--a multinational company with a strong Australian and British component. There's still no convincing evidence that the American media is, on the whole, ready to meaningfully cover MTA's findings.

----------------------------------------------

Earlier this week the British press broke some startling news: the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA), has issued a report that claims there are no long-term benefits of ADHD medication for hyperactive children. Report co-author Professor William Pelham of the University of Buffalo, is quoted in the British press as concluding that ADHD medication is, in the long-term, all risk and no reward.

“The children [on ADHD medication] had a substantial decrease in their rate of growth so they weren't growing as much as other kids both in terms of their height and in terms of their weight,” he says. “And…there were no beneficial effects - none.”

This is an about face from MTA’s benchmark report in 1999 that asserted with certainty that ADHD drugs were the best way to address ADHD in children. The 1999 study claimed that “combination treatments” (i.e. drugs and behavioral training) along with “medication-management alone” (i.e. drugs) are “both significantly superior” to other ADHD treatments that don’t include medication.

But, according to Pelham, “we exaggerated the beneficial impact of medication in the first study. We had thought that children medicated longer would have better outcomes. That didn't happen to be the case.” So, according to Pelham, here’s the bottom line: “in the short run [medication] will help the child behave better, in the long run it won't.”

To some, Pelham’s report might be unwelcome news. Thanks in part to the medical credibility that MTA and other studies have conferred on ADHD medications, global sales of ADHD drugs are predicted to be $4.3 billion by 2012. This ADHD boom is a recent phenomenon, largely a product of the 1990s. According to the US National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, the number of children who received a diagnosis of ADHD increased 250 percent from 1990 to 1998. A study from 1996 showed that from 1990-1995 child use of ADHD medication increased by a factor of 2.5 and drug production increased six-fold. The production of Ritalin (the most common ADHD medication) increased by 700 percent from 1990-1999.

Desperate, Drug Makers Court Doctors in Developing Countries

In the U.S. we are accustomed to seeing exceptionally well-dressed drug company reps strolling into doctors’ offices bearing trinkets: coffee cups, note pads and pens. We also know that they take doctors to expensive dinners, and host “continuing education” junkets to warm climes. Device-makers have been known to ferry doctors to strip clubs after dinner.

But in the developing world, drug makers are pulling out all of the stops. Often there is not even a pretense that the gift will help the doctor do his job. In Kashmiri, a physician confides, “representatives of pharmaceutical  companies offer cash, refrigerators, color televisions, laptops, PCs, mobile phones, ovens, phone bills, [and even to pay school] tuition [for your] children.”

In India, a doctor from Mumbai reports:  “On sale of 1,000 samples of the drug, you get a Motorola handset. On sale of 5,000 samples you get an air cooler. On sale of 10,000 samples get a motor bike.”

In Pakistan, a survey of 149 doctors, 100 medical information officers (sales representatives) and 99 medical store personnel, found that gifts may include included air conditioners, cars, cash, home appliances and domestic cattle.   Murad M. Khan, professor & chairman of the department of psychiatry at Aga Khan University, describes the latest practice: For writing 200 prescriptions of a company’s high-priced drug, a doctor is rewarded with the down payment on a brand new car.

These are just a few of the enticements documented in a November 2007 Consumers International (CI ) study, "Drugs, Doctors and Dinners: How Drug Companies Influence Health in the Developing World." (Thanks to Gary Schwitzer, at Schwitzer Health News Blog, for calling attention to this report.) A global voice for consumers, CI is an independent not-for-profit boasting over 220 member organizations in 115 countries.

Health Beat Hosts Health Wonk Review

Today, Health Beat is hosting Health Wonk Review, a biweekly compendium of the best of the health policy blogs. More than two dozen health policy, infrastructure, insurance, technology, and managed care bloggers participate by contributing their best recent blog postings to a roving digest, with each issue hosted at a different participant's blog.

Thanks to all of you for your submissions. I couldn’t do justice to all of them, but here’s a sampling of some of the best posts about health care on the blogosphere:

At Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review Robert Laszewski takes on Mitt Romney’s assertion that there are “pots of money” in the states –enough to allow states to follow Massachusetts’ initiative and fund health care reform without raising taxes. Laszewski demolishes the argument, pointing out that even Massachusetts doesn’t have enough money to follow Massachusetts’s initiative. That’s why the state has had to exempt some citizens from the mandate that everyone buy insurance.

On Health Access California, Anthony Wright offers the clearest explanation I’ve seen of Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan for reforming care in California, and its merits and limitations when compared to both HRC’s proposal and the Romney plan in Massachusetts.

On Physician Executive, Zagreus Ammon’s ambitious post “Defining Universal Health Care” begins by addressing the theory that each of us is responsible  for our own health—i.e. “that people do well because they make good choices and people do poorly because of poor choices.”

Here Ammon is responding to Peter Huber of Manhattan Institute fame and his editorial in IBD (Investors’ Business Daily) arguing that universal healthcare is an idle dream because eventually, the “pocket-book healthy” (read: wealthy) will get tired of paying for the “health-careless people” who don’t “live informed, disciplined lives”(read: less well-educated and poorer.) The righteous would rather see that money funneled into products that would provide them with “better hair, skin and sex,” Stern suggests.  For a more generous synopsis of Huber’s argument, see H.G. Stern’s rave review on Insureblog. 

Autism—Another Epidemic?

Does your 6-month old make eye contact?  Does your 8-month old follow your gaze? Does he mimic your facial expression if you show fear, anger or pleasure?

If you answered “no” to these questions, the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) wants you to know that your child might be suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Just two weeks ago the Academy sounded the alarm in a report calling for screening of children under two, listing signs of autism which pediatricians and parents should watch for. The report appeared in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics and on the group's website.

At one time, autism was considered a rare disease. When I hear the word, I think of Dustin Hoffman’s brilliant performance in “Rain Man,” where he acts the part of an obsessive-compulsive idiot savant, imprisoned in his own tiny world of repetitive behavior. Rain Man is almost incapable of social interaction; it seems clear that he is afflicted with an uncommon disorder. But the Academy’s report begins by warning that, today, autism is not rare. One out of 150 children suffers from ASD, we are told. That’s why it is important to begin screening for the disease at an early age.

According to the AAP, doctors and parents should keep an eye on even the youngest children. For example, the report explains that “turning consistently to respond to one’s own name is an early skill that parents should expect to see in an 8 to 10-month old.”  The absence of this skill is said to be an autism warning sign. Other signs of trouble include “lack of warm, joyful expressions” when the parent points to an object and the baby gazes at it.  And by 9 months, says the report, the baby should be babbling—otherwise parents should be worried.

The AAP offers a brochure, entitled “Is Your One-Year-Old Communicating with You?”, developed to help raise parent and physician awareness and to promote recognition of ASD symptoms before 18 months of age. (The AAP advises that pediatricians give the brochure all parents at the child’s 9 or 12-month visit.) Different children “present” differently, the report observes, but some particularly vigilant parents may still be able to “perceive that their child is ‘different’ during the first few months of life.”

Your Yearly Physical Is a Waste of Time

…or at least that’s what some experts have increasingly been suggesting. According to the American College of Physicians (ACP), instead of having an annual physical, “healthy adults should undergo a much-streamlined exam that’s focused on prevention every one to five years depending on a person’s age, sex and medical profile.”

So what does that mean, exactly? According to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, doctors should focus on “interventions that help patients change health-impairing habits or that spotlight emerging illnesses for which reliable and effective treatments exist.”  These include “Pap smears, mammograms, cholesterol tests, blood-pressure checks, and counseling to stop smoking, lose weight, get more exercise and eat a healthier diet.” In other words, rather than just checking for everything, doctors should focus on interventions that can be substantively linked to treatments we know work. Currently, most check-ups are comprehensive run-throughs that seem to be administered  just for their own sake, regardless of how, or even if, they relate to meaningful treatments.

For many of us, the annual physical is a fixture of our health care experience, something we assume to be both necessary and desirable. Indeed, a study released last month found that 64 million Americans a year get a physical or gynecological exam, costing a total of $7.8 billion.  Regular gynecological exams are important—they include Pap smears that have made cervical cancer a rare disease. But the point of the general physical is less clear.  More people get annual check ups than visit doctors for respiratory conditions or high blood pressure, and the price tag for yearly physicals closes in on the $8.1 billion spent on breast cancer care.

The Truth about the Politics of National Health Reform

For the past year, progressives have begun to talk about health care reform as if it is inevitable. Listen to the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates, and it seems just a question of what form the health care revolution will take, how quickly it will happen, and how we’ll finance it. After all, the polls show that the majority of taxpayers, employers and even most doctors want to see a major change.  Moreover, health care research shows that if we cut the waste in our system, we could fund universal coverage. What, then, is stopping us?

As regular readers know, I recently attended a Massachusetts Medical Society Leadership Forum where what I heard about the Massachusetts plan made my heart sink. While everyone in Massachusetts wants health care reform, no one wants to pay for it. Those who are receiving state subsidies to buy insurance are enthusiastic. But uninsured citizens earning more than 300% of the poverty level are expected to purchase their own insurance. The state hoped that 228,000 of its uninsured citizens would sign up; as of last month, just 15,000 had enrolled. Many have decided that they would rather pay the penalty than buy health insurance.

At the forum, Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, talked about what Massachusetts’ experience might mean for the national health care debate: “Massachusetts is the canary in the coal mine,” Blendon, who is also a professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health, declared bluntly. “If it’s not breathing in 2009, people won’t go in that mine.”  If the Massachusetts plan unravels, he suggested, Washington’s politicians will say “If they can’t do it in a liberal state like Massachusetts, how can we do it here?” 

I’m not writing Massachusetts off. The state’s leaders are behind the plan and they may be able to persuade the Commonwealth’s citizens to come on board. But it won’t be easy. 

In the meantime, this week I decided to ask Blendon some follow-up questions: Just what would it take, politically, to achieve national health care reform sometime in the next two to four years?  How many seats would reformers have to capture in Congress?  Is this likely?   Some observers say that if a reform-minded president hopes to succeed, he or she will have to ram a plan through Congress sometime in 2009. But health care is complicated; wouldn’t it make more sense for a new administration to take its time and explain what it is doing to the public, while trying to create a sustainable, affordable, high quality health care system?

Finally, what are the biggest barriers to reform?  If major change proves impossible, what more modest back-up plans should a new president have in mind? What other health care legislation could he or she hope to pass?

Online Doctors, Privacy, and the Almighty Dollar

Last month a slew of media outlets caught wind of Jay Parkinson, a 31 year old Brooklyn-based M.D. who provides care for his patients through the Internet. Here’s how it works: you get an initial in-person consultation at your home or office. After that, you can ask Parkinson questions online through instant message or video chat; e-mail him digital images of minor wounds, rashes, etc., that he can then diagnose; have him help contact, call ahead, and inform specialists when you need their help; and generally fulfill most basic medical consultation functions online.

Parkinson’s work raises a lot of questions, but first among them may be this: how come my doctor isn’t utilizing virtual communication to its fullest potential?

Part of doctors’ technophobia stems from their lack of incentives to engage with the virtual world: they’re not reimbursed for virtual consultations that may be deemed “self-management support activities,” or good old fashioned advice about do-it-yourself care. As little as eight percent of patients communicate with their doctors via e-mail—a shame, considering in the latest issue of JAMA, Tom Delbanco from Harvard Medical School estimated that 50 percent of visits to the physician are unnecessary and could probably be dealt with online.

But there are other reasons why doctors are reluctant to take their practice online. For most doctors, communicating sensitive patient information without special, government-approved secure platforms is illegal under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA, originally passed in 1996, was revised in 2002 by the Bush Administration to incorporate a privacy rule that came into effect in 2003. The privacy rule regulates the use and disclosure of private health information (PHI), which is information about “health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be linked to an individual.” It’s this privacy rule that makes so many doctors computer-shy.

Human Growth Hormone and The Business of Immortality

Last week, James Forsythe, a prominent doctor in Reno, Nevada was acquitted by a federal jury after going to trial on allegations that he trafficked in human growth hormone (HGH). The decision came as a relief to the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M), because among other allegations, the doctor was accused of selling HGH as an anti-aging treatment, which is illegal in the U.S. A4M has a history of pushing for HGH-driven anti-aging treatments.

So what’s so special about HGH when it comes to aging? Beginning in your 40s, the pituitary gland slowly reduces the amount of hormone it produces, a fact that some feel is both responsible for the frailty of age and reversible through the introduction of synthetic growth hormones.

But there is little, if any, reliable scientific evidence about the anti-aging benefits of HGH. In fact, there are no double-blind placebo-controlled studies for most of the anti-aging miracle cures out there. Yet we do know for a fact that HGH can increase the risk of cancer—not to mention edema (retention of fluids), arthralgia (joint pain), carpal tunnel syndrome, diabetes, and gynecomastia (enlarged mammary glands in males).  Oh, and it might actually shorten life.

When the Government Does What Drug-Makers Won’t Do

Today, Bloomberg News reported that “Deadly Staph Germs May Be Cured by Old, $1-a-Day Antibiotics.” It turns out that generic, World War II-era antibiotics are becoming “the newest weapon of choice in the fight against deadly, drug-resistant staph germs.”

Physicians have discovered that drugs costing less than $1 a day can be very effective when treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, known as MRSA. The bacteria, once found only in hospitals and nursing homes, recently made news by showing up in schools and gyms. Last month, MRSA was linked to the deaths of a student in New York and one in Virginia.  Annually, more than 18,000 Americans are killed by MRSA.

The physicians who mounted the studies of the older drugs were funded by the federal government. Meanwhile, in the for-profit private sector, Bloomberg observes, “drug-makers are spending hundreds of millions developing medicines that cost more than $100 a day to treat advanced cases.”

But physicians know the older, cheaper drugs work. “We have used these older drugs with success for years,'' says Gregory Moran, one of the study leaders. He is a professor of emergency medicine at the Olive View-UCLA Medical Center in Sylmar, California, affiliated with the University of California at Los Angeles.

The Genetic Effects of Loneliness

In September, a UCLA study took the long-recognized connection between loneliness and poor health to a new level by uncovering the genetic consequences of loneliness (see the full text of the study here). Its results are compelling, both on their own and as an opening salvo in medicine’s new campaign to understand how perception, feelings, and interaction with others determines health. 

Measuring loneliness (referred to in the study as “social isolation”) through the UCLA loneliness scale, researchers found that “feelings of social isolation are linked to alterations in the activity of genes that drive inflammation, the first response of the immune system.” At the same time, “key gene sets were under-expressed”—in other words, were not as functional as you'd expect them to be--in lonely individuals, “including those involved in antiviral responses and antibody production.”

In other words, loneliness fundamentally alters our immune system. As one author put it, “…the biological impact of social isolation reaches down into some of our most basic internal processes …the activity of our genes; changes in immune cell gene expression  in [ways that are] specifically linked to the subjective experience of social distance.” This is important: it’s feeling alone that matters.