California lawmakers order audit of taxpayer-funded drug rehab program
Earlier this month, Los Angeles authorities also terminated their contract with Pride Health Services, a clinic that former employees said billed for “ghost clients” who didn't show up for treatment. Rehab Racket 1: Pride Health Services Click for …
Read more on Center For Investigative Reporting

Rehab racket: Frauds, felons and fakes
The populous Los Angeles region is one of the nation's top hot spots for health care fraud, and former state officials agree it is also ground zero for the rehab racket. Related: CNN/CIR probe spurs hearings on alleged fraud. Drug Medi-Cal paid out $ 94 …
Read more on CNN

CNN/CIR rehab fraud investigation spurs lawmakers into action
"I'm hoping first to identify where the gaps are that allow the Drug Medi-Cal fraud to happen," he said. "Basically, what broke down?" State Sen. Ted Lieu, a Democrat who represents parts of Los Angeles County, called for an independent review of the …
Read more on CNN

Question by MacCheese: How to help a HSP in depression?
hi, my gf is a Highly Sensitive Person (HSP). She is going through i believe a deep depression now after she’s undergone the removal of a growth. Since the operation she has been feeling that she is at the junction of her life where she’s lost and not knowing what she wants. Family matters and work are also causing her plenty of stress, and relationship has become a luxury that she couldn’t afford or handle..she often tells me that she’s at the edge of breaking down, and feels that she has got no more energy to put any effort into our relationship. I keep telling her it’s ok, i’m here to support her and i’m not expecting anything from her. Being a HSP, she needs a lot of solutitude time and she hasn’t been getting enough of that..She is feeling not right about her body and the fear of going through the operation is affecting her tremendously…she loves me yet touching her has become a torture for her as if i’m just some guys out there..those are her words..I’ve tried supporting h

Best answer:

Answer by Sacha R
It’s a fairly common effect of depression, in females. My standard post follows: See depression treatments, at http://www.ezy-build.net.nz/~shaneris in section 2, and consult a doctor, to eliminate thyroid problems, etc. as possible contributing factors: also seek a referral to a therapist using Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, or Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy. It is your decision, and yours alone, as to whether to take any antidepressants offered, but, before you do, read section 1, and check medications out at www.drugs.com so you will be on the lookout for side effects, like sexual dysfunction. My strong recommendation, however, is to follow the advice of my doctor, his partner, and also Marcelle Pick, OB/GYN NP, and Dr. Mercola, as well, at http://www.mercola.com and avoid antidepressants (page 2V refers, & antidepressant websites: page 2). All of their advice, (except prayer, because many people are not religious) I have incorporated into the “core treatments”, including others as options, such as herbal remedies. If you are diagnosed with clinical (major) depression, antidepressants may be necessary for a while, which will give the treatments time to become effective. The antidepressants themselves need at least several days, or even many weeks to become effective. It’s a good idea to taper off them slowly, with medical advice, after several months, say, to a couple of years, at most, because they are only effective in the long term for about 30% of people. Because of this, you would be well advised to begin the treatments immediately, and maintain them. I’d just thank your mental health care provider, and pocket the prescription, trying the treatments for a few months, to see if they are sufficient for you, before considering filling it (unless clinically depressed, and having great difficulty functioning, in which case I’d take them). Stress is addressed on page 42. Print/refer her. Talk to her family, telling them that she really needs their support right now, or big problems lie ahead for both her, and them. Can you contact her workplace, and ask that they ease off with her for a several weeks, if they value her, and want to keep her, as she recovers, or would she not want that, and consider it inappropriate?

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Question by KU FAN!: Why should you be against euthanasia?
I have to write an essay, being against euthanasia. Please help!

Best answer:

Answer by Firefly1234567891011121314151617
1. Euthanasia would not only be for people who are “terminally ill.” There are two problems here — the definition of “terminal” and the changes that have already taken place to extend euthanasia to those who aren’t “terminally ill.” There are many definitions for the word “terminal.” For example, when he spoke to the National Press Club in 1992, Jack Kevorkian said that a terminal illness was “any disease that curtails life even for a day.” The co-founder of the Hemlock Society often refers to “terminal old age.” Some laws define “terminal” condition as one from which death will occur in a “relatively short time.” Others state that “terminal” means that death is expected within six months or less.

Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is referred to, medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally ill don’t die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. Increasingly, however, euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, replacing them with such phrases as “hopelessly ill,” “desperately ill,” “incurably ill,” “hopeless condition,” and “meaningless life.”

An article in the journal, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, described assisted suicide guidelines for those with a hopeless condition. “Hopeless condition” was defined to include terminal illness, severe physical or psychological pain, physical or mental debilitation or deterioration, or a quality of life that is no longer acceptable to the individual. That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse .

2. Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment

“…physician-assisted suicide, if it became widespread, could become a profit-enhancing tool for big HMOs. ”
“…drugs used in assisted suicide cost only about $ 40, but that it could take $ 40,000 to treat a patient properly so that they don’t want the “choice” of assisted suicide…” … Wesley J. Smith, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Perhaps one of the most important developments in recent years is the increasing emphasis placed on health care providers to contain costs. In such a climate, euthanasia certainly could become a means of cost containment.

In the United States, thousands of people have no medical insurance; studies have shown that the poor and minorities generally are not given access to available pain control, and managed-care facilities are offering physicians cash bonuses if they don’t provide care for patients. With greater and greater emphasis being placed on managed care, many doctors are at financial risk when they provide treatment for their patients. Legalized euthanasia raises the potential for a profoundly dangerous situation in which doctors could find themselves far better off financially if a seriously ill or disabled person “chooses” to die rather than receive long-term care.

Savings to the government may also become a consideration. This could take place if governments cut back on paying for treatment and care and replace them with the “treatment” of death. For example, immediately after the passage of Measure 16, Oregon’s law permitting assisted suicide, Jean Thorne, the state’s Medicaid Director, announced that physician-assisted suicide would be paid for as “comfort care” under the Oregon Health Plan which provides medical coverage for about 345,000 poor Oregonians. Within eighteen months of Measure 16’s passage, the State of Oregon announced plans to cut back on health care coverage for poor state residents. In Canada, hospital stays are being shortened while, at the same time, funds have not been made available for home care for the sick and elderly. Registered nurses are being replaced with less expensive practical nurses. Patients are forced to endure long waits for many types of needed surgery. 1

3. Euthanasia will only be voluntary, they say Emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care, many people will feel guilty for not choosing death. Financial considerations, added to the concern about “being a burden,” could serve as powerful forces that would lead a person to “choose” euthanasia or assisted suicide.

People for euthanasia say that voluntary euthanasia will not lead to involuntary euthanasia. They look at things as simply black and white. In real life there would be millions of situations each year where cases would not fall clearly into either category. Here are two:

Example 1: an elderly person in a nursing home, who can barely understand a breakfast menu, is asked to sign a form consenting to be killed. Is this voluntary or involuntary? Will they be protected by the law? How? Right now the overall prohibition on killing stands in the way. Once one signature can sign away a person’s life, what can be as strong a protection as the current absolute prohibition on direct killing? Answer: nothing.

Example 2: a woman is suffering from depresssion and asks to be helped to commit suicide. One doctor sets up a practice to “help” such people. She and anyone who wants to die knows he will approve any such request. He does thousands a year for $ 200 each. How does the law protect people from him? Does it specify that a doctor can only approve 50 requests a year? 100? 150? If you don’t think there are such doctors, just look at recent stories of doctors and nurses who are charged with murder for killing dozens or hundreds of patients.

Legalized euthanasia would most likely progress to the stage where people, at a certain point, would be expected to volunteer to be killed. Think about this: What if your veternarian said that your ill dog would be better of “put out of her misery” by being “put to sleep” and you refused to consent. What would the vet and his assistants think? What would your friends think? Ten years from now, if a doctor told you your mother’s “quality of life” was not worth living for and asked you, as the closest family member, to approve a “quick, painless ending of her life” and you refused how would doctors, nurses and others, conditioned to accept euthanasia as normal and right, treat you and your mother. Or, what if the approval was sought from your mother, who was depressed by her illness? Would she have the strength to refuse what everyone in the nursing home “expected” from seriously ill elderly people?

The movement from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia would be like the movement of abortion from “only for the life or health of the mother” as was proclaimed by advocates 30 years ago to today’s “abortion on demand even if the baby is half born”. Euthanasia people state that abortion is something people choose – it is not forced on them and that voluntary euthanasia will not be forced on them either. They are missing the main point – it is not an issue of force – it is an issue of the way laws against an action can be broadened and expanded once something is declared legal. You don’t need to be against abortion to appreciate the way the laws on abortion have changed and to see how it could well happen the same way with euthanasia/assisted suicide as soon as the door is opened to make it legal.

4. Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. People who support euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissable to take human life under some circumstances such as self defense – but they miss the point that when one kills for self defense they are saving innocent life – either their own or someone else’s. With euthanasia no one’s life is being saved – life is only taken.

History has taught us the dangers of euthanasia and that is why there are only two countries in the world today where it is legal. That is why almost all societies – even non-religious ones – for thousands of years have made euthanasia a crime. It is remarkable that euthanasia advocates today think they know better than the billions of people throughout history who have outlawed euthanasia – what makes the 50 year old euthanasia supporters in 2005 so wise that they think they can discard the accumulated wisdom of almost all societies of all time and open the door to the killing of innocent people? Have things changed? If they have, they are changes that should logically reduce the call for euthanasia – pain control medicines and procedure are far better than they have ever been any time in history.

What do you think? Answer below!

Police probe friends of Rob Ford who sought crack video
Lisi has told three associates interviewed by the Star that he is a supplier of drugs to Ford. …. One of the men, Bruno Bellissimo, 43, who has known Ford since high school days, is a crack addict who is currently in a substance abuse treatment …
Read more on Toronto Star

Video psychiatry aims to reduce ER crowding, lack of rural services
Psychiatrists and psychologists will use real-time video and audio meetings with patients and ER health care providers to diagnose, treat and prescribe medication for mental health, and drug and alcohol abuse problems. This digital process is called …
Read more on News & Observer

Allegations that A-Rod's camp outed players puts union in tough spot
If these latest allegations are correct, however, Rodriguez, assuming he is held responsible for the actions of his “inner circle,” would have violated the collectively bargained Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program, which lays out in great …
Read more on SI.com

Question by Evan: I NEED TO KNOW THE MONEY SPENT ON ALCOHOL REHABS YEARLY. RECENT AND RELIABLE PLZ.?
RECENT AND RELIABLE PLZ.

Best answer:

Answer by raysny
The most recent I could find for the US has the figures for 1997:

“A study shows that the U.S. spent a combined $ 11.9 billion on alcohol and drug abuse treatment, while the total social costs were more than $ 294 billion. The results were part of the National Estimates of Expenditures for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1997, which was released at the end of April by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.

The report, prepared by the MEDSTAT Group for SAMHSA, examines how much is spent in the U.S. to treat alcohol and drug abuse, how that spending has changed between 1987 and 1997, how much of the spending is done by the private and public sectors, and how substance abuse expenditures compare to spending for mental health and other health conditions in the U.S.”
http://www.usmedicine.com/newsDetails.cfm?dailyID=54

In NY:
“States report spending $ 2.5 billion a year on treatment. States did not distinguish whether the treatment was for alcohol, illicit drug abuse or nicotine addiction. Of the $ 2.5 billion total, $ 695 million is spent through the departments of health and $ 633 million through the state substance abuse agencies. We believe that virtually all of these funds are spent on alcohol and illegal drug treatment.”
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets (New York, NY: CASA, Jan. 2001), p. 24.

States Waste Billions Dealing with Consequences of Addiction, CASA Study Says
May 28, 2009

The vast majority of the estimated $ 467.7 billion in substance-abuse related spending by governments on substance-abuse problems went to deal with the consequences of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, not treatment and prevention, according to a new report from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.

The report, titled, “Shoveling Up II: The Impact of Substance Abuse on Federal, State and Local Budgets,” found that 95 percent of the $ 373.9 billion spent by the federal government and states went to paying for the societal and personal damage caused by alcohol and other drug use; the calculation included crime, health care costs, child abuse, domestic violence, homelessness and other consequences of tobacco, alcohol and illegal and prescription drug abuse and addiction.

Just 1.9 percent went to treatment and prevention, while 0.4 percent was spent on research, 1.4 percent went towards taxation and regulation, and 0.7 percent went to interdiction.

“Such upside-down-cake public policy is unconscionable,” said Joseph A. Califano, Jr., CASA’s founder and chairman. “It’s past time for this fiscal and human waste to end.”

CASA estimated that the federal government spent $ 238.2 billion on substance-abuse related issues in 2005, while states spent $ 135.8 billion and local governments spent $ 93.8 billion. The report said that 58 percent of spending was for health care and 13.1 percent on justice systems.

Researchers estimated that 11.2 percent of all federal and state government spending went towards alcohol, tobacco and other drug abuse and addictions and its consequences. The report said that Connecticut spent the most proportionately on prevention, treatment and research — $ 10.39 of every $ 100 spent on addiction issues — while New Hampshire spent the least — 22 cents.
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2009/states-waste-billions-dealing.html

Key Findings

Of the $ 3.3 trillion total federal and state government spending, $ 373.9 billion –11.2 percent, more than one of every ten dollars– was spent on tobacco, alcohol and illegal and prescription drug abuse and addiction and its consequences.

The federal government spent $ 238.2 billion (9.6 percent of its budget) on substance abuse and addiction. If substance abuse and addiction were its own budget category at the federal level, it would rank sixth, behind social security, national defense, income security, Medicare and other health programs including the federal share of Medicaid.

State governments spent $ 135.8 billion (15.7 percent of their budgets) to deal with substance abuse and addiction, up from 13.3 percent in 1998. If substance abuse and addiction were its own state budget category, it would rank second behind spending on elementary and secondary education.

Local governments spent $ 93.8 billion on substance abuse and addiction (9 percent of their budgets), outstripping local spending for transportation and public welfare.¹

For every $ 100 spent by state governments on substance abuse and addiction, the average spent on prevention, treatment and research was $ 2.38; Connecticut spent the most, $ 10.39; New Hampshire spent the least, $ 0.22.

For every dollar the federal and state governments spent on prevention and treatment, they spent $ 59.83 shoveling up the consequences, despite a growing

Give your answer to this question below!

16 California Drug And Alcohol Rehab Centers Suspended After Abuse And …
Following tips from the media and public, investigators from the state Department of Health Care Services raided 22 drug and alcohol rehab facilities in California, prompting them to suspend 16 of the treatment centers on July 18. The agency alleges …
Read more on Medical Daily

Teens claim they were used as fake rehab clients
(CNN) — Victoria Byers did not drink alcohol. She did not abuse drugs. But when she was a teenager in foster care, several times a month, she would board a van at her group home and go to rehab. Byers couldn't figure out why she had to take drug tests …
Read more on CNN

Turkish state to cover alcohol, drug addiction treatment expenses
Under the previous system, drug and alcohol Addiction treatment was provided only in Alcohol and Substance Abuse Therapy and Educational Centers (AMATEM) across Turkey. However, these centers failed to meet the need for treatment in the country.
Read more on www.worldbulletin.net

Rehab racket: Frauds, felons and fakes
A deputy director with the state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Lira decided to confront the problem by grilling people who applied to launch new clinics. She said she called applicants and quizzed them about their treatment philosophy.
Read more on CNN