Manitoba has only one-quarter of the methadone spaces per capita as compared to neighbouring Saskatchewan, and it is a sad fact that some programs currently operating in Winnipeg are feeling oxygen-deprived. Two Ten on Maryland, in Winnipeg’s inner city, is a non-profit post-treatment program for recovering addicts run by a former meth addict, Ian Rabb. He has been requesting more support from the provincial government for years, claiming that additional funding is required to provide round-the-clock supervision of clients and improve safety.
Manitoba spends $22 million a year on addiction services. Not surprisingly, belt-tightening is going on throughout government – the province faces a projected $592-million deficit this year – but officials claim this hasn’t prevented the funding of vital programs.
In a recent Winnipeg Free Press article [1] Rabb accuses the government of foot-dragging and insincerity when it claims that money is tight. In his view the programs offered at the facilities save the government money. Clients stay out of hospital and jail, and most of them eventually get off welfare.
By coincidence, in a letter to the editor on the same day a local representative of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Nicole Chammartin, pleads for improved harm-reduction programs for those with addictions, specifically mentioning methadone treatment. “We require a comprehensive and responsive addictions system that serves everyone,” concludes Chammartin.
Existing research provides some evidence for the value of harm-reduction programs for addicts. A Lancet study published last October found that psychosocial interventions used in England are associated with reduced use of heroin and crack cocaine [2]. Outreach programs can lead to high levels of compliance, general improvement, and treatment satisfaction [3]. Feeling that treatment is appropriate, finding staff motivating, and having enough time to sort out problems are important aspects of satisfaction with treatment among users of drug treatment services who achieved positive treatment outcomes. Services should seek to provide more individualized services based on understanding of individual client needs. This may require longer treatment periods and greater client involvement [4].
However, it is difficult to demonstrate conclusively the effectiveness of programs and successful treatment outcomes. A recent Cochrane Review went so far as to say that “there is no good available research to guide the clinician about the outcomes or cost-effectiveness of inpatient or outpatient approaches to opioid detoxification” [5].
Although Manitoba’s left-of-centre NDP government makes the appropriate clucking noises when it comes to addiction problems, its record is not looking good. The Addiction Foundation of Manitoba’s Methadone Intervention & Needle Exchange Program (m.i.n.e.) [6] has shown itself to be effective, but insufficient funds are being directed at this serious problem. People with intractable addictions are waiting for help and inner-city programs are stalled, while money earned from government-run casinos is lavished on developing yet more affluent suburbs and on purchasing law-and-order fetishes like police helicopters to make suburbanites feel safer.
References
1. Owen B. Cuts at addictions centres? Director may trim services without new provincial funding. Winnipeg Free Press. 2010 Jan 23;Sect. A:8 (col. 3).
2. Marsden J, Eastwood B, Bradbury C, Dale-Perera A, Farrell M, Hammond P, Knight J, Randhawa K, Wright C; National Drug Treatment Monitoring System Outcomes Study Group. Effectiveness of community treatments for heroin and crack cocaine addiction in England: a prospective, in-treatment cohort study. Lancet. 2009 Oct 10;374(9697):1262-70. PubMed PMID: 19800681.
3. Henskens R, Garretsen H, Bongers I, Van Dijk A, Sturmans F. Effectiveness of an outreach treatment program for inner city crack abusers: compliance, outcome, and client satisfaction. Subst Use Misuse. 2008;43(10):1464-75. PubMed PMID: 18615321.
4. Morris ZS, Gannon M. Drug misuse treatment services in Scotland: predicting outcomes. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008 Aug;20(4):271-6. PubMed PMID: 18492708.
5. Day E, Ison J, Strang J. Inpatient versus other settings for detoxification for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18;(2):CD004580. PubMed PMID: 15846721.
6. Bodnarchuk J, Patton D, Broszeit B. Evaluation of the AFM’s Methadone Intervention & Needle Exchange Program (m.i.n.e.) [Internet]. Winnipeg: Addiction Foundation of Manitoba; 2005 July [cited 24 Jan 2010]. Available from: http://www.afm.mb.ca/pdf/MINE_report_final.pdf
Photo credit: cc licensed flickr photo by wysiwtf
Gossypiboma 