Pubdate: Fri, 22 Jul 2016
Source: Cowichan Valley Citizen (CN BC)
Copyright: 2016 Cowichan Valley Citizen
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/cowichanvalleycitizen/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4349
Author: Phil Le Good

HARM REDUCTION IS COST-EFFECTIVE HEALTH CARE

Re: "Health dollars going to crack pipes, syringes", (Citizen, July 20)

In response to letter writer Dr. Mathews's commentary on health care 
costs for those unfortunate enough to have a drug-related addiction, 
I present the following comment.

The good doctor should know that these types of opiate addictions are 
extremely difficult to treat let alone police.

Decades of criminalization have not worked, and the judicial and 
penal costs alone are significantly higher than providing syringes in 
a safe environment.

The doctor should take time to review the studies on the 
cost-effectiveness of harm reduction vs. no harm reduction (HIV, Hep. C, etc.).

The costs of anti-viral drugs for HIV and Hep. C over a lifetime are 
astronomical compared to the costs of providing clean syringes. A 
12-week regimen of one anti-viral Hep. C drug is $84,000.

A study conducted in Australia over a 10-year period showed that 
needle syringe programs reduced the incidence of HIV by needle users 
by 74 per cent. Many more studies are available even to the layperson 
to know that harm reduction works for all of us, from low to high 
incomes, not just those who find themselves drawn into this most 
insidious addiction.

The harm reduction centres provide more than just needles as the 
doctor knows full well. Other health issues are picked up by those 
working at these centres which further reduces the costs of 
healthcare treatment.

Issues found early rather than later are known to reduce costs. 
Another service provided at harm reduction centres is education and 
referrals for addiction treatment.

The goal is to make communities safer, unlike the old days where 
enforcement and criminalization only led to escalating disease, death 
and extremely high costs without benefits. Dr. Mathews, in his 
commentary, unfortunately failed to provide an alternative to 
well-studied, currently performed, best practices.

If the good doctor was really concerned about health care costs 
perhaps he could focus his energies on the high cost of prescription 
drugs, the overuse and over-prescription of many drugs and the high 
cost of healthcare administration, which now takes more than 20 per 
cent of all our healthcare dollars.

Phil Le Good

Cobble Hill
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom