An analysis of the significant variation in psychostimulant use across the U.S

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 267-275

  Bokhari, Farasat ^a   Mayes, Rick ^b   Scheffler, Richard M ^c  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Adolescents; Amphetamine; Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); Children; Mental health; Methylphenidate; Psychostimulants

Indexed keywords

AMPHETAMINE DERIVATIVE; DEXAMPHETAMINE; METHYLPHENIDATE; PSYCHOSTIMULANT AGENT;

ARTICLE; ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; DRUG USE; DRUG UTILIZATION; EMPLOYMENT; HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; INCOME; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PHYSICIAN; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIOECONOMICS; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; AMPHETAMINES; ANTIPSYCHOTIC AGENTS; ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER WITH HYPERACTIVITY; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM STIMULANTS; CHILD; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; METHYLPHENIDATE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 17244382251     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.980     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Cantwell D. Attention deficit disorder: a review of the past 10 years. J Am Acad Child Adolescent Psychiatry 1996; 35: 978-987.
2. LeFever G, Dawson K, Morrow A. The extent of drug therapy for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder among children in public schools. Am J Pub Health 1999; 89: 1359-1364.
3. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Consensus Statement Online, Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Consensus Development Conference Statement [online]. Available: http://odp.od.nih.gov/consensus/cons/110/110_statement.htm [16-18 November 1998].
4. Guevara J, Lozano P, Wickizer T, Mell L, Gephart H. Utilization and cost of health care services for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Pediatrics 2001; 108 71-78.
5. Jensen P. Commentary: the NIH ADHD consensus statement: win, lose, or draw? J Am Acad Child Adolescent Psychiatry 2000; 39 194-197.
6. Zito J, Safer D, dosReis S, Magder L, Gardner J, Zarin D. Psychotherapeutic medication patterns for youths with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder. Arch Pediatrics Adolesc Med 1999; 153 1257-1263.
7. Sloan M, Jensen P, Kettle L. Assessing services for children with ADHD: gaps and opportunities. J Attention Disorders 1999; 3 13-29.
8. Safer D, Zito J, Fine E. Increased methylphenidate usage for attention deficit disorder in the 1990s. Pediatrics 1996; 98: 1084-1088.
9. Cantwell D, Baker L. Association between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disorders. J Learn Disabil 1991; 24: 88-94.
10. State prescription monitoring programs track the quantity of the drug and the identity of the physician and patient for every individual psychostimulant prescription filled by a pharmacy. Control begins with the establishment of production limits (quotas) for Schedule I & II substances. Schedule I substances have the highest potential for abuse and addiction and have no accepted medical use in the United States. Schedule II includes such drugs as methadone, meperidine (Demerol), cocaine, oxycodone (Percodan) and methylphenidate (Ritalin). Because of their high abuse potential, the use of Schedule II drugs is the most restricted and greater controls are placed on them.
11. Zito J, Safer D, dosReis S, Gardner J, Bolese M, Lynch F. Trends in the prescribing of psychotropic medications to preschoolers. JAMA 2000; 283: 1025-1032.
12. Searight H, Burke J, Rottnek F. Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): evaluation and treatment in family medicine. Am Family Physician 2000; 62: 2077-2086, 2091-2092.
13. Rappley M, Gardiner J, Jetton J, Houang R. The use of methyl-phenidate in Michigan. Arch Gen Psychiatr 1995; 149: 675-679.
14. Spanos B. Quotas, ARCOS, UN Report and Statistics Conference Report: stimulant Use in the Treatment of ADHD. Washington, D.C.: Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice; 1996.
15. Glass C, Wegar K. Teacher perceptions of the incidence and management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Education 2000; 121: 412-420.
16. Forness S, Kavale K. ADHD and a return to the medical model of special education. Educ Treatment Children 2001; 24: 224-247.
17. Safer D, Krager J. Effect of a media blitz and a threatened lawsuit on stimulant treatment. JAMA 1992; 268: 1004-1007.
18. Zito J, Safer D, dosReis S, Magder L, Gardner J, Zarin D. Psychotherapeutic medication patterns for youths with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder. Arch Pediatrics Adolesc Med 1999; 153 1257-1263.
19. Zito J, Safer D, dosReis S, Magder L, Riddle M. Methylphenidate patterns among medicaid youths. Psychopharmacol Bull 1997; 30: 143-147.
20. Cox E, Motheral B, Henderson R, Mager D. Geographic variation in the prevalence of stimulant medication use among children 5 to 14 years old: results from a commercially insured sample. J Pediatrics 2003; 111: 237-243.
21. Bird HR, Canino G, Rubio-Stipec M, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of childhood maladjustment in a community survey in Puerto Rico: the use of combined measures [published correction appears in Archives of General Psychiatry. 1994; 51: 429]. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988; 45: 1120-1126.
22. Cohen P, Cohen J, Kasen S, et al. An epidemiological study of disorders in late childhood and adolescence, I: age- and gender-specific prevalence. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1993; 34 851-867.
23. Costello EJ, Costello AJ, Edelbrock C, et al. Psychiatric disorders in pediatric primary care: prevalence and risk factors. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988; 45: 1107-1116.
24. Esser G, Schmidt MH, Woerner W. Epidemiology and course of psychiatric disorders in school-aged children: results of a longitudinal study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1990; 31: 243-263.
25. Offord DR, Boyle MH, Szatmari P, et al. Ontario Child Health Study, II: six month prevalence of disorder and rates of service utilization. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1987; 44: 832-836.
26. Reid R, Maag JW, Vasa SF, Wright G. Who are the children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder? A school-based survey. J Special Educ 1994; 28: 117-137.
27. Szatmari P, Offord DR, Boyle MH. Ontario Child Health Study: prevalence of attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1989; 30: 219-230.
28. Velez CN, Johnson J, Cohen P. A longitudinal analysis of selected risk factors for childhood psychopathology. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1989; 28: 861-864.
29. IMS Health. Retail and Provider Perspective Audit, 1990-2000; and National Disease and Therapeutic Index, 1980-2000. Plymouth Meeting, Penn. 2001.
30. Swanson J, Lerner M, Williams L. More frequent diagnosis of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. New Engl J Med 1995; 333: 944.
31. State prescription monitoring programs track the quantity of the drug and the identity of the physician and patient for every individual psychostimulant prescription filled by a pharmacy. Control begins with the establishment of production limits (quotas) for Schedule I & II substances. Schedule I substances have the highest potential for abuse and addiction and have no accepted medical use in the United States. Schedule II includes such drugs as methadone, meperidine (Demerol), cocaine, oxycodone (Percodan) and methylphenidate (Ritalin). Because of their high abuse potential, the use of Schedule II drugs is the most restricted and greater controls are placed on them. Several states have instituted multiple copy prescription programs or electronic tracking systems, which can be used alone or with the single-serialized form. Both systems allow states to monitor these drugs. A multiple copy prescription monitoring program operates as follows: (1) The prescriber writes a prescription for a Schedule II (and in a few states, certain Schedule III and IV) controlled substance on a state issued, preprinted, serialized duplicate or triplicate form; (2) The prescriber writes and the dispenser maintains file copies of the prescription for a period of two to five years (for triplicate programs). Duplicate prescription programs do not require the prescriber to maintain copies; (3) The dispenser forwards a copy of the prescription to the mandated state authority; With an electronic data transmission system, however: (1) The prescriber writes an original prescription for a Schedule II (and in some states, Schedules III, IV and V) controlled substance on a prescription form; (2) The dispenser maintains the original prescription for a period of two to five years; (3) The dispenser transmits the prescription information either electronically (via modem, disk, tape, black box) or by universal claim form to the mandated state authority. This system allows prescription information to be submitted electronically. In most states, if the dispenser lacks the requisite computer equipment and/or fills less than 20-25 Schedule II prescriptions per month, information is submitted on a Universal Claim Form.
32. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Prescription Drugs: State Monitoring Programs Provide Useful Tool To Reduce Diversion. Report to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, GAO-02-634. Washington, D.C.; May 2002.