CEWG January 09 Full Report - National Institute on Drug Abuse

Section III. <strong>CEWG</strong> Area Update Briefs and International Presentations
and Drug Programs (tables produced by the California
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs)
using the California Outcomes Measurement System
(CalOMS). CalOMS is a statewide client-based
data collection and outcomes measurement system
for alcohol and other drug (AOD) prevention
and treatment services. Submission of admission/
discharge information for all clients is required of
all counties and their subcontracted AOD providers,
all direct contract providers receiving public
AOD funding, and all private-pay licensed narcotic
treatment providers. Data for the current report
include admissions to San Diego County for the
period <strong>January</strong>–June 2008. Note that CalOMS was
implemented in early 2006 (replacing the earlier
CADDS system); data reported for periods prior to
July 2006 may not be comparable to more recent
periods. Unweighted ED data for <strong>January</strong>–June
2008 came from the Drug Abuse Warning Network
(DAWN) Live!, a restricted access on-line query
system administered by the Offce of Applied Studies,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration. The completeness of data reported
by participating EDs varied by month. The first
half of 2008 data for San Diego represent reports
of major substances of abuse (n=2,281), including
illicit drugs and alcohol only reports for patients
younger than 21. These data were accessed on
<strong>January</strong> 15, 20<strong>09</strong>, and are subject to change due
to corrections and/or deletions arising from quality
control reviews. Data represent drug reports in
drug-related ED visits and may exceed the number
of ED visits due to patients reporting multiple
drugs. A full description of the DAWN data system
can be found at http://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/.
Mortality data were obtained from the Emergency
Medical Services Medical Examiner Database,
which is maintained by the County of San Diego
Health and Human Services Agency.
Drug Abuse Patterns and Trends in
the San Francisco Bay Area—Update:
<strong>January</strong> 20<strong>09</strong>
John A. Newmeyer, Ph.D.
For inquiries concerning this report, please contact
John A. Newmeyer, Ph.D., Epidemiologist, Haight-
Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc., 2004 Gough Street, San
Francisco, CA 941<strong>09</strong>. Phone: 415–931–5420, Fax:
415–776–8823, E-mail: jnewmeyer@aol.com.
Overview of Findings: The five-county San
Francisco Bay area was hit hard by economic troubles
in the last half of 2008. These troubles especially
affected the two inland counties (Alameda
and Contra Costa), where unemployment rose
to 7.2 percent and housing values fell by as much
as one-third. The three coastal counties (Marin,
San Francisco, and San Mateo) suffered somewhat
less, with unemployment at 5.7 percent and
housing values down by approximately one-sixth.
Recent trends for cocaine and methamphetamine
were down for this reporting period, while those
for marijuana and prescription painkillers were
up. Heroin use was level or up after a long decline.
Updated Drug Abuse Trends and Emerging
Patterns: Admissions for cocaine were up
slightly. However, nearly half of 2008’s emergency
department (ED) reports of cocaine were
older than 45, and the cost of crack/cocaine at
the wholesale and retail level was notably higher.
All indicators for heroin were down during the
2004 to 2007 time frame. However, between 2007
and 2008 admissions increased by 9 percent, and
the proportion under age 25 among unweighted
ED cases rose from 4 to 7 percent. The Heroin
Domestic Monitor Program’s (HDMP) local heroin
samples for 2007 had the highest price and
lowest purity since 2001. Over the most recent 3
years, three indicators for methamphetamine—
the share of unweighted ED reports, the reported
usage among San Francisco gay men (from ethnographic
sources), and the price of the drug at
the wholesale and retail levels—all suggest a sharp
decline in usage. Unweighted ED data in 2008
Proceedings of the Community Epidemiology Work Group, <strong>January</strong> 20<strong>09</strong> 63