Shortage of ADHD meds, loosening prescribing rules causing dad to ration son's supply
A dad is worried his son will run out of ADHD medication with changes on the way to who can prescribe the drugs.
Photo:
AFP / Thom Leach / Science Photo Library
The father of a boy using ADHD medication is rationing his son's medication because of drug shortages and is worried things will get worse when new prescribing rules are introduced.
From next year
GPs and specialist nurses will be able to diagnose and prescribe medication
for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Currently, they require the written recommendation of a psychiatrist or paediatrician to start prescribing ADHD medications, which can takes months.
ADHD drugs include Methylphenidate hydrochloride, that is also marketed as a ritalin, concerta, rubifen and teva.
Currently there is a worldwide shortage of the drugs. Pharmac's website shows there's no stock for nine types of the drugs and low stock for two others. Half a dozen others have no supply issues.
In a note added yesterday the drug buying agency said suppliers and wholesalers were also limiting the amount of stock going to pharmacies.
Auckland dad Craig has a 10-year-old son who takes one of the ADHD medications that has supply problems.
He told
Checkpoint
his family had been experiencing shortages of the medication for almost 18 months.
"The last two times, directly, I've gone in to get it and there's actually none there. And the last time we had this was just last week and now there's effectively none 'till the end of July."
He said they used the medication to help his son to concentrate at school, and now they were having to piece together whatever leftover drugs they could find to last them for the next month.
"We've had so many changes of the different types of medicine we've got little bits and pieces left over that we've managed to cobble together for the next few weeks after the school holidays, but obviously that's not ideal."
But these drugs weren't the first choice prescription for his son.
"Different types of drugs last for extended periods, some of them which are better, and some are short-lasting, it's not really ideal... it just concerns me that it could get worse and it is a big deal for him."
Craig said the type of medication his son was currently on had been hugely helpful, and when taking other types his mood and concentration could suffer.
"This particular type that he's on now has been really helpful and it just, you know, keeps him more focused, right through the day. Other ones he'll drop off a bit quickly... that is a concern."
Pharmac said rising demand and overseas manufacturing constraints had led to ongoing supply issues for ADHD medicines, and it was working with suppliers to secure more stock.
Craig said while he was supportive of the recently announced changes around diagnosing and prescribing ADHD medication, he was now concerned the medication might be even harder to come by.
"It took a while for this diagnosis to come through. It takes a lot of work, probably about a year or so, and a lot of people involved and a bit of expense for us at the time.
"So I think it's a great thing that this might be able to be, you know, available for people quicker.
"Everyone should get [the medication], and particularly, you know, use it wisely and as [how] it's supposed to be used.
"But there's definitely a supply issue and all I could see from hearing [about the changes] was that it can only get worse."
Pharmac's Director of Pharmaceuticals, Geraldine MacGibbon, said the recently announced changes making it easier for people to be diagnosed and prescribed stimulants for ADHD were delayed until February 2026 to give the health system more time to prepare, and improve supply of medicines.
She said Pharmac was not expecting a significant short-term increase in the amount of people being diagnosed with ADHD or using ADHD stimulant medicines because of the changes.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
26 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Dentist criticised for 'supervised neglect' of some patients
The care of one patient was described as a case of "supervised neglect" over a period of 25 years. Photo: A dentist working in sole practice for three decades has been criticised for sloppy record-keeping and "supervised neglect" of some patients. Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner Dr Vanessa Caldwell has just issued her findings in relation to seven patients of the dentist 'Dr C'. The problems came to light in November 2021, when Dr C had a break from practice and two other dentists treated his patients. Dr Angela McKeefry, an expert advisor to the HDC, described his care of one patient - Ms D - as a case of "supervised neglect" over a period of 25 years. She had about 18 appointments in that time, but never had any X-rays taken, even before having teeth removed. Another dentist who saw her in February 2022 because her front teeth were sore said she was "in complete shock" to learn she had severe periodontal disease, as she had been seeing Dr C for regular cleaning. An X-ray showed dead gum tissue, abscess and "severe bone loss" around some teeth. Dr McKeefry admitted that even with specialist treatment, the patient could still have lost all her upper teeth, but she was "effectively given no opportunity to try and prevent this from happening". "The lack of radiographs, periodontal pocket depth charting, diagnosis, offer of specialist referral or satisfactory clinical notes would be found to be shocking by most dentists." Dr C told the commission that after providing dental care to the community for 30 years "this complaint has been a source of shame and stress for him". He acknowledged his record-keeping was significantly below standard for all these patients and that there were deficiencies in the care provided, and said that he was sorry for this. For many of these patients, the treatment he provided allowed them to keep their teeth for longer than they otherwise would have, he said. He maintained he discussed treatment plans with his patients, but accepted his poor record-keeping meant this could not be confirmed. "Dr C also acknowledged that he should have been more assertive with some patients, setting out holistic, permanent options for treatment as opposed to quick-fix solutions that would only prolong the inevitable." The dentist said he had taken various steps to improve his practice, and has had no complaints since 2021, including doing extra training, working with a supervisor and hiring more staff to do administration. Dr Caldwell said due to the severity of the breaches and number of patients affected, she had considered prosecution. "However, given the measures that have since been put in place by the Dental Council, the time that has elapsed since these events, and that some of the consumers did not support a referral, I have decided not to proceed with a referral to the Director of Proceedings in this instance." Instead, she has recommended Dr C do some additional training, an audit of his records, and apologise to the patients involved. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Concern over chemicals in mass sewage discharges into Shotover River
Otago Regional Council is at loggerheads with Queenstown Lakes District Council over a series of large discharges of sewage into the Shotover River by the district council. Photo: RNZ / Tess Brunton Wastewater being discharged into Queenstown's Shotover River could breach national ammonia limits, Otago Regional Council says. In March, the Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) used emergency powers to begin pumping treated effluent into the river each day from its wastewater treatment plant - the equivalent of nearly five Olympic-sized swimming pools a day. It retrospectively applied for consent in May, then last week applied for the case to be handled by the Environment Court. However, a letter now published online shows Otago Regional Council (ORC) had already assessed the application, and placed it on hold due to several concerns. In the letter dated 19 June, Consents Processing Planner Hannah Goslin said QLDC needed to provide more evidence to support its claim the discharge would have "less than minor" impacts. "The application relies on a small amount of monitoring data to support the conclusions reached in terms of the scale and significance of effects," she said. ORC raised concerns about ammonia and phosphorus concentrations observed in the river. It said monitoring at five sites suggested "potential for the discharge to cause exceedances of the national bottom line for ammonia", and it asked why QLDC had not set a discharge quality limit for phosphorus. It said QLDC claimed the river would dilute the treated wastewater by 15 to 25 times - but had not backed that up with any hydraulic modelling, dye tests, or flow calculations. ORC also wanted more evidence to support QLDC's claim there was an initial "flush" of germs when the discharge began. It also called for a public health risk assessment to evaluate the likelihood of illness from disease-causing microorganisms in the treated wastewater - particularly given the river's "suitability for bathing." ORC gave QLDC until 11 July to respond to its letter. "If the information you provide raises more questions, your application will remain on hold until sufficient information has been provided to enable processing to continue," Goslin said. On Friday, QLDC said the Environment Court was already familiar with the Shotover discharge situation and "would help to provide an efficient and comprehensive decision from a neutral arbiter." However, ORC would still oversee public notification, submission timeframes, and the technical assessment of the application, it said. RNZ has approached QLDC and ORC for comment. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Health and Disability Commissioner investigates struck-off dentist Bharath Subramani, finds more breaches
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice multimedia journalist of Photo: 123rf More complaints about the poor practices of a struck-off dentist have come to light. They include a patient who suffered extreme pain after a piece of tooth was left in his gum, and another who was hospitalised after her cheek was pierced with an airflow polisher. Former Greymouth dentist Bharath Subramani, known as Barry Subramani, was banned by the Dental Council in 2023 from practising for three years after several upheld complaints. Today, the Health and Disability Commissioner released an 86-page report focused on three further complaints. Deputy Commissioner Vanessa Caldwell found Subramani breached several aspects of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights (the Code) when he provided dental services to the complainants, and has recommended that he apologise. According to the report, a 55-year-old patient, referred to as Mr C in the findings, attended eight dental appointments with Subramani between December 2021 and January 2022, while he was under supervision. A significant amount of treatment was performed, including a tooth extraction. After, Mr C suffered chewing problems and an infection. An "excessively painful" large lump in his cheek also developed and at the following appointments, he queried Subramani about whether it could be a "floating piece of tooth". He told the patient it was his jawbone and reassured him the area was healing well. However, the pain continued and eventually, "a large piece of tooth came out", where the lump had been. He showed Subramani, who reportedly laughed it off. In relation to Mr C's treatment, Caldwell found Subramani had failed to advise of the potential chewing issues after the extraction, did not order an X-ray when necessary, failed to obtain informed consent for multiple procedures and had incomplete and confusing clinical notes. Mr C told the HDC he was "very disappointed in the whole experience" with Subramani. He said he complained to prevent the poor treatment of future patients. Another patient visited Subramani urgently in April 2018 as he believed a filling had fallen out and was in pain. The 35-year-old told the HDC that while only one tooth had been bothering him, Subramani worked on three others, saying they needed attention. Subramani also made him a "type of mouthguard," he said was required and charged him $1300. His notes said the patient, referred to as Mr B, had needed three fillings, and a bite splint to assist his teeth grinding. Mr B was told more fillings would be needed, for which Subramani quoted him $400. Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner Dr Vanessa Caldwell. Photo: James Gilberd Photography Ltd But it turned out to be an exam, scale and polish plus five fillings and he was charged $1425. The man complained to the dental practice, then later the HDC, that he experienced ongoing pain after his treatment with Subramani. "I have had nothing but trouble since he did this work in 2018, spent thousands of dollars, seen [four] different dentists at different times resulting in [two] of the teeth he worked on ultimately being removed," he said. Caldwell's findings concerning Mr B included Subramani's use of outdated materials and incomplete procedures, that he failed to properly diagnose or treat infection, and to provide or document clear treatment plans or consent. The third complainant, aged 75 at the time of treatment between March and April 2018, had a tooth removed by Subramani at her initial appointment. After, Subramani told the woman, referred to as Ms A, that she ground her teeth and needed something for it. She disagreed and told the HDC that he was "quite insistent" that she ground her teeth and was "very confrontational". At a subsequent appointment, Ms A returned for a scale and polish. Subramani tried to polish her teeth using an airflow polisher, but it slipped and pierced the tissue of her cheek. She told the HDC that she "shot upright and could not breathe," and it felt like a "choking sensation", which caused her throat, cheek, and neck to swell. Ms A, who was left alone for a few moments, began to hyperventilate, was very upset and frightened and was later taken to hospital by a friend. There, she saw a doctor who was concerned she had surgical emphysema that was "well up in her face", she told the HDC. She was observed for about 12 hours then sent home. However, she remained sick for about 10 days. She told the HDC she did not choose to have scaling with air polishing, was not informed of the risks or benefits, and subsequently did not give her verbal consent for this treatment. Ms A said the incident left her feeling traumatised, and she has been too fearful to visit a dentist since. Among her findings, Caldwell made several concerning Subramani's failure to use the airflow polisher appropriately. It was also found that treatment plans were inappropriate for the condition, there was a lack of explanation and consent, and Subramani did not seek second opinions or proper supervision when required. Again, several breaches were identified. Caldwell's report, which included expert clinical advice, identified a pattern of unsafe practice and poor patient engagement by Subramani. In making her recommendations, she noted the action already taken by the Dental Council. As Subramani was no longer practising, she ordered him to provide a formal apology to the complainants and to provide the HDC with evidence of the training courses he had attended. Caldwell also recommended that Subramani undertake further education and training before he became registered with the Dental Council again, and that the council conduct a competence review. According to the report, the council had referred Subramani to a Professional Conduct Committee in February 2019 after a string of complaints. The committee went on to find that a charge should be brought against him before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. In February 2022, Subramani admitted and was found guilty of a charge of professional misconduct at the tribunal hearing relating to his treatment of 11 patients between October 2017 and October 2018. The charge included 39 incidents of misconduct, which did not include the three complaints referred to in the HDC report. As a result, he was fined, ordered to pay costs and deregistered, which he appealed. Then, the following month, the HDC made public interest referrals to the Dental Council regarding two of the complainants in the report. The HDC had become aware that Subramani was still able to practise subject to supervision by a dentist appointed by the council in 2020, until an appeal made by him to the High Court had been heard. At that time, HDC had not received the third complaint in the report but it has since been referred. In November 2023, the council confirmed that Subramani's appeal had been heard and that the High Court had upheld the decision to deregister him. It ruled that he was not to practise for three years from October 2023. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
