16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Directed funding to address under-provision of treatment for substance use disorders: a quantitative study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Substance use disorders (SUDs) are a substantial problem in the United States (U.S.), affecting far more people than receive treatment. This is true broadly and within the U.S. military veteran population, which is our focus. To increase funding for treatment, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has implemented several initiatives over the past decade to direct funds toward SUD treatment, supplementing the unrestricted funds VA medical centers receive. We study the ‘flypaper effect’ or the extent to which these directed funds have actually increased SUD treatment spending.

          Methods

          The study sample included all VA facilities and used observational data spanning years 2002 to 2010. Data were analyzed with a fixed effects, ordinary least squares specification with monetized workload as the dependent variable and funding dedicated to SUD specialty clinics the key dependent variable, controlling for unrestricted funding.

          Results

          We observed different effects of dedicated SUD specialty clinic funding over the period 2002 to 2008 versus 2009 to 2010. In the earlier period, there is no evidence of a significant portion of the dedicated funding sticking to its target. In the later period, a substantial proportion—38% in 2009 and 61% in 2010—of funding dedicated to SUD specialty clinics did translate into increased medical center spending for SUD treatment. In comparison, only five cents of every dollar of unrestricted funding is spent on SUD treatment.

          Conclusions

          Relative to unrestricted funding, dedicated funding for SUD treatment was much more effective in increasing workload, but only in years 2009 and 2010. The differences in those years relative to prior ones may be due to the observed management focus on SUD and SUD-related treatment in the later years. If true, this suggests that in a centrally directed healthcare organization such as the VA, funding dedicated to a service is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for increasing resources expended for that service.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Benefit-cost in the California treatment outcome project: does substance abuse treatment "pay for itself"?

          To examine costs and monetary benefits associated with substance abuse treatment. Primary and administrative data on client outcomes and agency costs from 43 substance abuse treatment providers in 13 counties in California during 2000-2001. Using a social planner perspective, the estimated direct cost of treatment was compared with the associated monetary benefits, including the client's costs of medical care, mental health services, criminal activity, earnings, and (from the government's perspective) transfer program payments. The cost of the client's substance abuse treatment episode was estimated by multiplying the number of days that the client spent in each treatment modality by the estimated average per diem cost of that modality. Monetary benefits associated with treatment were estimated using a pre-posttreatment admission study design, i.e., each client served as his or her own control. Treatment cost data were collected from providers using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program instrument. For the main sample of 2,567 clients, information on medical hospitalizations, emergency room visits, earnings, and transfer payments was obtained from baseline and 9-month follow-up interviews, and linked to information on inpatient and outpatient mental health services use and criminal activity from administrative databases. Sensitivity analyses examined administrative data outcomes for a larger cohort (N=6,545) and longer time period (1 year). On average, substance abuse treatment costs $1,583 and is associated with a monetary benefit to society of $11,487, representing a greater than 7:1 ratio of benefits to costs. These benefits were primarily because of reduced costs of crime and increased employment earnings. Even without considering the direct value to clients of improved health and quality of life, allocating taxpayer dollars to substance abuse treatment may be a wise investment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Changes In US spending on Mental Health And Substance Abuse Treatment, 1986-2005, and implications for policy.

            The United States invests a sizable amount of money on treatments for mental health and substance abuse: $135 billion in 2005, or 1.07 percent of the gross domestic product. We provide treatment spending estimates from the period 1986-2005 to build understanding of past trends and consider future possibilities. We find that the growth rate in spending on mental health medications-a major driver of mental health expenditures in prior years-declined dramatically. As a result, mental health and substance abuse spending grew at a slightly slower rate than gross domestic product in 2004 and 2005, and it continued to shrink as a share of all health spending. Of note, we also find that Medicaid's share of total spending on mental health grew from 17 percent in 1986 to 27 percent in 2002 to 28 percent in 2005. The recent recession, the full implementation of federal parity law, and such health reform-related actions as the planned expansion of Medicaid all have the potential to improve access to mental health and substance abuse treatment and to alter spending patterns further. Our spending estimates provide an important context for evaluating the effect of those policies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The relative contribution of outcome domains in the total economic benefit of addiction interventions: a review of first findings.

              This paper provides a focused summary of the relative contribution of addiction intervention outcomes to total economic benefit, based upon a compilation of published economic studies from the United States. The relevant literature was searched extensively, and 11 economic studies were selected for review. The selected addiction interventions address both alcohol use/abuse and illicit drug use/abuse and represent various treatment modalities, including a brief physician intervention and long-term residential programs. Study participants included community-based drug users, pregnant and/or parenting women, problem drinkers, and criminal offenders. These studies estimated the economic benefits of an addiction intervention(s) in terms of one or more of the following outcome domains: criminal activity, health services utilization, employment earnings, and expenditures on illicit drugs and alcohol. The primary finding of this review was that avoided criminal activity was the greatest economic benefit of addiction interventions and contributed more, as a separate outcome domain, to the total economic benefit of addiction interventions than any other outcome domain. Reduced utilization of health care services was also a noteworthy economic benefit of addiction interventions. This study provides a detailed exposition of economic benefits estimation and highlights the potential impact of individual outcomes, thus providing a useful resource for substance abuse researchers and administrators as they design and evaluate future interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central
                1748-5908
                2013
                18 July 2013
                : 8
                : 79
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Healthcare Financing & Economics, VA Boston Healthcare System and School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
                [2 ]Program Evaluation and Resource Center, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park CA, USA
                [3 ]Department of Psychiatry, Veterans Administration North Texas Health Care System, Bonham, TX, USA
                Article
                1748-5908-8-79
                10.1186/1748-5908-8-79
                3722030
                23866119
                086eb068-61ea-4ce0-b9a2-92b6b297276a
                Copyright © 2013 Frakt et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 5 October 2012
                : 30 April 2013
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                substance use disorder,veterans,veterans health administration,funding
                Medicine
                substance use disorder, veterans, veterans health administration, funding

                Comments

                Comment on this article