Cost-effectiveness of public sector substance abuse treatment

Perceptions of purchasing and payment mechanisms in alcohol and other drug treatment services in Australia: A qualitative study involving alcohol and other drug service providers and purchasers of treatment

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Governments across the globe invest considerable amounts in funding alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment. Little attention however has been paid to the ways AOD service providers are chosen and how they are paid. This study sought to examine the perceptions of Australian AOD treatment purchasers and providers regarding different purchasing and payment mechanisms.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Qualitative interviews with AOD treatment providers and purchasers (N = 197) were undertaken across the eight Australian states/territories and the Commonwealth. Data were collated against six main AOD treatment purchasing and payment mechanisms (as identified in the literature), then an inductive, comparative analysis to assign codes was conducted, followed by interpretive analysis to explore emergent themes.

RESULTS

Five main themes were identified in relation to AOD treatment payment and purchasing mechanisms: (i) applying private sector principles to purchasing; (ii) innovation, sector stability and addressing client needs; (iii) performance monitoring and measuring outcomes; (iv) the threat to designated funding for AOD treatment; and (v) the costs and benefits of having multiple funding sources.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In many countries reforms are taking place in the health sector consistent with New Public Management principles. These principles, when applied to AOD treatment, have included introducing competition, output and outcomes-based funding models, standards and accountability. Purchaser and providers identified both strengths and weaknesses and highlighted the overarching concern that implementation of any (mix) of these mechanisms should always be underpinned by a client-centred and not a finance-centred approach.

A conceptual schema for government purchasing arrangements for Australian alcohol and other drug treatment

AIM

The aim of this study was to establish a conceptual schema for government purchasing of alcohol and other drug treatment in Australia which could encompass the diversity and variety in purchasing arrangements, and facilitate better decision-maker by purchasers. There is a limited evidence base on purchasing arrangements in alcohol and drug treatment despite the clear impact of purchasing arrangements on both treatment processes and treatment outcomes.

METHODS

The relevant health and social welfare literature on purchasing arrangements was reviewed; data were collected from Australian purchasers and providers of treatment giving detailed descriptions of the array of purchasing arrangements. Combined analysis of the literature and the Australian purchasing data resulted in a draft schema which was then reviewed by an expert committee and subsequently finalised.

RESULTS

The conceptual schema presented here was purpose-built for alcohol and other drug treatment, with its overlap between health and social welfare services. It has three dimensions: 1. The ways in which providers are chosen; 2. The ways in which services are paid for; and 3. How price is managed. Distinguishing between the methods for choosing providers (such as competitive or individually negotiated processes) from the way in which organisations are paid for their provision of treatment (such as via a block grant or payment for activity) provides conceptual clarity and enables closer analysis of each mechanism.

CONCLUSIONS

Governments can improve health and wellbeing by making informed decisions about the way they purchase and fund alcohol and other drug treatment. Research comparing different purchasing arrangements can provide a vital evidence-base to inform funders; however a first step is to accurately and consistently categorise current approaches against a typology or conceptual schema.

Preference-weighted health-related quality of life measures and substance use disorder severity

AIMS

Examine the validity of preference-weighted health-related quality of life measures in a sample of substance use disorder (SUD) patients. The implications of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of SUD interventions are discussed.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of subjects seeking SUD treatment.

SETTING

Seven SUD treatment centers in a medium-sized Midwestern metropolitan area in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Data from 574 SUD subjects were analyzed from a study to test interventions to improve linkage and engagement with substance abuse treatment.

MEASUREMENTS

Subjects completed the following preference-weighted measures: self-administered Quality of Well-Being scale (QWB-SA) and Medical Outcomes Study SF-12 (standard gamble weighted or SF-12 SG); and clinical measures: Addiction Severity Index (ASI) and a symptom checklist based on the DSM-IV.

FINDINGS

In unadjusted analyses, the QWB-SA was correlated significantly with six of seven ASI subscales and the SF-12 SG was correlated with four of seven. In adjusted analyses, both preference-weighted measures were significantly correlated with diagnostic, physical health, mental health and drug use measures, but not with legal or alcohol use measures. The QWB-SA was also correlated with employment problems and the SF-12 SG was correlated with family/social problems.

CONCLUSIONS

This study generally supports the construct validity of preference-weighted health-related quality of life measures in SUD patients. However, the QWB-SA and SF-12 SG did not correlate with all ASI scales. Cost-benefit analysis may be preferable when policy-makers are interested in evaluating the full range of SUD intervention outcomes.

Public sector managed care: a comparative evaluation of substance abuse treatment in three counties

AIMS

A study of publicly funded substance abuse treatment systems compared MidState, a county that reorganized its treatment system using managed care principles, to two other California counties that took different approaches, NorthState and SouthState. It was hypothesized that MidState would have better outcomes due to its emphasis on quality of care.

DESIGN

This natural experiment compared the 'experimental' county, MidState, to two 'control' counties, assessing client outcomes following treatment. Administrative and historical exigencies that may affect system differences were explored in interviews with treatment program managers and staff.

SETTINGS

Comparison counties were selected using treatment system and county census data, maximizing similarities to enhance internal validity.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult clients (n = 681) were interviewed when beginning treatment and 12 months later (81% response rate). In addition, 50 treatment program managers and staff members across the three counties were interviewed during the year of client recruitment.

MEASUREMENTS

Client interviews assessed functioning in the seven Addiction Severity Index domains-alcohol, drug, psychiatric, legal, employment, medical and family/social.

FINDINGS

Outcomes (differences between baseline and 12 month composite scores) did not differ between counties in six of seven domains; in the seventh, psychiatric functioning, SouthState had better outcomes than MidState. Staff interviews indicated generally similar treatment strategies across counties, with MidState supplying greater oversight and performance standards.

CONCLUSIONS

Managed care in public sector treatment generally did not result in poorer outcomes. Future attention in MidState to the barriers to successful implementation of individualized treatment, and to dual diagnosis treatment, might bring more positive results.