Seventy-five years of policy on alcohol problems: an American perspective

The United States' Federal Parity Act and treatment of substance use disorders: Administrators' familiarity and perceptions of impact

BACKGROUND

The 2008 Wellstone and Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) aims to secure parity in private insurance coverage between behavioral and other medical disorders in the United States (U.S.). This legislation represents an important change in the operating field of substance use disorder treatment, but to date, its impact on treatment centers has not been widely examined. The current study measured the extent of center leaders' familiarity with the MHPAEA and their perceptions of its overall impact on their centers.

METHODS

Using a nationally representative sample of treatment centers in the U.S., we examined the extent of MHPAEA familiarity and its perceived impact as reported by treatment center leaders. We further employed logistic and ordered logistic regressions to determine personal and organizational characteristics associated with their reported familiarity and experienced impacts, including changes in the number of privately-insured clients seeking treatment and in the treatment coverage of those clients.

RESULTS

We found that dissemination of parity information was low. Only 36% of administrators reported high levels of familiarity and 16% used professional sources of information. The majority of administrators (71%) reported no impact of the legislation on their organization, but those that reported any impact were more likely to state positive impact. Greater parity knowledge and perceived positive impacts were associated with administrator and organizational characteristics indicative of greater access to industry-specific knowledge, a medical model orientation, and reliance on private insurance revenue.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that dissemination of parity information is lacking and that the majority of leaders have yet to experience an impact of the MHPAEA. Leaders of centers with more sophisticated structures are most likely to be familiar with the legislation and perceive a positive impact. Research concerning the effective management of treatment centers, including environmental scanning techniques, continues to be needed.

Detrimental Effects of "Stretch" Goals in Specialty Substance Use Disorder Treatment Organizations

BACKGROUND

"Stretch" goals, a rarely examined concept that represents seemingly impossible, highly ambitious organizational goals ostensibly established to fill performance gaps and motivate employees, are examined within a sample of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment centers in the United States in terms of their prevalence and effects on organizational behavior. Stretch goals are defined as "seemingly impossible" goals intended to motivate employees to achieve high performance. In light of the high level of environmental change and unpredictability faced by SUD treatment centers in recent decades, we theorize that stretch goals would be both common and often detrimental (in terms of capacity utilization rate and efficiency) in these settings.

METHODS

In a temporally lagged analysis of data from leaders of a representative U. S. national sample of 219 SUD treatment centers characterized by entrepreneurial management structures, we examined the prevalence of stretch goals and their impact on key outcome variables of capacity utilization rate and efficiency.

RESULTS

Widespread adoption of stretch goals was found, with 43% of our sample falling within the stretch category. Stretch goals had a negative main effect on capacity utilization rate as compared to less ambitious challenging goals. Stretch and prior performance interacted to further predict capacity utilization rate, whereas stretch and slack resource availability interacted to predict center efficiency.

DISCUSSION

Although stretch goals are frequently used in the SUD treatment industry, we find them mostly detrimental to performance. Stretch goals may enhance the efficiency of treatment centers with prior limited resource availability, but they are negatively associated with capacity utilization, especially in centers with a record of already strong performance. Despite the high prevalence of such goals and positive values centered on aspirational behavior, these results strongly suggest caution in such goal setting in SUD treatment centers.