Back to Annual Meeting

Back to Annual Meeting

APHA Scientific Session and Event Listing

Jamie F. Chriqui, PhD, MHS¹, Yvonne Terry-McElrath, MSA², Duane C. McBride, PhD³, Shelby S. Eidson, JD¹, and Curtis J. VanderWaal, MSW, PhD⁴. (1) Center for Health Policy and Legislative Analysis, The MayaTech Corporation, 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 301-587-1600, jchriqui@mayatech.com, (2) Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson Street, Room 2341, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2321, (3) Behavioral Science Department, Andrews University, Nethery Hall #123E, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI 49104, (4) Department of Social Work, Andrews University, 8408 Westwood, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI 49104

In the absence of a national regulatory system, state governments are currently responsible for efforts to ensure that substance abuse treatment programs meet certain minimal standards of care. Requiring treatment program authorization is one tool that state governments utilize to ensure these minimal standards. Authorization traditionally takes one of three forms—licensure, certification, or accreditation—with licensure considered a “minimal” standard and certification or accreditation often considered “ideal” standards. To date, the literature has yet to examine whether state authorization type differentially impacts treatment program practices. To this end, we examined whether outpatient treatment program practices (using data from the 2003-2004 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services) in 47 states varied based on state authorization to license (26 states) versus certify/accredit (21 states) such programs. Multivariate analyses revealed that the odds of offering certain transitional assistance and ancillary services (such as employment and housing) were significantly higher (p-values ranging from p<.10 to p<.001) in certification/accreditation states than they were in license states. This relationship remained when controlling for a variety of state and program-level factors, including program ownership type. In contrast, the odds of offering certain types of infectious disease testing were significantly higher in license states (p-values ranging from p<.05-p<.001) compared to certification/accreditation states. There were few, if any, statistical differences by authorization category for the reported use of assessment, counseling, pharmacotherapy, relapse prevention, or aftercare services. These data lend support for the position that in certain circumstances, state policy context does matter to treatment program practices.

Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of this presentation, participants will understand

(
• the difference between state treatment program authorization methods (i.e., licensure, certification, and accreditation); and (
• the extent to which outpatient treatment program practices vary based on the state program authorization type.

Keywords: Substance Abuse Treatment, Public Health Policy

Related Web page: www.impacteen.org

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Any relevant financial relationships? No