Substance Abuse Policy
Brief
Executive Summary
The
impact and increased use of illegal substances over the past years have led
policy makers to create strategies for the reduction of its use, one of which
is the implementation of services and treatment programs for patients with
substance-related disorders. This paper discusses the importance of policy
guidelines that addresses the various issues surrounding substance abuse
treatment services implementation, such as why tax should be used to fund such
services as well as its cost-effective outcomes.
Context and Importance of the Problem
In
the United States, the economic costs of substance abuse are estimated to reach
more than $270 billion per annum, including medical expenses, lost
productivity, crime-related activities and many more (Sten, 2010). Only 3
million individuals are entering addiction treatment and rehabilitation
services, but statistics show that roughly 23 million adolescents and adults
should be entered into treatment services, leaving the 20 million adults and
adolescents still in need of treatment (SAMHSA, 2009). The United States have
already spent enormous billions of dollars on substance-related abuse and
disorder treatment: for instance, in 2008, the Federal government allocated $28
billion for substance abuse treatment, which is equivalent to more than 1.3% of
the overall costs in healthcare expenditures (Mark and colleagues, 2008). This
translates to roughly 77% of expenditures funded primarily by public taxpayers
in order to address alcohol and substance disorders and problems. However,
policy makers wanted to know more about the positive implications of such costs
and benefits in order to justify that the allocated billions of dollars for
substance abuse treatment has indeed its purpose and advantage. During the past
four years, the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program, along with other
private-funded policy programs, has studied the cost-effectiveness and benefits
of investing in substance abuse treatment services.
As lawmakers continue
to debate the extent and merits of investing for substance abuse treatment and
rehabilitation services, they are also faced with a constant dilemma; that is,
should the taxes of the public be used as a source of funding for such
programs? As well as up to what extent should taxes be used? More specifically,
what returns could they generate from such a large investment?
Policy Recommendations
Studies
have already outlined the significant benefits of treating substance and
alcohol-related disorders. Extensive researches show that treatment of
substance-related disorders can lead to reduction in the total number of
healthcare costs and provision of healthcare services. For example, one study
highlighted the significant roles a health maintenance organization play to
help Medicaid beneficiaries be treated for substance abuse. Such health
organizations reported a 30% reduction in healthcare costs after Medicated
patients had been submitted to substance abuse services. Accordingly, the
greatest gains and economic benefits seem to be linked with reduced criminal
activities, such as victimization, capital losses due to crimes, as well as
incarceration costs. Various economic analyses show that implementation of
substance abuse policies could reduce recidivism associated with arrest,
imprisonment and prosecution; especially when criminal offenders are linked
with using illegal substances. Following substance treatment course, for
instance, a study conducted in Californian counties noted a significant decrease in crime-related activities
(Ettner et al., 2006). Such implementation of treatment services also have a
benefit-to-ratio cost of 7:1, including a decrease in the utilization of
emergency healthcare services and increased employment outcomes for those who
have been sent to treatment services.
Researchers
suggest that alcohol and drug-related disorders should be treatment as chronic
medical conditions and a good model of care must be utilized in order to
improve the healthcare condition of the patients – creation of
government-funded substance abuse treatment services is shown to have
cost-effective and significant economic outcomes. Along with the importance of
such policy guidelines, development of treatment services should conversely
employ strategies that could eliminate or reduce social costs associated with
the treatment of substance and alcohol disorders. For instance, one study that
utilizes managed behavioral health treatment strategies have shown reduced use
of overnight and inpatient services, which could likely improve social outcomes
of substance abuse treatment. In addition, the use of higher insurance
co-payments could also decrease inpatient and outpatient service costs,
contributing to the overall rates of re-treatment.
Analysis of Policy
Many
critics and supporters of substance abuse policies are debating whether or not
such mandates could have significant outcomes in the long run, and their most
important concern is associated with costs of such services. We have seen in
the policy recommendation above that the costs of treatment services are
incomparable to the benefits that could be generated from such activities.
There is indeed a need for substance abuse disorders to be addressed,
especially for adolescents and adults, because if such problems would be left
unsolved, economic and social costs of the problem would definitely rise. Development
of intervention programs that are specifically tailored for the needs of the
people is necessary and considered as the starting point for the development of
concrete policy guidelines that could last for many years. There had been various interventions
implemented in the past, but the strategies mentioned above have been
peer-reviewed, which means that these new approaches are direly needed for
today’s generation. The development of treatment services tailored for
substance abuse disorders could be generated from the tax of the public,
because there is a more concrete significant outcome for the society and the
economy. The above findings suggest that there would be a reduction in risks
and criminal activities if such policies would be implemented.
References
Ettner, G. et al.
(2006). “Substance Abuse in rural and small town America.” Reports on Rural America. New Hampshire: Carsey Institute.
Mark, K. et al.
(2008). “Policing a Rural Plague.” National
Association of Counties. California: RHRC.
SAMHSA. (2009).
“Policy Brief: Trauma and Substance Abuse.” National
Association of State and Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Washington, DC: NASADAD.
Sten, A. (2010).
“Policy Brief: Substance Abuse Treatment Benefits and Costs.” Substance Abuse Policy Research. North
Carolina: Center for Creative Leadership.
This is a sample Substance Abuse Policy Brief Essay from smartessaywriters.com – the leading provider of reliable and affordable essay writing services and research paper writing services in the United States and the United Kingdom
No comments:
Post a Comment