Objective: Researchers generally assume that addiction treatment systems can be viewed as entities and planned with the citizens' best interests in mind. We argue that another steering principle, the market logic, has permeated many Western World treatment systems but is neglected in research. We demonstrate how it may affect system-level planning, service provision, and the service users.
Method: We draw on an ongoing Swedish study, with some Nordic references, using several data sources: (1) public statistics on treatment expenditures and purchases; (2) interviews with service users (n = 36) and their service providers (n = 23) on different market features; (3) an observation of a large public procurement process concluding framework agreements based on competitive tendering; (4) interviews with officials involved with steering of the system and procurement (n = 16); (5) a workshop on procurement in the Nordic countries (n = 11 participants); and (6) 77 interviews with professionals, managers, and elected representatives.
Results: We outline seven propositions that call for further research attention: public procurement, as regulated in the European Union, is not suitable for addiction treatment; marketization challenges democracy, equity, needs assessment, and treatment planning; marketization causes new accountability problems and idle monitoring; marketization causes fragmentation and obstructs coordination and continuity of care; marketization causes unification of services and favors big bureaucratically sophisticated providers; treatment professionals' values are downplayed when a mistrust-based market logic replaces a trust- and needs-based logic; and marketization marginalizes treatment professionals and service users by limiting discretion.
Conclusions: Findings point toward the importance of acknowledging and mitigating market principles in treatment systems to safeguard needs assessments and planning that serve the interests of the service users and the public.
Objective: In the field of health care services, resource allocation is increasingly determined based on a population needs model. Although service needs models have been developed for adults with substance use problems, it would seem inappropriate to apply them indiscriminately to young people.
Method: The method used proposes six steps: (1) targeting the population, (2) estimating the proportion of the population affected by substance misuse and (3) the proportion of youths who should receive services, (4) identifying categories of services, (5) estimating the proportions of youths who should have access to each category of services, and (6) applying the model to real use of services by youths to recalibrate it.
Results: Youths ages 12-17 from the Province of Québec were classified within a tiered model comprising four levels of substance use severity. Youths in need of services varied from 38% (weak response) to 95% (high response) for the highest severity cases. Service categories retained are detoxification/intoxication, outpatient, and residential, with each one being subdivided into four categories. The proportion of youths from each tier who should access categories and subcategories of services varied widely. After a pre-experimentation, the model was adjusted.
Conclusions: The model can be applied in different jurisdictions, with the caution of adjusting prevalence to local reality. Further improvement will be based on more accurate information concerning the path of clients through services, better strategies to reach youths in need of services, and increased knowledge of optimal service categories. Models adapted to low- or moderate-income countries, where the health care system has minimal services in the areas of mental health and addiction, should be developed.
Objective: We modeled the impact of changing Specialist Treatment Access Rates to different treatment pathways on the future prevalence of alcohol dependence, treatment outcomes, service capacity, costs, and mortality.
Method: Local Authority numbers and the prevalence of people "potentially in need of assessment for and treatment in specialist services for alcohol dependence" (PINASTFAD) are estimated by mild, moderate, severe, and complex needs. Administrative data were used to estimate the Specialist Treatment Access Rate per PINASTFAD person and classify 22 different treatment pathways. Other model inputs include natural remission, relapse after treatment, service costs, and mortality rates. "What-if" analyses assess changes to Specialist Treatment Access Rates and treatment pathways. Model outputs include the numbers and prevalence of people who are PINASTFAD, numbers treated by 22 pathways, outcomes (successful completion with abstinence, successfully moderated nonproblematic drinking, re-treatment within 6 months, dropout, transfer, custody), mortality rates, capacity requirements (numbers in contact with community services or staying in residential or inpatient places), total treatment costs, and general health care savings. Five scenarios illustrate functionality: (a) no change, (b) achieve access rates at the 70th percentile nationally, (c) increase access by 25%, (d) increase access to Scotland rate, and (e) reduce access by 25%.
Results: At baseline, 14,581 people are PINASTFAD (2.43% of adults) and the Specialist Treatment Access Rate is 10.84%. The 5-year impact of scenarios on PINASTFAD numbers (vs. no change) are (B) reduced by 191 (-1.3%), (C) reduced by 477 (-3.3%), (D) reduced by almost 2,800 (-19.2%), and (E) increased by 533 (+3.6%). The relative impact is similar for other outputs.
Conclusions: Decision makers can estimate the potential impact of changing Specialist Treatment Access Rates for alcohol dependence.