The New York Times paints a dim view of addiction treatment and foreshadows a financial black hole once parity takes effect. The word recovery does not appear once, no mention of findings regarding the positive outcomes and cost-effectiveness of treatment, no mention of twelve step facilitation as an evidence based practice, no mention of duration of treatment as an important factor in outcomes, and, as Bill White has said, these arguments about MET vs. TSF vs. MET are all arguments within the acute care paradigm. Systems change needs to focus on long term recovery management strategies for chronic addicts.
[hat tip: Matt]
[hat tip: Matt]
5 comments:
This article reads like a set of talking points written for the insurance industry's opening salvo in the war on addiction treatment benefits.
Is there evidence based support for 12-step programs? If so, could you please point me to some of the literature?
Whoops, my bad, just clicked through your link. I'll check it out.
One of the complaints I've heard is that the 12-steppers won't keep data on outcomes because of privacy concerns, so results can't be measured.
There are tons of studies supporting TSF as an evidence-based treatment. In Project MATCH, it did just as well as CBT and MET, and did better than those two with heavier drinkers and drinkers without social support for abstinence.
Keep in mind that TSF as a treatment strategy and 12 step groups are not the same thing. 12 step groups do not have much outcome data because of anonymity, but treatment providers who use TSF should have outcome data on the treatment they provide.
Thanks for all the responses, I am learning from your posts. I just wonder maybe, the effectiveness of a drug rehabilitation center would be tested through its programs for its patients.
Post a Comment