Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices for Treatment of Alcohol and Drug Disorders: The Role of the State Authority

The current climate of increasing performance expectations and diminishing resources, along with innovations in evidence-based practices (EBPs), creates new dilemmas for substance abuse treatment providers, policymakers, funders, and the service delivery system. This paper describes findings from baseline interviews with representatives from 49 state substance abuse authorities (SSAs). Interviews assessed efforts aimed at facilitating EBP adoption in each state and the District of Columbia. Results suggested that SSAs are concentrating more effort on EBP implementation strategies such as education, training, and infrastructure development, and less effort on financial mechanisms, regulations, and accreditation. The majority of SSAs use EBPs as a criterion in their contracts with providers, and just over half reported that EBP use is tied to state funding. To date, Oregon remains the only state with legislation that mandates treatment expenditures for EBPs; North Carolina follows suit with legislation that requires EBP promotion within current resources

Employing policy and purchasing levers to increase the use of evidence-based practices in community-based substance abuse treatment settings: Reports from single state authorities

State public health authorities are critical to the successful implementation of science based addiction treatment practices by community-based providers. The literature to date, however, lacks examples of state level policy strategies that promote evidence-based practices (EBPs). This mixed-methods study documents changes in two critical state-to-provider strategies aimed at accelerating use of evidence-based practices: purchasing levers (financial incentives and mechanisms) and policy or regulatory levers. A sample of 51 state representatives was interviewed. Single State Authorities for substance abuse treatment (SSAs) that fund providers directly or through managed care were significantly more likely to have contracts that required or encouraged evidence-based interventions, as compared to SSAs that fund providers indirectly through sub-state entities. Policy levers included EBP-related legislation, language in rules and regulations, and evidence-based criteria in state plans and standards. These differences in state policy are likely to result in significant state level variations regarding both the extent to which EBPs are implemented by community-based treatment providers and the quality of implementation.Evidence-based practices Implementation Evaluation Purchasing Policy