Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 85
4
Changing Standards of Care for
Substance Use Disorders
T
he committee’s review of the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) poli-
cies and programs for prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and man-
agement of substance use disorders (SUDs) included the strongest
and most up-to-date evidence in the scientific and industry literature. This
chapter reflects on the standards and expectations for SUD care and how
they are evolving in a rapidly changing health care environment. Although
DoD may be exempt from facets of health care reform, a contemporary set
of prevention and treatment services for the U.S. military will embrace the
state of the art, encourage evidence-based practices, and reflect emerging
standards of care. In addition to health care reform, emerging expectations
from the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the National Quality
Forum will affect alcohol and other drug prevention and treatment services.
HEALTH CARE REFORM AND PARITY REQUIREMENTS
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (hereafter
referred to as the Affordable Care Act) aims to better control health care
expenses, enhance the quality of health care, and reduce the proportion of
individuals who are uninsured. The act is likely to add many millions
of individuals to state Medicaid plans (Sommers et al., 2011), and a num-
ber of these new enrollees are likely to have alcohol and other drug use
disorders (Barry and Huskamp, 2011; Buck, 2011; Garfield et al., 2011).
Requirements that state exchanges must cover treatment of alcohol, other
drug, and mental health disorders as essential benefits promote access to
treatment services for SUDs (Barry and Huskamp, 2011; Buck, 2011).
85
OCR for page 86
86 SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES
Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid and other health plans will
become primary payers for most addiction treatment services. The current
system of direct grants and contracts will dissipate as treatment provid-
ers’ reimbursement from Medicaid and commercial health plans increases.
State and federal appropriations designated for addiction prevention and
treatment are likely to decline as Medicaid health plans become major
payers (Buck, 2011). The substance abuse counseling workforce is likely
to change because health plans are typically selective in their purchase of
service contracts and screen for evidence of quality care. Practitioners that
provide evidence of quality care are likely to have competitive advantages.
Medicaid and commercial health plans are likely to limit reimbursement to
practitioners with graduate degrees and professional licensure (McCarty et
al., 2010). The workforce impact may be substantial because only about
50 percent of counselors in most addiction treatment centers have gradu-
ate degrees (i.e., 42 percent of total counselors, 58 percent of outpatient
counselors) (McCarty et al., 2007a). With the increasing medicalization
of substance abuse treatment services (Buck, 2011), freestanding addic-
tion treatment centers that rely on experientially trained counselors and/or
counselors with alcohol and drug certification (but not clinical licensure)
may struggle to survive (McCarty et al., 2010). The training of the addic-
tion treatment workforce will also need to evolve to meet new requirements.
Accountable Care Organizations and Integrated Care
The Affordable Care Act generally promotes the integration of mental
health and SUD treatment with primary care services and makes inte-
grated care a priority for community-based accountable care organizations
(ACOs).1 ACOs reflect emerging standards and expectations for integrated,
patient-centered care provided within a medical home that is financially
responsible for coordinating a patient’s health care, including care for
mental health disorders and SUDs. The National Committee for Quality
Assurance (NCQA) met with consumer advocates, purchasers of care, and
health plans and released accreditation standards for ACOs in November
2011. The ACO accreditation standards encourage coordination of mental
health and SUD services with the development of primary care medical
homes and address seven dimensions of care (see Box 4-1).
ACOs will support the integration of behavioral health and primary
care. Recognition is increasing that general medicine practitioners “should
become the first line ‘experts’ for substance abuse” (O’Connor and Samet,
2002, p. 398). Alcohol and other drug use is prevalent among patients
1 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 111th Cong. (March
23, 2010).
OCR for page 87
CHANGING STANDARDS OF CARE 87
BOX 4-1
ACO Accreditation Standards
1. ACO Structure and Operations
2. Access to Needed Providers
3. Patient-Centered Primary Care
4. Care Management
5. Care Coordination and Transitions
6. Patient Rights and Responsibilities
7. Performance Reporting and Quality Improvement
SOURCE: NCQA, 2012.
treated in primary care (Manwell et al., 1998). Habitual alcohol and/or
other drug use increases the likelihood of developing or exacerbating dis-
orders of the heart, liver, and gastrointestinal system and conditions such
as diabetes and hypertension (Gourevitch and Arnsten, 2005). Despite con-
sensus among medical leadership on the need for a more integrated system
(APA, 1994), progress has been slow. Reforms in the health system under
the provisions of the Affordable Care Act could eliminate the long-standing
separation of training and treatment for SUDs from routine medical care
(IOM, 2006).
There are many approaches to integrated care. Most attempt to (1)
create a medical home; (2) use health care teams; (3) titrate care based on
level of need and capacity for self-care; and (4) differentiate the severity
of behavioral health and primary care needs into four quadrants—low
primary care and low behavioral health need, low primary care and high
behavioral health need, high primary care and low behavioral health need,
and high primary care and behavioral health need—with patients with
higher needs being referred to specialty services (Collins, 2010). The need
for integrated primary care, mental health, and SUD services is further illus-
trated by increases in prescribed opioids for pain in primary care settings.
Analyses by Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Group Health of
Seattle suggest significantly higher opioid use for pain in patients with SUDs
(Weisner et al., 2009).
The Buprenorphine and HIV Care Evaluation and Support demonstra-
tion (sponsored by the HIV/AIDS Bureau of the Health Resources and
Services Administration) is a recent example of the value of integrated care.
In this study, 10 HIV clinics provided integrated medication-assisted opioid
treatment. Study data documented reductions in opioid use (Fiellin et al.,
OCR for page 88
88 SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES
2011), increased engagement in HIV care (Altice et al., 2011), improved
quality of life (Korthuis et al., 2011b), and improved quality of HIV care
(Korthuis et al., 2011a). Participating patients voiced strong preferences for
buprenorphine integrated into HIV care over referral to an opioid treat-
ment program (Korthuis et al., 2010). This demonstration showed that the
advantages of integrated care innovations can extend to patients in HIV
primary care and supports the extension of this approach to primary care
for patients without HIV infection.
Patient Placement and Levels of Care
Many health care systems use the American Society of Addiction Medi-
cine’s (ASAM’s) Patient Placement Criteria to determine appropriate levels
and intensity of addiction treatment services. The ASAM criteria provide
guidelines for continued service and transfer/discharge for those with addic-
tive disorders. Clinical placements and treatment plans reflect assessment
of the criteria’s six dimensions (see Box 4-2). Patients with high potential
for withdrawal, comorbid health conditions, and a poor recovery environ-
ment may require treatment in more restrictive environments. Alternatively,
employed individuals with a home and family support can be treated suc-
cessfully in less-intensive ambulatory settings after medical monitoring for
withdrawal.
The value of the ASAM placement criteria, first released in 1991
( offman et al., 1991), is supported by two decades of experience. Cur-
H
rently, at least 30 states mandate their use (ASAM, 2012). The current
edition, ASAM Patient Placement Criteria for the Treatment of Substance-
Related Disorders, Second Edition-Revised (Mee-Lee, 2001), includes cri-
teria for comorbid mental health and substance-related disorders. The
BOX 4-2
Dimensions of American Society of Addiction Medicine’s
(ASAM’s) Patient Placement Criteria
1. Acute Intoxication and/or Withdrawal Potential
2. Biomedical Conditions and Complications
3. motional, Behavioral, or Cognitive Conditions and Complications
E
4. Readiness to Change
5. elapse, Continued Use, or Continued Problem Potential
R
6. Recovery Environment
SOURCE: http://www.asam.org/publications/patient-placement-criteria.
OCR for page 89
CHANGING STANDARDS OF CARE 89
criteria, originally developed for use with adults, have been modified and
updated for use with adolescents (Fishman, 2010). The continuing develop-
ment and refinement of the ASAM criteria advance a paradigm shift from
• unidimensional to multidimensional assessment,
• program-driven to clinically driven treatment,
• fixed length of service to variable length of service, and
• a limited number of discrete levels of care to a continuum of care.
The ASAM criteria advocate for and provide guidelines that promote four
goals. First, the criteria require individualized, assessment-driven treatment
and the flexible use of a broad continuum of care. Second, the criteria encour-
age the use of motivational enhancement therapies in outpatient treatment,
especially for those in the early stages of readiness to change, to increase access
to care and reduce waits for more intensive levels of residential treatment.
Third, the assessment dimensions address multiple needs of the individual
(medical, psychological, social, vocational, and legal), not just alcohol and
other drug use. Finally, the criteria require continual reviews of treatment
plans, with modifications based on treatment response and outcomes.
In addition to state mandates to use the ASAM criteria, DoD and
national health care organizations and health plans require that an ASAM
level-of-care assessment guide treatment plans. The ASAM placement crite-
ria provide a common language with which care providers and care manag-
ers can communicate about the multidimensional assessment and placement
decision for those with SUDs.
Parity
The Affordable Care Act, together with the Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (hereafter referred to as the Parity Act), is
expected to enhance access to and utilization of treatment for alcohol and
other drug use disorders. The Parity Act eliminates differential copayments
and restrictions on mental health and addiction treatment benefits, which
must be similar to benefits for other general and specialty medical care.
Initial evaluations of the implementation of parity among federal employees
(Goldman et al., 2006) and in Oregon (McConnell et al., 2011) found little
increase in the total costs of care.
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY’S
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) asserts in its
2010, 2011, and 2012 National Drug Control Strategies that addiction
OCR for page 90
90 SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES
treatment must be integrated into mainstream health care (ONDCP, 2010,
2011, 2012). The 2012 National Drug Control Strategy’s seven priorities
include two that promote linkages between health care and services for
alcohol and other drug use disorders.
The ONDCP strategy calls for early intervention opportunities in health
care and notes that early intervention saves lives and money (ONDCP,
2012). Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment services are
increasingly common in emergency departments and are expanding to
include schools and universities as well as families involved in child welfare
systems. The 2011 National Drug Control Strategy explicitly requires DoD
to train health care professionals in providing evidence-based screening
and interventions for alcohol and other drug use disorders for beneficiaries
served by the Military Health System. Misuse and abuse of pharmaceu-
ticals is another priority for early intervention. The 2012 National Drug
Control Strategy notes that the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal
Act promotes the development of safe, easy, and affordable drug disposal
options. Local authorities are encouraged to collaborate with the Drug
Enforcement Agency to collect and dispose of unused and expired prescrip-
tion medications.
The 2012 National Drug Control Strategy also promotes integrated
treatment for SUDs in mainstream health care (ONDCP, 2012), thus sup-
porting the Affordable Care Act’s emphasis on integrated care. The Health
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is directed to improve care
for alcohol and other drug use disorders in the nation’s system of com-
munity health centers. ONDCP’s National Drug Control Strategy reflects a
substantive change in federal policy: for the first time, addiction treatment
resources are allocated to primary care settings rather than specialty clinics.
The 2011 strategy also instructs federal agencies that address health care
needs to meet the National Quality Forum’s voluntary consensus standards
for treatment of alcohol and other drug use disorders (see the next section).
To help meet these standards, HRSA, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adminis-
tration must train health care practitioners to identify, diagnose, and treat
SUDs.
To support and promote recovery, ONDCP created a Recovery Branch
within the Office of Demand Reduction to develop a national plan for
recovery-oriented systems of care. Recovery-oriented systems of care elimi-
nate regulatory, policy, and practice barriers to recovery and celebrate and
support recovery. As part of its recovery strategy, ONDCP will work with
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and DoD to identify “recovery
support services for alcohol and drug addiction that are appropriate for
active duty military, Veterans, and their families and to ensure that those
OCR for page 91
CHANGING STANDARDS OF CARE 91
services are made available to our military families to the greatest extent
possible” (ONDCP, 2011, p. 42).
NATIONAL QUALITY FORUM’S VOLUNTARY
CONSENSUS STANDARDS
Clear documentation of substandard care for addiction (McGlynn et
al., 2003) led to the development of the first set of national standards for
addiction treatment. The National Quality Forum’s consensus standards
for treatment of substance use conditions identify four domains (and sub-
domains) of expected services for addressing addiction: (1) identification
of substance use conditions (screening and case finding, diagnosis and
assessment), (2) initiation of and engagement in treatment (brief interven-
tion, promoting engagement, withdrawal management), (3) therapeutic
interventions to treat substance use illness (psychosocial interventions and
pharmacotherapy), and (4) continuing care management of substance use
illness (NQF, 2007). Box 4-3 details each subdomain contained in the vol-
untary consensus standards.
For the first time, a national trade organization recommended that
its membership implement specific evidence-based therapies for treating
tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use disorders. The standards are appli-
cable to all members of the National Quality Forum (national consumer
advocacy groups, health professional trade associations, health systems,
health plans, groups that purchase health plans, pharmaceutical companies,
and research institutes). Health care organizations and health plans no
longer can ignore the need to better address addiction problems in primary
care and acute care settings. As noted, the 2011 National Drug Control
Strategy advocates for widespread adoption of the National Quality Forum
standards for addiction treatment (ONDCP, 2011).
PRACTICE IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS
The Institute of Medicine’s Quality Chasm reports challenged the U.S.
health care system to adopt process improvement strategies that would
reduce errors that contribute to morbidity and mortality and facilitate the
adoption of evidence-based practices (IOM, 2000, 2001, 2006). The Insti-
tute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), a leader in quality improvement for
health care, works with provider and hospital systems to facilitate quality
improvement at the patient-provider level by changing systems. Measure-
ment is a key element in the IHI Model for Improvement, a simple yet
power ul tool for accelerating improvement that has been used successfully
f
by IHI and hundreds of health care organizations in many countries to
OCR for page 92
92 SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES
BOX 4-3
National Quality Forum’s Voluntary Consensus Standards
for the Treatment of Substance Use Conditions
• Identification of Substance Use Conditions
– atients in general and mental health care settings should be
P
screened for at-risk alcohol use problems.
– Health care providers should employ a systematic method to iden-
tify patients who use drugs.
– Patients who have a positive screen should receive further assessment.
• Initiation and Engagement in Treatment
– ll patients with at-risk alcohol or tobacco use should receive a brief
A
motivational counseling intervention.
– Providers should promote patient initiation of care and engagement
in ongoing treatment for alcohol and other drug use disorders.
– Pharmacotherapy should be provided to manage withdrawal symp-
toms and consequences.
• Therapeutic Interventions to Treat Substance Use Illness
– ll patients should receive empirically validated psychosocial treat-
A
ment interventions.
– harmacotherapy should be recommended and available to all
P
adult patients diagnosed with opioid dependence, alcohol depen-
dence, and nicotine dependence and without contraindications.
Pharmacotherapy should be linked with psychosocial treatment.
• Continuing Care Management of Substance Use Illness
– atients should be offered long-term, coordinated management of
P
their care.
SOURCE: Adapted from NQF, 2007.
improve numerous health care processes and outcomes. For example, Mercy
Hospital (Buffalo, New York) has sustained zero ventilator- ssociated pneu-
a
monias in the intensive care unit (ICU) by reliably implementing the IHI
Ventilator Bundle, with a special focus on reducing the amount and dura-
tion of sedation for patients on ventilators in the ICU.
An example of a system quality-improvement approach applied specifi-
cally to SUD care is NIATx (formerly the Network for the Improvement
of Addiction Treatment) (Capoccia et al., 2007; Gustafson and Johnson,
2012; Hoffman et al., 2008; McCarty et al., 2007b). NIATx promotes
practice and system change using a simplified version of the IHI Model for
Improvement. Behavioral health care organizations learn to use Plan-Do-
Study-Act change cycles to reduce days to admission, improve retention
OCR for page 93
CHANGING STANDARDS OF CARE 93
in care, and reduce no-show rates. As agencies build capacity for change,
they apply the model to foster the use of evidence-based practices. NIATx,
like IHI, demonstrates that system change can lead to improved clini-
cal and administrative practices. Agencies adopting process improvements
have increased the use of medications for specific diagnoses, screening and
brief intervention in primary care settings, and adoption of evidence-based
psychosocial clinical interventions; enhanced posttreatment aftercare; and
facilitated case management, wrap-around, and supportive services. See the
NIATx website for case studies.2
To improve the effectiveness of interventions for SUDs, Humphreys
and McLellan (2011) urge policy makers to implement process-focused
quality improvement strategies like those of NIATx and patient-focused
strategies that reward patients and practitioners for improvements. Pay-
for-performance (or value-based purchasing) strategies hold promise for
promoting enhanced performance during treatment and better treatment
outcomes. A focus on outcomes during treatment helps providers and
patients address the ongoing symptoms of SUDs and build a strong founda-
tion for a stable recovery. A performance contracting initiative in Maine,
for example, used performance-based contracting and measurement of effi-
ciency and effectiveness to effect system improvements in access to care and
retention in treatment. SUD programs entered into fee-for-service withholds
with increased payments for achieving performance targets. An evaluation
analysis, however, suggested that there was little improvement in outcomes
and performance (Brucker and Stewart, 2011).
CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND DoD
The VA and DoD jointly issued a clinical practice guideline to standard-
ize quality care for SUDs for veterans and military service members. The
VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Substance Use
Disorders (VA and DoD, 2009) outlines principles and best practices for
the treatment of SUDs, including behavioral and pharmacological inter-
ventions. It consists of five modules that address interrelated aspects of
care: Screening and Initial Assessment for Substance Use, Management of
SUD in Specialty SUD Care, Management of SUD in General Healthcare,
Addiction-Focused Pharmacotherapy, and Stabilization and Withdrawal
Management. Each module consists of a detailed decision algorithm and
recommendations for each step in treatment. The decision algorithms are
based on a review process that included ranking the level of evidence and
achieved consensus among a panel of VA/DoD SUD experts, representatives
2 See http://www.niatx.net (accessed May 29, 2012).
OCR for page 94
94 SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES
from academia, and a private-sector guideline facilitator. A detailed review
of the guideline and its implementation within DoD is included in Chapter
6 of this report.
SUMMARY
Standards of care are changing to reflect research-based behavioral and
pharmacological therapies. Health care reform and federal parity legislation
enhance access to health insurance and mandate that commercial health
plans provide similar coverage for general health care, mental health care,
and care for alcohol and other drug use disorders. Advocates and policy
makers have called for increased integration of addiction treatment and
primary care, and DoD is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this
opportunity. Greater integration of prevention and treatment services with
primary care could reduce the stigma of alcohol and other drug use disor-
ders and encourage individuals to seek care.
REFERENCES
Altice, F. L., R. D. Bruce, G. M. Lucas, P. J. Lum, P. T. Korthuis, T. P. Flanigan, C. O.
Cunningham, L. E. Sullivan, P. Vergara-Rodriguez, D. A. Fiellin, A. Cajina, M. Botsko,
V. Nandi, M. N. Gourevitch, and R. Finkelstein. 2011. HIV treatment outcomes among
HIV-infected, opioid-dependent patients receiving buprenorphine/naloxone treatment
within HIV clinical care settings: Results from a multisite study. Journal of Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndromes 56(Suppl. 1):S22-S32.
APA (American Psychiatric Association). 1994. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders: DSM-IV (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
ASAM (American Society of Addiction Medicine). 2012. Patient placement criteria. http://
www.asam.org/publications/patient-placement-criteria (accessed May 29, 2012).
Barry, C. L., and H. A. Huskamp. 2011. Moving beyond parity—mental health and addiction
care under the ACA. New England Journal of Medicine 365(11):973-975.
Brucker, D. L., and M. Stewart. 2011. Performance-based contracting within a state substance
abuse treatment system: A preliminary exploration of differences in client access and
client outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 38(3):383-397.
Buck, J. A. 2011. The looming expansion and transformation of public substance abuse treat-
ment under the Affordable Care Act. Health Affairs 30(8):1402-1410.
Capoccia, V. A., F. Cotter, D. H. Gustafson, E. F. Cassidy, J. H. Ford, L. Madden, B. H. Owens,
S. O. Farnum, D. McCarty, and T. Molfenter. 2007. Making “stone soup”: Improvements
in clinic access and retention in addiction treatment. Joint Commission Journal on Qual-
ity and Patient Safety 33(2):95-103.
Collins, C. 2010. Evolving models of behavioral health integration in primary care. New York:
Milbank Memorial Fund.
Fiellin, D. A., L. Weiss, M. Botsko, J. E. Egan, F. L. Altice, L. B. Bazerman, A. Chaudhry,
C. O. Cunningham, M. N. Gourevitch, P. J. Lum, L. E. Sullivan, R. S. Schottenfeld, and
P. G. O’Connor. 2011. Drug treatment outcomes among HIV-infected opioid-dependent
patients receiving buprenorphine/naloxone. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndromes 56(Suppl. 1):S33-S38.
OCR for page 95
CHANGING STANDARDS OF CARE 95
Fishman, M. 2010. Treatment planning, matching and placement for adolescent substance
abuse. In Clinical manual of adolescent substance abuse treatment, edited by Y. Kaminer
and K. Winters. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. Pp. 113-135.
Garfield, R. L., S. H. Zuvekas, J. R. Lave, and J. M. Donohue. 2011. The impact of national
health care reform on adults with severe mental disorders. American Journal of Psychia-
try 168(5):486-494.
Goldman, H. H., R. G. Frank, M. A. Burnam, H. A. Huskamp, M. S. Ridgely, S. L. T.
Normand, A. S. Young, C. L. Barry, V. Azzone, A. B. Busch, S. T. Azrin, G. Moran,
C. Lichtenstein, and M. Blasinsky. 2006. Behavioral health insurance parity for federal
employees. New England Journal of Medicine 354(13):1378-1386.
Gourevitch, M. N., and J. H. Arnsten. 2005. Medical complications of drug use. In Substance
abuse: A comprehensive textbook, edited by J. H. Lowinson. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins.
Gustafson, D. H., and K. Johnson. 2012. The NIATx model: Process improvement for be-
havioral health. Madison, WI: Wisconsin-Madison’s Center for Health Enhancement
Systems Studies.
Hoffman, K. A., J. H. Ford, 2nd, D. Choi, D. H. Gustafson, and D. McCarty. 2008. Repli-
cation and sustainability of improved access and retention within the network for the
improvement of addiction treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 98(1-2):63-69.
Hoffman, N. G., J. A. Halikas, D. Mee-Lee, and R. D. Weedman. 1991. Patient placement cri-
teria for the treatment of psychoactive substance use disorders. Washington, DC: ASAM.
Humphreys, K., and A. T. McLellan. 2011. A policy-oriented review of strategies for improving
the outcomes of services for substance use disorder patients. Addiction 106:2058-2066.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2000. To err is human: Building a safer health system. Washing-
ton, DC: National Academy Press.
IOM. 2001. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washing-
ton, DC: National Academy Press.
IOM. 2006. Improving the quality of health care for mental and substance-use conditions:
Quality chasm series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Korthuis, P. T., J. Gregg, W. E. Rogers, D. McCarty, C. Nicolaidis, and J. Boverman. 2010.
Patients’ reasons for choosing office-based buprenorphine: Preference for patient-centered
care. Journal of Addiction Medicine 4(4):204-210.
Korthuis, P. T., D. A. Fiellin, R. Fu, P. J. Lum, F. L. Altice, N. Sohler, M. J. Tozzi, S. M. Asch,
M. Botsko, M. Fishl, T. P. Flanigan, J. Boverman, and D. McCarty. 2011a. Improving
adherence to HIV quality of care indicators in persons with opioid dependence: The
role of buprenorphine. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 56(Suppl.
1):S83-S90.
Korthuis, P. T., M. J. Tozzi, V. Nandi, D. A. Fiellin, L. Weiss, J. E. Egan, M. Botsko, A. Acosta,
M. N. Gourevitch, D. Hersh, J. Hsu, J. Boverman, and F. L. Altice. 2011b. Improved
quality of life for opioid-dependent patients receiving buprenorphine treatment in HIV
clinics. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 56(Suppl. 1):S39-S45.
Manwell, L. B., M. F. Fleming, K. Johnson, and K. L. Barry. 1998. Tobacco, alcohol, and
drug use in a primary care sample: 90-day prevalence and associated factors. Journal of
Addictive Disorders 17(1):67-81.
McCarty, D., B. E. Fuller, C. Arfken, M. Miller, E. V. Nunes, E. Edmundson, M. Copersino,
A. Floyd, R. Forman, R. Laws, K. M. Magruder, M. Oyama, K. Prather, J. Sindelar, and
W. W. Wendt. 2007a. Direct care workers in the national drug abuse treatment clinical
trials network: Characteristics, opinions, and beliefs. Psychiatric Services 58(2):181-190.
McCarty, D., D. H. Gustafson, J. P. Wisdom, J. Ford, D. Choi, T. Molfenter, V. Capoccia, and
F. Cotter. 2007b. The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx):
Enhancing access and retention. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 88(2-3):138-145.
OCR for page 96
96 SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES
McCarty, D., K. J. McConnell, and L. A. Schmidt. 2010. Priorities for policy research on
treatments for alcohol and drug use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
39(2):87-95.
McConnell, K. J., S. H. N. Gast, M. S. Ridgely, N. Wallace, N. Jacuzzi, T. Rieckmann, B. H.
McFarland, and D. McCarty. 2011. Behavioral health insurance parity: Does Oregon’s
experience presage the national experience with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction
Equity Act? American Journal of Psychiatry 169(1):31-38.
McGlynn, E. A., S. M. Asch, J. Adams, J. Keesey, J. Hicks, A. DeCristofaro, and E. A. Kerr.
2003. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. New England
Journal of Medicine 348(26):2635-2645.
Mee-Lee, D. 2001. ASAM patient placement criteria for the treatment of substance-related
disorders (2nd rev. ed.). Chevy Chase, MD: ASAM.
NCQA (National Committee for Quality Assurance). 2012. Accountable Care Organizations
(ACOs). http://www.ncqa.org/tabid/1312/Default.aspx (accessed May 29, 2012).
NQF (National Quality Forum). 2007. National voluntary consensus standards for the treat-
ment of substance use conditions: Evidence-based treatment practices. Washington, DC:
NQF.
O’Connor, P. G., and J. H. Samet. 2002. Substance abuse: The expanding role of general
internal medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine 17(5):398-399.
ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy). 2010. National drug control strategy,
2010. Washington, DC: ONDCP.
ONDCP. 2011. National drug control strategy, 2011. Washington, DC: ONDCP.
ONDCP. 2012. National drug control strategy, 2012. Washington, DC: ONDCP.
Sommers, B. D., K. Swartz, and A. Epstein. 2011. Policy makers should prepare for major un-
certainties in Medicaid enrollment, costs, and needs for physicians under health reform.
Health Affairs 30(11):2186-2193.
VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) and DoD (Department of Defense). 2009. VA/DoD
clinical practice guideline for management of substance use disorders. Washington, DC:
VA and DoD.
Weisner, C. M., C. I. Campbell, G. T. Ray, K. Saunders, J. O. Merrill, C. Banta-Green, M. D.
Sullivan, M. J. Silverberg, J. R. Mertens, D. Boudreau, and M. Von Korff. 2009. Trends
in prescribed opioid therapy for non-cancer pain for individuals with prior substance use
disorders. Pain 145(3):287-293.
