1 / 29

Darren Urada, Ph.D and Elise Tran, B.A. UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

Integration Survey of CADPAAC Administrators: 2012 Results . Darren Urada, Ph.D and Elise Tran, B.A. UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs CADPAAC / ADP Quarterly Meeting January 23, 2013. Acknowledgements.

gene
Download Presentation

Darren Urada, Ph.D and Elise Tran, B.A. UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Integration Survey of CADPAAC Administrators: 2012 Results Darren Urada, Ph.D and Elise Tran, B.A. UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs CADPAAC / ADP Quarterly Meeting January 23, 2013

  2. Acknowledgements UCLA team, past & present: Valerie Antonini, MPH, Aaron Call, Sarah Cousins, MPH, Desiree Crevecoeur-MacPhail, Ph.D., Jia Fan, M.S., Thomas Freese, Ph.D., Rachel Gonzales, Ph.D., Grant Hovik, Adi Jaffe, Ph.D., Adam King, Sherry Larkins, Ph.D., Stella Lee, Allison Ober, Ph.D., Brandy Oeser, MPH, Alex Olson, Howard Padwa, Ph.D., Diego Ramirez, Beth Rutkowski, MPH, Elizabeth Schaper, Suzanne Spear, Ph.D., Cheryl Teruya, Ph.D., UmmeWarda, M.S., Richard Rawson, Ph.D. Funded by the: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs The authors’ views and recommendations do not necessarily represent those of the funders, UCLA, or the UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs.

  3. About the Survey • Follow-up to a similar 2010 Survey • Integration, training needs • Are we moving in the right direction? • How far along are we?

  4. Great Response! Surveys e-mailed to each county (57) • 2010: 44 counties (77% response rate) • 2012: 53 counties (93% response rate) • Thank you!

  5. Are BHPs* currently working to integrate AOD with PC/MH?(2010 vs. 2012) *BHP=Behavioral Health Provider – County or county contract MH, SUD, prevention, treatment, or recovery services. “Don’t Know” (2010=1)

  6. Are BHPs currently working to integrate AOD with PC/MH? (2012 details)

  7. If no current work, are BHPs planning to do integration in the next year?

  8. If no current work, are BHPs planning to do integration work in the next year? (2010 vs. 2012) , don’t know= 47% , don’t know=43%

  9. Any PC services in SUD programs? (Other than NTP) *In 2010, we assumed that those who stated they were not doing integration work did NOT have SUD treatment providers licensed to have on-site primary care services (other than NTPs). “Don’t Know” (2012=4)

  10. Any AOD services in PC settings?(2010 vs. 2012) “Don’t Know” (2010=2; 2012=3).

  11. Any AOD services in PC settings?* *Check all that apply. “Don’t Know” (2012=3)

  12. Distribution of AOD services in PC settings (2010 vs. 2012) “Don’t Know” (2010=3; 2012=5).

  13. Where integrated, types of PC Settings with AOD Services* *Check all that apply. “Don’t Know” (2012=1).

  14. Where integrated, AOD services offered in PC, part 1/2* *Check all that apply.

  15. AOD services offered in PC, part 2* *Check all that apply.

  16. Barriers to Integrating AOD with PC*(2010 vs. 2012) *Check all that apply.

  17. Greatest Training Needs

  18. Level of AOD/PC Integration

  19. Level of AOD/PC Integration(2010 vs. 2012)

  20. Percentage of SUD treatment providers billing private insurance “Don’t Know” (2010=4; 2012=9).

  21. Is your county involved with safety net programs to prepare for 2014? Projects include: • CMSP • LIHP • Dual Eligibles • Path-2-Health

  22. Structure of BH and Health Services(2010 vs 2012)

  23. PC in SUD vs. AOD services in PC “Don’t Know” (PC in SUD=4; SUD in PC=3).

  24. Funding: AOD services in PC vs PC in AOD pgms *Check all that apply. “Don’t Know” (SUD in PC=1).

  25. Service Delivery Model: PC in SUD vs. AOD services in PC* *Check all that apply. “Don’t Know” (PC in SUD=2).

  26. Interest in Collaboration:Integration Learning Collaborative (ILC) • Great interest in ILC participation: • 39 counties would like to participate or continue participation • 14 counties would be willing to present their county's integration work in the ILC. We have some great ideas planned! • Next meeting will be on February 27, 2013 and will feature a panel of rural counties

  27. Integration Learning Collaborative • Interactive forum where county administrators and other key stakeholders collaborate to identify successful models of integration and solutions to challenges. See: http://www.uclaisap.org/Affordable-Care-Act/html/learning-collaborative • These slides will be available shortly at this website.

  28. Progress We’re not there yet, but we’re moving in the right direction!

  29. Questions? CONTACT Darren Urada, Ph.D. UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs durada@ucla.edu Thank you!

More Related