|
|
Community Blog
| |
|
|
7/15/2010
The past several months have been tough for prevention in Washington State. Funding cutbacks. Relocation and reorganization of funding agencies. Changing program and reporting requirements.
Despite this uncertainty, members of the Washington Interagency Network (WIN) remain committed to completing an update to the state's substance abuse prevention plan. The process to update that plan began in 2008 using resources from the Strategic Prevention Framework-State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG) to bring together more than 200 individuals in a host of meetings and community forums.
To get the process for updating the substance abuse prevention plan back on track, we are asking you to again provide us feedback about the draft plan by July 30, 2010.To do that most efficiently, we are going to ask that you read a section of the report, make any notes you need about that section, and then return to this survey form to actually type in your feedback, observations, and questions.
The easiest way to make this happen is to first open the current draft of the prevention plan (information below) and then minimize it. Once the report is minimized, you should be back on this email and then you will click on the link to the SurveyMonkey feedback survey. The survey will then open.Click on the current draft of the prevention plan again and read Chapter One and make any notes about feedback you want to give. Then minimize the report again and answer the demographics and Chapter One questions. Then repeat the process for Chapter Two of the draft prevention plan.
You will be asked for feedback on five sections of the draft report. You can stop at any time and your results will be saved so you can pick up at a later time where you left off.
To access the draft Substance Abuse Prevention Plan, please click on the following link and then enter the information when prompted:
https://substanceabusepreventionplan.basecamphq.com
Username: preventionplan
Password: plan710
To access the SurveyMonkey feedback survey, please click on the following link:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/substanceabuseplanfeedback
Thank you in advance for providing feedback about the draft substance abuse prevention plan and for your continued involvement in prevention in Washington State. 6/30/2010
by R. Gil Kerlikowske, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Regardless of where you live or how much money you make, regardless of your race or your gender, it is very likely that drug use and its consequences affect you or someone close to you.
The direction our Nation must take is clear, and contained in the 2010 National Drug Control Strategy. This Strategy places renewed emphasis on prevention and treatment, because the drug problem is not just a threat to public safety, but also to public health.
Addressing the threat to our Nation's public health will be greatly aided by this Administration's historic passage of healthcare reform. But healthcare reform is only part of the solution.
Meeting the challenge requires a balanced, comprehensive, and evidence-based approach, starting with prevention. The simple fact is that good decisions are the best way to avoid bad outcomes. Substance use problems strike young people the hardest, and this Strategy lays the foundation for a national, community-based prevention system to protect our adolescents and help them make sound decisions. But not even the best prevention programs can keep every young person from using drugs.
All too often, risky behavior in youth devolves into a lifelong struggle with substance abuse and addiction. Here, we can apply a lesson learned from other public health crises: Responding at the first sign of trouble is absolutely essential to containing the damage.
This Strategy will help medical professionals determine if patients may have emerging substance use problems by supporting Screening and Brief Intervention programs throughout the health system, and by training healthcare providers to spot warning signs.
By catching use before it progresses to addiction, we can divert people from the downward spiral that so often leads to emergency room visits, accidents, and other costs. For too long, treatment for the disease of addiction has been segregated from the rest of the healthcare system.
This Strategy calls for bringing high-quality addiction treatment into the established healthcare arena. It puts a major emphasis on expanding the treatment capacity of mainstream, publicly funded providers such as the Indian Health Service and Federally Supported Community Health Centers.
This Strategy also recognizes the vital role of law enforcement. Traditional enforcement mechanisms, strengthened through intelligence sharing and the latest technologies, are key to disrupting drug markets and depriving criminal organizations of the revenues they seek. Enforcement can also be a bridge to treatment through drug courts or interventions such as testing and sanctions. By breaking down old silos between the law enforcement, prevention, and treatment communities, we can go a long way toward addressing the drug problem in the United States.
But we must also recognize that drug use and its consequences do not stop at country borders. For our efforts to succeed, we must strengthen our collaboration with international partners, support countries whose institutions and people are threatened by drug trafficking, and continually work to reduce drug demand from within our own country.
This Strategy includes strong measures to accomplish all of these goals, measures that are based on sound science and best practices.
This Strategy can work. Its goals of reducing drug use and its consequences are backed by the President's FY 2011 Budget request, which proposes increased funding for anti-drug efforts.
I am confident we possess the means, the will, and the tools necessary to achieve these goals. All that remains is for us to make wise use of them.
For more information about the 2010 National Drug Control Strategy, click here. 5/21/2010
Up to three initiatives that concern the privatization of liquor sales in Washington may appear on November's ballot. If approved, the initiatives would be a significant set-back for underage drinking prevention efforts in our state. Liquor control is a proven environmental strategy for preventing underage drinking.
3/29/2010
by Harold Holder, Prevention Research Center, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Prevention research concerning alcohol, tobacco and other drugs faces a number of challenges as the scientific foundation is strengthened for the future. Seven issues which the prevention research field should address are discussed: lack of transparency in analyses of prevention program outcomes, lack of disclosure of copyright and potential for profit/income during publication, post-hoc outcome variable selection and reporting only outcomes which show positive and statistical significance at any follow-up point, tendency to evaluate statistical significance only rather than practical significance as well, problem of selection bias in terms of selecting subjects and limited generalizability, the need for confirmation of outcomes in which only self-report data are used and selection of appropriate statistical distributions in conducting significance testing. In order to establish a solid scientific base for alcohol, tobacco and drug prevention, this paper calls for discussions, disclosures and debates about the above issues (and others) as essential. In summary, the best approach is always transparency. To read the full article, click here. 3/25/2010
By Dennis Embry, President/CEO, PAXIS Institute
Health-care reform could have many positive effects for increasing the availability of prevention efforts. Behavioral prevention is rationed by logic models presently and is not a public-health model found in most of the OECD countries.
Examples of public health models of prevention in the US are the provision of infant and child car safety seats. These devices are easily available for purchase, for partial subsidy and for free via multiple mechanisms in America. The result is saved lives of infants and children. Some insurance plans offer partial or full coverage for purchase of approved car seats. For the most part, both government and private-pay insurance plans offer free or reduced costs for medical vaccines for all manner of childhood diseases: mumps, diphtheria, measles, flu, hepatitis, etc.
Health care reform advances behavioral prevention because:
1) no child can now be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions; 2) insurance companies must cover people regardless of pre-existing conditions; and, 3) insurance companies will not be able to stop coverage for these illnesses and problems.
For the first time, we actually have corporate incentives for behavioral prevention. Previously, there was no incentive except moral, spiritual, and ethical - something that we've been short in supply for some time.
The plan will:
- Create a Prevention and Public Health Fund to expand and sustain funding for prevention and public health programs. (Initial appropriation in fiscal year 2010)
- Create task forces on Preventive Services and Community Preventive Services to develop, update, and disseminate evidenced-based recommendations on the use of clinical and community prevention services beginning in 2010.
- Establish a grant program to support the delivery of evidence-based and community-based prevention and wellness services aimed at strengthening prevention activities, reducing chronic disease rates and addressing health disparities, especially in rural and frontier areas. (Funds appropriated for five years beginning in FY 2010)
- Provide Medicare beneficiaries access to a comprehensive health risk assessment and creation of a personalized prevention plan. (Health risk assessment model developed within 18 months following enactment) Provide incentives to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to complete behavior modification programs. (Effective January 1, 2011 or when program criteria is developed, whichever is first) Require Medicaid coverage for tobacco cessation services for pregnant women. (Effective October 1, 2010)
- Require qualified health plans to provide at a minimum coverage without cost-sharing for preventive services rated A or B by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended immunizations, preventive care for infants, children, and adolescents, and additional preventive care and screenings for women. (Effective six months following enactment)
- Improve prevention by covering only proven preventive services and eliminating cost-sharing for preventive services in Medicare and Medicaid. (Effective January 1, 2011) For states that provide Medicaid coverage for and remove cost-sharing for preventive services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force and recommended immunizations, provide a one percentage point increase in the FMAP for these services.
Increase Medicare payments for certain preventive services to 100-percent of actual charges or fee schedule rates. (Effective January 1, 2011)
- Provide grants for up to five years to small employers that establish wellness programs. (Funds appropriated for five years beginning in fiscal year 2011) Provide technical assistance and other resources to evaluate employer-based wellness programs. Conduct a national worksite health policies and programs survey to assess employer-based health policies and programs. (Conduct study within two years following enactment
- Permit employers to offer employees rewards - in the form of premium discounts, waivers of cost-sharing requirements, or benefits that would otherwise not be provided - of up to 30-percent of the cost of coverage for participating in a wellness program and meeting certain health-related standards. Employers must offer an alternative standard for individuals for whom it is unreasonably difficult or inadvisable to meet the standard. The reward limit may be increased to 50-percent of the cost of coverage if deemed appropriate. (Effective January 1, 2014) Establish 10-state pilot programs by July 2014 to permit participating states to apply similar rewards for participating in wellness programs in the individual market and expand demonstrations in 2017 if effective. Require a report on the effectiveness and impact of wellness programs. (Report due three years following enactment)
- Require chain restaurants and food sold from vending machines to disclose the nutritional content of each item. (Proposed regulations issued within one year of enactment)
All this creates huge opportunities for prevention coalitions and groups to change our prevention outcomes for substance abuse, mental illness and behavior problems. My colleagues and I will be writing soon about how coalitions might capitalize on these opportunities.
3/23/2010
By Scott Waller, SPF-SIG Project Director I'm going to ask you to imagine with me for a few minutes about everyone in Washington State having access to prevention services. Just imagine. Dennis Embry, Ph.D., president of the Paxis Institute in Arizona, was recently in Olympia and said the way we presently do prevention, providing services only to those most in need or for those who will "benefit the most," constitutes "rationing" of prevention. He says most parenting education programs make participants feel like they're being sent to the "bad parent academy." And he's not a fan either of school-based curricula because of the small potential for impact. He said there are alternative approaches. He spoke of a Centers for Disease Control-funded study in South Carolina (Prinz and Sanders, 2007) in which the Triple P parenting program was made widely available to parents and families in nine counties. Triple P ( http://www.triplep-america.com) has five implementation levels. Parents choose their level of engagement. Thousands were trained to implement the curriculum from school principals, to doctors, to drug and alcohol counselors. The study focused on getting information and skills to as many people as possible not on how the program was implemented. The results show that reported child maltreatment, out-of-home placement, and emergency room admissions for child abuse were reduced significantly, conceivably saving millions of dollars. Triple P is currently implemented for some community mental health consumers in Olympia and is producing encouraging results. He spoke of focusing on changing the environments that students and educational staff share. Use of behavioral "kernels" - like using timers to create a sense of challenge and focus or harmonicas and hand signals to get students' attention quicker - can have dramatic impacts. Two recently released videos tell the story of what happened when West View Elementary School in Burlington, WA implemented behavioral "kernels." Both videos are available at YouTube.com. Type "pax grows in west view" in the search box. Embry estimated it would cost about $15-million to implement Triple-P statewide in Washington State as it was implemented in South Carolina. That seems an incredible figure to imagine. But imagine what it would look like if we got the same return on that investment that South Carolina did. Hundreds of children could be spared real pain, both physical and emotional. And real savings in that state's child welfare system were realized in 18 months. We in prevention are dreamers. We are "imaginers." Sometimes we see possibilities where others don't. In a world filled with despair and bad news, we tend to be messengers of hope for change. But hope cannot occur unless people can begin imagining change. What would it look like if everyone in Washington had access to prevention services that they thought they needed? At the risk of being disrespectful, I'm going to end this post with a slightly altered version of the chorus from John Lennon's song, "Imagine": You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And there'll be prevention for everyone. 3/15/2010
by Michael Langer As most of you know, for the past 14 months the Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB) has been working on changes to their Alcohol Advertising WAC's. This morning the LCB voted to approve the proposed WAC changes. Please see details in the news release. I want to thank the hundreds of prevention and treatment professionals, as well as scores of parents, youth and community volunteers who have contributed to this process. It was the largest amount of public input LCB have ever received on any of their rule changes to date. Many of you traveled to Olympia multiple times to provide public testimony, or worked with your colleagues, neighbors and family members to weigh in by letter, e-mail and phone calls. I am also reminded that this effort began through the input of community members throughout the state attending SAMHSA/Washington State RUAD Coalition sponsored Underage Drinking Town Hall Meetings in 2006 and 2008. It was the meeting participants that requested that "The State" support their local efforts to prevent underage drinking by reducing the number of alcohol messages their youth were seeing every day in their communities. Finally, I would also like to thank the LCB Members and Staff for their Leadership. It is clear that they take their commitment to Public Safety seriously and have listened to the outpouring of community support to reduce alcohol advertising exposure to youth in Washington State. This is a victory for our children, youth and families! The advertising rules restrictions are effective April 3, 2010. For a full description of the rule revisions, please visit the Laws and Rules section of the LCB Web site at www.liq.wa.gov. 1/29/2010
CESAR FAXNovember 23, 2009 Vol. 18, Issue 46 CESAR FAX, which is also available online at http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/cesarfax.asp. What are caffeinated alcoholic beverages? Caffeinated alcoholic beverages are alcoholic beverages to which the manufacturer has intentionally added caffeine and/or other stimulants that are metabolized as caffeine (e.g., guarana). An increasing number of companies are producing these beverages, with young people as the apparent marketing target. The reported prevalence of combined caffeine and alcohol use among U.S. college students is high as 28%. What are the potential health concerns with caffeinated alcoholic beverages? Studies have shown that people who drink caffeinated alcoholic beverages drink larger quantities of alcohol. Caffeine can mask the negative effects of alcohol intoxication, increasing the chance that users will engage in potentially risky behaviors, such as drinking and driving, because they don't feel that they are intoxicated. Users of caffeinated alcoholic beverages are also more likely to experience alcohol-related consequences, such as being taken advantage of or taking advantage of someone else sexually. Consuming these beverages may also be associated with adverse effects on heart rhythm, most likely in individuals with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions. Is caffeine approved by the FDA for use in alcoholic beverages? A food additive is presumed by the FDA to be unsafe unless its particular use has been approved by federal regulation or is Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) under the conditions of its intended use. The FDA has approved caffeine as GRAS for use only in non-alcoholic cola-type beverages at concentrations of no greater 0.02 percent. The FDA has not approved caffeine for use at any level in alcoholic beverages. What is the FDA doing about this? On November 13, 2009, the FDA issued a mandate to nearly 30 manufacturers* of caffeinated alcoholic beverages to produce within 30 days their rationale and supporting data concluding that their use of caffeine in an alcoholic beverage is either GRAS or prior sanctioned.** To be GRAS, the burden is on the manufacturers to show that: 1) the use of caffeine is safe for use in alcoholic beverages based on publicly available scientific evidence and 2) there is a consensus among qualified experts regarding the safety of caffeine for this use. In their letter to manufacturers of caffeinated alcoholic beverages, the FDA states that, "If FDA determines that the use of caffeine in your alcoholic beverage is not GRAS or subject to a prior sanction, FDA will take appropriate action to ensure that this product is removed from the marketplace." SOURCES: Adapted by CESAR from the following documents available on the FDA website at http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/ucm190366.htm: "FDA to Look Into Safety of Caffeinated Alcoholic Beverages; Agency Sends Letters to Nearly 30 Manufacturers," FDA Press Release, 11/13/09; FDA, Questions & Answers on Caffeine in Alcoholic Beverages, 2009; CAB Letter to FDA from Attorneys General, 9/25/09; CAB Letter to FDA from Scientists, 9/21/09 301-405-9770 (voice)
301-403-8342 (fax)
CESAR FAX may be copied without permission. Please cite CESAR as the source. The Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention funded this project under grant BJAG 2005-1206. All points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of any State agency. FDA to Evaluate Safety and Legality of Alcoholic Beverages Containing Caffeine "The increasing popularity of consumption of caffeinated alcoholic beverages by college students and reports of potential health and safety issues necessitates that we look seriously at the scientific evidence as soon as possible."--Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Principal Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drugs, FDA
*In the past year, Anheuser-Busch and Miller agreed to discontinue their caffeinated alcoholic beverages and agreed to not produce any caffeinated alcoholic beverages in the future.
**A substance is considered prior-sanctioned if its specific use in food was authorized by the FDA or the Department of Agriculture prior to September 6, 1958.
12/11/2009
By Lauri Turkovsky, Ed.D, SPF-SIG Technical Asssitance Consultant
Recently, we were asked about alternatives to suggest to community groups that want to bring in black lungs to show the impacts of tobacco smoking, etc. We know these appeals to fear have little preventive impact. When I have worked with SADD groups in the past around events they could plan I usually talk about two kinds of strategies: positive role models and normative stats.
The first is to find a former student (or two or three) who has done well and whose non-use in school has helped them become the successful person he or she is today. What we tend not to offer kids when we fall back on scare tactics is a picture of what it looks like to do the healthy, no/low risk behaviors we want them to practice. When we teach kids Math, English, Science, etc. we don't just tell them how dangerous it is not to learn those subjects; we spend or time instructing them on those topics and, ideally, how they can be applied in everyday life. Especially when addressing the issue of drinking and driving, having speakers talk about the ways they keep themselves and their friends safe might be a good way to go. (Yes, there are all kind of particulars to be thought through like should we or should we not acknowledge that sometimes kids drink and what can they do to keep themselves and others safe anyway.)
Another idea is to use a clicker system to do classroom or smaller group presentations (Karen has clickers she might lend and I'd be happy to help anyone who's interested with that option). As an aside, I'm not a fan of full school assemblies. I think they easily become a joke, an opportunity to skip class or chance gain peer support for being disruptive, etc. Clickers can be used to demonstrate that use and approval of use is not the norm; how much kids really do practice protective behaviors; how they are protective of their friends and care for each other; how they care about their education and having a happy future, etc. Even without clickers, small group activities (like 20-50 kids) could be used to demonstrate some of the same things as clickers. Most of us have done those activities where kids (or adults) are asked to line up on a strongly disagree to strongly agree scale in response to a variety of questions. That could be done for a question such as, "Protecting my friends for a drinking driver is important" then having a discussion about how kids actually do protect each other in that way. Hope that's helpful. By David H. Albert
It would be fair to say that Washington State is currently facing an epidemic in the abuse of prescription-type opiates (codeine, dihyrdrocodeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, methadone, oxycodone, and propoxyphene). All the available data point to increasing use and abuse by youth, young adult, and adult populations. Below are some quick facts, all taken from the forthcoming Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drug Abuse Trends in Washington State - 2009 Report:
In 2008, 21.7% of Washington 12th graders report having used prescription painkillers to get high, and 12.0% had done so in the past 30 days. Of those who reported using prescription painkillers to get high at least once, 33% said they got them from friends, while 29% used their own prescriptions from a doctor or dentist.
Of the 12.0% of 12th graders who reported using prescription painkillers to get high in the past 30 days, more than half (51%) used them three or more times.
Among Washington State students, there is a strong association between use of Ritalin without a prescription and use of prescription-type opiates to get high. Of 10th graders who used prescription-type opiates to get high in the past 30 days, 74.5% also used Ritalin without a prescription in the same time period, compared with 6.2% who had not used Ritalin without a prescription.
Almost four out of ten admissions to DBHR-funded treatment for prescription-type opiate addiction were for young adults ages 18-25. The number of such admissions rose from 104 in SFY 2003 to 938 in SFY 2008. Of these, 40.2% began using prescription-type opiates between the ages of 10-17.In SFY 2008, young adults ages 18-25 made up 26.0% of all individuals addicted to prescription-type opiates entering DBHR-funded opiate substitution treatment.
Use of prescription-type opiates is often a precursor to heroin use. A 2009 study undertaken by the Seattle Needle Exchange found that 39% of heroin users were opiate-dependent prior to heroin use.  RSS Feed
| Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /athena/community/blog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XsnLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xsn | 255 | | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /athena/community/blog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | ProgId | InfoPath.Document | 255 | | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /athena/community/blog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | ProgId | InfoPath.Document.2 | 255 | | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /athena/community/blog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | ProgId | InfoPath.Document.3 | 255 | | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /athena/community/blog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | ProgId | InfoPath.Document.4 | 255 | | View in Web Browser | /_layouts/images/ichtmxls.gif | /athena/community/blog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&DefaultItemOpen=1 | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xlsx | 255 | | View in Web Browser | /_layouts/images/ichtmxls.gif | /athena/community/blog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&DefaultItemOpen=1 | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xlsb | 255 | | Snapshot in Excel | /_layouts/images/ewr134.gif | /athena/community/blog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&Snapshot=1 | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xlsx | 256 | | Snapshot in Excel | /_layouts/images/ewr134.gif | /athena/community/blog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&Snapshot=1 | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xlsb | 256 |
|
|
|
|
|