IntroductionTelemedicine use in addiction treatment and recovery services is limited. Yet, because it removes barriers of time and distance, telemedicine offers great potential for enhancing treatment and recovery for people with substance use disorders (SUDs). Telemedicine also offers clinicians ways to increase contact with SUD patients during and after treatment.Case descriptionA project conducted from February 2013 to June 2014 investigated the adoption of telemedicine services among purchasers of addiction treatment in five states and one county. The project assessed purchasers’ interest in and perceived facilitators and barriers to implementing one or more of the following telemedicine modalities: telephone-based care, web-based screening, web-based treatment, videoconferencing, smartphone mobile applications (apps), and virtual worlds.Discussion and evaluationPurchasers expressed the most interest in implementing videoconferencing and smartphone mobile devices. The anticipated facilitators for implementing a telemedicine app included funding available to pay for the telemedicine service, local examples of success, influential champions at the payer and treatment agencies, and meeting a pressing need. The greatest barriers identified were: costs associated with implementation, lack of reimbursement for telemedicine services, providers’ unfamiliarity with technology, lack of implementation models, and confidentiality regulations. This paper discusses why the project participants selected or rejected different telemedicine modalities and the policy implications that purchasers and regulators of addiction treatment services should consider for expanding their use of telemedicine.ConclusionsThis analysis provides initial observations into how telemedicine is being implemented in addiction services in five states and one county. The project demonstrated that despite the considerable interest in telemedicine, implementation challenges exist. Future studies should broaden the sample analyzed and track technology implementation longitudinally to help the research and practitioner communities develop a greater understanding of technology implementation trends and practices.

The stigma surrounding individuals who have substance use disorders is a pervasive phenomenon that has had detrimental effects on treatment outcomes, health care providers, treatments, research, policies, and society as a whole (Kelly JF, Dow SJ, Westerhoff C , J Drug Issues_40:805-818, Kelly JF, Westerhoff, Int J Drug Policy_21:202-207, 2010). Stigma can be cultivated by various sources, but this article specifically focuses on the impact words have. Individuals influence each other through dynamic language processes. Language, which we use to communicate, represents shared values, history, beliefs, and customs. Moreover, language can be used to promote stigma or decrease it [Snodgrass S: The Power of Words: Changing the Language of Addiction, 2920]. Language usage for addiction medical care is dated in comparison to other standards. Research and organizations are recognizing that substance use treatment, policies, and language need to evolve to aid this crisis and those affected by this disease. Language sustains the stigma surrounding substance use. The stigmatized language used to describe substance use behaviors, individuals with substance use disorders, and substance use treatment can create barriers in essential areas, such as health care, employment, insurance policies, and laws for individuals who are trying to heal and make meaningful contributions to society. There are many ways to contribute to a more accepting society, but it starts with bottom-up processes like language choices in day-to-day conversations. An effort must be made to normalize destigmatized language when referring to substance use and individuals with substance use disorders.

Methods: A project conducted from February 2013 to June 2014 investigated the adoption of telemedicine

Objective. To profile state agency efforts to promote implementation of three evidence-based practices (EBPs): screening and brief intervention (SBIRT), psychosocial interventions, and medication-assisted treatment (MAT Principal Findings. Statewide implementation of psychosocial interventions and MAT increased significantly over 3 years. In the first two assessments, states that contracted directly with providers were more likely to link use of EBPs to reimbursement, and states with indirect contract, through counties and other entities, increased recommendations, and some requirements for provision of specific EBPs. The number of states using legislation as a policy lever to promote EBPs was unchanged. Conclusions. Health care reform and implementation of parity in coverage increases access to treatment for alcohol and drug use. Science-based substance abuse treatment will become even more crucial as payers seek consistent quality of care. This study provides baseline data on service delivery, contracting, and financing as state agencies and treatment providers prepare for implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Psychiatric symptoms improved over time with usual substance abuse treatment. There was no evidence that referral by the court system or symptoms of antisocial personality disorder affected outcome. Conventional treatment resulted in sobriety, employment, and fewer arrests at 6 and 12 months following treatment.