In the United States, average spending on substance misuse treatment has been rising for several decades. Despite the majority of interventions put in place to reduce substance use, the control of such consumption has not materialized. According to the current study, the bodies funding this spending have spent a lot of money to get rid of this predicament, but it has all been for naught. The most difficult issue that policymakers in the state government are currently facing is where to set the rates for the reimbursement cost of substance abuse and the finest substance abuse treatment programs that they can fund to ensure that this problem is covered adequately (French, Popovici, & Tapsell, 2008). The other big challenge that the state policymakers and the federal government is facing today is determining the most efficient way of allocating the limited public funds when at the same time evading either under or over-treating patients with substance abuse cases.
Ideally, the rates of reimbursement ought to be in line with the economic cost or the economic opportunity of the service provision, economic benefits, and clinical outcomes, and only the products, which meet the lowest set of the standard of performance, should be funded. Even so, in reality, the standards of performance are hard to enforce and define, and the rates of reimbursement are often grounded on the crude economic cost approximations or historical stipends to providers based on the estimates of capacity (Nies & McEwen, 2015). There is a little guidance regarding how reimbursements should be determined for various treatment programs, particularly with the characteristics of client, performance differences, the cost of resources, location, and not limited to the setting.
A report released in 2015 showed that the majority of Americans are still staggering in drug and substance abuse (Nesbit, 2016). The number continues to grow daily, and this worries the government bodies responsible for regulation of drugs and substance use. The American economy is shaken every day with the constant abuse of substances. The report further stated that the yearly economic impact of the abuse of illicit drugs, prescription drugs or alcohol is approximately 442 billion dollars (Nesbit, 2016). Of course, that number is too huge and the budget put towards solving that problem is also enormous. If the bulk of this fund were spent on other economic development programs, there would be a rapid economic development. Thus, it is evident to all the parties that the cost of drug and substance abuse has done nothing other than wrecking the economy of the nation.
Substance use affects the economy both directly and indirectly. Other than the significant amount of cash that is pumped into prevention programs for controlling drug and substance use, substance abuse has serious public health related challenges. The misuse of these substances affects an individual, the family, and the society. Communities and neighborhoods are suffering from drugs and substance abuse-related violence and crime, neglect and abuse of children by the irresponsible parents, and not limited to increased healthcare cost associated with misuse of drugs and substances of abuse. The contemporary society is experiencing a war on children (French, Popovici, & Tapsell, 2008). When the adults in the family or parents misuse drugs and substances, the young ones feel the impact. The children carry the burden of their irresponsible parents ranging from dropping out of school, stress, and depression and not limited to neglect and abuse. In the end, all the consequences mentioned above will have an economic cost to the society directly or indirectly.
Ostensibly, when children drop out of school without completing their education, they stand higher chances of joining the dangerous groups such as gangs. The majority of the street children and those who joined dangerous groups in the United States have a history of substance abuse in the family. When the young children accede to the bad groups in the society, it is not only their lives that are at risk but also the lives of the people living in that neighborhood. If anything, the people who are likely to suffer are those whom they are most closely related. Violence and crime in the society bring down the community’s economic development, and this is one of the outcomes of substance abuse (Nies & McEwen, 2015).
In as much as much has been done in the area of policy development regarding the control of substance use, enough has not been done, more so in the area of healthcare and nursing. Various bodies have suggested and tried treatment options to the patients with substance abuse disorders, but this has not realized the end of substance abuse. In my opinion, it is the time that the regulatory bodies need to focus on handling the epidemic through a different approach. Instead of reducing the supply of drugs to the citizens, the new approach should instead venture in lessening the demand of these substances of abuse through continued sensitization and empowerment. Ideally, this would help in rebuilding the economy by cutting the high cost that has been lost in preventing substance abuse.
References
French, M. T., Popovici, I., & Tapsell, L. (2008). The Economic Costs of Substance Abuse Treatment: Updated Estimates and Cost Bands for Program Assessment and Reimbursement. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 35(4), 462–469. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2007.12.008
Nesbit, J. (2016). The Staggering Costs, Monetary and Otherwise, of Substance Abuse. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/at-the-edge/articles/2016-12-19/drug-and-alcohol-abuse-cost-taxpayers-442b-annually-new-surgeon-generals-report-finds
Nies, M. A., & McEwen, M. (2015). Community/public health nursing: Promoting the health of populations.
