SAMHSA – Warren Throckmorton

Many Questions Unanswered About the Future of Evidence-Based Policy at SAMHSA (UPDATED)

UPDATE (1/12/18) – Last night, SAMHSA Asst. Secretary Elinore McCance-Katz released a statement about the termination of NREPP. The full statement is at the link and the end of this post. She also held a brief conference call with reporters. Although I wasn’t on it, I communicated with two people on the call. On the call and in her written statement, Dr. McCance-Katz criticized the NREPP. On the call, she was quoted by a reporter on the call as saying, “We in the Trump administration are not going to sit back and let people die,” she said, which will happen “if we leave things up on the website that don’t help people.”
There still is no time table for the implementation of the Policy Lab or any new approach. The statement is light on specifics. When I ask about when and how this is going to happen, I have gotten no responses. I hope to have another post later today with reactions to the Asst. Secretary’s remarks and am holding out hope that SAMHSA might address the issues of timing and implementation.
………………………………..
(Original post begins here)
One thing is clear. The National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs & Practices contract has been terminated. SAMHSA’s statement about the registry first posted here on this blog is now on the NREPP website (see the statement in red below):

What Now?

In one form or another, the question on the minds of many mental health researchers and advocates is “what now?” After I received the statement above on 1/8, I asked a SAMHSA spokesman when researchers would be able to submit programs or update new programs. There has been no answer. It appears that SAMHSA discontinued NREPP even though the agency is not prepared to “reconfigure its approach” to evidence-based practice. Thus far, something is being replaced by nothing.
Media accounts of NREPP’s demise reflect the reaction of the mental health community. The Week‘s headline this morning reads, “Trump officials froze a federal database of addiction and mental health treatments. Nobody’s sure why.”
On Tuesday, Think Progress led with “Without warning, the government just ended a registry of mental illness and drug abuse programs.” The subtitle? “And didn’t bother to warn program participants ahead of time.”
Yesterday, the Boston Globe‘s health news service Stat began:

The Trump administration has abruptly halted work on a highly regarded program to help physicians, families, state and local government agencies, and others separate effective “evidence-based” treatments for substance abuse and behavioral health problems from worthless interventions.

Also out this morning, the Washington Post covers much of the same ground but provides no details from SAMHSA about when the new process will begin.
I say again, SAMHSA replaced something with nothing and did so in the middle of an addiction epidemic.

Rep. Grace Meng Wants to Know What’s Going On with NREPP

Rep. Grace Meng represents the Sixth District of New York and is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. On January 5, unaware of the impending controversy over NREPP, she wrote SAMHSA to praise NREPP and ask how she could help support the registry. She closed her letter by saying,

Again, thank you for the NREPP. I feel that the registry and its website are crucial public health tools. Respectfully, I wish to know how you will grow the NREPP and its website, how you intend to review more opioid abuse-specific programs, and how I may be of help to you in these endeavors.

When Rep. Meng learned about the NREPP’s termination, she followed up with another letter on January 8 requesting the answers to several questions. The first question was “Why, with specificity, was this contract terminated?” That was followed by nine additional questions:

These are good questions. I would add, why did SAMHSA terminate NREPP when it appears that SAMHSA doesn’t have another evidence-based process ready to go?

For background, see my first post on the termination of NREPP.
…………..
Statement of Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use regarding the National Registry of Evidence Programs and Practices and SAMHSA’s new approach to implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs)
Thursday, January 11, 2018
SAMHSA and HHS are committed to advancing the use of science, in the form of data and evidence-based policies, programs and practices, to improve the lives of Americans living with substance use disorders and mental illness and of their families.
People throughout the United States are dying every day from substance use disorders and from serious mental illnesses. The situation regarding opioid addiction and serious mental illness is urgent, and we must attend to the needs of the American people. SAMHSA remains committed to promoting effective treatment options for the people we serve, because we know people can recover when they receive appropriate services.
SAMHSA has used the National Registry of Evidence Programs and Practices (NREPP) since 1997. For the majority of its existence, NREPP vetted practices and programs submitted by outside developers – resulting in a skewed presentation of evidence-based interventions, which did not address the spectrum of needs of those living with serious mental illness and substance use disorders. These needs include screening, evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, psychotherapies, psychosocial supports and recovery services in the community.
The program as currently configured often produces few to no results, when such common search terms as “medication-assisted treatment” or illnesses such as ”schizophrenia” are entered. There is a complete lack of a linkage between all of the EBPs that are necessary to provide effective care and treatment to those living with mental and substance use disorders, as well. If someone with limited knowledge about various mental and substance use disorders were to go to the NREPP website, they could come away thinking that there are virtually no EBPs for opioid use disorder and other major mental disorders – which is completely untrue.
They would have to try to discern which of the listed practices might be useful, but could not rely on the grading for the listed interventions; neither would there be any way for them to know which interventions were more effective than others.
We at SAMHSA should not be encouraging providers to use NREPP to obtain EBPs, given the flawed nature of this system. From my limited review – I have not looked at every listed program or practice – I see EBPs that are entirely irrelevant to some disorders, “evidence” based on review of as few as a single publication that might be quite old and, too often, evidence review from someone’s dissertation.
This is a poor approach to the determination of EBPs. As I mentioned, NREPP has mainly reviewed submissions from “developers” in the field. By definition, these are not EBPs because they are limited to the work of a single person or group. This is a biased, self-selected series of interventions further hampered by a poor search-term system. Americans living with these serious illnesses deserve better, and SAMHSA can now provide that necessary guidance to communities.
We are now moving to EBP implementation efforts through targeted technical assistance and training that makes use of local and national experts and will that assist programs with actually implementing services that will be essential to getting Americans living with these disorders the care and treatment and recovery services that they need.
These services are designed to provide EBPs appropriate to the communities seeking assistance, and the services will cover the spectrum of individual and community needs including prevention interventions, treatment and community recovery services.
We must do this now. We must not waste time continuing a program that has had since 1997 to show its effectiveness.
But yet we know that the majority of behavioral health programs still do not use EBPs: one indicator being the lack of medication-assisted treatment, the accepted, life-saving standard of care for opioid use disorder, in specialty substance use disorder programs nationwide.
SAMHSA will use its technical assistance and training resources, its expert resources, the resources of our sister agencies at the Department of Health and Human Services, and national stakeholders who are consulted for EBPs to inform American communities and to get Americans living with these disorders the resources that they deserve.

Interview with Mark Yarhouse on SAMHSA Report Calling for an End to Sexual Orientation Change Efforts for Minors

On October 15, I linked to a report published by SAMHSA which called for an end to sexual orientation change efforts for LGBT minors. At the time, I wrote:

Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth was released today by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The report recommends the end of change therapies for minors via professional advocacy and legal strategies.

Mark Yarhouse, co-author with me of the Sexual Identity Therapy framework and professor at Regent University, was an evangelical presence on the panel of experts who produced the consensus statements.

I also said I hoped to have commentary from Mark. Today, I have an interview with him on his committee experience and his views of the consensus. Mark is professor of psychology at Regent University and Director of the Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity. He is co-author with me of the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework, which is a model for ethically and effectively helping clients with distress surrounding their sexual orientation and religious beliefs. For more on SITF, see the website which supports the framework. This will be cross–posted there.
This interview comes amid a bit of a controversy involving Mark and a speaking engagement in Canada. I hope those who assume they know Mark’s views will also read this and the SITF.

Warren Throckmorton: In general, what was your experience like being on the consensus committee? Did you feel the rest of the committee members took religious concerns seriously?
Mark Yarhouse: Overall, it was a good experience. I am always grateful for the opportunity to engage with others around complex issues, to learn from other experts, and to share from my own lines of research. We reviewed existing research and past policy statements, as well as shared from our professional experience working with children, adolescents, and families. In answer to your question about religious concerns, I think committee members wanted to take religious concerns seriously, although the primary focus was the well-being of minors who are navigating sexual identity and gender identity. As you know all too well, the beliefs and values of religious families are important considerations when working with families whose teen may be navigating gender identity or sexual identity concerns. In any case, my experience was that other committee members were interested in the experiences I’ve had – and others had – working with conventionally religious families.
WT: Even though the sexual identity therapy framework (SITF) wasn’t mentioned or cited, do you feel the report is supportive of the approach we take in the framework?
MY: Yes, I think so. We had the opportunity to review many documents, including the SITF and the 2009 APA task force report on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation, which, as you know, cited the SITF favorably. The kind of practice we saw as helpful would emphasize identity exploration without an a priori fixed outcome. I think the framework does that in the area of sexual identity. However, the framework does not address in much detail working with minors, and that may be something we consider if we offer a revision in the future.
WT: Do you have any comments, reservations about the consensus reported in the paper?
MY: As the SAMHSA report notes, we decided at the outset that we would define consensus as a reasonably high percentage of agreement rather than unanimous consensus. We all agreed to that, but that meant that what counted as consensus in at least a few occasions was not reflecting unanimity. We worked hard for unanimity in all cases, but that did not always happen. I at times found myself in disagreement with some of the wording, for example, but the threshold for consensus was met in those instances, and I understood and respected that process.
WT:It seems to me that the consensus surrounding sexual orientation is more settled than gender identity. How do you see that?
MY: There are fewer professional debates about sexual orientation, which likely reflects the consensus you are referring to. There seem to be more professional discussions about a range of clinical options with gender dysphoria. However, I was impressed by how little research is published on minors – particularly efforts to achieve congruence between gender identity and biological sex. I was under the impression that more studies of higher quality had been published in some areas, and as the committee looked at them together, we found them lacking. Also, while research was one consideration, we drew on other sources, too, such as committee members’ professional experience and prior reports. In any case, I would have preferred to frame and word various aspects of the consensus report differently, but again that in some cases goes back to what counted as consensus. Without going into too much detail, you could imagine someone favoring the language of ‘insufficient evidence’ in discussions of effectiveness and harm, to reflect how little published research is available in a given area of inquiry. Other topics, such as how to conceptualize sexual and gender identities and expressions in a diverse and pluralistic culture raise important philosophical and theological questions that were beyond the scope of the discussion.
WT: In general, do you support the recommendations of the paper (or asked another way). Is there anything in the recommendations you have concerns about?
MY: It is important to distinguish the consensus statement from the SAMHSA report. I did provide feedback on portions of the SAMHSA report, especially around family, community, and religious considerations, but it was written by designated persons from that agency. I think it reflects a little more regard for conventionally religious persons and families and provides for more resources than otherwise may have been available. But many committee members provided input and suggestions, and I imagine the author of the report had to balance various considerations in putting together the final document.
As far as concerns, I indicated at the outset that I did not think the government should be involved in legislating around the complexities of clinical practice in these two areas. I prefer to see government support the regulatory bodies that provide oversight to mental health professions in a given jurisdiction. I shared more of my thoughts on that in an interview with First Things. My opinion has not changed on that matter.

New SAMHSA Report Calls for End to Change Therapy for LGBT Youth

I may have more to say about this report in the coming days, hopefully with some commentary from Mark Yarhouse, but for now, I am going to link to it.
Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth was released today by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The report recommends the end of change therapies for minors via professional advocacy and legal strategies.
Mark Yarhouse, co-author with me of the Sexual Identity Therapy framework and professor at Regent University, was an evangelical presence on the panel of experts who produced the consensus statements.
The most controversial parts of the report, in my opinion, deal with gender identity. I think most therapists now understand that sexual orientation is durable and rarely, if ever, changes dramatically as the result of change therapy. However, the recommendations on gender identity are more controversial. Despite the use of the word consensus, I question whether there is a consensus among professionals of all ideologies about how to respond therapeutically to youth dealing with stress over gender expression.
As for the goal of ending change therapy for youth, I am a supporter. Despite years of research and effort, no safe, effective and ethical approach to sexual orientation change has emerged. The very few people who still claim effectiveness are small operations with no research of their own methods. The anecdotes of harm are convincing and the candid admissions of people like Alan Chambers that the change they claimed didn’t happen is enough to cause significant skepticism. My own professional experience researching change efforts in clients and research participants informs me that any claimed change is unlikely to be lasting or complete. The biological research, while not conclusive, supports a very early establishment of sexual desires (especially for males). The available options for attempting change are often bizarre and carry potential to create psychological problems. Thus, limiting these efforts in a free society to adults seems like a reasonable professional position.