Treatment for substance abuse in Australia: a comparison of public and private programs

Alcohol and drug abuse is a major problem in Australia and caused over 4000 deaths in 1998 alone. The national policy for reducing the harmful consequences of drug and alcohol use focuses on decreasing the production and supply of drugs, reducing the demand for drugs including a focus on abstinence in treatment, and minimizing the harm to individuals and communities. This research examines substance abuse treatment in Australia, and identifies similarities and differences in funding, philosophy, purpose, and strategies between public and private treatment programs. Interviews of 21 treatment program directors in Sydney and Melbourne were done, using a valid and reliable semi-structured interview guide. Nine public, not-for-profit programs primarily focused on consultation to medical providers, detoxification, outpatient counseling, and harm minimization including methadone treatment and needle exchange. Rehabilitation, prevention, and/or research were objectives of a limited number. Twelve private, non-governmental programs primarily provided abstinence-based treatment in a variety of settings. Some for-profit programs, funded by insurance, provided three to four weeks inpatient care, usually with outpatient follow-up. Not-for-profit programs provided residential treatment in a therapeutic community over a period of 6 months to 2 years. Still others (both profit and not-for-profit) provided methadone treatment or outpatient treatment. Four were church related and six received funding through government contracts, social security illness benefits, and housing assistance. The general lack of structured rehabilitation programs seemed to be the greatest weakness of the Australian public programs. A low percentage of patients completing detoxification entered counseling, and studies were not available to show the outcomes of detoxification without follow-up. The availability of consultations to hospitals and health care practitioners seemed to be an excellent advantage, but the lack of structured SAT beyond detoxification may have minimized that advantage. Nurses were involved in a variety of roles in Australia, and six of the program directors or managers we interviewed were nurses. Nurses were usually in clinical roles or management roles, rather than counseling roles.