Ecstasy (MDMA) use increased rapidly in the U.S. between about 1995 and 2001. Most research on the drug focused on its psychopharmacological and public health contexts. Previous research on drugs-crime linkages suggests that there may have been a concommitant rise in ecstasy-related crimes. We explore this dimension here using data from 7794 arrested men, age 16 to 25, in the 2001 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) sample and 9764 male respondents of similar age in the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA). Our results using a variety of bivariate and regression methods indicate that ecstasy use is less prevalent among young male arrestees than young men in general and that ecstasy use among arrestees is positively associated with various measures of drug market participation but negatively related to violent and property offenses. We recommend further investigation of ecstasy use in drug-oriented data sets and longitudinal studies to evaluate the link between ecstasy use and overall drug marketing.

Background:Patients with drug use disorders are heavy users of emergency department (ED) and inpatient hospital care. This study examines whether formal mechanisms to link addiction treatment patients to primary medical care, either directly on site or by off-site referral—when compared with an absence of said mechanisms—might reduce these patients’ use of ED and hospital services after substance abuse treatment. Methods:We used longitudinal data from 6 methadone maintenance programs with 232 patients, 24 outpatient nonmethadone programs with 1202 patients, and 14 long-term residential programs with 679 patients in the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study. Multivariate logistic models controlling for health status and medical service utilization before treatment examined whether provision of medical services on- or off-site during treatment linkage led to reduced use of ED and hospital services in the year after treatment compared with no such provision. Results:On-site delivery of primary care reduced subsequent ED and hospital use among patients in methadone maintenance and long-term residential compared with the nonlinkage condition but not in outpatient nonmethadone programs. Off-site referral for medical care reduced subsequent ED visits but not hospitalizations in long-term residential programs. Conclusions:These findings suggest that for some treatment modalities, stronger primary care linkage mechanisms decrease subsequent utilization of expensive ED and hospital services. Future study should examine the cost implications of these strong linkage mechanisms and ways to strengthen linkages to off-site medical care.

AIMS:To examine whether need-service matching in addiction treatment leads to improvements in drug use, and whether treatment duration mediates those improvements. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, MEASUREMENTS:This analysis utilizes prospective data from a US cohort of addiction treatment patients who reported service needs beyond core rehabilitative services (n = 3103). 'Drug use improvement' is the difference between the patient's peak drug use frequency (in days per month) in the year before intake and in the year after treatment. Overall and primary use of the major illicit drugs (heroin, powder or crack cocaine and marijuana) are considered separately. 'Need-service match' means that a patient rated a service as important at intake and reported its receipt during treatment. 'Percentage of needs matched' indicates the proportion of five service domains (medical, mental health, family, vocational and housing) so matched. FINDINGS:In mixed regression models controlling for multiple factors, a greater percentage of needs matched tended to improve primary (beta = 0.028, P = 0.09) and overall (beta = 0.049, P = 0.05) drug use in the follow-up year. Exclusion of treatment duration as a covariate doubled the magnitude of these coefficients. The benefits of matching were concentrated among the half of patients reporting needs in four to five rather than one to three domains, and were strongest among patients in long-term residential facilities. Addressing vocational and housing needs exerted the greatest effects. CONCLUSIONS:Matching comprehensive services to needs is a useful addiction treatment practice, especially for high-need patients. Treatment duration might partially mediate its effect.

This study examines whether having designated case management staff facilitates delivery of comprehensive medical and psychosocial services in substance abuse treatment programs. A multilevel, prospective cohort study of 2829 clients admitted to selected substance abuse treatment programs was used to study clients from long-term residential, outpatient, and methadone treatment modalities. Program directors reported whether the program had staff designated as case managers. After treatment discharge, clients reported their receipt of 9 supplemental services during the treatment episode. In multivariate models controlling for multiple program-level and client-level factors, program-level availability of designated case managers increased client-level receipt of only 2 of 9 services, and exerted no effect on service comprehensiveness, compared to programs that did not have designated case managers. These findings do not support the common practice of designating case management staff as a means to facilitate comprehensive services delivery in addiction treatment programs.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the availability of primary medical care on-site at addiction treatment programs or off-site by referral improves patients’ addiction severity and medical outcomes, compared to programs that offer no primary care. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of patients admitted to a purposive national sample of substance abuse treatment programs. SETTING: Substance abuse treatment programs in major U.S. metropolitan areas eligible for demonstration grant funding from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. RESPONDENTS: Administrators at 52 substance abuse treatment programs, and 2,878 of their patients who completed treatment intake, discharge, and follow-up interviews. MEASUREMENTS: Program administrators reported whether the program had primary medical care available on-site, only off-site, or not at all. Patients responded to multiple questions regarding their addiction and medical status in intake and 12-month follow-up interviews. These items were combined into multi-item composite scores of addiction and medical severity. The addiction severity score includes items measuring alcohol and drug use, employment, illegal activities, legal supervision, family and other social support, housing, physical conditions, and psychiatric status. The medical severity score includes measures of perceived health, functional limitations, and comorbid physical conditions. MAIN RESULTS: After controlling for treatment modality, geographic region, and multiple patient-level characteristics, patients who attended programs with on-site primary medical care experienced significantly less addiction severity at 12-month follow-up (regression coefficient, −25.9; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], −43.2 to −8.5), compared with patients who attended programs with no primary medical care. However, on-site care did not significantly influence medical severity at follow-up (coefficient, −0.28; 95% CI, −0.69 to 0.14). Referral to off-site primary care exerted no detectable effects on either addiction severity (coefficient, −9.0; 95% CI, −26.5 to 8.5) or medical severity (coefficient, −0.03; 95% CI, −0.37 to 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: On-site primary medical care improves substance abuse treatment patients’ addiction-related outcomes, but not necessarily their health-related outcomes. Further study is needed to discern the mechanism through which on-site primary care might improve the addiction-related outcomes of substance abuse treatment.