Does higher cost mean better quality? evidence from highly-regarded adolescent drug treatment programs

Table 1 Program characteristics

	All Programs		Programs in Reduced Regression Models
			Offering Residential Treatment		Offering Outpatient Treatment
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Program Setting
Residential only	27	22.5	10	26.3	-
Outpatient only	42	35.0	-		20	37.7
Multilevel	51	42.5	28	73.7	33	62.3
Program Approach*
Twelve-step	94	80.3	32	84.2	40	75.5
Cognitive behavioral	105	89.7	36	94.7	47	88.7
Therapeutic Community	45	38.5	15	39.5	16	30.2
Motivational Enhancement	82	70.1	27	71.0	40	75.5
Multisystematic therapy	51	43.6	19	50.0	23	43.4
Multidimensional Family	61	52.1	18	47.4	23	43.4
Region
South	36	30.0	7	18.4	12	22.6
Midwest	28	23.3	9	23.7	15	28.3
West	30	25.0	12	31.6	16	30.2
Northeast	26	21.7	10	26.3	10	18.9
Source of Referral*
Hospital	46	38	17	44.7	23	43.4
Juvenile Justice System	107	89	32	84.2	49	92.4
Private Practitioner	58	48	19	50.0	28	52.8
State health agency	47	39	16	42.1	20	37.7
Adult Substance Abuse	17	14	6	15.8	9	17.0
Facility
School System Official	83	69	22	57.9	42	79.3
Parent or Family Member	98	82	30	78.9	46	86.8
Insurance Company	34	28	13	34.2	17	32.1
Walk-ins	47	39	14	36.8	20	37.7
Programs w/accreditation^†
Yes	63	54.3	22	57.9	30	56.6
No	53	45.7	16	42.1	23	43.4
Total Revenue >$1 million	42	56.0	29	76.3	28	53.8
Total Revenue <$1 million	33	44.0	9	23.7	24	46.2
Receive Grants
Yes	52	75.4	25	69.4	43	81.1
No	17	24.6	11	30.6	10	18.9
Waiting List
Yes	37	50.7	26	70.3	26	49.1
No	36	49.3	11	29.7	27	50.9

Note: excludes missing responses.
* Multiple responses allowed
^† Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), Rehabilitation Accreditation Commission (CARF), Council on Accreditation (COA)

ISSN: 1747-597X