ABSTRACT
Traditional treatment programs based on the Minnesota Model (28-day inpatient treatment) have been shown to be ineective for the treatment of stimulant addiction. Indeed, the traditional 28-day program has all but disappeared in substance abuse approaches on the basis of both ineectiveness (relapse rate) and costliness (insurance reluctance to underwrite the 28-day programs). In a context of cost-eectiveness, developing empirical bases for treatment programs assumes an even greater importance than might have been the case on the basis of purely scientic concerns. Both the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) have sponsored research into the ecacy of treatments for methamphetamine abuse. One program that is currently receiving the greatest national attention, the Matrix Model, has been shown to be promising, but none of the models has been eectively evaluated for its ecacy for the treatment of methamphetamine use per se. Meanwhile, the development of mental health and drug courts as an outgrowth of treatment in lieu of incarceration includes positive and negative aspects-legal and psychological-some of which are by-products of the level of treatment ecacy and availability.
