Use the search fields below to find specific publications that match certain criteria. If you want to find other information on our website that is not publications, you can use the search field in the navigation bar at the top, or click here to search the entire website.
Found 618 results
Eva Westley, Julia Cramer, John Bauer, Stephanie Lee, Michael Hirsch, Mason Burley, Noa Kay - May 2017
WSIPP’s Board of Directors authorized WSIPP to work on a joint project with the MacArthur Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, with additional support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, to extend WSIPP’s benefit-cost analysis to certain health care topics. We present new benefit-cost findings for interventions in four health care areas: 1) interventions to promote healthy pregnancy and birth; 2) therapies to treat opioid use disorder; 3) collaborative primary care; and 4) patient-centered medical homes. These benefit-cost findings build on our meta-analytic results released in December 2016. As part of this work, we conducted a primary analysis of Washington State birth certificate and hospital discharge data to estimate the costs related to key birth indicators. This analysis is a new addition to WSIPP’s benefit-cost model and is discussed comprehensively in the Health Care Technical Appendix.
The 2016 Washington State Legislature created the Statewide Reentry Council with the goals of reducing recidivism and improving other outcomes for people who return to the community after incarceration. This legislation also directed WSIPP to examine the effectiveness of reentry programs through a systematic review of the research literature. Using WSIPP’s standardized procedures, we examined 59 programs to estimate their average effectiveness in reducing recidivism and improving other outcomes. In this report, we describe our meta-analytic and benefit-cost findings for these programs.
The 2016 Washington State Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to evaluate the “impact and cost effectiveness” of the hub home model. The hub home model, developed by The Mockingbird Society, is an approach to licensed foster care delivery where an experienced foster “hub home” provides activities and respite care for a group or “constellation” of nearby foster homes. The Mockingbird Society has operated Washington’s only hub home program, frequently referred to as the Mockingbird Family Model, on a small scale since 2004.
In this interim report, we briefly describe The Mockingbird Society’s hub home model operations in Washington State and outline our evaluation approach. A final report is due to the legislature by June 30, 2017. The study will include both an outcome evaluation and benefit-cost analysis to address the cost effectiveness of the hub home model in comparison to traditional foster care delivery.
The 2015 Washington State Legislature directed WSIPP to review existing literature and begin a four-year study to evaluate outcomes regarding the cost-effectiveness of FDA-approved long-acting injectable medications, focusing on the benefits to persons in prison when they are released into the community.
We review the research evidence on the effectiveness of these medications in reducing substance abuse and recidivism rates. Where possible, we calculate whether the benefits of administering long-acting injectable medications outweigh the costs.
The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) Board of Directors authorized a collaborative project with the MacArthur Foundation and Pew Charitable Trusts to extend WSIPP’s benefit-cost analysis to higher education programs.
This report reviews the evidence on four types of interventions: 1) financial aid, 2) student advising, 3) interventions in the summer before college, and 4) dual enrollment.
WSIPP’s Board of Directors authorized WSIPP to work on a joint project with the MacArthur Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, with additional support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, to extend WSIPP’s benefit-cost analysis to certain health care topics.
We present meta-analytic findings for programs in four health care areas: 1) the promotion of healthy pregnancy and birth; 2) therapies to treat opioid use disorder; 3) the integration of behavioral health and primary care, and 4) patient-centered medical homes.
Initiative 502 (I-502) legalized recreational cannabis for adults in Washington State. The law directs the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to conduct a benefit-cost evaluation of the implementation of I-502.
In this report we summarize the research evidence for 51 programs for the prevention or treatment of youth cannabis use. The programs reviewed include those nominated by DBHR as well as programs from WSIPP’s current set of inventories that have evidence for cannabis outcomes.
The 2014 Washington State Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to complete a comprehensive assessment of the utilization and capacity needs of public crisis mental health services and conduct a longitudinal study of outcomes and public costs for adults receiving crisis response services. This report also summarizes capacity and utilization information for crisis mental health centers and inpatient psychiatric treatment facilities in Washington. A preliminary report was published in January 2015.
The 2015 Washington State Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to conduct a benefit-cost analysis of the state's ferry vessel procurement practices. This report presents the results of a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) and economic impact analysis (EIA) of a change in policy that shifts construction of ferries out of state. Neither analysis predicts a significant impact on Washington’s economy (either positively or negatively) from building ferries out of state.
The 2015 Washington State Legislature asked WSIPP to contract with RAND to examine policy options for increasing the availability of primary care services in Washington. These policy options include opening the new Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine at Washington State University in 2017; increasing the number of primary care residency positions in the state; expanding educational loan-repayment incentives to encourage primary care physicians to practice in rural Washington; increasing Medicaid payment rates for primary care physicians in rural Washington; and encouraging the adoption of alternative models of primary care, such as medical homes and nurse-managed health centers, that reallocate work from physicians to nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). RAND Corporation researchers projected the effects that these and other policy options could have on the state's rural primary care workforce through 2025. They project a 7% decrease in the number of rural primary care physicians and a 5% decrease in the number of urban ones. None of the policy options modeled in this report, on its own, will offset this expected decrease by relying on physicians alone. However, combinations of these strategies or partial reallocation of rural primary care services to NPs and PAs via such new practice models as medical homes and nurse-managed health centers are plausible options for preserving the overall availability of primary care services in rural Washington through 2025. RAND's report is available below and can be accessed by clicking here.