REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Improving the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorders The Laura and John Arnold Foundation’s (LJAF) core objective is to address our nation’s most pressing and persistent challenges using evidence-based, multi-disciplinary approaches. LJAF is seeking proposals from organizations with ideas for evaluating innovative addiction treatment programs and strategies for people with opioid use disorders. Projects may be focused on rigorously evaluating existing treatment programs, testing new approaches to treatment, and re-orienting government spending around effective programs that demonstrate measurable results. This request is part of an effort to accelerate the adoption of evidence-based approaches to treating opioid addiction. Background information Cities and towns across the country are facing an opioid addiction epidemic. More than 28,000 people died from opioid overdoses in 2014, and more than 2 million individuals now suffer from an opioid use disorder. 1 This creates serious health, social, and financial consequences for individuals as well as significant costs to society, including an increase in crime and health care spending. Many communities are seeking promising solutions and have implemented a number of different programs in an effort to treat individuals with opioid use disorders. However, the majority of federal, state, and local funding for opioid addiction treatment is allocated to programs that are not based on evidence and have not been rigorously evaluated. 2 Thus, we know very little about whether the treatment programs provided by governments and health care practices work as intended. Although a growing body of research suggests that medication-assisted treatment (MAT) combined with behavioral interventions could be an effective method of treating individuals with opioid use disorders, further study is needed to determine if and how these programs should be expanded and scaled to help people with different needs. Project categories LJAF is seeking proposals for projects that fall under the following categories: I. Evaluations of interventions funded by governments or other entities to treat opioid use disorders These proposals should address important research questions that can inform decisions about the efficacy and cost effectiveness of traditional and alternative treatment programs and service 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016). 2 Much of the spending on opioid treatment programs at the federal level takes the form of unrestricted block grants to the states, and amounts spent on specific treatments are not readily available. However, a comprehensive report from the Washington State Institute of Public Policy (2014) highlights MAT as among the only evidence-based treatment options for opioid abuse and SAMHSA's most recent annual survey of substance abuse treatment services (2014, p. 2) states that MAT is administered in only 8 to 9 percent of opioid-treatment facilities nationwide.
15
Embed
Improving the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorders FOR PROPOSALS Improving the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorders The Laura and John Arnold Foundation’s (LJAF) core objective is to address
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Improving the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorders
The Laura and John Arnold Foundation’s (LJAF) core objective is to address our nation’s most pressing
and persistent challenges using evidence-based, multi-disciplinary approaches. LJAF is seeking proposals
from organizations with ideas for evaluating innovative addiction treatment programs and strategies for
people with opioid use disorders. Projects may be focused on rigorously evaluating existing treatment
programs, testing new approaches to treatment, and re-orienting government spending around effective
programs that demonstrate measurable results. This request is part of an effort to accelerate the adoption of
evidence-based approaches to treating opioid addiction.
Background information
Cities and towns across the country are facing an opioid addiction epidemic. More than 28,000 people died
from opioid overdoses in 2014, and more than 2 million individuals now suffer from an opioid use disorder.1
This creates serious health, social, and financial consequences for individuals as well as significant costs to
society, including an increase in crime and health care spending.
Many communities are seeking promising solutions and have implemented a number of different programs
in an effort to treat individuals with opioid use disorders. However, the majority of federal, state, and local
funding for opioid addiction treatment is allocated to programs that are not based on evidence and have not
been rigorously evaluated.2 Thus, we know very little about whether the treatment programs provided by
governments and health care practices work as intended. Although a growing body of research suggests
that medication-assisted treatment (MAT) combined with behavioral interventions could be an effective
method of treating individuals with opioid use disorders, further study is needed to determine if and how
these programs should be expanded and scaled to help people with different needs.
Project categories
LJAF is seeking proposals for projects that fall under the following categories:
I. Evaluations of interventions funded by governments or other entities to treat opioid use
disorders
These proposals should address important research questions that can inform decisions about the
efficacy and cost effectiveness of traditional and alternative treatment programs and service
1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016).
2 Much of the spending on opioid treatment programs at the federal level takes the form of unrestricted block grants
to the states, and amounts spent on specific treatments are not readily available. However, a comprehensive report
from the Washington State Institute of Public Policy (2014) highlights MAT as among the only evidence-based
treatment options for opioid abuse and SAMHSA's most recent annual survey of substance abuse treatment services
(2014, p. 2) states that MAT is administered in only 8 to 9 percent of opioid-treatment facilities nationwide.
1. Can project budgets include funding for direct service provision? Generally, no. Exceptionally low-cost interventions (a text message-based intervention, for
example) may be funded in conjunction with an accompanying research design. Rather than fund
service delivery, our goal is to increase the supply of evidence used to inform policy decisions
and to promote innovative solutions that can be sustained without philanthropic support.
2. Is there a budget cap for proposals? Not at this time. We generally encourage the use of administrative data in research and evaluation
projects to track long-term outcomes at a relatively low cost, but that is not required.
We carefully vet budgets following submission to assess whether the amount requested is
appropriate for the activities proposed and the social impact of the work.
3. What is the ideal project scope? The project’s scope should depend on the nature of the problem and the research questions. We
encourage applicants to find bold and innovative solutions to the challenges facing individuals
and communities in need of evidence-based treatments. Applicants should submit proposals that
effectively address clearly defined problems and research questions. The breadth of the problem
and the research questions should inform the project’s geographic and thematic scope. For
example, a proposal to determine the best delivery strategy for medication assisted treatment in
rural communities might propose to include many rural jurisdictions across the United States to
ensure that the research findings are generalizable to the relevant population.
4. Do all projects require a government partner on the application team? Generally, yes. We strongly encourage researchers to partner with decision makers in government
to answer questions that are of pressing importance to the public. Ideally, the results of research
and evaluation projects will inform policy decisions (e.g., program funding, criteria for grant
programs, legislative actions). However, some projects with high policy relevance do not require
a government partner to meet the criteria in the Request for Proposals.
5. Do all projects require a skilled researcher on the application team? Generally, yes. For proposals involving a randomized controlled trial or some other type of
experimental design (Category I), a skilled researcher must be included on the application team.
The principal investigator’s past research and the quality of the research team are primary criteria.
For proposals in Category II, new interventions, innovative program designs, and changes to
infrastructure should be based on all available research, and, if applicable, overseen by experts in
the field.
6. Can I submit more than one Letter of Interest? Yes, with justification. If you plan to submit multiple proposals, please keep in mind that
reviewing each proposal requires considerable time and effort. We will be looking for
connections among proposals and tracking proposals from similar senders; we will be more likely
to fund proposals that demonstrate coordination across a network than proposals that take a
piecemeal approach.
7. When will applicants be notified that they are invited to submit a full proposal? The Evidence-Based Innovation team is accepting Letters of Interest (LOI) on a rolling basis, so
we may invite a full proposal any time after an LOI is submitted. It is likely that we will invite the
last round of applicants to submit full proposals near the end of January 2017, approximately one
month after the submission deadline of December 15th. Please identify any time-sensitive
components of a project in the LOI.
8. Can project budgets include funding for indirect costs? The Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) allows for costs such as salaries and benefits of
employees, third-party consultants, sub-grants, equipment, supplies, and travel to be included as
direct project costs if the grantee can clearly establish that such costs are directly attributable to,
and/or created specifically because of, the project supported by an LJAF grant. LJAF will only
consider a funding request for indirect costs (i.e., overhead, operational, administrative and
facilities costs) if extenuating circumstances exist and the total value of the indirect costs does not
exceed 10 percent of the direct costs. A funding request should have a detailed justification for all
indirect costs, and LJAF will determine at its sole discretion the approved maximum allowable