SCOTT D Miller - For the latest and greatest information on Feedback Informed Treatment

  • About
    • About Scott
    • Publications
  • Training and Consultation
  • Workshop Calendar
  • FIT Measures Licensing
  • FIT Software Tools
  • Online Store
  • Top Performance Blog
  • Contact Scott
scottdmiller@ talkingcure.com +1.773.454.8511

Ho, Ho, Oh No! Science, politics, and the demise of the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices

February 7, 2018 By scottdm 13 Comments

End of NREPPWhile you were celebrating the Holidays–shopping and spending time with family–government officials were busy at work.  On December 28th, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA) sent a formal termination notice to the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP).

Ho, ho, oh no…!

Briefly, NREPP is “an evidence-based repository and review system designed to provide the public with reliable information on mental health and substance use interventions.”  In plain English, it’s a government website listing treatment approaches that have scientific support.  SAMHSA is the Federal Agency overseeing behavior health policy.

Back in November, I’d responded to a request from NREPP to update research on the Outcome and Session Rating Scales, two routine outcome measures currently listed on the registry website site.  All’s well until January 4th, when I received a short email stating that “no further review activities will occur” because the program was being ended “for the convenience of the government.”Danger

Like much that comes from our Nation’s capitol, the reason given for the actions taken depends entirely on who you ask.  Democrats are blaming Trump.   Republicans, and the new SAMHSA director, blame the system, calling the registry not only flawed, but potentially dangerous.   As is typical nowadays, everyone is outraged!

As someone whose work was vetted by NREPP, I can personally vouch for the thoroughness of the process and the integrity of the reviewers.  No favors were sought and none were given.  More, while no one knows exactly what will happen in the future, I sincerely believe officials leading the change have the best of intentions.  What I am much less certain of is whether science will finally prevail in communicating “what works” in mental health and substance abuse to the public.

Bottom line: psychological approaches for alleviating human suffering are remarkably effective–on par or better than most medical treatments.  That said, NONE work like a medicine.

salespersonYou have a bacterial infection, antibiotics are the solution.  A virus?  Well, you are just going to have to tough it out.  Take an aspirin and get some rest–and no, the brand you choose doesn’t really matter.   Ask a friend or relative, and they likely have a favorite.  The truth is, however, it doesn’t matter which one you take: Bayer, Econtin, Bufferin, Alka-Selzter, Anacin, a hundred other names, they’re all the same!

Four decades of research shows psychotherapy works much more like aspirin than an antibiotic.  Despite claims, its effects are not targeted nor specific to particular diagnoses.  Ask a friend, relative, your therapist or workshop presenter, and they all have their favorite: CBT, IPT, DBT, PD, TFT, CRT, EMDR, four-hundred additional names.  And yet, meta-analytic studies of head-to-head comparisons find no meaningful difference in outcome between approaches.

What does all this mean for the future of NREPP and SAMHSA?  The evidence makes clear that, when it comes to psychotherapy, any “list” of socially sanctioned approaches is not only unscientific, but seriously misleading.  Would it be too much to hope that future governmental efforts stop offering a marketplace for manufacturers of different brands of aspirin and focus instead on fostering evidence-based practice (EBP)?

Really, it’s not a bridge too far.  bridge too farIt merely means putting policies in place that help practitioners and agencies live up to the values inherent in the definition of EBP accepted by all professional organizations and regulatory bodies; namely, “the integration of the best available research with with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture, and preferences” (pp. 273, APA, 2006).

Until next time,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence 

P.S.: Every other year, the ICCE sponsors the “Training of Trainers” intensive.  Over three days, we focus on helping you become a world class presenter and trainer.  Join me, and colleagues from around the world for this transformational event.
FIT Training of Trainers 2018

 

 

Filed Under: Behavioral Health, evidence-based practice, Feedback Informed Treatment - FIT, PCOMS

Comments

  1. Robin Wikoff says

    February 9, 2018 at 5:19 pm

    Yikes! This is terrible news, and sounds like it’s being done without many folks noticing.

    Reply
  2. Theresa says

    February 9, 2018 at 6:08 pm

    Scott, it is perplexing to read that the officials ended the program “for the convenience of the government,” but that you believe the officials “leading the change have the best of intentions.”

    Reply
  3. Carlos Velazquez Ph.D. says

    February 9, 2018 at 6:33 pm

    I direct the Psychotraumatology Institute in Puerto Rico and all clinical personnel has benefited from Scot D. Miller’s work. We look forward to the meeting in Chicago this August 2018.

    Reply
  4. Barry McInnes says

    February 9, 2018 at 6:45 pm

    Hi Scott
    So, RIP NREPP? Mixed feelings really, as I guess FIT as an approach rather than a treatment should receive recognition. I agree with your comment that ‘any “list” of socially sanctioned approaches is not only unscientific, but seriously misleading.’
    I don’t know how closely NREPP echoes our NICE here in the UK, but we have similar issues including a perception that only effective therapies are in the NICE guidelines.
    While we know that’s nonsense, most of the public don’t, and that’s a dangerous misconception.
    Thanks for the post! Barry

    Reply
    • scottdm says

      February 11, 2018 at 4:23 pm

      Barry…NREPP is VERY similar, although less influential given the complex mix of commercial and state payers making decisions…I’m in agreement with you: NICE is NOT nice…nor representative of the science about how psychological care works…we enter into a bargain with the devil when expediency takes precedence, when we acknowledge the “flawed system” but tell ourselves, “it’s the best we can do.”

      Reply
  5. Anita Harder says

    February 9, 2018 at 11:34 pm

    Fascinating! I wonder what the implications will be for funders (even ours here in Canada) who rely on such lists to verify whether they should fund a specific program. It seems that there is such a huge push to use evidence based programs without an appreciation that evidence based practice is something different. I will be interested to see what the unintended consequences of this move will be – as I am sure there will be some positive and some negative!
    Thanks for the update.
    Anita

    Reply
  6. Tommy Choi says

    February 26, 2018 at 7:07 am

    Thanks for the update! Changes are not linear but full of ups and downs, especially when politics are in play.
    The purpose of this comment, however, is unrelated to the subject.

    In your paper “The outcome of psychotherapy: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, you mentioned two research projects were underway by members of the ICCE community. Can you tell me what is the other project apart from Chow, D., Miller, S. D., Kane, R., & Thornton, J. “The study of supershrinks: Development and deliberate practices of highly effective psychotherapists”?

    Thanks for your time

    Reply
  7. Tommy Choi says

    February 26, 2018 at 7:13 am

    Not sure if last comment was posted, so here it is again.

    May I ask apart from “Chow, D., Miller, S. D., Kane, R., & Thornton, J. (n.d.). The study of supershrinks: Development and deliberate practices of highly effective psychotherapists”, what is the other project that you cited were underway by members of the ICCE community in your 2013 paper “The outcome of psychotherapy: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow”?

    Thanks for your time

    Reply
  8. Bob Moylan says

    October 13, 2018 at 11:27 am

    The private company that was outsourced to review evidenced based programs was approving them at a rate of 8 per month. Therefore,by 2028, you would have approximately 1,500 evidenced based programs being certified. What a mess.

    Reply
  9. Barbara Browe says

    January 16, 2019 at 2:09 pm

    Finding that NREPP has been replaced is disappointing to program developers as well as those seeking effective programs. It does not seem that an opportunity was made available to explore the useful purpose this website has provided.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

SEARCH

Subscribe for updates from my blog.

loader

Email Address*

Name

Upcoming Training

Oct
01

Training of Trainers 2025


Nov
20

FIT Implementation Intensive 2025

FIT Software tools

FIT Software tools

LinkedIn

Topics of Interest:

  • Behavioral Health (112)
  • behavioral health (5)
  • Brain-based Research (2)
  • CDOI (14)
  • Conferences and Training (67)
  • deliberate practice (31)
  • Dodo Verdict (9)
  • Drug and Alcohol (3)
  • evidence-based practice (67)
  • excellence (63)
  • Feedback (40)
  • Feedback Informed Treatment – FIT (246)
  • FIT (29)
  • FIT Software Tools (12)
  • ICCE (26)
  • Implementation (7)
  • medication adherence (3)
  • obesity (1)
  • PCOMS (11)
  • Practice Based Evidence (39)
  • PTSD (4)
  • Suicide (1)
  • supervision (1)
  • Termination (1)
  • Therapeutic Relationship (9)
  • Top Performance (40)

Recent Posts

  • Agape
  • Snippets
  • Results from the first bona fide study of deliberate practice
  • Fasten your seatbelt
  • A not so helpful, helping hand

Recent Comments

  • Dr Martin Russell on Agape
  • hima on Simple, not Easy: Using the ORS and SRS Effectively
  • hima on The Cryptonite of Behavioral Health: Making Mistakes
  • himalaya on Alas, it seems everyone comes from Lake Wobegon
  • himalayan on Do certain people respond better to specific forms of psychotherapy?

Tags

addiction Alliance behavioral health brief therapy Carl Rogers CBT cdoi common factors conferences continuing education denmark evidence based medicine evidence based practice Evolution of Psychotherapy excellence feedback feedback informed treatment healthcare holland icce international center for cliniclal excellence medicine mental health meta-analysis Norway NREPP ors outcome measurement outcome rating scale post traumatic stress practice-based evidence psychology psychometrics psychotherapy psychotherapy networker public behavioral health randomized clinical trial SAMHSA session rating scale srs supershrinks sweden Therapist Effects therapy Training