It does not provide information on which drugs were being abused by the clients, but it does show the differences in characteristics between the public and private programs. Until 1995, the form was in triplicate so the local programs could keep a copy of the completed questionnaire and the State also could keep a copy, so it should be easy to get historical information on local programs. Since 1995, the form was not on triplicate paper, so it might be more difficult to obtain information on the individual programs unless the State or each of the local programs kept their own copy of the form. Another source of data can be the reports that local methadone maintenance programs file with the State methadone licensing authorities each year. This information will vary by State, but it probably includes information that is not collected elsewhere.
Some States have a methadone registry that also can provide information on heroin addicts.
In reporting treatment data at a network meeting, it is important to have a standardized format so that participants can easily assess the information. If there are sufficient numbers of clients, it is possible to distinguish drug use patterns by age, ethnic group, and gender. It also is useful to include data from prior years so that comparisons can be made to determine relative change in drug use patterns and drug-using populations, as well as changes in program capacities. The most noticeable difference is that some jurisdictions use the medical examiner system, while others use the coroner system. The type of system used may be uniform throughout a State or may vary from county to county within a State.