Acceptability and feasibility of policy implementation strategies for taxes earmarked for behavioral health services.

Background: This study's aims are to: (1) Compare the acceptability and feasibility of five types of implementation strategies that could be deployed to increase the reach of evidence-based practices (EBPs) with revenue from policies that earmark taxes for behavioral health services, and (2) Illustrate how definitions of implementation strategies and measures of acceptability and feasibility can be used in policy-focused implementation science research. Methods: Web-based surveys of public agency and community organization professionals involved with earmarked tax policy implementation were completed in 2022-2023 (N = 211, response rate = 24.9%). Respondents rated the acceptability and feasibility of five types of implementation strategies (dissemination, implementation process, integration, capacity-building, and scale-up). Aggregate acceptability and feasibility scores were calculated for each type of strategy (scoring range 4-20). Analyses of variance compared scores across strategies and between organizational actor types. Findings: For acceptability, capacity-building strategies had the highest rating (M = 16.3, SD = 3.0), significantly higher than each of the four other strategies, p ≤ . 004), and scale-up strategies had the lowest rating (M = 15.6). For feasibility, dissemination strategies had the highest rating (M = 15.3, significantly higher than three of the other strategies, p ≤ .002) and scale-up strategies had the lowest rating (M = 14.4). Conclusions: Capacity-building and dissemination strategies may be well-received and readily deployed by policy implementers to support EBPs implementation with revenue from taxes earmarked for behavioral health services. Adapting definitions of implementation strategies for policy-focused topics, and applying established measures of acceptability and feasibility to these strategies, demonstrates utility as an approach to advance research on policy-focused implementation strategies.

A Tale of Two Taxes: Implementation of Earmarked Taxes for Behavioral Health Services in California and Washington State.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to characterize perceptions of the impacts, attributes, and support for taxes earmarked for behavioral health services and to compare perceptions of the taxes among professionals in California and Washington, two states differing in earmarked tax designs. METHODS: Surveys were completed by 155 public agency and community organization professionals involved in tax implementation in California (N=87) and Washington State (N=68) during 2022-2023 (29% response rate). Respondents indicated their perceptions of the taxes' impacts, attributes, and support. Responses were summed as aggregate scores and were also analyzed as individual items. Bivariate analyses were used to compare responses of professionals in California versus Washington State. RESULTS: Earmarked taxes were generally regarded positively. Of the respondents, >80% strongly agreed that the taxes increased funding for services and were helpful, and only 10% strongly agreed that the taxes decreased behavioral health funding from other sources. Substantially more respondents in California than in Washington State strongly agreed that taxes' reporting requirements were complicated (45% vs. 5%, p<0.001) and that the taxes increased unjustified scrutiny of services or systems (33% vs. 2%, p<0.001). However, more respondents in California than in Washington State also strongly agreed that the taxes increased public awareness about behavioral health (56% vs. 15%, p<0.001) and decreased behavioral health stigma (47% vs. 14%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of taxes earmarked for behavioral health services may vary by design features of the tax. Such features include stigma-reduction initiatives and tax spending and reporting requirements.

Earmarked Taxes for Mental Health Services in the United States: A Local and State Legal Mapping Study.

Policy Points Local governments are increasingly adopting policies that earmark taxes for mental health services, and approximately 30% of the US population lives in a jurisdiction with such a policy. Policies earmarking taxes for mental health services are heterogenous in their design, spending requirements, and oversight. In many jurisdictions, the annual per capita revenue generated by these taxes exceeds that of some major federal funding sources for mental health. CONTEXT: State and local governments have been adopting taxes that earmark (i.e., dedicate) revenue for mental health. However, this emergent financing model has not been systematically assessed. We sought to identify all jurisdictions in the United States with policies earmarking taxes for mental health services and characterize attributes of these taxes. METHODS: A legal mapping study was conducted. Literature reviews and 11 key informant interviews informed search strings. We then searched legal databases (HeinOnline, Cheetah tax repository) and municipal data sources. We collected information on the year the tax went into effect, passage by ballot initiative (yes/no), tax base, tax rate, and revenue generated annually (gross and per capita). FINDINGS: We identified 207 policies earmarking taxes for mental health services (95.7% local, 4.3% state, 95.7% passed via ballot initiative). Property taxes (73.9%) and sales taxes/fees (25.1%) were most common. There was substantial heterogeneity in tax design, spending requirements, and oversight. Approximately 30% of the US population lives in a jurisdiction with a tax earmarked for mental health, and these taxes generate over $3.57 billion annually. The median per capita annual revenue generated by these taxes was $18.59 (range = $0.04-$197.09). Per capita annual revenue exceeded $25.00 in 63 jurisdictions (about five times annual per capita spending for mental health provided by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). CONCLUSIONS: Policies earmarking taxes for mental health services are diverse in design and are an increasingly common local financing strategy. The revenue generated by these taxes is substantial in many jurisdictions.

A policy implementation study of earmarked taxes for mental health services: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient funding is frequently identified as a critical barrier to the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Thus, increasing access to funding is recognized as an implementation strategy. Policies that create earmarked taxes-defined as taxes for which revenue can only be spent on specific activities-are an increasingly common mental health financing strategy that could improve the reach of EBPs. This project's specific aims are to (1) identify all jurisdictions in the USA that have implemented earmarked taxes for mental health and catalogue information about tax design; (2) characterize experiences implementing earmarked taxes among local (e.g., county, city) mental health agency leaders and other government and community organization officials and assess their perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of different types of policy implementation strategies; and (3) develop a framework to guide effect earmarked tax designs, inform the selection of implementation strategies, and disseminate the framework to policy audiences. METHODS: The project uses the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to inform data collection about the determinants and processes of tax implementation and Leeman's typology of implementation strategies to examine the acceptability and feasibility strategies which could support earmarked tax policy implementation. A legal mapping will be conducted to achieve aim 1. To achieve aim 2, a survey will be conducted of 300 local mental health agency leaders and other government and community organization officials involved with the implementation of earmarked taxes for mental health. The survey will be followed by approximately 50 interviews with these officials. To achieve aim 3, quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated through a systematic framework development and dissemination process. DISCUSSION: This exploratory policy implementation process study will build the evidence base for outer-context implementation determinants and strategies by focusing on policies that earmarked taxes for mental health services.