Gambling Services Gap Analysis
Session Title
Session 2-3-F: Lightning Talks
Presentation Type
Lightning Talk
Location
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada
Start Date
29-5-2019 1:45 PM
End Date
29-5-2019 3:10 PM
Disciplines
Health Services Research | Other Public Health | Substance Abuse and Addiction
Abstract
Abstract: Almost one decade has passed since the gambling landscape in Massachusetts shifted with the introduction of DFS and the legalization of casino gambling in 2010. Since then the popularity of DFS has grown exponentially and Casino gambling has come online with Penn National’s slots parlor in Plainville, MGM’s resort style casino in Springfield, and Encore Boston less than a year from opening a resort style casino in greater Boston. The landscape continues to shift with discussions about sports betting and online lottery on the horizon. While much attention has been paid to how these changes are impacting the behavior of the population, less is known about how gambling-related treatment demand is changing. Against this backdrop, the Office of Problem Gambling Services at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, charged the Division with assessing the current state of gambling treatment services. The Division took a multi-pronged approach to this gap analysis; focusing on three primary areas: (1) capability gaps, (2) current state of services, and (3) need fulfillment. Our recommendations to OPGS based on the gap analysis include: enhancing data systems and communication between DPH and treatment providers; improving client entry points, providing additional training opportunities in underserved areas, and altering trainings to better match the capabilities that key stakeholders are looking for in treatment providers.
Implications: There is no one-size-fits-all model for problem gambling treatment. For governments to respond effectively a thorough gap analysis that assess the current state and the need for services, and the capability to provide those services is required. We provide our experiences to guide others towards more effective treatment system.
Keywords
gambling, gambling treatment, gambling services, gap analysis
Funding Sources
This work was supported through a contract with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. MA DPH helped to procure data for the analyis but did not have involvement in the research design or analyses.
Competing Interests
The Division on Addiction and affiliated faculty have received funding in the past three years from DraftKings, the Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility (FAAR), The Healing Lodge of the Seven Nations via NIH and Indian Health Services (IHS), NIH, the Integrated Centre on Addiction Prevention and Treatment of the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals, which receives funding from The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, National Center for Responsible Gaming, the New Mexico Responsible Gaming Association, the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, MGM (through a subcontract with UNLV), and GVC Services, Ltd.
Gambling Services Gap Analysis
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada
Abstract: Almost one decade has passed since the gambling landscape in Massachusetts shifted with the introduction of DFS and the legalization of casino gambling in 2010. Since then the popularity of DFS has grown exponentially and Casino gambling has come online with Penn National’s slots parlor in Plainville, MGM’s resort style casino in Springfield, and Encore Boston less than a year from opening a resort style casino in greater Boston. The landscape continues to shift with discussions about sports betting and online lottery on the horizon. While much attention has been paid to how these changes are impacting the behavior of the population, less is known about how gambling-related treatment demand is changing. Against this backdrop, the Office of Problem Gambling Services at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, charged the Division with assessing the current state of gambling treatment services. The Division took a multi-pronged approach to this gap analysis; focusing on three primary areas: (1) capability gaps, (2) current state of services, and (3) need fulfillment. Our recommendations to OPGS based on the gap analysis include: enhancing data systems and communication between DPH and treatment providers; improving client entry points, providing additional training opportunities in underserved areas, and altering trainings to better match the capabilities that key stakeholders are looking for in treatment providers.
Implications: There is no one-size-fits-all model for problem gambling treatment. For governments to respond effectively a thorough gap analysis that assess the current state and the need for services, and the capability to provide those services is required. We provide our experiences to guide others towards more effective treatment system.