Alaska’s SHARP Program
SHARP Council – Member Statement
AK Division of Behavioral Health
Hospitals, Clinics & In-Community
Psychiatrist, Psychologist, LCSW, LPC, LMFT, PA and NP with Psy
Specialty
ACMHS, AICS, API, BBAHC, CODI, Copper River, DOC, NSB,
Providence, SCF, ICHC
Anchorage, Gulf Coast, Interior, Mat-Su, Northern, Southeast,
Southwest & Statewide
Organization
Representative
Membership
Email Address
Occupation Categories
Practice Setting Types
Experience Thus Far
Occupations To-Date
Practitioner Contracts #:
Practice Sites: Examples
Regions Thus Far
Testimony
SHARP’s Success To-Date
Need for SHARP-3
SHARP 1 and 2 have met or exceeded all program goals. Since its inception
SHARP has been able to place over 200 hard-to-fill health-care positions with over
30 different employers around the state, especially those operating in needful rural
areas. Over 30% of these professionals are in the behavioral health field. The
available data clearly indicates that SHARP recipients are responsible for a high
volume of client contacts. As well, the SHARP program has resulted in an overall
increase in employer revenue and a decrease in employer costs, especially those
related to employment of Locum Tenens. Most importantly preliminary data
suggests that the program may meet or exceed the nationally recognized
percentage for long-term retention of program recipients.
Based on the consistent success of the SHARP program to build and sustain the
healthcare workforce in Alaska, the Division of Behavioral Health strongly supports
implementation of SHARP-3. The new model will allow for the expansion of
eligibility, especially new locations, new occupations and new employers. The
SHARP-3 concept will also allow for enhanced funding through public-private
partnerships. This has the potential to pull in non healthcare related businesses that
wish to support workforce needs for the betterment of all Alaskans. Most
importantly SHARP-3 will help to flexibly meet workforce needs in all areas of the
state. The SHARP-3 model will also provide for adequate funding of administrative
costs which has always been problematic under SHARP 1 and 2.