Search

The cost of providing and receiving treatment for opioid dependence can determine its adoption. To compare the cost of clinic-based methadone (MC, n=23), office-based methadone (MO, n=21), and office-based buprenorphine (BO, n=34) we performed an analysis of treatment and patient costs over 6 months of maintenance in patients who had previously been stabilized for at least 1 year. We performed statistical comparisons using ANOVA and chi-square tests and performed a sensitivity analysis varying cost estimates and intensity of clinical contact. The cost of providing 1 month of treatment per patient was $147 (MC), $220 (MO) and $336 (BO) (p<0.001). Mean monthly medication cost was $93 (MC), $86 (MO) and $257 (BO) (p<0.001). The cost to patients was $92 (MC), $63 (MO) and $38 (BO) (p=0.102). Sensitivity analyses, varying cost estimates and clinical contact, result in total monthly costs of $117 to $183 (MC), $149 to $279 (MO), $292 to $499 (BO). Monthly patient costs were $84 to $133 (MC), $55 to $105 (MO) and $34 to $65 (BO). We conclude that providing clinic-based methadone is least expensive. The price of buprenorphine accounts for a major portion of the difference in costs. For patients, office-based treatment may be less expensive.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a prize-based intervention as an addition to usual care for stimulant abusers., Methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis is based on a randomized clinical trial implemented within the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network. The trial was conducted at eight community-based outpatient psychosocial drug abuse treatment clinics. Four hundred and fifteen stimulant abusers were assigned to usual care (N=206) or usual care plus abstinence-based incentives (N=209) for 12 weeks. Participants randomized to the incentive condition earned the chance to draw for prizes for submitting substance negative samples; the number of draws earned increased with continuous abstinence time. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated to compare prize-based incentives relative to usual care. The primary patient outcome was longest duration of confirmed stimulant abstinence (LDA). Unit costs were obtained via surveys administered at the eight participating clinics. Resource utilizations and patient outcomes were obtained from the clinical trial. Acceptability curves are presented to illustrate the uncertainty due to the sample and to provide policy relevant information., Results: The incremental cost to lengthen the LDA by 1 week was 258 US dollars (95% confidence interval, 191-401 US dollars). Sensitivity analyses on several key parameters show that this value ranges from 163 to 269 US dollars., Conclusions: Compared with the usual care group, the incentive group had significantly longer LDAs and significantly higher costs.

This paper identifies and illustrates the challenges of conducting cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of addiction treatments given the multiple important outcomes of substance abuse treatment (SAT). Potential problems arise because CEA is intended primarily for single outcome programs, yet addiction treatment results in a variety of outcomes such as reduced drug use and crime and increased employment. Methodological principles, empirical examples, and practical advice are offered on how to conduct an economic evaluation given multiple outcomes. An empirical example is provided to illustrate some of the conflicts in cost-effectiveness (CE) ratios that may arise across the range of outcomes. The data are from the Philadelphia Target Cities quasi-experimental field study of standard versus "enhanced" (e.g. case management and added social services) drug treatment. Outcomes are derived from of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), while cost data were collected and analyzed using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program (DATCAP). While the results are illustrative only, they indicate that cost-effectiveness ratios for each of several different outcomes can produce conflicting implications. These findings suggest that multiple outcomes should be considered in any economic analysis of addiction treatments because focusing on a single outcome may lead to inadequate and possibly incorrect policy inferences. However, incorporating multiple outcomes into a CEA of addiction treatment is difficult. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) may be a preferable and more appropriate approach in some cases.