Alcohol consumption, risk of injury, and high-cost medical care.

This study examined the effect of alcohol use on the probabilities of injury, inpatient hospital stay, and emergency department visit. Data were obtained from a sample of adults (N = 1219) recruited from a Northern California county. Alcohol use measures included number of drinks, heavy drinking days, and an indicator variable for problem drinking. Models were estimated for men and women separately while controlling for confounders. Results indicate that most alcohol use measures were not significantly related to injury probability or medical care utilization. Among the exceptions, problem drinking was a significant positive predictor of any emergency department visit for both sexes. When drinkers during the past year were divided into light, moderate, and heavy drinking groups and compared to lifetime abstainers, all male drinkers had a higher probability of injury, and light and moderate female drinkers had a lower probability of an emergency department visit.

Out of touch or on the money: Do the clinical objectives of addiction treatment coincide with economic evaluation results?

Previous economic studies have examined the association between substance abuse treatment and reduced costs to society, but it remains uncertain whether the economic measures used in cost and benefit-cost analyses of treatment programs correspond in direction and magnitude with clinical outcomes. In response to this uncertainty, the present study analyzed a longitudinal data set of addiction treatment clients to determine the statistical agreement between clinical and economic outcomes over time. Data were collected from 1,326 clients in the Chicago cohort of the Persistent Effects of Treatment Study. These individuals were interviewed at baseline as well as at 6-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month followup periods (91.6% followup). Correlations between clinical and economic measures were generally small (rho of 0.1 to 0.3) and often became non-significant once we controlled for baseline severity. The results demonstrate that although some associations exist, outcomes should be evaluated along both clinical and economic dimensions.

Estimating the client costs of addiction treatment: first findings from the client drug abuse treatment cost analysis program (Client DATCAP).

The costs of addiction treatment services are an important determinant of the cost-effectiveness of a program, and therefore, of relevance to addiction treatment providers, insurance companies and, patients. Several methods have been developed to estimate the costs of substance abuse treatment services. One such method is the drug abuse treatment cost analysis program (DATCAP), which collects resource use and cost data from the treatment program perspective and has been used in numerous published economic evaluation studies. However, no single widely-used, standardized instrument is currently available to estimate costs specifically incurred by clients in treatment. In response to that need, this article introduces the Client DATCAP and presents process, survey-specific, and quantitative findings from a Pilot Study to estimate the client costs of attending outpatient and inpatient treatment. The preliminary findings suggest that the self-administered Client DATCAP is a feasible and practical instrument for estimating costs incurred by clients in treatment, with completion time amounting to less than 10 min. Furthermore, client costs had a considerable range across respondents, with time costs consistently accounting for the largest cost component. Findings from the Pilot Study led to the development and release of edition 2 of the outpatient and inpatient modules of the Client DATCAP.

Using the DATCAP and ASI to estimate the costs and benefits of residential addiction treatment in the State of Washington.

Funding agencies and policy makers often criticize residential addiction treatment because the cost of residential services is typically higher than for outpatient services and it is unclear whether the outcomes are significantly better for most clients. To address these concerns, proponents of residential treatment require economic evidence to justify further investments in this modality over less intensive and less costly options. Recent studies have developed methods and empirical guidelines for using the drug abuse treatment cost analysis program (DATCAP) and the addiction severity index (ASI) in a comprehensive economic evaluation of addiction treatment. The present study applied these methods and guidelines to estimate the economic costs and benefits of residential addiction treatment at five programs in the State of Washington, USA that serve publicly funded clients. Program- and client-specific economic cost estimates were derived using data collected on-site with the DATCAP along with opportunity cost estimates associated with treatment attendance. Economic benefits were calculated from client self-reported information at treatment entry and at 6 months post discharge using the ASI. Outcome categories included inpatient services, employment, medical and psychiatric conditions, and criminal activity. Results indicate that average weekly economic cost of treatment services at the five programs ranged from 463 dollars to 703 dollars. Average (per client) economic cost of treatment was 4912 dollars (composed of 3650 dollars in program cost and 1262 dollars in client cost) for all subjects that completed both a baseline and follow-up questionnaire (N = 222; 82%). Average (per client) total economic benefit was 21,329 dollars, leading to estimates of 16,418 dollars for average net benefit and 4.34 for the benefit-cost ratio. Total and net economic benefits were significantly related to gender, race, religious preference, and baseline ASI composite scores for drug use and legal status. A detailed sensitivity analysis did not alter the qualitative findings. This study provides conclusive evidence that, for this sample of programs in Washington State, the economic benefits of residential addiction treatment significantly exceeded the economic costs. Although the results are not necessarily generalizable to private-paying clients or clients from other States in the US, the methods are based on widely used data collection instruments and well-accepted economic principles. Thus, extensions of this research to other clients, States, and modalities should be feasible and straightforward.

Benefit-cost analysis of addiction treatment: methodological guidelines and empirical application using the DATCAP and ASI.

OBJECTIVE: To provide detailed methodological guidelines for using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program (DATCAP) and Addiction Severity Index (ASI) in a benefit-cost analysis of addiction treatment. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: A representative benefit-cost analysis of three outpatient programs was conducted to demonstrate the feasibility and value of the methodological guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: Procedures are outlined for using resource use and cost data collected with the DATCAP. Techniques are described for converting outcome measures from the ASI to economic (dollar) benefits of treatment. Finally, principles are advanced for conducting a benefit-cost analysis and a sensitivity analysis of the estimates. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The DATCAP was administered at three outpatient drug-free programs in Philadelphia, PA, for 2 consecutive fiscal years (1996 and 1997). The ASI was administered to a sample of 178 treatment clients at treatment entry and at 7-months postadmission. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The DATCAP and ASI appear to have significant potential for contributing to an economic evaluation of addiction treatment. The benefit-cost analysis and subsequent sensitivity analysis all showed that total economic benefit was greater than total economic cost at the three outpatient programs, but this representative application is meant to stimulate future economic research rather than justifying treatment per se. CONCLUSIONS: This study used previously validated, research-proven instruments and methods to perform a practical benefit-cost analysis of real-world treatment programs. The study demonstrates one way to combine economic and clinical data and offers a methodological foundation for future economic evaluations of addiction treatment.