The Effectiveness of a Peer-Staffed Crisis Respite Program as an Alternative to Hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed whether peer-staffed crisis respite centers implemented in New York City in 2013 as an alternative to hospitalization reduced emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and Medicaid expenditures for individuals enrolled in Medicaid. METHODS: This study used Medicaid claims and enrollment data for January 2009 through April 2016 to estimate impacts on ED visits, hospitalizations, and total Medicaid expenditures by using a difference-in-differences model with a matched comparison group. The study sample included 401 respite center clients and 1,796 members of the comparison group. RESULTS: In the month of crisis respite use and the 11 subsequent months, Medicaid expenditures were on average $2,138 lower per Medicaid-enrolled month and there were 2.9 fewer hospitalizations for crisis respite clients than would have been expected in the absence of the intervention (p<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Peer-staffed crisis respite services resulted in lowered rates of Medicaid-funded hospitalizations and health expenditures for participants compared with a comparison group. The findings suggest that peer-staffed crisis respites can achieve system-level impacts.

Implementing a Whole Health Model in a Community Mental Health Center: Impact on Service Utilization and Expenditures.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether implementing a whole health care model in a community mental health center reduced the use of acute care services and total Medicare expenditures. The whole health care model embedded monitoring of overall health and wellness education within the center's outpatient mental and substance use disorder treatment services, and it improved care coordination with primary care providers. METHODS: This study used fee-for-service Medicare administrative claims and enrollment data for June 2009 through July 2015 for the intervention (N=846) and matched comparison group (N=2,643) to estimate a difference-in-differences model. RESULTS: For the first two-and-a-half years of the program, Medicare expenditures decreased by $266 per month on average for each enrolled beneficiary in the intervention group relative to the comparison group (p<.01). Intervention clients had .02 fewer hospitalizations, .03 fewer emergency department (ED) visits, and .13 fewer office visits per month relative to the comparison group (p<.05 for all estimates). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the whole health model reduced Medicare expenditures, ED visits, and hospitalization rates. These results may be due in part to the availability of more comprehensive medical data and staff's improved awareness of client's overall health needs. There was a lag between initial program implementation and the program's substantial impact on health expenditures. This lag may be attributed to the substantial transformation and time needed for staff to adapt to the program.

2010 National and State Costs of Excessive Alcohol Consumption.

INTRODUCTION: Excessive alcohol use cost the U.S. $223.5 billion in 2006. Given economic shifts in the U.S. since 2006, more-current estimates are needed to help inform the planning of prevention strategies. METHODS: From March 2012 to March 2014, the 26 cost components used to assess the cost of excessive drinking in 2006 were projected to 2010 based on incidence (e.g., change in number of alcohol-attributable deaths) and price (e.g., inflation rate in cost of medical care). The total cost, cost to government, and costs for binge drinking, underage drinking, and drinking while pregnant were estimated for the U.S. for 2010 and allocated to states. RESULTS: Excessive drinking cost the U.S. $249.0 billion in 2010, or about $2.05 per drink. Government paid for $100.7 billion (40.4%) of these costs. Binge drinking accounted for $191.1 billion (76.7%) of costs; underage drinking $24.3 billion (9.7%) of costs; and drinking while pregnant $5.5 billion (2.2%) of costs. The median cost per state was $3.5 billion. Binge drinking was responsible for >70% of these costs in all states, and >40% of the binge drinking-related costs were paid by government. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive drinking cost the nation almost $250 billion in 2010. Two of every $5 of the total cost was paid by government, and three quarters of the costs were due to binge drinking. Several evidence-based strategies can help reduce excessive drinking and related costs, including increasing alcohol excise taxes, limiting alcohol outlet density, and commercial host liability.

State costs of excessive alcohol consumption, 2006.

BACKGROUND: Excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for an average of 80,000 deaths in the U.S. each year and cost $223.5 billion ($1.90/drink) in 2006. Comparable state estimates of this cost are needed to help inform prevention strategies. PURPOSE: The goal of the study was to estimate the economic cost of excessive drinking by state for 2006. METHODS: From December 2011 to November 2012, an expert panel developed methods to allocate component costs from the 2006 national estimate to states for (1) total; (2) government; (3) binge drinking; and (4) underage drinking costs. Differences in average state wages were used to adjust productivity losses. RESULTS: In 2006, the median state cost of excessive drinking was $2.9 billion (range: $31.9 billion [California] to $419.6 million [North Dakota]); the median cost per drink, $1.91 (range: $2.74 [Utah] to $0.88 [New Hampshire]); and the median per capita cost, $703 (range: $1662 [District of Columbia] to $578 [Utah]). A median of 42% of state costs were paid by government (range: 45.0% [Utah] to 37.0% [Mississippi]). Binge drinking was responsible for a median of 76.6% of state costs (range: 83.1% [Louisiana] to 71.6% [Massachusetts]); underage drinking, a median of 11.2% of state costs (range: 20.0% [Wyoming] to 5.5% [District of Columbia]). CONCLUSIONS: Excessive drinking cost states a median of $2.9 billion in 2006. Most of the costs were due to binge drinking and about $2 of every $5 were paid by government. The Guide to Community Preventive Services has recommended several evidence-based strategies-including increasing alcohol excise taxes, limiting alcohol outlet density, and commercial host liability-that can help reduce excessive alcohol use and the associated economic costs.

Economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in the U.S., 2006.

BACKGROUND: Excessive alcohol consumption causes premature death (average of 79,000 deaths annually); increased disease and injury; property damage from fire and motor vehicle crashes; alcohol-related crime; and lost productivity. However, its economic cost has not been assessed for the U.S. since 1998. PURPOSE: To update prior national estimates of the economic costs of excessive drinking. METHODS: This study (conducted 2009-2010) followed U.S. Public Health Service Guidelines to assess the economic cost of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006. Costs for health care, productivity losses, and other effects (e.g., property damage) in 2006 were obtained from national databases. Alcohol-attributable fractions were obtained from multiple sources and used to assess the proportion of costs that could be attributed to excessive alcohol consumption. RESULTS: The estimated economic cost of excessive drinking was $223.5 billion in 2006 (72.2% from lost productivity, 11.0% from healthcare costs, 9.4% from criminal justice costs, and 7.5% from other effects) or approximately $1.90 per alcoholic drink. Binge drinking resulted in costs of $170.7 billion (76.4% of the total); underage drinking $24.6 [corrected] billion; and drinking during pregnancy $5.2 billion. The cost of alcohol-attributable crime was $73.3 billion. The cost to government was $94.2 billion (42.1% of the total cost), which corresponds to about $0.80 per alcoholic drink consumed in 2006 (categories are not mutually exclusive and may overlap). CONCLUSIONS: On a per capita basis, the economic impact of excessive alcohol consumption in the U.S. is approximately $746 per person, most of which is attributable to binge drinking. Evidence-based strategies for reducing excessive drinking should be widely implemented.