Simulated impact of medicaid expansion on the economic burden of opioid use disorder in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) imposes significant costs on state and local governments. Medicaid expansion may lead to a reduction in the cost burden of OUD to the state. METHODS: We estimated the health care, criminal justice and child welfare costs, and tax revenue losses, attributable to OUD and borne by the state of North Carolina in 2022, and then estimated changes in the same domains following Medicaid expansion in North Carolina (adopted in December 2023). Analyses used existing literature on the national and state-level costs attributable to OUD to estimate individual-level health care, criminal justice, and child welfare system costs, and lost tax revenues. We combined Individual-level costs and prevalence estimates to estimate costs borne by the state before Medicaid expansion. Changes in costs after expansion were computed based on a) medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) access for new enrollees and b) shifting of responsibility for some health care costs from the state to the federal government. Monte Carlo simulation accounted for the impact of parameter uncertainty. Dollar estimates are from the 2022 price year, and costs following the first year were discounted at 3 %. RESULTS: In 2022, North Carolina incurred costs of $749 million (95 % credible interval [CI]: $305 M-$1,526 M) associated with OUD (53 % in health care, 36 % in criminal justice, 7 % in lost tax revenue, and 4 % in child welfare costs). Expanding Medicaid lowered the cost burden of OUD incurred by the state. The state was predicted to save an estimated $72 million per year (95 % CI: $6 M-$241 M) for the first two years and $30 million per year (95 % CI: -$28 M-$176 M) in subsequent years. Over five years, savings totaled $224 million (95 % CI: -$47 M-$949 M). CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion has the potential to decrease the burden of OUD in North Carolina, and policymakers should expedite its implementation.

Macroeconomic impact of Ebola outbreaks in Sub-Saharan Africa and potential mitigation of GDP loss with prophylactic Ebola vaccination programs.

INTRODUCTION: Decisions about prevention of and response to Ebola outbreaks require an understanding of the macroeconomic implications of these interventions. Prophylactic vaccines hold promise to mitigate the negative economic impacts of infectious disease outbreaks. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between outbreak size and economic impact among countries with recorded Ebola outbreaks and to quantify the hypothetical benefits of prophylactic Ebola vaccination interventions in these outbreaks. METHODS: The synthetic control method was used to estimate the causal impacts of Ebola outbreaks on per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of five countries in sub-Saharan Africa that have previously experienced Ebola outbreaks between 2000 and 2016, where no vaccines were deployed. Using illustrative assumptions about vaccine coverage, efficacy, and protective immunity, the potential economic benefits of prophylactic Ebola vaccination were estimated using the number of cases in an outbreak as a key indicator. RESULTS: The impact of Ebola outbreaks on the macroeconomy of the selected countries led to a decline in GDP of up to 36%, which was greatest in the third year after the onset of each outbreak and increased exponentially with the size of outbreak (i.e., number of reported cases). Over three years, the aggregate loss estimated for Sierra Leone from its 2014-2016 outbreak is estimated at 16.1 billion International$. Prophylactic vaccination could have prevented up to 89% of an outbreak's negative impact on GDP, reducing the outbreak's impact to as little as 1.6% of GDP lost. CONCLUSION: This study supports the case that macroeconomic returns are associated with prophylactic Ebola vaccination. Our findings support recommendations for prophylactic Ebola vaccination as a core component of prevention and response measures for global health security.

Does access to free medication reduce health system costs? An evaluation of the Dispensary of Hope program.

BACKGROUND: Cost-related medication nonadherence-when patients fail to take medication as prescribed because of the cost of the medication-has numerous consequences: more hospitalizations, avoidable deaths, and greater health care expenditures. Dispensary of Hope is a charitable medication access program that collects and distributes pharmaceuticals to pharmacies to dispense free of charge to patients with no insurance, low incomes, and chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the differences in medical costs and utilization of hospital patients enrolled in the Dispensary of Hope program relative to those who were not enrolled. METHODS: We used administrative claims data from 2 health systems participating in Dispensary of Hope to identify those in the program and a comparison group, respectively. Claims data included emergency department (ED) encounters, inpatient encounters, costs, and prescriptions. Health system 1 (HS1) data began July 1, 2016, and ended December 31, 2019; health system 2 (HS2) data ran from March 10, 2014, to December 31, 2019. Program enrollment dates (index dates) were identified via program registration or prescription fills. We propensity score weighted a comparison population from HS1 and HS2, respectively, to match program patient demographic and comorbidity characteristics. We estimated changes in costs, ED visits, inpatient stays, and primary care sensitive ED visits over time between the 2 groups (difference-indifference) over 18 months preenrollment and postenrollment. RESULTS: HS1 comparison (n = 6,714) and Dispensary of Hope (n = 880) groups were balanced on age, sex, race and ethnicity, and comorbidities; both populations were approximately 46 years old, 43% female, 64% White, with an average of 3.0 comorbidities. The HS2 samples were almost 50 years old and a majority female (56%) and Black (55%). Per-person annual costs at HS1 decreased by $3,161 (P < 0.05) more in the Dispensary of Hope group than in the comparison group from the preenrollment to the postenrollment period. Inpatient stays decreased by 200 stays per 1,000 patients per year (P = 0.02) and ED visits increased by 0.32 (P < 0.01) on a yearly basis relative to the comparison group. Primary care sensitive ED visits increased over the period. No results were statistically significant in HS2. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial reductions in costs and inpatient stays for Dispensary of Hope HS1 participants, and we did not find significant results at HS2. Differences between the health systems or patient populations could explain these varying results. Our study represents a rigorous, multistate evaluation that highlights the impact of a charitable medication access program on hospital utilization for the medically underserved population. DISCLOSURES: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this work was funded and supported by Dispensary of Hope.

Helping the Noncompliant Child: An Updated Assessment of Program Costs and Cost-Effectiveness.

Behavior disorders (BD) in children can lead to delinquency, antisocial behavior, and mental disorders in adulthood. Evidence-based behavioral parent training (BPT) programs have been developed to treat early-onset BDs, yet cost analyses of BPT are deficient. We provide updated estimates of cost and cost-effectiveness of Helping the Noncompliant Child (HNC), a mastery-based BPT, delivered to low-income families. The cost of research-specific activities was $1,152 per family. HNC program delivery costs were $293 per family from a payer perspective, including the cost of therapist time ($275 per family) and non-labor resources, such as supplies and toys ($18 per family). It costs an average of $6 to improve the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory intensity score by each additional point or $171 to improve it by one standard deviation. The cost of delivering the HNC program appears to compare favorably with the costs of similar BPT programs.