The Impact of Suboxone's Market Exclusivity on Cost of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine-naloxone is an essential part of the response to opioid poisoning rates in North America. Manipulating market exclusivity is a strategy manufacturers use to increase profitability, as evidenced by Suboxone in the USA. OBJECTIVE: To investigate excess costs of buprenorphine-naloxone due to unmerited market exclusivity (no legal patent or data protection) in Canada. METHODS: Using controlled interrupted time-series, this study examined changes in the cost of buprenorphine-naloxone before and after the first generics were listed on public formularies. Methadone cost was the control. Public data from the Canadian Institute of Health Information in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan were used. All buprenorphine-naloxone and methadone claims (2010-2019) accepted for payment by the provincial drug plan/programme were collected. Primary outcome was mean cost per mg of buprenorphine-naloxone after the first listing of generics. RESULTS: Mean cost per mg of buprenorphine-naloxone before the first listing of generics was $1.21 CAD in British Columbia, $1.27 CAD in Manitoba, and $0.85 CAD in Saskatchewan. Following the introduction of generics, the cost per mg decreased by $0.22 CAD (95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.10; p = 0.0014) in British Columbia, $0.36 CAD (95% CI - 0.58 to - 0.13; p = 0.004) in Manitoba, and $0.27 CAD (95% CI - 0.50 to - 0.05; p = 0.03) in Saskatchewan. Mean cost per mg decreased by $0.26 CAD (95% CI - 0.38 to - 0.13; p = 0.0004) after a third generic was introduced in British Columbia. Excess costs to public formularies during the 4- to 5-year period prior to the listing of generics were $1,992,558 CAD in British Columbia, $80,876 CAD in Manitoba, and $4130 CAD in Saskatchewan. If buprenorphine-naloxone cost $0.61 CAD (mean cost after the third generic entered) instead of $1.21 CAD per mg during the pre-generics period, public payers in British Columbia could have saved $5,016,220 CAD between 2011 and 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Unmerited 6 years of market exclusivity for brand-name buprenorphine-naloxone in Canada resulted in substantial excess costs. There is an urgent need to implement policies that can help reduce costs for high-priority drugs in Canada.

Variation in Initiation, Engagement, and Retention on Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Based on Health Insurance Plan Design.

BACKGROUND: The association between cost-sharing and receipt of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is unknown. METHODS: We constructed a cohort of 10,513 commercially insured individuals with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder and information on insurance cost-sharing in a large national deidentified claims database. We examined 4 cost-sharing measures: (1) pharmacy deductible; (2) medical service deductible; (3) pharmacy medication copay; and (4) medical office copay. We measured MOUD (naltrexone, buprenorphine, or methadone) initiation (within 14 d of diagnosis), engagement (second receipt within 34 d of first), and 6-month retention (continuous receipt without 14-d gap). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between cost-sharing and MOUD initiation, engagement, and retention. We calculated total out-of-pocket costs in the 30 days following MOUD initiation for each type of MOUD. RESULTS: Of 10,513 individuals with incident opioid use disorder, 1202 (11%) initiated MOUD, 742 (7%) engaged, and 253 (2%) were retained in MOUD at 6 months. A high ($1000+) medical deductible was associated with a lower odds of initiation compared with no deductible (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.98). We found no significant associations between other cost-sharing measures for initiation, engagement, or retention. Median initial 30-day out-of-pocket costs ranged from $100 for methadone to $710 for extended-release naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: Among insurance plan cost-sharing measures, only medical services deductible showed an association with decreased MOUD initiation. Policy and benefit design should consider ways to reduce cost barriers to initiation and retention in MOUD.

Estimate cost of providing methadone maintenance treatment at a methadone clinic in Nairobi Kenya: direct costs.

Methadone maintenance treatment is reported as cost-effective in treatment of opioid use disorder. Estimated cost of providing methadone varies widely in different regions but there is no data regarding cost of methadone treatment in Kenya. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost of methadone maintenance treatment at a methadone maintenance treatment clinic in Nairobi, Kenya from the perspective of the government, implementing partner and the clients. Data was collected for the period of February 2017 to September 2018 for 700 enrolled clients. The cost of providing methadone treatment was estimated as the sum of salaries, laboratory test, methadone and other commodities costs. The outcome was daily cost of methadone per client. The costs are given in Kenya Shillings (Ksh). The cost of treating one client is approximately Ksh. 149 (US$1.49) per day which amounts to Ksh 4500 (US$ 45) per month. This is from the estimated direct costs such as salaries which accounted for 86.4%, methadone 9.6%, tests and other consumables at 4%. The estimated average dose per patient per day is 60mg.This excludes indirect costs such as capital and set up cost, maintenance cost, training, drug import and distribution and other bills. The findings of this study show that the estimate cost of providing methadone at Nairobi, Kenya is comparable to that in other centers. This can help to inform policy makers on continued provision of methadone treatment in the country.

Cost-effectiveness of Treatments for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US, yet many individuals with OUD do not receive treatment. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of OUD treatments and association of these treatments with outcomes in the US. Design and Setting: This model-based cost-effectiveness analysis included a US population with OUD. Interventions: Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) with buprenorphine, methadone, or injectable extended-release naltrexone; psychotherapy (beyond standard counseling); overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND); and contingency management (CM). Main Outcomes and Measures: Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths throughout 5 years, discounted lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. Results: In the base case, in the absence of treatment, 42 717 overdoses (4132 fatal, 38 585 nonfatal) and 12 660 deaths were estimated to occur in a cohort of 100 000 patients over 5 years, and 11.58 discounted lifetime QALYs were estimated to be experienced per person. An estimated reduction in overdoses was associated with MAT with methadone (10.7%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (22.0%), and when combined with CM and psychotherapy (range, 21.0%-31.4%). Estimated deceased deaths were associated with MAT with methadone (6%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (13.9%), and when combined with CM, OEND, and psychotherapy (16.9%). MAT yielded discounted gains of 1.02 to 1.07 QALYs per person. Including only health care sector costs, methadone cost $16 000/QALY gained compared with no treatment, followed by methadone with OEND ($22 000/QALY gained), then by buprenorphine with OEND and CM ($42 000/QALY gained), and then by buprenorphine with OEND, CM, and psychotherapy ($250 000/QALY gained). MAT with naltrexone was dominated by other treatment alternatives. When criminal justice costs were included, all forms of MAT (with buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) were associated with cost savings compared with no treatment, yielding savings of $25 000 to $105 000 in lifetime costs per person. The largest cost savings were associated with methadone plus CM. Results were qualitatively unchanged over a wide range of sensitivity analyses. An analysis using demographic and cost data for Veterans Health Administration patients yielded similar findings. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, expanded access to MAT, combined with OEND and CM, was associated with cost-saving reductions in morbidity and mortality from OUD. Lack of widespread MAT availability limits access to a cost-saving medical intervention that reduces morbidity and mortality from OUD. Opioid overdoses in the US likely reached a record high in 2020 because of COVID-19 increasing substance use, exacerbating stress and social isolation, and interfering with opioid treatment. It is essential to understand the cost-effectiveness of alternative forms of MAT to treat OUD.

Economic Evaluation in Opioid Modeling: Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The rapid increase in opioid overdose and opioid use disorder (OUD) over the past 20 years is a complex problem associated with significant economic costs for healthcare systems and society. Simulation models have been developed to capture and identify ways to manage this complexity and to evaluate the potential costs of different strategies to reduce overdoses and OUD. A review of simulation-based economic evaluations is warranted to fully characterize this set of literature. METHODS: A systematic review of simulation-based economic evaluation (SBEE) studies in opioid research was initiated by searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and EbscoHOST. Extraction of a predefined set of items and a quality assessment were performed for each study. RESULTS: The screening process resulted in 23 SBEE studies ranging by year of publication from 1999 to 2019. Methodological quality of the cost analyses was moderately high. The most frequently evaluated strategies were methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatments; the only harm reduction strategy explored was naloxone distribution. These strategies were consistently found to be cost-effective, especially naloxone distribution and methadone maintenance. Prevention strategies were limited to abuse-deterrent opioid formulations. Less than half (39%) of analyses adopted a societal perspective in their estimation of costs and effects from an opioid-related intervention. Prevention strategies and studies' accounting for patient and physician preference, changing costs, or result stratification were largely ignored in these SBEEs. CONCLUSION: The review shows consistently favorable cost analysis findings for naloxone distribution strategies and opioid agonist treatments and identifies major gaps for future research.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of interim methadone treatment and patient navigation initiated in jail.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) who are released from pre-trial detention in jail have a high risk of opioid relapse. While several interventions for OUD initiated during incarceration have been studied, few have had an economic evaluation. As part of a three-group randomized trial, we estimated the cost and cost-effectiveness of a negative urine opioid test. Detainees were assigned to interim methadone (IM) in jail with continued methadone treatment post-release with and without 3 months of post-release patient navigation (PN) compared to an enhanced treatment-as-usual group. METHODS: We implemented a micro-costing approach from the provider's perspective to estimate the cost per participant in jail and over the 12 months post-release from jail. Economic data included jail-based and community-based service utilization, self-reported healthcare utilization and justice system involvement, and administrative arrest records. Our outcome measure is the number of participants with a negative opioid urine test at their 12-month follow-up. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for intervention costs only and costs from a societal perspective. RESULTS: The average cost of providing patient navigation services per individual beginning in jail and continuing in the community was $283. We find that IM is dominated by ETAU and IM + PN. Per additional participant with a negative opioid urine test, the ICER for IM + PN including intervention costs only is $91 and $305 including societal costs. CONCLUSIONS: IM + PN is almost certainly the cost-effective choice from both an intervention provider and societal perspective.

Slow release oral morphine versus methadone for opioid use disorder in the fentanyl era (pRESTO): Protocol for a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: North America is facing an unprecedented public health crisis of opioid-related morbidity and mortality, increasingly as a result of the introduction of illicitly manufactured fentanyl into the street drug market. Although the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is a key element in the response to the opioid overdose epidemic, currently available pharmacotherapies (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine) may not be acceptable to or effective in all patients. Available evidence suggests that slow-release oral morphine (SROM) has similar efficacy rates as methadone with respect to promoting abstinence, and with improvements in a number of patient-reported outcomes among persons using heroin. However, little is known about the relative effectiveness and acceptability of SROM compared to methadone in the context of fentanyl use. This study aims to address this research gap. METHODS: pRESTO is a 24-week, open-label, two arm, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial comparing SROM versus methadone for the treatment of OUD. Participants will be 298 clinically stable, non-pregnant adults with OUD, recruited from outpatient clinics in Vancouver, Canada, where the majority of the illicit opioids are contaminated with fentanyl. The primary outcome is suppression of illicit opioid use, measured by bi-weekly urine drug screens. Secondary outcomes include: treatment retention, medication safety, overdose events, treatment satisfaction, psychological functioning, changes in drug-related problems, changes in quality of life, opioid cravings, other substance use, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: pRESTO will be among the first studies to evaluate treatment options for individuals primarily using synthetic street opioids, providing important evidence to guide treatment strategies for this population.

Responses among substance abuse treatment providers to the opioid epidemic in the USA: Variations in buprenorphine and methadone treatment by geography, operational, and payment characteristics, 2007-16.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the geographic, organisational, and payment correlates of buprenorphine and methadone treatment among substance abuse treatment (SAT) providers. METHODS: Secondary analyses of the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (NSSATS) from 2007-16 were conducted. We provide bivariate descriptive statistics regarding substance abuse treatment services which offered buprenorphine and methadone treatment from 2007-16. Using multiple logistic regression, we regressed geographic, organisational, and payment correlates on buprenorphine and methadone treatment. RESULTS: Buprenorphine is increasingly offered at SAT facilities though uptake remains comparatively low outside of the northeast. SAT facilities run by tribal governments or Indian Health Service which offer buprenorphine remain low compared to privately operated SAT facilities (AOR = 0.528). The odds of offering buprenorphine among facilities offering free or no charge treatment (AOR = 0.838) or a sliding fee scale (AOR = 0.464) was lower. SAT facilities accepting Medicaid payments showed higher odds of offering methadone treatment (AOR = 2.035). CONCLUSIONS: Greater attention towards the disparities in provision of opioid agonist therapies is warranted, especially towards the reasons why uptake has been moderate among civilian providers. Additionally, the care needs of Native Americans facing opioid-related use disorders bears further scrutiny.

Opioid use disorder in Germany: healthcare costs of patients in opioid maintenance treatment.

BACKGROUND: Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) is a substance use disorder with a chronic course associated with comorbid mental and somatic disorders, a high burden of psychosocial problems and opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) as a standard treatment. In the US, OUD imposes a significant economic burden on society, with annual societal costs estimated at over 55 billion dollars. Surprisingly, in Europe and especially in Germany, there is currently no detailed information on the healthcare costs of patients with OUD. The goal of the present research is to gather cost information about OUD patients in OMT with a focus on maintenance medication and relapses. METHODS: We analysed health claims data of four million persons covered by statutory health insurance in Germany, applying a cost-of-illness approach and aimed at examining the direct costs of OMT patients in Germany. Patients with an ICD-10 code F11.2 and at least one claim of an OMT medication were stratified into the treatment groups buprenorphine, methadone or levomethadone, based on the first prescription in each of the follow-up years. Costs were stratified for years with and without relapses. Group comparisons were performed with ANOVA. RESULTS: We analysed 3165 patient years, the total annual sickness funds costs were on average 7470 € per year and patient. Comparing costs of levomethadone (8400 €, SD: 11,080 €), methadone (7090 €, SD: 10,900 €) and buprenorphine (6670 €, SD: 7430 €) revealed significant lower costs of buprenorphine compared to levomethadone (p < 0.0001). In years with relapses, costs were higher than in years without relapses (8178 € vs 7409 €; SD: 11,622, resp. 10,378 €). In years with relapses, hospital costs were the major cost driver. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows the costs of OUD patients in OMT for the first time with a German dataset. Healthcare costs for patients with an OUD in OMT are associated with more than two times the cost of an average German patients. Preventing relapses might have significant impact on costs. Patients in different OMT were dissimilar which may have affected the cost differences.

Public policy, attitudes and willingness to pay for treatment of substance dependence in Iran.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of costs and benefits of substance use treatment programs through a standard economic framework is necessary for optimal policy making. However, drug policy making is seldom supported by economic justification. Measurement of willingness to pay is a tool to provide better understanding of intangible substance use treatment outcomes and to help a balanced policy in treatment of substance use between maintenance treatment and abstinence-based approach. AIM: To assess the reciprocal association between economic indexes and attitudes about substance use and its treatment as indicators of tendency toward the two different treatment. METHOD: Willingness to pay for treatment was measured by contingency valuation method among 109 treatment cost payers of which 78 subjects were from outpatient methadone maintenance clinics and 31 were from abstinence-based residential facilities. To analyze predictors of willingness to pay, we used income to capture heterogeneity of purchasing power among subjects. Further, we checked bivariate correlation of different attitudes of cost payers with willingness to pay. In the next step using backward regression equation we tried to reach the best specification of the model. Selected variables include cost payers' attitudes toward substance use and its treatment, effectiveness of treatment, social attitude toward the condition of substance use in Iran, fairness of treatment prices, and government financial support for addiction treatment. RESULTS: In methadone maintenance clinics the payers' income had a pivotal role in determining willingness to pay for substance use treatment by 50% (p<0.001 ). On the other hand, in abstinence-based residential facilities positive attitude toward substance use (61%, p<0.01) was the major direct determinant of willingness to pay for treatment. Attitude to public financial support for substance use treatment (55%, p<0.01 ) and consumption experience (45%, p<0.01 ) showed an inverse association with WTP in regression equation. CONCLUSION: This study expanded the understanding of the nature of payment in different substance use treatment modalities. The suggestion to policy makers is that before taking position on different types of treatment services, it is necessary to pay attention to factors that determine values cost payers put on treatment. In other words, economic indexes, payers' views about substance use and its treatment, and their opinion about effectiveness of substance use treatment programs may jeopardize the success of the policy.

Methadone, Buprenorphine, or Detoxification for Management of Perinatal Opioid Use Disorder: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether methadone, buprenorphine, or detoxification treatment is the most cost-effective approach to the management of opioid use disorder (OUD) during pregnancy. METHODS: We created a decision analytic model that compared the cost effectiveness (eg, the marginal cost of the strategy in U.S. dollars divided by the marginal effectiveness of the strategy, measured in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of initiation of methadone, buprenorphine, or detoxification in treatment of OUD during pregnancy. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were estimated from the existing literature. Incremental cost-effective ratios for each strategy were calculated, and a ratio of $100,000 per QALY was used to define cost effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analyses and a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Under base assumptions, initiation of buprenorphine was more effective at a lower cost than either methadone or detoxification and thus was the dominant strategy. Buprenorphine was no longer cost effective if the cost of methadone was 8% less than the base-case estimate ($1,646/month) or if the overall costs of detoxification were 121% less than the base-case estimate for the detoxification cost multiplier, which was used to increase the values of both inpatient and outpatient management of detoxification by a factor of 2. Monte Carlo analyses revealed that buprenorphine was the cost-effective strategy in 70.5% of the simulations. Direct comparison of buprenorphine with methadone demonstrated that buprenorphine was below the incremental cost-effective ratio in 95.1% of simulations; direct comparison between buprenorphine and detoxification demonstrated that buprenorphine was below the incremental cost-effective ratio in 45% of simulations. CONCLUSION: Under most circumstances, we estimate that buprenorphine is the cost-effective strategy when compared with either methadone or detoxification as treatment for OUD during pregnancy. Nonetheless, the fact that buprenorphine was not the cost-effective strategy in almost one out of three of simulations suggests that the robustness of our model may be limited and that further evaluation of the cost-effective approach to the management of OUD during pregnancy is needed.

A comparison of adherence, outcomes, and costs among opioid use disorder Medicaid patients treated with buprenorphine and methadone: A view from the payer perspective.

Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) with methadone or buprenorphine has been shown to be more effective at reducing the use of illicit opioids, the risk of drug-related overdose, and overall healthcare costs, on average, compared to abstinence-based addiction treatments for individuals with an opioid use disorder (OUD). Individuals who are adherent to MAT are more likely to experience positive outcomes. We used physical and behavioral Medicaid claims data of individuals newly treated with methadone (n = 212) and buprenorphine (n = 972) to examine the overall predictors of adherence, differences in adherence to each medication, the relationship between adherence and ED nonfatal drug-related overdose, and differences in total cost of care between the two medications. We found that older individuals and women had significantly lower risk of non-adherence. At six months, only 3.6% of individuals who were adherent to either treatment experienced a nonfatal drug-related overdose in the ED, compared to 13.2% of individuals who were non-adherent. We found no significant difference between methadone and buprenorphine on nonfatal drug-related overdose. Non-adherence to methadone was associated with a significant increase in total cost of care. Implications for how these results could be used to improve the overall impact of MAT are discussed.

A Summary from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California, and California Health Care Foundation to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Cambia Health Solutions, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Prime Therapeutics, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, Health Care Service Corporation, Editas, Alnylam, Regeneron, Mallinkrodt, Biogen, HealthPartners, and Novartis. Otuonye, Kumar, and Pearson are ICER employees. Banken received consulting fees from ICER for work on this report.

Re-engineering methadone-Cost-effectiveness analysis of a patient-centered approach to methadone treatment.

Methadone maintenance treatment has proven effectiveness in the treatment of opioid use disorder, but significant barriers remain to treatment retention. In a randomized clinical trial, 300 newly-admitted methadone patients were randomly assigned to patient-centered methadone (PCM) v. treatment-as-usual (TAU). In PCM, participants were treated under revised program rules which permitted voluntary attendance at counseling and other changes focused on reducing involuntary discharge, and different staff roles which shifted disciplinary responsibility from the participant's counselor to the supervisor. The study found no significant differences in treatment retention, measures of opioid use, or other patient outcomes. This paper employs an activity-based costing approach to estimate the cost and cost-effectiveness of the two study conditions. We found that service use and costs were similar between PCM and TAU. Specifically, the average cost for PCM patients was $2396 compared to $2292 for standard methadone, while the average length of stay was 2 weeks longer for PCM patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for self-reported heroin use, opioid positive urine screens, and meeting DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence were mixed, with TAU achieving non-significantly better outcomes at lower treatment episode costs (i.e., economically dominating) for opioid positive urine screens. PCM patients reported slightly more days abstinent from heroin and fewer meet the opioid dependence criteria. While these differences are small and not statistically significant, we can still examine the cost-effectiveness implications. For days, abstinent from heroin, the ICER was $242 for one additional day of abstinence, however, there was notable uncertainty around this estimate. For opioid dependence criteria, the ICER was $1160 for a one-percentage point increase in the probability that a participant no longer met criteria for opioid dependence at follow-up. This economic study finds that patient choice concepts can be introduced into methadone treatment without significant impacts on costs or patient outcomes.

The economic costs of jail-based methadone maintenance treatment.

BACKGROUND: The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world and spends $40-$80 billion to house inmates per year. It is well-known that a significant correlation is present between substance use and crime, especially over recent years as opioid use disorder (OUD) has grown exponentially. To mitigate OUD, methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) has demonstrated effectiveness in numerous randomized and quasi-experimental studies. A potentially fruitful environment for MMT is correctional facilities, particularly short-term facilities, such as city and county jails. However, little is known about the economic implications of MMT within correctional facilities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to estimate the economic costs of jail-based MMT using data from a novel, established MMT program located within a large urban jail in New Mexico. METHODS: Data were collected using administrative records and by interviewing program administrators using a modified version of the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program (DATCAP). Both sensitivity analysis and cost-structure analysis were conducted to gauge the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: The average (per patient) weekly cost of MMT is $115 and the total treatment cost for an average treatment episode is $689. These costs are generally in-line with non-jail-based MMT programs of similar size. Weekly cost estimates range from $86 to $185 depending on the size of the treatment facility, with larger programs exhibiting lower per-patient costs. CONCLUSION: Results provide a valuable economic benchmark to policy makers, criminal justice officials, and program administrators considering establishing and/or expanding MMT in jail settings.

Cost of provision of opioid substitution therapy provision in Tijuana, Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Mexico recently enacted drug policy reform to decriminalize possession of small amounts of illicit drugs and mandated that police refer identified substance users to drug treatment. However, the economic implications of drug treatment expansion are uncertain. We estimated the costs of opioid substitution therapy (OST) provision in Tijuana, Mexico, where opioid use and HIV are major public health concerns. METHODS: We adopted an economic health care provider perspective and applied an ingredients-based micro-costing approach to quantify the average monthly cost of OST (methadone maintenance) provision at two providers (one private and one public) in Tijuana, Mexico. Costs were divided by type of input (capital, recurrent personnel and non-personnel). We defined "delivery cost" as all costs except for the methadone and compared total cost by type of methadone (powdered form or capsule). Cost data were obtained from interviews with senior staff and review of expenditure reports. Service provision data were obtained from activity logs and senior staff interviews. Outcomes were cost per OST contact and cost per person month of OST. We additionally collected information on patient charges for OST provision from published rates. RESULTS: The total cost per OST contact at the private and public sites was $3.12 and $5.90, respectively, corresponding to $95 and $179 per person month of OST. The costs of methadone delivery per OST contact were similar at both sites ($2.78 private and $3.46 public). However, cost of the methadone itself varied substantially ($0.34 per 80 mg dose [powder] at the private site and $2.44 per dose [capsule] at the public site). Patients were charged $1.93-$2.66 per methadone dose. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of OST provision in Mexico is consistent with other upper-middle income settings. However, evidenced-based (OST) drug treatment facilities in Mexico are still unaffordable to most people who inject drugs.

Cost-effectiveness of hydromorphone for severe opioid use disorder: findings from the SALOME randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous research has found diacetylmorphine, delivered under supervision, to be cost-effective in the treatment of severe opioid use disorder, but diacetylmorphine is not available in many settings. The Study to Assess Long-term Opioid Maintenance Effectiveness (SALOME) randomized controlled trial provided evidence that injectable hydromorphone is non-inferior to diacetylmorphine. The current study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of hydromorphone directly with diacetylmorphine and indirectly with methadone maintenance treatment. DESIGN: A within-trial analysis was conducted using the patient level data from the 6-month, double-blind, non-inferiority SALOME trial. A life-time analysis extrapolated costs and outcomes using a decision analytical cohort model. The model incorporated data from a previous trial to include an indirect comparison to methadone maintenance. SETTING: A supervised clinic in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 202 long-term street opioid injectors who had at least two attempts at treatment, including one with methadone (or other substitution), were randomized to hydromorphone (n = 100) or diacetylmorphine (n = 102). MEASUREMENTS: We measured the utilization of drugs, visits to health professionals, hospitalizations, criminal activity, mortality and quality of life. This enabled us to estimate incremental costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness ratios from a societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses considered different sources of evidence, assumptions and perspectives. FINDINGS: The within-trial analysis found hydromorphone provided similar QALYs to diacetylmorphine [0.377, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.361-0.393 versus 0.375, 95% CI = 0.357-0.391], but accumulated marginally greater costs [$49 830 ($28 401-73 637) versus $34 320 ($21 780-55 998)]. The life-time analysis suggested that both diacetylmorphine and hydromorphone provide more benefits than methadone [8.4 (7.4-9.5) and 8.3 (7.2-9.5) versus 7.4 (6.5-8.3) QALYs] at lower cost [$1.01 million ($0.6-1.59 million) and $1.02 million ($0.72-1.51 million) versus $1.15 million ($0.71-1.84 million)]. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe opioid use disorder enrolled into the SALOME trial, injectable hydromorphone provided similar outcomes to injectable diacetylmorphine. Modelling outcomes during a patient's life-time suggested that injectable hydromorphone might provide greater benefit than methadone alone and may be cost-saving, with drug costs being offset by costs saved from reduced involvement in criminal activity.

Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C screening and treatment linkage intervention in US methadone maintenance treatment programs.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a hepatitis C (HCV) screening and active linkage to care intervention in US methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) patients using data from a randomized trial conducted in New York City and San Francisco. METHODS: We used a decision analytic model to compare 1) no intervention; 2) HCV screening and education (control); and 3) HCV screening, education, and care coordination (active linkage intervention). We also explored an alternative strategy wherein HCV/HIV co-infected participants linked elsewhere. Trial data include population characteristics (67% male, mean age 48, 58% HCV infected) and linkage rates. Data from published sources include treatment efficacy and HCV re-infection risk. We projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime medical costs using an established model of HCV (HEP-CE). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are in 2015 US$/QALY discounted 3% annually. RESULTS: The control strategy resulted in a projected 35% linking to care within 6 months and 31% achieving sustained virologic response (SVR). The intervention resulted in 60% linking and 54% achieving SVR with an ICER of $24,600/QALY compared to no intervention from the healthcare sector perspective and was a more efficient use of resources than the control strategy. The intervention had an ICER of $76,500/QALY compared to the alternative strategy. From a societal perspective, the intervention had a net monetary benefit of $511,000-$975,600. CONCLUSIONS: HCV care coordination interventions that include screening, education and active linkage to care in MMT settings are likely cost-effective at a conventional $100,000/QALY threshold for both HCV mono-infected and HIV co-infected patients.

Healthcare utilization and costs associated with treatment for opioid dependence.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid use disorder (OUD) can be managed with medication assisted therapy (MAT) (methadone [MET], buprenorphine [BUP], or extended-release naltrexone [XR-NTX]) or counseling alone (non-pharmacological therapy [NPT]). The objective of this study was to evaluate healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with XR-NTX compared with alternative treatments for opioid dependence. METHODS: Adults with a diagnosis of opioid dependence who initiated treatment with XR-NTX, BUP, MET, or NPT between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014 were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial administrative claims database. Healthcare resource utilization, costs (inpatient [IP], emergency department [ED], outpatient [OP], and pharmacy) and adherence were evaluated for each cohort during 12-month baseline and follow-up periods. RESULTS: A total of 29,235 patients were included in the analysis; 1,041, 20,566, 745, and 6,883 received XR-NTX, BUP, MET, and NPT, respectively. Patients in the XR-NTX cohort were significantly younger and had more comorbidities compared with the other cohorts. Patients in the XR-NTX group had the largest percentage decrease in IP and ED utilization and costs from baseline to follow-up. OP and pharmacy costs increased significantly from baseline to follow-up for all cohorts. Overall, there was no significant change in total healthcare costs for the XR-NTX group, whereas the costs increased significantly for other groups (BUP = +43%, MET = +47.7%, NPT = +38.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare resource utilization and costs increased from baseline to follow-up in BUP, MET, and NPT patients, whereas patients receiving XR-NTX experienced no such increase. This analysis suggests there may be economic value in the use of XR-NTX for OUD.

Methadone Maintenance Treatment for Older Adults: Cost and Logistical Considerations.

In a demographic shift, older adults now comprise an increasing proportion of those receiving methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) for opioid use disorder. A study of MMT recipients in New York City suggests that 13% of the population is over 60 years of age. Adults ages 50-59 are among the largest age demographic, evidence that the number of older adults receiving MMT will continue to increase. Because medical comorbidities, cognitive impairment, and neurobehavioral changes often accumulate with age, older adults on MMT become increasingly vulnerable. The cost of MMT and logistical considerations also pose challenges to continued care. Together, these issues warrant a reconsideration of emerging concerns and health policies related to use of MMT in this growing and understudied population. Given the changing health care system and the opioid epidemic, the need for evidence-based guidelines and supportive policies that consider the unique treatment needs of older populations is especially relevant.