Benefits and costs of methadone treatment: results from a lifetime simulation model

RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
Health Economics (Impact Factor: 2.14). 11/2005; 14(11):1133-50. DOI: 10.1002/hec.999
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Several studies have examined the benefits and costs of drug treatment; however, they have typically focused on the benefits and costs of a single treatment episode. Although beneficial for certain analyses, the results are limited because they implicitly treat drug abuse as an acute problem that can be treated in one episode. We developed a Monte Carlo simulation model that incorporates the chronic nature of drug abuse. Our model represents the progression of individuals from the general population aged 18-60 with respect to their heroin use, treatment for heroin use, criminal behavior, employment, and health care use. We also present three model scenarios representing an increase in the probability of going to treatment, an increase in the treatment length of stay, and a scenario in which drug treatment is not available to evaluate how changes in treatment parameters affect model results. We find that the benefit-cost ratio of treatment from our lifetime model (37.72) exceeds the benefit-cost ratio from a static model (4.86). The model provides a rich characterization of the dynamics of heroin use and captures the notion of heroin use as a chronic recurring condition. Similar models can be developed for other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, mental illness, or cardiovascular disease.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: California treats the largest population of opioid dependent individuals in the USA and is among a small group of states that applies regulations for opioid treatment that are more stringent than existing federal regulations. We aim to characterize changes in patient characteristics and treatment utilization over time, and identify determinants of successful completion of detoxification and MMT retention in repeated attempts. Methods: State-wide administrative data was obtained from California Outcome Measurement System during the period: January 1st, 1991-March 31st, 2012. Short-term detoxification treatment and long-term maintenance treatment, primarily with methadone, was available to study participants. Mixed effects regression models were used to define determinants of successful completion of the detoxification treatment protocol (as classified by treatment staff) and duration of maintenance treatment. Results: The study sample consisted of 237,709 unique individuals and 885,971 treatment episodes; 837% were detoxification treatment episodes in 1994, dropping to 40.5% in 2010. Among individuals accessing only detoxification, the adjusted odds of success declined with each successive attempt (vs. 1st attempt: 2nd: OR: 0.679; 95% CI (0.610, 0.755); 3rd: 0.557 (0.484, 0.641); 4th: 0.526 (0.445, 0.622); 5th: 0.407 (0.334, 0.497); >= 6th: 0.339 (0.288, 0.399). For those ever accessing maintenance treatment, later subsequent attempts were longer in duration, and those with two or more prior attempts at detoxification had marginally longer subsequent maintenance episodes (hazard ratio: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95, 0.99). Finally, only 10.9% of all detoxification episodes were followed by admission into maintenance treatment within 14 days. Conclusions: This study has revealed high rates of detoxification treatment for opioid dependence in California throughout the study period, and decreasing odds of success in repeated attempts at detoxification.
    Drug and Alcohol Dependence 07/2014; 143. DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.07.020 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of delivering alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in emergency departments (ED) when compared to outpatient medical settings. A probabilistic decision analytic tree categorized patients into health states. Utility weights and social costs were assigned to each health state. Health outcome measures were the proportion of patients not drinking above threshold levels at follow-up, the proportion of patients transitioning from above threshold levels at baseline to abstinent or below threshold levels at follow-up, and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Expected costs under a provider perspective were the marginal costs of SBIRT, and under a societal perspective were the sum of SBIRT cost per patient and the change in social costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed. When considering provider costs only, compared to outpatient, SBIRT in ED cost $8.63 less, generated 0.005 more QALYs per patient, and resulted in 13.8% more patients drinking below threshold levels. Sensitivity analyses in which patients were assumed to receive a fixed number of treatment sessions that met clinical sites' guidelines made SBIRT more expensive in ED than outpatient; the ED remained more effective. In this sensitivity analysis, the ED was the most cost-effective setting if decision makers were willing to pay more than $1500 per QALY gained. Alcohol SBIRT generates costs savings and improves health in both ED and outpatient settings. EDs provide better effectiveness at a lower cost and greater social cost reductions than outpatient. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 01/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2015.01.003 · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Research into the avoided crime-related costs associated with methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is sparse. Our objective was to characterize the dynamics in crime-related costs associated with MMT effectiveness among opioid dependent individuals in Vancouver, Canada Methods We considered individuals enrolled in a prospective study between December, 2011 and May, 2013. Monthly crime-related costs (2013 CAD) were derived from self-reported criminal activity. On the basis of MMT receipt and illicit opioid use, individuals were classified in mutually exclusive health states: (i) MMT high effectiveness; (ii) MMT low effectiveness; (iii) opioid abstinence; or (iv) relapse. We classified individuals as daily, non-daily or non-stimulant users and controlled for demographic and socio-economic characteristics. A two-part multiple regression model was constructed; the first part modeled non-zero cost probability, the second estimated the level of costs. Avoided costs were estimated for each health state and stratified by stimulant use intensity Results Our study included 982 individuals (median age 47, 38% female) for 2,232 observations. Individuals on MMT with high effectiveness incurred lower monthly costs of criminality (avoided costs of $6,298; 95%C.I.($1,578,$11,017)), as did opioid abstinent individuals ($6,563($1,564,$11,561)). Avoided costs for daily stimulant users were greater than for non-daily users, both for individuals on MMT with high effectiveness ($12,975vs.$4,125) and opioid abstinent ($12,640vs.$4,814) Conclusion Using longitudinal data on individuals with a history of MMT, we found substantially lower costs of criminality associated with high effect to MMT. Avoided costs were highest among daily stimulant users that were on MMT with high effectiveness or those opioid abstinent.
    Drug and Alcohol Dependence 09/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.09.007 · 3.28 Impact Factor


Available from