Cost-effectiveness analysis of addiction treatment: Paradoxes of multiple outcomes

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Volumn 73, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 41-50

  Sindelar, Jody L ^a,b   Jofre Bonet, Mireia ^c   French, Michael T ^d   McLellan, A Thomas ^e  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^d Department of Biology   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis; Economics; Services; Treatment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CRIME; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; DRUG USE; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EMPLOYMENT; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0347627253     PISSN: 03768716     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.09.002     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Baker, O., Mounteney, J., 1999. Evaluating the Treatment of Drug Abuse in the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
2. Barnett P., Swindle R. Cost-effectiveness of inpatient substance abuse treatment. Health Serv. Res. 32(5):1997;615-629.
3. Barnett P.G., Zaric G.S., Brandeau M.L. The cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance therapy for opiate addiction in the United States. Addiction. 96(9):2001;1267-1278.
4. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 1997. Guidelines for Economic Evaluation Pharmaceuticals: Canada, second ed. CCOHTA, Ottawa.
5. Cartwright W.S. Cost benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of drug abuse treatment services. Eval. Rev. 22(5):1998;609-636.
6. Cartwright W.S. Cost-benefit analysis of drug treatment services: review of the literature. J. Ment. Health Policy Econ. 3:2000;11-26.
7. Daley M., Argeriou M., McCarty D., Callahan J.J. Jr., Shepard D.S., Williams C.N. The costs of crime and the benefits of substance abuse treatment for pregnant women. J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 19(4):2000;445-458.
8. Department of Human Services and Health, 1995. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
9. Drummond, M.F., O'Brien, B., Stoddart, G.L., Torrance, G.W., 1997. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programs, second ed. Oxford University Press, New York.
10. Edwards, A.L., 1984. An Introduction to Linear Regression and Correlation, second ed. Freeman, New York.
11. French M.T., McGeary K.A. Estimating the economic cost of substance abuse treatment. Health Econ. 6:1997;539-544.
12. French M.T., Rachal J.V., Hubbard R.L. Conceptual framework for estimating the social cost of drug abuse. J. Health Soc. Policy. 2(3):1991;1-22.
13. French M.T., Mausopf J.A., Teague J.L., Roland J. Estimating the dollar value of health outcomes from drug abuse interventions. Med. Care. 34(9):1996;890-910.
14. French M.T., Dunlap L.J., Zarkin G.A., McGeary K.A., McLellan A.T. A structured instrument for estimating the economic cost of drug abuse treatment: the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program (DATCAP). J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 14(4):1997;1-11.
15. French M.T., Salome H.I.J., Sindelar J.L., McLellan A.T. Benefit cost analysis of addiction treatment: methodological guidelines and applications using the DATCAP and ASI. Health Serv. Res. 37(2):2002;433-455.
16. Garattini A., Grilli R., Scopellitti D., Mantovani L. A proposal for Italian guidelines in pharmacoeconomics. PharmacoEconomics. 7:1995;1-6.
17. Godfrey, C., Eaton, G., McDougall, C., Culyer, A., 2000. The Economic and Social Costs of Class A Drug Use in England and Wales. Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate, London.
18. Gold, M.R., Siegel, J.E., Russell, L.B., Weinstein, M.C., 1996. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, New York.
19. Greene, W.H., 2002. Econometric Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
20. Gutzwiller, F., Steffen, T., 2000. Cost Benefit Analysis of Heroin Maintenance Treatment. Karger, Basel, Switzerland.
21. Kenkel D. On valuing morbidity, cost-effectiveness analysis, and being rude. J. Health Econ. 16:1997;749-757.
22. Kraft M.K., Rothbard A.B., Hadley T.R., McLellan A.T., Asch D.A. Are supplementary services provided during methadone maintenance really cost effective? Am. J. Psychiatr. 154(9):1997;1214-1219.
23. Langley P.C. The November 1995 revised Australian guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. PharmacoEconomics. 9:1996;341-352.
24. McCollister, K.E., French, M.T., Inciardi, J.A., Butzin, C.A., Martin, S.S., Hooper, R.M., 2003a. Post-release substance abuse treatment for criminal offenders: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Quant. Criminol., in press.
25. McCollister K.E., French M.T., Prendergast M., Wexler H., Sacks S., Hall E. Is in-prison treatment enough? A cost-effectiveness analysis of prison-based treatment and aftercare services for substance-abusing offenders. Law and Policy. 25(1):2003b. 63-82.
26. McLellan, A.T., Weisner, C., 1996. Achieving the public health and safety potential of substance abuse treatment. In: Bikle, W., De Grandpre, R.J. (Eds.), Drug Policy and Human Nature: Psychological Perspectives on the Prevention, Management and Treatment of Illicit Drug. Pleneus Press, New York, pp. 127-154.
27. McLellan, A.T., Luborsky, L., Erdlen, F., LaPorte, D., 1980a. The addiction severity index: a diagnostic/evaluative instrument for substance abuse clients. In: Gottheil, E. (Ed.), Substance Abuse and Psychiatric Illness. Pergamon Press, New York.
28. McLellan, A.T., Luborsky, L., O'Brien, C.P., Woody, G.E., 1980b. An improved evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients: the Addiction Severity Index. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 168, 26-33, 38.
29. McLellan A.T., O'Brien C.P., Luborsky L., Woody G.E., Kron R. Are the addiction-related problems of substance abusers really related? J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 169(4):1981;232-239.
30. McLellan A.T., Hagan T.A., Meyers K., Levine M., Gould F., Bencivengo M., Durell J., Jaffe J. Supplemental social services improve outcomes in public addiction treatment. Addiction. 93(10):1998;1489-1499.
31. McLellan A.T., Levine M., Hagan T.A., Meyers K., Randall M., Gould F., Bencivengo M., Durell J. Does clinical case management improve outpatient addiction treatment? Drug Alcohol Depend. 55(1-2):1999;91-103.
32. Reuter P. Are calculations of the economic costs of drug abuse either possible or useful? Addiction. 94(5):1999;635-638.
33. Roebuck M.C., French M.T., McLellan A.T. DATStats: summary results from 85 completed Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Programs (DATCAPs). J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 25(1):2003;51-57.
34. Rounsaville, B.J., Petry, N., Carroll, K., 2003. Single vs. multiple drug focus in substance abuse clinical trails. Drug Alcohol Depend. 70 (2), 21, 117-125.
35. Salomé, H.J., French, M.T., 2001. Using cost and financing instruments for economic evaluation of substance abuse treatment services. In: Galanter, M. (Ed.), Services Research in the Era of Managed Care, Section III. Recent Developments in Alcoholism, vol. 15. Kluwer Academic Publishers/Plenum Publishers, New York, Chapter 11, pp. 253-269.
36. Satterthwaite F.E. An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bull. 2:1946;110-114.
37. Shephard D., Larson M.J., Hoffman N. Cost-effectiveness of substance abuse services. Addict. Disord. 22(2):1999;385-399.
38. Sindelar, J.L., Manning, W.G., 1997. Cost-benefit and cost-benefit analysis: issues in the evaluation of the treatment of illicit drug abuse. In: Egertson, J., Fox, D., Leshner, A. (Eds.), Treating Drug Abusers Effectively. Milbank/Blackwell, pp. 187-222.
39. Snedecor, G., Cochran, W.G., 1989. Statistical Methods, eighth ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
40. Zarkin G., Lindrooth R., Demiralp B., Wechsberg W. The cost and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced intervention for people with substance abuse problems at risk for HIV. Health Serv. Res. 36(2):2002;335-355.