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

Health Economics

Volumn 14, Issue 11, 2005, Pages 1133-1150

  Zarkin, Gary A ^a   Dunlap, Laura J ^a   Hicks, Katherine A ^a   Mamo, Daniel ^b  

^a RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b United Guaranty Corporation   (United States)

Author keywords

Benefits; Costs; Drug treatment; Heroin; Simulation

Indexed keywords

DIAMORPHINE; METHADONE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPUTER MODEL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; DRUG DEPENDENCE; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; EMPLOYMENT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEROIN DEPENDENCE; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; LIFESPAN; MALE; METHADONE TREATMENT; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CRIME; EMPLOYMENT; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES; HEROIN DEPENDENCE; HUMANS; MALE; METHADONE; MIDDLE AGED; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NARCOTICS;

EID: 27844546582     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.999     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. French MT, McCollister KE, Sacks S, McKendrick K, De Leon G. Benefit-cost analysis of a modified therapeutic community for mentally ill chemical abusers. Eval Program Planning 2002; 25(2): 137-148.
2. French MT, McCollister KE, Cacciola J, Durell J, Stephens RL. Benefit-cost analysis of addiction treatment in Arkansas: specialty and standard residential programs for pregnant and parenting women. Substance Abuse 2002; 23(1): 31-51.
3. Simpson DD, Sells SB. Effectiveness of treatment for drug abuse: an overview of the DARP research program. Adv Alcohol Substance Abuse 1982; 2(1): 7-29.
4. Condelli WS, Hubbard RL. Relationship between time spent in treatment and client outcomes from therapeutic communities. J Substance Abuse Treat 1994; 11(1): 25-33.
5. Simpson DD. The relation of time spent in drug abuse treatment to post-treatment outcomes. Am J Psychiatry 1979; 136: 1449-1453.
6. Hubbard RL, Marsden ME, Rachal JV, Harwood HJ, Cavenaugh ER, Ginzburg HM. Drug Abuse Treatment: A National Study of Effectiveness. University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, NC, 1989.
7. DeLeon G. The Therapeutic Community: Study of Effectiveness. (NIDA Treatment Research Monograph ADM-84-1286). Rockville, MD, 1984; 1-95.
8. Bale RN, Van Stone WW, Kuldau JM, Engelsing TJJ, Elashoff RM, Zarcone VP. Therapeutic communities vs. methadone maintenance. A prospective controlled study of narcotic addiction treatment: design and one-year follow-up. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1980; 37(2): 179-193.
9. Institute of Medicine. Committee for the Substance Abuse Coverage Study. In Treating Drug Problems, vol. 1, Gerstein DR, Harwood HJ (eds). National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1990.
10. Weinstein MC, Coxson PG, Williams LW, Pass TM, Stason WB, Goldman L. Forecasting coronary heart disease incidence, mortality, and cost: the coronary heart disease policy model. Am J Public Health 1987; 77(11): 1417-1426.
11. The CDC Diabetes Cost-Effectiveness Group (Corresponding Author: Hoerger TJ). Cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic control, intensified hypertension control, and serum cholesterol level reduction for type 2 diabetes. J Am Med Assoc 2002; 287: 2542-2551.
12. Kamlet MS, Paul N, Greenhouse J, Kupfer D, Frank E, Wade M. Cost utility analysis of maintenance treatment for recurrent depression. Controlled Clin Trials 1995; 16(1): 17-40.
13. Zaric GS, Barnett PG, Brandeau ML. HIV transmissions and the cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance. Am J Public Health 2000; 90: 1100-1111.
14. Zarkin GA, French MT, Anderson DW, Bradley CT. A conceptual framework for the economic evaluation of substance abuse interventions. Eval Program Planning 1994; 17(4): 409-418.
15. Zarkin GA, Cates SC, Bala MV. Estimating the willingness to pay for drug abuse treatment: a pilot study. J Substance Abuse Treat 2000; 18(2): 149-159.
16. Rockwell Software, Inc. Arena-Version 5.00. Rockwell Software, Inc.: Sewickley, PA, 2000.
17. McCrady BS. To have but one true friend: implications for practice of research on alcohol use disorders and social networks. Psychol Addictive Behav 2004; 18(2): 113-121.
18. Ellis B, Bernichon T, Yu P, Roberts T, Herrell JM. Effect of social support on substance abuse relapse in a residential treatment setting for women. Eval Program Planning 2004; 27: 213-221.
19. Wasserman DA, Stewart AL, Delucchi KL. Social support and abstinence from opiates and cocaine during opioid maintenance treatment. Drug Alcohol Dependence 2001; 65: 65-75.
20. Havassy BE, Hall SM, Wasserman DA. Social support and relapse: commonalities among alcoholics, opiate users, and cigarette smokers. Addictive Behav 1991; 16: 235-246.
21. Zywiak WH, Longabaugh R, Wirtz PW. Decomposing the relationship between pretreatment social network characteristics and alcohol treatment outcome. J Stud Alcohol 2002; 63: 114-121.
22. Mohr CD, Averne S, Kenny DA, Delboca F. Getting by (or getting high) with a little help from my friends': an examination of adult alcoholics' friendships. J Stud Alcohol 2001; 62: 637-645.
23. McCusker J, Bigelow C, Luippold R, Zorn M, Lewis BF. Outcomes of a 21-day drug detoxification program: retention, transfer to further treatment, and HIV risk reduction. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1995; 21(1): 1-16.
24. Beckman LJ, Amaro H. Personal and social difficulties faced by women and men entering alcoholism treatment. J Stud Alcohol 1986; 47(2): 135-145.
25. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Office of Applied Studies. The National Household Study on Drug Abuse. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Rockville, MD, 1996-1998.
26. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Office of Applied Studies. The National Household Study on Drug Abuse Report, Incidence Tables. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Rockville, MD, 1999-2000.
27. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of the Census (BLS). The Current Population Survey. US Census Bureau: Washington, DC, 2000.
28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). United States Lifetables. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, 1998.
29. Barnett PG. The cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance as a health care intervention. Addiction 1999; 94(4): 479-488.
30. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Rockville, MD, 1992-1997.
31. Simpson DD, Joe GW, Broome KM, Hiller ML, Knight K, Rowan-Szal GA. Program diversity and treatment retention rates in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychol Addictive Behav 1997; 11(4): 279-293.
32. Zarkin GA, Dunlap LJ, Homsi G. The cost of methadone treatment: results from a national sample of treatment programs. Eval Program Planning 2004; 27(1): 35-43.
33. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The Uniform Crime Report. Federal Bureau of Investigation: Washington, DC, 2000.
34. US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), National Institute on Drug Abuse. The Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study. National Institute on Drug Abuse: Bethesda, MD, 1995.
35. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Washington, DC, 2000.
36. Miller TR, Cohen MA, Wiersema B. Victim costs and consequences: a new look. National Institute of Justice Research Report. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice: Washington, DC, 1996.
37. Cohen MA, Miller TR, Rossman SB. The costs and consequences of violent behavior in the United States. In Understanding and Preventing Violence: Consequences and Control of Violence, vol. 4, Reiss Jr AJ, Roth JA (eds). Committee on Law and Justice, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1994; 67-166.
38. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of the Census (BLS). The Basic Monthly Survey. US Census Bureau: Washington, DC, 1999.
39. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of the Census (BLS). The Current Population Survey. US Census Bureau: Washington, DC, 2001.
40. US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), National Institute on Drug Abuse. In Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS), 1991-1994: [United States] [Computer file]. Conducted by the Coordinating DATOS Research Center at the National Development and Research Institutes (NDRI), North Carolina, and collaborating research centers at Texas Christian University and the University of California at Los Angeles, with data collected by the Research Triangle Institute, ICPSR (ed.). Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor]: Ann Arbor, MI, 2000.
41. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD, 1996.
42. French MT, Martin RF. The costs of drug abuse consequences: a summary of research findings. J Substance Abuse Treat 1996; 13(6): 453-466.
43. Williams RM. The costs of visits to emergency departments. N Engl J Med 1996; 334(10): 642-646.
44. Gerstein DR, Johnson RA, Harwood HJ, Fountain D, Suter N, Malloy K. Evaluating recovery services: the California drug and alcohol treatment assessment (CALDATA) general report, Chapter 4. Report submitted to the State of California Department of Alcohol and Drug Problems, April 1994; 61-90.
45. Borisova NN, Goodman AC. The effects of time and money prices on treatment attendance for methadone maintenance clients. J Substance Abuse Treat 2004; 26(1): 345-352.