Search

A randomized clinical trial found that patient navigation for hospital patients with comorbid substance use disorders (SUDs) reduced emergency department (ED) and inpatient hospital utilization compared with treatment-as-usual.To compare the cost and calculate any cost savings from the Navigation Services to Avoid Rehospitalization (NavSTAR) intervention over treatment-as-usual.This study calculates activity-based costs from the health care providers and uses a net benefits approach to calculate the cost savings generated from NavSTAR. NavSTAR provided patient navigation focused on engagement in SUD treatment, starting before hospital discharge and continuing for up to 3 months postdischarge.Adult hospitalized medical/surgical patients with comorbid SUD for opioids, cocaine, and/or alcohol.Cost of the 3-month NavSTAR patient navigation intervention and the cost of all inpatient days and ED visits over a 12-month period.NavSTAR generated $17,780 per participant in cost savings. Ninety-seven percent of bootstrapped samples generated positive cost savings, and our sensitivity analyses did not change our results.Participants were recruited at one hospital in Baltimore, MD through the hospital's addiction consultation service. Findings may not generalize to the broader population. Outpatient health care cost data was not available through administrative records.Our findings show that patient navigation interventions should be considered by payors and policy makers to reduce the high hospital costs associated with comorbid SUD patients.

BACKGROUND: Abstinence has historically been considered the target outcome for alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment, yet recent work has found drinking reductions following AUD treatment, as measured by World Health Organization (WHO) risk drinking levels, are associated with meaningful improvements in functioning, physical health, and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: This study extends previous analyses of AUD treatment outcomes by estimating the association between changes in WHO risk drinking levels (very high, high, medium, and low, based on average daily alcohol consumption) and healthcare costs. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of the COMBINE study, a multi-site randomized clinical trial of acamprosate, naltrexone and behavioral interventions for AUD. Generalized gamma regression models were used to estimate relationships between WHO risk drinking level reductions over the course of treatment and healthcare costs in the year after treatment (N=964) and up to 3 years following treatment (N=651). RESULTS: Sustained WHO risk drinking reductions of 2 or more levels throughout treatment were associated with 52.0% lower healthcare costs (p < 0.001) in the year following treatment, and 44.0% lower costs (p = 0.0025) over 3 years. A reduction of exactly 1 level was associated with 34.8% lower costs over 3 years, which was not significant (p=0.05). Cost reductions were driven by lower inpatient behavioral health and emergency department utilization. CONCLUSION: Reduction in WHO risk drinking levels of at least 2 levels was associated with lower healthcare costs over 1 and 3 years. Our results add to literature showing drinking reductions are associated with improvement in health.

Only 63% of people living with HIV in the United States are achieving viral suppression. Structural and social barriers limit adherence to antiretroviral therapy which furthers the HIV epidemic while increasing health care costs. This study calculated the cost and cost-effectiveness of a contingency management intervention with cash incentives. People with HIV and detectable viral loads were randomized to usual care or an incentive group. Individuals could earn up to $3650 per year if they achieved and maintained an undetectable viral load. The average 1-year intervention cost, including incentives, was $4105 per patient. The average health care costs were $27,189 per patient in usual care and $35,853 per patient in the incentive group. We estimated a cost of $28,888 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which is well below accepted cost-per-QALY thresholds. Contingency management with cash incentives is a cost-effective intervention for significantly increasing viral suppression.

Aims To assess differences in the quality of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment received by Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in health plans that used prior authorization (PA) for buprenorphine-naloxone compared with those enrolled in plans that did not use PA. Design Cross-sectional observational study. Setting United States. Participants Continuously enrolled beneficiaries (71,294) with an OUD who filled at least one prescription for buprenorphine-naloxone between March 2012 and July 2017. Measurements Percentage of patients tested for hepatis B, hepatis C, HIV, and liver functioning; percentage of patients with urine drug screens and number of urine drug screens; continuous use of buprenorphine-naloxone for at least 180 days; co-use of benzodiazepines; number of outpatient visits with and without an OUD diagnosis. Findings PA was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of testing for hepatitis B (-3.5, 95% CI: -4.4, -2.7) and C (-5.9, 95% CI: -6.9, -4.9), but the findings were inconclusive as to whether or not there was a difference in HIV (-1.1, 95% CI: -2.5, 0.4) or liver function testing (1.3, 95% CI: -0.1, 2.7). PA was associated with a lower likelihood of urine drug screening (-25.5, 95% CI: -26.8, -24.1) and with fewer drug screens (-2.5, 95% CI: -3.0, -2.1). Findings were inconclusive as to whether or not there was a difference in continuous use of buprenorphine-naloxone (0.3, 95% CI: -1.2, 1.8). PA was associated with fewer outpatient visits (-2.1, 95% CI: -3.0, -1.2) and fewer outpatient visits with an OUD diagnosis (-1.7, 95% CI: -2.1, -1.3). PA was associated with a lower likelihood of filling benzodiazepine prescriptions before and after buprenorphine-naloxone induction (-28.9, 95% CI: -29.6, -28.3) but a greater likelihood of only using benzodiazepines after buprenorphine-naloxone induction (10.6, 95% CI: 9.3, 11.8). Conclusions US Medicare patients subject to prior authorization for buprenorphine-naloxone are not more likely to receive high-quality treatment for opioid use disorder than patients not subject to prior authorization.

Objective:This study characterized the use of prior authorization for opioid use disorder medications as compared with that for opioid pain medications in the United States among Medicare Part D pl...

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) categorizes alcohol consumption according to grams consumed into low-, medium-, high-, and very-high-risk drinking levels (RDLs). Although abstinence has been considered the ideal outcome of alcohol treatment, reductions in WHO RDLs have been proposed as primary outcomes for alcohol use disorder (AUD) trials. Objective The current study examines the stability of WHO RDL reductions and the association between RDL reductions and long-term functioning for up to 3 years following treatment. Design and Participants Secondary data analysis of patients with AUD enrolled in the COMBINE Study and Project MATCH, two multi-site, randomized AUD clinical trials, who were followed for up to 3 years post-treatment (COMBINE: n = 694; MATCH: n = 806). Measures Alcohol use was measured via calendar-based methods. We estimated all models in the total sample and among participants who did not achieve abstinence during treatment. Key Results One-level RDL reductions were achieved by 84% of patients at the end of treatment, with 84.9% of those individuals maintaining that reduction at a 3-year follow-up. Two-level RDL reductions were achieved by 68% of patients at the end of treatment, with 77.7% of those individuals maintaining that reduction at a 3-year follow-up. One- and two-level RDL reductions at the end of treatment were associated with significantly better mental health, quality of life (including physical quality of life), and fewer drinking consequences 3 years after treatment (p < 0.05), as compared to no change or increased drinking. Conclusion AUD patients can maintain WHO RDL reductions for up to 3 years after treatment. Patients who had WHO RDL reductions functioned significantly better than those who did not reduce their drinking. These findings are consistent with prior reports suggesting that drinking reductions, short of abstinence, yield meaningful improvements in patient health, well-being, and functioning.

Alcohol consumption increased in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Alcohol use disorder (AUD) and risky drinking are linked to harmful health effects. This paper aimed to project future health and cost impacts of shifts in alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic.An individual-level simulation model of the long-term drinking patterns for people with life-time AUD was used to simulate 10 000 individuals and project model outcomes to the estimated 25.9 million current drinkers with life-time AUD in the United States. The model considered three scenarios: (1) no change (counterfactual for comparison); (2) increased drinking levels persist for 1 year ('increase-1') and (3) increased drinking levels persist for 5 years ('increase-5').United States.Current drinkers with life-time AUD.Life expectancy [life-years (LYs)], quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), alcohol-related hospitalizations and associated hospitalization costs and alcohol-related deaths, during a 5-year period.Short-term increases in alcohol consumption (increase-1 scenario) resulted in a loss of 79 000 [95% uncertainty interval (UI]) 26 000-201 000] LYs, a loss of 332 000 (104 000-604 000) QALYs and 295 000 (82 000-501 000) more alcohol-related hospitalizations, costing an additional $5.4 billion ($1.5-9.3 billion) over 5 years. Hospitalizations for cirrhosis of the liver accounted for approximately $3.0 billion ($0.9-4.8 billion) in hospitalization costs, more than half the increase across all alcohol-related conditions. Health and cost impacts were more pronounced for older age groups (51+), women and non-Hispanic black individuals. Increasing the duration of pandemic-driven increases in alcohol consumption in the increase-5 scenario resulted in larger impacts.Simulations show that if the increase in alcohol consumption observed in the United States in the first year of the pandemic continues, alcohol-related mortality, morbidity and associated costs will increase substantially over the next 5 years.

Background. There is a lack of data on alcohol consumption over time. This study characterizes the long-term drinking patterns of people with lifetime alcohol use disorders who have engaged in treatment or informal care. Methods. We developed multinomial logit models using the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) to estimate short-term transition probabilities (TPs) among the 4 World Health Organization drinking risk levels (low, medium, high, and very high risk) and abstinence by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. We applied an optimization algorithm to convert 3-year TPs from NESARC to 1-year TPs, then used simulated annealing to calibrate TPs to a propensity-scored matched set of participants derived from a separate 16-year study of alcohol consumption. We validated the resulting long-term TPs using NESARC-III, a cross-sectional study conducted on a different cohort. Results. Across 24 demographic groups, the 1-year probability of remaining in the same state averaged 0.93, 0.81, 0.49, 0.51, and 0.63 for abstinent, low, medium, high, and very high-risk states, respectively. After calibration to the 16-year study data ( N = 420), resulting TPs produced state distributions that hit the calibration target. We find that the abstinent or low-risk states are very stable, and the annual probability of leaving the very high-risk state increases by about 20 percentage points beyond 8 years. Limitations. TPs for some demographic groups had small cell sizes. The data used to calibrate long-term TPs are based on a geographically narrow study. Conclusions. This study is the first to characterize long-term drinking patterns by combining short-term representative data with long-term data on drinking behaviors. Current research is using these patterns to estimate the long-term cost effectiveness of alcohol treatment.

Highlights • The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is designed to implement and evaluate the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention to reduce opioid overdose deaths. • The HCS includes a health economics study. • Costs of CTH will be estimated for multiple perspectives. • The health economics study includes cost-effectiveness analyses and simulation modeling., Background The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is designed to implement and evaluate the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention, a conceptually driven framework to assist communities in selecting and adopting evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdose deaths. The goal of the HCS is to produce generalizable information for policy makers and community stakeholders seeking to implement CTH or a similar community intervention. To support this objective, one aim of the HCS is a health economics study (HES), the results of which will inform decisions around fiscal feasibility and sustainability relevant to other community settings. Methods The HES is integrated into the HCS design: an unblinded, multisite, parallel arm, cluster randomized, wait list–controlled trial of the CTH intervention implemented in 67 communities in four U.S. states: Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. The objectives of the HES are to estimate the economic costs to communities of implementing and sustaining CTH; estimate broader societal costs associated with CTH; estimate the cost-effectiveness of CTH for overdose deaths avoided; and use simulation modeling to evaluate the short- and long-term health and economic impact of CTH, including future overdose deaths avoided and quality-adjusted life years saved, and to develop a simulation policy tool for communities that seek to implement CTH or a similar community intervention. Discussion The HCS offers an unprecedented opportunity to conduct health economics research on solutions to the opioid crisis and to increase understanding of the impact and value of complex, community-level interventions.

Highlights • HEALing Communities Study is a parallel-group cluster randomized controlled trial. • Communities That HEAL intervention’s goal is to reduce opioid overdose deaths. • Structured consensus decision-making strategy guided study measure development. • More than 80 study measure specifications and a common data model were developed. • The study will provide methodology and longitudinal community data for research., Background Opioid overdose deaths remain high in the U.S. Despite having effective interventions to prevent overdose deaths, there are numerous barriers that impede their adoption. The primary aim of the HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is to determine the impact of an intervention consisting of community-engaged, data-driven selection, and implementation of an integrated set of evidence-based practices (EBPs) on reducing opioid overdose deaths. Methods The HCS is a four year multi-site, parallel-group, cluster randomized wait-list controlled trial. Communities (n = 67) in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio are randomized to active intervention (Wave 1), which starts the intervention in Year 1 or the wait-list control (Wave 2), which starts the intervention in Year 3. The HCS will test a conceptually driven framework to assist communities in selecting and adopting EBPs with three components: 1) A community engagement strategy with local coalitions to guide and implement the intervention; 2) A compendium of EBPs coupled with technical assistance; and 3) A series of communication campaigns to increase awareness and demand for EBPs and reduce stigma. An implementation science framework guides the intervention and allows for examination of the multilevel contexts that promote or impede adoption and expansion of EBPs. The primary outcome, number of opioid overdose deaths, will be compared between Wave 1 and Wave 2 communities during Year 2 of the intervention for Wave 1. Numerous secondary outcomes will be examined. Discussion The HCS is the largest community-based implementation study in the field of addiction with an ambitious goal of significantly reducing fatal opioid overdoses.

This study aimed to investigate whether state Medicaid programs systematically reimburse psychiatrists less than they reimburse primary care physicians.This study used outpatient Medicaid claims data from 2014 for 11 U.S. states. Claims with a primary behavioral health diagnosis (i.e., mental or substance use disorder) and an evaluation and management procedure code of 99213 or 99214 were identified. These are the most frequently used procedure codes by both psychiatrists and primary care physicians when treating patients with mental and substance use disorders. Average reimbursements were compared for nonfacility claims submitted by psychiatrists and primary care physicians.In 9 states, psychiatrists were reimbursed less on average than primary care physicians. In one state, reimbursements were nearly equivalent.Disparities in reimbursements across specialties may reduce access to psychiatric specialty care through Medicaid and are inconsistent with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.

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 criminal justice 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 total costs from a broader 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 a broader social perspective.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality and contribute to inefficient use of healthcare services. Hospitalized medical/surgical patients with comorbid SUD are at elevated risk of hospital readmission and poor outcomes. Thus, effective interventions are needed to help such patients during hospitalization and post-discharge. This article reports the rationale, methodological design, and progress to date on a randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of Navigation Services to Avoid Rehospitalization (NavSTAR) vs Treatment-as-Usual (TAU) for hospital medical/surgical patients with comorbid SUD (N = 400). Applying Andersen’s theoretical model of health service utilization, NavSTAR employed Patient Navigation and motivational interventions to promote entry into SUD treatment, facilitate adherence to recommendations for medical follow-up and self-care, address basic needs, and prevent the recurrent use of hospital services. As part of the NavSTAR service model, Patient Navigators embedded within the SUD consultation service at a large urban hospital delivered patient-centered, proactive navigation and motivational services initiated during the hospital stay and continued for up to 3 months post-discharge. Participants randomized to TAU received usual care from the hospital and the SUD consultation service, which included referral to SUD treatment but no continued contact post-hospital discharge. Hospital service utilization will be determined via review of electronic health records and the regional Health Information Exchange. Participants were assessed at baseline and again at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up on various measures of healthcare utilization, substance use, and functioning. The primary outcome of interest is time-to-rehospitalization through 12 months. In addition, a range of secondary outcomes spanning the medical and SUD service areas will be assessed. The study will include a health economic evaluation of NavSTAR. If NavSTAR proves to be effective and cost-effective in this high-risk patient group, it would have important implications for addressing the needs of hospital patients with comorbid SUD, designing hospital discharge planning services, informing cost containment initiatives, and improving public health.

Introduction Although substance use is common among probationers in the United States, treatment initiation remains an ongoing problem. Among the explanations for low treatment initiation are that probationers are insufficiently motivated to seek treatment, and that probation staff have insufficient training and resources to use evidence-based strategies such as motivational interviewing. A web-based intervention based on motivational enhancement principles may address some of the challenges of initiating treatment but has not been tested to date in probation settings. The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a computerized intervention, Motivational Assessment Program to Initiate Treatment (MAPIT), relative to face-to-face Motivational Interviewing (MI) and supervision as usual (SAU), delivered at the outset of probation. Methods The intervention took place in probation departments in two U.S. cities. The baseline sample comprised 316 participants (MAPIT = 104, MI = 103, and SAU = 109), 90% (n = 285) of whom completed the 6-month follow-up. Costs were estimated from study records and time logs kept by interventionists. The effectiveness outcome was self-reported initiation into any treatment (formal or informal) within 2 and 6 months of the baseline interview. The cost-effectiveness analysis involved assessing dominance and computing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Implementation costs were used in the base case of the cost-effectiveness analysis, which excludes both a hypothetical license fee to recoup development costs and startup costs. An intent-to-treat approach was taken. Results MAPIT cost $79.37 per participant, which was ~$55 lower than the MI cost of $134.27 per participant. Appointment reminders comprised a large proportion of the cost of the MAPIT and MI intervention arms. In the base case, relative to SAU, MAPIT cost $6.70 per percentage point increase in the probability of initiating treatment. If a decision-maker is willing to pay $15 or more to improve the probability of initiating treatment by 1%, estimates suggest she can be 70% confident that MAPIT is good value relative to SAU at the 2-month follow-up and 90% confident that MAPIT is good value at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusions Web-based MAPIT may be good value compared to in-person delivered alternatives. This conclusion is qualified because the results are not robust to narrowing the outcome to initiating formal treatment only. Further work should explore ways to improve access to efficacious treatment in probation settings.

ObjectivePrevious research suggests that some adolescents are using e-cigarette devices to vaporise (‘vaping’) cannabis in the form of hash oil, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) wax or oil, or dried cannabis buds or leaves. However, it is unclear how adolescents who vape cannabis use other tobacco products. This study examined the extent to which adolescents reported ever vaping cannabis and investigated how demographic variables and tobacco behaviours were associated with use.DesignWe used cross-sectional data from adolescents (total response rate 64.5%) who participated in the 2017 North Carolina Youth Tobacco Survey. SAS logistic regression survey procedures were used to account for the complex survey design and sampling weights.SettingNorth Carolina, USA.ParticipantsAdolescents in high school (n=2835).Primary outcome and measureAdolescents were asked to indicate whether they had ever used an e-cigarette device with marijuana, THC or hash oil, or THC wax.ResultsApproximately 1 in 10 high school students reported ever vaping cannabis in the overall sample (9.6%). In multivariable models, adolescents who reported using cigars (adjusted OR (aOR) 3.76, 95% CI 2.33 to 6.07), waterpipe (aOR 2.32, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.93) or e-cigarettes (aOR 3.18, 95% CI 2.38 to 4.25) in the past 30 days had higher odds of reporting ever vaping cannabis compared with their counterparts. There was no significant association between use of smokeless tobacco (aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.91) or use of cigarettes (aOR 1.27, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.29) in the past 30 days and odds of reporting ever vaping cannabis.ConclusionsThese findings provide evidence that large numbers of high school students who use tobacco products have vaped cannabis. As tobacco control policies—such as communication campaigns or smoke-free laws—increasingly focus on e-cigarettes, attention to understanding how adolescents use e-cigarettes to vape substances other than nicotine is essential.

This study examines the relationship between self-reports of being high on marijuana and perceptions about driving high or drunk. Data were collected in 2014 from an online convenience sample of adult, past 30-day marijuana and hashish users in Colorado and Washington (n = 865). Respondents were asked, "Were you high or feeling the effects of marijuana or hashish when you took this survey?" Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between being high and beliefs about driving high, controlling for demographics and marijuana use. Respondents who reported being high at the time of survey administration had higher odds of agreeing with the statements, "I can safely drive under the influence of marijuana" (OR = 3.13, P < 0.001) and "I can safely drive under the influence of alcohol" (OR = 3.71, P < 0.001) compared with respondents who did not report being high. Respondents who were high also had higher odds of being open to driving high under certain circumstances. Being high may influence perceptions about the safety of drugged and drunk driving. The effectiveness of public health messages to prevent drugged and drunk driving may depend in part on how persuasive they are among individuals who are high.

A challenge for evaluating alcohol treatment efficacy is determining what constitutes a "good" outcome or meaningful improvement. Abstinence at the end of treatment is an unambiguously good outcome; however, a focus on abstinence ignores the potential benefits of patients reducing their drinking to less problematic levels. Patients may be drinking at low-risk levels at the end of treatment but may be high-functioning and impose few social costs. In this study, we estimate the relationship between drinking at the end of COMBINE treatment and subsequent healthcare costs with an emphasis on heavy and nonheavy drinking levels.Indicators of heavy drinking days (HDDs; 5+ drinks for men, 4+ for women) and nonheavy drinking days (non-HDDs) during the last 30 days of COMBINE treatment were constructed for 748 patients enrolled in the COMBINE Economic Study. Generalized linear models were used to model total costs following COMBINE treatment as a function of drinking indicators. Different model specifications analyzed alternative counts of HDDs (e.g., 1 HDD and 2 to 30 HDDs), and groups having Both non-HDDs and HDDs.Patients with HDDs had 66.4% (p 0.01) higher healthcare costs than those who were abstinent. Having more than 2 HDDs was associated with the highest costs (75.9%, p 0.01). Patients with non-HDDs had costs that were not significantly different than abstainers, even if they also had HDDs. However, those with HDDs only had costs 91.7% higher than abstainers (p0.01).Having HDDs at the end of treatment is associated with higher costs. Patients who had Only HDDs at the end of treatment had worse subsequent outcomes than those who had Both non-HDDs and HDDs. These findings offer new context for evaluating treatment outcomes and provide new information on the association of drinking with consequences.

This study examined poly-drug use involving the use of cannabis with nonmedical prescription pain reliever use (NMPR) and alcohol use.Computer-assisted survey data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health were examined. The NSDUH is an annual, cross-sectional survey of non-institutionalized citizens in the United States (ages 12+). Replicate analyses were conducted using the 2013 and 2003 survey waves.Higher levels of cannabis use were consistently associated with more frequent consumption of prescription pain relievers, with findings replicating in both 2013 and 2003. While the prevalence of dual users declined from 2003 (2.5%) to 2013 (2.3%), the average number of days used among dual users increased by an average of 20 days over that period. These changes largely occurred among those aged 35 or older, males, whites, and non-illicit drug users. Past-year marijuana use increased by 16% (10.8-12.6%, p-value.001) whereas NMPR decreased by 15% (4.9-4.2%, p-value.001). The largest changes occurred after 2011. Persons using the most cannabis generally had higher levels of alcohol use relative to those using the least amount of cannabis. There was a significant increase in the prevalence of dual use between 2003 (10.2%) and 2013 (11.6%), while the prevalence of past-year alcohol use remained relatively stable.Clinical efforts and public health interventions should consider the possible co-ingestion of cannabis with NMPR and alcohol, as concomitant use may portend negative health effects in the short and long-term.

Background Although treatment of opioid use disorders (OUD) with medications is expanding, the extent to which practitioners are prescribing medications following best practices has received little attention. Objective The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which privately insured patients being treated for OUD with buprenorphine were treated in a manner consistent with practice guidelines. Design Longitudinal analyses of a large commercial claims dataset from 2012 to 2016. Participants We analyzed data for 38,517 patients with an OUD diagnosis continuously enrolled for 3 months prior to and 6 months after an initial buprenorphine or buprenorphine–naloxone prescription fill. Main measures We evaluated whether practitioners tested patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV, and liver function; how often they received urine drug screens; the frequency of outpatient visits; and the extent to which they filled prescriptions for buprenorphine for at least 6 months. Key results Practitioners tested approximately 4.7% of patients for hepatitis B, 6.5% for hepatitis C, and 29.3% for HIV; they tested 8.0% for liver functioning; and gave 33.3% urine drug tests. Approximately 76% of patients had at least one outpatient visit for their OUD. Among those with at least one visit, the mean number of visits was 7.38. After the initial prescription, 47.5% stayed on buprenorphine for at least 6 months. Conclusions A large portion of privately insured patients receiving buprenorphine for OUD did not receive care consistent with guidelines.

Key Points Question Is prior authorization associated with reduced use of buprenorphine-naloxone and increased emergency department visits and hospitalizations? Findings This comparative interrupted time series analysis of Medicare beneficiaries with opioid use disorders found that Medicare Part D plans that removed prior authorization had an associated increase in the use of buprenorphine-naloxone, whereas plans that added prior authorization had an associated decrease in buprenorphine-naloxone use. Higher rates of buprenorphine-naloxone use were associated with lower emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Meaning These findings suggest that policies to remove prior authorization on buprenorphine-naloxone may be associated with increased use of these medications and improved health care outcomes., This study uses a comparative interrupted time series analysis to examine the association of prior authorization with use of buprenorphine-naloxone and health care outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries., Importance Prior authorization requirements may be a barrier to accessing medications for opioid use disorder treatment and may, therefore, be associated with poor health care outcomes. Objective To determine the association of prior authorization with use of buprenorphine-naloxone and health care outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants This comparative interrupted time series analysis examined enrollment and insurance claims data from Medicare beneficiaries with an opioid use disorder diagnosis or who filled a prescription for an opioid use disorder medication between 2012 and 2017. Over this period, 775 874 members were in 1479 Part D plans that always required prior authorization, 113 286 members were in 206 plans that removed prior authorization, 189 461 members were in 489 plans that never required prior authorization, and 619 919 members were in 485 plans that added prior authorization. Data analysis was performed from April 2019 to February 2020. Exposures Removal or addition of prior authorization and new prescriptions filled for buprenorphine-naloxone. Main Outcomes and Measures Buprenorphine-naloxone use, inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, and prescription drug and medical expenditures. Results The study population in 2012 included 949 206 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 57 [15] years; 550 445 women [58%]). Removal of prior authorization was associated with an increase of 17.9 prescriptions (95% CI, 1.1 to 34.7 prescriptions) filled for buprenorphine-naloxone per plan per year, which is a doubling of the number of prescriptions, on average. Each prescription filled was associated with statistically significant decreases in adverse health care outcomes: substance use disorder–related inpatient admissions decreased by 0.1 admission per plan per year (95% CI, −0.2 to −0.1 admission per plan per year), and substance use disorder–related emergency department visits decreased by 0.1 visit per plan per year (95% CI, −0.13 to −0.03 visit per plan per year) (all P

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.

In this article, the authors estimate implementation costs for illicit drug screening and brief intervention (SBI) and identify a key source of variation in cost estimates noted in the alcohol SBI literature. This is the first study of the cost of SBI for drug use only.Using primary data collected from a clinical trial of illicit drug SBI (n = 528) and a hybrid costing approach, we estimated a per-service implementation cost for screening and two models of brief intervention. A taxonomy of activities was first compiled, and then resources and prices were attached to estimate the per-activity cost. Two components of the implementation cost, direct service delivery and service support costs, were estimated separately.Per-person cost estimates were $15.61 for screening, $38.94 for a brief negotiated interview, and $252.26 for an adaptation of motivational interviewing. (Amounts are in 2011 U.S. dollars.) Service support costs per patient are 5 to 7.5 times greater than direct service delivery costs per patient. Ongoing clinical supervision costs are the largest component of service support costs.Implementation cost estimates for illicit drug brief intervention vary greatly depending on the brief intervention method, and service support is the largest component of SBI costs. Screening and brief intervention cost estimates for drug use are similar to those published for alcohol SBI. Direct service delivery cost estimates are similar to costs at the low end of the distribution identified in the alcohol literature. The magnitude of service support costs may explain the larger cost estimates at the high end of the alcohol SBI cost distribution.

To inform potential governmental regulations, we aimed to develop a list of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) product features important to U.S. consumers by age and gender. We employed qualitative data methods. Participants were eligible if they had used an ENDS at least once. Groups were selected by age and gender (young adult group aged 18–25, n = 11; middle-age group aged 26–64, n = 9; and women’s group aged 26–64, n = 9). We conducted five individual older adult interviews (aged 68–80). Participants discussed important ENDS features. We conducted a structured content analysis of the group and interview responses. Of 34 participants, 68% were white and 56% were female. Participants mentioned 12 important ENDS features, including: (1) user experience; (2) social acceptability; (3) cost; (4) health risks/benefits; (5) ease of use; (6) flavors; (7) smoking cessation aid; (8) nicotine content; (9) modifiability; (10) ENDS regulation; (11) bridge between tobacco cigarettes; (12) collectability. The most frequently mentioned ENDS feature was modifiability for young adults, user experience for middle-age and older adults, and flavor for the women’s group. This study identified multiple features important to ENDS consumers. Groups differed in how they viewed various features by age and gender. These results can inform ongoing regulatory efforts.

Background: Twitter represents a social media platform through which medical cannabis dispensaries can rapidly promote and advertise a multitude of retail products. Yet, to date, no studies have systematically evaluated Twitter behavior among dispensaries and how these behaviors influence the formation of social networks. Objectives: This study sought to characterize common cyberbehaviors and shared follower networks among dispensaries operating in two large cannabis markets in California. Methods: From a targeted sample of 119 dispensaries in the San Francisco Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles, we collected metadata from the dispensary accounts using the Twitter API. For each city, we characterized the network structure of dispensaries based upon shared followers, then empirically derived communities with the Louvain modularity algorithm. Principal components factor analysis was employed to reduce 12 Twitter measures into a more parsimonious set of cyberbehavioral dimensions. Finally, quadratic discriminant analysis was implemented to verify the ability of the extracted dimensions to classify dispensaries into their derived communities. Results: The modularity algorithm yielded three communities in each city with distinct network structures. The principal components factor analysis reduced the 12 cyberbehaviors into five dimensions that encompassed account age, posting frequency, referencing, hyperlinks, and user engagement among the dispensary accounts. In the quadratic discriminant analysis, the dimensions correctly classified 75% (46/61) of the communities in the San Francisco Bay Area and 71% (41/58) in Greater Los Angeles. Conclusions: The most centralized and strongly connected dispensaries in both cities had newer accounts, higher daily activity, more frequent user engagement, and increased usage of embedded media, keywords, and hyperlinks. Measures derived from both network structure and cyberbehavioral dimensions can serve as key contextual indicators for the online surveillance of cannabis dispensaries and consumer markets over time. [J Med Internet Res 2017;19(7):e236]

ObjectiveTo understand the importance of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) product attributes to adult consumers in the USA by age and gender.DesignCross-sectional survey with a discrete choice experiment (best–worst, case 2, scaling) of 19 choice tasks in which participants answered what would make them most want to use and least want to use an ENDS product.Setting and participantsA national sample of adults (aged 18+ years) in the USA who had tried an ENDS product at least once.MeasuresWe included 9 ENDS attributes with levels that varied across 19 choice tasks. We performed a multinomial logistic regression to obtain overall importance scores, attribute-level part-worth utilities and most important attribute.ResultsOf 660 participants, 81% were white, 51% women and 37% had at least a 4-year college degree with an average age of 42.0 years (SD ±19.4). The attributes had the following importance: harms of use 17.6%; general effects 14.1%; cessation aid 12.6%; purchase price 12.1%; monthly cost 12.0%; nicotine content 11.4%; flavour availability 8.4%; device design 7.2%; modifiability 4.6%. Harms of use was the most important attribute for all ages and genders (pConclusionThis study identified the importance of nine ENDS attributes. Perceived harms of use of ENDS use appeared most important, and modifiability was least important. Variation by consumer group existed, which may allow for targeted interventions to modify ENDS use.

This study describes changes in the proportion of Medicare Part D plans requiring prior authorization for buprenorphine products before and after a 2017 FDA rquirement that the drug’s label emphasize the importance of drug treatment of opioid use disorder.

Prisons hold a disproportionate number of society’s drug abusers. Approximately 50% of state prisoners meet the criteria for a diagnosis of drug abuse or dependence; however, only 10% of prisoners receive drug treatment. Diverting offenders to community-based treatment has been shown to generate positive net social benefits. We build on a lifetime simulation model of a nationally representative state prison cohort to examine diversion from reincarceration to community-based substance abuse treatment. We find that diversion provides positive net societal benefits to the United States and cost savings to the national criminal justice system. Our study demonstrates the societal gains from improving access to the community drug treatment system as an alternative to prison.

This article summarizes the literature on the implementation costs of alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) in medical settings.Electronic databases were searched using SBI- and cost-related terms. Methodological approaches and cost estimates were abstracted from each study and categorized based on the cost methodology. Costs were updated to 2009 U.S. dollars. To determine a summary cost measure, we excluded outliers and computed the median of the remaining cost estimates.Seventeen studies with cost estimates were identified for further study. Costs ranged from $0.51 to $601.50 per screen and from $3.41 to $243.01 per brief intervention (BI). Cost estimates were lower when an activity-based cost methodology was used, in primary care settings, and when the provider was not a doctor. The median summary cost of a screen is approximately $4, and the median summary cost of a BI is approximately $48.Screening cost estimates had more variation than BI cost estimates. Provider type and service delivery time drive the cost variation. Interpretation of cost differences was limited by insufficient reporting of the cost methodology. Cost estimates presented here are similar in size to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and Current Procedural Terminology reimbursement amounts, suggesting that insurance-based service reimbursement may be sufficient to sustain alcohol SBI in practice.

Background Among the nearly 750,000 inmates in U.S. jails, 12% report using opioids regularly, 8% report use in the month prior to their offense, and 4% report use at the time of their offense. Although ample evidence exists that medications effectively treat Opiate Use Disorder (OUD) in the community, strong evidence is lacking in jail settings. The general lack of medications for OUD in jail settings may place persons suffering from OUD at high risk for relapse to drug use and overdose following release from jail. Methods The three study sites in this collaborative are pooling data for secondary analyses from three open-label randomized effectiveness trials comparing: (1) the initiation of extended-release naltrexone [XR-NTX] in Sites 1 and 2 and interim methadone in Site 3 with enhanced treatment-as usual (ETAU); (2) the additional benefit of patient navigation plus medications at Sites 2 and 3 vs. medication alone vs. ETAU. Participants are adults with OUD incarcerated in jail and transitioning to the community. Results We describe the rationale, specific aims, and designs of three separate studies harmonized to enhance their scientific yield to investigate how to best prevent jail inmates from relapsing to opioid use and associated problems as they transition back to the community. Conclusions Conducting drug abuse research during incarceration is challenging and study designs with data harmonization across different sites can increase the potential value of research to develop effective treatments for individuals in jail with OUD.

Methadone maintenance is an effective treatment for opioid dependence but is rarely initiated in US jails. Patient navigation is a promising approach to improve continuity of care but has not been tested in bridging the gap between jail- and community-based drug treatment programs.This is an open-label randomized clinical trial among 300 adult opioid dependent newly-arrested detainees that will compare three treatment conditions: methadone maintenance without routine counseling (termed Interim Methadone; IM) initiated in jail v. IM and patient navigation v. enhanced treatment-as-usual. The two primary outcomes will be: (1) the rate of entry into treatment for opioid use disorder within 30days from release and (2) frequency of opioid positive urine tests over the 12-month follow-up period. An economic analysis will examine the costs, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit ratio of the study interventions.We describe the background and rationale for the study, its aims, hypotheses, and study design.Given the large number of opioid dependent detainees in the US and elsewhere, initiating IM at the time of incarceration could be a significant public health and clinical approach to reducing relapse, recidivism, HIV-risk behavior, and criminal behavior. An economic analysis will be conducted to assist policy makers in determining the utility of adopting this approach. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02334215.

Objective: Most cost and cost-effectiveness studies of substance abuse treatments focus on the costs to the provider/payer. Although this perspective is important, the costs incurred by patients should also be considered when evaluating treatment. This article presents estimates of patients’ costs associated with the Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions (COMBINE) alcohol treatments and evaluates the treatments’ cost-effectiveness from the patient perspective. Study Design: A prospective cost-effectiveness study of patients in COMBINE, a randomized controlled clinical trial of 9 alternative alcohol treatment regimens involving 1383 patients with diagnoses of primary alcohol dependence across 11 US clinic sites. We followed a microcosting approach that allowed estimation of patients’ costs for specific COMBINE treatment activities. The primary clinical outcomes from COMBINE are used as indicators of treatment effectiveness. Results: The average total patient time devoted to treatment ranged from about 30 hours to 46 hours. Time spent traveling to and from treatment sessions and participation in self-help meetings accounted for the largest portion of patient time costs. The cost-effectiveness results indicate that 6 of the 9 treatments were economically dominated and only 3 treatments are potentially cost-effective depending on patient’s willingness to pay for the considered outcomes: medical management (MM) placebo, MM naltrexone, and MM naltrexone acamprosate. Conclusions: Few studies consider the patient’s perspective in estimating costs and cost-effectiveness even though these costs may have a substantial impact on a patient’s treatment choice, ability to access treatment, or treatment adherence. For this study, the choice of the most cost-effective treatment depends on the value placed on the outcomes by the patient, and the conclusions drawn by the patient may differ from that of the provider/payer.

Price data contained in either cross-sectional or panel-data surveys is inherently censored due to the data-collection methodology of these surveys. As a result, an OLS price-tenure regression will yiel d inconsistent estimates of those parameters which theoretical models imply are of interest. The authors demonstrate that censoring is not only present in many data sets but that censoring-corrected estimate s of these critical parameters are dramatically different from those where censoring is assumed not to exist ex ante. Copyright 1987 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Although a limited number of service cost estimates exist, no study has evaluated how differences in the method used to collect the staff time allocation across treatment services contribute to differences in service cost estimates. Three alternative data collection methods for estimating service-level costs in methadone treatment programs were evaluated: key informants, staff surveys, and staff diaries. We analyzed data from 25 methadone clinics across the United States. Results indicate that for the three primary services offered at methadone clinics—individual counseling, group counseling, and methadone dosing—no statistically significant differences exist in the mean estimates of costs per session across programs. Of the other five services analyzed, we found no statistically significant differences in two of the mean costs per session and a small but statistically significant difference in another service. We found large and statistically significant differences in mean costs for two services, initial patient assessment and initial medical services. Although there is no gold standard available to judge which method is the best to use, we concluded that the key informant method yields more reliable cost estimates compared with the staff methods and is less burdensome to both the treatment programs and to researchers. Our findings suggest that the key informant method is the preferred method for costing substance abuse treatment services.

Although a substantial literature provides estimates of the total and per-patient costs for substance abuse treatment, relatively little is known about what drives these costs or why large variation in treatment costs is often observed across programs. In this paper, we use data from a multistate sample of methadone treatment programs to examine the factors that drive the costs of providing outpatient methadone treatment. Understanding these factors has become particularly important given the limited funding for treatment and the demand for greater fiscal accountability for the services delivered. Moreover, this information is a crucial piece in understanding the delivery of treatment services as providers and policy makers continue to strive toward cost-effective treatment. Numerous studies have examined costs for hospitals, physician practices, and other medical services (Reinhardt 1972; Grannemann, Brown, and Pauly 1986; Breyer 1987; Nyman and Dowd 1991; Goodman et al. 1992; McAvinchey and Yannopoulos 1994; Wholey et al. 1996; Carey 1997; Goodman, Nishiura, and Hankin 1998; McNamee et al. 1998; Andersen, Andersen, and Kragh-Sorensen 2000; Bilodeau, Cremieux, and Oullette 2000). Perhaps the most relevant lesson from this literature is that, in addition to examining the influence of output and input prices on cost, the empirical specification should control for other variables that may affect costs. These variables include program characteristics such as ownership structure, urbanicity of the facility's geographic location, and severity of the program's patients. A specification that includes output, input prices, and these other program characteristics is known as a hybrid cost function (Rosko and Broyles 1988). Using data from the 1996 Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS), Duffy et al. (2004) estimated a hybrid cost function for 222 outpatient nonmethadone substance abuse treatment programs. In addition to measures of annual admissions (as a measure of output) and staff wages and rent (as measures of input prices), Duffy et al. include in their model several variables capturing facility characteristics (e.g., age, ownership, urbanicity) and patient case mix (e.g., patient race/ethnicity, percentage of criminal justice referrals). The authors found that a 10 percent increase in admissions yielded a 6.7 percent increase in total annual costs. In addition, the percentage of clients who received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) was positively associated with total annual costs. No other explanatory variables were statistically significant. Harwood, Kallinius, and Liu (2001) estimated the relationship between total cost per patient day and average daily client census for 60 residential treatment programs. Average daily census was the only explanatory variable in the regression model. Harwood and colleagues found that larger programs had lower costs per day and that a 10 percent increase in average daily census is associated with decreases in the cost per patient day ranging from 3.5 to 10.7 percent. Studies of methadone treatment over the past 25 years have rarely provided information on how a treatment program's costs vary with its output and input prices. But, as new funding mechanisms are being adopted and patients and providers face increasing pressures to reduce services and control costs, meaningful information on the relationship between program costs, program output, and treatment inputs is needed. Understanding this relationship may help methadone treatment providers in their decisions on staffing, setting reimbursement rates, and strategic business planning. In this study, we estimate a hybrid long-run cost function of outpatient methadone treatment programs. This study is significant because it examines the effect of key inputs and program characteristics on the costs of providing methadone treatment—the most common treatment modality for opioid abuse in the United States. To date, there are no published studies that examine how a methadone treatment program's costs vary with its output, input prices, and other relevant covariates.

Objective: This article assesses the ability of the economic outcome measures in the Economic Form 90 to detect differences across levels of alcohol dependence as measured by the Alcohol Dependence Scale. Method: We used baseline data from the Combining Medications and Behavioral Interventions (COMBINE) Study, a large, multisite clinical trial, to assess the extent to which the economic items on the Economic Form 90 instrument can detect differences across levels of alcohol dependence. Results: After adjusting for differences in demographic characteristics, the Economic Form 90 can detect significant differences across a range of dependence seventy levels for the economic outcomes of inpatient medical care, emergency-department medical care, behavioral health care, being on parole or probation, and missed workdays, conditional on being employed. We did not detect significant differences across dependence severity for employment status, outpatient medical care, other criminal justice involvement, or motor vehicle accidents. Conclusions: The Economic Form 90 can identify differences in many economic outcomes associated with differing levels of alcohol dependence. This suggests that the Economic Form 90 may be useful in assessing changes in economic outcomes that result from changes in alcohol dependence.

Background: Persons appearing in trauma centers have a higher prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use than the general population. Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is designed to moderate drinking levels and avoid costly future readmissions, but few studies have examined the impact of SBI on hospital readmissions and health care costs in a trauma population. Research Design: This study uses comparative interrupted time-series and the Arizona State Inpatient Database to estimate the effect of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma SBI mandate on the probability of readmission and cost per readmission in Arizona trauma centers. We compare individuals with and without an alcohol diagnosis code before and after the mandate was implemented. Results: The mandate resulted in a 2.2 percentage point reduction (44%) in the probability of readmission. Total health care and readmission costs were not affected by the mandate. Conclusions: The estimates are consistent with a differential effect of SBI: SBI reduces readmissions among those who present with a less serious alcohol-related problem. Persons with more serious alcohol problems are less likely to respond to SBI. These higher risk individuals likely have a higher cost, which may explain the lack of change in readmission costs. Our study is a macrolevel intent-to-treat analysis of SBI’s impact that corroborates the potential of SBI implied by efficacy studies in trauma centers and other settings. This study provides a framework for future research involving more states and health systems and evaluating other SBI policies.

Background MAPIT is a three-arm randomized controlled trial assessing in-person Motivational Interviewing (MI) condition versus computerized (MAPIT )c ondition versus control. Our goal is to estimate the costs and cost-effectiveness for the study. We present preliminary findings on the startup costs and the implementation costs of the two intervention conditions, MI and MAPIT. To our knowledge, there is no published study of the cost-effectiveness of MI as a pretreatment intervention in a criminal justice setting. Similarly, there is no evidence to date on the cost-effectiveness of relevant web-based interventions in a criminal justice setting. An important contribution of this study is that it will address these significant gaps in the literature. Methods

The use of accreditation has been widespread among medical care providers, but accreditation is relatively new to the drug abuse treatment field. This study presents estimates of the costs of pursuing accreditation for methadone treatment sites. Data are from 102 methadone treatment sites that underwent accreditation as part of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment's evaluation of the Opioid Treatment Program Accreditation Project. The analysis represents the most comprehensive analysis of the costs of pursuing accreditation by a health care provider. Importantly, it is the first analysis of the costs of pursuing accreditation by drug treatment providers. Policy makers and drug treatment providers can use this analysis to plan the labor requirements and costs of future accreditation initiatives.

Objective: This article describes the methodology used in estimating the mean cost per patient of the interventions delivered in COMBINE, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions for outpatient treatment of alcohol dependence. Method: Our methodology identifies a broad list of nonresearch activities necessary to implement the COMBINE interventions in standard clinical practice. For each activity, we include the time costs of clinical assessments and interventions by staff, the cost of space, laboratory charges and the cost of medical supplies. We also estimate the patients' time used for each of these activities. Results: We present the estimated cost per activity for 15 intake assessments plus the Medical Management (MM) and Combined Behavioral Intervention (CBI) sessions for 9 of the 11 COMBINE sites. Labor costs represent the bulk of the total cost for all activities. The Form 90 AIR/ED is the most expensive intake activity both in terms of labor and space costs. The CBI session is more expensive than the MM session. Conclusions: Our methodology estimates the cost to treatment providers and to patients of implementing the COMBINE intervention in standard practice. Compared with previous methods, the prospective design of our methodology allows for higher quality data, and the detailed activity costing helps identify key cost drivers. Future analyses will present actual COMBINE intervention cost estimates based on trial data. Although this cost study is specific to the COMBINE interventions, the concepts, instruments and methods used here can be applied to any RCT.

In October 1990, the Kings County (Brooklyn, NY) District Attorney's Office implemented the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program to divert nonviolent felony drug offenders from prison to community-based residential drug treatment. This article presents an estimate of the costs and benefits of the DTAP program based on a cohort of DTAP participants and prison comparisons who entered treatment or prison in 1995–1996 and were tracked for 6 years. The analysis focuses on the criminal justice system (CJS) costs associated with criminal recidivism. Findings show that the DTAP program is cost-beneficial compared to the usual criminal justice process (benefit-cost ratio equals 2.17 after 6 years).