Benefit–Cost in the California Treatment Outcome Project: Does Substance Abuse Treatment “Pay for Itself”?
- 20 October 2005
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Health Services Research
- Vol. 41 (1), 192-213
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00466.x
Abstract
Objective. To examine costs and monetary benefits associated with substance abuse treatment. Data Sources. Primary and administrative data on client outcomes and agency costs from 43 substance abuse treatment providers in 13 counties in California during 2000–2001. Study Design. Using a social planner perspective, the estimated direct cost of treatment was compared with the associated monetary benefits, including the client's costs of medical care, mental health services, criminal activity, earnings, and (from the government's perspective) transfer program payments. The cost of the client's substance abuse treatment episode was estimated by multiplying the number of days that the client spent in each treatment modality by the estimated average per diem cost of that modality. Monetary benefits associated with treatment were estimated using a pre–posttreatment admission study design, i.e., each client served as his or her own control. Data Collection. Treatment cost data were collected from providers using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program instrument. For the main sample of 2,567 clients, information on medical hospitalizations, emergency room visits, earnings, and transfer payments was obtained from baseline and 9-month follow-up interviews, and linked to information on inpatient and outpatient mental health services use and criminal activity from administrative databases. Sensitivity analyses examined administrative data outcomes for a larger cohort (N=6,545) and longer time period (1 year). Principal Findings. On average, substance abuse treatment costs $1,583 and is associated with a monetary benefit to society of $11,487, representing a greater than 7:1 ratio of benefits to costs. These benefits were primarily because of reduced costs of crime and increased employment earnings. Conclusions. Even without considering the direct value to clients of improved health and quality of life, allocating taxpayer dollars to substance abuse treatment may be a wise investment.Keywords
This publication has 46 references indexed in Scilit:
- Investigating variation in the costs and benefits of addiction treatment: econometric analysis of the Chicago Target Cities ProjectEvaluation and Program Planning, 2003
- DATStats: results from 85 studies using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program (DATCAP)Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2003
- Benefit‐Cost Analysis of Addiction Treatment: Methodological Guidelines and Empirical Application Using the DATCAP and ASIHealth Services Research, 2002
- Brief Physician Advice for Problem Drinkers: Long‐Term Efficacy and Benefit‐Cost AnalysisAlcohol: Clinical and Experimental Research, 2002
- Can Encouraging Substance Abuse Patients to Participate in Self‐Help Groups Reduce Demand for Health Care? A Quasi‐Experimental StudyAlcohol: Clinical and Experimental Research, 2001
- The economic costs of heroin addiction in the United StatesDrug and Alcohol Dependence, 2001
- RESEARCH REPORT Alcoholism treatment and medical care costs from Project MATCHAddiction, 2000
- The costs of drug abuse consequences: A summary of research findingsJournal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 1996
- The Economic Impact of Diverting Substance-Abusing Offenders into TreatmentCrime & Delinquency, 1994
- The fifth edition of the addiction severity indexJournal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 1992