The cost of treating addiction from the client's perspective: results from a multi-modality application of the Client DATCAP

Predicting substance use disorder treatment follow-ups and relapse across the continuum of care at a single behavioral health center

INTRODUCTION

Substance use disorder is often a chronic condition, and its treatment requires patient access to a continuum of care, including inpatient, residential, partial hospitalization, intensive outpatient, and outpatient programs. Ideally, patients complete treatment at the most suitable level for their immediate individual needs, then transition to the next appropriate level. In practice, however, attrition rates are high, as many patients discharge before successfully completing a treatment program or struggle to transition to follow-up care after program discharge. Previous studies analyzed up to two programs at a time in single-center datasets, meaning no studies have assessed patient attrition and follow-up behavior across all five levels of substance use treatment programs in parallel.

METHODS

To address this major gap, this retrospective study collected patient demographics, enrollment, discharge, and outcomes data across five substance use treatment levels at a large Midwestern psychiatric hospital from 2017 to 2019. Data analyses used descriptive statistics and regression analyses.

RESULTS

Analyses found several differences in treatment engagement based on patient-level variables. Inpatients were more likely to identify as Black or female compared to lower-acuity programs. Patients were less likely to step down in care if they were younger, Black, had Medicare coverage were discharging from inpatient treatment, or had specific behavioral health diagnoses. Patients were more likely to relapse if they were male or did not engage in follow-up SUD treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies should assess mechanisms by which these variables influence treatment access, develop programmatic interventions that encourage appropriate transitions between programs, and determine best practices for increasing access to treatment.

Effectiveness of a pharmacist-delivered primary care telemedicine intervention to increase access to pharmacotherapy and specialty treatment for alcohol use problems: Protocol for the alcohol telemedicine consult cluster-randomized pragmatic trial

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use problems are associated with serious medical, mental health and socio-economic consequences. Yet even when patients are identified in healthcare settings, most do not receive treatment, and use of pharmacotherapy is rare. This study will test the effectiveness of the Alcohol Telemedicine Consult (ATC) Service, a novel, personalized telehealth intervention approach for primary care patients with alcohol use problems.

METHODS

This cluster-randomized pragmatic trial, supplemented by qualitative interviews, will include adults with a primary care visit between 9/10/21-3/10/23 from 16 primary care clinics at two large urban medical centers within Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large, integrated healthcare system. Clinics are randomized to the ATC Service (intervention), including alcohol pharmacotherapy and SBIRT (screening, MI (Motivational Interviewing)-based brief intervention and referral to addiction treatment) delivered by clinical pharmacists, or the Usual Care (UC) arm that provides systematic alcohol SBIRT. Primary outcomes include a comparison of the ATC and UC arms on 1) implementation outcomes (alcohol pharmacotherapy prescription rates, specialty addiction treatment referrals); and 2) patient outcomes (medication fills, addiction treatment initiation, alcohol use, healthcare services utilization) over 1.5 years. A general modeling approach will consider clustering of patients/providers, and a random effects model will account for intra-class correlations across patients within providers and across clinics. Qualitative interviews with providers will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation.

DISCUSSION

The ATC study examines the effectiveness of a pharmacist-provided telehealth intervention that combines pharmacotherapy and MI-based consultation. If effective, the ATC study could affect treatment models across the spectrum of alcohol use problems.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

This study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05252221).

Estimation of the cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention portfolios for people who inject drugs in the United States: A model-based analysis

BACKGROUND

The risks of HIV transmission associated with the opioid epidemic make cost-effective programs for people who inject drugs (PWID) a public health priority. Some of these programs have benefits beyond prevention of HIV-a critical consideration given that injection drug use is increasing across most United States demographic groups. To identify high-value HIV prevention program portfolios for US PWID, we consider combinations of four interventions with demonstrated efficacy: opioid agonist therapy (OAT), needle and syringe programs (NSPs), HIV testing and treatment (Test & Treat), and oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We adapted an empirically calibrated dynamic compartmental model and used it to assess the discounted costs (in 2015 US dollars), health outcomes (HIV infections averted, change in HIV prevalence, and discounted quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the four prevention programs, considered singly and in combination over a 20-y time horizon. We obtained epidemiologic, economic, and health utility parameter estimates from the literature, previously published models, and expert opinion. We estimate that expansions of OAT, NSPs, and Test & Treat implemented singly up to 50% coverage levels can be cost-effective relative to the next highest coverage level (low, medium, and high at 40%, 45%, and 50%, respectively) and that OAT, which we assume to have immediate and direct health benefits for the individual, has the potential to be the highest value investment, even under scenarios where it prevents fewer infections than other programs. Although a model-based analysis can provide only estimates of health outcomes, we project that, over 20 y, 50% coverage with OAT could avert up to 22,000 (95% CI: 5,200, 46,000) infections and cost US$18,000 (95% CI: US$14,000, US$24,000) per QALY gained, 50% NSP coverage could avert up to 35,000 (95% CI: 8,900, 43,000) infections and cost US$25,000 (95% CI: US$7,000, US$76,000) per QALY gained, 50% Test & Treat coverage could avert up to 6,700 (95% CI: 1,200, 16,000) infections and cost US$27,000 (95% CI: US$15,000, US$48,000) per QALY gained, and 50% PrEP coverage could avert up to 37,000 (22,000, 58,000) infections and cost US$300,000 (95% CI: US$162,000, US$667,000) per QALY gained. When coverage expansions are allowed to include combined investment with other programs and are compared to the next best intervention, the model projects that scaling OAT coverage up to 50%, then scaling NSP coverage to 50%, then scaling Test & Treat coverage to 50% can be cost-effective, with each coverage expansion having the potential to cost less than US$50,000 per QALY gained relative to the next best portfolio. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, 59% of portfolios prioritized the addition of OAT and 41% prioritized the addition of NSPs, while PrEP was not likely to be a priority nor a cost-effective addition. Our findings are intended to be illustrative, as data on achievable coverage are limited and, in practice, the expansion scenarios considered may exceed feasible levels. We assumed independence of interventions and constant returns to scale. Extensive sensitivity analyses allowed us to assess parameter sensitivity, but the use of a dynamic compartmental model limited the exploration of structural sensitivities.

CONCLUSIONS

We estimate that OAT, NSPs, and Test & Treat, implemented singly or in combination, have the potential to effectively and cost-effectively prevent HIV in US PWID. PrEP is not likely to be cost-effective in this population, based on the scenarios we evaluated. While local budgets or policy may constrain feasible coverage levels for the various interventions, our findings suggest that investments in combined prevention programs can substantially reduce HIV transmission and improve health outcomes among PWID.

The Key to Individualized Addiction Treatment is Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring of Symptoms and Behavioral Change

Modern health services now strive for individualized treatment. This approach has been enabled by the increase in knowledge derived from neuroscience and genomics. Substance use disorders are no exception to individualized treatment even though there are no gene-specific medications yet available. What is available is the ability to quickly and precisely assess and monitor biopsychosocial variables known to vary during addiction recovery and which place addicts at increased risk of relapse. Monitoring a broad spectrum of biopsychosocial health enables providers to address diverse genome-specific changes that might trigger withdrawal from treatment or recovery relapse in time to prevent that from occurring. This paper describes modern measurement tools contained in the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and the NIH Toolbox and suggests how they might be applied to support recovery from alcohol and other substance use disorders in both pharmacological and abstinence-oriented modalities of care.

Economic analysis of a multi-site prevention program: assessment of program costs and characterizing site-level variability

Programmatic cost analyses of preventive interventions commonly have a number of methodological difficulties. To determine the mean total costs and properly characterize variability, one often has to deal with small sample sizes, skewed distributions, and especially missing data. Standard approaches for dealing with missing data such as multiple imputation may suffer from a small sample size, a lack of appropriate covariates, or too few details around the method used to handle the missing data. In this study, we estimate total programmatic costs for a prevention trial evaluating the Strong African American Families-Teen program. This intervention focuses on the prevention of substance abuse and risky sexual behavior. To account for missing data in the assessment of programmatic costs we compare multiple imputation to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The latter approach uses collected cost data to create a distribution around each input parameter. We found that with the multiple imputation approach, the mean (95 % confidence interval) incremental difference was $2,149 ($397, $3,901). With the probabilistic sensitivity analysis approach, the incremental difference was $2,583 ($778, $4,346). Although the true cost of the program is unknown, probabilistic sensitivity analysis may be a more viable alternative for capturing variability in estimates of programmatic costs when dealing with missing data, particularly with small sample sizes and the lack of strong predictor variables. Further, the larger standard errors produced by the probabilistic sensitivity analysis method may signal its ability to capture more of the variability in the data, thus better informing policymakers on the potentially true cost of the intervention.

The cost of providing methadone maintenance treatment in Ontario, Canada

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost of providing methadone maintenance treatment in Ontario, Canada, from the perspective of the public payer.

METHODS

We analyzed a database of all patient clinic visits, laboratory tests for urine toxicology screening, and methadone scripts from a group of methadone clinics in Ontario. The database consisted of patient visits and visit information from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2009. We estimated the cost of providing methadone maintenance treatment as the sum of physician costs, laboratory costs for urine samples (toxicology screens), methadone costs, and pharmacy costs. Pharmacy costs include dispensing fees and markups. All costs are expressed in 2010 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

The database consisted of 9479 unique patients. The average age on the date of the first recorded visit was 34.3, and among the patients 62.3% were male. There were 6,425,937 patient days of treatment and the total cost of all treatment-related services was approximately $99,491,000. The total cost was comprised of physician billing (9.8%), pharmacy costs (39.8%), methadone (3.8%), and performing urine toxicology screens (46.7%). The average cost per day for treatment was $15.48, corresponding to $5651per year if patients were to remain in treatment continuously.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost of providing methadone maintenance treatment in Ontario is comparable to estimates from the United States and Australia.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

This information is important to policy makers for planning and budgeting purposes and as part of a full cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis of methadone treatment.

The cost of integrated HIV care and buprenorphine/naloxone treatment: results of a cross-site evaluation

BACKGROUND

Implementing integrated HIV and buprenorphine/naloxone treatment requires cost estimates to plan and obtain funding.

METHODS

We identified costs incurred at HIV clinical sites participating in a cross-site evaluation of integrated care that followed patients for 1 year. Costs include labor, overhead, and urine toxicology analyses (clinic perspective), buprenorphine/naloxone (payer perspective) and patient time and transportation (patient perspective). Sites provided resource utilization quarterly, and providers estimated time required for each activity. With site as the unit of analysis, results are reported as median (range) of average site costs in 2008 US dollars.

RESULTS

The median number of monthly provider encounters for integrated care patients was 3.2 (1.5-13.3) compared with 1.7 (1.1-4.2) for similar patients not in integrated care, but integrated care patients had fewer physician encounters. Median monthly clinic costs per integrated care patient were $136 ($67-$677) for labor and overhead and $8 ($2-$23) for toxicology analyses, $22 higher than clinic costs for patients not in integrated care. Median monthly costs for buprenorphine/naloxone were $209 ($165-$272), and monthly patient costs in integrated care were $11 ($1-$54) higher.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated HIV and buprenorphine/naloxone treatment requires different resources, including costs that are not third-party reimbursed. Implementing integrated care will require funding for training and for new staff such as buprenorphine coordinators, in addition to reimbursement for buprenorphine/naloxone. Further research is needed to identify potential cost offsets outside of the clinic setting.