Ettner Susan L, Huang David, Evans Elizabeth, Ash Danielle Rose, Hardy Mary, Jourabchi Mickel, Hser Yih-Ing
Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1736, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2006 Feb;41(1):192-213. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00466.x.
To examine costs and monetary benefits associated with substance abuse treatment.
Primary and administrative data on client outcomes and agency costs from 43 substance abuse treatment providers in 13 counties in California during 2000-2001.
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.
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).
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.
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.
研究与药物滥用治疗相关的成本和货币收益。
2000 - 2001年期间加利福尼亚州13个县的43家药物滥用治疗机构提供的关于客户治疗结果和机构成本的原始数据及行政数据。
从社会规划者的角度出发,将估计的治疗直接成本与相关的货币收益进行比较,这些收益包括客户的医疗保健成本、心理健康服务成本、犯罪活动成本、收入,以及(从政府角度看)转移支付项目支出。通过将客户在每种治疗方式中花费的天数乘以该治疗方式估计的每日平均成本来估算客户药物滥用治疗疗程的成本。使用治疗前后入院研究设计来估算与治疗相关的货币收益,即每个客户作为自己的对照。
使用药物滥用治疗成本分析项目工具从治疗机构收集治疗成本数据。对于2567名客户的主要样本,通过基线和9个月随访访谈获得了关于住院治疗、急诊就诊、收入和转移支付的信息,并将其与行政数据库中关于住院和门诊心理健康服务使用情况以及犯罪活动的信息相链接。敏感性分析考察了更大样本量(N = 6545)和更长时间段(1年)的行政数据结果。
平均而言,药物滥用治疗成本为1583美元,对社会的货币收益为11487美元,收益成本比大于7:1。这些收益主要源于犯罪成本的降低和就业收入的增加。
即使不考虑改善健康和生活质量给客户带来的直接价值,将纳税人的钱用于药物滥用治疗也可能是一项明智的投资。