Emanuel Krebs1, Darren Urada2, Elizabeth Evans2, David Huang2, Yih-Ing Hser2, Bohdan Nosyk1,2,3. 1. British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2. UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Program, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Treatment for opioid use disorders (OUD) reduces the risk of mortality and infectious disease transmission; however, opportunities to quantify the potential economic benefits of associated decreases in drug-related crime are scarce. This paper aimed to estimate the costs of crime during and after periods of engagement in publicly funded treatment for OUD to compare total costs of crime during a hypothetical 6-month period following initiation of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) versus detoxification. DESIGN: Retrospective, administrative data-based cohort study with comprehensive information on drug treatment and criminal justice systems interactions. SETTING: Publicly funded drug treatment facilities in California, USA (2006-10). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 31 659 individuals admitted for the first time to treatment for OUD, and who were linked with criminal justice and mortality data, were followed during a median 2.3 years. Median age at first treatment admission was 32, 35.8% were women and 37.1% primarily used prescription opioids. MEASUREMENTS: Daily costs of crime (US$2014) were calculated from a societal perspective and were composed of the costs of policing, court, corrections and criminal victimization. We estimated the average marginal effect of treatment engagement in OAT or detoxification adjusting for potential fixed and time-varying confounders, including drug use and criminal justice system involvement prior to treatment initiation. FINDINGS: Daily costs of crime during treatment compared with after treatment were $126 lower for OAT [95% confidence interval (CI) = $116, $136] and $144 lower for detoxification (95% CI = $135, $154). Summing the costs of crime during and after treatment over a hypothetical 6-month period using the observed median durations of OAT (161 days) and detoxification (19 days), we estimated that enrolling an individual in OAT as opposed to detoxification would save $17 550 ($16 840, $18 383). CONCLUSIONS: In publicly funded drug treatment facilities in California, USA, engagement in treatment for opioid use disorders is associated with lower costs of crime in the 6 months following initiation of treatment, and the economic benefits were far greater for individuals receiving time-unlimited treatment.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Treatment for opioid use disorders (OUD) reduces the risk of mortality and infectious disease transmission; however, opportunities to quantify the potential economic benefits of associated decreases in drug-related crime are scarce. This paper aimed to estimate the costs of crime during and after periods of engagement in publicly funded treatment for OUD to compare total costs of crime during a hypothetical 6-month period following initiation of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) versus detoxification. DESIGN: Retrospective, administrative data-based cohort study with comprehensive information on drug treatment and criminal justice systems interactions. SETTING: Publicly funded drug treatment facilities in California, USA (2006-10). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 31 659 individuals admitted for the first time to treatment for OUD, and who were linked with criminal justice and mortality data, were followed during a median 2.3 years. Median age at first treatment admission was 32, 35.8% were women and 37.1% primarily used prescription opioids. MEASUREMENTS: Daily costs of crime (US$2014) were calculated from a societal perspective and were composed of the costs of policing, court, corrections and criminal victimization. We estimated the average marginal effect of treatment engagement in OAT or detoxification adjusting for potential fixed and time-varying confounders, including drug use and criminal justice system involvement prior to treatment initiation. FINDINGS: Daily costs of crime during treatment compared with after treatment were $126 lower for OAT [95% confidence interval (CI) = $116, $136] and $144 lower for detoxification (95% CI = $135, $154). Summing the costs of crime during and after treatment over a hypothetical 6-month period using the observed median durations of OAT (161 days) and detoxification (19 days), we estimated that enrolling an individual in OAT as opposed to detoxification would save $17 550 ($16 840, $18 383). CONCLUSIONS: In publicly funded drug treatment facilities in California, USA, engagement in treatment for opioid use disorders is associated with lower costs of crime in the 6 months following initiation of treatment, and the economic benefits were far greater for individuals receiving time-unlimited treatment.
Authors: Nabarun Dasgupta; Kathleen Creppage; Anna Austin; Christopher Ringwalt; Catherine Sanford; Scott K Proescholdbell Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Bohdan Nosyk; Daphne P Guh; Nicholas J Bansback; Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes; Suzanne Brissette; David C Marsh; Evan Meikleham; Martin T Schechter; Aslam H Anis Journal: CMAJ Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Elizabeth R Stevens; Kimberly A Nucifora; Holly Hagan; Ashly E Jordan; Jennifer Uyei; Bilal Khan; Kirk Dombrowski; Don des Jarlais; R Scott Braithwaite Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Emanuel Krebs; Jeong E Min; Elizabeth Evans; Libo Li; Lei Liu; David Huang; Darren Urada; Thomas Kerr; Yih-Ing Hser; Bohdan Nosyk Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Carlos Blanco; Mir M Ali; Aaron Beswick; Karen Drexler; Cheri Hoffman; Christopher M Jones; Tisha R A Wiley; Allan Coukell Journal: NAM Perspect Date: 2020-10-26
Authors: Brittany E Punches; Jennifer L Brown; Summer Soliman; Kimberly D Johnson; Caroline E Freiermuth; Quinn Walker; Shammah O Omololu; Michael S Lyons Journal: Pain Manag Nurs Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 2.356
Authors: Erica N Onuoha; Jared A Leff; Bruce R Schackman; Kathryn E McCollister; Daniel Polsky; Sean M Murphy Journal: Value Health Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 5.101
Authors: Mark Deyo-Svendsen; Matthew Cabrera Svendsen; James Walker; Andrea Hodges; Rachel Oldfather; Meghna P Mansukhani Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2020 Jan-Dec