Emanuel Krebs1, Benjamin Enns1, Elizabeth Evans1, Darren Urada1, M Douglas Anglin1, Richard A Rawson1, Yih-Ing Hser1, Bohdan Nosyk1. 1. From British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs and Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California; University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Amherst, Massachusetts; and Simon Fraser University Faculty of Health Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
Background: Only 1 in 5 of the nearly 2.4 million Americans with an opioid use disorder received treatment in 2015. Fewer than half of Californians who received treatment in 2014 received opioid agonist treatment (OAT), and regulations for admission to OAT in California are more stringent than federal regulations. Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of OAT for all treatment recipients compared with the observed standard of care for patients presenting with opioid use disorder to California's publicly funded treatment facilities. Design: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Data Sources: Linked population-level administrative databases capturing treatment and criminal justice records for California (2006 to 2010); published literature. Target Population: Persons initially presenting for publicly funded treatment of opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Intervention: Immediate access to OAT with methadone for all treatment recipients compared with the observed standard of care (54.3% initiate opioid use disorder treatment with medically managed withdrawal). Outcome Measures: Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and discounted costs. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Immediate access to OAT for all treatment recipients costs less (by $78 257), with patients accumulating more QALYs (by 0.42) than with the observed standard of care. In a hypothetical scenario where all Californians starting treatment of opioid use disorder in 2014 had immediate access to OAT, total lifetime savings for this cohort could be as high as $3.8 billion. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: 99.6% of the 2000 simulations resulted in lower costs and more QALYs. Limitation: Nonrandomized delivery of OAT or medically managed withdrawal. Conclusion: The value of publicly funded treatment of opioid use disorder in California is maximized when OAT is delivered to all patients presenting for treatment, providing greater health benefits and cost savings than the observed standard of care. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Background: Only 1 in 5 of the nearly 2.4 million Americans with an opioid use disorder received treatment in 2015. Fewer than half of Californians who received treatment in 2014 received opioid agonist treatment (OAT), and regulations for admission to OAT in California are more stringent than federal regulations. Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of OAT for all treatment recipients compared with the observed standard of care for patients presenting with opioid use disorder to California's publicly funded treatment facilities. Design: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Data Sources: Linked population-level administrative databases capturing treatment and criminal justice records for California (2006 to 2010); published literature. Target Population: Persons initially presenting for publicly funded treatment of opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Intervention: Immediate access to OAT with methadone for all treatment recipients compared with the observed standard of care (54.3% initiate opioid use disorder treatment with medically managed withdrawal). Outcome Measures: Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and discounted costs. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Immediate access to OAT for all treatment recipients costs less (by $78 257), with patients accumulating more QALYs (by 0.42) than with the observed standard of care. In a hypothetical scenario where all Californians starting treatment of opioid use disorder in 2014 had immediate access to OAT, total lifetime savings for this cohort could be as high as $3.8 billion. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: 99.6% of the 2000 simulations resulted in lower costs and more QALYs. Limitation: Nonrandomized delivery of OAT or medically managed withdrawal. Conclusion: The value of publicly funded treatment of opioid use disorder in California is maximized when OAT is delivered to all patients presenting for treatment, providing greater health benefits and cost savings than the observed standard of care. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
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: Sarah E Wakeman; Nancy A Rigotti; Yuchiao Chang; Grace E Herman; Ann Erwin; Susan Regan; Joshua P Metlay Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Magdalena Cerdá; Mohammad S Jalali; Ava D Hamilton; Catherine DiGennaro; Ayaz Hyder; Julian Santaella-Tenorio; Navdep Kaur; Christina Wang; Katherine M Keyes Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Sigal Maya; James G Kahn; Tracy K Lin; Laurie M Jacobs; Laura A Schmidt; William B Burrough; Rezvaneh Ghasemzadeh; Leyla Mousli; Matthew Allan; Maya Donovan; Erin Barker; Hacsi Horvath; Joanne Spetz; Claire D Brindis; Mohsen Malekinejad Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Emanuel Krebs; Xiao Zang; Benjamin Enns; Jeong E Min; Czarina N Behrends; Carlos Del Rio; Julia C Dombrowski; Daniel J Feaster; Kelly A Gebo; Brandon D L Marshall; Shruti H Mehta; Lisa R Metsch; Ankur Pandya; Bruce R Schackman; Steffanie A Strathdee; Bohdan Nosyk Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Elizabeth Beaulieu; Catherine DiGennaro; Erin Stringfellow; Ava Connolly; Ava Hamilton; Ayaz Hyder; Magdalena Cerdá; Katherine M Keyes; Mohammad S Jalali Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 5.725
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: Andrea K Finlay; Alex H S Harris; Christine Timko; Mengfei Yu; David Smelson; Matthew Stimmel; Ingrid A Binswanger Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.647