Using cost and financing instruments for economic evaluation of substance abuse treatment services

A randomized trial to identify accurate and cost-effective fidelity measurement methods for cognitive-behavioral therapy: project FACTS study protocol

BACKGROUND

This randomized trial will compare three methods of assessing fidelity to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for youth to identify the most accurate and cost-effective method. The three methods include self-report (i.e., therapist completes a self-report measure on the CBT interventions used in session while circumventing some of the typical barriers to self-report), chart-stimulated recall (i.e., therapist reports on the CBT interventions used in session via an interview with a trained rater, and with the chart to assist him/her) and behavioral rehearsal (i.e., therapist demonstrates the CBT interventions used in session via a role-play with a trained rater). Direct observation will be used as the gold-standard comparison for each of the three methods.

METHODS/DESIGN

This trial will recruit 135 therapists in approximately 12 community agencies in the City of Philadelphia. Therapists will be randomized to one of the three conditions. Each therapist will provide data from three unique sessions, for a total of 405 sessions. All sessions will be audio-recorded and coded using the Therapy Process Observational Coding System for Child Psychotherapy-Revised Strategies scale. This will enable comparison of each measurement approach to direct observation of therapist session behavior to determine which most accurately assesses fidelity. Cost data associated with each method will be gathered. To gather stakeholder perspectives of each measurement method, we will use purposive sampling to recruit 12 therapists from each condition (total of 36 therapists) and 12 supervisors to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews.

DISCUSSION

Results will provide needed information on how to accurately and cost-effectively measure therapist fidelity to CBT for youth, as well as important information about stakeholder perspectives with regard to each measurement method. Findings will inform fidelity measurement practices in future implementation studies as well as in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02820623 , June 3rd, 2016.

A critical review of accounting and economic methods for estimating the costs of addiction treatment

Researchers have been at the forefront of applying new costing methods to drug abuse treatment programs and innovations. The motivation for such work has been to improve costing accuracy. Recent work has seen applications initiated in establishing charts of account and cost accounting for service delivery. As a result, researchers now have available five methods to apply to the costing of drug abuse treatment programs. In all areas of costing, there is room for more research on costing concepts and measurement applications. Additional work would be useful in establishing studies with activity-based costing for both research and managerial purposes. Studies of economies of scope are particularly relevant because of the integration of social services and criminal justice in drug abuse treatment. In the long run, managerial initiatives to improve the administration and quality of drug abuse treatment will benefit directly from research with new information on costing techniques.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of addiction treatment: paradoxes of multiple outcomes

This paper identifies and illustrates the challenges of conducting cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of addiction treatments given the multiple important outcomes of substance abuse treatment (SAT). Potential problems arise because CEA is intended primarily for single outcome programs, yet addiction treatment results in a variety of outcomes such as reduced drug use and crime and increased employment. Methodological principles, empirical examples, and practical advice are offered on how to conduct an economic evaluation given multiple outcomes. An empirical example is provided to illustrate some of the conflicts in cost-effectiveness (CE) ratios that may arise across the range of outcomes. The data are from the Philadelphia Target Cities quasi-experimental field study of standard versus "enhanced" (e.g. case management and added social services) drug treatment. Outcomes are derived from of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), while cost data were collected and analyzed using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program (DATCAP). While the results are illustrative only, they indicate that cost-effectiveness ratios for each of several different outcomes can produce conflicting implications. These findings suggest that multiple outcomes should be considered in any economic analysis of addiction treatments because focusing on a single outcome may lead to inadequate and possibly incorrect policy inferences. However, incorporating multiple outcomes into a CEA of addiction treatment is difficult. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) may be a preferable and more appropriate approach in some cases.

Benefit-cost analysis of addiction treatment: methodological guidelines and empirical application using the DATCAP and ASI

OBJECTIVE

To provide detailed methodological guidelines for using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program (DATCAP) and Addiction Severity Index (ASI) in a benefit-cost analysis of addiction treatment.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

A representative benefit-cost analysis of three outpatient programs was conducted to demonstrate the feasibility and value of the methodological guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN

Procedures are outlined for using resource use and cost data collected with the DATCAP. Techniques are described for converting outcome measures from the ASI to economic (dollar) benefits of treatment. Finally, principles are advanced for conducting a benefit-cost analysis and a sensitivity analysis of the estimates.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

The DATCAP was administered at three outpatient drug-free programs in Philadelphia, PA, for 2 consecutive fiscal years (1996 and 1997). The ASI was administered to a sample of 178 treatment clients at treatment entry and at 7-months postadmission.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The DATCAP and ASI appear to have significant potential for contributing to an economic evaluation of addiction treatment. The benefit-cost analysis and subsequent sensitivity analysis all showed that total economic benefit was greater than total economic cost at the three outpatient programs, but this representative application is meant to stimulate future economic research rather than justifying treatment per se.

CONCLUSIONS

This study used previously validated, research-proven instruments and methods to perform a practical benefit-cost analysis of real-world treatment programs. The study demonstrates one way to combine economic and clinical data and offers a methodological foundation for future economic evaluations of addiction treatment.

Can the Treatment Services Review be used to estimate the costs of addiction and ancillary services?

PURPOSE

The economic costs of addiction treatment and ancillary services are of great interest to substance abuse treatment providers, researchers, and policymakers. This paper examines whether a widely used treatment evaluation instrument, the Treatment Services Review (TSR), can be used to estimate the costs of addiction and ancillary services.

METHODS

The fifth edition of the TSR (TSR-5) is carefully reviewed and critiqued for cost estimation purposes. Unit cost estimates and sources are presented for most of the service delivery units on the TSR-5, and important missing service measures are identified. A cost analysis method is proposed that is based on data from the TSR.

RESULTS

A variety of unit cost estimates are offered so that researchers and practitioners will understand how this financial information is compiled. However, the investigation determined that the TSR-5 is not currently structured for a comprehensive cost analysis of treatment services. The potential benefits and limitations of the TSR-5 as a cost analysis tool are identified and explained. In addition, recommended changes to the TSR-5 are suggested and described.

IMPLICATIONS

Although not originally developed for economic evaluation purposes, with some modifications and enhancements, the TSR is an instrument that is capable of facilitating an economic cost analysis of addiction treatment and ancillary services. By combining service utilization information from a revised TSR (i.e., TSR-6) with reliable unit cost estimates for those services, future evaluation studies will be able to provide more standardized estimates of the costs of addiction and ancillary services for different types of treatment clients. When joined with outcome data, the TSR-6, along with the proposed cost module, can also be used to determine cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost ratios for subgroups of patients and treatment components.