Economic Evaluations of Establishing Opioid Overdose Prevention Centers in 12 North American Cities: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Overdose prevention centers (OPCs) provide a safe place where people can consume preobtained drugs under supervision so that a life-saving medical response can be provided quickly in the event of an overdose. OPCs are programs that are established in Canada and have recently become legally sanctioned in only a few United States jurisdictions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review that summarizes and identifies gaps of economic evidence on establishing OPCs in North America to guide future expansion of OPCs.

RESULTS

We included 16 final studies that were evaluated with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Drummond checklists. Eight studies reported cost-effectiveness results (eg, cost per overdose avoided or cost per quality-adjusted life-year), with 6 also including cost-benefit; 5 reported only cost-benefit results, and 3 cost offsets. Health outcomes primarily included overdose mortality outcomes or HIV/hepatitis C virus infections averted. Most studies used mathematical modeling and projected OPC outcomes using the experience of a single facility in Vancouver, BC.

CONCLUSIONS

OPCs were found to be cost-saving or to have favorable cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit ratios across all studies. Future studies should incorporate the experience of OPCs established in various settings and use a greater diversity of modeling designs.

Rates and Costs of Dispensing Naloxone to Patients at High Risk for Opioid Overdose in the United States, 2014-2018

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines recommend co-prescribing naloxone to patients at high risk of opioid overdose, but few such patients receive naloxone. High costs of naloxone may contribute to limited dispensing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate rates and costs of dispensing naloxone to patients receiving opioid prescriptions and at high risk for opioid overdose.

METHODS

Using claims data from a large US commercial insurance company, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of new opioid initiators between January 2014 and December 2018. We identified patients at high risk for overdose defined as a diagnosis of opioid use disorder, prior overdose, an opioid prescription of ≥ 50 mg morphine equivalents/day for ≥ 90 days, and/or concurrent benzodiazepine prescriptions.

RESULTS

Among 5,292,098 new opioid initiators, 616,444 (12%) met criteria for high risk of overdose during follow-up, and, of those, 3096 (0.5%) were dispensed naloxone. The average copayment was US$24.83 for naloxone (standard deviation [SD] 67.66) versus US$9.74 for the index opioid (SD 19.75). The average deductible was US$6.18 for naloxone (SD 27.32) versus US$3.74 for the index opioid (SD 25.56), with 94% and 88% having deductibles of US$0 for their naloxone and opioid prescriptions, respectively. The average out-of-pocket cost was US$31.01 for naloxone (SD 73.64) versus US$13.48 for the index opioid (SD 34.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of dispensing naloxone to high risk patients were extremely low, and prescription costs varied greatly. Since improving naloxone's affordability may increase access, whether naloxone's high cost is associated with low dispensing rates should be evaluated.

Cost-Effectiveness of an Opioid Abuse-Prevention Program Using the Narcotics Information Management System in South Korea

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of an opioid abuse-prevention program embedded in the Narcotics Information Management System ("the Network System to Prevent Doctor-Shopping for Narcotics") in South Korea.

METHODS

Using a Markov model with a 1-year cycle length and 30-year time horizon, we estimated the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of implementing an opioid abuse-prevention program in patients prescribed outpatient opioids from a Korean healthcare payer's perspective. The model has 6 health states: no opioid use, therapeutic opioid use, opioid abuse, overdose, overdose death, and all-cause death. Patient characteristics, healthcare costs, and transition probabilities were estimated from national population-based data and published literature. Age- and sex-specific utilities of the general Korean population were used for the no-use state, whereas the other health-state utilities were obtained from published studies. Costs (in 2019 US dollars) included the expenses of the program, opioids, and overdoses. An annual 5% discount rate was applied to the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Parameter uncertainties were explored via deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The program was associated with 2.27 fewer overdoses per 100 000 person-years, with an ICUR of $227/QALY. The ICURs were generally robust to parameter changes, although the program's effect on abuse reduction was the most influential parameter. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the program reached a 100% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $900/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The opioid abuse-prevention program appears to be cost-effective in South Korea. Mandatory use of the program should be considered to maximize clinical and economic benefits of the program.

Economic Evaluation in Opioid Modeling: Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The rapid increase in opioid overdose and opioid use disorder (OUD) over the past 20 years is a complex problem associated with significant economic costs for healthcare systems and society. Simulation models have been developed to capture and identify ways to manage this complexity and to evaluate the potential costs of different strategies to reduce overdoses and OUD. A review of simulation-based economic evaluations is warranted to fully characterize this set of literature.

METHODS

A systematic review of simulation-based economic evaluation (SBEE) studies in opioid research was initiated by searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and EbscoHOST. Extraction of a predefined set of items and a quality assessment were performed for each study.

RESULTS

The screening process resulted in 23 SBEE studies ranging by year of publication from 1999 to 2019. Methodological quality of the cost analyses was moderately high. The most frequently evaluated strategies were methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatments; the only harm reduction strategy explored was naloxone distribution. These strategies were consistently found to be cost-effective, especially naloxone distribution and methadone maintenance. Prevention strategies were limited to abuse-deterrent opioid formulations. Less than half (39%) of analyses adopted a societal perspective in their estimation of costs and effects from an opioid-related intervention. Prevention strategies and studies' accounting for patient and physician preference, changing costs, or result stratification were largely ignored in these SBEEs.

CONCLUSION

The review shows consistently favorable cost analysis findings for naloxone distribution strategies and opioid agonist treatments and identifies major gaps for future research.

The economic burden of opioid use disorder and fatal opioid overdose in the United States, 2017

BACKGROUND

The United States (U.S.) is experiencing an ongoing opioid crisis. Economic burden estimates that describe the impact of the crisis are needed when considering federal and state resources devoted to addressing overdoses. In this study, we estimate the societal costs for opioid use disorder and fatal overdose from all opioids in 2017.

METHODS

We estimated costs of fatal overdose from all opioids and opioid use disorder based on the incidence of overdose deaths and the prevalence of past-year opioid use disorder for 2017. Incidence of fatal opioid overdose was obtained from the National Vital Statistics System; prevalence of past-year opioid use disorder was estimated from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health. Costs were estimated for health care, criminal justice and lost productivity. Costs for the reduced quality of life for opioid use disorder and life lost due to fatal opioid overdose were valued using U.S. Department of Health and Human Services guidelines for valuing reductions in morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Costs for opioid use disorder and fatal opioid overdose in 2017 were estimated to be $1.02 trillion. The majority of the economic burden is due to reduced quality of life from opioid use disorder and the value of life lost due to fatal opioid overdose.

CONCLUSIONS

These estimates can assist decision makers in understanding the magnitude of opioid use disorder and fatal overdose. Knowing the magnitude and distribution of the economic burden can inform public policy, clinical practice, research, and prevention and response activities.

Changes in Opioid Overdose Emergency Encounters Associated with Expansion of Wisconsin Medicaid to Childless Adults in Poverty

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to measure changes in the payer mix and incidence of emergency department (ED) opioid-related overdose encounters after an April 2014 expansion of Medicaid to childless adults led to a 43% increase in Medicaid coverage for men and 8% for women statewide.

METHOD

We explored two competing hypotheses using data visualization and comparative interrupted time-series analysis (CITS): (a) expanded eligibility for Medicaid is associated with a change in payer mix only and (b) sociodemographic groups that gained Medicaid eligibility were more likely to use ED services for opioid overdose. Data included encounters at all Wisconsin nonfederal hospitals over 23 quarters from 2010 to 2015 and American Community Survey estimates of pre- and post-policy Medicaid eligibility by sex and age.

RESULTS

We found an increase in the share of opioid-related ED visits covered by Medicaid for men and women ages 19-29 and for men ages 30-49 following the expansion. The number of visits increased substantially in April 2014 for men ages 30-49, with Medicaid-covered visits driving this result. We found little evidence of an increase in overall visits for other age groups for either men or women.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between Medicaid expansion and opioid ED use is complex. Changes in case mix and increased access to care likely both play a role in the overall increase in these ED visits. Being uninsured may be an important barrier to seeking emergency care for opioid-related overdoses.

Emergency Department Visits for Opioid Overdoses Among Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer may be at risk of high opioid use due to physical and psychosocial factors, although little data exist to inform providers and policymakers. Our aim is to examine overdoses from opioids leading to emergency department (ED) visits among patients with cancer in the United States.

METHODS

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample was queried for all adult cancer-related patient visits with a primary diagnosis of opioid overdose between 2006 and 2015. Temporal trends and baseline differences between patients with and without opioid-related ED visits were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with opioid overdose. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Between 2006 and 2015, there were a weighted total of 35 339 opioid-related ED visits among patients with cancer. During this time frame, the incidence of opioid-related ED visits for overdose increased twofold (P < .001). On multivariable regression (P < .001), comorbid diagnoses of chronic pain (odds ratio [OR] 4.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.13 to 4.93), substance use disorder (OR = 3.54, 95% CI = 3.28 to 3.82), and mood disorder (OR = 3.40, 95% CI = 3.16 to 3.65) were strongly associated with an opioid-related visit. Patients with head and neck cancer (OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.82 to 2.28) and multiple myeloma (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.32 to 2.26) were also at risk for overdose.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the study period, the incidence of opioid-related ED visits in patients with cancer increased approximately twofold. Comorbid diagnoses and primary disease site may predict risk for opioid overdose.