1 / 15

Keith Humphreys Todd H. Wagner Mistry Gage

Is it in medical centers’ self-interest to provide substance use disorder treatment?: A cost-consequence analysis in a national health care system. Presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Addiction York, UK 14 November 2008. Keith Humphreys Todd H. Wagner Mistry Gage

onslow
Download Presentation

Keith Humphreys Todd H. Wagner Mistry Gage

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Is it in medical centers’ self-interest to provide substance use disorder treatment?: A cost-consequence analysis in a national health care system Presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Addiction York, UK 14 November 2008 Keith Humphreys Todd H. Wagner Mistry Gage Veterans Affairs and Stanford University Medical Centers Palo Alto, California USA

  2. Two starting points • A story • A mystery

  3. The cost-offset literature • What it shows • What it does NOT show

  4. Basic design • Study an integrated national health care system (U.S. VHA) • Examine natural experiments in treatment provision • Extract data from all SUD-dxed patients in each year of study

  5. Key questions about changes in supply of SUD treatment • Change in number of SUD patients • Change in where care is received • Change in cost of care • Perspective is explicitly that of the service provider for both cost and outcomes

  6. Participating patients and medical centers • Over 3 million patients diagnosed with SUD from 1998-2006 • 96% male, average age early 50s • Number of patients diagnosed rose from 347k in 1998 to 427k in 2006 • 125 medical centers throughout U.S. • Average medical center decreased spending on SUD specialty care by 30% from 1998-2006

  7. Data analysis

  8. Models • Analysis using both fixed effects and random effects models • Control for patient age, gender, marital status • Control for rural vs. urban medical center, CMS wage index • Key independent variable: Change in SUD supply (indexed by spending + OAT)

  9. Key results

  10. For each 1% increase in SUD supply… • Outpatient SUD utilization + .025% • Inpatient SUD utilization + .034% • Outpatient psychiatry utilization - .002% • Inpatient psychiatry utilization - .006% • Outpatient med/surg utilization +.005% • Inpatient med/surg utilization +.0004% • Number of SUD patients +.015% • Cost per SUD patient +.018%

  11. Net cost findingFor each 100k spent, a further 29k in added health costs incurred

  12. Exception: OAT

  13. Subsidiary analyses • Sensitivity analyses • Lagged analyses

  14. Conclusions • OAT is a break even proposition for medical centers • Other SUD spending costs more than the initial investment • Psychiatry and SUD spending are competitors • SUD and medical spending are complements

  15. Conclusions, continued • The lack of willingness of medical centers to provide SUD is economically rational • SUD treatment does not “pay for itself” from the health care system perspective • Cost studies would be more policy useful if they were conducted explicitly from the decision makers’ perspective • Advocacy may be more effective if it matches the level of the cost-offset

More Related