The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benefit-cost in the California treatment outcome project: Does substance abuse treatment “pay for itself”?
Open accessAbstract
Objective. To examine costs and monetary benefits associated with substance abuse treatment. Data Sources. Primary and administrative data on client outcomes and agency costs from 43 substance abuse treatment providers in 13 counties in California during 2000–2001. Study Design. Using a social planner perspective, the estimated direct cost of treatment was compared with the associated monetary benefits, including the client's costs of medical care, mental health services, criminal activity, earnings, and (from the government's perspective) transfer program payments. The cost of the client's substance abuse treatment episode was estimated by multiplying the number of days that the client spent in each treatment modality by the estimated average per diem cost of that modality. Monetary benefits associated with treatment were estimated using a pre–posttreatment admission study design, i.e., each client served as his or her own control. Data Collection. Treatment cost data were collected from providers using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program instrument. For the main sample of 2,567 clients, information on medical hospitalizations, emergency room visits, earnings, and transfer payments was obtained from baseline and 9‐month follow‐up interviews, and linked to information on inpatient and outpatient mental health services use and criminal activity from administrative databases. Sensitivity analyses examined administrative data outcomes for a larger cohort (N=6,545) and longer time period (1 year). Principal Findings. On average, substance abuse treatment costs $1,583 and is associated with a monetary benefit to society of $11,487, representing a greater than 7:1 ratio of benefits to costs. These benefits were primarily because of reduced costs of crime and increased employment earnings. Conclusions. Even without considering the direct value to clients of improved health and quality of life, allocating taxpayer dollars to substance abuse treatment may be a wise investment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Of these domains, the relative contribution of criminal activity to the total economic consequences of SUDs is typically the largest driver of social costs.”
From Monetary conversion factors for economic evaluations of substance use disorders (2017) · cites this paper as Ettner et al., 2006
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“various forms of alcohol treatment are cost-effective and improve clinical outcomes (8–15).”
From Specialty substance use disorder services following brief alcohol intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: SBI and referral to treatment (2015) · cites this paper as [10]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The majority of CEAs, CBAs, and economic burden studies in this field estimate the economic consequences of SUDs from health care services, criminal activity, and labor market outcomes (e.g., (Bouchery et al., 2011; Ettner et al., 2006; McCollister & French, 2003; Zarkin et al., 2015)).”
From Monetary conversion factors for economic evaluations of substance use disorders (2017) · cites this paper as Ettner et al., 2006
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Fifth Edition of the Addiction Severity Index.
Mclellan, A., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Peters, R., Smith, I. E., Grissom, G. R., Pettinati, H., & Argeriou, M. (1992) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-s · Cited by 4,280
An Improved Diagnostic Evaluation Instrument for Substance Abuse Patients
McLellan, A. T., Luborsky, L. B., WOODY, G. E., & Brien, C. P. O. (1980) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-198001000-00006 · Cited by 3,163
The Effects Of Obesity, Smoking, And Drinking On Medical Problems And Costs
Sturm, R. (2002) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.245 · Cited by 990
Brief Physician Advice for Problem Drinkers: Long-Term Efficacy and Benefit-Cost Analysis
Fleming, M. F., Mundt, M. P., French, M. T., Manwell, L. B., Stauffacher, E. A., & Barry, K. L. (2002) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2002.tb02429.x · Cited by 532
The effectiveness of drug abuse treatment: a meta-analysis of comparison group studies
PRENDERGAST, M. L., Podus, D., Chang, E. Y., & Urada, D. I. (2002) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/s0376-8716(02)00014-5 · Cited by 336
The economic costs of heroin addiction in the United States
Mark, T. L. (2001) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/s0376-8716(00)00162-9 · Cited by 271
Hospital utilization and costs in a cohort of injection drug users.
(2001) · PubMed Central · Cited by 263
The Economics Of Alcohol Abuse And Alcohol-Control Policies
Cook, P. J., & Moore, M. J. (2002) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.120 · Cited by 180
Humphreys, K. N., & Moos, R. H. (2001) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2001.tb02271.x · Cited by 168
French, M. T., Salomé, H. J., Sindelar, J. L., & McLellan, A. T. (2002) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.031 · Cited by 121
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- California State Auditor., 1998, California Department of Corrections: The Cost of Incarcerating Inmates in State‐Run Prisons is Higher Than the Department's Published Cost
- 10.1023/A:1013630710518 · DOI
- Harwood H., 1998, The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992
- Hser Y., 2003, The California Treatment Outcome Project Supplement to the Final Report. Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
- Hser Y., 2002, The California Treatment Outcome Project (CalTOP) Final Report Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
- Koenig L., 2000, Do the Benefits of More Intensive Substance Abuse Treatment Offset the Costs? (Caliber/NEDS Contract No. 270‐97‐7016)
- Miller T., 1996, Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look. Final Summary Report Presented to the National Institute of Justice, January, 1996
- Office of National Drug Control Policy., 2001, The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992‐1998. (Publication No. NCJ‐190636.)
- Sturm R., 2001, The Costs of Covering Mental Health and Substance Abuse as Medical Care in Private Insurance Plans (RAND Health Publication No. CT‐180)
- Urada D., 2000, California State Treatment Needs Assessment Program Existing Service Utilization, and Outcomes: Interim Report (Under Contract No. 270‐98‐7052)
- Vencill C., 2001, Allocation of the California War Costs, Justice Policy Journal, 1, 1
- Weisner C., 2000, The Outcome and Cost of Alcohol and Drug Treatment in an HMO, Health Services Research, 35, 791
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wolfe, D., Carrieri, P., & Shepard, D. S. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60832-x · Cited by 415
Can food be addictive? Public health and policy implications
Gearhardt, A. N., Grilo, C. M., Dileone, R., Brownell, K. D., & Potenza, M. N. (2011) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03301.x · Cited by 411
Saloner, B. K., & Cook, B. L. (2013) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0983 · Cited by 370
Chauhan, B. F., Jeyaraman, M., Mann, A. S., Lys, J., Skidmore, B., Sibley, K. M., Abou-Setta, A., & Zarychanksi, R. (2017) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0538-8 · Cited by 210
Meyer, R., Patel, A. M., Rattana, S. K., Quock, T. P., & Mody, S. H. (2014) · Population Health Management · doi:10.1089/pop.2013.0098 · Cited by 184
Metadata
- Authors
- Ettner, S. L., Huang, D., Evans, E., Rose Ash, D., Hardy, M., Jourabchi, M., & Hser, Y.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ettner, Susan L.
- Venue
- Health Services Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-10-20
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 192-213
- ISSN
- 0017-9124 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-6773
- PMC
- PMC1681530
- OpenAlex
- W2156116126
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 5.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2006-03-09)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Health Services Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
- California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
- AcademyHealth
- National Institute on Drug Abuse
- Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homelessness and Social Issues
- Keywords
- addiction treatment, cost-benefit analysis, treatment costs, monetary rewards, crime costs, employment income, mental health service utilization, health care costs, transfer payments
- MeSH terms
- California, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cohort Studies, Substance Abuse Treatment Centers, Treatment Outcome, Episode of Care, Efficiency, Organizational, Substance-Related Disorders
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
