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.

State-Level Economic Costs of Opioid Use Disorder and Fatal Opioid Overdose - United States, 2017.

Approximately 47,000 persons in the United States died from an opioid-involved overdose in 2018 (1), and 2.0 million persons met the diagnostic criteria for an opioid use disorder in 2017 (2). The economic cost of the U.S. opioid epidemic in 2017 was estimated at $1,021 billion, including cost of opioid use disorder estimated at $471 billion and cost of fatal opioid overdose estimated at $550 billion (3). CDC used national-level cost estimates to estimate the state-level economic cost of opioid use disorder and fatal opioid overdose during 2017. Cases and costs of state-level opioid use disorder and fatal opioid overdose and per capita costs were calculated for each of the 38 states and the District of Columbia (DC) that met drug specificity requirements for mortality data (4). Combined costs of opioid use disorder and fatal opioid overdose (combined costs) varied substantially, ranging from $985 million in Wyoming to $72,583 million in Ohio. Per capita combined costs also varied considerably, ranging from $1,204 in Hawaii to $7,247 in West Virginia. States with high per capita combined costs were mainly in two regions: the Ohio Valley and New England. Federal and state public health agencies can use these data to help guide decisions regarding research, prevention and response activities, and resource allocation.

Cost-effectiveness of Treatments for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US, yet many individuals with OUD do not receive treatment. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of OUD treatments and association of these treatments with outcomes in the US. Design and Setting: This model-based cost-effectiveness analysis included a US population with OUD. Interventions: Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) with buprenorphine, methadone, or injectable extended-release naltrexone; psychotherapy (beyond standard counseling); overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND); and contingency management (CM). Main Outcomes and Measures: Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths throughout 5 years, discounted lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. Results: In the base case, in the absence of treatment, 42 717 overdoses (4132 fatal, 38 585 nonfatal) and 12 660 deaths were estimated to occur in a cohort of 100 000 patients over 5 years, and 11.58 discounted lifetime QALYs were estimated to be experienced per person. An estimated reduction in overdoses was associated with MAT with methadone (10.7%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (22.0%), and when combined with CM and psychotherapy (range, 21.0%-31.4%). Estimated deceased deaths were associated with MAT with methadone (6%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (13.9%), and when combined with CM, OEND, and psychotherapy (16.9%). MAT yielded discounted gains of 1.02 to 1.07 QALYs per person. Including only health care sector costs, methadone cost $16 000/QALY gained compared with no treatment, followed by methadone with OEND ($22 000/QALY gained), then by buprenorphine with OEND and CM ($42 000/QALY gained), and then by buprenorphine with OEND, CM, and psychotherapy ($250 000/QALY gained). MAT with naltrexone was dominated by other treatment alternatives. When criminal justice costs were included, all forms of MAT (with buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) were associated with cost savings compared with no treatment, yielding savings of $25 000 to $105 000 in lifetime costs per person. The largest cost savings were associated with methadone plus CM. Results were qualitatively unchanged over a wide range of sensitivity analyses. An analysis using demographic and cost data for Veterans Health Administration patients yielded similar findings. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, expanded access to MAT, combined with OEND and CM, was associated with cost-saving reductions in morbidity and mortality from OUD. Lack of widespread MAT availability limits access to a cost-saving medical intervention that reduces morbidity and mortality from OUD. Opioid overdoses in the US likely reached a record high in 2020 because of COVID-19 increasing substance use, exacerbating stress and social isolation, and interfering with opioid treatment. It is essential to understand the cost-effectiveness of alternative forms of MAT to treat OUD.

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.

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.

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.