ABSTRACT. Objective: This article summarizes the literature on the implementation costs of alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) in medical settings. Method: Electronic databases were searched using SBI-and cost-related terms. Methodological approaches and cost estimates were abstracted from each study and categorized based on the cost methodology. Costs were updated to 2009 U.S. dollars. To determine a summary cost measure, we excluded outliers and computed the median of the remaining cost estimates. Results: Seventeen studies with cost estimates were identifi ed for further study. Costs ranged from $0.51 to $601.50 per screen and from $3.41 to $243.01 per brief intervention (BI). Cost estimates were lower when an activity-based cost methodology was used, in primary care settings, and when the provider was not a doctor. The median summary cost of a screen is approximately $4, and the median summary cost of a BI is approximately $48. Conclusions: Screening cost estimates had more variation than BI cost estimates. Provider type and service delivery time drive the cost variation. Interpretation of cost differences was limited by insuffi cient reporting of the cost methodology. Cost estimates presented here are similar in size to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and Current Procedural Terminology reimbursement amounts, suggesting that insurance-based service reimbursement may be suffi cient to sustain alcohol SBI in practice. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 73, 911-919, 2012)

Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the effect of screening and brief intervention (SBI) on outpatient, emergency department (ED), and inpatient health care utilization outcomes. Much of the current literature speculates that SBI provides cost savings through reduced health care utilization, but no systematic review or meta-analysis examines this assertion. Method Publications were abstracted from online journal collections and targeted Web searches. The systematic review included any publications that examined the association between SBI and health care utilization. Each publication was rated independently by two study authors and assigned a consensus methodological score. The meta-analysis focused on those studies examined in the systematic review, but it excluded publications that had incomplete data, low methodological quality, or a cluster randomized design. Results Systematic review results suggest that SBI has little to no effect on inpatient or outpatient health care utilization, but it may have a small, negative effect on ED utilization. A random effects meta-analysis using the Hedges method confirms the ED result for SBI delivered across settings (SMD = −.06, I-squared = 13.9%) but does not achieve statistical significance (CI: −0.15, 0.03). Conclusions SBI may reduce overall health care costs, but more studies are needed. Current evidence is inconclusive for SBI delivered in ED and non-ED hospital settings. Future studies of SBI and health care utilization should report the estimated effects and variance, regardless of the effect size or statistical significance.

Aims To examine the conditions under which Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs can be sustained by health insurance payments. Design A mathematical model was used to estimate the number of patients needed for revenues to exceed costs. Setting Three medical settings in the United States were examined: in-patient, out-patient and emergency department. Components of SBIRT were delivered by combinations of health-care practitioners (generalists) and behavioral health specialists. Participants Practitioners in seven SBIRT programs who received grants from the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Measurements Program costs and revenues were measured using data from grantees. Patient flows were measured from administrative data and adjusted with prevalence and screening estimates from the literature. Findings SBIRT can be sustained through health insurance reimbursement in out-patient and emergency department settings in most staffing mixes. To sustain SBIRT in in-patient programs, a patient flow larger than the national average may be needed; if that flow is achieved, the range of screens required to maintain a surplus is narrow. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the results are very sensitive to changes in the proportion of insured patients. Conclusions Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs in the United States can be sustained by health insurance payments under a variety of staffing models. Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs can be sustained only in an in-patient setting with above-average patient flow (more than 2500 screens). Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs in out-patient and emergency department settings can be sustained with below-average patient flows (fewer than 125 000 out-patient visits and fewer than 27 000 emergency department visits).

The estimates are consistent with a differential effect of SBI: SBI reduces readmissions among those who present with a less serious alcohol-related problem. Persons with more serious alcohol problems are less likely to respond to SBI. These higher risk individuals likely have a higher cost, which may explain the lack of change in readmission costs. Our study is a macrolevel intent-to-treat analysis of SBI's impact that corroborates the potential of SBI implied by efficacy studies in trauma centers and other settings. This study provides a framework for future research involving more states and health systems and evaluating other SBI policies.

Men in the U.S. are increasingly involved in their children’s lives and currently represent 40% of informal caregivers to dependent relatives or friends aged 18 years or older. Yet, much more is known about the health effects of varying family role occupancies for women relative to men. The present research sought to fill this empirical gap by first comparing the health behavior (sleep duration, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, exercise, fast food consumption) of men who only occupy partner roles and partnered men who also fill father, informal caregiver, or both father and informal caregiver (i.e., sandwiched) roles. The moderating effects of perceived partner relationship quality, conceptualized here as partner support and strain, on direct family role-health behavior linkages were also examined. Secondary analysis of survey data from 366 cohabiting and married men in the Work, Family and Health Study indicated that men’s multiple family role occupancies were generally not associated with health behavior. With men continuing to take on more family responsibilities, as well as the serious health consequences of unhealthy behavior, the implications of these null effects are encouraging: additional family roles can be integrated into cohabiting and married men’s role repertoires without health behavior risks. Moderation analysis revealed, however, that men’s perceived partner relationship constituted a significant factor in determining whether multiple family role occupancies had positive or negative consequences for their sleep duration, alcohol consumption, and fast food consumption. These findings are discussed in terms of their empirical and practical implications for partnered men and their families.

No abstract

Issues Many policy review articles have concluded that alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) is both cost-effective and cost-beneficial. Yet a recent cost-effectiveness review for the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence suggests that these conclusions may be premature. Approach This article offers a brief synopsis of the various types of economic analyses that may be applied to SBI, including cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and other types of economic evaluation. A brief overview of methodological issues is provided, and examples from the SBI evaluation literature are provided. Key Findings, Implications, and Conclusions The current evidence base is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the cost, cost-effectiveness, or cost-benefit of SBI and about the impact of SBI on health care utilisation.

Aims To examine how institutional constraints, comprising federal actions and states' substance abuse policy environments, influence states' decisions to activate Medicaid reimbursement codes for screening and brief intervention for risky substance use in the United States. Methods A discrete-time duration model was used to estimate the effect of institutional constraints on the likelihood of activating the Medicaid reimbursement codes. Primary constraints included federal Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) grant funding, substance abuse priority, economic climate, political climate and interstate diffusion. Study data came from publicly available secondary data sources. Results Federal SBIRT grant funding did not affect significantly the likelihood of activation (P = 0.628). A $1 increase in per-capita block grant funding was associated with a 10-percentage point reduction in the likelihood of activation (P = 0.003) and a $1 increase in per-capita state substance use disorder expenditures was associated with a 2-percentage point increase in the likelihood of activation (P = 0.004). States with enacted parity laws (P = 0.016) and a Democratic-controlled state government were also more likely to activate the codes. Conclusion In the United States, the determinants of state activation of Medicaid Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) reimbursement codes are complex, and include more than financial considerations. Federal block grant funding is a strong disincentive to activating the SBIRT reimbursement codes, while more direct federal SBIRT grant funding has no detectable effects.