Using the DATCAP and ASI to estimate the costs and benefits of residential addiction treatment in the State of Washington

What does cost-benefit analysis add to decision making? Evidence from the criminal justice literature

“…Another challenge to measuring the effect of an intervention is the short-term nature of effect studies compared with the longer-term nature of the effects of interventions (Cartwright 2000;French et al 2000French et al , 2002aHarrell and Roman 2001;Roman and Butts 2005). Cartwright (2000) points out that shortrunning evaluation frameworks are inadequate for dealing with a long-running problem such as substance addiction.…”

A critical review of accounting and economic methods for estimating the costs of addiction treatment

“…The DATCAP takes a societal perspective that considers everyone affected by the intervention, all health outcomes, and the opportunity costs of all resources to implement this approach (Gold, 1996). The DATCAP has been developed to standardize costing methods (Bradley, French, & Rachal, 1994;French, Bradley, Calingaert, Dennis, & Karuntzos, 1994;French, Dunlap, Zarkin, McGeary, & McLellan, 1997;French, Salome, & Carney, 2002;Salome & French, 2001). The DATCAP represents a breakthrough in standardizing measurements for economic evaluations and is an important scientific development in the treatment field (French, Salome, & Carney, 2002;French, Salome, Sindelar, & McLellan, 2002).…”

“…Recently, a cost analysis of five interventions was completed, in conjunction with the Cannabis Youth Treatment study at four treatment sites and five interventions (French, Salome, & Carney, 2002;French, Salome, Sindelar, et al, 2002); this may be used to illustrate the cost variation found in intervention studies. Table 3 shows cost results at specific sites in this two-arm randomized effectiveness trail.…”

Out of touch or on the money: Do the clinical objectives of addiction treatment coincide with economic evaluation results?

“…The appropriate techniques for analyzing these and other health interventions are cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), which compares the incremental economic cost of an intervention to its incremental effectiveness in terms of clinical outcomes of 0740-5472/04/$ -see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2004.08.005 often intangible value (e.g., Barnett, Zaric, & Brandeau, 2001;Drummond, O'Brien, Stoddart, & Torrance, 1997;Gold, Siegel, Russell, & Weinstein, 1996;McCollister, French, Inciardi, et al, 2003;McCollister, French, Prendergast, et al, 2003;Zarkin, Lindrooth, Demiralp, & Wechsberg, 2001), and benefit-cost analysis (BCA), which accounts for multiple health, criminal justice, and other outcomes of tangible value (French, McCollister, Cacciola, Durell, & Stephens, 2002;French, McCollister, Sacks, McKendrick, & De Leon, 2002;French, Salomé, & Carney, 2002;French et al, 2000;French, Salomé, Sindelar, & McLellan, 2002;Gerstein et al, 1994;Harwood, Hubbard, Collins, & Rachal, 1995;Plotnick, 1994;Rajkumar & French, 1997;Salomé, French, Scott, et al, 2003;Tabbush, 1986). Though often preferred by clinical audiences because of its direct relation to clinical outcomes, CEA can be problematic when used in conjunction with multiple outcomes.…”