Provider costs of treating opioid dependence with extended‐release buprenorphine in Australia.
Saved in:
| Title: | Provider costs of treating opioid dependence with extended‐release buprenorphine in Australia. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Settumba, Stella (AUTHOR), Shahbazi, Jeyran (AUTHOR), Byrne, Marianne (AUTHOR), Degenhardt, Louisa (AUTHOR), Grebely, Jason (AUTHOR), Larance, Briony (AUTHOR), Nielsen, Suzanne (AUTHOR), Lintzeris, Nicholas (AUTHOR), Ali, Robert (AUTHOR), Rodgers, Craig (AUTHOR), Blazey, Alison (AUTHOR), Weiss, Robert (AUTHOR), Dunlop, Adrian (AUTHOR), McDonough, Michael (AUTHOR), Cook, Jon (AUTHOR), Farrell, Michael (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Drug & Alcohol Review. Jan2025, Vol. 44 Issue 1, p179-194. 16p. |
| Subjects: | Buprenorphine, Cost analysis, Opioid abuse, Cost benefit analysis, Medical care, Medical care costs |
| Geographic Terms: | Australia |
| Abstract: | Introduction: The costs of providing medication‐assisted treatment for opioid dependence can determine its scale of provision. To provide estimates of the costs of extended‐release buprenorphine (BUP‐XR), we performed a bottom‐up costing analysis of provider operational treatment costs. Methods: Data were collected in a single‐arm open label trial of BUP‐XR injections conducted in specialist public drug treatment services and primary care private practices in three Australian states (the CoLAB study). The unit costs of resources used for each activity were combined with quantities used at each participating facility to arrive at the average annual cost per client. Results: One hundred participants across the six health facility sites received monthly subcutaneous BUP‐XR injections administered by a health‐care practitioner. The average cost of providing 1 year of treatment per participant was $6656 ($6026–$8326). Screening cost (initial assessment and medical history) was $282 while monthly follow‐up appointments cost $531 per client. The main cost driver was the monthly treatment costs accounting for 79% of the average annual client cost, with medication costs comprising 95% of this cost. Discussion and Conclusion: With medication costs making up the largest proportion of treatment costs, treatment using BUP‐XR has the potential to free up other health system resources, for example, staff time. The costs reported in this study can be used in an economic evaluation to estimate the net benefit or cost‐effectiveness of BUP‐XR especially when compared to other opioid agonist treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Drug & Alcohol Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Introduction: The costs of providing medication‐assisted treatment for opioid dependence can determine its scale of provision. To provide estimates of the costs of extended‐release buprenorphine (BUP‐XR), we performed a bottom‐up costing analysis of provider operational treatment costs. Methods: Data were collected in a single‐arm open label trial of BUP‐XR injections conducted in specialist public drug treatment services and primary care private practices in three Australian states (the CoLAB study). The unit costs of resources used for each activity were combined with quantities used at each participating facility to arrive at the average annual cost per client. Results: One hundred participants across the six health facility sites received monthly subcutaneous BUP‐XR injections administered by a health‐care practitioner. The average cost of providing 1 year of treatment per participant was $6656 ($6026–$8326). Screening cost (initial assessment and medical history) was $282 while monthly follow‐up appointments cost $531 per client. The main cost driver was the monthly treatment costs accounting for 79% of the average annual client cost, with medication costs comprising 95% of this cost. Discussion and Conclusion: With medication costs making up the largest proportion of treatment costs, treatment using BUP‐XR has the potential to free up other health system resources, for example, staff time. The costs reported in this study can be used in an economic evaluation to estimate the net benefit or cost‐effectiveness of BUP‐XR especially when compared to other opioid agonist treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09595236 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/dar.13956 |
