Elsevier

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Volume 153, 1 August 2015, Pages 293-299
Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Full length article
An economic evaluation of a contingency-management intervention for stimulant use among community mental health patients with serious mental illness

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.05.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We conducted an economic evaluation of a contingency management (CM) intervention.

  • Evaluated CM as treatment for stimulant use among those with severe mental illness.

  • CM increased stimulant-free time with no significant difference in costs or QoL.

  • CM appears to be a wise investment for treating those with comorbid SUD and SMI.

Abstract

Background

This study examines the cost-effectiveness of contingency-management (CM) for stimulant dependence among community mental health patients with serious mental illness (SMI)

Methods

Economic evaluation of a 12-week randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy of CM added to treatment-as-usual (CM + TAU), relative to TAU without CM, for treating stimulant dependence among patients with a SMI. The trial included 176 participants diagnosed with SMI and stimulant dependency who were receiving community mental health and addiction treatment at one community mental health center in Seattle, Washington. Participants were also assessed during a 12-week follow-up period. Positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) scores were used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the primary economic outcome. The primary clinical outcome, the stimulant-free year (SFY) is a weighted measure of time free from stimulants. Two perspectives were adopted, those of the provider and the payer.

Results

At 12-weeks neither the provider ($2652, p = 0.74) nor the payer ($2611, p = 0.99) cost differentials were statistically significant. This was also true for the payer at 24-weeks (−$125, p = 1.00). QALYs gained were similar across groups, resulting in small, insignificant differences (0.04, p = 0.23 at 12-weeks; 0.01, p = 0.70 at 24 weeks). CM + TAU experienced significantly more SFYs, 0.24 (p < 0.001) at 12 weeks and 0.20 (p = 0.002) at 24 weeks, resulting in at least an 85% chance of being considered cost-effective at a threshold of $200,000/SFY.

Conclusion

Contingency management appears to be a wise investment for both the provider and the payer with regard to the clinical outcome of time free from stimulants.

Introduction

Contingency management (CM) is a well-established intervention for drug and alcohol use disorders. CM employs positive reinforcers (e.g., vouchers or prizes) when individuals demonstrate drug or alcohol abstinence. Meta-analyses of CM have found it to be associated with higher rates of treatment retention and abstinence, relative to standard care (Benishek et al., 2014, Dutra et al., 2008, Lussier et al., 2006, Prendergast et al., 2006). CM has demonstrated efficacy as a treatment for stimulants (cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine), marijuana, opioids, nicotine, and alcohol use disorders. Importantly, Dutra et al. (2008) compared CM approaches to all other psychosocial treatments and found that they had the highest rates of in-treatment abstinence. However, the relatively high in-treatment abstinence rates of CM are not typically sustained (Dutra et al., 2008, Rawson et al., 2006, Rawson et al., 2002).

Emerging literature has demonstrated the effectiveness of CM for individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) who also suffer from severe mental illnesses (SMI; Bellack et al., 2006, McDonell et al., 2013, Roll et al., 2004). Adults with SMI, such as schizophrenia, bipolar and re-occurring major depressive disorders suffer from high rates of SUDs, with lifetime rates as high as 50% (Regier et al., 1990). Relative to people with only one of these conditions, individuals with co-occurring SMIs and SUDs have more severe substance use and psychiatric symptoms (RachBeisel et al., 1999), poorer treatment adherence (Bennett et al., 2001), increased homelessness (Galanter et al., 1998), and higher rates of smoking (de Leon et al., 2007), HIV infection (RachBeisel et al., 1999), psychiatric hospitalization (Haywood et al., 1995), emergency room use (Bartels et al., 1993) and incarceration (Abram and Teplin, 1991). The high rates of SUDs among individuals with SMI, and the consequences of this comorbidity, directly contribute to the high economic cost of SMI in the U.S., which is estimated to be well over $400 billion (2013 USD) annually (Insel, 2008).

Many people with comorbid SUD and SMI do not receive concurrent treatment for the disorders (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2002, Watkins et al., 2001a), although integrated treatments have been shown to reduce drug use (Baker et al., 2006, Barrowclough et al., 2010, Bellack et al., 2006, Drake et al., 1998, Epstein et al., 2004, Watkins et al., 2001b, Weiss et al., 2009). While the results pertaining to reductions in psychiatric severity associated with many integrated treatments are mixed (Drake et al., 2008), two randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that CM alone (McDonell et al., 2013), or as part of a cognitive behavioral treatment (Bellack et al., 2006) can reduce drug and alcohol use, improve psychiatric symptoms, and reduce inpatient hospitalizations in adults who suffer from co-occurring SUDs and SMI. Moreover, a recent Cochrane Collaboration review reported that CM is a promising treatment for SUDs in outpatients with SMI (Hunt et al., 2013).

Despite the apparent promise of CM interventions in treating co-occurring SMI and SUD, perceived cost and an inability to bill for urine tests and tangible reinforcers present a significant barrier to implementation (Kirby et al., 1999, McGovern et al., 2004, Petry and Simcic, 2002, Srebnik et al., 2013). Information regarding the cost-effectiveness of CM is needed to inform policymakers who are increasingly making decisions about the availability of such treatments based on their clinical and cost effectiveness (Petry et al., 2014). Previous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) on CM have been favorable, but have focused on its application to the treatment of specific drugs rather than co-occurring SMI and SUD, and have focused solely on clinical measures for the effectiveness outcome, such as abstinence or treatment completion (Olmstead and Petry, 2009, Olmstead et al., 2007a, Olmstead et al., 2007b, Olmstead et al., 2007c, Sindelar et al., 2007a, Sindelar et al., 2007b). No studies to date have investigated the cost-effectiveness of CM for individuals with comorbid SMI and SUD, a particularly costly population.

Given that substance misuse affects most areas of functioning and SUDs are generally chronic conditions, quality-of-life is increasingly viewed as an important component of long-term recovery (Laudet, 2011); despite that, it is rarely included as an outcome in contingency-management CEAs. A cost-utility analysis (CUA) assesses the relative cost-effectiveness of an intervention; however, the outcome includes a measure of utility (i.e., satisfaction), and is often expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). QALYs are beneficial as a measure of effectiveness, in that they reflect the combined preference for length and quality of life. The purpose of this study is to conduct an economic evaluation of a CM intervention as an add-on to treatment-as-usual (TAU) for treating stimulant use disorders among 176 outpatients with a SMI.

Section snippets

CM intervention

McDonell et al. (2013) conducted a 12-week randomized controlled trial of CM with treatment-as-usual (CM + TAU) relative to TAU with non-contingent rewards for 176 individuals with SMI and stimulant dependence who were receiving community mental health and addiction treatment at one community mental health center in Seattle, Washington. Participants were assessed during the intervention as well as during a 12-week follow-up period. Eligibility criteria for the study included using stimulants in

Results

Descriptive statistics for patients’ demographic information, healthcare utilization (both intervention and follow-up) and direct medical costs for the 12-weeks prior to randomization, by study group, can be viewed in Table 1. The only significant difference between the two treatment groups was the number of inpatient days in the follow-up period, with the noncontingent-control group experiencing 4 and the CM group 0.

Discussion

The contingency management add-on to treatment as usual for patients with comorbid substance-use and serious-mental disorders costs an estimated $396 per individual over a 12-week treatment episode. Although the total direct medical cost differentials are all highly insignificant, due to the variability in the outpatient and non-study service variables, the results highlight some points worth of consideration for future CM studies. After adding outpatient mental-health and chemical-dependency

Conclusion

CM added to TAU appears to be a wise investment for providers and payers for treating SUDs among the very costly and difficult-to-manage population of individuals with a co-occurring SMI. CM plus TAU significantly improved time free from stimulants relative to TAU, an effect that was sustained over the follow-up period, with no significant difference in direct-medical costs or health-related quality-of-life.

Role of funding source

Supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse grant R01 DA022476-01 (principal investigator, Dr. Ries). The funding agency had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Contributors

Authors SMM, MGM and SM conceived the study, and managed the literature searches and summaries of previous related work. MGM, SM and FA were responsible for obtaining and cleaning the data. SMM performed the statistical analyses and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors provided input on the statistical approach, performed critical reviews and collaborated with SMM on manuscript revisions. All authors have approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Drs. McPherson and Roll have received research funding from the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation. Dr. Ries has been on the speakers bureaus of Alkermes and Janssen. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

References (62)

  • T.A. Olmstead et al.

    Cost-effectiveness of prize-based incentives for stimulant abusers in outpatient psychosocial treatment programs

    Drug Alcohol Depend.

    (2007)
  • N.M. Petry et al.

    Recent advances in the dissemination of contingency management techniques: clinical and research perspectives

    J. Subst. Abuse Treat.

    (2002)
  • J. Rabinowitz et al.

    Association of prominent positive and prominent negative symptoms and functional health, well-being, healthcare-related quality of life and family burden: a CATIE analysis

    Schizophr. Res.

    (2013)
  • J.M. Roll et al.

    Investigating the use of contingency management in the treatment of cocaine abuse among individuals with schizophrenia: a feasibility study

    Psychiatry Res.

    (2004)
  • R.D. Weiss et al.

    A “community-friendly” version of integrated group therapy for patients with bipolar disorder and substance dependence: a randomized controlled trial

    Drug Alcohol Depend.

    (2009)
  • K.M. Abram et al.

    Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill jail detainees Implications for public policy

    Am. Psychol.

    (1991)
  • A. Baker et al.

    Cognitive-behavioural therapy for substance use disorders in people with psychotic disorders: randomised controlled trial

    Br. J. Psychiatry

    (2006)
  • C. Barrowclough et al.

    Integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy for people with psychosis and comorbid substance misuse: randomised controlled trial

    BMJ

    (2010)
  • S.J. Bartels et al.

    Substance abuse in schizophrenia: service utilization and costs

    J. Nerv. Ment. Dis.

    (1993)
  • A.S. Bellack et al.

    A randomized clinical trial of a new behavioral treatment for drug abuse in people with severe and persistent mental illness

    Arch. Gen. Psychiatry

    (2006)
  • L.A. Benishek et al.

    Prize-based contingency management for the treatment of substance abusers: a meta-analysis

    Addiction

    (2014)
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics

    Occupational Outlook Handbook

    (2014)
  • J. de Leon et al.

    Epidemiology of comorbid tobacco use and schizophrenia: thinking about risks and protective factors

    J. Dual Diagn.

    (2007)
  • R.E. Drake et al.

    Assertive community treatment for patients with co-occurring severe mental illness and substance use disorder: a clinical trial

    Am. J. Orthopsychiatry

    (1998)
  • L. Dutra et al.

    A meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders

    Am. J. Psychiatry

    (2008)
  • D.P. Eisenberg et al.

    Structural differences within negative and depressive syndrome dimensions in schizophrenia, organic brain disease, and major depression: a confirmatory factor analysis of the positive and negative syndrome scale

    Psychopathology

    (2009)
  • J.F. Epstein et al.

    Predictors of treatment receipt among adults with a drug use disorder

    Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse

    (2004)
  • M. Galanter et al.

    Homelessness and mental illness in a professional- and peer-led cocaine treatment clinic

    Psychiatr. Serv.

    (1998)
  • H. Glick et al.

    Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials

    (2007)
  • T.W. Haywood et al.

    Predicting the revolving door phenomenon among patients with schizophrenic, schizoaffective, and affective disorders

    Am. J. Psychiatry

    (1995)
  • R.A. Hirth et al.

    Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard

    Med. Decis. Mak.

    (2000)
  • Cited by (29)

    • Current treatments of alcohol use disorder

      2024, International Review of Neurobiology
    • Increases in methamphetamine injection among treatment admissions in the U.S

      2023, Addictive Behaviors
      Citation Excerpt :

      While recent work suggests that combinations of bupropion and naltrexone may be useful in methamphetamine use disorder treatment (Trivedi et al., 2021), work is needed to confirm these initial findings and develop other medications. In addition, research and policy development is needed in the U.S. to allow widespread implementation of contingency management approaches which have shown consistent positive impacts but have not been widely used and have known implementation and sustainability challenges (Higgins et al., 2019; Murphy et al., 2015; Petry et al., 2017). Given the particular increases in injection methamphetamine use, research is urgently needed on its impact on HIV and other infectious disease transmission along with testing of approaches to reducing the spread of infectious diseases (Grov et al., 2020).

    • Contingency management for alcohol use disorder reduces cannabis use among American Indian and Alaska Native adults

      2022, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
      Citation Excerpt :

      In fact, CM appears to have a positive impact on nonreinforced substance use (McDonell et al., 2017a; Miguel et al., 2016). These clinical benefits can be obtained with an average per participant cost of about $100 in incentives for a 12-week intervention, with data from non-AI/AN populations showing CM as a cost-effective intervention for substance use disorders (Murphy et al., 2016, 2015). As is the case at the state level (Smart & Pacula, 2019), cannabis continues to be legalized among many Tribal nations, underscoring the urgent need for additional research on the mechanisms of co-use and the secondary effects of CM on nonreinforced cannabis use.

    • Mixed-methods trial of a phosphatidylethanol-based contingency management intervention to initiate and maintain alcohol abstinence in formerly homeless adults with alcohol use disorders

      2021, Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
      Citation Excerpt :

      If successful, we believe the costs of this CM intervention will be offset by cost savings associated with reductions in alcohol consumption, longer housing tenure, and other cost savings (e.g., lower utilization of acute or inpatient treatment). It is likely that the cost savings of preventing loss of housing alone is significant and an economic analysis in a subsequent study will determine the cost effectiveness of this novel PEth-based CM approach, as observed in previous studies which found CM to be cost effective [75–77]. Furthermore, reduced incentive amounts could be assessed in future trials to reduce overall cost burden once acceptability and feasibility of PEth-based CM interventions are established.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text