Modeling the impact of a long‐term horizon and multiple treatment episodes on estimates of the cost‐effectiveness of alcohol treatment in the United States

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundMost clinical studies of alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment have short follow‐up periods, underestimating the full benefits of alcohol treatment. Furthermore, clinical studies only consider one treatment cycle and do not account for the need for multiple episodes to treat a chronic recurrent condition.MethodsA validated microsimulation model of the long‐term drinking patterns of people with AUD in the United States simulated 10,000 individuals resembling those from a large clinical trial. The model was used to assess the impact of (1) 1‐year, 5‐year, and lifetime horizon on alcohol treatment cost‐effectiveness estimates and (2) no, one, two, four, and unlimited additional treatment episodes on alcohol treatment cost‐effectiveness estimates. Model outcomes included healthcare costs, crime costs, labor market productivity, life expectancy, quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs), alcohol‐related hospitalizations, and deaths. Cost‐effectiveness analyses were conducted for two perspectives: a healthcare perspective that included costs from hospitalization and AUD treatment, and a broader societal perspective that also included crime costs and productivity.ResultsThe incremental cost per additional QALY gained for alcohol treatment compared with no treatment decreased from $55,590 after 1 year to $78 when healthcare costs and QALYs were tracked over the lifetime, that is, treatment became more cost effective. Treatment was cost saving for any time frame when the impacts on crime and labor productivity were also accounted for in a societal perspective. Access to multiple treatment episodes dominated (i.e., it was more effective and less costly) than no‐treatment and one‐episode scenarios. From a healthcare perspective, incremental costs per additional QALY for increasing from a maximum of two to four treatment episodes was $499 and from four to unlimited episodes was $5049. The unlimited treatment scenario dominated all others from a societal perspective. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsA long‐term perspective and multiple episodes of alcohol treatment improve cost‐effectiveness estimates. When societal impacts are included, alcohol treatment is cost saving. Results support the value of alcohol treatment.