As both public and private funding for substance abuse treatment is limited, the cost-effectiveness (CE) of aftercare, a tool to prolong the benefits of treatment, is a critical policy concern. The study randomized 410 subjects on completion of rehabilitation therapy at two sites between relapse prevention (RP) aftercare and usual aftercare. Usual aftercare consisted of referral to community aftercare at site A, and standard care (SC) at the other site, B. RP assists clients in developing cognitive and behavioral coping strategies. SC aftercare employed a 12-Step recovery approach in a group counseling format, emphasizing discussion and didactic presentations. These extended over a 3-month period. All clients were free to access self-help aftercare at any time. The Treatment Services Review (TSR) instrument quantified the number of professional and self help sessions received at seven points over the follow up interval. There was a trend towards lower crime in the RP group in site A. The number of crimes per subject increased by 0.87 in the usual aftercare group from the two years before randomization to two years after, and fell by 0.24 in the RP group. This represents a net reduction of 1.11crimes from RP. From an institutional perspective, the CE of RP, expressed as per conviction prevented is $536 (derived as $595 / 1.11). From a societal perspective, the CE of RP is $514 (derived as $570 / 1.11). Both aftercare alternatives appear highly cost-effective compared to the $10,000 for the social cost of a conviction calculated in a previous study.
Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of the session the participant (learner) will understand the cost-effectiveness of relapse prevention and other aftercare approaches on specific treatment outcomes.
Keywords: Treatment Outcomes, Cost Issues
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: None
Disclosure not received
Relationship: Not Received.