This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by GOSSOP, M.
Right arrow Articles by STRANG, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by GOSSOP, M.
Right arrow Articles by STRANG, J.
The British Journal of Psychiatry (2000) 177: 262-266
© 2000 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Price, cost and value of opiate detoxification treatments

Reanalysis of data from two randomised trials

MICHAEL GOSSOP, PhD and JOHN STRANG, MRCPsych

National Addiction Centre, London

Correspondence: Professor M.Gossop, National Addiction Centre, 4 Windsor Walk, London SE5 8AF, UK

Declaration of interest Partial funding from the Medical Research Council.

Background Treatments in different settings have different costs. A dilemma arises if expensive treatments lead to better outcomes.

Aims To investigate conflicts between the priorities of cost minimisation, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness in the detoxification of opiate addicts.

Method Cost and clinical effectiveness were examined using published outcome data. The main outcome measures were: achieving a drug-free state on completion of detoxification; the economic costs of treatment.

Results In terms of simple cost, inpatient detoxification is much more expensive than out-patient treatment (ratio, 24:1). With adjustment for successful outcome, the costs are almost identical (ratio, 0.9:1). Comparison of specialist and general psychiatry in-patient settings showed that even when adjusted for clinical outcomes, the specialist setting is more costly (ratio, 1.9:1), although the outcomes are better.

Conclusions Naïve adherence to cost and cost-containment considerations is dangerous. Discussion of treatment costs is misleading if not informed by, and adjusted for, evidence of effectiveness. This is especially important where marked differences in outcome between treatment options exist.