ReviewAddiction (Abingdon, England)2005
Spending on substance abuse treatment: how much is enough?
Review in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare Expenditures Associated With Implementing an External Facilitation Program to Increase the Prescribing of Medications Used for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder Among Veterans.Substance use & addiction journal · 2025Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for opioid-dependent youth: data from a randomized trial.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2010Trial
- Improving 24-month abstinence and employment outcomes for substance-dependent women receiving temporary assistance for needy families with intensive case management.American journal of public health · 2009Trial
- Responding to the opioid crisis in North America and beyond: recommendations of the Stanford-Lancet Commission.Lancet (London, England) · 2022Review
- Article
- Service supply chains for population health: Overcoming fragmentation of service delivery ecosystems.Learning health systems · 2019Article
- Directed funding to address under-provision of treatment for substance use disorders: a quantitative study.Implementation science : IS · 2013Article
- Correlates of participation in peer recovery support groups as well as voluntary and mandated substance abuse treatment among rural and urban probationers.Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2012Article
- Rural drug users: factors associated with substance abuse treatment utilization.International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo describe a framework that can be used to determine optimal spending on substance abuse treatment in the United States.
methodsSelective review of the literature on spending for substance abuse treatment combined with an economic analysis of how to determine when spending is optimal, defining optimal spending as that which minimizes the social costs of substance use disorders.
resultsIn 1997, only $11.9 billion of the $294 billion estimated social costs of substance abuse was spent on treatment. The discrepancy between the high indirect costs of illness relative to the level of spending on treatment of addictive disorders leads many to believe that the United States spends too little on treatment. In this paper, we argue that information on the social costs of substance abuse disorders and the level of spending on treatment is insufficient to determine whether current spending is optimal. We develop a framework that could be used to determine optimal spending on substance abuse treatment in the United States. We develop this framework in four steps. First, we provide background on the unique financial and delivery features of substance abuse treatment. Secondly, we outline the points raised by advocates of expanded substance abuse treatment: substance abuse has high social costs, yet few people receive the many effective treatments available partly because of financial barriers to treatment. Thirdly, we provide a framework that can be used to judge the additional benefits of alternative levels and types of spending on substance abuse treatment. Finally, we discuss the distinction between the potential impact of spending on substance abuse treatment and its actual impact, using productivity as an example of one significant portion of the costs of substance abuse.
conclusionTo determine optimal spending on substance abuse treatment, research should describe who receives treatment, the quality of treatment received, and how treatments relate to outcomes that comprise a large share of the economic burden of substance abuse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.