Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Addiction Costs Medicaid Hundreds of Millions Annually, Study Says
January 6, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
Research Summary

More than one in four Medicaid recipients have a diagnosed addiction problem, researchers said this week, and the cost of providing behavioral healthcare and medical care for these individuals runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually when compared with Medicaid recipients who don't have alcohol or other drug problems.

A new study from the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program looked at the medical records of about 150,000 Medicaid recipients in six states, and concluded that the 29 percent of patients diagnosed with alcohol or other drug addictions cost these six states alone an extra $104 million for medical care and $105.5 million for behavioral healthcare.

"We found that the medical-care costs for all health problems among those with substance abuse issues are quite significant, which means that there could be a huge cost savings if prevention or early treatment programs were started to improve the health of substance abusers," said Robin E. Clark, Ph.D., associate professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts Medical School's Center for Health Policy and Research.

Costs did vary widely from state to state, however, reflecting differences in available behavioral-health treatment services.

General medical costs rose steeply as people with addictions got older, the study found -- even more than costs for addiction and mental-health care.

Researchers attributed this finding to higher rates of illness among older people, the impact of long-term alcohol and other drug use, greater reluctance to seek specialty addiction treatment among this population, and more severe chronic disease among older, addicted patients.

The study, "The Impact of Substance Use Disorders on Medical Expenditures for Medicaid Beneficiaries with Behavioral Health Disorders," was published in the January 2009 issue of the journal Psychiatric Services.

This article summarizes an external report or press release on research published in a scientific journal. When available, links to the sources are provided above.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:
(Comments now appear first to last)

Posted by Robin on 07 Jan 09 09:33 AM EST
The "greater reluctance to seek specialty addiction treatment among this population" is because in most cases the most effective treatments are NOT COVERED by Medicaid!!!! If evidence-based, effective treatments were a part of the federally MANDATED covered services, the Medicaid costs to the states and the federal governments WOULD GO DOWN significantly. Did the report find out how much of the healthcare cost was related to DRUG -SEEKING???? If those people were referred in the ERs and PCP offices to the appropriate treatment, and it was covered by Medicaid, we would all save BILLIONS and many, many lives. Catch addiction EARLY and the overall lifetime cost (in $$$ and immeasurable "pricelss" human cost) is more than significantly reduced.

Posted by Paul Roman on 07 Jan 09 09:49 AM EST
Likely such statistics are also found for obese clients and clients who smoke. These data certainly do not encourage states to increase or improve services for substance abuse. While certainly empirically sound, this is the kind of publicity that helps this specialty to continually shoot itself in both feet, and then wonder why it has so much trouble competing in the race for increasingly scarce dollars.

Posted by Kim on 07 Jan 09 09:59 AM EST
Yes! My husband pays $75 a week for 180mg a day of methadone. That is horrible, more than a car payment, and more than I ever paid for child care. Welfare pays for those who do not try to do anything with their lives except get on the bus and get to the clinic every morning for that free dose! We work every day, struggle, and yet welfare would probably say we make way too much for any assistance. Now that the clinic has my husband stuck on methadone, what else can we do? He can go away for a while, but he doesn't want to lose his job, even though I would take care of everything for him to get away from that clinic. They are thieves. They get you hooked on their drug, and take your life along with your spouse and kids' lives away! It is easier to go through withdrawal from opiates yourself in your own home! A couple of days and your fine. I promise!!!!

Posted by denise on 07 Jan 09 03:02 PM EST
The level of frustration in treating addiction is apparent in the postings of previous commentors. While it will never be 100% effective, prevention programs have been found to effectively reduce use, and therefore the need for treatment. But don't take my word for it--check out the findings of the research conducted by the Washington State Institute of Public Policy at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=04-07-3901 for more information. Every state legislator should consider these findings and take heed of the CDC recommendations for minimum support of prevention programs rather than put all the tobacco settlement and tobacco excise dollars into the general fund!

Posted by Tom Allen on 07 Jan 09 04:10 PM EST
Every day we refer privately insured patients to adequately funded treatment programs while those with public insurance are restricted to underfunded & struggling treatment facilities. Additionaly, research demonstrates the only indicator of long term recovery is length of time in treatment. Yet even private insurance atttempts to minimize length of treatment episodes and we blame the patient because we have not provided adequate treatment and the patients are given responsiblity for their "recidivism". Maybe if we as a society made an upfront commitment to good medical treatment long term medical expenses would diminish.

Posted by Warren Fritze, LADC on 12 Jan 09 09:58 AM EST
As an addictions counselor, I see no end to the clients who come through my treatment center's doors. Poverty, addiction, low education, and few prospects for housing, meaningful employment. And the clients, despite research, only get a few weeks of treatment, which is dictated by the HMOs. Travesty. If we truly wanted a healthy society, which comes from healthy individuals as well as healthy families, we'd lengthen stays in treatment and sober housing. But, there is an obvious discrepency between what the research proves and what the HMOs dictate.

Posted by Jere on 12 Jan 09 10:02 AM EST
The more things change the more they remain the same. In the 70's organizations, such as the U.S. Navy, and others, did similiar studies but they also went on to examine the cost differential pre -post AOD treatment. In the case of the Navy, it was established that there was a 3 to 1 ratio of costs associated with those who received treatment for AOD and then costs for other medical visits and conditions were compared. Other studies even did better and some, extended their work, to include medical costs for the entire family when pre-post AOD treatment was compared.

Posted by DB on 12 Jan 09 11:03 AM EST
Substane abuse frequently is present in people who have untreated or undertreated mental illness in approximately 50% of those patients. Mental illness is a BIOLOGICAL BRAIN DISORDER. It goes without saying that no one would choose to have mental illness and the substance abuse issues which frequently co-exists anymore than they would choose to have cancer or a stroke. Patients with untreated or undertreated mental illness frequently turn to drugs and/or alcohol in an attempt to overcome symptoms of undiagnosed or poorly treated mental illness. Did the study address or differentiate between patients with substance abuse alone and those with co-existing mental illness? By providing better access to quality mental healthcare and treatment, we would certainly see a large drop in substance abuse and allow patients with mental illness to improve the quality of their life and a more productive life. In the long run, it should save $$$ on treatment of substance abuse.

Posted by LL on 14 Jan 09 02:06 AM EST
As a provider of substance abuse treatment I often roll my eyes and sigh at articles like this that draw attention to the fact that people suffering with addiction problems are systematically stereotyped as undesirable people. Addictions tend to be a familial systemic problems that are past down through generations. If we wish to support health and well-being in our society, my suggestion would be to begin demanding opportunities for addicted people and their families to utilize the treatment they need to arrest their devastating disease and heal their families. Everyone deserves the opportunity to reach out for help and receive that help. Currently, there seem to be so many barriers to treatment for the majority of people that many never receive the help they so desperately need. Standing with every addict/alcoholic is their family who suffer sometimes as much as the substance abuser.

Posted by Shattah206 on 14 Jan 09 06:54 PM EST
OK, I am all for affordable treatment, but there is another component, expecially among the aging. That is the "I'm old enough to do what I want" mentality. Folks who drank moderately in their forties & fifties often kick it up a notch after they retire. A friend of my grandmother's got a DUI in her late sixties and the whole bunch of them thought it was the funniest thing they'd heard in years. I played cards with them after she got out of the pokey and they razzed her all evening. But was there any sense of outrage that their friend had endangered the lives of other motorists? No. And I am talking about a bunch of white, middle class retirees.

Your Turn! Post a public comment (guidelines):

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for everyone, please:

  1. Keep it clean, courteous, brief, and on-topic. Comments are for discussion of the above article, not general rants or manifestos. Serial comments intended to circumvent the 250-word limit may be deleted.

  2. Do not post promotional web links, personal information or requests for assistance (get help).

  3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercial posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.