Using Administrative Data for Longitudinal Substance Abuse Research

  • Elizabeth Evans
  • Christine E. Grella
  • Debra A. Murphy
  • Yih-Ing Hser
Regular Article


The utilization of administrative data in substance abuse research has become more widespread than ever. This selective review synthesizes recent extant research from 31 articles to consider what has been learned from using administrative data to conduct longitudinal substance abuse research in four overlapping areas: (1) service access and utilization, (2) underrepresented populations, (3) treatment outcomes, and (4) cost analysis. Despite several notable limitations, administrative data contribute valuable information, particularly in the investigation of service system interactions and outcomes among substance abusers as they unfold and influence each other over the long term. This critical assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of using existing administrative data within a longitudinal framework should stimulate innovative thinking regarding future applications of administrative data for longitudinal substance abuse research purposes.


administrative data longitudinal research substance abuse treatment outcomes health services utilization 


  1. 1.
    Hser YI, Anglin MD, Grella C, et al. Drug treatment careers: a conceptual framework and existing research findings. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 1997;14(6):543–558.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hser YI, Teruya C, Brown A, et al. Impact of California’s Proposition 36 on the drug treatment system: treatment capacity and displacement. American Journal of Public Health. 2007;97(1):104–109.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lundgren LM, Sullivan L, Amodeo M. How do treatment repeaters use the drug treatment system? an analysis of injection drug users in Massachusetts. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2006;30(2):121–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McLellan AT. Have we evaluated addiction treatment correctly? Implications from a chronic care perspective. Addiction. 2002;97(3):249–252.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O’Brien CP, et al. Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. 2000;284(13):1689–1695.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hser YI, Hoffman V, Grella CE, et al. A 33-year follow-up of narcotics addicts. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2001;58(5):503–508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moos RH, Moos BS. Sixteen-year changes and stable remission among treated and untreated individuals with alcohol use disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2005;80(3):337–347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Price RK, Risk NK, Spitznagel EL. Remission from drug abuse over a 25-year period: patterns of remission and treatment use. American Journal of Public Health. 2001;91(7):1107–1113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bhandari A, Wagner T. Self-reported utilization of health care services: improving measurement and accuracy. Medical Care Research and Review. 2006;63(2):217–235.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evans E, Murphy D, Grella C, et al. Regulatory issues encountered when conducting longitudinal substance abuse research. Journal of Drug Issues (2008) in press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anglin MD, Hser YI, Chou C. Reliability and validity of retrospective behavioral self-report by narcotics addicts. Evaluation Review. 1993;17(1):91–108.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cherpitel CJ, Ye Y, Bond J, et al. Validity of self-reported drinking before injury compared with a physiological measure: cross-national analysis of emergency-department data from 16 countries. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2007;68(2):296–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Del Boca FK, Noll JA. Truth or consequences: the validity of self-report data in health services research on addictions. Addiction. 2000;95:347–360.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fendrich M, Johnson TP, Wislar JS, et al. The utility of drug testing in epidemiological research: results from a general population survey. Addiction. 2004;99:2197–2208.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Langenbucher J, Merrill J. The validity of self-reported cost events by substance abusers: limits, liabilities, and future directions. Evaluation Review. 2001;25(2):184–210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vitale SG, van de Mheen H, van de Wiel A, et al. Substance use among emergency room patients: is self-report preferable to biochemical markers? Addictive Behaviors. 2006;31(9):1661–1669.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saunders RC, Heflinger CA. Integrating data from multiple public sources: opportunities and challenges for evaluators. Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. 2004;10(3):349–365.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Banks SM, Pandiani JA. Probabilistic population estimation of the size and overlap of data sets based on date of birth. Statistics in Medicine. 2001;20(9–10):1421–1430.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whalen D, Pepitone A, Graver L, et al. Linking Client Records from Substance Abuse, Mental Health and Medicaid State Agencies. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2001.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brady H, Powell A, Grand S, et al. Access and Confidentiality Issues with Administrative Data. National Research Council Studies of Welfare Populations: Data Collection and Research Issues. Washington: National Academics Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCarty D, McGuire TG, Harwood HJ, et al. Using state information systems for drug abuse services research. American Behavioral Scientist. 1998;41(8):1090–1106.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Billings J. Using administrative data to monitor access, identify disparities, and assess performance of the safety net: tools for monitoring the health care safety net. 2003. Available at: Accessed August 16, 2007.
  23. 23.
    Dickey B, Normand ST, Drake R, et al. Limiting inpatient substance use treatment: what are the consequences? Medical Care Research and Review. 2003;60(3):332–346.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Duran F, Wilson S, Carroll D. Putting Administrative Data to Work: A Toolkit for State Agencies on Advancing Data Integration and Data Sharing Efforts to Support Sound Policy and Program Development. Farmington, CT: Child Health and Development Institute of Connecticut; 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cuellar AE, Snowden LM, Ewing T. Criminal records of persons served in the public mental health system. Psychiatric Services. 2007;58(1):114–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garnick DW, Hendricks AM, Comstock CB. Measuring quality of care: fundamental information from administrative datasets. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 1994;6(2):163–177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Glance LG, Dick AW, Osler T, et al. Accuracy of hospital report cards based on administrative data. Health Services Research. 2006;41(4):1413–1437.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goerge R. Using administrative data to perform policy-relevant research. 1997. Available at: www/ Accessed January 26, 2006.
  29. 29.
    Hotz VJ, Goerge R, Balzekas J, et al. Administrative Data for Policy-Relevant Research: Assessment of Current Utility and Recommendations for Development. A Report of the Advisory Panel on Research Uses of Administrative Data. Northwestern University/University of Chicago: Joint Center for Poverty Research; 1998.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smilanick P. Welfare attrition: cases leaving aid what we know from statewide administrative data. 2001. Available at: Accessed December 9, 2005.
  31. 31.
    UC Data. A Report by UC DATA to the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research. An Inventory of Research Uses of Administrative Data in Social Services Programs in the United States: 1998. Data Archive & Technical Assistance, University of California, Berkeley, 1999.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saunders RC, Heflinger CA. Access to and patterns of use of behavioral health services among children and adolescents in TennCare. Psychiatric Services. 2003;54(10):1364–1371.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zingmond DS, Ettner SL, Cunningham WE. The impact of managed care on access to highly active antiretroviral therapy and on outcomes among Medicaid beneficiaries with AIDS. Medical Care Research and Review. 2007;64(1):66–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Young TK, Kliewer E, Blanchard J, et al. Monitoring disease burden and preventive behavior with data linkage: cervical cancer among aboriginal people in Manitoba, Canada. American Journal of Public Health. 2000;90:1466–1468.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sorensen B, Shen H. Restraining orders in California: a look at statewide data. Violence Against Women. 2005;11(7):912–933.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Desai MM, Rosenheck RA, Craig TJ. Case-finding for depression among medical outpatients in the veterans health administration. Medical Care. 2006;44(2):175–181.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Desai RA, Stefanovics EA, Rosenheck RA. The role of psychiatric diagnosis in satisfaction with primary care: data from the department of veterans affairs. Medical Care. 2005;43(12):1208–1216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Greenberg GA, Rosenheck RA. Continuity of care and clinical outcomes in a national health system. Psychiatric Services. 2005;56(4):427–433.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McGinnis KA, Fine MJ, Sharma RK, S, et al. Understanding racial disparities in HIV using data from the veterans aging cohort 3-site study and VA administrative data. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93(10):1728–1733.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dickey B, Dembling B, Azeni H, et al. Externally caused deaths for adults with substance use and mental disorders. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2004;31(1):75–85.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Drescher K, Rosen C, Burling T, et al. Causes of death among male veterans who received residential treatment for PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2003;16(6):535–543.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Johnson JE, Finney JW, Moos RH. Predictors of 5-year mortality following inpatient/residential group treatment for substance use disorders. Addictive Behaviors. 2005;30(7):1300–1316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liskow BI, Powell BJ, Penick EC, et al. Mortality in male alcoholics after ten to fourteen years. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2000;61(6):853–861.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Masudomi I, Isse K, Uchiyama M, et al. Self-help groups reduce mortality risk: a 5-year follow-up study of alcoholics in the Tokyo metropolitan area. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 2004;58(5):551–557.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moos RH, Brennan PL, Mertens JR. Mortality rates and predictors of mortality among late-middle-aged and older substance abuse patients. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 1994;18(1):187–195.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schifano F, Oyefeso A, Corkery J, et al. Death rates from ecstasy (MDMA, MDA) and polydrug use in England and Wales, 1996–2002. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental. 2003;18(7):519–524.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Smyth B, Fan J, Hoffman V, et al. Years of potential life lost among heroin addicts 33 years after treatment. Preventive Medicine. 2007;44(4):369–374.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vlahov D, Wang C, Galai N, et al. Mortality risk among new onset injection drug users. Addiction. 2004;99(8):946–954.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Katon WJ, Roy-Byrne P, Russo J, et al. Cost-effectiveness and cost offset of a collaborative care intervention for primary care patients with panic disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2002;59(12):1098–1104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Finigan MW. Societal Outcomes and Cost Savings of Drug and Alcohol Treatment in the State of Oregon. Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs: Oregon Department of Human Resources; 1996.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gerstein DR, Johnson RA, Harwood H, et al. Evaluating Recovery Services. The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA). Sacramento, CA: State of California Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs; 1994.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Longhi D, Brown M, Comtois R. ADATSA Treatment Outcomes: Employment and Cost Avoidance: An Eighteen Month Follow-Up Study of Indigent Persons Served by Washington States Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Treatment and Support Act (Report Number 4.19). Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Planning, Research and Development. Office of Research and Data Analysis, November, 1994.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Developing State Outcomes Monitoring Systems for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Treatment: Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 14. DHHS Pub. No. SMA 95-3021. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; 1995.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brown TG, Topp J, Ross D. Rationales, obstacles and strategies for local outcome monitoring systems in substance abuse treatment settings. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2003;24(1):31–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Camp JM, Krakow M, McCarty D, et al. Substance abuse treatment management information systems: balancing federal, state, and service provider needs. Journal of Mental Health Adminstration. 1992;19(1):5–20.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ogborne AC, Braun K, Rush BR. Developing an integrated information system for specialized addiction treatment agencies. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 1998;25(1):100–107.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Teruya C, Hardy M, Hser YI, et al. Implementation of a statewide outcome monitoring system: lessons learned from substance abuse treatment provider staff. Qualitative Health Research. 2006;16(3):337–352.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wisdom JP, Ford IH, Hayes RA, et al. Addiction treatment agencies’ use of data: a qualitative assessment. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2006;33(4):394–407.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tiet QQ, Byrnes HF, Barnett P, et al. A practical system for monitoring the outcomes of substance use disorder patients. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2006;30(4):337–347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Alterman AI, Langenbucher J, Morrison RL. State-level treatment outcome studies using administrative databases. Evaluation Review. 2001;25(2):162–183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bailey WP. Tools for monitoring the health care safety net: integrated state data systems. 2007. Available at: Accessed February 6, 2007.
  62. 62.
    Garnick DW, Lee MT, Chalk M, et al. Establishing the feasibility of performance measures for alcohol and other drugs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;23(4):375–385.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Evans E, Hser YI. Pilot-testing a statewide outcome monitoring system: overview of the California Treatment Outcome Project (CalTOP). Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, SARC Supplement. 2004;2:109–114.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    TOPPS-II Interstate Cooperative Study. Drug treatment completion and post-discharge employment in the TOPPS-II Interstate Cooperative Study. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2003;25(1):9–18.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    CSAT Performance Management Technical Assistance Coordinating Center. TAP 29: Integrating State Administrative Records to Manage Substance Abuse Treatment System Performance. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; 2007.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Garnick DW, Hodgkin D, Horgan CM. Selecting data sources for substance abuse services research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;22(1):11–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Garnick DW, Horgan CM, Chalk M. Performance measures for alcohol and other drug services. Alcohol Research & Health. 2006;29(1):19–26.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. Developing an Outcomes Monitoring System Using Secondary Data to Evaluate Substance Abuse Treatment. Final Report. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2000.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lundgren L, Chassler D, Ben-Ami L, et al. Factors associated with emergency room use among injection drug users of African–American, Hispanic and White–European background. American Journal on Addiction. 2005;14(3):268–280.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rosen MI, McMahon TJ, Rosenheck R. Does assigning a representative payee reduce substance abuse? Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007;86(2–3):115–122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ray GT, Weisner CM, Mertens JR. Relationship between use of psychiatric services and five-year alcohol and drug treatment outcomes. Psychiatric Services. 2005;56(2):164–171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Maynard C, Cox GB, Krupski A, et al. Utilization of services by persons discharged from involuntary chemical dependency treatment. Journal of Addictive Diseases. 2000;19(2):83–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Deck DD, McFarland BH, Titus JM, et al. Access to substance abuse treatment services under the Oregon health plan. JAMA. 2000;284(16):2093–2099.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Deck D, Carlson MJ. Access to publicly funded methadone maintenance treatment in two western states. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2004;31(2):164–177.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Deck D, Carlson MJ. Retention in publicly funded methadone maintenance treatment in two western states. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2005;32(1):43–60.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Fuller BE, Rieckmann TR, McCarty DJ, et al. Elimination of methadone benefits in the Oregon health plan and its effects on patients. Psychiatric Services. 2006;57(5):686–691.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Deck DD, Wiitala WL, Laws KE. Medicaid coverage and access to publicly funded opiate treatment. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2006;33(3):324–334.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Cook TD, Campbell D. Quasi-experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: RandMcNally; 1979.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Farabee D, Hser T, Anglin MD, et al. Recidivism among an early cohort of California’s Proposition 36 offenders. Criminology & Public Policy. 2004;3(4):563–584.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Niv N, Hser YI. Drug treatment service utilization and outcomes for Hispanic and White methamphetamine abusers. Health Services Research. 2006;41(4):1242–1257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Evans E, Spear S, Huang Y, et al. Do American Indians benefit from drug and alcohol treatment? treatment outcomes among American Indians in CalTOP. American Journal of Public Health. 2006;96(5):889–896.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Niv N, Wong EC, Hser YI. Asian Americans in community-based substance abuse treatment: service needs, utilization, and outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007;33(3):313–319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Hser YI, Evans E, Huang D. Treatment outcomes among women and men methamphetamine abusers in California. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2005;28:77–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Hser YI, Niv N. Pregnant women in women-only and mixed-gender substance abuse treatment programs: a comparison of client characteristics and program services. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2006;33(4):431–442.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Niv N, Hser YI. Women-only and mixed-gender drug abuse treatment programs: service needs, utilization and outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007;87(2–3):194–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hser YI, Grella C, Evans E, et al. Utilization and outcomes of mental health services among patients in drug treatment. Journal of Addictive Diseases. 2006;25(1):73–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Grella CE, Hser YI, Huang Y. Mothers in substance abuse treatment: differences in characteristics based on involvement with child welfare services. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2006;30(1):55–73.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Green BL, Rockhill A, Furrer C. Does substance abuse treatment make a difference for child welfare case outcomes? A statewide longitudinal analysis. Children and Youth Services Review. 2006;29:460–473.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Claus RE, Orwin RG, Kissin W, et al. Does gender-specific substance abuse treatment for women promote continuity of care? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007;32(1):27–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Wickizer T, Maynard C, Atherly A, et al. Completion rates of clients discharged from drug and alcohol treatment programs in Washington state. American Journal Public Health. 1994;84(2):215–221.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Mertens JR, Weisner CM, Ray GT. Readmission among chemical dependency patients in private, outpatient treatment: patterns, correlates and role in long-term outcome. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2005;66(6):842–847.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Metsch LR, Pereyra M, Miles CC, et al. Welfare and work outcomes after substance abuse treatment. Social Service Review. 2003;77(2):237–254.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Panas L, Caspi Y, Fournier E, et al. Performance measures for outpatient substance abuse services: group versus individual counseling. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2003;25(4):271–278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Luchansky B, He L, Krupski A, et al. Predicting readmission to substance abuse treatment using state information systems: the impact of client and treatment characteristics. Journal of Substance Abuse. 2000;12(3):255–270.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Maynard C, Cox GB, Hall J, et al. Substance use and five-year survival in Washington state mental hospitals. Administration and Policy in Mental Health. 2004;31(4):339–345.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Luchansky B, Nordlund D, Estee S, et al. Substance abuse treatment and criminal justice involvement for ssi recipients: results from Washington state. American Journal on Addictions. 2006;15(5):370–379.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Bureau of Justice Statistics. Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report, 2001 Update (Report No. NCJ 187670). Washington, D.C: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs; 2001.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Lu M, Ma CT. Consistency in performance evaluation reports and medical records. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics. 2003;5(4):141–152.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Kressin NR, Chang BH, Hendricks A, et al. Agreement between administrative data and patients’ self-reports of race/ethnicity. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93(10):1734–1739.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Luchansky B, Brown M, Longhi D, et al. Chemical dependency treatment and employment outcomes: results from the ‘ADATSA’ program in Washington state. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2000;60(2):151–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Luchansky B, He L, Longhi D, et al. Treatment readmissions and criminal recidivism in youth following participation in chemical dependency treatment. Journal of Addictive Diseases. 2006;25(1):87–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Luchansky B, Krupski A, Stark K. Treatment response by primary drug of abuse: does methamphetamine make a difference? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007;32(1):89–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    French MT, Salomé HJ, Carney M. Using the DATCAP and ASI to estimate the costs and benefits of residential addiction treatment in the state of Washington. Social Science & Medicine. 2002;55(12):2267–2282.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Harwood H, Fountain D, Livermore G. The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in The United States, 1992. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1998.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Holder HD. Cost benefits of substance abuse treatment: an overview of results from alcohol and drug abuse. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics. 1998;1:23–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    McCollister KE, French MT. The relative contribution of outcome domains in the total economic benefit of addiction interventions: a review of first findings. Addiction. 1998;98:1647–1659.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Salome HJ, French MT, Scott C, et al. Investigating the economic costs and benefits of addiction treatment: econometric analysis of the Chicago target cities project. Evaluation and Programming Planning. 2003;26(3):325–38.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Sindelar JL, Jofre-Bonet M, French MT, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of addiction treatment: paradoxes of multiple outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2004;73(1):41–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Wall R, Rehm J, Fischer B, et al. Social costs of untreated opioid dependence. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 2000;77(4):688–722.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Vencill C, Sadjadi Z. Allocation of the California war costs: direct expenses, externalities, opportunity costs, and fiscal losses. The Justice Policy Journal. 2001;1(1):1–40.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Office of National Drug Control Policy. The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992–1998 (Publication No. NCJ-190636.). Washington, DC: The Executive Office of the President; 2001.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    French MT, Salome H, Krupski A, et al. Benefit-cost analysis of residential and outpatient addiction of treatment in the state of Washington. Evaluation Review. 2000;24(6):609–634.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Hunkeler E, Hung Y, Rice D, et al. Alcohol consumption patterns and health care costs in an HMO. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2001;64:181–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Sturm R. The Costs of Covering Mental Health and Substance Abuse as Medical Care in Private Insurance Plans (RAND Health Publication No. CT-180.). Chicago, IL: RAND; 2001.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Sturm R. The effects of obesity, smoking and drinking on medical problems and costs. Health Affairs. 2002;21(2):245–253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Palepu A, Tyndall MW, Leon H, et al. Hospital utilization and costs in a cohort of injection drug users. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2001;165:415–420.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Daley M, Argeriou M, McCarty D, et al. The costs of crime and the benefits of substance abuse treatment for pregnant women. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2000;19(4):445–458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Mark T, Woody G, Juday T, et al. The economic costs of heroin addiction. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2001;61:195–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Merrill J, Fox K. The Impact of Substance Abuse on Federal Spending. Cost-Benefit/Cost-Effectiveness Research of Drug Abuse Prevention: Implications for Programming and Policy. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1998.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Gresenz C, Watkins K, Podus D. Supplemental security income (SSI); disability insurance (DI), and substance abusers. Community Mental Health Journal. 1998;34(4):337–350.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Cook P, Moore M. The economics of alcohol abuse and alcohol-control policies. Health Affairs. 2000;21(2):120–133.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Parthasarathy S, Weisner CM. Five-year trajectories of health care utilization and cost in a drug and alcohol treatment sample. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2005;80(2):231–240.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Polen MR, Freeborn DK, Lynch FL, et al. Medical cost-offset following treatment referral for alcohol and other drug use disorders in a group model HMO. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2006;33(3):335–346.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Ettner SL, Huang D, Evans E, et al. Benefit-cost in the California treatment outcome project: does substance abuse treatment “pay for itself?”. Health Services Research. 2006;41(1):192–213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Wickizer TM, Krupski A, Stark KD, et al. The effect of substance abuse treatment on medicaid expenditures among general assistance welfare clients in Washington state. Milbank Quarterly. 2006;84(3):555–576.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Carey SM, Finigan M, Crumpton D, et al. California drug courts: outcomes, costs and promising practices: an overview of phase ii in a statewide study. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, SARC Supplement. 2006;3:345–356.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Longshore D, Hawken A, Urada D, et al. SACPA Cost-Analysis Report. Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; 2007.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Caspi Y, Turner WM, Panas L, et al. The severity index: an indicator of alcohol and drug dependence using administrative data. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly. 2001;19(4):49–64.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Deck DD, McFarland BH. Medicaid managed care and substance abuse treatment. Psychiatric Services. 2002;53(7):802.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Garnick DW, Horgan CM, Lee MT, et al. Are Washington circle performance measures associated with decreased criminal activity following treatment? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007;33(4):341–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    McCamant LE, Zani BG, McFarland BH, et al. Prospective validation of substance abuse severity measures from administrative data. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007;86(1):37–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    McFarland BH, Deck DD, McCamant LE, et al. Outcomes for medicaid clients with substance abuse problems before and after managed care. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2005;32(4):351–367.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Bray J, Vandivort R, Dilonardo J, et al. Healthcare utilization of individuals with opiate use disorders: an analysis of integrated Medicaid and state mental health/substance abuse agency data. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2008;35(1):91–106.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Hser YI, Evans E, Teruya C, et al. The California Treatment Outcome Project (CalTOP) Final Report. Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; 2003.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Walker R, Mateyoke-Scrivner A, Cole J, et al. Kentucky treatment outcome study statewide follow-up findings fiscal year 2005. 2007. Available at Accessed January 25, 2008.
  136. 136.
    Logan TK, Hoyt W, Leukefeld C. Kentucky drug court outcome evaluation: behavior, costs, & avoided costs to society. 2001. Available at Accessed January 25, 2008.
  137. 137.
    Justice AC, Erdos J, Brandt C, et al. The veterans affairs healthcare system a unique laboratory for observational and interventional research. Medical Care. 2006;44(8):S7–S12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Walkup JT, Yanos PT. Psychological research with administrative data sets: an underutilized strategy for mental health services research. Professional Psychology Research and Practice. 2005;36(5):551–557.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Robins LN. Explaining when arrests end for serious juvenile offenders: comments on the Sampson and Laub study. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2005;602:57–72.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Divorski S, Scheirer MA. Improving data quality for performance measures: results from a GAO study of verification and validation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2001;24:83–94.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Wismer K. Use of registers in social statistics in Denmark. Expert Group Meeting on Setting the Scope of Social Statistics. New York: United Nations Statistics Division in collaboration with the Siena Group on Social Statistics, 2003.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Berman F, Brady H. Cyberinfrastructure and the social sciences: final report of NSF SBE-CISE workshop. 2005. Available at: Accessed August 16, 2007.
  143. 143.
    McLellan AT, Chalk M, Bartlett J. Outcomes, performance, and quality: what’s the difference? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007;32(4):331–340.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Evans
    • 1
  • Christine E. Grella
    • 1
  • Debra A. Murphy
    • 1
  • Yih-Ing Hser
    • 1
  1. 1.UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human BehaviorUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations