How Cost-of-Illness Studies Can be Made More Useful for Illicit Drug Policy Analysis

Review Article


Cost-of-illness (COI) studies seemingly provide a solid foundation for quantifying the potential benefits of illicit drug policy interventions that reduce drug use at the population level. However, their usefulness is severely limited. In this paper, we suggest several improvements to substance abuse COI studies. The first set of improvements can be implemented with little change to the current framework: developing estimates that reflect the best available information, rather than using lower bound estimates that represent ‘conservative’ figures; dealing with uncertainty explicitly by developing estimation ranges; and disaggregating social costs by particular illicit drug types. The second set of improvements address key conceptual problems in transferring a health approach to a ‘condition’ where healthcare costs are a minor component: dealing with the intangible costs of drug dependence; valuing property crime; including systemic crime; and considering the spillover effects of drug abuse on human capital formation. COI studies can become valuable sources of policy-relevant information if their authors improve the current approach by making changes such as those identified here.


  1. 1.
    MacCoun RJ, Reuter P. Drug war heresies: learning from other vices, titimes, & places. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    French MT, Roebuck MC, McLellan AT. Cost estimation when time and resources are limited: the brief DATCAP. J Subst Abuse Treat 2004; 27: 187–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCollister KE, French MT, Inciardi JA, et al. Post-release substance abuse treatment for criminal offenders: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Quant Criminol 2003; 19(4): 389–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kopp P. Economic costs calculations and drug policy evaluation. Addiction 1999; 94(5): 641–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caulkins JP, Pacula R, Paddock S, et al. School-based drug prevention: what kind of drug use does it prevent? Santa Monica (CA): RAND, 2002. Publication no. MR-1459-RWJGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McFadden M, Mwesigye S-E. Drug harm index: revised. Platypus Magazine, October. Canberra (ACT): Australian Federal Police, 2004Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harwood H, Fountain D, Livermore G. The economic costs of alcohol and drug abuse in the United States, 1992. Rockville (MD): National Institutes on Drug Abuse, 1998Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Office of National Drug Control Policy. The economic costs of drug abuse in the United States, 1992–1998. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 2001. Publication no. NCJ-190636Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Office of National Drug Control Policy. The economic costs of drug abuse in the United States, 1992–2002. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 2004. Publication no. 207303Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Collins DJ, Lapsley HM. Estimating the economic costs of drug abuse in Australia, national campaign against drug abuse monograph series no. 15. Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health, 1991Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collins DJ, Lapsley HM. The social costs of drug abuse in Australia in 1988 and 1992, national drug strategy monograph series no. 30. Canberra (ACT): Australian Government Publishing Service, 1996Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collins DJ, Lapsley HM. Counting the cost: estimates of the social costs of drug abuse in 1998–99. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2002 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Jun 27]Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Single E, Robson L, Xie X, et al. The economic costs of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs in Canada, 1992. Addiction 1998; 93(7): 991–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fenoglio P, Parel V, Kopp P. The social cost of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs in France, 1997. Eur Addict Res 2003; 9: 18–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    García-Altés A, Ma Ollé J, Antoñanzas F, et al. The social cost of illegal drug consumption in Spain. Addiction 2002; 97(9): 1145–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Single E, Collins D, Easton B, et al. International guidelines for estimating the costs of substance abuse: 2001 edition. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2001Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Single E, Collins D, Easton B, et al. International guidelines for estimating the costs of substance abuse: second edition. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bloom BS, Bruno DJ, Maman DY, et al. Usefulness of US cost-of-illness studies in healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19(2): 207–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Byford S, Torgerson DJ, Raftery J. Cost of illness studies. BMJ 2000; 320: 1335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohodes DR. Problems in measuring the cost of illness. Eval Health Prof 1982; 5(4): 381–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Currie G, Kerfoot KD, Donaldson C, et al. Are cost of injury studies useful? Inj Prev 2000; 6: 175–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roux L, Donaldson C. Economics and obesity: costing the problem or evaluating solutions? Obes Res 2004; 12(2): 173–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shiel A, Gerard K, Donaldson C. Cost of illness studies: an aid to decision making? Health Policy 1987; 8: 317–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koopmanschap MA. Cost-of-illness studies: useful for health policy? Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14(2): 143–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Corso P, Grosse S, Finkelstein E. The skinny on COI analysis [letter]. Obes Res 2004; 12(7): 1189–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rice DP. Cost of illness studies: what is good about them? Inj Prev 2000; 6: 177–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reuter P. Are calculations of the economic costs of drug abuse either possible or useful? Addiction 1999; 94(5): 635–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kleiman MAR. “Economic cost” measurements, damage minimization and drug abuse control policy. Addiction 1999; 94(5): 638–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cohen MA. Alcohol, drugs and crime: is “crime” really one-third of the problem? Addiction 1999; 94(5): 644–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. New study will re-examine the impact of substance abuse on Canadian Society: CCSA news release, 10 May 2004. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2004Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moore TJ. What is Australia’s “drug budget”? The policy mix of illicit drug-related government spending in Australia. DPMP monograph no. 1. Melbourne (VIC): Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, 2005Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Office of National Drug Control Policy. National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2007. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 2006. Publication no. NCJ-212977Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    US Bureau of Economic Analysis. Current-dollar and “real” GDP [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Feb 2]
  34. 34.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian national accounts: national income, expenditure and product, September 2005. Canberra (ACT): Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005. Catalogue no. 5206.0Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Drug Availability Steering Committee. Drug availability estimates in the United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2002. Publication no. NCJ-197107Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Caulkins JP. Using models that incorporate uncertainty. J Policy Anal Manage 2002; 21(3): 486–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mark T, Woody G, Juday T, et al. The economic costs of heroin addiction in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend 2001; 61: 195–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    English DR, Holman CJD, Milne E, et al. The quantification of drug-caused morbidity and mortality in Australia. Canberra (ACT): Department of Human Services and Health, 1995Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ridolfo B, Stevenson C. The quantification of drug-caused mortality and morbidity in Australia, 1998. Canberra (ACT): Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2001Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Breen C, Degenhardt L, Roxburgh A, et al. Australian drug trends 2003: findings of the illicit drug reporting system. Sydney (NSW): National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 2004Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hepatitis C Virus Projections Working Group. Estimates and projections of the hepatitis C virus epidemic in Australia: 2002. Sydney (NSW): National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, 2002Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Southgate E, Day C, Kimber J, et al. Dealing with risk: a multi-disciplinary study of injecting drug use, hepatitis C and other blood-borne viruses in Australia. Australian National Council on Drugs research paper no. 7. Canberra (ACT): Australian National Council on Drugs, 2003Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Taylor B. Introduction and overview. In: Taylor B, editor. IADAM in eight countries: approaches and challenges. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2002 May. Publication no. NCJ-189768Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kleiman MAR. Against excess: drug policy for results. New York: Basic Books, 1992Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zaric GS, Barnett PG, Brandeau M. HIV transmission and the cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance. Am J Public Health 2000; 90(7): 1100–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Goldstein PJ. The drugs/violence nexus: a tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 1985; 15(4): 493–506Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Caulkins JP, Rydell CP, Schwabe WL, et al. Mandatory minimum drug sentences: throwing away the key or the taxpayers’ money? Santa Monica (CA): RAND, 1997. Publication no. MR-827-DPRCGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chatterji P. Illicit drug use and educational attainment. Health Econ 2006 May; 15(5): 489–511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pacula RL, Ringel J, Ross KE. Does marijuana use impair human capital formation? National Bureau of Economic Research working paper no. 9963. Cambridge (MA): NBER, 2003 SepGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cohen M, Rust R, Steen S, et al. Willingness to pay for crime control programs. Criminology 2004; 42(1): 89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Flynn P, Kristiansen P, Porto J, et al. Costs and benefits of treatment for cocaine addiction in DATOS. Drug Alcohol Depend 1999; 57(2): 167–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Children living with substance-abusing or substance-dependent parents. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2003Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Miller TR, Cohen MA, Wiersema B. Victim costs and consequences: a new look, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1996. Publication no. NCJ-155282Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Turning Point Alcohol and Drug CentreFitzroyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.CMU Qatar Campus and H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy & ManagementCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations