OBJECTIVES: This study determined the cost-effectiveness of expanding methadone maintenance treatment for heroin addiction, particularly its effect on the HIV epidemic.

METHODS: We developed a dynamic epidemic model to study the effects of increased methadone maintenance capacity on health care costs and survival, measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We considered communities with HIV prevalence among injection drug users of 5% and 40%.

RESULTS: Additional methadone maintenance capacity costs $8200 per QALY gained in the high-prevalence community and $10,900 per QALY gained in the low-prevalence community. More than half of the benefits are gained by individuals who do not inject drugs. Even if the benefits realized by treated and untreated injection drug users are ignored, methadone maintenance expansion costs between $14,100 and $15,200 per QALY gained. Additional capacity remains cost-effective even if it is twice as expensive and half as effective as current methadone maintenance slots.

CONCLUSIONS: Expansion of methadone maintenance is cost-effective on the basis of commonly accepted criteria for medical interventions. Barriers to methadone maintenance deny injection drug users access to a cost-effective intervention that generates significant health benefits for the general population.

The 35 chapters of The Handbook of Health Economics provide an up-to-date survey of the burgeoning literature in health economics. As a relatively recent subdiscipline of economics, health economics has been remarkably successful. It has made or stimulated numerous contributions to various areas of the main discipline: the theory of human capital; the economics of insurance; principal-agent theory; asymmetric information; econometrics; the theory of incomplete markets; and the foundations of welfare economics, among others. Perhaps it has had an even greater effect outside the field of economics, introducing terms such as opportunity cost, elasticity, the margin, and the production function into medical parlance. Indeed, health economists are likely to be as heavily cited in the clinical as in the economics literature. Partly because of the large share of public resources that health care commands in almost every developed country, health policy is often a contentious and visible issue; elections have sometimes turned on issues of health policy. Showing the versatility of economic theory, health economics and health economists have usually been part of policy debates, despite the vast differences in medical care institutions across countries. The publication of the first Handbook of Health Economics marks another step in the evolution of health economics.

BACKGROUND: Although evidence suggests that a higher hemodialysis dose and/or frequency may be associated with improved outcomes, the cost-effectiveness of a daily hemodialysis strategy for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) is unknown. METHODS: We developed a Markov model of the cost, quality of life, survival, and incremental cost-effectiveness of daily hemodialysis, compared with alternate-day hemodialysis, for patients with AKI in the intensive care unit (ICU). We employed a societal perspective with a lifetime analytic time horizon. We modeled the efficacy of daily hemodialysis as a reduction in the relative risk of death on the basis of data reported in the 2004 clinical trial published by Schiffl et al. We performed 1- and 2-way sensitivity analyses across cost, efficacy, and utility input variables. The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: In the base case for a 60-year-old man, daily hemodialysis was projected to add 2.14 QALYs and $10,924 in cost. We found that the cost-effectiveness of daily hemodialysis compared with alternate-day hemodialysis was $5084 per QALY gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio became less favorable (>$50,000 per QALY gained) when the maintenance hemodialysis rate of the daily hemodialysis group was varied to more than 27% and when the difference in 14-day postdischarge mortality between the alternatives was varied to less than 0.5%. CONCLUSION: Daily hemodialysis is a cost-effective strategy compared with alternate-day hemodialysis for patients with severe AKI in the ICU.