|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||($502)||Benefits minus costs||($1,644)|
|Participants||($266)||Benefit to cost ratio||n/a|
|Others||($686)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($189)||benefits greater than the costs||24 %|
|Net program cost||$0|
|Benefits minus cost||($1,644)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with alcohol abuse or dependence||($127)||($280)||$0||($4)||($411)|
|Health care associated with alcohol abuse or dependence||($8)||($1)||($8)||($4)||($22)|
|Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence||$0||$0||($1)||$0||($1)|
|Health care associated with psychiatric hospitalization||($48)||($1)||($11)||($23)||($82)|
|Health care associated with emergency department visits||$86||$16||$100||$43||$245|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$0||2012||Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)||$0|
|Comparison costs||$0||2012||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
|Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-Discounted Dollars)|
|The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.|
|Meta-Analysis of Program Effects|
|Outcomes measured||Treatment Age||No. of effect sizes||Treatment N||Adjusted effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis||Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)|
|First time ES is estimated||Second time ES is estimated|
|Alcohol use disorder||44||1||113||0.169||0.141||44||0.000||0.000||45||0.169||0.228|
|Emergency department visits||44||1||57||-0.471||0.244||44||0.000||0.000||45||-0.471||0.053|
Bright, J.I., Baker, K.D., & Neimeyer, R.A. ( 1999). Professional and paraprofessional group treatments for depression: a comparison of cognitive-behavioral and mutual support interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(4), 491-501.
Chinman, M.J., Rosenheck, R., Lam, J.A., & Davidson, L. (2000). Comparing consumer and nonconsumer provided case management services for homeless persons with serious mental illness. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 188(7), 446-453.
Clarke, G.N., Herinckx, H.A., Kinney, R.F., Paulson, R.I., Cutler, D.L., Lewis, K., & Oxman, E. (2000). Psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, emergency room visits, and homelessness of clients with serious and persistent mental illness: findings from a randomized trial of two ACT programs vs. usual care.Mental Health Services Research, 2(3),155-164.
Eisen, S.V., Schultz, M.R., Mueller, L.N., Degenhart, C., Clark, J.A., Resnick, S.G., Christiansen, C.L., …, & Sadow, D. (2012). Outcome of a randomized study of a mental health peer education and support group in the VA. Psychiatric Services, 63(12), 1243-1246.
Felton, C.J., Stastny, P., Shern, D.L., Blanch, A., Donahue, S.A., Knight, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Consumers as peer specialists on intensive case management teams: Impact on client outcomes. Psychiatric Services, 46(10), 1037-1044.
Rivera, J.J., Sullivan, A.M., & Valenti, S.S. (2007). Adding consumer-providers to intensive case management: Does it improve outcome?. Psychiatric Services 58(6), 802-809.
Solomon, P. & Draine, J. (1995). The efficacy of a consumer case management team: 2-year outcomes of a randomized trial. Journal of Mental Health Administration, 22(2), 135-146.