Substance Abuse Services Cost Analysis Program
Economists at RTI have developed the Substance Abuse Services Cost Analysis Program (SASCAP) to reliably estimate costs of substance abuse treatment services without excessive burden on treatment programs. The SASCAP method is desirable because it collects information on the resources needed by treatment programs to provide specific services and how these resource needs may differ across treatment services.
The SASCAP method includes two components -- a cost survey (SASCAP Cost) that collects data on program costs and revenue, and a labor allocation survey (SASCAP Labor) that collects data on staff time allocated across various treatment services. By using the data collected in both components, the costs of discrete treatment services can be estimated (as can be average costs per person). This new approach to treatment services cost estimation yields service cost estimates that include not only the cost of direct labor but also the cost of indirect labor and nonlabor resources; and the indirect labor costs explicitly include the program’s costs of administrative services provided by a parent organization (e.g., human resources, legal fees, billing, marketing).
The SASCAP method offers a new, less burdensome way to identify the costs of specific treatment services than previous drug abuse treatment services cost methods. Policy makers and treatment providers should find the SASCAP method to be a useful tool in estimating treatment services costs, and thereby helping to identify the mix of treatment services that produces the most cost-effective outcomes.
More Information
For more information on the SASCAP method, please contact Gary Zarkin or Laura Dunlap at RTI. You can also read about the SASCAP method in the following citation from the February 2004 issue (Volume 27, Issue 1) of Evaluation and Program Planning.
- Zarkin G, L Dunlap, G Homsi (2004). The substance abuse services cost analysis program (SASCAP): A new method for estimating drug treatment services costs. Evaluation and Program Planning 27(1): 35-43.
rti.org