Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) have been shown to reduce infection, prevent overdose deaths, and increase treatment uptake. The United States is in the midst of an opioid epidemic, yet no sanctioned SIF currently operates in the United States. We estimate the economic costs and benefits of establishing a potential SIF in San Francisco using mathematical models that combine local public health data with previous research on the effects of existing SIFs. We consider potential savings from five outcomes: averted HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections, reduced skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI), averted overdose deaths, and increased medication-assisted treatment (MAT) uptake. We find that each dollar spent on a SIF would generate US$2.33 in savings, for total annual net savings of US$3.5 million for a single 13-booth SIF. Our analysis suggests that a SIF in San Francisco would not only be a cost-effective intervention but also a significant boost to the public health system.
AdamsJ. (2015). HIV outbreak in Indiana. The New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 1379-1381.
2.
AndresenM. A.BoydN. (2010). A cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of Vancouver’s supervised injection facility. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21, 70-76.
3.
AndresenM. A.JozaghiE. (2012). The point of diminishing returns: An examination of expanding Vancouver’s Insite. Urban Studies, 49, 3531-3544.
4.
BarnettP. G. (1999). The cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance as a health care intervention. Addiction, 94, 479-488.
5.
BayoumiA. M.StrikeC. (2012). Report of the Toronto and Ottawa Supervised Consumption Assessment Study. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto.
6.
BayoumiA. M.ZaricG. S. (2008). The cost-effectiveness of Vancouver’s supervised injection facility. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 179, 1143-1151.
7.
BhattacharyaM. K.NaikT. N.PalitA.BhattacharyaS. K. (2006). Impact of a harm-reduction programme on soft tissue infections among injecting drug users of Kolkata, India. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 24, 121-122.
8.
BinswangerI. A.KralA. H.BluthenthalR. N.RyboldD. J.EdlinB. R. (2000). High prevalence of abscesses and cellulitis among community-recruited injection drug users in San Francisco. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 30, 579-581.
9.
BinswangerI. A.TakahashiT. A.BradleyK.DellitT. H.BentonK. L.MerrillJ. O. (2008). Drug users seeking emergency care for soft tissue infection at high risk for subsequent hospitalization and death. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 69, 924-932.
10.
BluthenthalR. N.WengerL.ChuD.LorvickJ.QuinnB.ThingJ. P.KralA. H. (2015). Factors associated with being asked to initiate someone into injection drug use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 149, 252-258.
11.
BravoM. J.RoyuelaL.De la FuenteL.BrugalM. T.BarrioG.Domingo-SalvanyA. (2009). Use of supervised injection facilities and injection risk behaviours among young drug injectors. Addiction, 104, 614-619.
12.
CartwrightW. S. (2000). Cost-benefit analysis of drug treatment services: Review of the literature. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 3, 11-26.
13.
Center for Health Program Development and Management. (2007, August29). Review of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness literature for methadone or buprenorphine as a treatment for opiate addiction. Baltimore: Center for Health Program Development and Management, University of Maryland. Retrieved from http://www.hilltopinstitute.org/publications/Cost_benefit_Opiate_Addiction_August_29_2007.pdf
CiccaroneD. J. B.KralA. H.EdlinB. R. (2001). Soft tissue infections among injection drug users—San Francisco, California, 1996–2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 50, 381-384.
20.
CoffinP. O. (2012). Data compiled from San Francisco Medical Examiner Reports. San Francisco: San Francisco Department of Public Health, University of California.
21.
CoffinP. O.JinH.HuriauxE.MirzazadehA.RaymondH. F. (2015). Trends in use of health care and HIV prevention services for persons who inject drugs in San Francisco: Results from National HIV Behavioral Surveillance 2005-2012. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 146, 45-51.
22.
DeBeckK.KerrT.BirdL.ZhangR.MarshD.TyndallM.WoodE. (2011). Injection drug use cessation and use of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 113, 172-176.
23.
Des JarlaisD. C.ArastehK.HaganH. (2008). Evaluating Vancouver’s supervised injection facility: Data and dollars, symbols and ethics. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 179, 1105-1106.
24.
DingL.LandonB. E.WilsonI. B.WongM. D.ShapiroM. F.ClearyP. D. (2005). Predictors and consequences of negative physician attitudes toward HIV-infected injection drug users. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165, 618-623.
25.
EnnsE. A.ZaricG. S.StrikeC. J.JairamJ. A.KollaG.BayoumiA. M. (2016). Potential cost-effectiveness of supervised injection facilities in Toronto and Ottawa, Canada. Addiction, 111, 475-489.
FinkD. S.LindsayS. P.SlymenD. J.KralA. H.BluthenthalR. N. (2013). Abscess and self-treatment among injection drug users at four California syringe exchanges and their surrounding communities. Substance Use & Misuse, 48, 523-531.
28.
FlynnP. M.PortoJ. V.Rounds-BryantJ. L.KristiansenP. L. (2002). Costs and benefits of methadone treatment in DATOS-Part 1: Discharged versus continuing patients. Journal of Maintenance in the Addictions, 2(1-2), 129-149.
29.
GardnerE. M.McLeesM. P.SteinerJ. F.del RioC.BurmanW. J. (2011). The spectrum of engagement in HIV care and its relevance to test-and-treat strategies for prevention of HIV infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 52, 793-800.
30.
GrauL. E.ArevaloS.CatchpoolC.HeimerR. (2002). Expanding harm reduction services through a wound and abscess clinic. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1915-1917.
31.
HarrisA. H.GospodarevskayaE.RitterA. J. (2005). A randomised trial of the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence in a primary care setting. PharmacoEconomics, 23, 77-91.
32.
HarrisH. W.YoungD. M. (2002). Care of injection drug users with soft tissue infections in San Francisco, California. Archives of Surgery, 137, 1217-1222.
33.
Health Canada. (2008, March31). Vancouver’s Insite service and other supervised injection sites: What has been learned from research? (Final report of the Expert Advisory Committee). Ottawa, Ontario: Author.
HeinzerlingK. G.EtzioniD. A.HurleyB.HoltomP.BluthenthalR. N.AschS. M. (2006). Hospital utilization for injection drug use-related soft tissue infections in urban versus rural counties in California. Journal of Urban Health, 83, 176-181.
JacobsP.CalderP.TaylorM.HoustonS.SaundersL. D.AlbertT. (1999). Cost effectiveness of Streetworks’ needle exchange program of Edmonton. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 90, 168-171.
38.
JozaghiE. (2012). “A little heaven in hell”: The role of a supervised injection facility in transforming place. Urban Geography, 33, 1144-1162.
39.
JozaghiE. (2015). Exploring the role of an unsanctioned, supervised peer driven injection facility in reducing HIV and hepatitis C infections in people that require assistance during injection. Health & Justice, 3, Article 1.
40.
JozaghiE. (2014). A cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis of an unsanctioned supervised smoking facility in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, Canada. Harm Reduction Journal, 11, Article 1.
41.
JozaghiE.AndresenM. A. (2013). Should North America’s first and only supervised injection facility (InSite) be expanded in British Columbia, Canada?Harm Reduction Journal, 10, Article 1.
42.
JozaghiE.HodgkinsonT.AndresenM. A. (2015). Is there a role for potential supervised injection facilities in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada?Urban Geography, 36, 1241-1255.
43.
JozaghiE.JacksonA. (2015). Examining the potential role of a supervised injection facility in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to avert HIV among people who inject drugs. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 4, 373-379.
44.
JozaghiE.ReidA. A. (2014). A case study of the transformative effect of peer injection drug users in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 56, 563-594.
45.
JozaghiE.ReidA. A. (2015). The potential role for supervised injection facilities in Canada’s largest city, Toronto. International Criminal Justice Review, 25, 233-246.
46.
JozaghiE.ReidA. A.AndresenM. A. (2013). A cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis of proposed supervised injection facilities in Montreal, Canada. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 8, Article 25.
47.
JozaghiE.ReidA. A.AndresenM. A.JuneauA. (2014). A cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis of proposed supervised injection facilities in Ottawa, Canada. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 9, Article 31.
48.
KaplanE. H.O’KeefeE. (1993). Let the needles do the talking! Evaluating the New Haven needle exchange. Interfaces, 23(1), 7-26.
49.
KerrT.TyndallM. W.LaiC.MontanerJ. S.WoodE. (2006). Drug-related overdoses within a medically supervised safer injection facility. International Journal of Drug Policy, 17(5), 436-441.
50.
KerrT.KimberJ.DeBeckK.WoodE. (2007). The role of safer injection facilities in the response to HIV/AIDS among injection drug users. Current HIV/AIDS Reports, 4, 158-164.
51.
KerrT.TyndallM.LiK.MontanerJ.WoodE. (2005). Safer injection facility use and syringe sharing in injection drug users. The Lancet, 366, 316-318.
52.
KimberJ.DolanK. (2007). Shooting gallery operation in the context of establishing a Medically Supervised Injecting Center: Sydney, Australia. Journal of Urban Health, 84, 255-266.
53.
KlevensR. M.HuD. J.JilesR.HolmbergS. D. (2012). Evolving epidemiology of hepatitis C virus in the United States. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 55(Suppl. 1), S3-S9.
54.
KozalM. J.AmicoK. R.ChiarellaJ.CornmanD.FisherW.FisherJ.FriedlandG. (2005). HIV drug resistance and HIV transmission risk behaviors among active injection drug users. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 40, 106-109.
KralA. H.MalekinejadM.VaudreyJ.MartinezA. N.LorvickJ.McFarlandW.RaymondH. F. (2010). Comparing respondent-driven sampling and targeted sampling methods of recruiting injection drug users in San Francisco. Journal of Urban Health, 87(5), 839-850.
57.
KwonJ. A.AndersonJ.KerrC. C.TheinH. H.ZhangL.IversenJ.WilsonD. P. (2012). Estimating the cost-effectiveness of needle-syringe programs in Australia. AIDS, 26, 2201-2210.
58.
LindenI. A.MarM. Y.WerkerG. R.JangK.KrauszM. (2013). Research on a vulnerable neighborhood—The Vancouver Downtown Eastside from 2001 to 2011. Journal of Urban Health, 90, 559-573.
59.
Lloyd-SmithE.KerrT.HoggR. S.LiK.MontanerJ. S.WoodE. (2005). Prevalence and correlates of abscesses among a cohort of injection drug users. Harm Reduction Journal, 2, Article 24.
60.
Lloyd-SmithE.WoodE.ZhangR.TyndallM. W.ShepsS.MontanerJ. S.KerrT. (2010). Determinants of hospitalization for a cutaneous injection-related infection among injection drug users: A cohort study. BMC Public Health, 10, Article 327.
61.
MarsS. G.BourgoisP.KarandinosG.MonteroF.CiccaroneD. (2016). The textures of heroin: User perspectives on “black tar” and powder heroin in two US cities. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 48, 270-278.
62.
MarshallB. D.MilloyM. J.WoodE.MontanerJ. S.KerrT. (2011). Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: A retrospective population-based study. The Lancet, 377, 1429-1437.
63.
MarshallB. D.MilloyM. J.WoodE.MontanerJ. S.KerrT. (2012). Overdose deaths and Vancouver’s supervised injection facility—Authors’ reply. The Lancet, 379, 118-119.
64.
MarshallB. D.WoodE.ZhangR.TyndallM. W.MontanerJ. S.KerrT. (2009). Condom use among injection drug users accessing a supervised injecting facility. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 85, 121-126.
MilloyM. J.KerrT.MathiasR.ZhangR.MontanerJ. S.TyndallM.WoodE. (2008). Non-fatal overdose among a cohort of active injection drug users recruited from a supervised injection facility. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 34, 499-509.
67.
MilloyM. S.KerrT.TyndallM.MontanerJ.WoodE. (2008). Estimated drug overdose deaths averted by North America’s first medically-supervised safer injection facility. PLoS ONE, 3(10), e3351.
68.
MSIC Evaluation Committee. (2003). Final report of the evaluation of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injection Centre. Sydney, Australia: Author.
PalepuA.TyndallM. W.LeonH.MullerJ.O’ShaughnessyM. V.SchechterM. T.AnisA. H. (2001). Hospital utilization and costs in a cohort of injection drug users. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165, 415-420.
71.
PinkertonS. D. (2011). How many HIV infections are prevented by Vancouver Canada’s supervised injection facility?International Journal of Drug Policy, 22, 179-183.
RazaviH.ElKhouryA. C.ElbashaE.EstesC.PasiniK.PoynardT.KumarR. (2013). Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) disease burden and cost in the United States. Hepatology, 57, 2164-2170.
74.
RileyE. D.KralA. H.StopkaT. J.GarfeinR. S.ReuckhausP.BluthenthalR. N. (2010). Access to sterile syringes through San Francisco pharmacies and the association with HIV risk behavior among injection drug users. Journal of Urban Health, 87, 534-542.
SalmonA. M.DwyerR.JaunceyM.van BeekI.ToppL.MaherL. (2009). Injecting-related injury and disease among clients of a supervised injecting facility. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 101, 132-136.
SchwartzR. P.AlexandreP. K.KellyS. M.O’GradyK. E.GryczynskiJ.JaffeJ. H. (2014). Interim versus standard methadone treatment: A benefit–cost analysis. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 46, 306-314.
SisneyJ.GarosiJ. (2015, July1). 2014 GDP: California Ranks 7th or 8th in the World. California Legislature Legislative Analyst’s Office. Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/90
82.
SmallW.WoodE.Lloyd-SmithE.TyndallM.KerrT. (2008). Accessing care for injection-related infections through a medically supervised injecting facility: A qualitative study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 98, 159-162.
83.
SteinM. D.SobotaM. (2001). Injection drug users: Hospital care and charges. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 64, 117-120.
84.
SterlingE. E. (2015). A businessperson’s guide to the war on drugs. Business Council for Prosperity and Safety. Retrieved from http://www.business-council.org/bpg
85.
StoltzJ. A.WoodE.SmallW.LiK.TyndallM.MontanerJ.KerrT. (2007). Changes in injecting practices associated with the use of a medically supervised safer injection facility. Journal of Public Health, 29, 35-39.
86.
StrathdeeS. A.BeyrerC. (2015). HIV outbreak in Indiana. The New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 1379-1381.
87.
StrathdeeS. A.PolliniR. A. (2007). A 21st-century Lazarus: The role of safer injection sites in harm reduction and recovery. Addiction, 102, 848-849.
88.
TakahashiT. A.MaciejewskiM. L.BradleyK. (2010). US hospitalizations and costs for illicit drug users with soft tissue infections. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 37, 508-518.
89.
TempalskiB.CooperH. L.FriedmanS. R.Des JarlaisD. C.BradyJ.GostnellK. (2008). Correlates of syringe coverage for heroin injection in 35 large metropolitan areas in the US in which heroin is the dominant injected drug. International Journal of Drug Policy, 19, 47-58.
90.
TyndallM. W.KerrT.ZhangR.KingE.MontanerJ. G.WoodE. (2006). Attendance, drug use patterns, and referrals made from North America’s first supervised injection facility. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 83, 193-198.
91.
Urban Health Research Initiative. (2015). Supervised injecting/Insite. Urban Health Research Initiative, British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. Retrieved from http://uhri.cfenet.ubc.ca/content/view/57/92/
92.
WasleyA.GrytdalS.GallagherK. (2006). Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Surveillance for Acute Viral Hepatitis—United States, 1-24.
93.
WengerL. D.ArreolaS. G.KralA. H. (2011). The prospect of implementing a safer injection facility in San Francisco: Perspectives of community stakeholders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22, 239-241.
94.
WengerL. D.MartinezA. N.CarpenterL.GeckelerD.ColfaxG.KralA. H. (2011). Syringe disposal among injection drug users in San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 484-486.
95.
WoodE.KerrT.SmallW.LiK.MarshD. C.MontanerJ. S.TyndallM. W. (2004). Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 171, 731-734.
96.
WoodE.TyndallM. W.LaiC.MontanerJ. S.KerrT. (2006). Impact of a medically supervised safer injecting facility on drug dealing and other drug-related crime. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 1, Article 13.
97.
WoodE.TyndallM. W.MontanerJ. S.KerrT. (2006). Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 175, 1399-1404.
98.
WoodE.TyndallM. W.StoltzJ. A.SmallW.ZhangR.O’ConnellJ.KerrT. (2005). Safer injecting education for HIV prevention within a medically supervised safer injecting facility. International Journal of Drug Policy, 16, 281-284.
99.
WoodE.TyndallM. W.ZhangR.MontanerJ. S.KerrT. (2007). Rate of detoxification service use and its impact among a cohort of supervised injecting facility users. Addiction, 102, 916-919.
100.
WoodE.TyndallM. W.ZhangR.StoltzJ. A.LaiC.MontanerJ. S.KerrT. (2006). Attendance at supervised injecting facilities and use of detoxification services. New England Journal of Medicine, 354, 2512-2514.
101.
ZaricG. S.BarnettP. G.BrandeauM. L. (2000). HIV transmission and the cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1100-1111.
