ASSESSING THE COMPARATIVE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ALCOHOLISM TREATMENTS- A COMMENT ON HOLDER, LONGABAUGH, MILLER AND RUBONIS

Holder, Longabaugh, Miller and Rubonis (JSA, vol. 53, pp. 517-540, 199 1) discuss the shortcomings of the empirical literature relevant to an assessment of the comparative cost-effectiveness of alcoholism treatm ent modalities. Their analysis is rooted in an attempt to conjoin the literatures pertaining to clinical efficacy and costs of alcohol depen dence treatment. Holder et al.'s methodology is flawed in a number of respects and they exceed the bounds of the evidence when they endorse particular treatment modalities as comparatively cost-effective. Gener alizations as to the relative cost-effectiveness of particular modalit ies are forwarded despite the fact that treatments are applied to pers ons with alcohol problems of widely varying severity. Additional point s of contention are raised regarding the authors' selection of accepta ble studies and interpretation of findings. Despite these limitations, Holder et al.'s (1991) analysis is a seminal heuristic contribution t o the discussion of cost-effectiveness in the alcoholism field.