Exclusive: Opioid crisis cost Massachusetts $145 billion last year, report says
The opioid epidemic cost Massachusetts nearly $145 billion in 2024, according to new research from Avalere Health.
The big picture: The Washington-based health care consulting firm's research examines the economic toll of the epidemic that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in Massachusetts.
The estimated national cost reached nearly $4 trillion in 2024, per Avalere's estimates provided to Axios exclusively.
Threat level: While opioid-related overdose deaths have declined in recent years, Massachusetts is one of the states where opioid use disorder is most prevalent.
OUD affects more than 2.5% of the population, similar to in New Hampshire, Nevada and Kentucky.
Wyoming, Hawaii, Washington, D.C. and Minnesota had the lowest rates, falling below 1%.
In terms of cost, Massachusetts' estimated $145-billion loss was one of the highest in the nation in 2024, per Avalere's estimates.
How it works: Avalere determined the financial burden of OUD by analyzing relevant healthcare expenses, lost wages and work productivity, lost tax revenue, police and court costs and other factors.
By the numbers: Opioid use disorder cost patients alone an estimated $111 billion in terms of reduced quality of life and life lost overall.
Individuals and households faced a collective $9.2 billion loss last year in lost wages and other expenses, per Avalere's estimates.
Avalere also estimated major hits to businesses ($17.5 billion), the federal government ($4.3 billion) and state and local governments ($3.4 billion).
Police, court and correctional expenses related to people with OUD accounted for 40% of state and local government costs, per Avalere.
Avalere also estimated cost savings from using medication and behavioral therapy to treat OUD.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
13 minutes ago
- Forbes
Smart Healthcare: The AI Revolution Empowering The Frontline
The use and integration of AI in medicine is driving a quiet revolution in healthcare Speaking at the recent SXSW London festival, former British Prime Minister Sir Tony Blair said the UK should embrace a future of AI doctors and nurses, or risk being left behind in the biggest upheaval since the Industrial Revolution. He went on to say that fears about artificial intelligence should be outweighed by the 'absolutely transformative' impact it could have on public services like healthcare and education by saving time and money - 'When I stand back and look at what AI is doing, I think we're in the foothills of the most transformative revolution since the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century'. This bold claim by the former Prime Minister follows hot on the heels of news coming out of Saudi Arabia, regarding the world's first AI-powered doctor's clinic, where Shanghai-based Synyi AI's "Dr. Hua" is already diagnosing and prescribing treatment for respiratory ailments. It paints a vivid picture of a future where artificial intelligence autonomously cares for our health in a way that was considered science fiction only a few years ago. But while such developments are thought provoking, I firmly believe that the true, impactful role of AI in the short to medium term is not to replace human clinicians, but to powerfully augment them. There are compelling reasons for this perspective, extending beyond the obvious concern of potential error and the severe consequences should one occur in a medical context. Equally important is the intricate ecosystem of healthcare itself. Clinicians are not merely service providers; they are key stakeholders deeply invested in their roles, particularly in the most critical and decision-intensive aspects of patient care. They will legitimately cite safety concerns when contemplating the ceding of such control, but it would be naïve to ignore the financial incentives and professional autonomy that also shape their approach. Therefore, the integration of AI in healthcare has, quite rightly, begun in auxiliary roles. We've already seen AI excel in tasks such as note-keeping, drafting letters and managing paperwork – administrative burdens that often detract from direct patient interaction. This evolution will steadily progress to passive monitoring, for instance, checking prescription drug dosages, identifying potential interactions and flagging contraindications. From there, AI will transition into more active advisory capacities, suggesting diagnoses, recommending follow-up investigations, and outlining possible treatment options. Crucially, however, the final, nuanced decision will remain firmly in the hands of a highly trained human expert. This measured arc of AI integration presents a profound "win-win-win" scenario. For physicians, it offers a pathway to significantly increased job satisfaction and reduced burnout. I am yet to meet a physician who genuinely enjoys the endless paperwork; many would willingly forgo a portion of their salary to alleviate this burden. By offloading these tasks to AI, doctors can reclaim precious time, focusing their energy on what truly matters: direct patient engagement and complex problem-solving. Patients too stand to benefit immensely. Imagine a consultation where your doctor makes genuine eye contact, actively listens and engages in a conversation, rather than constantly typing or staring at their screen. This enhanced human connection, facilitated by AI managing the background administrative load, promises a more empathetic and effective healthcare experience. For healthcare systems, the advantages are equally compelling. Reimbursement often hinges on the quality and accuracy of medical notes, an area where AI can deliver substantial improvements. By enhancing the precision and completeness of documentation, AI can streamline processes and bolster financial stability. Slowly but surely, however, the conversation will shift from augmentation to replacement. This transition is likely to occur first in less critical areas, such as routine follow-up visits or standard checks. More significantly, it may take hold in resource-constrained environments where the alternative to AI is not a highly skilled human professional, but rather, nothing at all. Some industry observers are worried that this could lead to a two-tiered healthcare system, where human physicians attend to the affluent, while the less privileged are left with an inferior, AI-driven substitute for the care they truly need. This, they argue, will exacerbate existing health inequalities. Personally, I believe they are right to worry about AI exacerbating existing health inequalities, but I think they might have the story backwards. As AI continues its relentless improvement, it is plausible that at some point, perhaps sooner than many anticipate – it will surpass human physicians across all dimensions, including the delicate art of bedside manner and empathy. When this happens, perhaps the opposite scenario will unfold: the affluent world will be treated by the superior Dr. AI, while the less privileged may find themselves priced out of access to these expensive, patent-protected AI systems, and instead have to contend with the comparatively inferior human alternative. It's a provocative thought, but one we must seriously consider as we navigate the extraordinary potential and profound ethical implications of AI in healthcare. Professor Nicos Savva is a Professor of Management Science at London Business School and an expert in data science, using it to solve operational problems and help large organisations develop data-science capabilities. His research at LBS focuses on healthcare management, including hospital operations, regional organization of care, assessing performance, measuring health inequity, and innovation. Professor Savva's work has appeared in leading journals such as Management Science, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management and Nature Biotechnology.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Detroit dines later than most cities
Earlier dinner reservations are trending, but many Detroit diners still prefer to eat after 8pm. The big picture: Detroit's on par with the national share of reservations made in the 5 o'clock hour, but we're making more dinner plans for 8 o'clock and later, Resy data shared with Axios shows. Nationally, dinner times have shifted earlier since the pre-pandemic years. By the numbers: More than 17% of Detroit Resy reservations were made between 8-10pm in 2024. The national figure in that time slot is less than 14%. Zoom out: Detroit is among a handful of big cities with more than 5% of reservations made in the 9 o'clock hour. Others include Miami (9.9%), Atlanta (5.2%) and Pittsburgh (5.5%). On the other end, few diners in Denver (1.6%) and Nashville (1.8%) plan to eat past 9. What they're saying: Eating earlier in the day supports your body's natural clock — boosting metabolism and improving sleep, experts say. If you have a later dinner, but eat the same amount, "that by itself leads to an increase in cravings, changes in appetite hormones and fewer calories burnt across the waking hours," Frank Scheer, Harvard Medical School professor and Medical Chronobiology Program director, tells Axios. Eating earlier can also lead to earlier bedtimes — which unlock even more health benefits. Even during simulated night shifts, eating during the day could benefit heart health, per a new study co-authored by Scheer. Studies show sleep loss slows your reaction time — even if you think you're OK. And research suggests that the cognitive and motor impairments from lack of sleep can be similar to — or even worse than — being drunk. The intrigue: Sleep-deprived people "lose the ability to judge how well they're doing," Karin Johnson, a sleep medicine specialist and professor of neurology at UMass Chan School of Medicine-Baystate, told Axios.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Something broke inside of' father accused of killing 3 daughters: Mom's attorney
Retired FBI Special Agent Bobby Chacon joins NewsNation as the search continues for Travis Decker, the only suspect in the murders of his three young daughters in Washington. The girls were reportedly found asphyxiated with plastic bags still on their heads and zip-ties on their wrists. Decker, a former Army Ranger with survival training and PTSD, vanished after a custodial visit. Their mother, Whitney, says the system failed them — police issued a missing persons alert instead of an Amber Alert. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
