How Integrating Costs into Your Evaluation Generates Funding Opportunity: The Case of Naloxone
In public health evaluation, it is common to translate program outcomes into cost-effectiveness metrics. The goal is to illustrate how relatively modest investments in upstream prevention activities can generate substantial, life-saving impact, typically at a cost much lower than more expensive and burdensome downstream health interventions.
Consider a naloxone distribution program. Imagine a program distributes 10,000 naloxone kits in a year. To make the math simple, assume each kit costs $50. That means the direct supply cost is:
10,000 kits × $50 per kit = $500,000
Now add staff time, outreach, training, storage, distribution, and administrative support. Let us use a conservative estimate of $200,000 for operations. That produces a total annual program cost of:
$500,000 in kits + $200,000 in operations = $700,000 total program cost
Now assume the program receives reports of 350 overdose reversals connected to those kits. That gives us a basic cost-per-reversal estimate of:
$700,000 ÷ 350 reversals = $2,000 per reported reversal
That is the first key number.
It is also important to state the limitation clearly. Reported reversals almost always undercount actual reversals. Many people who use naloxone do not report back to the distributing organization. So 350 should be treated as a conservative number, which means the real cost per life-saving intervention is likely lower.
From there, we can compare the cost of prevention to the cost of crisis response. A single overdose-related emergency department visit or hospitalization can easily cost $10,000 to $20,000 or more. To stay conservative, let us use $15,000 as an average cost per hospitalization-level event avoided.
If one overdose reversal prevents one hospitalization, then the estimated healthcare costs avoided would be:
350 reversals × $15,000 per hospitalization = $5,250,000 in avoided hospital costs
Now compare that to the total cost of the naloxone program:
$5,250,000 avoided costs ÷ $700,000 program cost = 7.5
That means every $1 invested in the naloxone distribution program generates about $7.50 in avoided hospital costs, using conservative assumptions.
That’s MAJOR health care savings.
Another Approach
You can also express the same math another way:
Program cost: $700,000
Hospital cost avoided: $5,250,000
Net avoided cost: $5,250,000 - $700,000 = $4,550,000
Even if you cut that estimate down because not every reversal would have led to hospitalization, the program still appears highly cost-effective.
For example, if only half of the 350 reversals would have become hospital visits, the avoided cost would still be:
175 hospitalizations avoided × $15,000 = $2,625,000
Compared to the same $700,000 program cost, that is still:
$2,625,000 ÷ $700,000 = 3.75
So even under a more cautious assumption, every $1 spent still generates about $3.75 in avoided hospital costs.
Measuring Costs in Addition to Impact
That is why this kind of framing matters.
Without the cost layer, you might simply report:
10,000 kits distributed
350 reported reversals
Those are good outputs and outcomes. But by themselves, they do not fully answer the question funders are asking.
Funders are not only asking, “What happened?” They are also asking, “Why does this matter, and what is the value of this investment?”
When you integrate costs into your evaluation, you begin to answer that question.
You move from:
“We distributed 10,000 naloxone kits.”
To:
“With an estimated investment of $700,000, this program was associated with 350 reported overdose reversals and likely prevented millions of dollars in downstream hospital costs.”
That is a fundamentally different conversation.
It is also a much stronger funding conversation.
Making Connections - Impact to Funding
In our work with prevention and behavioral health organizations, we see this pattern repeatedly. Teams are often strong in collecting data and reporting outcomes, but less confident in connecting that information to funding, sustainability, and long-term value.
This is where the connection between clarity, impact, and funding becomes critical.
You need clarity on what you are measuring and why. You need to demonstrate meaningful impact. And you need to translate that impact into a case for funding.
Many organizations are doing the first two. The third is where funding opportunities are often won or lost.
You do not need a full economic model to begin making this shift. You just need to start making your assumptions visible and connecting your outcomes to the real-world costs they help avoid.
A simple formula can go a long way:
Number of interventions delivered
× average success or outcome rate
× estimated downstream cost avoided per event
= estimated value created
That is not the whole story, but it is a very strong start.
Relatively small investments in prevention are often able to avert both loss of life and much higher downstream costs. When framed effectively, your data does more than document impact. It demonstrates value.
And that is what opens the door to stronger, more sustainable funding.
If you are not sure how well your organization is making this connection, you can take the Behavioral Health Clarity + Impact + Funding Scorecard here:
It takes about 5 to 7 minutes and will give you a clear snapshot of where your approach is strong and where there may be opportunities to strengthen your funding narrative.
