Search

Objective: The aim of this project was to detail the costs associated with the high prevalence mental disorders (depression, anxiety-related and substance use) in Australia, using community-based, nationally representative survey data., Methods: Respondents diagnosed, within the preceding 12 months, with high prevalence mental disorders using the Confidentialised Unit Record Files of the 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing were analysed. The use of healthcare resources (hospitalisations, consultations and medications), productivity loss, income tax loss and welfare benefits were estimated. Unit costs of healthcare services were obtained from the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Labour participation rates and unemployment rates were determined from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Daily wage rates adjusted by age and sex were obtained from Australian Bureau of Statistics and used to estimate productivity losses. Income tax loss was estimated based on the Australian Taxation Office rates. The average cost of commonly received Government welfare benefits adjusted by age was used to estimate welfare payments. All estimates were expressed in 2013-2014 AUD and presented from multiple perspectives including public sector, individuals, private insurers, health sector and societal., Results: The average annual treatment cost for people seeking treatment was AUD660 (public), AUD195 (individual), AUD1058 (private) and AUD845 from the health sector's perspective. The total annual healthcare cost was estimated at AUD974m, consisting of AUD700m to the public sector, AUD168m to individuals, and AUD107m to the private sector. The total annual productivity loss attributed to the population with high prevalence mental disorders was estimated at AUD11.8b, coupled with the yearly income tax loss at AUD1.23b and welfare payments at AUD12.9b., Conclusion: The population with high prevalence mental disorders not only incurs substantial cost to the Australian healthcare system but also large economic losses to society.

Objective: To assess, from a health sector perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness of three treatment recommendations in the most recent Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The interventions assessed are trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for the treatment of PTSD in adults and TF-CBT in children, compared to current practice in Australia., Method: Economic modelling, using existing databases and published information, was used to assess cost-effectiveness. A cost-utility framework using both quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted was used. Costs were tracked for the duration of the respective interventions and applied to the estimated 12 months prevalent cases of PTSD in the Australian population of 2012. Simulation modelling was used to provide 95% uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Consideration was also given to factors not considered in the quantitative analysis but could determine the likely uptake of the proposed intervention guidelines., Results: TF-CBT is highly cost-effective compared to current practice at $19,000/QALY, $16,000/DALY in adults and $8900/QALY, $8000/DALY in children. In adults, 100% of uncertainty iterations fell beneath the $50,000/QALY or DALY value-for-money threshold. Using SSRIs in people already on medications is cost-effective at $200/QALY, but has considerable uncertainty around the costs and benefits. While there is a 13% chance of health loss there is a 27% chance of the intervention dominating current practice by both saving dollars and improving health in adults., Conclusion: The three Guideline recommended interventions evaluated in this study are likely to have a positive impact on the economic efficiency of the treatment of PTSD if adopted in full. While there are gaps in the evidence base, policy-makers can have considerable confidence that the recommendations assessed in the current study are likely to improve the efficiency of the mental health care sector., (© The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 2014.)