Search

Objective: Because health care resources are constrained, decision-making processes often require clarifying the potential costs and savings associated with different options. This involves calculating a program's costs. The chosen costing perspective defines the costs to be considered and can ultimately influence decisions. Yet reviews of the literature suggest little attention has been paid to the perspective in economic evaluations. This article's purpose is to explore how the costing perspective can affect cost estimates.Method: As a vehicle for our discussion, we use service use data for clients enrolled in 6 Ontario early psychosis intervention programs. Governmental and nongovernmental payer costing perspectives are considered. We examine annual costs associated with early psychosis intervention clients enrolled for ≤12 months versus those enrolled for >12 months. This also allows for an assessment of the impact that choice of time horizon can make on the results.Results: The difference in total between group cost for hospital, emergency room, and physicians is $2499; the >12-month group has relatively higher mean costs. When all governmental and nongovernmental costs are considered, there is a mean between-group cost difference of $1272, with lower mean costs for the >12-month group.Conclusions: Although the Ministry of Health bears a large proportion of costs, other governmental agencies and the private sector can incur a sizeable share. This example demonstrates the potential importance of including other cost perspectives with the hospital sector in analyses as well as the impact of time horizon on cost estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There has been an increasing number of employer best practice guidelines (BPGs) for the return to work (RTW) from mental disorder-related disability leave. This systematic review addresses 2 questions: 1) What is the quality of the development and recommendations of these BPGs? and 2) What are the areas of agreement and discrepancy among the identified guidelines related to the RTW from mental illness-related disability leave?Method: A systematic literature search was performed using publically available grey literature and best practice portals. It focused on the RTW of workers with medically certified disability leave related to mental disorders. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) was used to assess the quality of the development and recommendations of these BPGs.Results: A total of 58 unique documents were identified for screening. After screening, 5 BPGs were appraised using AGREE II; 3 BPGs were included in the final set. There were no discrepancies among the 3, although they were from different countries. They all agreed there should be: 1) well-described organizational policies and procedures for the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders, 2) a disability leave plan, and 3) work accommodations. In addition, one guideline suggested supervisor training and mental health literacy training for all staff.Conclusion: Although there were no discrepancies among the 3 BPGs, they emphasized different aspects of RTW and could be considered to be complementary. Together, they provide important guidance for those seeking to understand employer best practices for mental illness-related disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore basic requirements for a stigma program to produce sufficient savings to pay for itself (that is, break even). Methods: A simple economic model was developed to compare reductions in total short- term disability (SDIS) cost relative to a stigma program's costs. A 2-way sensitivity analysis is used to illustrate conditions under which this break-even scenario occurs. Results: Using estimates from the literature for the SDIS costs, this analysis shows that a stigma program can provide value added even if there is no reduction in the length of an SDIS leave. To break even, a stigma program with no reduction in the length of an SDIS leave would need to prevent at least 2.5 SDIS claims in an organization of 1000 workers. Similarly, a stigma program can break even with no reduction in the number of SDIS claims if it is able to reduce SDIS episodes by at least 7 days in an organization of 1000 employees. Conclusions: Modelling results, such as those presented in our paper, provide information to help occupational health payers become prudent buyers in the mental health market place. While in most cases, the required reductions seem modest, the real test of both the model and the program occurs once a stigma program is piloted and evaluated in a real-world selling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: About one-third of the annual $51 billion cost of mental illnesses is related to productivity losses. However, few studies have examined the association of treatment and productivity. The purpose of our research is to examine the association of depression and its treatment and work productivity. Methods: Our analyses used data from 2737 adults aged between 18 and 65 years who participated in a large-scale community survey of employed and recently employed people in Alberta. Using the World Health Organization's Health and Work Performance Questionnaire, a productivity variable was created to capture high productivity (above the 75th percentile). We used regression methods to examine the association of mental disorders and their treatment and productivity, controlling for demographic factors and job characteristics. Results: In the sample, about 8.5% experienced a depressive episode in the past year. The regression results indicated that people who had a severe depressive episode were significantly less likely to be highly productive. Compared with people who had a moderate or severe depressive episode who did not have treatment, those who did have treatment were significantly more likely to be highly productive. However, about one-half of workers with a moderate or severe depressive episode did not receive treatment. Conclusions: Our results corroborate those in the literature that indicate mental disorders are significantly associated with decreased work productivity. In addition, these findings indicate that treatment for these disorders is significantly associated with productivity. Our results also highlight the low proportion of workers with a mental disorder who receive treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative mental health care (CMHC) pilot program for people on short-term disability leave for psychiatric disorders. Method: Using a quasi-experimental design, the analyses were conducted using 2 groups of subjects who received short-term disability benefits for psychiatric disorders. One group (n = 75) was treated in a CMHC program during their disability episode. The comparison group (n = 51) received short-term disability benefits related to psychiatric disorders in the prior year but did not receive CMHC during their disability episode. People in both groups met screening criteria for the CMHC program. Differences in cost and days absent from work were tested using Student t tests and confirmed using nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Differences in return to work and transition to long-term disability leave were tested using chi-square tests. The cost-effectiveness analysis used the net benefit regression framework. Results: The results suggest that with CMHC, for every 100 people on short-term disability leave for psychiatric disorders, there could be $50 000 in savings related to disability benefits along with more people returning to work (n = 23), less people transitioning to long-term disability leave (n = 24), and 1600 more workdays. Conclusions: CMHC models of disability management based on our Canadian data may be a worthwhile investment in helping people who are receiving short-term disability benefits for psychiatric disorders to receive adequate treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: To explain how to correctly report the results from a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).Methods: Results were used from a hypothetical clinical trial to illustrate how different ways of reporting economic results affect both presentation of findings and formulation of conclusions. To provide context, we reviewed some high-profile exchanges in the scientific literature.Results: The critical issue with which decision makers must grapple involves the trade-offs introduced by a new treatment or intervention. Specifically, are decision makers willing to pay the additional cost for the additional outcomes? This question cannot be considered without estimates of the additional cost and additional outcomes. Correct cost-effectiveness measures, such as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or the incremental net benefit, address this issue.Conclusions: As decision makers face the challenge of balancing increasing health care demand with cost containment, it will be crucial to identify cost-effective ways of providing care. Health care providers and other decision makers should not be misled by the results of improperly reported CEAs. Decisions around adoption of pharmaceuticals or implementation of new programs or interventions may be affected by which cost-effectiveness summary measure is reported. Thus consumers of CEA must have a basic understanding of why different methods give different results, and how the results should be interpreted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Factors associated with positive outcomes for homeless men referred to a shelter-based collaborative mental health care team were examined.Method: A chart review of 73 clients referred over 12 months was completed. Two outcome measures were examined, clinical status and housing status, 6 months after their referral to the program.Result: Among the referred clients, the prevalence of severe and persistent mental illness and substance use disorders was 76.5% and 48.5%, respectively. At 6 months, 24 clients (35.3%) had improved clinically, and 33 (48.5%) were housed. Logistic regression identified 2 factors associated with clinical improvement: the number of visits with a psychiatrist and treatment adherence. The same 2 factors were associated with higher odds of housing, and presence of substance use disorder was associated with lower odds of housing at 6-month follow-up.Conclusion: Care by a mental health specialist is positively associated with improved outcomes. Strategies to improve treatment adherence, access to mental health specialists, and innovative approaches to treatment of substance use disorders should be considered for this population. Having a psychiatrist as a member of a shelter-based collaborative care team is one possible way of addressing the complex physical and mental health needs of homeless individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To discuss the burden of poor mental health in workers, who currently bears it, and how the associated rising costs are being addressed, from an international perspective.Method: We identify the stakeholder groups and the costs they incur as a result of problems related to mental health in 6 different domains. In addition, we offer examples of programs, services, and strategies being used to either decrease costs or enhance benefits.Results: Mental illness is associated with a wide range of costs distributed across multiple stakeholders including government, employers, workers and their families, and the health care system. The costs incurred by the groups are interrelated; an attempt to decrease the burden for one group of stakeholders will inevitably affect other stakeholders. Thus the answer to the question of who bears the costs of poor mental health is "everyone."Conclusions: Everyone could benefit from investment in improved mental health in the workplace. However, because the benefits associated with improved worker mental health are often distributed among several stakeholders, the incentives for any single stakeholder to pay for additional services for workers may be diluted. As a consequence, no one invests. Nevertheless, there is a role for all stakeholders, just as there are potential benefits for all. Along with government, employers, employees, and the health care system must invest in promoting good workplace health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Despite being recognized as a serious public health concern, suicidality among adolescents and young adults is frequently missed, and completed suicide remains the second leading cause of death for young Canadians. With such close links between depression, suicidality, and completed suicide, any intervention must address all 3 of these issues. However, to develop effective interventions, we must understand the types and rates of mental health service use among adolescents and young adults. This study examines service use rates in young Canadians with depression and suicidality and the influence of sex on the types of service provider chosen.Methods: We used data from the Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health and Well-Being. Our sample included 619 individuals, aged 15 to 24 years, who screened positive for depression and suicidality in the past 12 months. We examined mental health service use rates in general and by provider type.Results: Among adolescents aged 15 to 18 years with depression, 40% had not used any mental health services. This rate was higher for adolescents with suicidality at 50%. In young adults aged 19 to 24 with depression, 42% had not used any mental health services. Among young adults with suicidality, 48% had not accessed services. Female adolescents and young adults were more likely to receive services from nonspecialty mental health providers.Conclusions: In Canada, many adolescents and young adults with depression and suicidality do not receive mental health services. Further, there may be a preferential treatment of young men by mental health specialists. Further research is needed to understand the quality of care received by these young Canadians and the factors influencing service use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This paper describes the main types of economic evaluation techniques.Method: To examine the strengths and limitations of different types of economic evaluations, we used a hypothetical example to review the reasoning underlying each method and to illustrate when it is appropriate to use each method.Results: The choice of economic evaluation method reflects a decision about what should represent "success" and how success should be valued. Measures of benefit and cost must be considered systematically and simultaneously. Claiming that a new treatment is cost-effective requires making a value judgment based on the personal beliefs of the claimant. Even when cost and effect data are objective, a verdict of cost-effective is subjective. The conclusions of an economic study can change significantly, depending on which patient outcome is used to measure success.Conclusions: Clinicians must be sure that important patient outcomes are not excluded from economic evaluations. Economic evaluation is a process designed to produce an estimate rather than a decision. New treatment can be more costly and still be cost-effective (if the extra benefit is valued more than the extra cost to produce it). However, since economic evaluation does not explicitly consider a decision maker's available budget, a new treatment can be deemed cost-effective but too expensive to approve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To consider the most common primary care reimbursement structures, to identify incentives inherent in each, and to discuss how each could be used to encourage a shared-care approach to treating mental disorders at the primary care level.Method: Three major financial reimbursement models--fee-for-service, capitation, and blended payment mechanisms--are examined. Each is considered in terms of its risk-sharing elements and the consequent incentives. We offer several scenarios to illustrate how the shared-care practice model might be encouraged under each financing mechanism.Results: The current fee-for-service system does not encourage shared care. For wide adoption of the shared-care practice model, there must be a change in the reimbursement system's incentives. While none of the financing mechanisms offers a perfect solution, each has potential. Each, however, must be carefully tailored to its environment.Conclusions: Financial considerations are just one aspect to achieving shared care. Nevertheless, in designing a system to encourage collaborative, coordinated care for those suffering from mental illness, decision makers should be wary of creating or maintaining obstacles (financial or otherwise) to provision of accessible, high-quality care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on psychological health and safety in the workplace. Topics include the implementation of the psychological health and safety in the workplace standard in Canada, impact of workplace mental health literacy training with healthcare personnel, and testing of the new education program Beyond Silence with comparison to the Mental Health First Aid program.

The article presents the author's views on job stress. In her opinion, the jobs have become very stressful due to increase in competition at work places. She states that the individuals are given more of mental pressure that leads them to mental disorders. She suggests that to reduce stress on job special attention should be paid for offering stress management workshops.