Mental health care costs: paucity of measurement

How Much Should We Pay to Deliver Comprehensive Mental and Social Health Services? Experiences from Iran

Objective: Comprehensive mental and social health services is the new benefit package which had been aimed to provide mental health services to people who suffer from mental disorders. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost of plan and its drivers to provide evidence for decision-making by national policymakers.

Method: We used the bottom-up costing approach to estimate the cost of plan. We identified the cost centers, services delivery process, and facilities. Data were collected via different sources and tools such as the new financial system, registration forms, and performance reporting forms. We categorized the cost into 4 groups and selected appropriate measures to estimate the cost. We estimate the total and unit cost for 3 levels in 2 scenarios by considering the 2017 prices.

Results: Screening resulted in 8.9% new detection with a different incidence in urban and rural areas (urban: 16.5%; rural: 2.7%). Also, 61 842 million IRR was spent for the screening, diagnose, treatment, and rehabilitation of detected people in 2017. Personal cost is responsible for 90.6% and primary screening for 66.4% of the total cost.

Conclusion: For the development of the program (from screening to rehabilitation) 530 513 IRR should be spent per capita. The cost of detection per client can vary due to differences in disease prevalence, especially treatment and rehabilitation costs. It is suggested to consider the variation of the prevalence in expanding the plan to the whole country. Integrating the services in primary health care lead to huge cost saving.

Economic evaluations of psychological treatments for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Common mental disorders (CMDs) are highly prevalent conditions that constitute a major public health and economic burden on society in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the increased demand for economic evidence to support resource allocation for scaled-up implementation of mental health services in these contexts, economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs remain scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The proposed systematic review aims to synthesize findings on methods and outcomes of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs in LMICs and appraise quality.

METHODS

We will identify, select, and extract data from published economic evaluations of psychological interventions for CMDs conducted in LMICs. We will search bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EconLit, PsycINFO, Africa-Wide Information, Cochrane library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry), and the African Journals Online (AJOL) and Google Scholar platforms. Only full economic evaluations (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA), Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA), or Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)) of psychological treatments for CMDs (defined as depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders) conducted in LMICs will be included. There will be no restrictions based on date of publication, perspective, follow-up duration or sample size. Data extraction will be guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The results presented will be examined using a narrative synthesis approach. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Drummond & Jefferson checklist.

CONCLUSION

The fledgling evidence base in this area provides an opportunity to promote improved economic evaluation methods in line with repeated calls for economic evidence alongside effectiveness evidence in these settings. A rigorously developed economic evaluation evidence base will support resource allocation decisions for scaled up implementation of psychological interventions in LMIC settings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020185277.

An economic evaluation of inpatient treatment versus day hospital care for psychiatric patients

Objectives: To provide a methodology for the examination of costs and clinical outcomes in two distinct care settings for psychiatric patients inpatient and day hospitals. The major emphasis is on the relationship between costs and outcomes in the two care regimes.

Method: The study is a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis. People living in Sector B catchment area in the Mid-Western Health Board who were admitted to inpatient care, or treated as day hospital patients, between June 1st 1994 -February 28th 1995 are eligible for inclusion in the study. Information on resource use and clinical outcome is available for 92 of these patients.

Results: The average weekly cost of care for mentally ill patients in the inpatient setting is over twice the level of the cost of care for people attending the day hospital facility. Pay costs and hotel costs are higher in the inpatient facility. Day hospital care is also more cost-effective than inpatient care, when account is taken of the relationship between cost and clinical outcomes.

Conclusion: The study supports the general literature view of the superiority of community care settings for certain categories of mentally ill people. However, the absence of randomisation in the study, incomplete data, and the retrospective nature of the analysis suggests that caution is needed in the interpretation of the results.

Association of mental health with health care use and cost: a population study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the health costs of groups with and without psychiatric diagnoses (PDs) using 9 years of physician billing data.

METHODS

A dataset containing registration data for all patients receiving public mental health service was constructed and subsequently matched, on age and sex, in a final patient to comparison patient ratio of 1:8, with health care users who did not receive treatment in the mental health system. Three groups emerged: a patient PD group-patients with psychiatric disorders treated in public mental health care (n = 76 677); a comparison patient PD group-comparison patients with PDs treated in physicians only (n = 277 627); and a patient- comparison patient non-PD group-patients (treated in specialized publicly funded care or by their physician) without PDs (n = 329 177). Examining over 42 million billing records for all of these patients, we compared the average number of visits and the average health only (nonpsychiatric) billing cost per each patient during the 9-year study period across the groups.

RESULTS

Among all health care users in the data, the health costs (Total Costs - Mental Health Costs) were greater on average for the patients with PD group ($3437) and the comparison patient PD group ($3265), compared with patient-comparison patient non-PD group ($1345). Forty-six percent of the comparison sample had a PD.

CONCLUSIONS

Having a mental health problem is related to greater health-related expenditures. This has important policy implications on how mental health resources are constructed and rationed within the health care system.

A framework for the economic analysis of child and adolescent mental disorders

Measuring the burden of disease associated with child and adolescent mental disorders is a challenge. The lack of data on cost and intervention effectiveness has impeded the ability to gain support for expenditures for treatment, training and programme development. A better understanding of economic analysis by researchers, clinicians, and advocates can promote initiatives to gain needed economic data to inform policy and programme development. Based on a critical review of the literature and the development of an economic hypothesis, this paper proposes a specific approach to the economic analysis of the burden of child and adolescent mental disorders utilizing accessible outcome data.

The role of economic evaluation in mental health care

OBJECTIVE

A consequence of the integration of psychiatry into acute and public health medicine is that psychiatrists are being asked to evaluate their services. There is pressure on mental health-care systems because it is recognized that funds should be directed where they can provide the best health outcomes, and also because there are resource constraints which limit our capacity to meet all demands for health care. This pressure can be responded to by evaluation which demonstrates the effectiveness and efficiency of psychiatric treatment. This paper seeks to remind psychiatrists of the fundamental principles of economic evaluation in the hope that these will enable psychiatrists to understand the methods used in evaluation and to work comfortably with evaluators.

METHOD

The paper reviews the basic principles behind economic evaluation, illustrating these with reference to case studies. It describes: (i) the cost of the burden of illness and treatment, and how these costs are measured; (ii) the measurement of treatment outcomes, both as changes in health status and as resources saved; and (iii) the various types of economic evaluation, including cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis.

RESULTS

The advice in the paper provides psychiatrists with the necessary background to work closely with evaluators. A checklist of the critical questions to be addressed is provided as a guide for those undertaking economic evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

If psychiatrists are willing to learn the basic principles of economic evaluation and to apply these, they can respond to the challenges of evaluation.

Hospital care pathways for patients with schizophrenia

Greater emphasis is being placed on reducing clinical variation in managing patient groups in the reformed National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK). The use of a care pathway to enable greater control over the process and quality of care will be explored for patients suffering from schizophrenia. The paper addresses three main factors for the development of care pathways for people suffering from schizophrenia: predictability of the illness; nature of standardized care; and role autonomy. It is argued that the diagnosis of schizophrenia does not lend itself easily to predicting care and treatment within a care pathway framework. However, a care pathway may bring other benefits, such as standardized care and a greater control over the delivery of care. Development and implementation of hospital care pathways require extensiv research. Qualitative research directions are advocated due to the possib difficulties of conducting an experimental study.

The cost of mental health services. Prospects for future research

The setting of priorities in mental health care evaluation requires considering future trends in mental health services. Three areas of change are mentioned in this paper: the development of services, the increase of the burden of illness, and reform processes in health care systems. Economic evaluation of mental health services has to consider the different roles of the agents acting in mental health care, policy-makers, companies, researchers and care professionals, and patients and their relatives.

Despite the increasing work done, most mental health care interventions have either not been evaluated or have been ill evaluated. There is a sense of paucity of measurement that has to be enriched with more and better evaluative research. Some unresolved methodological issues are commented on in this paper. In particular, direct costs outside the health care sector, indirect costs and quality of life measurement are briefly analysed.