Analysis of a managed psychiatric disability program

Work and mental health: learning from return-to-work rehabilitation programs designed for workers with musculoskeletal disorders

Despite the high costs associated with mental health problems in the workplace, few studies have yet been published on the design and evaluation of return-to-work rehabilitation programs for workers with mental health problems. In fact, the best-documented return-to-work rehabilitation programs concern workers with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKD). For this clientele, a disability paradigm has been adopted which explains the multicausality of work disability. Long-term work disability is no longer seen simply as the consequence of impairment, but rather as the result of interactions between the worker and three main systems: the health care, work environment and financial compensation systems. A return to work is thus influenced by a complex set of interrelated factors that must be taken into account in any intervention. Parallels can inevitably be drawn in the field of mental health in the workplace, where individual and organizational factors are involved and must be taken into account in the return-to-work process. This paper presents the first results of an exploratory study aimed at determining the possible links between work rehabilitation programs for workers with MSKD and those for workers with mental health problems. To this end, the components of a work rehabilitation program for workers with MSKD, the Therapeutic Return to Work (TRW) program which addresses psychological factors, work environmental factors and factors related to the involvement of the various stakeholders in the rehabilitation process, are described through a multiple-case analysis and mapping of interventions. The results support the relevance of adopting the disability paradigm and considering the return-to-work clinical activities conducted with workers with MSKD (and their mechanisms of action) in the design of work rehabilitation programs for workers with mental health problems.

Reducing the societal burden of depression: a review of economic costs, quality of care and effects of treatment

Depression is a highly prevalent condition that results in substantial functional impairment. Advocates have attempted in recent years to make the 'business case' for investing in quality improvement efforts in depression care, particularly in primary care settings. The business case suggests that the costs of depression treatment may be offset by gains in worker productivity and/or reductions in other healthcare spending. In this paper, we review the evidence in support of this argument for improving the quality of depression treatment. We examined the impact of depression on two of the primary drivers of the societal burden of depression: healthcare utilisation and worker productivity. Depression leads to higher healthcare utilisation and spending, most of which is not the result of depression treatment costs. Depression is also a leading cause of absenteeism and reduced productivity at work. It is clear that the economic burden of depression is substantial; however, critical gaps in the literature remain and need to be addressed. For instance, we do not know the economic burden of untreated and/or inappropriately treated versus appropriately treated depression. There remain considerable problems with access to and quality of depression treatment. Progress has been made in terms of access to care, but quality of care is seldom consistent with national treatment guidelines. A wide range of effective treatments and care programmes for depression are available, yet rigorously tested clinical models to improve depression care have not been widely adopted by healthcare systems. Barriers to improving depression care exist at the patient, healthcare provider, practice, plan and purchaser levels, and may be both economic and non-economic. Studies evaluating interventions to improve the quality of depression treatment have found that the cost per QALY associated with improved depression care ranges from a low of 2519 US dollars to a high of 49,500 US dollars. We conclude from our review of the literature that effective treatment of depression is cost effective, but that evidence of a medical or productivity cost offset for depression treatment remains equivocal, and this points to the need for further research in this area.

The business case for quality mental health services: why employers should care about the mental health and well-being of their employees

Employers are very concerned about rising mental health care costs. They want to know whether their health care spending is improving the health of workers, and whether there is a productivity payback from providing good mental health care. This article addresses the subject of employee depression and its impact on business. The literature suggests that depressed individuals exert a significant cost burden for employers. Evidence is mounting that worker depression may have its greatest impact on productivity losses, including increased absenteeism and short-term disability, higher turnover, and suboptimal performance at work. Although there is no conclusive evidence yet that physical health care costs decrease when depression is effectively treated, there is growing evidence that productivity improvements occur as a consequence of effective treatment, and those improvements may offset the cost of the treatment.