Mental disorders affect about 165 million individuals in the EU each year. They suffer from anxiety, mood, and drug use disorders. Overall, more than 50% of the general population of middle-and high-income countries will suffer from at least one mental disorder at some stage in their lives. Mental disorders are also by no means limited to a select number of predisposed adults. But they are a major public health problem with significant social consequences. They have a link to extreme depression and physical impairment. These features are, in fact, mandatory diagnosis criteria. This may have dramatic consequences, not just for those affected. But it will also affect their families and their social and employment environments.
In 2010, mental and substance use disorders accounted for 10.4% of the worldwide disease burden. These were the leading cause of years of injury in all disease types. Moreover, due to population trends, mental disorders’ long-term incidence will also increase. People believe that medicine, doctor visits, or hospitalization are the economic burden of disease.
In reality, the disease burden is well beyond the “direct” cost of diagnosis and treatment. The 2011 research on the global economic burden of non-communicable diseases described 3 different methods used to measure the economic disease burden. They recognized the “secret costs” of diseases and their economic development effect.
Human Capital Costs
The approach to human resources that people use to measure mental illness and the economic consequences of disease in general. It distinguishes between direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are referred to as the “seen costs” of diagnosis and treatment. These include drugs, medical visits, psychotherapy sessions, hospitalization, and so on.
Indirect costs refer to the “unseen costs” associated with loss of income due to death and treatment. This also includes loss of production due to lack of employment or early retirement. To calculate the direct and indirect costs of the condition, we require two types of data:
- Epidemiological data on the prevalence of the disorder, health treatment, related death, disability
- Per-patient cost of the disorder (economic data)
Epidemiological statistics are usually focused on representative samples. They report estimates in a given population and cohort studies that link the results mentioned above. Cost data are normally derived from routine statistics such as average hospital bed cost per night. And they are then multiplied by corresponding epidemiological data.
Based on data from 2010, the worldwide direct and indirect costs of mental disorders were measured at US$2.5 trillion. Indirect costs (US$1.7 trillion) are much higher than direct costs (US$0.8 trillion). This compares with other key disease groups, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. The direct and indirect expenses have been estimated at 798 billion euros for the EU. It is a country with highly developed healthcare services.
The direct and indirect costs of mental disorders are expected to double by 2030. You should remember that these calculations did not include expenses associated with mental disorders outside the healthcare system, such as legal costs caused by illegal drug abuse.
Lost Economic Growth Due To Economic Burden
From a macro-economic viewpoint, the cost of mental disorders in a given population can be quantified as a loss of economic production by estimating the expected impact of mental disorders on the gross domestic product (GDP). This strategy’s main idea is that economic development depends on labor and capital. The disease has a negative effect on this.
Healthcare Expenditure Is Depleting Capital, and Labor Has Been Depleted By Disability and Mortality. Capital Depletion Is Calculated Based On:
- Savings rate information
- Treatment costs
- The proportion of treatment costs financed from savings
The impact on labor is calculated by comparing GDP to a counter-actual scenario. It assumes no disease deaths against the projected deaths due to the disease. Such rates of loss of economic output are often calculated for somatic diseases. They are rarely calculated for mental disorders. We can only estimate the impact of mental illness on economic development indirectly. According to their associated number of disability-adjusted life years, the lack of economic output is first measured for somatic disorders. In the second step, reducing economic production for mental illnesses is estimated using DALYs’ corresponding relative size for other diseases.
Between 2011 and 2030, The Total Economic Output Loss Associated With Mental Disorders Is Estimated To Be Us$16.3 Trillion Globally. This Makes The Economic Output Loss Associated With Mental Disorders:
- Comparable to that of cardiovascular diseases
- Greater than that of cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes
Mental and drug use disorders are often not part of current health insurance schemes.
Lack Of Action
Some of these schemes are considered “universal health care.” They restrict mental or substance use disorders. The respective health interventions at the population level include the availability of alcohol. The community level, such as life skills training in schools; and the level of health care, are effective. Besides that, their implementation is also cost-effective. Still, this situation continues. The benefit-to-cost ratio of investments to raise treatment rates is between 2.3 and 5.7 to 1.
The treatment gap for mental and substance use disorders is greater than any other health sector. Access to mental health services is generally limited due to a lack of staff and infrastructure. And effective evidence-based treatments are not provided. There is almost a total lack of specific prevention. There is no exception with many high-income countries.
What are the causes of these remarkable deficits? What are the causes of a clear lack of political effort to solve the problem? First, we must acknowledge that the development and implementation of sound and successful diagnostic and treatment measures for mental health is still in its relative infancy. Many treatments and strategies have only been available over the last 30 years. Capacity building in terms of manpower, facilities, and other services is also well behind.
Funding decisions in many nations are still focused on mortality and life expectancy. But, mental disorders indirectly contribute to high mortality rates. Mental disorders indirectly lead to a high rate of mortality. Yet, they rarely appear on death certificates. Finally, it does not seem to be well known that mental disorders lead disproportionately to so-called high-cost consumers of our healthcare system.
The Need For Change
For these causes, we have to reconsider the cost of mental illness. Else, the cost-effectiveness of treatment and preventive approaches and mental health facilities’ ongoing underfunding is likely to continue. Examples of large-scale initiatives to improve this situation have begun to emerge. There is still a very long way to go. Society, politicians, and consumers must constantly be aware of mental disorders’ true burdens. Burdens include the human burden and the full range of possible economic burdens. The efficacy, feasibility, and affordability of interventions must reduce the burden. If we continue to do so, society will hopefully be more willing to accept that investing resources in preventing and treating mental disorders is a sustainable investment.
