Economics of mental well-being: a prospective study estimating associated health care costs and sickness benefit transfers in Denmark.
Health economics
Healthcare utilization
Mental health
Public health
Well-being
Journal
The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care
ISSN: 1618-7601
Titre abrégé: Eur J Health Econ
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101134867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
14
07
2020
accepted:
27
03
2021
pubmed:
17
4
2021
medline:
18
9
2021
entrez:
16
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Previous literature has examined the societal costs of mental illness, but few studies have estimated the costs associated with mental well-being. In this study, a prospective analysis was conducted on Danish data to determine 1) the association between mental well-being (measured in 2016) and government expenditure in 2017, specifially healthcare costs and sickness benefit transfers. Data stem from a Danish population-based survey of 3,508 adults (aged 16 + years) in 2016, which was linked to Danish registry data. A validated scale (WEMWBS) was used for the assessment of mental well-being. Costs are expressed in USD PPP. A two-part model was applied to predict costs in 2017, adjusting for sociodemographics, health status (including psychiatric morbidity and health behaviour), as well as costs in the previous year (2016). Each point increase in mental well-being (measured in 2016) was associated with lower healthcare costs ($- 42.5, 95% CI = $- 78.7, $- 6.3) and lower costs in terms of sickness benefit transfers ($- 23.1, 95% CI = $- 41.9, $- 4.3) per person in 2017. Estimated reductions in costs related to mental well-being add to what is already known about potential savings related to the prevention of mental illness. It does so by illustrating the savings that could be made by moving from lower to higher levels of mental well-being both within and beyond the clinical range. Our estimates pertain to costs associated with those health-related outcomes that were included in the study, but excluding other social and economic outcomes and benefits. They cover immediate cost estimates (costs generated the year following mental well-being measurement) and not those that could follow improved mental well-being over the longer term. They may therefore be considered conservative from a societal perspective. Population approaches to mental health promotion are necessary, not only to potentiate disease prevention strategies, but also to reduce costs related to lower levels of mental well-being in the non-mental illness population. Our results suggest that useful reductions in both health care resource use and costs, as well as in costs due to sick leave from the workplace, could be achieved from investment in mental well-being promotion within a year.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Previous literature has examined the societal costs of mental illness, but few studies have estimated the costs associated with mental well-being. In this study, a prospective analysis was conducted on Danish data to determine 1) the association between mental well-being (measured in 2016) and government expenditure in 2017, specifially healthcare costs and sickness benefit transfers.
METHODS
METHODS
Data stem from a Danish population-based survey of 3,508 adults (aged 16 + years) in 2016, which was linked to Danish registry data. A validated scale (WEMWBS) was used for the assessment of mental well-being. Costs are expressed in USD PPP. A two-part model was applied to predict costs in 2017, adjusting for sociodemographics, health status (including psychiatric morbidity and health behaviour), as well as costs in the previous year (2016).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Each point increase in mental well-being (measured in 2016) was associated with lower healthcare costs ($- 42.5, 95% CI = $- 78.7, $- 6.3) and lower costs in terms of sickness benefit transfers ($- 23.1, 95% CI = $- 41.9, $- 4.3) per person in 2017.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Estimated reductions in costs related to mental well-being add to what is already known about potential savings related to the prevention of mental illness. It does so by illustrating the savings that could be made by moving from lower to higher levels of mental well-being both within and beyond the clinical range. Our estimates pertain to costs associated with those health-related outcomes that were included in the study, but excluding other social and economic outcomes and benefits. They cover immediate cost estimates (costs generated the year following mental well-being measurement) and not those that could follow improved mental well-being over the longer term. They may therefore be considered conservative from a societal perspective. Population approaches to mental health promotion are necessary, not only to potentiate disease prevention strategies, but also to reduce costs related to lower levels of mental well-being in the non-mental illness population. Our results suggest that useful reductions in both health care resource use and costs, as well as in costs due to sick leave from the workplace, could be achieved from investment in mental well-being promotion within a year.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33861391
doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01305-0
pii: 10.1007/s10198-021-01305-0
pmc: PMC8318969
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1053-1065Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Br J Health Psychol. 2003 Feb;8(Pt 1):107-22
pubmed: 12643820
Health Econ. 2011 Aug;20(8):897-916
pubmed: 20799344
Eur J Public Health. 2020 Jun 1;30(3):532-538
pubmed: 32104898
Prev Med. 2016 Jun;87:70-80
pubmed: 26896634
World Psychiatry. 2020 Feb;19(1):3-14
pubmed: 31922693
Eur J Health Econ. 2009 Feb;10(1):5-13
pubmed: 18256865
Eur J Public Health. 2007 Feb;17(1):62-8
pubmed: 16777840
Eur J Public Health. 2015 Apr;25(2):249-54
pubmed: 25678606
Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2017 Jul;9(2):133-167
pubmed: 28707767
Scand J Public Health. 2011 Jul;39(7 Suppl):103-5
pubmed: 21775365
Scand J Public Health. 2011 Jul;39(7 Suppl):30-3
pubmed: 21775347
Annu Rev Public Health. 2018 Apr 1;39:489-505
pubmed: 29328879
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010 Feb;106(2):86-94
pubmed: 19961477
Popul Health Manag. 2014 Feb;17(1):13-20
pubmed: 23560493
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 May 28;11:83
pubmed: 21619668
Eur Psychiatry. 2012 Feb;27(2):81-6
pubmed: 22197146
J Health Econ. 2001 Jul;20(4):461-94
pubmed: 11469231
Annu Rev Public Health. 1999;20:125-44
pubmed: 10352853
Popul Health Manag. 2012 Dec;15(6):325-30
pubmed: 22356589
Scand J Public Health. 2011 Jul;39(7 Suppl):34-7
pubmed: 21775348
Scand J Public Health. 2011 Jul;39(7 Suppl):12-6
pubmed: 21898916
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 27;9(11):e030017
pubmed: 31780588
Popul Health Manag. 2013 Apr;16(2):90-8
pubmed: 23013034
J Occup Environ Med. 2005 May;47(5):523-32
pubmed: 15891532
Psychiatry Res. 2019 Jan;271:502-509
pubmed: 30551082
Scand J Public Health. 2009 May;37(3):252-9
pubmed: 19179449
Popul Health Manag. 2013 Dec;16(6):397-405
pubmed: 23480368
Scand J Public Health. 2011 Jul;39(7 Suppl):22-5
pubmed: 21775345
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Sep 7;1(5):e182136
pubmed: 30646154
Scand J Public Health. 2011 Jul;39(7 Suppl):38-41
pubmed: 21775349
BMC Public Health. 2008 Jul 16;8:239
pubmed: 18631374
Annu Rev Public Health. 2019 Apr 1;40:373-389
pubmed: 30601725
Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Jun;206(6):461-5
pubmed: 25792696
Scand J Public Health. 2011 Jul;39(7 Suppl):206-9
pubmed: 21775385
Psychol Bull. 2005 Nov;131(6):803-55
pubmed: 16351326