New Study Finds Outpatient Commitment for Mental Illness Can Save More Money Than It Costs; Why Aren’t More States Using It?
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA (PRWEB) July 30, 2013 -- It just got a lot harder for opponents of court-ordered outpatient treatment for mental illness to argue that it costs too much to use, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center.
A study of mandatory treatment costs published today in the American Journal of Psychiatry found use of assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) can vastly reduce overall costs of public services associated with severe mental illness.
"Common sense has always argued that treating people with severe mental illness is a lot cheaper than hospitalizing people or leaving them to suffer other consequences of being untreated – not to mention more humane," said Doris A. Fuller, executive director of the national nonprofit dedicated to mental illness treatment issues. "Now Duke University and its research partners have produced the numbers to prove it."
In “The cost of assisted outpatient treatment: Can it save states money?” Dr. Jeffrey W. Swanson of Duke and six other researchers report that service costs for 634 frequently hospitalized patients with severe mental illness declined 50% in New York City – from $104,753 to $52,386 – in the first year they received AOT after psychiatric hospitalization and dropped an additional 13% the second year.
Even larger cost savings were reported in five other populous New York counties also analyzed in the study. While the study found that AOT resulted in increased spending for outpatient services, the increases were vastly outpaced by steep declines in spending on hospitalization.
"Ideological opposition to court-ordered outpatient treatment in the community is inevitable, but this study should put an end to the idea that providing this option for qualifying people is too expensive," said Fuller. Forty-five states have AOT laws, but only New York uses theirs widely. Some states, often blaming budget constraints, don’t use their laws at all.
Swanson and fellow researchers analyzed the costs of providing program, selected legal and court services and mental health and other medical treatment to 634 people who met the criteria for New York’s involuntary outpatient treatment program (“Kendra’s Law”). The researchers found the cost savings “substantial” and said that using AOT more widely could actually free up resources enough to meet other mental health needs. Service costs for an additional 255 people receiving voluntary outpatient services were also analyzed. Those costs dropped, too, the study found, but not by as much as costs for the group under AOT.
"Research already has shown that court-ordered outpatient treatment reduces psychiatric hospitalization and lengths of stay, arrests, incarceration, homelessness, victimization, violence and other consequences of not treating people with mental illness who don’t recognize they are ill or who otherwise struggle to adhere to treatment while living in the community," Fuller said.
"Unfortunately, compassion for those suffering these consequences as a result of untreated symptoms has not been enough to motivate communities to put their AOT laws to work," she continued. "We hope the prospect of saving their taxpayers money will."
The Treatment Advocacy Center (http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org) is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating barriers to the timely and effective treatment of severe mental illnesses. The Treatment Advocacy Center promotes laws, policies and practices for the delivery of psychiatric care and supports the development of innovative treatments for and research into the causes of severe and persistent psychiatric illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
Jamie Mondics, Treatment Advocacy Center, 703-294-6003, [email protected]
Share this article