RESEARCH WEEKLY: Early Intervention Programs Are a Cost-Effective Method to Treat Schizophrenia
By Kelli South
Early intervention in psychosis programs are a cost-effective option for treating schizophrenia, according to a study recently published in Psychiatric Services. Past research shows that intervening during the first episode of psychosis, typically in someone’s adolescence or early adulthood, is highly beneficial for a person’s health outcomes in the long term.
There is little research that examines the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programs compared to treatment as usual, which this new study aims to correct. Furthermore, this study is the first to examine primarily U.S.-based data, which allows the authors to draw more conclusions about the viability of early intervention in the United States than previous cost-effectiveness studies have been able to do.
Study details
The authors utilized a decision-analytic model, meaning they created a computer simulation that pulled together data from multiple sources to project outcomes for a person’s employment, quality adjusted life years, hospitalizations, future healthcare costs and productivity levels. The subjects studied were 20-year-old men in their first episode of psychosis who later went on to develop schizophrenia. They compared men who went into an early intervention treatment program, which was a specialized clinic that included a case manager for each patient, to those who were given standard care from a psychiatric clinic.
Results
The model showed that those who were in the early intervention program had better outcomes than those who were given standard care, all of which led to a cost savings over time. The subjects in the early intervention program had 3.2 fewer hospitalizations and 2.7 more employment years for their life expectancy compared to those who received standard care.
In sum, the authors determined that the use of the early intervention program was cost-effective, saving more money while creating better health outcomes overtime. The findings held true even when the authors significantly lowered the expected productivity output for a person with schizophrenia, as the illness can severely impact a person’s ability to engage in what are considered normal productive outputs in society, like full-time jobs.
Implications
The authors note the importance of investing more in early intervention programs in the United States because the results show that these programs can have positive impacts on the health of the person diagnosed in the long run and can save money relative to treatment as usual. In addition to being the first study to use U.S.-based data for the majority of the model, it was also one of the first to include “a lifetime horizon from a societal perspective,” which includes outcomes like productivity and employment to get a fuller picture of the true costs and benefits of these programs.
Lastly, the authors note the data that is still missing from their model – including homelessness and incarceration measures, as well as costs of caregiver time and productivity. This gap in the model highlights the need for more integrated data across systems in the United States and more robust measures for homelessness and caregiver burdens in the country.
References
