The real cost of mental health

In the wake of the news that government spending on mental health has dropped by £150 million for the first time in ten years, it is important to understand the true cost of mental illness, both for the government, for the employers and for the individuals affected.

With the knowledge that an estimated 1 in 4 people will suffer from some kind of mental health problem this year, it is clear that the financial and economic implications of mental illness are vast. The cost of this ill health is not only seen in terms of treatment costs. 1.3 million People with mental health problems rely on benefits due to their inability to find suitable work or to work at all (statistic from the Job Well Done report by the think tank New Philanthropy Centre). Indeed the problem also extends into employment- according to the mental health charity Mind, employees without proper support cost UK businesses up to £15.1 billion and 70 million working days per annum, and increased staff turnovers costing £2.4 billion.

Not mentioned above is the long list of (often forgotten) financial implications of neglecting mental health problems. 9 out of 10 prisoners in the UK have a mental health problem, lending weight to the assumption that more support in the early stages for those showing signs of mental illness may significantly reduce crime and the subsequent cost of prison life. By shifting the focus towards preventative mental health treatment it is likely that instances of crime will drop, benefiting the victims, the perpetrators and their families.

In another telling statistic, it is estimated that 75% of drug and alcohol misuse service users have a mental disorder. The UK Home Office estimated that the social and economic cost of drug abuse to the UK economy in terms of crime, absenteeism and sickness is in excess of £20 billion a year. Another example is the relationship between the most common mental disorders (anxiety, depression etc) and other health problems, including insomnia, muscle pains, weight loss and indigestion alongside a generally weakened immune system.

Kevan Jones, one of the MPs who
recently spoke about his own problems
with mental ill-health

What is clear to me is that the approach taken by the government in cutting spending on mental health services is both misguided and short-sighted. With many councils forced to limit treatment in accordance with funding, those suffering from ‘less severe’ mental health difficulties receive less support until their problems have worsened to the extent that they fit the eligibility criteria. The government guidelines on eligibility for mental health treatment are split into 4 bands based upon the severity of the consequence if needs are not met; critical, substantial, moderate and low.

After doing a quick internet search on the policies of a specific council and clicking on the first link, I found a community support scheme offered by Lambeth council- only those assessed as being in the top 2 bands qualified for the scheme. With the ‘moderate’ band including factors such as the ‘inability to carry out several aspects of personal care’ and an ‘inability to undertake several social roles and responsibilities’, I feel a sense of unease about the people in our society being unable to access vital services despite having what most people would see as fairly debilitating illnesses. 

The councils and service providers however are not to blame for this. In the same guideline document, it is stated that ‘in setting their eligibility criteria councils should take into account their resources, local expectations and local costs’ It seems that due to the lack of funding, one must get worse before being allowed access to the treatment required to get better- surely the opposite message to the ones we receive in all other areas of the NHS- to stop smoking, exercise and eat healthily in order to prevent illness.

The final cost to examine in relation to the spending cuts is not a financial one. I’m referring of course to the negative impact upon the most important figures in this debate: the service users themselves. With reports from Mind showing that 1 in 5 will already wait more than a year for access to talking therapies (for example), it is obvious that we cannot afford to make further cuts to funding- the budget is already stretched too thinly for local mental health services to serve their purpose. Investment in mental health is not a waste of money; the social and economic benefits of a healthier population (in terms of mental health) far outweigh the financial input required to secure them.