Treating depression in working moms = good business
Spread the word to corporate boards, CEOs, and HR folks:
A new research report funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) at the NIH finds that "Benefits to Employers Outweigh Enhanced Depression-Care Costs."
No big surprise to the advocates and professionals who work in this field, but it's always nice to have the hard data - from an authoritative source - to make the argument for less stigma, less denial, and more mental health care for working moms... and all other workers.
Here's an excerpt from the NIMH's press release on this study:
It may be in society's and employers' best interests to offer programs that actively seek out and treat depression in the workforce, suggests an analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).
A simulation based on dozens of studies revealed that providing a minimal level of enhanced care for employees' depression would result in a cumulative savings to employers of $2,898 per 1,000 workers over 5 years.
Even though the intervention would initially increase use of mental health services, it ultimately would save employers money by reducing absenteeism and employee turnover costs, according to Drs. Philip Wang and Ronald Kessler, of Harvard University, and colleagues, who report on their findings in the December 2006 Archives of General Psychiatry.
"Depression exacts economic costs totaling tens of billions of dollars annually in the United States, mostly from lost work productivity," noted Wang. "Yet we're not making the most of available services and treatments. Our study calculates what employers' return on their investment would be if they purchased enhanced depression treatment programs for their workers."
Savings from reduced absenteeism and employee turnover and other benefits of the intervention began to exceed the costs of the program by the second year, yielding a net savings of $4,633 per 1,000 workers.
These savings were somewhat reduced in years 3 through 5, based on conservative assumptions that benefits wane after care management ceases, while increased use of treatments continues. The intervention became more expensive than usual care (no workplace depression management) when there was greater use of psychiatrists (instead of primary care doctors) or brand-name (instead of generic) drugs.
Enhanced care had the most benefit in cases of higher-level employees who influenced the productivity of co-workers.