Whither economic evaluation in the case of COVID-19: What can the field of mental health economics contribute within the Australian context?

COVID-19 has resulted in broad impacts on the economy and aspects of daily life including our collective mental health and well-being. The Australian health care system already faces limitations in its ability to treat people with mental health diagnoses. Australia has responded to the COVID-19 outbreak by, among other initiatives, providing reimbursement for telehealth services. However, it is unclear if these measures will be enough to manage the psychological distress, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic distress shown to accompany infectious disease outbreaks and economic shocks. Decision making has focused on the physical health ramifications of COVID-19, the avoidance of over-burdening the health care system and saving lives. We propose an alternative framework for decision making that combines life years saved with impacts on quality of life. A framework that simultaneously includes mental health and broader economic impacts into a single decision-making process would facilitate transparent and accountable decision making that can improve the overall welfare of Australian society as we continue to address the considerable challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic is creating.

The Evolution of Mental Health Policy and Economics

Mental health economics addresses problems that are common to all of health economics, but that occur with greater severity in this context. Several characteristics of mental health conditions—age of onset, chronicity, observability, and external effects—make them particularly economically challenging, and a range of policies have evolved to address these problems. The need for insurance—and for social insurance—to address mental health problems has grown. There is an expanding number of effective treatments available for mental health conditions, and these treatments can be relatively costly. The particular characteristics of mental health conditions exacerbate the usual problems of moral hazard, adverse selection, and agency. There is increased recognition, in both the policy and economics literatures, of the array of services and supports required to enable people with severe mental illnesses to function in society’s mainstream. The need for such non-medical services, generates economic problems of cross-system coordination and opportunism. Moreover, the impairments imposed by mental disorders have become more disruptive to the labor market because the nature of work is changing in a manner that creates special disadvantages to people with these conditions. New directions for mental health economics would address these effects.