Mental Health Days Policies

The US healthcare marketplace has no idea how to  value behavioral health interventions. And it's costing us everything. Here's what insurers are missing: ↳ Veterans getting mental health care show 40%   lower late-stage cancer rates ↳ Depression treatment cuts heart failure   rehospitalizations by 35% ↳ Anxiety therapy reduces all-cause mortality   in cardiac patients The math is staggering: 1/ Every $100 invested in behavioral health  ↳ Returns $190 in reduced medical claims ↳ Prevents costly emergency escalations ↳ Cuts inpatient hospitalization rates 2/ Mental health treatment for seniors ↳ Reduces dementia diagnosis rates significantly ↳ Particularly effective for vascular dementia ↳ Saves decades of long-term care costs 3/ Employer programs prove the ROI ↳ Telepsychiatry shows comparable total costs ↳ Outpatient interventions prevent crises ↳ Early screening stops illness progression Yet insurers still treat mental health as  "nice to have" instead of "must have." This isn't just about parity laws. It's about basic healthcare economics. When we underpay for behavioral health, we  overpay for everything else. Mental health treatment doesn't just save minds. It saves lives, money, and entire healthcare systems. ------------------------------------------- ⁉️ How much longer can we afford to ignore  the $190 return on every $100 invested? ♻️ Share if you believe behavioral healthcare is mispriced. 👉 Follow me for more (Eric Arzubi, MD).

𝐀𝐭𝐡𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬: 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐀𝐏𝐀𝐁𝐋𝐄? A groundbreaking study in the American Journal of Sports Medicine followed 958 collegiate athletes across 4 men's and 5 women's sports from 2 NCAA Division I universities over multiple seasons. The results were adjusted for age, race, body mass index, history of injuries 12 months before baseline, and university attended. They were screened for anxiety symptoms prior to the season. The findings? 𝐒𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭-𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐬𝐲𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 2.3𝐱 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧. What does this mean for a departments cost? 💸 Secondary insurance claims and deductibles- they go up with more injuries 💰 Increased AT/PT staff time, overtime and attrition from stress 💶 Lost roster productivity when you need it most 💲 NIL payments to noncompeting athletes 💰 Performance drops during critical season moments Even modest mental health investment like the one required for Onrise delivers 200-900% ROI just from injury prevention alone. The question isn't whether we can afford to invest in athlete mental health. It's whether we can afford the hidden costs of NOT investing.

Your mental health program works but your company still wants to cut the budget. I see this disconnect constantly. HR knows their mental health programme helped 200 employees last quarter.  But the company sees a £10k expense with no clear return. Both are right. And both are frustrated... HR feels misunderstood, "why isn't supporting people an obvious business priority?" Leadership feels confused, "how does "improved wellbeing scores" translate to company performance? This gap between caring for people and proving business value kills good programmes. From working with both sides, I think the translation layer matters more than the data itself. When you say "Mental health programme satisfaction increased 40%" leadership hears a vague feel-good metric. But when you say "Teams using mental health support had 23% fewer sick days, saving £47k in productivity costs" leadership hears measurable ROI. Same programme.  Same impact.  Different conversation. Translating how things are communicated shows leaders that employee wellbeing drives the results they already care about. What's worked when you've had to justify people programmes to leadership?

As a psychiatrist, I’ve always believed that effective mental health care should be evidence-based, deeply personalized, and accessible to everyone—not just those in crisis. If we're waiting for the latter, we're too late. As a Chief Medical Officer, I also know that clinical impact means little if it isn’t sustainable for employers. That’s why I’m proud to share our latest ROI analysis at Modern Health. ✅ $2.39 in health care savings for every $1 spent ✅ Real-world data from more than 13,000 members ✅ Clinical improvements in anxiety, depression, and even sleep and burnout ✅ ROI driven primarily from meeting the needs of those with more moderate mental health concerns This is the future of mental health benefits: care that’s adaptive, scalable, and clinically responsive—including for people who often get missed. Because when we meet people’s needs earlier—and match them to the right level of support—we don’t just improve outcomes. We reduce costs, too. Read more about the analysis here: https://lnkd.in/gyBzy7wy

A new study confirms that long-term peer recovery support services (PRSS) are highly cost-effective, offering strong financial and health benefits for people recovering from substance use disorders. From a health system perspective, PRSS costs $5,899 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and $10,562 per person in recovery. A QALY is a standard measure in healthcare economics that assesses the value of medical interventions by calculating the cost of each additional year of life lived in good health. For comparison, many treatments considered cost-effective fall under $50,000 per QALY, meaning PRSS is FAR below this threshold. This makes it a financially smart investment for healthcare systems looking to improve recovery outcomes without excessive spending. From a societal perspective, PRSS costs $3,422 per QALY and $6,127 per person in recovery. This broader view accounts for economic factors like employment, reduced criminal justice involvement, and community stability. The findings suggest that investing in PRSS benefits not just the individual but also society as a whole by reducing the financial strain of untreated substance use disorders. To help apply these findings, researchers developed a free, online cost-effectiveness calculator in collaboration with two recovery community organizations in Texas. The calculator allows users to estimate the financial and health impacts of PRSS for their specific program or population. It is accessible at https://go.uth.edu/cea and can be used to inform funding decisions, grant applications, and policy proposals. 🔗 Read the full study here: https://lnkd.in/gwySPzQN Sierra Castedo de Martell, Bettina Hoeppner, Ann M. Richardson, MBA, Peer Recovery Center of Carteret County INC

Australia's unemployment payments - meant to provide a social safety net and support people to get back into employment - are below all poverty measures and are far below the average of similar nations. I spoke to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)'s Dan Ziffer about Mandala's research quantifying the microeconomic benefits of raising JobSeeker payments to 90 per cent of the age pension. Our research used a microsimulation model to forecast the mental health, physical health and child development outcomes for 20,000 people over 10 years. We found every $100 invested delivers a $24 social return that includes physical and mental health improvements and intergenerational benefits through positive impacts on childhood development. There are also efficiency benefits from fewer hospital and GP visits, lower mental healthcare costs, fewer justice system interactions and lower children's lifetime social security system use. The methodology we used is conservative, meaning the real benefits could be far greater. The low payment level imposes an invisible cost through the burden it places on our health system, homelessness services, and justice system, from having these high rates of poverty. But these costs are substantial. The evidence shows we can avoid much of this cost while generating positive social returns by investing in adequate income support. Proud to work alongside Amy Sergio Jesse Ruishen Adam Triggs Amit Singh to undertake this research.

Most CEOs and CFOs I speak with don't question whether employee wellbeing matters. They question whether it's worth the investment. It's a fair question. And the answer, backed by data, is clearer than most leaders realise. Mental health conditions alone cost Australian workplaces an estimated $39 billion every year in lost productivity and participation. That's not a wellbeing statistic. That's a business problem sitting on your P&L. Here's what the research tells us about the return on doing something about it: A PwC analysis found that well-designed wellbeing programs return at least $2.30 for every $1 invested. A global meta-evaluation of 62 peer-reviewed studies published in the American Journal of Health Promotion found that well-designed workplace wellness programs return an average of $5.56 for every dollar invested, driven by reductions in absenteeism, workers' compensation and healthcare costs. And research on mental health-specific interventions shows returns of up to 4:1 when programs are properly implemented and sustained. But here's what I think matters even more than those numbers... Replacing a mid-level employee costs somewhere between six and nine months of their salary when you factor in recruitment, onboarding and lost productivity. Burnout-driven turnover is one of the most significant and most preventable costs sitting inside Australian organisations right now and most leaders aren't tracking it. The businesses getting the strongest returns on wellbeing aren't doing more. They're being more intentional. They're treating employee wellbeing as a strategic input to performance, not a cost centre, not a perk, not something that sits with HR and gets reviewed once a year. The question worth asking isn't "can we afford to invest in this?" It's "what is it already costing us not to?" 💛

Supporting the mental health of new parents in your organization isn't just another expense of doing business. It's one of the highest-return investments you can make. The cost of not doing so is staggering. Untreated perinatal mood and anxiety disorders for births in a single year were estimated to cost the U.S. economy $14.2 billion. A significant portion of that—$4.7 billion, to be exact—was attributed to lost workforce productivity from absenteeism and presenteeism. This "silent" drag of working while unwell often proves more costly to a business than sick days. On the other hand, the evidence for investing in supporting parental mental health is compelling. Research from the World Health Organization shows that for every $1 invested in scaling up treatment for common mental health conditions, there is a $4 return in better health and productivity. When we create a workplace culture that normalizes seeking help and provides direct access to specialized perinatal mental health care, we are doing more than just improving well-being. We are boosting productivity, increasing employee loyalty, and reducing the attrition of valuable, experienced talent. It's not just about reducing risk; it's about building a stronger, more resilient, and more productive workforce for generations to come. My question for other leaders is: How are you strategically investing in the well-being of the working parents, and those returning from parental leave, on your team? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I’m Emily Guarnotta, PsyD, PMH-C, a licensed psychologist and the co-founder of Phoenix Health. We provide online mental health support for individuals and families navigating pregnancy, postpartum, loss, infertility, and more. Follow me + tap the 🔔 to keep perinatal mental health front and center.

🧠 Depression isn't just a health crisis — it's a $12 trillion economic one. A new study in Nature Medicine models the macroeconomic burden of depression across 154 countries from 2025–2050. The findings should be on every policymaker's radar: 💰 **$12 trillion** in projected global economic losses (2025–2050) — equivalent to an annual "tax" of 0.46% on global GDP 📈 Rises to **$14 trillion** when depression-linked suicide deaths are factored in 🇺🇸 🇨🇳 🇬🇧 The **US, China, and UK** carry the largest absolute burdens 🌍 **North America** is hit hardest relative to GDP (0.60%), followed by Europe/Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa ⚖️ A striking mismatch: **lower-middle-income countries** carry ~48% of the global health burden (DALYs) by 2050, yet only ~10% of the economic costs — the losses are simply less visible where capital and labor markets are smaller 👷 The dominant driver isn't healthcare spending — it's **lost labor force participation and productivity**, not physical capital decline 🔑 The policy signal here is clear: ✅ Every $1 invested in scaling up depression/anxiety treatment returns an estimated **$4** in health and productivity gains ✅ Integrating mental health into primary care can cost as little as **$1–5 per capita/year** in low-resource settings ✅ Internet-based CBT offers a scalable, cost-effective option — especially where clinical capacity is scarce Depression should be treated as an economic development issue, not just a clinical one. The cost of inaction is measured in trillions. Zhong (Amy) Cao Yuheng Luo Klaus Prettner SIMIAO CHEN #GlobalHealth #MentalHealth #HealthPolicy #EconomicPolicy #PublicHealth #Depression #HealthEconomics

A nationwide suicide reattempt prevention program in France that was built on brief contact interventions (BCIs) like crisis cards, phone calls, and handwritten, hand-stamped postcards 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘴 𝘣𝘺 38% 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 12 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘴. The program was effective regardless of prior suicide attempt history and showed slightly greater impact among women. With a return on investment of €2.06 per euro spent, it’s not just clinically meaningful; it’s fiscally responsible. This study is a masterclass in pragmatic public health: low-tech, high-touch, and high-impact. For systems grappling with behavioral health crises and budget constraints, this is a rare win-win: better outcomes and lower costs, without needing an app or AI. Suggested action items for healthcare executives: 📬 𝗘𝗺𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: handwritten outreach can outperform digital nudges in behavioral health. 📊 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗘𝗛𝗥 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 to identify and stratify patients at risk for reattempts, especially in the first 6 months post-discharge. 📞 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗳𝗳 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝘂𝗽 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀 to deliver structured outreach; don’t rely on ad hoc clinician goodwill. 💰 𝗘𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗥𝗢𝗜 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 using real-world data, not just RCTs; your CFO will thank you.