Assisting Social Security Disability Insurance Beneficiaries With Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, or Major Depression in Returning to Work

Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
American Journal of Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 13.56). 08/2013; 170(12). DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13020214
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE People with psychiatric impairments (primarily schizophrenia or a mood disorder) are the largest and fastest-growing group of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries. The authors investigated whether evidence-based supported employment and mental health treatments can improve vocational and mental health recovery for this population. METHOD Using a randomized controlled trial design, the authors tested a multifaceted intervention: team-based supported employment, systematic medication management, and other behavioral health services, along with elimination of barriers by providing complete health insurance coverage (with no out-of-pocket expenses) and suspending disability reviews. The control group received usual services. Paid employment was the primary outcome measure, and overall mental health and quality of life were secondary outcome measures. RESULTS Overall, 2,059 SSDI beneficiaries with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or depression in 23 cities participated in the 2-year intervention. The teams implemented the intervention package with acceptable fidelity. The intervention group experienced more paid employment (60.3% compared with 40.2%) and reported better mental health and quality of life than the control group. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of the complex intervention in routine mental health treatment settings was feasible, and the intervention was effective in assisting individuals disabled by schizophrenia or depression to return to work and improve their mental health and quality of life.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Unemployment among people with schizophrenia remains high despite slight improvements in vocational rehabilitation services and attitudes towards people with mental health disorders over the years. Experts are in a good position to increase our understanding on why this group still experiences such significant barriers to employment. OBJECTIVE: Interviews explored experts' views on schizophrenia and employment; with a particular focus on individual, attitudinal and structural barriers, as well as available interventions and their outcomes. METHODS: The sample of 20 experts were recruited using theoretical sampling. The experts consisted of: employment specialists, healthcare professionals, activists from patient organisations, academics, caregivers and employers. A thematic approach was used for analysis. RESULTS: Low expectations of healthcare professionals which were often manifested as minimal recognition of employment as an outcome for people with schizophrenia as well as a “benefits trap” were identified as the strongest barriers to employment. In addition, the IPS model was identified as the most effective to support people to work, but lack of funding to implement the model nationally and concerns of poor implementation were raised by the experts. CONCLUSIONS: More research is required to examine which adaptations are needed for vocational interventions in order to implement them successfully.
    Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 06/2014; 41(1):29-44. DOI:10.3233/JVR-140696
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Persons with severe and persistent mental disorders (SPMD) have extremely low earnings levels and account for 29.1 percent of all U.S. Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) disabled worker beneficiaries under age 50. Social insurance and disability policy experts pointed to several factors that may contribute to this situation, including disincentives and obstacles in the SSDI program, as well as lack of access to evidence-based behavioral-health interventions. In response, the Social Security Administration (SSA) funded the Mental Health Treatment Study (MHTS) demonstration that included 2,238 beneficiaries of SSDI whose primary reason for disability is SPMD. The demonstration, implemented in 23 different localities, consisted of two evidence-based services (individual placement and support supported employment (IPS-SE), systematic medication management (SMM)), and provision or coverage of additional behavioral-health services (OBH).
    The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics 06/2014; 17(2):75-90. · 0.97 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: This study's objective was to determine the efficacy of benefits counseling in a clinical trial. There has been concern that disability payments for psychiatric disorders reduce incentives for employment and rehabilitation. Benefits counseling, with education about opportunities to work and the financial implications of work on receipt of disability benefits, may counter these disincentives. Methods: This single-blind, six-month randomized clinical trial enrolled 84 veterans who had applied for service-connected compensation for a psychiatric condition. Veterans were randomly assigned to either four sessions of benefits counseling or of a control condition involving orientation to the U.S Department of Veterans Affairs health care system and services. Days of paid work and work-related activities were assessed at follow-up visits by using a time-line follow-back calendar. Results: Veterans assigned to benefits counseling worked for pay for significantly more days than did veterans in the control group (effect size=.69, p<.05), reflecting an average of three more days of paid employment during the 28 days preceding the six-month follow-up. Benefits counseling was associated with increased use of mental health services, but this correlation did not mediate the effect of benefits counseling on working. Conclusions: Barriers to employment associated with disability payments are remediable with basic counseling. More research is needed to understand the active ingredient of this counseling and to strengthen the intervention.
    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 08/2014; 65(12). DOI:10.1176/ · 1.99 Impact Factor