What about value for money? A cost benefit analysis of the South Eastern Sydney Recovery and Wellbeing College

Abstract

Background

Recovery Colleges assist people in their personal recovery journeys by offering an approach that transforms conventional mental health care by using an educational framework. While evaluations of these colleges have demonstrated effectiveness in promoting personal recovery, scant research has been published regarding their economic evaluation.

Aims

To conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the South Eastern Sydney Recovery and Wellbeing College in Australia by exploring health utilisation and direct costs.

Method

The overall costs of the Recovery College sample (reported from 2014 to 2017) were used to derive a per person, per year cost, adjusted for inflation to 2020 Australian dollars. Benefits were determined by analysing pre/post health service utilisation by service users, and subsequently calculating a net cost saving,

Results

There was a statistically significant reduction in Emergency Department and inpatient mental health utilisation following participation in the Recovery College. The net cost savings was A$269 per student per year.

Conclusions

This study indicates that the Recovery College can play an important role in decreasing mental health service and ED utilisation. This reflects reduced reliance on traditional mental health services, thus suggesting that students develop improved self-agency and ability to manage their own mental health.

Keywords:

• Recovery College
• recovery education
• cost-benefit
• mental health service utilisation
• outcomes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Peter Baldas, Emma O’Hare, Arna Rathgen, Vicki Katsifis and the rest of the South Eastern Sydney Recovery College team as well as Frank Zivkovic from the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Mental Health Service.

Disclosure statement

Funding for this study was provided by SESLHD Mental Health Service, as a service evaluation. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes

1 Zero inflated negative binomial were used for community mental health, and LOS, XTNBREG and NBREAG were used for ED and involuntary LOS, respectively.

2 $393,170 in 2019 Australian dollars

3 Cost savings are calculated for estimates than were statistically significant at a p value< 0.05.

4 To calculate average cost savings per person, a weighted average approach was used based on the sample size for each of the outcomes (community hours, ED and hospital LOS)

5 Net cost savings assumes that the results from the health utilisation sample are generalizable to the total Recovery College consumer sample.

6 Net cost savings assumes that the results from the health utilisation sample are generalizable to the total Recovery College consumer sample.

7 $393,170 in 2019 Australian dollars