Hidden Economic Impact: Joblessness vs. Depression and Anxiety

This morning’s Today programme on BBC Radio 4 featured an interview with a respected health economist who revealed that the number of people in the UK receiving disability benefits as a result of severe depression or anxiety — over 1 million people — actually exceeds the number receiving unemployment benefits.

This expert estimated that were the government to fund 200 new treatment centres to offer psychological therapy to those affected, the system would pay for itself within 5 years (including the costs of training all those new mental health practitioners). Highlighting the well-documented effectiveness of psychotherapy, the health economist also observed that most people would prefer treatment via psychological therapies rather than drugs.

From a scientific and statistical standpoint, the brief Radio 4 interview left many questions unanswered. For example:

• To what extent do the two groups overlap (those receiving benefits for unemployment and those receiving benefits for severe depression or anxiety disorders)?
• How do the two total benefit bills compare (since simple numbers of people do not equate to specific pound figures)?
• How might we compare the additional economic impact related to the two groups (i.e., the overall economic impact of joblessness vs. the overall economic impact of depression or anxiety)?

However, to my mind, the more interesting facet is the social one: while we as a society remain fixated on the regularly reported statistics regarding unemployment, basic mental health issues which are actually directly affecting more people remain relatively taboo. Can you imagine the nightly news report saying: “And the government reported today that the depression rate fell to just under 700,000 people depressed and claiming benefit”? It might sound silly, and of course I don’t wish in any way to make light of the experience of depression. I mean this question entirely seriously: why shouldn’t depression figures be reported in this way? I’m not necessarily arguing the point one way or the other — i.e., I don’t necessarily believe that they ought to be tracked and reported publicly — but if the answer is that they shouldn’t be, then why not?

Is it because it wouldn’t be economically useful? That seems just plain false.

Is it because it would sound silly? I think it does sound unfamiliar, but is that a good reason for not doing it?

Is it because we just don’t like to talk about things like depression and anxiety? Probably in many ways we don’t like to talk about things like depression and anxiety, but here again: is that a good reason for not doing it?

What do you think?