Health insurance and mental illness

Employment and Social Security/Insurance among patients affected by mental disorders in Italy: A descriptive multi-center study

“…There were no differences among sexes whereas patients with psychotic disorders reported higher disability (73%) followed by personality (60%) and mood disorders (47.3%) with severity-percentages ranging 65.7 ± 40.2 for psychoses, 55.4 ± 43.8 for personality disorders, and 40.6 ± 41.5 for mood disorders, respectively. These findings confirm that psychotic disorders are highly disabling in many areas of functioning, including work activities (Holm et al, 2021;Solar et al, Here we may comment that the rate of incentives and support for psychosis in the Italian Mental health Care System rated high, even more than the average percentage of incentives described in the international literature (Bijal et al, 2019). This may be due to the Finally, the impact of sex on these variables was somewhat negligible.…”

“…Also, higher number of other rehabilitation interventions was delivered in favor of patients with psychoses (65.8%) for longer time (37.3 ± 62.5 months; bivariate analysis). Here we may comment that the rate of incentives and support for psychosis in the Italian Mental health Care System rated high, even more than the average percentage of incentives described in the international literature (Bijal et al, 2019). This may be due to the introduction of various supportive institutions such as the Institutes of Social Security and Insurance (INPS and INAIL) for vulnerable citizens affected by disabilities, including mentally ill ones.…”

“…Nonetheless, people affected by severe mental illness may report poor access to employment and the legal protection of their right to work may be a challenge in many countries (Nardodkar et al, 2016). The public social insurance may support those patients affected by severe mental illness with higher levels of social vulnerabilities (Bijal et al, 2019) as well as job-placement programs and other rehabilitation interventions improve the outcome of severe psychoses and mood disorders with lower positive and emotional discomfort and lower rate of re-hospitalizations (Bell et al, 1996). However, the impact of social insurance and other incentives on mental health may vary depending on the socio-economic framework and income of home country; social insurance is a system of compulsory contribution to enable the provision of state assistance in sickness or unemployment (Docrat et al, 2020).…”

Perceptions regarding the Indian Mental Healthcare Act 2017 among psychiatrists: Review and critical appraisal in the light of CRPD guidelines

“…Sub-section 5 of Section 86 within IMHCA 2017 strictly prohibits administering psychiatric treatment to an autonomous patient without their informed consent. Many psychiatrists are apprehensive that upholding patients' rights to refuse treatment could potentially amplify dropout rates, subsequently leading to relapses and rehospitalizations (Andrade et al, 2003;Bijal et al, 2019;Harbishettar et al, 2019b;Namboodiri, 2019). Section 5 of IMHCA 2017 outlines the right for every non-minor individual to create a written advance directive, specifying preferences for mental healthcare and treatment.…”

“…Section 89 of IMHCA 2017 specifies that supported admission upon a nominated representative’s request must follow an independent assessment by a psychiatrist and a mental health professional or medical practitioner to ascertain immediate risk. Numerous psychiatrists contend that adhering to such stringent criteria could conflict with their patients’ best interests (Bijal et al, 2019 ; Harbishettar et al, 2019b ; Math et al, 2019b ; Namboodiri, 2019 ; Vadlamani and Gowda, 2019 ). They point out that patients with severe mental illnesses or substance use disorders, who may necessitate inpatient care based on psychiatric evaluations, might be ineligible for involuntary admission due to retained capacity or nonthreatening psychiatric symptoms.…”