|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$6,223||Benefits minus costs||$18,648|
|Participants||$12,866||Benefit to cost ratio||$23.95|
|Others||$553||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($181)||benefits greater than the costs||98 %|
|Net program cost||($813)|
|Benefits minus cost||$18,648|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with anxiety disorder||$5,777||$12,720||$0||$0||$18,497|
|Health care associated with anxiety disorder||$446||$145||$552||$223||$1,366|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$1||$0||$0||($404)||($403)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$787||2012||Present value of net program costs (in 2015 dollars)||($813)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2012||Cost range (+ or -)||15 %|
|Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-Discounted Dollars)|
|The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.|
|Meta-Analysis of Program Effects|
|Outcomes measured||No. of effect sizes||Treatment N||Adjusted effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis||Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)|
|First time ES is estimated||Second time ES is estimated|
|Major depressive disorder||2||212||-0.250||0.249||45||-0.123||0.270||47||-0.250||0.315|
Kane, R.L., & Homyak, P. (2003). Multistate Evaluation of Dual Eligibles Demonstration. University of Minnesota School of Public Health. Submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid under Contract, (500-96), 0008.
Price, D., Beck, A., Nimmer, C., & Bensen, S. (2000). The treatment of anxiety disorders in a primary care HMO setting. The Psychiatric Quarterly, 71(1), 31-45.
Rollman, B.L., Belnap, B.H., Mazumdar, S., Houck, P.R., Zhu, F., Gardner, W., . . . Shear, M.K. (2005). A randomized trial to improve the quality of treatment for panic and generalized anxiety disorders in primary care. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(12), 1332-1341.
Roy-Byrne, P., Craske, M.G., Sullivan, G., Rose, R.D., Edlund, M.J., Lang, A.J., . . . Stein, M.B. (2010). Delivery of evidence-based treatment for multiple anxiety disorders in primary care: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(19), 1921-1928.
Schnurr, P. P., Friedman, M. J., Oxman, T. E., Dietrich, A. J., Smith, M. W., Shiner, B., . . . Thurston, V. (2013). RESPECT-PTSD: Re-engineering systems for the primary care treatment of PTSD, a randomized controlled trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28(1), 32-40.