Quote:
Europeans are plagued by mental and neurological illnesses, with almost 165 million people or 38 percent of the population suffering each year from a brain disorder such as depression, anxiety, insomnia or dementia, according to a large new study. With only about a third of cases receiving the therapy or medication needed, mental illnesses cause a huge economic and social burden -- measured in the hundreds of billions of euros -- as sufferers become too unwell to work and personal relationships break down.
I couldn't find a breakdown of exactly what percentages of various mental illnesses this article is talking about. However, they do say this:
Quote:
Mental illnesses are a major cause of death, disability, and economic burden worldwide and the World Health Organization predicts that by 2020, depression will be the second leading contributor to the global burden of disease across all ages.
Wittchen said that in Europe, that grim future had arrived early, with diseases of the brain already the single largest contributor to the EU's burden of ill health.
The four most disabling conditions -- measured in terms of disability-adjusted life years or DALYs, a standard measure used to compare the impact of various diseases -- are depression, dementias such as Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia, alcohol dependence and stroke.
Underlined by me for emphasis.
Alzheimer's is no surprise. As lifespans continue to increase, so will the impact of Alzheimer's and other age-associated dementias. I have difficulty, however, with categorizing alcohol dependence as a general mental illness, though I suppose it fits that description as well as it would fit any other (it occurs to me, though, that all other dependencies should have to be included, such as tobacco, video gaming, gambling, heroin, crack...where do you draw the line and call one a mental illness and another, just an addiction?)
I also wonder how the U.S. compares to this study. I would imagine, not much better.
And depression...a very tricky theme. Depression can be caused by any number of things, from chemical imbalances in the brain to overbearing emotional, social and financial stresses. Another sign of the times, a large percentage of it having to do, I'd imagine, with the current growing global economic degradation resulting in loss of employment and other financial burdens.|||Am I the only one who seriously doubts most findings of this study?
Firstly, much of the EU population is aging to the point of pensioneering. They'll be a societal burden sooner rather than later so an inability to work does not translate to a loss of income.
Secondly, something like stroke and dementia are societal burdens as they require extra intensive treatment, but costs associated with alcohol dependence are much less for the elderly (which is the societal group featuring the most alcoholics). I'm not sure what costs are actually associated with depression.
Lastly, illnesses like ADD are new and discovered at a young age but kids weren't regularly tested for these illnesses 20 years back. Once they're diagnosed they continue to be registered and treated as ADD patients, so as for the anxiety disorders there's a large age discrepancy with the young rather than the elderly being the registered victims - in another 20 years odds are the number of ADD patients will have doubled.
Anyway, half the mental illnesses aren't as incapacitating as psychologists would wish you to believe so I'd be surprised if their estimated cost burden is anywhere near realistic.|||Quote:
So the headline says.
I also wonder how the U.S. compares to this study. I would imagine, not much better.
Shouldn't be too hard to find.
21 million Americans suffer from depression annually. Assuming this is current. (6.8% of the population)
2.9 million Americans suffer from dementia (in 2001), compared to 5 million Euros from the same study. (~1% at the time)
14 million Americans abused alcohol (article seems to cite a source from 1994). So that's about 5.4% at the time.
4 million Americans have survived a stroke and are living with the after-effects. Assuming this is current. (1.3%)
Total - assuming there is no crossover between these groups (terribly unlikely; the degree of crossover between alcohol abuse and depression has to be high) - is about 14.5%. This is also assuming that these numbers have not gone up or down (in terms of percentages) since they were taken. Lots of unlikely assumptions, but almost certainly the biggest one is that all of these groups are separate, which means that I'd wager the actual number to be less than 14% of the population is living with dementia, depression, alcohol abuse, or the effects of a stroke. If you then take into account "serious mental illnesses", you increase that number by about 5%, and that's again assuming there is no crossover. Oh, and this is all assuming it's all diagnosed and receiving therapy; there are bound to be many more cases that go undiagnosed.
Over 13% of the population uses mental health services to some extent. If we triple that number (to match the Euros' rate of only a third of cases getting treatment), a truly spectacular assumption considering how trigger-happy most doctors seem to be to diagnose a mental illness, that still amounts to 40% of the population, or just about where the European population is, and this is just for people receiving some kind of mental health treatment (which almost assuredly includes short-term outpatient counseling, which is offered to basically anyone who exits a hospital with a diagnosis for a chronic or terminal illness).
So, side-stepping for a second the conclusions of the study re: societal cost burden, it seems to me that there is no way to look at the numbers where the US doesn't appear to be better (or, at worst, the same) as the EU with regard to the percentage of citizens with a chronic mental illness.|||Sounds like some psychologists want some more patients. "Hey everybodies, we did the math and it turns out either you or your spouse is suffering from a mental illness! Stop on in and get diagnosed with whatever word, err illness, we best think describes YOU!"
Depressed cause a loved one got laid off? We'll treat it with drugs (prescription of course) and someone to talk to (for $40+ an hour)! Feeling scared cause your job has been laying off people left and right? We'll treat your anxiety with drugs (I already told you, prescription drugs) and someone to talk to (yeah, you heard how much it'll cost). Drinking a lot to forget your worries? That's bad (cause then we don't get to tread you), so stop into an AA meeting TODAY!
I'm not going to get to in depth on the other conditions as they're more measurable/obvious when they happen that I don't think they're going to be misdiagnosed as often. My grandpa died to Alzheimer's, but he lived a long life, especially considering that he was in the army or navy (idk which) and was subjected to nuclear radiation for testing purposes. He lived longer than the rest of his unit.|||Just have a graph to share.
The only way to prevent this is to stop people from living till such an old age. Imagine if our average lifespan rises to 100 years old(in 20-50 years time). Unless we can find a way to prevent dementia, we will have half of the population unemployed! We cannot possibly support the world like that and most demented patients will probably opt for euthanasia. In fact, its time we start to think of the future.
Any country without a plan will suffer.|||Umm, Kael... what makes you think that dementia is what keeps people from working into their 70s and beyond? Bodies get more frail as it ages, not just the brain. Yes, with exercise this process can be slowed, but at some point physical jobs just get too hard. Yes, the smarter people remain the longer they can work at desk jobs, but I think a lot of the issues there is that it's hard to keep up with the times. My boss, who's in his high 70s or low 80s I believe, has a very hard time with computer programs, including e-mail, internet, and well every single program at our workplace. The IT guy has made the joke that the boss is great for testing, as if there's some way to mess up the program our boss will find it.
The biggest issue though, that I see, is that governments... or at least the US, allow people to stop working in their 60s/70s. I don't remember the retirement age as I'm so far away from it and I'm not even sure it'll be around when I get that old, so forgive me if I'm wrong on those figures. I've seen people who work past that point, either because they want to or because they're entrepreneurs who own a business and don't want to give all the duties away. They don't always work as much as other people, but they can still do it, of course that depends on what the job consists of.
Btw, that graph is interesting, who did the research, what was the method used, and how many people did it involve? If it's good enough, it could help prove that my grandma, who just turned 90, is crazy *snickers*. No seriously, she thinks that star wars fans are in an actual honest to goodness cult. I'm worried that she's still driving too, she's been in an accident recently and idk what her eyesight is like due to how it happened. Oh yeah, that reminds me, eyesight/hearing get bad as you get old and reflexes/finger speed, for driving/typing also diminish greatly.|||Quote:
Umm, Kael... what makes you think that dementia is what keeps people from working into their 70s and beyond? Bodies get more frail as it ages, not just the brain. Yes, with exercise this process can be slowed, but at some point physical jobs just get too hard. Yes, the smarter people remain the longer they can work at desk jobs, but I think a lot of the issues there is that it's hard to keep up with the times. My boss, who's in his high 70s or low 80s I believe, has a very hard time with computer programs, including e-mail, internet, and well every single program at our workplace. The IT guy has made the joke that the boss is great for testing, as if there's some way to mess up the program our boss will find it.
The biggest issue though, that I see, is that governments... or at least the US, allow people to stop working in their 60s/70s. I don't remember the retirement age as I'm so far away from it and I'm not even sure it'll be around when I get that old, so forgive me if I'm wrong on those figures. I've seen people who work past that point, either because they want to or because they're entrepreneurs who own a business and don't want to give all the duties away. They don't always work as much as other people, but they can still do it, of course that depends on what the job consists of.
Btw, that graph is interesting, who did the research, what was the method used, and how many people did it involve? If it's good enough, it could help prove that my grandma, who just turned 90, is crazy *snickers*. No seriously, she thinks that star wars fans are in an actual honest to goodness cult. I'm worried that she's still driving too, she's been in an accident recently and idk what her eyesight is like due to how it happened. Oh yeah, that reminds me, eyesight/hearing get bad as you get old and reflexes/finger speed, for driving/typing also diminish greatly.
When it comes to medicine, I'd like to think ahead. Most drugs and technologies out there are not used unless you are bloody rich. For example, exoskeleton limbs for paraplegics are still not widely available, but in less than 10 years time, it will cost about 8-15k each.
http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/...aplegics-walk/
If you have hearing difficulties due to aging, you can get cochlear implants. Maybe in 20 years, we will have artificial hearts. Joint problems, our hip replacements can last 15 years. Valve replacement 15 years. Assuming most people are fit for surgery at 70 nowadays, making them live up to 85 or 90. New technology allows prosthetic implants to last more than 20 years, with the latest and most selective low profile medication that can effectively prevent organ rejection. A lot of patent drugs become available in 20 years so 20 years is a good estimate, from what I see. Furthermore, sometimes a certain treatment gains popularity faster than 20 years despite its high cost patent.
It doesn't matter how late you stretch the retirement age. Majority of people die of cardiac disease in the present, But in 20 years time, things may change. Physical problems are relatively easy to treat. I won't be surprised if we'll have eye transplants too or stem cell grown organs. However, we cannot have brain transplants. Doing so would mean the individual is replaced with a new one. LOL.
You do not need to challenge my source. Those figures are well documented in multiple studies, though most studies do not record figures to 90s++.
http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/script...documentID=412
Lets take a look at alzheimers society uk
'The well established prevalence rates for dementia in the UK are:
40-64 years: 1 in 1400
65-69 years: 1 in 100
70-79 years: 1 in 25
80+ years: 1 in 6'
Well, do the math, in 90, what will the prevalence of dementia be? A better quality study would be the Monzino 80-Plus Study, which also includes figures till 95+, and found to be over 55%. (47.5 – 63.2 95% CI)
We don't want majority of our people to be physically free of disease, because physical form of death is easy to 'settle'. Whose burden would it be if we were to keep tons of patients physically alive but mentally disabled? We don't want to have our average lifespan be 95 years of age! Think of the consequences. We're at about 75-85 avg lifespan now. When I am 60, I would be estimated to live up to 95. The problem will affect our generation! Problem is, we ARE getting there. WE need to find a cure for dementia fast! Otherwise, make excuses for people to die early.|||I wasn't challenging it, I was curious about it :O
I'm not going to argue that there isn't a lot of medical developments out there, nor that they don't get cheaper over time as more people make use of them. However, there is a limit that you should not forget. Paraplegic limbs that cost 8-15k each, that's great but I have a few questions and concerns along those lines. First of all, which currency you talking about here?
If you're using the UK as you were for your alzheimer's study then it's in pounds according to my google search which means that each one will cost $13-24k in dollars. To put this in perspective, new cars in the US are about $30k (depending on the make/model) and it's expected that when you buy a new car you'll be getting a loan.
So yeah, great that they will be cheaper in the future, but still something that people will need good health insurance for in the US at least (at least for now).
Also, I'm not so sure that prosthetic (assuming that exoskeleton is another way of saying this) limb cost is representative of the costs of other medical devices that are actually important to improve life-spans, rather than improving the lives of those who are living them. Cancer is the big issue that I see with your thoughts that the average lifespan will be 95 or higher, or that we'll be able to afford paying the price of keeping people alive through all their sicknesses (or in fact that we'll be able to do so in a majority of cases).
Costs are Decreasing? I'm not so sure. I'm not a big expert on this subject, so I'm just going to say this: Have fun thinking that costs for medical care are going to plummet, and I hope they do... but at least for me that sounds like a pipe-dream.|||I just have to point out the obvious conclusion on how there are many a retard in this world
|||@Kedde: Retardation is a specific type of mental illness.@djacob: About psychologists wanting more patients, unfortunately, I think you are wrong. When making such claims, psychologists are careful to use standard definitions and criterion. They are fully aware that a shifting criterion can easily make it look like the problem is increasing. Also, wanting more patients is one thing, but the issue usually isn't the number of people needing help but rather the number of people who can afford treatment.
No comments:
Post a Comment