Risk Reduction uses graphics to describe the current lack lustre performance of the mental health status quo which costs any jurisdiction 4 % of its GDP annually. This data is well known to the profession without addressing the issue in a positive light.

The current status quo response is akin to “moving the deck chairs on the Titanic”.

Risk Reduction generates positive change, one subscriber at a time.

For the employer funding the cost for the voluntary employee enrolment in Risk Reduction the cost benefit relationship returns to the employer about fifty (50) times the annual Risk Reduction costs to the employer.

Doing nothing ensures that your employees will continue being abused by the status quo making you an enabler.

Opthalmology Risk

opthal

For decades opthamology has a near perfect record where of 1,000 patients 0.2% (2) experience negative outcomes.

Somatic Risk

somatic

Somatic is everything but mental health, where of 1,000 patients, 30% (300) have negative outcomes.

Mental Health Risk

mental

In mental health, of 1,000 patients, 50% (500) will experience negative outcomes.  Using Risk Reduction the negative outcomes will approach zero on a by-patient basis.  All of the savings that accrue will impact upon the existing negative multiplier effect that we currently experience with the contemporary status quo.

Prevalence and Incidence Algorithm

Prevalence

Annually, in a population of 1,000, the rate of prevalence is 200 (20%), rate of incidence is 40 (4%), and the rate of institutionalization is 10 (1%).

The data presented here is well-known by medicine and it is the same for all groups of people in any jurisdiction. Management is quite wrong in their assessment in their own populations and use confirmation bias in decision making (professional misconduct).

Summary of Recent Canadian Institute for Health Information Research Data

Summary
1/3 of all admissions are re-admissions
A very common event is the squandering of employee benefits funding due to repeated re-admissions caused by the service provider.

Example: One case where the patient endured seventeen (17) admissions where the first fifteen (15) were the wrong diagnosis at semi-private rate for six hundred patient days (600) @ $175 per day totaling $105,000. Giving lots of leeway of one hundred (100) days, five hundred days (500) totaling $87,500 were wasted, let alone the cost to the patient and family of dealing with repeated crises.

Conclusion

Re-admission rates squander massive resources at the expense of patient, family, workplace, and community.

With Risk Reduction, re-admission rates approach zero with the ensuing efficient consumption of resources.