AM).Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.Wang et al.Page
In 2011, 3.7 million people with psychiatric disabilities who were judged unable to work received monetary benefits from the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs (1). When used as intended, Social Security benefits help provide disabled individuals with money for food, housing, or clothing (herein referred to as basic needs) that they might not be able to afford. However, incidents of benefits misspending described in the literature, including use of disability benefits to purchase alcohol or drugs and excessive spending during acute psychotic, manic, or depressive episodes, have caused beneficiaries to Ornipressin chemical information depend on others for basic needs or suffer their loss (2, 3). Such misspending is particularly common among individuals with mental illnesses that impair cognitive abilities, judgment, and the ability to resist financial exploitation (3?). Independent financial management may be further compromised when individuals with mental illness have concurrent substance use disorders (5, 6, 8). Literature addressing capability among people with mental illness often focuses on the capacity of individuals to provide informed consent for GW9662 biological activity treatment (9) or research participation (10); there is limited literature addressing financial capability of people with mental illness (3). Clinicians, courts, Social Security Administration (SSA) claims officials and others involved with determining which beneficiaries are incapable of managing their finances provide guidelines for such determinations, but these guidelines are too broadly worded and complicated to apply reliably to individual beneficiaries. The SSA form that clinicians are asked to complete says the following: “Do you believe the patient is capable of managing or directing the management of benefits in his or her own best interest? By capable we mean that the patient: is able to understand and act on the ordinary affairs of life, such as providing for own adequate food, housing, clothing, etc., and is able, in spite of physical impairments, to manage funds or direct others how to manage them.” (SSA Form 787, available www.ssa.gov/online/ssa-787.pdf) There are ambiguities in these SSA guidelines, and differentiating individuals who are capable from those who are not requires subjective judgments about what it means to spend money in one’s best interest and how to direct others to manage funds. Given the broad guidelines provided by the SSA, it is not surprising that payee assignment rates vary widely across sites, which appears to reflect differences in assignment procedures, rather than true individual differences in need (11, 12). Legal determinations of incapability are supposed to be based on, first, a functional assessment of skills and behaviors related to a beneficiary’s ability to make financial decisions, and second, evidence that a person will suffer substantial harm from specific inabilities to manage finances or affairs (13). Surveyed clinicians report recommending payee assignment based on clinical indicators such as the client’s substance abuse or dependence, hospitalizations, homelessness, whether a beneficiary will accept a payee, and the effect such a recommendation would have on the clinical relationship (14?6).Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptPsychiatr Serv. Author manuscript; available.AM).Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.Wang et al.Page
In 2011, 3.7 million people with psychiatric disabilities who were judged unable to work received monetary benefits from the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs (1). When used as intended, Social Security benefits help provide disabled individuals with money for food, housing, or clothing (herein referred to as basic needs) that they might not be able to afford. However, incidents of benefits misspending described in the literature, including use of disability benefits to purchase alcohol or drugs and excessive spending during acute psychotic, manic, or depressive episodes, have caused beneficiaries to depend on others for basic needs or suffer their loss (2, 3). Such misspending is particularly common among individuals with mental illnesses that impair cognitive abilities, judgment, and the ability to resist financial exploitation (3?). Independent financial management may be further compromised when individuals with mental illness have concurrent substance use disorders (5, 6, 8). Literature addressing capability among people with mental illness often focuses on the capacity of individuals to provide informed consent for treatment (9) or research participation (10); there is limited literature addressing financial capability of people with mental illness (3). Clinicians, courts, Social Security Administration (SSA) claims officials and others involved with determining which beneficiaries are incapable of managing their finances provide guidelines for such determinations, but these guidelines are too broadly worded and complicated to apply reliably to individual beneficiaries. The SSA form that clinicians are asked to complete says the following: “Do you believe the patient is capable of managing or directing the management of benefits in his or her own best interest? By capable we mean that the patient: is able to understand and act on the ordinary affairs of life, such as providing for own adequate food, housing, clothing, etc., and is able, in spite of physical impairments, to manage funds or direct others how to manage them.” (SSA Form 787, available www.ssa.gov/online/ssa-787.pdf) There are ambiguities in these SSA guidelines, and differentiating individuals who are capable from those who are not requires subjective judgments about what it means to spend money in one’s best interest and how to direct others to manage funds. Given the broad guidelines provided by the SSA, it is not surprising that payee assignment rates vary widely across sites, which appears to reflect differences in assignment procedures, rather than true individual differences in need (11, 12). Legal determinations of incapability are supposed to be based on, first, a functional assessment of skills and behaviors related to a beneficiary’s ability to make financial decisions, and second, evidence that a person will suffer substantial harm from specific inabilities to manage finances or affairs (13). Surveyed clinicians report recommending payee assignment based on clinical indicators such as the client’s substance abuse or dependence, hospitalizations, homelessness, whether a beneficiary will accept a payee, and the effect such a recommendation would have on the clinical relationship (14?6).Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptPsychiatr Serv. Author manuscript; available.
Posted inUncategorized