The most important finding was the more than ninefold reduction in the number of days clients spent in the state hospital—from a mean of 68 days to seven days—in the year after enrollment in the representative payee program, with a parallel reduction in the number of days in state and private (Medicaid-funded) hospitals, from 97 days to 15 days. The number of hospitalizations also decreased. These findings suggest that the representative payee program was quite successful in maintaining clients in the community.
Limitations
In the absence of a control group, it is important to recognize that decreases in hospitalization over time could be due to factors other than participation in the representative payee program. The most important alternative explanation would be the possibility of a trend toward less hospital use over time because of continuing deinstitutionalization. State-level data were examined to assess this possibility. State hospital data from 1985 to 1995 do reveal a decrease of 44 percent in hospital admissions. In comparison, clients in the representative payee program decreased their mean number of hospital admissions by 73 percent—from 1.1 to .3.
State trends for combined public hospital and Medicaid-funded psychiatric hospitalizations also provide an informative contrast because of shifts in utilization from state hospitals to Medicaid-funded providers. When both sources were included, the rate of psychiatric admissions in Illinois actually increased by about 16 percent during a comparable time period (1986 to 1994), while the number of hospital days almost tripled. By contrast, for clients in the representative payee program for whom state and Medicaid data were available, both the mean number of hospital admissions and the mean number of days hospitalized decreased significantly during the year of program participation—from 1.7 to .9 admissions and from 97 to 15 days.
Although a controlled study would provide more conclusive evidence, these data suggest that the changes observed in this study were not due to secular trends. Our controlled study, which is in progress, will clarify this issue further. It will involve a prospective comparison of clients with representative payees and a control group.
Development of criteria
The study reported here also provided an important first step in developing criteria for referring clients to representative payee programs. The reliance on retrospective chart reviews to identify referral criteria is a limitation of the study, as case managers may have had reasons for making referrals that were not noted in the chart. However, given the complete absence of any systematic study of this issue, these preliminary findings should provide some guidance to practitioners about which clients may be in need of a representative payee program.
The most common reason for referral to the program was comorbid substance abuse, which characterized nearly half of the group. The fact that in terms of hospital stays, clients with substance abuse had outcomes similar to those of the other clients may support the value of the intervention for this population.
Autonomy and beneficence
Because the representative payee program limits a client's financial autonomy, ethical issues arise. Beneficence and autonomy are two core principles underlying ethical judgments (
8). As the term suggests, beneficence refers to the need to make decisions that are in the individual's best interests. Autonomy concerns the need to respect a person's right to self-determination and to empower a client to make the decisions that greatly affect his or her life.
When individuals are severely disabled, they may have impairments that interfere with their decision-making and self-care skills in ways that put them at risk for harm. In such situations, the ethical obligation to protect a client's welfare can conflict with the client's right to self-determination (
9). In paternalistic beneficence, the clinician's view of benefits and harms is different from that of the client, and the clinician's judgment prevails (
8).
Opinions abound about the relative merits of autonomy versus beneficence on any given issue, but research on stakeholders' views is sparse indeed. In one European study, opinions about compulsory commitment were sought from both committed and voluntary inpatients as well as their relatives, health and mental health staff, and a sample of the general public (
10). Support for medical paternalism was strong, and most viewed doctors, not legal authorities, as the best people to decide about commitment. It is not known to what extent these findings would generalize to the United States, as no such American studies were identified. In the absence of a social consensus on this and most other ethical issues, it is necessary for the time being to rely on the opinions of individual stakeholders together with their interpretations of ethical principles.
Paternalistic beneficence ranges from extensive to limited (
11). It is extensive when it is applied to all of the major aspects of a client's life; it is selective when interventions concern protecting the client in specific areas, with substantial limitations of liberty; and it is limited when the client is protected from harm without having his or her basic liberties interfered with. Advocates of the need for long-term asylum can be said to favor extensive paternalistic beneficence for severely mentally ill individuals, who are seen as being incapable of functioning in the community (
12). An example of selective beneficence would be the use of involuntary commitment for a limited time to prevent clients from suicide.
Money management services, such as representative payeeship, have been classified as limited paternalistic beneficence (
12). Through a representative payee, the client is protected from harm due to loss or misuse of the resources necessary for basic survival needs such as food and shelter (
13). From both a legal and an ethical perspective, the provision of representative payee services must be justified by a clinical judgment that the client is incapable of managing funds (
14). Based on a series of case studies of representative payeeship, one study concluded that the benefits of preventing deterioration and hospitalization by ensuring that basic survival needs are met provide a strong ethical justification for limiting a client's autonomy (
13).
The representative payee program of the Community Counseling Centers of Chicago attempts to enhance client autonomy as much as possible. Although participation in the program is mandated for the majority of the agency's clients, case studies and focus groups suggest that clients view help with securing housing and paying for rent and other necessities as beneficial. The representative payee program provides skills training to increase clients' autonomy in an attempt to balance the need to protect clients from the harmful effects of mismanaging money. Budgets are individualized, and they change over time to reflect improvements in clients' money management skills.
If clients are dissatisfied with the agency's performance as the representative payee, they may petition the Social Security Administration to change their payee to a family member, friend, or another agency. However, anecdotal evidence from focus groups suggests that most clients are highly satisfied with the program and see it as beneficial. Although the ultimate goal is for clients to become independent of the program, relatively few attain this level of recovery.
Autonomy issues also arise when contingencies are used. For example, clients are expected to see their case managers before receiving their allowance at the bank. This requirement may be viewed as an ethical issue. The intent is, of course, to enhance the likelihood that the treatment plan will be effective, not to deny the client money for basic needs. Stoner's Skid Row Mental Health Service study (
2) showed a 36 percent increase in cooperation with treatment. Clearly, a balance between paternalism and autonomy needs to be struck.