202 Chapter 7 personal and domestic care, guidance, and daily activities. Chapter 4 evaluated the effects of becoming eligible for supported housing on a wide range of individual and parental outcomes: care use, mortality, employment and income. It did so by exploring differences in eligibility between similar applicants that faced assessors with different degrees of leniency. Our main finding suggests that important trade-offs exist between the outcomes and perspectives of the patient, family and society. For the individual, we found that eligibility for supported housing increased the probability of being admitted to these facilities and decreased the use of home care, a substitute alternative. Eligibility seemed to decrease the likelihood of applicants having paid work and considerably reduced income from work. It also reduced total personal income but to a lesser extent, suggesting that the income loss from work was partly compensated by other sources of income, possibly welfare-related. For the family, and on the positive side of the trade-off, parents of individuals eligible for supported housing were more likely to work in the long run, measured four years after the application to supported housing. This increase was sizeable and observed for both mothers and fathers, although it applied only to ¾ of the overall applicants (those whose parents were suitable to participate in the labour market participation and have it measured). Eligibility to supported housing also resulted in higher public care spending. The higher costs were primarily due to the costs of supported housing and potentially also higher outpatient mental health care intensity. Importantly to their interpretation, our findings are local average treatment effects (LATE) and apply only to the group of individuals impacted by differences in assessor leniency: the compliers. We hypothesise that compliers correspond to the most complex cases to assess, such as individuals who are at the margin of needing supported housing or being able to live independently (often with home care support). Empirically, we can observe that compliers are likelier to be young adults who have worked in the prior year and to have a personality disorder or no treatment/diagnosis of a mental disorder in the prior year. Overall, our findings seem to support some of the criticisms described towards supported housing. These criticisms argue that despite being set as a community-based alternative supported housing is a costly form of care that might undermine patients’ social functioning [6, 16]. We might, however, be missing some important effects of supported housing for the compliers’ group. Additional evidence is warranted for domains such as well-being, health-related quality of life or housing retention. More research would also be valuable to explain our finding of reduced labour participation of eligible applicants and clarify whether this might be specific to the particularities of the Dutch labour market, namely the usual practice of adolescents working part-time. Chapter 5 evaluated the relationship between low supply of psychotherapy and high prescription of antidepressants by GPs in Portugal, using panel data to partially address endogeneity. Focusing on changes to the same GP overtime (2015 to 2018), we found
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw