Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Prospective association between receipt of the economic impact payment and mental health outcomes
  1. Jack Tsai1,2,3,
  2. Minda Huang4,
  3. Suja S Rajan1,
  4. Eric B Elbogen2,5
  1. 1School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
  2. 2National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Tampa, Florida, USA
  3. 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  4. 4Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  5. 5Department of Psychology, University of Hartford, West Hartford, Connecticut, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jack Tsai, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA; Jack.Tsai{at}uth.tmc.edu

Abstract

Background The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 provided ‘economic impact payments’ (EIPs) of $1200 to US adults with annual personal income of $75 000 or less. This study examined the prospective association between EIP receipt and mental health outcomes.

Methods A nationally representative sample of 3169 middle-income and low-income US adults completed a baseline assessment of their health and well-being in May–June 2020 and a 3-month follow-up assessment during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic when EIPs were distributed.

Results Controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, EIP recipients had higher odds of reporting a positive COVID-19 test, endorsing a history of post-traumatic stress disorder and reporting any illicit drug use in the past month than participants who did not receive EIP. Participants who did not receive EIP were more likely to report a history of anxiety disorder or alcohol use disorder and recent suicidal ideation than EIP recipients. There was no association between EIP receipt and financial distress, although over one-third to over half of EIP recipients were not employed at baseline. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, receipt of EIP was significantly associated with reduced medical conditions and alcohol use problems, but increased depression, suicidal ideation and COVID-19 era-related stress.

Conclusion The EIP provided a brief income stimulus to many adults in need but was not associated with improvements in financial distress or mental health among middle-income and low-income recipients. Long-term income security and employment may be more important to improving and sustaining positive mental health outcomes.

  • COVID-19
  • mental health
  • economics

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Approval be the first author and appropriate institutional review boards will be needed.

This article is made freely available for personal use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Approval be the first author and appropriate institutional review boards will be needed.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors JT conceptualised the study and wrote the manuscript. MH helped collect and analyse the data. SSR helped analyse the data and write the manuscript. EBE helped write the manuscript.

  • Funding This study was supported by internal funds from the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.