In PMC 2016 March 01.Lazar et al.PageFinancial HIV-1 integrase inhibitor 2 web capability was assessed in 119 adults with severe mental illness and histories of substance abuse who received and managed their own SSI or SSDI payments (17, 18). In order to better understand challenges involved in making capability determinations, this paper describes ten beneficiaries for whom capability determinations were not clear cut, despite a comprehensive assessment of financial capability having been conducted.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptMethodsStudy Design This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Altogether, 119 study participants were recruited between February 2011 and August 2012 from an inpatient psychiatric unit and two intensive outpatient programs in Connecticut. Eligible participants were between the ages of 18 and 65, spoke English, received at least 600 from SSI or SSDI each month, had a current or past DSM-IV substance use diagnosis, did not have a representative payee or a conservator, and had a treating clinician who agreed to participate in the study. Measure Four independent assessors used the Financial Incapability Structured Clinical Assessment done Longitudinally (FISCAL) to measure financial incapability. The FISCAL is an assessment of financial capability with good inter-rater reliability and construct validity (Supplementary Tables 1 2) (17). It involves assessors using all data available to rate beneficiaries on whether the following five criteria apply: basic needs have not been met, funds needed for basic needs were spent on something else, the beneficiary spent substantial funds on something that harmed them, misspending was likely to continue, and there were contextual factors that would likely impact a beneficiary’s financial capability (Table 1). FISCAL assessors used an algorithm to make a final capability determination after considering and rating all five incapability criteria (Supplementary Figure 1). Data Sources Used in FISCAL Rating Assessors used all available data from a comprehensive set of participant assessments conducted as part of a money management assessment study (19), clinical records, and a questionnaire about recent functioning and money management completed by a treating clinician (18). Assessors also conducted a semi-structured clinical interview with each participant, inquiring about the participant’s expenditures, living situation, times when the participant did not have enough money for basic needs in the previous six months, how much money had been spent on harmful things, and plans for the future. For a separate analysis of FISCAL inter-rater agreement, one-third of the participants’ cases (n=44) were evaluated by a second independent assessor. Identifying Ambiguous Cases We defined cases as ambiguous when ratings by two independent assessors were discordant on any of the five FISCAL capability criteria or assessors reported that an buy Lixisenatide individual’s financial capability was difficult to judge.Psychiatr Serv. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.Lazar et al.PageData AnalysisAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptCases that were identified as ambiguous were reviewed with assessors to identify factors accounting for the ambiguity in determinations.ResultsTen participants were difficult to classify as financially capable or not. Demographic characteristics of these individuals (age, sex, race/ethnicity) were similar t.In PMC 2016 March 01.Lazar et al.PageFinancial capability was assessed in 119 adults with severe mental illness and histories of substance abuse who received and managed their own SSI or SSDI payments (17, 18). In order to better understand challenges involved in making capability determinations, this paper describes ten beneficiaries for whom capability determinations were not clear cut, despite a comprehensive assessment of financial capability having been conducted.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptMethodsStudy Design This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Altogether, 119 study participants were recruited between February 2011 and August 2012 from an inpatient psychiatric unit and two intensive outpatient programs in Connecticut. Eligible participants were between the ages of 18 and 65, spoke English, received at least 600 from SSI or SSDI each month, had a current or past DSM-IV substance use diagnosis, did not have a representative payee or a conservator, and had a treating clinician who agreed to participate in the study. Measure Four independent assessors used the Financial Incapability Structured Clinical Assessment done Longitudinally (FISCAL) to measure financial incapability. The FISCAL is an assessment of financial capability with good inter-rater reliability and construct validity (Supplementary Tables 1 2) (17). It involves assessors using all data available to rate beneficiaries on whether the following five criteria apply: basic needs have not been met, funds needed for basic needs were spent on something else, the beneficiary spent substantial funds on something that harmed them, misspending was likely to continue, and there were contextual factors that would likely impact a beneficiary’s financial capability (Table 1). FISCAL assessors used an algorithm to make a final capability determination after considering and rating all five incapability criteria (Supplementary Figure 1). Data Sources Used in FISCAL Rating Assessors used all available data from a comprehensive set of participant assessments conducted as part of a money management assessment study (19), clinical records, and a questionnaire about recent functioning and money management completed by a treating clinician (18). Assessors also conducted a semi-structured clinical interview with each participant, inquiring about the participant’s expenditures, living situation, times when the participant did not have enough money for basic needs in the previous six months, how much money had been spent on harmful things, and plans for the future. For a separate analysis of FISCAL inter-rater agreement, one-third of the participants’ cases (n=44) were evaluated by a second independent assessor. Identifying Ambiguous Cases We defined cases as ambiguous when ratings by two independent assessors were discordant on any of the five FISCAL capability criteria or assessors reported that an individual’s financial capability was difficult to judge.Psychiatr Serv. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.Lazar et al.PageData AnalysisAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptCases that were identified as ambiguous were reviewed with assessors to identify factors accounting for the ambiguity in determinations.ResultsTen participants were difficult to classify as financially capable or not. Demographic characteristics of these individuals (age, sex, race/ethnicity) were similar t.
