Posted on 06/21/2004 10:19:15 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration.
The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report, seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported.
Critics say the plan protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public.
The initiative began with Bush's launch in April 2002 of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which conducted a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system."
The panel found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children.
The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders."
Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.
The commission recommended that the screening be linked with "treatment and supports," including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions."
The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the panel as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."
The TMAP -- started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas -- also was praised by the American Psychiatric Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall plan.
But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it.
Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General says in his whistleblower report the "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab."
Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's election funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP.
Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council.
Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party.
Another critic, Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of "Mad in America," told the British Medical Journal that while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers."
Exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter program," he said.
However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends screening.
"There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory."
FGS, when you propose growth you aren't TRYING to limit government.
And I don't forget much, up to and including the fact that you accuse most anybody who disagrees with you of misstating facts.
If you have read my previous posts, you'll see that I am specifically against govt. testing, across the board, of all Americans for 'mental illness'. But those who need help should receive it.
I sure don't. I admire your principles.
You might be fine with your tax dollars being spent on certain social causes, but taxation involves *everybody*, not just oneself.
The truly compassionate thing to do would be to remove the government bureaucracy from charity and make it purely voluntary. That way, citizens could contribute of their own free will to charities they deem most effective and efficient.
Thank You.
Bush is a terrific POTUS on foreign issues, but he twists my shorts on the domestic issues. Trying to be Mr. Reachout Buddy to the Liberal Socialists.
No, anybody who votes for anybody except Bush this year is crazy.
Ha! Ha! I just saw the headline and that was my first thought. It's true!
I based my response only on your #121, assuming those statements stood on their own. Didn't they?
That you're specifically against government testing across the board is irrelevant to my point.
When you say "those who need help should receive it", who will determine who needs "help", what exactly is this "help", and who will pay for it?
I'm at a loss, really. Everything that the American Psychiatric Association has stood for over the last few years, has proven that THIER MEMBERS should be in institutions. Anything that they praise should be immediately suspect, as they are largely a bunch of wannabe Euro-Socialists.
That said, this seems to be yet another thing that Bush has "delegated"...as is his propensity. As usual, it ended up being delegated to a bunch of people who really DO need medication. One would hope that he won't follow through?
Gosh, are you up? I'm way past my bedtime if you are!
Maybe the new trend will be the increased medicating of those not in Mental Hospitals, because the current trend, especially pushed by the licensing agencies, is for those clients in Mental Hospitals to be on less and less psychotropic meds.
Believe me, if I knew a way to get back to a time when communities pulled together to help each other, I'd be the first to lead the charge. There are a lot of good people out there (and here on this site), that keep the spirit of 'community' alive, so maybe there's hope yet. I have a lot of issues with where my tax money goes, as well, and wish the govt. would be a civil 'servant', rather than an uncivil master, but it's been the trend since 1865.
People, let's not hyperventilate.
Bad as this proposal probably is, there is no plan, as I see it, to REQUIRE mental-health screening. If there is, it can be defeated in Congress if we put up a fight.
Don't let your imaginations run away with you.
******
Medicaid doesn’t cover treatment costs for people between 21 and 64 years old if they are living in mental institutions, but it does cover much of the expense if they are under community care. This has left some states with a two-tiered approach, under which more mental health services are available to Medicaid recipients than to the non-eligible population. As the number of mentally ill receiving treatment in the community grows, so does Medicaid’s portion of the payer pie — and its control over the programs.
Richard Frank, professor of health economics at Harvard Medical School, says the dynamic between Medicaid and state mental health agencies is one of the major issues facing the entire mental health field today. “Now that the state mental health authority isn’t the biggest show in town anymore,” he asks, “who has stewardship for the care of the mentally ill?”
In many states, it’s hard to find an answer. Medicaid foots the bill, while housing agencies, corrections agencies and an assortment of others arrange for care. In most states, the least involved are the state mental health agencies, which often are little more than conduits of cash as opposed to planners or quality-control centers. They’re responsible only for plans that address their small federal block grants, and are largely left out of other agencies’ decision making.
Comprehensive planning that involves all the parties responsible for providing mental health services has the potential to reduce fragmentation, but it’s rare. Instead, planning tends to take place within individual agencies, leading to uncoordinated — and sometimes contradictory — service delivery. “There is a need for broader-based planning to address those silos,” says Robert Glover, executive director of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors.
Wow. This would result in big-time chaos. I like the idea, but I doubt the contributions you'd collect would even pay for screenings, much less treatment. Or am I being too cynical? And how would the transition from tax dollars to contributions be made?
I believe "mental health" could definitely turn into a "social cause" if the government bureaucracy were allowed to administer the program.
Do you really trust "the government" with such a task? Why not back private charities doing the work?
"No, anybody who votes for anybody except Bush this year is crazy."
I guess the irony of a statement like yours on a thread like this is lost on you. Or maybe not? Perhaps you are simply trying to be funny? Whatever....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.