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."
If teachers are so terrible at teaching that it requires federal oversight of every district in the US - how can these same "incompetent" people be trusted to also serve as *mental health screeners* and amateur psychiatrists? Sounds a bit contradictory to me.
I do know that the teacher unions and Ted kennedy now hate the no child left behind act, that's a fact, becuase it requires accountability of schools now.
I highly doubt that they are putting retarded kids into advanced computer classes.
Maybe they're trying to sell off the last of their Y2K survival goods.
I guess with this new program we'll find out :)
You put "N/A" for your signature on the HIPAA form?
Amazing.
As far as using the SSN as an identifier, when it's health care, I give it.
It's always easier to go with the flow.
Reason being, in my state there is another couple with our names born the same year we were. How do I know? I've gotten her prescription records by accident, when I requested mine from the chain pharmacy. She's one sick kitty. I am not. ;-D
Well, all I can tell you is that if I was in that situation -- and I'm not (nor are most people) -- I'd take whatever legal steps necessary to ensure that it was NOT an ongoing issue. WITHOUT giving up my SSN.
Yes, I have on occasion had to pay an attorney to get the bastards to back off (my electricity utility threatened to cut me off if I didn't hand over my SSN. My g'd'mn UTILITY!) It was a small price to pay to keep my electricity AND my privacy.
I take these matters seriously. Unfortunately, most don't, which only makes it harder for the rest of us, and, helps guide the country further down the river.
LOL!! (rimshot)...
So, you are NOT saying that there will be compulsory psychiatric screening for 300 million people? Those who do not measure up will NOT be forced to take psych meds made by drug companies financially friendly to President Bush?
Doesn't that mean we think the same? Because I don't either. So, why are you so upset? How is it that I have my head in the sand? What sneaky proposal is in that document you linked that has you so exercized? Is it law?
Is is going to be an EO? Does congress have to act?
I just can't get excited over this.
The primary sources are the White House pages describing the plan in detail, and the British Medical Journal article (both predating the WND article.) I'm not going to go back through the thread and re-link to them (they've already been linked-to about a dozen times.) Read the *primary sources.* It's all there.
Whether Congress would actually pass and fund something like that is another story. Keep in mind that Congress passed No Child Left Behind - even when many Bush supporters poo-pooed it, as in "It's just a campaign promise; it won't go anywhere." My point is that something like this *could* pass - after all, it's "compassionate" and "for the children."
President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health
On April 29, 2002, the President issued Executive Order 13263 establishing the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Composed of fifteen members representing providers, payers, administrators, and consumers of mental health services, as well as family members of consumers, and seven ex officio members, the Commission was charged with conducting “a comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system, including public and private sector providers,” and was directed to advise the President on methods of improving the system. In July 2003, the Commission issued its recommendations in a final report entitled Achieving the Promise, Transforming Mental Health Care in America. See http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/reports.htm. The report identifies barriers to care within the mental health system and examples of community-based care models that have proven successful in coordinating and providing treatment services.
The Commission concluded that the mental health service delivery system in the United States must be substantively transformed. In the transformed system: 1) Americans understand that mental health is essential to overall health; [I agree] 2) mental health care is consumer and family-driven; [that's good, I agree] 3) disparities in mental health services are eliminated; [does that mean federal oversight?] 4) early mental health screening, assessment, and referral to services are common practice; [is this a coercive measure? it doesn't say that it is. If not, then I would have to agree] 5) excellent mental health services are delivered and research is accelerated; [depends on details] and 6) technology is used to access mental health care and information [depends on details].
The Commission also concluded that the roles played by states must be central to the transformation process, but states must rely heavily upon the involvement of consumers in research, planning, and evaluation activities. At the same time, the coordinated efforts of more than 25 Federal agencies must undergird and reinforce the states’ processes. Every adult with a serious mental illness or child with a serious emotional disturbance must have an individualized plan of care coordinating services among programs and across agencies. Every state must have a comprehensive mental health plan, the ownership of which is shared by all state agencies impacting the care of persons with serious mental illnesses.
My posts 204 and 206 in this thread gives you a good starting point in the document.
Did I say all teachers were all incompetant, no I didn't. I just stated the fact that the teacher unions and ted kennedy don't like NCLB act because it requires accountability and real results.
Also these are proposals, I'll wait for the Presdients final proposal, which I think will be different than the hyteronics being reported by WND.
Don Joe, you are getting weird on me, FRiend. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. Okay?
Well, either my wife is a pathological liar, or you're a pathetic troll.
Gee, how ever shall I figure this one out?
priceless post - thank you - you're so right
You are seeing things that aren't there, Don Joe.
Perhaps that is why you are misunderstanding the available material on this mental health issue.
I am a well bred southern woman. If I want thank someone, I do it with a smile.
There is nothing implied in my question to him. I asked a question. He answered.
Why is this so much fun for you? You have entertained yourself for hours now with my posts.
Are we done yet?
#330, excellent post.
No, no, no, don't you understand LOGIC?
If you can claim dissatisfaction with one of the tertiary sources -- over anything, no matter how unrelated to the topic at hand -- the only rational course is to dismiss the matter out of hand.
Don't make us do your work for you. You "know" what it says, Cut and paste can be your friend.
I won't say you're wrong...unless you refuse to prove you're right.
i don't believe this...its a pact of lies...
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.