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."
My point was that it is plausible to me that something like this could be voted in, and that Republicans would vote for it as well.
As far as the extent of the interventions, what disturbed me in particular was using public schools as the focal points for screening children. Would such screening be "compulsory?" Compulsory is the wrong word. Theoretically, children can get out of all sorts of things that are thought of as "compulsory" (sex ed, drug education, physical exams.) In reality, the vast number of children and their parents just go with the flow. Do I think that schools would become centers for mass screenings of public school children? Yes.
After the issue of involving the public schools, my next major concern has already been expressed by other writers here: that widespread of labelling people with mental illness would be a great way to keep people from exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
I suppose there is a silver lining, which we can take to the polls with us in November - those worried about a draft won't have to, because at present it's difficult to get into the military if you've been diagnosed with a psychiatric problem, especially if you've used medication. So if everyone's on antidepressants, then I guess there's not much chance of a draft, eh?
And Medical Journals never ever write hyperbolic articles, correct.(/sarcasm)
1. This did not originate from WND.
2. You have NOT pissed and moaned about the source that did initially cover it -- the BMJ.
3. The source documents confirm the BMJ's findings.
4. You are on record as saying that essentially, your train of thought runs along the lines of Bush can do no wrong, therefore, if Bush supports it, it can't be wrong.
I really don't believe it either --- something obviously had to be twisted to make it sound this way. This would be too far-fetched.
>>>>>>>>>President George W. Bush established the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in April 2002 as part of his commitment to eliminate inequality for Americans with disabilities. The President directed the Commission to identify policies that could be implemented by Federal, State and local governments to maximize the utility of existing resources, improve coordination of treatments and services, and promote successful community integration for adults with a serious mental illness and children with a serious emotional disturbance.
From June 2002 to April 2003, the 22 Commissioners met monthly to analyze the public and private mental health systems, visit innovative model programs across the country and hear testimony from the systems’ many stakeholders, including dozens of consumers of mental health care, families, advocates, public and private providers and administrators and mental health researchers. The Commission received feedback, comments and suggestions from nearly 2,500 people from all 50 states via personal testimony, letters, emails and a comment section on this website. In addition to public comment, the Commission consulted with nationally recognized professionals with expertise in diverse areas of mental health policy. The Commission established 15 subcommittees to examine specific aspects of mental health services and offer recommendations for improvement. The Commissioner page contains the Commission’s Membership Roster and the Subcommittee page displays the separate subcommittees and their report summaries.
The Commission will submit the final report to the President in May 2003, and the White House will, in turn, release the report soon thereafter. Once released, you will be able to access the final report on the "Reports" page of this website. The Commission wishes to thank all those who participated in this critical and historic effort. The final report to the President offers a vision of hope and recovery for people with a serious mental illness and their families.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Having worked in the big boondoggle of Mental Health, let's just say that there is a whole lot of fiscal waste there. It sounds like what the president is wanting to do is to streamline the services that are already in place to reduce wasteful spending. If you have ever seen how billing is done and what "services" are billed you would blow your stack. Duplication of services, inventive ways of "providing services" without any contact with the actual client is rampant.
Some things work better than others and what does not work but is wasteful needs to go, if something does work and is the least expensive route it needs to be implemented as much as possible. Community integration is a good thing for most of the mentally ill population, however, some still need to be securely confined for their sake and the sake of the community.
Your flame to Dane and that "GFYS" above are over the line for your credibility. YOU brought your wife into it, and then claim all sorts of things on her behalf, and flame anyone who disagrees with your incredible assertions.
Bad form, DJ.
The old adage, "It takes one to know one", comes to mind, in regards to the above italicized passage.
Thank you, Judith Anne.
Or fake accountability. There are serious problems with "no child left behind". It's not doing anything to decrease the pregnancy rate in the middle schools here or improve the schools --- it might work in some schools but in the schools here it's actually better to let the gang types drop out than keep them in the schools where they push drugs and get fights going every day.
Then you didn't read everything in those two posts. You missed, "4.4 Screen for mental disorders in primary health care, across the life span, and connect to treatment and supports." (from pg. 25 of the document)
Screen for mental disorders in primary health care, across the life span
OK?
I'm not going to do YOUR homework either. I found the URL for the document (indirected at FOUR levels from the original article!), and I found a starting point IN the document, AND, I gave enough to demonstrate that the source (the BMJ, for all the WND-haters) was spot on.
You can lead a horse to water, they say.
So drink. Or don't. I've got a life of my own to try to life, with a ruined spine and congestive heart failure. The pony rides are over for tonight.
Nor can I.
I can't think of a more costly and ineffective program. You can't make them take their medication unless you force them into institutions where you force them to take their meds - which they promptly quit once released anyway.
I am acquainted with situations where siblings and in-laws of friends and co-workers are in dire need of such medication - but they refuse(d) to take them - instead running naked in the street (literally), eventually landing in jail, committing suicide etc.
Anyone heard of former Dallas Cowboy Demetrius Underwood? Even with the motivation of playing in the NFL he wouldn't take his medication. So now he spends his time tangling with the police, awaiting trial etc.
This is the perfect bureaucratic boondoggle - never mind whether govt should be involved in this at all - it won't work, but the supporters will be able to demand more and more funds for these poor unfortunates who if we only employed more govt workers would no doubt be returned to their families as functioning members of society.
I really thought this was something from The Onion.
We don't use public schools. No one in my family uses public schools. At all.
Ooooh, touchy touchy. Whatever. I tell ya what. Write Bush, tell him to go with this program. Then you'll get all the help you need, and you won't find things "weird" anymore.
See? Win-win scenario.
I'll save him some trouble by volunteering some info. I'm pretty certain both my teenage daughters have lost their minds.
Could have an affect on Autistic children.
See reply #342.
And everything I read indicated that was for at risk populations...children with disabilities, the elderly, etc. Don't get yourself in an uproar on my account.
But do you have a link to where the President has accepted these recommendations?
Right. It started when I thought I saw some glimmer of hope of reasoning with you, and it went straight downhill from there.
I am a well bred southern woman.
Oh gag me.
Why is this so much fun for you?
Are you delusional?
Are we done yet?
What you mean "we", Kimosabe?
Freud lives.
"Forget about influencing Bush to drop this idea. Focus on the members of whichever House committee would consider the "idea." If we beat it there, Bush's fantasies won't matter.
Any thought of not voting for Bush on the basis of this trivial issue (or any other issue) is both irresponsible and suicidal."
Excellent advice!
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.