Bush to screen population for mental illness

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."

**This is what the White House webpage says about the link you all are quoting:
*"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 report has recommendations yes, BUT THE WHITE HOUSE page has outlined what it took from the report. If I didn't know the reputation that you have, I'd be surprised at your polemics. You don't surprise. Ever.

Actually, here's a more fleshed-out excerpt:
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; 2) mental health care is consumer and family-driven; 3) disparities in mental health services are eliminated; 4) early mental health screening, assessment, and referral to services are common practice; 5) excellent mental health services are delivered and research is accelerated; and 6) technology is used to access mental health care and information.
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.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom/chapter4-2004.html

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, as it reconfirms what the President said in April of 2002:
"We must give all Americans who suffer from mental illness the treatment, and the respect, they deserve."
So again, how do we find "every adult with a serious mental illness or child with a serious emotional disturbance" without universal screening?

HIPAA was fully implemented in April 2003....at least that's when all involved had to comply.

There are a few ways to escape some of its brutal impact, but only partially so.

First, there's the "country doctor" exemption, but good luck finding one. My doctor is as close to a classic "country doctor" as anyone is likely to find, and she's fully HIPAA'd.

In any case, you are not obligated to sign the document. You can simply file your own releases, which is precisely what I do every time I see a doctor. (And with my body decomposing out from under me, that's more often than I'd like.)

One item to consider: I file a document stating my reason for refusing to sign the HIPAA "release", i.e., the fact that I am not legally obligated to sign it, and my decision to exercise that legal right. The reason I do this is to prevent some scumbag from reporting that I was "uncoopoerative" or "irrational" or somesuch. You see, the doctors have to report their failures to get signatures, and those are some of the reasons they can put down.

I prefer to have my actual reason placed on file rather than some vengeful SOB's nonsense.

It's sad that we've come to this.

Sadder yet is that most people prefer to "go with the flow", and "not make waves".

The statists sure know how to ruin a country. One inch at a time.

"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."

Saber:"So again, how do we find "every adult with a serious mental illness or child with a serious emotional disturbance" without universal screening?

Bay Buchanan ain't got nothin' on your polemics, Saber. No matter how many times you repost the same thing, time and time and time again.

Let me ask you this. If the President had said:

"Every adult with cancer must have an individualized plan of care coordinating services among programs and across agencies."

Would you have assumed that he was proposing every American to have federally subsidized cancer screenings?

On second thought, maybe you shouldn't answer that.

My conclusion is that God's people have been doing a lot of praying, but damned little humbling of themselves.

I don't think you can conclude that God's people have been "doing a lot praying". Only God knows this. But you did say one thing right so far that I can tell on this thread. There is "little humbling". I agree. Whether you believe God or not doesn't change a thing however. He will do what He says He will do.Speaking against it doesn't change the fact.
And, yes, I fall short myself; even here on FR. I wrote what I did to encourage another poster not beat anyone over the head with the Bible. I like Laz. He's been here a long time and I've always enjoyed his posts. He sounded discouraged to me.
It seems I have hurt your feelings. I called you insane and made references to your 'sanity' (I was being flippant). I apologize for calling you a name and for being flippant. sincerely sorry.

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.