Bush to screen population for mental illness

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 21, 2004

[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."

[Sabertooth]

Any other articles about this.

Sounds like hogwash to me.

It sounds like this is a little commission report that means nothing and has no power; as the lede even admits, the report just "recommends" screening for every citizen; it doesn't order it and there is no evidence in the article except for the idiotic lede that jumps the gun that Bush himself will push or order for such. The report will be issued and somehow WND makes this into a "Bush to screen..." story.

As usual, just a case of WND stretching the truth.

See #447 and #540 on this thread, which contain links to the President's goals when he formed the commission and also to the commission's report.

It's not unreasonable to infer that since President Bush wants to help all Americans wth mental illness, he needs to identify who they might be. In order to do that, he needs to screen as many as possible, and preferably all of us. Nothing in his stated goals is inconsistent with this conclusion.

What is being considered, at the very least, is a major expansion of the federal government into an entirely new aspect of people's personal lives.

[texasflower]

That is a wise idea to not read the entire thread. It has gotten way out of hand. The only thing this thread can accomplish now is to dangerously raise the blood pressure of anyone who dares to read it!
This proposal is nothing more than a streamlined and much more cost effective and efficient way to get help to those that need it. Nothing indicates forced testing of anyone.

My feelings about WND are the same as yours.

[rwfromkansas]

If Bush does propose a mandatory screening, I will be against it......that would be a huge mistake and I believe an immoral proposal.

I will be a bit shocked if he does though.

[JudyB1938]

I haven't been to the doctor since (January). There's a new female doctor in town who is supposed to be pretty good. One of these days, I'll go see her.

As far as the pain in my leg is concerned, I DID find a good diagnostician ... my baby son! He is a catscan/MRI tech and sees a lot of problems. He took one look at my leg and told me what was wrong ... my muscles were atrophying from lack of exercise. (I had been cooped up in an apartment in Vegas and the most exercise I got were my fingers on this computer. LOL)

He put me on a "squats" program, and I started digging in the dirt on this 10 acres in the country. The pain level is very negligible now. Plus, the strength is back. My leg doesn't give out any more and land me on the ground.

The main reason I am telling you about my leg is because there are a lot of other FReepers out there who don't get any exercise. Perhaps my experience can be a warning to them.

[cyborg]

A lot of people's mental health woes can be traced to heavy personal problems. I know that was my case. And yeah some people think I'm still a loon, but I'm a loveable loon :)

[RobRoy]

I'm not all that interested in what Bush proposes in an election year. But I will be VERY interested in Bush's clear take on this (as opposed to peoples speculation on what he "means") after the election.

[JudyB1938]

You guys might want to go read these two threads.

Large Study on Mental Illness Finds Global Prevalence

Mystery Illness/Parasite Said To Be Afflicting Idahoans Getting Attention ("Not only do they say I can't help you but they say and you are crazy too.")

[itsahoot]

Saber here is a quote from the article.

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.

Since most people start out life as a kid........Oh well.

As always your posts are insightful. I think this mental health discussion started some time ago, when it was suggested that mental health coverage should be on par with regular health care. I don't remember who initiated this discourse, but then again I don't remember what I watched on TV last night :)

[Joe Hadenuf]

What is being considered, at the very least, is a major expansion of the federal government into an entirely new aspect of people's personal lives.

I agree. And it's no surpise.

It seems the obvious goal of government to control more and more of our personal lives. This trend has been going on for quite a while. I am sure, with the expansion of new technology, these goals can be realized and expedited.

It's all about control.

I can't help but wonder if one of the actual goals are to obtain everyones DNA.

[DCPatriot]

I happen to agree with you in a sense that it initially sound like another case where he simply stealing a liberal issue...when it's politcally expedient to do so.

I saw an editorial cartoon in this AM's Wahington Times paper where Kerry is at a podium asking "What beanstalk?"...where just behind him is a redwood-sized thriving beanstalk labled "Economy".

This is probably just another accurate blood-drawing poke at the Dems' platform.

[thoughtomator]

You need to ask the obvious question: If someone is not already mentally ill and aware of it, why in the world would they submit to screening? To get free drugs from the government?

[Howlin]

It doesn't even sound like Bush is proposing anything.

Now now.....don't ruin their fun!

[Aquinasfan]

Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.

Get your kids out of the government schools folks. Then again, if you haven't already done so by now...

[Howlin]

And yeah some people think I'm still a loon, but I'm a loveable loon :)

Join the crowd!

But, hey, we're in good company here on FR. :-)

[Little Ray]

1. Freedom: Commies and various other totalitarians used "mental health" as an excuse to imprison dissidents. Imagine President Hillary! with this program in place.

That's quite a leap there, IMO. It would be virtually impossible for it to be abused in such a manner as it would require a Congressional mandate.

Sure it would. Just like Waco, just like Ruby Ridge, just like Elian Gonzalez all required Congressional mandates. All it would take is a cooperative AG and / or Surgeon General. Expect to see "health police" coming to "help" the uncooperative.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

2. Taxes: I don't want to pay for this crud.

But $1,500 hammers purchased by the military are okay, huh?

Yup.

3. Constitutionality: When did providing mental health screening and health care become a responsibility of the Fed?

When did it become the responsibility of the Federal government to mandate seatbelt laws by essentially blackmailing the States with the threat of losing highway funding?

Dunno, but I don't like that either.

[Sabertooth]

If Bush does propose a mandatory screening, I will be against it......that would be a huge mistake and I believe an immoral proposal.

I will be a bit shocked if he does though.

I agree, it probably won't be mandatory under President Bush. Whether or not it might be mandatory under some future Democrat or Compassionate Republican is less certain.

What the report does recommend is using public schools to implement widespread screening of children, and even mentions screening for children as young as three years old by other means. That's just in relation to kids.

Also, files would be kept by the government with guarantees of privacy. Do you want anyone working for the government to have acccess to your mental health files, for any reason?

Further, President Bush has expressed a desire to see to it that private insurance companies are required to provide mental health coverage. What business is it of government to determine how extensive one's health insurance plan should be?

Also, with widely expanded screening among the populace and the removal of market forces from the consumption of psychiatric medications, we can reasonably project an increase in the consumption of those drugs by people of all walks of life, whether they need them or not. This is always the case when people can get more than they pay for.

[snickeroon]

It occurs that really this is a VERY timely release. This comes on a day when supposedly "thousands" are in line to buy a book on sale for half price the moment it goes on sale.

Given the typical news set up this week, maybe a LARGE segment needs mental health screening if even more than several view the nineties as "innocent" times and X42 as a great anything.

However, could someone please clue me in on why "Capitol Hill Blue" has the audacity to take Pres. Bush's mental health into question? With a daily diatribe like that it may appear obvious that at least the minority is slipping....

[itsahoot]

But, hey, we're in good company here on FR. :-)

I am about ready to re-elect Clinton so this forum can regain the respect it once had.

[Syme]

"Do you know hwere you are, Winston?" he said.
"I don't know. I can guess. In the Ministry of Love."
"Do you know how long you have been here?"
"I don't know. Days, weeks, months---I think it is months."
"And why do you imagine that we bring people to this place?"
"To make them confess."
"No, that is not the reason Try again."
"To punish them."
"No!" exclaimed O'brien. His voice had changed extraordinarily, and his face had suddenly become both stern and animated. "No! Not merely to extract your confession, nor to punish you. Shall I tell you why we have brought you here? To cure you! To make you sane! Will you understand Winston that no one whom we bring to this place ever leaves our hands uncured? We are not interested in those stupid crimes that you have committed. The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them. Do you understand what I mean by that?" (George Orwell. '1984'. Harcourt Brace. 1949.)

"The command of the old despotisms was 'Thou shalt not.' The command of the totalitarians was 'Thou shalt.' Our command is 'Thou art.' (George Orwell. '1984'. Harcourt Brace. 1949.)

[dread78645]

What is being considered, at the very least, is a major expansion of the federal government into an entirely new aspect of people's personal lives.

Considering this Lobbyists block mental health parity (CNN); it looks like GW Bush is willing to blow off Frist & Hastert in Congress.

I like this :" ...s aid her group also is concerned about covering every mental health illness, from caffeine addiction to adjustments to adulthood."