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."
I fear for my country, the moreso as I watch so many chafing at the bit to go with the flow and not make waves.
My grandmother always told me if you had to tell people that you won, you didn't.
Sounds like you and the ex should have stayed married; you were made for each other.
It should be obvious to you, that everyone responding to your prating, are proud to say they are voting for Bush. We don't have to reveal that fact, we just want the whole world to know that we are for President Bush.
We respect your right to vote for whom ever you please, even if you are ashamed to admit who that may be.
Oh really? See YOUR POST #611, posted in full so as not to take it out of context.
"You highlighted a question:
"How can all Americans who need mental health treatment be located unless all Americans are screened? Given the President's goals, the eventual step must necessarily be universal screening, once this expansion in the purpose and mission of the federal government is undertaken."
Got an answer?
"I still wonder why the author of this article, would choose not to sign it. Why? The AP frequently has articles that are unsigned. So does Reuters.
"Links have been posted to the President's speech announcing the formation of this commission, and his reasons for doing so, which aren't significantly different from what's written in the article at the top of the thread. Nor is the commision's report.
"It's only WND" didn't really hunt.
611 posted on 06/22/2004 3:25:36 PM CDT by Sabertooth
I still have my hope and faith though....;)
Good gawd, you couldn't have been more right earlier this afternoon; just when I thought this thread couldn't have gone any lower, Don Joe shows back up and here you all are in Thread Hell.
So again, how do we find "every adult with a serious mental illness or child with a serious emotional disturbance" without universal screening?
I'm starting to get the impression that no one will ever answer that simple question.
That's easy. Just asking the question makes you a candidate.
Where have you guys been? Our government has been doing this for years now without universal screening. It will be same as with individual plans in government schools. Those that are identified as mentally ill--through hospital admissions, police reports, etc will be found out(and already are)then be screened, assessed and given a wonderful individual plan that should save themselves from themselves for the rest of their natural born lives and use our tax dollars to accomplish it all. Yeah, it stinks alright but it doesn't mean the entire nation will be screened and drugged with the most expensive drugs. Your outrage is misplaced. The outrage is the funding to further implement a program already in place. Its about more paperwork and more government jobs; not screening an entire nation and then drugging that nation. Have I mentioned that I think wnd is ridiculous?
wnd is strives to make this administration look ridiculous with false sensational headlines. It's what they do best.
WOW, I just felt like I was transported back to that porch in Hope, in a rocker, and Rather and slick were slappin' their gums.......
LOL! Hit him again, Howlin.
Logically analyzing this, I'd suspect that if the cancer hypothesis were enacted into law, the insurance companies would screen the dickens out of everyone, simply to keep their costs down.Would you have assumed that he was proposing every American to have federally subsidized cancer screenings?
Probably not, since I haven't made that claim with mental illness. I've noted several times that President Bush would like to impose a mandate on private insurance companies to pick up part of the tab.
What I would ask, regarding your cancer hypothetical, is if "every adult with cancer must have an individualized plan of care coordinating services among programs and across agencies," how can that be done without universal screening for cancer?
I therefore submit that if "mental health" (broadened to include everything from coffee-drinking to "embracing adulthood" or however that nonsense went) were mandated for universal coverage, yeah, the insurance carriers would definitely screen the crap out of us, to "nip it in the bud" and contain their costs.
This thread belonged in the Smokey Backroom the minute you-know-who got on it.
(*shhhhhh....I think he finally took his Xanax.....*)
Well try this on for size: I'll vot for whomever I damn well please, whomever I determine offers the best hope for steering this nation on a conservative track, and who I vote for is none of your damn business, and I resent the implication that I am "ashamed" of my vote simply because I desire to uphold the long honored tradition of the secret vote, one of the cornerstones of a free society.
Furthermore, I worry about where we're headed, when defacto "loyalty tests" like the one you taunt me with above are an accepted mode of debate.
Ta da!
And if anyone thinks we're joking, just read back through this thread. The accusation has been leveled repeatedly by a parade of posters.
And of course report their findings to the gooberment. For statistical analysis reasons only of course.
And for public safety.
And homeland security.
And funding and grant purposes.
And liability.
Research.
*ouch*
Damn straight she did!
Many more of those, and I'm gonna need a new ankle!
And of course report their findings to the gooberment. For statistical analysis reasons only of course.
And for public safety.
And homeland security.
And funding and grant purposes.
And liability.
Research.
All of that is already mandated by HIPAA. :(
yeah, well, Howlin, get us the hell out of here will ya?
| *"Probably not, since I haven't made that claim with mental illness.* **Oh really? See YOUR POST #611, posted in full so as not to take it out of context. *"You highlighted a question: *"How can all Americans who need mental health treatment be located unless all Americans are screened? Given the President's goals, the eventual step must necessarily be universal screening, once this expansion in the purpose and mission of the federal government is undertaken."
|
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.