Index
of Report Contents:
Introduction
The New Freedom Commssion Report on Mental
Health: Summary of Key Points
Details on Each of the Six Main Goals (including Commission
summary and editorial commentary):
- Americans
Understand that Mental Health is Essential to Overall Health
- Mental
Health Care is Consumer and Family Driven
- Disparities
in Mental Health Services are Eliminated
- Early
Mental Health Screening, Assessment, and Referral Services
are Common Practice
- Excellent
Mental Health Care is Delivered and Research is Accelerated
- Technology
is Used to Access Mental Health Care and Information
Responses
of Official Medical, Legal, and Advocacy Groups to the Commission
Report
Responses of the General Public
to the Commission Report
Results
of the Report - examples of recent legislation
Looking
to the Future: The Presidential Candidates' Stances on Mental
Health Care
President
George W. Bush
Senator John Kerry
Closing
Thoughts
Endnotes
Introduction
to the President's New Freedom Commission:
In April
of 2002, President George W. Bush created the New Freedom Commission
on Mental Health, a 22-member committee that included MDs and
PhDs, social services and community health representatives,
policy makers, and judicial officials. Their mission: "to
study the mental health service delivery system, and to make
recommendations that would enable adults with serious mental
illnesses and children with serious emotional disturbance to
live, work, learn, and participate fully in their communities."[1].
To accomplish this task, the committee reviewed a comprehensive
list of background materials (http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/bibliography.htm),
and solicited public comments and recommendations from consumers,
parents, family members, advocates, service providers, educators,
researchers, and other concerned individuals. On July 22, 2003,
the Committee issued their final report on the state of mental
health care in America.
The
New Freedom Commission Report: A Summary of Key Points
Overall
Recommendation: "A fundamental transformation of the
Nation's approach to mental health care
ensur[ing] that
mental health services and supports actively facilitate recovery,
and build resilience to face life's challenges"[2].
Unmet
needs and barriers to care, as identified by the Commission:[3]
- Fragmentation
and gaps in care for children and adults with serious mental
illness
- High
unemployment and disability for people with serious mental
illness
- Lack
of care for older adults for mental illness
- Lack
of national priority for mental health and suicide prevention
(Additionally, President Bush identified the following three
elements as key barriers to quality mental health care in America):
- Stigma
that surrounds mental illnesses
- Unfair
treatment limitations and financial requirements placed on
mental health benefits in private health insurance
- The fragmented
mental health service delivery system
The Goal
of a Transformed System is Recovery. In the report, recovery
is defined as "the process in which people are able to
live, work, learn, and participate fully in their communities.
For some, recovery is the ability to live a fulfilling and productive
life despite a disability. For others, recovery implies the
reduction or complete remission of symptoms.[4]
Specific
Goals of a Recovery-based Mental Health Care System:[5]
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 care is delivered and research
is accelerated
6. Technology is used to access mental health care and information
Details
on each of the six identified goals, as defined in the report,
as well as editorial/third party commentary:
Goal
1: Americans Understand that Mental Health is Essential to Overall
Health
In the
Words of the Commission:
With this
goal, the commission hopes to destigmatize mental health care,
so that "Americans will seek mental health care when they
need it - with the same confidence that they seek treatment
for other health problems." They propose to achieve this
through "learning, self monitoring, and accountability."
Specific
Recommendations of the Commission to Achieve This Goal:
1.
Education campaigns that emphasize facts about mental illness
and reduce stigma, that target specific audiences such as
rural Americans, racial/ethnic minorities, and those whose
primary language is not English.
2. Allow more mental health diagnosis and care to take place
in primary care settings, by providing the necessary time,
training, and resources to primary care physicians.
3. Advance a national campaign to reduce stigma, and a national
strategy for suicide prevention.
Editorial
Comments on Goal 1:
The above
recommendations, though excellent for increasing access and
awareness, make the false assumption that all mental health
care consumers are fully aware of their own illness. The report
states: "in a transformed mental health system, Americans
will seek mental health care when they need it"[6]. Unfortunately,
the commission fails to acknowledge the fact that a hallmark
of serious mental illness is lack of insight. This portion of
the patient population will not seek treatment on their own
behalf, no matter if access is improved and stigma reduced.
Goal
2: Mental Health Care is Consumer and Family Driven
In
the Words of the Commission:
The purpose
of this goal is to provide a "well-planned, coordinated
personalized,
highly individualized health management program [that] will
help lead the way to appropriate treatment and supports that
are oriented toward recovery and resilience"[7]. The commission
asserts that a consumer-centered, recovery-oriented mental health
care plan will "include treatment, supports, and other
assistance to enable consumers to better integrate into their
communities; it will allow consumers to realize improved mental
health and quality of life."
Specific
Recommendations of the Commission to Achieve This Goal:
1.
Consumers and families, in partnership with their health
care providers, will play a larger role in managing funding,
treatment, and supports.
2. The burden of coordinating care will rest on the system,
not on the family or the consumer.
3. States will develop comprehensive mental health plans
to outline responsibility for coordinating and integrating
programs at the federal, state, and local level. States
will be allowed to combine federal, state and local resources
to fund their innovations.
4. Services will be delivered in the most integrated setting
possible - in communities rather than institutions.
5. Issues of child custody will be separated from issues
of care.
6. Mental health consumer rights will be protected and enhanced,
particularly in areas of employment, secure health care,
and safe housing.
Editorial
Commentary on Goal 2:
Promoting
consumer and family participation in developing treatment plans
is a progressive step. The experiences of each person and family
touched by mental illness are highly individualized, and attempting
to provide overly-standardized treatment plans leave many people
with inadequate treatments for their unique situations. Developing
comprehensive state plans for mental health may help to coordinate
a fragmented system of care, combining social services for housing,
vocation, and community rehabilitation with long-term medical
treatment plans. Offering more community-based services will
hopefully improve access for the majority of consumers. The
protection of rights should be practically a given, and the
promotion of legislation such as the American Disabilities Act
helps to achieve this. A good addition to this point might be
an emphasis on informing people of their rights as mental health
care consumers. For example, many don't realize that it is not
required to reveal a mental illness to an employer (there are
a very few exceptions to this rule, such as jobs in the military
or in ordained ministry). Consumers cannot assert and protect
rights that they don't know about.
The report
speaks of "protecting and enhancing mental health care
consumer rights, particularly in areas of employment, secure
health care, and safe housing." Inherent in this, but not
explicitly addressed, is the need to reform federal insurance
and aid programs (such as SSI and SSDI) to continue adequate
and vital financial support for mental health consumers and
their spouses or legal guardians as they seek to return to work.
Many families are caught between the need to add extra income,
and the fear of losing their federal benefits. According to
NIMH statistics, this country loses $105 billion annually due
to lost productivity. That is over 1/2 of the entire annual
estimated costs of mental illness in the United States. The
federal and state governments can help replace this lost productivity
by reforming programs to support workers returning from disability,
rather than crippling them.
The details
of Goal 2 again ignore the key issue of consumer insight. The
report states: "[b]y allowing funding to follow consumers,
incentives will shift toward a system of learning, self-monitoring,
and accountability. This program design will give people a vested
economic interest in using resources wisely to obtain and sustain
recovery" [8]. This statement makes the broad assumption
that consumers misuse, or neglect to use, available services
because they are not properly motivated. In reality, a large
number of mentally ill consumers don't utilize available services
because they don't realize that they are sick. No one will be
self-motivated to use treatments and resources that they don't
believe they need.
Moreover,
this author would like to see within this goal a larger emphasis
on reducing stigma, which is a key element for community integration.
Mental health consumers must feel comfortable and justified
in seeking treatments and programs, and the rest of the community
must be willing to support and accept them when they do. This
will only happen when stigma breaks down on both sides.
Goal
3: Disparities in Mental Health Services are Eliminated
In
the Words of the Commission:
This goal
seeks to allow everyone to "share equally in the best available
services and outcomes, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity
or geographic location"[9]. It emphasizes reaching culturally
diverse and minority populations (i.e. rural communities, linguistic/ethnic
minorities, gender groups, etc) with health care services that
are tailored to their specific needs.
Specific
Recommendations of the Commission to Achieve This Goal:
1.
Providers of services will include individuals who share
and respect the beliefs, norms, values, and patterns of
communication of culturally divers populations.
2. Utilizing tools such as videoconferencing and tele-health
(care provided by telephone) to improve access to care and
advance treatment in rural and remote areas.
3. Provide mental health education and training to public
servants that regularly interact with mentally ill individuals
- specifically, emergency room staff, first responders,
law enforcement personnel, and EMTs.
Editorial
Commentary on Goal 3:
Minority
groups - particularly non-English speakers - are often overlooked
in mental health care services and legislation. It is encouraging
to see a goal specifically addressing the needs of these populations.
Tools such as therapy by phone have already shown early success
(see "Therapy
via Telephone Shows Promise" - schizophrenia.com newsblog,
Sept 1 2004) - these may indeed help to improve access to care
in hard-to-reach areas. And any family that has had run-ins
with police (an unfortunately common occurrence for those suffering
from untreated mental illness) knows the importance of having
an informed and sensitive law enforcement staff (see "The
Crisis Cops", a schizophrenia.com news report from
February 2004 that advocates such training for police forces).
Given that
the stated goal is "eliminating disparities in mental health
services," it is unfortunate that the Commission does not
address one of the largest barriers - that is, lack of adequate
insurance. According to statistics from the Treatment Advocacy
Center, about 1/3 of America's homeless population (totaling
close to 600,000) suffers from a serious mental illness such
as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. According to the TAC,
there are more people living on America's streets with untreated
or undiagnosed mental illness than are currently receiving care
in hospitals. These people are largely uninsured, which prevents
access to needed diagnostic services, therapy, and costly medications.
Even those that are insured under publicly funded programs (Medicare
or Medicaid) may have insurmountable co-payments and prescription
drug costs for their mental illness treatments. To eliminate
this barrier, the government must make insuring every American
a top priority, and also must reform public insurance programs
to provide the same coverage benefits for mental conditions
as for physical conditions. Passage of The
Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act (2003),
currently stalled in Congress, would do much to achieve this
end.
Goal
4: Early Mental Health Screening, Assessment, and Referral Services
are Common Practice
In the
Words of the Commission:
With this
goal, the commission advocates making mental illness screening
a more routine occurrence for both children and adults. This
would hopefully lead to earlier detection, and thus earlier
treatment intervention. Early diagnosis and intervention has
been shown to improve prognosis and potential for recovery for
those with mental illness.
Specific
Recommendations of the Commission to Achieve This Goal:
1.
Provide mental illness screening for children and adults
during routine physical exams.
2. Provide screening and early intervention services in
accessible and/or high-risk settings such as primary health
care facilities, schools, criminal justice and child welfare
systems.
3. Co-screen for mental and substance abuse disorders, and
provide integrated treatment strategies for dual-diagnosis
patients.
Editorial
Commentary on Goal 4:
It is already
well documented that early diagnosis and intervention can greatly
improve the quality of life of a mentally ill individual, as
well as increase the potential for recovery (see "Earlier
Diagnosis of Schizophrenia Improves Results of Treatment",
schizophrenia.com Newsblog, Feb 26 2004; see also The
Importance of Early Intervention and Treatment for Schizophrenia
on the schizophrenia.com website, which contains numerous research
articles and references). Providing integrated treatment for
dually-diagnosed patients would also be a welcome addition to
mental health care services, as there is a current lack of good
programs that address both problems simultaneously.
Some parties
have expressed concern over the Commission's recommendation
to initiate mental health screening in America's schools. Says
Karen R. Effrem, M.D. and a director of EdWatch: "I am
concerned, especially in the schools, that mental health could
be used as a wedge for diagnosis based on attitudes, values,
beliefs, and political stances - things like perceived homophobia"
(Source: WorldNetDaily, "Forced mental screening hits roadblock
in House", Sept 9 2004). Other critics (quoted from the
same source) "say [the initiative] is a thinly veiled attempt
by drug companies to provide a wider market for high priced
anti-depressants and anti-psychotic medications, and puts government
in areas of Americans' lives where it does not belong."
The Commission
justifies its recommendations by asserting that "despite
their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed,"
and concluding that schools are in "a key position"
to screen 52 million students and 6 million adults employed
by schools.
Illinois
was the first state to approve a statewide mental health-screening
program based on the New Freedom Commission recommendations
(The Children's Mental Health Act of 2003), which provides screening
for all children under the age of 18. The Commission held up
the Texas screening program TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm
Project) as a "model" medication treatment plan. TMAP
has previously raised concerns about alternate motives, such
as over-promoting certain pharmaceuticals (see schizophrenia.com
newsblog entry from June 22, 2004 for
more information on TMAP and mandatory screening controversy).
We will have to look to the future to guage the success of the
Illinois initiative.
Goal
5: Excellent Mental Health Care is Delivered and Research is
Accelerated
In the
Words of the Commission:
This goal
promotes the future use of evidence-based medications and therapies.
Evidence-based is not specifically defined by the commission;
however, in a recent article released by the 2004 Council of
State Governments (Sept 1, 2004), evidence-based practices for
mental health care is defined as "interventions with clear
scientific evidence demonstrating improved client outcomes.
The article provides several examples of evidence-based practices
already in use - Assertive Community Treatment, supported employment,
self-management education, and family psycho-education are a
few examples.
Furthermore,
the commission advocates the expansion of research to develop
and refine more evidence-based treatments and services, the
most effective of which will become immediately available. "Research
discoveries will become routinely available at the community
level
the Nation will continue to invest in research at
all levels"[10].
Specific
Recommendations of the Commission to Achieve This Goal:
1.
Accelerate research to promote recovery and resilience,
and ultimately to cure and prevent mental illness.
2. Advance evidence-based practices in the community, via
public-private partnerships.
3. Improve and expand the workforce with evidence-based
practices.
4. Improve research and understanding in four key areas:
mental health disparities, long-term effects of medication,
trauma, and acute care.
Editorial
Commentary on Goal 5:
A commitment
to implementing evidence-based practices in the community -
programs such as Assertive Community Treatment and supported
employment have already proven successful in many contexts -
is an excellent step. Funding and accelerating research to refine
and develop new evidence-based practices is also a welcome addition.
We hope
that the commission considers Assisted Outpatient Treatment
as an evidence-based practice. Statistics show that Assisted
Treatment reduces hospitalization, reduces violent crimes and
arrests, increases treatment compliance, and improves symptoms
in people with severe mental illnesses and poor insight. See
the data about the results of assisted outpatient treatment
at the Treatment Advocac Center website (http://www.psychlaws.org).
It is important
for the medical and scientific community to pay attention to
what areas of research are being funded, and consider whether
they are areas of greatest need. Dr. E Fuller Torrey, a PHD
and leading advocate for the mentally ill, has previously criticized
federal research institutions such as the NIMH for neglecting
research projects on serious mental illness in favor of easier,
more gratifying pursuits (read
Dr. Torrey's report - A Federal Failure, available at http://www.psychlaws.org).
Moreover, the federal government has blocked public funding
for embryonic stem cell research, on the grounds that it is
unethical and unnecessary to destroy even frozen embryos when
stem cell lines are already available. However, scientists have
identified the majority of these lines as being contaminated,
or in other ways unsuitable to carry out good research. The
government and the scientific community need to seriously weigh
the real possibilities of developing life-saving and life-altering
therapies for condtions such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and
spinal trauma against the value of preserving frozen, unused
fetus embryos. (For more information about stem cell research
and its potential, see this NIH
Stem Cell Basics Report. For information on how stem cell
research might eventually benefit people with psychiatric diseases
such as schizophrenia, see the Schizophrenia.Com
Newsblog entry on Oct 19, 2004 - "Stem Cell Research Update").
Just recently,
the medical community has taken steps to eliminate research
bias in clinical drug trials. Responding to pressure from leading
medical journals, officials, and the consumer community, some
private pharmaceutical companies now publish all study results
(not just positive or conclusive ones) on a public registry.
Although companies can choose not to participate in full disclosure,
some journals will not accept studies from these institutions
(read
the schizophrenia.com newsblog report from Sept. 8 for the original
source article). There are also bills currently on Capitol
Hill that, if passed, would make full disclosure a requirement
of all institutions [11]. This may help to encourage need-driven,
rather than market-driven, research, as well as provide health
care providers and consumers all the information they need to
make informed decisions about their own cases.
Goal
6: Technology is Used to Access Mental Health Care and Information
In the
Words of the Commission:
This goal
emphasizes streamlining the delivery of excellent health care
services. In the words of the commission: "
advanced
communication and information technology will empower consumers
and families and will be a tool for providers to deliver the
best care"[12]. Making this technology an integrated and
routine part of mental health care will hopefully improve access
in underserved, rural, and remote areas. The commission also
hopes to strongly protect and ensure patient privacy with protected
electronic records.
Specific
Recommendations of the Commission to Achieve This Goal:
1.
Use health technology and tele-health to improve access
and coordination of mental health care, especially for Americans
in remote areas or in underserved populations.
2. Develop and implement integrated electronic health records
and personal health information systems, which might be
used for self-management of care, clinical appointments
and reminders, prescription guidelines, patient medical
histories and drug allergies, etc.
Editorial
Commentary on Goal 6:
Bringing
health care delivery into the 21st century with improved technology
and electronic records has great potential to improve continuity
of care. In an increasingly mobile society, electronic records
that are shared across a protected medical network will provide
faster, more accurate information for any new doctor in any
new location. That provider can then hopefully continue the
present treatment without interruption or backtracking.
Responses
of Official Medical, Legal, and Advocacy Groups to the Commission
Report
The New
Freedom Commission Report has the potential to affect changes
not just the public sector, but in private plans and community
programs as well. The response from various medical and legislative
groups has been largely positive - organizations voicing support
include the Campaign for Mental Health Reform, the National
Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI), the National Association
of State Mental Health Program Directors, the National Mental
Health Association, and the American Psychiatric Association
(APA). These and other groups called on the president and Congress
to act on the recommendations made in the report.
However,
others have voiced concerns that this comprehensive report failed
to address some key areas of mental health.
In an editorial
critique of the report ("Commission's
Omission - The president's mental health commission in denial"),
the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) identified several issues
that were not addressed:
- Legislation
or support programs for people with poor insight. According
to TAC statistics, 50 percent of individuals with schizophrenia
and 40 percent of individuals with bipolar disorder lack adequate
awareness of their own illness. This is a biological consequence
of mental illness, caused largely by damage to certain areas
of the brain. Lack of insight is the most often-cited reason
for why some people with brain diseases do not stay on medication
or in treatment programs. The commission recommendations for
family- and consumer-driven mental health care assume that
all consumers are fully aware of their disease, and thus motivated
to adhere to treatment options.
- The
criminalization of the mentally ill. The TAC proposes
that a reduction in stigma through education campaigns is
the wrong focus. Instead, they recommend developing more specific
treatments and long-term treatment plans, to reduce the violent/erratic
behavior of the untreated mentally ill. Such violent behavior
in this population is dramatically associated with untreated
illness (see
Treatment Advocacy Center website for information and statistics
on this subject).
- Endorsement
of certain evidence-based practices, such as mental
health courts (for trying mentally ill offenders) and
assisted
outpatient treatment. Both of these programs have
shown great promise in improving the lives and enhancing community
integration of people with brain disease.
- The
fact that a national plan based on a "recovery model"
(as defined by the New Freedom Commission report) is still
unrealistic for many who suffer from brain disease. If
recovery is to be defined as "the process in which people
are able to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their
communities," then those who are most severely disabled
will be left out of future policy and support programs.
- Insurance
parity for mental health care in the public sector. For
example, Medicare currently has a 50% consumer co-pay for
mental health services, as opposed to a 20% co-pay for other
health services. The
Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act (2003)
currently outlines the most progressive plan for parity.
Psychiatric
Times also published an editorial critique of the Commission
report ("The
New Freedom Commission's Report to Shape Mental Health Policy
in Years Ahead" - Oct 2003). Although the tone was
largely positive, Psychiatric Times brought up two major points
of contention: the question of resources, and the omission of
involuntary treatment programs. As psychiatrist and APA vice-president
Steven S. Sharfstein pointed out in the article, "To argue
that there are enough resources in the system, which is implicit
in the report, and not to say that we need more resources, is
wrong." Relevant points missing from the Commission's report
include recommendations concerning the amount of private insurance
premium devoted to mental health care, and mental health equity
under public programs such as Medicaid.
Sharfield
also maintained: "the report does not do justice to individuals
in the most dire straits in society. It emphasized choice, but
there are a large number of individuals who aren't able to choose."
This includes not only those with poor insight, but also the
innumerable number of mentally ill people who are homeless or
in prison. He believes that involuntary treatment (which he
prefers to call 'compassionate coercion') is sometimes necessary
to avoid crisis situations later on, and that this was not adequately
addressed by the report.
Responses
of the General Public to the Commission Report
In compiling
its report, the New Freedom Commission solicited public comment
from over 1200 individuals, including mental health consumers,
family members, advocates, service providers, educators, researchers,
and others[13]. They identified various themes that continue
to be barriers to an adequate and excellent system of care,
including:
- Inadequate
funding for services and supports
- Gaps
in service and provider availability
- Absence
of culturally competent services
- Lack
of systemic orientation to recovery
- Inability
to obtain insurance
- Lack
of mental health insurance parity
- Low benefit
limits
- Excessive
management of mental health benefits
- Poor
coordination of services and among providers
- Difficulty
enrolling in care programs
- High
service costs
- Challenges
of living in the community with a mental illness (stigma,
unemployment, lack of housing, inadequate income support,
frequent involvement with criminal justice system.
Although
the Commission did an admirable job researching many of these
issues, and developing specific recommendations for their improvement
in the near future, there are areas that were clearly not addressed.
Questions of service funding, low benefit limits, and concerns
about the affordability and parity of health insurance, are
just a few of the items above that the report does not fully
deal with.
Results
of the Report - examples of recent legislation affecting (for
better or worse) mental health care services and consumers:
(Specific
congressional bills mentioned below are available online at
http://www.thomas.loc.gov/)
At the
Federal Level:
1. New
funds approved for mental health programs - State Incentive
Grants to encourage comprehensive state mental health planning,
2.2% increase in Health and Human Services Department funds,
3.1% increase to SAMSHA funds, 2.7% increase for NIH funds.
(Source: "House Takes First Step in Setting Funding Levels
for Key Mental Health and Substance Abuse Programs",
NMHA Legislative Alert, July 9 2004).
2. Mandatory mental health screening for every American child
- currently in the House of Representatives. (Source: "Forced
mental screening hits roadblock in House", WorldNetDaily,
Sept 9 2004).
3. TeenScreen - a program to screen for mental illness among
adolescent populations (currently active in 36 states). Held
up as a model program in the New Freedom Commission report.
(Source: "Experts at Columbia University Advise Parents
to Add Mental Health Check-UP to Teens' Back to School List",
U.S. Newswire release, Aug 26 2004).
4. Passage of the Garret Lee Smith Memorial Act, which devotes
$82 million to identifying and treating at-risk youth. (Source:
"Congress gives OK to Smith suicide bill", Oregonlive.com,
Sept 10 2004).
5. House and Senate approval of the "Mentally Ill Offender
Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004" (S. 1194),
which provides $50,000 million for state and local grants
intended to positively reform how the legislative system deals
with non-violent mentally ill or substance-abusing offenders.
These reforms may include: jail diversion programs, treatment
programs for incarcerated offenders with mental illnesses,
community reentry programs, and cross-training of mental health,
law enforcement and corrections. President Bush is expected
to sign the bill into law in the near future. (Source: NAMI
Mental Health Legislation Update).
6. Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disablities Act,
supporting state-implemented services to preschool and school-age
children. (Source: "IDEA Reauthorization", NMHA
Legislative Alert, May 28 2004).
6. New Medicare drug benefit laws, to be enacted in 2006,
which will potentially limit the number of approved psychiatric
medications available to consumers. (Source: "Medicare
Drug Program Could Limit Consumers to Old Meds", NMHA
Legislative Alert, Sept 9 2004).
At the
State Level:
1. Illinois:
Children's Mental Health Act (2003) - statewide screening
of school-aged children (Source: Illinois Leader news article,
Aug 25 2004).
2. New Mexico: allows psychologists to prescribe medication,
under the supervision of a physician. Meant to increase service
delivery to rural areas. (Source: "New Mexico Allows
Psychologists to Prescribe", viewable online at http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/weekly/aa031202a.htm).
3. Nevada: Nevada Mental Health Plan Implementation Commission
(2003), created to develop a statewide action plan to initiate
New Freedom Commission recommendations. (Source: "On
the road to recovery: states are transforming mental health
care", Council of State Governments State News, Sept
1 2004).
4. New Hampshire: Health and Human Services Commissioner John
Stephen cuts funding for the state chapter of NAMI; endorses
a "preferred drug" system for those in the state
mental health system, which limits recipients to the more
inexpensive medication options. (Source: "Benson administration
contemptuously attacks mentally ill", The Union Leader
and New Hampshire Sunday News, Sept 7 2004).
Looking
to the Future: The Presidential Candidates' Stances on Mental
Health Care:
With Election
Day creeping closer all the time, both President Bush and Senator
Kerry have outlined their platforms on various aspects of domestic
policy. See where the candidates stand on the subject of health
care and mental health services:
The
President - George W. Bush:
As the man
behind the New Freedom Commission, it is reasonable to assume
that Bush would endorse the recommendations made by his own
committee. Here are his positions on some aspects addressed
by the report:
Current/Recent
Policies:
- A
supporter of mental health care parity, Bush reauthorized
the 1996 Mental Health Parity Act (originally signed by Clinton)
that prevents insurance companies from creating dollar limits
for annual and lifetime treatments for mental illness. Bush
supports full parity, but the Paul Wellstone Act of 2003 has
yet to clear Congress.
· In concordance with promises made in 2000, Bush has
doubled research and clinical care funding for the NIH. He
is currently seeking much lower annual budget increases.
- Provided
support for breast cancer research, and faith-based and community
service programs (Broder, Washington Post, 9/1).
- "Privacy
is a fundamental right, and every American should have
absolute control over their personal information, particularly
their highly sensitive medical, genetic, and financial information."
(Bush campaign quote in Psychiatric News, 2000). However,
the administration has since eliminated a key patient-consent
requirement in federal privacy regulations. Health care
plans, professionals, insurers, clearinghouses, and hospitals
can legally release patient information for "routine
transactions" if they have made a "good faith effort"
to notify the patients involved. However, it is not required
to obtain official consent.
- Bush
has yet to make good on his promise to support patients' rights
to sue HMO or managed care organizations. (According to
Psychiatric News - June 15, 2001).
Future
Plans/Promises:
- Cover
an additional 2.4 million uninsured Americans with health
insurance, using refundable tax credits. For expenses not
covered by plans, Bush endorses tax-free health savings accounts,
made possible with federal assistance.
- Institute
medical liability reform to help control soaring health
care costs and malpractice insurance.
- Make
sure that "every poor county in America has a community
or rural health center" and to lead an "aggressive
effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible
but not signed up" in SCHIP. " (Source: Bush speech
text, New York Times, 9/3)
- Significant
investments in health care information technology; plans
to implement electronic medical records for the majority of
Americans.
The
Challenger - Senator John Kerry:
Current
Policies and Future Plans:
- Like
Bush, Kerry endorses full parity for mental health care.
He is a supporter of the Paul Wellstone Act (2003).
- Kerry
vows to reform Medicare for those with mental illness;
he is a co-sponsor of the 2001 Medicare Mental Illness Nondiscrimination
Act. He also promises to protect Medicaid, and pushes for
expanding the program to allow coverage of children with disabilities
in low-income families.
- Proposes
health coverage for 27 million uninsured residents, funded
by repealing some of the Bush administration tax cuts. Promises
75% federal coverage of catastrophic health-related costs
to employers that offer health insurance to all employees,
provide disease management for employees with chronic conditions
and pass savings from health insurance costs on to workers.
He claims that this catastrophic coverage will lower consumer
health care premiums by as much as 10%.
- Plans
to allow the secretary of Health and Human services to negotiate
lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies for Medicare
beneficiaries. He would also permit Americans to purchase
FDA-approved imported prescription drugs from Canada.
- Kerry
is a supporter of the Family Opportunity Act (struck
down in the House of Representatives), which helps protect
Medicaid coverage for parents looking to return to work.
- Seeks
to remove federal funding restrictions to stem cell research,
a promising source for new therapies.
- Promises
to pass a "patient bill of rights", allowing
citizens to sue HMOs for harmful decisions.
- He pledges
support for funding and expanding community-based treatment
programs and services, making mental health a priority
in homeland security, reducing stigma, and instituting court
reforms. No specific details were offered concerning these
statements.
Sources for the above, and statements for each candidate, can
be found in the following documents:
· Kerry's Statement on Mental Health Policy - http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/mental_health_statement.pdf
· Bush's Statement on Health Care - http://www.georgewbush.com/HealthCare/
· Kerry's Health Care Reform Plan - http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/
· Key Components of the President's Health Care Reform
Agenda - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020301-1.html
Closing
Thoughts:
Thank you
for taking the time to read and consider the information in
this report. We hope you have found it informative and helpful,
and that you will continue to be proactive about the rights
that you deserve in health care. Make your voice heard - don't
forget to vote on Nov. 2!
Endnotes:
1. New
Freedom Commission on Mental Health, Executive Summary of Final
Report. Cover page. Available in html format at http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/FinalReport/toc.html
2. New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFC on MH), Exec
Summary. Cover page.
3. NFC on MH, Exec Summary, pp 4-5.
4. NFC on MH, Exec Summary, p. 7
5. NFC on MH, Exec summary, p. 8
6. NFC on MH, Exec Summary, p. 10
7. NFC on MH, Exec Summary, p. 12
8. NFC on MH, Exec summary, p. 12
9. NFC on MH, Exec Summary, p. 15
10. NFC on MH, Exec Summary, p. 19
11. For more information on the proposed bill, see "Joint
Statement on Legislation to Introduce a Clinical Trials Registry"
by Rep. Edward J. Markey and Rep. Henry A. Waxman.
12. NFC on MH, Exec Summary, p. 21
13. "A Report on the Public Comments Submitted to the President's
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health." January 7, 2003.
Available in pdf format at http://www.mentalhealthcomission.gov/