January 2, 2013 at 11:15 am (Loose Screws Mental Health News)
Tags: background checks, California, federal government, firearms, guns, inmates, insurance, mental disorder, mental health, mental health coverage, mental illness, NAMI, NIMH, NRA, NY1 News, Obamacare, prisons, Proposition 63, psychiatrists, San Francisco Chronicle, state governments, The New York Times, Washington Post
In the wake of the Newtown, CT shooting, NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre called for a national registry of those who are mentally ill. According to the Washington Post, the federal government does not possess the constitutional authority “to require state agencies to report data.” All the federal government can do is either offer or withhold funding, as it did in the wake of the 2007 Virginia Tech Shooting when it provided additional funding for state governments that shared 90 percent of their mental health records. But it seems that 38 states already maintain an active database that “require or authorize the use of” mental health records during gun background checks. And the Gun Control Act of 1968 does not allow sales of firearms to people who have been institutionalized or considered to be mentally “defective.”
For the purpose of firearms sales, I support the idea of maintaining a database of people who have been institutionalized. This could prevent a person from being a harm to himself or to others. I speak as a person who has been institutionalized for being a harm to herself more than once. If I’d had access to a firearm, I wouldn’t be here right now. There may be many others who are in the same boat.
The New York Times reported on mental health coverage through insurance. In any given year, 26 percent of adults have a mental disorder, and 6 percent of adults have a mental illness that prevents them from functioning, according to the NIMH. In addition, 21 percent of teenagers between the ages of 13 and 18 undergo a “severe emotional disturbance.” But it seems as though 85 percent of employers offer some kind of mental health coverage through insurance, and 84 percent of employers with more than 500 employees allowed access to in-network and out-of-network mental health treatment. Beginning in 2014, insurance plans will be required to cover mental health disorders as part of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
The New York Times notes that many psychiatrists, however, don’t accept insurance:
Plenty of psychiatrists in private practice accept no insurance at all, though it is not clear how many; their professional organizations claim to have no recent or decent data on the percentage of people in private practice who take cash on the barrelhead, write people a receipt and send them off to their insurance company to request out-of-network reimbursement if they have any at all.
My psychiatrist does not accept insurance. He writes me a receipt, and I am to seek out-of-network reimbursement, a claim that has been repeatedly rejected by my insurance. The NYT is right on the money in this instance. But I am happy with my psychiatrist and would rather pay out of pocket for him without reimbursement than to find another psychiatrist who is in network.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, California is ahead of every other state in covering mental health services with public money. But as always, there are critics who say California does not go far enough, even though in 2004, California voters approved Proposition 63 that funnels $1 billion annually for mental health services by taxing the state’s highest earners. But funding is being cut, not just in California but also nationally, according to NAMI.
Overall, California cut $768 million from its state mental health services outlay during the past three fiscal years, according to a November 2011 report from the National Alliance on Mental Illness. California’s 21 percent reduction in mental health funding over that period is the seventh-highest among all states.
Nationally, states cut more than $1.6 billion in general funds from their state mental health agency budgets for mental health services since 2009, according to the 2011 report by the National Alliance on Mental Illness.
I’m not sure what can be done to stop funding cuts of mental health services when state budgets are slashing services across the board.
And finally, according to NY1 News, New York City Mayor Bloomberg has announced an initiative to get mentally ill people out of jail and into treatment facilities. The mayor’s office estimates that 36 percent of inmates suffer from some kind of mental disorder. The city initiative will attempt to “reduce incarceration rates, improve jail safety, and lower crime.”
May 23, 2008 at 11:56 am (Mental Health/Illness, News, Personal)
Tags: Depression, mental health, mental illness, NAMI, Walk for the Mind
While surfing through my Google News Alerts, I stumbled upon a Newsday article about a man from the Long Island town on Freeport who participated in the NAMI’s Queens/Long Island chapter "Walk for the Mind" on Sunday.
I was curious to see if the walk was an annual event for each local NAMI chapter. Turns out it is.
NAMI Pennsylvania’s 3K walk takes place on Saturday, September 20 in Harrisburg. I don’t plan on participating this year but wonder if I should ever participate in the future. (Again, my cynical lens shines through.)
Speaking of NAMI, I went to the local library and saw a whole set-up of literature atop one of those big glass cases that usually house small scale models of towns, art, and such. (When I get a chance, I’ll post a picture.)
The ENTIRE top of the case was littered with NAMI literature. My reaction was joy. I was really happy that the PA chapter of NAMI was really canvassing and getting information out to the public to raise awareness about mental illness. As a person suffering from mental illness, I want to decrease stigma around it by (almost) whatever means necessary.
I was also happy to see a variety of resources: support groups, hotlines, and even a 5 x 7 card listing "famous people" who suffered from mental illness. By the way, 90 percent of them suffered from the overdiagnosed disorder, depression.
May 22, 2008 at 12:46 am (Antidepressants, Depression, Medicine/Meds, Mental Health/Illness, PPD)
Tags: adolescents, Antidepressants, Antipsychotics, bipolar, Bipolar Disorder, Children, depressed, depressing, Depression, Depression 101, Depression: Out of the Shadows, disease, disorder, doctors, drugs, dysthymia, ECT, electroconvulsive therapy, Fear, fish oil, heartwarming, illness, Jane Pauley, major depressive disorder, MDD, medication, meds, mental health, mental illness, Namenda, NAMI, NIMH, PBS, personal stories, pills, postpartum depression, PPD, prescription drugs, program, Prozac, psych drugs, psych meds, psychiatric, psychiatric care, psychologic, psychotropics, Ranitidine, remeron, segment, show, Stigma, suffering, talk therapy, teenagers, therapy, treatment, treatment-resistant, treatment-resistant depression, vagus nerve stimulation, VNS, Wellbutrin, zoloft, Zyprexa
The show is essentially Depression 101 – for those new to learning
about the illness. As someone who struggles with depression (within
bipolar disorder), I found a lot of the two hours pretty boring (90
minutes on personal stories and about 22 minutes for "candid
conversation"). The "a lot" comes from the stuff that I've either heard before or flies over my head, eg, how depression affects the brain, prefrontal cortex, neurotransmitters, synapses, etc. The personal stories were powerful: depressingly heartwarming. (Yes, I mean that.)
My heart sank as I heard the stories of Emma and Hart, teenagers who were diagnosed with depression and bipolar disorder, respectively. Both were such extreme cases that they needed to be sent away for special psychiatric care. They are on medications for their disorders; the specific drugs are never mentioned.
While watching Deana's story of treatment-resistant depression, I instantly thought of Herb of VNSDepression.com whose wife suffers from the same malady.
I tried to listen attentively for the antidepressant that Ellie, who suffered from PPD after the birth of her first child, would be taking during her next pregnancy. It was never mentioned.
My jaw nearly dropped to the carpet as Andrew Solomon, carefully plucked brightly colored pills from his pillbox that he takes every morning for his unipolar depression: Remeron, Zoloft, Zyprexa, Wellbutrin, Namenda, Ranitidine, and two kinds of fish oil. He might have even mentioned Prozac. He takes Namenda, an Alzheimer's drug to combat the effects of an adverse interaction between Wellbutrin and one of the other drugs that I can't remember. Solomon says he's happy. I'm happy for him and I'm happy that his drug cocktail works for him but I couldn't help but sit there and wonder, "Isn't there a better way?"
While I thought the stories covered the gamut, in retrospect, I'm surprised they didn't interview a veteran or U.S. soldier to discuss PTSD. If the producers were able to fit in dysthymia, I'm sure they might have been able to throw in a story about a soldier who struggles with depression and suicidal thoughts stemming out of PTSD. Considering all the stories coming out of the VA, it's rather relevant. It would have been more interesting than the Jane Pauley segment. But I'll get to that in a minute.
As I listened to the narrator, I couldn't help but wonder what alternate perspectives could have popped up. For what it was, I fear none. This was a Depression 101 show — a program designed to either get people to fight against fear and stigma and get help or to open the eyes of loved ones to this debilitating disorder. I'm not sure how to slip in an opposing view on medication from a doctor without confusing or scaring people away. What would Healy or Breggin say that would encourage people to seek appropriate care?
Holistic or natural treatment was not mentioned. It's not mainstream and it's not recommended by most doctors as first-line therapy. I would have been surprised had something been said about it.
The depression portion of bipolar disorder was briefly discussed in Hart's story then Pauley added commentary about her personal experience in the remaining 22 minutes of the program.
Pauley appears at the end of the show promising a "candid conversation" on the topic. The three experts: Drs. Charney, Duckworth, and Primm sit and smile politely as Pauley rattles on occasionally about herself. Some people might find her exchange endearing and personal. After the first 3 minutes, I found it annoying. As a journalist, I wish she would have taken the impartial observer approach rather than the "intimate discussion" approach. In my opinion, she seemed to have dominated the "discussion."
It ended up being a Q&A with each doctor. Her questions were focused and direct. I expected a little bit of an exchange between doctors, talking not only about the pros of medication and treatment like ECT and VNS but also the cons. (Should I apologize for being optimistic?) Charney interjected into the conversation maybe once or twice but was only to offer an assenting opinion. Primm spoke least of everyone on the panel. I think she was placed on the show solely to represent diversity.
There were no "a recent study said…" or "critics say such-and-such, how do you address that?" It was a straightforward emphasis on encouraging people to get help or for those suffering to get treatment. Pauley's segment didn't discuss any negatives (not with the medical director of NAMI there!). The closest the entire 2 hours gets to any cons is with ECT shock treatment and giving medication to growing children. The childhood medication thing isn't dwelt on. The basic gist is: Doctors don't understand how medication works in children but are working on trying to understand it and improve its efficacy.
Forgive me for being negative. The point of the program was designed to give hope to those suffering. Instead, it just made me feel even worse. Thoughts raced through my head: "Well, if this doesn't work, then it's on to that. And if that medication doesn't work then I'll probably be prescribed this therapy, and if that doesn't work, then I'm treatment-resistant at which point, I'll have to do…"
I hope the program does what it's designed to do and that's to get those suffering with depression to seek appropriate care. The one upside is that talk therapy was stressed. I'm a huge proponent of talk therapy myself. Let me know what you thought of the show if you were able to catch it.
In the meantime, this depressed girl is going to cure herself for the night by going to bed.
P.S. Is it really fact that depression is a disease?
December 24, 2006 at 10:10 pm (Antidepressants, Antipsychotics, Children, Loose Screws Mental Health News, Pharma, Suicide)
Tags: atypical, big pharma, Furious Seasons, GlaxoSmithKline, GSK, Invega, J&J, Johnson & Johnson, NAMI, Newsday, paliperidone, paroxetine, Paxil, Paxil CR, ping, Risperdal, Risperidone, Schizophrenia
NAMI is touting a new atypical… in the press release for Johnson & Johnson. Michael J. Fitzpatrick, executive director of NAMI lent a statement in J&J’s pr about Risperdal’s sibling, Invega. *sniff, sniff* Something smells fishy about this. Makes me wonder if these non-profits bag money from Big Pharma under the table… (source: Furious Seasons)
An electronic ping sent from Sprint to the police helped save the life of a college student who tried to commit suicide, according to Newsday. A ping also helped save the lives of James Kim’s wife and children after getting stuck in the mountains of Oregon. This ping thing is interesting. Especially since Newsday needs to put quotes around it because ping isn’t a real vocabulary word… yet.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
ADDENDUM: Oooh, ooh, ooh – just found out: Any family that has a minor who may have consumed Paxil or Paxil CR is eligible for a stake in a $63.8 million settlement with GlaxoSmithKline. More info about the settlement at paxilpediatricsettlement.com. Apparently, it seems as though GSK covered up information about the medications’ safety and efficacy. This is one I’d like to learn more about considering I’ve been on Paxil. Not as a minor but the settlement raises questions regarding GSK withholding information about Paxil’s safety and efficacy regarding adults.
Is it now fashionable to sue pharma companies for not making all of their information public?