Tuesday, September 05, 2017
My Friends in High Places on the HHS's Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee
Move over, there's a new federal mental health committee in town. The department of Health and Human Services has formed the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee. My friends Pete Earley and Elyn Saks are both on the committee, and Pete has been blogging about the committee for a couple of weeks now-- the good, the bad, the ranting, and the missed opportunities after the first day of meetings last week. You'll be pleased to know that I didn't miss the opportunity to put in one of my concerns: I emailed Pete and Elyn to tell them how pre-authorization for medications is having a negative impact on the practice of medicine, and psychiatry in particular. Nothing new, but it's a topic that every medical organization has been fighting for years and nothing ever gets done, so I thought I would ask that it be brought up again. My thanks to Pete for including my concern on one of his blog posts.
When people talk about serious mental illness (SMI), I always have the same reaction: What is it? From what I can tell, one gets the designation with a diagnosis: schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or severe depression. Apparently it's not about illness chronicity or impairment, or spending time in institutions, or whether an illness responds to treatment. I'm always at a loss: as I've said before, our diagnoses are not precise, prognoses can be wrong, and people can be very sick at one point in time and very well at others. So while 1 in 8 adults are on SSRI's, 1 in 5 suffer from an episode of mental illness during the course of a year, and half of us will have an episode of mental illness during the course of a lifetime, these people with serious mental illness are quite few: 4.5 million Americans. I wish these people wore signs so we knew who they were and could divide the resources appropriately.
That said, the conversation about SMI often flows to the topic of involuntary treatment. It goes along the lines of ...if only. If only we could force sick people to get treatment then they wouldn't end up in jails and prisons. If only we could force sick people to get treatment then they wouldn't be homeless, on the streets, committing violent crimes and mass murders. If only. If only it were that simple. What gets missed is that addiction co-occurs with mental illness, and poverty confounds it all --so if only people were not raised in poverty, exposed to violence, and addicted to drugs and alcohol, then so many fewer people would be living on our streets, in our jails, and committing acts of violence. If only.
There is another problem with this kind of thinking. It divides us into those who are FOR and those who are AGAINST forced care. It leaves out the key factors of Access to Treatment and Engagement. Not everyone who needs care can get it: we have a psychiatrist shortage in this country. And not everyone who says No to treatment will continue to say No, but if they do say No and the response is to have guards brutally tackle them and inject them with sedating medications, then there is a good chance that future efforts at engagement may be met with resistance. Sometimes, it helps to meet people on their own level, to get to know them, to let them become comfortable and trusting, and then some of these people who initially said No may become agreeable to getting care.
The argument goes that those who refuse treatment have an inability to see they are sick, that this lack of insight it a symptom of the illness, and therefore it is a medical issue, not a civil rights issue. I hesitate to use the term "anosognosia" because the word has become so politically loaded; those who use it believe that involuntary treatment is often the only option. I would contend that people who don't believe they are ill can often be engaged in treatment. I'm not one for standing in someone's face and asking, "Do you know you have a mental illness?" Instead, people will often take medications because they feel better on them, because they are good patients who do what the doctor says, because a family member asks them to, or because while they may not think they are mentally ill, they do notice that life goes better if they swallow a pill everyday.
Yes, I do know that there are some very sick people who are offered quality care and who just can't be engaged, and who would benefit from care that is not voluntary. But it's not a clear pro-force/anti-force picture, and it's always better to work with a patient if you can.
So thank you to my friends in high places who are giving their time, energy, and efforts to helping our federal government figure out how to help people with serious mental disorders. I look forward to reading more about your endeavors!
Posted by Dinah on Tuesday, September 05, 2017