U.S. Mental Health Policy Comes of Age

From the very first days of the U.S. health insurance system, the stigma of mental illness was formally codified into benefit design. Both public and private insurers provided inferior coverage for mental health care, if they even provided it at all. For decades, this was not remotely controversial. Labor unions were quite happy to trade “mental for dental” when negotiating fringe benefits for their workers, politicians suffered no electoral consequences for passing insurance legislation that discriminated against people with mental illness, and families who needed better health benefits for mentally ill loved ones were typically too ashamed to speak up. But thanks to brave advocates, inspiring bipartisan political leadership and cultural changes in perceptions of mental illness, dramatically improved mental health insurance coverage has at last arrived on the American scene.

Three laws have transformed the landscape of mental health insurance policy in the span of only a half-decade.

In 2008, a sweeping reform of Medicare passed which righted an injustice that had plagued the program since its inception. Medicare originally covered outpatient mental health and addiction treatment at a far lower rate (50%) than other outpatient care (80%). The backbreaking 50% outpatient co-pay effectively prevented most enrollees from accessing outpatient mental health care. The 2008 law phased this payment disparity out over time, eliminating it entirely as of January 1, 2014. Medicare now covers 80% of outpatient mental health care costs, which is good news for its 50 million current enrollees and the 150,000 new enrollees it gains each month.

Also in 2008, Congress passed and President G.W. Bush signed the Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. Named for its two leading Senatorial advocates (interestingly, the proudly liberal Paul Wellstone and the staunchly conservative Pete Domenici) the law requires companies with more than 50 employees as well as Medicaid managed care plans to make their offered mental health benefits comparable to those for other illnesses. These parity protections apply to over 100 million Americans.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act aka “Obamacare” went even further. It extended parity protections to individuals who receive insurance from small businesses and to those who purchase it in the individual market (e.g., on a state or federal health insurance exchange). It also defines mental health as an essential health care benefit that all plans it regulates must offer. Last but not least, the law of course also provides insurance to the uninsured population, which has a high rate of psychiatric disorders. Over 60 million Americans will receive improved mental health insurance coverage because of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

Although enormous work remains necessary to implement these laws, they together bring the U.S. closer than it has ever been to providing mental health treatment on demand. Coping with mental illness is never going to be easy, but at least mental health policy is now directed at making the process easier rather than harder.

This post originally appeared at the PLOS Blog Mind the Brain

Brain injury and moral worthlessness

My high-school biology textbook told me that the paramecium is the lowest form of animal life. Obviously, the author of that textbook had never encountered Karl Rove. He knows how to play the media like a violin, half-saying things he can later deny, getting a story each time that plants a nasty suspicion about an opponent, and reporters don’t know how to resist.

You’d think that someone who has to register as a sex offender following a conviction for molesting a little girl might be more careful.

No, of course I never said that Karl Rove had been convicted of molesting a little girl. You should learn to read more carefully.

Update Ann Outhouse tries for a new career low, using her patented “What’s-all-the-fuss-about?” faux innocence. It’s an interesting question whether she’s even more contemptible than Rove.

The greening of Iran

News item:

At a gathering with delegates at the Iranian Embassy in Berlin, representatives of the Middle Eastern nation revealed bold ambitions to add 5 GW of wind and solar power by 2018 …. The bulk of the total 5 GW comprises wind power projects, but 500 MW has already been earmarked for solar PV, with some projects already permitted licenses to commence construction or enter into power purchase agreements (PPAs).

Wind turbine factory in Iran Photo credit

Wind turbine factory in Iran
Photo credit

On the face of it, a pretty routine announcement. Iran’s plans are not particularly ambitious by regional standards, and would meet less than a tenth of the expected increase in electricity demand over the period. Turkey is aiming at 40 GW of renewables (one-third of electricity supply) by 2023. Egypt’s target is 20% renewables by 2020. Saudi Arabia plans to have 24GW of solar by 2032.

These targets are not all equally credible. But since Iran announced actual projects and contracts, we can probably put its programme closer to Turkey than to Egypt for realism.

What makes this noteworthy is the politics. Continue Reading…

The Myth of Drug-Filled Prisons

I was on a panel recently where I enumerated some reasons why I think it is a mistake to mass incarcerate drug-addicted criminal offenders. The chair of the panel cracked “You forgot to mention that they use even more drugs behind bars than they do on the street!”. The other guests and members of the audience nodded knowingly.

Insert Al Gore-esque sigh here.

I have written before about how many people who have never been in a prison are confident that they know what prisons are like. This is one example: the “common knowledge” that drugs are just as available inside the stony lonesome as they are outside. I deflate this myth with research evidence in my piece today at Washington Post’s Wonkblog.

News Chew

The DEA held its eighth national prescription drug takeback event at the end of April and pulled in hundreds of tons of pills.

Non-medical use of prescription drugs is undeniably the fastest growing drug problem in the U.S. (the only substance with a higher rate of new users is cannabis) and since over half of users are getting the drugs from friends or family, it makes sense that the DEA has focused on diverting that supply at the medicine cabinet before it changes hands.

It seems like the DEA would like us to think that the risk of holding on to old medication is that someone could take them without our consent. A 2012 Carnevale Associates policy brief on the efficacy of drug takebacks reports that users get drugs from friends or family without permission (steal them) only about 5% of the time—keeping our meds away from sneaky cohabitants is hardly the problem. If the DEA’s drug take back program is effective in curbing non-medical prescription drug use, it won’t be because fewer opioids will be available for theft, it will be effective because we will have fewer opioids on hand give to our friends. We are who cannot be trusted with our own drugs.

Continue Reading…

The New Report on Mass Incarceration Makes an Unimpeachable Case for….Public Policy Blogging

In the preface to the new National Research Council report on mass incarceration is an acknowledgement of legendary criminologist James Q. Wilson, who conceived the project in 2008. Who better, it must have seemed at the time, to call for change in U.S. incarceration policy than a group of star academics working under the auspices of a convener of enormous stature? The incarceration rate had been rising every year for over three decades, annual prison admissions were near an all-time high, politicians were trying to out-tough each other on sentencing, no mandatory minimum sentence had been repealed since Nixon’s presidency, marijuana possession enforcement was tough, and the addiction treatment which could have been an alternative to prison for many offenders was grossly underfunded.

What can we learn from the fact that every single one of these things changed before the NRC report Wilson envisioned finally appeared last week?

In asking this question, I am not trying to diminish the brilliant people who labored to produce such an impressive synthesis of research. A number of them I regard as friends, all of them I respect, indeed so much so that I am one of the few people who is actually in the midst of reading their 464-page volume end to end. But that does not ameliorate my doubt that mammoth reports painstakingly assembled by huge committees are the most effective way for socially-responsible academics to shape public policy formation and debate. Continue Reading…

Happy Mother’s Day!

Billy Collins’ poem is a funny and sweet gift to mothers everywhere

And awesome, classy athlete Kevin Durant knows who is the real MVP

Bring back the Yippies

Weekend competition. How would Abbie Hoffman have given testimony to the new House Benghazi! committee?

300px-Flag_of_Yippies.svg Yes, there is an issue of bad taste since people died in the Benghazi consulate. The issue applies first to the creation of the committee as an electoral stunt.

Yippie flag courtesy of Wikipedia

Weekend Film Recommendation: House of Cards

18522215_richardson_377985bAfter a gold-plated bollocking by Margaret Thatcher, political advisor Michael Dobbs had more than a few drinks and scribbled down two letters: F.U.. That experience planted the seeds of what became his acclaimed political novel about vile British politician Francis Urquhart, which was later adapted by BBC television and is this week’s film recommendation: 1990′s House of Cards.

Andrew Davies’ scintillating script makes many changes to Dobb’s novel, but the structure of the plot is similar: Thatcher is gone and the resulting leadership fight is won by the well-meaning but ineffectual Henry Collingridge (David Lyon). Our guide to these events is Chief Whip Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson, who frequently speaks directly to the audience with seductive effect). Promised a cabinet post, F.U. is enraged when he is not promoted. He decides to destroy Collingridge by any means necessary, and “puts a bit of stick about” with a vengeance. His cunning plan pays off, spurring a new leadership fight, but this time around, with the encouragement of his ambitious and equally ruthless wife, he realizes that the top job is within his own grasp.

BBC hit it for six on this series, with inspired casting, acting, direction and production. Despite a 3 1/2 hour running time it’s easy to gobble up House of Cards in one or two sittings.

Dobbs worked for Thatcher, and therefore clearly didn’t have a problem with strong women. That is reflected in multiple complex, powerful female characters in the story. Susannah Harker is very good as Mattie Storin, an ambitious journalist on a Telegraph-like newspaper (which is owned by a Murdoch parody well-played by Kenny Ireland). Storin is manipulated by Urquhart and manipulates him back, struggling with one hell of a father complex along the way. Diane Fletcher is even better as Urquhart’s wife Elizabeth, played less so as a Lady MacBeth than as an equal partner in crime. I also liked Alphonsia Emmanuel (known to American audiences mainly for playing a nymphomaniac in a prior film recommendation, Peter’s Friends) as the clever-in-work-but-foolish-in-love assistant to the cocaine-addicted ex-footballer who runs the political party’s publicity operation (Miles Anderson, in a believable and sympathetic performance).

But the heart of this movie is Ian Richardson, whose work I have praised many times (see for example here, here, here and here). You could almost call House of Cards “Dracula goes to Westminster” for he gives a vampiric performance mixing surface charm and urbanity with a bloodthirsty, remorseless drive for dominance. Many people who watched this mini-series on BBC wondered how they ended up rooting at times for such an awful person; that is the genius of Richardson at work.

Here is one of many scenes in this brilliant, compulsively watchable roman à clef that captures the heartlessness of politics and its petty humiliations at the same time. The Chief Whip and his creepy assistant Stamper (Colin Jeavons, always an effective actor) have discovered that a certain back bencher is straying both in his voting plans and in his private life, and decide to solve both problems at one go.

p.s. Interested in a different sort of film? Check out this list of prior RBC recommendations.

Close the coalhouse door

The US campus movement for university divestment from fossil fuels has claimed its first big scalp. From Climate Progress:

Stanford University announced Tuesday it would divest from the coal industry, making it the first major university to do so. ..
“Stanford has a responsibility as a global citizen to promote sustainability for our planet, and we work intensively to do so through our research, our educational programs and our campus operations,” said Stanford President John Hennessy. “Moving away from coal in the investment context is a small, but constructive, step while work continues, at Stanford and elsewhere, to develop broadly viable sustainable energy solutions for the future.”

Stanford is keeping oil and gas shares in its $18.7bn endowment, but the policy is under review. Deborah DeCotis, the chairwoman of the Stanford board’s special committee on investment responsibility:

Don’t interpret this as a pass on other things.

I reckon the oil and gas portfolio is now untenable and will be sold in the next 18 months.

The divestment movement launched by 350.org is well-aimed. The endowments of American universities (over $400 billion in all) come from gifts they received as noble and altruistic causes. They can’t with a straight face apply the investment standards of Gordon Gekko. Once they allow an ethical wedge, it is bound to split away climate-destroying investments.

Second, these endowments are very large, and divestment will make waves. More than lowering share prices by the selloff, it will lead other investors, including amoral ones, to treat fossil fuel companies as less reputable, riskier and more vulnerable to adverse policy shocks. Their cost of capital will rise, reducing their capex and eventually production. “Stranded asset” has entered the Wall Street vocabulary.

The Seven Sisters are already in decline as oil producers. They are being forced by nervous stockholders to cut back on their increasingly expensive investments. None of them bid for Brazil’s last deep offshore leases, which went to the Chinese.

Harvard next.

* * * * * *
Alec Glasgow singing the eponymous song of my headline. It’s about the past human costs of coal, but can also stand for the future ones.