This interview was posted on the Psychiatric Times web site today. It contains bit and pieces from blog posts here over the past 8 years. It is a rare opportunity for people to see what is wrong with American psychiatry and that is - it is not run by American psychiatrists. It is run by managed care companies, pharmaceutical benefit managers, and government bureaucrats who all have the common goals of restricting access to psychiatric services. And by psychiatric services, I am including substance use disorders and their treatment as well as the considerable amount of treatment of organic brain disorders that is provided by psychiatrists.
I expect that some people will say: "What is special about psychiatry? Aren't these same rationing techniques applied to all of medicine?" To a certain extent that is true. Primary care physicians, medical specialists, and surgical specialists have to contend with similar rationing techniques. It is however a question of scale. I have talked with physicians who were around when the psychiatric rationing started and psychiatric services were chosen as the target of the express purpose of elevating the stock price of a company. I was there when the Hay Report was released in the 1990s showing disproportionate rationing of psychiatric services relative to any other specialty. I saw the original figures released in 2002 showing that Cardiology services were reimbursed at a 20% premium, while psychiatric inpatient services were discounted by 60%. That led to some immediate closures of psychiatric hospitals and a continued trend of lower and lower bed availability. There are endless examples of this disproportionate rationing on this blog and as I point out in the interview it is one of many reasons I write this blog.
One of the key questions that any observer of psychiatry should ask themselves is: "Why is George Dawson the only guy writing about this issue?" Apart from the fact that this rationing has impacted my care of patients nearly every day of my professional life there are some obvious considerations.
1. The people who self identify as the critics of psychiatry - clearly know very little about the practice environment or its constraints. I have seen two articles now that use the same example that psychiatrists believe that every mental disorder should be treated with a medication and that this is biological psychiatry. The model of care they are referring to is not how psychiatrists are trained (see the above figure). It represents a blended government and managed care model of how patients are scheduled, seen, and billed. That bureaucratic model at one point employed an M code meaning a 5-10 minute visit with a psychiatrist.
2. The critics similarly ignore highly innovative and individualized therapies that were invented by psychiatrists such as the Assertive Community Treatment model that I mentioned in this interview as well as the myriad ways that psychiatrists have figured out how to talk in therapeutic ways with patients in rationed time slots and how those relationships result in recovery.
3. The critics systematically ignore the lack of infrastructure to support psychiatric treatment. There are very few inpatient units in each state that allow for the treatment of people with severe mental illnesses. By contrast, there appears to be no shortage of state-of-the-art facilities to treat heart disease, cancer, and gastrointestinal problems. There is no shortage of state-of-the-art surgical facilities to treat any condition where surgery may be indicated. In the mean time, mental illness and substance use disorders are the number 1 debilitating disease condition in the United States. Rather than invest in the necessary infrastructure to provide an equivalent level of care, people with severe mental illnesses are incarcerated instead. Rather than reversing that trend, several Sheriffs in the country propose designated parts of county jails as psychiatric hospitals and treating people in jail who should not have been incarcerated in the first place.
I could keep going with additional points like I have in the past, but at this point would encourage any interested reader to take a look at the interview at this link. Then take a look at the summary at the top of this post and consider my point. Psychiatrists are well trained to do a lot for people with mental illnesses and substance use disorders. We want our patients and their families to have access to the same amount of resources that other medical or surgical specialists have. Don't accept any criticism of psychiatry that does not address these basic points.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
Reference:
Awais Aftab, MD. The Bureaucratic Takeover of American Psychiatry: George Dawson, MD, DFAPAPsychiatric Times. November 13, 2020 Link
Supplementary 1:
Dr. Allen's comment made me realize a critical deficiency in my graphic and also the interview and that is impact on the academic environment. One of the most exciting aspects of medical school and residency was learning to understand the medical literature and apply it to patient care. I met hundreds of physicians and colleagues with their own unique approaches. In training environments in the 1980s and early 1990s the expectation was that you were researching and reading about your patient's problems and diagnoses and were prepared to intelligently discuss it. As an attending you had to keep on top of the literature to be a competent teacher and also as a marker of professional competence. Teaching rounds, grand rounds and other teaching based meetings were the most exciting aspects of going to work each day. I modified my managed care timeline to illustrate the impact on the academic side of the work environment.
