Is SAMHSA a managed care company?

As I read through their flagship document:  Leading Change 2.0: Advancing the Behavioral Health of the Nation 2015-2018 that was what came to my mind especially when I read statements like this:

"Over the past year, SAMHSA leadership with staff to establish a set of internal business strategies that will ensure the effective and efficient management of the Strategic Initiatives. The resulting Internal Operating Strategies serve as the mechanism through which SAMHSA will optimize deployment of staff and other resources to support the Strategic Initiatives. These Internal Operating Strategies (IOS)—Business Operations, Data, Communications, Health Financing, Policy, Resource Investment and Staff Development—articulate SAMHSA’s effort to achieve excellence in operations and leverage internal strengths by increasing productivity, efficiency, accountability, communications, and synergy." 

Being employed at one time in a large managed care organization, I am used to seeing business speak like this.  I learned to cringe when I read it because any Strategic Initiative based on business speak rather than science or clinical expertise typically ends up being a nightmare.  That's just my experience, but any American who survived the last financial debacle has to be sensitized to words like "productivity, efficiency, accountability, communications, and synergy."   I have a previous post on the Orwellian nature of the word accountability in case  you missed it.  But you can substitute any of a number of words in this paragraph - like excellence.  We used to have a term in medicine called quality that actually meant something.  Excellence as used in the business community is a whole new ballgame.  The number of centers of excellence and top hospitals and clinics based on business measures can be astounding.  You can probably drive out in your community and see one of these banners wrapped around some facility right now. 

SAMHSA is supposed to be the federal government's lead agency for the treatment of mental illness and substance use disorders.  There has been some debate, but I think the political strategy of SAMHSA is very clear and that is to continue the rationing and managed care tactics that have been in place for the past 30 years and make them official government policy.  Lately they have been using tactics that I have seen from these companies over the past 10 years.  Here is what I am seeing so far.

Consumer slogans and concepts are identified that are easy (and free) to support.  Micky Nardo, MD posted their pamphlet on their working definition of Recovery .  This is their "primary goal" for the next year and it was supposedly built on among other things: "consultation with many stakeholders" .  The pamphlet goes on to the definition of recovery with no apparent rules for their all inclusive definition.  For example, does everyone in recovery need to have all of the elements of the definition?  Are there exceptions?  If someone is lacking an element would we say their are not in recovery?  Is this just a subjective and totally personal assessment?  Or is this a goal? If so, why is the lead agency for mental health and substance use promoting it and making it a primary goal?  Note the goal here is "behavioral health".  Behavioral health is the managed care version of mental health.    SAMHSA is therefore supporting the managed care view of the world.  That world view has rationed and otherwise decimated resources available for the treatment of mental illnesses.  Just a few observations on the 10 page pamphlet.

Social media is used for marketing purposes.  Well it is the 21st century and this is how everybody including government agencies gets noticed these days.  I got this cheery notification from SAMHSA in an e-mail this morning:

  Nothing like using a standard Internet marketing strategy to discuss a process that has no proven efficacy in treating mental illness.  This is the kind of marketing approach to medicine and mental illnesses that I have seen and expect to see from managed care companies.  It usually happens right before they decide they will financially penalize you for NOT practicing Wellness activities.  In a plan where I was enrolled each employee had to pick a Wellness activity and a counselor would call at intervals and decide if you were in fact compliant with your activity.  Noncompliance meant higher premiums.  In the business world wellness can cost you.

Since SAMHSA is really not a managed care company, why are they using their marketing and political strategies?  The most likely explanation is the unparalleled success of managed care against physicians and other traditional health care organizations.  SAMHSA seems to have surprisingly little expertise in treating significant mental illnesses.  That puts them on par with most managed care companies in the US who if they are honest will flat out tell you that their job is to extract as much money as possible from subscribers who believe that they signed up for some kind of mental health or substance use benefit and send it somewhere else.  That theme is repeated time and time again in corporate America and nobody would fault an American corporation with than attitude.  With a government agency, especially the lead agency there should be a much higher standard than a corporate one.  What is the evidence for my statement?

Let me focus on a section that I lecture on at least a dozen times a year and have more than a passing familiarity with and that is the excessive use of opioids and the current opioid epidemic.  It is a subsection of one of the strategic initiatives for 2015-2018:

The administrators here take the incredibly naive (or cynical) view that what they say will somehow be done.  It is eerily similar to the original statements without proof or scientific backing that were made at the start of the opioid epidemic.  In those administrative guidelines the most compelling feature was that physicians were not doing a good job treating pain and therefore they had to be educated about it.  These guidelines were written by nobody less than the Joint Commission.  Now SAMHSA in their infinite wisdom  is deciding that physicians need more education about this.  Administrators like to play the education card.  They don't seem to understand that this problem, specifically the problem of overprescribing has little to do with education and more about how physicians are being manipulated to provide services that somebody who does not have a clear picture of medical care wants.  Let's remember the SAMHSA track record here.  From the FDA web site, the FDA claims that in 2009 it launched an initiative with SAMHSA "to help ensure the safe use of the opioid methadone."  From that press release (my emphasis added in the underlined section):

"The methadone safety campaign materials provide simple instructions on how to use the medication correctly to either manage pain or treat drug addiction," said H. Westley Clark, M.D., J.D., M.P.H., C.A.S., F.A.S.A.M., Director of SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. "Our goal for this training is to support the safe use of methadone by all patients and prescribing healthcare professionals."

The operative term is "all patients and prescribing health care professionals."  In other words SAMHSA was seeing this as an educational deficit.  The detailed program is still available online.  If only the health care professionals could be educated enough by an administrative body that knows more than they do, the epidemic of methadone related deaths from overdose would stop.  The problem occurred when the CDC looked at the epidemiology of single and multiple drug deaths involving opioids and found that the methadone related deaths occurred at much higher rates in both categories than other opioids.  Their recommendation stands in contrast to the SAMHSA educational initiative. From that document - my emphasis added in the underlined section:

• Between 1999 and 2009, the rate of fatal overdoses involving methadone increased more than fivefold as its prescribed use for treatment of pain increased.
• Methadone is involved in approximately one in three opioid-related overdose deaths. Its pharmacology makes it more difficult to use safely for pain than other opioid pain relievers.
• Methadone is being prescribed inappropriately for acute injuries and on a long-term basis for common causes of chronic pain (e.g., back pain), for which opioid pain relievers are of unproven benefit.
• Insurance formularies should not list methadone as a preferred drug for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain. Methadone should be reserved for use in selected circumstances (e.g., for cancer pain or palliative care), by prescribers with substantial experience in its use.

The CDC does not believe that the problem with the disproportionate deaths from methadone is an educational deficit.  They believe it is a problem inherent in the drug, clinical setting, and experience of the physician.  It should definitely not be prescribed by all physicians, even if those physicians are educated.   SAMHSA apparently still believes in the educational deficit.  As I have posted the associated regulatory problems includes the FDA and their continued approval of high dose opioid products against the advice of their scientific committees, and their plan to educate physicians to safely prescribe these products.  I am using this example to illustrate that SAMHSA's approach, educate the masses and they will accept wellness and their health will improve by practicing wellness is a pipe dream of extraordinary dimensions.  It does not work on a focal issue, why would it work on a population wide basis?

Paul Summergrad's take on the politicalization of wellness/recovery versus psychiatry/medicine was a very accurate statement.  Americans in general are intolerant of probability statements.  Blog discussions are a particularly intolerant environment.  I do not agree with his support of integrated or so-called collaborative care.  It is no surprise that SAMHSA supports and has a leadership role in this managed care strategy.  He stops short of pointing out that SAMHSA has nothing to offer patients with severe mental illnesses.  

Besides being basically a pro-business strategy, the SAMHSA initiative also takes the grandiose approach that there are no psychiatrists out there (I will let other mental health clinicians speak for themselves) who want to see the people they treat recover and lead meaningful and satisfying lives.  They make it  seem like their simple business objectives will be better at this goal than personalized treatment provided by a psychiatrist.   That may provide a rallying point for the detractors of psychiatry, especially when the APA chooses not to counter the insult, but it is not a concept based in reality.  There is nothing more important in the practice of medicine than how a patient does under a physician's care. 

I think it is time for SAMHSA to put up or shut up.  Even though they have probably stacked some of the outcome statistics in their favor ahead of time and some of the outcome measures are as vague as managed care company measures of excellence (both proven business strategies), let's see what happens.  And let's see if the Big Pharma critics are as skeptical of their outcome statistics as they are of a typical pharmaceutical industry funded clinical trial. 

So far they have a solid check minus on the opioid initiative.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Will The Real Neuropsychiatrists Please Stand Up?

Recent dilemma - one of several people around the state who consult with me on tough cases called looking for a neuropsychiatrist.  He had called earlier and I advised him what he might discuss with the patient's primary care physicians that might be relevant.  I suggested a test that turned up positive and in and of itself could account for the subacute cognitive and behavioral changes being observed by many people who know the patient well.  I got a call back today requesting referral to a neuropsychiatrist and responded that I don't really know of any.  I consider myself to be a neuropsychiatrist but do not know of other psychiatrists who practice in the same way.   There is one neuropsychiatrist who practices at the state hospital and is restricted to seeing those inpatients.  There is one who sees primarily developmentally disabled persons with significant psychiatric comorbidity.  There are several who practice strictly geriatric psychiatry.  One of the purposes of this post is to see if there are any neuropsychiatrists in Minnesota.  My current employment situation precludes me from seeing any neuropsychiatry referrals.

Neuropsychiatry is a frequently used term that is the subject of books and papers.  Several prominent psychiatrists were identified as neuropsychiatrists.  I went back to an anniversary celebration for the University of Wisconsin Department of Psychiatry and learned that early on it was a department of neuropsychiatry.  It turns out that the Department of Neuropsychiatry was established in 1925 and in 1956 it was divided into separate departments of Psychiatry and Neurology.  One of the key questions is whether neuropsychiatry is an historical term or whether it has applications today.  The literature of the field would suggest that there is applicability with several texts using the term in their titles, but many don't even mention the word psychiatry.  As an example, a partial stack from my library:

A Google Search shows hits for Neuropsychiatry and basically flat during a time when Neuroscience has taken off.  Both of them are dwarfed by Psychoanalysis, but much of the psychoanalytical writing has nothing to do with psychiatry or medicine.

What does it mean to practice neuropsychiatry?  Neuropsychiatrists practice in a number of settings.  For years I ran a Geriatric Psychiatry and Memory Disorder Clinic.  Inpatient psychiatry in both acute care and long term hospitals can also be practice settings for neuropsychiatrists.  The critical factor in any setting is whether there are systems in place that allow for the comprehensive assessment and treatment of patients.   By comprehensive assessment,  I mean a physician who is interested and capable of finding out what is wrong with a person's brain.  In today's managed care world a patient could present with seizures, acute mental status changes, delirium, and acute psychiatric symptoms and find that they are treated for an acute problem and discharged in a few days - often without seeing a neurologist or a psychiatrist.  There may be no good explanations for what happened.  The discharge plan may be that the patient is supposed to follow up in an outpatient setting to get those answers.  That certainly is possible, but a significant number of people fall through the cracks.  There are also a significant number of people who never get an answer and a significant number who should never had been discharged in the first place.

Who are the people who might benefit from neuropsychiatric assessment?  Anyone with a complex behavioral disorder that has resulted from a neurological illness or injury.  That can include people with a previous severe psychiatric disability who have acquired the neurological illness.  It can also include people with congenital neurological illnesses or injuries.  One of the key questions early on in some of these processes is whether they are potentially reversible and what can be done in the interim.  Some of the best examples I can think of involve neuropsychiatrists who have remained available to these patients over time to provide ongoing consultation and treatment recommendations.  In some cases they have assumed care in order to prevent the patient from receiving unnecessary care form other treatment providers.  Aggression is a problem of interest in many people with neurological illness because it often leads to destabilization of housing options and results in a person being placed in very suboptimal housing.  Treatment can often reverse that trend or result in a trained and informed staff that can design non-medical interventions to reduce aggression.

What is a reasonable definition?  According to the American Neuropsychiatric Association neuropsychiatry is "the integrated study of psychiatric and neurologic disorders".   Their definition goes on to point out that specific training is not necessary, that there is a significant overlap with behavioral neurology and that neuropsychiatry can be practiced if one seeks "understanding of the neurological bases of psychiatric disorders, the psychiatric manifestations of neurological disorders, and/or the evaluation and care of persons with neurologically based behavioral disturbances."  That is both a reasonable definition and a central problem.  In clinical psychiatry for example, if a patient with bipolar disorder has a significant stroke what happens to their overall plan of care from a psychiatric perspective? In many if not most cases, the treatment for bipolar disorder is disrupted leading to a prolonged period of disability and destabilization.  Neuropsychiatrists and behavioral neurologists practice at the margins of clinical practice.  That is not predicated on the importance of the area, but the business aspects of medicine today.  If psychiatry and neurology departments are established around a specific encounter and code, frequent outliers are not easily tolerated.  Patients with either neuropsychiatric problems or problems in behavioral neurology can quickly become outliers due to the need to order and review larger volumes of tests, collect greater amounts of collateral information, and analyze separate problems.  In any managed clinic, the average visit is typically focused on one problem.  Neuropsychiatric patients often have associated communication, movement, cognitive and gross neurological problems.  Some of these problems may need to be addressed on an acute or semi-acute basis.

Where are they in the state?  Neuropsychiatrists are probably located in areas outside of typical clinics.  By typical clinics I mean those that are outside of the HMO and managed care sphere.   They can be identified as clinics that are managed by physicians rather than MBAs.  The three largest that come to mind are the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, and the Marshfield Clinic.  Apart from those clinics there are many free standing neurology and fewer free standing neuropsychiatric clinics.  Speciality designations in geriatric psychiatry or neurology, dementias, developmental disorders, and other conditions that overlap psychiatry and neurology are good signs.  There will also be psychiatrists in institutional and correctional settings with a lot of experience in treating difficult to treat neuropsychiatric problems.  There may be a way to commoditize this knowledge and get it out to a broader audience.  Since starting this blog I have pointed out the innovative pan in place thought the University of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Alzheimer's Institute (WAI) network of clinics.  They have impressive coverage throughout the state and provide a model for how at least one aspect of neuropsychiatry can be made widely available through collaboration with an academic program.      

What should the profession be doing about it?  The American Psychiatric Association (APA) and just about every other medical professional organization has been captive to "cost effective" rhetoric.  IN psychiatry  that comes down to access to 20 minutes of "medication management" versus comprehensive assessment of a physician who knows the neurology and medicine and how it affects the brain.  The new hype about collaborative care takes the psychiatrist out of the loop entirely.  The WAI protocol specifies the time and resource commitment necessary to run a clinic that does neuropsychiatric assessments.  I have first hand experience with the cost effective argument because my clinic was shut down for that reason.  We adhered to the WAI protocol.

What the APA and other medical professional organizations seems to not get is that if you teach people competencies in training, it is basically a futile exercise unless they can translate that into a practice setting.  The WAI protocol provides evidence of the time and resource commitment necessary to support neuropsychiatrists.   It is time to take a stand and point out that a psychiatric assessment, especially if it has a neuropsychiatric  component takes more than a 5 minute checklist and treatment based on a score.  A closely related concept is that total time spent does not necessarily equate with the correct or a useful diagnosis.  I have assessed and treated people who have had 4 hours of neuropsychological testing and that did not result in a correct diagnosis.

If those changes occurred, I might be able to advise people who ask that there are more than two neuropsychiatrists in the state.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

1: Benjamin S, Travis MJ, Cooper JJ, Dickey CC, Reardon CL. Neuropsychiatry and neuroscience education of psychiatry trainees: attitudes and barriers. Acad Psychiatry. 2014 Apr;38(2):135-40. doi: 10.1007/s40596-014-0051-9. Epub 2014 Mar 19. PubMed PMID: 24643397.

Stigltiz Commentary and The Implications for the Politics of Psychiatry

Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz came out with a recent commentary of the economic recovery and why things are not a rosy as they seem.  He points out that many of the structural problems with the economy including predatory lending and credit, abuses by the credit card industry and abuses by the credit reporting industry are still in place.  In addition there are inadequate capital reserves and no real limits on the kind of low risk speculation by certain parts of the financial services industry - the basic problem that started everything 5 years ago.  I have been posting in political forums for the past 15 years that the American economy at times seems to be based on a fantasy rather than the way a real economy should work.

We have taken an alleged retirement system (401K, 403B) and turned it into a windfall for the financial services industry.  Instead of an actual retirement system, we find that the average American is not able to put away nearly enough to retire and in the process ends up paying significant fees to financial services companies.  In return for these fees they receive the standard boilerplate about no guarantee against losses and frequently have very poor investment choices since they are determined by their employer.  At the same time, low risk retirement vehicles like money market funds are paying negligible amount of interest.  Rather than being a reliable retirement system this is essentially another tax on the American people to fund the financial services industry.  Retirees are left with the option of accumulating cash only or putting their retirement funds at significant risk all of the time in order to accumulate enough capital to retire.

We are in the process of starting a huge health care mandate know as the PPACA or more popularly as Obamacare.  It will create a large influx of capital into the healthcare system based on coverage mandates.  The American health care system is currently the most expensive system of health care in the world.  The standard model used by the federal and state government has been to use managed care companies as intermediaries to contain costs.  There should be no doubt that model is a near total failure.  Recent data for example suggest that a couple nearing retirement should have an additional quarter of a million dollars saved for health care expenses during retirement beyond the cost of Medicare.  The health care system in this country can be viewed as a second tax on the American people.

How do Americans end up with two additional taxes being levied on them in addition to the usual income, Medicare, Social Security, sales, and property taxes?  How does it happen when we have a supposed radical element of one of the major parties working on fiscal responsibility?  I think it comes down to one American institution and that is the US Senate.  The Senate is full of aging, wealthy politicians who have worked for years to develop a power base in Washington and keep it.  They are completely out of touch with what the American people need and pass laws that will largely benefit the businesses that they are heavily lobbied by.  In some cases, they wrote the laws to invent the industry.  The disconnect of this group from the public was evident during the recent stand off to shut down the government and nearly default on our creditors.  In other words they risked the world economy to make a point instead of fairly representing what the average American wanted at that time.

How does all of this apply to the politics of psychiatry?  I can illustrate by looking at a few seminal events that apply to all front line psychiatrists and how their professional organization - the American Psychiatric Association (APA) responded:

1.  Managed care and the disproportionate rationing of psychiatric services:  Apart from Harold Eist, MD and a recent lawsuit against a managed care company there has generally been silence on this issue.  Some literature was generated regarding how to work with meager rationed resources but nothing about how to fight back as managed care became a government institution.  The APA's support of collaborative care means we have come full circle and the APA is explicitly backing a managed care model that involves treating patients without actually seeing them.

2.  The response to accusations of conflicts of interest related to the pharmaceutical industry:  There was a well known initiative against some prominent psychiatrists, the motivations for that initiative are still unknown.  It is well known that many academics in many university departments have contracting arrangements with industries in order to supplement their salaries.  It is well know that some professions charged with determining industry standards insist on industry representation in meetings where those standards are written.  It is known that many professional organizations got more support from the pharmaceutical industry than the APA.  The response to the attack from a Senator was to basically acknowledge that his attack was accurate and proceed with an appeasement approach that allowed critics of psychiatry to use this as additional rhetoric against the profession and any psychiatrist with a contracting arrangement.

3.  The Maintenance of Certification (MOC) issue:  This issue was forced by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) based on limited research.  The APA immediately aligned themselves with the ABMS despite considerable complaints and a petition by the membership.

The three examples given about are some of the main political issues for psychiatry, particularly the average working psychiatrist and the APA.  To say that the interests of most psychiatrists are not represented by the APA is a massive understatement.   Like the U.S. Senate, the APA seems almost totally disconnected from the people it is there to represent.  I have heard many reasons over the years about how the actual structure of the APA is the problem.  But nobody seems to want to remedy that problem.  I attended a seminar at one point where an APA official explained the MOC issue and how it would actually create a financial burden for the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABNP), despite the obvious fee generation to take a commercially monitored and administered test.  If it really is that burdensome -  why do it in the first place?  The initial rationale was that the public demanded it.  It seems that there is now solicitation for public support.  Who would not support an initiative to improve the competency of doctors - even if there is absolutely no evidence that a multiple choice exam with a high pass rate does that?

I think it is highly likely that the political structure of the APA is very similar to the political structure of the Senate.  While there is no lobbying there are ideas and affiliations based on those ideas.  Any political structure that is so far removed from what its constituents want it driven by cluelessness, conflicts of interest, or a divine mandate.  It is only logical to conclude that like the Senate, the issue is conflicts of interest.  In the 21st century, patriotism is no longer the last refuge of a scoundrel - accountability is.  The APA would do well not to follow the Senate on that course.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Joseph Stiglitz.  5 Years In Limbo.  Project Syndicate, October 27, 2013.

A Familiar Story - Another Shooting

The story is familiar and the media writes about it the same way.  A mass shooting and the shooter has anger control problems, social problems, and finally probable symptoms of psychosis.  The "ELF" considerations here were interesting.  ELF is extremely low frequency as specified in this Wiki primer that covers most of the relevant facts.  I grew up about 30 miles away from the original ELF site in Clam Lake, Wisconsin and there were plenty of conspiracy theories and environmental concerns right in the area at the time that surrounded this project including the effect of ELF on the residents.

The usual interviews with politicians about gun access and psychiatrists about whether or not violence can be predicted.  It is a very familiar sequence of events.  The White House is less vocal this time because I think everyone realizes that the government has no interest in solving the problem.  You can click on mass homicide and mass shooting and see my previous posts on the matter for a more complete elaboration.  There seems to be nothing new in the response to this mass shooting other than the question of security at American military installations.

My response is also the same and it is basically the following:

1.  Mass homicide is a public health problem that can be addressed with public health interventions.

2.  Violence and homicide prevention can occur even in the absence of firearm legislation.

3.  Violence and homicide prevention does not require prediction of future events but the capacity to recognize markers of violence and psychiatric disorders and respond to them appropriately.

4.  There need to be accessible speciality programs for the safe assessment and treatment of people with severe mental illnesses and aggressive behavior.  That includes the assessment of threats since they are the precursors to the actual violence.

5.  A standardized legal approach to the problem of the potentially dangerous person and whether or not mental illness is a factor is necessary.

6.  A comprehensive policy that addresses the issues of progressively inadequate mental health funding is necessary to reverse these trends will provide the funding.

All of the above elements require a standardized approach to the care of the aggressive person and there are several clear reasons why that does not happen.  The so-called mental health systems is fragmented and it has been for decades.  It is basically designed to ration rather than provide care.  That is a massive conflict of interest.  Until that is acknowledged by the politicians and advocates nothing will be accomplished.  It is very hard for politicians to acknowledge when they are backing a national agency that essentially endorses rationing and managed care.  You can also compare my writing and suggested solutions to this problem to a recent "call to action" by American Psychiatric Association President Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD.

How many "calls to action" does the APA need?

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Observations from Amazon on DSM-5 sales

As anyone reading the newspapers has heard, the DSM-5 went on sale earlier this year amidst a cacophony of DSM bashing and bashing of the profession in general.  The most vehement critics also exhorted the public to not buy this evil book that would lead to the squandering of billions of healthcare dollars and leave millions hopelessly misdiagnosed and taking expensive unnecessary drugs.  In some cases that I have recorded on this blog the criticism was even more extreme.  Now that the DSM-5 has been out for several months I asked myself what the outcome of all of that bad press has been?  Like thousands of my colleagues, I have picked up a copy and glanced at it from time to time.  It certainly has not lead to any revolution in psychiatric practice or changed anyone's clinical interviewing or diagnostic process.  In fact I have talked with many psychiatrists in the past several months and none of my conversations has touched on the DSM-5.  What are the facts of the release after all of the pre-release spin?

First of all, the predicted apocalypse has not happened.  I should say the apocalypse happened but it was 30 years ago when the managed care industry essentially converted mental illness into "behavioral health" and began to restrict access to psychiatric care, inpatient and medical care, psychotherapy, and certain medications to people with severe mental illnesses.  The predicted apocalypse in response to the DSM-5 did not happen because as I have been saying all along, the DSM has never been the problem.  Mental health care can be denied as easily on the basis of a DSM-5 diagnosis as a DSM-IV diagnosis.  A diagnostic manual is partially relevant only for people who are trained to use it.

That said, is there any way to estimate whether people are buying it or not?  I heard a sales estimate e-mailed by a colleague that suggested brisk sales, but did not have permission to quote him so I started to look for public sources of data on DSM-5 sales.  I went to the usual New York Times Bestseller List and could not find it listed.  I could not really find any academic books listed there so I wonder if there is not another list.  I thought that Amazon would be the next logical stopping point and I did find some data there.  I was looking for data in number of units actually sold and I could only find that as proprietary data that somebody would sell to me.  I did find it as # 8 in Best Sellers of 2013 so far.  This link shows it has been in the Top 100 books for 167 days but that it has fallen to the number 4 position.  Interestingly the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association had been on the same list 8 times as long.  I also found it in a sequential list of DSM-5 products and related variants including 2 books about the DSM-5 by Allen Frances, MD.  It made me think about obvious conflict of interest considerations in the psychiatry criticism industry that are never mentioned when they get free press.  If somebody can suggest that I have been getting a free lunch from a pharmaceutical company when I haven't seen a drug rep in over 25 years, they should at least point out that somebody can currently make money - possibly even a good amount of money by criticizing psychiatry regardless of whether or not that criticism is remotely accurate.

That is all I have so far.  If you have reliable public data on the actual sales of this manual and would like me to post it here, please send me the information.   I have requested the actual sales figures in an APA forum but I doubt that anyone will provide them to me.  The APA is a very conservative organization and I doubt that they would want you to see those sales figures posted here, even if if this is probably the only public forum that takes a very skeptical look at all of the critics of the DSM-5 and psychiatry in general.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

DSM-5.0

I finally saw a copy of the DSM-5 today.  It was sitting on a table at a course on the DSM put on by the Minnesota Psychiatric Society.  The DSM-5 portion of the course was about 3 1/4 hours of lectures (98 information dense PowerPoint slides) by Jon Grant, MD.    Dr. Grant explained that he was in a unique position to provide the information because he and Donald Black, MD had been asked by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to write the DSM-5 Guidebook.  In this unique position they were privy to all of the notes, minutes, e-mails and documents of the DSM Work Groups.  In the intro it was noted that Dr. Grant had written over 150 papers and 5 books.  He was probably one of the best lecturers I have ever seen with a knack to keep the audience engaged in some very dry material.  There were times that he seemed to be riffing like a stand up comedian.  The content was equally good.  I thought I would summarize a few of the high points that I think are relevant to this blog.

The first section was an overview of the history.  The original DSM was published in 1952, but before that there were several efforts to classify mental disorders dating back to ancient times.  Some of the systems persisted for hundreds of years.  He credited Jean-Etienne Esquirol (1772-1840) as one of the innovators of modern classification.  The philosophical approaches to the subsequent DSMs were reviewed and they generally correlate with the theories of the day.

The development of DSM-5 began in 1999.  The original goals included the definition of mental illness, dimensional criteria, addressing mental illness across the lifespan, and to possibly address how mental disorders were affected by various contexts such as sex and culture.  Darrel Regier, MD was recruited from the NIMH to coordinate the development of DSM-5 in the year 2000.  Between 2003 and 2008 there were 13 international conferences where the researchers wrote about specific diagnostic issues and developed a research agenda.  This produced over 100 scientific papers that were compiled for use as reference volumes.  As far as I can tell the people on the ground on this issue was the DSM Task Force and the Work Groups.  The Task Force addressed conceptual issues like spectrum disorders, the interface with general medicine, functional impairment, measurement and assessment, gender and culture and developmental issues.  The Work Groups met weekly or in some cases twice a week by conference call and twice a year in person.  The work groups had several goals including revising the diagnostic criteria according to a  review of the research, expert consensus and "targeted research analyses".  No cost estimate of this multi-year infrastructure was given.

Like any volume of this nature the originators had some guiding principles including a focus on utility to clinicians, maintaining historical continuity with previous editions, and the changes needed to be guided by the research evidence. The most interesting political aspect of this process was the elimination of people closely involved in the development of DSM-IV in order to encourage "out of the box" thinking.  This was a conscious decision and I have not seen it disclosed by some of the professional critics out there.

Final approval of the DSM occurred after feedback was received through the DSM-5 web site.  There were thousands of comments from individuals, clinicians and advocacy organizations.  Field trial data was analyzed and discussed.  A scientific committee reviewed the actual data behind the diagnostic revisions and confirmed it.  Hundreds of expert reviewers considered the risks in revising the diagnoses.  The APA Assembly voted to approve in November 2012.

Some of the criticisms of the DSM-5 were discussed in about 4 slides.  Dr. Grant was aware of all of the major criticisms and I have reviewed most of them here on this blog such as the issue of diagnostic proliferation.  Dr. Grant's lecture contained this graphic for comparison:

Rather than repeat what I have already said, it should be apparent to anyone who knows about this process that it was open, transparent and involved a massive effort of the part of the psychiatrists and psychologists involved.  It should also be apparent that the DSM process was clinically focused and that safeguards were in place to consider the risk of diagnostic changes.  I have not seen any of that discussed in the press and don't expect it to be.  For all of you DSM-5 conspiracy theorists, more than enough people involved without a sworn oath to assure that no secret would ever be kept.

What about the final product?  The DSM-5 ends up including 19 major diagnostic classes.  Some of the highlights include moving some disorders around.  Obsessive-compulsive disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder were moved out of the Anxiety Disorders section to their own separate categories.  Bipolar and Depressive Disorders each have their own diagnostic class instead of both being placed in a Mood Disorders class.  Adjustment Disorders have been moved into the Trauma and Stress Related Disorders class and there are two new subtypes.  As previously noted here, all of the Schizophrenia subtypes have been eliminated.  The Multiaxial System of diagnosis has been scrapped.  One of the changes impacting the practice of addiction psychiatry is the elimination of the categories of Substance Abuse and Substance Dependence and collapsing them into a Substance Use Disorder.  Panic attacks can now be used as a symptom of another disorder without having to specify that the person has panic disorder and that is a pattern I have observed over the course of my career.  The controversial Personality Disorders section is unchanged but there is a hybrid diagnostic system that includes dimensional symptoms, the details of which (I think) are in the Appendix.  Mapped onto all of the diagnostic classification and criteria changes are a number of subtypes and specifiers as well as a number of ways to specify diagnostic certainty.  As with previous editions since DSM-III there is a mental disorder definition that indicates that behavior or criteria are not enough.  There must be functional impairment or distress.  The definition specifies that socially deviant behavior or conflicts between the individual and society do not constitute a mental illness unless that was the actual source of the conflict.

The overall impression at the end of these lectures was that this was a massive 18 year effort by the APA and hundreds and possibly thousands of volunteer psychiatrists and psychologists.  None of those volunteers has a financial stake in the final product.  Many of the criticisms were addressed in the process and many of the critics have a financial stake in the DSM-5 criticism industry.  The criticisms of the DSM-5 seem trivial compared with the process and built in safeguards.  The DSM-5 was also designed to be updated online instead of waiting for another massive effort to start to make modifications, hence this is not DSM-5 but DSM-5.0.

If Dr. Grant is lecturing in your area and you are a psychiatrist or a psychiatrist in training, these lectures are well worth attending.  If you have a chance to look at his Guidebook, I think that it will be a very interesting read.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Supplementary 1:  The DSM-5 Guidebook by Donald W. Black, MD and Jon E. Grant, MD came out in March 2014.  Table 1.  (p.  xxiii) lists the total diagnoses is DSM-5 as 157 excluding "other specified and unspecified disorders". 

A Valentine from the President

I caught the link to this fact sheet from President Obama a couple of days ago on the APA's Facebook feed.  In the post immediately before it, the current President of the APA is seen rubbing elbows with Bradley Cooper.  My first thought is that these initiatives are always a mile wide and an inch deep.  They provide a lot of cover for politicians who have enacted some of the worst possible mental health policy, but also for professional organizations who have really not done much to change mental health policy in this country.  These are basically non-events as in we applaud the President and he applauds us.  In the meantime, patients and psychiatrists are never given enough resources for the job and the necessary social resources keep drying up.

Since the 1970s, the political climate in the US has focused on being as pro-business as possible.  Congress practically invented the credit reporting industry and in turn that industry made it easy for businesses to change your fees based on a credit report number.  What you have to pay for home and auto insurance can be based solely on your credit rating and independent of whether or not you have ever missed a payment.  It turns out that competitiveness is little more than political hyperbole.  But the politicians in Washington did not stop there.  The financial services industry is currently a multi-trillion dollar enterprise with little regulation or oversight that has essentially placed all Americans at financial risk.  There is no better proof than the fact that there are currently no safe investments and that some advisors are suggesting that prospective retirees need as least $1 million dollars in savings and $240,000 for medical expenses in addition to whatever is available in Medicare and Social Security.   Congress's retirement invention the 401K has surprisingly few accounts with that kind of money.

How can a government that puts all of its citizens at financial risk all of the time manage the health care of those same citizens?  It is a loaded question and the answer is it cannot.  The idea that an administration has an initiative to "increase understanding and awareness of mental illness"  at this point in time is mind numbing in many ways.  We  have had over two decades of National Depression Screening Day, we have Mental Illness Awareness Week, and we have had the Decade of the Brain.  There seem to be endless awareness initiatives.  I don't think the problem with mental health care is the lack of awareness or screening initiatives.  From what you can see posted on this blog so far, it might be interesting and productive to have some media awareness events that look at the issue of media bias against psychiatry and the provision of psychiatric services.  I don't think it is possible to destigmatize mental illness, when the providers of mental health care are constantly stigmatized.

What about the issue of screening at either a national level or at the level of a health plan?  A fairly recent analysis commented that there have been no clinical trials to show that patients who have been screened have better outcomes than those who are not.  Further, that weak treatment effects, false positive screenings, current rates of treatment and poor quality of treatment may contribute to the lack of a positive effect of the screening.  The authors also refer to a study that suggests that more consistent treatment to reduce symptoms and reduce relapse would lead to a greater treatment effect than screening.  A subsequent guideline by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care agreed and recommended no depression screening for adults at average or increased risk in primary care setting, based on the lack of evidence that screening is effective.  Why in the President's fact sheet are the AMA and APA recommending screening?  Why are there people advocating for "measurement based care" and the widespread use of rating scales and screening instruments?  Why does the State of Minnesota demand that anyone treating depression in the state send them PHQ-9 scores of all of the patient they treat?

The answer to that is the same reason we have political events that add no resources to the problem and make it seem like something is happening.  Screening everywhere makes it seem like somebody is concerned about assessing and treating your depression.   It makes it seem like we are destigmatizing mental illness and making diagnosis and treatment widely available.  The Canadian papers noted above suggest otherwise.  Nothing is happening, except people are being put on antidepressants at a faster rate than at any time in history.  In a primary care clinic, medications are the first line treatment and psychotherapies - even psychotherapies that are potentially much more cost effective than medications are rarely offered.

My professional organization here - the APA has chosen to advocate for an "integrated care" model that is managed care friendly.  A model like this can use checklist screening and essentially have consulting psychiatrists suggesting medication changes on patients who do not respond to the first medication.  I obviously do not agree with that position.  Only a grassroots change here will make a difference.

If you are concerned that you might have significant depression, you can't depend on your health plan or the government when they are both advocating for a screening procedure that has no demonstrated positive effect.  If somebody hands you a screening form for depression or anxiety or sleep or any other mental health symptom, tell them that you want  to be interviewed and diagnosed by an expert.  Tell them that you want the same approach used if you come to a clinic with a heart problem.  Nobody is going to hand you a screening form that you can complete in 2 minutes.  You are going to see a doctor.  Tell them that you want that expert to discuss the differential diagnoses, the likely diagnoses and the medical and non-medical approaches to treatment including counseling or psychotherapy.

Do not accept a cosmetic or public relations approach to your mental health and spread that word.

George Dawson, MD. DFAPA

The Model of Psychiatric Care for the Future

The Psychiatric News came out with an article yesterday that is critically important for all psychiatrists to read.  It reveals the American Psychiatric Association (APA) thinking about the future role of psychiatrists and the model of care that they are promoting.  The diagram in this article titled "Integrated Care Relies on Team Approach, Consultant Role for Psychiatrists" is a critical read because it shows what is basically a managed care paradigm for marginalizing psychiatrists.  There is is a "BHP/Care Manager" between the psychiatrist and the patient.  This is a popular managed care approach to having "care/case managers" making discharge decisions for psychiatrists providing inpatient care.  For anyone with professional expertise and direct responsibility to patients it is unacceptable.  

The main reason that psychiatry has been marginalized is that all of the knowledge in the membership about what we do and the value we add is ignored in the face of special interest research.  The research that forms the "evidence base" for our marginalization in the Psych News article is a good example.  There is a long history of similar studies have been published to sell the managed care industry.  I can come up with a pharmacoepidemiology study from 20 years ago that show that putting everyone in a primary care clinic on fluoxetine saves money on as many parameters as this article claims for integrated care.  Instead of confronting that and saying: "You know psychiatrists do a lot more than that" - the APA seems to accept it and think  that integrated care is some big deal.   From the diagram it is clear to me that integrated care is just the latest head of the managed care hydra.

The other aspect of the article is the omnipresent "cost savings" rhetoric.  Professional organizations have bought this hook line and sinker and seem obliged to include that nonsense in policy about the future of their speciality.  The difference of course is that in the last two decades, Cardiology has built out a trillion dollar infrastructure being "cost effective" and we are now treating people in jails who should be in psychiatric hospitals, we have few functional detox facilities and have minimal resources to help disabled patients in the community.

What we need here is a reality based characterization of what psychiatrists do and on average it is a lot more than sitting in a primary care clinic and advising primary care docs about what to do if they can't get their depression ratings (PHQ-9 scores) headed in the right direction.  Its is just a matter of time before everybody who thinks they can make a psychiatric diagnosis by reading the DSM will think they can treat depression by reading an algorithm and psychiatry slips off the next managed care diagram.  Nobody will realize they just eliminated not just a psychiatrist but the person in the clinic who knew the most Neurology as well.

If we are going to promote any image of ourselves and an image that current trainees can be excited about, it should be a larger than life psychiatric multispeciality clinic and a group of psychiatrists who can cover the gamut of care.  That is consistent with the psychiatrist of the future that Thomas Insel, MD has talked about, and it takes a page from some of our specialist colleagues like Radiologists and Anesthesiologists.

They realized a long time ago that you are not going to get a fair deal bartering away your expertise for the sake of doing business.

George Dawson, MD. DFAPA

Mark Moran.  Report on Health Care Reform Focuses on Psychiatrists' Role.  Psychiatric News May 3, 2013.

No applause from me

The APA came out with a press release today in response to President Obama's initiative to reduce gun violence and prevent future mass shootings.  Although the release "applauds" these proposals they seem to be short on the mental health side. From the APA release:

“ We are heartened that the Administration plans to finalize rules governing mental health parity under the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, the Affordable Care Act, and Medicaid. We strongly urge the Administration to close loopholes involving so-called ‘non-quantitative treatment limits’ and to ensure that health plans deliver a full scope of mental health services in order to comply with the law. Such action will best ensure that Americans get the full range of mental health services we believe they are intended to receive under federal law.”

So I guess the APA is applauding the initiative but encouraging the closing of loopholes. Call me a skeptic but 20 years of rationing mental health services and cutting them to the bone through managed care intermediaries and aggregating those managed care intermediaries into accountable care organizations does not bode well for the "full range of mental health services". The APA seems to have the naïve position that you can support managed care tactics and provide increased access to quality mental health services.

The next point in the APA release supports school screening and enhanced mental health services in schools for both violence prevention and to identify children at risk or in need of current mental health services. Those are certainly laudable goals but there is minimal evidence that screening is effective. There is also the problem of a lack of infrastructure.  Twenty years of rationing and restricting access to psychiatric services has resulted in long waiting lists or completely unavailable services. If you talk with a child psychiatrist, they will tell you that the current system is set up to offer medications in place of a more comprehensive approach to psychiatric treatment. At the social services level, residential treatment for children with severe problems is practically nonexistent. As a recent example, I was informed last week of a school social worker who could not get a child assessed for admission to an adolescent psychiatric unit and when that was not possible could not get an appointment to see a psychiatrist in a major metropolitan area. Screening for problems does not make any sense unless there is an infrastructure available to address those problems when they are found.

The final point in the APA release addresses the issue of physicians being able to discuss firearms at home with their patients. This has been a standard intervention for physicians ever since I have been practicing and it is always part of an assessment for suicide and homicide risk. There was a state initiative last year making it illegal for physicians to discuss firearms in the home with their patients. Part of the rationale for that law was that it could result in firearm owners being identified and placed them at theoretical risk for their firearms to be confiscated by the state.  I can say from experience that my discussions with patients about firearm safety and the discussions of other physicians that I have been aware of have been highly productive and have probably saved countless lives. The best example I can think of is talking with a primary care physician who asked me to take a look at a closet full of firearms that he convinced patients to turn into him over the years before he turned them into the police. Those patients were all depressed and suicidal and at high risk for impulsive acts. He would not have been able to make that intervention with a gag law in place preventing those discussions.

What about the President's original release?  It had 84 instances of the word "mental" usually as "mental illness" or "mental health".  As noted above it has received some accolades from the APA and other members of the mental health community. It elicited a strong and poorly thought out response from the NRA  who produced a YouTube video accusing the President of being elitist and a “hypocrite” because his daughters had armed security but he expected that everyone else’s kids would be protected by gun free zones.  The White House responded quickly:

“Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,” said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary. “But to go so far as to make the safety of the president’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.”

The full text of the White House 22 page document is located at this link.  It is ambitious and covers a lot of ground in terms of the specific regulation of firearms, school safety, and increasing mental health services. The firearm regulation is most specific in that it closes background check loopholes, bans assault weapons, outlaws armor piercing bullets, and sets the maximum magazine size at 10 cartridges.  Part of this document is a "call to Congress" so it is not clear to me how much can be accomplished by the President's executive orders as opposed to Congressional action.  I am reminded of the NRA President last weekend stating that Congress would never pass a ban on assault weapons.  The Executive Order section of that part of the document lists the following activities:

1.  Addressing unnecessary legal barriers in health laws that prevent some states from making information available about those prohibited from having guns.

2.  Improving incentives for states to share information with the system.

3.  Ensuring federal agencies share relevant information with the system.

4.  Directing the Attorney General to work with other agencies to review our

laws to make sure they are effective at identifying the dangerous or untrustworthy individuals that should not have access to guns.

The school safety initiative seems more nebulous. There is funding for 1000 "school resource officers and school based mental health professionals" and the recommendation to train 5000 additional “social workers, counselors, and psychologists.”   Considering the fact that there are probably close to 100,000 schools, this seems like a drop in the bucket.   Ensuring that each school has an emergency plan for contingencies like mass shootings does not seem to be a novel idea.  Creating safer school climates and reducing bullying has already been initiated in many school districts. There seems to be a clear lack of public health measures in the school that would reduce the likelihood of violent events.

The mental health initiative is equally lacking. In addition to the deficiencies I pointed out initially in this document, there is discussion of providing mental health training to teachers and school staff. There is probably evidence that teachers and school staff may over identify mental illness rather than under identify it.  Is this really a problem and will this level of screening be effective?   The document describes the initiative here as "increasing access" to mental health services. Screening larger numbers of students and identifying them as having potential problems actually creates a bottleneck in the system rather than increasing access.  The suggested mental health interventions in this document fall short in terms of both primary and secondary prevention of mental illness and associated aggressive behavior. Depending on a managed care model that has an established track record of dismantling the mental health infrastructure and providing limited access to poor quality care will do nothing to accommodate increasing referrals other than assure that referred students will be rapidly medicated.

My final analysis of the President’s initiative today is that it may be a starting point.  He is certainly taking the issue seriously and deserves plenty of credit for that.  His support for reopening firearm safety research that was closed by the gun lobby is important. What will become of the firearm regulation is anyone's guess at this point. The school and mental health initiatives are largely symbolic and I would not expect them to have any impact. What is sorely needed is the American Psychiatric Association coming out with standards, quality guidelines, and medical education initiatives to improve the care of people with severe mental illnesses who also happen to be aggressive.  An important piece of those guidelines should include the public health measures that were previously mentioned on this blog and those measures should also play a much larger role in any Executive initiative.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

What is wrong with the APA's press release about the NRA statement?

The APA released a statement about the NRA's comments, probably Mr. LaPierre's statements on Meet the Press on Sunday and a separate NRA release. There are several problems with the APA statement:

1.   The American Psychiatric Association expressed disappointment today in the comments from Wayne LaPierre…

Why would the APA be "disappointed" in a predictable statement from a gun lobbyist?  I really found nothing surprising in Mr. LaPierre's presentation or the specific content. As I previously posted, the NRA predictably sees guns as the solution to gun violence.  The concept "more guns less crime" has been a driving force behind their nationwide campaign for concealed carry laws. The concealed weapons that are being carried are handguns and handguns are responsible for the largest percentage of gun homicides in the United States. It is probably a good idea to come up with a solution rather than reacting to a predictable statement.

2.  The person involved in the shooting is named…

Although it is controversial, there is some evidence that media coverage is one factor that can lead predispose individuals to copy a particular crime.  Although this press release is a minimal amount of information relative to other news coverage, it does represent an opportunity for modeling techniques for more appropriate media coverage and that might include anonymity of the perpetrator.  The NRA release makes the same mistake.

3.   In addition, he conflated mental illness with evil at several points in his talk and suggested that those who commit heinous gun crimes are “so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can ever possibly comprehend them,” a description that leads to the further stigmatization of people with mental illnesses.

It is always difficult to tell how rhetorical a person is being when they use terms like "evil" and "demons". If they are considered to be descriptive terms for a supernatural force that suggests an etiology of mental illness that was popular in the Dark Ages.  Evil on the other hand does have a more generic definition of "morally wrong or bad;  immoral; wicked”.  In this case it is important to know if the speaker is referring to a definition that is based on evil as a supernatural force or a more common description. This is another educational point. People who experience voices and irrational thoughts involving homicide can be understood. Psychiatrists can understand them and can help them to come up with a plan to avoid acting on those thoughts and impulses and getting rid of them.  The NRA release is basically an indication of a high degree of naïveté in thinking about the unique conscious state of individuals.  The APA release should correct that.

4.  The APA notes that people with mental illnesses are rarely violent and that they are far more likely to be the victims of crimes than the perpetrators

The actual numbers here are irrelevant.  Psychiatric epidemiology cannot be casually understood and the media generally has the population whipped up about the notion of psychiatric overdiagnosis of everything anyway. The idea that some mentally ill persons are dangerous is common sense and forms the basis of civil commitment and emergency detention laws in every state of the union. Advocates need to step away from the notion that recognizing this fact is "stigmatizing". The APA needs to recognize that their members in acute care settings are dealing with this problem every day and need support. It is an undeniable fact that some persons with mental illness are dangerous and it is an undeniable fact that most of the dangerous people do not have mental illness. Trying to parse that sentence usually results in inertia that prevents any progress toward solutions.

The APA seems to have missed a golden opportunity to suggest a plan to address the current problem. The problem will not be addressed by responding to predictable NRA rhetoric.  There several other nonstarters in terms of a productive dialogue on this issue including - the specifics of the Second Amendment and specific gun control regulations. The moderator of Meet The Press made an excellent point in the interview on Sunday when he asked about closing the loophole that 40% of gun purchases occur at gun shows where there are no background checks. It was clear that the NRA was not interested in closing that loophole. The main problem is that the APA has no standing in that argument. Second nonstarter is the whole issue of predictability. Any news outlet can find a psychiatrist somewhere who will comment that psychiatrists cannot predict anything. That usually ends the story. If your cardiologist cannot predict when you will have a heart attack, why would anyone think that a psychiatrist could predict a rare event happening in a much more complicated organ? Psychiatrists need to be focused on public health interventions to reduce the incidence of violence and aggression in the general population and where it is associated with psychiatric disorders. 

What about Mr. LaPierre’s criticism of the mental health system?

“They didn't want mentally ill in institutions. So they put them all back on the streets. And then nobody thought what happens when you put all these mentally ill people back on the streets, and what happens when they start taking their medicine.  We have a completely cracked mentally ill system that's got these monsters walking the streets. And we've got to deal with the underlying causes and connections if we're ever going to get to the truth in this country and stop this…”

Is it an accurate global description of what has happened to the mental health system in this country? He certainly is not using the language of a mental health professional or a person with any sensitivity toward people with mental illness.  There are numerous pages on this blog documenting how the mental health system has been decimated over the past 25 years and some of the factors responsible for that. Just yesterday I was advised of a school social worker who not only was unable to get a child hospitalized but could not get them an outpatient appointment to see a psychiatrist. The government and the managed care industry have spent 25 years denying people access to mental health care and psychiatrists. They have also spent 25 years denying people access to quality mental health care that psychiatrists are trained to provide. We have minimal infrastructure to help people with the most severe forms of illness and many hospital inpatient units do discharge people to the street even though they are unchanged since they were admitted.   Any serious dialogue about the mental health aspects of aggression and violence needs to address that problem.

That is where the APA’s voice should be the loudest.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Supplementary Material:  Quotes from and locations of transcripts – feel free to double check my work.

MTP transcript  12/23:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50283245/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/december-wayne-lapierre-chuck-schumer-lindsey-graham-jason-chaffetz-harold-ford-jr-andrea-mitchell-chuck-todd/#.UNlaJ-RqYrV

"I'm telling you what I think will make people safe. And what every mom and dad will make them feel better when they drop their kid off at school in January, is if we have a police officer in that school, a good guy, that if some horrible monster tries to do something, they'll be there to protect them." (p2)

"Look at the facts at Columbine. They've changed every police procedure since Columbine. I mean I don't understand why you can't, just for a minute, imagine that when that horrible monster tried to shoot his way into Sandy Hook School, that if a good guy with a gun had been there, he might have been able to stop..."—(p3)

"There are so many different ways he could have done it. And there's an endless amount of ways a monster.."—(p6)

"I don't think it will. I keep saying it, and you just won't accept it. It's not going to work. It hasn't worked. Dianne Feinstein had her ban, and Columbine occurred. It's not going to work. I'll tell you what would work. We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database of these lunatics." (p6)

"23 states, my (UNINTEL) however long ago was Virginia Tech? 23 states are still putting only a small number of records into the system. And a lot of states are putting none. So, when they go through the national instant check system, and they go to try to screen out one of those lunatics, the (p6)

"I talked to a police officer the other day. He said, "Wayne," he said, "let me tell you this. Every police officer walking the street knows s lunatic that's out there, some mentally disturbed person that ought to be in an institution, is out walking the street because they dealt with the institutional side. They didn't want mentally ill in institutions. So they put them all back on the streets. And then nobody thought what happens when you put all these mentally ill people back on the streets, and what happens when they start taking their medicine."We have a completely cracked mentally ill system that's got these monsters walking the streets. And we've got to deal with the underlying causes and connections if we're ever going to get to the truth in this country and stop this"—(p7)

NRA transcript 12/21: http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

"The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever

comprehend them." (p2)

"Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!" (p2)

"As parents, we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It is now time for us to assume responsibility for their safety at school.  The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?" (p5)

"Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no  place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?" (p5)

"Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you're willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care?" (p6)

Additional Reference:

Copycat Phenomenon in medical literature (references 5, 13, 20, 26 are most relevant).

Psychiatrists work for patients - not for pharmaceutical companies

That should be obvious by anybody reading this post but it clearly is not. I have already established that there is a disproportionate amount of criticism of psychiatry in the popular media compared with any other medical specialty. The most common assumption of most of those critics is that psychiatrists are easily influenced by pharmaceutical companies or thought leaders who are working for pharmaceutical companies. There are many reasons why that assumption is incorrect but today I want to deal with a more implicit assumption that is that there is a drug that is indicated and effective for every medical condition.

In the field of psychiatry this marketing strategy for pharmaceuticals became prominent with the biological psychiatry movement in the 1980s. Biological psychiatrists studied neuropsychopharmacology and it followed that they wanted to apply their pharmaceuticals to treat human conditions. At the popular level initiatives like National Depression Screening Day were heavily underwritten by pharmaceutical companies and the implicit connection was that you could be screened and be treated with a medication that would take care of your depression.

From the perspective of a pharmaceutical company this is marketing genius. You are essentially packaging a disease cure in a pill and suggesting that anyone with a diagnosis who takes it will be cured. The other aspects of marketing genius include the idea that you can be "screened" or minimally assessed and take the cure. We now have the diagnosis, treatment, and cure neatly packaged in a patent protected pill that the patient must take.  The role of the physician is completely minimized because the pharmaceutical company is essentially saying we have all the expertise that you need. The physician's role is further compromised by the pharmaceutical benefit manager saying that they know more about which pill to prescribe for particular condition than the physician does. That is an incredible amount of leverage in the health care system and like most political dimensions in healthcare it is completely inaccurate.

The pharmaceutical company perspective is also entirely alien to the way that psychiatrists are trained about how to evaluate and treat depression.  Physicians in general are taught a lot about human interaction as early as the first year in medical school and that training intensifies during psychiatric residency. The competencies required to assess and treat depression are well described in the APA guidelines that are available online.  A review of the table of contents of this document illustrates the general competencies required to treat depression. Reading through the text of the psychopharmacology section is a good indication of the complexity of treating depression with medications especially attending to side effects and complications of treatment and decisions on when to start, stop, and modify treatment. Those sections also show that psychopharmacology is not the simple act that is portrayed in the media. It actually takes a lot of technical skill and experience.  There really is no simple screening procedure leading to a medication that is uniformly curative and safe for a specific person.

The marketing aspects of these medications often create the illusion that self-diagnosis or diagnosis by nonexperts is sufficient and possible. Some people end up going to the website of a pharmaceutical company and taking a very crude screening evaluation and concluding that they have bipolar disorder. In the past year, I was contacted by an employer who was concerned about the fact that her employee had seen a nonpsychiatrist and within 20 minutes was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with a mood stabilizer, an antidepressant, and an antipsychotic medication. Her concern was that the employee in question could no longer function at work and there was no follow-up scheduled with the non-psychiatrist who had prescribed medication.  Managed care approaches screening patients in primary care settings increase the likelihood that these situations will occur.

The current anti-psychiatry industry prefers to have the public believe that psychiatrists and their professional organization are in active collusion with the pharmaceutical industry to prescribe the most expensive medications.  In the case of the approximately 30 antidepressants out there, most are generic and can be easily purchased out-of-pocket.  Only the myth that medications treat depression rather than psychiatrists keeps that line of rhetoric going.

George Dawson, MD

American Psychiatric Association.  Practice Guideline for the Treatment ofPatients With Major Depressive Disorder, Third Edition. 2010