Minnesota Continues A Flawed Approach To Serious Mental Illness And Aggression

I was shocked to see this article posted on a CBS web site.  I was shocked because I was completely unaware  that such a law existed.  I was shocked because Minnesota has fairly well documented problems in their state hospital system.  The state security hospital has had numerous problems with containing violence and aggression and there is no evidence that situation has been resolved.  There are very few specialized units in hospitals in the state that could potentially deal with the problems of violence and aggressive patients.  There has been no effort to modify the limited infrastructure in the state that has been the result of managed care-like rationing over the past 20 years.

The story is a lot more involved than suggested by the news article.  When I read it I contacted my state legislators and asked for clarification primarily by pointing me to where the "12 hour rule" existed in the State Statutes.  The Minnesota State Statutes are generally easy to search but I could not find it.  My state Senator got back to me and suggested that this is the rule in 253B.10 PROCEDURES UPON COMMITMENT.  Chapter 253 is the civil commitment statute and reading through this chapter suggests that transfers from jail to state mental hospitals have to be adjudicated as mentally ill by civil commitment.  Other pathways include being found not guilty by reason of mental illness, and for examination or determination of competency to proceed to trial.  Apart from the time constraint, that part of the statute does not materially alter patient flow to state hospitals.  The statute gets more interesting with the following subdivision:

Subd. 4. Private treatment.

Patients or other responsible persons are required to pay the necessary charges for patients committed or transferred to private treatment facilities. Private treatment facilities may not refuse to accept a committed person solely based on the person's court-ordered status. Insurers must provide treatment and services as ordered by the court under section 253B.045, subdivision 6, or as required under chapter 62M. 

Private facilities refuse to accept court ordered and committed patients all of the time just based on the fact that severe mental illness cannot be treated on an 8 day DRG payment that in reality is treated like a 4 or 5 day length of stay.

The article itself focuses on Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center.  That is a state operated psychiatric facility just north of the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.  If the intent of the legislature is to alleviate crowding in jails, the writing of a statute will not do that.  If I had to estimate, the majority of inmates in county jails with significant mental illness and addiction problems are not committed and do not meet the forensic criteria suggested in the statute.  The article also illustrates the ambivalence that the state government has toward state run hospitals.  Not too long ago, the legislature wanted to close this hospital down.  Many states have adopted the managed care rationing model to mental illness.  They reasoned that the best way to "save" money is to close down state-run hospitals and clinics.  I have no doubt that the state would close it down if possible but it occupies too central a role in the civil commitment process.  There is instead a detailed political process to manage the hospital (see first reference).  That document is current, 114 pages long with 41 references to "jail" and 37 references to "aggression".  It acknowledges the role of the state in treating aggressive patients with mental illnesses. 

I have no way of knowing if any of the patients mentioned in this article requested transfer to a private hospital.  I would consider any hospital in the state that is outside of the state hospital system to be a private hospital because at this point they are all parts of private health care systems.  Only a fraction of community hospitals in the state have psychiatric units and a smaller portion of those are equipped to treat violent or aggressive patients.

I have tried to elaborate on this blog the type of structure necessary to treat people who are violent and aggressive as a result of mental illness. Any time that correctional populations are considered, the problem is more complicated than mental illness or not.  There are many individuals with sociopathy or personalities that are anti-authoritarian and with a tendency to criminal behavior.  At the extreme end a variant of psychopathy has been described where criminal tendencies, combined with a lack of empathy leads to an individual who is potentially more dangerous.  Those individuals often have a history of repeated violence against others and a pattern of planned violence as way of life.  The associated issues are that patients who are predominately personality disordered criminals are better taken care of within the correctional system.  Patients with primary mental illness who are incarcerated for non-violent crimes or violent crimes that occur only an episode of discrete mental illness are probably better treated in a mental health setting - especially if that is a continuation of their ongoing care.  Those statements are generally true because the personality disordered mentally ill will demonstrate a pattern of threatening other patients and staff with physical violence.  They may also exploit more vulnerable patients and try to intimidate them into giving them money, information, or personal favors that they can use to their advantage.  Those behaviors are goal driven, reinforced by a life of crime, and not likely to change as a result of any psychiatric intervention.

The article states that 146 inmates have been transferred from Minnesota jails to state hospitals since July 2013.  There is an eye witness account of what has occurred and a description of some of the injuries to staff including facial fractures and a torn shoulder tendon as the direct result of assaults on staff.  There is also the following statement from the affected staff person:

 And though she agrees there are other factors behind the rise in workplace injuries — a hesitance to use force against potentially abusive patients chief among them — she said she and her co-workers believe the 48-hour rule is largely responsible.

The issue of the use of physical force in psychiatric hospitals was also the primary cause of the upheaval in the previously cited problems at the Minnesota Security Hospital. A change in administration occurred to address the issue of patient injuries due to physical interventions. According to news reports that and the associated administrative measures were associated with an increase in staff injuries. We are left with the impression that there have been no effective interventions to prevent patient and staff injuries in state hospitals and the problem of aggression in these facilities has been poorly addressed. Organized psychiatry in the state has been silent on these issues.

The bottom line in this article is that it illustrates that Minnesota politicians and bureaucrats have no understanding of what is required to treat people with mental illness and aggressive behavior.  Their misunderstanding is significant and it occurs at multiple levels.  First, they have no understanding that the current system of mental health care is based on a system of rationing designed to provide minimal to no mental health care.  That all starts with hospital systems that have been rationed to the point that there are often no detectable changes in the mental health of the people admitted compared with the people discharged.  Psychiatric care in rationed hospitals is designed to limit treatment to a brief period or reimbursement.  Second, they have a track record of using mental health jargon to come up with their own diagnostic category of "sexual psychopaths" that can be used for indefinite confinement of sex offenders.  This categorization allows for diversion away from a correctional system that is apparently unable to confine sex offenders to the satisfaction of politicians and their constituents.  Third, the state managed security hospital has had a number of problems in the past few years including the mass resignation of psychiatry staff and an increasing number of injuries to hospital staff.  Fourth, Deputy Human Services Commissioner Anne Barry is quoted in the article. She was also quoted in previous articles about the Security Hospital. She attributes the problem to unintended consequences. To me that suggests a complete misunderstanding of psychiatric services in the state of Minnesota. Any psychiatrist in this state, especially if they work on an inpatient unit would be able to predict this problem. Commissioner Barry has also been quoted in the articles about the Security Hospital (see below)  Fifth, the direct quote by State Sen. Kathy Sheran also illustrates a misunderstanding of the problem. The idea that state hospitals are holding large numbers of people who don't need to be there is longstanding political rhetoric. In the absence of environments that can assist severely disabled individuals the default environments are hospitals. It is glib to say that people should no longer be a hospital when they have no safe place to live outside the of the hospital. As a reviewer of hospital admissions and lengths of stay, the presence of acute symptoms is typically used to mark who should be in a hospital. Chronic severe psychiatric disorders have a number of problems with cognition and functional capacity that lead to an inability to care for self independently of acute symptoms.  The associated political problem is a lack of funding for community based programs to resolve the problem.  As I have previously posted in many cases these community based programs that are inadequately equipped to contain aggression place both patients and staff at higher risk.

I qualify this post with the same qualifications I have put on previous posts on the topic on state run facilities.  The only source of information I have on this issue has been the press and legislative reports on mental health services in correctional facilities and at Anoka.  Media reporting of psychiatric issues and services leaves a lot to be desired and typically vacillates between blaming psychiatrists for all of the problems and tragic cases that result from a lack of services.  The only corroboration in this article seems to be the reaction of state politicians to it.  We have seen similar reactions to these issues in the press.  Unless there are some outright denials about the scope of the problem, something needs to be done.  The last thing we need is a state run Task Force or Commission investigating  itself.  The second to last thing we need is consultants hired by the state to write another report.  At this point, I don't even think that a review of the incidents is possible.

Any hospital in the state should be required to prospectively flag records based on violence, aggression and whether they were transferred from the correctional system.  All of the staff in those cases should make a recording of their perceptions of the antecedents, intervention and why it failed or succeeded, and the outcome.  Those cases should be reviewed on a weekly or monthly basis by psychiatrists with experience in treating severe mental illnesses and aggression.  That panel of psychiatrists should be carefully screened for conflict of interests, especially any financial conflicts of interest with the State or any other entities responsible for providing the treatment in question.

It is time to solve this problem.  Having the problems analyzed time after time by the same people who do not understand the problem and who can not possibly come up with a solution has not worked in the past 5 years and it will not work in the future.  Instead we have a state official charged with solving the problem saying that fewer psychiatrists makes sense and psychiatric expertise at the systems level is not needed as the system continues to collapse.  The system of state hospital care for patients with serious mental illnesses and aggression may not be salvageable at this point without realistic backing by the state.

A key part of the miscalculation appears to be casting psychiatrists in the role of generic technicians.  Of course these technicians would not have any understanding of patient centered care or a therapeutic alliance despite the fact that they have been writing about it for over a 50 years.  This accomplishes two goals at least at the rhetorical level.  It makes it seem like untrained administrators can address systemic issues of violence and aggression.  It also makes it seem like the only thing psychiatrists can do it prescribe medications - often to "stable" people.  Far too many errors have been made and public statements on the issues are consistent with a lack of appreciation of the problem and a complete lack of appreciation that psychiatrists are the only people professionally trained to provide this level of care.  This is by no means only limited to state systems.  These attitudes are prevalent in any hospital or clinic that is under the direction of a managed care system.

Will the problem of aggression in people with severe mental illness be addressed by arbitrary rules on patient flow and a treatment program that is flowing down from politicians and bureaucrats?  Will the problem be solved by a consensus of stakeholders?  Will the problem be addressed by new age jargon and philosophy?

I don't think so.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Refs:

Minnesota Department of Human Services - Direct Care and Treatment. Plan for the Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center. Direct Care and Treatment and Chemical and Mental Health Services Administrations. February 18, 2014

From the above document:  "Jails also count on AMRTC to take people whose criminal behavior is determined to be the result of mental illness (a new law requires that AMRTC accept referrals from jails within 48 hours of referral). Because of insufficient capacity in the service system, there are lengthy waiting lists for AMRTC beds"  (p 61).

Supplementary 1:  A previous quote from Commissioner Barry: "DHS officials say the facility no longer needs as many psychiatrists because many of the patients are stable and only require psychiatric visits once every three months. In addition, Barry said, the importance of psychiatrists at the facility has lessened over the years. Psychiatrists are just one part of the treatment team, she said. Nurses and psychologists also play an important role in patient care, and in many cases, advanced practice nurses can handle many of the tasks that used to be the responsibility of the psychiatrists, she said."

Supplementary 2:  I was unable to find any statute that described this 48 hr transfer rule.  I have asked my state representatives for assistance since it may not be a statute.  Corrected as of 12/9/2014 with the statute posted above.

Supplementary 3:  If you currently work in a non-state funded psychiatric unit and have received these transfers from correctional facilities please post your experience in the comments section below.  Feel free to post them anonymously and in a way that does not indirectly identify you or the facility that you work at.

What Is Really Going On At The Minnesota Security Hospital?

The Minneapolis StarTribune posted a recent story about the Minnesota Security Hospital (MSH) on December 27, 2013 that was updated today.  The article raises concerns about patient treatment and safety at this facility both for patients and staff.  It should be read by everyone with an interest in how state mental hospitals function.  It is of particular interest to Minnesota residents who may have a relative being treated at this facility but also anyone concerned about the image of the state and how it treats residents with severe mental illnesses.  From a policy standpoint it should be an issue of great importance for both local psychiatric societies and the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I have no inside knowledge of what is occurring at the MSH beyond what I read in the papers.   The first concern is about the information base for the article and who is interpreting that information.  That is contained in the fourth paragraph of the article at the very end of that paragraph:

"Nearly two years after the hospital's professional psychiatric staff departed in a mass resignation, the state still has not hired a full complement of psychiatrists, documents show.  Basic medical record-keeping has been neglected, employees have been placed in danger and patients have been discharged with inadequate safeguards, according to internal memos, federal records, and agency files reviewed by the Star Tribune."

The problem here is that there is nobody at the Star Tribune who is an expert in the treatment of patients with severe mental illness and aggression.  The second problem is that there is a significant conflict of interest anytime a journalist has access to clinical material with a potential sensational interpretation.  From my experience journalists will make that interpretation out of ignorance or for the purpose of enhancing the dramatic impact of the story.  In this article the names of two patients are disclosed.  Journalists are not confidentiality bound to not disclose the names of patients and there may be some public documents with the names of these patients.  My experience with journalists has been that they want to talk to actual patients with real names, and really do not understand the problems with that.  There are always many potential weaknesses when considering a journalistic source.

There is a precedent for the review of confidential hospital records by expert unbiased reviewers and that was the Medicare Peer Review Organizations (PRO) system.  In that process, physicians who were experts in the field in question were rigorously screened for conflicts of interest.  As an example, they could not have any affiliation however peripheral with the hospital or clinic being reviewed.  The compensation for reviewing the records was trivial and you could not make a living at it.  Reviewers were expected to be practicing medicine full time and not be an administrator.  As a reviewer, I reviewed tens of thousands of pages of hospital records - many from state hospitals for both quality problems and utilization problems.  A newspaper reporter looking at a patchwork of records, memos, and files from multiple sources is hardly an adequate standard to draw any conclusions.  A reporter can make it seem like the hospital is a "bad" place for restraining people or in this case failing to restrain a person.

A potentially rich source of information is the hospital's former medical director - Dr. Jennifer Service.  She has one quote in the article about how the MSH is "broken", but it provides no details.  My speculation is that there is nobody who had a better front row seat to what happened than Dr. Service and possibly the previous medical director.  In the treatment of severe mental illness and aggression the medical director or clinical director has a critical role in making sure that there are no administrative factors that adversely affect the treatment team or their ability to provide care and a safe environment.  A common mistake is that administration believes it can effect change and they do not pay close enough attention to the impact on the clinicians providing care.  When treating aggressive people any environmental change like that can result in increasing aggression and chaos in the treatment environment.  The Legislative Auditor's Report suggests several areas where the therapeutic neutrality of the environment and staff cohesion were problematic.  During 23 years of conducting team meetings, my experience was that psychiatrists are an integral part of the team and should be the team member most experienced in team dynamics, countertransference, and approaches to violence prevention.  There is no indication that occurred on teams at the MSH and in fact, participation is described as marginal.

There are other potential conflicts of interest here that potentially bias the story.  Minnesota Department of Human Services apparently administers the place.  In this case Commissioner Anne Barry talks about the goal of increasing the likelihood of discharge by making community living environments more available.  Since DHS also administers all of those environments in the state it should be a relatively easy task.  Why is it not being done?  Are there people who realistically cannot be discharged without recreating a hospital environment for them in the community?  In the cases where that has happened have there been more adverse outcomes?  Are those environments more humane than the hospital environment where the patient was initially?  The Deputy Commissioner talks about accountability, but DHS seems like one of the most opaque state agencies out there.  Lately they seem to have moved into the area of micromanagement of the treatment providers especially around the issue of aggressive behavior.  Are the administrators of DHS responsible for the failed programs at the MSH?  Commissioner Barry talks about a more "therapeutic environment".  Is she qualified to determine what that is?  And finally the Legislative Auditor's Report alludes to a report by previous consultants.  Who were these consultants and where is that report?

Another good illustration of how conflicts of interest potentially bias the StarTribune article was the issue of accusations of maltreatment by professional staff.   The first is an allegation that a psychiatrist "committed maltreatment" by threatening an uncooperative patient with electroconvulsive treatment.  DHS investigators concluded that this happened but their finding was overturned by the DHS Inspector General.  The State Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities apparently believed it happened and made a request for the DHS Commissioner to reconsider the finding.  The Inspector referred the matter to the Board of Medical Practice.  In the second case, 2 nurses were accused of maltreatment.  From the way the article is written it appears to be related to the incident where the patient was "slamming his head repeatedly into a concrete wall" and they were unable to get an order to physically restrain the patient.  The nurses were fined and reported to the nursing board.  Based on the incidents of maltreatment and another incident where a patient did not receive timely assessment for a stroke the DHS Commissioner extended the hospital's probation through 2014.  There are many problems with employees paying the price for chaos in the system.  Administrators often do not recognize the professional obligations of the staff.  I have personally seen quality psychiatric staff paralyzed by indecision that was brought about by administrative mandate or personnel problems.  The other problem here is that DHS appears to be the administrator, investigator and judicial process rolled into one.  We have a number of political appointees (DHS, Ombudsman, Board of Medical Practice) charged with deciding the professional fate of a physician who seems to be practicing in the worst of possible scenarios.  It should not be too surprising that MSH is unable to recruit and hire psychiatric staff.

The Legislative Auditor's Report is probably a better source of information than the newspaper report, but it has the same lack of input from experts.  It is useful from the perspective of bureaucratic information on the details that can be counted like the number of psychiatric contacts, number of hours of therapeutic contact, number of staff injuries for a certain period of time, etc.  One of the areas that is most interesting to me as a psychiatrist is the frequency of patient contact by psychiatrists.  The report gives an example of a recent census of 321 patients.  It provides an exhibit showing that from a policy standpoint the suggested frequencies of contact are monthly, quarterly, or semi-annually.  These frequencies are interestingly lower than the frequency of contact in some 19th century German asylums.  I can recall that Binswanger made a point of seeing all 200 patients in his asylum every week.  The report said that of the 321 patients in the study 45% had been seen in the previous month, an additional 24% 1-2 months earlier, 17% 2-3 months before and 4% greater than 3 months before.  Going from a full complement of eight psychiatrists to a total of two psychiatrists and 1 nurse practitioner is an obvious problem in terms of contact.  Actual contact with psychiatrist is an insufficient metric for treating patients and other quality measures need to be developed.  

If the article and the Legislative Auditor's report are even partially accurate with regard to facts, the glaring problem here appears to be that there is nobody in charge who knows how to run a hospital that treats people with severe mental illness and problems with aggression.  It is probably more correct to say that at this point we have not been presented with any positive evidence that there is a person in charge with the necessary qualifications.  The information presented in the StarTribune article does not suggest a clash of cultures.  There is no psychiatric hospital culture that I am aware of where there is confusion about whether or not a patient should be allowed to injure themselves.  The second problem is that this hospital needs psychiatrists who are trained to treat severe mental illness and aggression.  They do not need to be forensic psychiatrists, but they do need expertise in treatment of severe mental illness.  Forensic psychiatrists are basically needed to perform specific evaluations of criminal responsibility but the priority here is described as patient and staff safety.  The people needed in this situation currently work in a number of acute care and community settings.  They are very comfortable with the treatment of major psychiatric disorders and the associated medical comorbidity.  It is safe to say that they enjoy working with these problems and talking with the people who have them.  They are also sensitive to the needs of their co-workers and can establish the necessary environment of mutual trust and neutrality needed to succeed.

There may not be anyone around who remembers that Minnesota has solved a similar problem in the past.  The year was 1990 and there were significant problems staffing the major state hospital in the system - Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center.  At that time, a Medical Director who was recently out of training was hired and he hired several colleagues from the same generation.  They were all enthusiastic and interested in providing quality care.  The state offered them competitive salaries.  Within a very short period of time a cohesive staff developed and they became a favored training site for medical students.  Treatment at the state hospital improved dramatically and several of the psychiatrists in that cohort went on to become leaders in the state in the provision of psychiatric services to patients with severe mental illness.

That still seems like a good idea today.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Paul Mcenroe.  Minnesota Security Hospital: Staff In Crisis Spreads Turmoil.  StarTribune, December 27, 2013.

Office of the Legislative Auditor.  Evaluation Report: State-Operated Human Services.  February 2013.

Additional Clinical Note 1:  Looking back over my post it is clear that I do not answer the question that is the title.  Like most people I am speculating based on an imperfect data set.  The main difference is that I am also speculating as an expert based on what needs to happen to provide the safest scientifically based treatment for people who are mentally ill, aggressive, and may have failed most if not all of the available treatments.  I also recall that some past state hospital problems were resolved that has not been brought up in the discussion so far.

Why I No Longer Support NAMI

For the past several years my wife and I have been regular donors to our state branch of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI).  We decided to do it initially as a memorial to family members who suffered from mental illness.  I just got two letters in the mail encouraging me to donate again.  One was a "Dear Friend" letter from NAMI reminding me of the plight of the mentally ill.  The other was from the Medical Director and CEO of the American Psychiatric Association.  Dr. Scully apparently thinks he is reminding me of how fragmented the system of care is and "The treatment system that confronts families seeking care is too often fragmented, unorganized and, despite the efforts of many, is uneven at best in its quality."  After working in that "system" for over 25 years and witnessing its decimation by the managed care industry - both letters are insulting.

The only time I was impressed with NAMI was during an attempt to secure resources for a patient in another state.  At that time I contacted NAMI in Illinois and was almost immediately faxed, about 50 pages of resources that my social worker and I could use to come up with a discharge plan.  The fragmented system often resulted in us spending long stress filled hours trying to piece together a plan that we hoped would work while we were being pressured to discharge the person to the street.  Managed care companies were not helpful.  I can still recall a patient with complicated problems.  The managed care company did not acknowledge the serious nature of the problem and wanted immediate discharge.  When we tried to get a discharge appointment for the patient the earliest appointment was 6 months away and they refused to give any priority based on the recent hospital discharge.  

A local NAMI walk for fund raising was disappointing.  Psychiatrists tended to walk with their own organizations, but the dimension that was unnerving to me was the corporate presence.  It seems that the no free lunch movement for doctors is not as concerned about corporate sponsorship of NAMI and any conflicts of interest that might arise.  Why would anyone raise the issue of conflict of interest?  There are two obvious issues.  NAMI has long been an advocate for access to psychiatric care and psychiatrists.  The managed care companies listed as sponsors have been the primary drivers in restricting access not just to psychiatric care but any kind of evaluation or treatment for mental illness or addiction.  In the Twin Cities they currently use case managers to control admissions and discharges.  Those case managers make those decisions based on proprietary guidelines that have little to do with the modern practice of psychiatry.

A second issue is pharmaceutical sponsors.  Psychiatry has been singled out for the appearance of conflict of interest whenever there have been sponsorship or payment of researchers or speakers by pharmaceutical companies.  The real effect of this sponsorship is on the public.  There is no clearer example than National Depression Screening Day.   This event began across the country over 20 years ago.  I was the organizer for two years for the Minnesota Psychiatric Society.  The event was sponsored nation wide by the company who had the most expensive and widely known antidepressant on the market.  It was a field day for the idea that antidepressant medications treat depression.  That bias is still present today and is probably one of the single greatest reasons why treatment of mental illness is typically reduced to a cure in a pill.

Despite my reservations, I decided to support NAMI with an annual check and was listed as a professional member of the organization.  NAMI is a politically powerful organization and I often heard that they had interests that were similar to psychiatric professional organizations.  Then a few months ago Minnesota Public Radio came out with a story on the Minnesota Security Hospital.  It is the state facility that is used to house and treat patients with severe mental illnesses who are also dangerous on an ongoing basis.  Most of the patients are there because they have been adjudicated after committing a violent crime or they are there for an evaluation.  There have been severe administrative problems that have resulted in the resignation of most of the psychiatric staff and an increased number of injuries to staff.

According to that report:

"Sue Abderholden, the executive director of the mental health advocacy group NAMI Minnesota, said despite the concerns, she thinks Barry and other officials are doing a good job of addressing serious, long-standing issues at the facility. She said the decrease in the number of psychiatrists is not necessarily a problem, as long as the facility hires qualified nurse practitioners. Ideally, she said, patients would always see the same provider, but she said that's not realistic for most facilities."

The opinion given in that story is certainly at odds with my opinion.  The state and NAMI seem to believe that psychiatrists are there to prescribe medications and can be easily replaced in that department.  I don't see anything that reflects psychiatric training in how to treat aggressive patients (what else is needed besides medication?) and what needs to happen from a systems or administrative standpoint.  Psychiatrists are the only staff with that kind of training and I wonder about whether they can use that training in a system that seems to suggest that an administrator can develop programs to deal with aggression.  The executive director's opinion seems quite consistent with that approach.  Wasn't that the problem in the first place?

I don't expect any support from NAMI.  Psychiatrists should be able to  support their own positions and members.  At the same time, I don't see any benefit to financially supporting an organization that has radically different goals than my professional goals and sees psychiatrists as easily replaced by people with much less training.  As far as the position of administrators dictating clinical care goes, that is a psychiatrist replaced by someone with no training.  If anyone can act like a physician - then physicians become superfluous.  It is tantamount to running the place with a managed care company and creating the illusion that serious care is being done by seeing people for a few minutes and talking about their medications.

The time has come to not renew my professional membership in NAMI.  With mental health parity still in question, any advocacy organization needs to have higher standards than a managed care company.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


Madeleine Baran.  More injured employees, fewer doctors at Minnesota Security Hospital.  August 29. 2012.