Myth and Miriam Carey

This is Mental Illness Awareness Week. But the sad tragedy of Miriam Carey is another reminder of how deeply unaware we are about mental illness in general and its relationship to violent behavior in particular.

And how much we rely on myths to fill in the gaps in our knowledge.

We all heard the news about Ms. Carey last week.  But we were not exactly informed by it. 

Ms. Carey drove her car onto a White House driveway, hit some temporary fencing, backed up, and then pulled away. She was pursued toward the Capitol by law enforcement officers in what became a high-speed chase.  Ms. Carey was eventually cornered near Garfield Circle.  Six officers, with guns pulled, approached her car there.  She apparently panicked, scattering the officers as she drove away.  At least nine shots were fired at her as the chase began again.  She eventually got stuck on a median near a Capitol guard station, where she was shot to death by an officer.

As I watched the unfolding news that afternoon, the story was embellished, to say the least.  There were reports of a possible terrorist attack on the White House and the breaching of a White House barrier.  And gunfire had been “exchanged” in an apparent attack on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol, as Senators cowered in their offices.

But then the real story began to emerge.

Ms. Carey hadn’t breached a White House barrier; she had hit a fence or a gate.  No gunfire was exchanged, because Ms. Carey was unarmed.  And Ms. Carey wasn’t attacking the Capitol; she had fled in her car in that direction.

So the narrative changed.  Now Ms. Carey – suffering from mental illness – had “rammed” a barrier at the White House.  She was “obsessed” with President Obama.  She used her car as a 1300 pound “weapon” to mow down law enforcement personnel as she continued on her “rampage.”

And she “chose” to ignore officers who tried to subdue and pursue her.

Words themselves are powerful weapons.  And these new words helped paint the mythical picture of the seriously mentally ill person who stalks, snaps, and kills without warning. 

But this narrative proved to be wrong, too.

We later learned that Ms. Carey apparently drove all the way from Connecticut to Washington with her one year old baby in the car.  So she didn’t “snap.”  And there was no evidence in her home that she had been plotting against the President with whom she was “obsessed.”  And she wasn’t on a “rampage.” Not only was she unarmed, but she apparently managed to avoid pedestrians and other motor vehicles as she raced down Pennsylvania Avenue at speeds up to 80 miles per hour.

But because she is dead the pieces missing from her story – like what she was actually thinking at the time – will probably remain missing. 

And the myth-makers will have another field day at the expense of people with mental illnesses.  Because the facts about mental illnesses don’t fit the narrative.

These are the facts.

People do not acquire mental illnesses by choice.  They can’t turn them off like a faucet.  The people who knew her best said Miriam Carey was not out to harm anyone last week, and that her mental illness was being treated successfully.  But if she was suffering from a mental illness-induced panic in the final minutes of her life as she was chased and under fire, she would have been no more able to turn that off when the police yelled stop than to will herself to stop bleeding from her gunshot wound. 

All mental illnesses are not the same, but none is a very strong predictor of violence.  Postpartum depression – for which she had been treated – is not the same as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.  But if you believe the myth that any of these conditions by themselves leads to violence, then take a look at the chart accompanying this column about the low lifetime prevalence of violence among people with serious mental illnesses, from an article published almost a decade ago in the New England Journal of Medicine.

And people with mental illness do not “snap” without warning.  There are often years of warnings that go unheeded by payers looking to save a dollar.  And by public officials who cut mental health budgets and deem mental health agencies and services as “non-essential.” And then cower in their offices at the first sign of trouble – the one part of the initial reporting that was, apparently, accurate.

Let’s deal with facts, not myths.  After all, this is Mental Illness Awareness Week.

Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/

The Shock of Sudden Violence

The shock of sudden violence is so severe it takes your breath away.

When it happens in a time and place where it is unexpected, it does more than just remind us that no one is immune to it.  It also reminds us how pervasive it is, how much it affects us all, and how important it is that we do something about it. 

In the summer of 1989, I imagined that sudden, random violence was something far removed from my hometown.  But I was about to learn differently.

An article in The Atlantichas just detailed the event, dredging up some quarter century old memories of a day that changed my community’s life.

I was running for Mayor of Middletown, Connecticut, at the time, and had reserved a booth at the city’s annual Sidewalk Sale in late July.  I was handing out yardsticks, asking for a vote “for government that measures up to your expectations.”

Suddenly, there was a commotion about a block north of where I was standing.  I noticed people running in two directions, both toward and away from the Woolworth’s store in the center of downtown. 

A young girl, randomly chosen, had been grabbed outside the store and then repeatedly stabbed by a 38 year old man.  She died on the spot.  Hundreds of people witnessed the event.

Over the next weeks and months, Middletown was in shock, just as other communities – Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Blacksburg VA, Littleton CO, and others – have been shocked since.

The trauma in Middletown almost killed our downtown.  Its suddenness and randomness made everyone feel unsafe.  It killed much of our sense of community and personal safety.

The healing didn’t happen very quickly.

It took at least a decade or two of steady changes to the Main Street area for that to happen.  These changes were so significant that – with the exception of a few businesses, nonprofits, and restaurants that remain from that time – one would barely recognize the Middletown of twenty-five years ago in its vibrant downtown today.

The trauma to which Sandy Hook and other communities have been exposed is even greater. 

To appreciate fully the scale of the Sandy Hook tragedy, we must realize that because of it Newtown’s 27611 residents – who experienced zero murders in 2011 – may well have experienced the highest homicide rate in the nation in 2012.

The healing time will be long.  And, at some level, my limited personal experience in Middletown suggests that a community exposed to that level of violence may never fully recover.

And this suggests something even more frightening about the shock of violence in communities across the nation.

There were 14,612 murders in the United States in 2011.  That’s 4.7 homicides for every 100,000 people.

In Middletown, Newtown, and Blacksburg, the homicide rate was zero.  In Aurora, it was 3.  In Littleton, it was 5.  Even in Tucson, which lived through the shopping center massacre that year, it was under 10.

Murders are uncommon in these communities, contributing to their newsworthiness.

But elsewhere, the everyday shock and trauma of violence is so much more powerful.  And because it is so prevalent, media headlines cannot capture fully its true effect. 

The murder rate per thousand in Miami in 2011 was 17, in Philadelphia 21, in Jackson 30, in St. Louis 35, in Detroit 48, and New Orleans 58.

Here is another way to look at this.  The Aurora massacre this past summer will double Aurora’s homicide rate in 2012, by a factor of 3.6 per hundred thousand residents. 

The people of St. Louis collectively live through the trauma of an Aurora-level massacre an average of once every six weeks, the people of Detroit live through it every month, and the people of New Orleans live through it every three weeks.  No one gets used to this.

If this is hard to absorb, imagine what these war zones must be like for the children and families living in them.  Every year, 3.5% of adults have diagnosable PTSD, and almost 8% will have it at some point in their lives.  Half will have PTSD before they reach the age of 18.

What are we doing about the traumatic effect of all of this violence in all of our neighborhoods – including those where it is commonplace?  And, more importantly, what are we doing to prevent such violence in the first place?

Email Paul Gionfriddo at gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Follow Paul Gionfriddo on Twitter: @pgionfriddo.

The Chain of Neglect: The Real Link Between Violence and Mental Illness

More than 11 million American adults with mental illnesses – 4.5 million of them with serious mental illnesses – are not receiving care today.  So it may not be unreasonable to conclude that the history of public mental health services over the last century can be summed up in a single brief sentence. 

We replaced the chains of institutions with a chain of neglect.

I have argued that this chain of neglect typically begins when children with mental health needs are still young, and continues throughout their lives.  And that it often has tragic consequences.

Why is it so important that we talk about breaking it now, the month after Sandy Hook and almost exactly two years since the mass shooting in Tucson?

It is because tragedies like those in Sandy Hook and Tucson remind us that it is wrong to balance budgets on the backs of children and young adults with mental illness and expect that there will be no consequences.

This is a sensitive, and even complicated, issue to discuss, because mental illness doesn’t cause violence.  Violence causes mental illness.

Violence and mental illness also share some of the same risk factors, such as trauma and abuse.

They have something else in common, too.  They often appear together in times of tragedy.  And this may be the result of conscious policy decisions we have made.  

It is hard to exaggerate the enormity of the problem that we have created by chopping away at mental health services. 

In 1970, according to a 2009 articleby Steven Sharfstein and Faith Dickerson in Health Affairs, there were 525,000 psychiatric beds in American hospitals.  Eighty percent were in public institutions.  By 2002, the number had dwindled to 212,000.  Only 27% (or approximately 57,000) were in public institutions. 

In the last ten years, things have gotten much worse.  Between 2002 and 2010, states cut even more beds, reducing the number of public hospital psychiatric beds from 57,000 to just over 43,000.  By 2009, according to SAMHSA Administrator Pamela Hyde, over 10 million people were reporting that they had unmet mental health needs.

What did states do after cutting inpatient beds?  They cut community services, too.  Since 2008, according to the National Association of State Mental Health Budget Directors, states have cut mental health budgets by $4.6 billion.

It doesn’t take a policy expert to conclude that when 4.5 million people with serious mental illness are receiving no mental health services, this is neglect.

And this neglect is the real link between mental illness and violence.  Because while mental illnesses may not lead to violence, neglecting them assuredly will.

We can fix this. 

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, the Hartford Courant invited me to make some suggestions about how. 

I offered three.  Because mental illnesses typically begin in childhood, the first is intervening early, by making mental health screening a part of regular well-child and, later, well-care exams.  The second is intervening in the schools, by adding new special education services – paid for by states, not local education authorities – as symptoms of mental illness begin to affect school performance.  The third is intervening when young adults need services, by re-directing dollars from jails and prisons to community mental health programs.

The resulting Op Edit, Breaking the Chain of Neglect, was published by the Courant on December 28^thand appeared in print on December 30^th.  I hoped that it would add to a Connecticut dialogue about improving mental health services – one that has been ongoing for at least thirty-five years, when I first served in the State Legislature.

But perhaps we can all hope for something more in the aftermath of so many potentially avoidable tragedies – thoughtful new policies, instead of neglect.

In the past week, the column has been reprinted by a dozen others, including the Arizona Daily Star, the Dallas Morning News, the Tulsa World, the Las Vegas Sun, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Lawrence Journal World, the Chattanooga Times Free Press, the Kansas City Star, and the Youngstown Vindicator.

If policymakers in just those areas were to decide to work together to improve mental health services for children and young adults, then the prevention, early intervention, and treatment improvements we need so badly might finally come.

And those policymakers could leave a lasting legacy for their own children – who, I can attest, may someday need the services themselves.  

Follow Paul Gionfriddo on Twitter @pgionfriddo.  Find Paul Gionfriddo on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  Email Paul Gionfriddo at gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

The Top Health Policy Stories of 2012

Health and mental health policy stories dominated 2012.  From how the Affordable Care Act framed the health policy debate at the start of the year to how the Sandy Hook tragedy framed the mental health and public health debate at year’s end, 2012 will go down in history as the most significant year in health policy since the 1960s.

Here are summaries of a few of the biggest news stories.

The Supreme Court Decision on the Affordable Care Act.  Nothing quite compares to the drama of the day in June when the Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Care Act to be constitutional.  Few people guessed right in advance that the decision would come down to finding the “individual mandate” to be constitutional because it is a tax, but mandatory Medicaid expansion unconstitutional because it tied future federal funding for the existing state Medicaid programs to the Medicaid expansion.

People on both sides of the debate came away wanting more, and states reluctant to accept the decision waited months to see if the fall election would change the policy environment.  It didn’t.  So as the year drew to a close was whether they, or the federal government, would implement the insurance exchanges.

The Debate over the Future of Medicare.  In the campaign, we all learned more about the two major parties’ competing visions about the future of Medicare.  The Democrats want the current structure of the program preserved; the Republicans would like to make the current Medicare program just one option available to seniors among a variety of private health insurance plan choices.

When the dust settled, the Democratic vision had carried the day.  Nevertheless, Mitt Romney’s supporters argued afterwards that he actually “won” the Medicare debate when he took a majority of the vote of senior citizens.  But even that “victory” may have resulted from the fact that he opposed the $716 billion cut.

Meanwhile, a little compromise is all we really need to preserve Medicare – but not the increase in the age of eligibility policymakers have recently pushed. 

The Medicaid Expansion.  The governors of seven southern states declared in the summer that with Medicaid expansion now an option, they weren’t planning to implement it.  They cited the significant cost of doing so.  Florida, for example, said it would cost $351 million a year, and Texas trumped that with a $4.4 billion price tag. 

But by the end of the year those states were faced with the fact that it will be at least 9 times more expensive not to expand the program.  Not embracing the expansion would cost Florida at least $3.2 billion and Texas $39.6 billion in annual lost federal revenue. 

That’s a lot of money to turn down – especially when the alternative is asking state taxpayers to foot the bill.

The Cuts to State Mental Health Services.  As of 2012, the tally of state budget cuts to mental health services grew to $4.6 billion over the past four years, with no end of cutting in sight.  I wrote about the real-time effects of these cuts in Anna Brown’s Death, California Screaming, the Mental Health Policy Mistakes We Make and the Sons and Daughters Who Pay for Them, and, focusing on veterans, in Iraq and Back and Answering the Call. 

There’s a depressing bottom line to all these stories: people with mental illness got lip service or worse. 

Athletes – and Others – Dying Young.  When Pro Football all-star Junior Seau died in the spring, it revived talk of the Curse of the 1994 San Diego Chargers. He was the 8^th member of that team to die before turning 45.  Were these deaths the cumulative effect of concussions? Or related to long-term side effects of performance-enhancing drugs that ruined the legacy of Lance Armstrong and a host of steroid-era baseball superstars, like Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Roger Clemens?

Not exactly.  At least in the case of the ’94 Chargers, former professional athletes weren’t dying young from concussions or performance-enhancing drugs, but for many of the same reasons – accidents, obesity, heart conditions, and complications from diabetes – non-athletes die young, too.  It’s avoidable, but not when we cut $5 billion from public health as we did this year.

Sandy Hook.  We need to say it again. Violence is a public health problem, not a mental health problem.  If we learn nothing else from tragedy, I hope it will be these three things: anyone of us could be a victim of violence; we can prevent much of it by treating it as a public health problem; and blaming people with mental illness for the increase in violence in America will only lead us down a dark path.

I wish you all a safe, peaceful, and Happy New Year. 

The Tragedy of Sandy Hook

The entire world is in mourning over the senseless and horrifying massacre of innocent children and adults in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. 

This hit so close to home for me, about forty miles from where I grew up.  So many of my former legislative colleagues are among those trying to help the state through it. 

I can’t even pretend to imagine what this must be like for the families of Sandy Hook. 

On the first day of the tragedy, too many politicians trotted out their tired old line that “today is not the day to have the debate” about gun control.  Thank God their tone-deaf voices were silenced by the outcry of reasonable people.

Connecticut Congressman John Larson (D-1) said that “Congress should be prepared to vote on requiring background checks for all gun sales, closing the terrorist watch list loopholes, and banning assault weapons and high capacity clips. Those measures don’t solve all our problems, but they’re a start.”

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) also called for an assault weapons ban.  

But does our nation have the will to do this and more?

I hope so, because if the images of six and seven year olds staring down the barrel of an assault weapon in their last split seconds of life do not motivate us, then nothing will.

And there are two big things that it is past time to do. 

This first is to get lethal firearms out of the hands of people who are not defending us.  The second is to reverse the damage we’ve caused by neglecting and discriminating against people with mental illness because we mistakenly think that they are the cause of all the violence.

According to data reported in July by the Manchester Guardian, we are by far the most gun-toting of all of the most civilized nations in the world.  If the population of Newtown, Connecticut, is just average, then among them they already own 24,513 firearms. 

Adam Lanza’s mother owned the three of them used in the Sandy Hook massacre.  A self-described gun enthusiast, she was reported to feel she needed all this weaponry for safety and self-defense.  In the moment before her life was taken, did she feel safer, or better defended?

A member of Congress from Texas, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-1), thinks we need even more. Does he really believe that the other 24,510 Newtown firearms made the children of Sandy Hook any safer that day?

Perhaps the horror of this massacre might open our eyes to something else – every day, an equal number of our sons and daughters die in our towns and cities because someone shoots them to death.

In 2007 alone, over 9,000 people in our country died because of gun violence, far more than the 6,656 Americans who have died in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since their beginning. 

We can do much better than this.  And, as President Obama declared in Newtown, “we will have to change.”

But making real change is not just finding someone to blame.

After tragedies, we often find at least hints of mental illness in the people using the guns.  But when we do, we miss the point. Violence is not a mental health problem, it is a public health problem.

Today, we are too quick to equate violence with mental illness, too quick to send people with serious mental illnesses to jail, and too quick to balance our state budgets by neglecting the people with the greatest service needs.

Connecticut’s Governor, Dannel Malloy, has shown leadership in his response to the massacre.  But another test of that leadership will come soon.  He recently ordered the rescission of up to $9.5 million in mental health services funding in Connecticut.  This funding is desperately needed to prevent and mitigate mental illnesses.  Governor Malloy is not alone in this regard – in all fifty states $4.6 billion has been cut from state mental health services during the last four years. 

Will Governor Malloy rescind that rescission now, and call on his colleagues around the country to do the same, so we can re-build our nation’s mental health services infrastructure, and better detect and treat mental illnesses early?  Will he help de-stigmatize those with mental illness, who are more often the victims of violence than its perpetrators?

Will the nation have the will to raise the money we need for prevention?

Because only if we do will we be able to say that protecting all of our children from harm is our highest priority.

Addendum:  There are news reports that Adam Lanza’s mother may have, for behavioral reasons, removed him from school at some point for home schooling.  I believe that voluntary or involuntary removal from school is often one step in a years-long chain of events that leads to bad outcomes. 

This time might therefore become a critical intervention point to change a bad trajectory and prevent future tragedies of all sorts – if we were to change our special education policy as follows:

Whenever a parent or a school believes that a special education student needs to be removed from his school for behavioral reasons, either via suspension, expulsion, or voluntary removal, for at least five consecutive days or for at least ten days in the course of a school year, there must be a mediation scheduled within 10 days with the school district, the parents, and the state education department as a mandatory third party.  The purpose would be to develop a new IEP with additional services.  The new IEP must have the input of a child’s regular health and mental health providers, if there are any.  If not, health and behavioral evaluations should be done to inform the mediation, with the state picking up the cost.  If any two parties agree to the additional services, then the services must become an immediate part of the IEP, with the state picking up the additional cost.  If the parents are not one of the parties in agreement, they still reserve their right to go to due process.  If the student is not yet admitted to special education, then the same event should trigger an immediate outside evaluation for eligibility for special education services.

Let’s assume that all parties would act in good faith.  But just in case one were concerned that a local district would low-ball a set of services from the start to shift more costs to the state, then a district could be made responsible for the costs of either its existing plan or the average cost of plans for comparable students in other districts, whichever is greater.

We’re all searching for answers.  This is just one suggestion.

Note: This column was published early this week because of the timeliness of the issue.  My prayers are with the people of Newtown.  Our Health Policy Matters will be return to its regular publication on December 26 and January 2.

California Screaming

I first heard about James McGillivray, Lloyd “Jim” Middaugh, and Paulus “Dutch” Smit about a month ago, though not by name.

A tiny news crawler reported that three men were victims of a serial killer in southern California.

James McGillivray’s body was found near a Placentia, CA, shopping mall on December 21^st.  53 year-old McGillivray hung out almost every day at the mall.  Regulars there called him humble, unobtrusive, and a “nice guy.”  A 17 year-old commented “I don’t know why someone would kill him.”  McGillivray was sleeping when he was attacked and stabbed to death.

Jim Middaugh’s body was found along a riverbed trail in Anaheim on December 28^th.  He was also stabbed to death as he slept.  After his death, his mother – to whom Middaugh was exceptionally close – described her six foot, four inch son as a “gentle giant.”

Dutch Smit was 57 years old when his body was found outside a Yorba Linda public library on December 30^th.  He left three children and 10 grandchildren.  He was described by his daughter as “an honest and sincere soul.”  He enjoyed the library, often sitting and reading quietly for hours on end. 

McGillivray, Middaugh, and Smit had one thing in common.  

They were targeted for death because they were homeless.

The police considered McGillivray a “loiterer,” but his homelessness may have been tied to his drinking.  According to the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH), a 2008 survey identified substance use as the leading cause of homelessness among single adults.

Smit, who called himself a wanderer, not a transient, was a hoarder who left his home when it became too unsafe to live in.  Hoarding is a symptom of mental illness.  Mental illness is the third leading cause of homelessness among single adults.

Middaugh lost his transitional living apartment for sex offenders after he had lunch with a friend at a Chinese restaurant that was too close to a public park where children might be playing.  He had been convicted for “lewd and lascivious acts on a minor under the age of 14.”  But the crime for which the 42 year old was still being punished had occurred more than twenty years in the past.

80% of crimes of violence against homeless people are committed by people under the age of 30. 

The suspect in the executions of McGillivray, Middaugh, and Smit is 23 years old.  Itzcoatl Ocampo, of Yorba Linda, CA, is a former Marine who served in Iraq.  As a Marine, Ocampo was reported to have earned at least four medals and commendations.

Ocampo was caught with blood on his hands on January 13^th, while executing a fourth homeless man, John Berry, a 64 year-old Vietnam Veteran.  Ocampo targeted the others simply because they were homeless, but apparently attacked Berry as retaliation after Berry spoke out in the media about the murders.  During the assault, a Good Samaritan intervened and chased Ocampo down. 

Police and prosecutors seem certain that Ocampo does not suffer from PTSD or other mental illness, but his attorney is not so sure.

There is no doubt that the Good Samaritan, 32 year old Donald Hopkins, now does.  He is receiving counseling after witnessing the violence because the scene keeps playing over and over again in his head.

This story – and the relative lack of national news attention it has received – bothers me a lot. 

Perhaps it is because of the way we treat homeless adults.  Of 235 cities surveyed by NCH, 33% prohibit “camping,” 30% prohibit “sitting or lying,” and 47% prohibit “loitering,” all of which are often selectively enforced against homeless people.  Of the ten "meanest cities" toward people who are homeless, three are in California, but my home state of Florida is home to four – St. Petersburg, Orlando, Bradenton, and Gainesville. 

Or maybe it is because we ostracize even children with behavioral health conditions, setting many of them on their path toward isolation and homelessness as adults.  The school district in my old Connecticut home town of Middletown made news last week for forcing such children into cell-like “scream rooms.” The federal government is now investigating.

Or maybe it is because my son also happens to live in California, and is homeless, has mental illness, and self-medicates.  He has been beaten up, cited for “sitting or lying” on a sidewalk, and been in jail, but he also loves reading in libraries, has an honest and sincere soul, and has been described as a gentle giant.

But I think what screams out most to me is that these executions call attention to our deeply flawed views about homelessness, behavioral health diseases, and the victims of violence in America.  

If you have questions about this column, or wish to receive an email notifying you when new Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

The Top Health Policy Stories of 2011, Part One

Public policy attacks on public health and mental health, intrusions in doctor/patient privacy, the continuing fight over the Affordable Care Act, and our collective loss of faith in private health insurance were among the top health policy story lines of 2011.

This year, eight stories make my short list.  Not all of these stories made big headlines during the year.  But they have had, or will have, an outsized impact on our lives.

I’ll begin the countdown this week with four that capture and continue some of the major trends of the recent past.   Next week, I’ll offer four more that hint at where health policy may go in the future.

8.  The Shooting of a Congresswoman.  In January, the first big health policy story of the year was about violence and mental illness – the horrible wounding of a member of Congress, and the murder of several people around her.  As the media struggled to make sense of this, it raised once again the relationship between mental illness and violence.  What it failed to do was to report that, while this particular shooter seemed mentally imbalanced, most perpetrators of violence are not, and many victims of violence either already have mental illness, or will develop it as a result.

The continuing trend – Our jails are our nation’s largest mental health institutions, and will remain so until we invest more in prevention and treatment of mental illness.   

7.  The End of the Iraq War.  The War in Iraq may have ended this month, but its health effects will be with us and our veterans for many years to come.   A GAO report released in Octobergot little mainstream media attention, but was blunt in its description of the effects of this war and others on veterans’ mental health.  The 2.1 million unique veterans who received mental health treatment in the five year period between 2006 and 2010 represented over 30% of the veterans who received any type of health care.  The fastest-growing groups of veterans receiving mental health treatment during this period were the 213,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with mental health needs.  And 38% of all Iraq/Afghanistan veterans who received health care during that time required mental health care. 

The continuing trend – So long as we remain at war, veterans’ health and mental health services will need to be expanded significantly throughout the foreseeable future, and, as taxpayers, we will need to pay for them.

6.  The Death of the CLASS Act.  What does it say when the first major provision of health reform to be killed off in a bipartisan way was the one provision that had enjoyed bipartisan support for a generation?  There are at least two things about long term care most of us don’t want to face.  The first is that most of us will need it someday.  The second is that practically none of us can afford it on our own.    Rather than coming up with a meaningful public/private partnership to pay for it after almost thirty years of trying, the Administration and Congress quietly killed CLASS in October, choosing once again to keep the current, broken system in place.  This is the one where we first impoverish people when they get old and sick, and then let government pay the whole bill.

The continuing trend – Medicaid will remain the default payer for long term care.  Costs will continue to skyrocket, we’ll all continue to complain, and long term care insurance won’t gain a greater foothold in the market any time soon.   

5.  Low PCIP Enrollment Numbers.  The most compelling evidence in 2011 that we may have finally lost our faith in private insurance was found in the late summer reports of the low enrollment in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Program (PCIP).  This is a program that eligible uninsured people were supposed to embrace, because it pretty much guaranteed that it would pay out far more for their health care than it collected in premiums, saving each of them lots of money.  But when only 30,000 of the 4 million eligible people enrolled as of July, most of the rest seemed to be saying that they would rather take their chances on permanent financial ruin than insurance.  Or that they were already so impoverished by illness that they no longer had anything to lose.

The continuing trend – If the health insurance industry cannot restore our trust, even the people who need it most will opt out, relying only on safety net government funding.

Next week:  The final Our Health Policy Matters column of the year looks at four more big stories of the year, and their implications for the future. 

Veterans and Mental Illness

On a sultry June morning in our national’s capital last Friday, I visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 

Scores of people moved silently along the Wall, viewing the names of the men and women who died in that war.  Some stopped and took pictures.  One group of men about my age surrounded one name for a photo.  Two young women posed in front of another, perhaps a grandfather or great uncle they never got to meet.

It is always an incredibly moving experience to visit the Wall.  It treats each of the people it memorializes with respect. There is no rank among those honored.  Officer or enlisted, rich or poor, each is given equal space and weight.

It is a form of acknowledgement and respect for which many veterans still fight.

Brave Vietnam veterans returned from Southeast Asia to educate our nation about the effects of war and violence.

I didn’t know anything about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when I entered the Connecticut Legislature in the late 1970s.  I had only vaguely heard of “shell shock” from which some World War I and II veterans suffered.  At that time, the condition, like the way we thought of other mental illnesses, suggested some sort of stigmatizing weakness inherent in the individual.
Vietnam veterans changed our thinking.

They knew that PTSD was a real mental illness caused by violence. 

It took courage and strength to deliver this message to a nation not ready to hear it.  We didn’t know then that the violence of war, the violence of neighborhoods and families, and the trauma of natural disasters cause this illness.

As a result of their advocacy, the National Vietnam Veterans’ Readjustment Study (NVVRS) was conducted in 1983.

It found that a startling 830,000 Vietnam Veterans (26%) reported symptoms of PTSD, and many thousands more had other mental illnesses, such as Depression.  As the National Center for PTSD summarizes, a re-analysis of the data twenty years later suggested that up to a staggering 80% of Vietnam veterans reported at least some symptoms related to PTSD.

The Persian Gulf War introduced a new illness, Gulf War Syndrome, to our lexicon.  It is characterized by both physical and mental health problems. Only 8% of Gulf War veterans have been diagnosed with PTSD, possibly because their exposure to violence was of shorter duration.  But nearly 38%, or 263,000, Gulf War veterans sought treatment from the VA alone for illnesses and chronic conditions, many related to Gulf War Syndrome.

According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, an estimated 10% to 18% of returning Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans have PTSD, and up to 25% will have Depression.

Mental illness is as devastating in veterans as it is in any population.  According to the National Coalition on Homeless Veterans, on any given night 107,000 veterans are homeless.  76% of these men and women have behavioral health illnesses.  140,000 are imprisoned.  Half of these have mental health problems.

While I was in Washington, I attended a dinner with my wife Pam and her colleagues at Mental Health America and its affiliates around the country, at the completion of their annual conference and before the ringing of their symbolic freedom bell, forged from the chains once worn by people locked in mental institutions.  The 2011 Clifford Beers Award winner, Dr. Patricia Deegan, a survivor of schizophrenia, spoke of the courage of those who refuse to give in to the diagnosis of serious mental illness and to let it define them.

The Vietnam veterans who lobbied me had such courage, and refused to let PTSD define them.

We have fought three seemingly endless ten-year-plus wars in the last fifty years, and another one which caused significant physical and mental damage to its participants.  Millions of veterans and their families have been affected by PTSD.

Thousands of others who have been exposed to violence, terrorism, and natural disasters also share this experience.  

This should teach us an important lesson.

Mental illness doesn’t cause violence, but exposure to violence causes mental illness.

One of the things I love most about America is that although we are so diverse, we share a common purpose.   

The people whose names are on our national monuments - Washington, Lincoln, and the 58,272 on the Wall – remind us that this common purpose involves an entitlement to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

June 27 is PTSD Awareness Day.  It is a good day to remind ourselves why the bells of freedom mean so much to us all, especially the 7% of all adult Americans with PTSD.

The people whose names are on that Wall are remembered for sacrificing to give the rest of us a safer, more secure life.  They would not have forgotten those who came home with mental illness.

To receive an email notifying you of the publication of new Our Health Policy Matters columns, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  For a collection of hyperlinks used in past columns, please visit the Data Source Links page.

What Polls Say About Our Attitude Toward Health Reform and Mental Illness

What did the politician say after bumping his head while walking along a sidewalk as he waved to his constituents?   “I never look at the poles.”

Whether political leaders admit to looking at the polls or not, when you look beyond the headlines some current polls are saying a lot about how people feel about health and mental health policy issues. 

In the spirit of post-State of the Union bipartisanship, let’s hope that President Obama and Congressional leaders use three recent polls to listen to us about health reform, and to educate us about mental illness.

First, this is what the President and members of Congress will hear if they listen to what people are telling pollsters about the health reform law.

• We like a number of the elements of health reform, and don’t want them repealed.
• We’re not afraid that health reform will affect our existing health coverage.
• We don’t think the current law went too far.

The headlines from three January polls suggest that we remain divided about the reform law, with slightly more opposing it than favoring it. 

A Rasmussen survey found that 53% of voters favor repealing the law and 43% do not.  In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll, 50% said they opposed the health reform law versus 45% who favored it.  An AP-GfK poll found the public evenly split on the new law, with 41% saying they opposed it and 40% saying they favored it. 

But when we listen beyond the headlines, we hear a different voice. 

In the AP-GfK Poll, only 26% supported repealing the law in its entirety.  An earlier Rasmussen poll also found a minority for full repeal of the law – 39%. In the ABC News/Washington Post Poll, 18% said that they favored total repeal. 

Support for full repeal isn't very high, and the reason is that we like many parts of the new law.  In the AP-GfK poll, the public supported by 50%-34% the prohibition on insurers denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions (such as cancer, mental illness, diabetes, and heart disease), and by 59%-34% the prohibition on insurers cancelling coverage because someone becomes sick.

We're also not afraid that the law is going to have an adverse effect on insurance we have and like.  In the Rasmussen poll, only 34% said that they thought the law was likely to force them to change their existing coverage.  

There are also a lot of people who think that the law should go farther.  In the ABC Poll, one in four said that the reason they opposed the law was because it didn’t go far enough.  Over half of those who supported it agreed with them, also favoring a reform law that would go farther than the current one does. 

source: ABC News/Wash Post Poll 1/11

These are a lot of numbers to absorb all at once, but the bottom line is pretty straightforward, and paints a far different picture from the headline.  35% said the law went too far, 19% said it was just right, and a slight plurality – 38% - said it didn’t go far enough. 

Politicians who ignore this message do so at their own peril. 

Second, here is why the President and members of Congress need to provide leadership in educating us about mental illness in the aftermath of the Tucson tragedy.

• We believe erroneously that mental illness causes violence. 

Some people with mental illness commit violent acts, but mental illness is not usually the reason.  One quarter of our population has a diagnosable mental illness each year, and this group is no more likely to be violent than the other three quarters.  Substance abuse (but not substance abuse treatment), juvenile detention, physical abuse, and past history of violence are predictors of future violent behavior, but mental illness is not. 

We need leaders who are willing to speak that truth to us.    

As was noted by researchers at the University of Tulsa in 2008, media reporting on events like the Tucson shooting makes a difference in how people react to the event, contributes to misperceptions about people with mental illness, and deflects attention away from the actual context of violent acts.  

Leaders need to speak up before our responses to violence do more harm than good.

In the ABC News/Washington Post Poll, 83% said that they would support increasing federal funding to add people treated for mental illness to the federal gun registry in an effort to prevent them from buying guns, and 71% said that they would support this for people treated for substance abuse.

source: ABC News/Wash Post Poll 1/11

We are so scared of mental illness that 83% of us would waste precious tax dollars creating a registry that would violate the confidentiality of one quarter of our population while doing nothing to address the real causes of violence in our society.

That’s hard to understand, but I guess we all bump into polls sometimes and come up rubbing our heads.

If you like this blog, become a follower or subscribe to it, and help get the word out by sharing it with friends and associates!

Violence is a Public Health, Not a Mental Health, Problem

We were all understandably shocked by the horrifying shooting in Tucson AZ this past weekend.  A Congresswoman was critically injured, and six people, including a nine year old girl, were killed.

Media commentators have asked an important question – are public officials safe from violence anymore?  As a former public official who received threats of violence, that's a question about which I care personally.

There’s a consensus answer to it.  In our vitriolic political environment, hateful rhetoric sometimes pushes disturbed, paranoid people over the edge.  If we dial back the rhetoric and keep a closer eye on disturbed, paranoid people, we’ll all be okay.

But there’s a more important question we’re forgetting to ask that leads to a far different answer.

Who points a gun at an innocent nine year old and coldly pulls the trigger?

Tim and Mayor Paul Gionfriddo,
Middletown CT Sidewalk Sale
1990, c.Hartford Courant 

The answer to the question doesn’t fit easily into the narrative of this tragedy.   This is because shooters of nine year olds aren’t usually stoked by hateful rhetoric.  And shooters far more often target innocent nine year olds, who trust us to protect them, than they do equally innocent public officials.  

Think about this:

·        A nine year old was shot dead inside his Washington DC apartment in November, 2009, when a gunman fired through the front door. 

·        A nine year old boy was shot and injured in Brooklyn NY in June, 2010, in a dispute over a stolen bike.

·        A nine year old boy was shot and killed in an affluent gated community in Dade County FL in March, 2010.  A family member was the first identified as a "person of interest.”

·         A nine year old girl, playing on the sidewalk outside her aunt’s home in York PA, was shot in the back and killed in a drive-by shooting on Mother’s Day in May, 2010.

·         A nine year old girl was shot and killed while jumping rope in her grandmother’s front yard in Chicago IL in August, 2010.  Her seven year old sister was also shot. 

·         A nine year old Baton Rouge LA girl was shot six times as she got ready for school, and her mother was killed, in a home invasion in September, 2010.

·         A nine year old girl was shot and killed in October, 2010 while sitting in her family’s minivan in a parking lot in Davie FL.

·         A nine year old girl in Hercules CA was shot and hospitalized in critical condition when she opened her front door in December, 2010.

These are just some of the nine year olds who were recently shot in our country.  How big would the list grow if we added a longer time period, more ages, and additional weapons?  It’s not hard to imagine, because we have the data.  In 2002 alone, homicides took the lives of 250 children aged 4-11.

The reasons for these crimes – vigilantism, gang violence, family feuds, retribution, theft – are as varied as the lives of our neighbors.  These and other environmental demons are far, far more often the reasons why nine year olds get shot than are the illnesses of our brains. 

People with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence than its perpetrators.  A history of violence, juvenile detention, and physical abuse are stronger predictors of future violent behavior than is mental illness, but media stories linking mental illness and violence have created the mythical “paranoid, violent, mentally ill person” for people to fear – a myth the weekend shooter happened to fit.  

The poor link between mental illness and violence is not just my opinion.  You can read about it in the Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center (SAMHSA) fact sheet Violence and Mental Illness: The Facts.

Violence is a public health problem in our country.  It makes our living environment more dangerous, and shortens our lifespan.  When violence leads to sudden death, most victims can be called innocent bystanders. 

No one deserves to be shot or killed – not a Congresswoman or a child, not six people on a sunny Saturday in Arizona, not the eight children listed above, not the 250 4-11 year olds killed in 2002, and not the 4,090 children and adults killed in 2008 alone in the sixteen states participating in the CDC National Violent Death Reporting System.

Our understanding of violence as a public health problem dates back only about thirty years.  Today, we need to understand that the threat of violence is much bigger than the threat posed by one gunman in a single time and place.

Until we appreciate that we have put nine year olds in harm’s way no matter where they live, learn, and play, we will fail to learn the real lesson from the weekend’s tragedy.  We are all responsible for this environment of violence, and we had better start working together to clean up our mess before more children die.