Mental Illness For Fun And Profit

Psychotropic drugs Mental illness for fun and profit

The past 2 decades have witnessed an alarming increase in the number of Americans diagnosed with mental illness. Is modern psychiatry reaping an immense profit by impulsively—perhaps even deliberately–conflating mental illness with a growing, public aversion to the demands of personal responsibility?

In the summer of 2011, The New York Review of Books published two lengthy articles by Marcia Angell, MD—Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School and former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. In these articles, Angell reviewed three books that take a critical look at psychiatry and its relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and also examined the DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision).

Some of the findings of the books she reviews are quite disturbing.  The major psychoactive drugs are revealed to be no better than placebos; the “chemical imbalance” theory of mental illness is mostly nonsense; psychoactive drugs are being given to children as young as two; and the process whereby the DSM—a major source of income for the American Psychiatric Association—is compiled is fundamentally flawed.

One of the reviewed authors—Irving Kirsch, PhD–obtained all the clinical trials data on six major psychoactive drugs via the Freedom of Information Act. There were 42 trials, and most of them were negative. Bear in mind that drug companies must turn over all clinical trial data to the FDA but need only show positive results in two studies to gain approval, and these of course are the ones that are published in the journals. The FDA regards the negative studies as confidential material.

But even as the value of psychotropic drugs is being questioned, Dr. Angell acknowledges that “Americans are in the midst of a raging epidemic of mental illness, at least as judged by the increase in the numbers treated for it.” She also notes that the number of Americans who qualify for Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance based on mental illness more than doubled between 1987 and 2007—from one in 184 to one in 76.

In a study that focused on adults over 50, Dr. Dawn Alley of the University of Maryland found high rates of depression among those behind in their mortgage payments and a higher likelihood of making unhealthy financial trade-offs regarding food and needed prescription medications. Alley comments: “We knew of the link, but we were surprised by the magnitude of the problem. These people were more than bummed out.” One Maryland nonprofit statewide mental health counseling referral service reports that almost one-third of cases now involve people who have lost their homes or their jobs.

In short, people who have experienced one or more of the misfortunes of life are being systematically diagnosed as mentally ill; their unfortunate circumstances are contributing greatly to the income both of psychiatrists who prescribe psychotropic medications and the drug companies that make them.

So visit a psychiatrist, take a pill, and obtain absolution from the unpleasant vagaries of the human condition!  After all, the mentally ill can’t be expected to deal with the pressures of a lost job or an unpaid mortgage.

Can there be a more disgraceful way to “treat” the American public?

A Look At Health Insurance Exchanges

undo obamacare A Look at Health Insurance Exchanges

An important component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is the establishment of so-called Health Insurance Exchanges, given the acronym HIX. Driven by the questionable notion that getting everyone insured was the most important problem to be solved in health care, and energized by the earlier concept of managed competition, HIX are intended to help individuals and small businesses purchase health insurance coverage. By January 1, 2014 these exchanges must exist in every state.

Managed competition is a purchasing strategy based on microeconomic principles, whereby maximum value is supposedly obtained for both consumers and employers. At the heart of managed competition is an all-powerful sponsor, whose role is to establish rules of equity, select participating plans, manage the enrollment process, create price-elastic demand, and manage risk selection. Its proponents acknowledge that it will tend to succeed based on the extent of high-quality, cost-effective, organized systems of care already in existence—especially prepaid group practices.

If you find this paradigm to be ironic, you are not alone. What value is added by a parasitic bureaucracy that first requires a well-oiled machine as a host? Not to mention the army of consultants, associated vendors, and other hangers-on, who all stand to profit from HIX implementation. But then, we might also ask why physicians, nurses, and other providers are such a small part of the overall picture—and why almost no one seems to care about this. Indeed, Obamacare is likely the greatest example of “the tail wagging the dog” in history.

Last November, HHS announced that a fee would be imposed on insurance providers for the privilege of selling health insurance in the new online markets run by the federal government. Naturally, these user fees (3.5 percent) can—and will—be passed onto consumers. Throw into the mix the temporarily postponed reduction in Medicare reimbursements and uncertainty over Medicaid coverage, and the prospect of a health care Nirvana appears quite remote.

It should be noted that this sea change in the nature of health insurance has sparked an interest in Defined Contribution (DC) Health Plans. In the DC model, employees are given before-tax dollars, applicable to obtaining coverage on their own, including using the new exchanges. Many experts predict that traditional health insurance (the defined benefits model) will cease to exist by 2020, in favor of the DC model.

Enterprising insurance professionals, and this includes some carriers, have already moved into the DC space. Private health insurance exchanges are those that operate outside of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but still must meet the requirements of the exchange management. These, too, can be part of the offerings of savvy brokers.

One company doing a fine job in helping employers and brokers alike to enter this new world of health insurance products is Birmingham, AL based Health Partners America. HPA’s website provides plenty of resources, including content by founder and president Josh Hilgers. Don’t miss the videos directed to employers and employees.

Health care in America is changing. Whether for the better or worse remains to be seen.

Watching ObamaCare Unfold (Or Maybe Unravel)

Obamacare Not Priceless SC Watching ObamaCare Unfold (Or Maybe Unravel)

Americans will remember the oft-repeated promise made by Obama in 2008, whereby health insurance premiums for American families would be cut by $2500 within his first term. Presumably, he based this contention on a memo written for his campaign in May 2007 by three well-regarded experts from Harvard: David Blumenthal, David Cutler, and Jeffrey Liebman.

As they stated:

Combining all of these effects—from improved health IT, better disease management, reduced insurance overhead, reinsurance, and reduced uncompensated care —under our “best-guess” assumptions, we estimate that businesses will save $140 billion annually in insurance premiums. The typical family will save $2500 per year.

In reality, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone whose premiums have decreased. Rather, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey, premiums for employer-provided family coverage rose $3065—a 24% increase from 2008 to 2012. Looking only at the period after ACA became law, premiums spiked 9.5% in 2011 and climbed another 4.5% in 2012.

Amazingly, the Harvard dons fell for the ridiculous notion that deploying more health IT would be some sort of transformative and revolutionary process; as if putting medical records on computer instead of in file folders would somehow save billions of dollars all by itself. Quoting again from the memo…

Greater use of information technology is one key to a more efficient health care system, along with incentives to use that technology wisely. The RAND Corporation conservatively estimated that significant investment in health IT could save $77 billion per year.

The Harvard dons relied heavily on an article published in the September/October 2005 issue of Health Affairs entitled “Promoting Health Information Technology: Is There A Case For More-Aggressive Government Action?” This article was one of seven described as “related documents” in the now infamous RAND report I discussed in a recent column. I say “infamous” since the report is now being disavowed by RAND itself and was paid for by companies that stood to—and did—make billions off the health IT push.

Notably, the same author names (including RAND stalwarts James Bigelow, Anthony Bower, and Roger Taylor) keep appearing in these documents, as these supposedly independent researchers cite themselves and each other. I don’t think that’s what we mean by “peer review.”

Our Harvard Veritas boys save the best for last, as they conclude their memo with this gem: “Thus, we believe that the Federal financing for the Obama health plan will be available using already-identified sources of revenue and without new taxes on the overwhelming majority of U.S. taxpayers.”

Unfortunately, Kathleen Sebelius and her HHS—the principal player in America’s ObamaCare funding consortium—have announced they will charge insurers a 3.5 % fee for using ObamaCare exchanges to sell their product—an estimated $100 billion to HHS over the next 10 years.  The fee is buried in 373 pages of new draft regulations written, of course, by the HHS.

What other surprises will be in store for insurers and their insureds now that the election is over? More importantly, how much will other HHS add-ons cost the REAL source of ObamaCare revenue–the American taxpayer?

Photo credit: criticalbias.org (Creative Commons)

Gun Control-Demystified

Obama Boneyard Gun Control Commission SC Gun Control Demystified

Just as gun control posturing provides feckless politicians with a means of distracting the public from the pressing issues of the day,  it also enables us to see inside the matrix, as the notion of “gun control” is at the nexus of several poorly understood and deliberately distorted precepts of American life.

Case in point: despite the omnipresent “To protect and serve” designations emblazoned on most marked police vehicles, courts at all levels have consistently held that the police have no duty to protect individuals. In a slogan that could have come straight out of George Orwell, the so-called “Public Duty” doctrine states that the police owe a duty to protect the public in general, but not to protect any particular individual.

In Warren v. District of Columbia, the DC Court of Appeals ruled against Carolyn Warren, even though the aid promised via her 911 call never arrived, the overall conduct of the police was astonishingly incompetent, and she and her roommate were brutalized for 14 hours.

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the US Supreme Court ruled against Jessica Gonzales, who claimed that the failure of the Castle Rock, CO police to enforce a restraining order led to the murder of her three children by her estranged husband. She had contacted the police five times on the day of the homicides, pleading for help.

In Ford v. Town of Grafton, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts ruled against Catherine M. Ford, whose protective order against her estranged husband offered no real protection. Indeed, she was advised by the police to procure a gun but failed to do so. Her former spouse continued to threaten and assault her, leading to her being shot three times and subsequently paralyzed for life.

In Riss v. New York, the Court of Appeals of New York ruled against Linda Riss, who begged for police protection from a former suitor’s violent threats. After all, she was unable to arm herself in New York City at the time. The police failed to prevent an attack in which lye was poured on her face, rendering her blind in one eye, with limited vision in the other. As was pointed out at the time, “By a rather bitter irony, she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.”

There are many more such cases, some of which even have police on the scene still failing to act.

Yet although police neither owe anyone protection, nor may be found liable for a failure to provide it, we have been fed a notion of self-defense, in which the question posed is “Why would anyone need a gun or magazine like that?” The implication being that only police and military (and I guess criminals) should be allowed to have such firearms. The first answer is that the purpose of these weapons IS self-defense, whether used by a civilian, a police officer, or the military. Why is their claim to self-defense more valid than yours, especially since they have no legal duty to protect you?

It’s quite simple: The police have no duty to protect individual citizens; criminal offenders will not disarm, nor tone down their weapons. Yet the government still wants to disarm you. Why? So you will be more dependent on the government, and they will have yet more control over your life. Gun control has metastasized into total control.

Under such rubrics, and in response to the perceived public concern over rising crime rates, who knows how Draconian it might get? The government might even restrict or suspend certain constitutional rights. Oh wait, they already have.