Serious Mental Illness Blog

Official blog for LIU Post's Clinical Psychology Doctorate SMI Specialty Concentration

Posts tagged substance

70 notes

[In the News] Insurers directed to treat mental health issues the same as physical ailmentsBy Sandhya Somashekhar and Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Health and Science

The Obama administration issued a final rule Friday requiring insurers to treat mental health and substance-abuse problems the same way they do physical illnesses.
The rule provides long-awaited clarification on a mental health parity law that was enacted with much fanfare five years ago but had not been fully implemented as the federal government wrote and revised the regulations.
It also represents a fulfillment of a promise made by President Obama, who vowed to put the finishing touches on the regulations as part of a broader effort to address the problem of mass shootings, which have thrust mental health issues into the spotlight in recent years.
“For way too long, the health-care system has openly discriminated against Americans with behavioral health problems. In the past, it was legal for insurance companies to treat these disorders differently than medical and surgical needs,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in announcing the rule Friday.
Because of the 2008 mental health parity law, as well as the 2010 Affordable Care Act, “we are finally closing these gaps in coverage,” she said.
Mental health advocates lauded Friday’s news because they have been eagerly awaiting final regulations since the passage of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in 2008. Championed more than two decades ago by then-Sens. Paul D. Wellstone (D-Minn.) and Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), the law was hailed as a milestone for people with mental illness and substance-abuse problems.
The administration issued interim rules in 2010 meant to partially explain the nuances of the law, but it still left ambiguity in a number of areas, including how insurance companies were to cover the kind of intensive treatment that falls in the gray area between emergency inpatient care and a doctor’s office visit.
Friday’s rule clarifies that people are entitled to information about the standards used by health plans to determine what kind of treatment they cover — information that could be valuable if people want to file a complaint alleging that their mental health service was not treated comparably to a medical one.
It also confirms that the ­gray-area treatments — for example, intensive therapy after a psychotic break that does not require hospitalization — should be covered in a similar fashion as a medical condition, such as the rehabilitation that takes place after a heart attack.
But some mental health advocates said it fell short in at least one respect: It did not indicate that the rules apply to people in private health plans administered through Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor.
They also noted that five years was a long time to wait for final rules. It was a period in which patients were somewhat reluctant to assert their rights under the law because of the lack of clarity, they said.
Still, they called Friday’s news historic and hailed it as a huge win for people who suffer from behavior problems.
“What a historic day this is, and what a difference it will make to families and individuals who have been discriminated against legally for many, many years,” said Debbie Plotnick, senior director of state policy for Mental Health America, an advocacy group.
By and large, insurance companies have already been abiding by the 2008 law, according to a federal study issued Friday in conjunction with the new rule.
Health plans “have worked to implement these requirements in a manner that is affordable, safe, and effective for patients,” Karen Ignagni, president of industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in a statement Friday. “We appreciate that the final rule enables patients with mental and behavioral health conditions to continue to benefit from the innovative programs and services health plans have pioneered.”
The law applies only to health plans provided by employers with 50 workers or more. The Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, extended the parity rules to the private health insurance market. The rules do not apply to people in government health insurance programs such as Medicaid or Medicare.
Finalizing the rule had been among the priorities outlined by Obama and Vice President Biden shortly after the attack in December at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman opened fire, killing 20 first-graders and six school employees before taking his own life.
According to reports, the shooter, Adam Lanza, may have had a history of mental illness. Although studies show that people with mental disorders are more likely to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator, Newtown and other mass shootings have prompted renewed interest in bolstering the nation’s mental health safety net.
That incident in particular led Obama and Biden to issue a plan to reduce gun violence through 23 proposed executive actions. With Friday’s announcement, all have now been fully or partially implemented.


For more mental health news, Click Here to access the Serious Mental Illness Blog

[In the News] Insurers directed to treat mental health issues the same as physical ailments
By Sandhya Somashekhar and Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Health and Science

The Obama administration issued a final rule Friday requiring insurers to treat mental health and substance-abuse problems the same way they do physical illnesses.

The rule provides long-awaited clarification on a mental health parity law that was enacted with much fanfare five years ago but had not been fully implemented as the federal government wrote and revised the regulations.

It also represents a fulfillment of a promise made by President Obama, who vowed to put the finishing touches on the regulations as part of a broader effort to address the problem of mass shootings, which have thrust mental health issues into the spotlight in recent years.

For way too long, the health-care system has openly discriminated against Americans with behavioral health problems. In the past, it was legal for insurance companies to treat these disorders differently than medical and surgical needs,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in announcing the rule Friday.

Because of the 2008 mental health parity law, as well as the 2010 Affordable Care Act, “we are finally closing these gaps in coverage,” she said.

Mental health advocates lauded Friday’s news because they have been eagerly awaiting final regulations since the passage of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in 2008. Championed more than two decades ago by then-Sens. Paul D. Wellstone (D-Minn.) and Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), the law was hailed as a milestone for people with mental illness and substance-abuse problems.

The administration issued interim rules in 2010 meant to partially explain the nuances of the law, but it still left ambiguity in a number of areas, including how insurance companies were to cover the kind of intensive treatment that falls in the gray area between emergency inpatient care and a doctor’s office visit.

Friday’s rule clarifies that people are entitled to information about the standards used by health plans to determine what kind of treatment they cover — information that could be valuable if people want to file a complaint alleging that their mental health service was not treated comparably to a medical one.

It also confirms that the ­gray-area treatments — for example, intensive therapy after a psychotic break that does not require hospitalization — should be covered in a similar fashion as a medical condition, such as the rehabilitation that takes place after a heart attack.

But some mental health advocates said it fell short in at least one respect: It did not indicate that the rules apply to people in private health plans administered through Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor.

They also noted that five years was a long time to wait for final rules. It was a period in which patients were somewhat reluctant to assert their rights under the law because of the lack of clarity, they said.

Still, they called Friday’s news historic and hailed it as a huge win for people who suffer from behavior problems.

What a historic day this is, and what a difference it will make to families and individuals who have been discriminated against legally for many, many years,” said Debbie Plotnick, senior director of state policy for Mental Health America, an advocacy group.

By and large, insurance companies have already been abiding by the 2008 law, according to a federal study issued Friday in conjunction with the new rule.

Health plans “have worked to implement these requirements in a manner that is affordable, safe, and effective for patients,” Karen Ignagni, president of industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in a statement Friday. “We appreciate that the final rule enables patients with mental and behavioral health conditions to continue to benefit from the innovative programs and services health plans have pioneered.”

The law applies only to health plans provided by employers with 50 workers or more. The Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, extended the parity rules to the private health insurance market. The rules do not apply to people in government health insurance programs such as Medicaid or Medicare.

Finalizing the rule had been among the priorities outlined by Obama and Vice President Biden shortly after the attack in December at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman opened fire, killing 20 first-graders and six school employees before taking his own life.

According to reports, the shooter, Adam Lanza, may have had a history of mental illness. Although studies show that people with mental disorders are more likely to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator, Newtown and other mass shootings have prompted renewed interest in bolstering the nation’s mental health safety net.

That incident in particular led Obama and Biden to issue a plan to reduce gun violence through 23 proposed executive actions. With Friday’s announcement, all have now been fully or partially implemented.



For more mental health news, Click Here to access the Serious Mental Illness Blog

Filed under mental health mental health illness mental illness substance substances substance use substance abuse use abuse physical physical illness illnesses mental health parity mental health parity law parity law law national united states usa america american fed federal federal government government regulation regulations regulate

46 notes

Dopamine: Duality of Desire
Being an ex-drug-addict turned neuroscientist brings a unique insight into the physiological and phenomenological realities of addiction. 
Excerpt: For 10 years I spun in and out of an addiction to opiates (and other drugs) that led to despair, crime, and the loss of everything I valued most—including my place in graduate school. After many failed attempts, I finally quit taking addictive drugs 30 years ago. I reentered grad school, got my PhD in developmental psychology, and became a professor at the University of Toronto, focusing on emotional and personality development. I studied these topics for 13 years, but I never quite understood my own personality development. I came to believe that my theories needed help from neuroscience, and that’s why I switched to research on the emotional brain—my focus for the past decade.
When I was in the throes of intense psychological addiction, my thoughts were continuously (and unpleasantly) drawn to drug imagery. It would be so great to have some now! How can I get some tonight?! But attraction to something you are just about to get feels marvelous. Dopamine-induced engagement turns into a headlong rush of triumph when the goal is finally accessible.
This perspective on the dual nature of attraction helps make sense of addiction. Unsated attraction can be a kind of torture, and addicts may seek drugs to put an end to that torture, more than for the modicum of pleasure drugs actually bestow.

Dopamine: Duality of Desire

Being an ex-drug-addict turned neuroscientist brings a unique insight into the physiological and phenomenological realities of addiction.

Excerpt: For 10 years I spun in and out of an addiction to opiates (and other drugs) that led to despair, crime, and the loss of everything I valued most—including my place in graduate school. After many failed attempts, I finally quit taking addictive drugs 30 years ago. I reentered grad school, got my PhD in developmental psychology, and became a professor at the University of Toronto, focusing on emotional and personality development. I studied these topics for 13 years, but I never quite understood my own personality development. I came to believe that my theories needed help from neuroscience, and that’s why I switched to research on the emotional brain—my focus for the past decade.

When I was in the throes of intense psychological addiction, my thoughts were continuously (and unpleasantly) drawn to drug imagery. It would be so great to have some now! How can I get some tonight?! But attraction to something you are just about to get feels marvelous. Dopamine-induced engagement turns into a headlong rush of triumph when the goal is finally accessible.

This perspective on the dual nature of attraction helps make sense of addiction. Unsated attraction can be a kind of torture, and addicts may seek drugs to put an end to that torture, more than for the modicum of pleasure drugs actually bestow.

Filed under psychiatry psychoanalysis psychotherapy psychotic substance drug abuse neuroscience knafo emotions addiction science psychology dsm diagnostic statistical