Click here for the DUKE Study on Outpatient Commitment, posted through the NAMI site.
You can checkout our Tweet page for other links to articles and the national discussion happening on this timely topic. This debate is currently happening in Washington and legislation is expected to be put through this year. We expect Legislation on this in CT too this year.
There are a few conversations happening on this topic: The one of the caregiver unable to get a loved one to get care vs. the loved one who wants the 'freedom' to choose to accept or deny care. A choice the caregiver doesn't have yet has to function through. There is no 'freedom of choice' for a caregiver, other than walking away…which isn't a choice many could make.
The other conversation is that between treatment providers and the government. This conversation comes down to money. The cost of recidivism is high for those with chronic untreated mental illness and after the closures of hospitals nd the lack of 'beds' currently in our mental health system ( IE hospitals) the costs have been enormous for hospitals, insurance companies and for fed and state insurance.
When hostels where closed the 'promise' was to fund community based, evidenced based models. They are not only cost effective, patines buy in to them and thrive. How so we know? Houseing first has a success f=rate of 85% vs rule based house at 35% at five years. Logiclaly 26 clubhouse members supporting each other in grub, job truing, life skills is more effective that the one hr a week one perks hets with a Dr. to talk…once a month.
Yet, clubhouses can;t address the SMI. the SMI ioften don;t know they're ill.
Any conversation about stopping Mental Health dialogs in out nation and stopping community based finding is silly. one., because they work and two because there are ever going to be state hospitals like in the past. the conversation an either or conversation Mental Health supports vs. serious mental health treatment.
Let's look at numbers 2-3% of the population has a serious MI, 28% of the population has a mental health issue ( sleep depravation, anxiety, treatable bi-polar, etc…). The argument, whether intended or not is to forget servicing and helping he able employable, families, etc. of the 25% to fund the 2-3%. Ok, I could accept that if it were going to happen. Yet it never will.