Bush plans to
screen whole US population for mental illness
by Jeanne Lenzer
June 19, 2004
New York
A sweeping mental health initiative will be unveiled by
President George W Bush in July. The plan promises to
integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by
providing "services in the community, rather than
institutions," according to a March 2004 progress report
entitled New Freedom Initiative (www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom/toc-2004.html).
While some praise the plan's goals, others say it protects the
profits of drug companies at the expense of the public.
Bush established the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health
in April 2002 to conduct a "comprehensive study of the United
States mental health service delivery system." The commission
issued its recommendations in July 2003. Bush instructed more
than 25 federal agencies to develop an implementation plan
based on those recommendations.
The president's commission found that "despite their
prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and
recommended comprehensive mental health screening for
"consumers of all ages," including preschool children.
According to the commission, "Each year, young children are
expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely
disruptive behaviours and emotional disorders." Schools, wrote
the commission, are in a "key position" to screen the 52
million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.
The commission also recommended "Linkage [of screening] with
treatment and supports" including "state-of-the-art
treatments" using "specific medications for specific
conditions." The commission commended the Texas Medication
Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a "model" medication treatment
plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results
in better consumer outcomes."
Dr Darrel Regier, director of research at the American
Psychiatric Association (APA), lauded the president's
initiative and the Texas project model saying, "What's nice
about TMAP is that this is a logical plan based on efficacy
data from clinical trials."
He said the association has called for increased funding for
implementation of the overall plan.
But the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more
expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, sparked off
controversy when Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania
Office of the Inspector General, revealed that key officials
with influence over the medication plan in his state received
money and perks from drug companies with a stake in the
medication algorithm . He was sacked this week for speaking to
the BMJ and the New York Times.
The Texas project started in 1995 as an alliance of
individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University
of Texas, and the mental health and corrections systems of
Texas. The project was funded by a Robert Wood Johnson
grant—and by several drug companies.
Mr Jones told the BMJ that the same "political/pharmaceutical
alliance" that generated the Texas project was behind the
recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which,
according to his whistleblower report, were "poised to
consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national
policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented
medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects,
and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab".
Larry D Sasich, research associate with Public Citizen in
Washington, DC, told the BMJ that studies in both the United
States and Great Britain suggest that "using the older drugs
first makes sense. There's nothing in the labeling of the
newer atypical antipsychotic drugs that suggests they are
superior in efficacy to haloperidol [an older "typical"
antipsychotic]. There has to be an enormous amount of
unnecessary expenditures for the newer drugs."
Drug companies have contributed threetimes more to the campaign of George Bush, seen here campaigningin Florida, than to that of his rival John Kerry
Credit: GERALDHERBERT/AP
Olanzapine (trade name Zyprexa), one of the atypical
antipsychotic drugs recommended as a first line drug in the
Texas algorithm, grossed $4.28bn (£2.35bn; 3.56bn) worldwide
in 2003 and is Eli Lilly's top selling drug. A 2003 New York
Times article by Gardiner Harris reported that 70% of
olanzapine sales are paid for by government agencies, such as
Medicare and Medicaid.
Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, has multiple ties to
the Bush administration. George Bush Sr was a member of
Lilly's board of directors and Bush Jr appointed Lilly's chief
executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on the Homeland
Security Council. Lilly made $1.6m in political contributions
in 2000—82% of which went to Bush and the Republican Party.
Jones points out that the companies that helped to start up
the Texas project have been, and still are, big contributors
to the election funds of George W Bush. In addition, some
members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory
boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties
to the Texas Medication Algorithm Project.
Bush was the governor of Texas during the development of the
Texas project, and, during his 2000 presidential campaign, he
boasted of his support for the project and the fact that the
legislation he passed expanded Medicaid coverage of
psychotropic drugs.
Bush is the clear front runner when it comes to drug company
contributions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics
(CRP), manufacturers of drugs and health products have
contributed $764 274 to the 2004 Bush campaign through their
political action committees and employees—far outstripping the
$149 400 given to his chief rival, John Kerry, by 26 April.
Drug companies have fared exceedingly well under the Bush
administration, according to the centre's spokesperson, Steven
Weiss.
The commission's recommendation for increased screening has
also been questioned. Robert Whitaker, journalist and author
of Mad in America, says that while increased screening "may
seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for
customers," and that exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs
from other forms of care such as job training and shelter
programmes."
But Dr Graham Emslie, who helped develop the Texas project,
defends screening: "There are good data showing that if you
identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can
intervene... and change their trajectory."
Tell Congress and the White House NO MENTAL SCREENINGS FOR
AMERICANS AND NO FUNDING FOR THIS PLAN!
1) Oppose any federal, state, or local plans for universal
mental health screening. Contact the White House
(202-456-1111), the Speaker of the House (Rep. Hastert at
202-225-2976) and the Senate Leader (Senator Frist at
202-224-3344), your own Members of Congress (go to
www.congress.org), the House Education and Workforce Committee
Chairman John Boehner at 202-225-6205, and the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Judd Gregg
at 202-224-3324 and tell them to STOP funding this New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health plan in the Labor/HHS
appropriations bill. Alert your state legislators and oppose
school board initiatives to add psychiatric screening
programs.
2) Support the Child Medication Act (S. 1390) currently
stalled in the Senate by Senator Edward Kennedy - This
legislation prohibits schools from coercing parents to place
their children on psychiatric medications that are on the
controlled substances list. Senator Kennedy, with large
support from pharmaceutical companies, has not let this very
modest proposal even receive a hearing, saying that it needs
more study. Senator Kennedy (202-224-4543) as well as Senator
Gregg (202-224-3324) the Committee chairman, and Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist (202-224-3344) need to hear from
the public.
3) Check to see if your state has a provision in state special
education law that prohibits a school district from overriding
parental refusal to submit their child to a special education
or mental health evaluation. If yes, alert other parents, and
if not, work for one.