Hello All:
Last evening the Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted 109-92 (on
almost totally partisan lines) to pass a state budget that sets
spending at $27.3 billion for the 2011-12 fiscal year, the same amount
as in Governor Corbett’s budget proposal.
House Bill 1485 cuts $1 billion from public schools and reduces Governor
Corbett’s DPW budget by $471 million for health and human services for
children, women and people with disabilities. The House approved budget
does not raise taxes nor does it enact an extraction tax on natural gas.
The House budget plan leaves untouched a $500 million state revenue
surplus.
Rep Dom Costa (D-21st Legislative District, Allegheny) posts on his
website today that "It doesn't have to be this way. We have a $500
million surplus that we could be investing in Pennsylvanians. Instead,
it's being stashed out of the reach of the people who need it now for a
"rainy day" sometime in the future."
The House approved Budget plan now moves to the PA Senate, where
Republicans are more open to spending the state's $500 million estimated
surplus.
For HB 1485 text, history and record of the vote go to:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2011&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=1485
Southwestern PA House members who voted YES on the budget bill were
Christiana, Maher, Marshall, Mustio, Reed, Turzai, and Vulokovich.
Members who voted NO included Burns, Costa, D., Costa. P, Deasy, DeLuca,
Dermody , Frankel, Gergely, Kortz, Kotik, Markosek, Preston, Ravenstahl,
Readshaw, Wagner, Wheatley, and White.
CALL TO ACTION: Go to www.namiswpa.org and click on Legislative Affairs
for more details and legislators' contact information.
Please email or call the offices of House members who voted YES on the
House budget plan to let them know these cuts may have a devestaing
effect on Pennsylvanians that rely on health and human services funded
through DPW. It is also most important to thank those who voted NO on
the bill.
Take further action now by encouraging House and Senate leaders and Gov.
Tom Corbett to craft a responsible budget that does not leave you out in
the rain. Also contact your state senator to schedule a meeting in their
district office and ask them to urge Senate leadership to encourage
reinvestment in Pennsylvanians by responsible utilization of the $500
million surplus.
Share with state lawmakers that you disagree with lockboxing the surplus
for some unknown "rainy day" in the future.
Remind them it's raining now!
Thanks to each of you for your collective efforts to improve the lives
of individuals and families effected by mental illnesses!
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Coercion Is Not Mental Health Care
Janice L. LeBel, Ed.D.
Massachusetts Department of Mental Health
In this month's issue, Newton-Howes and Mullen report findings of their review of the literature on consumers' experience of coercion in care. What is remarkable is that this is the first systematic review of research on consumers' perception of coercion. It is also remarkable that the literature spans more than 30 years. This raises the question: Why has no one conducted a comparative analysis of consumers' perception of coercion?
One need only consult with the experts—consumers themselves—to understand why. In a nonsystematic review of consumer opinions, adolescent and adult consumers were asked why they thought such an analysis had not been undertaken before. They offered the following explanation: 1) discrimination, 2) discrimination, and 3) discrimination. They also agreed: "Coercion is in the eye of the beholder," and the orientation of the researcher biases the study. Research findings are inherently flawed—and our understanding of coercion along with them—unless the study and the data analysis are conducted by consumers who have experienced coercion.
However, consumer-experts find hope in new federally funded transformation initiatives. These efforts have helped to promote consumer voice and choice and expand peer roles. Thirty years ago, when the study of consumers' experience of coercion in care was in its infancy, the idea of peer specialists working in inpatient and outpatient settings was unheard of. Not now. Thirty years ago, the possibility of young adults working as peer mentors in inpatient and outpatient services did not exist. It does now. Thirty years ago, "parent partners" working in hospital and community-based care was unknown. Not anymore. These roles and many more are emerging in public and private health care systems and transforming and destigmatizing mental health treatment—making recovery real.
Newton-Howes and Mullen recommend further study "to enable psychiatrists to optimize management of their patients while maximizing their autonomy." The time has come to shift the research focus from coercion in traditional care to autonomy in peer programming. It is time to study what enables consumers to self-manage and what promotes satisfaction and efficacy. Recent research suggests that peer-run and peer-staffed crisis services lead to higher levels of consumer satisfaction and a reduction in psychiatric symptoms. In a service system focused on transformation, studying the facets of care that promote recovery is prudent and necessary.
Ironically, a bill introduced in Congress in response to health care reforms was titled "Coercion Is Not Health Care." At issue is a perceived lack of choice by Americans about health insurance. The matter may be headed to the Supreme Court for resolution, but for the moment, it appears that consumers and some legislators may have found common ground: coercion is not health care or mental health care.
Massachusetts Department of Mental Health
In this month's issue, Newton-Howes and Mullen report findings of their review of the literature on consumers' experience of coercion in care. What is remarkable is that this is the first systematic review of research on consumers' perception of coercion. It is also remarkable that the literature spans more than 30 years. This raises the question: Why has no one conducted a comparative analysis of consumers' perception of coercion?
One need only consult with the experts—consumers themselves—to understand why. In a nonsystematic review of consumer opinions, adolescent and adult consumers were asked why they thought such an analysis had not been undertaken before. They offered the following explanation: 1) discrimination, 2) discrimination, and 3) discrimination. They also agreed: "Coercion is in the eye of the beholder," and the orientation of the researcher biases the study. Research findings are inherently flawed—and our understanding of coercion along with them—unless the study and the data analysis are conducted by consumers who have experienced coercion.
However, consumer-experts find hope in new federally funded transformation initiatives. These efforts have helped to promote consumer voice and choice and expand peer roles. Thirty years ago, when the study of consumers' experience of coercion in care was in its infancy, the idea of peer specialists working in inpatient and outpatient settings was unheard of. Not now. Thirty years ago, the possibility of young adults working as peer mentors in inpatient and outpatient services did not exist. It does now. Thirty years ago, "parent partners" working in hospital and community-based care was unknown. Not anymore. These roles and many more are emerging in public and private health care systems and transforming and destigmatizing mental health treatment—making recovery real.
Newton-Howes and Mullen recommend further study "to enable psychiatrists to optimize management of their patients while maximizing their autonomy." The time has come to shift the research focus from coercion in traditional care to autonomy in peer programming. It is time to study what enables consumers to self-manage and what promotes satisfaction and efficacy. Recent research suggests that peer-run and peer-staffed crisis services lead to higher levels of consumer satisfaction and a reduction in psychiatric symptoms. In a service system focused on transformation, studying the facets of care that promote recovery is prudent and necessary.
Ironically, a bill introduced in Congress in response to health care reforms was titled "Coercion Is Not Health Care." At issue is a perceived lack of choice by Americans about health insurance. The matter may be headed to the Supreme Court for resolution, but for the moment, it appears that consumers and some legislators may have found common ground: coercion is not health care or mental health care.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Next to Normal
A Broadway musical and 2010 Pulitzer Prize winning play, tries to paint an authentic picture of mental illness and how it impacts one family. Touring nationally, the play arrives at Philadelphia's Academy of Music on Tuesday June 21. Tickets purchased through NAMI Montgomery County are for June 23, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Alternatives 2011 Annual Conference
Coming Home: Creating Our Own Communities of Wellness and Recovery
October 26-30, 2011 Orlando, FL
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), through a contract with Westover Consultants, Inc. (Westover), and AFYA, Inc. (AFYA), is providing financial support to consumers of mental health services who wish to participate in the Alternatives 2011 Annual Conference. The purpose of this scholarship is to foster the transformation of mental health care to focus on recovery.
Please Note: In order for you to be eligible for this scholarship, a completed application must be received by U.S. Mail, postmarked on or before the deadline of May 16, 2011. No faxed of e-mailed submissions will be accepted. The scholarship application and other ideas for obtaining funding to attend the conference are available at http://www.alternatives2011.org/.
October 26-30, 2011 Orlando, FL
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), through a contract with Westover Consultants, Inc. (Westover), and AFYA, Inc. (AFYA), is providing financial support to consumers of mental health services who wish to participate in the Alternatives 2011 Annual Conference. The purpose of this scholarship is to foster the transformation of mental health care to focus on recovery.
Please Note: In order for you to be eligible for this scholarship, a completed application must be received by U.S. Mail, postmarked on or before the deadline of May 16, 2011. No faxed of e-mailed submissions will be accepted. The scholarship application and other ideas for obtaining funding to attend the conference are available at http://www.alternatives2011.org/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
