The future of institutions as long-term residences for persons with mental illness is certainly an integral part of the discussion about mental health policy. Usually those discussions focus on state budgets and Medicaid reimbursement and compliance with Olmstead. But, I was intrigued with a recent piece on Scott Hensley's blog on npr.org “A Peaceful War on Mental Institutions”—coverage of a different chapter in the history of mental institutions.

I never realized that many conscientious objectors in World War II were assigned to mental institutions in lieu of military service. Their experiences are documented in a recent piece on NPR ("WWII Pacifists Exposed Mental Ward Horrors") and in two books—Acts of Conscience: World War II, Mental Institutions, and Religious Objectors (by Stephen Taylor and published by Syracuse University Press) and The Turning Point: How Men of Conscience Brought About Major Change in the Care of America's Mentally Ill (by Alex Sareyan and published by American Psychiatric Press).

As I read this tale of the evolution of human conditions within our mental institutions, I was first struck by how much had changed. Then my thoughts wandered to the millions of Americans with mental illness in our corrections system. If we had the same undercover reporting of conditions of these citizens, would the photos be far different?

For more information on mental health in the corrections context, check out:

• Three Times as Many People With Serious Mental Illness in Prisons Than in Psychiatric Hospitals
• Consensus Panel Develops Performance Measures for Correctional Mental Health

August 28, 2009

There is a thought-provoking article that came out in the August 19 edition of the Schizophrenia Bulletin, “Implementing Evidence-Based Practices for People With Schizophrenia,” by Robert E. Drake; Gary R. Bond; and Susan M. Essock. The article is a great summary of the current sad state of the treatment of serious mental illness at the consumer level. Despite significant research on what works, essentially people with serious mental illness are not getting the treatments they need. While the article is a great state-of-the-nation piece, based on our team's work in the public mental health system I think the recommendations need to be expanded.

Over the last decade, a number of systematic efforts to identify evidence-based interventions for individuals with serious mental illnesses have been made. However, although the interventions have been identified, numerous surveys have shown that consumers are not receiving these interventions. The report states:

Epidemiologic data from the National Comorbidity Study in the early 1990s showed that 60% of persons with serious mental illnesses received no treatment in the past year, 25% received clearly inadequate treatment, and only 15% received minimally adequate (far short of evidence-based) treatment.

The 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that only 8.5% of adults who reported both serious psychological distress and a substance use disorder received any treatment for both problems in the past year.

In their article, the authors recommend solutions that fall in the domains of information technology, state policy interventions, and federal policy interventions. But, I think these recommended solutions will have a limited effect if there are no changes to fundamentals in system design and financing, needed to assure that consumers with mental illnesses can get the services they need. I know the naysayers will contend that there is not enough money in the system to pay for these changes. I would counter that these are not behavioral health system issues. Rather they are health care issues—and these changes would be budget-neutral if we factor in the costs of emergency room visits and hospital readmissions alone.

To view my proposed solutions, check out: http://www.openminds.com/circlehome/circle/content_schizoebpstudy.htm