Florida 's Mental Health Crisis

Our progress in learning the causes and treatments for mental illness has been steady as we build on the medical model of mental illness, which Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman (2010) describe as a model that, “views emotional and behavioral problems as a mental illness, comparable to a physical illness (pp. 341). Only in modern times have we been able to effectively treat mental illness with behavioral therapy, social support, medicine, and other research-based programs. However, there is still much work to be done in regard to access, proper facilities, policy and a host of other challenges that affect this issue.

Regarding the treatment of mental illness, there are two effective forms that have caused considerable debates in the field of psychology: the medical and the recovery models. While there are significant differences between these two models, they are both effective when used concurrently. The efficacy of the medical model alone is diminishing as it focuses too narrowly on treatment goals, and may ignore the needs of the client. On the other hand, the recovery model focuses on the client and allows them to take control of their treatment and rehabilitation, which helps promote positive change. Recovery is often seen as a lifelong journey that requires the client to be wholly involved in the recovery process. This is why the recovery model values

According to the World Health Organization, mental illness will affect approximately 25% of people at some point in their life (“WHO Qualityrights”, n.d.). Despite that, the current mental health care system in the United States is inadequate. Many aspects of the system need improving, especially the barriers to service. In fact, approximately 20% of individuals are left without necessary treatment for their mental health disorder (“Mental Health”, 2016). Mentally ill individuals have difficulty accessing necessary mental health care services for various reasons; insurance, socioeconomic status, and mental health stigma can all function as barriers to treatment. Insurance discrimination can make it difficult for individuals to find treatment (Han, Call, Pintor, Alarcon-Espinoza, & Simon, 2015). Gaps in insurance coverage can also be a barrier, as they disrupt the long-term treatment process (Gulley, Rasch, & Chan 2011). Socioeconomic status has been found to negatively affect appointment scheduling (Kugelmass, 2016). Finally, stigma in our society can also stop people from seeking out treatment that they need (Bathje & Pryor, 2011). The mental health system in the United States is not capable of caring for the mentally ill, as insurance, socioeconomic status, and perceived stigma all act as barriers that prevent people from receiving the treatment they need.

In 2009, The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) gave the United States national mental health care system a ‘D.’ This grade is based on four sections: “health promotion and measurement; financing and core treatment/recovery service; consumer and family empowerment; [and] community integration and social inclusion.” While New Jersey received a grade of a ‘C’, which is better then the national average it is still a dismal grade that needs improvement.

One in five American adults have experienced a mental health issue, and one in twenty-five Americans have lived with a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also states studies show that individuals with mental health problems get better and may even recover completely, where they can continue living life healthily, with the help of treatments, services, and community systems. I, myself am one of the twenty-five.

The United States is a frontrunner in global topics such as women’s rights and environmental issues. However, when discussing mental illness the United States chooses to look at the subject in a mindset that is stuck in the 1950’s using the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. The federal government has only begun to recently talk about mental illness and its effects in the media. Yet, when they do this they choose to cover topics such as ‘gun rights’ with mental illness, while the real topic of conversation is the future treatment for those with mental illness, and how the United States plans on eliminating the stigma that surrounds mental health.

“A mental disorder (mental illness) is a psychological pattern that is generally associated with a defect or disease of the individual’s mind. It causes a disability that may affect an individual’s behavior patterns in ways that are not part of one’s normal development or culture. Mental disorders are common in the United States. Within any given year, nearly 25 percent of adults and slightly over 20 percent of children are diagnosable for one or more mental disorders. While mental disorder appears to be widespread among the population, the main burden (or threat) emanates from about 6 percent of those who suffer from a debilitating mental illness.” (National Institute of Mental Health, 2011)

Due to the politics underlying both, gun control and mental-health legislation, this recent shift came with a lack of simplicity. Being careful not to ignite inaccurate stigmas about mental illnesses; advocacy groups and congressional Democrats remained reluctant not to connect escalating gun violence with people suffering from mental health disorders as the leading cause of these recent shootings. Deep disagreements on Capitol Hill, along with great demands from family members of individuals diagnosed with severe mental illness would not come cheap. Also, it would only become another obstacle standing in the way of accomplishing the goal of bringing change to the mental health system (Sun,

The United States has never had an official federal-centered approach for mental health care facilities, entrusting its responsibility to the states throughout the history. The earliest initiatives in this field took place in the 18th century, when Virginia built its first asylum and Pennsylvania Hospital reserved its basement to house individuals with mental disorders (Sundararaman, 2009). During the 19th century, other services were built, but their overall lack of quality was alarming. Even then, researchers and professionals in the mental health field attempted to implement the principles of the so-called public health, focusing on prevention and early intervention, but the funds were in the hands of the local governments, which prevented significant advances in this direction.

Contemporary mental health care is a changing and developing field. Traditional practices of understanding and caring for those with mental illness are being challenged (Trenoweth, 2017). Personal recovery is not a new concept. Although it is significantly different to the biomedical model, it has been well written about in literature, putting a significant influence on policies and the delivery of care within today’s practices. When people with a lived experience of mental illness started to challenge the biomedical model of care, recovery orientated health care began to grow (Barkway, 2013). Before further exploring both personal recovery and the biomedical approach, we will look at what recovery is. Slade (2009) outlines a two part definition

What is left is that we have many citizens who are mentally ill and are not receiving treatment. However the patients who are able to receive treatment are only able to have some treatment covered. Health insurers are responsible for covering the immensely large cost of substantial treatment, a mixture of medication and therapy; since therapy is highly priced, less reliable, and time consuming; patients typically do not receive treatment for therapy. Health insurers would much rather cover medication because it is cheaper, it heals patients faster, and it is more reliable than therapy. However, medication is not made to heal, but to only coax symptoms of a mental illness (Sandberg).

Advocating for the mentally ill has become my life quest, yet the sad truth is that the rule of law does not fully protect this population of people. All to often the rights of individuals living with mental health conditions are infringed upon by elected officials who see the mentally ill as a proxy solution for the gun crisis we face in America. This minority group of society is seen as the perpetrator of violence and crime when data clear articulates the opposite. Yet, the data is ignored, the mental ill are stigmatized, and the only state in the union with the Mental Health Services Act continues to see widespread disparities among those living with mental health challenges. Thus, I’d like to further my mental health advocating abilities by pursuing public interest law.

is no longer hidden but confronts us demanding an intervention that will disrupt its history. Critical analysis places us all in the glaring light that pans negligence, but it is the policymakers that stand in the focus of this beam while the rest of us are in its important penumbra. Policymakers are challenged to 1) restore and increase proper community mental health structures, 2) deinstitutionalize mental ill-health patients, 3) train police officers, and also personnel serving

Public policy refers to “a system of laws, regulatory measures, courses of action, and funding priorities promulgated by governmental entity or its representatives”(Blau & Abramovitz, 2014). One public policy that is gaining attention from United States Senators is the Expand Excellence in Mental Health Act. We can gain a better understanding of this act by taking a look at a recent public policy related to mental healthcare, the values in the Code of Ethics, social welfare programs, stakeholder groups, and Joel Blau’s five elements model. This will give us a better understanding into the social problem and public policy related to access to mental healthcare.

One in five adults has a mental health condition, that's over 40 million Americans; more than the populations of New York and Florida combined (Mental Health in America, 2017). More Americans have access to health care services by the Affordable Care Act. Access to insurance and treatment increased, as healthcare reform has reduced the rates of uninsured adults. The greatest decrease in uninsured adults with mental illnesses was seen in states that expanded Medicaid, but most Americans still lack access to care; 56% of American adults with a mental illness do not receive treatment (Mental Health in America, 2017). Even in Maine, the state with the best access, 41.4% of adults with a mental illness do not receive treatment (Mental Health in America, 2017). There is a serious