Health Affairs, 28, no. 3 (2009): 760 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.3.760 © 2009 by Project HOPE	New Online   House Health Reform Bill   Paying for Reform   Vetting AHIP's Report   HIV/AIDS Costs   Brief: Insurance Reform   HA Blog Top 10

This Article Extract Reprint (PDF) Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to Citation Manager Reprints & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Related Collections Mental Health/Substance Abuse Related Articles

Federal Policy

PROLOGUE

Transforming Federal Policy

Robert Drake and colleagues look at the growing role that Social Security disability programs—both Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income—play in supporting America’s mentally ill. Although many of these beneficiaries want to, and could, work, features of these programs actually limit their ability to gain employment and be productive. Drake and his colleagues advocate for marrying the benefits to a program of "supported" employment, releasing enrollees from dependence and restoring their dignity.

Audrey Burnam and her RAND colleagues navigate a very different landscape: that of mental health care for returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, particularly those with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Both the Defense Department and the Veterans Health Administration have taken significant steps to improve care for those affected. Yet most veterans will actually seek care outside the military or VHA systems and back in their own communities, if at all. Burnam and colleagues make recommendations to grow community-based practitioners and train them to recognize and treat combat-related mental health conditions; to establish incentives for providers to improve treatments; and to have the government provide more assistance to help the states.

Phillip Wang and colleagues from the National Institute of Mental Health examine the federal government’s role in funding comparative effectiveness research to test interventions against one another. They review the findings of three large randomized controlled trials testing older versus newer antipsychotic drugs in treatment of schizophrenia, as well as drug and psychosocial treatments for those with persistent depression and bipolar disorder. The trials did demonstrate some clear findings—most particularly that, as a class, the newer and more expensive psychotropic drugs did not work better than older generics. Yet they also reinforced the fact that individuals are highly variable and need tailored regimens, including behavioral interventions. Such trials, they conclude, should remain a core part of the federal contribution to advancing mental health.

                      What's this?

Related Articles

• Robert E. Drake, Jonathan S. Skinner, Gary R. Bond, and Howard H. Goldman
  Social Security And Mental Illness: Reducing Disability With Supported Employment
  Health Affairs, May/June 2009; 28(3): 761-770.
  [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Appendix]
   
  
• M. Audrey Burnam, Lisa S. Meredith, Terri Tanielian, and Lisa H. Jaycox
  Mental Health Care For Iraq And Afghanistan War Veterans
  Health Affairs, May/June 2009; 28(3): 771-782.
  [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
   
  
• Philip S. Wang, Christine M. Ulbricht, and Michael Schoenbaum
  Improving Mental Health Treatments Through Comparative Effectiveness Research
  Health Affairs, May/June 2009; 28(3): 783-791.
  [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supplemental Bibliography]