Enhancing Mental Health Access: 2021 Policy Analysis

Introduction

The problem of mental health and drug therapy is one of the acute problems in the United States. During the last decades, there has been a gradual increase in the number of people with mental illnesses (Ijadi-Maghsoodi et al., 2018). The situation worsened during the past two years, as the lockdown put people under extreme stress. The U.S. medical system was not ready to help many people who experienced acute mental disorders (Robinson & Daly, 2021). Even though the surge of psychological problems associated with the pandemic has passed, this situation revealed critical flaws in healthcare. This paper will discuss policies that promote mental health access.

Key Components and History of the Legislation

The “Improving Mental Health Access from the Emergency Department Act” was sent to the Senate in the past year to relieve the pressure on the U.S. healthcare system. The main idea of this bill is to assist medical facilities with trained medical personnel and an emergency department in helping individuals “who experience an acute mental health episode” in the ER (Improving Mental Health Access from the Emergency Department Act, 2021). Recipients of government grants under this bill should spend funds to support and expand emergency care programs for patients with acute episodes of mental illness. Possible measures include accelerating the patients’ placement, expanding infrastructure with regional providers, increasing the number of inpatient psychiatric beds and wards, and developing new and alternative approaches to treatment and patient support (Improving Mental Health Access from the Emergency Department Act, 2021). A qualifying health provider must submit an application to the Secretary of Health and Human Services describing current efforts and intended use of funds.

After readings, the drafts were referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. This governmental unit has broad jurisdiction, including education, labor, health, public welfare, and other social development topics (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2015). It has a strong influence on the healthcare sector stemming from its role in educating nurses during World War II preparations. The status of “Improving Mental Health Access from the Emergency Department Act” is currently under review by the Committee (Improving Mental Health Access from the Emergency Department Act, 2021). The continued support from the government is essential in resolving problems of this magnitude.

Acute Mental Health Access Policy Issues

Despite the trend in the growth and spread of mental illnesses, there is still a stigma associated with such disorders in society. Only 22% of young people in the United States experiencing mental problems seek timely advice and treatment, which means that psychological illnesses in most people tend to be left untreated (Ijadi-Maghsoodi et al., 2018). If a person ignores psychological discomfort and suppresses it, this factor can result in acute psychological conditions. Panic attacks and psychotic breaks are common, which pose a direct danger to the life and health of a person and those around them (Ijadi-Maghsoodi et al., 2018). Alleviating conditions that lead to such incidents is critical for public safety.

Another issue is posed by the inaccessibility of necessary healthcare services. 68% of people with mental illness cannot afford treatment and are looking for free ways to relieve mental distress (Ijadi-Maghsoodi et al., 2018). The mental health crisis catalyzed by the coronavirus pandemic has shown that the healthcare system is not ready to cope with periods that exacerbate psychological illness. Beds and staff shortages in acute mental health care and low coverage of it by health insurance have led to an increase in inequality in access to psychiatric help (Moreno et al., 2020). Without a solution of a suitable magnitude, this problem fuels other societal issues. From 2005 to 2015, 17% of people with severe mental conditions committed suicide after being discharged from an emergency department (Tyler et al., 2019). The crisis in mental health care provision has reached its peak and requires immediate intervention.

Pros and Cons of the Legislation

The main stakeholders of this legislation are the state, clients in need of psychological assistance, and the qualifying health providers. This bill will help hospitals with emergency departments receive additional funding to expand mental health care and implement innovative approaches. Better financing should lead to a new wave of studies on mental illnesses, and new treatment options are bound to appear. Another advantage of this bill includes improving the quality of medical care for people who have experienced an acute episode of psychological illness. Modern strategies will minimize post-hospital relapses and allow better patient condition control. Moreover, the bill received both parties’ support, indicating the absence of disagreements in the state and society on this issue (Improving Mental Health Access from the Emergency Department Act, 2021). A clear definition of the requirements that the majority must meet is also one of the advantages of the project, as it ensures the effectiveness of fund spending. The disadvantages of the act include, perhaps, a too strict set of requirements, which only large hospitals can meet. This goes against the idea of expanding mental health opportunities throughout the country and is especially detrimental for rural populations. Many organizations that could start providing psychological and mental health care may not receive funding.

Position Statement on the Legislation

This bill stems from an urgent need brewing in American society for decades which has now become a major societal issue. It is impossible not to support the initiative to expand the possibilities of providing psychological assistance, especially in acute situations. In such conditions, people become dangerous to themselves and others and require immediate help from specialists. In order to resolve the crisis, it is crucial to expand insurance coverage for cases where people with acute mental disorders can not afford treatment. Legislators should reconsider their options for granting financial assistance to a qualifying health provider and what facilities should be prioritized. It may be beneficial to highlight opportunities for more extensive and smaller providers to implement different programs. Large hospitals can engage in innovative program development and post-hospital care. Specific attention must be given to the most vulnerable portions of the population in accordance with the evidence, as the increase in suicide rates is a sign of major problems. In turn, preventing people from reaching such mental conditions should also be prioritized. For example, small health care providers can be ushered to qualify for the most common types of mental illness through financial support.

Conclusion

In conclusion, “Improving Mental Health Access from the Emergency Department Act” is a vital document that proposes improvements in mental health care that are long overdue. In the situation where psychological illnesses grow, and accumulated problems in the mental health care system are not adequately addressed, it is difficult to overestimate the significance and timeliness of this project. The bill has the opportunity to benefit all stakeholders – from patients to society as a whole. Proper use of funds can lead to innovative approaches that can be tested and replicated. However, the severity and rigidity of the wording regarding grant recipients make one think about the difficulties in implementing the project and the possible failure to achieve its goals under such conditions. Before the bill passes Congress, it is necessary to legislators to consider what parts of the population are affected the most and what solutions will prioritize them the most.

References

Ijadi-Maghsoodi, R., Bonnet, K., Feller, S., Nagaran, K., Puffer, M., & Kataoka, S. (2018). Voices from Minority Youth on Help-Seeking and Barriers to Mental Health Services: Partnering with School-Based Health Centers. Ethnicity & Disease, 28(2), 437–444. Web.

Improving Mental Health Access from the Emergency Department Act. S.2157, 117th Congress. (2021). Web.

Moreno, C., Wykes, T., Galderisi, S., Nordentoft, M., Crossley, N., Jones, N., Cannon, M., Correll, C., Byrne, L., Carr, S., Chen., E. Y., Gorwood, P., Johnson, S., Karkkainen, H., Krystal, J., MMed, J. L., Lieberman, J., Lopez-Jaramillo, C. … & Arango, C. (2020). How mental health care should change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(9), 813-824. Web.

Robinson, E., & Daly, M. (2021). Explaining the rise and fall of psychological distress during the COVID‐19 crisis in the United States: Longitudinal evidence from the Understanding America Study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 26(2), 570-587. Web.

Tyler, N., Wright, N., & Waring, J. (2019). Interventions to improve discharge from acute adult mental health inpatient care to the community: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 1-24. Web.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2015). Report to the Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.