Knock Knock, Who's There?

Law enforcement officers are first responders
for  mental illness.
Photo by leila haj-hassan, freeimages.com

When your child has a mental illness, too often it’s the police

Last night, I was abruptly awakened at 4:00 a.m. by the sound of my doorbell ringing. Confused with sleep, I struggled to pull on a pair of jeans as the doorbell rang again, followed by an insistent knocking.

“Who is there?” I said as I stumbled to the door.

“The police,” a firm male voice responded. “Open up please, ma’am.”

My heart froze. “Where’s my son?” I thought, panicked.

I slowly opened the door to see two police officers. “Can I help you?” I asked.

“Is that your car, ma’am?” the female officer asked, gesturing toward my grey Suzuki.

“Yes,” I replied.

“The door is open,” the male officer said. “Will you check inside and see if anything is missing?”

My heart started beating again. It wasn’t anything serious; my son had just forgotten to close the car door behind him, like he forgets so many things: dishes on the table, cupboard doors open, sometimes even the refrigerator or freezer gaping wide, sending my electric bill sky high.

My 14-year old son has bipolar disorder. For years, he experienced unpredictable, violent rages. The police have been frequent visitors to our modest suburban townhome. Sometimes they have taken him to the emergency room. Sometimes they have taken him to juvenile detention. Every time, my family has been afraid.

This morning, I read a poignant post on helicopter parenting of adult children with mental illness—one that I am afraid will be my experience in a few years. Karen Easter, a Tennessee mom-advocate, wrote this about  her son:

[O]n bad days, when it is apparent he hasn't been taking his meds, I have no other choice but to put on my helicopter mom hat.
In fact, I have never liked this hat.
Did I mention I really, really despise hats?
Hey, wait just a minute ... I should NOT have to be wearing this hat AT ALL!
But I wear it because right now this very minute, I must hover to keep him safe--only because the system has failed him and our family miserably. I don’t really want to wear this hat.

For so many parents of children with serious mental illness, this last week of August is a nail-biter as we wait to see whether Congress will do the right thing and pass Representative Tim Murphy’s proposed “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis” Act. Here are some of the critical reforms that Representative Murphy’s bill provides:

Revising HIPAA Laws and Medicaid Reimbursements

Privacy laws in healthcare prevent parents from getting crucial information that they need to help their adult children in crisis. And the Medicaid IMD exclusion has directly caused an acute shortage of inpatient psychiatric beds for patients with mental illness who need treatment. Today, there are only 40,000 psychiatric beds available in the nation. If my son required longer term care, he would have to go hours away from my home. This is true for many families.

Providing Alternatives to Institutionalization through AOT

Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT)  is a proven alternative to keep people stable and productive in their communities. The opposition to Rep. Murphy’s bill has labeled this provision as “forced treatment.” It is not. AOT laws are already on the books in 44 of 50 states and “require mental health authorities to provide resources and oversight necessary so that high-risk individuals with serious mental illness may experience fewer incidents and can live in a less restrictive alternative to incarceration or involuntary hospitalization” 

A few weeks ago, I spoke with a young woman who opposed my views on AOT. She had been in a psychiatric hospital for more than a month and felt that the care she received was “horrible.”

“Have you been to jail?” I asked. She admitted that like many people who have mental illness, she had.

“Which did you prefer?” I asked.

“The hospital,” she responded without even hesitating. But she made a good point: our current in-patient hospitalization practices, while not as horrible as the psychiatric institutions of yore, could still use some serious makeovers in terms of both physical facilities and therapeutic practices. One of my friends with bipolar disorder has envisioned a therapeutic hospital that would feel more like a spa, where people could stabilize in safety while also continuing to work remotely or go to school—to do the things that give everyone’s life meaning and purpose. Similarly, AOT aims to keep people in their communities, not force them into institutions.

Restructuring SAMHSA funding

I have already expressed my frustrations with SAMHSA and how they fail to provide assistance to the most critically ill patients and their families.  Representative Murphy’s bill restores accountability by tying funding to evidence-based practices that actually help people with mental illness to manage their conditions and live productive, healthy lives. Far from discouraging innovation, as the opposition warns, this provision will actually encourage organizations to build program evaluation into their practice, providing data about what works—and what doesn’t—so that we can focus on helping people to make their lives better.

Let me give you an example from my own state. In an effort to save money, Idaho contracted with Optum to manage its Medicaid mental health care. Optum looked at one service, psychosocial rehabilitation, or PSR, and decided that it was overused and often not medically necessary, especially in children. 

PSR had historically been used as a “catch-all” for children with serious emotional disturbances or behavioral issues. The result of this abrupt PSR denial was that families suddenly found themselves without a service they felt was necessary to their children’s health.

What did the evidence say? Because there were never any requirements to track outcomes, the state merely logged hours and made reimbursements. It turns out that no one really knows what PSR is in Idaho, let alone whether it is effective. Every agency essentially acted independently, developing their own model in the absence of standards for care. Two researchers did find significant clinical improvements for kids on PSR. But they only looked at one of many models. 

Tying outcomes to funding would have provided much-needed data on whether PSR works in children. If the data had been positive, we might have an additional valuable tool to help children function better in the community, a tool we could share with other communities to improve everyone’s care.

Representative Murphy’s bill was forged after the tragedy of Newtown, which also sparked my own desire to advocate for my son. As I researched the myriad problems that plague our system for my forthcoming book, I repeatedly found the same tragic story: poverty, mental illness, and prison. America’s incarceration rates when compared to other so-called first world countries are quite literally off the charts, with more than 2.4 million people in prison. 

If ever there was a truly bipartisan cause, it’s mental health. Fixing our broken mental healthcare system promises to ameliorate so many of the other social ills that harm children, families, and communities. A new advocacy organization, Treatment Before Tragedy, is sharing stories of families like mine, whose children are suffering.  If you are a family member of someone who has mental illness, I encourage you to join this organization and to share your story on Twitter, using the hashtag #Tb4T.

And if you haven’t, please call your representative personally and ask him or her to cosponsor Representative Murphy’s bill. Right now, if your child is in mental health crisis, your only options are to call the police or to go to the emergency room. We can and must do better for our children and families. No family of a child with mental illness deserves that dreaded knock in the middle of the night.

The Great Divide

Hendric Stattmann"The Grand Canyon"

Two bills in Congress, both designed to improve mental healthcare, reveal a growing rift in the mental health community

Like many parents of children with mental illness, I have spent much of my life feeling isolated. At social events or the morning water cooler, while other parents share their children’s accomplishments—“Mary got elected to Student Council! John got the MVP award for his soccer team!”—I am usually silent. It’s hard to brag about how your child was able to plead his misdemeanor battery charge down to a mere juvenile beyond control status offense, or how he was the star patient in his psychiatric ward last weekend, even though both are arguably notable accomplishments.



When I finally spoke out about the struggles my family faced, I found an instant new community of friends, mothers like me who had become vocal advocates for their children’s care. But I also discovered that not every mental health advocate supports the same goals I do. This rift in the very advocacy community that should be supporting parents like me and kids like my son has been growing for a while. The divide has widened even further after the tectonic tragedy in Santa Barbara, when a young man whose parents had sought treatment for his mental illness for years took his own life—and the lives of six other people.

At its center is a disagreement about serious mental illness—schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression—and the best ways to care for this vulnerable population. That disagreement is evident in the contrast between two proposed bills that both seek to remedy America’s broken mental health care system. To my mind, the biggest difference between the two bills is this: one treats people with serious mental illness. The other does not.



One of the most controversial features of Representative Murphy’s HR3717, the “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act,” is its Assisted Outpatient Treatment requirements, which the opposition has labeled “forced treatment.” Yet even Representative Barber, the author of the second bill, acknowledged on Monday’s Diane Rehm Show that “involuntary treatment is necessary from time to time.” And many of the provisions in HR 3717, including a revision of HIPAA laws, might have stopped Jared Loughner before he shot Rep. Barber in Tucson.



Dr. John Grohol and others like him are worried about “arbitrary distinctions” in mental illness he says HR 3717 creates. I agree with Dr. Grohol’s point that all mental illness can be crippling or even deadly, just as a cold, if left untreated, can lead to fatal pneumonia. But I also think we do need distinctions in mental health, just as we have them in physical health. The current focus on behavior rather than organic brain disease is the real challenge in making sure that people with serious mental illness get the medical care that they need. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, “Oh SAMHSA, Where Art Thou?” there is no readily apparent or useful information for me, as a parent of a child with serious mental illness, on SAMHSA’s home page. And this is the government agency tasked with providing resources to people with mental illness!



As I read the opposition’s often vitriolic attacks on mothers like G.G. Burns, a friend of mine who shared her family’s painful story with Diane Rehm yesterday, I’m reminded more of religion than science. We have this very human tendency to rely on our own belief systems about the mind, and especially about our ability to choose and to be accountable for our choices, rather than looking at the choice-stealing reality of brain disease. G.G., in talking about her efforts to get treatment for her son, told a harsh truth: “We are forced to watch our loved ones die with their rights on. Without help, there is no hope.”



The comments section of Diane’s show demonstrates the wide variety of challenges parents continue to face, and why so many of us are still afraid to share our stories. We have the mental illness deniers, the Mad in America anti-medication crowd, the folks who blame our bad parenting, the consumers who think that everyone with mental illness can seek treatment and recover like they did, and the E.F. Torrey haters (and boy, are they an angry bunch! They should try some SAMHSA sponsored yoga!).

Still, I think that a robust discussion about HR3717 is a good thing. Task-oriented conflict can ensure that the end result—fixing our broken mental healthcare system—is the best it can possibly be. And certainly the experiences of people who have experienced involuntary commitment need to be carefully considered (see this powerful essay at "The System is Broken," for example ). I wish Diane Rehm had included the voices of people with serious mental illness on her show.

But when we rely on our belief systems about what mental illness is (or isn’t), when we retreat to our anecdotal or lived experiences rather than considering other points of view, it can be too easy for the dialogue to devolve into person-centered attacks rather than focusing on productive, inclusive solutions. We don’t have time for any more of that kind of talk. The consequences of inaction on mental illness are unacceptable. We cannot continue to treat serious mental illness in prison, or to ignore it on the streets. That’s why I support HR 3717.