Category: Policy

Categories
Homelessness Policy Public health psychiatry Seattle

Housing as the Most Effective Treatment.

(I know it’s been a minute since my last post. The announcement from HHS about “HHS, ONDCP, and HUD Launch First-Ever ‘Treatment First’ Toolkit to Combat Homelessness and Addiction” reminded me that I submitted the op-ed below at the end of June. The newspaper chose not to publish it, so I’m sharing it here. I’ll review the toolkit above next, though I have a feeling that I may reiterate what I’ve already written below.)

The Trump administration believes that mental illnesses and substance use disorders are the root causes of homelessness. Thus, HHS Secretary Kennedy recently announced funding for the Safety Through Recovery, Engagement, and Evidence-based Treatment and Support (STREETS) program. Because of the “unprecedented burden and impact of addiction and mental illness among the homeless population”, he asserted that this funding “aligns with President Trump’s Executive Order on Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets”.

STREETS may help people with mental illnesses and substance use disorders, but it will not end homelessness. People need safe places to call home to recover.

The vast majority of people with mental illnesses and substance use disorders are not homeless. In Washington State, over 2.2 million adults have had any mental illness and over 1.4 million people over the age of 12 have had a substance use disorder in the past year. Compare these numbers with the 163,000 Washingtonians who are homeless. If we (incorrectly) assume that every person became homeless because of a mental illness or substance use disorder, that means over three million Washingtonians will lose their housing. This is wrong. Someone in a Mercer Island mansion drinks bottles of wine between meetings, just as someone in an Auburn apartment takes medication for schizophrenia before going to work. 

I work as a psychiatrist in Seattle with people who are currently and formerly homeless. Psychiatric conditions that are common in the general population, like anxiety and depression, are also common among those who are homeless. For many of them, housing is the most effective treatment. Having reliable access to one’s own bathroom and bed reduces stress. A lock on the door assures safety and security. 

Practically everyone who is homeless now has had a place to call their own in the past. Because of rising rents, reduced incomes, and the onset of health problems, nearly half of people becoming homeless for the first time are over the age of 50. With older age often comes increased physical and cognitive vulnerability. Anxiety and depression often follow. The loss of health and housing can tip people into major mental illnesses and substance misuse. 

In a minority of people, severe mental illnesses and substance use disorders are the primary drivers of their homelessness.  Because of their symptoms, they sometimes are unwilling or unable to work with traditional health care systems. Finding these individuals is often the hardest part of my job. I cannot build relationships and then offer treatment if I cannot find my patients. When someone has a stable and safe place to live, it is far more likely we will connect. Only then can people participate in care.

For those who are unable or unwilling to engage in outpatient treatment, civil commitment is the last option. Laws for involuntary hospitalization already exist. Every day, someone is hospitalized against his will. In many instances, this is lifesaving. However, recovery quickly unravels if people have nowhere to go when they are discharged from the hospital. It is hard to attend appointments, take medication consistently, and build a life you want to live when you don’t know where you will sleep.

To be fair, STREETS funding will help the health and wellbeing of some people, including individuals who are homeless. Prevention and early intervention work. Some people at risk of becoming homeless because of mental illnesses and substance use disorders will remain housed. However, psychotherapy and medications are often no match for the stress and chaos that comes with homelessness. Housing is health care.

RFK Jr. has shared his own history with drug use and depression. As far as we know, he never experienced homelessness. Having a stable place to call home was foundational to his recovery. He knew where he could go after attending 12-step meetings; he had a safe place indoors to read books by Carl Jung. Housing alone does not treat mental illnesses and substance use disorders. But treatment alone also doesn’t solve homelessness. People need both. 

Categories
Lessons Nonfiction Policy Systems

How to Avoid Becoming an Agent of Social Control: Communist China.

The Year of the Horse has arrived! How delighted I was to see the New York Times show Lunar New Year Across America (free gift link). I remain struck with how representation matters. It is some kind of dazzling to see people who look like me in a major newspaper celebrating the same holidays I do! (For the past few years, Asian representation has looked more like this. I admire R. Kikuo Johnson’s art, though that vibe is the antithesis of the joy and connection of Lunar New Year.)

With Lunar New Year festivities about over, it’s time to talk about China using psychiatrists as agents of social control. There are many similarities between China and the Soviet Union (see the post I wrote about Anatoly Koryagin). The Human Rights Watch and Geneva Initiative on Psychiatry describes this in Dangerous Minds: Political Psychiatry in China Today and its Origins in the Mao Era.

In the Soviet Union, the government passed laws that recognized “anti-Soviet” speech and activities as crimes. In China, “political dangerousness” was incorporated into Chinese psychiatric diagnoses. This creation of “political-psychiatric dangerousness” allowed psychiatrists to detain people for psychiatric reasons. It also resulted in law enforcement charging people with crimes, amplifying

the more intractable problem of the Chinese authorities’ longstanding insistence upon viewing the peaceful expression of dissident or nonconformist viewpoints as constituting “political crimes” that must be sternly punished by law.

The authors further note:

most of these people should not have been arrested or brought for forensic psychiatric evaluation (formal or otherwise) in the first place, since in the overwhelming majority of recorded cases their only “offense” was to have expressed views or beliefs which served to offend the political sensitivities of the Chinese Communist Party.

Like psychiatrists in the Soviet Union, Chinese psychiatrists shifted clinical definitions:

individual mental problems soon came to be seen, in simplistic and reductionist fashion by the ultra-Maoists, as being not merely reflective of, but actually caused by, incorrect or deviant political thinking on the part of the sufferer.

One of the Chinese psychiatrists, Yang Desen, was a whisteblower. He said:

Eventually, [the ultraleftists] began claiming that the real reason people became mentally ill was that their heads were filled with an “excess of selfish ideas and personal concerns” and that it was the product of “an extreme development of individualism.

Believe in the wrong political system and the authorities believe there is something wrong with your mind.

Psychotic disorders were most associated with this political and psychiatric dangerousness:

the most frequent diagnosis made by police psychiatrists in this context is of either “schizophrenia” or “paranoid psychosis” leading to the following kinds of “crimes” by the alleged sufferers: “sending reactionary letters,” “writing reactionary slogans,” “petitioning and litigating,” “shouting reactionary slogans” and “spreading rumors to delude the masses.”

Mental acrobatics are necessary to argue that these individuals were dangerous to others. But, once the government defines anti-government speech as a crime and evidence of a mental illness, a warped internal coherence follows. The “police psychiatrists” concluded:

Cases of political crime created by the mentally ill usually exert a highly negative influence in society and have extensive ramifications. They take up large amounts of human and material [police] resources and pose a definite disruptive threat to the normal functioning of state offices and to the political stability of the country.

Ideas are potent. It’s hard for one person to kill hundreds of people at once. The police never have to worry about that problem. It’s far easier for one person to introduce ideas to hundreds of people at once through books, radio, and television (and, these days, social media!). Even a man silently holding a sign on the street has the potential to “infect” dozens of people. A government ruled by fear, not confidence, wants to quash the expression of diverse ideas.

Like in the Soviet Union, the goal of detention wasn’t humane treatment. There was “a very high patient-to-doctor and nurse ratio, severe underfunding by the government, and serious lack of capacity leading to a dense overcrowding of inmates” and

the form of psychotherapy actually used from early 1996 onwards consisted of increasingly intense political indoctrination sessions in which mental patients were exhorted to cure themselves by studying the works of Mao and adopting a “proletarian” political outlook.

The US government has yet to outlaw free speech (and may we work together to prevent this from happening!).

May we continued to recognize and insist on the value of free speech. May we all continue to act with courage, even as those in power have tantrums and rely on violent tactics. Let us use the power that we do have. Everyday heroes may be nameless to you, but they are everywhere: people with integrity who are doing the right thing within their six-foot radius of influence. You can be one of them, too.

Categories
Homelessness Policy Public health psychiatry

More on the Government’s Potential Use of Psychiatry.

There has been increasing amounts of conflict and violence within the United States. It saps attention and energy; of course people feel irritable and glum. This can lead to pronouncements that things will never get better, we’re doomed, etc.

Oliver Burkeman (I recommend his newsletter with enthusiasm!) quotes futurist and environmentalist Hazel Henderson and then himself comments:

“… if we can recognise that change and uncertainty are basic principles… we can greet the future… with the understanding that we do not know enough to be pessimistic.” You can take a crisis very seriously indeed without fooling yourself that you know the worst outcome is certain.

Please keep that in mind as we proceed here.

I haven’t forgotten about China’s use of psychiatrists as agents of social control. There’s stuff happening now in the United States that warrants concurrent commentary. It’s still important to know what has happened in the past. If you are itching to learn more and can’t wait for me, you can read the report from Human Rights Watch and Geneva Initiative on Psychiatry entitled Dangerous Minds: Political Psychiatry in China Today and its Origins in the Mao Era. The themes are similar to what we’re already learned together here.

The internet has been to good to me. I recently reconnected with an internet friend from the days of intueri. (Longtime readers will understand what that means.) This person has attended the protests in Minneapolis; from them I learned about Riot Medicine. Written by an anarchist medic, this manual “for practicing insurrectionary medicine” describes how medics can work in atypical settings. During protests, traditional emergency medical services may not be available. (For example, law enforcement may delay or block vehicles from entering a scene. We already know federal agents did this in Minneapolis.) It includes a short section on “Psychological Care”. It’s a summary of Psychological First Aid (introduced in my last post).

If you want to learn more about ICE Watch and Community Defense, whether in the context of protests or not, I strongly recommend this free training. What I most appreciated about the webinar was its lack of histrionics. The trainers emphasized serving as observers and avoiding escalations. Keeping a cool head is a valuable superpower during these times of dismay.

Within the deluge of actions from the federal government was this announcement: Secretary Kennedy Announces $100 Million Investment in Great American Recovery. The stated goal is to “solve long-standing homelessness issues, fight opioid addiction, and improve public safety by expanding treatment that emphasizes recovery and self-sufficiency”. This includes a new initiative:

The Safety Through Recovery, Engagement, and Evidence-based Treatment and Supports — or STREETS — Initiative will fund targeted outreach, psychiatric care, medical stabilization and crisis intervention, while connecting Americans experiencing homelessness and addiction to stable housing with a clear focus on long-term recovery and independence.

The funding attached to this is a mere $100 million. The language of this initiative is vague, so maybe $100M is enough. But if this is meant to fund a comprehensive plan for the entire nation, that sum won’t do.

Tucked further down in the announcement is this:

Secretary Kennedy also announced the $10 million Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) grant program to support adults with serious mental illness. AOT is a civil court-ordered, community-based outpatient mental health treatment program for adults with serious mental illness who are unable to engage with conventional outpatient treatment and are unlikely to be able to live safely in their community.

AOT already exists in many jurisdictions, including here in Seattle-King County. While there is some evidence that AOT improves treatment adherence and reduces hospitalizations, more evaluation is needed to explain how this happens.

When I saw this news, I wondered if this was another step to use psychiatry as an agent of social control. The executive order to “end crime and disorder on America’s streets” conflates mental illnesses, substance misuse, homelessness, and crime. Now there’s funding announcements for homelessness services and court-ordered, community-based outpatient psychiatric services.

Maybe this is confirmation bias. My skepticism about the federal government’s intentions, though, is a reaction to what has already happened. May hope spring eternal and may the worst outcome never come to pass.

Categories
Homelessness NYC Policy Public health psychiatry

Trump Talked About Community Psychiatry Today.

Guys, I know we’re all tired for many different reasons. But we should probably review what President Trump said today. During his press conference he talked about community psychiatry!

I’ll go over the transcript below, but if you want to watch the video, it starts at 51:34 on C-SPAN.

As he was listing his accomplishments, he said the following. My commentary follows in the numbers below.

Signed an executive order to bring back mental institutions and insane asylums. [1] We’re going to have to bring them back. Hate to build those suckers, [2] but But you got to get the people off the streets. [3] You know, we used to have when I was growing up. We had it in my area in Queens. I grew up in Queens. We had a place called Creedmoor. Creedmore. Did anybody know that Creedmore? It was a big, [4] I said, Mom. Why are those bars on the building? I used to play Little League baseball. They’re at a place called Cunningham Park. Who’s quite the baseball player, you wouldn’t believe, but I said to my mother, Mom, she would be there, always there for me. She said, uh, son, you could be a professional baseball player. [5] I said, thanks, Mom. I said, why are those bars on the windows? Big building, big. Powerful building. It loomed over the park [6] actually she said, well, People that are very sick are in that building. [7] I said, boy, I used to always look at that building and I’d see this big building, big tall building. It loomed over the park. It was sort of, now that I think it was a pretty unfriendly sight, but I, I’ll never forget, I don’t know if it’s still there. [8] Because they got rid of most of them, you know, they, the Democrats in New York, they took them down, [9] and the people live on the streets now. That’s why you have a lot of the people in, in California and other places, they live on the streets. They took the mental institutions down, they’re expensive, [10] but I’d say, why does that building have those bars, boy. It didn’t, it wasn’t normal, you know, you’re used to looking at like a window. But this one you’re looking at all the steel, vicious steel, tiny windows, bars all over the place, nobody was getting out. [11] It’s called the mental institution. That was an insane asylum.

(sigh) Okay, let’s go over this:

  1. The executive order he signed has the formal title of “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets”. There’s a major cognitive error in the order, which I wrote about here.
  2. Never before have I heard anyone refer to mental institutions as “suckers”.
  3. Are there people who are homeless who would be best served in a mental institution? Yes. Do all people who are homeless need to be in a mental institution? No. Another way—more humane and cost effective!—to “get people off the streets” is to create and sustain conditions where people can afford and remain in housing.
  4. It looks like the highest census at Creedmoor was around 7,000 patients in 1959. President Trump would have been 12 years old at that time.
  5. Of course, someone did a deep dive about Trump’s record as a baseball player. If he were that good, surely he would throw out a first pitch at a major league game? (He has not.)
  6. A quick peek at a map shows that Creedmoor does not “loom over” Cunningham Park. They’re three miles apart. There are two athletic fields nearby. Creedmoor is visible from Alley Athletic Playground.
  7. I wonder if Trump’s mother spoke of the “very sick” people with disdain, pity, or compassion. Is it possible that all 7,000 people were “very sick”? Maybe. Is it possible that some of those 7,000 people did not need to be in an institution? Yes.
  8. Yes, Creedmoor still exists. It’s unclear what the census is now (it’s certainly not 7,000), but it’s not just an inpatient unit. They provide an array of outpatient services, too.
  9. There are multiple reasons why psychiatric institutions closed. One major reason was the advent of antipsychotic medication, which allowed more people to be treated in the community. There were also reports of abuses within these behemoth institutions. Long Island, a suburb of New York City, was the site of three major psychiatric institutions. Around 1954 Pilgrim State Hospital was probably the largest psychiatric hospital in the nation; there were over 13,000 patients there. I don’t know the history of New York State well enough to know if “Democrats in New York… took them down”. Recall that Trump was a Democrat for much of his life prior to running for President.
  10. Historically, states had to fund mental institutions. Medicaid (federal money) could not be used to pay for hospital services. This is another reason why states shut down psychiatric institutions; they didn’t have enough money to keep them running. If this policy discussion excites you (…), learn more about the IMD exclusion here.
  11. Yeah, man. If you don’t like “steel, vicious steel, tiny windows, bars all over the place”, then you’re like everyone else who doesn’t want a proliferation of mental institutions.
Categories
Homelessness Medicine Nonfiction Policy Public health psychiatry Seattle

Who Gets to Be Sad?

For those of you who don’t follow baseball, the Seattle Mariners were in the running to go to the finals in baseball, called the World Series. (So American, of course, to call the finals the “World Series” when it doesn’t involve the entire world!) The Mariners are the only team in all of Major League Baseball that has never been to the World Series.

As such, you can imagine how much of a frenzy the city was in. The Mariners flag was hoisted to the top of the Space Needle twice! The downtown skyscrapers coordinated their night lights to glow in Mariners colors. The mayor raised the Mariners’ flag at City Hall.

Game 7 in the semi-finals, which happened last week, was the “win and go to the World Series, or lose and go home” game. The Seattle Mariners lost.

Over the past week, since that loss, the city has been distraught.

Immediately following game 7, there were brutal postgame interviews. Sports journalists, for obtuse reasons, asked weeping baseball players how they felt.

Here’s Cal Raleigh, our inimitable catcher, showing what his face looked like when he was seven years old and heartbroken:

See how he ran his hand through his hair? That was a desperate act of self-soothing while multiple cameras gave him no place to hide his flushed face and wet eyes.

Meanwhile, here’s Bryan Woo, who turned out to be the team’s ace pitcher this year. He’s not crying, but he is also just trying to get through the interview. A wail of despair interrupts him:

The man whose heartache was heard, but not seen, was our cool center fielder, Julio Rodriguez.

So, are grown men allowed to cry or not? Here were professional athletes caught in the throes of disappointment and sadness. They were crying. Sports journalists pushed microphones into their faces and asked them how they were feeling.

On the one hand, I appreciate this exercise: It’s a chance for these robust young men to model (to other males) how to use words to describe internal experiences. They’re not smashing bats into the walls or punching the journalists. You can talk about unpleasant emotions without resorting to violence or destruction.

On the other hand, asking people about their feelings on camera when they are obviously distressed seems unkind. Sure, baseball players, as public figures, have training about and responsibilities to the media. But such pointed questions do nothing to soothe or support the person. Reporters can also learn the exact same information — how do you feel about losing the biggest game of your professional career to date? — an hour later, when people have had the chance to cry and wail in private. Show some respect, give people some dignity!

But we apparently want to see our heroes cry. We want to know that they feel just as sad as we do.

There are many other people throughout the nation who are crying. They are not professional baseball players; they are not famous. Many of us will never know any of their names.

Some of them were looking forward to leaving the street and moving into an apartment! With winter right around the corner, the anticipation of living somewhere dry and warm was thrilling. Because of the government shutdown, though, the mainstream vouchers that would have paid for those apartments are invalid. So they will have to wait for the government to open before they can move inside.

Many of these same people have Medicaid for health insurance. There are also millions of other people with Medicaid who do know where they will sleep tonight.

The federal government has somehow concluded that it’s not worth it to spend money on health insurance for poor people. But, it is somehow cool to take that money to give tax cuts to people who are wealthy. Yes, it is true that, one day, we will all die. Taking health insurance away from poor people, though, is spiteful. It only makes it more likely that they will needlessly suffer while they are alive.

You know what makes suffering worse? Hunger.

The government shutdown, if not resolved by November 1st, will also shut down the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This program, also called “food stamps”, gives financial aid to poor people to help them buy nutritious food. Food banks are already struggling to provide enough food to visitors. Furthermore, here in Washington State, many grocery stores have closed.

Some people are already hungry. More people will join them.

Yes, you’re reading this right: Soon, the same group of people will have increasing struggles to access food, health care, AND housing. What they all have in common is poverty. Literally no one ever says, “When I grow up, I want to be poor and rely on welfare!” Being poor is not a moral failing. No one, regardless of how much money they have, deserves to have the foundations of wellbeing — food, shelter, and health — taken from them.

But we apparently don’t want to see poor people cry. We don’t want to know their sadness. Some people think poor people deserve to be sad. Others think that poor people are not people.

What would we have to admit to ourselves if we felt their sadness? What would we have to change if we acknowledged that their sadness is real?