Female offenders get some help
Specialist to assist released prisoners
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS Monitor staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 01, 2009 - 6:56 am
Female inmates are about to get a little more attention as they leave prison and begin a new life on parole.
The state Department of Corrections has hired a new administrator for female offenders and has just received a generous federal grant to assess the services now available to female offenders and beef up those that are working.
The goal is to reduce recidivism by 50 percent in five years. The money will be used to create a pilot project in Merrimack County.
Niki Miller, who has worked for corrections since August 2008 but has a long history working with female inmates, was named the new administrator last week. The job was created by the state Legislature in 2006 after a study showed services for female prisoners were lagging behind those provided to male inmates.
Miller is the third person to hold the position, but she has an advantage her predecessors did not: About a month ago, the state learned it had won a $400,000 federal grant for prisoner re-entry programs.
Miller said the federal money will be matched by charitable donations and in-kind services. And if corrections uses the money successfully, Miller said, the grant could be extended to three years.
"There is no one at the Department of Corrections who wouldn't like to roll out a whole range of services for female offenders and re-entry programs," Miller said. "But there isn't any money to do so a lot of the time."
Miller said she's lucky to have the work and research of her two predecessors to build upon.
In the past three years, corrections has used the administrator position to formalize its substance abuse treatment in the women's prison in Goffstown, so it's consistent and documented to gauge the effectiveness, said William McGonagle, assistant commissioner of corrections.
Similarly, the women's prison has improved its intake process for new inmates so corrections staff have a better sense of what individual inmates have been through and what services they'll most need.
The previous administrator, Annette Escalante, began exploring ways to find mentors outside the prison for the female inmates, McGonagle said. And she built up the prison's contacts with providers in the community who can help female parolees adjust to life on the outside and the challenges they face, including child care issues, substance abuse and past traumas.
Miller's first priority, she said, will be to take stock of all those programs and assess which of those is working or needs replacing or improving.
"We have an opportunity to really craft women's re-entry services," Miller said. "The grant will be used to put resources to those (programs) that work."
One program Miller believes is working well is corrections' partnership with the state Division of Children, Youth and Families. Before a female offender is paroled, she is connected with DCYF staff to help the offender reunite with her family and get help for substance use or past abuse.
Miller said the connection is critical because many female offenders won't seek out those services on their own because for them, DCYF has been an agency to hide from. They may have had children taken away by the state or fear that happening after they are released, Miller said.
The state needed an area to start this pilot project and chose Merrimack County. Miller's job now is to touch base with those groups and agencies that play a role in a female offender's return to society. She'll ask them what they think is working and what isn't.
Staff will put the same question to female offenders, Miller said. That is critical, she said. Who knows better what's working and what isn't?
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091201/NEWS01/912010312
DCYF steals these womens children while they're incarcerated. They are not returned when the mother gets out of jail. Their rights are terminated because they could NOT follow the case plan while in jail, only given twelve month's to make things right. Twelve months is not enough time for a woman, especially recovering addicts. Most of the other states given parents eighteen months to correct the conditions which threw them into the corrupt DCYF system. Most women will NOT recover after being pushed over the edge by DCYF and the courts, after losing their children. Most will be right back in jail, feeling like they no longer have anything to live for.Yes, DCYF is such a BIG help! Not!
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Cutting family preservation to fund foster care
NCCPR Child Welfare Blog
News and commentary from the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (www.nccpr.org) concerning child abuse, child welfare, foster care, and family preservation.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Cutting family preservation to fund foster care: Michigan children abandoned again?
The group that so arrogantly calls itself Children's Rights was doing what it does best last week – promoting itself. They put out a press release and trumpeted the news all over Twitter. The message: Look how wonderful we are. There's a state that's cutting a vitally-important program to keep children out of foster care. But we have a consent decree in that state – so we're marching into court to stop them!
The state was Connecticut.
But CR also has a consent decree in Michigan. And under the "leadership" of Michigan Department of Human Services Director Ismael Ahmed, that state is cutting not one but a great many programs with proven track records for safely saving children from the anguish of needless foster care. As noted previously on this Blog, the independent court monitor for the consent decree says the cuts may violate the decree. Yet CR has not gone to court to stop these cuts. They've put out no press release. There hasn't even been a tweet.
Why the difference?
Perhaps it has something to do with which children are affected. The cut in Connecticut affected a program to help families who would have had to surrender their children to foster care in order to obtain mental health care for them. This is a huge problem nationwide, brought into stark relief by the Nebraska "safe haven" debacle. The proposed cut in Connecticut is, indeed, despicable. But these kinds of cases also are among the few times the long arm of child protective services reaches into the middle class.
Or perhaps it has to do with where the money that is being cut is going. In Connecticut, it's just going to close a budget gap. In Michigan, some of the money is going to help fund CR's own settlement – in particular a foster care caseworker hiring binge. It's also going to help fund rate increases for agencies that institutionalize children.
So perhaps it's just a matter of priorities.
Posted by NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM at 6:42 AM Labels: child abuse, child welfare, Department of Human Services, DHS, family preservation, foster care, Ismael Ahmed, Marcia Lowry Michigan
http://nccpr.blogspot.com/2009/12/cutting-family-preservation-to-fund.html
News and commentary from the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (www.nccpr.org) concerning child abuse, child welfare, foster care, and family preservation.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Cutting family preservation to fund foster care: Michigan children abandoned again?
The group that so arrogantly calls itself Children's Rights was doing what it does best last week – promoting itself. They put out a press release and trumpeted the news all over Twitter. The message: Look how wonderful we are. There's a state that's cutting a vitally-important program to keep children out of foster care. But we have a consent decree in that state – so we're marching into court to stop them!
The state was Connecticut.
But CR also has a consent decree in Michigan. And under the "leadership" of Michigan Department of Human Services Director Ismael Ahmed, that state is cutting not one but a great many programs with proven track records for safely saving children from the anguish of needless foster care. As noted previously on this Blog, the independent court monitor for the consent decree says the cuts may violate the decree. Yet CR has not gone to court to stop these cuts. They've put out no press release. There hasn't even been a tweet.
Why the difference?
Perhaps it has something to do with which children are affected. The cut in Connecticut affected a program to help families who would have had to surrender their children to foster care in order to obtain mental health care for them. This is a huge problem nationwide, brought into stark relief by the Nebraska "safe haven" debacle. The proposed cut in Connecticut is, indeed, despicable. But these kinds of cases also are among the few times the long arm of child protective services reaches into the middle class.
Or perhaps it has to do with where the money that is being cut is going. In Connecticut, it's just going to close a budget gap. In Michigan, some of the money is going to help fund CR's own settlement – in particular a foster care caseworker hiring binge. It's also going to help fund rate increases for agencies that institutionalize children.
So perhaps it's just a matter of priorities.
Posted by NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM at 6:42 AM Labels: child abuse, child welfare, Department of Human Services, DHS, family preservation, foster care, Ismael Ahmed, Marcia Lowry Michigan
http://nccpr.blogspot.com/2009/12/cutting-family-preservation-to-fund.html
Social services take $5.7M hit
Social services take $5.7M hit
By Jorge Fitz-Gibbon • jfitzgib@lohud.com • December 16, 2009
The Lower Hudson Valley will have to do without $5.7 million in human services funds from Albany as Gov. David Paterson withholds the cash to deal with the state's lingering budget crisis.
The money, earmarked for child welfare and other social services, is part of $750 million Paterson is holding back to deal with what he said was a $1 billion shortfall for the state this month.
That includes $76 million in cuts to human services statewide, with Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties seeing local cuts.
State officials said Westchester alone would have nearly $4.7 million withheld. That money, county officials said, largely funds child welfare services.
Rockland stands to have $834,000 held back. County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef said the money pays for child welfare services, providing everything from health care to day care.
Vanderhoef said the cuts account for about 2 percent of the $10 million Rockland gets from the state each month to cover the costs of state-mandated programs.
"We literally are not spending money we absolutely don't have to," he said. "All brakes are on so we can get through to March."
For Putnam, the $187,000 being withheld is money alloted for the county's Child Protective Services and its preventive services.
Deputy County Executive John Tully said the money was a routine advance from the state meant to cover various costs and keep the county from spending its funds and getting reimbursed later.
"Unless this becomes a reduction in state aid, it won't adversely affect the programs," Tully said.
But just how the loss in funds may affect day-to-day services remains largely unclear — Paterson made the announcement Sunday, and local officials are still scrambling to determine the full impact.
"Obviously, it will affect us in the fourth quarter, but we don't really know what that's going to be yet because all the bills are not in yet," said Victoria Hochman, a spokeswoman for Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano.
(2 of 2)
"In terms of the cash flow, that's still being evaluated," she said. "Obviously, it's not a good thing."
One agency that could feel the pinch is The Children's Village, which receives funding through Westchester County for a shelter for runaway and homeless children, and a number of preventive programs in the community.
"It's guaranteed to impact us," said Jeremy Kohomban, president and CEO of the Dobbs Ferry-based agency. "It's guaranteed to hurt kids and families."
"I can tell you whenever Albany makes these kinds of unilateral cuts that impact the local government, it impacts children and families in the community," Kohomban said Tuesday. "No question about it. And especially now at a time when our local communities are struggling with the very same problems that Albany is struggling with, which is tax revenue."
The governor's state budget measure also comes at a time when many nonprofit agencies are struggling financially, with cutbacks in public funds coupled with a drop in private contributions.
"Most not-for-profits are as far out on their credit line as they can be and are really making it payment by payment," said Paul Anderson Winchell, executive director of the Grace Church Community Center in White Plains.
"We are all so dependent on a certain level of nongovernmental private fundraising, and that is down across-the-board, whether it's grants or corporate giving or individual giving," Winchell said. "It hasn't totally dried up, and people are still trying individually to be generous. But it certainly has had an impact on all of us."
The state Association of Counties had lobbied the governor to make cuts to individual programs instead of across-the-board, said Rockland's Vanderhoef, who sits on the association's executive board.
The state is supposed to cough up the aid in January, but in the meantime, the county will need to address a cash-flow issue, he said.
"Between stimulus money we received and managing our expenses well, we think we can get through this," Vanderhoef said.
Earlier this year, federal stimulus money helped avert similar cuts. This time, officials said, there's not likely to be such a safety net.
"It's kind of that time of crisis where you will see what people are really made of," said Cora Greenberg, executive director of the Westchester Children's Association in White Plains. "When push comes to shove, what are they willing to risk politically, and what are communities willing to risk financially in order to help secure the future by making sure kids have a fair start."
writers Laura Incalcaterra and Michael Risinit
For the rest of the article, go to:http://www.lohud.com/article/2009912160341
By Jorge Fitz-Gibbon • jfitzgib@lohud.com • December 16, 2009
The Lower Hudson Valley will have to do without $5.7 million in human services funds from Albany as Gov. David Paterson withholds the cash to deal with the state's lingering budget crisis.
The money, earmarked for child welfare and other social services, is part of $750 million Paterson is holding back to deal with what he said was a $1 billion shortfall for the state this month.
That includes $76 million in cuts to human services statewide, with Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties seeing local cuts.
State officials said Westchester alone would have nearly $4.7 million withheld. That money, county officials said, largely funds child welfare services.
Rockland stands to have $834,000 held back. County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef said the money pays for child welfare services, providing everything from health care to day care.
Vanderhoef said the cuts account for about 2 percent of the $10 million Rockland gets from the state each month to cover the costs of state-mandated programs.
"We literally are not spending money we absolutely don't have to," he said. "All brakes are on so we can get through to March."
For Putnam, the $187,000 being withheld is money alloted for the county's Child Protective Services and its preventive services.
Deputy County Executive John Tully said the money was a routine advance from the state meant to cover various costs and keep the county from spending its funds and getting reimbursed later.
"Unless this becomes a reduction in state aid, it won't adversely affect the programs," Tully said.
But just how the loss in funds may affect day-to-day services remains largely unclear — Paterson made the announcement Sunday, and local officials are still scrambling to determine the full impact.
"Obviously, it will affect us in the fourth quarter, but we don't really know what that's going to be yet because all the bills are not in yet," said Victoria Hochman, a spokeswoman for Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano.
(2 of 2)
"In terms of the cash flow, that's still being evaluated," she said. "Obviously, it's not a good thing."
One agency that could feel the pinch is The Children's Village, which receives funding through Westchester County for a shelter for runaway and homeless children, and a number of preventive programs in the community.
"It's guaranteed to impact us," said Jeremy Kohomban, president and CEO of the Dobbs Ferry-based agency. "It's guaranteed to hurt kids and families."
"I can tell you whenever Albany makes these kinds of unilateral cuts that impact the local government, it impacts children and families in the community," Kohomban said Tuesday. "No question about it. And especially now at a time when our local communities are struggling with the very same problems that Albany is struggling with, which is tax revenue."
The governor's state budget measure also comes at a time when many nonprofit agencies are struggling financially, with cutbacks in public funds coupled with a drop in private contributions.
"Most not-for-profits are as far out on their credit line as they can be and are really making it payment by payment," said Paul Anderson Winchell, executive director of the Grace Church Community Center in White Plains.
"We are all so dependent on a certain level of nongovernmental private fundraising, and that is down across-the-board, whether it's grants or corporate giving or individual giving," Winchell said. "It hasn't totally dried up, and people are still trying individually to be generous. But it certainly has had an impact on all of us."
The state Association of Counties had lobbied the governor to make cuts to individual programs instead of across-the-board, said Rockland's Vanderhoef, who sits on the association's executive board.
The state is supposed to cough up the aid in January, but in the meantime, the county will need to address a cash-flow issue, he said.
"Between stimulus money we received and managing our expenses well, we think we can get through this," Vanderhoef said.
Earlier this year, federal stimulus money helped avert similar cuts. This time, officials said, there's not likely to be such a safety net.
"It's kind of that time of crisis where you will see what people are really made of," said Cora Greenberg, executive director of the Westchester Children's Association in White Plains. "When push comes to shove, what are they willing to risk politically, and what are communities willing to risk financially in order to help secure the future by making sure kids have a fair start."
writers Laura Incalcaterra and Michael Risinit
For the rest of the article, go to:http://www.lohud.com/article/2009912160341
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Substance Abuse Treatment Alone Often Not Enough to Stem Child Abuse and Neglect
Substance Abuse Treatment Alone Often Not Enough to Stem Child Abuse and Neglect
By Elisabeth H. Donahue on December 16, 2009 1:34 PM |
Evidence linking alcohol and other drug abuse with child maltreatment, particularly neglect, is strong. But does substance abuse cause maltreatment? In a recent article in The Future of Children volume Preventing Child Maltreatment, authors Mark Testa and Brenda Smith found that co-occurring risk factors such as parental depression, social isolation, homelessness, or domestic violence may be more directly responsible than substance abuse itself for maltreatment. Interventions to prevent substance abuse–related maltreatment, say the authors, must attend to the underlying direct causes of both.
Research on whether prevention programs reduce drug abuse or help parents control substance use and improve their parenting has had mixed results, at best. The evidence raises questions generally about the effectiveness of substance abuse services in preventing child maltreatment. Such services, for example, raise only marginally the rates at which parents are reunified with children who have been placed in foster care. The primary reason for the mixed findings is that almost all the parents face not only substance abuse problems but the co-occurring issues as well. To prevent recurring maltreatment and promote reunification, programs must ensure client progress in all problem areas.
At some point in the intervention process, attention must turn to the child’s permanency needs and well-being. The best evidence to date suggests that substance-abusing parents pose no greater risk to their children than do parents of other children taken into child protective custody. It may be sensible to set a six-month timetable for parents to engage in treatment and allow twelve to eighteen months for them to show sufficient progress in all identified problem areas. After that, permanency plans should be expedited to place the child with a relative caregiver or in an adoptive home.
Investing in parental recovery from substance abuse and dependence should not substitute for a comprehensive approach that addresses the multiple social and economic risks to child well-being beyond the harms associated with parental substance abuse.
Drawn from “Prevention and Drug Treatment,” by Mark Testa and Brenda Smith.
Categories:Health,Welfare
Tags:alcohol abuse,child abuse,child neglect,drug abuse,parenting,preventing child abuse and neglect,preventing child maltreatment,rehabilitation programs,substance abuse
http://blogs.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/2009/12/substance-abuse-treatment-alone-often-not-enough-to-stem-child-abuse-and-neglect.html
By Elisabeth H. Donahue on December 16, 2009 1:34 PM |
Evidence linking alcohol and other drug abuse with child maltreatment, particularly neglect, is strong. But does substance abuse cause maltreatment? In a recent article in The Future of Children volume Preventing Child Maltreatment, authors Mark Testa and Brenda Smith found that co-occurring risk factors such as parental depression, social isolation, homelessness, or domestic violence may be more directly responsible than substance abuse itself for maltreatment. Interventions to prevent substance abuse–related maltreatment, say the authors, must attend to the underlying direct causes of both.
Research on whether prevention programs reduce drug abuse or help parents control substance use and improve their parenting has had mixed results, at best. The evidence raises questions generally about the effectiveness of substance abuse services in preventing child maltreatment. Such services, for example, raise only marginally the rates at which parents are reunified with children who have been placed in foster care. The primary reason for the mixed findings is that almost all the parents face not only substance abuse problems but the co-occurring issues as well. To prevent recurring maltreatment and promote reunification, programs must ensure client progress in all problem areas.
At some point in the intervention process, attention must turn to the child’s permanency needs and well-being. The best evidence to date suggests that substance-abusing parents pose no greater risk to their children than do parents of other children taken into child protective custody. It may be sensible to set a six-month timetable for parents to engage in treatment and allow twelve to eighteen months for them to show sufficient progress in all identified problem areas. After that, permanency plans should be expedited to place the child with a relative caregiver or in an adoptive home.
Investing in parental recovery from substance abuse and dependence should not substitute for a comprehensive approach that addresses the multiple social and economic risks to child well-being beyond the harms associated with parental substance abuse.
Drawn from “Prevention and Drug Treatment,” by Mark Testa and Brenda Smith.
Categories:Health,Welfare
Tags:alcohol abuse,child abuse,child neglect,drug abuse,parenting,preventing child abuse and neglect,preventing child maltreatment,rehabilitation programs,substance abuse
http://blogs.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/2009/12/substance-abuse-treatment-alone-often-not-enough-to-stem-child-abuse-and-neglect.html
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
32 accused of $60M in Medicare fraud in 3 states(How about CPS/DCYF Fraud Next?)
32 accused of $60M in Medicare fraud in 3 states
AP – Federal agents load boxes of records seized from Courtesy Medical Group, Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009 in Miami. …
By KELLI KENNEDY, Associated Press Writer Kelli Kennedy, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 23 mins ago
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – Federal agents arrested 26 suspects in three states Tuesday, including a doctor and nurses, in a major crackdown on Medicare fraud totaling $61 million in separate scams.
Arrests in Miami, Brooklyn and Detroit included a Florida doctor accused of running a $40 million home health care scheme that falsely listed patients as blind diabetics so that he could bill for twice-daily nurse visits.
The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the total of 32 indicted suspects lined up bogus patients and otherwise billed Medicare for unnecessary medical equipment, physical therapy and HIV infusions.
Miami Dr. Fred Dweck, along with 14 people with whom he worked, was accused in an indictment of running a scam to tap a Medicare program that pays very high rates to care for the sickest patients.
Dweck referred about 1,279 Medicare beneficiaries for expensive and unnecessary home health and therapy services, bribing the owners of two Miami clinics to join the scam. He also faked medical certifications, according to the indictment.
A telephone listing for Dweck could not be found and it was unclear if he had a lawyer.
"No matter what type of fraud is committed, there is one common denominator and that denominator is greed," Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said. "Medicare fraud is not a victimless crime. It hurts every American taxpayer by raising the cost of health care."
The raids come a week after a report that Miami-Dade County received more than half a billion dollars from Medicare in home health care payments intended for the sickest patients in 2008, which is more than the rest of the country combined, according to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General. Medicare paid the county about $520 million, even though only 2 percent of those patients receiving home health care live here.
In Detroit's raids, suspects paid recruiters to find patients willing to feign symptoms to justify expensive testing, including nerve conduction studies, federal authorities said.
A mother and son were charged in Brooklyn with billing Medicare $246 per patient for expensive shoe inserts reserved for diabetes patients, even though they only provided cheap, over-the-counter versions.
Including Tuesday's arrests, a Medicare Fraud strike force formed by the Justice and Health departments has now charged suspects accused of bilking Medicare of more than $1 billion in less than two years.
The pilot strike force, which started in Miami in 2007, has indicted more than 460 suspects in Medicare fraud scams. The program is now in Los Angeles, Houston and Detroit. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also announced Tuesday the operation will expand to Tampa, Fla., Baton Rouge, La., and Brooklyn.
Cleaning up an estimated $60 billion a year in Medicare fraud will be key to President Barack Obama's proposed health care overhaul. HHS and DOJ have promised more money and manpower to fight the fraud.
__Associated Press Writer Tom Hays contributed to this report from New York.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_bi_ge/us_medicare_fraud_busts
AP – Federal agents load boxes of records seized from Courtesy Medical Group, Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009 in Miami. …
By KELLI KENNEDY, Associated Press Writer Kelli Kennedy, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 23 mins ago
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – Federal agents arrested 26 suspects in three states Tuesday, including a doctor and nurses, in a major crackdown on Medicare fraud totaling $61 million in separate scams.
Arrests in Miami, Brooklyn and Detroit included a Florida doctor accused of running a $40 million home health care scheme that falsely listed patients as blind diabetics so that he could bill for twice-daily nurse visits.
The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the total of 32 indicted suspects lined up bogus patients and otherwise billed Medicare for unnecessary medical equipment, physical therapy and HIV infusions.
Miami Dr. Fred Dweck, along with 14 people with whom he worked, was accused in an indictment of running a scam to tap a Medicare program that pays very high rates to care for the sickest patients.
Dweck referred about 1,279 Medicare beneficiaries for expensive and unnecessary home health and therapy services, bribing the owners of two Miami clinics to join the scam. He also faked medical certifications, according to the indictment.
A telephone listing for Dweck could not be found and it was unclear if he had a lawyer.
"No matter what type of fraud is committed, there is one common denominator and that denominator is greed," Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said. "Medicare fraud is not a victimless crime. It hurts every American taxpayer by raising the cost of health care."
The raids come a week after a report that Miami-Dade County received more than half a billion dollars from Medicare in home health care payments intended for the sickest patients in 2008, which is more than the rest of the country combined, according to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General. Medicare paid the county about $520 million, even though only 2 percent of those patients receiving home health care live here.
In Detroit's raids, suspects paid recruiters to find patients willing to feign symptoms to justify expensive testing, including nerve conduction studies, federal authorities said.
A mother and son were charged in Brooklyn with billing Medicare $246 per patient for expensive shoe inserts reserved for diabetes patients, even though they only provided cheap, over-the-counter versions.
Including Tuesday's arrests, a Medicare Fraud strike force formed by the Justice and Health departments has now charged suspects accused of bilking Medicare of more than $1 billion in less than two years.
The pilot strike force, which started in Miami in 2007, has indicted more than 460 suspects in Medicare fraud scams. The program is now in Los Angeles, Houston and Detroit. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also announced Tuesday the operation will expand to Tampa, Fla., Baton Rouge, La., and Brooklyn.
Cleaning up an estimated $60 billion a year in Medicare fraud will be key to President Barack Obama's proposed health care overhaul. HHS and DOJ have promised more money and manpower to fight the fraud.
__Associated Press Writer Tom Hays contributed to this report from New York.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_bi_ge/us_medicare_fraud_busts
The Medicating of America
The Medicating of America
by Maureen Kennedy Salaman
President, National Health Federation
June 2006
Nobody is Safe
Whatever you choose to call them: psychotropic, neuroleptic, or psychoactive drugs, Americans have become so complacent about, and dependent upon, psychiatric medications that some parents are using them to chemically restrain their children and teenagers.
A two-year investigation by the Florida Statewide Advocacy Council found that more than 50 percent of Florida's foster children ‑‑ including infants and toddlers ‑‑ were being given mind‑altering drugs. Forty-four percent of them had not been seen by a pediatrician, and of those who had, five percent had no diagnosis. Another 12 percent had a diagnosis of "other," which included hearing impaired, bed-wetting and the dubious, subjective diagnosis of "adjustment disorder."
The Medicating of America
The drugs given the children were designed to treat schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar disorder. In young growing bodies these drugs can cause heart problems, growth suppression, psychosis, and decreased blood flow to the brain. A common side effect is tics or shakes. For more on this horror, read the chapter on Tardive Dyskinesia in my book, All Your Health Questions Answered Naturally.
It is estimated that today more than six percent of American children are taking some kind of psychiatric medication. Not surprisingly, among teenagers this number is even higher.
A 2006 Brandeis University study found that over a seven-year period (1991-2004), psychotropic drug prescriptions for teens increased by 250 percent. The study revealed that in 2001 one in every ten office visits by teenage boys led to a prescription for a psychotropic drug, and a diagnosis of ADHD was given one‑third of the time. Also, up to 26 percent of the time when these medications were prescribed, no mental health diagnosis was made.
A new phenomena -- school shootings -- may be related to this increased use of psychotropic drugs as many shooters were on psychotropic drugs at the time.
According to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a psychiatric watchdog group, eight out of 13 school shootings, such as the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, were committed by teens on psychiatric drugs. Mothers on these drugs have killed their children or even cut off the arms of their baby while taking these drugs.
Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old youth who killed his parents and then killed two and wounded 22 of his fellow students at Thurston High School in Oregon, was taking Prozac.
Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado, was under the influence of Luvox (fluvoxamine), an antidepressant medication. The potential side effects of Luvox are listed in the manufacturer's warning: "Frequent" adverse effects include "manic reaction" and psychotic reaction." Symptoms of mania include delusions of grandeur, intense irritability, and rages and delusional thoughts.
Fifteen‑year‑old Shawn Cooper of Notus, Idaho fired a shotgun at students and school staff. According to his stepfather, he had been taking a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).
Thirteen‑year‑old Chris Fetters of Iowa killed her favorite aunt. She was taking Prozac.
In 2001, Christopher Pittman killed his grandparents while taking Zoloft, an antidepressant similar to Prozac.
Ann Blake Tracy, Ph.D., author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora?, has been studying the violent, dark side of SSRIs such as Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft drugs for over ten years. When she examined 32 murder/suicides involving women and their children, she found that in 24 of 32 cases an SSRI drug was involved.
A report issued by the Drug Enforcement Agency warned that Ritalin, commonly prescribed for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, "shares many of the pharmacological effects of . . . cocaine." Some experts believe Ritalin can cause psychotic reactions resulting in suicide and violent behavior toward others.
A particularly sharp rise among children being prescribed psychotropic drugs has been noted after 1999, when the federal government began allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise their drugs directly to consumers. Between 1996 and 2000, pharmaceutical companies increased their spending on television advertising six fold, to $1.5 billion.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse reported in 2005 that while teen use of cigarettes and illegal drugs are down, the abuse of prescription sedatives or painkillers is up significantly.
A brain imaging study found that the brains of teenagers are still developing, and that psychotropic drugs can endanger the growth process. One of the last parts of the brain to completely mature is the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for planning, judgment, and self‑control. When taken during this acute phase of growth, mind-altering drugs may keep young people from ever developing self‑control and good judgment. This brings us to the prevalence and risks of psychotropic medications and what happens when self-control and good judgment are lost.
The Risks for Suicide
In 2003, children and adolescents made up about eight percent of patients prescribed antidepressant drugs in the U.S., constituting over ten million prescriptions dispensed for patients younger than 18 years. These drugs included Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, and Celexa.
In September 2004, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) researchers analyzed 24 clinical trials involving 4,582 pediatric patients taking antidepressant medications for depression, anxiety, or other psychiatric disorders. They concluded that patients taking antidepressants were twice as likely as patients taking placebo (fake) pills to experience suicidal thoughts or attempt suicide.
A month later, the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory to warn the public about the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in children and adolescents being treated with antidepressant medications. The FDA called for the labels of all antidepressants to have a "black box" warning about this risk. The new warning, by the way, does not recommend they not be used by children and adolescents.
Interestingly enough, the FDA black-box decision came some ten months after regulators in England had declared that most antidepressants are not suitable for children under 18.
Adults, too, are at risk. In February 2005, a study of data from 702 controlled clinical trials involving 87,650 adult patients found that those taking antidepressant drugs were twice as likely to attempt suicide as those receiving a placebo dummy pill or other treatments.
The FDA now admits that people being treated for depression should be cautious when taking antidepressants.
On June 30, 2005, the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory release entitled, "Suicidality in Adults Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications." The advisory states: "Several recent scientific publications suggest the possibility of an increased risk for suicidal behavior in adults who are being treated with antidepressant medications" and warns: "Adults being treated with antidepressant medications, particularly those being treated for depression, should be watched closely for worsening of depression and for increased suicidal thinking or behavior."
Drugs to treat psychosis are also associated with suicide. A study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (v.188, 2006) compared suicide rates associated with schizophrenia from 1875 to 1924, when antipsychotic drugs were not as prevalent, and from 1994 to 2003, when patients were commonly treated with psychotropic drugs.
The researchers found that the suicide rate for schizophrenia between 1875 and 1924 was 20 per 100,000 hospital years, a lifetime rate of less than 0.5 percent. For the modern drug era, the lifetime suicide rate was found to be as high as 18 percent. The study concluded, "These findings point to an increase in suicide rates for patients with schizophrenia."
An article by Robert Whitaker in Medical Hypothesis (v.62, 2004), entitled "The Case against Antipsychotic Drugs: a 50-year Record of Doing more Harm than Good," states that, "Forty percent or more of all schizophrenia patients would fare better if they were not so medicated . . . (patients) may be no better than they were 100 years ago, when water therapies and fresh air were the treatment of the day."
A shocking study was recently conducted in which young people were given the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa to treat them for schizophrenia, even though they had not yet developed the disorder. The study was financed by Zyprexa's manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and the National Institute of Mental Health. It was so poorly conducted and dangerous that most participants dropped out before the study could be concluded. How did Eli Lilly and the Institute determine who should be study participants? They used a scale that assessed risk for psychosis, with behaviors considered symptomatic (and normal in teenagers) such as suspiciousness, grandiosity, and bizarre thoughts.
There are many, many studies showing that pharmaceutical drugs used to treat mental illness are detrimental at best and deadly at worst. In countries where drugs are used the least, patients do the best.
The World Health Organization (WHO) piloted a study that compared schizophrenia outcomes in "developed" and "developing" countries. It began the study in 1968, and examined 1,202 patients in nine countries. At both two‑year and five‑year follow‑ups, the patients in the poor countries were doing much better. The researchers concluded that schizophrenia patients in the poor countries "had a considerably better course and outcome than (patients) in developed countries"
A follow-up WHO study found that 63.7 percent of patients in poor countries did well at the end of two years. In contrast, only 36.9 percent of patients in the U.S. and six other developed countries did well at the end of two years. The researchers concluded that "being in a developed country was a strong predictor of not attaining a complete remission."
Although the WHO researchers didn't say why developed countries were unsuccessful in treating their mentally ill, they did note that in the developing countries only 15.9 percent of patients were continuously maintained on psychotropic drugs, compared to 61 percent of patients in the U.S. and other developed countries.
This backs up U.S. research that shows that these drugs induce brain changes that make people more biologically prone to psychosis.
Dr. Courtenay Harding has conducted studies that show patients who do not use psychiatric medications on a long‑term basis are the most likely to recover from schizophrenia.
In the Vermont Longitudinal Study of Persons With Severe Mental Illness, of the 68 percent of people diagnosed with schizophrenia who recovered, 50 percent never took psychiatric medications and another 25 percent only took them periodically to control symptoms.
Ties That Bind - The DSM
If drugs don't work and actually harm people, if the studies and research show this, if people don't like them -- why are physicians prescribing them, why are people buying them, and why are pharmaceutical companies so rich?
When considering the mental health of their patients, physicians and psychiatrists use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th. Edition. Better known as the DSM‑IV, the manual is published by the American Psychiatric Association and covers conventionally recognized mental-health disorders, causes, gender and age statistics, and prognoses as well as research and treatment approaches.
The DSM is used by medical practitioners and is the industry's bible. The information contained in it is the final word for the practice of conventional psychiatry in the United States and other "developed" countries. If a treatment option or diagnosis is not written in its pages, it is not used or considered.
The manual is also tremendously important to pharmaceutical companies, as the Food and Drug Administration will not approve a drug to treat a mental illness unless the condition is in the DSM. Once a condition is included in the manual, drug companies can then market the "approved" medications to physicians and consumers.
The original 1952 DSM manual contained 107 mental-health disorders. The most recent edition identifies 365.
In a not-so-shocking revelation, it was recently uncovered that every one of the psychiatric "experts" who provided information about disorders typically treated with pharmaceuticals -- mood disorders, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders -- benefitted financially from drug companies, and those ties were especially strong where drugs were recommended as a first-line treatment. Most of the money received by the DSM‑IV experts was for research. Other financial perks included speaking or consulting fees, ownership of company stock, gifts, and paid travel expenses.
The DSM uses research to back up its treatment recommendations, which would be appropriate if the findings were objective and unbiased. However, many of the "experts" who conducted the research have such close ties to pharmaceutical goals that the research and its conclusions should be considered invalid.
For example, Eli Lilly & Company was seeking to market its drug Prozac® (fluoxetine hydrochloride) to treat premenstrual syndrome (PMS); but first PMS had to be considered a psychiatric disorder. Five of the six researchers charged with this task had ties to Eli Lilly. Of course, a new disorder to cover this problem was conveniently recognized. In November 1999, the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of Eli Lilly’s Prozac for the treatment of "premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD)," a "severe" psychiatric form of PMS.
However, since the patent on Prozac had expired, Eli Lilly got the FDA to approve their drug Serafem for the treatment of PMDD. Prozac and Serafem are the exact same drug. While the patent on Prozac has expired, the patent -- and the profits -- on Serafem are protected until 2007.
Once a patent expires, a generic form of the drug may be manufactured, with considerable cost savings to a consumer. I looked at the Internet website www.drugstore.com and did some cost comparisons. Thirty 20-milligram capsules of brand name Prozac costs $129.96. Thirty 20-milligram capsules of the same drug – generic Fluoxetine HCl -- costs $15.99. Twenty-eight 20-milligram capsules of Serafem costs $110.99.
Big Money at Stake
The financial benefits are so incredibly large that it is not surprising to find pharmaceutical giants entrenched in institutional bias and industry manipulation.
According to a research paper entitled "Mental Health Policy and Psychotropic Drugs," the amount of money spent on psychotropic drugs grew from an estimated $2.8 billion in 1987 to nearly $18 billion in 2001 (Coffey et al. 2000, Mark et al. 2005), and the amount spent on psychotropic drugs has been growing more rapidly than what has been spent on drugs overall (IMS Health 2005).
Consumer spending on antidepressant and antipsychotic medications grew 11.9 percent and 22.1 percent, respectively, in 2003, whereas spending on drugs overall grew at 11.5 percent in 2003 (IMS Health 2005).
Antidepressants were the fourth leading class of drugs in 2004 with annual global sales totaling $20.3 billion. Antipsychotics, the fifth leading class, had annual sales totaling $14.1 billion ‑‑ and are projected to increase to $18.2 billion by 2007. It has been estimated that the profit on all psychotropic drugs in 2006 will reach $35 billion.
Old-Fashioned Medicine
When I was growing up doctors knew best, and they were considered father figures. We trusted physicians to know us well and treat us well. I am afraid that when physicians are trapped in the profit-driven HMO insurance system they are little more than pawns for healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies.
We are now in an age where we must fight for old-fashioned medicine. We must be willing to fight for our right to choose our medical care, and be willing to pay for it. As physicians and pharmaceutical companies push pills aggressively on every front, we must be cautious, and we must be knowledgeable. Do not trust the diagnosis, the doctor, or the documentation. Consumers and "crazies," beware. You are probably not as sick as they think.
http://www.thenhf.com/health_freedom_news_56.htm
.
by Maureen Kennedy Salaman
President, National Health Federation
June 2006
Nobody is Safe
Whatever you choose to call them: psychotropic, neuroleptic, or psychoactive drugs, Americans have become so complacent about, and dependent upon, psychiatric medications that some parents are using them to chemically restrain their children and teenagers.
A two-year investigation by the Florida Statewide Advocacy Council found that more than 50 percent of Florida's foster children ‑‑ including infants and toddlers ‑‑ were being given mind‑altering drugs. Forty-four percent of them had not been seen by a pediatrician, and of those who had, five percent had no diagnosis. Another 12 percent had a diagnosis of "other," which included hearing impaired, bed-wetting and the dubious, subjective diagnosis of "adjustment disorder."
The Medicating of America
The drugs given the children were designed to treat schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar disorder. In young growing bodies these drugs can cause heart problems, growth suppression, psychosis, and decreased blood flow to the brain. A common side effect is tics or shakes. For more on this horror, read the chapter on Tardive Dyskinesia in my book, All Your Health Questions Answered Naturally.
It is estimated that today more than six percent of American children are taking some kind of psychiatric medication. Not surprisingly, among teenagers this number is even higher.
A 2006 Brandeis University study found that over a seven-year period (1991-2004), psychotropic drug prescriptions for teens increased by 250 percent. The study revealed that in 2001 one in every ten office visits by teenage boys led to a prescription for a psychotropic drug, and a diagnosis of ADHD was given one‑third of the time. Also, up to 26 percent of the time when these medications were prescribed, no mental health diagnosis was made.
A new phenomena -- school shootings -- may be related to this increased use of psychotropic drugs as many shooters were on psychotropic drugs at the time.
According to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a psychiatric watchdog group, eight out of 13 school shootings, such as the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, were committed by teens on psychiatric drugs. Mothers on these drugs have killed their children or even cut off the arms of their baby while taking these drugs.
Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old youth who killed his parents and then killed two and wounded 22 of his fellow students at Thurston High School in Oregon, was taking Prozac.
Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado, was under the influence of Luvox (fluvoxamine), an antidepressant medication. The potential side effects of Luvox are listed in the manufacturer's warning: "Frequent" adverse effects include "manic reaction" and psychotic reaction." Symptoms of mania include delusions of grandeur, intense irritability, and rages and delusional thoughts.
Fifteen‑year‑old Shawn Cooper of Notus, Idaho fired a shotgun at students and school staff. According to his stepfather, he had been taking a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).
Thirteen‑year‑old Chris Fetters of Iowa killed her favorite aunt. She was taking Prozac.
In 2001, Christopher Pittman killed his grandparents while taking Zoloft, an antidepressant similar to Prozac.
Ann Blake Tracy, Ph.D., author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora?, has been studying the violent, dark side of SSRIs such as Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft drugs for over ten years. When she examined 32 murder/suicides involving women and their children, she found that in 24 of 32 cases an SSRI drug was involved.
A report issued by the Drug Enforcement Agency warned that Ritalin, commonly prescribed for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, "shares many of the pharmacological effects of . . . cocaine." Some experts believe Ritalin can cause psychotic reactions resulting in suicide and violent behavior toward others.
A particularly sharp rise among children being prescribed psychotropic drugs has been noted after 1999, when the federal government began allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise their drugs directly to consumers. Between 1996 and 2000, pharmaceutical companies increased their spending on television advertising six fold, to $1.5 billion.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse reported in 2005 that while teen use of cigarettes and illegal drugs are down, the abuse of prescription sedatives or painkillers is up significantly.
A brain imaging study found that the brains of teenagers are still developing, and that psychotropic drugs can endanger the growth process. One of the last parts of the brain to completely mature is the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for planning, judgment, and self‑control. When taken during this acute phase of growth, mind-altering drugs may keep young people from ever developing self‑control and good judgment. This brings us to the prevalence and risks of psychotropic medications and what happens when self-control and good judgment are lost.
The Risks for Suicide
In 2003, children and adolescents made up about eight percent of patients prescribed antidepressant drugs in the U.S., constituting over ten million prescriptions dispensed for patients younger than 18 years. These drugs included Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, and Celexa.
In September 2004, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) researchers analyzed 24 clinical trials involving 4,582 pediatric patients taking antidepressant medications for depression, anxiety, or other psychiatric disorders. They concluded that patients taking antidepressants were twice as likely as patients taking placebo (fake) pills to experience suicidal thoughts or attempt suicide.
A month later, the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory to warn the public about the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in children and adolescents being treated with antidepressant medications. The FDA called for the labels of all antidepressants to have a "black box" warning about this risk. The new warning, by the way, does not recommend they not be used by children and adolescents.
Interestingly enough, the FDA black-box decision came some ten months after regulators in England had declared that most antidepressants are not suitable for children under 18.
Adults, too, are at risk. In February 2005, a study of data from 702 controlled clinical trials involving 87,650 adult patients found that those taking antidepressant drugs were twice as likely to attempt suicide as those receiving a placebo dummy pill or other treatments.
The FDA now admits that people being treated for depression should be cautious when taking antidepressants.
On June 30, 2005, the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory release entitled, "Suicidality in Adults Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications." The advisory states: "Several recent scientific publications suggest the possibility of an increased risk for suicidal behavior in adults who are being treated with antidepressant medications" and warns: "Adults being treated with antidepressant medications, particularly those being treated for depression, should be watched closely for worsening of depression and for increased suicidal thinking or behavior."
Drugs to treat psychosis are also associated with suicide. A study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (v.188, 2006) compared suicide rates associated with schizophrenia from 1875 to 1924, when antipsychotic drugs were not as prevalent, and from 1994 to 2003, when patients were commonly treated with psychotropic drugs.
The researchers found that the suicide rate for schizophrenia between 1875 and 1924 was 20 per 100,000 hospital years, a lifetime rate of less than 0.5 percent. For the modern drug era, the lifetime suicide rate was found to be as high as 18 percent. The study concluded, "These findings point to an increase in suicide rates for patients with schizophrenia."
An article by Robert Whitaker in Medical Hypothesis (v.62, 2004), entitled "The Case against Antipsychotic Drugs: a 50-year Record of Doing more Harm than Good," states that, "Forty percent or more of all schizophrenia patients would fare better if they were not so medicated . . . (patients) may be no better than they were 100 years ago, when water therapies and fresh air were the treatment of the day."
A shocking study was recently conducted in which young people were given the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa to treat them for schizophrenia, even though they had not yet developed the disorder. The study was financed by Zyprexa's manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and the National Institute of Mental Health. It was so poorly conducted and dangerous that most participants dropped out before the study could be concluded. How did Eli Lilly and the Institute determine who should be study participants? They used a scale that assessed risk for psychosis, with behaviors considered symptomatic (and normal in teenagers) such as suspiciousness, grandiosity, and bizarre thoughts.
There are many, many studies showing that pharmaceutical drugs used to treat mental illness are detrimental at best and deadly at worst. In countries where drugs are used the least, patients do the best.
The World Health Organization (WHO) piloted a study that compared schizophrenia outcomes in "developed" and "developing" countries. It began the study in 1968, and examined 1,202 patients in nine countries. At both two‑year and five‑year follow‑ups, the patients in the poor countries were doing much better. The researchers concluded that schizophrenia patients in the poor countries "had a considerably better course and outcome than (patients) in developed countries"
A follow-up WHO study found that 63.7 percent of patients in poor countries did well at the end of two years. In contrast, only 36.9 percent of patients in the U.S. and six other developed countries did well at the end of two years. The researchers concluded that "being in a developed country was a strong predictor of not attaining a complete remission."
Although the WHO researchers didn't say why developed countries were unsuccessful in treating their mentally ill, they did note that in the developing countries only 15.9 percent of patients were continuously maintained on psychotropic drugs, compared to 61 percent of patients in the U.S. and other developed countries.
This backs up U.S. research that shows that these drugs induce brain changes that make people more biologically prone to psychosis.
Dr. Courtenay Harding has conducted studies that show patients who do not use psychiatric medications on a long‑term basis are the most likely to recover from schizophrenia.
In the Vermont Longitudinal Study of Persons With Severe Mental Illness, of the 68 percent of people diagnosed with schizophrenia who recovered, 50 percent never took psychiatric medications and another 25 percent only took them periodically to control symptoms.
Ties That Bind - The DSM
If drugs don't work and actually harm people, if the studies and research show this, if people don't like them -- why are physicians prescribing them, why are people buying them, and why are pharmaceutical companies so rich?
When considering the mental health of their patients, physicians and psychiatrists use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th. Edition. Better known as the DSM‑IV, the manual is published by the American Psychiatric Association and covers conventionally recognized mental-health disorders, causes, gender and age statistics, and prognoses as well as research and treatment approaches.
The DSM is used by medical practitioners and is the industry's bible. The information contained in it is the final word for the practice of conventional psychiatry in the United States and other "developed" countries. If a treatment option or diagnosis is not written in its pages, it is not used or considered.
The manual is also tremendously important to pharmaceutical companies, as the Food and Drug Administration will not approve a drug to treat a mental illness unless the condition is in the DSM. Once a condition is included in the manual, drug companies can then market the "approved" medications to physicians and consumers.
The original 1952 DSM manual contained 107 mental-health disorders. The most recent edition identifies 365.
In a not-so-shocking revelation, it was recently uncovered that every one of the psychiatric "experts" who provided information about disorders typically treated with pharmaceuticals -- mood disorders, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders -- benefitted financially from drug companies, and those ties were especially strong where drugs were recommended as a first-line treatment. Most of the money received by the DSM‑IV experts was for research. Other financial perks included speaking or consulting fees, ownership of company stock, gifts, and paid travel expenses.
The DSM uses research to back up its treatment recommendations, which would be appropriate if the findings were objective and unbiased. However, many of the "experts" who conducted the research have such close ties to pharmaceutical goals that the research and its conclusions should be considered invalid.
For example, Eli Lilly & Company was seeking to market its drug Prozac® (fluoxetine hydrochloride) to treat premenstrual syndrome (PMS); but first PMS had to be considered a psychiatric disorder. Five of the six researchers charged with this task had ties to Eli Lilly. Of course, a new disorder to cover this problem was conveniently recognized. In November 1999, the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of Eli Lilly’s Prozac for the treatment of "premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD)," a "severe" psychiatric form of PMS.
However, since the patent on Prozac had expired, Eli Lilly got the FDA to approve their drug Serafem for the treatment of PMDD. Prozac and Serafem are the exact same drug. While the patent on Prozac has expired, the patent -- and the profits -- on Serafem are protected until 2007.
Once a patent expires, a generic form of the drug may be manufactured, with considerable cost savings to a consumer. I looked at the Internet website www.drugstore.com and did some cost comparisons. Thirty 20-milligram capsules of brand name Prozac costs $129.96. Thirty 20-milligram capsules of the same drug – generic Fluoxetine HCl -- costs $15.99. Twenty-eight 20-milligram capsules of Serafem costs $110.99.
Big Money at Stake
The financial benefits are so incredibly large that it is not surprising to find pharmaceutical giants entrenched in institutional bias and industry manipulation.
According to a research paper entitled "Mental Health Policy and Psychotropic Drugs," the amount of money spent on psychotropic drugs grew from an estimated $2.8 billion in 1987 to nearly $18 billion in 2001 (Coffey et al. 2000, Mark et al. 2005), and the amount spent on psychotropic drugs has been growing more rapidly than what has been spent on drugs overall (IMS Health 2005).
Consumer spending on antidepressant and antipsychotic medications grew 11.9 percent and 22.1 percent, respectively, in 2003, whereas spending on drugs overall grew at 11.5 percent in 2003 (IMS Health 2005).
Antidepressants were the fourth leading class of drugs in 2004 with annual global sales totaling $20.3 billion. Antipsychotics, the fifth leading class, had annual sales totaling $14.1 billion ‑‑ and are projected to increase to $18.2 billion by 2007. It has been estimated that the profit on all psychotropic drugs in 2006 will reach $35 billion.
Old-Fashioned Medicine
When I was growing up doctors knew best, and they were considered father figures. We trusted physicians to know us well and treat us well. I am afraid that when physicians are trapped in the profit-driven HMO insurance system they are little more than pawns for healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies.
We are now in an age where we must fight for old-fashioned medicine. We must be willing to fight for our right to choose our medical care, and be willing to pay for it. As physicians and pharmaceutical companies push pills aggressively on every front, we must be cautious, and we must be knowledgeable. Do not trust the diagnosis, the doctor, or the documentation. Consumers and "crazies," beware. You are probably not as sick as they think.
http://www.thenhf.com/health_freedom_news_56.htm
.
Poor Children More Likely to get Antipsychotic Drugs
Poor Children More Likely to get Antipsychotic Drugs
December 14, 2009 by JP
New York Times
By Duff Wilson
New federally financed drug research reveals a stark disparity: children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance. And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts, the data shows.
Those findings, by a team from Rutgers and Columbia, are almost certain to add fuel to a long-running debate. Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them — but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?
The questions go beyond the psychological impact on Medicaid children, serious as that may be. Antipsychotic drugs can also have severe physical side effects, causing drastic weight gain and metabolic changes resulting in lifelong physical problems.
On Tuesday, a pediatric advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration met to discuss the health risks for all children who take antipsychotics. The panel will consider recommending new label warnings for the drugs, which are now used by an estimated 300,000 people under age 18 in this country, counting both Medicaid patients and those with private insurance.
Meanwhile, a group of Medicaid medical directors from 16 states, under a project they call Too Many, Too Much, Too Young, has been experimenting with ways to reduce prescriptions of antipsychotic drugs among Medicaid children.
They plan to publish a report early next year.
The Rutgers-Columbia study will also be published early next year, in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs. But the findings have already been posted on the Web, setting off discussion among experts who treat and study troubled young people.
Some experts say they are stunned by the disparity in prescribing patterns. But others say it reinforces previous indications, and their own experience, that children with diagnoses of mental or emotional problems in low-income families are more likely to be given drugs than receive family counseling or psychotherapy.
Part of the reason is insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do. Part of it may have to do with the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available.
“It’s easier for patients, and it’s easier for docs,” said Dr. Derek H. Suite, a psychiatrist in the Bronx whose pediatric cases include children and adolescents covered by Medicaid and who sometimes prescribes antipsychotics. “But the question is, ‘What are you prescribing it for?’ That’s where it gets a little fuzzy.”
Too often, Dr. Suite said, he sees young Medicaid patients to whom other doctors have given antipsychotics that the patients do not seem to need. Recently, for example, he met with a 15-year-old girl. She had stopped taking the antipsychotic medication that had been prescribed for her after a single examination, paid for by Medicaid, at a clinic where she received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
Why did she stop? Dr. Suite asked. “I can control my moods,” the girl said softly.
After evaluating her, Dr. Suite decided she was right. The girl had arguments with her mother and stepfather and some insomnia. But she was a good student and certainly not bipolar, in Dr. Suite’s opinion.
“Normal teenager,” Dr. Suite said, nodding. “No scrips for you.”
Because there can be long waits to see the psychiatrists accepting Medicaid, it is often a pediatrician or family doctor who prescribes an antipsychotic to a Medicaid patient — whether because the parent wants it or the doctor believes there are few other options.
Some experts even say Medicaid may provide better care for children than many covered by private insurance because the drugs — which can cost $400 a month — are provided free to patients, and families do not have to worry about the co-payments and other insurance restrictions.
“Maybe Medicaid kids are getting better treatment,” said Dr. Gabrielle Carlson, a child psychiatrist and professor at the Stony Brook School of Medicine. “If it helps keep them in school, maybe it’s not so bad.”
In any case, as Congress works on health care legislation that could expand the nation’s Medicaid rolls by 15 million people — a 43 percent increase — the scope of the antipsychotics problem, and the expense, could grow in coming years.
Even though the drugs are typically cheaper than long-term therapy, they are the single biggest drug expenditure for Medicaid, costing the program $7.9 billion in 2006, the most recent year for which the data is available.
To continue reading this report, go to:
http://www.ktradionetwork.com/2009/12/14/poor-children-more-likely-to-get-antipsychotic-drugs/
December 14, 2009 by JP
New York Times
By Duff Wilson
New federally financed drug research reveals a stark disparity: children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance. And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts, the data shows.
Those findings, by a team from Rutgers and Columbia, are almost certain to add fuel to a long-running debate. Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them — but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?
The questions go beyond the psychological impact on Medicaid children, serious as that may be. Antipsychotic drugs can also have severe physical side effects, causing drastic weight gain and metabolic changes resulting in lifelong physical problems.
On Tuesday, a pediatric advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration met to discuss the health risks for all children who take antipsychotics. The panel will consider recommending new label warnings for the drugs, which are now used by an estimated 300,000 people under age 18 in this country, counting both Medicaid patients and those with private insurance.
Meanwhile, a group of Medicaid medical directors from 16 states, under a project they call Too Many, Too Much, Too Young, has been experimenting with ways to reduce prescriptions of antipsychotic drugs among Medicaid children.
They plan to publish a report early next year.
The Rutgers-Columbia study will also be published early next year, in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs. But the findings have already been posted on the Web, setting off discussion among experts who treat and study troubled young people.
Some experts say they are stunned by the disparity in prescribing patterns. But others say it reinforces previous indications, and their own experience, that children with diagnoses of mental or emotional problems in low-income families are more likely to be given drugs than receive family counseling or psychotherapy.
Part of the reason is insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do. Part of it may have to do with the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available.
“It’s easier for patients, and it’s easier for docs,” said Dr. Derek H. Suite, a psychiatrist in the Bronx whose pediatric cases include children and adolescents covered by Medicaid and who sometimes prescribes antipsychotics. “But the question is, ‘What are you prescribing it for?’ That’s where it gets a little fuzzy.”
Too often, Dr. Suite said, he sees young Medicaid patients to whom other doctors have given antipsychotics that the patients do not seem to need. Recently, for example, he met with a 15-year-old girl. She had stopped taking the antipsychotic medication that had been prescribed for her after a single examination, paid for by Medicaid, at a clinic where she received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
Why did she stop? Dr. Suite asked. “I can control my moods,” the girl said softly.
After evaluating her, Dr. Suite decided she was right. The girl had arguments with her mother and stepfather and some insomnia. But she was a good student and certainly not bipolar, in Dr. Suite’s opinion.
“Normal teenager,” Dr. Suite said, nodding. “No scrips for you.”
Because there can be long waits to see the psychiatrists accepting Medicaid, it is often a pediatrician or family doctor who prescribes an antipsychotic to a Medicaid patient — whether because the parent wants it or the doctor believes there are few other options.
Some experts even say Medicaid may provide better care for children than many covered by private insurance because the drugs — which can cost $400 a month — are provided free to patients, and families do not have to worry about the co-payments and other insurance restrictions.
“Maybe Medicaid kids are getting better treatment,” said Dr. Gabrielle Carlson, a child psychiatrist and professor at the Stony Brook School of Medicine. “If it helps keep them in school, maybe it’s not so bad.”
In any case, as Congress works on health care legislation that could expand the nation’s Medicaid rolls by 15 million people — a 43 percent increase — the scope of the antipsychotics problem, and the expense, could grow in coming years.
Even though the drugs are typically cheaper than long-term therapy, they are the single biggest drug expenditure for Medicaid, costing the program $7.9 billion in 2006, the most recent year for which the data is available.
To continue reading this report, go to:
http://www.ktradionetwork.com/2009/12/14/poor-children-more-likely-to-get-antipsychotic-drugs/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)