The project yakima Valley Systems of Care has made NAMI a partner without any real consideration given to the potential negative impact. NAMI very well may have some good programs which people find helpful, however I for one, am critical of how biased towards the bio-medical model NAMI's information is. The fact is it's literature repeatedly claims that psychiatric diagnoses are in fact diseases or chemical imbalances when this is a hypothesis; not a validated theory, let alone a medical fact or certainty. NAMI literature also repeatedly puts forth the idea how important psychiatric drugs and "treatment compliance" is; without informing people about how very dangerous, potentially disabling and/or fatal treatment compliance can be. While the local affiliate may not receive any money directly from the drug industry; it uses materials which were developed by the drug industry. The information is sometimes little more than direct-to-consumer advertising; disguised as information and educational materials.
My main complaint about NAMI however, is that NAMI offers no advocacy or support for those who have been harmed by psychiatric drugs, or by the manner in which mental health services are provided.
My son was a normal child with a very high IQ, and instead of the recommended treatment for his severe PTSD and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy he was given massive amounts of psychiatric drugs and is now severely disabled. He was given a diagnosis of schizophrenia even though Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is a condition which excludes a diagnosis of schizophrenia--it is a neurological condition which has the same symptoms as schizophrenia, and is caused by brain trauma. He was the victim of a violent assault at the age of three while in foster care.
My son will, in all likelihood, die while he is still a young man because of the damage the drugs have caused him. I cannot help but be filled with pain over the fact that the decisions which put this chain of events in motion were without my approval, or consent; against State and Federal Law. That said, I know in my heart that I did everything in my power to prevent the harm that was done. I am grateful that he is home, and for the time that we have together.
This project is to correct flaws in the system, including the ones that allowed the events which have caused my son and my family so very much harm. It is a wonderful opportunity for this community to truly help children and their families, more effectively. Many communities have struggled with making the systemic changes necessary to more effectively help children and their families. This community is no exception, it is my hope that this community should not give up, but will work all the more diligently and successfully transform the mental health care system for the children who are counting on us to do so.
To clarify what "project" I am referring to is the SAMHSA grant of $9 million to Yakima County to reform the public mental health service system for children. The last reports I have on the progress are here and here
via PROPUBLICA:
Health Advocacy Groups Take Drug Company Cash—Often Without Full Disclosures, Report Says
 |
| photo by Andrew McGill |
We’ve reported extensively on the ties between pharmaceutical companies and the physicians they fund to speak, consult and do research. But doctors aren’t the only ones taking money from drug companies—and they’re not the only stakeholders in the field of health whose public disclosures aren’t complete.
According to a new study in the American Journal of Public Health, not-for-profit health advocacy groups like the American Diabetes Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness also get money from drug companies in the form of grants that—more often than not—aren’t disclosed by those groups.
The study examined more than 160 health advocacy organizations that received funding from Eli Lilly in the first half of 2007. (Lilly was the first company to make its grant registry public.) Here’s what the analysis found:
Health advocacy groups often advocate for research and the approval of new drugs on top of promoting public awareness. According to the study, their reputation as a trusted resource for information on specific diseases and their treatments should prompt “far more detailed” disclosure of their corporate grants and industry relationships.
This report isn’t the first time such ties have been spotlighted.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, came under similar scrutiny back in 2009 when Sen. Charles Grassley, a top Republican, began making inquiries.
From 2006 to 2008, the group took in nearly $23 million in drug company donations—about three-quarters of its fund-raising. At the time, NAMI’s executive director told The New York Times that “the percentage of money from pharma has been higher than we have wanted it to be” and promised greater disclosures.
Following the revelations about NAMI, Sen. Charles Grassley sent letters to 33 health advocacy groups asking them to disclose details about their financial ties to drug and device makers. He has not released the responses he received from the groups.
Today’s report, however, highlighted continued concerns about the degree to which a group’s funding influences its advocacy and helps boost sales for drug companies making donations. Here’s an example from the report, involving NAMI:
As we’ve noted, the health care law contains a provision requiring greater disclosure of drug company payments to physicians by 2013, but it does not include company payments to health advocacy organizations.
Under the Influence 60 minutes
via CBS News
Excerpts from Under the Influence:
One reason those profits have exceeded Wall Street expectations is the Medicare prescription drug bill. It was passed more than three-and-a-half years ago, but as 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft reports, its effects are still reverberating through the halls of Congress, providing a window into how the lobby works.
The unorthodox roll call on one of the most expensive bills ever placed before the House of Representatives began in the middle of the night, long after most people in Washington had switched off C-SPAN and gone to sleep.
The only witnesses were congressional staffers, hundreds of lobbyists, and U.S. representatives, like Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Walter Jones, R-N.C.
"The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill," says Jones. "The bill was over 1,000 pages. And it got to the members of the House that morning, and we voted for it at about 3 a.m. in the morning," remembers Jones.
Why did the vote finally take place at 3 a.m.?
"Well, I think a lot of the shenanigans that were going on that night, they didn't want on national television in primetime," according to Burton.
"I've been in politics for 22 years," says Jones, "and it was the ugliest night I have ever seen in 22 years."
The legislation was the cornerstone of Republican's domestic agenda and would extend limited prescription drugs coverage under Medicare to 41 million Americans, including 13 million who had never been covered before.
At an estimated cost of just under $400 billion over 10 years, it was the largest entitlement program in more than 40 years, and the debate broke down along party lines.
But when it came time to cast ballots, the Republican leadership discovered that a number of key Republican congressmen had defected and joined the Democrats, arguing that the bill was too expensive and a sellout to the drug companies. Burton and Jones were among them.
"They're suppose to have 15 minutes to leave the voting machines open and it was open for almost three hours," Burton explains. "The votes were there to defeat the bill for two hours and 45 minutes and we had leaders going around and gathering around individuals, trying to twist their arms to get them to change their votes."
Jones says the arm-twisting was horrible.
"We had a good friend from Michigan, Nick Smith, and they threatened to work against his son who wanted to run for his seat when he retired," he recalls. "I saw a woman, a member of the House, a lady, crying when they came around her, trying to get her to change her votes. It was ugly." read here.
photo credit: 1 Boring Old Man
Under the Influence 60 minutes
via CBS News
Excerpts from Under the Influence:
One reason those profits have exceeded Wall Street expectations is the Medicare prescription drug bill. It was passed more than three-and-a-half years ago, but as 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft reports, its effects are still reverberating through the halls of Congress, providing a window into how the lobby works.
The unorthodox roll call on one of the most expensive bills ever placed before the House of Representatives began in the middle of the night, long after most people in Washington had switched off C-SPAN and gone to sleep.
The only witnesses were congressional staffers, hundreds of lobbyists, and U.S. representatives, like Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Walter Jones, R-N.C.
"The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill," says Jones. "The bill was over 1,000 pages. And it got to the members of the House that morning, and we voted for it at about 3 a.m. in the morning," remembers Jones.
Why did the vote finally take place at 3 a.m.?
"Well, I think a lot of the shenanigans that were going on that night, they didn't want on national television in primetime," according to Burton.
"I've been in politics for 22 years," says Jones, "and it was the ugliest night I have ever seen in 22 years."
The legislation was the cornerstone of Republican's domestic agenda and would extend limited prescription drugs coverage under Medicare to 41 million Americans, including 13 million who had never been covered before.
At an estimated cost of just under $400 billion over 10 years, it was the largest entitlement program in more than 40 years, and the debate broke down along party lines.
But when it came time to cast ballots, the Republican leadership discovered that a number of key Republican congressmen had defected and joined the Democrats, arguing that the bill was too expensive and a sellout to the drug companies. Burton and Jones were among them.
"They're suppose to have 15 minutes to leave the voting machines open and it was open for almost three hours," Burton explains. "The votes were there to defeat the bill for two hours and 45 minutes and we had leaders going around and gathering around individuals, trying to twist their arms to get them to change their votes."
Jones says the arm-twisting was horrible.
"We had a good friend from Michigan, Nick Smith, and they threatened to work against his son who wanted to run for his seat when he retired," he recalls. "I saw a woman, a member of the House, a lady, crying when they came around her, trying to get her to change her votes. It was ugly." read here.
photo credit: 1 Boring Old Man
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment