Reforming Mental Health Policies 1

Analysis of a U.S. Health Care Policy

Kamrie Godfrey

Grand Canyon University: NSG-436

07/13/19
Reforming Mental Health Policies 2

Reforming Mental Health Services

Between 2013 and 2014, 28,000 Arizonian adolescents reported the use of non-medical

related pain relievers, and 106,000 individuals reported binge alcohol use (SAMSHA, 2015).

Behavioral health illnesses are sweeping the nation, and Arizona is not excluded from the

staggering statistics on this issue. Improving mental health is difficult because access to these

services can often be challenging. Policies were created to open more inpatient beds in hospitals

for individuals suffering from an illness, but this does not offer solutions to decrease the number

of patients admitted with a behavioral diagnosis. Policy reform regarding mental health services

is required to offer psychiatry, therapy, counseling and public resources to everyone who may

need them.

Stakeholders that are directly impacted and affected by the mental health improvement

policy include the behavioral health planning and advisory councils, local governing boards,

mental health centers/clinics, substance use agencies, and clients taking advantage of behavioral

health services. Planning and advisory councils play a huge role, as they work under federal law

to address policies regarding mental health within the state. Governing boards like the Board of

Directors of the National Council for Behavioral Health, are committed to promoting excellence

in treatment for addictions and other mental illnesses (National Council for Behavioral Health,

2019). They are directly involved in overseeing current treatment options and representing

assurance to discuss improvements when needed. Mental health centers and clinics offer healing

services and one-on-one sessions to people around the state who seek after treatment. Lastly,

substance use agencies include residential rehabilitation facilities, which offer holistic treatment

programs for those with substance abuse addictions. With the current and improving mental

health policy, which offers more inpatient beds to hospitals, these stakeholders will take part in
Reforming Mental Health Policies 3

discussing options, providing new treatments in the state, and connecting with patients on a more

personal level to find solutions. Each of these stakeholders impacts how the community responds

to mental illness and the treatments that are available for those who require it.

Positive aspects of this policy remain that there is an increasing need for more beds in

institutions offering treatment. Because behavioral health illness is consistently on the rise,

bringing individuals into the hospital helps to relieve some of the danger that accompanies them

being out on their own. This policy has the potential to protect the client and those around them

if they were to act out in the community. However, hospitalizing patients does not resolve the

fundamental issues that we see and experience with mental health illness. The need is not for

more beds, although it is helpful for hospitals, but rather for services to be offered in every

county around Arizona. It is often difficult and expensive for people to seek help. Untreated

addictions and disorders lead to an inability to attend school, go to work, and foster interpersonal

relationships with those around them (AZHHA, 2019). There are many mental health centers and

clinics around the state, but there is not a sufficient quantity for the number of individuals who

require them.

Published in the Permanente Journal reads, “Current treatments and the dominant model

of mental health care do not adequately address the complex challenges of mental illness, which

accounts for roughly one-third of adult disability globally” (Lake & Turner, 2017). Limits to

availability, issues of safety, and the high costs of treatment have caused the 21st century mental

illness pandemic and the leading cause of disability in the US (Lake & Turner, 2017). It has been

reported that even after decades of planning, researching, and funding new development projects,

treatments are not yet what they should be. The financial burdens that typically accompany an

individual with a psychological illness, prohibit them from receiving treatment. Along with this,
Reforming Mental Health Policies 4

states are offered limited financial resources to help meet the needs of the community. This may

be due to government oversight or the prioritization of other physical illnesses before these.

Because of Medicaid policies set in place by legislation, there is an IMD exclusion, prohibiting

many individuals from obtaining insurance coverage for their care. Patients are often unable to

work and are overwhelmed with the cost of care, which leads to annual losses in productivity

accounting for over $31 billion (Lake & Turner, 2017). This affects the health care system as a

whole, including staffing salaries. Nurses who practice in the psychological department provide

medications and therapy groups and are able to observe patients 24/7. However, when a patient

is discharged home, nurses are unable to continue monitoring, at least until the patient is

admitted the next time. Only in recent years, are people seeing the need for change in regulatory,

financial, and legislative policies regarding mental health.

Suffering from an illness left untreated leads a patient to be held in an emergency

department, sometimes for days, until outpatient services become available (AZHHA, 2019). To

improve this policy, it would be beneficial to more often implement telepsychiatry, which offers

patients 24/7 access to mental health professionals. Just this action could drastically reduce

illness-related injuries and suicides. Educating, licensing, and hiring behavioral health experts

into the workforce will strengthen and empower communities. Removing barriers, such as the

IMD exclusion, will potentiate the ability for patients to get real help, rather than be hospitalized,

incarcerated and victimized without proper care or treatment (Treatment Advocacy Center,

2016). Health care professionals can improve client outcomes by improving the time frame in

which a patient is evaluate, treated, and referred if needed. Each of these steps, if implemented or

added into the current mental health policy, could transform behavioral health services as we

know it.
Reforming Mental Health Policies 5

It is vital to the health of our state and nation as a whole, develop and implement new

evidence-based treatments into behavioral health services. Whether treatment takes place at a

mental health clinic, a hospital, or support groups around Arizona, patient-centered care is

always the priority. Involving the government as well as other important stakeholders, can

greatly reduce the time required to promote healing and positive client outcomes. There must be

changes regarding current policies that are not meeting the needs of our suffering communities,

and right now is always the right time to do so.

Reforming Mental Health Policies 6

References

Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association (2019). Public Policy Priorities. Retrieved from

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/572a399a1bbee0add26af051/t/5c5204d40ebbe83c2916

ec25/1548879062114/2019+Public+Policy+Priorities+.pdf

Lake, J., Turner, M. S. (2017). Urgent need for improved mental health care and a more

collaborative model of care. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5593510/

National Council for Behavioral Health (2019). Board of Directors of the National Council for

Behavioral Health. Retrieved from https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/about/national-

mental-health-association/board/

SAMSHA (2015). Behavioral health barometer Arizona, 2015. Retrieved from

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/2015_Arizona_BHBarometer.pdf

Treatment Advocacy Center (2016). The Medicaid IMD exclusion and mental illness

discrimination. Retrieved from

https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/component/content/article/220-learn-more-

about/3952-the-medicaid-imd-exclusion-and-mental-illness-discrimination-