Viewpoints: Could expanding mental health services curb gun violence?; Opinions on other aspects of health law

Published on December 20, 2012 at 11:43 PM · No Comments

USA Today: 6 Ways To Stop Gun Madness
President Obama said he would use whatever powers his office holds to address this violence. ... Currently, nearly half of all gun sales in the U.S. are conducted without a background check. Criminals, the mentally ill, minors and domestic abusers are all prohibited from purchasing guns, but they all can do so as easily as attending a gun show or going online. ... Fixing the background check system also requires the federal government to compel states to submit all necessary records on felons, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill and others to the background check system (New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, 12/19). 

The Wall Street Journal: Reflecting On Mental Illness After Newtown
Four years ago, my colleague, Nathan Koppel, and I wrote a front-page article about William Bruce, a young man with paranoid schizophrenia who bludgeoned his mother to death with a hatchet. ... Bruce's sad tale illustrates why it's so hard to get help for someone who is so sick: People who are mentally ill often suffer from agnosia, or a lack of insight into the illness; they don't believe they are sick. Family members or parents may not comprehend the extent of the illness or may not be able to control their loved one and get him help. Resources for people with mental illness are scarce and hard to access (Elizabeth Bernstein, 12/19).

The Houston Chronicle: Take The Wiser Approach To Mental Health Funding
As Texans, we can act right away to try to prevent the next tragedy. We can convince state lawmakers to stop cutting the funding for mental health treatment for those who must rely on public services. I have always said that an investment in mental health services, especially out-patient care, is an investment in public safety (Adrian Garcia, 12/19).

Politico: Affordable Care Act Fills Need In Mental Health Care
A provision [in the health law] that passed with unanimous support requires that starting in 2014, health insurance plans cover mental health and addiction services as part of the essential benefits. As a result of these historic changes, approximately 68 million Americans will have access to lifesaving mental health and addiction treatment services. Furthermore, these services, which have been misunderstood and marginalized for so long, will finally be fully integrated as part of a comprehensive approach to health care. That is, if the law is implemented as intended. The far-reaching impact of this change cannot be overestimated (Former Reps. Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad, 12/19).

The Boston Globe: Expansion Of Medicaid May Prevent Future Tragedies
Limiting the availability of assault weapons is an obvious and necessary step to reducing the future likelihood of mass shootings like the one in Connecticut. But so is maintaining and improving mental health care services, which have been severely strained in recent years (and in some areas reduced) and are further threatened by the fallout from a recent Supreme Court decision and the incipient deal to avert the fiscal cliff. The linchpin is Medicaid. Though mainly thought of as a safety-net program for the poor, Medicaid provides about half of state mental-health budgets (Joshua Green, 12/19).

The New England Journal of Medicine: Medicaid Expansion Opt-Outs and Uncompensated Care 
With the number of uninsured people projected to drop by half, policymakers anticipated a substantial decrease in the uncompensated care provided at acute care hospitals. Consequently, beginning in 2014 the ACA initiates a series of payment reductions under the Medicare and Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) programs. ... without either federal changes to DSH formulas or a full expansion of affordable coverage to the uninsured with incomes below the poverty line, states forgoing the Medicaid expansion are likely to leave a substantial uncompensated-care burden on hospitals (John A. Graves, 12/20).

The New England Journal of Medicine: Religious Freedom And Women's Health -; The Litigation On Contraception
Perhaps the most interesting question, however, is whether the [health law's contraception coverage] requirement substantially burdens the religious beliefs of employers. Two courts have observed that the rule does not require employers to use contraceptives or even to approve of their use. ... Employers object, however, that they should not have to pay for services that they consider to be morally wrong. The question of whose interests and beliefs -; those of the employer or those of the employee -; ought to determine access to contraception benefits is one that the courts, and no doubt ultimately the Supreme Court, will have to decide (Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, 12/19).

The Wall Street Journal: 'Obamacare' Rollout: What Companies Need To Know
Two questions come up every time I speak to companies about President Obama's health care law, now called "Obamacare" by detractors and supporters alike. First, "Will it be repealed?" And second, "Can't I just drop coverage and plan to pay the penalty?" Many executives have not tackled the question they need to focus on very soon, "What will it take to comply with the new law?" (Kate Barton, 12/19).

News outlets also offered editorials and columns exploring elements of the health care system -

Read in | English | Español | Français | Deutsch | Português | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 简体中文 | 繁體中文 | Nederlands | Русский | Svenska | Polski
Comments
The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News-Medical.Net.
Post a new comment
Post