ABSTRACT
Comparative effectiveness research holds great promise for improving the care of people with mental health conditions and disorders related to substance abuse. But inappropriate application of such research can threaten the quality of that care. We examine the controversy surrounding a large real-world trial of schizophrenia treatments and conclude that the initial presentation of results led to overly simplistic policy suggestions that had the potential to harm patients. Patient advocacy groups helped illuminate these consequences and helped stimulate further discussion and analysis. Researchers must engage stakeholders, especially patients, in all aspects of comparative effectiveness research and translate the findings into sound mental health policy and practice.
Subject(s)
Comparative Effectiveness Research , Mental Health , Patient Advocacy , Health Policy , Humans , Policy Making , Schizophrenia/therapyABSTRACT
A new law prohibiting unequal treatment limits and financial requirements for mental health and substance abuse (MH/SA) benefits establishes critical protections for 113 million Americans. The new parity law doesn't mandate coverage for MH/SA treatment and anticipates management of the benefit. Given these features, clear regulations mapping the intent of the law are critical. Education regarding the costs of untreated or ineffectively treated MH/SA conditions is needed to encourage comprehensive coverage, because academic performance and worker productivity are at stake. As health care reform proceeds, we must use the new law to reinforce the centrality of mental health to overall health.
