MURPHY WEIGHS IN ON DR. PHIL'S INTERVIEW

MURPHY WEIGHS IN ON DR. PHIL'S INTERVIEW WITH SHELLEY DUVALL For Immediate Release: November 23, 2016 Contact: Carly Atchison 202.225.2301 Washington, D.C. - In a recorded interview that aired last Friday on the Dr.Phil Show, actress Shelley Duvall discussed her mental illness and need for help. Best known for her role in “The Shining” (1980), the actress now displays manifest symptoms of serious mental illness.  Congressman Murphy weighed in:  “I’ve had the opportunity to examine the footage of the Shelley Duvall interview on Dr. Phil and I’m astounded that this was broadcast under the banner of entertainment. It reflects a woman in need of psychiatric medical care who lacked the basic executive functioning to understand the implications of her ‘consent.’ This should not have been pursued nor aired. Clearly she was not capable of consenting to this television experience due to her diminished cognitive capacity. Ms. Duvall has a basic right to privacy and the way in which she was exploited for afternoon entertainment is appalling.  “Our society continues to exploit Americans experiencing mental illness. Even worse, we set them up for public mockery and ridicule. We will only break down the stigma of mental illness by ending the lurid exploitation of the mentally ill and focus on educating the public about brain illness as a medical condition and how patients, when treated at the right time in the appropriate care setting, can and do recover. Unfortunately, our laws, systems and society allow the most vulnerable to end up cycling in and out of emergency rooms, homeless, in jail or in a morgue.  “One of the greatest challenges we face in overhauling our broken system is helping those in psychiatric crisis access medical care. All too often patients, because of their psychosis, refuse to participate in life-saving treatment. This interview highlights the challenge of treating those who don’t understand the critical nature of their illness and often refuse help, but yet are also those very patients who need treatment the most.  “My Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act tackles this challenge head-on by investing and expanding intensive community-based approaches like Assisted Outpatient Treatment for individuals with serious mental illnesses.  “Ms. Duvall’s refusal to participate in treatment reflects the desperate need to advance models of care designed for treatment-resistant patients. These evidence-based, clinically successful programs allow healthcare teams to engage psychiatric patients where they are most comfortable and most likely to follow through with treatment, enabling them to succeed in their recovery. Rather than wait for patients in the midst of a psychiatric crisis to fill up emergency rooms, and often sent out of the hospital without receiving treatment, we need to provide options for getting the treatment to those who need it most.  “It's time that we right the wrongs in our nation’s treatment of the mentally ill and enact the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act.”  Congressman Murphy, a practicing psychologist with over 40 years of experience in the field, has authored the most comprehensive crisis mental health reform bill in a half-century, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (H.R. 2646). Learn more about his bill here. ### Murphy Press | Congressman Tim Murphy (PA-18) 2332 Rayburn House Office Building | Washington, DC  20515 (202) 225-2301 | (202) 225-1844 (f) Press List Sign Up  Click here and sign up for Rep. Murphy’s Weekly E-News |

Mental Health Reform Act of 2016 (S. 2680): Stalled in the Senate

Coalition for Mental Health Reform

Concerns with the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2015 – passed
in the House of Representatives – July 6, 2016


The Coalition for Mental Health Reform is made up of disability, civil, and human rights
organizations working with people with psychiatric disabilities for the improvement of
legislative outcomes for mental health reform.

On July 6, 2016 the US House of Representatives voted on The Helping Families in
Mental Health Crisis Act of 2015 by a 422 -2 vote. As a coalition we worked to make
sure that many harmful provisions in the original draft of this bill were removed and/or
edited. We are grateful for the House Energy and Commerce Committee members work
on this language.

Although this legislation passed with a large majority of the House Representatives in
support, we continue to have some concerns with the bill’s language as passed. We
hope that ultimately the Senate version of mental health reform legislation titled Mental
Health Reform Act of 2016 (S. 2680) which was voted out of the HELP Committee on
March 16, 2016, will go to the floor for a full vote soon.

Our concerns with H.R. 2646 are as follows:

As per the July 1, 2016 version:

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20160704/HR2646.pdf

1. Sec. 101 Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has
played a critical role over the past few decades to raise the bar for what should be
expected for people with the most serious mental health conditions and from state and
local systems and providers. HR 2646 creates the new position of Assistant Secretary
for Mental Health and Substance Use to oversee SAMHSA, which preferences
individuals with a MD or a PhD in psychology. The insertion of medical authority over
SAMHSA would be a huge step backward to institutional policies and models. Further,
the position adds an additional layer of bureaucracy that is unnecessary. We do not
support the creation of this new position.

2. Sec. 107 Grievance Procedure for (Protection and Advocacy for Individuals
with Mental Illness (PAIMI))

There is an already existing grievance procedure within the PAIMI Act, and no evidence
has been provided that this already existing system is not working. Thus, we believe
that there is no need for the creation of a new grievance procedure based at the
Department of Health and Human Services here in Washington, DC.

However, if such a new procedure is to be created, we are concerned that this new
procedure could issue decisions that would be contrary to a particular state or territory’s
ethics or bar rules or current attorney grievance procedure because of a lack of
knowledge of the intricacies of all 56 state and territory’s rules. Such a situation would
put an advocate in the position of either having to follow a decision of the agency that
oversees the funding of the PAIMI program, or violate his or her state or territory’s code
of ethics, bar rules, or grievance procedures. Advocates should not be put into this
catch 22. Thus, the language would need to be clear that a decision under this
independent procedure cannot contradict the state or territory’s code of ethics, bar
rules, or grievance procedures.

Additionally, the language should make it clear that a decision made through this new
procedure has to be based on an interpretation of the Act itself and whether the actions
taken by the advocate are contrary to the requirements of the PAIMI Act, not the wishes
or desires of the individual overseeing the grievance procedure here in Washington,
DC.

3. Sec. 111 Advisory Councils; Section 110 B. Authorities of Centers for Mental
Health Services and Substance Abuse Treatment; and Sec. 501B National Mental
Health and Substance Use Policy Laboratory

The multiple advisory councils and the members of the Policy Laboratory created by this
legislation will be under the authority of the Administrator of Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) with stringent and discriminatory
protocols that leave out the voice of people with psychiatric disabilities. We believe that
at least 1/3 of public members of the advisory council and policy laboratory should be
people with psychiatric disabilities and that the bill should establish a process for
appointments and service. We believe that this will not necessarily require an increase
in the number of overall members of these bodies or reduction in representation from
other groups, as people with psychiatric disabilities may also be members of the other
groups that must be represented on these bodies. For example, people with psychiatric
disabilities may also be family members of others with psychiatric disabilities, mental
health professionals, and representatives of leading advocacy organizations.

4. Sec. 206. Providing EPSDT services to children in IMDs
The current language would provide federal Medicaid funding for evaluation, prevention,
screening, diagnosis, and treatment services provided to individuals under age 21 who
have been placed in institutions for mental diseases (IMDs). Although the federal
government already provides funding for inpatient psychiatric services delivered to
youth and young adults living in IMDs, payment for other health care services for
individuals in IMDs has traditionally been the responsibility of the States.

It is well established that lengthy placement in IMDs is harmful to children and young
adults. By requiring states to shoulder the costs of health care services for individuals in
IMDs, current Medicaid laws help to incentivize states to develop community-based
care programs and avoid overreliance on long-term institutionalization. Section 206
would remove this incentive. Moreover, because Section 206 lacks any time limitation, it
would continue to provide federal subsidies even for placements in IMDs that have
continued for months or years.

5. Sec. 207. Electronic visit verification system required for personal care
services and home health care services under Medicaid

Section 207 of H.R. 2646 has nothing to do with mental health or substance abuse
services. This section was added by the House Energy and Commerce Committee last
month for the first time in the committee markup of the bill which sought no input from
the Disability Community that would be subject to - and harmed by - this provision.
Electronic Visit Verification (EVV) services are based on outdated and erroneous
assumptions. First, they assume that disabled people and seniors who use attendant
services are homebound because most systems use a home phone to verify that an
attendant has arrived or finished a shift. Today, attendant service users receive
services and supports throughout the community and use cell phones which can be
shared. EVVs also purport that electronic systems are more effective than other forms
of visit documentation, however these systems have been demonstrated to be less
secure and less effective in prosecuting fraud than non-electronic systems which
provide transparency, require multiple sign-offs and have verified signatures. Finally,
these systems rely on predetermined schedules which are not used in consumer
directed attendant programs.

Additionally, the systems will impact the independence and privacy rights of people with
disabilities by imposing a defacto homebound requirement on Medicaid attendant
service users, preventing the disabled individual from monitoring submitted hours, and
in some cases providing geo-tracking data to the government on the movements of
disabled people. Finally, states that require EVV may be found to be joint employers of
attendants and liable for overtime payments. This requirement is simply a handout to
companies providing EVV services for personal care and home health services under
Medicaid and cannot pass into law. We oppose the EVV requirement because it is
harmful to individuals with disabilities, ineffective at addressing fraud and has the
potential to increase state liability.
(To read more go to:
http://www.advocacymonitor.com/ncil-position-opposing-electronic-visit-verification/ )

6. Sec. 401. Sense of Congress on Health Insurance and Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA)

Valerie MarshIn this section the use and defining of people with serious mental illness as having a
condition called Anosognosia which is defined as “a person not having the ability to be
aware of their illness” and indicating that this would make them unable to make “sound
decisions” regarding their care, is offensive to many. According to the literature,
anosognosia is a condition whereby stroke and paralysis related victims deny the
presence of those conditions, due to physiological damage to the parietal lobe of the
brain. While there is no scientific evidence to tie this form of brain damage to mental
illnesses, some have misapplied this term in order to justify coercive treatment and
reduced privacy rights. We do not support this language.

7. Section 503. Increased and extended funding for assisted outpatient grant
program for individuals with serious mental illness

Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT laws) and laws that require a civil court to order
involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment for an individual if the court finds that an
individual, as a result of mental illness, is a danger to self or others “is persistently or
acutely disabled, or is gravely disabled and in need of treatment” are discriminatory.
This type of treatment will bring law enforcement directly to the front door of many with
psychiatric disabilities. This would have an adverse effect on the work being done to
provide community based, peer-to-peer treatment. It also has the potential to increase
the punishment and unfortunately violent encounters between police and people with
mental illness.

State of the art outreach, engagement and follow up services that are delivered on an
immediate, intensive and sustained basis provide powerful strategies to respond to the
urgent needs of people and families in crisis. Recognizing that a number of these
successful approaches employ voluntary approaches and that there remains no
conclusive evidence that AOT is more effective than these approaches, we urge
Congress to authorize pilots that evaluate the effectiveness of both voluntary and court
mandated approaches.

We believe that the appropriated funds for the AOT programs should be used for testing
or piloting research programs on voluntary alternatives.

8. Sec. 717. Peer Professional Workforce Development Grant Program
This section would provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability “to
award grants to develop and sustain behavioral health paraprofessional training and
education programs, including through tuition support”. It also authorizes “the
appropriations of $10,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 2022” to fund
this program.

While we appreciate the intent to increase awareness about peer run and other
rehabilitative approaches, the crisis we face in community mental healthcare requires
that we re-direct these funds to expand direct access to critically needed peer support
services. We recommend that $10 million should be afforded to states and localities to
expand the broad array of peer run approaches across the nation.

It would be more successful for the lives of persons with psychiatric disabilities to
provide more community based care and peer-to-peer services. This would provide
better opportunities for these individuals to remain in the community in accordance to
Olmstead v L.C. This mental health legislation should be one that strengthens and
improves many of the current programs working to change lives as well as protect the
civil and human rights of persons with psychiatric disabilities.

Conclusion

In closing, we understand that H.R. 2646 passed out of the House but multiple concerns
remain for advocates and people with psychiatric disabilities. We hope that these
concerns will be addressed prior to Congress passing any legislation that will be sent to
the President’s desk for his signature. The civil and human rights of persons with
psychiatric disabilities must be a part of the implementation of these mental health
reforms and H.R. 2646 does not provide this in its current format.

We look forward to the opportunity to work with Congress to address these concerns
and to assist with the passage of a mental health reform law. Please contact Dara
Baldwin, Senior Public Policy Analyst, National Disability Rights Network at
dara.baldwin@ndrn.org or 202-408-9514 ext. 102 with any questions or concerns.

Coalition for Mental Health Reform members
Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN)
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
The National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability
Directors (NACBHDD)
The National Association for Rural Mental Health (NARMH)
National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery (NCMHR)
National Council on Independent Living (NCIL)
National Disability Rights Network (NDRN)
National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund
New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services (NYAPRS)
Resources:
Letters of Support for Mental Health Reform Act of 2016 (S. 2680):
http://www.ndrn.org/en/public-policy/mental-health/protect-paimi.html

The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (HR2646)

Federal - HR 2646

The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (HR2646)

Introduced

June 4, 2015

Description

UPDATE: PASSED HOUSE, 422-2

Authors: Representatives Tim Murphy (R-PA) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)

What it does: This is the strongest mental health reform bill to help people with serious mental illness and their families, and ensure people with SMI have access to the treatment and care they need. HR 2646:

Creates an Assistant Secretary of Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders to coordinate efforts and elevate the importance of mental health and severe mental illness in the federal government;

Awards funding to states and local jurisdictions to implement lifesaving, evidence-based treatment programs, called “assisted outpatient treatment” (AOT) laws for people who are too sick to maintain treatment themselves;

Reforms the discriminatory IMD exclusion barriers to increase the availability of psychiatric inpatient beds;

Clarifies HIPAA to ensure mental health professionals are legally permitted to share critical diagnostic criteria and treatment information with parents or caregivers of patients with serious mental illness;

Focuses the Protection and Advocacy System to better address cases of abuse and neglect -- including advocacy for community services;

Better enforces the Mental Health Parity Law;

Improves integration across federal agencies of programs and funding streams that serve people with SMI;

Improves integration of mental and physical health care in Medicaid;

Supports the RAISE program for early intervention in the treatment of psychosis; and

Bolsters suicide prevention programs.

What’s the status? 

The bill passed with enormous bipartisan support in a vote of 422 yays to 2 nays, following a unanimous vote out of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

What's next? 

We are running out of time this legislative session, and we must focus advocacy efforts on strengthening the currently weak Senate mental health reform bill, S2680 (formerly S1945, which has substantively changed in markup) and ultimately passing a Senate version of the bill. 

Our Position

Support

Commentary

http://cqrcengage.com/treatmentadvocacycenter/app/bill/583823

The good:

The strongly bipartisan bill has passed the House with a landmark 422-2 vote, with support from House Leadership, including Speaker Paul Ryan, and a wide and diverse coalition of mental health advocates. It made it through the process largely intact, maintaining all major provisions to help people with SMI. The bill has been sent with all of this support behind it to the Senate for consideration, where they are working on their own version of mental health reform. 

The bad: 

We are running out of time in this short legislative calendar and in an election year to get mental health reform to the finish line. 

The ugly: 

Most of the important provisions in HR2646 to help people with SMI have yet to be added into the Senate bill, including creating an Assistant Secretary position for mental health and substance use, HIPAA clarification, IMD exclusion reform, and AOT funding. 

Original Sponsor 1

Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA)

Co-Sponsors 20

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Rep. Ralph Abraham (R-LA)
• Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV)
• Rep. Brad Ashford (D-NE)
• Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA)
• Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY)
• Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA)
• Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI)
• Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA)
• Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)
• Rep. Mike Bishop (R-MI)
• Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
• Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
• Rep. Diane Black (R-TN)
• Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
• Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
• Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL)
• Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA)
• Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA)
• Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA)
• Rep. Susan Brooks (R-IN)
• Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL)
• Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
• Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN)
• Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL)
• Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
• Rep. Earl Carter (R-GA)
• Rep. John Carter (R-TX)
• Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA)
• Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH)
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
• Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
• Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO)
• Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)
• Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)
• Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY)
• Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-VA)
• Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA)
• Rep. Paul Cook (R-CA)
• Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN)
• Rep. Ryan Costello (R-PA)
• Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
• Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR)
• Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL)
• Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX)
• Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
• Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL)
• Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
• Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA)
• Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA)
• Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)
• Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL)
• Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
• Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL)
• Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY)
• Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA)
• Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI)
• Rep. John Duncan (R-TN)
• Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC)
• Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN)
• Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
• Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)
• Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
• Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN)
• Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
• Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN)
• Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
• Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
• Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
• Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY)
• Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA)
• Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX)
• Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA)
• Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO)
• Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL)
• Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH)
• Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
• Rep. Janice Hahn (D-CA)
• Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY)
• Rep. Cresent Hardy (R-NV)
• Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS)
• Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD)
• Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
• Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
• Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA)
• Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA)
• Rep. French Hill (R-AR)
• Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
• Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC)
• Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI)
• Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
• Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA)
• Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY)
• Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
• Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
• Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH)
• Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
• Rep. David Jolly (R-FL)
• Rep. David Joyce (R-OH)
• Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
• Rep. John Katko (R-NY)
• Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA)
• Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
• Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)
• Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
• Rep. Steve Knight (R-CA)
• Rep. Ann Kuster (D-NH)
• Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL)
• Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)
• Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
• Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI)
• Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)
• Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA)
• Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
• Rep. Billy Long (R-MO)
• Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA)
• Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK)
• Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)
• Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
• Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA)
• Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)
• Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
• Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
• Rep. David McKinley (R-WV)
• Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ)
• Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA)
• Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY)
• Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN)
• Rep. John Mica (R-FL)
• Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI)
• Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI)
• Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)
• Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD)
• Rep. Rick Nolan (D-MN)
• Rep. Donald Norcross (D-NJ)
• Del. Eleanor Norton (D-DC)
• Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)
• Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX)
• Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX)
• Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS)
• Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN)
• Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)
• Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN)
• Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA)
• Rep. Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR)
• Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC)
• Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI)
• Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-ME)
• Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
• Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
• Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL)
• Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
• Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY)
• Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA)
• Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI)
• Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC)
• Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA)
• Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA)
• Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL)
• Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN)
• Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL)
• Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
• Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL)
• Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL)
• Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA)
• Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC)
• Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA)
• Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL)
• Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ)
• Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
• Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ)
• Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA)
• Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
• Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)
• Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)
• Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA)
• Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID)
• Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ)
• Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ)
• Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA)
• Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)
• Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT)
• Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH)
• Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)
• Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
• Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
• Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)
• Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO)
• Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV)
• Rep. David Trott (R-MI)
• Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)
• Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)
• Rep. Juan Vargas (D-CA)
• Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
• Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)
• Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN)
• Rep. Mimi Walters (R-CA)
• Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN)
• Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL)
• Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH)
• Rep. Edward Whitfield (R-KY)
• Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX)
• Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)
• Rep. David Young (R-IA)
• Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
• Rep. Todd Young (R-IN)
• Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY)
• Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT)

Latest Actions See More/Less

• July 14, 2016 — Referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Congressional Record p. S5151
• July 7, 2016 — Katko, R-N.Y., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.355, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E1064
• July 7, 2016 — Bost, R-Ill., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.355, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E1056-E1057

National Alliance on Mental Illness

"Find Help. Find Hope."
Motto	"You are not alone"
Founded	1979
Founder	Harriet Shetler and Beverly Young
Type	Non-Profit 501c3
Area served	United States
Method	Support, Education, Awareness, Advocacy and Research
Mission	Improving the lives of individuals and families affected by Mental Illness

National Alliance on Mental Illness

The National Alliance On Mental Illness (NAMI) is a nationwide grassroots advocacy group, representing families and people affected by mental disorders in the United States. NAMI provides psychoeducation, research and support for people and their families impacted by mental illness through various public education and awareness activities. The National NAMI organization is based out of Arlington, Virginia. NAMI is organized further into State and Local affiliates, all operating mainly with the work of thousands of volunteers. Members of NAMI are typically consumers of mental health services, family members, and professionals working together toward common goal.

There are over 1,000 NAMI chapters, represented in all 50 states. NAMI has 9 signature programs, many which have been shown to be efficacious in research studies.

  History

NAMI was founded in Madison, Wisconsin by Harriet Shetler and Beverly Young. The two women cared for sons diagnosed with schizophrenia, and were tired of their sons being blamed for their mental illness. Unhappy with the lack of services available and the treatment of those living with mental illness, the women sought out others with similar concerns. The first meeting held to address these issues in mental health was much larger than expected, and eventually led to the formation of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

Mission

NAMI works to keep family safety nets in place, to promote recovery and to reduce the burden on an overwhelmed mental health care delivery system. The organization works to preserve and strengthen family relationships challenged by severe and persistent mental illness. Through peer-directed education classes, support group offerings and community outreach programs, NAMI's programs and services draw on the experiences of mental health consumers and their family members. They learned to manage mental illness successfully and are trained by the organization to help others do the same. In addition, NAMI works to eliminate pervasive stigma, to effect positive changes in the mental health system and to increase public and professional understanding about mental illness.

Structure

The National Alliance on Mental Illness is organized into state and local city or county wide affiliates in an attempt to more accurately represent those in the surrounding communities. National and State NAMI Organizations function to provide Governance, Public Education, Political Advocacy, and management of NAMI's Educational Programs. Providing support for mental health consumers occurs at more local levels, and typically involving assistance in obtaining mental health resources, scheduling and administration of NAMI's programs, and local meetings and events for NAMI members in the community.

Programs

The National Alliance on Mental Illness offers an array of support and education programs at no cost for individuals and families. The programs are set up through local NAMI Affiliate organizations, with different programs varying in their targeted audience.

The NAMI Programs address multiple components of the psychiatric needs facing people who struggle with mental illness. Those needs can be visualized as a "three-legged stool" with access, diagnosis, and treatment as the three legs. The first leg is lack of access: sixty-seven percent of people with a DSM-IV diagnosis are not in any type of treatment, according to a 2005 article in the New England Journal of Medicineby Kessler and colleagues. Second is a need for correct diagnoses: fifty percent of people who received mental health treatment, in any setting, had no psychiatric diagnosis, according to Kessler and colleagues. The third issue is lack of effective treatment practices: over the last fifteen years, the field made great advances in reaching out and effectively treating people with mental illness. Kessler and colleagues showed that the treatment rate for people with serious mental disorder rose from 24.3 percent in 1990–1992 to 40.5 percent in 2001–2003.

NAMI Family-to-Family

The NAMI Family-to-Family Education Program is a free 12-week course targeted toward family and friends of individuals with mental illnesses. The courses are taught by a NAMI-trained family member of a person diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. Family-to-Family is taught in 44 states, and two provinces in Canada. The program was developed by Clinical Psychologist Joyce Burland, PhD.

Purpose

The Family-to-Family program provides general information about mental illnesses and how they are currently treated. The programs cover mental illnesses including Schizophrenia, Depression, Bipolar Disorder, etc.), as well as the benefits and side effects of medications. Family-to-Family, like the rest of NAMI programs, take a biologically-based approach to explaining the mental illnesses and treatments.

In addition to providing information on mental illness, the Family-to-Family program teaches coping skills and the power of advocacy to students. Empathy is hoped to be gained by students' better understanding of the subjective experience living with a mental illness entails. Special workshops also teach problem solving, listening, and communication techniques. In regards to advocacy, Family-to-Family provides family members with guidance on locating support and services within surrounding areas and information on current advocacy initiatives dedicated to improving available services.

Evidence Basis

The NAMI Family-to-Family program has shown to improve family empowerment, the way family members problem solve internal problems, and reduced the anxiety of participants in randomized controlled trials; A finding which was shown to persist 6 months later. These studies confirm preliminary findings that Family-to-Family graduates describe a permanent transformation in the understanding and engagement with mental illness in themselves and their family. Because a randomized controlled trial is at risk of poor external validity by mechanism of a Self-selection, Dixon and colleges sought out to strengthen the evidence basis by confirming the benefits attributed to Family-to-Family with a subset of individuals who declined participation during initial studies.

The NAMI Family-to-Family program was found to be effective in increasing Schizophrenia patient caregivers' self-efficacy while reducing a subjective burden and need for information. In light of recent research, Family-to-Family was added to the SAMSHA National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP).

NAMI Peer-to-Peer

The NAMI Peer-to-Peer is a 10-week educational program aimed at adults diagnosed with a mental illness. The NAMI Peer-to-Peer program describes the course as a holistic approach to recovery through lectures, discussions, interactive exercises, and teaching stress management techniques. The program provides a "toolkit" of information, teaching about the various mental disorders' biology, symptoms, and relation to personal experiences. The program also teaches about interacting with healthcare providers as well as decision making and stress reducing skills. The Peer-to-Peer philosophy is centered around certain values such as individuality, autonomy, and unconditional positive regard.

Preliminary studies have suggested Peer-to-Peer provided many of its purported benefits (e.g. self-empowerment, disorder management, confidence).Peer interventions in general have been studied more extensively, having been found to increase social adjustment 

NAMI In Our Own Voice

The NAMI In Our Own Voice (IOOV) program started as a mental health consumer education program for people living with schizophrenia in 1996. The program was based on the idea that those successfully living with mental illness were experts in a sense, and sharing their stories would benefit those with similar struggles. The program approached this by relaying the idea that recovery is possible, attempting to build confidence and self-esteem. Because of the initial success of the and positive reception, NAMI In Our Own Voice also took on the role of public advocacy.

NAMI In Our Own Voice involves two trained speakers presenting personal experiences related to mental illness in front of an audience. Unlike the majority of NAMI's programs, In Our Own Voice consists of a single presentation educating groups of individuals with the acknowledgement many are likely unfamiliar mental illness. The program's aims today include raising awareness regarding NAMI and mental illness in general, addressing stigma, and empowering those affected by mental illness.. Other than those directly affected by mental illness, In Our Own Voice often educates groups of individuals like law enforcement, politicians, and students.

In Our Own Voice has been shown to be superior at reducing self stigmatization of families when compared to clinician led education.  Research into the effectiveness of the NAMI In Our Own Voice program has shown the program also can be of benefit to Graduate level therapists and adolescents.

NAMI Basics

The NAMI Basics Program is a six-session course for parents or other primary caregivers of children and adolescents living with mental disorders. NAMI Basics is conceptually similar to NAMI Family-to-Family in that it aims to educate families, but recognizes providing care for a child living with mental illness presents unique challenges in parenting, and that mental disorders in children typically manifest differently than in adults. Because of the development of the brain and nervous system throughout childhood and adolescence, information regarding mental illness biology, presentation, is fundamentally different than with adults. The NAMI Basics program has a relatively short time course to accommodate parents' difficulty in attending because of their caregiver status.

NAMI Connection

The NAMI Connection Recovery Support Group Program is a weekly support group connecting adults living with mental illness in a structured setting. The program is reserved for adults living with mental illness in order to promote self-disclosure by maintaining a confidential and relaxed environment. The support groups are led by trained facilitators who are considered to be "living in recovery" themselves.

NAMI On Campus

Students promoting a university affiliated NAMI On Campus organization

NAMI On Campus is an initiative for university students to start NAMI On Campus organizations within their respective universities. NAMI On Campus was started to address the mental health issues of college aged students. Adolescence and early adulthood are periods where the onset of mental disorders are common, with 75 percent of mental disorders beginning by age 24. When asked what barriers, if any, prevented them from gaining support and treatment, surveys found stigma to be the number one barrier.

Funding.

NAMI receives funding from both private and public sources, including corporations, federal agencies, foundations and individuals. NAMI maintains that it is committed to avoiding conflicts of interest and does not endorse nor support any specific service or treatment. Records of NAMI's quarterly grants and contributions since 2009 are freely available on its website.

Criticism

The funding of NAMI by multiple pharmaceutical companies was reported by the investigative magazine Mother Jones in 1999, including that an Eli Lilly & Company executive was then "on loan" to NAMI working out of NAMI headquarters.

During an investigation into the drug industry’s influence on the practice of medicine U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent letters to NAMI and about a dozen other influential disease and patient advocacy organizations asking about their ties to drug and device makers. The investigation confirmed pharmaceutical companies provided a majority of NAMI's funding, a finding which led to NAMI releasing documents listing donations over $5,000.