Description: This workshop focuses on Priority 2014-GA-PUB-049, which is being addressed by the Public Policy Committee’s Mental Health Expert Group. This workshop will provide an overview of the status of mental health services today, how we got there and what we need to do to preserve hard-won gains. Time will be given to discussing the impact of healthcare integration and how that effort endangers rights won by deaf people in the mental health arena. Strategies related to advocacy will be discussed. CEU: Professional Studies
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Preserving Mental Health Care for Deaf People 25 September 2014
• 1. Priority Code: 2014-GA-PUB-0492014-2016 Priority: Preservation of Mental Health Services that Meet the Needs of Deaf People
• Increasing Educational Opportunities to become Mental Health Counselors and create a Position Statement on the Impact of Managed Care on the future of Mental Health Services to the Deaf. The Mental Health section under the Public Policy committee will be tasked with two goals:
– A) Develop a position statement on Managed Care in Mental Health, which recommends specific minimum guarantees and guidelines in what support (access-based) Managed Care Entities will give Deaf people in need of Mental Health or Behavioral Health services.
– B) To establish a dialogue with higher education institutions along with federal entities for the purpose of expanding existing educational programs for developing Mental Health counselors with the intent of increasing the number of Deaf individuals becoming mental health counselors. Also include a discussion on possible funding streams for such programs, both existing and new, including stipends.
• Brief history of Mental Health Expert group (Michelle)
• What our “charge” is
• The Butterfly Effect, aka The Chaos Theory
In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence
on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a
deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in
a later state
• In any large system, introduction of a new variable will
inevitably have unintended consequences
Preserving Mental Health Care for Deaf People 25 September 2014
• Services for deaf people slowly improved beginning in the late 60s
– NY Psychiatric Institute Deaf program
– St. Elizabeth (Washington)
– Michael Reese Hospital (Chicago)
• These were all still institutions, but they began to put deaf people together
in specific wards
– Recognition that you can’t “treat” people you cannot communicate
with…
“[Mental Health] is unique among the medical fields in that most of the symptoms are conveyed by or through communication, and communication also is the primary method and nature of treatment.”
Dr. Robert Q. Pollard
Professor of Psychiatry, University of Rochester
• Until the 70’s deaf people who were not English-literate were considered
mentally defective
– ASL was not recognized as a language
– Deafness itself was considered an indicator of mental illness (surdophrenia)
– Institutionalization (warehousing) was normal
• 1987 Does vs. Wilzack was the first legal attempt to change the status quo
– Required the state of Maryland to provide linguistically appropriate services in the
state hospital – Led to the Deaf Unit at Springfield
• Not the first such unit, but the first required by the courts
Preserving Mental Health Care for Deaf People 25 September 2014
“The use of interpreters does not achieve ‘equal communication’ between
the State’s mental health care providers and deaf consumers as that
between the State’s providers and hearing consumers.”
U.S. District Judge Richard Story,Northern District of Georgia
“The Provision of mental health services for the deaf by HRS in District XI
serving Dade and Monroe counties shall include, to the extent available in
the community, mental health counselors, deaf or hearing, with sign
language ability, who possess by training, education, or experience, an
understanding of the mental health needs of the deaf community.”
U.S. District Judge K. MICHAEL MOORE.U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division
• All three cases were
in the 11th Circuit,
though in different
districts
– Together, at least in
the 11th circuit, there
is a clear precedent
for direct services
– Implications of these
suits for other LEP
minorities
Geographic Boundaries Of United States Courts of Appeal and United States District Courts
• In 1999, the state association of the deaf alleging that services were not appropriate
– In many ways, it was a “friendly” lawsuit, in that ADMH did not intrinsically disagree with the charges, but felt unable to act on them due to fiscal and legislative constraints
• Suit was similar to South Carolina’s in that it sought to:
– Create a linguistically and culturally appropriate service
– Limited to mentally ill
– Based around in-patient services
• A major difference between AL and SC is that SC state runs the CMHCs
– Led to friction between the plaintiff (AAD) and ADMH
• Plaintiffs wanted all state-operated like SC but DMH said it could not do that
Preserving Mental Health Care for Deaf People 25 September 2014