Annotated Bibliography: Medication Errors Interventions University Essay Example

Medication errors are mistakes that happen as a result of prescription, description, dispensing, and administration of medication. These errors have caused serious effects on a patient’s health. There are some ways that medication errors can be prevented. For example, verification of orders, being aware of look-alikes and sound-alikes, involving the patient, educating the medical staff, improving packaging, and training the patient about medication safety. The Socratic method of problem-solving is an excellent means of promoting and developing a form of critical analysis. This method involves five major steps. The first step is a wonder, followed by hypothesis, refutation, cross-examination, acceptance of rejecting the hypothesis, and finally, action.

The medical staff comprises doctors, registered nurses, therapists, and at times social workers who can be part of the medical staff. Medical staff education can be done in different ways to improve efficiency on medication. Some of the ways that the medication staff can be educated include incorporation of interaction and technology, evaluation of a program’s effectiveness. In Socratic’s model, the first step is the wonder steps associated with some questions. In this method of minimizing medication errors, questions like ‘will this approach be beneficial to the patients?’, ‘how effective is this approach?’, or ‘how long will this approach take?’ may arise. Socrates’ questioning method is important because it enables one to think critically about any approach they are willing to take to come up with a solution.

Naylor, R. (2002). Medication errors. Abingdon, U.K.: Radcliffe Medical Press.

This book talks about the benefits of medical staff education. The main benefits that are highlighted in this book include knowledge, acquiring problem-solving techniques, enhancement of practice image, and building morale. The book also narrows down the benefits of medical staff training to how they can lead to the reduction of medication errors. To begin with knowledge, the medical staff for let’s say nurses, acquire technological knowledge that is required to assess different diseases for the administration of the right medicine. The building of morale encourages them to feel valued which increases their productivity in the works that they do for example in diagnosing and administering medical prescriptions. Enhancement of image practice leads to satisfaction of the patients which makes them want to go back anytime they have any illnesses. From this approach, we can go to the next step of the Socratic method of problem-solving which is the hypothesis and come up with the hypothesis that medical staff education is important for minimizing medication errors.

Improving medical packaging is important to minimize medication errors. It is important to identify some questions that can arise from this approach such as ‘what considerations can I use to package this type of medicine?’, what is the advantage of improving medical packaging?’ etc. Improving packaging has different considerations that can be put in place like cost, compatibility, presentation of over the counter, convenience and safety concerns.

Conn, V., Ruppar, T., Chan, K., Dunbar-Jacob, J., Pepper, G., & De Geest, S. (2014). Packaging interventions to increase medication adherence: systematic review and meta-analysis. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 31(1), 145-160. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2014.978939.

This journal elaborates the reason s and importance of packaging medicine. It explains how good packaging provides a mechanism for patients to monitor themselves in medication consumption. It also highlights the different times of the day when medications should be consumed. Improved packaging interventions are important because they involve a third party. In other words, it involves a patient’s caregiver monitoring their patient’s dose administration.

U.S. Govt. Print. Off. (1974). Nursing home care in the United States.

This book continues to give other importance of improved packaging. The main focus of this book is pollution. Packaging of medication should be done in a way that the medicinal contents do not come into any form of chemical contaminants. The book emphasizes the importance of keeping medication away from any form of physical and chemical contamination. This develops our hypothesis that improved packaging is an important facet in preventing medication errors.

Lastly, patient medication safety training is important in reducing medication errors. In what circumstances can training medication training be done? What are the advantages of patient medication safety? These are some of the questions that can arise from this intervention. This training can be done to a patient in different ways. For example, the patient can be taught more about the administration of their medication and some of the diseases that it cures. They may also be taught the dangers of sharing the medication with other patients who might suffer from the same symptoms as they had. They can also be taught about the side effects of the medication administered and how to deal with them when they occur.

Panesar, S., Carson-Stevens, A., Salvilla, S., & Sheikh, A. (2014). Patient Safety and Healthcare Improvement at a Glance. Hoboken: Wiley.

This book talks about the advantages of patient medication safety training. It highpoints on importance such as prevention of adverse reactions and overdose and also points out minimizing infections or injuries. A patient’s medication safety training is also important in ensuring that the patient takes the right amount of medicine at the right time. This is because some medications require strict adherence to administration for them to work effectively. It is also important for a patient to clarify with their health giver in case they are uncertain about some medications to prevent wrong medication intake, therefore, developing the hypothesis that patient’s medication safety training reduces medication errors.

In conclusion, medication errors are common and they can be easily prevented by the use of different interventions. It is important to educate the medical staff on how to assess and diagnose a patient with the right medication. It is also important to improve medication packaging to reduce medication errors in intake. These packages show the time and amount that medication should be taken. Patient medication safety training is important to reduce health risks such as overdose and misuse.

References

Naylor, R. (2002). Medication errors. Abingdon, U.K.: Radcliffe Medical Press.

Conn, V., Ruppar, T., Chan, K., Dunbar-Jacob, J., Pepper, G., & De Geest, S. (2014). Packaging interventions to increase medication adherence: systematic review and meta-analysis. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 31(1), 145-160. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2014.978939.

Panesar, S., Carson-Stevens, A., Salvilla, S., & Sheikh, A. (2014). Patient Safety and Healthcare Improvement at a Glance. Hoboken: Wiley

U.S. Govt. Print. Off. (1974). Nursing home care in the United States.

Mental Health Parity Law Writing Sample

Mental health refers to an individual’s condition in relation to his or her psychological, social, and emotional well-being. Mental health, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2021), has significant influences on how an individual feels, acts, and thinks. Furthermore, the condition of one’s mental health can determine how he or she will handle stressful conditions, make healthy life choices, and relate with others within a professional or private setting. The CDC (2021) reported that mental illnesses are some of the most common health conditions in the United States, with more than 50 percent of Americans expected to be diagnosed with a mental illness or disorder in their lifetime. Additionally, one in five Americans is projected to experience a mental illness every year, with one in five children being reported as having a seriously debilitating mental health condition (CDC, 2021). Finally, one in 15 Americans was reported by the CDC (2021) as living with a serious mental illness like major depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder, among others. Despite the high prevalence of mental health illnesses in the United States, an article by Mental Health America (MHA, 2022) stated that at least 11 percent of Americans with mental health illnesses are not insured. Consequently, there have been concerted efforts at both state and federal government levels to improve access to mental health care through the introduction and enforcement of mental health parity laws and policies. The objective of this paper is to discuss the significance of mental health parity laws and policies and the impact of such laws on nursing, patient safety, and access to care.

Policy Issues Relating to Mental Health Parity Law

Mental health parity laws are designed to improve patient safety and access to care by expanding and protecting benefits provided by insurers in mental health care. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS, 2021) and Mulvaney-Day et al. (2019), the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) was created to address some of the issues not addressed in the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA). For instance, MHPA stipulated that large group health plans were not allowed to impose lifetime or annual financial limits on mental health benefits that are less favorable than limits enforced on medical or surgical benefits (Block et al., 2020; Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, 2021). While preserving the protections provided under MHPA, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) introduced new protections for individuals seeking mental health insurance coverage. For instance, the protections provided for mental health insurance under MHPA were extended to include parity requirements for substance use disorders under MHPAEA.

The purpose of the Mental Health Parity Law is to ensure improved access to mental health care through the elimination of some of the financial and social barriers faced by individuals with mental health illnesses. For instance, the provisions that prohibit the limitation of benefits for people with mental health insurance coverage are crucial in reducing out-of-pocket spending, thus, increasing access to mental health services (Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, 2021). By regulating the amount of money insurers can impose on individuals with mental illnesses, the Mental Health Parity Law guarantees continued access to care during inpatient and outpatient treatments. Therefore, the law on mental health parity is essential in protecting care coordination and continuum of care once an individual is discharged from a healthcare facility.

Nevertheless, with at least 11 percent of Americans with mental health illnesses being uninsured, there are several policy changes that can help to improve the state of mental health care in the country. First, Medicare and Medicaid services should be expanded to provide coverage for all people with mental health illnesses and substance use disorders regardless of their income level or age. To elaborate on the foregoing assertion, it is important for the federal government to identify the uninsured Americans, especially those with mental health illnesses, and provide them with insurance coverage regardless of whether they qualify as low-income citizens or senior citizens. Finally, Medicare and Medicaid services should be expanded to provide coverage for medical evaluations and diagnoses for people seeking to determine their mental health statuses. This is crucial in that it allows members of the public and clinicians to initiate timely interventions in providing medications and other therapeutic treatments to victims of mental health illnesses.

Significance to Nursing and Patient Care

Despite the positive steps taken in addressing mental health parity in the United States through Mental Health Parity Law, there are several shortcomings that threaten patient safety, quality of care, and access to providers. First, Mental Health Parity Law does not effectively provide guidelines on care coordination for patients with mental health illnesses following their discharge from specialist care providers (Block et al., 2020). Furthermore, it is important to note that while there are provisions or guidelines on annual or lifetime benefits for insurers, this provision only focuses on issues relating to medical expenses, as opposed to the continuation of care. To elaborate on the claim above, the process of transitioning care from mental health providers to family and other at-home caregivers is left to care providers and professional organizations to address. This omission leaves loopholes for organizations in the mental health care services to exploit where the quality of care for some groups in the community may be lower than in others. The assertion regarding potential discrimination in the quality of care emanates from the fact that reduced standardization of mental healthcare services from a legal perspective can cause vulnerable populations like ethnic/racial minorities, women, children, and members of the LGBTQ+ communities to be unfairly treated by healthcare professionals. As such, it is important that the current Mental Health Parity Law is amended to include the conduct of care providers in the continuity of care as opposed to focusing primarily on insurance coverage.

Furthermore, issues relating to lack of sufficient training among nurses and other clinicians in the mental healthcare services sector can increase the threat posed to patient safety, quality of care, and access to providers. Lack of cultural competence and sensitivity is one of the biggest barriers to quality and satisfactory care within any medical specialty. However, this issue is significantly highlighted in mental health care due to the fact that different cultures have diverse perceptions of mental health illnesses. Cultural competence in health care can be defined as an approach to care that respects patient diversity and cultural factors that can affect health and health care, like communication styles, behaviors, beliefs, language, and attitudes (Rice & Harris, 2021). Lack of cultural competence training in mental health nursing has the likelihood of increasing patient dissatisfaction, patient stigma, and willingness to seek medical services from specialists. However, Rice and Harris (2021) noted that providing cultural competence training to nursing students and specialists in mental healthcare would increase patient satisfaction leading to improved health outcomes for patient populations. Similarly, cultural competence in mental healthcare allows for positive community engagement where deleterious cultural beliefs and negative personal perceptions regarding mental illnesses can be addressed by medical professionals.

Mental health care has the potential of increased out-of-pocket spending due to the fact that some patients are uninsured or because of lack of coverage or reimbursement for patients who spend out of their pockets. Thus, due to extra financial costs like care coordination, outpatient care costs, and medication not being covered in some insurance plants, patients with mental health illnesses face the added risk of spending out of their pockets to cover such costs (Block et al., 2020). Hence, Mental Health Parity Law should be expanded to include Medicare and Medicaid coverage for prescription medication for patients with mental illnesses. Such coverage can be designed to supplement any potential shortcomings in private insurance coverage based on existing plans.

Finally, the most common social determinants of health affecting mental health parity include unemployment and income inequality, racial discrimination and social exclusion, and limited access to care providers. Unemployment and income inequality are some of the most common leading factors that contribute to unequal access to health care services. Lack of financial stability contributes to limited insurance coverage among the affected populations. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that mental healthcare is not perceived as part of primary care services but rather a specialist care service (Drake et al., 2019; Chapman et al., 2018). Thus, people in need of mental health insurance must incur extra expenses before enrolling in an insurance plan. Similarly, racial discrimination and social exclusion are equally important social determinants of mental health (Block et al., 2020). To expound on this claim, it is worth noting that ethnic minorities, women, and members of the LGBTQ+ communities experience disparities in access to health care in general. Furthermore, because of limited cultural competence and sensitivity within the health care sector, there is a shortage of specialists with the skills, knowledge, and expertise to effectively care for the affected communities. Failure to address racial discrimination and social isolation of minority groups in the health care sector worsens the affected communities’ ability and willingness to seek professional assistance when afflicted with a mental illness. Coupled with low income and unemployment within the affected minority communities, access to specialist care providers is further negatively impacted, resulting in higher cases of untreated or undiagnosed mental illnesses in minority groups.

Synthesis of Literature

Based on an analysis of current literature on Mental Health Parity Law in the United States, the three recurring themes identified were financial cost of care, access to specialist care, and social determinants of health.

Financial Cost of Care

Regulations on mental health care have undergone several changes throughout the history of the United States healthcare sector in relation to the financial cost of care. It is important to note that mental health is the only discipline associated with treatment limits, increased cost-sharing, and other organizational policies designed to reduce its use (Drake et al., 2019; Thomas et al., 2018). Therefore, the effects of parity are centered on specialty treatments with the objective of eliminating or reducing financial restrictions to mental healthcare. Initially, healthcare insurers were not required by law to provide mental health coverage as part of their plans (Peterson & Busch, 2018; Thalmayer et al., 2018). Moreover, even in cases where mental health coverage was part of an insurance plan, insurers were permitted to impose treatment limitations for people with mental health illnesses (Peterson & Busch, 2018). The cost of care was further worsened by the fact that companies with less than 50 employees were exempt from the law, with bigger employers having the allowance to apply for an exemption as long as complying with the law resulted in a cost increase of at least one percent (Peterson & Busch, 2018).

The introduction of the MHPA and the creation of state laws introduced variations regarding whether mental health coverage was mandated and the extent of such mandate (Peterson & Busch, 2018; Thalmayer et al., 2018). However, the introduction of MHPAEA sought to ensure that all treatment limitations for mental health disorders were comparable to limitations in medical and surgical benefits in employment-based plans (Peterson & Busch, 2018). The objective of this Mental Health Parity Law was to eliminate discrimination by employers and insurance companies towards employees and patients with mental health disorders.

Furthermore, legal and policy changes relating to mental health parity are crucial in eliminating financial barriers among individuals in low-income households and the unemployed. In an article by Thomas et al. (2018), the authors noted that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was pivotal in expanding Medicaid to cover low-income individuals aged between 19 and 64 years. The ACA, therefore, affected people who were previously ineligible under previous laws to receive mental health insurance under Medicaid or private insurance coverage (Thomas et al., 2018; Peterson & Busch, 2018; Drake et al., 2019). Expanding mental health coverage by including individuals from low-income households and restricting limitations on benefits has the potential of reducing or eliminating some of the previously existing financial barriers to mental health services. Peterson and Busch (2018) further noted that both the ACA and the MHPAEA increased the number of Americans who could gain access to mental health coverage by affecting the insurance health benefits of more than 170 million people.

Furthermore, Mental Health Parity Law has positive impacts on reducing patient spending by expanding insurance products. Hodgkin et al. (2018) reported that following the implementation of MHPAEA and ACA, insurance products for mental illnesses expanded by 68 percent. This means that the number of mental health and behavioral disorders covered by insurance companies increased by at least 68 percent, thus, reducing the costs that patients incurred when seeking mental healthcare services. Parity in mental health law is further designed to reduce out-of-pocket spending from patients when paying for insurance coverage (Kingshill, 2021; Block et al., 2020). This is centered on the fact that while the number of products covered by insurers increased by 68 percent, there was concern that limitations on the length of treatments and continuum of care may have negative effects on patients’ financial effects and ability to achieve full recovery (Kingshill, 2021). Therefore, the ACA and MHPAEA sought to address such shortcomings by prohibiting potential limitations by insurers or care providers.

Access to Specialist Care

Mental Health Parity Law plays an important factor in improving access to insurance coverage and specialty care. Most Americans with limited access to mental health coverage can attribute such limitations to actions by insurance companies to impose limitations in ways that are more restrictive than in physical health services (Purtle et al., 2017; Harwood et al., 2017). One of the main benefits of ACA and MHPAEA is the fact that limitations on benefits are prohibited as well as prohibitions on existing condition exclusions (Campbell & Shore-Sheppard, 2020). Before the introduction of the parity law, insurers could exclude individuals with mental health illnesses from acquiring coverage or subject them to expensive plans that were financially costly and prohibitive (Campbell & Shore-Sheppard, 2020; Allabyrne et al., 2020; Peterson & Busch, 2018). The elimination of barriers to insurance or access to insurance services ensured that individuals with preexisting mental health illnesses were no longer denied access to specialist care of mental health services.

Similarly, expanding Medicaid to offer mental health coverage for low-income individuals also plays a crucial role in bridging the gap in access to care between low-income earners and people with financial stability. Similar changes are reflected in state legislations where limitations on mental health and substance use disorder benefits are prohibited (Purtle et al., 2017; Tran Smith et al., 2018; Chapman et al., 2018). With the eradication of limitations on mental health coverage, one can expect more people to seek mental healthcare services from specialists. Additionally, the expansion of Medicaid to include mental health coverage is crucial in ensuring that people from low-income households have access to quality care in the event of developing a mental health illness. Furthermore, Busch et al. (2017) and Harwood et al. (2017) noted that enactment of federal parity in mental health resulted in increased in-network services use, a potential indicator of insurers implementing measures to curb out-of-network use. While this approach may have some negative effects on patient health outcomes, it is worth noting that the overall impact is increased access to specialty care from in-network providers.

Social Determinants of Health

As earlier mentioned, some of the most common social determinants of health include unemployment and income inequalities, discrimination and social isolation, and limited access to care providers. Federal parity helps to address some of the social determinants of health contributing to lack of care equity by incorporating mental health coverage for individuals between 19 and 64 years and Medicaid (Harwood et al., 2017; Hodgkin et al., 2018). Furthermore, prohibiting limitations on benefits for people with mental health illnesses further enhances access to care for minority communities. Thus, mental health parity is crucial in improving access to mental health services for groups that were previously marginalized by restrictive insurance policies, such as low-income earners and people with preexisting conditions.

Failure to address issues relating to cultural competence and coordination of care in federal health parity law, however, has deleterious effects on health outcomes for affected populations. Since cultural beliefs, practices, and social stigma towards people with mental health continue to persist, the absence of legislative regulations on treating members of minority communities or educating communities on mental health can reduce willingness to seek medical services by patients (Rice & Harris, 2021; Hodgkin et al., 2018). Moreover, patients from minority groups such as LGBTQ+ and ethnic minorities may have unfavorable experiences when seeking medical health care services. Such experiences are likely to influence one’s willingness to attend future appointments or adhere to medical advice, resulting in poor health outcomes. Consequently, it is important to focus on culturally competent and patient-centered care when providing medical services to patients with mental health illnesses.

Recommendations on Improvements

It is important for all the stakeholders in the healthcare service sector to identify gaps in practice and find solutions to improve service delivery. The main stakeholders affected by mental health parity law include patients, family members, clinicians, insurance providers, and government regulators and policymakers. The first step towards improving parity in mental health includes the integration of mental health services into primary healthcare. Currently, mental health coverage and treatment is a specialty care, meaning that general hospitals are not required to have departments providing mental healthcare services (Chapman et al., 2018; Hodgkin et al., 2018). However, by integrating mental health services into primary healthcare services, general hospitals would be required to provide basic and specialty care to patients with mental health illnesses. The outcome of such policy would be increased access to care for patients with mental health illnesses since the number of care providers would be increased. Furthermore, the cost of insurance would be significantly reduced if mental health services are not addressed as specialty care services.

Finally, it is important that nursing schools, professional organizations, and other institutions of higher education in mental health services incorporate cultural competence in their education curriculum. Cultural competence programs and training should involve imparting nurses and caregivers with the skills and knowledge needed to navigate diverse patient cultural backgrounds (Rice & Harris, 2021). Furthermore, the utilization of cultural competence promotes patient-centered care and the involvement of community and family members in creating care coordination plans to ensure optimal patient outcomes. However, such measures can only be achieved through improved training and education on the part of professional healthcare providers.

Mental Health in Relation to IOM’s Future of Nursing Report and the Affordable Care Act

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report in 2010 titled, The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health, which sought to provide recommendations on improving the nursing profession. The four main issues addressed in the report, according to Rekha (2020), included the recommendation that (1) nurses ought to practice to the full extent of their training and education, (2) nurses must achieve higher levels of training and education, (3) nurses should be full partners in the healthcare system with physicians and other health professionals, and (4) better data collection and information structure is required to ensure effective workforce planning and policymaking. Given the recommendations above, it is crucial that nurses take part in policymaking by acting as patient advocates and equal partners with health professionals and physicians. This recommendation is especially critical in mental health parity policies due to the fact that nurses are the frontline workers during patients’ hospital stay and the creation and implementation of care coordination plans. Thus, continuing education is important for nurses to acquire skills, knowledge, and abilities that will help them become more culturally competent and effective in driving policy change at organizational, state, and national levels.

Furthermore, participation in research to identify evidence-based practices (EBPs) in mental health care and translation of evidence to practice is crucial for nurses, according to IOM (Rekha, 2020). Translation of research into practice can, however, be effective if nurses have the power to practice to the full extent of their training and education, in addition to being treated as equal partners with physicians and other healthcare professionals. Failure to treat nurses as equal partners in the healthcare sector limits their ability to effect change within their organization and communities is limited. This can have negative effects on patient health outcomes since nurses are better positioned to identify challenges faced by the profession and patients during mental healthcare service delivery. Therefore, policy changes must be implemented to empower nurses as medical experts and community leaders in identifying social determinants of health and devising solutions to existing challenges to accessing quality care services.

Government Policy Response

The United States government, through MHPAEA and ACA, has implemented measures to improve parity in mental healthcare. Some of the aforementioned policy responses by the government include prohibiting limitations on benefits in mental health insurance under MHPAEA. Furthermore, the government has also expanded group health plans to include mental health and substance use disorder benefits on par with medical/surgical benefits (Chapman et al., 2018). On the other hand, by prohibiting exclusion from insurance due to preexisting conditions, the ACA expanded insurance coverage to more Americans with mental health illnesses. In cases where such individuals would have been denied care or restrictive terms imposed on them by insurers, the ACA guarantees that such barriers are eliminated. Finally, the expansion of Medicaid to cover insurance costs for low-income earners between 19 and 64 years as part of the ACA is a crucial component towards promoting equitable access to specialty care for all Americans. In a nutshell, both MHPAEA and ACA have played a significant role in promoting access to care without a significant rise in the cost of care for patients with mental health illnesses.

Conclusion

Mental health illnesses are some of the most common health conditions in the United States, with 50 percent of Americans expected to develop a mental health illness in their lifetime. Furthermore, at least 11 percent of American citizens with mental health illnesses are not insured. Some of the reasons for lack of insurance are related to social determinants of health like economic status, social status, and access to care. To alleviate the negative effects of restrictive policies by insurance towards people seeking mental health insurance coverage, the government has implemented parity laws such as the ACA and MHPAEA. The objective of federal health parity law is to promote access to specialty services without significantly increasing the cost of care for patient populations.

Nevertheless, mental health parity can be improved through the integration of mental health care into primary health care, where general hospitals are required to cater to patients with mental health illnesses. This would eliminate barriers to access to care services while controlling for the cost of insurance. Finally, it is important to incorporate cultural and traditional practices in providing mental healthcare services through community engagement. Nurses working with mentally ill patients can achieve this outcome if the recommendations of the IOM are implemented and nurses are allowed the opportunity to practice to the full extent of their education and training.

References

Allabyrne, C., Chaplin, E., & Hardy, S. (2020). Advanced nursing practice in mental health: towards parity of esteem. Nursing Times, 116(12), 21-23. https://www.nursingtimes.net/roles/mental-health-nurses/advanced-nursing-practice-in-mental-health-towards-parity-of-esteem-09-11-2020/

Block, E. P., Xu, H., Azocar, F., & Ettner, S. L. (2020). The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act evaluation study: Child and adolescent behavioral health service expenditures and utilization. Health Economics29(12), 1533–1548. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4153

Busch, S.L., Mcginty, E.E., Stuart, E.A., Huskamp, H.A., Gibson, T.B., Goldman, H.H., & Barry, C.L. (2017). Was federal parity associated with changes in Out-of-network mental health care use and spending? BMC Health Services Research, 17(315), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2261-9

Campbell, A.L., & Shore-Sheppard, L. (2020). The social, political, and economic effects of the Affordable Care Act: Introduction to the issue. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 6(2) 1-40. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2020.6.2.01

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). About mental health. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/learn/index.htm

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2021). The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). United States Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/Other-Insurance-Protections/mhpaea_factsheet

Chapman, S.A., Phoenix, B.J., Hahn, T.E., & Strod, D.C. (2018). Utilization and economic contribution of psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners in public behavioral health services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 54(6), 243-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.01.045

Drake, C., Busch, S.H., & Golberstein, E. (2019). The effects of federal parity on mental health services use and spending: Evidence from the medical expenditure panel survey. Psychiatric Services, 70(4)287-293. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201800313

Harwood, J. M., Azocar, F., Thalmayer, A., Xu, H., Ong, M. K., Tseng, C. H., Wells, K. B., Friedman, S., & Ettner, S. L. (2017). The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act evaluation study: Impact on specialty behavioral health care utilization and spending among carve-in enrollees. Medical Care55(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000635

Hodgkin, D., Horgan, C. M., Stewart, M. T., Quinn, A. E., Creedon, T. B., Reif, S., & Garnick, D. W. (2018). Federal parity and access to behavioral health care in private health plans. Psychiatric Services,69(4), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201700203

Kingshill, R.D. (2021). Finding parity through preclusion: Novel mental health parity solutions at the state level. Dickinson Law Review, 125(2), 555-584. https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlr/vol125/iss2/7

Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. (2021). Implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in Medicaid and CHIP. Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Implementation-of-the-Mental-Health-Parity-and-Addiction-Equity-Act-in-Medicaid-and-CHIP.pdf

Mental Health America. (2022). The state of mental health in America. Mental Health America, Inc. https://www.mhanational.org/issues/state-mental-health-america

Mulvaney-Day, N., Gibbons, B. J., Alikhan, S., & Karakus, M. (2019). Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the use of outpatient behavioral health services in the United States, 2005-2016. American Journal of Public Health109(3), 190-196. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305023

Peterson, E., & Busch, S. (2018). Achieving mental health and substance use disorder treatment parity: A quarter-century of policymaking and research. Annual Review of Public Health, 39(1), 421–35. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013603

Purtle, J., Lê-Scherban, F., Shattuck, P., Proctor, E.K., & Brownson, R.C. (2017). An audience research study to disseminate evidence about comprehensive state mental health parity legislation to US State policymakers: Protocol. Implementation Science, 12(81), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0613-9

Rekha, S.G. (2020). The future of nursing: Leading change, advancing health. IP Journal of Paediatrics and Nursing Science, 3(3), 60-63. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijpns.2020.013

Rice, A. N., & Harris, S. C. (2021). Issues of cultural competence in mental health care. Journal of the American Pharmacists61(1), 65-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2020.10.015

Thalmayer, A. G., Harwood, J. M., Friedman, S., Azocar, F., Watson, L. A., Xu, H., & Ettner, S. L. (2018). The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act evaluation study: Impact on non-quantitative treatment limits for specialty behavioral health care. Health Services Research53(6), 4584–4608. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12871

Thomas, K.C., Shartzer, A., Kurth, N.K., & Hall, J.P. (2018). Impact of ACA health reforms for people with mental health conditions. Psychiatric Services, 69(2), 231-234. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201700044

Tran Smith, B., Seaton, K., Andrews, C., Grogan, C. M., Abraham, A., Pollack, H., Friedmann, P., & Humphreys, K. (2018). Benefit requirements for substance use disorder treatment in state health insurance exchanges. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse44(4), 426–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2017.1411934

Mental Health Essay Sample Essay

Introduction 

The history of mental health is old as humanity. Mental health issues include the psychological, emotional, general social well-being of a human being; this refers to how one feels, acts, and thinks. An individual’s mental health is crucial because it helps manage stress and relationships with others in society. Therefore mental health is crucial in every stage of a human’s life (Bertolote 2008). However, mental health has a very rich history, and the way people perceive mental health has evolved dramatically over the ages. To understand mental health, it is crucial to examine its history and the subsequent evolution to this era. Therefore, understanding the concept of this problem and its impacts on contemporary society, this paper explores its history, development, and outcomes.

History and Development 

Mental health has a timeless history. In the past ages, people with mental health issues were assumed to have been possessed with evil spirits. Religion had a very rigid conception of mental health issues and did not allow the scientific concept of mental health. These negative attitudes made it had for practical intervention to mental health issues. For example, the mentally ill people were taken to religious healers who would then pray for them, cursing out the evil spirits from them. This persisted into the 18th century, especially in the United States, thus causing dramatic stigmatization of mentally ill people. The ancient Egyptians, Romans, and Greek also had these strong religious views about mentally ill people, categorizing them as people facing religious problems hence could only be treated religiously (Eghigian, 2017). Quintessentially, this rich history of mental illness in the US and other parts of the world is the epitome of how trends in the psychiatric and cultural conception of mental health impact the development of certain national health policies addressing mental health.

Development

The development of the understanding of the issue can be assessed by looking at the shift in the perception and beliefs about mentally ill people in society. First, one would be interested in looking at the evolution of the national healthcare systems worldwide. Introducing an inpatient care model where patients live in hospitals while receiving treatments from the professional staff was one of the initial developments. This is considered one of the most effective ways to deal with mental illness. However, these services were only available to people with severe mental health problems. Up to the 19th century, there had not been a big improvement in handling mental health issues. Again, this left out the most vulnerable groups.

Analysis of the development in mental health issues

Today, the mental health issue is looked at through multiple prisms. This development has made it possible to go beyond looking at mental health in its previous form to broaden the conception of mental health types and their effects on society. Today, the majority of people suffer from mental health issues. For instance, according to research, one in five Americas experiences mental illness at a given time of the year, especially the youths. The advent of technology, exposure to social media, and other social conditions such as gender, economic, class, and status are some of the main causes of mental health issues in contemporary society. While discussing each of these causes is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to mention that these factors form the talking points in the current mental health debate in society.

Solutions 

There are various interventions to solve the mental health problem. Even though these strategies have not sufficiently addressed the issue, it is believed that with the advancement in technology and research, ways to address the pandemic will be realized (Colizzi et al., 2020). First, there is a need to develop primary prevention in youth mental health by creating a primary prevention model. This model focuses on the general population, sub-group, or specific individuals. Essentially, this strategy states that the groups mentioned above should be monitored throughout the neurodevelopmental stages of their lives (Colizzi et al., 2020). Secondly, research shows that there is limited awareness of mental health problems. Therefore, creating awareness about mental health issues is an important intervention. This can be facilitated through various media mainstreams or other platforms. It begins by letting people know the symptoms of mental health issues, after which they can be encouraged to seek help. The dearth of information about mental health is a leading cause of mental health-related deaths.

Finally, the family system intervention is another important strategy to address mental health issues. This strategy focuses on improving outcomes of persons experiencing any form of mental health disorder through improving family engagement (Morey & Mueser, 2007). The family system method aims at improving the well-being of the patient by ensuring that the care given to such people is appropriate and effective.

Conclusion

In summary, the mental health problem is an existing problem in society. It is a pandemic that has lived with humanity for a long time. The perspectives about mental health have evolved over the ages, from retrogressive to rational views. This shift has resulted in a tremendous improvement in the management of mental health. However, as a perennial problem, there is a need to develop practical strategies for dealing with the menace. Many youths and adults experience mental health due to a lack of awareness. Therefore, besides promoting awareness, other interventions such as the primary prevention model and family system invention have been identified as the most important means of addressing mental health issues. With a focus on regions with high mental health causes, such as the US, this paper has identified recommended interventions required for mental health issues in a population.

References

Bertolote J. (2008). The roots of the concept of mental health. World psychiatry: official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA)7(2), 113–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2051-5545.2008.tb00172.x

Eghigian, G. (2017). The Routledge History of Madness and Mental Health. Routledge. https://doi.org/9781351784399, 1351784390

Colizzi, M., Lasalvia, A., & Ruggeri, M. (2020). Prevention and early intervention in youth mental health: is it time for a multidisciplinary and trans-diagnostic model for care?. International Journal Of Mental Health Systems14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-020-00356-9

Morey, B., Mueser, K. T. (2007). The Family Intervention Guide to Mental Illness: Recognizing Symptoms & Getting Treatment. United States: New Harbinger Publications.