Remember When Members of Congress Said That Passage of the "Murphy Mental Health Bill" Would Put an End to Mass Shootings?

5 Comments | Posted

To borrow a phrase from Emma Gonzalez, I call BS.

By now, you are likely aware that there was another school shooting today; this one in Santa Fe, Texas. Early reports indicate at least ten people have been confirmed dead. The massacre today marks the 22nd school shooting this year.

Sifting through my shock and dismay, I can't help but think back to all of the grandstanding over the past few years by members of Congress in support of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (H.R. 2646), which passed as part of the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016. The most ardent supporters of H.R. 2646 spoke feverishly about how if it passed there would be no more mass shootings. What a joke that statement was then, and what a joke it is now. Consider this pronouncement from former Congressman Tim Murphy, who led the charge to get H.R. 2646 passed:

How many more people will die before Congress takes action? We are clearly dealing with the aftermath of a failed mental health system,” said Murphy. August 27, 2015, Washington Times

or this statement:

"[This bill] could prevent another mass murder like the one in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut." Congressman Tim Murphy, The Daily Signal on December 4th, 2015

or these headlines ( of many):

  • Mental health bill could prevent mass shootings, Sun Sentinel, August 24, 2015
  • How fixing America’s mental health system might catch future mass shooters, Vox, December 4, 2015

The notion of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (also known as the Murphy Bill) as a cure-all to mass murder was folly then and is folly now. But Murphy and his cronies used the sensational headlines and soundbites blurring the lines between guns, violence and mental illness and it worked!

The passage of the bill brought significant changes to SAMHSA with the addition of an Assistant Secretary, a Mental Health Policy Lab, and an Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee (click here, herehere, here and here for the details). Okay, if you have the stamina to click through all of the links in the last sentence, you will see that this is where things get dangerous, and why it is essential for children's mental health advocates to, as Emma Gonzalez so succinctly put it, call BS.

A primary argument behind the Murphy Bill was that SAMHSA had strayed from focusing on the most severely mentally ill and that it needed to get back to that. The elixir posed by the proponents of the Murphy bill was to increase Assisted Outpatient Treatment, make more psychiatric beds available, and focus more closely on programs that serve the most seriously mentally ill. Sure, there were many other elements in the bill that was passed, but these were the driving focus areas. And guess what? Their narrow-focused campaign worked. The tragedy was that advocates know full well that AOT programs, for example, only work well when they are designed as part of a comprehensive array of services and supports. It's the "comprehensive array" part of the equation the Congress didn't seem to want to address, probably because it didn't fit into a neat soundbite. More worrisome, a look at the direction SAMHSA is headed makes me concerned that their leadership holds the same view. Early intervention? Well, sure, it's important, but let's stay focused on what to do after someone reaches a state of severe mental illness. Heaven forbid we double our efforts to promote efforts in early childhood that have been shown to prevent mental illness later in life.

Hey SAMHSA, what do you say you balance things out and spend as much attention on prevention and early intervention efforts as you do on programs focused on young adults and older already identified with a serious mental illness?

We have got to work in both directions if we are going to make life better for those with mental health challenges. We sure aren't going to solve the mental health challenge with the simplistic solutions proposed by proponents of the Murphy bill a few short years ago. Every time there is a school shooting I am reminded of the sales job that was done on the American public with the passage of the mental health bill. The sad part is that it didn't have to be that way.

Stay focused Network faithful. Continue to call for a comprehensive approach to meeting the needs of individuals with serious mental health challenges that adheres to the values and principles of a system of care approach.  

*   *   *   *   *   *    *   *   *  

scott

 Scott Bryant-Comstock
President & CEO
Children's Mental Health Network

 

Comments

  1. Denns Embry, Ph.D.'s avatar
    Denns Embry, Ph.D.
    | Permalink
    Amanda, the success of AOT during the Murphy Hearings was vastly oversold and hyped well-beyond the data, based on Cochrane Review and other research in the National Library of Medicine (www.pubmed.gov). I was asked to be part of a team that visited what was selected as the very best AOT site in America, Hamilton, Ohio. I paid for the trip out of my own pocket. I was the only scientist-clinician. The community had spent quite a bit of money on this, and the judge ran the AOT process with the best model available (i.e., drug court). All of this was very, very well-meaning, though I did not see precision research-based actual treatments in evidence. What I saw was the very best treatment as usual, but not using contingency management, goal/node mapping, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, etc. that are all very well proven to reduce serious mental illness and/or related addictions. Sadly, the Murphy Hearings virtually excluded testimony about what is actually well proven to work. Now, SAMSHA has relegated the best scientifically proven strategy funded by NIMH, NIDA, etc. to banishment via the disabling of NREPP, especially the legacy reviews that involve some of the best science in the world. The newer reviews are not rigorous for a whole variety of reasons, beyond this comment. The drumbeat seems to be "medically assisted treatment" (i.e., pharmaceuticals) but little focus on powerful behavioral evidence-based treatments that are the heart and soul of recovery and re-engagement in a meaningful life. AOT without gold-standard, evidence-based practices, we won't make much progress in getting people whole. It's not just about money, something I know very well having been the co-author of the largest per-capita expenditure for addictions treatment in the world. Clinicians have to use highly proven tools to achieve the effects needed. And here are the data for Hamilton, OH, the presumptive best AOT in the US, selected by the Treatment Advocacy group who I helped get AOT on NREPP: https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/oh/hamilton/crime
  2. Amanda Woodward's avatar
    Amanda Woodward
    | Permalink
    The provisions incorporated into the "Cures Act" were vastly watered down, the most important, eliminated altogether. If HIPAA revisions, AOT and IMD Exclusion had not been taken out things might have changed.
  3. Artheria Taggart's avatar
    Artheria Taggart
    | Permalink
    I am very angry, frustrated, and shocked once again. How many more children and educators need to die before this government stops acting like (please excuse my verbage, like I mentioned, I'm very upset) ' punk ass bitches' ??? Guns should be eradicated, yes, of course. People are now becoming skilled at making hope made bombs. So, guns are not the only concern here. What is needed is the realization that mental health treatment and funding saves lives. Embracing teamwork throughout all systems of care should be the call to arms, not another speech by a politician with their own agenda.
  4. Frank Rider's avatar
    Frank Rider
    | Permalink
    Hear, hear, Scott!
  5. Stephanie Newton's avatar
    Stephanie Newton
    | Permalink
    Morning Zen is there a way you can contact me?
    1. Leave a Comment