Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD

How do we provide stress management and professional support to health care providers? When the contagion is contained, how will we fare if a sustained crisis of mental health, family conflict, or social disruption ensue? Those topics and more are discussed in this video with Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, and Mark Olfson, MD, speaking from the epicenter of the COVID-19 disaster, New York City.

Meeting the Mental Health Challenge of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Dr Lieberman is Chair of the Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Director of New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY; Dr Olfson is Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law and Professor of Epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center. The authors report no conflicts of interest concerning the subject matter of this video.

Videos

Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, and Mark Olfson, MD, speak from the epicenter of the COVID-19 disaster, New York City.

Psychiatric Ramifications of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The public is gripped by fear of the novel coronavirus of 2019 (

) and by worry over whether the health system will be able to treat them or their loved ones should they become ill. Consequently, clinical and public health efforts have focused on acute medical care needs of those who are severely affected, while containing the virus’s spread in the population. Urgent priorities have included expanding hospitals’ capacities to care for sick patients and equipping health care providers to meet the unprecedented medical demands while keeping them safe. Meanwhile, concerted efforts are underway to validate diagnostic tests and bring them to scale while developing effective acute and preventive treatments, including vaccines.

Understandably, much less attention has been paid to the mental health consequences of the pandemic. Yet while the urgent emphasis is and should be on containing the virus and its physical threat, when the pandemic has subsided and we begin to resume normal life, it is the psychological sequelae that will emerge and persist for months and years to come.

During the acute crisis, everyone, to varying degrees, will experience fears of infection, somatic concerns, and worries about the pandemic’s consequences. Compounding personal distress are the disruption of usual daily routines and the social isolation imposed by the “stay at home orders” adopted by most US states.

 Longer periods of physical isolation, especially if experienced as involuntary, without an adequate and convincing explanation, or accompanied by financial losses can compound risks of adverse mental health consequences of 

People with pre-existing or constitutional vulnerabilities to psychiatric disorders including anxiety, depression, obsessional symptoms, substance use, suicidal behavior, and impulse control disorders will be especially vulnerable to stress-related symptom exacerbations.


	While we know these psychological effects are permeating the population, we do not yet know their extent or impact. We have previously experienced naturally occurring and human-made disasters, but nothing in our lifetimes compares to the scope of the COVID-19 crisis. The last comparable event was the 

. Subsequent epidemics including polio, HIV, Ebola, MERSA, SARS, and Swine Flu, though in some cases more virulent, were much smaller in scale, shorter and less disruptive to society.

While the polio and HIV epidemics may bear some similarities to COVID-19, they did not approach the magnitude of population-wide psychological impact. Therefore, studies of the mental health effects of recent epidemics offer limited guidance about after-effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, recent disasters, such as 

 or 9/11, were more constrained in space and time than the COVID-19 pandemic.

Perhaps a better comparison is to the Great Depression of the early 1930s. This economic crisis caused a population-wide experiential trauma of the US population whose form and severity varied with individual constitution and circumstances. Psychological and behavioral reactions that exceeded clinical diagnostic thresholds were reflected as increase in rates of 

 In a variety of contexts, economic crises have been found to be associated with an increase in 

, substance use, and PTSD disorders have been found to follow natural disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, or floods.

 If similar patterns hold for the COVID-19 pandemic, long after the physical threat of infection has subsided, psychological sequelae-inducing or exacerbating mental disorders in vulnerable people, and behavioral effects of persistent distress within the general population-will be a major consequence.


	The up-tick in incidence of various mental disorders and cumulative psychological stress our population will endure will further strain the mental health and primary care systems and expose limitations of its infrastructure, work force, and accessibility. Should national rates of specific conditions (like depression, suicidal behavior) increase, it will add to the trend of steadily rising national rates of suicide that we’ve seen over the past two decades.

To stem this tide, efforts should begin with those who are at increased risk of adverse mental health outcomes including patients with pre-existing mental disorders vulnerable to such stressors. Such persons may need adjustments in their treatment and increased frequency of contact with their mental health providers.

Others include people who reside in high COVID-19 prevalence areas, who live with someone affected by COVID-19, who have a family member or close friend who has died of COVID-19, who are socially isolated and who have little available emotional support. Adverse mental health consequences of social isolation can be mitigated by keeping the period of isolation as short as is consistent with personal and public health safety, providing accurate information concerning the rationale and personal and public health benefits of physical isolation, and improving social communication. Alongside negative effects, there may also be some countervailing positive mental health effects of living through a pandemic. One study of the 

 found that most individuals reported caring more about their family’s feelings during the SARS period than before it.

Health care professionals, especially those whose work brings them into close contact to patients infected with COVID-19, are also vulnerable to adverse mental health consequences. Feelings of futility, working with inadequate personal protective equipment, extensive involvement in end-of-life care without being able to connect patients and their families, and practicing outside their areas of confident clinical expertise can result in psychological stress.

For health care professionals, mitigating adverse mental health effects involve ensuring adequate protective personal equipment, access to COVID-19 testing, providing education concerning the disease, and training in COVID-19 management. It may also include providing emotional and physical support, developing more flexible work schedules, and a commitment to support and care for workers who become ill.

During the pandemic, health care professionals have been celebrated for their bravery and commitment to patient care. Yet the pandemic has also created a sobering moral dilemma as an innate desire to preserve their own lives and awareness of their vulnerability to the disease conflicts with their call to duty and identity as healers. Thus, stress management and counselling may need to include discussions of ethical principles and practices.

Increased primary care mental health surveillance through routine screening for depression, anxiety, and 

 coupled with greater availability of mental health services within primary care will enable larger numbers of affected individuals to receive mental health treatment within a familiar primary care context. In some practices, it may be feasible to train medical nurses and social workers in brief evidence-based psychotherapy techniques to manage complicated grief, adjustment disorders, and mild to moderate depression.

Psychiatry is particularly suited to use of virtual methods of providing mental health services. While telemedicine technology has existed for almost three decades, it took the impetus of the COVID-19 crisis to overcome the inertia of practitioners and health systems, and relax the regulatory, legal, and reimbursement impediments to utilization. Effecting the changes needed to sustain the use of telemedicine coming out of this pandemic should be a priority.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents new challenges to health and mental health care delivery. In the US, national, state, and local governments alongside the private health care sector have important roles to play in increasing the availability of mental health care in hard hit and underserved areas. Developing support groups and peer counseling services, crisis helplines, expanding services and enhancing accessibility through the use of telemedicine, and formalizing linkages between primary care and specialty mental health services may help address some of the emerging mental health needs. Careful planning and integration of basic mental health services into outpatient primary care will be critical to minimizing the adverse mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

 is Chair of the Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Director of New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY; 

 is Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law and Professor of Epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center. The authors report no conflicts of interest concerning the subject matter of this article.

1. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. 

. 2020;395:912-920.
	2. Chaves C, Castellanos T, Abrams M, Vazquez C. The impact of economic recessions on depression and individual and social well-being: the case of Spain (2006-2013). 

. 2018;53:977-986.
	3. Tapia Granados JA, Christine PJ, Ionides EL, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors, depression, and alcohol consumption during joblessness and during recessions among young adults in CARDIA. 

. 2018;187:2339-2345.
	4. Tapia Granados JA, Diez Roux AV. Life and death during the Great Depression. 

. 2009;106:17290-17295.
	5. Beaglehole B, Mulder RT, Frampton CM, et al. Psychological distress and psychiatric disorder after natural disasters: systematic review and meta-analysis. 

. 2018;213:716-722.
	6. Hedegaard H, Curtin SC, Warner M. 

Suicide mortality in the United States, 1999-2017. NCHS Data Brief, no 330

. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2018.
	7. Lau JT, Yang X, Tsui HY, et al. Positive mental health-related impacts of the SARS epidemic on the general public in Hong Kong and their associations with other negative impacts. 

Articles

The public is gripped by fear of COVID-19 and by worry over whether the health system will be able to treat them or their loved ones should they become ill. Consequently, clinical and public health efforts have focused on acute medical care needs of those who are severely affected, while containing the virus’s spread in the population.

In the wake of the recent Veterans’ Day observances (November 11, 2018), I had a strangely disquieting feeling. At first, I attributed it to binge-watching too many war movies that had been broadcast for the occasion (including 

All Quiet on the Western Front, Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Patton

). But there was also the fact that the holiday coincided with the 100th anniversary of the Armistice of WWI, the “Great War,” punctuated by the indignity of our POTUS being deterred by the weather from attending the ceremonies at the French cemetery where US soldiers were buried. But then, in a burst of insight, I realized what so upset me was when George C. Scott slaps the soldier with PTSD in 

 and calls him a “yellow-bellied coward.” This iconic scene resonates with the historic and continued ambivalence of the military toward the psychological wounds of war. It is the military equivalent to the stigma of mental illness that pervades our society-but on steroids.

Because of this stubborn aversion to the reality of psychic injuries in the military, active duty and veteran military personnel have been denied effective mental health care, and limited progress has been made in understanding the pathological basis of psychologic trauma and developing more effective treatments. Consequently, our active and veteran military personnel suffer and die unnecessarily.

More than 2 million troops have already been deployed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight. Almost a third of all service-persons in these ongoing conflicts suffer from some clinically significant mental condition, the poster child for which is PTSD, and their complications of suicide, addiction and domestic or other-directed violence.

 The shocking statistics indicate that our veterans are more than twice as likely to commit suicide than their peers in the civilian population.

The reasons for the burgeoning rates of mental health problems among military personnel deployed to the Middle East-more than in any other war-are as yet undetermined. The possibilities include the asymmetric type of warfare, repeated tours of duty, lack of clearly defined mission. But then the rates had begun to rise during Vietnam when the army was conscripted and possibly beforehand and gone unnoticed. Regardless, the unique psychological dangers faced by our military personnel take their toll and make re-entry into civilian life difficult.

The mental health consequences of military trauma are often distressing, disabling and persistent unless there are timely interventions. Symptoms of PTSD include re-experiencing the traumatic event, avoidance of thoughts of the traumatic event and people, places, or other stimuli that evoke the trauma; changes in cognitions regarding the world and one’s self; hypervigilance; hyperarousal (including irritability, concentration difficulties, and disrupted sleep); and increases in disturbing thoughts and negative feelings. PTSD is commonly associated with functional impairment, substance abuse, suicidal ideation, impulsivity and violence, as well as increased utilization of medical care.

Treatments: too few, too late, and not good enough

Despite treatment with the available psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies, PTSD never fully remits in more than half of patients. Meta-analyses of psychotherapy for PTSD has found short-term improvements compared with baseline only in about 50% to 60% of patients, with the majority continuing to have substantial residual symptoms.

 The efficacy of medication in PTSD is also sub-optimal, with few patients experiencing a complete remission following pharmacotherapy.

 Moreover, there is a lack of psychopharmacologic advances in its treatment.

Because early symptoms of combat-related mental problems are a reliable predictor of chronicity and impaired social and occupational functioning, early treatment is most advantageous. Early intervention can increase functional capacity, rapid symptom recovery, prevention of maladaptive coping behaviors, and prevention of chronic PTSD and other psychopathology, including complicated grief.

 Unfortunately, while models of early intervention have been tested in non-military populations, they have rarely been implemented in military personnel.

Coming home: reconnecting and reintegrating

Research indicates that as many as 50% of veterans experience significant difficulty acclimating with a third developing mental health problems including PTSD, anxiety disorders and depression.

 Reconnecting with loved ones after repeated exposure to traumatic events and combat stress, coping with physical injuries sustained during combat, and renegotiating roles as civilians in the midst political, social, and economic crises can present an emotionally challenging experience for service members and their family members. If the psychopathology causing these problems goes untreated, chronicity develops that leads to significant social impairment, marital dysfunction, job instability, suicide, substance abuse, and violent behavior.

To compound the problem, there is an acute shortage of services, trained clinicians, and lack of expertise in evidence-based treatments, which limits the care of large numbers of redeployed veterans and their families. Moreover, the quality of services and the effectiveness of treatments are not optimal and limited federal funding has impeded much needed progress that could derive from psychobiological research on the effects of physical and psychological trauma on the brain.

 Indeed, current treatments for trauma-related mental health disorders, such as PTSD, suicidality, and traumatic brain injury, have yet to be proven effective for large populations of war veterans.

The lack of available quality mental health care is compounded by the fact that active duty personnel and veterans are too often reluctant, indeed overtly deterred from seeking mental health care because of shame, stigma, and adverse career impact. For those who do seek help, a variety of logistical, cultural, and professional barriers may interfere with care access and delivery.

8 To add insult to injury, family members of military personnel are not eligible for mental health care in VA settings. Ignoring the needs of these populations is both unfair, given their great sacrifices, and unwise, as family support is critically important for optimal adjustment of returning veterans.

Given the scope of mental health problems among military personnel, better and more accessible mental health services must be developed. Evidence-based interventions are needed in multiple and diverse settings (in basic training, on the battlefield, following injury and upon and after discharge) and special efforts must be made to address and overcome the deterrents of stigma, guilt and impact to career by at least ensuring that all are informed how and encouraged to obtain services if needed. Provision of social services and establishment of resource- and resilience-building programs would facilitate treatment and reintegration into effective social and occupational roles.

It has long been known that war produces overwhelming psychological stress that can indelibly alter a person’s brain function and mental state. Despite the long history of PTSD (previously known as “Soldier’s Heart,” “Shell Shock,” “Battle Fatigue,” and “Combat Neurosis”), and the increasing number of psychological casualties, there has been limited progress in the scientific understanding and ability to treat PTSD.

 So why hasn’t more been done to address the psychological wounds of war and its sequelae?

It is not for the lack of ability to achieve great progress. The military has already demonstrated its capacity to make extraordinary advances in the medical care of its soldiers. Rates of severely wounded combatants went from 80% who died to 80% who survived between WW-I and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Whereas wounded soldiers writhed in pain and died from infection and exsanguination in WWI, medics now stabilize soldiers in-theater, airvac them to field hospitals where they undergo emergency surgery, then airlift them when able to travel to military hospitals in Germany for more sophisticated treatments. When recovered they are transported to the US and, if further treatment is needed, to Walter Reed National Military Center.

I believe there are three reasons why the same has not been done for the psychological wounds of war. First, the idea of psychological weakness is antithetical to military culture with its ethos of strength and invulnerability. Thus, military leaders were disinclined to recognize and accept the possibility of psychic injury. As a result, many soldiers were accused of cowardice and in some cases punished, even executed, for their infirmity. Second, mental disorders are not tangible and have no visible physical signs or diagnostic tests by which they can be confirmed. Hence, they are not seen as real, and are thus minimized-you don’t get a Purple Heart for PTSD. Third, PTSD was considered a military problem and thus the responsibility of the Defense Department and Veteran’s Administration. Consequently, the NIH did not see this as within the scope of their mission and thus the best and the brightest biomedical researchers at academic medical institutions were not engaged in the research effort to address PTSD. Until recently, most funding for PTSD research was provided through the Veterans Administration and predominantly to researchers at VA hospitals.

There are two grievous flaws of logic in this scenario. One is that just because there is no physical lesion associated with PTSD, does not mean that it’s not a distressing and disabling condition. The other is that psychological trauma is not limited to the military but also occurs in the civilian population-though less commonly and dramatically. Therefore, this should be considered a medical problem of importance to the NIH and the whole biomedical research community, but that would have diverted funds from other disorders.

There is another reason why the measured response of our government to address military mental health is so tragic and reprehensible. Of the 265 disorders described in DSM-5, only two have known etiologies and can be readily studied in animal models-substance use disorders and PTSD. The biology of PTSD can be studied in the laboratory through fear conditioning paradigms and therapeutic approaches developed to alleviate the symptoms and potentially even prevent its development by “immunizing” those who regularly go into harm’s way.

What is needed is a “Manhattan Project” to elucidate the pathophysiology, develop effective treatments, and ultimately find a cure for PTSD. While this is a formidable scientific challenge, it is achievable.

The first step is for the Administration and Congress to empanel a task force of leading scientists to develop a strategic plan for research on the pathological basis of PTSD and develop treatments. Next, Congress must allocate funding to support the necessary research to be carried out under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health in partnership with the VA and Department of Defense. The NIH Director’s office would be responsible for monitoring progress and reporting to the President and the Congress. This effort would be sustained until sufficient progress has been made. The final step would entail establishing a network of medical centers in addition to the VA Hospitals to provide specialized mental health services for veterans, and mechanisms for reimbursement.

It is time for our government to right this historic wrong. Amidst the political gridlock in Washington and polarized opinions of the electorate, there is one thing on which everyone agrees, it is our respect and concern for US military personnel. Images and statistics of returning vets with lost limbs, injured brains, and traumatized psyches have seared the public consciousness and evoked an outpouring of compassion. We are light-years away from the Vietnam era vilification of the military. Let us pledge that not another Veteran’s Day shall pass without our government, biomedical research, and medical communities committing to solve the mystery of psychological trauma and remove this scourge from those who place themselves in harm’s way to defend us and our freedoms.

Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, is the Lawrence E. Kolb Professor and Chairman of the Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Department of Psychiatry and Psychiatrist-in-Chief of the New York Presbyterian Hospital-Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Dr Lieberman is a member of the National Academy of Medicine and past president of the American Psychiatric Association. He is the author of 

1. Hoge CW, Castro CA, Messer SC, et al. Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. 

2. Hoge CW, Auchterlonie JL, Milliken CS. Mental health problems, use of mental health services, and attrition from military service after returning from deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. 

3. McCarthy JF, Blow FC, Ignacio RV, et al. Suicide among patients in the Veterans Affairs health system: rural-urban differences in rates, risks, and methods. 

4. Eftekhari A, Ruzek RI, Crowley JJ, et al. Effectiveness of national implementation of prolonged exposure therapy in Veterans Affairs care.

Psychosocial Interventions for Mental and Substance Use Disorders: A Framework for Establishing Evidence-Based Standards

. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015.

6. Monson CM, Schnurr PP, Resick PA, et al. Cognitive processing therapy for veterans with military-related posttraumatic stress disorder. 

7. Stein MB, Rothbaum BO. 175 years of progress in PTSD therapeutics: learning from the past. 

Early Intervention for Trauma and Traumatic Loss

9. Neria Y, Litz BT. Bereavement by traumatic means: the complex synergy of trauma and grief. 

10. Dohrenwend BP, Turner JB, Turse NA, et al. The psychological risks of Vietnam for U.S. veterans: a revisit with new data and methods. 

11. Jones E, Wessely S. Shell shock to PTSD: military psychiatry from 1900 to the Gulf War. Phil AS, Wykes T, Eds. 

VA Mental Health: Clearer Guidance on Access Policies and Wait-Time Data Needed

Veterans Health Administration: Management Attention Is Needed to Address Systemic, Long-Standing Human Capital Challenges

14. Government Accountability Office. 2017.

VA Health Care: Improvements Needed in Data and Monitoring of Clinical Productivity and Efficiency. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.

15. Garcia HA, McGeary CA, McGeary DD, et al. 2014. Burnout in Veterans Health Administration mental health providers in posttraumatic stress clinics. 

16. Rosen CS, Matthieu MM, Wiltsey Stirman S, et al. A review of studies on the system-wide implementation of evidence-based psychotherapies for posttraumatic stress disorder in the Veterans Health Administration. 

Admin Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res

17. Maguen S, Litz BT. Predictors of barriers to mental health treatment for Kosovo and Bosnia peacekeepers: a preliminary report. 

18. Department of Veterans Affairs. Healthcare Inspection: 

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Counseling Services at Vet Centers

. Washington, DC: VA Office of Inspector General; 2011.

19. Menninger KA. Nomenclature of psychiatric disorders and reactions, 1943. 

A War of Nerves: Soldiers and Psychiatrists in the Twentieth Century

. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2001.

21. Ling GS, Rhee P, Ecklund JM. Surgical innovations arising from Iraq and Afghanistan wars. 

The iconic scene when George C. Scott slaps the soldier with PTSD in Patton and calls him a “yellow-bellied coward” mirrors the historic and continued ambivalence of the military toward the psychological wounds of war.

Solving the Mystery of Military Mental Health: A Call to Action

Never before has it been so timely and important to improve health care for people with mental and substance use disorders in the US. The urgency of enhancing mental health care has been underscored by glaring social maladies, including homelessness, suicide among military personnel and veterans, incarceration, opiate addiction, and mass violence, which have galvanized public attention to mental illness. Political challenges notwithstanding, this article highlights the significant common ground that supports an agenda for transformative improvement of mental health care in the US.

Our “broken” mental health care system adversely affects large segments of the US population. People with serious mental illnesses (SMI), including depression, bipolar disorder, PTSD, schizophrenia, autism, and Alzheimer disease, experience severe distress and disability, require high levels of costly health services, and have substantially shortened lifespans due to excess medical comorbidity and increased suicide rates. Included in this population are people with addictions, such as victims of the recent opioid epidemic most prevalent in rural America. Deficiencies in mental health and addiction services are so longstanding and profound in the US that they cannot be simply characterized as unmet clinical needs or health care disparities: they represent what former Congressman Patrick Kennedy has called a “violation of civil rights.”

The economic burden of these illnesses is tremendous. The estimated annual costs of depression in 2010 totaled $210.5 billion, including both direct costs and indirect costs such as mortality arising from depression-related suicides as well as the effects of depression in the workplace (eg, absenteeism).

 The cost of opioid use disorders in 2013 was estimated at $78.5 billion.

 Furthermore, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) estimates that mental and substance use disorder treatment spending from all public and private sources for direct costs alone will rise to a total of $280.5 billion in 2020, an increase from $171.7 billion in 2009.

 These figures do not include additional costs to the criminal justice system, which houses large populations of people with inadequately treated mental illness and substance use disorders.

Improving mental health care is-and has been-a bipartisan issue. The New Freedom Commission, convened by President George W. Bush in 2002, sounded a “clarion call for this and future administrations to pursue dramatic improvements in the mental health care delivery system.”

 However, “fragmentation, stigma, [and] frozen budgets” largely thwarted this effort. Since then, legislation such as the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA), as well as President Barack Obama’s health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, have pushed forward expanded funding for mental health and substance use services. Yet previous efforts to address unmet public mental health needs have not succeeded in fulfilling their goals of broad access to quality care.

Piecemeal progress in our current mental health delivery system is insufficient. That is why a comprehensive approach to mental illness and substance use disorders should be enacted, as has been done with cardiovascular and infectious disease. This strategy targets populations in need, including those affected with and at risk for mental disorders, and would provide proven interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality. Such a mental health care plan would be comprehensive, multifaceted, and diverse and include the following core elements: universal access and broad geographic distribution, dissemination and implementation of evidence-based treatments, multidisciplinary team-based care, workforce development and deployment, alignment of financing systems, and assessment of cost-effectiveness with clear and meaningful quality and outcome metrics.

The election of Donald J. Trump to the presidency and a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress affords such an opportunity. Fortuitously, in the national election’s aftermath, an enlightened and deftly orchestrated bipartisan effort by the Senate and House leadership resulted in an extraordinary victory for both parties. The resulting legislation, 21st Centuries Cures Act (HR6), sponsored by Congressman Fred Upton, a Republican from Michigan, and Congresswoman Diana DeGette, a Democrat from Colorado, incorporated many important elements of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (HR2646, authored by Representatives Tim Murphy, a Republican from Pennsylvania, and Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Democrat from Texas). If reconciled with the Senate’s companion bill, the Mental Health Care Reform Act (S2640, sponsored by Senators Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, and Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana), along with the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act (S2002, sponsored by Senator John Cornyn), HR6-if fully funded and implemented-could have a transformative impact on our nation’s mental health system and enhance access to and quality of mental health services.

This extraordinary governmental action during a “lame duck” session revealed the broad understanding and strong interest of the Congress and administration in addressing this urgent and longstanding problem. Buoyed by this congressional success and with the hope of providing the Trump Administration and new Congress an agenda to continue to improve mental health care in the US, we offer the following provisional proposals.

Dissemination and implementation of evidence-based programs

Advances in behavioral and neuroscience research have led to evidence-based treatments and models of service delivery that can substantially improve outcomes and reduce the burden of illness and costs of caring for those affected by mental illness and addiction. To be effective, evidence-based treatments for mental illness and substance use disorders must be appropriately and consistently delivered. Such services are optimally implemented by multidisciplinary treatment teams (as opposed to individual practitioners) in light of shortages in the workforce and geographic distribution of mental health professionals, as well as the diverse expertise needed for management of mental and substance use disorders. To facilitate this process, mental health care education and training curricula will need to be adapted, and training and supervision provided on a range of skills integral to evidence-based practices.

Special efforts must be made to ensure access to care for people with substance use disorders, among whom currently only 1 in 10 receives any form of treatment. Medication-assisted treatments such as buprenorphine or extended-release injected naltrexone should be more widely made available, as has been demonstrated successfully in Vermont.

Creation of portals of entry for all in need

Portals of access to mental health care in the public and private sector stakeholders (providers, payers, patients, employers) must be established for each segment of the population in need. These portals would be located in, or have liaisons with, hospitals, clinics, medical practices and offices, educational institutions, work settings, and community organizations. Services for common conditions such as depression, anxiety, and alcohol and drug use disorders are more accessible when embedded in primary care settings and the workplace, while schools and universities are well positioned to detect learning disabilities, eating disorders, and early stages of psychotic and mood disorders and engage students in care.

People with SMI are more likely to benefit from dedicated, specialty mental health centers because of their complex service needs. Community institutions, such as places of worship, and clergy may provide additional points of entry. Adults and children in rural and remote areas who face regional shortages in mental health services require technology innovations such as telehealth and virtual support from academic centers. Children and adolescents may best be reached through school-based programs or pediatric and family practices.

A critical portal of entry to behavioral health care must be considered for people with SMI involved with the criminal justice system, particularly during transitions between the community and jails or prisons. For example, mental health courts are effective at diverting people with SMI from becoming incarcerated as well as reducing rates of recidivism and violence.

 These services must also be extended to juveniles at high risk for mental illness and substance use disorders.

Alignment of financing systems with assessment of outcomes and value-based care

As described, the financial burden of mental and substance use disorders for both public and private payers as well as ancillary social services and the criminal justice system should be a major incentive for pursuing payment redesign. Amendments to existing, or new, legislation can encourage alignment of insurance financing systems to new models of mental health care and services by health care providers. While this objective will initially entail reimbursement to personnel from diverse disciplines, ultimately these costs must be incorporated into new payment models, including bundled payments and risk-adjusted, population-based payments.

Measurement-based care, where treatment is tied to outcomes-as already developed in payment for the care of diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, and other nonpsychiatric medical conditions-must be utilized throughout the mental health care system and woven into its payment models. The National Academy of Medicine has released Vital Directions, which calls for improved and innovative payment models that align with evidence-based treatments.

Modernization of health information technology

Health information technology (HIT) offers a major opportunity for improvements in mental health care. Computerized clinical decision support for treating patients who are not responding to initial medication trials, telemedicine, and computer-guided adaptations of psychosocial treatments for people with SMI are innovations awaiting greater utilization. In addition, integration of and training in HIT within behavioral health settings is essential to achieve interdisciplinary and cross-provider collaboration.

Scientific advances, social progress, mental health literacy, and federal legislation have created a strong foundation for the transformation of mental health care in America. This article has laid out a viable agenda for next steps. But that is not enough: political leadership and strategy are also necessary, along with support of biomedical research in brain disorders and investment in the development of new, more effective treatments.

President Trump signaled that health care reform will be a top priority in the first year of his administration. We expect that this would include mental health care. With this article’s agenda at the ready, and the momentum from the expanded 21st Century Cures Act, the Trump Administration, with the participation and support of Congress and other stakeholders, has a unique opportunity to mobilize the necessary political will to engage in a bipartisan effort to enact a “Mental Health Plan for America” to deliver quality mental health services for all those in need.

Dr. Lieberman is Lawrence C. Kolb Professor and Chairman, Columbia University Department of Psychiatry, New York; Dr. Goldman is Resident Physician, Columbia University Department of Psychiatry; Dr. Olfson is Professor, Columbia University Department of Psychiatry; Dr. Pincus is Professor and Vice Chair, Columbia University Department of Psychiatry; Dr. Sederer is Adjunct Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.

The authors report no conflicts of interest concerning the subject matter of this article.

 Greenberg PE, Fournier A-A, Sisitsky T, et al. The economic burden of adults with major depressive disorder in the United States (2005 and 2010). 

 Florence CS, Zhou C, Luo F, Xu L. The economic burden of prescription opioid overdose, abuse, and dependence in the United States, 2013. 

 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Projections of National Expenditures for Treatment of Mental and Substance Use Disorders, 2010-2020. 

http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//SMA14-4883/SMA14-4883.pdf

 Robertson AG, Swanson JW, Lin H, et al. Influence of criminal justice involvement and psychiatric diagnoses on treatment costs among adults with serious mental illness. 

 Iglehart JK. The mental health maze and the call for transformation . N Engl J Med . 2004;350:507-514.

 Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. 2001. 

http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2001/Crossing-the-Quality-Chasm/Quality%20Chasm%202001%20%20report%20brief.pdf

 McNiel DE, Binder RL. Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal recidivism and violence . 

 Knickman J, Rama Krishnan KR, Pincus HA, et al. Improving Access to Effective Care for People Who Have Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders: A Vital Direction for Health and Health Care. 2016. 

https://nam.edu/improving-access-to-effective-care-for-people-who-have-mental-health-and-substance-use-disorders-a-vital-direction-for-health-and-health-care/

The authors outline the ingredients for the transformation of mental health care in America.

Author | Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD

Articles

Psychiatric Ramifications of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Meeting the Mental Health Challenge of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Solving the Mystery of Military Mental Health: A Call to Action

Improving Mental Health Care in America: An Opportunity for Comprehensive Reform