3 ms·
It's not throwing more money at it per se, it's supplying a reliable funding source. Because insurance companies deny funding so often, and public funding is un
by dv_dt 7y ago
It's not throwing more money at it per se, it's supplying a reliable funding source. Because insurance companies deny funding so often, and public funding is unreliable patchwork which can ebb and flow with the attention and power of individual politicians, provider services for mental health are much smaller than they could our should be to serve our population.
On the other hand, if an individual provider can rely on getting a fee for service without crazy overheads of private insurance approvals/unapprovals, then they can make a business commitment to supplying that service. This costs far less overall when you don't have to price risk and extra work into the service rendered.
- vonmoltke 7y ago> provider services for mental health are much smaller than they could our should be to serve our population As I responded to your sibling commenter, I don't think my original point was clear. I'm asserting that those existing provider services suck and are ineffective, and that what is needed is a paradigm shift in how mental health care is formulated and delivered, not a spread of those existing services.
- dv_dt 7y agoI think poor service and unstable sources of funding are fundamentally linked, and that stable funding is a precursor needed (or at least strongly helping) when considering a paradigm shift in how to deliver mental health care. The funding societally is so poor now that the common end path is people ending up in prison. And, as the article indicates, it's not like the private insurance companies are picking up the expenditure.