<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_405"
                     title="Difficult Childhood Lingers in the Mind (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.013"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/GeneralPsychiatry/tb/18312?impressionId=1265802788183"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Adversities faced in childhood have effects on mental health far into the future, researchers affirmed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mental illness in adulthood was increasingly likely the more traumas faced in childhood, Ronald C. Kessler, PhD, of Harvard, and colleagues reported in the February issue of the &lt;em&gt;Archives of General Psychiatry&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Childhood difficulties potentially explained 32.4% of all the psychiatric disorders examined, they said, based on analyses of the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Adversities relating to family dysfunction  --  substance-abusing parents, sexual or physical abuse in the home, neglect, etc.  --  appeared to have the strongest link to onset and persistence of psychiatric disorders, they reported.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These findings match folk wisdom and decades of research into the negative effects of child maltreatment, commented John McGrath, MD, PhD, of the Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research in Wacol, Australia, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the lack of specificity between certain exposures to particular mental health outcomes  --  such as the death of one&apos;s mother leading to depression  --  was notable, the editorialists said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Thus, childhood trauma upsets the orderly psychological and biological cascades of development, leaving the affected individual at increased risk of a wide range of adverse mental health outcomes,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rather than continue to rehash the epidemiology, it&apos;s time to focus on prevention and intervention, McGrath&apos;s group emphasized.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It is unrealistic to think that we could protect all children from all adversities, but can we identify factors that bolster resilience and focus our efforts on the most vulnerable subgroups?&quot; they asked.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers examined joint associations of 12 retrospectively reported childhood adversities with lifetime incidence of disorders meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication I, a cross-sectional survey of a nationally-representative sample of adults in 9,282 American households.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among the respondents, 53.4% reported at least one childhood adversity, most commonly parental divorce (17.5%), family violence (14.0%), family economic problems (10.6%), and parental mental illness (10.3%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These adversities were all individually and significantly linked to first onset of psychiatric disorders with odds ratios of 1.5 to 1.9 for dysfunctional family factors (physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, parental mental illness, parental substance abuse, parental criminality, or family violence) and 1.0 to 1.5 for other factors like life-threatening childhood physical illness, extreme poverty, parental divorce, or loss of or separation from parents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Despite some apparent but not significantly meaningful variation in type of adversity with type of psychiatric disorder, the researchers said they could rule out that all types were the same for future mental health risk (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Problems tended to cluster, though. Among people who faced one adversity in childhood, 51.2% to 95.1% faced others as well, depending on the adversity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Risk of mental illness rose with number of issues faced in childhood from an odds ratio of 1.3 for one up to 3.4 for six and 3.2 for seven or more adversities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This subadditive pattern has important implications for intervention because it means that prevention or amelioration of only a single childhood adversity in youths exposed to many childhood adversities is unlikely to have important preventive effects,&quot; the researchers wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, childhood adversities were projected to account for 44.6% of childhood-onset disorders, 32.0% of adolescent-onset disorders, and 28.6% of adult-onset disorders.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers also looked at persistence through the second part of the National Comorbidity Survey Replication which went beyond just core diagnostic assessment in 5,692 respondents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a complex multivariate interactive analysis, childhood adversity from dysfunctional family factors appeared significantly linked to persistence in a given year (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) whereas the number of factors was not significant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These significant factors were parental mental illness, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect, but they carried modest effects individually with odds ratios of 1.2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But in one simulation, not being exposed to childhood trauma would only increase the time since the most recent episode of psychiatric illness by 1.6%, suggesting &quot;quite modest&quot; substantive importance in determining persistence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;These results indirectly suggest that the public health implications of childhood adversities are greater for primary than for secondary prevention because the associations of childhood adversities with disorder onset are much stronger than the associations with persistence,&quot; Kessler&apos;s group wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cautioned that recall bias may have limited their study such that the results could be considered an &quot;upper bound&quot; for the real association and that the study could not prove causality.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The National Comorbidity Survey Replication is supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health with supplemental support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the John W. Alden Trust.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The analyses were supported by a grant from the NIMH; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Pfizer Foundation; grants from the U.S. Public Health Service; an award from the Fogarty International Center; the Pan American Health Organization; Eli Lilly; Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical; GlaxoSmithKline; and Bristol-Myers Squibb.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kessler reported financial conflicts of interest with GlaxoSmithKline, Kaiser Permanente, Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth-Ayerst, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson &amp;amp; Johnson Pharmaceuticals, and Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The editorialists reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_369"
                     title="Administration Issues Mental Health Parity Rule"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/GeneralPsychiatry/tb/18258?impressionId=1265802788183"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON  --  Under a proposed rule released by the Obama administration, patients in a group insurance plan who are being treated for mental illness or substance abuse may no longer be charged more than if they were receiving medical or surgical care.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department of Health and Human Service (HHS), the Department of Labor, and the Internal Revenue Service issued an interim rule last week containing specific language necessary to enforce the bipartisan &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/GeneralPsychiatry/11169&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/GeneralPsychiatry/11169&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; title=&quot;Financial&amp;#8200;Bailout&amp;#8200;Carries&amp;#8200;Mental&amp;#8200;Health&amp;#8200;Parity&amp;#8200;Bill&amp;#8200;Through&amp;#8200;Congress&quot;&gt;mental health parity law passed by Congress in 2008&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The law  --  called the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act  --  states that if a group health plan covers the treatment of mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, the limits and financial requirements for these services can be &quot;no more restrictive&quot; than those that apply to medical and surgical benefits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That means an insurance plan cannot charge higher copayments, deductibles, and out-of-pocket expenses for mental health services than for treatment of physical illnesses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Companies with fewer than 50 employees in their group insurance plans are excluded from the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The rules we are issuing today will, for the first time, help assure that those diagnosed with these debilitating and sometimes life-threatening disorders will not suffer needless or arbitrary limits on their care,&quot; said Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of HHS.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The American Psychiatric Association (APA) issued a statement applauding the regulations.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;&quot;Mental health parity was a major advance for the APA and for our patients living with mental illnesses,&quot; according to the group&apos;s president, Alan F. Schatzberg, MD. &quot;The APA will continue to work hard and submit the important feedback to the administration that is necessary to make sure our patients receive the care they need.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;The statement also drew attention to some shortcomings in the regulations, which did not address provider networks and formulary development.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;The APA intends to submit recommendations for these and other topics during the 90-day comment period.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;The American Psychological Association also welcomed the regulations.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;&quot;We are delighted that under these regulations consumers are protected from insurance discrimination to the greatest extent possible,&quot; according to its executive director for professional practice, Katherine Nordal, PhD, in a prepared statement.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;The rule also requires a single deductible for mental health and medical/surgical coverage. Patients who are being treated for a mental condition at the same time as somatic condition often have to pay separate deductibles which can &quot;prevent access to mental health treatment,&quot; according to the psychologists&apos; group.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;&quot;It is particularly significant that the regulation will ban health plans from imposing separate deductibles or setting separate out-of-pocket caps for mental health and medical/surgical services,&quot; the statement said. &quot;This is a big win for anyone seeking mental health treatment.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;The 2008 law expanded greatly on the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, which required parity only in lifetime and annual dollar limits. In practice, crtics say, insurers got around that prohibition by charging higher copayments for mental health services and by &quot;cherry-picking&quot; services that would and would not be covered.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;The 1996 law also specifically excluded coverage parity for substance abuse treatment.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;The new rule will take effect April 5, 2010.

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20090101_5_377"
                     title="PTSD Increases Hospitalization Rates in Urban Poor"
                     score="-0.005"
                     href="