Written by: Matthew Hile 7/3/2008 1:07 PM
From the Children's Bureau, Regional Partnership Grant meeting in DC, Wesley Clark, CSAT Director, SHMHSA talked about the "big red slice." Reporting that most (almost 90%) of women who have a SA problem do not think that they need treatment. With effective treatment, that is from entry to a one year of nonuse, takes about three treatment episodes and nine years. This suggests two things. First, we need to speed the impact of services. If we we could halve treatment length we could treat twice as many individuals for the same number of dollars. However, even with that we would not be able to provide services to more than 20% of individuals in need. Second, regardless of improvements in treatment services, in our current environment we have very little chance of getting enough services for all those in need. So - at least in economic terms - we best not teach the "big red slice" that they need services because there are none to be had. Better to keep them ignorant and placid than enlightened and demanding. Of course, from a moral and ethical perspective, this thinking is wildly inappropriate. These individuals need effective and accessible services, providing them would improve not only their lives but the lives of their children, partners, and communities. How can we afford not to do this?
From the Children's Bureau, Regional Partnership Grant meeting in DC, Wesley Clark, CSAT Director, SHMHSA talked about the "big red slice." Reporting that most (almost 90%) of women who have a SA problem do not think that they need treatment. With effective treatment, that is from entry to a one year of nonuse, takes about three treatment episodes and nine years.
This suggests two things. First, we need to speed the impact of services. If we we could halve treatment length we could treat twice as many individuals for the same number of dollars. However, even with that we would not be able to provide services to more than 20% of individuals in need. Second, regardless of improvements in treatment services, in our current environment we have very little chance of getting enough services for all those in need. So - at least in economic terms - we best not teach the "big red slice" that they need services because there are none to be had. Better to keep them ignorant and placid than enlightened and demanding. Of course, from a moral and ethical perspective, this thinking is wildly inappropriate. These individuals need effective and accessible services, providing them would improve not only their lives but the lives of their children, partners, and communities. How can we afford not to do this?
0 comments so far...