Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Feds probing psychiatric hospitals for locking in patients to boost profits

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Feds probing psychiatric hospitals for locking in patients to boost profits

#81

Post by dsego »

pdkl95 wrote: post #66
phren0logy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know of anywhere that has average stays anywhere near a month. Please provide a citation.

Does my three day involuntary hold (5150) that became a two week involuntary hold (5250) and then an unspecified (and very probably illegal) wait for an additional 4 days, because "we're waiting for the doctor to release you" count?. (yes, I know, one data point is not an average). I saw that doctor exactly 2 times during that time, for a cumulative total of maybe 3 minutes, who was simply a pusher of the latest (at…

Cipralex? According to my psych it also shouldn't cause sexual dysfunction, yeah right.

Re: Feds probing psychiatric hospitals for locking in patients to boost profits

#82

Post by babyrainbow »

thatcat wrote: post #78
babyrainbow wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I am just noting the curious juxtaposition of these two statements and how the same persons/community can accept both of them at the same time.. >Corporate entities have an obligation to do whatever they can legally get away with in order to maximize profits... >There is nothing remotely dubious regarding the enormous push for vaccinations, and we should applaud any measures that mandate the same. Some kind…

The argument for mandatory vaccines is that herd immunity protects everyone; if you allow a small population of a disease to survive it will mutate and new vaccines will be needed for everyone else. Wouldn't no vaccines be the most profitable for medical companies since many more people would then require constant treatment?

Ok. But you are still trusting that the concerned vaccines has been tested well by benevolent agents, and produced with 100% concern for the consumers/kids, right? Or you would not be so accepting of the same. Is that correct?

I was asking about this trust. Where does it come from. And how can it exist among people when the same people believe that "Corporate entities have an obligation to do whatever they can legally get away with in order to maximize profits..."

>Wouldn't no vaccines be the most profitable for medical companies since many more people would then require constant treatment?

Well. Think about it. You are a company producing 10 drugs that people get occasionally. Some of them have some kind of outbreak rarely. How will you mange production of these 10 drugs, when you have no idea of what the demand is going to be.

Contrast it with vaccines. That have a constantly growing (possibly at a known rate) demand. Also, it seems that companies are sheielded from vaccine related injuries [1]. So what would you prefer?

Just a thought.

[1] http://product-liability.lawyers.com/drug-medical-device-lit...

>The VICP was created by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The Act is designed to shield pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits in exchange for their continued efforts to make the vaccinations we need. So, because injured patients can't sue the drug companies, the VICP was created to pay them money damages.

Re: Feds probing psychiatric hospitals for locking in patients to boost profits

#83

Post by mabbo »

mistermann wrote: post #80
mabbo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Toronto. I've been to the ER here. We were seen promptly, given the right care, and paid no bill. The efficiencies gained by not wasting time on unneeded treatments, not having a billing department and not paying million dollar CEO compensations, these outweigh, in my opinion and experience, any gains we might have via privatization.

4 to 8 hour waits are fairly routine from what I've heard (Western Canada anyways). Not advocating privatization, just pointing out that the Canadian system is far from the utopia that many Canadians tend to suggest (when the topic is socialized medicare in an international forum.....when the topic is discussed within Canada, many people's opinions deteriorate significantly.)

Well, the Western provinces are very Conservative and don't want to properly fund their health care system. It saves them money on taxes, at the cost of their health. It's a choice they make.

If you ask me, their governments do this so that they can argue "See? this is broken! We need to privatize!"

Re: Feds probing psychiatric hospitals for locking in patients to boost profits

#84

Post by metaphorm »

hashkb wrote: post #74
DanBC wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you sure you are a psychologist? Do you know the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist? Many people don't, but in the context of this conversation it's pretty important.

I assume anyone who works in mental health is familiar with the basics of empathy. Yes, I am familiar with the difference. I believe psychiatry is a subclass of psychology.

psychiatry is a subclass of Medical Doctor. a psychiatrist is definitely a doctor and not necessarily a clinical psychologist.

Re: Feds probing psychiatric hospitals for locking in patients to boost profits

#85

Post by mistermann »

mabbo wrote: post #83
mistermann wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4 to 8 hour waits are fairly routine from what I've heard (Western Canada anyways). Not advocating privatization, just pointing out that the Canadian system is far from the utopia that many Canadians tend to suggest (when the topic is socialized medicare in an international forum.....when the topic is discussed within Canada, many people's opinions deteriorate significantly.)

Well, the Western provinces are very Conservative and don't want to properly fund their health care system. It saves them money on taxes, at the cost of their health. It's a choice they make. If you ask me, their governments do this so that they can argue "See? this is broken! We need to privatize!"

Are you pointing this out as a vulnerability of the public model?

Re: Feds probing psychiatric hospitals for locking in patients to boost profits

#86

Post by mabbo »

mistermann wrote: post #85
mabbo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the Western provinces are very Conservative and don't want to properly fund their health care system. It saves them money on taxes, at the cost of their health. It's a choice they make. If you ask me, their governments do this so that they can argue "See? this is broken! We need to privatize!"

Are you pointing this out as a vulnerability of the public model?

Oh, definitely. It's probably it's biggest catch- you have to have a people who want to pay the taxes needed to fund it, knowing that in the long run they'll save money.

But that requires long term thinking, which we're bad at as a species...

Re: Feds probing psychiatric hospitals for locking in patients to boost profits

#87

Post by mistermann »

mabbo wrote: post #86
mistermann wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you pointing this out as a vulnerability of the public model?

Oh, definitely. It's probably it's biggest catch- you have to have a people who want to pay the taxes needed to fund it, knowing that in the long run they'll save money. But that requires long term thinking, which we're bad at as a species...

This article suggests spending is fairly uniform across provinces, with the west not really standing out as spending less, Alberta being even higher, and I know there are long wait times in Alberta.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/conference-board-of-ca...

So money seems not to be the problem. I'm pro-single-payer, but I also have a very large philosophical problem with the fact that people who would like to choose to spend their discretionary income on extra/better/faster healthcare are not allowed to. If I've worked my ass off my whole life, I don't think I should have to wait in line behind someone who sat on the couch eating chips their whole life. I'm happy to pay his bill, just don't make me wait in line behind him. There should be additional resources for those of us willing to spend additional money.

Re: Feds probing psychiatric hospitals for locking in patients to boost profits

#88

Post by Doxin »

phkahler wrote: post #48
entropy128 wrote: post #4

This is an appropriate article to comment with the Rosenhan Experiment. From Wikipedia: The study involved the use of healthy associates or "pseudopatients" who briefly feigned auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different states in various locations in the United States. All were admitted and diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. After admission, the…

That's an interesting experiment, but what was the expected outcome? The deliberately feigned illness to get in and then reverted to completely normal. That's not a class of patient that is ever expected to show up. How would someone expect those cases to be handled and why?

You'd at the very least expect medical experts to be able to identify non-ill people. That part of the experiment isn't the most damning though, The part where they told hospitals they'd repeat the experiment and then didn't is. Suddenly the hospitals managed to finger many of their patients as pseudopatients when in fact they weren't even part of the experiment.

So yeah, a mental health industry that can't differentiate between sane and insane in either direction scares me.

Re: Feds probing psychiatric hospitals for locking in patients to boost profits

#89

Post by roninb »

will_brown wrote: post #51
roninb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you possibly do the same for your numbers: "less than 4 days"? I trust that you're a psychiatrist but you could be spewing old or incorrect numbers just as easily as anyone else who may unknowingly make a mistake.

In Florida we have the Baker Act, which is common knowledge in FL outside even mental healthcare circles, and is a 72 hour involuntary institutionalization for examination. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act

Right, but that's only for attempted suicide and it doesn't mean they aren't kept AFTER. I was looking for a citation that suggests involuntary stays are shorter than a month on average, saying that there is a minimum of 3 days in some cases doesn't give me an answer to that.
Post reply on HN