Ashley’s Blog

The month of May is recognized as such, and members of the behavioral health community customarily use this opportunity to hold special events and to educate the public on mental health-related issues.  These activities generally aim to reduce stigma associated with mental and behavioral health concerns and to secure additional resources in pursuit of our shared missions. This observance is especially timely, as we are witnessing an unprecedented surge in the incidence of anxiety, depression, and other mental health conditions.  It seems no populations are exempt from this, but it has been especially acute among children and adolescents.  Much has been (and will continue to be) written on the subject as public health experts, elected officials, and countless others speculate on its causes and potential

Each May, we celebrate the progress of the recovery movement and acknowledge many obstacles yet to be overcome.  The COVID pandemic presents a singular challenge to the mental health of so many this year, and not merely because it poses grave physical and economic hazards injurious to emotional stability.  Interventions designed to mitigate the risk of infection (e.g., “social distancing”) cause individuals with mental health concerns to endure isolation and all its attendant ills.  Measures critical to public safety threaten to deprive us of positive and affirming social connections integral to our health and wellbeing and to undermine the recovery of the most vulnerable among us. It is thus incumbent on the behavioral health community to facilitate “physical distancing” and “social connectedness.”  To this end,

I was fully in favor of the legalization of marijuana for recreational use…until recently.  This might come as a surprise to some.  For the past 25 years, I’ve worked in the behavioral healthcare field and witnessed the adverse effects of various substances (both legal and illicit) on vulnerable individuals.  Why would I support any policy shift that would make marijuana (or any other harmful substance) more readily available? I suppose the libertarian in me always drew a bright conceptual line between the roles of public health and law enforcement authorities.  I believe it’s generally ill-advised to consume a gallon of ice cream in one sitting, but I would never support legislation to prohibit it.  And so the logic goes. But marijuana isn’t mocha almond fudge

The behavioral health field has become more sensitive to the impact our language has on vulnerable persons.  This promising, but still relatively recent, development reveals our emerging awareness certain words, phrases and labels betray pejorative beliefs and perpetuate stigma.  They also shape and reinforce the identities of those to whom they are applied.  How many of us have referred to individuals entrusted to our care as “schizophrenic,” “bipolar” or “borderline?” Thankfully, we have dispensed with such appellations in favor of “person-first” language that no longer equates individuals with their diagnoses.  A “person with schizophrenia” is not defined by his condition any more than a “person with blond hair” is defined by his.  (That is not to suggest there is not something inherently insidious in the

In recent years, our health and behavioral healthcare systems have begun to embrace alternative provider payment models designed to enhance the value of the services they deliver.  That such an approach is considered an “alternative” (or even innovative by some standards) is truly remarkable.  Imagine purchasing a car, dishwasher or gym membership without any consideration of their value (i.e., the benefits they confer relative to the resources expended to acquire them).  In no other domain would we commit our capital to goods or services with such little regard for their utility or impact on our welfare. So why has this peculiar exception prevailed within the healthcare industry for so long?  One could easily fill an ocean liner with actuaries, economists, policy specialists, industry insiders (and