FOR RELEASE

UPON DELIVERY

THE GADFLY ROLE OF PRIVATE PSYCHIATRY
Address at
31st Annual Meeting, National Association of Private Psychiatric Hospitals
Wednesday Morning, January 22, 1964
Galt Ocean Mile Hotel, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
by
MIKE GORMAN, Washington, D. C.

Executive Director, NATIONAL COMMITTEE AGAINST MENTAL ILLNESS
Member, NATIONAL ADVISORY MENTAL HEALTH COUNCIL, U.S.P.H.S.

I suppose all things psychiatric on the American scene start with a dutiful
tribute to Dr. Benjamin Rush, but in this tnstance something more than duty compels
me to invoke his spirit.

During his thirty years at the Pennsylvania Hospital, Rush was essentially engaged
in educating the public as to the needs of the mentally i11. Challenging the prevalent
concept that the insane were insensible to the physical surroundings which they inhabited,
he persuaded the Pennsylvania Legislature to vote money for a separate wing to house |
the mentally ill. Convinced that idleness led to deterioration, he was a leading
advocate of occupational therapy. |

In the early decades of the 19th century, the era of moral treatment emphasized
the worth and the dignity of every individual mental patient, no matter how sick or
alienated he might be. The pilot experiments in moral treatment were conducted in the
private psychiatric institutions of that time -~ Friends' Asylum in Pennsylvania, McLean
Asylum in Massachusetts, Bloomingdale Asylum in New York, and the Hartford Retreat in

Connecticut.
page two

I mention these early bits of psychiatric history to emphasize the point that the
private psychiatric hospitals, in the words and deeds of their physicians and staffs,
have made an enormous contribution toward molding both the public image of psychiatry
and, more importantly, toward a more compassionate image of those suffering from mental
illness.

In the present century, this role of private psychiatry as both gadfly and advocate
of decent, humane care for the mentally ill has moved much closer to the center of the
stage in our democracy. In these endeavors, the impact of private psychiatric hospitals
has far outweighed such mundane yardsticks as the percentage of private psychiatric beds
in relation to the total number of psychiatric beds in this country.

For example the Menninger Clinic, a small hospital out on the windswept plains of
Kansas, has played a key role in lifting levels of care for the mentally i11 not only
in that state, but in the entire Veterans Administration system and in many state hospital
systems throughout the country. Dr. Will Menninger's appearances before more than a
score of state legislatures have had an incalculable effect in nurturing a deepened public
conscience leading to an increasing impatience with the dreary, custodial patterns of the
past.

Dr. Francis Braceland of the Institute of Living has participated over the past
decade in a unique experiment, in cooperation with "The Hartford Courant", in bringing
progressive psychiatric principles to the attention of the general public. In many
years of testifying before Congressional committees, Dr. Braceland has performed a
notable task in giving the Congress a clearer idea of the public duty and the public

responsibility with regard to the mentally ill.
page three

Many of the psychiatric leaders at the Institute of the Pennsylvania Hospital --
Earl Bond, Edward Strecker, Lauren Smith and Kenneth Appel -- have participated actively
in this broad educational process. Of particular importance is the contribution of Dr.
Appel who in 1953, as President of the American Psychiatric Assoctlation, first formu-
lated the concept of the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health.

Time does not permit more than a mention of additional contributions from the area
of private psychiatry -- Dr. Leo Bartemeier of the Seton Institute and his work as the
first Chairman of the Council on Mental Health of the American Medical Association and
the Chairman of the Board of the Joint Commission; Dr. Robert Garber of the Carrier
Clinic and his work with the general practitioners and with the District Assembly
Branches of the American Psychiatric Association; and many more too numerous to list here.

In assessing these influences, however, one must take note of the fact that a hard
line of separation between private and public psychiatry has more frequently been the
rule rather than the exception,

In the 1940's as I toured both public and private institutions for the mentally
ill in this country, I found that private psychiatry, as a general rule, was little
concerned with the large public institutions where the great bulk of the mentally i11
was confined, |

Topeka in 1945 is a nice illustration of this point. The Menninger Clinic, beauti-
fully staffed and handsomely appointed, gave the most intensive care to the few who
could afford it. A short distance away, the Winter VA Hospital was in the process of
developing a good quality of public psychiatric care for veterans for whom the federal
government paid the bill. At the bottom of the ladder, and again only a short distance
away, the Topeka State Hospital gave, at a cost of one dollar a day, the lowest level of

care to patients who were wards of the state.
page four

When the Menninger School of Psychiatry assumed the responsibility, under both
state and federal allocations, for training personnel at both the Winter VA Hospital
and the Topeka State Hospital, the artifical lines of separation gradually began to
disappear. It was difficult to maintain rigidly distinct jurisdictional entities when
you had psychiatric residents, psychological interns and other trainees rotating through
all installations -- federal, state and private,

I do not mean to imply that all distinctions have been leveled -- that the average
state mental institution is now, in reality, a therapeutic hospital. However, I do
state categorically that the feudal baronies of the mad, run by uncertified Emperors,
are fast becoming a thing of the past.

Of course, the problem of ability to pay for psychiatric care is still very much
with us. The recent studies of Redlich and Hollingshead and the Cornell Surveys in New
York City offer poignant evidence of the close relationship between economic status and
availability of psychiatric care.

The essence of the major mental health legislation proposed by President Kennedy,
and enacted by the Congress last year, is that isolation and warehousing of the mentally
ill is no longer acceptable in our society. In proposing mental health centers in
general hospitals and in other community locations, it dramatizes the concept that the
mentally i11 are to receive equal time with the physically ill.

This is a new mix and, for a while, there will be a considerable degree of insecurity
as familiar walls are torn down and new services created which are tailored to the needs
of the patient rather than to the availability of real estate or the power needs of an
uncertified Emperor.

All will not be new -- in much that we create we can build upon the extraordinary

ferment which has characterized American psychiatry for the last decade or more,
page five

I could cite so many examples of this kind of experimentation. In Georgia, the
state supports treatment in psychiatric units in general hospitals in five major cities;
the important point here is that this program really began as fee-for-service support
of private psychiatric treatment; this uncovered the need for beds in which local
psychiatrists could hospitalize their patients.

In Delaware, and in several other states, private psychiatrists have been given
staff privileges in state institutions. They can -hospitalize their patients in these
public hospitals, so the ancient closed staff concept goes by the boards.

In the fifteen year history of the training programs of the National Institute of
Mental Health, there is illustrated a diversity which crosses all artificial jurisdiction-
al lines,

From its inception, the NIMH has appraved training programs in all types of
settings -- state hospitals, university teaching hospitals, general hospitals, and
private psychiatric hospitals. The emphasis has been properly placed upon the particular
teaching competence of the facility, rather than upon an artificial concentration on
any one type of institution as the best one for training purposes.

I must confess that in the early years of this endeavor, I had some reservations
concerning the use of public funds to train professionals who subsequently went into
private practice and related activities. I no longer have these reservations. Faced
with tremendous shortages of psychiatric manpower, all of us can defend enthusiastically
the proposition that graduates of these training programs contribute to the nation's
needs wherever they serve. As several recent statistical studies of the NIMH have
pointed out, the graduate trainee who restricts his activities to private practice

alone is indeed a rarity. Private practitioners of psychiatry are involved in teaching,
page six

in research, in the staffing of psychiatric units in general hospitals, and in many
aspects of public psychiatry at the community level.

In recent years, the private psychiatric hospitals have assumed enormously increased
responsibilities in the training of psychiatric residents and other members of the
psychiatric team. Furthermore, some of the finest programs for the training of general
practitioners in psychiatric skills have been conducted at these hospitals.

As we move into the new era of psychiatric enlightenment, we must weigh much more
carefully the relative contributions which can be made by the diverse facilities which
increasingly enrich the contemporary scene. Just as there will be an opportunity for
the state institution -- strengthened and revamped -- to achieve the capability of a
truly therapeutic hospital, so there will be a place for the unique contributions of the
private psychiatric hospital,

I need not remind you that your greatest problem centers around the cost of private
psychiatric care. However, there are many psychiatric units in general hospitals caught
in the same rising spiral of high costs, so that solutions applicable to many kinds of
organizations will have to be found.

Virtually the same problems loomed large a generation ago in financing the care of
the physically ill. With the advent of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, increasing coverage
of illness by commercial insurance companies, and health coverage benefits negotiated
by labor and management, revolutionary steps were taken to reduce the dollar barrier
to decent medical care.

In the next decade or two, comparable efforts must be launched in the psychiatric
area, While significant progress has been made during the past decade in persuading

a number of insurance carriers to cover mental illness for a limited period of time, it
page seven

is still true that there is an unjustifiable gap between those plans which provide
fairly adequate coverage and those which either exclude mental illness or provide bene-
fits ridiculously limited in scope.

The solution is not an easy one -- it will require a great deal of effort. As one
who has participated over the past fifteen years at the state level in this endeavor to
obtain better actuarial coverage of mental illness, I can only say to you that you must
redouble your efforts to convince state officials and the public at large that discrim-
ination by insurance carriers against mental illness in an unwarranted vestige of the
past.

You have some potent allies in achieving this important objective. In November,
1962, the National Governors' Conference passed a resolution calling for the coverage
of mental illness on the same basis as physical illness. In several position statements,
the American Medical Association has done likewise.

The essential job is to translate these national pronouncements into a meaningful
activity at the local level.

In that connection, I am impressed with recent activities here in Florida. Several
months ago, I met with the attorriey who is the Chairman of the Insurance Committee of the
Florida Association for Mental Health. His committee includes several psychiatrists, a
number of insurance executives and, quite significantly, the Deputy Insurance Commi ssion-
er of Florida. The committee has released several news letters pointing out that the
general and private psychiatric hospitals in Florida each year not only treat far more
patients than are admitted to the state's mental hospitals, but have an extraordinarily
high batting average in preventing the majority of patients so treated from being

shunted on to a state institution.
page eight

The challenge you face here is but another illustration of the point that, in the
new scheme of things, your problems are shared by others.

As we build tax-supported community mental health centers throughout the country,
we will run smack up against the problem of who is going to pay for their operation.

In many states, the present heavy expenditures for state hospitals and clinics will make
it very difficult to persuade legislators to appropriate the full amount for the operation
of community centers. Since most of the patients coming to these centers will be unable
to defray the costs of treatment, the solution is again in the direction of increased
coverage by insurance carriers. I submit that it is in your interest to enlist in this
educational process, for you cannot help but benefit..by any extension of the spectrum

and scope of private health insurance coverage.

To those of you who are threatened by ‘the emergence of the tax-supported community
psychiatric center -- and some of you have communicated your fears to me -- may I politely
suggest that you view these fears clinically as an inappropriate response to external
events? Unfortunately, there are more than enough patients; waiting lists and crowded
schedules will characterize all facilities for many, many years to come.

You can, if you will, play a vital role in the incubation and hatching of these
new centers. Your vast experience in developing intensive treatment services for the
mentally i11 in small hospitals can be of indispensable value in the planning efforts
now going on in every state in the country. Your intimate and sometimes unhappy knowledge
of the economic burden of psychiatric care can serve as a chastening and restraining
influence upon those who would plan too much with too little.

In a very real sense, all of us face a very difficult period of trial and decision

in the next few years. Change is never easy, particularly when a break is to be made
page nine

with patterns and traditions which have existed for almost two centuries. TI have travel-
ed to a number of states where the planning process is in full bloom, and I must confess
that the sound and fury is sometimes discomforting. However, out of such sound and
fury at town meetings throughout the land the American Revolution was born.

That Revolution was blessed with many strong leaders who spoke out forthrightly
on the issues of the day.

I appeal to you to provide similar leadership as we go about the great task of
creating a revolution in the care of the mentally ill. A whole new frontier of the

mind is awaiting to be explored and settled, and all of us must participate in a total

commitment to this exciting venture.

- 30 -