Slashdot Mirror
Poorer Children More Likely To Get Antipsychotics
krou writes "A new study by a team from Rutgers and Columbia has discovered that poorer children are more likely to be given powerful antipsychotic drugs. According to the NY Times (login required), 'children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance. And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts.' It raises the question: 'Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them — but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?' Two possible explanations are offered: 'insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do,' and because of 'the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available.' The study is due to be published next year in the journal Health Affairs." The full article is available behind a paywall from the first link. The lead author of the study said he "did not have clear evidence to form an opinion on whether or not children on Medicaid were being overtreated."
I think the shoddy private insurance plans aren't dishing out enough antipsychotics compared to the better-managed state-run plans. Someone needs to put together a panel to look at ways to get private plans to step up to the plate and start dishing out antipsychotics on par with the state run plan!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Now if we could only put it in the water so everyone got them equally
There are many explanations, none of them happy-making
There's a drug for that.
The article mentions the 'poor' children and the 'middle class' children. What defines these classes? Is it a disservice, and perhaps bad analysis, to treat them as a class instead of individuals?
I hadn't realized there were so many advantages to having money. Next they'll be telling us that rich people get all the best houses too.
Maybe they were all okay with sharing.
"family-pack" of condoms!?!?!?!?!
So, that implies: one for dad, one for mom, one for daughter and one for son?
Or maybe, those should be called "anti-family-pack" of condoms?
Laws will not repress crimes of poverty. The real answer is for the society afflicted to make certain that no person suffers poverty.
Uh, so we put them out of their suffering?
That shows a very naive understanding of Christianity. Haven't you read the Gospel of Reagan?
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.