Has behavioral health always been the red-headed step-child in terms of research and funding levels? If these levels of research and funding followed the severity and reach of mental illness and addiction, might we see the following results? What if behavioral health funding were equal to say cancer funding or heart disease funding or diabetes funding?
- For one we would have adequate beds to treat people who needed inpatient care for behavioral health or addiction.
2. For another, we would have adequate funding to develop psychotropic drugs and other interventions without such severe side effects as weight gain and Type II Diabetes onset and memory loss.
3. Additionally, we would be treating war veterans for mental health and addiction impacts that can go untreated.
4. Fourthly, we would have enough resources to fund the Cohort Model discussed previously for people experiencing a significant event or setback.
5. Fifthly, with more co-mingling of people with and without a behavioral health diagnosis we might be able to reduce stigma substantially.
6. Finally and most importantly, by being proactive in our behavioral health and addiction programs in the United States, we may be able to develop some early warning signs among people struggling with depression and/or paranoid thoughts and/or addiction so that we can care for those patients before their symptoms become dire.