Three surprising ways government is reducing the stigma around mental health care

When it comes to mental health advocacy, you may have heard of organizations like the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). And you may know of champions of mental health like NBA player Kevin Love or tennis legend Serena Williams. In the corporate world, businesses like AT&T and Bank of America have established themselves as leaders in mental health through their efforts to support both their employees and their communities with additional funding for mental health initiatives.

But you may have rarely stopped to consider how our three branches of government, namely the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, are each destigmatizing mental health care.

At Orchid, we often think about how the decisions of each branch impact our day-to-day lives and how they impact discussions about mental health care.

After all, government actions matter: for example, by sanctioning an idea in a formal way, the government attaches greater value to that idea, and it anchors it in the public’s mind.

So, when a president issues an executive order to increase mental health care funding, Congress passes a law improving access to mental health care, or a judge issues a report on mental well-being, the government is formally destigmatizing mental health care. These actions attach value to it by challenging long-held—and erroneous—beliefs about mental health. This is good news for individuals who are seeking care and for society as a whole.

Below we explore how the government is destigmatizing mental health. We found ourselves surprised when we learned of some of these ways – perhaps you will be, too:

How the Executive Branch is Reducing Stigma around Mental Health

The Biden-Harris Administration has put forward a?comprehensive national strategy?to address our mental health crisis: from increased funding for federal agencies supporting mental health care to greater resources to address mental health care needs, our current administration has proposed a whopping $27 billion in discretionary funding and another $100 billion in mandatory funding over 10 years to transform mental health services.

One of this administration’s most lauded developments is the revamp of the national suicide prevention hotline: launched this past July and promoted as the 911 emergency outreach for mental health, this lifeline is spearheaded by the Department of Health and Human Services, which spent roughly $400 million to help implement the service.

With reports showing hotlines can help resolve up to 80% of crises, this is a welcome tool in our fight against mental health care stigma and comes at a time of a devastating mental health crisis, especially among young people. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), suicide was the second leading cause of death for Americans between the ages 10 to 14 and of 25 to 34. By providing folks in a crisis a better alternative to dialing 911, this administration is helping normalize mental health crisis outreach and informing the public that mental health crises need to be dealt with by experts and not necessarily by law enforcement.

The Legislative’s Spate of Bills Related to Mental Health

?Mental healthcare is one of the few topics that generally receives bipartisan support from members of Congress.

?Personally, we are surprised by what is happening in the legislative branch directly and indirectly to support mental health: in addition to a spate of regulatory waivers and bills that have made it easier to provide mental health services on the phone and internet, a majority of states have full parity for insurance reimbursements for both telehealth and in-person visits, and 20 states have made their parity arrangements permanent. States are also easing regulatory burdens by permitting providers to store-and-forward medical information, remote patient monitoring, and cross-state licensing.

?One might worry that these changes are temporary, but evidence points the other way. In addition, it is difficult to take away benefits once the public grows used to them.

The Judicial Branch and Well-Being

?When we think of lawyers, we think of professionals who are paid for their judgment. But what happens when lawyers suffer from an imbalance in their mental health? For a long time, that could jeopardize a promising legal career.

However, in a recent turn of events, the judiciary has been less focused on keeping those with mental health issues out of the bar and more focused on treating those who need it.

In a 2017 report setting forth global recommendations for mental health reform, the American Bar Association’s National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being wrote: “To be a good lawyer, one has to be a healthy lawyer.” This report was in response to the mental health crisis facing members of the judiciary: across the country, state bar associations have had to deal with suicide rates that are greater than three times the national average.

With many of our colleagues being lawyers, we know that many in this profession struggle. The legal community has responded with surprising reforms to address mental health and substance abuse issues: bar associations have created well-being or quality-of-life task forces or committees; state courts have held wellness conferences, law schools have started wellness podcasts and mandatory mental health training; and powerful, lionized attorneys have shared vulnerable and detailed accounts of their struggles with mental health.

These are important strides in the right direction. In our view, though, the biggest and most important change is that lawyers are becoming aware of mental health issues much earlier in their careers than before, and they are being asked less often to disclose any problems they’re having. State bars such as the New York State Bar Association have been removing questions about mental health from their bar applications.

Today, students are less likely to avoid treatment out of fear of career repercussions, for instance not being able to pass the Character & Fitness portion of bar admission because of battles with mental health in the past. In other words, they are being provided a more supportive environment to be mentally healthy lawyers.

Making mental health care legitimate

With the government increasingly working to destigmatize mental health care, mental health has become less taboo and more legitimate for the public. And even if the national mood towards mental health becomes more negative in the future, it’ll be much harder to overturn that progress.

With that said, a lot of work remains: most of the government support empowers those seeking therapy, but there are not enough clinicians to go around for the increased demand that is being generated.

We look forward to the day when the three branches address this imbalance too.