When a majority of people across the globe today think of chronic health disorders and conditions, they assumedly think of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and cancer. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that alongside these and other similar physical disorders, mental health conditions are among the commonest chronic conditions and illnesses facing many people today. The United States and California, in particular, have an influx of individuals suffering from various mental illnesses. However, very insignificant numbers of people having these conditions are accorded the medical care they deserve, and this thus constitutes a social injustice that calls for exponentially effective measures and policy frameworks to ensure proper health and general wellbeing of the patients.
In California today, at least one in every six adults experiences a mental illness or condition of some type (Teare & Gaines, 2018). Further, one in every twenty-four adults has a serious mental illness that consequently results in functional impairments, which significantly limit their daily routines and activities. In addition, teenagers and children usually experience mental health illnesses at relatively high rates also, with one in every thirteen children and teenagers facing emotional disturbances, which thus limit participation in normal and regular activities. As such, while mental health conditions can be managed successfully in general, way too many individuals in California miss out on effective treatment plans, as there is significantly inadequate or limited access to healthcare services for the mentally ill in the State.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is important to note that the Federal and California State mental health parity legislation alongside the Affordable Care Act have significantly expanded public and private insurance coverage for persons suffering from any mental health illness or condition. Parity, which essentially relates to substance abuse and mental health, prohibits healthcare service schemes and insurers from discriminating between medical coverage schemes offered for people with mental illnesses or serious mental health conditions, substance abuse, alongside any other physical disorders. That said, federal and California parity laws require that insurers provide equivalent levels of benefits to individuals with mental illnesses, and these include visit limits, copayments, deductibles, a lifetime as well as annual limits (Cauchi & Hanson, 2015).
This legislation was positively received and welcomed by a huge majority of residents who had faith in its salience, especially in its role in ensuring mentally ill individuals led productive and healthy lives ahead. Inasmuch as these legislations and policies are well-intended and meant for the general good of the society and livelihoods of people suffering from mental illnesses, they have not been fully efficient in combating the social injustice of inadequate healthcare services for this subgroup of people. As such, in spite of the availability of the parity laws, coverage plans and the tremendous belief in its consequent effectiveness and efficiency, access to proper healthcare remains a great setback for many people. According to a report by the California Health Care Foundation, an estimated two-thirds of adults living with mental illnesses do not receive any treatment whatsoever. When it comes to children and teenagers with depression and other illnesses, only a third of them received proper treatment (Teare & Gaines, 2018). This worrying trend further manifests the extremes that this social injustice has reached, thus calling for more effective measures to ensure easy access to healthcare, for people living with various mental illness conditions.
Furthermore, California State faces the challenge of having the inadequate personnel and proficient workforce to essentially meet the various needs of residents having mental health conditions. According to research, there is a significant variation in terms of the distribution of mental healthcare specialists and providers across California state, thus leaving many areas with dire need of the healthcare services, with very few providers and, therefore, limited services (Coffman, Bates, Geyn, & Spetz, 2018). Moreover, it is noteworthy that a significant number of experienced psychologists and psychiatrists are due for retirement in the next decade, thus further compromising the situation. For this reason, therefore, California state must take radical and very substantial investments forthwith, in a bid to meet future requirements for behavioral health specialists and professionals.
The shortage of mental health professionals that California is suffering is projected to further increase tremendously, and this will thereby make it even harder for California residents with mental illnesses to access the medical healthcare services that they require. Federal regulations categorically stipulate that for an area to be considered to having a significant shortage or inadequacy of healthcare providers, the area must statistically have a population-to-provider ratio theorem of a particular threshold. With regards to mental health issues, the population to provider ration should be at least 30,000 to 1 (Holzer, 2018). This is, therefore, one of the greatest ethical dilemma or problem facing this social injustice for people living with mental illnesses, especially considering that the population to provider ratio set by the federal and state governments is far-stretched and thus unstainable. In this regard, California thus faces a significant shortage, especially considering that there is a great gap between the supply and availability of behavioral health specialists and the ever-rising demand for mental and behavioral health professionals. Low rates of compensation and reimbursement, burdensome documentation requirements, aging of the current personnel or workforce, and restrictive regulations especially regarding sharing clinical data essential for coordinating care are notable reasons for the apparent shrinkage.
On the flip side, California has the potential to do better especially in providing treatment for mental illness cases in the state. Firstly, the State is fortunate to have state legislation and policies such as equal medical coverage plans and others that support easy access to healthcare and insurance. The state also has a rich source of funding and support from the Mental Health Services Act, MHSA, which will essentially contribute roughly 2 billion dollars, and a significant chunk of these funds will be delivered to the county mental programs, purposely to expand and revamp community services (Teare & Gaines, 2018). Additionally, local communities are primarily utilizing opportunities within the Medi-Cal scheme, to integrate the issue of behavioral healthcare better. These are, therefore, some of the various modalities that are being incorporated to adequately address mental health in California, although a lot more needs to be encompassed to address this highly critical social justice issue fully.
To effectively handle the subject of the ever-growing numbers of mental illness cases in California today, which is a pertinent social justice issue, there are various advocacy methods to support this social group. People with mental health conditions such as depression and suicidal tendencies need to be given utter attention, and should thus be asked what they need with the aim of helping them without any judgments. In addition, professional help from nearby mental health facilities should be provided especially considering that appropriate and timely treatment can critically help to reduce the burden and ramifications of mental illnesses (Tran & Ponce, 2017) .
In conclusion, the lack of sufficient healthcare services specifically for people with mental health conditions is an integral social justice issue that discerns utter consideration. While there are important legislation and parity laws that are wired at feasibly dealing with this social group, challenges in accessing healthcare services still exist. To combat this, recommendations include increasing the numbers of professional psychiatrists and revamping models of care, reducing geographical maldistribution, and increasing the collection, analysis as well as dissemination of workforce data, among others.
References
Cauchi, R., & Hanson, K. (December 30, 2015). Mental Health Benefits: State Laws Mandating or Regulating. National Conference of State Legislatures .
Coffman, J., Bates, T., Geyn, I., & Spetz, J. (February 12, 2018). California’s Current and Future Behavioral Health Workforce. University of California Publications .
Holzer, H. (July 11, 2018). California needs more mental health professionals – and the shortage will get worse, experts say. The Sacramento Bee Journals .
Teare, C., & Gaines, R. (March 28, 2018). Many Californians Have Coverage, but Not Care, for Mental Health Conditions. California Health Care Foundation Journals .
Tran, L., & Ponce, N. (2017). Who Gets Needed Mental Health Care? Use of Mental Health Services among Adults with Mental Health Need in California. Calif J Health Promot Journal , 36-44.
