Poorer Children More Likely To Get Antipsychotics

[Woody]

There is a report out in the USA today that claims that "poorer children are more likely to be given powerful anti-psychotic drugs."

Normally anti-psychotic are given for Schizophrenia and Bipolar and more and more depression but in this case it is for the treatment of "less extreme conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, aggression, persistent defiance or other so-called conduct disorders" It goes on to say that this is more prevalent with patients who are covered by Medicaid.

The article goes on to explain some of the other disparities between the classes when it comes down to treatment of mental illness.

This is a little outside of our 'jurisdiction' but the trend is still concerning.

Read more here

[paul m]

Hello Woody. The researchers use big numbers to get news coverage, but that is not unusual. The numbers broken down show that about 6% of all the kids with mental health problems in the US get antipsychotics. That in itself is not huge. Although the fact that the poor get shafted is unfair.

However the news coverage as printed raises a very valid and scarey point that with all of the GOOD therapy available today, far too many are being treated people(adults and kids) with meds of all types. Don't get me wrong I think meds are needed, but alternatives should be explored.

As far as costs go insurers can be incredibly stupid, being a big corporation doesn't always make them smart. My average mthly bill to my insurer is about $150 amth or $1800 a yr. A few years ago I approched them and asked about seeing a pyschologists, no deal. You would think they would come to me and ask if their was an alternative treatment I would take.

Good link Woody, thx for printing it. Take Care. paul m

[leila63]

The question I have is why in the US would be giving kids anti-psychotic meds when they cost so much. Mine without insurance is around $300/month probably way more in the US and I would think that poor kids would be part of the 35 million uninsured. Is it typical anti-psychotic? That is just wrong on so many levels.

[paul m]

Hello Leila63. I agree. Unfortunately in Canada we have the same sort of problem. Often drugs must be first offence to get a person stable but after that I don't understand the big push on meds unless necessary. Take Care. paul m

[uni]

Got to get on the bandwagon here. Of course meds have their place, that's why they exist. That said, it pains me to see them given out almost like candy. A relative of mine takes in foster children and I swear the pdoc is using them as guinea pigs to see what works. I can see adults taking mixtures of meds - we are in charge of our own lives - but kids are not.

I'll stop writing now before I get going on "too-many-kids-are-suffering-thanks-to-social-so-called-services".

[Woody]

I would imagine a kid would not need as much as I would, but I could be wrong on that.

We all know that meds and counselling is the best way to proceed.
We also know that without meds counselling would probably be ineffective as you need to be somewhat stable for therapy to work
But you can get away with just medicating and not providing counselling
Bean-counting 101

[paul m]

Two really big problems with giving kids antipsychotics. (there are more)

1) kids are not small adults. Their bodies work have much different metabolism rates than adults and many other differences. A dosage for a 160 lb adult just cannot be cut in half for an 80 lb kid.

2) There are very few long term studies on kids. Its just not possible. I mean an 6 yr old could not involved in a 10 yr study, whereas a 30 yr old could. As well long term problems like TD where risk is known to increase with long term usage, may not be a real big issue for a 55 yr old. But for a ten yr old? Not to mention the long term risk of diabetes etc known to be associated with antipsychotics.Take Care . paul m

[Woody]

I think my Pdoc used the word elasticity of the younger brain prior to a certain age. Sorry I cannot remember the exact details.

I guess the only way that you could judge if the drugs had a positive or negative result is finding that person 10 years down the road and seeing how they are now?