Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation H.R. 2646 (114th): Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2016
Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
H.R. 2646 (114th): Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2016
Description
The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2016 is a piece of legislation that was introduced to the House by Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa. And Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, in July 2016 and passed into law. The Act provided reforms in federal mental health policies and programs in a way that improved access to evidence-based care for individuals and families dealing with serious mental illness (SMI). Overall, H.R. 2646 aimed to promote early intervention and crisis response and provide better resources for entire families and individuals, including children struggling with mental health issues.
How was the success of the program or policy measured?
The success of H.R. 2646 (114th) was measured based on a number of intended outcomes after the legislation was enacted. These included assessing changes in the availability and accessibility of mental health services, evaluating the quality of care provided, monitoring the reduction of crisis situations related to mental health, and the effectiveness of preventative interventions for mental health. Other metrics include rates of suicide and attempts, emergency psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, incarcerations, victimization, and homelessness, as well as the percentage increase in grants for mental health.
How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?
The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2016 targeted the over 44 million Americans who experienced mental health issues annually. Notably, 18% of the U.S. population aged above 18 years has a type of mental health issue, 10 million aged above 18 years have a serious mental illness (SMI), and 2 million of the mentally ill never received treatment, while 200,000 homeless people and 300,000 jailed people have untreated mental issues (mentalillnesspolicy.org, n.d.). The Act has increased allocations for assisted outpatient treatment by $20 million annually and has supported the development of extensive evidence to support efforts made to reduce homelessness, arrest, violence, jailing, hospitalizations, and suicide among people with serious mental illness.
At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?
The Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make reports within six months of the implementation of the Act (Congressional Research Service, n.d.).
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
Evaluation data for the policy is diverse and focuses on the various provisions of the Act. These may include but are not limited to mental health information at the federal level, rates of reduction of homelessness, incarcerations, people with SMIs, statistics on mental health service utilization, crisis incidents, mental health patient outcomes, surveys, and the total number of mental health patients enrolled in the various programs provided for the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2016.
What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?
The H.R. 2646 (114th) eliminates the previous financial incentive to adopt assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) laws; however, it is not clear on information sharing and prohibits the use of federal funds in the lobby for mental health. It may also lead to discrimination against mental health practitioners with diplomas and degrees, as preference is given to doctors or psychologists with doctorate degrees.
What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.
Stakeholders include mental health practitioners and service providers, mental health patients and their families, schools and other education institutions, mental health facilities, government agencies such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), insurance companies, and advocacy groups. The major beneficiaries from the results and reporting would be individuals with mental health conditions and their families, as well as healthcare professionals.
Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
Work with us at nursingstudyhub, and help us set you up for success with your nursing school homework and assignments, as we encourage you to become a better nurse. Your satisfaction is our goal
