A.D.H.D. Study Suggests Links Between Medication and Fewer Crimes By PAM BELLUCK Published: November 21, 2012 FACEBOOK TWITTER GOOGLE+ SAVE E-MAIL SHARE PRINT REPRINTS
A large study suggests that people with serious attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are less likely to commit crimes when taking medication. Related
Well: Younger Students More Likely to Get A.D.H.D. Drugs (November 20, 2012) Health Guide: ADHD The study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, examined records of 25,000 people in Sweden to see if those with A.D.H.D. had fewer criminal convictions when taking medication than when they were not.
Of 8,000 people whose medication use fluctuated over a three-year period, men were 32 percent less likely and women were 41 percent less likely to have criminal convictions while on medication. Patients were primarily young adults, many with a history of hospitalization. Crimes included assault, drug offenses and homicide as well as less serious crimes. Medication varied, but many took stimulants like Ritalin.
“The study adds a lot,” said Dr. Gabrielle Carlson, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Stony Brook University medical school, who was not involved in the study. “Cutting the crime rate, that’s not trivial. Maybe it will get some help for people in jail. It gives people who were on the fence maybe a little more confidence in this treatment.”
Studies suggest that people with A.D.H.D. are more likely to commit crimes. And while people, especially boys, are often prescribed medication as children, they often resist taking it as teenagers. Studies have not shown that medication has long-term effects on symptoms.
Dr. Paul Lichtenstein, a study author and a professor at Karolinska Institute, cautioned against concluding that everyone with A.D.H.D. should be continuously medicated.
“There are pros and cons to medication,” he said. But “in young adults, the age where criminality is most common, you should consider medication because it is more harmful for these people to be involved in criminal activities. Also for prisoners and people who have left prison.”
Researchers said that correlations between medication and decreased crime held regardless of the type of medication or crime and the presence of other disorders. They tried to determine if patients stopped treatment because of criminal convictions, but found that treatment itself appeared linked to fewer crimes.
Among psychiatric experts, when, and sometimes whether, to prescribe A.D.H.D. medication is still debated. Drugs do not work for everyone, and side effects can include jittery feelings and suppressed appetite and growth.
William Pelham, director of the Center for Children and Families at Florida International University, said nondrug therapies like behavioral modification worked as well as medication in the short run. He said that the study did not prove that medication caused less criminality, and because most subjects were seriously ill adults, the results were irrelevant for most American children.
Jason Fletcher, an associate professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said that despite some weaknesses, the study provided a “very suggestive piece of evidence” supporting medication. “Because crime is so expensive, if you can reduce it, even by half of what they’re saying, you might still say this is really effective medication.”
He did wonder if medication is reducing crime or “making better criminals,” who avoid arrest. Dr. Lichtenstein deemed that unlikely. “I don’t think you would commit the crime,” he said, “and then just not get caught.”
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
HealthWatcher automates sending those easy-to-forget reminders to your patients with medical advice and health care best practices
Providing sound health maintenance means including a full array of counseling, screening, and other preventive services designed to minimize the risk of premature sickness and death and to assure optimal physical, mental, and emotional health throughout the natural lifecycle. Today's leading EHR systems offer a wide variety of electronic health record (eHealth or EHR) features to optimize workflow and patient safety. For example, screening tests and physician counseling are important tools for identifying common yet potentially serious injuries, illnesses and diseases that can be prevented or cured with early intervention.
EHR Helps Obtain Successful Health Compliance Outcomes
EHR (eHealth) provides you the tools for successful management of patient populations, conditions, and preventive health routines ensuring patient compliance and preventive care. The HealthWatcher tool allows for customized profiles and protocols to ensure your practice complies with best practices and your patients adhere to your medical advice.
eHealth Maintenance Tailored to Your Practice Needs
With ADP AdvancedMD EHR, you can tailor your health maintenance solution to fit the unique needs of different groups of patients. For example, you can customize health maintenance information by diagnosis or by payer to accommodate carrier guidelines. Find out how ADP AdvancedMD can help your support staff quickly identify and reach out to patients who are due for tests or procedures.
Utilize Continuity of Care Protocols for Better Safety, Health Maintenance & Compliance Our HealthWatcher (eHealth maintenance) module is part of our EHR and is a tool that helps the practice and provider follow continuity of care protocols. We support care plans, guidelines and protocols for the management of specific conditions based on factors such as age, sex, diagnosis and lab result values.
Benefits of HealthWatcher Maintenance in the EHR Generates alerts for appointment recall, prescription refills and laboratory orders Protocols can contain one or a series of tasks, renewable based on user-defined intervals Health maintenance protocols can be assigned to an individual or group of patients
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Psychotherapy Notes47. A covered entity must obtain an individual’s authorization to use or disclose psychotherapy notes with the following exceptions48:
The covered entity who originated the notes may use them for treatment. A covered entity may use or disclose, without an individual’s authorization, the psychotherapy notes, for its own training, and to defend itself in legal proceedings brought by the individual, for HHS to investigate or determine the covered entity’s compliance with the Privacy Rules, to avert a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety, to a health oversight agency for lawful oversight of the originator of the psychotherapy notes, for the lawful activities of a coroner or medical examiner or as required by law.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
The intersection of interests noted above was an important factor in creating an environment within which reactionary reforms could take place. However other environmental factors also played an important role in creating conditions whereby the desires for progressive reform could be co-opted. For example, the goals of the Reagan Administration were well received in some quarters of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). In the 1980s, the NIMH started to come under the leadership of a different cohort of individuals. While the NIMH had originally been led by individuals who had come of age during the Great Depression, the leaders of the 1980s had come of age later. The result was that while the former cohort had been committed to innovations in government al social policy, the latter generation tended to be less interested in actual social policy and more supportive of measures to reduce the cost to the federal government (Armour, 1989, 187).
The Administrations goals of fiscal restraint also received support from the general public due to the perception of a federal government too prone to waste revenues and not address other basic concerns, such as crime prevention. Certain forms of social welfare spending, such as programs for the mentally ill, were perceiv ed as wasteful and thus easy targets for budget cuts (Gans, 1995; Katz, 1989). In contrast, other social programs, such as Social Security, were perceived as being "earned" by the recipients, and thus equitable. Despite the fact that the average Social Se curity recipient receives more in return than they pay into the system, programs such as this are perceived as being a pension for which the recipient has already paid. As such, they are less susceptible to cuts than categorical spending programs, such as community mental health treatment centers. Indeed, Social Security funding per beneficiary increased under the Reagan Administration (Levitan, 1990, 30). Mental health policy lacks the widespread public support that benefits Social Security (Armour, 1989 , 186). In light of this, it is not surprising that the Reagan Administration was able to cut these programs relatively easily (186-7).
The concerns of the general public were also mobilized in the context of fear over the possibility of a patient committing a violent or otherwise anti-social act. Media attention paid to the problems of the mental health system tended to concentrate in two areas: the growing homelessness problem of the early 1980s and the possibility of criminal acts committed by deinsitutionalized patients. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people concentrated in the inner cities. With the rise of gentrification during the 1980s, many of them became displaced from their relatively affordable housing and were unable to fin d new accommodations. Many of these patients had lost contact with family members and were unable to work, and many did not have health insurance. Thus, they were unable to receive mental health services in the private sector. Media coverage of the growin g homeless problem helped to pressure legislators in many states to rewrite commitment laws to extend the net and make the streets "safer."
This media attention played into, and supported, the growing perception of violent crime as a problem in the United States. The Reagan Administration answered this general alarm by calling for quick and severe punishment of offenders. For those offenders who were not mentally ill, prison was normally seen as the solution (Gans, 1995). For the mentally ill however, involuntary committment seemed the best answer. Either way, quick removal of individuals threatening the social order fit well with the administration's "law and order" stance (LaFond and Durham, 1992, 114).
The new laws, however, were not intended to make it easier to commit the dangerous mentally ill. Rather, the new laws had more general application and made it easier to commit those only considered a threat (Lafond & Durham, 1992, 11. In addition to this, many of the existing liberal justices began to rule on a "right of treatment" clause rather than a straight civil libertarian viewpoint. The result was that at both the state and federal level, the court became increasingly reluctant to strike down legislation that broadened the definition of who was eligible for involuntary commitment (119). Again, this more stringent approach meshed well with the "law and order" stance taken by the administration.
Updated: December 21, 2012 The Latest on the REAL ID DHS Announces Six Month Deferment of REAL ID Enforcement DHS Extends Full-Compliance Deadline to January 15, 2013 DHS Press Release on the 2009 REAL ID Extension - Dec. 18, 2009 Resources on the REAL ID NCSL REAL ID Policy Directive Background Information Federal Legislation to Amend the REAL ID Analysis of the REAL ID State Responses Other Resources NCSL Policy, Testimony and Correspondence Other NCSL Links of Interest NCSL Transportation Committee NCSL Executive Committee Task Force on Homeland Security Questions about the REAL ID realid@ncsl.org On December 20, the Department of Homeland Security issued a press release announcing that beginning on Jan. 15, 2013, those states that are not in compliance with the REAL ID standards will receive a temporary deferment of enforcement, of at least six months, during which Federal agencies will continue to accept state-issued drivers licenses and identification cards from those states for boarding commercial aircraft and other official purposes. Following this minimum period of six months of non-enforcement, DHS will announce, no later than Fall 2013, a schedule for phased-in enforcement. While DHS did not offer a specific date as to when phased-in enforcement would begin, they did note that the announcement of phased-in enforcement will not result in immediate enforcement.
As part of this announcement, DHS sent individual letters to each state’s governor’s office. DHS organized states into three groups based on their standing with regards to REAL ID compliance. The first group, consisting of 13 states (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) was found to have met the standards of the REAL ID Act of 2005 for driver’s licenses and identification cards. The second group consisted of those states that are not yet compliant with the standards but have contacted DHS regarding the status of their implementation efforts. The third group consists of states from which DHS has not received any information regarding that state’s REAL ID implementation efforts.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the announcement from DHS or your state’s status with DHS regarding REAL ID please contact NCSL staff Molly Ramsdell (202-624-3584) and Ben Husch (202-624-7779) in the Washington D.C. office or Anne Teigen (303-364-7700) in the Denver office. Please be aware that due to the upcoming holiday, it may take some time return messages. Thank you
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Fair Information Practice Principles The Privacy Act of 1974 imposes duties upon Federal agencies regarding the collection, use, dissemination, and maintenance of personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act also articulates concepts, known as the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs), which are the generally recognized principles by which governments assess and mitigate privacy impacts on individuals. Section 222(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, states that the Chief Privacy Officer shall assure that information is handled in full compliance with the fair information practices as set out in the Privacy Act of 1974. As such, the Privacy Office has developed a description of the FIPPs that underlies the Privacy Act to encompass the full breadth and diversity of the information and interactions of DHS. The DHS Privacy Office conducts PIAs on both programs and information technology systems, pursuant to Section 208 of the E-Government Act of 2002 and Section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended. This PIA is issued pursuant to Section 222(4), of the Homeland Security Act, which calls for the Chief Privacy Officer of the DHS to conduct a “privacy impact assessment of proposed rules of the Department.” It examines the privacy impact of the REAL ID final rule as it relates to the construct of the FIPPs and offers a number of recommendations for DHS and the States to enhance privacy protections in light of the FIPPs. This PIA updates the PIA issued on March 1, 2007, in conjunction with the REAL ID NPRM. 1. Principle of Transparency Transparency is the first and perhaps most important of the FIPPs. This principle calls for Federal agencies collecting personally identifiable information from individuals to be transparent and provide notice to the individual regarding its collection, use, dissemination, and maintenance. Most importantly, there should be no system the existence of which is a secret. Transparency is followed in the final rule and PIA by providing the public with a description of the information practices associated with the implementation of the REAL ID Act. As noted in the final rule, DHS received over 21,000 comments on the NPRM. The final rule addresses the comments received during the 60-day public comment period. This PIA does not duplicate the comment summaries or responses but rather highlights how the final rule address the privacy issues outlined in the NPRM PIA. In addition, the “Privacy Considerations” section of the final rule (IV.D.) provides a general response to each of the areas noted in the NPRM PIA. Although the final rule fully describes the nature and type of PII collected and used pursuant to the Act, final decisions have not been made regarding the operation and governance Privacy Impact Assessment DHS Privacy Office REAL ID Final Rule Page 5 of the architecture necessary to conduct the various data checks mandated under the verification requirements of the Act and the final rule. The final rule addresses ongoing discussions between DHS, Department of Transportation (DOT), the States and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to establish a centralized verification system (a “hub”) to assist States in conducting the required data verification checks against Federal databases and the State-to-State checks to ensure that a driver holds one and only one REAL ID credential. (See Sections II.C., IV.E., and IV.L. of the final rule.) Section II.C. indicates that DHS, in consultation with AAMVA, DOT, the Social Security Administration, the Department of State (DOS), National Association of Public Health Statistics and Information Systems (NAPHSIS), and State representatives, is working to define requirements for a network and messaging system or “hub” to support the data verification and State-to-State data check requirements of REAL ID. The final rule identifies AAMVAnet, the network system AAMVA operates to facilitate data verification for the State DMVs, as a potential hub. The Privacy Office recognizes the importance of providing greater transparency regarding the architecture of this hub and how it will be governed. DHS and the States have not yet defined who will govern the hub and its business rules, such as: (1) who will have access to the hub; (2) how the hub and the information it handles will be used; (3) how individuals may access information about themselves held within the hub; (4) what security measures will be built into the system to ensure the data is protected; and (5) how the hub will ensure accountability to DHS and the public that all of the business rules are implemented and enforced. This PIA will be updated when information regarding these decisions becomes available. Building upon AAMVA and the AAMVAnet system may offer the best opportunity to ensure that the States exercise maximum control over the operation and governance of the data checks mandated by the Act and the final rule. As described in the NPRM PIA, AAMVA, founded in 1933, is a nonprofit voluntary association representing the State and provincial officials in the United States and Canada who administer and enforce the laws that govern motor vehicle operation, the driver credentialing process, and highway safety enforcement. DMV administrators are appointed by their State governors and serve on the AAMVA Board of Directors and its committees. AAMVA has played an integral role in the development, deployment, and monitoring of both the commercial driver’s license (CDL) and motor carrier safety programs throughout the United States.
2. Principle of Individual Participation This principle calls upon agencies that collect PII to involve the individual in the process of using his or her PII. In particular, to the extent practical, agencies should seek individual consent for the collection, use, dissemination, and maintenance of PII and should provide mechanisms for appropriate access, correction, and redress regarding its use. The proposed Best Practices for Protection of PII provides guidance to State DMVs on how to implement this principle. It is often difficult to apply the individual participation principle where the government mandates collection of PII in order to obtain a benefit. In such instances, the government may need the PII in order to ensure that the right individual receives the right benefit, in this case a driver’s license or State-issued ID. Although REAL ID is a voluntary program for the States, it is not necessarily voluntary for individuals who want to obtain a driver’s license so that they can legally drive unless their State also provides an alternative non-compliant credential, which some States may issue for a number of different reasons, such as licensing residents who cannot document lawful status. It is likely that the types of PII DMVs will collect will be very similar for REAL ID and non-REAL ID compliant cards and that both types of cards will have a MRZ containing PII that is not encrypted or protected from third party skimming. Despite these similarities, some individuals may still choose to have a non-REAL ID driver’s license.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Posting in a senders Firefly/Serenity/River Tam thread.
Firefly is the best Sci-Fi series ever made.
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
Logged
. In addition to this, many of the existing liberal justices began to rule on a "right of treatment" clause rather than a straight civil libertarian viewpoint. The result was that at both the state and federal level, the court became increasingly reluctant to strike down legislation that broadened the definition of who was eligible for involuntary commitment (119). Again, this more stringent approach meshed well with the "law and order" stance taken by the administration.
