Joe Pantoliano says:
“Why is it I’m discriminated against when I take the anti-depressants, but not when I take the Lipitor? The culture is OK with me taking an erectile dysfunction remedy, but not with the (anti-depressants),” said Pantoliano between shooting scenes.
The actor said that even he cannot afford the coverage he needs. He was interviewed at McLean Hospital, where he is filming a documentary, with the hope that he can fight the stigma of his illness for himself and others. Way to go Joe! Now THAT is courage.
For more information go to www.nokiddingmetoo.org [Joe’s foundation]
To read the rest of the article, go to:
http://www.bostonherald.com/en…
My thanks to the Boston Herald for their coverage of Joe’s efforts, and helping to reduce – and hopefully one day -remove the stigma of mental illness.
Untreated mental illness kills many Americans each year. All too many never get treated due to fear of stigma.
About 10 years ago, consumers/survivors of our mental health system asked my advice before they lobbied legislators about a bill to permit persons unwillingly “committed” to a mental health facility to make a phone call to an attorney when I got the following question?
<
p>Will they dismiss our testimony because we are current or former mental health patients?
<
p>Don’t worry I said, they only difference between you and them is that you have been diagnosed and treated and admit it
<
p>And sure enough, after the hearing a number of legislators and staff members came over to talk privately with the group about their own stories of dealing with their own or their families “mental health issues”.
<
p>As the bill progressed, subsequent conversations with different legislators on different committees revealed a whole underground network of personally involved supporters of improved mental health services.
<
p>As as more and more celebrities and public figures “come out” about their own mental health stories it’s always good news for mental health advocates who have been working underground for too long.
<
p>When Senator Bob Antonionni revealed his life long battle with depression a couple of years ago, he found himself surrounded with by supportive colleagues who in turn found themselves recruited into varous mental health budget campaigns.
<
p>When Speaker DiMasi’s wife Debby testified last year at a public hearing about her brothers suicide and her grief and guilt at not being able to help him, she was quite open about her determination work with suicide prevention organizations to see that her husband’s colleagues had ample opportunity to hear from experienced professionals about how to stop our friends, familiy members, neighbors and yes complete strangers from taking their own lives.
<
p>No surprise to any observer of the mental health budget to see the nice increase in the suicide prevention program in the budget.
<
p>As we all grieve Lori’s death let’s not wonder what we might have done more to ease her pain, but rather believe that her warm, smart, savvy and non judgemental contributions to this site were one of the things she felt good about.
…which remains a live issue in the current healthcare debates.
<
p>There are few families that have been untouched by mental illness, and suicide casts a long shadow.
<
p>In my own family, my maternal grandfather died by completing a plan to strangle himself. When I was in Michigan last month, my 90 year old mother, looking through old, old postcards with me that included some from her stepmother said, “My father killed himself; he never got to meet you.” The tears rolled down my mother’s soft, wrinkled cheeks.
<
p>Her father – my grandfather – died in 1936. He was, more likely than not, suffering from mental illness based on the information I have been able to collect. [I verified that the cause of his death was self-strangulation by writing for a copy of his death certificate as part of my own search to understand my familie’s history and my own genetic heritage.]
<
p>My question remains:
<
p>Are we doing better for those who suffer from mental illness now then we did in 1936? My answer would be, “Often, no.”
<
p>We can – and must – do better and a beginning could – and should – be to reduce the stigma of treatment for mental illness until treating mental illness is no more harmful to one’s reputation then treating heart disease.
<
p>Since most people these days learn through the media rather than through reading, Joe’s documentary and also how mental illness is depicted both online and in the main stream media will be critical.
Does he mean his insurance won’t pay for the $1,200/month treatment. Why is that discrimination? Each insurance company decides what they will cover and what they won’t. My dental coverage doesn’t cover orthodontist work, but a friend of mine’s does… is this discrimination? No, he has better (more expensive) insurance.
<
p>Why do people always look for the “corporations” as the bad guys? They are businesses, plain and simple. They provide insurance for us and we pay the premiums (minus their profits), just like any other business. If you want the extra coverage you pay the extra premiums… We can’t be complaining about the rising costs of insurance premiums while we complain about wanting more conditions covered.
<
p>If we are talking about the “stigma” of mental problems, such as depression, that is another story entirely.
The point is not that the insurance industry is discriminatory. They’ll respond to the market and to regulation. To expect corporations to do otherwise is to believe in the Easter Bunny.
<
p>The point is more that the regulatory environment within which the insurance industry operates undervalues the importance of dealing with mental illness.
<
p>Regulation and insurance go hand-in-hand. Without regulation, insurance would only be purchased by those who were almost certain they’d need to collect benefits on it. It would be staggeringly expensive as the pool of those insured narrowed ever further and the premiums rose in response.
<
p>What’s wrong with that? The alternative is the typical response of every other issue which is make people who have no problem pay for the people with problems. Whether it is mental illness, crime, flood insurance… the list goes on. People who want to build a house in the beautiful scenic “dry” forests of California should do so with the knowledge that their houses might burn down if there’s a forrest fire combined with Santa Anna winds. If I chose to live in a more boring “safe” location, don’t increase my insurance payments to offset the claims on these “high risk” customers.
<
p>I realize we are talking about mental illness which is not “chosen” by patients, but the point is similar concerning payments. I wish we had a more “open” insurance environment and I could be an insurer. I would “discriminate” where ever I could. It is a business not a public entitlement. I would insure healthy people (or safe houses) and either refuse high risk people (or houses) or charge very high rates. If people didn’t like it they could go to another insurance company. Maybe all the people in support of these regulations could get their insurance from designated insurance companies which cover everything, but they will be paying much higher rates so I’m sure they wouldn’t.
… become a little twisted in the case of insurance (at least in the case of insurance systems where adverse selection is allowed). Here is a repeat of an old comment of mine:
<
p>
<
p>
… the first scenario would still be a problem even if adverse selection were not allowed.
Simple. There’d be no such thing as insurance.
<
p>Two points: one social, one psychological.
<
p>1. Without insurance, the society becomes much more risk adverse. Insurance should enable people to take the reasonable risks that are necessary to keep the economy moving. And yes, there are regulatory problems when people are encouraged to externalize risk by being guaranteed by government entities or get insured for doing dumb stuff.
<
p>2. If you like, you can be very resentful of all the people you are “supporting” through taxes and premiums. And yes, taxes and premiums support inefficiencies. (The profits of the insurance company, for example, constitute an inefficiency.) However, I’m not sure that I want to live in a country with stark inequalities, or in a place where I might have to choose between taking in my neighbor’s grandmother or knowing that she’s starving and in pain, or in a place where the social fabric is so loose that I must contribute to a neighborhood security force. Lots of people, not just teenagers, are remarkably imprudent. I don’t want to have to make difficult ethical calculations about whether to have compassion or distance from those whose imprudence has created a personal disaster.
<
p>Some of these costs are the simple costs of civilization. I enjoy living in a civilized society and hope to continue to do so.
Lipitor is a statin drug used for controlling/lowering cholesterol levels not an erectile disfunction medication. See http://www.lipitor.com/content…
<
p>I suppose I could understand his confusion if he was thinking “meat” when he spoke to the press.
A known potential side effect of Lipitor is erectile disfunction. So, while the construction of his sentences isn’t most helpful, I doubt he got his medications mixed up. I’d bet that (a) he’s on mental health drugs, (b) he’s on Lipitor, and (c) perhaps because of the Lipitor, he’s got an ED drug too.
<
p>I am in no way a medical professional; this is mere speculation on my part.
Both my husband and myself are on Lipitor and from personal experience there is no chance of ED. The only thing that our doctors check on a monthly basis is asking if we have any muscle cramps or joint aches. Not once has he asked if I have ED.
<
p>I think Joe Pantoliano was making a point here similar to the recent McCain Viagra and birth control drugs issue.
<
p>And I think the point was… Society is okay with me curing my sexual problems (and even pays for it) however, a very real issue, moreso than being able to ‘get it up’ is mental illness. Why isn’t that cure completely covered or at least affordable?
<
p>But then again, here is the discussion ad nauseum about semantics, somehow stimatizing sex and sexual problems in comparison to another problem/illness. Apples and oranges and both are important to cover or make affordable for treatment.
<
p>Heck, look at the things that health insurance does cover and yet Trans-people who might often need surgery or hormone treatment to help correct very real issues in their lives find it difficult to even be able to have the conversation. Now here is an important thing also for our society to cover without constantly stigmatizing them.
And whether or not PP chooses to criticize or belittle Joe Pantoliano’s medical knowledge or word choice – Joe IS is brave to go public about mental illness – HIS, to fight stigma, and yes, making fun of him or any condition is an example of the kind of stigma that kills – because so many people are so afraid of ridicule that they self medicate – and die – rather than get treatment for medical illness, or gender disorder, or hormonal dysfunctions, etc.
-maybe that will help; certainly he will be more likely to feel like he is making a difference, and who knows what updates may come your way? I never met the man, mind, and have NO fiscal stake in this.
I read Amber’s post and it never occurred to me that there was a mix-up.
<
p>Society is OK with people taking anti-cholesterol medication, but not antidepressants.
<
p>Society is even OK with erectile dysfunction medications, but not antidepressants.
<
p>In other words no stigma, and none expected, with Lipitor. No stigma, although it might be expected, with Viagra.
Thank you, Kate.
What part of society is not okay with antidepressants?
<
p>There are some types of mental illness, and some social/work cultures, where stigma remains. But depression? Among actors? Really???!!
<
p>Celebs have been making statements like this since Betty Ford.
<
p>Do we know anyone, personally, who is intolerant of mental illness? The only ones I know are cranks who get no respect for their cranky views.
Depression is often treated as a lack of will. The idea is that one shouldn’t need to “whine” or “moan”, one should just “take life by the horns” and live and do stuff.
<
p>While intuitively this approach feels right, it isn’t. It fails badly with depressives.
<
p>If you think of depression like that, you might be inclined to think of it as a moral failing. People who are depressed certainly think they have a moral failing, but that’s how depression operates. People who are depressed are inclined to accept a lot of random, negative self-evaluations. Don’t believe them.
<
p>So yes, there is some stigmatization of depression — and you don’t have to be a crank to participate in it, you can just be a very peppy, cheerful person who hasn’t had an opportunity to learn about how depression works.
I’m sure depressed people do get this from some of the people in their lives.
<
p>But what you say is conventional wisdom, which is my point. It doesn’t feel right intuitively any more.
<
p>Maybe I’m too generous. I just can’t believe anyone gets past the age of 30 w/out knowing enough ill people to develop some sensitivity.
<
p>Mild depression is a tougher case, b/c it is hard to distinguish from garden variety blues, and may even be the same thing. Some of the legit treatments – diet, exercise, more/better social interactions – is essentially “snap out of it.”