How a Leading Chain of Psychiatric Hospitals Traps Patients

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

sloh

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
1,765
Reaction score
2,527

In at least 12 of the 19 states where Acadia operates psychiatric hospitals, dozens of patients, employees and police officers have alerted the authorities that the company was detaining people in ways that violated the law, according to records reviewed by The Times. In some cases, judges have intervened to force Acadia to release patients.

Acadia, which charges $2,200 a day for some patients, at times deploys an array of strategies to persuade insurers to cover longer stays, employees said. Acadia has exaggerated patients’ symptoms. It has tweaked medication dosages, then claimed patients needed to stay longer because of the adjustment. And it has argued that patients are not well enough to leave because they did not finish a meal.

Psychiatric hospitals were once run by the government or nonprofit groups. But both have been retreating from psychiatric care. Today, for-profit companies are playing a bigger role, lured by the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that insurers cover mental health.

Acadia operates more than 50 psychiatric hospitals nationwide, and the bulk of its revenue comes from government insurance programs. More than 20 nonprofit health systems, including Henry Ford in Michigan and Geisinger in Pennsylvania, have teamed up with Acadia to open facilities.

It fills those beds in a variety of ways. Acadia markets directly to potential customers, encouraging them to “Skip the ER.” The company cultivates relationships with people like police officers and emergency responders in the hope that they will bring patients to Acadia.

Acadia also pitches itself to staff in hospital emergency rooms that have been inundated with patients seeking mental health care. Business-development teams make sales calls to the doctors and other hospital workers, passing out brochures and talking up the expertise of Acadia’s staff and its willingness to take difficult patients. Sometimes, they come bearing doughnuts.

In a few states, Acadia has dispatched teams to overwhelmed E.R.s to help them determine whether patients need to be hospitalized. These employees, known as assessors, are supposed to be objective. But several said Acadia scolded them when they suggested that patients be sent to other psychiatric hospitals.

Once Acadia gets patients in the door, it often tries to hold them until their insurance runs out.

Acadia goes to great lengths to convince insurers that the patients should stay as long as possible, often around five days.

To do that, Acadia needs to show that patients are unstable and require ongoing intensive care. Former Acadia executives and staff in 10 states said employees were coached to use certain buzzwords, like “combative,” in patients’ charts to make that case.

In 2022, for example, state inspectors criticized an Acadia hospital in Reading, Pa., for having instructed workers to avoid adjectives like “calm” and “compliant” in a patient’s chart. That same year, employees at Acadia hospitals in Ohio and Michigan complained to their state regulators that doctors had written false statements in patients’ medical charts to justify continuing their stays.

At an Acadia hospital in Missouri, three former nurses said, executives pressured them to label patients whose insurance was about to run out as uncooperative. Acadia employees then would argue to insurance companies that the patients weren’t ready to leave. Sometimes, the nurses said, they wrote patients up for not finishing a meal or skipping group therapy.

Once Acadia won more insurance days for patients, it often would not release them before their insurance ran out, according to dozens of former Acadia executives, psychiatrists and other staff members.

“If there were insurance days left, that patient was going to be held,” said Jessie Roeder, who was a top executive at two Acadia hospitals in Florida in 2018 and 2019.

Under state laws, patients generally must pose an imminent threat to themselves or others in order to be held against their will in a psychiatric facility. Even then, hospitals can hold people for just a handful of days, unless the patients agree to stay longer or a judge or a medical professional determines that they are not ready to leave.

In Florida, the limit for holding patients against their will is 72 hours. To extend that time, hospitals have to get court approval.

Acadia’s North Tampa Behavioral Health Hospital found a way to exploit that, current and former employees said.

From 2019 to 2023, North Tampa filed more than 4,500 petitions to extend patients’ involuntary stays, according to a Times analysis of court records.

Simply filing a petition allowed the hospital to legally hold the patients — and bill their insurance — until the court date, which can be several days after the petition is filed. Mr. Blair, the Acadia spokesman, said this was often necessary to provide enough care to stabilize patients.

Judges granted only 54 of North Tampa’s petitions, or about 1 percent of the total.
Good response in reddit thread discussing this:

While I generally agree that these instances are appalling if 100% accurate, without doing a deeper dive on the episodes involved I think there are a few other things to consider.

In the Tampa case, is what is being alleged here actually medical fraud or a failure of the legal system for whatever reason? The author of the article paints a picture that Acadia was filling for petition strictly for monetary reasons, but wouldn't that assume the attending psychiatrists (or other psychiatric healthcare worker) in all of these cases are making fraudulent medical assessments to keep patients longer than the 72 hour hold?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
“Paying flat operating costs disincentivizes efficiency. Paying capitation incentivizes selectiveness with patients, and someone will find a way to select. Paying by complexity encourages upcoding, which teaches lying for money, and our adversarial payment system.

Just change human nature and responsiveness to inducements and pressures.”

Incentives are everything. Pay however you want but people will try to game the system
 
“Judges granted only 54 of North Tampa’s petitions, or about 1 percent of the total.”

I think this is the most d***ing bit in this whole thing. I’ve seen plenty of situations described above where I could see some of what was said being completely reasonable clinically but then sounding awful when written in an article. If only 1% of invols are upheld though you either have the most incompetent and malignant judge in the nation or you’re doing something very, very wrong as a physician/hospital. I think most ethical psychiatrists with even a barely competent court system would be closer to the judge disagreeing 1% of the time instead of the opposite like this article says. That by itself should be enough to open an investigation.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Everyone celebrated when they de-institutionalized long-term facilities, but that left a gaping hole for long-term care and had ripple effects on other areas. Between money grabs like this and judges and others getting kickbacks to send people to for-profit prisons, our system is pretty screwed up in the USA. Who would have thought that would happen with all of these FOR-PROFIT institutions. "Not for profit" is a joke distinction too.
 
“Judges granted only 54 of North Tampa’s petitions, or about 1 percent of the total.”

I think this is the most d***ing bit in this whole thing. I’ve seen plenty of situations described above where I could see some of what was said being completely reasonable clinically but then sounding awful when written in an article. If only 1% of invols are upheld though you either have the most incompetent and malignant judge in the nation or you’re doing something very, very wrong as a physician/hospital. I think most ethical psychiatrists with even a barely competent court system would be closer to the judge disagreeing 1% of the time instead of the opposite like this article says. That by itself should be enough to open an investigation.
I agree.

When I read the article, the one time I did roll my eyes was when it's implied that wanting to harm yourself or others is the only legit reason to put someone under involuntary commitment. Non suicidal or homicidal mania can be extremely dangerous. But those pts usually aren't showing up to the ED of their own free will requesting their medications.

I don't know the ins and outs of Florida law but where I've been, it would also be extremely suspect if everyone admitted involuntarily was taken to court. Court is a gigantic hassle--we were always working to get pts to agree to be voluntary both for pure patient care reasons (better alliance, etc) but also bc going to court was something we all wanted to avoid unless absolutely necessary. If we did take someone to court, certainly a strong majority of the cases were upheld by the judge. If this places are not allowing people to transition to voluntary status and taking everyone all the way to court, it speaks to a completely breakdown of clincial clincial priorities.
 
Last edited:
On principle and with costs considered this is awful and unethical, but the difference between the 3 day hold and insurance running out at day 5... I mean, if the push is to keep folks just an extra 2 days... disagree with me but in my estimation many folks on a 3 day could see some benefit from a couple of extra days. Usually it seems the issue is a rush to kick patients to the curb. If we were talking more tha a couple days I would be more outraged.

Obviously with crooked folks like this if you have extended insurance (and you could argue we should) then they're going to take full advantage and that would be really bad all around.

Kinda incentivzes society and insurance to shorter stays which could be bad.

Kinda sad, you would like a system where patients stay... as long as they actually need to maximize their wellness.
 
Similar issues with UHS several years ago (they settled without admitting fault--). This article suggests this could be a trend in the for-profit hospital space. I'm not aware of any exposes on non-profit hospital psych units doing similar shenanigans.

I hesitate to prematurely judge, but I'm more inclined to suspect a for-profit corporation could get into unethical practices (or even illegal), because being for-profit their primary motivation must be to generate profit for shareholders. You would hope profit generation would occur within the bounds of laws and ethics.

But a lot of things get kind of murky when you have an MBA CEO making decisions, presumably without the ethical burden of being a medical professional. Ideally the medical staff who are bound by their profession to act ethically would not acquiesce to inappropriate pressures, but you might imagine these CEOs don't get appointed to run these hospitals because they are huge pushovers. And it's not uncommon these hospital (in my opinion) end up hiring medical staff who don't have better options and are less likely to push back on the CEO for fear of reprisal--I'm sure there are exceptions but this has been my experience.

CEOs are not subject to board complaints or malpractice lawsuits. And in the event a lawsuit like the one in the article actual gains traction, the corporation will almost certainly protect the CEO and settle without admitting fault. So no consequences.
 
I agree w all of that, I just wish the govt would harshly punish everyone abusing the system. It’s hard to do when the legislators are complicit and some even are/were main players in healthcare and insurance fraud. The largest (at the time) Medicare fraud was committed by a current U.S. House member (Tim Scott), and he walked w a golden parachute worth $300m in stock. Legislators regularly use insider information to profit off pf stock trades, sometimes getting info from the same CEOs. Those kind of people (who think they are above the law) will continue to allow their buddies to keep breaking the law for massive profits…so I don’t expect anything to change in FL or nationally.
 
I agree w all of that, I just wish the govt would harshly punish everyone abusing the system. It’s hard to do when the legislators are complicit and some even are/were main players in healthcare and insurance fraud. The largest (at the time) Medicare fraud was committed by a current U.S. House member (Tim Scott), and he walked w a golden parachute worth $300m in stock. Legislators regularly use insider information to profit off pf stock trades, sometimes getting info from the same CEOs. Those kind of people (who think they are above the law) will continue to allow their buddies to keep breaking the law for massive profits…so I don’t expect anything to change in FL or nationally.

there is actually an ETF that tracks the trades of senior members of Congress, in the last year it has outperformed the S&P 500 by about 30%.
 
Let's reserve judgment, these are just allegations. The NYTimes loves to put sensationalistic spins on psychiatry to rile up the masses: Oh no too many people hospitalized, oh no too many people turned away from psych hospitals!

The majority of inpatients don't believe they need to be inpatient, so it's not too hard to find people willing to give a salacious spin on their experience.

The last example in their article is about a "wealthy widow" "not suicidal or a threat to others" who got herself released after 4 days. But the journalist also mentioned she had delusions of being poisoned and jumped in a neighbor's inlet, requiring a 911 call. But the NYTimes journalist, in their learned experience, does not feel this warrants hospitalization.

In another scenario, the NYTimes would have decried, "Prominent widow experiencing psychotic episode drowns after being kicked of psych hospital after only 4 days: Allegations of corporate healthcare conspiring to prematurely discharge mentally ill patients to increase profits." Something, something about intakes and discharges are more profitable than follow ups, insurance runs out after 4 days, doctor ignored her psychotic behavior, etc.
 
Let's reserve judgment, these are just allegations. The NYTimes loves to put sensationalistic spins on psychiatry to rile up the masses: Oh no too many people hospitalized, oh no too many people turned away from psych hospitals!

The majority of inpatients don't believe they need to be inpatient, so it's not too hard to find people willing to give a salacious spin on their experience.

The last example in their article is about a "wealthy widow" "not suicidal or a threat to others" who got herself released after 4 days. But the journalist also mentioned she had delusions of being poisoned and jumped in a neighbor's inlet, requiring a 911 call. But the NYTimes journalist, in their learned experience, does not feel this warrants hospitalization.

In another scenario, the NYTimes would have decried, "Prominent widow experiencing psychotic episode drowns after being kicked of psych hospital after only 4 days: Allegations of corporate healthcare conspiring to prematurely discharge mentally ill patients to increase profits." Something, something about intakes and discharges are more profitable than follow ups, insurance runs out after 4 days, doctor ignored her psychotic behavior, etc.
No they don’t put a sensationalist spin on psychiatry and I’m glad they do report on a lot of psych topics. I can tell you I worked at an Acadia hospital yrs ago moonlighting and the nurse manager and medical director berated me for discharging patients who didn’t need to be there. One patient found themselves hospitalized with a panic attack and dx with bipolar and put on a shed load of meds. The staffing was terrible - the nurses didn’t tell me a pt tried to kill themselves in the hospital because they didn’t want me to put them on 1:1 obs due to lack of staff!! No one should be surprised with the allegations in this article the company didn’t even deny them
 
Members don't see this ad :)
This is not the first time that hospital in Tampa has been mentioned (and this older article is worse, imo). I had a friend that used to moonlight there. They paid well, but most of what has been written is rooted in truth. He didn't last long there, mostly because of the issues with discharging people "before their [insurance] days are up." My friend works in northern Florida now. I asked him about his involuntary court approval/denial rate. He said he has had maybe 4 cases thrown out of court...ever. So either the judge in that county is very loose with releasing people, or this hospital is doing some sketchy stuff. From everything that I've heard, getting involuntary court cases upheld in the state of Florida is incredibly easy.

This isn't unique to Florida or Acadia. I have a friend in Colorado that worked on a private inpatient unit. If you wanted to discharge someone "before their [insurance] days are up," you had to ask a colleague for a second opinion before you were allowed to discharge the patient. Thus, the culture there was "we don't do that here." He stayed for a while but ultimately left when the pay just wasn't worth the risk.
 
No they don’t put a sensationalist spin on psychiatry and I’m glad they do report on a lot of psych topics. I can tell you I worked at an Acadia hospital yrs ago moonlighting and the nurse manager and medical director berated me for discharging patients who didn’t need to be there. One patient found themselves hospitalized with a panic attack and dx with bipolar and put on a shed load of meds. The staffing was terrible - the nurses didn’t tell me a pt tried to kill themselves in the hospital because they didn’t want me to put them on 1:1 obs due to lack of staff!! No one should be surprised with the allegations in this article the company didn’t even deny them

I'm sure Acadia isn't some beacon of morality and it's a pretty open secret for a lot of different hospitals that your "recommended" length of hospitalization is often interestingly about as long as insurance will pay for (this goes medically as well but the involuntary aspect of psychiatry makes this especially egregious). I read this article and it's thankfully pointing fingers a lot more at their hospital system rather than individual employees.

However, the NYT often has an anti-psychiatry or anti-psychiatric medication bent in multiple prior articles I've seen. I also agree with the point above, that saying someone who's so delusional that she started swimming around in a neighbors inlet because she was worried about being poisoned would be a basically automatic hospitalization from my end...I'm not even sure how you spin that as not being a "harm to self". Who cares if she "asked to leave" and seemed "lucid"? The next story would be "delusional widow drowns in a river after being seen in a local ER just 24 hours prior".
 


We have one of these facilities near us that residents moonlight at. Attending who works there confirmed that what is alleged in the article is true. If you have good insurance they will keep you until all covered days run out, no matter your clinical status. I believe that is kidnapping.
This sounds just like the for-profit substance use rehab facilities. I worked in one and will never do it again. I’m pretty sure they rounded up homeless people, signed them up for Medicaid and then billed away for rehab. Patients who didn’t even have an opiate use disorder would be started on Suboxone and then they started switching more patients to methadone because the same corporation also owned methadone clinics.
Because the DON is acting under pressure from higher ups who will absolutely **** with the doctor for hampering "productivity." They send the DON because, as a nurse, they at least have some feeble claim to knowledge about patient care when they "asses" the patients for safety. Obviously they can't just send someone down with only a business degree so the DON acts as a facade to hide their motives behind someone with credentials.

Places like this also generally attract 2 kinds of physicians. Those just starting out in their careers who don't know any better and can be effectively leaned on by management to get what they want or cynical profiteers who are happy to play ball for the financial rewards it brings them.

I'll never forget one psychiatrist in particular at that facility. A young woman who was the only physician we had that specialized in child and adolescent psychiatry for our pediatric unit who, on a couple of occasions, literally broke down in tears because of the pressure put on her to admit more kids and fill up the unit or discharge kids early because of declining reimbursements. She genuinely cared and wanted to do right by her patients and that place was eating her alive.
I worked a contract at an Acadia facility in Tennessee. They were also "partnered" with the local hospital so their name doesn't reflect that they are a separate for-profit entity. I'd say this facility was middle of the road in terms of Acadia quality (which means it's still bad by normal standards). Strong emphasis on filling beds. The culture there has a strong emphasis on minimal staffing and maximum occupancy. Stuff like encouraging documentation to be worded such that it indicates need for further treatment is real. If a patient was a made a 1:1 or had their room blocked because of violent behavior the DON would come and pressure the doctors to discontinue those orders regardless of whether it was actually safe.
 
No they don’t put a sensationalist spin on psychiatry and I’m glad they do report on a lot of psych topics. I can tell you I worked at an Acadia hospital yrs ago moonlighting and the nurse manager and medical director berated me for discharging patients who didn’t need to be there. One patient found themselves hospitalized with a panic attack and dx with bipolar and put on a shed load of meds. The staffing was terrible - the nurses didn’t tell me a pt tried to kill themselves in the hospital because they didn’t want me to put them on 1:1 obs due to lack of staff!! No one should be surprised with the allegations in this article the company didn’t even deny them
I would agree with you on all counts, and I don't have a good example off hand for you, but as someone with a subscription the last 5 years and pretty left leaning, I have definitely seen ignorance and spin when it comes to NYT on health. Some of it seems to be the kind of honest mistakes you expect lay people to make even when they are interviewing actual experts, but some of it has made my blood boil.
 
The wealthy widow story does not seem to support the rest of their argument. She...sounded like she needed to be hospitalized, badly, based solely on a lay assessment of their reporting and also might not be the best historian regarding what happened surrounding her hospitalization. I'm not sure I would've included her story if I was the reporter.
 
I would agree with you on all counts, and I don't have a good example off hand for you, but as someone with a subscription the last 5 years and pretty left leaning, I have definitely seen ignorance and spin when it comes to NYT on health. Some of it seems to be the kind of honest mistakes you expect lay people to make even when they are interviewing actual experts, but some of it has made my blood boil.

Their article on the whole HealthyGamer fiasco was more sympathetic to the Twitch psychiatrist than it was to the person who reported them to the MA board for unethical conduct. To T4C's point, the implication seemed to be that rigid rules to protect patients unreasonably stifle innovation.

I actually prefer WSJ's reporting on mental health recently. That piece about the psychiatrist getting hooked on online poker was fascinating.
 
Their article on the whole HealthyGamer fiasco was more sympathetic to the Twitch psychiatrist than it was to the person who reported them to the MA board for unethical conduct. To T4C's point, the implication seemed to be that rigid rules to protect patients unreasonably stifle innovation.

I actually prefer WSJ's reporting on mental health recently. That piece about the psychiatrist getting hooked on online poker was fascinating.

That psychiatrist is in my LinkedIn network and I could really do without that spamming me about their media appearances, I gotta say.
 
This is why for-profit corporations shouldn't be allowed in any industry that inherently involves depriving others of their rights. Which is mainly jails/prisons and locked inpatient psych units. The incentives are not aligned correctly.
On principle and with costs considered this is awful and unethical, but the difference between the 3 day hold and insurance running out at day 5... I mean, if the push is to keep folks just an extra 2 days... disagree with me but in my estimation many folks on a 3 day could see some benefit from a couple of extra days. Usually it seems the issue is a rush to kick patients to the curb. If we were talking more tha a couple days I would be more outraged.
Def some patients in the margins who would benefit from a few more days. Usually we filed on them, they got better enough to sign in voluntarily, and then they didn't need to actually go to court. The <1% approval rate for their petitions is pretty damning.
The majority of inpatients don't believe they need to be inpatient, so it's not too hard to find people willing to give a salacious spin on their experience.
While the article may have an unfortunate specific anecdote or two, it's a little damning when supposedly multiple former staff, including executives, were willing to corroborate the allegations.
 
I don't fully understand Florida law, but I do agree that the VAST majority of patients you take to court should be determined to be held appropriately or you're really doing something a bit off. It's extraordinarily rare that a court breaks a hold at my hospital, like 1-2 a year.
 
Honestly I've never seen a patient being released from involuntary hold at my psych hospital. I assume the "success" rate is 100%. One time I remember a manic patient that bothered everyone to see the judge in person, since the meetings are virtual now. They agreed. Pt went to court for like 30s and judge sent him right back to the unit lol (he really needed to stay hospitalized btw)
 
This seems like the exact same **** UHS was called out for doing almost a decade ago. So, it must be an extremely profitable model.

Of course it is profitable when you are providing minimal/no care for all or part of the stay. Part of the problem with a lot of health and mental health issues we face today (thinking about substance abuse treatment, chronic SMI, etc as well as nursing homes and aging issues) is that there is no money in treating it properly. That leaves the vultures willing to take advantage of a market rife with targets/victims.
 
Honestly, with this system at least, it seems like they were providing too much involuntary care to people who didn't need it as opposed to minimal or no care in general. "Care" in an inpatient setting is about acute stabilization, which I do think they were providing (to the extent it was ever needed). Unfortunately, it appears many of these patients should have been shunted to a PHP/IOP essentially from the ED, at least based on the patients' own reports. The "wealthy widow" possibly not included. It's subtle, but I do think it's important to remember that very few people benefit from the full inpatient experience, voluntary or involuntary. It's certainly not the sort of place some patients imagine where extensive psychotherapy is going to be offered.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, with this system at least, it seems like they were providing too much involuntary care to people who didn't need it as opposed to minimal or no care in general. "Care" in an inpatient setting is about acute stabilization, which I do think they were providing (to the extent it was ever needed). Unfortunately, it appears many of these patients should have been shunted to a PHP/IOP essentially from the ED, at least based on the patients' own reports. It's subtle, but I do think it's important to remember that very few people need the full inpatient experience, voluntary or involuntary. It's certainly not the sort of place some patients imagine where extensive psychotherapy is going to be offered.

"At Acadia facilities around the country, health inspectors have found that some patients did not receive therapy, were unsupervised or were denied access to vital medications."

Not so sure they were not doing both. They were maximizing billing for the inpatient stay. I am sure they were also running a skeleton staff and minimizing treatment especially since inpatient is usually flat rate unlike outpatient fee for service. Besides, you don't really need to do much treatment on people that are not that sick.
 
Our involuntary success rates in my academic program and at my first inpatient job were certainly north of 75%, <1% is the biggest red flag I've ever read.
Ours are over that too. We have some weird situations with state screeners and prosecutors sometimes refusing to take a case to court, but when it actually gets in front of a judge I think I only had 2-3 get declined over the course of 2 years working in the ER.

Honestly, with this system at least, it seems like they were providing too much involuntary care to people who didn't need it as opposed to minimal or no care in general. "Care" in an inpatient setting is about acute stabilization, which I do think they were providing (to the extent it was ever needed). Unfortunately, it appears many of these patients should have been shunted to a PHP/IOP essentially from the ED, at least based on the patients' own reports. The "wealthy widow" possibly not included. It's subtle, but I do think it's important to remember that very few people need the full inpatient experience, voluntary or involuntary. It's certainly not the sort of place some patients imagine where extensive psychotherapy is going to be offered.
Right, but the flip side of that is that forcing someone to be held in a facility against their will when it's not necessary is essentially false imprisonment.

Honestly I've never seen a patient being released from involuntary hold at my psych hospital. I assume the "success" rate is 100%. One time I remember a manic patient that bothered everyone to see the judge in person, since the meetings are virtual now. They agreed. Pt went to court for like 30s and judge sent him right back to the unit lol (he really needed to stay hospitalized btw)
My state/county almost went back to in person after COVID but decided to keep all hearings via telehealth after a judge did not uphold an involuntary hold and then was assaulted by the same patient later that day outside the courthouse...
 
On principle and with costs considered this is awful and unethical, but the difference between the 3 day hold and insurance running out at day 5... I mean, if the push is to keep folks just an extra 2 days... disagree with me but in my estimation many folks on a 3 day could see some benefit from a couple of extra days. Usually it seems the issue is a rush to kick patients to the curb. If we were talking more tha a couple days I would be more outraged.

Obviously with crooked folks like this if you have extended insurance (and you could argue we should) then they're going to take full advantage and that would be really bad all around.

Kinda incentivzes society and insurance to shorter stays which could be bad.

Kinda sad, you would like a system where patients stay... as long as they actually need to maximize their wellness.
You're making the assumption that they should have been there to begin with. Also, 3 days vs 5 days can be the difference between someone keeping their job or not. People have lives or not and it's not our job to stop them from making bad decisions about their health if they have the capacity to do so.

That 1% rate is bloody damning though. Holy heck.

To be fair to real journalism, the NYT has been a disingenuous rag for a number of years now. They are not only anti-psych but also pro-corp and think the average person is lazy.

That's a hot take....
The wealthy widow story does not seem to support the rest of their argument. She...sounded like she needed to be hospitalized, badly, based solely on a lay assessment of their reporting and also might not be the best historian regarding what happened surrounding her hospitalization. I'm not sure I would've included her story if I was the reporter.
Having one delusion doesn't necessarily mean she's full on psychotic. Is swimming in that inlet normal? If it is, then that changes things.
Also, there's no law against being delusional in society if you're capable of fulfilling ADL's and not trying to hurt yourself/others.

Partial could have sufficed. She sounds like she has a lot of money. A private psychiatrist and therapist may have been able to see her weekly or so if she needed/wanted it.

I will say that it was definitely a case that perked up my ears though. They definitely tried to downplay the event.
 
Having one delusion doesn't necessarily mean she's full on psychotic. Is swimming in that inlet normal? If it is, then that changes things.
Also, there's no law against being delusional in society if you're capable of fulfilling ADL's and not trying to hurt yourself/others.

Partial could have sufficed. She sounds like she has a lot of money. A private psychiatrist and therapist may have been able to see her weekly or so if she needed/wanted it.

I will say that it was definitely a case that perked up my ears though. They definitely tried to downplay the event.

"Not TRYING to hurt yourself" should be expanded to "not putting yourself at significant risk of harm". There are plenty of delusional or psychotic patients who are not trying to harm themselves but end up getting hospitalized because they are putting themselves or others at risk of harm due to their underlying symptoms.

Again, don't know the exact situation there but if there was any indication she was so engrossed by these delusional thought processes that she was putting herself at risk (ex. if her swimming across this inlet to the neighbor was directly linked to her fear of being poisoned...why was she swimming instead of walking/driving?), then from my end it becomes a situation of prove why I shouldn't hospitalize you so that we can at least get an idea of exactly of what's going on here and what trajectory looks like over the next few days. Another reason for this is that it could directly lead to unforseen downstream effects if you don't get a better idea of functioning and overall thought processes...what happens if you release her after just seeing her in the ER and she shoots someone tomorrow because she thinks they're the one poisoning her but you never gleaned this info from your ER assessment.
 
It's literally a judicial truism straight across the board, as in, nationally and in almost all cases: judges tend to be loathe to overturn or set aside the opinions of experts in fields that are not law, particularly when it come to medical matters and physicians. Their standard has to do with the law and that it's followed, not really making a determination the way a physician might.

"Danger to self and others" does have a legal definition that may not be so obvious to us or laypeople, so their job is just to see, was this met based on the evidence presented to them. There's certainly some judgment or wiggle room in determining just how dangerous it is to swim in an inlet, or example. But couple that with more than one expert assessment and an expert who is presenting additional objective information oe collateral, and an opinion, and there you go.

It was never my impression that cases should get tossed in general. As it was explained to me on my rotation, if as a physician your cases are getting tossed, that's an indication to do your job better, ie you want almost all the cases you present to be approved. Otherwise you're failing somewhere. Either the folks you are presenting aren't a danger per the law, or you aren't presenting well. There should totally be selection bias for what goes before the judge. And judges should be inclined to defer to us.

So that for me at least is not where my eyebrows go up.
 
"Not TRYING to hurt yourself" should be expanded to "not putting yourself at significant risk of harm". There are plenty of delusional or psychotic patients who are not trying to harm themselves but end up getting hospitalized because they are putting themselves or others at risk of harm due to their underlying symptoms.

Again, don't know the exact situation there but if there was any indication she was so engrossed by these delusional thought processes that she was putting herself at risk (ex. if her swimming across this inlet to the neighbor was directly linked to her fear of being poisoned...why was she swimming instead of walking/driving?), then from my end it becomes a situation of prove why I shouldn't hospitalize you so that we can at least get an idea of exactly of what's going on here and what trajectory looks like over the next few days. Another reason for this is that it could directly lead to unforseen downstream effects if you don't get a better idea of functioning and overall thought processes...what happens if you release her after just seeing her in the ER and she shoots someone tomorrow because she thinks they're the one poisoning her but you never gleaned this info from your ER assessment.

I feel like putting yourself at risk in the way you're suggesting means that you're not really able to do your ADL's because functioning in a way that helps keep yourself alive is kind of the baseline there. Also, actively hurting yourself and passively hurting are both hurting yourself.

I agree that the story sounded suspicious, but I'm reticent to call someone psychotic or not without having examined them. If the hospital had been so concerned about the woman being a harm to herself, their actions should have been to seek court and add her to the list of 1% of patients where the court ruled in their favor.
 
It's literally a judicial truism straight across the board, as in, nationally and in almost all cases: judges tend to be loathe to overturn or set aside the opinions of experts in fields that are not law, particularly when it come to medical matters and physicians. Their standard has to do with the law and that it's followed, not really making a determination the way a physician might.

"Danger to self and others" does have a legal definition that may not be so obvious to us or laypeople, so their job is just to see, was this met based on the evidence presented to them. There's certainly some judgment or wiggle room in determining just how dangerous it is to swim in an inlet, or example. But couple that with more than one expert assessment and an expert who is presenting additional objective information oe collateral, and an opinion, and there you go.

It was never my impression that cases should get tossed in general. As it was explained to me on my rotation, if as a physician your cases are getting tossed, that's an indication to do your job better, ie you want almost all the cases you present to be approved. Otherwise you're failing somewhere. Either the folks you are presenting aren't a danger per the law, or you aren't presenting well. There should totally be selection bias for what goes before the judge. And judges should be inclined to defer to us.

So that for me at least is not where my eyebrows go up.

Wait, your eyebrows don't go up when only 1% of their petitions are upheld?!

In any event, I'll have more to say this time next year when I finish with forensics haha.
 
You sure about that? NYTimes leans left
Not everything in the world, or the US for that matter, run on a straight left vs right divide. Antivaxers come from both far left and far right. Antipsychiatry can come from both the left and the right. What matters in this instance is how the head editors are deciding on what to report regarding mental health.
 
I feel like putting yourself at risk in the way you're suggesting means that you're not really able to do your ADL's because functioning in a way that helps keep yourself alive is kind of the baseline there. Also, actively hurting yourself and passively hurting are both hurting yourself.

Again, I think this is incorrect verbage here and ADLs aren't really a baseline here. For instance, we don't generally hospitalize people for not taking maintaining personal hygiene which is an ADL. In fact, the only ADLs we really hospitalize people for in psychiatry is not eating or if they're not dressing themselves to an extent where it's causing serious harm (ex. frostbite).

Putting yourself at significant risk of harm secondary to a psychiatric condition is not the same thing as "passively hurting yourself". For example:
A patient in a manic episode believes that because they're a prophet they are protected from harm and so can walk down the middle of a busy road with a sign above their head inviting people to join their new church.

A delusional patient is found setting up equipment on an active railroad track to transmit because he believes the POTUS has sent him a message that the only place where he can send back transmissions about his work as a secret government agent is on railroad tracks which secretly carry all high level secure government transmissions.

Unless a car or train hits them or they actually end up causing harm to someone else, they have not actually passively harmed themselves in any way, nor meant to harm themselves but they do not recognize the downstream significant risk these actions put them in, secondary to their possibly treatable psychiatric condition.
 
I feel like putting yourself at risk in the way you're suggesting means that you're not really able to do your ADL's because functioning in a way that helps keep yourself alive is kind of the baseline there. Also, actively hurting yourself and passively hurting are both hurting yourself.

I agree that the story sounded suspicious, but I'm reticent to call someone psychotic or not without having examined them. If the hospital had been so concerned about the woman being a harm to herself, their actions should have been to seek court and add her to the list of 1% of patients where the court ruled in their favor.

Story time. Had a guy that had been seen in ERs several times over the previous couple weeks for psychosis, but was always let go because he was functioning just fine, caring for himself, and wasn't directly dangerous. Brought in by police because he was dodging traffic on our main highly during lunch hour because the helicopter that flew overhead was the film crew for the movie he was in. Guy believed his life was a movie like The Truman Show and that he was supposed to be filming a highway scene. Guy was perfectly capable of caring for himself other than this, but judge upheld the invol order because he almost caused multiple accidents on the highway because of his delusions.
 
Wait, your eyebrows don't go up when only 1% of their petitions are upheld?!

In any event, I'll have more to say this time next year when I finish with forensics haha.
My guess is that this low 1 % figure is an artifact of commitment law in Florida. I am not familiar with Florida commitment laws/procedures. However in some states it can be a week or more between the filing for committment and the hearing. And once a petition is filed, it often can not be withdrawn- it has to go before a judge. My guess is that the hospital involved is dropping the commitment (because the patient is improved or insurance has run out by the time of the hearing), but because of judicial involvment this is counted as the petition being not upheld. I'd be interested in hearing from a Florida psychiatrist
 
Story time. Had a guy that had been seen in ERs several times over the previous couple weeks for psychosis, but was always let go because he was functioning just fine, caring for himself, and wasn't directly dangerous. Brought in by police because he was dodging traffic on our main highly during lunch hour because the helicopter that flew overhead was the film crew for the movie he was in. Guy believed his life was a movie like The Truman Show and that he was supposed to be filming a highway scene. Guy was perfectly capable of caring for himself other than this, but judge upheld the invol order because he almost caused multiple accidents on the highway because of his delusions.

Hah, yeah. Pretty easy to make a case for danger to self here!

Again, I think this is incorrect verbage here and ADLs aren't really a baseline here. For instance, we don't generally hospitalize people for not taking maintaining personal hygiene which is an ADL. In fact, the only ADLs we really hospitalize people for in psychiatry is not eating or if they're not dressing themselves to an extent where it's causing serious harm (ex. frostbite).

Putting yourself at significant risk of harm secondary to a psychiatric condition is not the same thing as "passively hurting yourself". For example:
A patient in a manic episode believes that because they're a prophet they are protected from harm and so can walk down the middle of a busy road with a sign above their head inviting people to join their new church.

A delusional patient is found setting up equipment on an active railroad track to transmit because he believes the POTUS has sent him a message that the only place where he can send back transmissions about his work as a secret government agent is on railroad tracks which secretly carry all high level secure government transmissions.

Unless a car or train hits them or they actually end up causing harm to someone else, they have not actually passively harmed themselves in any way, nor meant to harm themselves but they do not recognize the downstream significant risk these actions put them in, secondary to their possibly treatable psychiatric condition.

I'm not sure how I'm coming across here, but I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I think this is a semantic loop but we're saying the same thing.

I was being flippant that keeping yourself alive is a baseline ADL. Running in traffic or swimming in a body of water are both things that run counter to keeping yourself alive. I learned that lesson in residency when I questioned how much a danger someone was because they were checking their outlets by unscrewing them from the wall. I mean that's the story we got anyway and I was like well... the patient isn't really messing with them and they technically can't electrocute themself if they're not messing with the innards. But the behavior was pretty disorganized and paranoid and I was being a bit dense/concrete about just the act itself being/not being dangerous. It's more about the overall pattern of behavior and such.

So yeah, not disagreeing with ya at all!
 
My guess is that this low 1 % figure is an artifact of commitment law in Florida. I am not familiar with Florida commitment laws/procedures. However in some states it can be a week or more between the filing for committment and the hearing. And once a petition is filed, it often can not be withdrawn- it has to go before a judge. My guess is that the hospital involved is dropping the commitment (because the patient is improved or insurance has run out by the time of the hearing), but because of judicial involvment this is counted as the petition being not upheld. I'd be interested in hearing from a Florida psychiatrist
This could very well be the case. In some of the states I have worked that don’t have a 72 hour hold type of provision, commitment proceedings were often initiated with no intent of longer term commitment as many patients will stabilize in a few days.
 
This could very well be the case. In some of the states I have worked that don’t have a 72 hour hold type of provision, commitment proceedings were often initiated with no intent of longer term commitment as many patients will stabilize in a few days.
It would certainly be clarifying to have someone with experience in Florida to clarify. But it would be a tremendous distortion of reporting, over and above the typical inept lay spin, to characterize a routine paperwork matter as being abnormal.

Everywhere I have been, going to court is such a gigantic hassle that psychiatrists are incentivized to avoid it. And as everywhere I have worked thankfully met the standards for basic decency of mission, that manifested as attempting to convince patients to sign voluntary paperwork as soon as possible even if they were admitted involuntarily. It also meant, a natural feedback loop would exist between the local judges and the psychiatrists. Psychiatrists weren't going to haul their asses to court for a case without a good chance of winning. Although being admitted on involuntary paperwork was a frequent occurrence in my residency, I would say at least half of those patients would sign voluntary papers on the unit. Of the ones then taken to court, the involuntary status was upheld probably 80-90% of the time.

I would note also, we were often struggling to get more days covered for pts who needed it. God forbid you document a patient is improving but not ready for discharge. Felt like immediately the insurance company would be saying "they're better, must be ready for discharge!" when better might mean still very far from safe.

We were also always desperate for beds, not patients. Pressure to discharge independent of insurance issues bc there were always people waiting to get to the unit. I don't think they address Medicaid and Medicare patients in this article--but I wouldn't be surprised if the hospitals either didnt take them or booted out THOSE patients quickly while inappropriately keeping ones with private insurance....
 
I'd be interested in hearing from a Florida psychiatrist

I tried. You must've missed the above comment. Here it is again:

This is not the first time that hospital in Tampa has been mentioned (and this older article is worse, imo). I had a friend that used to moonlight there. They paid well, but most of what has been written is rooted in truth. He didn't last long there, mostly because of the issues with discharging people "before their [insurance] days are up." My friend works in northern Florida now. I asked him about his involuntary court approval/denial rate. He said he has had maybe 4 cases thrown out of court...ever. So either the judge in that county is very loose with releasing people, or this hospital is doing some sketchy stuff. From everything that I've heard, getting involuntary court cases upheld in the state of Florida is incredibly easy.

This isn't unique to Florida or Acadia. I have a friend in Colorado that worked on a private inpatient unit. If you wanted to discharge someone "before their [insurance] days are up," you had to ask a colleague for a second opinion before you were allowed to discharge the patient. Thus, the culture there was "we don't do that here." He stayed for a while but ultimately left when the pay just wasn't worth the risk.

This hospital is an outlier. The linked article in my above comment further reinforces this point. This isn't "liberal NYT anti-psychiatry spin" lol. This hospital has been sketchy for a while.
 
I tried. You must've missed the above comment. Here it is again:



This hospital is an outlier. The linked article in my above comment further reinforces this point. This isn't "liberal NYT anti-psychiatry spin" lol. This hospital has been sketchy for a while.
Thank you. I read the article- it looks like most of the commitments were dropped before trial. It's interesting that most of the commitments that went to court were not upheld.
 
Last edited:
1. Everywhere I have been, going to court is such a gigantic hassle that psychiatrists are incentivized to avoid it. And as everywhere I have worked thankfully met the standards for basic decency of mission, that manifested as attempting to convince patients to sign voluntary paperwork as soon as possible even if they were admitted involuntarily. It also meant, a natural feedback loop would exist between the local judges and the psychiatrists. Psychiatrists weren't going to haul their asses to court for a case without a good chance of winning. Although being admitted on involuntary paperwork was a frequent occurrence in my residency, I would say at least half of those patients would sign voluntary papers on the unit. Of the ones then taken to court, the involuntary status was upheld probably 80-90% of the time.

2. I would note also, we were often struggling to get more days covered for pts who needed it. God forbid you document a patient is improving but not ready for discharge. Felt like immediately the insurance company would be saying "they're better, must be ready for discharge!" when better might mean still very far from safe.

3. We were also always desperate for beds, not patients. Pressure to discharge independent of insurance issues bc there were always people waiting to get to the unit. I don't think they address Medicaid and Medicare patients in this article--but I wouldn't be surprised if the hospitals either didnt take them or booted out THOSE patients quickly while inappropriately keeping ones with private insurance....
1. In TN the psychiatrist doesn't usually have to go to court. In MS, the hearings are often held in the psych hospital (often the judge is remote-procedures vary by county), and the psychiatrist doen't typically have to attend that hearing, although there was one case last year in which I did have to be present at the in-hospital hearing.
2. I experience that problem with many Medicaid-covered kids in Arkansas. One of the reasons I don't work in Arkansas anymore.
3. In MS and TN big box shops, the majority of patients have Medicare or Medicaid (for kids the vast majority are Medicaid).
 
This is why for-profit corporations shouldn't be allowed in any industry that inherently involves depriving others of their rights. Which is mainly jails/prisons and locked inpatient psych units. The incentives are not aligned correctly.

Def some patients in the margins who would benefit from a few more days. Usually we filed on them, they got better enough to sign in voluntarily, and then they didn't need to actually go to court. The <1% approval rate for their petitions is pretty damning.

While the article may have an unfortunate specific anecdote or two, it's a little damning when supposedly multiple former staff, including executives, were willing to corroborate the allegations.
Yeah. While I don't think the NYTimes is what it once was and has started leaning a little too far leftward to be considered truly unbiased and centrist, I don't think they're outright lying. Unless someone in that hospital contaminated the heck out of that judge's cornflakes and the judge is getting back in a dirty, unethical way, that hospital's done enough money-grubbing greedy hog stuff to get on someone's radar.
 
Thank you. I read the article- it looks like most of the commitments were dropped before trial. It's interesting that most of the commitments that went to court were not upheld.

I think that makes everything even more suspect, i.e. dropping commitments right before court is sketchy.... but taking them to court and still batting 1% after having dropped a bunch of them. woof.
 
Top