Bill Overview
Title: Behavioral Health Coordination and Communication Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes, within the Executive Office of the President, the position of Interagency Coordinator for Behavioral Health to coordinate federal programs and activities concerning mental health and substance use disorders. Federal departments and agencies must notify the coordinator when developing or implementing policies related to behavioral health. The Government Accountability Office must report on the role and activities of the coordinator and must study issues related to behavioral health services in school settings and in the juvenile justice system.
Sponsors: Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]
Target Audience
Population: People with mental health and substance use disorders
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill specifically mentions coordination of federal programs related to mental health and substance use disorders, which suggests it impacts individuals dealing with these issues.
- Policies developed and implemented related to behavioral health will affect those utilizing these services, which includes individuals with mental health and substance use disorders.
- The bill calls for studying behavioral health services in school settings, indicating a focus on children and adolescents who might be dealing with mental health issues.
- It also mentions the juvenile justice system, suggesting that youth involved in this system will be impacted.
- Considering family and community influence, those related or connected closely to individuals receiving behavioral health services might also be indirectly impacted.
Reasoning
- The population includes individuals with mental health and substance use disorders, as well as children and adolescents in school settings, and youth involved with the juvenile justice system.
- The policy budget constraints suggest a need to focus improvements on coordination and communication, which might take time to have a noticeable impact on individual well-being scores.
- Given that approximately 60 million Americans face mental health or substance use issues, and considering indirect impacts on families, only a portion of these individuals will experience direct changes. For this simulation, a diverse set of scenarios is considered, including immediate family impacts and professional stakeholder perspectives.
- Not all individuals will experience the same level of impact; some might benefit significantly over time from improved policy implementation, while others may notice little to no difference.
- The long-term nature of this policy means potential changes in well-being could take multiple years to manifest.
Simulated Interviews
Graphic Designer (Denver, CO)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope any improvement in mental health coordination could provide better resources for my own ongoing therapy needs.
- With two kids, knowing schools might get more focus on mental health is reassuring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
High School Teacher (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements to federal coordination might finally provide schools with needed resources for addressing mental health challenges.
- I want to see more structured support for our students dealing with these issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Centralized policies might make it easier to find consistent support when things get overwhelming, especially in high-pressure tech environments.
- There's a big push for companies to take mental health seriously, and federal support would be a good backup.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
College Student (New York, NY)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any advancement that can help students find resources faster is positive.
- College environments can be intense, so knowing there's federal focus on our mental health can relieve some stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Policy Analyst (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Coordination should improve policy efficiency. However, actual on-ground change depends on local implementation.
- Federal oversight needs to bring in diverse stakeholders for it to work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Full-time Parent (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautious but hopeful improved communications among agencies could enhance the resources available for my family.
- We've fallen through the cracks before, better coordination may help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
High School Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 16 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the system can help me more, and not just punish, I think I have a better chance now.
- Counseling after detention has been good, more support could really help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Substance Abuse Counselor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved communication could eventually help streamline efforts to reach more of those in need.
- But I want to see actual support come down to the grassroots to really be effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Juvenile Justice Advocate (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that shifts the focus from incarceration to coordination and treatment is a step in the right direction.
- The policy needs to be backed by real resource allocations to have an effect.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Social Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy initiatives that focus on mental health could transform the way we handle our caseload at the county level.
- Change takes time, but federal push gives it more authority.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $10500000 (Low: $8500000, High: $12500000)
Year 3: $11025000 (Low: $8925000, High: $13225000)
Year 5: $12155000 (Low: $9835000, High: $14585000)
Year 10: $14850000 (Low: $12025000, High: $17675000)
Year 100: $148500000 (Low: $126250000, High: $176750000)
Key Considerations
- The extent of coordination achieved will heavily influence the potential cost efficiencies.
- The effectiveness of policies implemented as a result of enhanced coordination will determine long-term cost savings and economic impacts.
- The benefits of coordination are inherently difficult to measure and may not always be monetizable.