fbpx

Dearth of treatment services, ‘outmoded’ approach plague dually diagnosed patients

Laurie and Chuck Goldstein hold a newspaper clipping of their son, who is diagnosed schizoaffective and has battled with substance abuse. The Goldsteins fought for 15 years to get their son the treatment he needed to live a better life. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Laurie and Chuck Goldstein hold a newspaper clipping of their son, who is diagnosed schizoaffective and has battled with substance abuse. The Goldsteins fought for 15 years to get their son the treatment he needed to live a better life. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Treatment services are severely lacking for people who are simultaneously diagnosed with mental illness and substance use disorders, and what some criticize as an outdated approach throws up obstacles in times of need.

Dual diagnosis patients may turn to powerful opioids and other substances to quell symptoms ranging from depression to severe hallucinations and paranoia.

And for the people closest to them, the result could be alarming.

Like when Laurie Goldstein’s husband delivered $200 worth of groceries to their son’s condo, and eight hours later, he called saying he had nothing to eat. What happened to all of that food?

“It was poison,” he told her. “I had to throw it all away.”

Or, the combination of psychosis and substances could be dangerous.

Like when Chuck Goldstein returned from the hospital one day to find his son spreading gasoline around the base of their Paradise Valley home. He was going to kill the ants, his son said.

Dr. Michael Franczak, director of population health at Partners in Recovery Medical Services, said providers in Arizona are risk-averse, and the array of dual diagnosis services is lacking.

The number of available beds statewide is far fewer than the number of people clamoring for treatment, and emergency rooms and residential treatment are overused without long-lasting results.

He said the American Society of Addiction Medicine has assessed the types of services this population needs, but “while they have described what is needed, it’s not readily available.”

And even what is available may be less than ideal, like residential treatment centers located in communities struggling with their own drug problems.

“What’s available isn’t a place that anyone of us would send our loved ones to,” said Dr. Bobbie Erke, director of integrated substance recovery services at Partners in Recovery.

That despite advocates’ frequent complaints that access to care can be hard to come by, many of which were heard during a public meeting in November to determine the best use of available space at the Arizona State Hospital.

Providers turn patients away when they can’t or won’t get clean. Treatment is expensive even with insurance. And parents are left to defend themselves against their own children as they navigate a system with limited space and an increasingly needy population.

15 years and thousands of dollars later

The Goldsteins’ son, Alex, is a different person now. At 29, he’s finally been able to enjoy a year or two of relative normalcy. His large stature, all 6-foot-3 of him, doesn’t scare his mom anymore.

But it took 15 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get him to this point.

Laurie and Chuck Goldstein (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Laurie and Chuck Goldstein (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Laurie Goldstein reads off one failed treatment program after another – she keeps detailed timelines, listing all the times she was told her son was “more than they could deal with.”

Her son is diagnosed schizoaffective, a condition combining schizophrenia and a mood disorder. Out of desperation to escape the taunting voices in his head and feel normal, he started to self-medicate with marijuana at 14. Eventually, that escalated to heroin.

When he was turned away from treatment, his family was left with few options.

Chuck Goldstein said they couldn’t simply accept their son back into the fold.

Living in the same house wasn’t a viable option. They had to put locks on all of the doors or else find him standing over their beds in the middle of the night. They installed a security system with cameras all around the house. On at least one occasion, he brought someone home off the street and used heroin with the stranger.

Franczak estimated that about half of people with mental illness also have a co-occurring substance use disorder. They could turn to alcohol or cocaine, but the most serious cases involve opioids, which induce a painful withdrawal. So, when doctors cut them off from prescription drugs, they turn to the streets.

And that’s where Franczak said dual diagnosis patients become the “worst prescribers in the world” because they choose substances that ultimately exacerbate their psychosis.

Dr. Darwyn Chern, medical director at Partners in Recovery and vice president of the Arizona Society of Addiction Medicine, said people with mental illness are often prescribed medications that interact with opioids. That interaction can prove lethal.

Patients may not even be made fully aware of the possible repercussions of using certain drugs, like pain medications, and can become addicted unknowingly. They stop using the prescribed medication and, find themselves with severe back pain and vomiting from withdrawal and work desperately to get their hands on anything that will stop it.

The chemical stress becomes “an uncontrollable monster,” Chern said.

He said he gets calls from people like this all the time, seeking medication-assisted treatment, but he has struggled to find them help.

Plenty of care providers are licensed to treat substance use disorders, he said, but not everyone is willing to do it.

He thinks they’re afraid.

Relapse and ‘recovery’

Dick Dunseath, whose mentally ill son is a dual diagnosis patient with schizoaffective disorder and a substance abuse disorder, testifies November 17 during a public meeting to determine the best use of available space at the Arizona State Hospital. Dunseath advocated for expanded services for dual diagnosis patients who struggle to find treatment. (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Arizona Capitol Times)
Dick Dunseath, whose mentally ill son is a dual diagnosis patient with schizoaffective disorder and a substance abuse disorder, testifies November 17 during a public meeting to determine the best use of available space at the Arizona State Hospital. Dunseath advocated for expanded services for dual diagnosis patients who struggle to find treatment. (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Arizona Capitol Times)

Dick Dunseath is the father to a dual diagnosis patient, and he’s tired of hearing the word “recovery.”

He said society props up the rare success stories of people recovering from their illness, going on to live wonderful lives with families of their own.

“There’s this notion that anybody with schizophrenia can do that, and if they aren’t succeeding, they’re choosing not to comply with the rules,” he said. “And if only they did comply with the rules, they would recover. I’ve heard that said of my son many, many times. This mythology is the first obstacle to facing reality.”

His 39-year-old son’s reality is one of constant uncertainty. He, too, is schizoaffective, and he tells his father meth makes him feel like he’s on top of the world.

He lives at a house run by Marc Community Resources, one of the few programs that has come through for Dunseath’s son.

Dunseath said most providers he’s encountered want the easy cases because they work out better for them financially – more challenging cases, like his son, cost money.

He recalled residential treatment facilities that wouldn’t let his son come back if he left to get high. If he wasn’t there at midnight, Dunseath said, the provider might not get paid for that day.

“In the residential treatment programs, we’re churning people,” he said. “And when they get kicked out of those programs, there’s no place to go.”

Holly Gieszl, an attorney who represents dual diagnosis patients trying to get treatment, said that trend represents the continued stigmatization of addicts. Demanding detox before mental health treatment, she said, is “outmoded and ineffective.”

“It’s very easy to write off people as druggies,” she said, “to say, ‘They just need to detox, then they’ll be worthy of us treating their mental illness.’”

Gieszl said that’s indicative of the disconnect between “the narrative at the ivory tower level and the reality in the field.”

She said the concept of dual diagnosis poses a problem to begin with. The term suggests the two issues are in separate silos, and their treatment is kept separate as well.

Meanwhile, patients and families navigating a complicated system of care may be operating under the misconception that getting clean is always the first step to treating psychosis.

Heidi Capriotti, spokeswoman for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, said there are no sobriety requirements for Medicaid patients seeking behavioral health treatment.

“That should not be a barrier to treatment,” she said.

If dual diagnosis patients on AHCCCS or their families have concerns that providers may be imposing such a requirements, Capriotti said they should first take the matter to their managed care plans, or insurance providers. And if the issue needs to go further, she said reports can be submitted to AHCCCS online.

“Detox does not always come before people can receive treatment,” she said. “Sometimes, there are co-occurring issues, like depression and alcohol-use co-occur often. Psychosis and meth-use might co-occur, and detox is only the first step in severe, life-threatening situations.”

Jeff Schulman testifies November 17 during a public meeting to determine the best use of available space at the Arizona State Hospital. His daughter has been deemed seriously mentally ill and continues to struggle with drug addiction. (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Arizona Capitol Times)
Jeff Schulman testifies November 17 during a public meeting to determine the best use of available space at the Arizona State Hospital. His daughter has been deemed seriously mentally ill and continues to struggle with drug addiction. (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Arizona Capitol Times)

But Jeff Schulman’s 28-year-old daughter is on AHCCCS, and he said detox has been required of her. He said providers have blamed her psychosis on drugs and refuse mental health treatment up front. The court declared her seriously mentally ill less than a year ago, but she has battled substance abuse since she was 15.

But she won’t acknowledge her illness, and can act the part of a normal young woman when she needs to convince someone she doesn’t belong in treatment.

Even if Schulman could get to the point where he could get treatment for his daughter, he said there are limited options with AHCCCS, leaving out the pricey facilities that could offer long-term care like his daughter needs now.

Capriotti said patients deemed seriously mentally ill have special rights and access to special assistance, a program designed to help them navigate the system and get care.

But for those like Schulman’s daughter who do not believe themselves to be ill or who do not seek treatment, there’s no forcing them to get help.

“Adults have rights, and they have the right to make their own decisions,” Capriotti said.

Dunseath has been frustrated by that explanation.

“We don’t say to somebody with Alzheimer’s, ‘Well, you have your rights, and if you want to walk out the door and disappear on the streets, that’s fine,’” he said. “And if they pee on the floor or do something erratic, we don’t kick them out.”

But we do with the mentally ill, he added, and we let them disappear on the streets – or worse.

“When you don’t hear from your child and you know that they’re doing drugs, you really dread any calls that come in after 11 or 12 at night,” Schulman said. “You’re just continually afraid it’s going to be the police telling you to come identify your daughter’s body.”

 

A previous version of this story incorrectly reported that AHCCCS required dually diagnosed patients to detox before receiving mental health treatment.

Tragedy strengthens effort to eliminate board

fine 3d image of dark grunge prison

Sen. Nancy Barto is spearheading an effort to abolish the state board that decides whether those who commit serious crimes but were found guilty except insane are fit to return to the community.  

The effort gained urgency after a man allegedly beat another resident of his Gilbert group home to death last month – 15 years after he killed his own grandparents and less than a year after the Arizona Psychiatric Security Review Board decided after a brief hearing that he needed less supervision. 

Legislative efforts to reform the board fell short last year, but have picked up steam this session. SB1029 looks to reform the board, and SB1030 would sunset it and move the board’s duties back to the courts in 2023. 

Barto, R-Phoenix, said the two bills – which are waiting for a floor vote in the House – are being rolled into one. SB1030 will have the reforms outlined in SB1029 while still dissolving the board in a couple years. 

Barto said she’d been hearing concerns about the board for years. When she attended a board meeting to see for herself how it operated, she described it as “haphazard” and unusual. 

“It’s hard to overestimate how lack of rules, really has potentially and actually harmed the public in this instance; we need to rectify it,” she said. 

Christopher Lambeth, 37, last appeared in front of the board in August 2020. Previously committed to the Arizona State Hospital after being found guilty except insane in his grandparents’ murder, Lambeth had been living in a transitional facility in Tucson. At the August hearing, which lasted 20 minutes, his request to move to the Phoenix area was unanimously approved and he was placed in a home with only eight hours of supervision a day. 

Nancy Barto
Nancy Barto

Advocates say the subsequent tragedy was preventable, but predictable, and that it speaks to a litany of problems with the board and how it’s run. They say the board handles cases inconsistently, provides inadequate time for clients and attorneys to prepare for hearings and has insufficient written guidelines and procedures.  

Holly Gieszl, a founding member of the Association for the Chronically Mentally Ill, said Lambeth’s case was a prime example of the board’s dysfunction. Gieszl often attends board meetings to represent her own clients, and she remembers Lambeth’s August hearing setting off alarm bells at the time.  

“Chris comes in, they don’t have a risk assessment; they don’t hear from a physician or psychologist, and they let him go to an eight-hour house,” Gieszl said. “Seven months later, he murdered someone.” 

Board members are appointed by the governor. The board is headed by a retired psychiatrist and has a psychiatrist, psychologist, parole officer and a public member. The board is responsible for deciding whether those who committed serious crimes but were found guilty except insane are fit to be discharged from the state hospital. It is also tasked with monitoring the progress of those on conditional release from the hospital. The board deals with roughly 100 cases a year. 

Some of the issues flagged by Gieszl and others were also noted in a 2018 auditor general report. The report stated that the board needed to develop rules and policies to guide its work, issue orders and notices as statutorily required and make sure it was getting consistent information on the patients’ mental health before making decisions.  

It also stated that some mental health reports were much more detailed than others, with some offering only “general conclusion statements with little or no support.” 

“The lack of sufficient information jeopardizes the Board’s ability to make timely and consistent decisions regarding GEI (guilty except insane) persons,” the report stated. 

While board chairman Dr. James Clark has said that the board completed the recommendations outlined by the audit, advocates disagree and also want more changes. 

“What the PSRB has not changed at all is the way that it has gone about assessing risk before it releases somebody,” Gieszl said, adding that her organization is backing the legislation to address those inadequacies. 

Among the changes proposed in the legislation are placing a retired judge as the chair of the board, giving a 45-day notice to patients before hearings and having the board explain its decisions on each patient. After the board sunsets in 2023, the cases would be transferred to the Superior Court where the person was sentenced as guilty except insane. 

Barto said that in stakeholder meetings, board members were resistant to any sort of change. 

“I think they just really think that the status quo is working,” Barto said. “When you look at what just happened, unfortunately, we’ve known this is coming, something like the tragedy that happened with Mr. Lambeth and who he killed. It’s unfortunate that we have such a prime example of the board’s inability to make a better determination of this man’s future.” 

Clark declined an interview, instead referring to his presentations to the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Criminal Justice Reform Committee. He declined to comment on whether the board handled Lambeth’s case appropriately. 

“(D)oing away with the PSRB and having Superior Courts assume jurisdiction and monitoring/oversight/supervision of individuals adjudicated Guilty Except Insane, as SB1030 proposes, would be a major policy change, a step backwards and would add an extra burden on the Superior Courts that is unnecessary,” Clark said in his written statement. 

‘Dysfunctional’ board for insane phasing out

Arizona State Hospital

Arizona will soon do away with the state board responsible for deciding the supervision and placement of those found to be guilty except insane for serious crimes, following years of concern about the board’s inconsistent practices and decision-making. 

The Psychiatric Security Review Board duties will shift back to the Superior Court where the judge made the initial guilty except insane determination. 

Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, sponsored the legislation, which also changes the way the board will operate before it sunsets in July 2023.  

“I’m still a bit overwhelmed at our success in getting this through,” Barto said. “This board has been so dysfunctional over the years, and I’m so grateful because we are going to see a changed board in the meantime. They are going to have clear rules; they’re going to have information that’s going to inform their decision-making.” 

The effort suffered a brief setback when Barto’s bill was vetoed by Gov. Doug Ducey, along with 21 other bills, at the end of May when Ducey said he wouldn’t sign any more bills until the Legislature sent him the budget. 

Ducey signed the revived version of the bill June 29. 

Barto’s bill gained steam this legislative session, in part due to tragedy.  

In April, Christopher Lambeth, 37, allegedly beat to death another resident of his Gilbert group home. The incident came less than a year after the review board unanimously approved Lambeth’s request to move to a group home in the Phoenix area with less supervision – only eight hours a day.  

Fifteen years ago, Lambeth killed his grandparents. He was found guilty except insane and committed to Arizona State Hospital, later moving to a transitional facility in Tucson. 

The board’s decision to allow him to move to a home with less oversight came after a 20-minute hearing last August. The fatal beating occurred seven months later. 

“We can only surmise that this was bound to happen at some point,” Barto said. “Unfortunately, we didn’t have this law in place in time to prevent something like this from happening.”  

The law implements several changes to how the board conducts its remaining business. A judge will be appointed as chair, instead of the current retired psychiatrist. Risk assessments will be required for those who request a change in their supervision, and there are more requirements for obtaining certain information from the state hospital. The board will have to submit an annual report to the Legislature outlining its actions. 

Holly Gieszl, a founding member of the Association for the Chronically Mentally Ill, said one of the most important changes is requiring every case to be heard in-person or via video.  

“The PSRB will always be able to see individuals who are appearing before it, presumably lawyers, too, but certainly individuals who are out in the community on community release,” Gieszl said. 

Barto said the changes will also preserve the right to due process for those who come before the board. 

“The embarrassing part of the story is that because the board had such loose rules and procedures  I mean, basically nonexistent rules  in place, they were violating due process and were dragged into court,” Barto said. “They had to suffer the embarrassment of having their judgments overturned in court.” 

A 2018 auditor general report that noted the board’s shortcomings was key in getting the bill passed, Barto said. While the board’s chair has said that the board had followed the report’s recommendations, advocates disagreed. 

“The good work of our auditor general really, really was instrumental here in giving us some legs to stand on to get this through, to make the points that we needed to my colleagues and the governor that, hey, we have problems, and we’re going to fix them, and we did,” Barto said. 

Liana Garcia, Arizona Supreme Court director of government affairs, said the courts aren’t starting from scratch in implementing the processes necessary to oversee guilty except insane cases. Superior courts had jurisdiction over those cases before the guilty-except-insane statutes were overhauled in the 1990s. The psychiatric security review board was established in 1994. 

“So, there is a model for it, and the Superior Court that had jurisdiction over the case when the person was adjudicated guilty except insane would just retain jurisdiction over that person for the term of their sentence,” Garcia said. 

The board doesn’t sunset until July 1, 2023, in order to give the courts time to prepare to oversee the hearings now overseen by the board. Those hearings are to determine level of custody – whether a person found guilty except insane can be released from the state hospital and what level of supervision they need while on conditional release. 

Each year, the review board oversees about 100 cases from across the state and has about 100 statutory hearings. 

Psychiatric security review board Executive Director Hannah Garcia did not return multiple phone calls for comment.