> They fund treatments that are ‘cost-effective’, which often means ‘cost-legible’, and ‘evidence-based’, which often means ‘has had the support of research for long enough to have a lot of fairly robust studies that show positive things’.
I’m especially curious about what fuels your strong conviction that these alternative options are net-better for patients. My intuition matches yours, but I wonder if there are any objective “legible” metrics to be found to convince the institutional funders?
You started this post with:
> People who advocate for peer respites and soterias consider them more humane alternatives to psych wards, which lock people inside and treat them primarily with medication, in a way that often feels alienating and dehumanizing.
Which feels like a good start. Is there any clear data on differences in outcomes?
Great update, thank you.
This aspect of it seems especially high leverage:
> They fund treatments that are ‘cost-effective’, which often means ‘cost-legible’, and ‘evidence-based’, which often means ‘has had the support of research for long enough to have a lot of fairly robust studies that show positive things’.
I’m especially curious about what fuels your strong conviction that these alternative options are net-better for patients. My intuition matches yours, but I wonder if there are any objective “legible” metrics to be found to convince the institutional funders?
You started this post with:
> People who advocate for peer respites and soterias consider them more humane alternatives to psych wards, which lock people inside and treat them primarily with medication, in a way that often feels alienating and dehumanizing.
Which feels like a good start. Is there any clear data on differences in outcomes?