I was reading some of Whites book on biopsychosocial medicine, and there's a discussion where they're talking about how to promote it. They say that the government only gets interested when they're told it is a way to save money.
Aylward said: I have been given a lot of information that reinforces some of the messages that I have passed on to decision makers. We had some great difficulty last year persuading certain people that the way forward in the more effective assessment of disability and its management in people on State benefits lay more with a biopsychosocial approach. There seems to be an antipathy in some parts of Government towards anything without a hard evidence base. If the biopsychosocial approach is perceived in (such a) way, it is very difficult to get the Department of Health, amongst others in Government, to favour interventions and rehabilitation adopting the biopsychosocial approach. But in recent months Im beginning to see a change.
Wessely: What made some of the policy makers change their views?
Aylward: Systematic reviews of the literature garnering evidence to support the biopsychosocial concept. Recent meetings of focus groups of key opinion makers (now) support ---with authoritative and expert opinion --- the value of biopsychosocial approaches. There are going to be some developments soon. The key aspect has been effectively communicating this in a far more robust and authoritative way.
edit: I'm unable to get access to this second section in googlebooks. Is it a misquote? Sorry for the confusion, but I think it would be best to assume it's inaccurate for now.
edit2: It seems to no longer be available in google books, but one can access this bit (p220) on Amazon. It has been condensed somewhat, but not in a way that I think is misleading (although it was hard to cross check it all!)
Professor Gordon Waddell (Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research, Cardiff) said: It may actually be easier to change patients and the public, and they will then force the professionals to change. Some decision makers were very jaundiced. It is all about money. The main thing was to persuade the Treasury that there was an opportunity for keeping costs down.
Professor Robert Lewin said: One of the things that Greville Mitchell is helping us do through One-Health is an analysis that will look at the lost opportunity costs from not using cognitive behavioural therapy approaches. We are doing this in collaboration with Jos Kleijnen.
...
Greville Mitchell said: If you go to Gordon Brown (UK Chancellor of the Exchequer) and say, We can prove to you that if we address this issue, we can save 2 billion, then you have his full attention.
Mansel Aylward said: That is the approach that has been taken.
I can't copy/paste from google books, so took the above from here:
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/PROOF_POSITIVE.htm
A google search for quotes from the above should turn up a link to google books.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there's been about the recent disability benefit reforms in the UK, and only blogs from disability campaigners mentioning the significance of the biopsychosocial approach to disability to them. I still naively expect massive social changes to receive some sort of analysis and investigation by our media.
re demonising benefit claimants. In some way, I prefer the open disdain for the disabled that comes from the way the Conservatives have promoted these reforms. It's more honest than the paternalistic pose Labour adopted to justify massive cuts to the help those with health problems receive. In many way, the biopsychosocial approach to CFS seems a very 'New Labour' project.
