Is mental health treatment reserved only for privileged people in Taiwan? The question made the news again following a violent incident in Pingtung County last month, while calls to expand coverage for counseling made headway with a forum last week held by the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA).
The problem is long-standing — people seeking psychological counseling in Taiwan either have to pay steep prices out of pocket or wait for months to receive affordable services.
A petition to have counseling services covered by the National Health Insurance (NHI) system was launched in May and gathered more than 5,000 signatures, leading to the forum that included signatories and experts.
The NHIA said the government has established 385 community mental health centers across the nation since 2015 that provide free or low-cost services to more than 20,000 people annually.
However, an expert at the forum said few people have been using the service, with some psychologists not seeing a single patient during their shifts. Some of these centers are doing well, while others appear to be understaffed and can only accept suicidal people or those with mental disorders, a participant at the forum said.
While the centers were not the main topic of discussion, the issue needs serious consideration, lest it become another well-intentioned venture that turns into a waste of public funds. The services are already in place and if they are utilized fully, they can help alleviate resource shortages and reduce waiting times.
While more advertising and education could help, the real problem is the stigmatization of mental illness, which dissuades people from seeking help, especially at community clinics where they might run into people they know.
Lawyer Lu Chiu-yuan (呂秋遠) yesterday wrote that someone had sought him out for legal advice on how to prevent a mental health clinic from being set up in their community, which is disheartening.
The clinics are not enough to serve the roughly 2 million people who sought help last year, a number that would increase.
Getting people the help they need as soon and as consistently as possible is crucial, and people should not be only talking about this when violent incidents happen. That only helps reinforce the stigma that all mental health patients are dangerous.
Several experts at the forum agreed that the NHI should cover mental health services, noting that increased accessibility would allow people to get preventive help before their symptoms possibly worsen and they become a danger to society.
However, psychiatrist Kuo Hsi-ching (郭錫卿) said that psychological issues are different from serious mental disorders, with the latter already covered by the NHI. He equated the situation to “having high blood pressure, a precursor to a disease, but not yet a medical condition.”
However, people should seek help when their problems are still manageable, as that ultimately saves costs for themselves and the public health system in the long run.
Furthermore, letting mental health issues go unchecked is different from having high blood pressure, as the former could put other people at risk.
The government should provide incentives for hospitals and psychologists to make mental health treatment more accessible. There are many details that need to be worked out, but expanding NHI coverage of mental health treatment is a worthy goal.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS