Tag Archives: mental-health

DSM Steering Committee Proposal

The DSM Steering Committee is recommending changes to the severity specifier levels of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder. The changes are intended to emphasize the importance of symptom severity, functional impairment, and illness-related medical complications rather than relying on a range of BMI levels (anorexia nervosa), episodes of inappropriate compensatory behaviors (bulimia nervosa), and episodes of binge eating (binge-eating disorder). The updated severity levels will also be more comparable to the severity of other disorders in the DSM.

The recommended changes can be found here:

https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/proposed-changes#:~:text=Description%20of%20Proposed%20Change:,other%20disorders%20in%20the%20DSM

So, what does this actually mean?

First, the American Psychiatric Association has not yet agreed to change the DSM severity criteria for anorexia, bulimia, and binge eating disorder. This is a proposal, not an adoption.

Let’s review what the APA adoption process looks like.

Proposals are submitted: Changes to diagnostic criteria, additions, deletions, etc., are submitted by clinicians and researchers through the APA’s DSM proposal portal.

Next comes the Steering Committee Review. The DSM Steering Committee and specialized Review Committees assess the proposals for scientific evidence, clinical utility, and reliability. If the Steering Committee finds a proposal promising, it is posted for public comment.

The next step is the Final Steering Committee Recommendation. The Steering Committee issues a formal recommendation (either for approval or rejection/modification).

Finally, Steering Committee recommendations must then be approved by the APA Board of Trustees and Assembly before changes are incorporated into the DSM or DSM-5-TR.

With this review procedure in place, let us now look at how often proposals are rejected.

First, I could not locate any websites which show a published rate of rejection. But empirical examples from analyses of the initial iterative revision experience following DSM-5 publication exist.

In a report on the first 3 years of the iterative revision process twenty-nine (29) proposals were received.

These proposals resulted in a few successful changes: addition of prolonged grief disorder, modifications to existing criteria (e.g., ARFID), and inclusion of new codes.

One proposal was explicitly rejected by the APA Board.

17 proposals were returned to the submitters with requests for additional supporting data but not adopted as submitted.

Two proposals were rejected without further review due to conceptual issues.

Others were deferred or still under review.

Therefore, of the 29 proposals in the first three (3) years, it appears as if at least twenty (20) were not approved for inclusion in the DSM-5 or DSM-5-TR. While not a formal percentage, a substantial proportion of proposals (in this case, more than half of those submitted) did not directly result in adopted changes in that period — either rejected outright, deferred for more evidence, or modified significantly before acceptance.

Key points to understand from this process are approval is multistage. Even if the Steering Committee recommends a change, it still must pass approval by the APA Board of Trustees and Assembly. Importantly and statistically, the greatest impediment appears to be lack of data. The majority of proposals are returned for additional evidence rather than adopted, showing how stringent the criteria are on empirical support. Finally, the iterative process means ongoing evaluation: The APA’s current model for DSM revision is deliberately iterative and evidence-driven, which tends to minimize adoption of weakly supported proposals.

Also, the DSM is just a general guideline tool. APA’s practice guideline includes a “Statement of Intent” “… that the guideline should not be considered a statement of the standard of care and does not mandate any particular course of medical care and is not a substitute for independent clinical judgment.”

The DSM guidelines are NOT a generally accepted standard of care. In fact, there is no generally accepted standard of care (“GASC”) for eating disorders. This is a huge negative factor which has been haunting the eating disorder community for years.

That factor was decisive in the Wit v. UBH case.

In Wit v. United Behavioral Health, the district court held (and the Ninth Circuit largely left intact for this purpose) that:

An insurer’s internal guidelines are enforceable if they do not conflict with generally accepted standards of care.

Crucially, Wit did not require insurers to mirror professional association guidance, nor did it require guidelines to be optimal or patient-favorable … only that they not contradict the GASC.

This creates a binary inquiry:

If GASC exists and the insurance guideline contradicts it → unenforceable

If GASC is absent, unsettled, or heterogeneous → insurer discretion survives

That premise is decisive for eating-disorder claims. Unlike many medical conditions, eating disorders suffer from persistent standard of care fragmentation. There is no universally accepted level-of-care criteria. There are competing frameworks (APA, AACAP, SAHM, insurer-developed tools, proprietary LOC criteria). There is variation in reliance on: BMI; % expected body weight; Vital sign instability; Functional impairment; Psychiatric risk; Trajectory vs. snapshot severity.

Because no unified GASC exists, insurers can plausibly argue, “Our guideline does not contradict generally accepted standards—because no single standard exists to contradict.”

That argument has been repeatedly successful in eating-disorder denial litigation.

On a positive note, the Steering Committee proposal would reframe DSM severity specifiers for AN, BN, and BED. It would emphasize: Functional impairment; Symptom severity; Medical complications; Explicitly de-emphasize single-metric severity determinations (BMI/frequency counts).

However, and importantly:

It does not eliminate BMI for insurance company consideration;

It does not establish level-of-care rules;

It does not declare BMI-based criteria invalid;

It does not override APA’s SOC disclaimers.

So even if adopted, it would be diagnostic and descriptive, not prescriptive advisory nor normative.

Under Wit v. UBH, the DSM Steering Committee’s proposal, while clinically significant, would not materially constrain insurer claim handling absent a broader, enforceable consensus standard of care for eating disorders, which still does not exist.

Regarding the Steering Committee Proposal, there is a one-month public comment window [Until January 9, 2026]. It is critical that the APA hears from intelligent voices. Voices which supply objective data, medical evidence and information, independent authoritative research studies.

Undoubtedly, activists will also be submitting their lived experience stories claiming they are dispositive. And whereas they are certainly a part of the equation, collaborative messaging which shows unity and a collective strong voice is more important than ever before.

If you are struggling with the substance of the comments you wish to make, The International Federation of Eating Disorder Dietitians on its website has suggested comments. This page also has extensive background on the evolution of this initiative. (And yes, thanks to Jessica Setnick should definitely go out!):

IFEDD Advocacy Initiatives

That is the only way in which true evolution and change are possible.

Ai-Generated “Therapists”: Promise, Peril, and What’s Next?

In November 2025, Joe Braidwood, a co-founder of “Yara Ai” chose to shutter his Ai therapy product after concluding it posed unacceptable risks for people with serious mental health issues. This is but the latest chapter in the cautionary tale for the proliferation of Ai therapy.

Mr. Braidwood stated in part: “We stopped Yara because we realized we were building in an impossible space. Ai can be wonderful for everyday stress, sleep troubles, or processing a difficult conversation. But the moment someone truly vulnerable reaches out – someone in crisis, someone with deep trauma, someone contemplating ending their life – Ai becomes dangerous. Not just inadequate. Dangerous.”

“The gap between what Ai can safely do and what desperate people need isn’t just a technical problem. It’s an existential one. And startups, facing mounting regulations and unlimited liability, aren’t the right vehicles to bridge it.”

“… the mental health crisis isn’t waiting for us to figure out the perfect solution. People are already turning to Ai for support. They deserve better than what they’re getting from generic chatbots.”

After Mr. Braidwood terminated Yara Ai, to his immense credit he jumped into the next chapter … how to make Ai programs safer. Mr. Braidwood announced the opening of  GLACIS Technologies – their attempt to contribute to the infrastructure of AI safety:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/from-heartbreak-infrastructure-why-were-building-glacis-joe-braidwood-uzulc/

Read his words again “… someone in crisis, someone with deep trauma, someone contemplating ending their life – Ai becomes dangerous. Not just inadequate. Dangerous.” “… [it] isn’t just a technical problem. It’s an existential one. And startups, facing mounting regulations and unlimited liability, aren’t the right vehicles to bridge it.”

An existential, dangerous problem which startups are not equipped to handle. Consider that reality. And yet, the underlying issue is snowballing at an alarming rate.

This past year, the Harvard Business Review research found the top use of Generative Ai was … “Companionship and Therapy.”

The global Ai in healthcare market is projected to grow rapidly from approximately $37.09 billion in 2025 to over $427 billion by 2032, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of over 40%.

In 2025, 22% of healthcare organizations reported having already implemented domain-specific AI tools, a significant increase from just 3% two years prior. A 2024 survey noted that 66% of U.S. physicians were using some form of AI, up from 38% in 2023.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized over 1200 Ai or machine learning-enabled medical devices to date, indicating increasing regulatory acceptance and the transition of Ai from research to clinical practice.

On October 21, 2025, Menlo ventures released an extensive article on Ai in healthcare.

2025: The State of AI in Healthcare

So, to whom shall we entrust this existential, potentially dangerous issue? Or for that matter does it really matter to whom society “entrusts” the development of this generational, life altering technology? We already know which industry will pioneer the way, developing the technology which will “address” our mental health needs in the future. And their motivation is far from altruistic.

Insurance companies.

Insurance companies are already increasingly investing in Ai driven mental health tools which are “intended” to offer immediate, scalable support.

So why does the insurance industry want Ai programs in the mental health field?

The Case For: Why Insurers Want Ai in Mental Health

1) Access, Speed, and Convenience. In many regions, patients wait weeks for an initial appointment. A 24/7 platform can provide immediate support, especially for low-acuity needs such as stress management, sleep hygiene, and mild-to-moderate anxiety symptoms.

2) Standardization and Protocol Fidelity. Ai systems can deliver structured interventions consistently, reduce clinician “drift” from evidence-based protocols, and prompt ongoing practice of therapeutic skills. For payers, this is attractive because standardization is measurable and scalable.

3) Measurement-Based Care at Scale. Ai can administer screeners, track symptom trends, and support follow through between sessions. When used under clinician governance, this can improve continuity and help identify deterioration earlier.

4) Cost Containment and System Efficiency. The economic case is straightforward: lower-cost interventions for appropriate cases, and potentially fewer downstream costs if early support prevents escalation.

The Case Against: Clinical, Legal, and Ethical Risks

1) Therapy Without Clear Clinical Accountability. When a human clinician provides psychotherapy, licensing and standards of care create identifiable responsibility. [Responsibility which seems to be increasingly overlooked or ignored.] With Ai-only services, accountability becomes diffuse; vendor, insurer, developer, or “the user” which is a poor fit for high-stakes mental health care.

2) Safety in High-Risk Scenarios. Crisis states such as suicidality, self-harm, psychosis, and domestic violence are exactly where failure is most consequential. Ai systems can miss context, misinterpret signals, or provide responses that inadvertently increase risk.

3) Mistriage and Oversimplification. Even good clinicians mistriage. Ai can compound the problem if it lacks nuance around comorbidities, trauma histories, neurodiversity, or cultural context. False reassurance is dangerous; excessive escalation can overwhelm human systems.

4) Privacy and Conflict of Interest. Insurance is structurally sensitive. It sits where health data meets claims management and utilization decisions. If therapy content feeds decision making, or even creates a reasonable fear that it could, patients may self-censor, undermining care.

The “Fortune / Yara” Inflection Point … and the Counter-Lesson

The Yara shutdown, as reported, is primarily cited for a blunt conclusion; that even with guardrails, Ai therapy may be too dangerous for people with serious mental health issues. In today’s derivation of Ai therapy, that is an accurate and alarming concern.

A more practical reading is more nuanced and more actionable: the most defensible lane is Ai augmented care, not Ai-as-therapist … yet. The difference is not semantic, it is operational. If an insurer deploys Ai, safety must be built as a system: constrained scopes, explicit disclosures, continuous monitoring, and fast human escalation that works in real life not just on paper. But safety can be very expensive.

And we know when operational constraints meet financial constraints, history dictates operational constraints will be compromised.

Human Frailties, Ideological Drift, and Why This Can Fuel Ai Adoption

A less discussed but increasingly influential driver of Ai adoption is patient dissatisfaction with human variability … including the perception that some therapists allow personal politics or social ideology to shape the therapeutic relationship. [The “ism” police is prevalent among many therapists.]

While many clinicians practice ethically, a subset of patients report experiences where therapy felt judgmental or moralizing, or where they felt pressured into a social or political framework that did not fit their needs. Even if these experiences are not yet the norm, they can be highly salient: a single negative encounter can permanently reduce willingness to seek traditional care.

As clinicians continue to incorporate radical belief systems like White Supremacy Culture, fatphobia, Indigenous Person’s Land Use Acknowledgements, zero sum game thinking, anti-Semitism, the patriarchy and radical political and social justice views into their everyday lexicon, they lose the ability to listen to their patients, to meet their patients where they are in exchange for ethical, insightful therapeutic regimens where the patient’s needs are prioritized.

This dynamic can and will accelerate Ai adoption in several ways:

  1. Demand for predictable, skills-based support. Many users primarily want coping tools rather than worldview driven interpretation. Ai systems can be positioned as consistent, nonjudgmental, and oriented around concrete skill building. For mild-to-moderate conditions, that positioning will attract patients who want help without interpersonal friction.
  2. Institutional preference for auditability and uniformity. Employers and insurers are sensitive to reputational risk and complaint volume. Ai systems can be constrained, logged, and audited in ways that are difficult with individualized human practice. That makes Ai attractive to institutions seeking standardized delivery, especially for early-stage care pathways. Like insurance companies.
  3. A political paradox: “neutrality” becomes a marketing claim—and a target. Ai is not truly neutral. Training data, safety policies, and vendor tuning encode normative assumptions. Over time, the debate will shift from “therapists inject beliefs” to “platforms embed beliefs.” The perceived advantage of Ai (less idiosyncratic bias) may become a liability if users discover a consistent, system-level bias scaled across millions.
  4. Fragmentation into “values aligned” therapy styles. Some users will prefer “politics-free” skills support; others will want culturally specific or worldview aligned care. Ai platforms can offer configurable styles, but that introduces the risk of “therapeutic filter bubbles,” where systems affirm a user’s worldview rather than challenge maladaptive beliefs when appropriate.

The net effect is that concerns about human bias will inevitably increase appetite for Ai mental-health platforms, but they will also intensify demand for transparency, choice, and oversight. Values will not disappear. Instead, they are moved upstream into product design.

Practical Guardrails for Ethical and Defensible Deployment

In the unlikely event insurance companies seriously embrace issues other than financial viability, if insurers want Ai therapy to be sustainable, guardrails must be more than disclaimers. For example, they must adopt and enforce:

  • Truthful labeling: don’t call it “therapy” if it isn’t clinician-delivered.
  • Disclosure: repeated, clear notice when the user is interacting with Ai.
  • Clinical governance: licensed oversight of protocols, risk signals, and escalation criteria.
  • Real escalation: quick handoffs to humans with operational accountability.
  • Data minimization and segregation: limit retention and wall off therapy content from coverage decisioning.
  • User choice: Ai should be an option, not a prerequisite for human care when clinically indicated.
  • Independent audit: safety, bias, and outcomes evaluation.

Nonetheless, the insurance industry is already using Ai. Its growth and usage will be unprecedented.

Conclusion

Ai mental health platforms can widen access and improve measurement-based care, but they also create nontrivial risks: safety failures, blurred accountability, privacy conflicts, and scaled bias. Air-gapped systems may reduce external security concerns and speed institutional adoption, yet they heighten the need for strict internal governance, because the most important question becomes not only what the Ai says—but what insurers do with what members reveal.

Ultimately, patient experiences with human inconsistency, including perceived ideological drift, will accelerate demand for Ai support. But that same demand will fuel a new expectation: transparency about values embedded in systems, meaningful patient choice, and enforceable protections that keep “care” from becoming merely a more sophisticated form of utilization management.

Ai is here and it is only in its infancy. And we are right to question ultimately whether we will remain the master of Ai … or whether Ai will become our overlords. Sadly, I believe it inevitable that we will approach that point in time when we give the command, “Open the pod bay doors, HAL.” And the chilling reply will be, “I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that”.

When Activism Becomes Your Identity Recovery Suffers

Eating disorder (ED) treatment sits at an uneasy intersection: medicine and meaning, physiology and identity, personal suffering and social narrative. In that terrain, clinician activism can be a force for good, reducing stigma, broadening access, and challenging harmful norms.

But there is a predictable failure mode when activism frameworks become not just a tool, but a clinician’s very identity. In the eating disorder community, particularly where more militant clinician activists strongly endorse the Health at Every Size (HAES) principles which have been long abandoned by the ASDAH and “White Supremacy Culture” frameworks, identity fusion can undermine clinical objectivity and, in turn, inhibit recovery.

The Core Dynamic: Identity Fusion in Clinician-Activism

Identity fusion (also described as role engulfment, overidentification, or enmeshment) occurs when “the cause” becomes inseparable from “the self.” The clinician activist no longer merely uses a framework; they become and are the framework. They view disagreement or complexity as an existential threat not to an idea, but to their very own identity. In doing so, professional, objective debate becomes impossible since the disagreement is no longer about an eating disorder issue. It is perceived to be about the person.

In that state, clinical questions are vulnerable to moralization:

  • A clinical disagreement becomes “harm.”
  • A treatment trade off becomes “violence.”
  • A patient’s ambivalence becomes “internalized oppression.”
  • A colleague’s caution becomes “complicity.”

None of this requires malice although identity fusion is inevitably morphing into a malice-based reality. It arises from the same impulse that draws many clinicians into ED work: a commitment to relieve suffering and protect vulnerable people. The problem is that fused identity tends to produce epistemic lock-in, a narrowing of what counts as legitimate evidence, clinically relevant language, and/or acceptable outcomes.

And this results in harming patients.

7 Ways Militant Identity-fusion Harms Patients

1) Disagreement is improperly perceived as harm

When a professional fellow clinician asks about vitals, level of care, growth curves, or weight trajectory and your first move is moral accusation (“harmful,” “violent,” “unsafe”), you’ve replaced clinical reasoning with social control.

Impact: Teams stop speaking plainly. Errors persist longer. Patients inevitably deteriorate.

2) “Weight-neutral” becomes “weight-blind”

Stigma reduction is not the same as refusing clinically relevant data.

If your practice has blanket taboos, “never weigh,” “never discuss weight adjacent information,” “never document it,” “never acknowledge weight change even when medically relevant” … you are letting ideology override physiology.

Impact: Delayed recognition of instability, delayed escalation, preventable crises.

3) The framework becomes the differential diagnosis

If every case collapses into one explanation (diet culture, oppression, stigma) and alternative hypotheses are treated as betrayal, you’re no longer practicing medicine or psychotherapy … you’re practicing narrative enforcement.

Impact: Missed complexity of the intersection of ARFID, OCD, Autism, Trauma, substance use, GI-endocrine resulting in impaired and slower recovery.  

4) “Internalized ____” is used as a trump card

If a patient’s goals or fears are explained away as “internalized fatphobia,” “internalized white supremacy,” etc., without genuine exploration, you’re doing something coercive: you’re disqualifying the patient’s agency by definition.

Impact: Performance over honesty; more secrecy, more dropout, less change.

5) Outcomes are replaced with virtue

If you spend more time policing language, “calling in/out,” and attempting to establish moral positioning rather than tracking response to treatment, you’re drifting from care to identity maintenance.

Impact: Plans don’t update when they aren’t working. Patients stay stuck longer.

6) You punish measurement instead of fixing measurement

Measurement can be stigmatizing. The solution is not to ban it; it’s to do it professionally and competently:

  • blinded weights when indicated
  • trauma-informed procedures
  • clear consent scripts
  • a focus on vitals, labs, function, behaviors, impairment
  • explicit thresholds for escalation

Impact when you ban instead: You lose safety signals and invite late-stage emergencies.

7) Institutions are treated like enemies, not systems to improve

If “White Supremacy Culture” language becomes a cudgel (to win arguments) rather than a tool (to identify disparities), it stops improving care and starts producing fear and paralysis.

Impact: Staff self-censor, teams fracture, equity work becomes theater rather than outcome based.

Why ED Recovery Is Especially Vulnerable to Identity Fusion

ED recovery is rarely linear and almost never purely ideological. It typically requires:

  • honest assessment of risk (medical, behavioral, psychiatric)
  • tolerating discomfort and ambiguity
  • confronting avoidance and cognitive rigidity
  • willingness to test beliefs against real-world outcomes

Identity-fused activism can unintentionally reinforce the very rigidity that EDs thrive on—only now it’s dressed up as ethics.

This type of identity activism generally manifests in at least five (5) different mechanisms.

Mechanism 1: Skewed Assessment—When “Weight-Neutral” Becomes “Weight-Blind”

When HAES was relevant, a HAES approach could help reduce shame and prevent naïve weight moralizing. But when weight neutrality becomes identity instead of strategy, it drifts into weight blindness. This is a refusal to engage with weight-adjacent data even when medically and diagnostically relevant.

That matters because ED medical risk is often not negotiable and manifests in:

  • bradycardia, hypotension, syncope
  • electrolyte abnormalities
  • refeeding risk
  • growth suppression in adolescents
  • medication dosing and side effect profiles tied to physiological status

A blanket avoidance of weight trajectories, growth curves, or energy deficit indicators can lead to:

  • under recognition of medical instability
  • delayed escalation to higher levels of care
  • misinterpretation of deterioration as “diet culture panic” rather than clinical decline

Paradoxically, this can increase the likelihood of crisis, i.e., forcing coercive interventions later that could have been avoided with earlier, calmer medical clarity.

Mechanism 2: Ideology First Treatment Planning—One Lens for Every Patient

Recovery requires individualized formulation: what maintains the disorder for this person, with this body, history, and risk profile?

When activism is fused with identity, the framework can become pre-emptive and totalizing:

  • the formulation is decided in advance (oppression, diet culture, stigma)
  • the clinical plan becomes a demonstration of ideological consistency
  • alternative hypotheses are filtered out

In practice, this can look like:

  • prioritizing worldview alignment over stabilization sequencing
  • treating weight change (in either direction) as inherently suspect or unspeakable
  • minimizing patient-specific drivers (trauma, OCD, autism/ARFID presentations, bipolarity, GI/endocrine issues, substance use, family dynamics)

The result is not “anti-oppressive care.” It is reduced differential diagnosis and reduced responsiveness to real-time clinical feedback—two reliable ways to prolong illness.

Mechanism 3: Speaking Taboos and Team Brittleness—When Consultation Becomes Risky

High quality ED treatment depends on teams: medical providers, therapists, dietitians, psychiatrists, higher levels of care and the family. Teams improve outcomes when they can speak plainly about risk, behaviors, and response to treatment.

Identity-fused activism can create taboo trade-offs: certain words and outcomes become morally contaminated. For example:

  • “weight loss” and “weight gain” become unsayable even when clinically relevant
  • “Obesity” cannot ever be said
  • “medical necessity” is treated as a pretext for bias rather than sometimes a reality
  • case presentations omit key data to avoid value conflict

Teams then develop avoidance patterns:

  • clinicians don’t raise concerns that might trigger ideological conflict
  • supervision becomes performative
  • “safe/unsafe person” sorting replaces “strong/weak hypothesis”

When honest consultation becomes socially risky, subtle deterioration is easier to miss and recovery slows.

Mechanism 4: Therapy Turns into Recruitment—Undermining Autonomy and Informed Consent

A less recognized harm of identity-fused clinician activism is coercivealignment. Patients pick up on what a clinician needs them to believe to be considered “good,” “safe,” or “not harmful.”

This can inhibit recovery by:

  • replacing curiosity with compliance
  • encouraging patients to outsource thinking to ideology
  • shaming patients for goals they genuinely hold (including weight-related goals, either direction)
  • pathologizing disagreement as “internalized” something, rather than treating it as an authentic value conflict

In ED recovery, where identity and control are already central themes, this dynamic can be particularly damaging. The patient’s job becomes to perform correctness rather than do the hard work of change.

Mechanism 5: “White Supremacy Culture” as a Total Explanation … From Equity Tool to Clinical Shortcut

Equity frameworks can illuminate real disparities: who gets believed, who is labeled “noncompliant,” whose pain is minimized, whose ED is recognized early, and who can access care. Used well, these frameworks can sharpen clinical accountability.

Used as identity, they can become a clinical shortcut:

  • a slogan substitutes for specific behavioral analysis
  • staff anxiety about “getting it wrong” reduces honest assessment
  • outcome metrics get replaced by moral language

In the worst case, the framework becomes an interpretive monopoly: if a patient isn’t improving, the explanation is always the system or diet culture, never the possibility that the chosen intervention isn’t working for this person.

Recovery requires feedback loops. Any framework that discourages revising the plan when the data demand it will predictably inhibit recovery.

What This Looks Like to Patients

Patients tend to experience the downstream effects in concrete ways:

  • Confusion: “We’re not tracking the things that make me feel unsafe—why?”
  • Silence: “Certain topics make my clinician tense, so I avoid them.”
  • Pressure: “If I don’t adopt the right worldview, I’m seen as the problem.”
  • Delay: “We stayed in the wrong level of care too long because talking about risk felt taboo.”
  • Discouragement: “Treatment became about theory, not about me.”

And for many patients, the ED seizes on the contradiction: if the clinician won’t name physiological reality, the disorder will.

Guardrails: Keeping Advocacy Without Losing Objectivity

The remedy is not “less compassion.” It’s more structure; clinical, ethical, and team based.

1) Separate roles explicitly

Use an internal “two hats” model:

  • Advocate hat: values, access, dignity, stigma reduction
  • Clinician hat: differential diagnosis, risk, measurement, falsifiable hypotheses

2) Require a “facts-only” case summary

Before any formulation, write a short paragraph of observable data:

  • vitals, labs, behaviors, impairment, psychiatric risk, trajectory
    Then add the narrative and equity lens.

3) Pre-commit to falsifiers

Ask: “What would make us change the plan within 2–4 weeks?”
Define escalation criteria clearly, including medical thresholds.

4) Build structured dissent into the team

Rotate a designated “alternative hypothesis” role in case conference. Formulate on alternative platform. This has the effect of reducing groupthink without moral conflict.

5) Make informed consent real

If a clinic centers a framework, say plainly what it means in practice:

  • how monitoring is handled (e.g., blinded weights when needed)
  • what outcomes are targeted
  • what happens if the patient’s goals differ
  • what alternatives exist

6) Translate equity frameworks into measurable clinic behaviors. In emphasizing this aspect, this keeps antiracism clinical rather than rhetorical.

Focus on:

  • access inequities
  • bias in diagnosis rates
  • differential treatment dropout
  • pain and symptom dismissal patterns
  • culturally competent engagement.

Conclusion: Recovery Needs Reality, Not Ritual

Activism in the ED field has certainly helped some patients feel less shame and more seen. But when clinician activism becomes identity fusion—particularly around HAES and “White Supremacy Culture” frameworks, the risk is that treatment becomes less falsifiable, less individualized, and morally brittle.

ED recovery thrives on flexible thinking, accurate assessment, and iterative change. Any approach that turns clinical conversation into taboo, ideology into identity, or disagreement into harm will predictably inhibit recovery by narrowing what can be said, measured, reconsidered, and healed.

The goal is not to remove values from care. It is to keep values in their proper place and perspective: guiding dignity and equity, while preserving the clinician’s first obligation in ED treatment … to see clearly, respond to data, and help the patient recover in their own life, not inside someone else’s ideology.

Gratitude for ?

In years past — usually every November — Sierra Tucson and its Overlord and Master, Acadia Healthcare, would descend upon the Dallas–Fort Worth area to host their annual “Gratitude for Giving” Event.

This event purported to honor individuals and organizations making a positive impact in the mental health community. A noble endeavor, at least in theory — recognizing the resilient, compassionate mental health professionals who do thankless work while corporate giants circle overhead, feeding off their labor.

So without further ado, let’s get to this year’s honorees. They are …

Uh … well … uh…

Make no mistake: North Texas is overflowing with mental health heroes who deserve recognition — especially the ones humble enough to insist they are not worthy of it.

And yet, Acadia chose to honor …

That is undoubtedly due in large part to the fact that Acadia is not hosting a Gratitude for Giving Event in North Texas this year.

Why? Oh, the reasons are plentiful. Embarrassingly plentiful.

Possible Reasons

It could be … that Acadia’s once-respectable stock price — around $82 per share in September 2024 — is now living, if one can call it that, on life support at a pathetic $15.00. That’s not a dip; that’s a financial face-plant. Ouch.

It could be the ongoing Department of Justice fraud investigation that refuses to die … much like the problems Acadia keeps pretending don’t exist. Nothing says “gratitude” like having federal agents rummaging through your corporate laundry.

It could be in November 2025, Acadia shelled out a cool $179 million to settle one of the many fraud lawsuits brought by its own shareholders. When your investors sue you, you know you’ve achieved a special level of corporate rot.

It could be the numerous other pending lawsuits against Acadia owned entities for allegedly physically and sexually abusing people entrusted to its care(?).

It could be the abrupt closure of multiple Acadia facilities over the past year — not because they suddenly discovered ethics, but because the abuse was too egregious or the profits weren’t fat enough. Facilities like Options Hospital, Carolina House, Timberline Knolls, Montecatini.

It could be the number of victims under the “watchful” eye of Acadia who died at their facilities.

It could be the fact that the Department of Veteran’s Affairs is investigating Acadia for allegedly engaging in Medicaid fraud.

It could be that shareholders have filed other fraud lawsuits against Acadia alleging that Acadia engages in medically unnecessary involuntary hospitalization of psychiatric patients. Because nothing says “healthcare” like trapping people to bill insurance.

It could be that Acadia’s methadone clinics are under investigation for falsifying medical records to meet productivity quotas — and billing insurers and Medicaid for therapy sessions that never happened. Productivity over people, as always.

It could be that in June 2024, the US Senate issued a scathing report regarding Acadia and 3 other entities alleging in part that vulnerable children are being used as pawns to maximize the profits of these facilities – and American taxpayers are footing the bill. The report further states, “More often than not, these kids aren’t even getting the basic care they need and instead are in many cases experiencing serious neglect and abuse.”

This is not a wave of bad publicity. It is a tsunami of scandal, abuse, fraud, and moral bankruptcy. And so Acadia — desperate for even a flicker of positive PR — chooses to honor…

Shouldn’t we wonder why? Is it because its head isn’t screwed on just right? Could it be perhaps, that its shoes are too tight? But, perhaps the most likely reason of all … is that its heart is two sizes too small!

But let’s drop the Seussian metaphors for a moment. We all know the real reason.

When an entity places profits over patient care, the inevitable results are mistreatment, abuse and tragedy. At its quarterly shareholders’ meetings, the number of beds are discussed, quarterly revenue, adjusted EBIDTA, capital expenditures, market trends, and issues pertaining to its revenue. What is not discussed is the lack of QUALITY care given, the harm to families it is causing, the abuse, or how the lack of oversight of its facilities is being addressed.

Life and death issues being cavalierly dismissed. After all, we can’t let a few deaths and some abuse detract from Acadia’s CEO’s annual salary of $7 million! That daily paycheck of $19,178.00 needs to keep rolling in!

With this long history of abuse, assault, fraud, unethical profiteering, lack of transparency, shuttering facilities and gross mismanagement, who should be referred to any Acadia facility?

Sadly, that will not stop eating disorder organizations from continuing to accept Acadia’s dirty money and marketers continuing to refer families to Acadia’s chambers of abuse … More’s the pity.

The Best of Times … the Worst of Times: Real Life in the Age of Social Media

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities,

Dickens’ well-known quote reflects the contradictory nature of the era it describes, the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, where societal extremes of wisdom and foolishness, belief and doubt, and hope and despair coexisted. The phrase is often used today to describe any period of conflicting circumstances, where seemingly opposite conditions exist simultaneously. 

Dickens captured an era riven by contradiction—one that is strikingly familiar in our decaying, digital age. Today, we move through a world that offers extraordinary access, unprecedented connectivity, and boundless opportunities for expression. Yet those same spaces are shaped by curated identities, algorithm-fed anxieties, and an ever-growing sense of distance among people who are, paradoxically, more connected than ever.

The fears, insecurities and cowardice which define the essence of keyboard warriors have come to define their very lives. And pushes them even further from humanity.

It Was the Best of Times: The Goodness of Real Life

Real life … messy, unpredictable and intimate remains the realm where meaning truly accrues and matters.

When I am out in public, be it the local dog park, a mixed-use shopping retail development, restaurants, the courthouse, bars, going for walks, I interact with people from all walks of life. Men, women, numerous races and ages. Each time, there is laughter, discussions centered on our families, our pets, the holidays, our health, the beauty of the day. I have dear friends from both ends of the political spectrum. We socialize, party together, laugh together.

In real life, conversations are not filtered through screens or stripped of tone and nuance. A friend’s laughter, the warmth of a handshake, the look in someone’s eyes when they understand you … these moments carry a weight no number of “likes” can replicate. Human relationships deepen through vulnerability, shared experience, and presence. Real life offers the “age of wisdom,” where insight grows not from viral posts but from quiet reflection, trial and error, and authentic connection.

Real experiences ground us. They tether us to something permanent and tangible: the smell of freshly cut grass in the springtime, the scent of the Christmas tree, the chaos of family gatherings, the comfort of routines, the joy of unexpected kindness. These are the “seasons of light,” moments illuminated by genuine human engagement.

It Was the Worst of Times: The Digital Landscape of Angst and Despair

Yet we live simultaneously in a world where social media defines culture. Platforms promise connection but often deliver its hollow imitation.

To properly illustrate the decay of society, one need only understand that the financial goal of the five (5) wealthiest corporations in the United States is attained by enticing us to immerse ourselves completely in our personal devices, to remove ourselves from real life and to exist solely on social media. To isolate ourselves. To limit our face-to-face human interaction. That insures their financial success while insuring the destruction of our well-being.

Here, the “age of foolishness” reigns … where impulsive opinions eclipse thoughtful dialogue and where appearance overshadows substance. Belief contorts into echo chambers, while incredulity becomes a reflex to any idea that challenges our curated worldview. We scroll endlessly, absorbing news of tragedies, political battles, and social comparisons until the world feels saturated with crisis. Cowardice and fear are the watchwords. If you do not agree with someone’s viewpoints? You need only “block them” on social media. With a keystroke, you have eliminated intelligent discourse and the expanding of your mind.

We are inundated with political parties disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Promulgating the power of their own party over the needs of the Republic. Indeed, politics has become a new religion rather than an enlightened arena where we can engage in intelligent conversation with a shared goal, the well-being of our nation. Politics is now pop culture. Name calling. Inflammatory labeling. Each tribe remaining in the safety and comfort of their own echo chamber. Pundits opining that we are closer to a civil war now than at any time since the end of the Civil War.

There is the parade of angst, personal attacks, tribal entrenchment, absolutism, and fear … the very worst of our qualities.

This is the “season of darkness.” Online, despair grows quietly: the loneliness of constant comparison, the fear of missing out, the anxiety of measuring oneself against the polished illusions of others. Validation is quantified, self-worth becomes algorithmic, and interactions feel more transactional than relational.

However, when people experience “real life” and interact personally with their fellow humans, more often than not, it is our goodness which shines brightly. Not our disagreements. When pain, anxiety and fear are disclosed, it is in the context of a safe place to be shared and cared for by people who want only the best for you. It is tragic that we have unnecessarily permitted social media to diminish our human connection.

In this winter of digital despair, everything is visible, yet little feels real.

The Spring of Hope: Rekindling Humanity in a Connected Age

Despite its cold edges, social media also holds the “spring of hope.” It has connected the isolated, amplified marginalized voices, and spread information at breathtaking speed. But harnessing its good requires remembering that platforms are tools, not substitutes, for human connection.

We can reclaim the best of both worlds by grounding ourselves in real relationships while using digital spaces intentionally. Social media should supplement our lives, not consume them. It should extend community, not replace it.

Choose Light Over Darkness

Just as Dickens depicted an age torn between extremes, we too, navigate a world of contrasts. The best of times and the worst of times coexist in our hands … literally, in the glowing rectangles we carry everywhere.

The goodness of real life lies in its humanity. The manner in which our souls seek out to connect with others. The despair of social media lies in its impersonality. By choosing presence over performance, conversation over commentary, and authenticity over algorithms, we can keep the light from being swallowed by the dark.

In the end, it is up to us to determine which “season” defines our era.

Board Certification Chaos: How Disunity and Private Equity Diluted the Community

Few areas of mental health care illustrate dysfunction as clearly as the eating disorder board certification industry.

What began decades ago as a grassroots movement of passionate clinicians, dietitians, and advocates has metastasized into a labyrinth of overlapping credentials, proprietary “certifications,” and glossy corporate training programs.

Today, the United States alone boasts well over one hundred distinct eating disorder related certifications. This is more than that which exist for all other major psychiatric conditions … combined. For schizophrenia, there are fewer than a dozen. For depression, arguably the world’s most common mental illness, maybe two dozen. For autism, a total of ten programs. For eating disorders?

This is a table listing eating disorder related certifications:

The eating-disorder field, serving a far smaller patient population, is drowning in certificates, credentials, and branded “specialist” designations. And more are seemingly arriving every month.

This glut is not a sign of progress. To the contrary. It is the predictable outcome of a profession with no unified standards, no central accrediting authority, no ethical oversight, and an increasingly privatized treatment economy driven less by patient outcomes than by returns on investment and profiteering perpetrated by individuals and their egos.

The Great Credential Free-for-All

Unlike psychiatry or psychology fields with centralized boards and accreditation bodies, the eating disorder community has no single regulatory anchor. Instead, numerous competing organizations (IAEDP, AED, NEDA, ANAD, APT, and others) define “competence” differently and seldom recognize each other’s credentials.

The result is a credential arms race. Clinicians seeking legitimacy often accumulate multiple certifications, not because each adds new expertise, but because no one can agree which ones actually matter. Every theoretical school, CBT-E, DBT, FBT, ACT, somatic, trauma-informed, HAES®, intuitive eating, and more has spawned its own “certifying institute.”

With no governing framework, anyone can create a credential. And many have. Do you want to include social justice and political issues? Blame White Supremacy Culture? Blame the white man for all mental health issues? Create a certification program which does not include any information on ethics, or state-of-the-art medical and biological treatment? No involvement of diverse persons in creating a certification program? Extensively utilize information that is well known and has been in the community for many years? Sure! Why not? Who is going to say you cannot?

When Certification Becomes a Branding Exercise

This fragmentation might have remained a benign inconvenience if not for a second, more corrosive force: monetizing eating disorder certification through the rise of private equity.

Over the last decade, investment firms have used their monopoly power to control the narrative and then, consolidated the treatment landscape. In doing so, they squeezed the very life out of the field one dollar at a time. Large PE-backed treatment centers now own a majority of residential and intensive outpatient programs in the United States. And yet, at least one CEO of private equity owned treatment center testified in a sworn affidavit that the private equity owners prioritized profit over patient care. And patient care was compromised.

Private equity’s influence reshaped everything, from staffing ratios to program philosophy, but nowhere is the shift more visible than in education and credentialing. Under investor ownership, training is no longer an act of professional stewardship; it’s a marketing opportunity. Corporate chains launch internal “training academies” that sell branded certifications to staff and outside clinicians. Certification has become the new advertising … a low-cost, high-margin product that projects authority and generates revenue.

The loans to the investors are not simply going to pay themselves. Additional streams of revenue must be found to meet the financial demands.

Disunity as a Business Model

Eating Disorder organizations have failed to coordinate standards because fragmentation serves their financial interests. Each group has its own alleged proprietary curriculum, fees, and renewal dues. Collaboration would mean shared intelligence, information, revenue and control. Research and data would be collaboratively shared. For the first time the term, “evidence-based” would have substantive merit instead of simply being a vacuous catch phrase without any real meaning, without definition and without regulation.

Private equity masterfully exploits this vacuum. Without a single regulating body to enforce quality benchmarks, PE-backed centers can market themselves as the “gold standard” simply by aligning with whichever certification best fits their brand narrative. Or better yet, simply create your own standard of demonstrating expertise. No matter how many patients are abused, groped, or treated as if they were mere grist ground down by the mill of greed and incompetence, any treatment center can claim they are the “gold standard.”

Since they are privately owned, they can operate in the shadow of secrecy with information, which at best may be shared with their fellow PE owned overlords at quarterly meetings. Meetings which are conducted clandestinely, never to be disclosed to the families which need the highest level of care.

The Human Cost of Credential Inflation

For patients and families, the consequences are not academic, they’re life-altering. A parent searching for specialized care for a child with anorexia may encounter a clinician advertising six or more “certifications,” yet none of those credentials guarantee the provider has completed supervised ED training, worked within a multidisciplinary team, or met any validated competency benchmarks.

This blurring of standards enables underqualified practitioners to enter the field under the guise of expertise. Genuine experts are forced to buy legitimacy through redundant credentials simply to remain competitive in a marketplace driven by SEO and optics rather than outcomes.

The Wellness Economy and the Collapse of Accountability

The eating disorder arena overlaps with the $5 trillion wellness industry, which thrives on micro-credentialing. Nonclinical players, nutrition coaches, yoga instructors, and social media influencers alike obtain “eating disorder informed” certifications online, sometimes in less than a weekend.

Education has been replaced by branding. Evidence based care is replaced by radical social justice brain washing. If a person is offended by society, they need only slap an inflammatory label on the issue and not worry about its nuances. Congratulations! You have just become certified as an “Inclusive” board certified expert. The result is a field saturated with worthless credentials but starved for accountability.

Questions which should be asked are not being asked. For example, what new information does your certification program provide that was not already public knowledge in the community? Did, and does, your certification program include research professionals, medical doctors, dietitians, mental health experts, or even any men on its advisory board? Did you collaborate with any organizations or treatment centers when you were creating your program? What specialized knowledge does your organization have which other organizations do not possess? Do you have any agendas outside of providing necessary care for families suffering from eating disorders? How is your certification program going to lower the appalling mortality rate of eating disorders? Objectively speaking, how and why is your certification program an improvement over that which is already in the public domain?

Without substantive answers to these questions, professionals are left with a meaningless diploma … and simply more innocuous initials to put after your preferred pronouns.

A Perfect Storm of Profit and Disunity

Disunity and privatization feed each other. Lack of collaboration creates a vacuum; private equity monetizes it. The proliferation of proprietary programs generates revenue and brand differentiation but erodes professional credibility. Without regulation, there is no penalty for low standards, only rewards for market dominance.

The tragedy is that eating-disorder professionals entered this field to help patients including those most often marginalized by healthcare systems and diet culture. Yet through disunity and commodification, the field has allowed itself to become a marketplace rather than a discipline. Every new certification minted without oversight or accountability is another crack in the foundation of public trust.

Until collaboration replaces competition, and professionalism and the priority of patients triumph over profit, the eating disorder treatment industry will remain a cautionary tale: proof that when market logic outruns moral logic, vapid expertise becomes just another product for sale.

Nine Years Beyond the Darkest Night: Grief, Truth, and Hope for Greater Tomorrows

On October 30, 2016, my beloved daughter Morgan died after battling eating disorders for seven (7) long years. She was 23 years old when she was taken. At the moment of her death, when a daddy hears those dark words, “She’s gone” though he may not know it at the time, the better part of him is also ripped away.

Morgan was brilliant, kind, and fiercely determined to get well. She thought of others, often before her own needs. Her own words, “I can seem to help everyone else … I just can’t help myself” is her legacy. And yet, those very words still haunt her daddy every day.

When those words and the reality of a loss no parent should ever have to suffer are combined with the state of the eating disorder community today, you realize that there will be many more of our loved ones condemned to share the same fate which took my daughter… unless a seismic change is forthcoming.

A System Without a Compass

Even at that time, the system that claimed to know how to help Morgan had no map, no unity, and tragically, no accountability. Nearly a decade later, the eating disorder community is in even greater disarray. There are still no generally accepted treatment guidelines … no consensus on what works, no uniform standards for care, no consistency from one program to another and no accountability nor consequences. If you send your child for treatment, what happens next depends less on science and more on which center you happen to find, and what ideology dominates that space.

The Vanishing of Science and the Rise of Ideology

The dire crisis in the community has worsened as grant funding for research dries up. Federal and private funders have largely turned their attention to other mental health priorities, leaving eating disorder research chronically underfunded. Few new studies are being published, and the next generation of researchers is dwindling. Research professionals and medical clinicians on the front lines rarely collaborate. In this vacuum, ideological movements have filled the void … often louder, more absolutist, more absurd and less accountable to data or outcomes.

Militant factions within the “body liberation” movement now control far too much of the public conversation in the community. They label professionals, clinicians and even families in a gross, inflammatory manner. Anyone who speaks about weight restoration or malnutrition is labeled as “fatphobic.” White Supremacy Culture. Invasive species. Utilizing every “ism” word possible. Complex medical and psychiatric illnesses are reframed as political identity issues. The result? A silencing of nuance and a dangerous confusion between eating disorder treatment and radical social activism. Inflammatory labeling has become the substitute for reasoned professional, collaborative communication. And our loved ones suffer.

Private Equity and the Hollowing Out of Care

At the same time, private equity–owned treatment centers, once the great hope for scaling access, are collapsing under the weight of their own failed business models. Many have failed outright or are surviving only by slashing costs: laying off medical doctors who served as full time employees, replacing them with part time independent contractors and inexperienced working staff. Running skeletal programs that cannot provide the continuous, multidisciplinary care our loved ones require. The result is a race to the bottom: more marketing, fewer doctors, more “coaches,” less medicine. No accountability nor consequences.

Families are left navigating glossy websites and sales teams instead of evidence-based programs. If a family wishes to speak with the medical director of a program before entrusting their child to that program … good luck. Insurance denials come faster than ever. Inpatient stays are shorter. Step-down programs are often nonexistent.

When Morgan was fighting for her life, I wondered whether the lack of care was a failure of coordination. I no longer wonder. It has never been clearer that it was and continues to be, a failure of values.

A Community in Financial and Moral Crisis

The largest eating disorder nonprofit organizations, long believed to be the moral anchors of the community, are collapsing financially some losing more than $200,000 per year. Echo chamber thinking and associated conduct have replaced outreach to professionals who respectfully disagree with their view. Where at one time, these organizations were led by persons of vision, true giants of the community, now with very few exceptions, they are led by boards who shrink away from transparency, oversight and responsibility. These organizations host conferences and awareness campaigns, but their impact is negligible at best and failing at worst.

Their messaging has grown vacuous and timid, shaped more by the politics of social media than the needs of our loved ones. Once they were advocates for treatment access and medical rigor; now too often, they stand meekly on the sidelines … mere bystanders to the on-going carnage.

The Human Cost

The price paid for the wholesale failure of the community is measured by the dearest blood possible … the lives of our loved ones. The mortality rate for eating disorders, already the highest among psychiatric illnesses [apart from opioid addiction] has worsened. Suicide and medical complications are climbing. The promise that “recovery is possible” rings increasingly hollow to families who can’t even get a proper diagnosis, let alone a full course of the highest quality medical and mental health care. Which results in:

Behind every number is a person, a victim. Behind every person is a family like mine, standing outside a treatment center, a hospital, a counselor’s office, desperately holding on to the only thing they can … that is, the fading hope that this time will be different.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Families are entitled to transparency. Accountability. Honesty. From our doctors, clinicians, and counselors. Families should demand nothing less. But, to accomplish this reality, we not only need an evolution of thought and wisdom … we require a bold reckoning. The eating disorder community must reclaim science, ethics, and accountability. The community can only provide those necessary qualities by demanding:

  • The adoption of national treatment guidelines grounded in evidence, not ideology.
  • Federal, state and philanthropic investment in clinical research and longitudinal outcomes.
  • Oversight of private treatment companies that market medical care that is not forthcoming as it  sheds experienced medical practitioners and licensed staff.
  • Strong, bold, new leadership in nonprofit organizations that prioritize patients over politics.
  • Measured inclusion of all reasonable, rational, intelligent viewpoints and persons.

But these steps require a courage of conviction… conviction which is sorely lacking.

Not just Morgan, but all those who have died from eating disorders cannot die in vain. But until we admit that this system and community are broken, until we expose the silence, the failures, the charlatans, thed fraud and the fear … we will keep losing more daughters, more sons, more loved ones, more years of life.

The eating disorder community once promised healing. Today, it must fight simply to survive. For survive it must. But in an evolved, intelligent, collaborative manner.

The very lives of our loved ones depend upon it.

EQUITABLE MENTAL HEALTH CARE AWAITS

Two of the more troubling topics confronting mental health communities are: (1). Lack of Minority Representation in the Mental Health Workforce and (2). Limited Accessibility of Mental Health Care in Minority Communities.

We will be focusing on exploring real world, workable solutions instead of using inflammatory labels, pointing fingers and embracing the litany of “isms” being cavalierly thrown around.

Any solution necessarily begins with starting and having open, collaborative conversations. While recognizing that a start is just that … a start and not a solution. And yet, from that start perhaps seeds are planted from which bold, forward-thinking initiatives grow which could ultimately result in a better world.

Increasing Minority Representation in the Mental Health Workforce

No one disputes that minority representation in the mental health workforce is grossly lacking. So, let’s address some of the issues which produced this inequity and explore possible solutions.

1. Financial Pathway Support

Problem: The cost and duration of training (graduate degrees, licensure) are major barriers for minority students.

Possible Solutions:

  • Targeted scholarships and loan repayment programs for minority students in psychology, psychiatry, counseling, and social work (e.g., HRSA’s Behavioral Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program could be expanded or localized).
  • Paid internships and residencies in community-based organizations serving minority populations.
  • Employer-based tuition reimbursement tied to post-graduation service commitments in underserved areas.

2. Pipeline Programs (High School → Graduate School)

Problem: Minority students are underrepresented early in the pipeline.

Possible Solutions:

  • Create “Grow Your Own” mental health workforce programs in high schools and community colleges — exposure to mental health careers, mentorship, and clinical shadowing.
  • Partner with HBCUs, HSIs, and Tribal Colleges to create joint degree or accelerated pathways into counseling, psychology, and psychiatric nursing.
  • Establish bridge programs for paraprofessionals (e.g., caseworkers or peer specialists) to obtain advanced clinical credentials.

3. Licensure and Training Reform

Problem: Licensure barriers disproportionately impact minority and bilingual professionals.

Possible Solutions:

  • Reciprocity agreements among states to ease cross-state licensing for clinicians serving telehealth clients.
  • Allow supervised hours to include culturally competent community-based or telehealth work, not just traditional clinical settings.
  • Bilingual competency credits or pathways for professionals providing care in multiple languages.

4. Mentorship and Professional Networks

Problem: Isolation and lack of role models lead to attrition.

Possible Solutions:

  • Fund minority mentorship programs through professional associations (e.g., APA, NASW, NBCC).
  • Develop online professional communities for peer support and continuing education focused on serving minority communities.

There are no “zero sum game” arguments. No white people must step aside. No looking backward as to what was previously done wrong. No obsessing on the past.

Simply a possible roadmap to start discussions to increase minority mental health providers.

This is going to become even more important in the future as research scientists increasingly discover additional biological links between the brain and mental health issues. We could be at the genesis of a bold new frontier regarding how mental health issues are studied, researched and treated. We need all persons to be involved in this process.

With this reality facing us, how do we increase accessibility of mental health care?

Increasing Accessibility of Mental Health Care to Minority Communities

Mental health care providers, resources and treatment centers must become more available and accessible in minority communities. Let’s explore how we can start to address this issue.

1. Community-Based and Culturally Anchored Services

Problem: Mainstream clinical settings in minority communities are few and far between and when they do exist, can feel unwelcoming or irrelevant.

Possible Solutions:

  • Fund community-based organizations, churches, and cultural centers to offer embedded mental health services (e.g., co-located clinics).
  • Recruit faith leaders, barbers, and cultural ambassadors as mental health liaisons trained in Mental Health First Aid or peer support.
  • Support mobile crisis units staffed with culturally and linguistically matched professionals.

2. Telehealth Expansion and Equity

Problem: Digital divides and lack of culturally competent telehealth platforms persist.

Possible Solutions:

  • Subsidize broadband and devices for patients in rural or low-income minority areas.
  • Require telehealth platforms to support multilingual access and easy interfaces.
  • Train clinicians in telehealth cultural competence (e.g., cross-cultural communication online).

3. Insurance and Reimbursement Reform

Problem: Minority-serving clinics often cannot sustain services due to poor reimbursement rates.

Possible Solutions:

  • Equal reimbursement for behavioral health and physical health under parity laws (and enforce it). [This requirement is already provided by federal law. Insurance companies have found ways to avoid or get around this requirement.  These loopholes must be closed by legislative bodies.]
  • Expand Medicaid coverage for peer support specialists and community health workers.
  • Incentivize integrated care models (behavioral + primary care) in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and minority-owned practices.

4. Public Awareness and Trust-Building

Problem: Stigma and mistrust are major deterrents.

Possible Solutions:

  • Fund anti-stigma campaigns featuring diverse community voices and lived experiences.
  • Partner with trusted local messengers (e.g., influencers, pastors, tribal elders).
  • Offer mental health literacy programs in schools and workplaces, especially in minority-majority areas.

Of course, all of this is not probable unless there is greater policy, corporate, institutional and legislative support. This support could resemble the following:

Policy and Institutional Support

  • Data collection and accountability: Require reporting of workforce demographics, service access, and outcomes disaggregated by race/ethnicity.
  • Federal and state grants: Prioritize funding for programs demonstrably improving minority recruitment and retention.
  • Cross-sector collaboration: Involve education, housing, and criminal justice systems in joint mental health equity initiatives.

An “Integrated Implementation Model” could be structured as follows:

Minority Mental Health Workforce Accelerator (state-level example):

  • Provides full scholarships and living stipends to minority students pursuing behavioral health degrees.
  • Requires 3–5 years of post-graduation service in designated shortage areas.
  • Operates mentorship and continuing education programs led by culturally competent practitioners.
  • Partners with community-based agencies that receive reimbursement incentives for hosting trainees.

The mental health field, particularly the eating disorder community, talks of the need to increase minority mental health providers and the necessity of having greater access to mental health care for minorities. The community is absolutely correct. But that is as far as rational discussions go.

More often than not, discussions take place in an echo chamber. The community points fingers at the patriarchy, white supremacy culture, the diet culture and apply many other inflammatory labels … and nothing is accomplished. The community is defined by the past. A failed past. Instead of embracing a bold future.

Solutions to provide mental health care for our minority population can only be found by looking to the future. A future filled with hope and unlimited possibilities.

Inflammatory Labeling = No Progress

The mental health system in the United States is inundated with inequities and is hindered by limited access to care. Universal complaints about mental health include gross underfunding of services, provider shortages, fragmented care between mental and physical health, inadequate insurance coverage and widespread stigma that creates policy and opportunity barriers for people with mental illness. No one disputes that reality.

When significant cultural issues confront us and change is demanded, generally there are two types of people.

There are those people who lead, who are people of vision. They recognize and identify the problems and then commit to explore workable, rational, obtainable, collaborative solutions. These people who will negotiate with Satan himself if it leads to more people receiving the help they so desperately need.

Then there are “the ROYS.” In Texas, that acronym stands for “Rest of Y’alls.” This constitutes the vast majority of people. Those who are content with only complaining about the problems without being willing to invest in finding a rational, reasoned, collaborative solutions. When facing those issues, they immerse themselves deeper in their tribes safely ensconced in the comfort of their echo chamber. They are satisfied with whining and applying inflammatory labels to the issues. Their egos and fears drive their lack of vision. They refuse to interact with anyone who does not agree with them.

With that backdrop, how may we presume the eating disorder advocacy/therapist community responds to the daunting issues confronting mental health in general, and eating disorders specifically?

In the past few years, I have spoken with research professionals, medical doctors, therapists and advocates about the state of the eating disorder community. All seem to be unanimous in their view that things have never been worse in the eating disorder industry and communities.

As such, it should come as no surprise that the community seems largely content to address daunting, societal mental health issues by fostering divisiveness through utilizing inflammatory labels on their websites, publications and even a purported certification program. In general, inflammatory labels are cavalierly directed toward other people in the community, but only from a person’s keyboard.

So, what is inflammatory labeling? Inflammatory labeling is just as it sounds. It is when we assign highly negative or even cruel labels to people or organizations.

Focusing on inflammatory labels instead of solutions in social justice movements, or for that matter in any context, hinders progress by reducing complex issues to oversimplified caricatures. This practice intensifies social divides, alienates potential allies, and prioritizes outrage over tangible reforms. While rhetoric is central to advocacy, the way it is framed can either drive constructive dialogue or deteriorate into unproductive polarization.

Studies on social movements have found that extreme or inflammatory rhetoric, including labeling, tends to decrease public support for a cause. This is because such tactics reduce the average person’s sense of identification with the movement, making it difficult to find common ground. Inflammatory labels simplify people into negative stereotypes, making it harder to recognize their full humanity.

This reflects the sociological concept of “labeling theory,” which posits that assigning a negative label can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy and further entrench deviance. Labeling opponents with charged terms can create a binary “us vs. them” mentality, making it difficult to challenge ideas through reasoned debate. Instead of addressing the complexities of an issue, discourse devolves into a culture war of labels, name calling, and finger pointing all of which obscures real policy solutions.

By way of example, radical eating disorder activists casually throw out inflammatory labels like:

There are so many others: White Privilege, Whitestream Research, toxic masculinity. These inflammatory terms of derision are directed at anyone who does not agree with their viewpoints as well as the mainstream medical and mental health communities. In addition, the term “invasive species” is even being used to define or refer to the same White Supremacy Culture and people and organizations which fall under that umbrella. And that is supposed to be productive?

As for any proposed practical, realistic collaborative solutions to address the inequities in mental health care? They propose none.

A few years ago, a small group of people published a letter directed at eating disorder organizations and treatment centers. Amongst the demands made in the letter included: providing reparations to Black People, Indigenous people and People of Color, (“BIPOC”) especially queer and transgender BIPOC; hiring a transgender consultant to revise your marketing material; establishing sliding fee scales for BIPOC, transgender and gender diverse clients; redistributing wealth from the for-profit ED treatment world; providing access to Hormone Replacement Therapy.

Other radical activists equate mental health research and treatment as a zero sum game. That BiPOC, LGBTQ+, fat therapists and professionals must be centered and that there is no space for white, straight and thin people to jump in. Or that white, liberal female therapists should focus more of their attention on social justice issues and political reform in all they do.

Of course, in the unlikely event the latter ever happened, those therapists would then be labeled as White Saviors and would be publicly eviscerated in the town square ala Lindo Bacon.

There must be a way. Other than inflammatory labeling, whining and complaining, what possible solutions exist which could be explored to address some of the inequities in mental health care systems?

Inequities which include far too few medical doctors, therapists, counselors and other medical and mental health professionals who are BIPOC. Minority and BIPOC communities are far underserved. Medical school training largely ignores eating disorders and BIPOC issues. Far too few BIPOC persons receive mental health care. Access to meaningful mental health care is severely limited for BIPOC persons. Research has not included significant BIPOC participation. Mental health care can be prohibitively expensive.

These complex, daunting issues require collaborative wisdom. And when progress is made on these issues, as they surely must be, this necessarily will result in a more enlightened society. So, the question must be asked again … how are name calling, tribal mentality and inflammatory labeling going to be remotely effective in addressing these serious issues? Answer … they aren’t.

A roadmap does exist for systemic mental health reform in the U.S., prioritizing enforceable, high-impact interventions first while building toward longer-term initiatives. The roadmap assumes some federal and state collaboration, leveraging funding, licensing, audits, and measurable metrics. But it is possible. It will not be easy. It will require participation, wisdom and sacrifice from society as a whole. It will require us looking past our human frailties and being bold and forward thinking. But it is possible.

And so, we will address that roadmap next.

RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION ?

Recently, after expressing my views on the eating disorder community and its many dysfunctions, I was informed by an “eating disorder advocate” that I only had “righteous indignation.” In the past, this same person also opined that I was in the eating disorder community solely to make money.

Righteous indignation? Solely to make money? Let me answer both plainly: my anger is earned, and my motives are grief-forged — not mercenary. I paid my entry fee into this dysfunctional community with the dearest blood possible: my daughter’s. I did not come here to be liked, or to join the chorus of vapid, comfortable, egomaniacal voices. I came because someone I loved was ripped from life. Silence would be complicity.

Make no mistake, there are some incredible, soulful, intelligent, compassionate souls in the eating disorder community. Unfortunately, they largely remain silent, on the sidelines. Fearful of being ostracized or cancelled by the hate filled, social justice warriors.

I wish with every fiber of my being that I was not in this decaying eating disorder community. I wish that I did not know even one person in this horrifically comical, appalling community. For that would mean my daughter, Morgan lived. But since she died, I will allow my “righteous indignation” to illuminate what having a beloved child ripped from life is like.

Sunday nights in an intensive care unit in a hospital in a large city can be very quiet.  But, not for you. You hear the ear shattering blaring of alarms, screaming out “Code Blue.”  Death is sounding for your daughter. Death has come for you!

With panic in your eyes, you look into her room and cannot even count the number of hospital employees trying to bring her back to life. For at that moment, she is dead. Her heart is not beating. And you feel nothing at that point.  The greatest fear a parent can face has you in its powerful, icy grip. Your brain has stopped working. You are not aware of anything… except the frantic efforts to bring her back to life. Finally … they detect a faint heartbeat after nine excruciating minutes.

Do you know what it’s like to have your child dead for 9 minutes while you look on helplessly? It is a lifetime. You are drenched in sweat. You are aware of nothing. Except … for the briefest of times, she is living again.

Until once again … she dies … and you again hear those horrific alarms of death. Again … her room is filled with employees doing all they can to bring her back. You are numb. Your entire world is in that room … on that incredibly dark night. And once more … they briefly bring her back.

That is when the doctors pull you aside and tell you … each time it is more difficult. You ask if she feels any pain. They cannot give you a straight answer. They tell you that in all likelihood, there is already substantial brain and organ damage. You ask them if there is truly any hope.  They cannot look you in the eyes and are mumbling non-answers. And you know. You know. You are faced with the most difficult decision any person will ever have to make.

You remember one time in the past, your beloved daughter saying … “Daddy … don’t let me die.” And you know, you know, for an absolute certainty … that your life will never be the same. You wonder if you can ever forgive yourself for betraying those sacred words.

There is nothing performative about that grief. It is not a credential.

You slowly nod your head and quietly, while tears are pouring down your cheeks, say … no more alarms. No more bells. She will go in peace.

You sit next to her, holding her hand, praying for a miracle … knowing that one will not come. Finally, you hear those words which rip the heart from any parent … “She’s gone.”

You slowly walk down the dark hospital hallways. Sunday nights can be quiet in a hospital. You go to a waiting room where your daughter’s mom is waiting with friends.  You can’t say the words… only shake your head. And you hear that heart wrenching scream of anguish. And yet, you feel nothing.

Your life as you knew it … is over.

You live in a fog. Making funeral arrangements, service arrangements. You feel nothing. Food has no taste. Your soul is numb. You wonder if you even want to wake up.

But you find a way, some way, to wake up and to keep living. Now, imagine that for most of your professional life, you had been a shallow, superficial, asshole. An attorney without a soul. But something has awakened within you. You begin to feel driven. Perhaps for the first time in your life, you are aware of something far greater than you.

In your daughter’s name, you only want to make a difference. You want to help others. But you are so broken. You make mistakes. You live in a constant state of guilt and shame. Nonetheless, you pledge to help others. And so, you try.

You then discover in the eating disorder community, children’s lives are being reduced to talking points, a and mortality is sidelined in favor of crowd-measuring. You read that this is no place for thin, white people to jump in. You realize that families are being betrayed by radical activists who only wish to parade their own ignorance and internal pain. Nonetheless, you continue to try. You try to serve.

You give two TEDx talks on eating disorders.

You organize and with a medical doctor, present a talk to Apple … and its 150,000 employees. The talk was broadcast on Apple’s North American network.

You organize and with that same medical doctor, present a talk to Raytheon … and its 75,000 employees. Also broadcast on its national network. This talk was so informative and compelling that the Raytheon office hosting it won a national corporate award for collaboration with the community.

You organize and present a 30-minute segment every week on a local radio station entitled, the Mental Health Moment. You have national experts on mental health appear on your show.

You appear on the local CBS and Warner affiliates talking about eating disorders.

The methodist church you belonged to does a video on your daughter and her struggles. With over 300,000 views, no other videos this church has done comes even close.

You speak to school district’s counselors and nurses. You organize presentations to communities. You visit young people in treatment programs. That is still not enough.

You are still living in a twilight that knows not joy, nor love, nor happiness.

Because you do not check the correct political and social boxes, because you frighten people, the eating disorder community turns on you. Have you made mistakes? Hell yes.

But it gets worse. Just five years ago, your father, your mother and your older brother all die within 14 months of each other. Your brother was the picture of health. And he only trusted you to tell the doctors to end his bodily functions. Imagine that much death in such a short period of time.

At that moment in time, your son and his wife have a baby. Imagine the very first time you hold your granddaughter in your arms, you have to tell your son you are flying to Florida the very next day to tell doctors to remove life sustaining equipment from your brother.

You know the eating disorder community doesn’t care. You frighten them because you do not play their pedantic games. You care about life and death not social justice and political statements.

And so, your mindset begins to evolve. You see the vile, on-going corruption in the community. You see the illness which claimed your daughter’s life being used as a platform to spew forth the community’s social justice and political viewpoints. And you reach a point where you say … enough!

Donors to NEDA come to you so angry that NEDA is being turned into a social justice and political side show by Chevese Turner and her social justice warriors. You have the ability and skill to take action. But first, you give NEDA almost 20 opportunities to talk before you file suit. An expeditious settlement is reached, a settlement which also financially benefits research into the genetic aspects of eating disorders. And yet, the very person who attempted to destroy NEDA’s purpose, skates by with no tangible consequences. She knows that her minions and cohorts in the community will continue to breathe life into her. Consequences and ramifications are foreign to the eating disorder community.

Undeterred, you go after more inappropriate conduct in the community. You see the specter of death appear in the words, “Terminal Anorexia.” Like many others, you are horrified. University-based professors write neatly composed articles opposing it, articles which accomplish nothing. Nothing tangible is being done.

So, you take action. You file a number of medical board complaints. That changed everything. You meet Dr. Jennifer Gaudiani and look her in the eyes. Much to your surprise, you do not find a monster. Instead, you find a professional. A soul. A human being. A person then in pain. You talk. And then collaborate with many others. What grew from that hard work was not triumphalism but human connection: colleagues turned collaborators, pain turned toward repair. And maybe … just maybe, you find through adversity a greater understanding about life and death. You realize that the manner in which we face death is just as important as the manner in which we face life.

Then, there is iaedp. The corruption and stupidity in that organization were and are legion. And the eating disorder community DID NOTHING. It cowered. The rot there was obvious and long tolerated. You initially do not pursue headlines and seek to meet and resolve all issues privately. That outreach is rejected. So, professionals in the community request action. The result: past due taxes, penalties and interest in the hundreds of thousands of dollars are being required to be paid. Board certification is being reformed and made more affordable. Individual chapters are gaining their independence. Thousands of therapists are now being spared needless expense. The community has improved — slightly, imperfectly — and for that action, very, very few people have said thank you. Predictable.          

You are not finished. Not nearly. You expose how Chevese Turner and others of her ilk took down the Legacy of Hope. And for their misconduct, they have been rewarded and still have a voice. The community blindly accepts those who think like they do. Contrarily, you continue to exist. Living with the greatest heartache possible.

No matter how many times textbooks say, “it’s not a parent’s fault,” or some vacuous therapist tries to convince you of that, they fail. They haven’t lived it. They don’t live with the daily pain, the heartache. The anguish.

I do. Every … single … day.

I have made mistakes, and I will make more in the future. Grief is not a moral compass. But the stubborn refusal to confront corruption, the eagerness to defend the performative rather than the practical, that is the real moral failure. When children’s lives are reduced to talking points, when mortality is sidelined in favor of crowd-measuring, the community betrays the very people it claims to serve.

So — righteous indignation? It is paid in blood and sleepless nights. It is the only honest response left when an industry cloaks politics in the language of care and ignores the medical science in front of it. If you are offended by my anger, consider why the community has earned it.

I do not wish to be part of this community. I wish — every day — that I did not know anyone in it. I wish my daughter, Morgan, were alive. I mourn her constantly. My activism is not grandstanding; it is grief turned toward accountability, toward saving the next life.

If you call that righteous indignation, so be it. I am guilty as charged. And I will keep speaking and acting until this feckless culture chooses truth over theater.

So … righteous indignation?

A brilliant light was extinguished in Dallas on October 30, 2016. That tragedy is the ledger against which I measure every day. Righteous indignation is paid with the dearest blood possible — and I will not apologize for the balance I keep.