From Asylums to Subways: The Evolution of Mental Health Care in New York

Navigating the Legacy of Deinstitutionalization Amidst Congestion Pricing in NYC's Transit System

The Transformation of Mental Health Care in New York

The Landscape in the 1970s

In the early 1970s, New York State managed a network of 29 state psychiatric hospitals, each serving a unique role in the treatment landscape. These institutions were remnants of an era where long-term hospitalization was the primary response to mental illness¹.

Voluntary Commitment

This process was designed for those aware of their need for psychiatric intervention. Patients would submit a written application for admission, often due to acute distress or chronic conditions, that were overwhelming in a community setting. The discharge process was managed through a 10-day written notice, allowing hospitals an assessment period to determine if the patient's mental health had deteriorated to a point where involuntary commitment was necessary. This notice period was crucial because it provided a legal window for hospitals to assess risk and potentially intervene if the person showed signs of being a danger to themselves or others² ³.

Involuntary Commitment

This was more legally intricate, governed strictly by the Mental Hygiene Law of New York. It demanded certification by This was more legally intricate, governed strictly by the Mental Hygiene Law of New York. It required certification by two separate psychiatrists who must independently certify that the individual was imminently dangerous due to their mental health condition. This process was not just about immediate threats but also about preventing potential harm based on the nature of the illness. The law was intended to protect public safety while also safeguarding against the misuse of commitment powers. If a voluntary patient's condition suggested the need for involuntary status during the discharge notice period, the hospital might initiate this certification, potentially leading to a judicial review if contested by the patient⁴.

The Shift: Deinstitutionalization and Its Catalysts

The movement towards deinstitutionalization was a profound shift in mental health care policies, motivated by several factors:

Legislation

The 1963 Community Mental Health Act was pivotal, explicitly aimed at shifting care from state hospitals to community settings, which would provide local, accessible care. In New York, this led to the strategic closure of state hospitals, with the intention of reallocating resources to community services. However, the transition was not seamless, as the infrastructure for community care was not fully developed when deinstitutionalization began⁵ ⁶.

Policy Shifts

The 1980 Mental Health Systems Act was meant to expand community services, but this coincided with a period of significant federal budget cuts in the 1980s under President Reagan. These reductions in federal support meant states like New York had to innovate or reduce services, often choosing the latter due to financial constraints, leading to a gap in care provision⁷ ⁸.

Legal Reforms

New York's Mental Hygiene Law saw numerous updates, reflecting a growing emphasis on individual rights. These changes included provisions for better patient advocacy, ensuring less coercive treatment environments, and fostering an ethos of community integration where possible⁹.

Economic Considerations

The financial upkeep of large mental health institutions was unsustainable. State hospitals were not only costly to maintain but also criticized for inefficiencies. The expectation was that community care would be more cost-effective, though this often came at the expense of underfunding the new systems¹⁰.

Advocacy for Civil Rights

Advocacy groups, legal challenges, and public sentiment shifted towards protecting the rights of individuals with mental illnesses. The conditions at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island were dramatically exposed by Geraldo Rivera in 1972, highlighting the abuses and lack of dignity in institutional care, fueling the push for community-based alternatives¹¹¹².

Geraldo Rivera: The Catalyst for Change at Willowbrook

Medical Advances

The 1950s introduction of chlorpromazine (Thorazine) and later antipsychotics in the 1960s and 70s revolutionized treatment. These medications allowed for symptom management outside of hospital settings, which significantly altered the landscape of psychiatric care from one of containment to one of outpatient management¹³ ¹⁴.

The Impact of These Changes

Reduction in Hospital Beds

By the late 1980s, New York had reduced its state hospital beds by significant margins, mirroring a broader national movement. Bed numbers dropped from around 558,000 in 1955 to less than 200,000 by 1980. This drastic cut was not matched by a corresponding increase in community resources, creating service gaps¹⁵ ¹⁶.

Homelessness Surge

The unintended consequence of closing institutions without adequate community support was a marked increase in homelessness among those with mental illness. Individuals who were discharged or never institutionalized due to the new policies often lacked the necessary support systems. This was partly due to the failure of community support systems to scale up as intended, leading to a notable increase in visible mental illness on city streets¹⁷ ¹⁸.

Criminal Justice System's Role

With diminished mental health facilities, many with untreated or poorly managed mental illnesses ended up in the criminal justice system. Jails and prisons, largely unprepared for providing mental health care, became the default treatment centers, effectively turning them into the nation's largest mental health providers¹⁹ ²⁰.

Quality of Care

While the community model aimed for more humane treatment, the reality was often fragmented care due to insufficient funding and organizational challenges due to the lack of coordination between various community services. Those with severe and chronic conditions struggled to find consistent care, leading to cycles of crisis and emergency interventions²¹.

Legal and Ethical Debates

Balancing individual rights with public safety became a core issue. The legal threshold for involuntary commitment rose, which meant some individuals who might have benefited from inpatient care did not receive it until they were in acute crisis²². This debate continues to influence current mental health policy and law.

Public Perception

The visibility of mental illness through increased homelessness and crime rates influenced public policy. Public opinion oscillated between calls for more community support and, occasionally, demands for a return to institutional care, reflecting the complexity of mental health policy²³.

Modern Responses

In recent years, New York has attempted to correct some past oversights through initiatives like Governor Hochul's $1 billion mental health care overhaul, announced in 2023, focusing on increasing capacity, funding community clinics, and integrating mental health services into daily life settings. Programs like B-HEARD, which pairs mental health professionals with EMS for crisis response, aim to prevent unnecessary law enforcement involvement²⁴ ²⁵.

The Journey from Institutional to Community-Based Treatment

The journey from institutional care to community-based treatment in New York encapsulates a broader narrative of reform, challenge, and ongoing adaptation. While the intent was to offer more compassionate, rights-respecting care, the transition has been fraught with issues, leading to a legacy where the benefits and drawbacks of deinstitutionalization are still debated. Today, New York continues to navigate this complex terrain, striving to create a mental health system that is both effective and humane, learning from past mistakes to better serve its population²⁶ ²⁷ ²⁸.

Current Impact on NYC Subways with the Introduction of Congestion Pricing

The legacy of deinstitutionalization directly impacts the current state of mental health within New York City's subway system, and this situation has been further complicated by the recent enforcement of congestion pricing:

Presence of Mentally Ill Individuals

The subway has long served as a refuge for those with untreated or poorly managed mental illnesses, exacerbated by the lack of community resources post-deinstitutionalization. With congestion pricing now in effect, an increase in subway ridership has already been noted. This surge in usage could mean more frequent interactions between commuters and individuals in mental health crises, potentially leading to more incidents of unsettling behavior in an already dense transit environment²⁹ .

Safety Concerns

High-profile incidents like subway shovings have brought attention to the link between mental health and public safety in the subway. With the noted increase in ridership due to the congestion pricing charge, there's heightened concern about safety. The fear is that without adequate preparation or increased mental health support, these incidents could become more common, intensifying the debate on mental health laws and the necessity for more assertive interventions like involuntary commitments³⁰ .

Policy and Law Enforcement Responses

To address both the existing mental health challenges and the new dynamics from increased ridership due to congestion pricing, there are policy adjustments like deploying additional mental health professionals and police in subways. Programs like SCOUT (Subway Outreach Teams) are designed to assist those in need, but with more riders, these teams might be overwhelmed. SCOUT is designed not only to assist but also to de-escalate situations, reducing the need for law enforcement intervention. The effectiveness of these initiatives is now under greater scrutiny as they attempt to manage an influx of people³¹ ³² .

SCOUT is designed to de-escalate situations

Public and Political Debate

The visibility of mental health issues in the subway has sparked public demand for action, now intertwined with the discourse on congestion pricing effects. Political responses include Governor Hochul's advocacy for expanded involuntary commitment laws, influenced by subway incidents and the anticipated increase in transit use. The challenge is to balance public safety with compassionate care in an environment where more people are choosing public transit as an alternative to driving ³³ .

Community and Advocacy

Advocacy for humane and effective interventions has intensified, especially with the noted increase in subway ridership post-congestion pricing. There's a push for more investment in housing, treatment centers, and social services to ensure that individuals don't see the subway as their only option for shelter or support. The argument is clear: new transit policies should not exacerbate the crisis in our public spaces but rather provide pathways away from them³⁴ ³⁵ .

Economic and Social Cost

The economic implications of congestion pricing include not only managing increased traffic but also the costs of handling mental health issues in the subway with more riders. There could be a rise in emergency responses and law enforcement involvement, potentially leading to reduced ridership due to safety concerns. Socially, there's a risk of increased public fatigPossible Conclusion Thusfar

Urgency and Coordination Needs measures to address these challenges alongside the new pricing structure³⁶ ³⁷.

Midpoint Reflection: Urgency and Coordination in Mental Health and Transit

The documented increase in ridership due to congestion pricing has brought new urgency to the intersection of mental health and public transportation in NYC. It highlights the need for a coordinated approach that not only manages the logistical aspects of transit but also ensures robust mental health support systems to co,eraising significant concerns, particularly when viewed through the lens of the current state of healthcare.cal considerations of individual rights, all while navigating a healthcare system known for its potential for medical errors and systemic inefficiencies.

Concerns with Expanding Involuntary Commitments

Increased State Authority

Expanding the criteria or processes for involuntary commitment undeniably increases state power over individuals. This legislative move would allow for more people to be detained against their will based on broader definitions of what constitutes a threat or incapacity. In a healthcare system where medical errors contribute significantly to mortality in the U.S.³⁸, the potential for individuals to be locked up against their will adds another layer of risk. This mirrors control mechanisms seen in authoritarian regimes, where state power is used to manage or suppress populations³⁹, with the added peril of medical mismanagement, where errors could lead to wrongful or extended commitments.

Public Safety Rhetoric

The proposal is framed around enhancing public safety, particularly after high-profile incidents in the subway system that have caught public attention. This rhetoric can resonate with narratives where the maintenance of public order is prioritized over individual rights, echoing tactics used in oppressive systems to justify increased surveillance or control under the guise of safety⁴⁰. Such framing might lead to more individuals being subjected to healthcare systems where errors are prevalent, potentially at the expense of personal freedoms.

Potential for Misuse

With the expansion of commitment laws, there's a heightened risk of misuse, especially considering the backdrop of medical errors⁴¹. There's a legitimate concern about the disproportionate application of these laws against marginalized groups, who already face higher risks and disparities in healthcare settings⁴². The potential for overreach or misdiagnosis could result in unnecessary or harmful commitments, echoing fears of state overreach akin to fascist control where individual rights are subjugated for state interests⁴³.

However, these concerns are compounded by:

Compounding Concerns

Lack of Safeguards Against Medical Errors

While there are legal safeguards in place, such as requiring evaluations by two psychiatrists and court oversight, these do not entirely mitigate the risks associated with medical errors⁴⁴. The commitment process, meant to protect against misuse, must also address the reality that the healthcare system itself can be a source of harm. The line between providing care and exerting control becomes blurred when the system meant to help might inadvertently cause harm due to systemic issues like overwork, understaffing, or inadequate training⁴⁵.

Historical Context Reconsidered

New York has a history of moving towards more humane, community-based care, yet the potential increase in involuntary commitments could expose more individuals to a healthcare system with known deficiencies⁴⁶. Mental health treatment, in particular, has been prone to errors and misdiagnoses, which could have severe repercussions in the context of expanded commitment powers⁴⁷.

Community Support and Advocacy

While there's an emphasis on bolstering community support, the reality is that these systems might not have the funding or coordination needed to prevent the need for involuntary commitments⁴⁸. If medical errors persist within these community services, the intention to reduce institutionalization could be undermined, pushing more individuals towards involuntary care rather than voluntary, supportive environments⁴⁹.

Public and Legislative Scrutiny

In a democratic society, such proposals face public debate and legislative review, which is crucial for ensuring that the expansion does not lead to further harm through medical errors⁵⁰. However, the complexity of balancing safety, individual rights. This situation demands a nuanced approach, one that acknowledges historical lessons while pushing for innovations in care, community support, and legislative oversight.

New York's challenge is to build a mental health system that is effective and humane—a system where medical errors are minimized, and everyone has access to the support they require, not only during crises but certainly to avoid living in conditions like the subway, where they pose a danger to themselves or others.

1. Grob, G. N. (1991). From Asylum to Community: Mental Health Policy in Modern America. Princeton University Press.

2. New York State Office of Mental Health. (1970). Mental Hygiene Law.

3. Torrey, E. F. (1997). Out of the Shadows: Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis. John Wiley & Sons.

4. Appelbaum, P. S. (1994). Almost a Revolution: Mental Health Law and the Limits of Change. Oxford University Press.

5. Kennedy, J. F. (1963). Remarks on signing the community mental health centers act [Speech transcript]. The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-signing-the-community-mental-health-centers-act

6. Lamb, H. R., & Bachrach, L. L. (2001). Some perspectives on deinstitutionalization. Psychiatric Services, 52(8), 1039-1045.

7. Bassuk, E. L., & Gerson, S. (1978). Deinstitutionalization and mental health services. Scientific American, 238(2), 46-53.

8. Mechanic, D., & Rochefort, D. A. (1990). Deinstitutionalization: An appraisal of reform. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 301-327.

9. New York State Office of Mental Health. (Various Years). Amendments to the Mental Hygiene Law.

10. Shinn, M., & Weitzman, B. C. (1990). Funding patterns for mental health services. Health Affairs, 9(1), 20-30.

11. Geller, J. L. (2000). The last half-century of psychiatric services as reflected in psychiatric services. Psychiatric Services, 51(1), 41-49.

12. Rothman, D. J., & Rothman, S. M. (2005). The Willowbrook Wars. Harper & Row.

13. Healy, D. (2002). The Creation of Psychopharmacology. Harvard University Press.

14. Baldessarini, R. J. (1985). Chemotherapy in Psychiatry. Harvard University Press.

15. Goldman, H. H., & Morrissey, J. P. (1985). The alchemy of mental health policy: Homelessness and the fourth cycle of reform. American Journal of Public Health, 75(7), 725-731.

16. New York State Comptroller. (2024). Report on Mental Health Services in New York. https://www.osc.ny.gov/reports/health/mental-health-services-report-2024.pdf

17. Torrey, E. F., et al. (1992). Criminalizing the Seriously Mentally Ill: The Abuse of Jails as Mental Hospitals. National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.

18. Eide, S. (2019). Homelessness in America. Rowman & Littlefield.

19. Lamb, H. R., & Weinberger, L. E. (2005). The shift of psychiatric inpatient care from hospitals to jails and prisons. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33(4), 529-534.

20. Human Rights Watch. (2003). Ill-Equipped: U.S. Prisons and Offenders with Mental Illness. https://www.hrw.org/report/2003/10/22/ill-equipped/us-prisons-and-offenders-mental-illness

21. Mechanic, D. (1999). Mental Health and Social Policy: Beyond Managed Care. Sage Publications.

22. Swanson, J. W., Swartz, M. S., et al. (2000). Involuntary out-patient commitment and reduction of violent behaviour in persons with severe mental illness. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 324-331.

23. The New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/opinion/us-mental-health-community-centers.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/20/opinion/us-mental-health-politics.html

24. Governor Kathy Hochul. (2023). State of the State Address. https://www.governor.ny.gov/programs/2023-state-state

25. B-HEARD Program Overview - NYC.gov.

26. Foley, H. A., & Sharfstein, S. S. (1983). The consequences of deinstitutionalization in New York State. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140(6), 728-732.

27. Fanning, R. (Producer), & Rummel, M. (Director). (2005). The new asylums [Film]. PBS Frontline.

28. Lamb, H. R. (1984). Deinstitutionalization and the homeless mentally ill. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 35(9), 899-907

29. New York Post. (2024). To Fix the Subway, NYC Must Fix Its Mental Health Problems. https://nypost.com/2024/03/30/opinion/why-nyc-must-fix-its-mental-health-crisis/

30. The New York Times. (2024). Citing Safety, New York Moves Mentally Ill People Out of the Subway.

31. Governor Kathy Hochul. (2022). Hochul Deploys Mental Health Teams to NYC After Fatal Subway Shove.

32. City of New York. (2022). Mayor Adams Announces Plan to Provide Care for Individuals Suffering From Untreated Severe Mental Illness.

33. Vital City. (2024, October 1). Psychosis under fluorescent lights: Mental health in NYC subways. Vital City. https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/articles/what-to-do-about-people-struggling-with-serious-mental-illness-on-the-subway-nyc

34. Manhattan Institute. (2024). To Fix the Subway, NYC Must Fix Its Mental Health Problems.

35. Reddit. (2018). Mental Health Crisis in the Subway - r/nyc. https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/8dkti9/mental_health_crisis_in_the_subway/

36. NYC Health + Hospitals. (2022). Mental Health Services.

37. The Real Deal. (2024, December 1). Congestion pricing tolls could start at $9 for cars entering Manhattan. The Real Deal. https://therealdeal.com/2024/12/01/congestion-pricing-tolls-could-start-at-9-for-cars-entering-manhattan/

38. Makary, M. A., & Daniel, M. (2016). Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ, 353, i2139.

39. Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism.

40. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.

41. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. (2000). To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System.

42. Williams, D. R., & Mohammed, S. A. (2009). Discrimination and racial disparities in health: Evidence and needed research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32(1), 20-47.

43. Paxton, R. O. (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism.

44. New York State Office of Mental Health. (1970). Mental Hygiene Law.

45. Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J. M., & Donaldson, M. S. (Eds.). (2000). To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. National Academies Press.

46. Grob, G. N. (1991). From Asylum to Community: Mental Health Policy in Modern America. Princeton University Press.

47. Torrey, E. F. (1997). Out of the Shadows: Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis. John Wiley & Sons.

48. Goldman, H. H., & Morrissey, J. P. (1985). The Alchemy of Mental Health Policy: Homelessness and the Fourth Cycle of Reform. American Journal of Public Health.

49. Mechanic, D. (1999). Mental Health and Social Policy: Beyond Managed Care. Sage Publications.

50. Appelbaum, P. S. (1994). Almost a Revolution: Mental Health Law and the Limits of Change. Oxford University Press.