Impoverished Youth; Our Neighbors in Distress, and at Risk


 This article is dedicated to 45 million children in America
(on Medicaid)

There is a great deal of discussion about youth being diagnosed — by general internists as well as psychiatrists — with ADHD, bipolar disorder, autism, irritability and depression and then joining the ranks of the pathologized and overmedicated on a march towards long-term distress.  Less attention has been paid to the 27 million children who, covered by federal and state Medicaid programs, are at high risk due to dangerous mismanagement of second-generation anti-psychotic drugs (SGAs). Recent reports have documented the brutal facts:

In 67% of cases of children covered by Medicaid there were significant quality of care concerns having to do with the misuse of second-generation antipsychotic Drugs. These concerns are:

  • 17% the children were “too young” for the medication
  • 41% the treatment was “wrong”
  • 34% the treatment took “too long”
  • 23% the “wrong dose” was administered
  • 37% “too many drugs” were prescribed
  • 53% there was “poor monitoring”
  • 7% “side effects”

Children and youth who are at increased risk for mental health problems include those in low-income households, those in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, and those in military families. 21% of low-income children and youth aged 6 to 17 have mental health problems, and these are the youngsters who are vulnerable and at high risk under the Medicaid programs.

57% of these children and youth with mental health problems come from households living at or below the federal poverty level. A greater proportion of children and youth in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems have mental health problems than those in the general population. 50% of children and youth in the child welfare system have mental health problems. Youth in residential treatment centers, 69% of whom come from the juvenile justice and child welfare systems, have extremely high rates of mental and behavioral health disorders compared to the general population.

The reasons driving the preference for the medical model in general, and medication of behavioral problems specifically, are financial as well as social & psychological; the seeming cost-effectiveness of drugs compared to alternative forms of therapy, and the convenience of medical prescriptions in managing a marginalized population that does not often question a doctor who has the power to prescribe – and often to enforce compliance – medication.

Recently I noticed that my 15-year-old neighbor, Cass, who has carried a diagnosis of ADHD since age 7, was gaining an alarming amount of weight.  Her mother, a single mom struggling financially, with no formal education and no family supports, has always been on public assistance and Medicaid, and so has her daughter. Our conversation went like this;

“I notice Cass is putting on weight, and she’s not coming over to see me anymore. Is anything going on with her?”

“I don’t know, she started getting fat the same time she started that new drug that the doctor put her on. Her special ED teacher said she wasn’t doing her homework so I took her in to see her general doctor and he added a drug he said would help.”

“Do you know the name of the drug?”

“No… it starts with an R, I think.”

“Did he say there were any side effects?”

“He said to call his nurse assistant if she feels sick.”

She has worried in the past that questioning the doctor would get her kicked out of California’s Federal- and State-subsidized “Healthy Family Medicaid Program.” She steered the conversation in a different direction.

My neighbor’s fears are not exaggerated. When I worked for Los Angeles County lack of funding indeed threatened to close health programs deny individuals coverage.

The 2015 Department of Health Services Report, which focused on the quality of care for children who are Medicaid recipients, states;

“Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are a class of drugs used to treat psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression. SGAs are widely used to treat children enrolled in Medicaid who have mental health conditions. However, SGAs can have serious side effects and little clinical research has been conducted on the safety of treating children with these drugs.”

However, anti-psychotics are being prescribed off-label in increasing numbers to Medicaid-enrolled youth who have been diagnosed with ADHD, Depression, Bipolar and irritability disorders related to Autism. The federal report explains that it is not uncommon for Medicaid to pay for drugs that are “not yet” FDA approved because it is “difficult” to obtain FDA approval for Pediatric uses of drugs. If a doctor decides that the benefits outweigh the risks in a black box warning, he may choose a drug even if it is not “medically accepted” for the specific indication.

Three of the five “antipsychotic” drugs that are used on children – Aripiprazole, Olanzapine and Quetapine – carry a black-box warning of increased suicidal ideation. Additional drugs used for children are only approved for adults, and FDA-approved drugs for adults are commonly used off-label as well. Of note, the report states that only New York limits coverage of drugs to those prescribed for medically accepted indications. California (where I live) is among the states in which doctors can prescribe drugs for other than “medically accepted indications” The federal study states that in 2008 children in foster care in 5 states were prescribed psychotropic drugs — including antipsychotic drugs — at a higher rate than for children who are not in foster care. Hundreds of children had drug regimens that consisted of 5 or more psychotropic drugs.

All this is occurring even as massive efforts are being made to improve the “health” of our children. While the President’s wife embarks on an anti-obesity campaigns, children like Cass are gaining weight and will suffer unknown consequences of anti-psychotic drugs for decades to come.

To add to the injustices poor families and children suffer, the government sponsors numerous clinical trials of new anti-psychotic drugs that have not been FDA-approved. Poor families enroll their young children in these trials without being informed about side effects or long-term effects of the trial medication. Specifically, an article in Pharmalot reports, researchers found that 63% of consent forms failed to include the risks found in boxed warnings. They recently examined 4,780 clinical trial protocols that were active between January 2010 and December 2012 at one institution and identified existing 44 boxed warnings that applied to 57 protocols. Of those, 75% involved participants with life-threatening diseases.

The Federal report cited throughout this article gives many case examples, each one more alarming than the next. Here are just two examples;

Case Study 3 – a 16-year-old child diagnosed with bipolar disorder 

Monitoring—This child experienced significant weight gain while taking the SGA, but there was no evidence in the child’s record of monitoring of blood sugar, cholesterol, or other hormone levels in response to the weight gain.

Indications for use (wrong treatment)—The reviewer stated that the diagnosis which the SGA was prescribed to treat was poorly documented, saying, “Multiple antipsychotic agents were used with vague documentation of hallucinations [as the only explanation].”

Polypharmacy (too many drugs)—This child was prescribed a total of six psychotropic drugs during the review period, of which three were SGAs.

Duration (taken too long)—The SGA was prescribed to this child in response to a report of hallucinations. However, the medical reviewer stated: “When all medications were discontinued… hallucinations were not reported nor was the patient reporting suicidal ideation [i.e., suicidal thinking].” The SGA should have been discontinued as soon as it became apparent that its side effects were outweighing any treatment benefit.

Side effects—This child experienced paranoia, hostility, unstable mood, hallucinations, and suicidal thoughts. This child also experienced significant side effects potentially resulting from the prescribed drugs, including a 22-pound weight gain, insomnia, and edema (swelling) of hands and feet.


Case Study 2 – a 4-year-old child diagnosed with ADHD and a mood disorder

Monitoring—There was no evidence in the child’s medical records of any monitoring while the child was taking the sampled SGA.

Indications for use (wrong treatment)—This child was placed in the custody of child protective services at 4 weeks old and had a history of abuse and neglect and severe psychosocial issues, such as aggression, anxiety, and mood swings. The reviewer stated that individual, family, and behavior therapy should have been attempted before initiating treatment with drugs. However, there was no evidence in the child’s medical record indicating that such therapies were attempted. This child was prescribed four psychotropic drugs during the review period.

Dosage (wrong dose)—The reviewer noted that there is no appropriate dosage of the prescribed SGA for this child’s conditions

Age (too young)—The reviewer stated that treatment with SGAs was not appropriate for a 4-year-old.

Despite ongoing revelations such as these, there is a hue and cry about children not having access to mental health services, however; those same services are frankly dangerous. There is government funding for more drug trials, and delivery of more antipsychotic drugs is in the pipeline.

* * * * * 


A Study to Evaluate Pharmacokinetics, Safety and Tolerability after a Single Dose Administration of JNJ-31001074 in Pediatric Patients (12-17 Years) With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Accessed July 5, 2015

Levinson, Daniel; Second Generation Antipsychotic Drug Use Among Medicaid-Enrolled Children: Quality-of-Care Concerns. Department of Health and Human Services; Office of Inspector General; March 2015. Accessed July 5, 2015

Silverman, Ed; Serious Risks About Existing Drugs Aren’t Given to Trial Participants. Wall Street Journal, Jul 29, 2015. Accessed July 5, 2015


Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.


Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.


  1. This is ridiculous. I think it was Szasz who pointed out that pill and shock based psychiatry was always the psychiatry given to poor people. Now that everybody’s on meds, I guess poor people are being given the most noxious, over-priced medications available.

    Class warfare, I think. What do poor people need brain cells for, anyway?

    My own experience has been that docs are elitist. When I was poor, I was shocked and doped and abused. Now my somewhat affluent people take care of me, and I’m given counseling and some compassion, blah blah blah. The medical establishment gives you about as much compassion as you “deserve,” based on you (or your peoples’) social standing. disgusting.

    Report comment

    • This information affects me personally as well as professionally.
      I am experiencing reduced kidney function due to 20+’years
      of lithium. I am none to happy about that.’I have been off lithium
      for over four years without any hospitalizations. My last hospitalization
      was’25 years ago. I still take a low dose of Zypreza 2mg and Klonapin .5 mg.,
      and given the horror stories I have heard, I am in no hurry to detox from these drugs.
      I work as a substitute teacher and and a youth worker so this issue impacts
      me at work. A couple of years ago I asked the AFT rep about their policy regarding psychiatric medication. I was informed that they had none. This was the same answer given by the HR person from the company that contracts out services
      at Job Corps.’Recently, I logged in my concerns about the increase in the use of
      these drugs at my agency. I agreed with my supervisor to keep these comments
      out of the log book in the future.’But I did make it clear that I would be making my concerns about this trend in the public policy arena. The agency is small, so it makes sense to target bigger fish such as APA and the Department of Health and Human Resources. Also several years ago, I was enrolled in a
      Counseling program at the local graduate college. I felt that I was
      Basically run out of dodge for my negative assessment of psychiatry.
      Now with Whitaker’s sweeping assessment of the last 35 years of psychiatry, I have gained insight into the various ways I was treated by Psychiatry. In as well, thanks to this book, and MIA generally, I think I have more of a leg to stand on as I advocate for myself, and in the letter that I am composing to the head of the counseling department.

      Report comment

  2. Good article. There should be no doubt that nay anti-psychotic should not be used in childhood and adolescence. Aripiprazole is no the top selling drug in the U.S., based largely on its marketing to be used in non-psychotic conditions. There needs to be a total ban on the use of any of these drugs in young people for any “diagnosis”, as without a total ban, doctors will continue to misdiagnose bipolar and psychosis so that they can use drugs that will in the short term appear to control some bahaviour. As was reported in MIA, the child and adolescent branch of the Canadian Psychiatric Association has called for the use ofthese drugs to be controlled. There may be hope yet, but a strong fight is needed.

    Report comment

    • Thanks for speaking the truth, Margaret. And I absolutely agree, antipsychotics should never be used in children, and there is a very large problem with psychiatrists / psychologists / PCPs misdiagnosing ‘bipolar’ and ‘psychosis’ in individuals, so they may rationalize the use of their “new wonder drugs,” the SGA, in general.

      As to your case studies, both represent appalling medical crimes against children. To put a four year old on antipsychotics is inexcusable, since every medical practitioner should know the neuroleptics are torture drugs, and have been for decades. And putting a 16 year old on three SGAs is, more than likely, going to result in anticholinergic toxidrome, a known drug poisoning, which emulates the positive symptoms of “schizophrenia.”

      And, of course, poisoning a child (or anyone) is not appropriate medical care.

      One has to wonder, since I can’t find much research on it, what percentage of ‘bipolar’ / ‘schizophrenics’ are actually suffering from either neuroleptic induced deficit syndrome (results in the negative symptoms of ‘scizophrenia’) or the central symptoms of neuroleptic induced anticholinergic intoxication syndrome (anticholinergic toxidrome) – that has just been misdiagnosed by doctors as ‘bipolar’ or ‘schizophrenia.’ Since, of course, doctors can’t bill Medicaid / insurance companies for poisoning people with their ‘new wonder drugs,’ the SGAs / neuroleptics.

      Again, thanks for bringing the truth to light, Margaret.

      Report comment

  3. Wonderful article – thank you. I am heartened to hear the above opinion that antipsychotic drugs should be banned for children and adolescents, including for mood and psychosis.

    For us fairly mild symptoms became much worse after medication and we will never know if the worsening symptoms would have been there without the medication (we suspect not as we were seeing ;spontaneous recovery’ before the meds. Also the side effects were truly terrifying and largely ignored.

    Report comment

  4. “Specifically, an article in Pharmalot reports, researchers found that 63% of consent forms failed to include the risks found in boxed warnings. ”

    That alone should be grounds for criminal prosecution.

    Report comment