In his Huffington Post blog dated May 30, 2012 titled "DSM-5 Costs $25 Million, Putting APA in a Financial Hole," Allen Frances, M.D., demonstrates either an embarrassing lack of knowledge and understanding of financial reporting or an intentional misrepresentation of facts in his continuing effort to attack the forthcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), which is published by the American Psychiatric Association. Contrary to Dr. Frances's contention, APA is not in a "financial hole" at all. In fact, the very treasurer's report he purports to cite from in page two expressly states that there was a "preliminary year end surplus of $2.4M for the APA (the (c) (6) nonprofit entity) on a stand-alone basis and a deficit of $2.7M for the APF." The APF, or American Psychiatric Foundation, is an independent charitable subsidiary of APA whose mission is to advance the understanding, prevention, and treatment of mental disorders through public education, research, and training.
APF has no relationship with DSM-5. The APF deficit was a planned deficit encountered to support its philanthropic work, which benefits psychiatry, patients, and the public. The APA (the (c) (6) entity with the $2.4 million surplus) is responsible for the development of DSM-5. APA reports to its board of trustees on a consolidated basis, offsetting APF's deficit with APA's gains. Dr. Frances's statement that the consolidated deficit "was caused by reduced publishing profits, poor attendance at its annual meeting, rapidly declining membership, and wasteful spending on DSM-5" is either ignorant or intentionally false. And Dr. Frances apparently missed slide six of the report about reserves, which demonstrate an extremely healthy cash reserve that increases year after year. The strength of APA's reserves and the fiscally conservative approach of consolidating balances of the APA and the APF for a balanced consolidated budget demonstrate the competence of APA leadership.
Dr. Frances also complains that the revision of DSM-5 has been more expensive than that of DSM-IV. That should not come as a surprise to anyone, particularly Dr. Frances. DSM-5, unlike DSM-IV, invited comments from the world, and the work groups and task force considered every one of the more than 25,000 comments received and conducted further research where indicated. DSM-5 has employed an open process where all comments are considered, revisions are made where appropriate and the ideas are sent out again for comment with the process repeating itself. The transparency associated with the process is expensive, but it is beneficial, and will help to ensure that DSM-5 is a meaningful tool for diagnosis of mental illness when it is published, on time, in 2013.
The author is CEO and Medical Director of the American Psychiatric Association.
For more by James H. Scully, Jr., M.D., click here.
For more healthy living health news, click here.
Follow James H. Scully, Jr., M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/APAPsychiatric
Allen Frances: A Turning Point for DSM 5: Will the APA Trustees Finally Step Up to the Plate?
Lawrence Diller, M.D.: Psychiatric Diagnosis by the People's Choice
Lloyd I. Sederer, MD: The DSM-5: Will it Work in Clinical Practice?
Dr Scully, shortly after APA posted the third set of draft proposals, at the beginning of May, Medscape Medical News reported, "Members of the task force said they hope to publish the full results [of the field trials] "within a month."'
This six week long, third and final review period closed on Friday, June 15 but no report on the field trials has been released. Stakeholders have been obliged to submit feedback without the benefit of scrutiny of field trial results.
Why has this report been delayed? Does the Task Force still intend to publish a report and if so, when might a report be anticipated?
In your commentary you've said:
"...DSM-5, unlike DSM-IV, invited comments from the world, and the work groups and task force considered every one of the more than 25,000 comments received and conducted further research where indicated."
Following the initial review of draft proposals, in spring 2010, APA reported having received around 8,600 submissions; for the second review, around 2,100 were reported; is there a breakdown of figures on the DSM-5 Development site that accounts for a total so far of "25,000" submissions?
With thanks, in advance, for your attention.
APA has failed to account for its failure to release a report on the DSM-5 field trial results during the third and final stakeholder comment period and why no results have been published since.
• Making statements you have no idea what you are talking about
• Endlessly trying to make the irrational DSM-V rational
• Crazily looking to the APA as an authoritative body in spite of the fact that it is a totally biased revenue generating organization for pharma
Now, obviously, all you have is personal attacks... without ANY DATA or even a visible reference to the content of my posts. You do seem to have a vengeance, too, though.
And that really makes any RATIONAL discussion impossible.
So have a nice day. I am not going to waste my time on responding further.