1. An appropriate group to develop  a new practice standard might be a consortium of representatives from all recognized mental health and counseling disciplines having a membership above some threshold (5,000?  50,000? Maybe readers can tell me.). Voting participation by educated laymen and clients should also be invited.  Given its record of misperformance, the APA should not participate, though former members might do so through other associations. All financial grants or relationships of task force members to healthcare industry corporations must be publicly disclosed and subject to challenge by the public.  A consortium accreditation committee should assess and act upon such challenges. 

2. An appropriate time limit to build and publish the CMHAP standard should be not more than five years from start-up (three years would be better).  This limit will doubtless require energetic full-time management to meet.  It will also require the financial support of associations represented in the Consortium.  In the meantime, diagnostic practice should be frozen at the DSM-IV or ICD-10. 

3. The CMHAP standard should undertake a 75% reduction in the number of mental health conditions that are recognized as candidates for mental health-related intervention, treatment and third-party insurance reimbursement.  Condition definitions could be organized around the most commonly observed (highest incidence) symptoms of distress; or alternately, the most widely recognized treatments demonstrated effective; or in perhaps the worst case, evolved out of the most commonly diagnosed mental disorders listed in the DSM-IV. 

(Paragraphs renumbered from work cited.)