Mental health conditions are highly prevalent in the United States, yet a substantial gap remains between those who need care and those who receive it. More than one in five U.S. adults (over 59 million people) lives with a mental illness 1. However, only about half of adults with any mental illness receive treatment in a given year 1. These gaps are even wider among certain groups – for example, less than 40% of Black and Hispanic adults with mental illness receive treatment, compared to over 56% of White adults 1.
Meanwhile, youth mental health needs have surged: in 2023, 40% of U.S. high school students reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, and 20% seriously considered suicide2. Such statistics underscore a national urgency to improve access to mental health care. Achieving this goal requires concerted efforts from both the public sector (government agencies, public health systems) and the private sector (employers, insurers, healthcare providers, and technology companies).
This article provides a balanced analysis of how governmental policies and corporate initiatives are working – often in collaboration – to expand access to mental health services. It also examines the integration of evidence-based therapies (such as CBT, DBT, TF-CBT, and Motivational Interviewing) and the importance of group and culturally sensitive approaches in making mental health care more effective and inclusive.
Government action has been essential in addressing the widespread gaps in mental health care access across the United States. Through legislative reforms, strategic funding, and the development of nationwide public health programs, federal and state agencies have laid the groundwork for a more inclusive and responsive mental health system. This section explores the key policies and public health strategies that have expanded access to care, integrated mental health into broader health systems, and targeted the needs of underserved populations.
In the past decade, U.S. policymakers have enacted laws and allocated funding to reduce financial and structural barriers to mental health care. The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA, 2008) mandated that insurance plans providing mental health or substance use disorder benefits do so on par with medical/surgical benefits, eliminating unequal limits on coverage. Building on this, the Affordable Care Act (2010) greatly expanded insurance coverage and designated mental health and substance use treatment as an “essential health benefit” that must be covered by all small-group and individual plans, while applying parity requirements to those plans as well 3. These reforms, along with the expansion of Medicaid in many states, led to significant gains in coverage for people with mental health conditions and reduced the uninsured rate among low-income populations 3.
In recent years, federal funding to support mental health services has increased. For instance, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provided an infusion of resources in response to the pandemic-era mental health and addiction crisis. In 2021–2022, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) distributed an additional $3 billion to states through the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant and Substance Abuse Block Grant programs (about $1.5 billion to each) 4. This funding strengthened local treatment programs and infrastructure for both mental illness and addiction recovery services. Congress has also reauthorized and expanded other grant programs (such as the Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program and community behavioral health clinic expansions) to address rising suicide rates and the opioid overdose epidemic. These financial mechanisms signal a public commitment to broaden the safety net of services, especially for underserved communities.
Government agencies have implemented several strategic initiatives to improve mental health access at the community level. A notable development is the launch of the national 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline in 2022, which transformed the existing suicide hotline into an easy-to-remember three-digit number. In its first two years, the 988 Lifeline received around 10–11 million calls, texts, and chats from people in crisis, connecting them to trained counselors across a nationwide network 5. This public program, funded by federal and state support, exemplifies how the government can lower barriers to emergency mental health care. States and counties are also using federal grants to establish more community-based crisis response teams (such as mobile crisis units and crisis stabilization centers) as alternatives to police or ER involvement for mental health emergencies.
Another pillar of public-sector strategy is integrating mental health into primary care and other public health settings. For example, the Collaborative Care Model, supported by federal agencies and payers, allows primary care clinics to embed mental health specialists and use psychiatric consultations to treat common conditions like depression. This evidence-based approach has been promoted through Medicare and Medicaid payment reforms in the last decade, making mental health services more accessible in general healthcare settings. Public programs have also addressed youth mental health by funding school-based mental health services and prevention programs. The CDC and state public health departments have rolled out awareness campaigns to reduce stigma and encourage people to seek help – an important step given that over 65% of adults who acknowledge having had a mental health issue say they are now “in recovery” or have overcome it 6, indicating that with proper support, many can achieve improved well-being.
The COVID-19 pandemic prompted swift action from federal and state authorities to enable remote delivery of mental health care. Regulations were relaxed to allow tele-mental health across state lines and from patients’ homes, and reimbursement barriers were lifted. Notably, Medicare – the nation’s largest insurer – temporarily waived geographic and site restrictions for telehealth during the public health emergency. These flexibilities proved so effective that Congress extended many telehealth authorities through at least September 30, 2025, including allowing Medicare beneficiaries to receive mental health services via video or phone at home, with no location limits 7. Federal agencies also authorized opioid treatment via telemedicine (e.g. permitting buprenorphine prescriptions without an initial in-person visit), which has been crucial for addiction care. Research by NIH and CDC found that telehealth greatly increased access to evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder; in 2021, only 22% of adults with opioid use disorder received medication treatment, but those who accessed care via telehealth were much more likely to receive these lifesaving medications 8. This illustrates how public-policy changes (like telehealth expansions) combined with technology can narrow treatment gaps. Going forward, the public sector’s role will be to institutionalize such successful innovations (e.g. making permanent the telebehavioral health coverage and investing in broadband and telehealth capacity in rural areas).
Alongside public policy, the private sector has emerged as a powerful force in expanding access to mental health care. Driven by both employee demand and organizational well-being goals, corporations, insurers, and health technology companies have launched a range of initiatives to enhance service availability, reduce stigma, and innovate care delivery.
This section examines how private entities are investing in mental health infrastructure, benefits, and technologies—and how their efforts complement and extend the reach of public strategies.
Employers have become increasingly active in improving mental health access for their employees, recognizing that untreated mental health issues impact workforce productivity, retention, and overall well-being. Over the last 5 years, most large companies have expanded the scope of mental health benefits. A recent employer survey showed 94% of large employers have strengthened mental health coverage, increased support resources, or introduced new programs since 2020 5. Many health insurance plans offered by employers now include lower-cost or no-cost counseling sessions, teletherapy options, and richer networks of mental health providers.
Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs), which provide confidential counseling and referral services, have also been bolstered – EAPs are now offered by the vast majority of mid-to-large employers. These efforts come in response to employee demand; in one 2024 poll, 90% of employees said having mental health benefits is important, although only about one-third felt they currently had adequate access through their employer 5. To close this gap, companies have not only enhanced insurance benefits but also introduced workplace mental health policies – for example, training managers to recognize and support colleagues in distress, offering flexible schedules or “mental health days,” and establishing peer support or mentorship programs.
Corporate leadership has also become more openly engaged in the conversation about mental health, helping to reduce stigma. High-profile CEOs and executives have spoken about their own mental health challenges, fostering a culture where seeking help is encouraged rather than hidden 5. This cultural shift, along with tangible benefit improvements, has made workplaces a key venue for mental health intervention. Furthermore, some companies have partnered with specialized mental health organizations to provide on-site or virtual services. For instance, large employers in tech and finance sectors often contract with external mental health platforms (such as Lyra Health, Ginger, or Talkspace) to give employees and their families quick access to therapy, coaching, or digital programs. The private sector’s investments in these areas are driven not only by altruism but by clear returns: effective mental health programs reduce absenteeism and healthcare costs and improve employee performance. Studies estimate a positive ROI for every dollar spent on evidence-based mental health treatment due to lower medical claims and higher productivity 5.
The explosion of telehealth and digital health startups in the past few years has been a game-changer for mental health access, and much of this innovation comes from the private sector. Venture capital and corporate funding have flowed into mental health technology – from teletherapy platforms and mental health apps to AI-driven chatbots – expanding the modes by which people can receive care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth utilization for mental health care skyrocketed out of necessity, and it has remained high even as in-person services resumed.
By 2021, approximately 43% of all psychiatrist visits in the U.S. were being conducted via telehealth, compared to only about 4–5% of visits to other types of physicians 9. This reflects both the convenience of tele-mental health and the willingness of patients and providers to use virtual modalities for counseling, medication management, and other services. Private telehealth companies played a crucial role in this expansion by rapidly scaling up secure video platforms and provider networks to meet demand in 2020 and 2021. Insurers and employers often partnered with these companies to ensure their members could access teletherapy; for example, many insurance plans waived co-pays for telehealth or contracted with tele-mental health vendors to boost capacity.
Beyond traditional therapy delivered over video, the private sector has also introduced digital therapeutics and mental wellness apps that users can access on their own schedule. Smartphone apps teaching skills for stress management or cognitive behavioral techniques, online support communities, meditation and mindfulness apps, and text-based coaching services have proliferated. While these tools are not a replacement for clinical care, they serve as a supplemental support and a point of entry for people who might face barriers seeing a provider in person. Employers often offer subscriptions to such apps (e.g., Calm, Headspace) as part of wellness benefits.
Insurers have also begun to include certain digital mental health programs as covered benefits, especially for mild to moderate anxiety or insomnia, as evidence grows for their effectiveness. These developments illustrate the private sector’s agility in creating and deploying mental health solutions at scale. They also highlight the synergy with public policy: without the government’s temporary removal of regulatory barriers (licensing, reimbursement) and ongoing coverage mandates, many telehealth innovations would not reach the populations that need them most.
Neither the public nor private sector can close the mental health treatment gap alone; collaborative approaches leverage the strengths of each. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) in mental health take many forms, from jointly funded programs to coordinated service delivery models. One area of collaboration is in financing and delivering community services. For example, Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHCs) are an initiative in which federal grants support local clinics to provide comprehensive mental health and addiction care, often in partnership with private providers or nonprofits. These clinics, which have expanded in dozens of states, combine government funding with on-the-ground expertise of community organizations (many of which are private non-profits) to serve uninsured and underinsured individuals. Early outcomes suggest improvements in access and reductions in crisis hospitalizations in communities served by CCBHCs, demonstrating the value of blending public funds with private service delivery know-how.
The response to the opioid crisis also illustrates effective public-private collaboration. Government agencies have set policies to increase access to treatment (such as allowing medication-assisted treatment via telehealth and funding opioid treatment programs), while private entities – including healthcare providers, pharmacies, and telehealth startups – have implemented these services on a broad scale. During 2020–2022, the federal government’s emergency actions (e.g. waiving in-person requirements for buprenorphine) enabled private telehealth providers to treat tens of thousands of patients with opioid use disorder who otherwise might not have received care. This synergy was reflected in research: after these changes, the proportion of patients receiving medication for opioid addiction significantly rose, closing some of the treatment gap 8,10. Pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies have also worked with public health officials to distribute naloxone (the opioid overdose antidote) in communities, often via standing orders or free kits, exemplifying a life-saving partnership.
Another domain of collaboration is mental health in the workplace and schools. The U.S. Surgeon General in 2022 released a Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being Framework, calling on employers to build mentally healthy workplaces and outlining essential elements (like work-life harmony and community) 11. This framework itself was the result of consultations between public health experts and private industry leaders. Many employers have since aligned their policies with these public health recommendations, effectively turning workplaces into vehicles for broad public health impact. In schools, public systems (like school districts, which are government-funded) often partner with private mental health professionals or nonprofits to provide counseling services on site. Programs such as city-funded school mental health clinics staffed by private providers, or NGO-developed mental health curricula adopted in public schools, demonstrate the blending of resources and expertise.
Formal public-private partnerships have also been established to target specific populations. For instance, to support veterans’ mental health, which is a responsibility of the government (through the VA) but also a societal priority, collaborations have emerged involving government, businesses, and non-profits. One example is a partnership where a private consulting firm and a university institute created training and employment programs to help veterans transition to civilian life, complementing VA mental health services 12. Similarly, the National Association of Veteran Service Organizations (NAVSO) was formed to connect and foster collaboration among nonprofits, private companies, and government agencies supporting veteran mental health and well-being 12. These alliances aim to fill gaps that neither sector could address alone (such as providing community reintegration support that goes beyond clinical treatment).
It is important to note that while public-private collaborations offer many benefits – pooling funding, scaling up innovations, and reaching more diverse groups – they can be complex to manage. Differences in organizational culture, goals, and timelines between public agencies and private entities must be navigated. Ensuring accountability and measuring outcomes are crucial in these partnerships. Nonetheless, when well-executed, PPPs in mental health have shown they can deliver services “more efficiently, more expediently, and with better quality” than isolated efforts12. They provide a mechanism to align public health objectives (such as equity and population-wide prevention) with private sector strengths (such as innovation, speed, and additional capital). As mental health needs continue to outpace existing resources, these collaborative models will likely become even more central to the national strategy.
Expanding access to care is only truly beneficial if the care delivered is effective. Both public and private initiatives have therefore emphasized the dissemination of evidence-based therapies. Four widely endorsed therapy models are Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), Trauma-Focused CBT (TF-CBT), and Motivational Interviewing (MI). Each has a strong evidence base and has been implemented in clinical and community settings to improve outcomes for various populations.
This section highlights each model and examples of their impact:
CBT is a short-term, skills-focused psychotherapy that helps individuals identify and modify negative thought patterns and behaviors. It is considered a gold-standard treatment for a range of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety disorders, and PTSD, due to a large body of research supporting its efficacy 13. Meta-analyses have confirmed that CBT effectively reduces symptoms and improves functioning, often on par with or better than medication for common disorders. Importantly, CBT has been successfully adapted to many settings – from traditional outpatient clinics to primary care offices and online platforms. Studies indicate that CBT retains its effectiveness across diverse populations (various ages, ethnicities, and cultures), though culturally tailored enhancements can further improve engagement for some groups 13. Many public-funded programs have invested in training clinicians in CBT: for example, state mental health departments have sponsored CBT certification for therapists in community clinics to ensure that high-quality, evidence-based care is available to underserved patients. On the private side, digital CBT programs and apps have extended these techniques to people who may never see a therapist in person, teaching coping skills through interactive modules. Overall, CBT’s versatility and robust evidence base make it a linchpin of expanded mental health services.
DBT is a specialized form of cognitive-behavioral therapy originally developed for individuals with borderline personality disorder and chronic suicidal ideation. It has since been applied to other difficult-to-treat conditions involving emotional dysregulation (such as recurrent self-harm, severe depression, and eating disorders). DBT combines cognitive-behavioral techniques with mindfulness and acceptance strategies, typically delivered in both individual therapy and group skills training formats. There is a wealth of evidence supporting DBT’s effectiveness, especially in reducing suicidal behaviors, self-injury, and psychiatric hospitalizations among high-risk patients 14. The seminal clinical trials by Linehan et al. demonstrated significant improvements in chronically suicidal patients who received DBT compared to usual care, and subsequent studies and meta-analyses have reinforced those findings (showing reductions in self-harm episodes and improvements in emotion regulation)1,15.
In practice, DBT programs have been established in many community mental health centers, often with public grants to train staff in the model. For example, a county mental health clinic might run a DBT skills group for adolescents who have a history of suicide attempts, thereby increasing access to an evidence-based intervention that was once only available in research settings. Private sector clinics and hospital systems have also widely adopted DBT, and some employers even contract with providers to offer DBT-informed coaching for employees with high stress. The rigorous structure of DBT (with its team consultation meetings and skills groups) exemplifies how fidelity to evidence-based models is maintained even as access expands.
TF-CBT is a version of cognitive-behavioral therapy designed for children and adolescents suffering from the effects of trauma, such as abuse, violence, or loss. This therapy integrates trauma-sensitive interventions (like gradual exposure and cognitive processing of the traumatic memory) with family involvement and skill-building for managing distress. TF-CBT is highly evidence-based – it has been tested in at least 25 randomized controlled trials worldwide and consistently shows strong results in reducing PTSD symptoms in youth 16. Outcomes from community implementations are impressive; for instance, one study in community clinics found that children receiving TF-CBT had an 82% reduction in trauma symptoms (versus about 20% reduction in those who received standard therapy) 17. As a result of this evidence, TF-CBT has been rolled out extensively through initiatives like the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN). Through NCTSN and other partnerships, thousands of clinicians across the country – in both public child mental health agencies and private practices – have been trained to deliver TF-CBT. A key aspect of TF-CBT’s success is its adaptability: it can be completed in 8–25 sessions and has been effective for children of different genders, races, and cultural backgrounds 16. This makes it feasible to implement in community settings, including under-resourced areas. Public grant programs have supported training in TF-CBT for providers serving foster youth, refugees, and other vulnerable groups, thereby greatly expanding access to evidence-based trauma treatment. The collaboration between academic developers of TF-CBT, government funders, and community agencies is a prime example of translating research into widespread practice.
MI is a counseling technique rather than a full therapy protocol, and it is widely used in substance use disorder treatment and other behavior change contexts. Grounded in principles of empathy and client autonomy, MI helps individuals resolve ambivalence about changing unhealthy behaviors (such as drug/alcohol misuse) by eliciting their own motivations for change. Research has shown that Motivational Interviewing is an effective, evidence-based approach for engaging clients in treatment and enhancing their commitment to change 6. Even brief sessions of MI have been associated with increased likelihood of entering treatment, reducing substance use, and adhering to medication or other recommendations. Because of its strong evidence and brief format, MI has been incorporated into numerous public health and clinical interventions.
For example, many publicly funded addiction recovery programs train all counselors in MI to improve patient retention. Similarly, primary care clinics (including those in private health systems) use MI techniques during routine visits to address issues like medication adherence or lifestyle changes. The motivational interviewing approach is widely endorsed as a best practice for substance use disorder treatment, noting that it can enhance the effectiveness of more structured treatments by first increasing the client’s readiness to change 6. Case studies from community health centers show that using MI at intake and during outreach calls has helped people with opioid use disorder transition from contemplation to action – for instance, agreeing to start buprenorphine treatment – thereby bridging the gap between needing help and actively engaging in care. In sum, MI exemplifies how evidence-based approaches that are relatively easy to disseminate can be scaled across public and private settings to improve treatment uptake and outcomes in addiction recovery and beyond.
In addition to these individual therapy models, group-based interventions and peer support approaches are key frameworks for expanding access and fostering community in mental health care. Group therapy allows one or two clinicians to treat multiple individuals simultaneously, which is efficient and cost-effective, but its benefits are not merely economic. Research over several decades, synthesized in meta-analyses, shows that group therapy is as effective as individual therapy for a wide range of mental health conditions. Outcomes for depression, anxiety, PTSD and other disorders in group formats have been found equivalent to those of one-on-one therapy, provided the group is well-facilitated and structured 18. For example, group cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression has been shown to significantly reduce symptom severity compared to no treatment and yields similar improvements as individual CBT in controlled trials.
Likewise, group DBT has been successfully used for adolescents engaging in self-harm, and group exposure therapy has helped veterans with PTSD. Beyond clinical outcomes, groups offer therapeutic factors like peer support, shared experience, and reinforcement of skills in a social context, which can especially benefit individuals who feel isolated by their illness. Many recovery journeys – such as those in 12-step programs or other peer-led support groups – rely on the power of group dynamics.
Public and private providers have both invested in group modalities to extend their reach. Community clinics, faced with provider shortages and high demand, often run therapy groups (for example, a weekly anxiety management group or a trauma survivors group). This not only helps clinics serve more people with limited staff, but it can also reduce wait times for therapy by enrolling clients in a group while they await individual openings. Employers too have started offering group-based interventions, like workshops on stress reduction or group coaching sessions, as a way to support employees’ mental health at scale. During the pandemic, some organizations organized virtual group counseling for employees coping with grief or burnout.
The rise of telehealth has further enabled group interventions across geographic distances, with secure video platforms allowing people from different areas to join the same therapeutic group. The evidence strongly supports these uses: a comprehensive review of recent studies confirmed that group psychotherapy produces outcomes “equivalent to other active treatments” for various disorders and can be a front-line option, not just a fallback. Thus, embracing group therapy is a critical strategy for expanding access without sacrificing quality of care.
Finally, as access expands, attention to cultural competence and sensitivity is paramount to ensure effectiveness across diverse populations. Disparities in mental health access and outcomes are well-documented – minorities and marginalized groups often face additional barriers such as stigma, language differences, mistrust of the healthcare system, and shortage of providers from their background. Culturally sensitive care involves tailoring services to a patient’s cultural context, which can improve engagement and therapeutic alliance. This might include providing services in a client’s native language, incorporating cultural values and traditions into therapy (for instance, involving family or community elders if appropriate), and training clinicians in cultural humility and awareness of their clients’ worldviews.
Evidence indicates that when therapies like CBT are adapted to be culturally responsive, patients report greater trust and satisfaction, and in some cases clinical outcomes improve (though core efficacy may remain similar, the acceptability is higher)13. For example, a culturally adapted CBT program for Hispanic adults with depression might integrate familismo (family orientation) into treatment goals, or a trauma therapy for refugees might spend more time acknowledging historical and political context of their experiences – these adjustments can make interventions more relatable and reduce dropout rates.
Public sector initiatives have prioritized cultural competence by funding minority mental health outreach programs and supporting a more diverse behavioral health workforce. SAMHSA’s Office of Behavioral Health Equity and similar state offices work to infuse cultural competence into publicly funded services. In practice, this has led to programs like community health workers or promotoras liaising in Latino communities to facilitate access to care, or tribal community-designed mental health programs integrating indigenous healing practices with Western therapy. The private sector, too, has recognized the importance of culturally sensitive approaches. Employers are asking for provider networks that reflect the demographics of their workforce (e.g. having Black or LGBTQ+ therapists available for employees who prefer them), and startup companies have emerged focusing on specific populations (for instance, specialized teletherapy platforms for Black clients or for LGBTQ youth).
These efforts are driven by data: for instance, Black Americans have among the lowest utilization of mental health services relative to need, and interventions to build trust – such as clinician cultural competency training or pairing patients with providers of similar background – are seen as key to closing that gap 8. Culturally informed group programs (like support groups for specific ethnic communities, or use of healing circles, churches, and other community settings) also play a role in extending the reach of care in a comfortable environment. My own clinical practice has integrated multilingual care in English, Hindi, Punjabi, and Bengali, enabling deeper rapport and more accurate assessment for South Asian and other immigrant populations often underserved in traditional settings. Both public and private funders are increasingly requiring evidence of cultural competence in the programs they support. In summary, making mental health care accessible means not only opening the door wider, but also ensuring the environment inside is welcoming and effective for people from all walks of life.
Improving access to mental health care in the United States is a complex challenge that demands the combined efforts of government and the private sector. In reviewing recent developments, it is evident that public-private collaborations are driving progress. Government initiatives have laid the groundwork through supportive policies, funding streams, and public health programs that prioritize mental health on a national scale. At the same time, private sector actors have introduced innovation, efficiency, and additional resources to meet the growing demand for services. The most fruitful advances – such as the mainstreaming of telehealth, workplace mental health expansions, and community-based treatment models – have come about when public and private roles have converged toward common goals.
As a practicing mental health counselor actively engaged in both clinical service and community outreach, I have contributed to public-private collaboration efforts through workshops on culturally informed therapy models and partnerships with nonprofit organizations serving immigrant and minority populations. My involvement bridges frontline therapeutic practice with larger systems of care, positioning me as both a clinical and systemic innovator in the behavioral health space.
There remain gaps and obstacles: funding must be sustained and equitably distributed, the mental health workforce needs expansion, and stigma and systemic inequalities must continue to be addressed. Public agencies bring strengths in broad oversight, ensuring equity (for example, reaching rural areas or low-income individuals who might be left out of purely market-driven approaches) and in implementing population-wide strategies like crisis lines or prevention campaigns. Private entities contribute strengths in rapid implementation, personalization of services (through technology and customer-centric design), and engaging people who might not interact with government systems. Going forward, leveraging these complementary strengths is critical. Initiatives might include further integration of mental health into primary care and other non-specialty settings (requiring payer support and provider training), incentives for employers and insurers to invest in preventive mental health, and sustained public-private research partnerships to develop and disseminate new evidence-based treatments (such as digital therapeutics or novel community interventions).
In conclusion, the path to improved mental health access lies in breaking down silos. Government and industry, clinicians and community leaders, researchers and technology developers – all have pivotal roles. The convergence of their efforts, as documented in this analysis, has already begun to reduce unmet needs. Continued collaboration, backed by data and guided by the dual principles of effectiveness and equity, will be essential to ensure that all Americans, regardless of background or location, can obtain the mental health support they need. The stakes are high: better access means not only reducing the toll of mental illness and addiction on individuals and families, but also strengthening the social and economic fabric of the nation. The achievements of the last decade provide a blueprint and an impetus to build a future where mental health care is truly accessible to all.
