Why Medicaid Must Provide More for People with Serious Mental Illness- Remove the IMD Exclusion!
Blog August 9, 2023 0

Why Medicaid Must Provide More for People with Serious Mental Illness- Remove the IMD Exclusion!

Medicaid is our social safety-net program in the United States that provides health coverage for some of the country’s most vulnerable citizens. It is essential for people with serious mental illnesses. Sadly, Medicaid law contains the IMD exclusion provision, which excludes payment for services for those unfortunate people needing long-term in-patient care. The IMD exclusion is a significant barrier to meaningful treatment for people with serious mental illness (SMI).

In addition, failing to recognize that involuntary treatment is required for many people with SMI has led to many individuals living lives without dignity on the streets or being punished in our jails and prisons.

There are many reasons why more Medicaid services are needed for the seriously mentally ill:

  • Rising Prevalence: The number of people diagnosed with serious mental illnesses is rising. As the population increases and the stigma around mental health starts to fade, more individuals seek help. This calls for a proportional increase in services. We have not seen this happening in AZ.
  • Complex Needs: Individuals with serious mental illnesses often require comprehensive, long-term, individualized care that can include therapy, medications, crisis services, and sometimes even inpatient care. The current inpatient stays are relatively short, almost always under the 15-day IMD cap. There is no artificial capitation for other medical conditions.
  • Coexisting Conditions: Many people with serious mental illnesses have co-occurring physical health issues or substance use disorders. They need integrated care services that can address all their health needs simultaneously. There is an attempt at integrated care, but there are no shining examples I am aware of.
  • Societal Benefits: Comprehensive services can reduce societal costs, such as homelessness, incarceration, and emergency medical care. Individuals with untreated mental illness often end up in emergency rooms, the criminal justice system, or living homeless, which are more costly interventions than preventive and therapeutic services.
  • Economic Considerations: Early and consistent treatment can help individuals with serious mental illnesses maintain employment and contribute to the economy. Without adequate services, these individuals are at a higher risk of unemployment and homelessness, increasing the economic burden on society.
  • Crisis Prevention: Regular access to treatment can help prevent mental health crises. Crises not only endanger the individual but also place a strain on emergency services, hospitals, and the broader community. Unfortunately, there are many police encounters with individuals in crisis who end up injured, incarcerated, or dead due to the symptoms of their disease.
  • Housing Stability: Stable housing is crucial for recovery. Sadly Medicaid does not pay for housing, only treatment when medically necessary. Refer to the ASU Morrison Institute Housing is healthcare to understand that it is not only the right thing to do for the patient but also saves society about 30% over the cost of treating unhoused people with serious mental illness.
  • Better Outcomes: Continuous access to mental health services has led to better health outcomes and quality of life. Medicaid can fill the gap, ensuring the most vulnerable have consistent access to these essential services. Providing the entire continuum of care is available.
  • Stigma Reduction: By increasing the availability of services and prioritizing mental health, society takes a step toward reducing the stigma surrounding mental illness. This can encourage more individuals to seek help when they need it. Receiving care early is essential to stopping episodes of psychosis and protecting the brain.
  • Future Savings: Investing in mental health now can lead to savings in the future. Providing comprehensive mental health services through Medicaid makes individuals less likely to require more intensive and costly interventions later on. Again refer to the ASU Morrison Institute study.

New York and California have seen the results of not enforcing treatment. Each is now taking small steps to reverse the substantial number of homeless people with serious mental illness. In summary, expanding Medicaid services for the seriously mentally ill is not only a moral imperative, considering the vulnerable nature of this population, but it’s also a wise investment. It can lead to better health outcomes for individuals, reduce societal costs in other sectors like criminal justice, and result in a healthier, more productive, and safer society.

Laurie Goldstein

ACMI

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Bill aims to support people with serious mental illnesses (nystateofpolitics.com) published August 1st 2023

The bill was introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Rep. Dan Goldman. (Spectrum News NY1)

POLITICS

N.Y. bill aims to bolster services for people with serious mental illnesses

BY PATRICK ADCROFT NEW YORK CITY

PUBLISHED 3:30 PM ET AUG. 01, 2023

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Rep. Dan Goldman and Rep. Jerry Nadler on Tuesday touted legislation aimed at strengthening access to medical care for people living with serious mental illnesses.

The “Strengthening Medicaid for Serious Mental Illness Act,” if passed, would generate new services under Medicaid designed specifically for people living with mental illnesses like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, the lawmakers said during a news conference at Manhattan’s Fountain House.

What You Need To Know

·   A bill introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Rep. Dan Goldman in June, the “Strengthening Medicaid for Serious Mental Illness Act,” aims to strengthen access to medical care for people living with serious mental illness
 
·   Gillibrand, Goldman and other New York elected officials touted the legislation during a news conference at Manhattan’s Fountain House on Tuesday
 
·  The legislation, if passed, would generate new services under Medicaid designed specifically for people living with mental illnesses like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder

The legislation would also set a national standard for care for people with serious mental illness and incentivize states to provide services to treat them.

“Those with serious mental illness have often found themselves in a devastating cycle: going from hospitals to jails to the streets, and back around again,” said Gillibrand, who first introduced the legislation along with Goldman in June.

“Frankly, it’s unacceptable and it’s inhumane,” she added. “It’s a major issue for public safety and it’s a major issue for caring for our families.”

The legislation would provide states with the ability to offer services that would help people with severe mental illness get and keep jobs. It would also allow states to provide access to support services and mobile crisis intervention teams.

States would also be required to abide by certain standards of care, such as tracking disparities in treatment, according to a news release from Gillibrand.

“We are still struggling in the aftermath of COVID, which interrupted mental health treatment for so many, especially the low-income and underprivileged individuals in our community who rely on government services, the community services that were halted,” Goldman said.

“And that’s why this bill is so important,” he added. “It’s important that we get people the treatment they need in a way that works.”

California May Be Changing its Stance on Serious Mental Illness Treatment- Discrimination and Prejudice in the IMD Exclusion Policy: Impact on Individuals with Serious Mental Illness
Blog July 13, 2023 0

California May Be Changing its Stance on Serious Mental Illness Treatment- Discrimination and Prejudice in the IMD Exclusion Policy: Impact on Individuals with Serious Mental Illness

The Institutions for Mental Diseases (IMD) exclusion is a policy that restricts Medicaid funding for certain residential facilities with more than 16 beds, primarily focusing on those providing mental health and substance abuse treatment. While the policy aims to regulate and improve the quality of care, it inadvertently creates discrimination and prejudice against individuals with serious mental illness (SMI). This case highlights the adverse effects of the IMD exclusion policy on vulnerable individuals and the need for reforms to ensure equitable access to mental healthcare.

Case Summary: John, a 32-year-old man diagnosed with schizophrenia, resides in a state that strictly enforces the IMD exclusion policy. Due to the limited availability of community-based mental health services, John has been repeatedly denied admission to residential treatment facilities due to their size exceeding the exclusion threshold. This policy restriction exacerbates John’s condition, denying him access to appropriate care and causing a detrimental impact on his overall well-being.

  1. Limited Access to Intensive Treatment: John requires intensive psychiatric care and monitoring due to the severity of his symptoms. However, as a result of the IMD exclusion, the only available options for him are outpatient clinics or smaller residential facilities that lack the resources and staff to provide the level of care he needs. This restricted access prevents him from receiving adequate treatment and support to manage his condition effectively.
  2. Increased Risk of Homelessness and Incarceration: Without access to appropriate residential treatment, John’s mental health deteriorates rapidly, leading to frequent hospitalizations or encounters with law enforcement. The lack of suitable options under the IMD exclusion policy forces individuals like John into a cycle of homelessness or incarceration, where their mental health worsens, perpetuating the stigmatization of mental illness.
  3. Disproportionate Impact on Low-Income Individuals: The IMD exclusion disproportionately affects low-income individuals who rely on Medicaid for their healthcare needs. Private residential facilities, not subject to the exclusion, often charge exorbitant fees, making them unaffordable for those with limited financial resources. Consequently, the policy further entrenches socioeconomic disparities and denies individuals from lower-income backgrounds equal access to critical mental health services.
  4. Inequity in the Healthcare System: The IMD exclusion policy perpetuates a two-tiered healthcare system, with individuals with SMI receiving suboptimal care compared to those with physical health conditions. While patients with chronic medical conditions can access specialized facilities without similar restrictions, individuals with mental illnesses face discrimination due to the arbitrary limitations imposed by the exclusion policy, denying them their right to equitable healthcare.

Conclusion: The IMD exclusion policy, though well-intentioned, inadvertently perpetuates discrimination and prejudice against individuals with serious mental illness. The policy’s impact on individuals like John highlights the urgent need for reforms to ensure equitable access to comprehensive mental healthcare. Revisiting the IMD exclusion and advocating for increased funding, expanding community-based treatment options, and encouraging parity between mental and physical health services are essential steps towards dismantling the systemic barriers faced by those with SMI.

Laurie Goldstein

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

After deinstitutionalization, California has tragically come full circle on mental illness treatment – CalMatters

BY GUEST COMMENTARYJULY 12, 2023

A person sits in a makeshift tent along a barbed wire fence near Highway 99 in southwest Fresno on Feb. 11, 2022. The fence blocks out a grass area that used to be a homeless encampment. Photo by Larry Valenzuela for CalMatters/CatchLight Local
A person sits in a makeshift tent along a barbed wire fence near Highway 99 in southwest Fresno on Feb. 11, 2022. The fence blocks out a grass area that used to be a homeless encampment. Photo by Larry Valenzuela for CalMatters/CatchLight Local

IN SUMMARY

California psychiatric hospitals began closing their doors in the 1960s, starting a nationwide movement known as “deinstitutionalization.” Today, most inpatient treatment for severe mental illness occurs behind bars. Two changes could help rectify this tragic reality.

GUEST COMMENTARY WRITTEN BY

Alice Feller

Alice Feller

Alice Feller is a psychiatrist and writer based in Berkeley. Her work has appeared in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, East Bay Express, Laney Tower and the opinion pages of the San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times.

Robbie, our young patient at the county hospital in San Mateo, believed his parents were trying to poison him. 

He refused to come into the house and foraged in the neighbors’ garbage cans for all his meals. Nevertheless, since he was able to survive on garbage, he was judged no longer in need of treatment. 

I was shocked. It was so callous – such a breach of our usual standard of care. But then I spent a year working as a staff psychiatrist at the county hospital in Oakland. I learned that Robbie’s experience was not out of the ordinary; it was the usual state of care in California.

In the 1960s, American psychiatric hospitals began to close their doors. The movement began in California, first with the large state hospitals and then the small community hospitals as well.

By 1994 nearly half a million former patients had been sent back to live with their families, who were often unable to care for them. A quarter million newly discharged patients ended up on the streets or behind bars. 

So many were incarcerated that jails and prisons have become our de facto mental hospitals. Today, the vast majority of inpatient psychiatric care in America is provided behind bars.

“Deinstitutionalization,” as the movement to close these hospitals is known, began as a cost-saving measure. In 1965 the federal government abruptly withdrew its financial support for the state hospitals, as well as the small community hospitals providing psychiatric care. 

This was accomplished through a little-known law, the Medicaid IMD exclusion, passed by Congress in 1965 along with the creation of Medicaid. The provision forbids the use of Medicaid dollars to pay for care in a mental hospital. Any psychiatric hospital with more than 16 beds is forbidden to take Medicaid.

Hospital treatment for severe mental illness can mean the difference between life and death, but because of this law such treatment is specifically denied to the people who need it most. No other severe illness is subject to such discrimination.

We have come full circle from the early 19th century, when Dorothea Dix campaigned to rescue the mentally ill from the prisons where they languished, often under shockingly inhumane conditions. Due to her work, people with mental illness were rescued from prisons and cared for in hospitals. 

But today that trend has been reversed. Once again, Americans with serious mental illness are being warehoused out of sight in our prisons. And many more are living unsheltered on our streets. A third of our homeless population today suffer from untreated severe mental illness, most commonly schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia is a brain disorder. It affects 1 out of every 100 human beings on Earth. Good parenting doesn’t prevent it, and bad parenting doesn’t cause it. It begins in adolescence or early adulthood, and without treatment it will be permanently disabling. It leaves the afflicted person living in a psychotic world, unable to tell reality from delusion. 

Lives are derailed. Suicide is common.

Treatment requires early intervention by a specialized team of clinicians who collaborate on patient care. Unfortunately these dedicated programs are rare. Despite mountains of evidence showing their effectiveness, insurers refuse to cover early intervention programs.

While hospital care can provide stabilization and enable the patient to use outpatient treatment, insurance coverage for inpatient treatment is rare.

California can rectify this situation by obtaining a waiver of the IMD exclusion. We need to restore hospital care to stabilize our patients and enable them to use outpatient treatment. We need to mandate early intervention programs and require insurance coverage for this vital treatment. 

These two interventions would do more than anything else to help our mentally ill homeless citizens. It is not a simple lack of housing that leaves so many homeless. Like Robbie, our patient who ate out of garbage cans, they are unable to use available housing due to their mental illness.

Eliminate the IMD Exclusion, NOW!!!
Blog April 18, 2022 0

Eliminate the IMD Exclusion, NOW!!!

The IMD exclusion was enacted into Medicaid law in the mid-1960s. At that time public sentiment, fueled by atrocities at asylums, caused a wave of the desire for community treatment. The end result over many decades was the reduction of inpatient psychiatric beds to 5% of what it had once been; community treatment was now the answer to the treatment of persons with serious mental illness aided by the new psychiatric drugs. The problem is that it wasn’t enough and some people require longer treatment in a secure setting. This population is now overrepresented in jails, prisons (which have become the de facto psychiatric institutions of our time), and on the streets. They deserve more dignity in their lives.

ACMI feels strongly that the IMD exclusion should be repealed!

ACMI Board

Here is a nice article by Peter Earley discussing the same topic:

Posted April 15th, 2022 Advocate Tells SAMHSA To End IMD Exclusion That Prevents New Hospital Beds – Pete Earley

Untreated SMI – BD Hypno Plus Courtesy of Pixabay

(4-15-22) Is the federal government’s Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD) Exclusion outdated and actually harming Americans with serious mental illnesses?

Leslie Carpenter, the co-founder of Iowa Mental Health Advocacy and a member of the National Shattering Silence Coalition, told a federal panel that advises Congress and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) that it is.

She made her argument during the public comment session at Wednesday’s (4-13) Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee (ISMICC).

In her remarks – limited to three minutes – she explained.

“This policy was enacted in hopes of ending atrocities occurring at our large state psychiatric hospitals by prohibiting Federal Matching Medicaid funds from being used by any facility with more than sixteen beds for people with “Mental Diseases” who are aged 18 – 64. This well-intentioned policy has been a legal form of discrimination on this population of people who have brain illnesses, which are not their fault and no one chooses, and no one deserves.

“The IMD Exclusion didn’t end the atrocities, it both relocated them and worsened them. It has resulted in 169,000 people being left untreated and under-treated across our country on our streets and unsheltered…In addition, 383,000 people with serious brain illnesses are in our jails and prisons, where far too many are untreated and, in many cases, in solitary confinement.

“And many more are dying every single day. They are clearly not better off “in the community.

“The shear fact that 51% of people with Bipolar Disorders and 40% of people living with Schizophrenia are untreated, totaling 4.2 million people should shake everyone on this committee and those listening to the core.

“Representative Grace Napolitano’s bill, HR 2611, * (press release about bill below) would end the IMD Exclusion, so that federal matching Medicaid funds could be accessed for not only hospitals, but also many other facilities along the continuum of care up to and including true #HousingThatHeals. This bill now has fourteen co-sponsors and is gaining momentum.

“A recent article in Psychiatry Times is titled, “Psychiatric Care in the US: Are We Facing a Crisis?” Are you kidding me?

“We have had a humanitarian crisis for decades for people with the most serious psychiatric illnesses! Sadly, too few people know it is happening, and even fewer seem to care.

“We implore you to help us to bring this crisis both to the attention of the country and to help us to bring it to an end. It is well past time.”

Steady Decline In Beds

State hospital beds have been steadily declining since the 1960s during the deinstitutionalization era. In 1955, there were 558,922 state hospital beds. By 2005, that number had dropped to 50,509 and by 2016, the number was 37,679. According to the WHO Mental Health Atlas (2017), the median number of psychiatric beds per 100,000 population is around 50 in high income countries.  According to an article in JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association, the US has 21 psychiatric beds per 100,000 which suggests an overall moderate shortage of beds.” JAMA adds, “There is also significant variation between the 50 US states with respect to psychiatric bed numbers.”

There are many reasons why we’ve eliminated mental health crisis care beds, but the results are the same. According to Modern Healthcare, “Psychiatric patients wait disproportionately longer in emergency departments before receiving treatment and experience longer stays compared to other patients, according to reports released  by the American College of Emergency Physicians…”Almost 21% (of responders) said patients wait up to two to five days for an inpatient psychiatric bed.” In some incidents, psychiatric patients are handcuffed to gurneys while waiting.

In the past, Congress has shown little interest in ending the IMD Exclusion. Former Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) tried to eliminate it when he wrote the Helping Families In Mental Health Crisis Act, but by the time it was signed into law during the Obama Administration as part of 21st Century Cures Act, that language had been eliminated. Democrats and groups representing individuals with lived experience argued that patients needed to be treated in community settings, not hospitals.

Sadly, what that well-intended argument misses is that when someone is experiencing a medical crisis, few community mental health providers are equipped to help them. Too often this leads to them ending up in jail.

It is encouraging that Rep. Napolitano, a California Democrat, is now pushing for an end to the IMD Exclusion, but my sources on Capitol Hill tell me there remains little interest among most of her colleagues to change the law and no interest within SAMHSA leadership. Opposition by civil rights organizations and peer groups remains high.

Rather than constantly fighting between community services and building more hospital beds, we should recognize there is a need for both. We should meet the needs of each individual based on what would best help them. Instead, we end up fighting among ourselves for table scraps.

Thank you Leslie for your public comments and your ongoing efforts to improve our system.

News release about Rep. Grace Napolitano’s bill.

Napolitano’s Increasing Behavioral Health Treatment Act Supported by LA County Board of Supervisors

April 20, 2021Press Release

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously moved to support Rep. Grace F. Napolitano’s H.R. 2611, the Increasing Behavioral Health Treatment Act. The bill would repeal the Medicaid Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD) payment prohibition and require states to submit a plan to: increase access to outpatient and community-based behavioral health care; increase availability of crisis stabilization services; and improve data sharing and coordination between physical health, mental health and addiction treatment providers and first-responders.

“Medicaid is the largest payer of mental health services in our country, and expansion of this critical coverage is long overdue,” Napolitano said. “Without in-patient beds, individuals experiencing mental health crisis are often released from emergency departments and forced to deal with their illness without professional care. They tragically too often end up in prison or on the streets, which not only worsens mental health conditions, but increases the cost of care to the state and the federal government. Providing relief from the IMD payment prohibition would finally give California and other states the ability to use federal funds to cover Medicaid-eligible individuals in need of behavioral health treatment. I thank the Board of Supervisors for supporting my legislation and recognizing that we must do all we can to provide life-saving care to any resident in need.”

“Through my motion, unanimously approved today, the Board of Supervisors will send a 5-signature letter in support of H.R. 2611, the Increasing Behavioral Health Treatment Act, introduced by Representative Grace Napolitano,” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, 5th District. “This is important federal legislation that will help provide adequate inpatient or residential mental health treatment beds for individuals between the ages of 16-64 in need of critical services.  I am grateful for Representative Napolitano, who shares my commitment and dedication for providing compassionate mental health care, and ensuring individuals receive the most appropriate care in the most appropriate setting.

The IMD payment prohibition is a long-standing policy that prohibits the federal government from providing Medicaid matching funds to states for services rendered to certain Medicaid-eligible individuals, age 21-64, who are patients in IMDs. The term “IMD” is defined as a hospital, nursing facility, or other institution of more than 16 beds, that is primarily engaged in providing diagnosis, treatment, or care of persons with mental diseases, including medical attention, nursing care, and related services.

“Repealing the IMD exclusion is not only necessary to address the mental health care needs of individuals requiring and deserving adequate residential services to heal, it is also an important step in resolving both the critical parity gap between physical and mental health care that continues to plague this field from a fiscal perspective, as well as the societal stigma that interferes with access to treatment at the expense of those most impacted by brain illness,” said Dr. Jonathan Sherin, Director of Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health.

LA County Board of Supervisors Letter Supporting H.R. 2611

5sigletterSupportforHR2611(Napolitano).pdf

PDF icon5sigletterSupportforHR2611(Napolitano).pdf

Manhattan Institute’s Medicaid’s IMD Exclusion: The Case For Repeal
Blog September 7, 2021 0

Manhattan Institute’s Medicaid’s IMD Exclusion: The Case For Repeal

Rockland Psychiatric Hospital
Rockland Psychiatric Hospital- photo by Stephen Speranza for The New York Times

An excellent comprehensive report on Medicaid’s Institute for Mental Diseases (IMD) exclusion law.

This article was published on February 22nd, 2021, here is a link to the full article on their site.

Here is the executive summary, taken from their full report (Eide & Gorman, 2021):

Executive Summary

Inpatient psychiatric care forms a crucial part of America’s mental health system. Though most mental health services are provided on an outpatient basis, treating some serious mental illnesses requires a hospital setting. Inpatient treatment may be provided in a general hospital unit or a specialized psychiatric hospital. Within the context of Medicaid, specialized psychiatric hospitals are known as “Institutions for Mental Diseases,” or IMDs.

Federal law generally prohibits IMDs from billing Medicaid for care given to adults between the ages of 21 and 64 at a facility with more than 16 beds. This “IMD Exclusion” has been in place, in some fashion, since Medicaid was enacted in 1965. The intent was to prevent states from transferring their mental health costs to the federal government and to encourage investments in community services. The IMD Exclusion achieved its desired effect by contributing heavily to what’s popularly called “deinstitutionalization,” the transformation of public mental health care from an inpatient-oriented to an outpatient-oriented system.

This report argues that the IMD Exclusion has outlived its usefulness and should be repealed. It discourages states from investing in inpatient care, hampering access to a necessary form of treatment for some seriously mentally ill individuals. As a result, these individuals end up repeatedly in the emergency departments of general hospitals, “boarded” for lack of access to available beds, and overrepresented among the homeless and incarcerated populations. More broadly, the exclusion discriminates, through fiscal policy, against the seriously mentally ill.

Concerns that repealing the IMD Exclusion would lead to a mass re-institutionalization of the mentally ill are overblown. The population of public psychiatric hospitals today stands at about 5% of what it was before deinstitutionalization. Individuals in need of mental health care have access to a much greater diversity of programs and public services than existed before the 1960s, when institutional care was often the sole option. Strong legal regulations also now exist that did not exist when Medicaid was first passed—most notably, the “integration mandate” of the Supreme Court’s Olmstead ruling, which requires mentally ill individuals to be provided services in the community when those services are appropriate, are not of objection to patients, and can be reasonably
accommodated.

Interest in repealing the IMD Exclusion has increased recently in response to a concern over bed shortages for the seriously mentally ill and persistent challenges with mental illness-related homelessness and incarceration. There have also been signs of bipartisan interest in a full and clear repeal. Under the Biden administration, mental health-care reform, beginning with the repeal of the IMD Exclusion, may present an opportunity for substantive bipartisan policy reform.

Eide, S., & Gorman, C. D. (2021). (rep.). Medicaid’s IMD Exclusion: The Case for Repeal (pp. 4–10). New York, NY.

This article was published on February 22nd, 2021, here is a link to the full article on their site:

Click to access medicaids-imd-exclusion-case-repeal-SE.pdf

Arizona Attorney- Sept 2021- Special Focus on Mental Health
Blog September 7, 2021 0

Arizona Attorney- Sept 2021- Special Focus on Mental Health

Worth reading: Attorneys, and ACMI Board members, Josh Mozell and Holly Gieszl wrote an in-depth piece about Arizona’s mental illness treatment system in this award-winning magazine. They focus on the 55 bed limit for Maricopa County at the Arizona State Hospital (ASH).  They discuss the community treatment and the true interpretation of Olmstead. *Begins page 40. #mentalhealth #mentalillness #Arizona

On page 80 is an interview with the infamous Chic Arnold. Well done!

Arizona Attorney – September 2021 – Special Focus on Mental Health Law

Arizona Attorney Magazine
Arizona Attorney – September 2021 – Special Focus on Mental Health Law

ARIZONA ATTORNEY MAGAZINE is the award-winning monthly publication of the State Bar of Arizona – providing a window into Arizona’s legal community with a global viewpoint.

Ignoring mental health infrastructure will be a costly mistake
Blog July 13, 2021 0

Ignoring mental health infrastructure will be a costly mistake

Most folks reading our blog know the long disturbing history of how we have gotten to such a sad place in the US in our treatment of people with serious mental illnesses. You may find it interesting, as I did, to learn that President Reagan made a major change (see below), which resulted in diminished community resources.

“That began to change shortly after Ronald Regan was elected president in 1980. He ended earmarking of federal funds for this system of community mental health centers and instead substituted block grants to the states that they could use at their discretion. Almost all the states acted badly, cutting taxes rather than using the federal funding as before for community mental health.”

We need a federal plan that also involves the removal of the IMD exclusion. This mental health treatment exclusion is a parity violation. There is no such restriction on the length of stay or the number of medical beds in hospitals for medical conditions. Learn more about parity laws.

We need to focus on the people with SMI and not just general mental health!!

ACMI Board

Original article published by StatNews  on July 9th by Allen Frances

Original article

the Brain
Image by Adobe

President Biden’s ambitious infrastructure plan has a glaring omission: It makes no effort to redress the awful reality that the United States has the worst mental health infrastructure of any country in the developed world.

People with mental illness, their families, and society at large are suffering the tragic consequences of four decades of mental health defunding and privatization: 90% of psychiatric beds have been closed; the once-wonderful system of publicly funded community mental health centers has been gutted; crisis response teams are almost nonexistent; and the available pool of affordable housing meets only a fraction of what’s needed.

In the Middle Ages, people with severe mental illness were often chained in prisons, begged on the street, or languished in poor houses. In modern America, 350,000 people with mental illness are in jails or prisons (often for nuisance crimes that could easily have been avoided had treatment been available); 250,000 of them are homeless; and the average life span of those with severe mental illness is 20 years less than that of the general population. The rate of dying from Covid-19 was three time higher among people with schizophrenia than in the general community — the second biggest risk factor after age.

Law enforcement officers, sheriffs, and judges have become the most vocal critics of the brutal criminalization of mental illness and are now among the strongest advocates for improved community treatment and housing. Forcing scared and untrained police officers to be first responders for people with untreated mental illness puts them in untenable positions and is partly responsible for police brutality and shootings. People with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to die during a police encounter than other civilians.

And once in jail, people with mental health issues are difficult to manage, deteriorate further, spend disproportionate time in solitary confinement, and have prolonged stays (especially since they have no place to go and no treatment if released).

How did the U.S. get into this mess? Massive and rapid deinstitutionalization of people with mental health issues began in the late 1950s for several reasons: partly because effective antipsychotics had been discovered; partly as a humanitarian response to the horrors of the overcrowded “snake pit” state psychiatric hospitals; partly as a cost-cutting method (since mental health was often the biggest and most tempting item in state budgets).

The “new approach to mental illness” that President John F. Kennedy called for in a 1963 speech, which resulted in his signing into law the Community Mental Health Centers Act later that year, was a response to the great disruption caused by the rapid closure of the huge state hospitals. Community services were meant to provide a better life for people with mental illness at less cost to the states.

My first job working in a community mental health center in 1973 in New York City was thrilling. Patients who had languished for decades in state hospitals were able to enjoy much more normal lives with the benefits of medication and inclusion in the community. The U.S. became the world leader in community psychiatry and I was proud to be a psychiatrist.

That began to change shortly after Ronald Regan was elected president in 1980. He ended earmarking of federal funds for this system of community mental health centers and instead substituted block grants to the states that they could use at their discretion. Almost all the states acted badly, cutting taxes rather than using the federal funding as before for community mental health.

And the money saved by closing the expensive state psychiatric hospitals rarely followed patients into their communities to provide badly needed treatment and housing. Community mental services either closed or were privatized, and the newly private services routinely refused care to people with severe mental illness because they were usually uninsured and always very expensive to treat.

Eventually, deinstitutionalization turned into reinstitutionalization as prisons replaced hospitals as the biggest line item in state budgets. Under Reagan, the U.S. quickly went from having the best system of community psychiatric care in the world to the worst, and things have further deteriorated ever since.

It is not clear how much of Biden’s extensive physical and human infrastructure rebuilding plan will eventually be enacted into law. But it is crystal clear that rebuilding our country’s shamefully lacking mental health system is not part of the plan.

It is also clear why. Powerful lobbying forces in Washington are fiercely jostling to capture the money allocated to the infrastructure program. Whatever emerges will reflect how much political and economic muscle each industry can exert on the politicians doing the horse trading. In this battle of the titans, people with mental illness are voiceless and their advocacy groups lack political and economic muscle.

The care of people with severe mental illness is necessarily a public responsibility that has been neglected in our primarily for-profit private health care system. The United States has shirked this public responsibility more than any other developed nation on earth. The Biden plan is a sad lost opportunity to play catch-up on desperately needed mental health services and its exclusion of mental health means there is no hope in sight.

Mahatma Gandhi once said that a nation’s greatness is judged by how it treats its weakest members. By this standard, the United States is morally bankrupt and the very opposite of great.

Allen Frances is a psychiatrist, professor and chair emeritus of the Duke University Department of Psychiatry, and was chair of the DSM-IV Task Force from 1987 to 1994.

Are people with serious mental illness more violent?
Blog May 16, 2021 0

Are people with serious mental illness more violent?

violence
Photo by Charl Folscher on Unsplash

Photo by Charl Folscher on Unsplash

As Tim Murphy points out, while most people with serious mental illness are not violent (but, instead, are more likely to be victimized), there is an association between violence and serious mental illness. People with untreated or undertreated psychosis can be dangerous. Families and friends need to understand the risk. Risk assessments, appropriately done by experts, would help recognize and mitigate potential bad outcomes to societies when people with SMI are re-introduced to communal living. More attention needs to focus on serious mental illness, the causes, the treatment, and optimal disease management. Serious mental illness should be managed in the same manner as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, understanding that this is likely a lifelong condition that waxes and wanes in severity and must be managed continually. We need to recognize mental illness as a disease and not a character flaw.

Charles Goldstein, M.D.

 

Serious Mental Illnesses Are More Deadly Than Covid, Tim Murphy Argues. So Why Aren’t We Doing More?

by Pete Earley

 

Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

This was published on Pete Earley’s blog on 5/14/21 

(5-14-21) Former Rep. Tim Murphy (R.-Pa.) wrote and pushed the most significant federal mental health legislation in decades through Congress during the final days of the Obama Administration. In this OP Ed first published in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, he argues that serious mental illnesses are claiming more lives than COVID and calls for reforms, many of which, were stripped from his original bill.  As with all guest blogs, the views expressed are the author’s. I welcome comments on my Facebook page.

Addressing the link between violence, serious mental illness

By Tim Murphy, writing in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Mass murders have already exceeded several dozen in 2021. The act is so abhorrent to us that we continually seek explanations in hope of finding a cause and cure.

Some blame the weapon (primarily firearms) and some the characteristics of the perpetrator such as the presence of serious mental illness (SMI), including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Global studies of mass violence report that perpetrator SMI is present in less than 10% of the cases, leading some advocates to suggest preventive efforts be directed away from mental illness.

Such action defies logic, facts and science.

Although SMI compromises only 5.2% of the population, the impact of their illness is far greater. According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, most with SMI are not violent; however, those with untreated SMI have 15-fold-higher rates of violence.

 

Nearly 30% of family homicides involve someone with a SMI

SMI is present in about 10% of all law enforcement responses and 20% of the prison population (where most do not receive proper treatment and are twice as likely to be victims of inmate violence). Those with SMI are 11 times more likely to be the victims of crime, are almost half of the victims in fatal police encounters, and the untreated SMI are 16 times more likely to die in a police encounter.

Perpetrator SMI is reported in 29% of family homicides and 20% of law enforcement officer fatalities. Half of those with SMI attempt suicide, and 75% have at least one chronic illness such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes contributing to their 10–15-year shorter lifespan.

Dr. Tom Insel, former head of the National Institute of Mental Health, estimated SMI has an annual death toll of a few hundred thousand lives in the U.S. and 8 million lives globally. By comparison, 3.2 million total deaths worldwide have been attributed to COVID-19 to date. Yet, for COVID, we shut down the planet.

SMI Kills More Than COVID – Why Are We Failing?

So where and why are we failing people living with SMI? Simply put, we still make it very difficult to get proper care.

Many with SMI do not seek care because of a common symptom called “anosognosia,” whereby the illness itself causes the person to be unable to understand they have an illness, and therefore will not voluntarily seek help. They are unable to recognize their hallucinations and delusions are not real, and like other deteriorating brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s, they are even unaware they are unaware they are ill.

As with dementia they can become paranoid, distrustful, combative and resist treatment. However, unlike SMI, coordinated treatment and care is widely available for dementia. Tragically, federal and state policies create insurmountable barriers to care for the SMI, even for those who voluntarily seek treatment.

Key Provisions Of His Bill Were Dropped

When Congress passed my Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act in 2016, several major reforms were created to better treat mental illness. However, key provisions were left out, mostly for budgetary reasons. Passage of them now would provide major tools for prevention of more tragedies.

• Increase Psychiatric Bed Capacity. There are 10 times more people with SMI in jails than in psychiatric hospitals. An antiquated regulation known as the Institute for Mental Diseases (IMD) Exclusion was designed to close overcrowded psychiatric hospitals like Mayview and Dixmont by barring federal Medicaid funds in psychiatric facilities with more than 16 beds. In 2016, a new federal IMD rule loosened restrictions but still limits psychiatric inpatient hospital care to 15 days per month. This is a ludicrous policy and anti-science since it is based on budgetary and not medical standards of care. Just medication stabilization alone often requires more time.

• More providers. Early symptoms of SMI appear by age 14 in half the cases and in three-fourths by age 24. Early treatment makes a huge difference in prognosis. However, most counties have no child/​adolescent psychiatrists, psychiatrists, psychologists or psychiatric nurse practitioners and even among those who do, most do not specialize in treating SMI. Low insurance reimbursement rates and high provider burnout causes many to leave these careers early. Medical and graduate school scholarships and loan forgiveness should be granted to any doctoral level psychiatric provider specializing in the care of SMI.

• Stop treating SMI as a crime. Many state courts order treatment or allow access to state-funded care only if the person commits a crime. A better alternative is Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) based on a standard that recognizes “psychiatric deterioration” before “dangerousness to self/​others” or “grave disability” as criteria for those who need treatment.

In AOT, a court orders a person to remain in outpatient treatment with medication, social services and supportive housing. AOT reduces crime, arrests, homelessness, incarceration and improves adherence to treatment often by over 70%. Fund and promote AOT.

• Train police. Crisis intervention training is effective to de-escalate a potentially volatile situation, saving the lives of citizens and police. Require it. Fund it.

• Let families help. Current confidentiality laws are supposed to serve the patient’s best interest; however, they create barriers when doctors are blocked from important communication with families regarding history of treatment, medication, violence and ability for self-care. Informed decisions about treatment should permit compassionate communication between providers and families under defined circumstances. Reform the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act privacy rule.

• Increase SMI research. NIMH decreased research on bipolar disorder by 25% and on schizophrenia by 17.5% between 2016 and 2019 and cut research trials for medication by 90% between 2003 and 2019.

• It costs less to care. A report to be released in a few weeks from Schizophrenia and Psychosis Action Alliance (on which I serve as a board member) will detail that the total costs of our misguided approach to schizophrenia and bipolar disease in the U.S. is several hundred billion dollars per year. The annual per person costs for schizophrenia alone exceed $100,000 per year. Treatment is one-sixth the cost of incarceration, and greatly reduces the risk for violence.

There is plenty of research indicating effective treatment can greatly reduce the risk for violence among those with SMI. Common decency, compassion and economics all underscore the value of changing our approach. We risk repeating the same tragic course if we again fail to act properly. And if we fail, the fault lies not in our guns, but in ourselves. Now that is a mass tragedy.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Tim Murphy is a psychologist and a former Pennsylvania state senator and U.S. congressman from Western Pennsylvania. He works as a psychologist in the Pittsburgh area, especially with veterans struggling with PTSD.

Time To ACT- Help Our Most Vulnerable Population With Legislative Change!
Blog March 27, 2021 0

Time To ACT- Help Our Most Vulnerable Population With Legislative Change!

Photo by Issac Geesling

Weekend Legislative Roundup.

The following bills that seek to enhance the well-being of individuals and families with chronic mental illness in Arizona continue to move forward. Here’s where they stand and how you can help:

SB1059 – Clarifies current law requires that a person with mental illness and substance use diagnosis must be evaluated and not summarily dismissed due to the presence of drugs. The intention is to make treatment consistent.

Status: Passed in the Senate. Passed out of House Committees, currently waiting to go to House floor for a vote. Email all House members.

Action: Call and/or email your AZ Representatives. Email the Governor’s office and ask for his support.

SB1142 – A tax incentive bill for employers who hire people with serious mental illness. Sets the credit amount at $2 for each hour worked by an SMI employee during the calendar year, not to exceed $20,000, tax-paying business owner. Government agencies excluded.

Status: Passed in the Senate. To be heard in the House Appropriations Committee this Tuesday, 3/30, for a vote.

Action: Call and/or email the House Appropriations Committee members (emails below) and ask them to support.  Call and/or email your AZ Representatives. Email the Governor’s office and ask for his support.

SB1716 – Currently, only 55 patients from Maricopa County can be at the Arizona State Hospital (ASH) — even when there are empty beds. ASH will no longer limit the number of patients who can be admitted based on the county where the patient lives. Admission should be based on clinical needs.

Reforms the existing ASH Governing Body (Governing Body) to operate without conflicts of interest: Most members will NO LONGER be employees of the Department of Health Services, which oversees ASH. Requires that the Chair of the Independent Oversight Committee (IOC) be invited to Board meetings and provided quarterly reports about human rights violations with patients. Improves transparency — requires Governing Body file annual reports with the Legislature that describe the treatment provides and what is working.

Patient safety improvement: ASH has an outmoded video surveillance system that puts patient safety at risk. We need a better surveillance system.  The bill requires ASH to maintain a surveillance system with video and audio and appropriates $500,000 to do so. ASH administration has requested a new system last year and is currently in a Request for Proposal.

Status: Passed in the Senate. To be heard in the House Appropriations Committee this Tuesday, 3/30, for a vote.

Action: Call and/or email the House Appropriations Committee members (emails below) and ask them to support. Call and/or email your AZ Representatives. Email the Governor’s office and ask for his support.

SB1029 & SB1030 – Psychiatric security review board (PSRB) bill, SB1029, requires more information and reports for the Board to ensure that it treats patients fairly and protects the public. The Board now operates without enough information on patients when it makes decisions. The bill has a retired judge become the Chair, so the Board operates by fair rules.

Because the PSRB Board opposes any changes and claims that it operates perfectly, SB1030 ends the PSRB and sends the functions that the PSRB performs to the Superior Court in each county. This saves the state money and will ensure that patients get a fair hearing in front of a judge who follows the law.

Status: Passed in the Senate. Passed in the House Committees, waiting to go to the House floor for a vote.

Action: Call and/or email your AZ Representatives. Email the Governor’s office and ask for his support.

Here is a link to find AZ Representative’s email:

The Arizona Peoples Lobbyist – Your Voice – Your Choice (azpeopleslobbyist.com)

SB1786 – Prisoner Mental Health Transition Bill.

Status: Passed in the Senate. Passed in the House Committees, waiting to go to the House floor for a vote.

Action: Call and/or email your AZ Representatives. Email the Governor’s office and ask for his support.

SCR1018 – A Concurrent Resolution expresses support for community-based efforts to provide clinically appropriate care to individuals with chronic serious mental illness.

Status: Passed in the Senate. Passed in the House Committees, waiting to go to the House floor for a vote.

Action: Call and/or email your AZ Representatives. Email the Governor’s office and ask for his support.

Here is a link to find AZ Representative’s email:

The Arizona Peoples Lobbyist – Your Voice – Your Choice (azpeopleslobbyist.com)

ACMI would like to thank Senator Nancy Barto, the sponsor of these bills, for her tireless and heroic work on behalf of individuals and families living with chronic mental illness in Arizona! When you have an opportunity, please thank her as well.

We realize that everyone’s life is full; if you are unable to call or email but still want to help the chronically mentally ill, you can partner with us financially. ACMI is a group of dedicated volunteers; no one receives a salary. Your gift will go directly toward improving the well-being of people living with chronic mental illness.

Please contact your legislators by this Monday morning.

Here is a link to find their email:

The Arizona Peoples Lobbyist – Your Voice – Your Choice (azpeopleslobbyist.com)

Or call the Governor’s office at 1-602-542-4331 or email engage@az.gov

House Appropriations Committee members:

César Chávez                     cchavez@azleg.gov

Regina E. Cobb                 rcobb@azleg.gov

Charlene R. Fernandez     cfernandez@azleg.gov

Randall Friese                    rfriese@azleg.gov

Jake Hoffman                    jhffman@azleg.gov

Steve Kaiser                       skaiser@azleg.gov

John Kavanagh                  jkavanagh@azleg.gov

Aaron Lieberman             alieberman@azleg.gov

Quang H. Nguyen             qnguyen@azleg.gov

Becky A. Nutt                     bnutt@azleg.gov

Joanne Osborne               josborne@azleg.gov

Judy Schwiebert               jschwiebert@azleg.gov

Michelle Udall                   mudall@azleg.gov

 

Your partnership in helping the chronically mentally ill and their families in our state is so appreciated, thank you!

Thank you,

 ACMI Board

SB1716 Arizona State Hospital Bill Passes the AZ House Health & Human Services
Blog March 23, 2021 0

SB1716 Arizona State Hospital Bill Passes the AZ House Health & Human Services

YOU did it!

SB1716, the Arizona State Hospital bill, passed the Arizona House Health & Human Services

Committee yesterday 7-1! Thank you to everyone who signed in to azleg.gov to support this bill and called or emailed the Committee members and Governor’s office. You made a huge difference in the lives of individuals with chronic mental illness!

We still have our work cut out for us. SB1716 will soon go to the AZ House of Representatives for a vote. Please take some time to email and call your two state Representatives and the Governor and urge them to support this important legislation.

Find out who your lobbyist is and get their email here:

The Arizona Peoples Lobbyist – Your Voice – Your Choice (azpeopleslobbyist.com)

To recap what this bill hopes to accomplish; ASH will no longer be able to limit the number of patients who can be admitted based on the county where the patient lives. Currently, only 55 patients from Maricopa County can be at ASH. — even when there are empty beds:

  • ASH offers the highest level of psychiatric care.  Admission should be based on clinical needs, like dangerousness to self and others and beds used for the sickest psychiatric patients statewide.
  • Nobody should be excluded from treatment because of their zip code.

Reforms the existing ASH Governing Body (Governing Body) to operate without conflicts of interest:

  • The majority of members will NO LONGER be employees of the Department of Health Services, which oversees ASH.
  • Requires that the Chair of the Independent Oversight Committee (IOC) be invited to Board meetings and provide quarterly reports about human rights violations with patients.
  • Improves transparency — requires Governing Body file annual reports with the Legislature that describe the treatment provides and what is working.

Patient safety improvement:

  • ASH has an outmoded video surveillance system that puts patient safety at risk. Need a better surveillance system.  The bill requires ASH to maintain a surveillance system with video and audio and appropriates $500,000 to do so. ASH administration has requested a new system last year and is currently in a Request for Proposal.

A better run State Hospital protects public safety and health by getting treatment for our most mentally ill patients ad holding the hospital accountable.

Sample of suggested email and/or talking points for a phone call. Please tailor your own message using one or more of the following sentences:

Dear Representative _______,

I ask that you support SB 1716. We need to improve our State Hospital and protect the public.

All 116 civil beds available there should be open to the sickest people in Arizona.

We need better accountability at the hospital because of the dangerousness of the people treated there.

Respectfully,

You can call the Governor’s office at 1-602-542-4331 or email engage@az.gov

 

We realize that everyone’s life is full, if you are unable to call or email but still want to help the chronically mentally ill, you can partner with us financially. ACMI is a group of dedicated volunteers, no one receives a salary. Your gift will go directly toward improving the well-being of people living with chronic mental illness.

Thank you,

ACMI Board

Help Our Most Vulnerable- Act Now for Legislative Change!
Blog March 19, 2021 0

Help Our Most Vulnerable- Act Now for Legislative Change!

Photo Sky Schaudt/KJZZ
The entrance of the Arizona State Hospital in Phoenix.

Action Alert: Individuals living with chronic mental illness need your help!

Please take a few minutes to call and email members of the House Health and Human Services committee (contact information below) to urge them in supporting SB1716 that will be heard in an HHS Hearing this coming Monday, 3/22.

SB 1716 is a short, simple bill to help the AZ State Hospital (ASH) provide (a) better care for the sickest mentally ill individuals in Arizona, and (b) more transparency to the public and legislature for how care is provided at the hospital.

ASH will no longer be able to limit the number of patients who can be admitted based on the county where the patient lives. Currently, only 55 patients form Maricopa County can be at ASH. — even when there are empty beds:

  • ASH offers the highest level of psychiatric care.  Admission should be based on clinical need, like dangerousness to self and others and beds used for the sickest psychiatric patients statewide.
  • Nobody should be excluded from treatment because of their zip code.

Reforms the existing ASH Governing Body (Governing Body) to operate like a private board and without conflicts of interest:

  • Majority of members will NO LONGER be employees of the Department of Health Services, which oversees ASH.
  • Requires that the Chair of the Independent Oversight Committee (IOC) be invited to Board meetings and provide quarterly reports about human rights violations with patients.
  • Improves transparency — requires Governing Body file annual reports with the Legislature that describe the treatment provides and what is working.

Patient safety improvement:

  • ASH has an outmoded video surveillance system that puts patient safety at risk.  Need a better surveillance system.  The bill requires ASH to maintain a surveillance system with video and audio and appropriates $500,000 to do so.

A better run State Hospital protects public safety and health by getting treatment to our most mentally ill patients ad holding the hospital accountable.

Sample of suggested email and/or talking points for phone call. Please tailor your own message using one or more of the following sentences:

Dear Representative _______,

I ask that you support SB 1716. We need to improve our State Hospital and protect the public.

All beds available there should be open to the sickest people in Arizona.

We need better accountability at the hospital because of the dangerousness of the people treated there.

Respectfully,

_______________

House of Representatives, Health and Human Services Committee members contact information:

Joanne Osborne, Chairman                 JOsborne@azleg.gov                      (602) 926-3181

Regina E. Cobb, Vice-Chairman           RCobb@azleg.gov                           (602) 926-3126

Kelli Butler                                             KButler@azleg.gov                          (602) 926-5156

Joseph Chaplik                                     JChaplik@azleg.gov                        (602) 926-3436

Randall Friese                                       RFriese@azleg.gov                          (602) 926-3138

Alma Hernandez                                  AHernandez@azleg.gov                  (602) 926-3136

Jacqueline Parker                                 JParker@azleg.gov                           (602) 926-3375

Amish Shah                                           AShah@azleg.gov                            (602) 926-3280

Justin Wilmeth                                      JWilmeth@azleg.gov                      (602) 926-5044

Again, SB1716 is slated to be heard in the House HHS Committee on Monday, 3/22.

Please contact the HHS members by 10 am Monday morning.

Or call the Governor’s office at 1-602-542-4331 or email engage@az.gov

Your partnership in helping the chronically mentally ill and their families in our state is so appreciated, thank you!

ACMI Board