Department of Mental Health Commissioner Beth Childs informed the Massachusetts Hospital Association (MHA) and the Massachusetts Association of Behavioral Health Systems (MABHS) of this moratorium late last Friday. She indicated that this drastic action and the accompanying layoff of 170 DMH workers is part of her department’s response to cuts recently imposed on the agency by Governor Mitt Romney. Coming mid-year, the cuts will have a $14 million impact, on an annualized basis. Commissioner Childs also informed the groups that, in addition to barring new inpatient admissions to DMH facilities, her department will restrict access to residential programs.
“This is the time of year when we are all called upon to renew our commitment to the neediest and most vulnerable people among us,” observed MHA President and CEO Ron Hollander. “These are the unkindest cuts imaginable, and their timing is hard to fathom. We implore the Governor to restore these essential services to the people who depend on DMH.”
MABHS Executive Director David Matteodo concurred. “The chronically and severely disabled will be denied the special care that they need,” he said. “That is the harsh consequence of these cuts, which will be imposed on a mental health system that is already under tremendous strain.”
5 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5096 ? 781-272-8000
“The pain inflicted will be real and deeply distressing. I hope that the Governor will search his heart and reverse this action,” Matteodo added.
People with severe mental illness often end up in hospital emergency departments and hospital inpatient units. Once they are treated and have physically recovered, these patients are often discharged to DMH facilities that are equipped to manage their special needs. These patients could pose a danger to themselves or to others if they cannot be discharged to an appropriate setting.
DMH had planned to make 30 beds available to new patients this week. There is an active waiting list of patients who are waiting to be accepted by DMH. With this cut, that number of admissions to DMH will shrink to zero.
Instead of moving to a facility that is staffed and designed to meet their specific mental health challenges, many of these patients will now be forced to stay in hospital inpatient units or private psychiatric hospitals. This will cause a general back-up that will limit hospital capacity for all patients, Matteodo and Hollander said.
Independent fiscal watchdogs and the chief budget writers in the Legislature have questioned the timing, necessity and severity of the overall package of cuts in state spending announced by Governor Romney more than a week ago. The announcement from DMH provides the latest evidence of how these cuts will be implemented at the agency level.
OVERVIEW OF CUTS TO THE MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH
5011-0100 Administration
9C Cut $454,289
Elimination of 17 DMH staff positions, effective January 28th. Identified personnel positions include Central Office and Area program managers, licensors, housing coordinators, quality assurance staff, and managers who oversee services. As a result of significant staff reductions in previous fiscal years, these staff reductions will severely impact DMH’s ability to manage and operate ongoing client care functions.
5042-5000 Child/Adolescent
9C Cut $844,668
Elimination of 40 DMH positions comprising 37% of the DMH employees who provide direct care to children and adolescents in the community. 880 seriously emotionally disturbed children, adolescents, and their families will no longer receive case management services. Children/adolescents who are clinically screened for DMH continuing care inpatient/community services will wait longer in acute psychiatric settings, and there will be an increase in out of home placements. The affected employees are the linchpins of the child-adolescent system. They play a critical role in assuring that services from multiple providers are coordinated such that the child/adolescent’s mental health needs and all related issues, such as substance abuse, medical problems and educational problems are addressed.
Reduction in case management revenue in Fiscal Year 2007 of $600,000.
5046-0000 Adult Mental Health Services
9C Cut $1,900,000
Elimination of DMH research funding currently provided through contracted services with university medical schools. The DMH funding leverages over $10 million in external funding to support these programs. The direct service impact will be:
150 individuals with early signs of major mental illness who received treatment currently supported in research protocols will be terminated from the treatment protocols; elimination of training in crisis management; 90 families will lose supports and interventions for dealing with parental mental illness; and service system evaluations capacity will be eliminated.
Termination of 96 individuals from residential supported housing services providing essential in home supervision and supports. These supports include medication management, maintaining activities of daily living, maintenance of employment and housing. The residential services and supports currently enable these adults to effectively manage their symptoms and enhance their functioning, so they can live independently. Without residential supports many clients run a substantial risk of becoming homeless. This cut will lead to a shift toward more expensive interventions such as emergency rooms, acute inpatient care and homeless shelters.
This reduction will result in a loss of rehab option revenue in Fiscal Year 2007 of $390,000.
5046-2000 Homeless Services
9C Cut $260,098
5047-0001 Emergency Services and Community
9C Cut $369,812
5047-0002 Retained Revenue
9C Cut $787,427
The reduction in the three accounts listed above amounts to $1,417,337 in reduced funding. This will result in 243 individuals being terminated immediately from residential supported housing services. These individuals will lose essential in home supervision and supports. These supports include medication management, maintaining activities of daily living, maintenance of employment and housing. The residential services and supports currently enable these adults to effectively manage their symptoms and enhance their functioning, so they can live independently. Without residential supports many clients run a substantial risk of becoming homeless. This cut will lead to a shift toward more expensive interventions such as emergency rooms, acute inpatient care and homeless shelters.
This reduction will result in a loss of rehab option revenue in Fiscal Year 2007 of $552,762
5055-0000 Forensic Mental Health
9C Cut $500,000
Elimination of 9 FTE clinicians in Adult Court Clinics and 6.1 FTE clinicians in the Juvenile Court Clinics. Loss in will result in inability to provide needed evaluations and consultations to 6,942 adults in the District and Superior Courts and 366 children, adolescents and families in the Juvenile Court. Additional expected impact includes increased inpatient hospitalizations for statutory evaluations; increased reliance on DYS detention and adult bail incarceration, and increased utilization of adult detox services (particularly MASAC and Framingham State Prison)
5095-0015 Adult Inpatient Facilities
9C Cut $1,909,961
Reduction in DMH inpatient staffing in two critical areas: 57 direct care staff (nurses, and mental health workers) will be eliminated at the DMH operated continuing care inpatient facilities; and a reduction of 16 psychiatrists funded through Comprehensive Psychiatric Services contracts.
Direct Care and Psychiatrist staffing cuts at this level would jeopardize DMH’s JCAHO Certification and our ability to meet the Medicare/Medicaid Conditions of Participation. A cut of 16 psychiatrists will result in the lack
of required attending physician capacity for 267 beds. DMH will therefore be forced to freeze all civil admissions to DMH inpatient facilities while it attempts to reduce its inpatient census. The simultaneous reduction in community services required by these 9C cuts grossly impairs DMH’s ability to discharge individuals safely.
…even for Romney. He has sunk to a new low, picking on mental health patients the week before Thanksgiving.
<
p>
How can this man even think he has a shot of getting elected President? Once the magnifying glasses are applied to the countless contradictions between his gubernatorial campaign rhetoric and his four years in office, I can’t imagine that it won’t be curtains for him.
Romney is useless. Anything else we can do? It doesn’t look like we can wait until January. Does anyone know if/what the legistature can do here. Who do we need to call?
A) The Govenor deciding to leave the money in the rainy day fund and cutting 1.1% of the Department of Mental Health’s budget, which even after the 1.1% cut had a F/Y 2007 budget that significantly exceeded F/Y 2006,
<
p>
or
<
p>
B) the Department of Mental Health frontpaging that 1.1% cut by closing its doors to new patients rather than paring back some less spectacular costs.
It’s common knowledge that they are underfunded as it is. Do they have the money now to work and take in patients? I haven’t seen anywhere that there are other costs that can be pared down. All I have seen Globe, Herald etc. is one common theme, the money was being counted on to keep the funder funded facilities going and at the last minute it was taken away. Do you have anything that says otherwise?
Do you have any concrete suggestions for cuts in DMH costs? I would like to hear them.
<
p>
Were there any alternative cuts short of shutting the doors?
<
p>
Big picture is that Mass ranks well in total spending. It’s #11 in total spending of all the states toward mental health.
<
p>
Romney cuts 1.1% and the Agency closes its doors to new patients. Does common sense truly tell you that that move wasn’t politically motivated, but using the patients as fodder?
You still haven’t explained what cuts you think the DMH can make without cutting services.
<
p>
MA might be #11, but given the woeful state of mental health care in this country, that is not really saying all that much. Furthermore, we all know that everything is more expensive here than in most of the rest of the country, so costs should be expected to higher even for the same level of service.
<
p>
Now perhaps you are right and the DMH is grandstanding, but that is pure speculation; there is no common sense about it.
How about starting with the admin line: it increased by $1.9 million from 2006 to 2007. The budget is completely opaque, so I can’t look at the specifics of that line, but it’s not direct services. Start there; it shouldn’t affect admission of new patients.
<
p>
How about forensic services: increase of $550,000 from 2006 to 2007. Cut from that might affect dead people. I’d rather see a cut in that line rather than affect new patient admissions.
<
p>
There, level fund the admin line and you’ve covered your 9C cut and the inpatient admission aren’t affected.
Where does one find information like what you’re referencing in the DMH budget?
If you’re with the state I think you have some internal access, assuming you can find your way through the maze of department numbers and line numbers.
<
p>
I used the massbudget.org summary
It would be nice to know what is actually included in the admin line, but it would be wrong to assume that patient care does not incur administration expenses. Also, some increases should be expected to pay for cost-of-living increases for administrators.
<
p>
I doubt that “forensic services” has anything to do with dead people. The word “forensic” just means the application of science to legal issues. In this context, I would expect it refers to forensic psychiatric services, which includes things like evaluating whether someone is competent to stand trial, etc. It is not at all clear that you can really cut that.
<
p>
the forensic list is the Crime Lab dollars that everyone on both sides were talking about that needs funding. We have a backlog for DNA testing for criminal cases, etc. Mitt added bucks last few years after is was neglected for the first few years as Governor. It was one of the things he was pushing. I agree there are cuts out there, but as everyone has noted it’s difficult to find with the current process.
It may not be common sense. In the real world its called politics. DMH grandstanded do ya think maybe so Childs can look good for Deval. Yeah that’s the ticket.
You talk as though the only cuts were to close patient admissions. Here are the other cuts that Beth Childs announced (designed by the Administration not DMH) as described by the Mass Health Council. I think there is a lot that could be changed about the services DMH provides its clientele but this is a meat axe not a plan:
<
p>
5011-0100 Administration
9C Cut $454,289
<
p> Elimination of 17 DMH staff positions, effective January 28th.
Identified personnel positions include Central Office and Area program managers, licensors, housing coordinators, quality assurance staff, and managers who oversee services. As a result of significant staff reductions in
previous fiscal years, these staff reductions will severely impact DMH’s ability
to manage and operate ongoing client care functions.
<
p>
5042-5000 Child/Adolescent
9C Cut $844,668
<
p> Elimination of 40 DMH positions comprising 37% of the DMH employees who
provide direct care to children and adolescents in the community. 880
seriously emotionally disturbed children, adolescents, and their
families will no longer receive case management services. Children/adolescents who are clinically screened for DMH continuing care inpatient/community services will wait longer in acute psychiatric settings, and there will be an increase in out of home placements. The affected employees are the linchpins of the child-adolescent system. They play a critical role in
assuring that services from multiple providers are coordinated such that
the child/adolescent’s mental health needs and all related issues, such as
substance abuse, medical problems and educational problems are addressed.
<
p>
Reduction in case management revenue in Fiscal Year 2007 of $600,000.
<
p> 5046-0000 Adult Mental Health Services
9C
Cut $1,900,000
<
p> Elimination of DMH research funding currently provided through
contracted services with university medical schools. The DMH funding leverages over $10 million in external funding to support these programs. The direct service impact will be:
<
p>
150 individuals with early signs of major mental illness who received
treatment currently supported in research protocols will be terminated
from the treatment protocols; elimination of training in crisis management;
90 families will lose supports and interventions for dealing with parental
mental illness; and service system evaluations capacity will be eliminated.
<
p> Termination of 96 individuals from residential supported housing
services providing essential in home supervision and supports. These supports include medication management, maintaining activities of daily living, maintenance of employment and housing. The residential services and
supports currently enable these adults to effectively manage their
symptoms and enhance their functioning, so they can live independently. Without residential supports many clients run a substantial risk of becoming
homeless. This cut will lead to a shift toward more expensive
interventions such as emergency rooms, acute inpatient care and homeless shelters.
<
p>
This reduction will result in a loss of rehab option revenue in Fiscal
Year 2007 of $390,000.
<
p> 5046-2000 Homeless Services
9C Cut $ 260,098
<
p>
5047-0001 Emergency Services and Community 9C Cut $
369,812
<
p>
5047-0002 Retained Revenue
9C Cut $ 787,427
<
p>
The reduction in the three accounts listed above amounts to $1,417,337
in reduced funding. This will result in 243 individuals being terminated
immediately from residential supported housing services. These individuals
will lose essential in home supervision and supports. These supports include medication management, maintaining activities of daily living, maintenance of employment and housing. The residential services and supports currently enable these adults to effectively manage their symptoms and enhance their functioning, so they can live independently. Without residential supports many clients run a substantial risk of becoming homeless. This cut will lead to a shift toward more expensive interventions such as emergency rooms, acute inpatient care and homeless shelters.
<
p>
This reduction will result in a loss of rehab option revenue in Fiscal
Year 2007 of $552,762
<
p> 5055-0000 Forensic Mental Health
9C Cut $500,000
<
p> Elimination of 9 FTE clinicians in Adult Court Clinics and 6.1 FTE clinicians in the Juvenile Court Clinics. Loss in will result in inability to provide needed evaluations and consultations to 6,942 adults in the District and Superior Courts and 366 children, adolescents and families in the Juvenile Court. Additional expected impact includes increased inpatient hospitalizations for statutory evaluations; increased reliance on DYS detention and adult bail incarceration, and increased utilization of adult detox services (particularly MASAC and Framingham State Prison)
a) Executive leadership that analyzes budgets to create improved efficiencies, cost-savings as well as delaying personnel hires, freezing purchases,
<
p>
OR
<
p>
b) CUTS to direct services that have been underfunded and understaffed resulting in more costly ER visits, law enforcement/corrections involvement (Ka-ching), and greater risk to all members of society? Back-end funding is ALWAYS more costly.
that these service cuts have more to do with beaurecratic politicking than with Romney’s 1.1% cut. Nice way to get it onto the TV news.
<
p>
It like when a city has a budget shortfall; the first thing proposed inevitably is to eliminate a firehouse. The resulting hue and cry ensures the continued steady supply of pork, via tax hike if necessary.
<
p>
I regard this sort of stuff– and the “but the department is already so very underfunded” commentary that goes with it, to be an attempt to soften us up for a nice hike to 6.0%, and to put pressure on the new adminitstration to rain manna from Beacon Hill, by increasing our membership dues if necessary.
Romney signed the budget July 1st. Now a few months later we overspending? That’s the point here.
The Legislature overrode the Romney vetos and transferrred $450 million from the rainy day fund. Romney put $425 million back into the rainy day fund with his 9C action.
<
p>
That’s the point here.
From the Lowell Sun
<
p>
I recalled that the Legislature voted an override. My mistake. Instead of an override, the Legislature dodged the issue, and left the decision making up to Romney: save or spend.
<
p>
The Governor decided to save.
<
p>
My point is still: i) it’s 1.1% of the total budget 2) Mass spending is quite high of all the states on mental health by comparison 3) it doesn’t make common sense that a cut of 1.1% would close the doors. It smells politically motivated by both Romney and the Agency, except the Agency decided to use the new patients as the sacrificial lambs to make their political point.
In other words, the legislature has the power to override those cuts and “chose” not to their veto power. Shoudln’t all these anti-Romeny andger also be squarely on the shoulders on the legislature as well. It’s just another example of the Beacon Hill Salute where anything bad is somehow the fault of the Governor. Pretty soon your salute-powers will be over. Thank god.
That the use of the rainy day fund to offset the costs was agreed to in July. Romney signed it. This issue is Romney going back on what he signed.
yes, the legislature had the power to override the cut and chose not to
<
p>
or
<
p>
no, the legislature was powerless to avoid this cut
<
p>
I’ll save you the time, the right answer is yes. Now I have a question, has the legislature ever cut anything from the budget?
So you believe that the legislature was at fault that Romney signed a budget, then 4 months later call an vetoed parts while the legislature completed it’s formal session. He just is making himself look more like an idiot each day.
<
p>
I thought from the campaign that we saw 900 million in proposed taxes that the legislature nixed 200 million. David had the post with the document, no?
BTW, earlier (upthread) I thought Romney originally vetoed the bill and the Legislature overrode the veto. He did! Or, at least he originally vetoed $388 million of spending:
<
p>
<
p>
So I think, (and I’m not 100%) the progression is/was:
<
p>
-Romney submitted his budget: 25.2 billion;
<
p>
-Legislature submitted theirs: 26.7 billion;
<
p>
-Romney vetoed many things in the Conference budget;
<
p>
-Legislature overrode veto and in doing so, in substance, passed a budget that spent from the ‘rainy day’ fund. i.e. spending exceeded benchmark collections by $450 million;
<
p>
-October 2006 y-t-d tax collections were strong and the DOR revalued their benchmark upward but only by about $115 million;
<
p>
-Romney vetoed the Legislature’s decision to transfer $425
from the fund. Legislature did not reconvene to consider the veto.
<
p>
I think Gov. Patrick can put any of the items back into the budget on Jan. 4.
At this point it’s up to Romney what/if anything goes back. Why did he use 9C while the legislature was not in session?
Maybe because spending money during boom times from the piggy bank isn’t a good idea?
<
p>
The next numbers from DOR will be published in about 2 weeks then again during the first week of January. If tax collections fall off the rails in the next 2 months, it’ll be nice to have a few buck set aside.
<
p>
For a rainy day.
…is that as long as Democrats have a supermajority they can override anything. But Democrats have mastered the Beacon Hill Salute. Romney takes the heat for cutting spending and Democrats blame Romney despite having the power to do something about it.
<
p>
On a side note, I’m of the opinion that virtually every state agency could provide the same level of services on a drastically reduced budget. I’m pissed at Romney for not imposing a spending freeze and leaving the DMH at its 2006 level, as well as every other state agency. Money doesn’t grow on trees.
and you are smoking crack if you really think that you can “drastically” reduce the budget of most state agencies without affecting services.
<
p>
Also do you think that somehow state agencies are immune to the same cost increases that affect consumers? State agencies also need to pay employees, heat and cool their buildings, fuel state vehicles. All of these things have become more expensive in the last several years.
Well said
This conversation is a joke because after paying federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, gasoline taxes, alcohol taxes, Medicare taxes, tariffs, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, social security taxes, and the big one, property taxes all I get is a Government that says I need more money. From crappy schools, to unnecessary fire departments, to a pointless war, to a DMH that would rather give administrators a cost of living increase versus admit new patients, every taxpayer is being raped by our Government. The private sector is constantly looking for ways to cut costs I think it’s time the public sector makes some tough decisions as well. But in the case of the DMH we’re not even talking about cutting costs, their budget went up and they still want more.
fever, please see comment #43 below. thank you. AnnEM
The problem with this is that the tax collections have been much higher than projected when the Administration projected revenues earlier this year. THere is actually a surplus not a deficit that requires drawing on the rainy day fund.
As I said upthread, the ‘surplus’ (excess over old benchmark) is less than $200 million, so the point is still: is it appropriate to take from the rainy day fund.
<
p>
Deval Patrick has publicly indicated opposition to using rainy day fund for non-emergencies:
<
p>
“Yet Patrick has so far declined to take a definitive position on Romney’s cuts, and he has indicated his opposition to using the state’s “rainy day” fund for non-emergency purposes, as lawmakers did when building the FY07 budget.”
I appreciate your self-description that includes a dose of Libertarian skepticism, I too have a streak in my bones. However, your post is shallow rhetoric without consideration to the lack of analysis of the Governor’s actions (process) including the obvious lack of scrutiny to measure impact both human and fiscal. Apparently he is backpeddaling on the cuts to homeless shelter(s) Globe
I have a few more questions about these actions:
Would these steps have been taken if Healey won the election? If so, would there have not been management skills applied to review the other options of freezing positions (no new hires), supplies and reducing budgets from within the departments?
<
p>
Where is Healey when women, children and victims needs support?
<
p>
Lastly, it seems that you might be suggesting in your post with the firehouse analogy that Governor Romney is participating (in fact instigated) a ruse to increase taxes. Odd, eh?
DMH.
<
p>
I’m suggesting that DMH seized the opportunity to have it known that their funding situation is so terrible, so dire that this relatively minor cut is causing them to shut down. Cue the demand for more funding, and an increase on the “revenue” side of the state budget if necessary.
<
p>
Maybe Romney decided to hand them the opportunity: DMH gets to pressure Patrick for more, and if they, and others like them, succeed, Romney gets to say “see, Massachusetts raised taxes right after I was no longer there to hold the line.”
<
p>
win-win! unless you’re in need of mental health services.
for drawing a line in the sand. For pity’s sake, the department IS underfunded, and these cuts came half-way into the budget cycle making their impact much harder to absorb. And oh yeah, those DMH employees are just SO overpaid, we all know that, right? So why not just cancel a few hundred workers paychecks for a few weeks, maybe starting now thru the holidays. Sounds good to me.
<
p>
To be serious, I am sure there are state program-spending areas to be scrutinized and other ways in which the budget can be made more cost-effective, but what’s happening now is not taking that approach. What’s happening now with this 9C manure really is disgusting.
<
p>
Oops, typo, I meant the 9C “maneuver” is disgusting…
for this 9C maneuver, and more. I just spoke with my state senator and with a staffer for my state rep. The rep’s staffer told me that no one has ever used this 9C for more than trimming a couple of million when the budget didn’t check out. The 9C is a statutory power of the governor to do emergency balancing of the budget; no one ever forsaw a governor using it to deep-six substantial portions of the budget. The legislature can’t undo it because it’s not a veto; if they go back into session and re-authorize the spending Mittwit will veto it again, and if they override it he’ll just make the 9C cuts again.
<
p>
Mittwit isn’t doing this because there isn’t enough money; the staffer told me that the revenues are coming in better than expected. He rolled it out on Nov. 10, the day after…guess what? It was like a loaded gun just cocked to go off; all the pieces were in place for specific cuts. This didn’t get cooked up overnight. He’s trying to punish the legislature for the Con Con, or all of us for not electing his sidekick, or whatever. This move is a parting shot: it forces Deval to deal with budgetary matters on day one, and look like a “tax and spend liberal”, since only the governor can cancel the 9C. But it’s the most vulnerable among us who are being punished. This is a scorched earth policy if I ever saw one. Shows you how vindictive these guys are and what they really stand for.
You should submit your resume for DMH Commish. Your appointment would fulfill what many of us expect for appts.
I’d also like to meet one Government worker (with the exception of the Governor that works for free) that I didn’t think was overpaid in addition to kick-ass benefits that none of us in the private sector enjoy. But rather than sling insults, if you don’t want to cut the DMH budget where would you suggest we cut? I’m sure that no matter what program you come up with Romney will support, the legislature and the Globe will ridicule him and we’re right back where we started. By the way, let’s not forget that the DMH budget went up just not to the level they wanted.
Maybe the legislature should send a letter to our lame fuck governor reminding him of the oath of office he took.
<
p>
Whoops, I made a typo in “lame duck”. Sorry.
<
p> – Dan
beyond posting here at BMG that is (worthwhile action as it may be there’s more to do). Other comments here and in other posts on this subject have done a good job at deconstructing the details of the 9C cuts, along with the policy and politcs of it all. Thanks.
<
p>
Please consider taking action to let your voice be heard about this. Here’s what I did as an example: I just got off with “Dan” in the Guv’s office (Dan not allowed to give his last name for “security reasons”-huh?) then I spoke with Louis Scarp…io in DiMasis’s office and Shirley in DMH Commissioner Child’s office. I said I was calling to give a message: that voters are looking for constructive leadership to address the 9C cuts fiasco. I identified myself as a voter, taxpayer, nurse, and said it is a disgrace to the state that these $450mil in 9C cuts were made in such a “political football” fashion and made half-way thru the budget cycle. I asked for some public leadership NOW and a timely resolution to restore the funds that will affect essential HUMAN service programs such as DMH, Meals on Wheels, Home care services.
<
p>
I also said thank you to Commissioner Childs for her very appropriate leadership that she has courageously demonstrated as she and her entire Dept. and the people they serve are shoved into this quagmire.
<
p>
For more perspective on the DMH cuts aspect of this sefl-inflicted political fiasco, there’s a useful study that was done by NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (full disclosure, I’m a long-time NAMI member both as a sibling and a health professional). It’s a comprehensive state-by-state analysis of mental health care systems, the first in 15 years. Every U.S. state has been scored on 39 specific criteria resulting in an overall grade and four sub-category grades for each state. The national average grade is D.
<
p>
Five states receive grades in the B range. Eight receive F’s. None received A’s. Massachusetts received a C-. Here’s the link Grading the States 2006 Massachusetts
<
p>
It takes 3 minutes to pick up the phone and make a couple calls. State House 617-722-2000. DMH Cmsr. Elizabeth Childs 617-626-8123. I’d appreciate hearing other ideas/ suggestions.
Forensic mental health has nothing to do with dead people or with DNA testing. Forensic mental health is the intersection between mental illness and criminal justice, So if a person goes to court and their attorney, the court, etc question their competency or criminal resposibility then they are forensic clients. Court clinicians evealuate them. Many of the court clinicians are employed by DMH. If the court clinician feels that the persons compency or criminal responsibility require further evaluation, and the judge agrees that they are in need of an inpatient evaluation, then they are committed by the court under Chapter 123 section 15B. Forensic patients are one of the largest groups of inpatients. Cutting theforensic budget is a big mistake given the emphasis on forensic care in DMH. DMH had over 900 forensic admissions last year.
<
p>
DMH beds have three sources, the court as described above, the Bridgewater State Hospital, and intermediate care patients coming from acute care hospitals(Arbour, McClean, etc.) DMH beds are only closed to intermediate care patients. Beds will still be available for people coming from the court and from Bridgewater Sate Hospital. This is not as alarming as it seemd when it was announced DMH beds would be closd. What is happening damages the private hospitals and the emergency room in terms of backing up the system. Those of us who work on inpatient units in DMH will see little to no change in our case load with this “bed closing.”
<
p>
DMH began closing beds last year in an attempt to lower the census to a point where one new hospital could be built to replace both Worcester and Westborough at a cost of $330 million. These closings led to a tremedous back up with too many patients in acute care not able to be discharged and then patients in the ER not able to be hospitalized because there were no beds in acute care hospitals. My state rep filed a bill for me to require that these bed closing not occur without public hearing. It died after being voted on by the committee on Public health favorably. It will be refiled next month, perhaps some of you, who care about the needs and well being of the mentally ill, will support this bill, and even come to testify when it is heard this legislative year.
<
p>
The mentally ill of the Commonwealth deserve far more of the attention and advocacy of citizens, the legislature and the governor not just when there is this kind of headline news.
either ignorance or a very mean streak or both.
<
p>
A suggestion that might address both. Go have some fun hanging out with a person suffering from serious mental illness-a biochemical brain disease-who is not receiving adequate treament because the “system” and its resources are inadequate to effectively address the existing needs of this patient population. Don’t miss out on the fun so make sure you spend time with the ill person AND their family who loves them and is trying valiantly to advocate and to care for their loved one, often having to fight for what are scraps of access to needed care.
<
p>
Maybe you have some time over this Thanksgiving holiday weekend so stop on by the Shattuck Hospital where DMH has one of its inpatient units. Have a blast in the lobby where you’ll probobly get to see some very ill patients with their families. Too bad we couldn’t have had this “chat” sooner, if you’d gone there many years ago you might have even gotten to see me with my sister during the years and years that she was horribly ill and suffering quite a bit. Have fun learning about this health and human service issue and then come back to BMG to continue a more reality-based discussion about how “raped” we taxpayers all are because of the DMH budget.
<
p>
I’m all for informed and deliberative work on cost-cutting in our state budget, along with increasing funding in some areas if deemed appropriate and a good investment; this is something I look forward to our next Governor taking on. The Mass. health care amendment camapign has conducted policy analyses that point the way to save $2.2Bil (yes, Billion) in annual state spending. So, fever, why don’t you take that one up instead of bashing poor sick people and the government workers who attempt to care for them.
<
p>
and for another voice on this issue:
November 21st, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Health Care For All blog commenter says
<
p>
I am beside myself with anger and despair at this latest round of cuts to mental health services – following years of cuts and grossly inadequate availability of services. How can Romney (Mr Family Values man) contenance this attack on the most vulnerable people in our state (yes, more vulnerable than the physically handicapped who do not labor under the same disenfranchising stigma). My son’s life is being destroyed by mental illness and the inability to get adequate insurance coverage or care, and my life is being destroyed by grief, anxiety, and financial stress related to his illness. Mental illness doesn’t have to mean condemnation to unmitigated suffering, and the burden of it shouldn’t / can’t be born by families of the afflicted alone.
one Government worker (with the exception of the Governor that works for free) that I didn’t think was overpaid in addition to kick-ass benefits that none of us in the private sector enjoy. But rather than sling insults, if you don’t want to cut the DMH budget where would you suggest we cut? Rather than complicate matters by having some discussion on the financial ramifications of the health care reform bill, let’s have you identify a cut. That means taking out the red pen and actually cutting spending on something, anything.
<
p>
I’m sure that no matter what program you come up with Romney will support, the legislature and the Globe will ridicule him and we’re right back where we started. That’t why I voted for Patrick and the termination of your salute-powers.
<
p>
By the way, let’s not forget that the DMH budget went up just not to the level they wanted. When was the last time your employer gave you what you wanted? My bad, it sounds like you work for the Government.
OK, so Romney had a change of heart and restored cuts to some homeless shelters when he realized that the budget cuts he’d signed impacted the homeless shelters.
<
p>
http://www.boston.co…
<
p>
I love this quote from McGrory’s article: “Romney had vowed four years ago to never target the state’s most vulnerable residents.”
<
p>
Doesn’t he realize that if you cut back on mental health services, you increase the number of homeless people!!!
To Fever,
<
p>
I want to comment based upon the guidelines of this website, so I cannot say what I think of your comments regarding state employees in the words that I would like to. Obviously you read too much Howie Carr. This man sits on his butt all day and pontificates about things, but has the nerve to say that all state employees don’t really work for a living. If you dn’t know state employees who are poorly paid, it is only becuase you don’t travel in the socio-economic circles with people who provide direct care to the mentally ill or he mentally retarded, clean state offices, work in food servies, work as secretaries and other administrative staff etc.. I would agree with you that state worker have great benefits and good retirement plans. Sorry that you chose not to work for the state and not to work in a unionized job. Your attitude sounds like sour grapes.
<
p>
I am a state employee. I have worked on an inpatient DMH unit for more than 20 years. I am well paid for my job. I earn more than other social workers who work in acute care psychiatric hospitals or psych units of general hospitals. The work I do is some of the most difficult of any mental health professional. I work with the most severely mentally ill people in Massachusetts. I have been the victim of physical violence and verbal assault. Despite the difficulties/stresses, I love my work. It is a job where I know every single day I make a difference in peoples’ lives. I will not apologize for my income, my benefits, or the pension I hope to get,anymore than you should be asked to apologize for the perks of your job. Please don’t tell me you pay my salary. The reality is we all pay each others salaries. If you want to insult me and other state employees, come and walk a mile in our shoes, then you have earned the right to an opinion. Until you know the experience of state employees than your opinion is uninformed and inflamatory.