Mental Health: Involuntary Commitment
Introduction of AB 1300 Mental Health: Involuntary Commitment
AB 1300 the Mental Health: Involuntary Commitment bill was introduced to the California State Legislature on February 27, 2015 by Assembly Member Ridley-Thomas. The bill was developed in conjunction with the California Hospital Association (CHA) and the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians (California ACEP) to modernize the 48-year old Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act which governs involuntary civil commitment for psychiatric treatment in California. Aimee Moulin, MD an Emergency Department Physician at U.C. Davis Medical Center stated in a radio interview “AB 1300 is critical for developing a more comprehensive solution by easing congestion in hospital …show more content…
Decreases in funding for mental health services have led to a decline in available inpatient beds, outpatient services, and mental health professionals. Hospitals can no longer afford to support inpatient beds dedicated to mental health patients, counties can no longer afford numerous outpatient treatment programs and professionals can afford to specialize in mental health care. The expenditures for mental health care grew by only 6.4% from 2002 to 2005 while overall health care expenditures grew by 7.3% (Holt, 2013). MHIC requires counties to provide a liaison to facilitate communication between the county mental health system and healthcare facilities, and requires them to have sufficient capacity for the provision of care for individuals with a mental health disorder. Opponents to MHIC indicate that it is an unfunded mandate, since the bill does not provide any additional funds to counties to provide these services. The Assembly Committee on Appropriations has not determined the fiscal impact of AB-1300 other than indicating it will be over $200,000 (Assembly Committee on Appropriations, 2015).
Political …show more content…
MHIC demonstrates this principle of beneficence in several ways. The bill preserves the protections currently provided by LPS to individuals being placed in a 72-hour involuntary hold, and protects them further by clearly defining when the 72-involuntary hold period begins and ends. AB 1300 also demonstrates the principle of justice by ensuring that individuals presenting with similar conditions are treated the same regardless of where they present for
AB 1300 the Mental Health: Involuntary Commitment bill was introduced to the California State Legislature on February 27, 2015 by Assembly Member Ridley-Thomas. The bill was developed in conjunction with the California Hospital Association (CHA) and the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians (California ACEP) to modernize the 48-year old Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act which governs involuntary civil commitment for psychiatric treatment in California. Aimee Moulin, MD an Emergency Department Physician at U.C. Davis Medical Center stated in a radio interview “AB 1300 is critical for developing a more comprehensive solution by easing congestion in hospital …show more content…
Decreases in funding for mental health services have led to a decline in available inpatient beds, outpatient services, and mental health professionals. Hospitals can no longer afford to support inpatient beds dedicated to mental health patients, counties can no longer afford numerous outpatient treatment programs and professionals can afford to specialize in mental health care. The expenditures for mental health care grew by only 6.4% from 2002 to 2005 while overall health care expenditures grew by 7.3% (Holt, 2013). MHIC requires counties to provide a liaison to facilitate communication between the county mental health system and healthcare facilities, and requires them to have sufficient capacity for the provision of care for individuals with a mental health disorder. Opponents to MHIC indicate that it is an unfunded mandate, since the bill does not provide any additional funds to counties to provide these services. The Assembly Committee on Appropriations has not determined the fiscal impact of AB-1300 other than indicating it will be over $200,000 (Assembly Committee on Appropriations, 2015).
Political …show more content…
MHIC demonstrates this principle of beneficence in several ways. The bill preserves the protections currently provided by LPS to individuals being placed in a 72-hour involuntary hold, and protects them further by clearly defining when the 72-involuntary hold period begins and ends. AB 1300 also demonstrates the principle of justice by ensuring that individuals presenting with similar conditions are treated the same regardless of where they present for