At least thirty-six states increased funding for mental health services during 2013, according to a recent report by the National Alliance on Mental Illness. And last week, Vice President Biden announced that the federal government was adding $100 million in new funding for mental health services.
So have we turned the corner on our nation’s mental health funding crisis, as many of the accompanying news headlines seemed to imply? Or are these initiatives more a token gesture aimed at mollifying the mental health advocacy community in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, as others have suggested?
I think that – with a couple of notable exceptions in Connecticut and Texas – the initiatives tend more toward tokenism than real change.
Consider the national initiative. On the face of it, $100 million sounds like a lot of money. But it still represents only around 3 percent of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) budget, the agency which provides most of the direct federal funding to state and local mental health programs.
If the $100 million were distributed equally throughout the country through SAMHSA, it would provide for only a modest increase in community mental health budgets. But this is not what the Administration has in mind.
Instead, half of the money has been promised to community health centers through the Affordable Care Act to help them support the mental health services they have been required by law to provide for the past generation. And the other half will be given to the Department of Agriculture (yes, Agriculture) to provide loans to rural community mental health centers and for telemedicine and other programs through the USDA community facilities direct loan program.
So the “$100 million for mental health” doesn’t look quite so impressive anymore.
But the truth is that funding mental health services has always been more the responsibility of the states than the federal government. In fact, the total SAMHSA budget is still one-third less than the amount states cut from mental health services - $4.6 billion – between 2009 and 2013.
So did the state increases this year actually restore the dollars that were cut?
Not exactly.
First of all, there are the fourteen states – including Florida (48th in spending coming into the year), which has developed an unflattering reputation in recent years for both vigilante violence and lack of compassion toward people with behavioral health needs – that either reduced mental health funding or held it level, in spite of overwhelming popular support for better mental health services. And of the states that did increase funding, the increases were often modest ones.
For example, Ohio cut $93 million over four years, and then added back only $50 million this year. The $50 million made for a good headline, but Ohio’s funding is still far behind where it was five years ago. And in Idaho – the lowest per capita spending state – Governor Butch Otter promised millions in new funding for mental health in early 2013. But when the legislative dust settled, the increase was only 3.6 percent for community mental health services and 2.3 percent for psychiatric hospital services. There was no change in the funding for community psychiatric hospitalization.
And looking forward, some lower-spending states are still not looking to do too much. Utah, for example, has always put a premium on health, but does not spend highly on mental health. Utah’s Governor is recommending only a one-time, $1.5 million increase in FY2015 for mental health promotion and mental illness prevention. This is better than nothing, but not enough to make a significant difference – especially if the commitment lasts for only one year.
And as NAMI noted in its report, when the issues became a little more controversial or complicated, fewer and fewer states took them on.
Only twenty-five states plus the District of Columbia decided to move forward with Medicaid expansion this year – an expansion that will help adults with mental illnesses in particular. Only thirteen states made significant improvements to their mental health systems. Just ten improved school-based mental health training and/or services. And only five enacted legislation to improve early identification and childhood mental health screening.
On the plus side, there are the two exceptions. Connecticut – which felt most keenly the impact of the Sandy Hook shooting – led the way in passing comprehensive legislation to improve mental health service systems. And Texas – which has long been near the bottom of states in funding mental health services – led the way in providing new funding for mental health services.
But we still have such a long way to go. And for most of us around the country, we have not really made much progress in the past year.
Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com. Twitter: @pgionfriddo. Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo. LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/
No comments:
Post a Comment