The 1999 legislative session took on a very different tone than past years. More consensus building and a better working relationship developed between the Governor and the Legislature. The major issue confronting policy makers this session was the enormous budget gap and impending disaster if nothing was done for the long run. The entire session seemed to focus on the long range fiscal plan.
Legislation passed which puts the structure for a fiscal plan on the ballot this fall. This plan, if passed, will provide guidelines for the legislature to pass legislation next session which would insure a stream of revenue from the permanent fund for state government as well as a dividend.
Thus next session should be similar to this year if the ballot issue passes. The focus will be passing laws to implement the long range fiscal plan.
Issues of concern to Bridges this session was geared more towards legislation than in past years Budget issues were less contentious with mental health grants funded at approximately th same level as FY 99.
The following is a recap of Bridges issues:
Budget The major budget issue that could impact mental health were cuts to Medicaid. The legislature decreased the Governors requested increase in Medicaid funding by 80%. The Department of Health and Social Services has stated they will implement the budget cuts by either getting a supplemental appropriation next session or eliminate coverage for services such as adult dental, direct entry midwives, vision services, prosthetics and mental health clinic services. In addition it would force a reduction in reimbursement rates to hospitals, nursing homes, pharmacies, physician and mental health clinics. This bears watching by the mental health community.
SB 97 - Designated evaluation and treatment passed the legislature overwhelmingly with bipartisan support in both Houses. A tremendous amount of negotiations took place with the Department, legislature and interested organizations prior to passage. The bill clarifies the State's responsibility to pay for evaluation and treatment services for people who meet civil commitment criteria and who do not have other resources to pay. This could impact people with mental illness. There is a zero fiscal note attached for FY 00 due to fedeal funding.
HB 161 reduction in benefits did not pass the legislature this year. The intent of the bill was to give the State a tool to cut benefits on certain programs if adequate funding was available. This bill was seen as a back door attempt to short fund programs for the most needy people who are unable to provide basic services for themselves.
The last minute attempt to pass this bill with little input from the public became a major issue for social service organizations and individuals to rally around. The outpouring of support to kill this legislation was phenomenal. Ultimately the House majority felt that the bill passed by the Senate was altered too dramatically from the one passed by the House, thus they did not concur with the Senate amendments and the bill failed.
This bill is still alive though. Because we completed the first year of a two year session, HB 161 will be available for a conference committee next session. This bears close scrutiny as the ramifications of passage of ths bill could be far reaching.
HB 149, parity for mental health under insurance had a rough start. The final report from the Parity Task Force was not finalized or released until late February. Introduction of HB 149 was March 191h. There were two hearings prior to the introduction of the bill in the House Health Education and Social Services Committee and House Labor and Commerce Committee. This was an opportunity to educate legislators about the Task Force and parity.
About the same time the State Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill because it was an insurance mandate. This was unfortunate as it polarized many legislators who are pro-business. That coupled with health insurance lobbyists representing Blue Cross and an association representing health insurance companies set the tone on this issue.
One hearing was held in the House HESS Committee with extensive testimony supporting the bill, nonetheless committee chair, Rep. Fred Dyson assigned the bill to a subcommittee which consisted of Rep. Jim Whitaker, Rep. Tom Brice, Rep. Carl Morgan and Rep. John Coghill. Rep. Coghill became the key on this issue and all negotiations took place with him. He is very concerned about mental health services however was unwilling to mandate parity at this point.
This issue will be heid over until next year however it needs extensive work on a local level with key legislators to insure that the bill will move next year.
SB 100 relating to representation of indigent persons for legal services passed the Senate and ended up in the House Finance Committee. This bill would have disallowed legal services to be paid by the state for many individuals with mental illness. In the past a Judge could make the determination as to who would be responsible for legal fees and could waive fees for indigent persons. This would have changed to disallow Judges the flexibility to waive court Costs if the bill had passed the House in the same form as it passed the Senate. Working with the House Judiciary Committee we were able to have the bill amended to change the word "shall" back to the original law "may" which gives the Judge discretion to waive or allocate costs.
The bill is in the House Finance Committee and will be addressed next session when it will probably pass.
SB 2 relating to civil commitment of sexual predators moved through the Senate Judiciary Committee early in the session and ended the session in Senate Finance. With a $1.8 million fiscal note from five different departments the bill moved no further during the session.
Our concern, if this bill passes, is where the funding to house sexual predators will come from. Cost estimates range into the millions of dollars per year with no funding source designated.
HB 175 requires notification to community councils of applications to license foster group homes. This bill was introduced by Rep. Joe Green with Representatives Dyson and Halcro as co-sponsors. It was initiated because of a foster group home incident in Rep. Greens district last year. The bill was adamantly opposed by foster parents during a hearing in the House HESS Committee, The bill was put into a subcommittee where they began working on a committee substitute which is somewhat more acceptable to foster parents. This bill will be back before the legislature next year.