In November 2004, voters in the U.S. state of California passed Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), which has been designed to expand and transform California's county mental health service systems. The MHSA is funded by imposing an additional one percent tax on individual, but not corporate, taxable income in excess of one million dollars. In becoming law in January 2005, the MHSA represents the latest in a Californian legislative movement, begun in the 1990s, to provide better coordinated and more comprehensive care to those with serious mental illness, particularly in underserved populations. Its claim of successes thus far, such as with the development of innovative and integrated Full Service Partnerships (FSPs), are not without detractors who highlight many problems but especially a lack of oversight, large amount of unspent funds, poor transparency, lack of engagement in some communities, and a lack of adherence to required reporting as challenges MHSA implementation must overcome to fulfill the law's widely touted potential.
At one time, California was known for having a strong mental health system. Treatment was available for Medi-Cal recipients with few limitations on care. Legislators and voters have acknowledged the inadequacy of California's historically underfunded mental health system to care for the state's residents, especially those with serious mental illness, over the past few decades.[1][2] In 1991, to build a more community- and county-based system of care, the California legislature instituted realignment, a delegation of the control over mental health funds and care delivery from state to county.[3] This was followed by a succession of legislation targeted towards marginalized populations with high documented rates of mental illness, such as the homeless (AB 2034, in 1999[4]) and the potentially violent mentally ill (Laura's Law, in 2002). However, with the passage of Proposition 63 in 2004, California voters acted upon a widespread perception that state and county mental health systems were still in disrepair, underfunded, and requiring a systematic, organizational overhaul. This perception echoed a nationwide perspective, with the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in 2003 calling for fundamental transformation of the historically fragmented mental health system.[5] The MHSA is California's attempt to lead the way in accomplishing such systemic reform.
In the end, voter consciences were pricked by the well-organized and -funded campaign that displayed both the need (50,000 mentally ill homeless people, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness) and the promise (successes of past mental health initiatives) of increased funding for the mental health system.[6] Then-Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg and Rusty Selix, executive director of the Mental Health Association in California, led the initiative by collecting at minimum 373,816 signatures,[7] along with financial ($4.3 million) and vocal support from stakeholders.[6][8] Though Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the business community were opposed to Proposition 63 because of the tax it would impose on millionaires, the opposition raised only $17,500.[8] On November 2, 2004, Proposition 63 passed with 53.8% of the vote, with 6,183,119 voting for and 5,330,052 voting against the bill.[6]
Overview
The voter-approved MHSA initiative[9] provides for developing, through an extensive stakeholder process, a comprehensive approach to providing community based mental health services and supports for California residents. Approximately 51,000 taxpayers in California will be helping to fund the MHSA through an estimated $750 million in tax revenue during fiscal year 2005–06.
The MHSA was an unprecedented piece of legislation in California for several reasons:
Its funding source, quantity, and allocation is dedicated for mental health services, including times of budget cuts to many other public programs
It was intended to engage communities in prioritizing which service elements would be funded.
It was focused on developing preventive and innovative programs to help transform the mental health care system in California.
To accomplish its objectives, the MHSA applies a specific portion of its funds to each of six system-building components:
Community program planning and administration (10%)
Notably, none of the funds were to be used for programs with existing fund allocations, unless it was for a new element or expansion in those existing programs. At least 51% of the funds have to be spent on community services and support for children and adults with or at risk of developing mental illness.[10]
The MHSA stipulates that the California State Department of Mental Health (DMH) will contract with county mental health departments (plus two cities) to develop and manage the implementation of its provisions. Oversight responsibility for MHSA implementation was handed over to the sixteen member Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC) on July 7, 2005, when the commission first met.
The MHSA specifies requirements for service delivery and supports for children, youths, adults and older adults with serious emotional disturbances and/or severe mental illnesses. MHSA funding will be made annually to counties to:
Define serious mental illness among children, adults and seniors as a condition deserving priority attention, including prevention and early intervention services and medical and supportive care
Reduce the long-term adverse impact on individuals, families and State and local budgets resulting from untreated serious mental illness
Expand the kinds of successful, innovative service programs for children, adults and seniors already established in California, including culturally and linguistically competent approaches for underserved population
Provide State and local funds to adequately meet the needs of all children and adults who can be identified and enrolled in programs under this measure
Ensure all funds are expended in the most cost-effective manner and services are provided in accordance with recommended best practices, subject to local and State oversight to ensure accountability to taxpayers and to the public
Implementation
Starting from enactment, implementation of the MHSA was intended to take six months; in reality, the process of obtaining stakeholder input for administrative rules extended this period by several months. By August 2005, 12 meetings and 13 conference calls involving stakeholders across the state resulted in the final draft of rules by which counties would submit their three-year plans for approval.[3]
Counties are required to develop their own three-year plan, consistent with the requirements outlined in the act, in order to receive funding under the MHSA. Counties are obliged to collaborate with citizens and stakeholders to develop plans that will accomplish desired results through the meaningful use of time and capabilities, including things such as employment, vocational training, education, and social and community activities. Also required will be annual updates by the counties, along with a public review process. County proposals will be evaluated for their contribution to achieving the following goals:
Safe and adequate housing, including safe living environments, with family for children and youths
Reduction in homelessness
A network of supportive relationships
Timely access to needed help, including times of crisis
Reduction in involuntary services, including reduction in institutionalization and out-of-home placements
MHSA specifies three stages of local funding, to fulfill initial plans, three-year plans, and long-term strategies. No services would be funded in the first year of implementation. The DMH approved the first county plan in January 2006.[3] Allocations for each category of funding were planned to be granted annually, based upon detailed plans with prior approval. However, an amendment to the MHSA, AB 100, which passed in March 2011, serves to streamline the DMH approval and feedback process to the counties, ostensibly to relieve the DMH of some of its administrative burden.[11]
Roles and responsibilities
While the county mental health departments are involved in the actual implementation of MHSA programs, the MHSA mandates that several entities support or oversee the counties. These include the State Department of Mental Health (DMH) and the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC).
California State Department of Mental Health (DMH)
In accordance with realignment, the DMH approves county three-year implementation plans, upon comment from the MHSOAC,[4] and passes programmatic responsibilities to the counties. In the first few months immediately following its passage, the DMH has:
Obtained federal approvals and Medi-Cal waivers, State authority, additional resources and technical assistance in areas related to implementation
Established detailed requirements for the content of local three year expenditure plans
Developed criteria and procedures for reporting of county and state performance outcomes
Defined requirements for the maintenance of current State and local efforts to protect against supplanting existing programs and their funding streams
Developed formulas for how funding will be divided or distributed among counties
Determined how funding will flow to counties and set up the mechanics of distribution
Established a 16-member Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC), composed of elected State officials and Governor appointees, along with procedures for MHSOAC review of county planning efforts and oversight of DMH implementation
Developed and published regulations and provide preliminary training to all counties on plan development and implementation requirements
The DMH has directed all counties to develop plans incorporating five essential concepts:
Community collaboration
Cultural competence
Client/family-driven mental health system for older adults, adults and transition age youth and family-driven system of care for children and youth
Wellness focus, which includes the concepts of recovery and resilience
Integrated service experiences for clients and their families throughout their interactions with the mental health system
The DMH, in assuming and asserting its primacy over MHSA implementation, has dictated requirements for service delivery and supports as follows:
Full Service Partnership (FSP) Funds - funds to provide necessary services and supports for initial populations
General System Development Funds - funds to improve services and infrastructure
Outreach and Engagement Funding - funds for those populations that are currently receiving little or no service
Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC)
The authors of the MHSA created the MHSOAC to reflect the consumer-oriented focus of the law, mandating at least two appointees with severe mental illness, two other family members of individuals with severe mental illness, and various other community representatives. This diverse commission holds the responsibility of approving county implementation plans, helping develop mental illness stigma-relieving strategies, and recommending service delivery improvements to the state on an as-needed basis.[10] Whenever the commission identifies a critical issue related to the performance of a county mental health program, it may refer the issue to the DMH.
The first meeting of the MHSOAC was held July 7, 2005, at which time Proposition 63 author Darrell Steinberg was selected unanimously by fellow commissioners as chairman, without comment or discussion. After accepting the gavel, Steinberg was roundly praised for devising Proposition 63's 'creative financing' scheme. Steinberg then said, "We must focus on the big picture," and stated his priorities with regard to the implementation of the MHSA:
Prioritize prevention and early intervention, without falling into the trap of fail first service provision,
Address "the plight of those at risk of falling off the edge," and to
Advocate for mental health services from his "bully pulpit."
MHSOAC commissioners
In accordance with MHSA requirements, the Commission shall consist of 16 voting members as follows:
a representative of an employer with less than 500 employees
a representative of an employer with more than 500 employees
a representative of a health care services plan or insurer
State government appointees
The initial government officials and designee appointed:
Senator Wesley Chesbro (Democrat), of Arcata, chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Developmental Disabilities and Mental Health.
Assemblyman Mark Ridley-Thomas (Dem), of Los Angeles, a member of the Assembly Health committee and former L.A. city councilman.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer, of Hayward, a former State Senator and Assemblyman.
Darrell Steinberg (Dem), of Sacramento, an attorney, the author of Proposition 63, former Assemblyman. Steinberg is the appointee of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Governor's appointees
On June 21, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger announced his appointment of twelve appointees to the MHSOAC:
MHOAC Vice Chairman Linford Gayle (declined to state party), 46, of Pacifica, a mental health program specialist at San Mateo County Mental Health Services.
William Kolender (Rep), 70, of San Diego, the San Diego County Sheriff and president of the State Sheriffs Association, a member of the State Board of Corrections, and was for three years the director of the California Youth Authority (CYA). Kolender's wife died as a result of mental illness, and he has a son with a mental disorder.
Kelvin Lee, Ed.D. (Rep), 58, of Roseville, a superintendent of the Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District.
Andrew Poat (Rep), 45, of San Diego, former director of the government relations department for the City of San Diego, a member of the public policy committee for the San Diego Gay and Lesbian Center, and a former deputy director of the United States Office of Consumer Affairs. Poat represented employers of more than 500 workers on the commission, and says he will use his experience building multimillion-dollar programs to bring together mental health advocates.
Darlene Prettyman (Rep), 71, of Bakersfield, is a psychiatric nurse, a board member and past president of NAMI California, and a past chairman and a member of the California Mental Health Planning Council. Her son has schizophrenia, and her stated priority is to enhance provision of housing for mental health service clients.
Gary Jaeger, M.D. (Dem), 62, of Harbor City, is currently the chief of addiction medicine at Kaiser Foundation Hospital, South Bay, a member and former chair of the Behavioral Health Advisory Board of the California Healthcare Association, and former medical director of family recovery services at St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka. He says members of his family have an "80 percent rate of drug and alcohol abuse."
Mary Hayashi (Dem), 38, of Castro Valley, president of the Iris Alliance Fund and a board member for Planned Parenthood Golden Gate and member of the Board of Registered Nursing. Hayashi's concerns include transportation access for clients and paratransit services, and represents employers with 500 or fewer workers.
Patrick Henning (Dem), 32, of West Sacramento, is the legislative advocate for the California Council of Laborers. He was previously the Assistant Secretary at the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (An Agency that he helped create), deputy director for the Department of Industrial Relations and Prior to his State service Special Advisor and Congressional Liaison to President Bill Clinton. Henning is a member of the Career Technical Education Standards and Framework Advisory Group and the California Assembly Speaker's Commission on Labor Education. He represents labor.
Current progress
One unqualified success story from the MHSA thus far involves the implementation of Full Service Partnerships (FSPs) demonstrating the "whatever it takes" commitment to assist in individualized recovery[12] - whether it is housing, "integrated services, flexible funding [such as for childcare], intensive case management, [or] 24 h access to care."[2] FSP interventions are based upon evidence from such programs as Assertive community treatment (ACT), which has effectively reduced homelessness and hospitalizations while bettering outcomes.[2][13] But the FSP model looks more like that of the also-popular MHA Village in Long Beach, which is a center that offers more comprehensive services besides those specifically mental health-related.[14] Beyond these guiding principles, however, there has not been much consensus over unifying strategies to define and implement an FSP - resulting in varying FSP structures across counties.[12]
Overall, though, the Petris Center, funded by the DMH and California HealthCare Foundation to evaluate the MHSA, has reported quantifiable improvements in many areas:
According to the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, the 2007 and 2009 California Health Interview Surveys (CHIS) demonstrate continued mental health needs of almost two million Californians, about half of which were unmet in 2011.[16] In spite of steady tax revenue ($7.4 billion raised as of September 2011[17]) earmarked for the MHSA, the unremittingly high numbers of mentally ill who lack treatment contrast starkly with the implementation of new programs like the FSPs, which may cost tens of thousands of dollars annually per person. The MHA Village program, for example, averages around $18,000 annually per person.[14] One of the major growing concerns regarding MHSA implementation is its unintentional but worrying tendency to create silos of care.[10] As directed by the DMH, counties search for "unserved" mentally ill or at-risk individuals to enroll in their new programs, while keeping existing and perhaps underserved clients in old programs that are usually underfunded, but cannot take MHSA funds.[17] Ironically, while the MHSA was established in part to address racial/ethnic disparities in health care,[6] it may be perpetuating the disparity in services delivery between underfunded and well-funded, new programs.
A possible solution to this issue highlights another challenge for the MHSA: the need for more comprehensive evaluation, oversight, and advisory mechanisms. Though there is an accountability commission, the MHSOAC, its oversight and regulatory responsibilities are not well-defined.[10] However, it is a relatively new entity, having been created by the MHSA in 2004, and has yet to fully delineate its role in the MHSA. With time, the MHSOAC will hopefully continue to develop towards its stated function. Objective and expert evaluation of the MHSA will also be necessary to achieve the kind of longstanding system-wide improvement that then becomes a model for others.[10]
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health was established by U.S. President George W. Bush through Executive Order 13263 on April 29, 2002 to conduct a comprehensive study of the U.S. mental health service delivery system and make recommendations based on its findings. The commission has been touted as part of his commitment to eliminate inequality for Americans with disabilities.
The California special election of 2005 was held on November 8, 2005, after being called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 13, 2005.
Laura's Law is a California state law that allows for court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment. To qualify for the program, the person must have a serious mental illness plus a recent history of psychiatric hospitalizations, jailings or acts, threats or attempts of serious violent behavior towards self or others.
Mental health courts link offenders who would ordinarily be prison-bound to long-term community-based treatment. They rely on mental health assessments, individualized treatment plans, and ongoing judicial monitoring to address both the mental health needs of offenders and public safety concerns of communities. Like other problem-solving courts such as drug courts, domestic violence courts, and community courts, mental health courts seek to address the underlying problems that contribute to criminal behavior.
The Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (ODMHSAS) is an agency of the Government of Oklahoma responsible for providing public health services relating to mental illness and substance abuse.
California Proposition 10 (1998) is an initiative state constitutional amendment that appeared in the 1998 California General Election. The official name of this amendment is “The Children and Families First Act.” This amendment put a $.50 tax on cigarettes, and up to $1 on other tobacco products such as chewing tobacco and cigars. The revenue from this tax would go to funding early childhood education in California. The tax went into effect January 1, 1999.
Mary Hayashi is a Korean-American healthcare advocate and California Democratic politician, who represented 18th Assembly District in the California State Legislature. Hayashi was elected to the California State Assembly in November 2006 and served six years.
Darrell Steven Steinberg is an American politician and attorney who is the 56th mayor of Sacramento, California since December 2016. He was elected to be mayor on June 7, 2016. Before that, he was California Senate President pro Tempore and the leader of the majority party in the California State Senate from 2008 to 2014.
The June 2008 San Francisco general elections were held on June 3, 2008 in San Francisco, California. The elections included the primaries of two seats in the United States House of Representatives, one seat to the California State Senate, two seats to the California State Assembly, seats to various parties' county central committees, one seat to the San Francisco County Superior Court, two California ballot propositions, and eight San Francisco ballot measures.
The California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) was a California state agency concerned with substance abuse prevention and treatment. Created by the California Legislature in 1978, ADP brought together the Governor's Office of Alcoholism and the California Department of Health's Division of Substance Abuse to form the single state authority for substance abuse prevention and treatment, and is currently within the auspices of the California Health and Human Services Agency. In this capacity, ADP provided leadership and policy coordination for the planning, development, implementation, and evaluation of a comprehensive statewide system of alcohol and other drug (AOD) prevention, treatment and recovery services. As of July 1, 2013, functions of ADP were transferred to the Department of Health Care Services.
Proposition 29, the California Cancer Research Act, is a California ballot measure that was defeated by California voters at the statewide election on June 5, 2012.
The Department of Mental Hygiene (DMH) is an agency of the New York state government composed of three autonomous offices:
The state of North Carolina is undertaking a comprehensive policy shift on how the government budgets for and manages resources for mental health, developmental disability, and substance abuse services. The 1915 (b)(c) Medicaid Waiver Program was chosen by the North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance as a way to control and more accurately budget for the rising costs of Medicaid funded services. The 1915 (b)(c) Waiver Program was initially implemented at one pilot site in 2005 and evaluated for several years. Two expansion sites were then added in 2012. Full statewide implementation is expected by July 1, 2013.
Welfare in California consists of federal welfare programs—which are often at least partially administered by state and county agencies—and several independent programs, which are usually administered by counties.
Healthy Way LA (HWLA) was a free public health care program available to underinsured or uninsured, low-income residents of Los Angeles County from 2007 until 2014. The program, administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LADHS), was a Low Income Health Program (LIHP) approved under the Section 1115 Medicaid Waiver. HWLA was succeeded by My Health LA, a no-cost health care program which ran from 2014 until 2024, when access to Medi-Cal was expanded.
The Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 (MHSA) was legislation signed by American President Jimmy Carter which provided grants to community mental health centers. In 1981 President Ronald Reagan, who had made major efforts during his governorship to reduce funding and enlistment for California mental institutions, pushed a political effort through the Democratically controlled House of Representatives and a Republican controlled Senate to repeal most of MHSA. The MHSA was considered landmark legislation in mental health care policy.
JusticeLA is a coalition of organizations and individuals committed to stopping the expansion and growth of the Los Angeles County Jail system and replacing that system with an infrastructure of community-based care and treatment. L.A. County has the largest jail system in the world.
The 2024 California elections will take place on November 5, 2024. The statewide direct primary election was held on March 5, 2024.
Proposition 1, titled Bonds for Mental Health Treatment Facilities, was a California ballot proposition and state bond measure that was voted on in the 2024 primary election on March 5. Passing with just 50.18 percent of the vote, the proposition will provide additional behavioral health services and issue up to $6.38 billion in bonds to fund housing for veterans and homeless individuals. It will also move about $140 million of annual existing tax revenue for mental health care and addiction care to the state from the counties.
↑ President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003). Achieving the promise: transforming mental health care in America. Final Report. Pub. No. SMA-03-3832. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services.
1 2 3 4 Scheffler, Richard M.; Adams, Neal (2005). "Millionaires and mental health: Proposition 63 in California". Health Affairs: w212–w224. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.w5.212.
1 2 Cashin, Cheryl; Scheffler, Richard; Felton, Mistique; Adams, Neal; Miller, Leonard (October 2008). "Transformation of the California mental health system: stakeholder-driven planning as a transformational activity". Psychiatric Services. 59 (10): 1107–1114. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.59.10.1107.
↑ Coldwell, Craig M.; Bender, William S. (2007). "The effectiveness of assertive community treatment for homeless populations with severe mental illness: a meta-analysis". American Journal of Psychiatry. 164 (3): 393–399. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.164.3.393.
CAIChildLaw.org - 'Sacramento County Funding Request for Mental Health Services Act Community Planning Program'
www.dmh.ca.gov - 'Mental Health Services Act (MHSA): Home Page', California Department of Mental Health
www.mhsoac.ca.gov - 'Mental Health Services Act (MHSA): MHSOAC (Mental Health Oversight and Accountability Commission) Home Page', California Department of Mental Health
Governor.ca.gov[permanent dead link] - 'Governor Schwarzenegger Appoints Twelve to the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission', Office of the Governor Press Room (June 21, 2005)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
