Youngstown Daily Legal News

More mental health treatment services sought for Ohio

TIFFANY L. PARKS
Special to the Legal News
Published: February 14, 2014

Companion bills in the Ohio House and Senate to revise laws governing the civil commitment of and treatment provided to mentally ill individuals have been described by the CEO of the Ohio Council of Behavioral Health & Family Services as insufficient.

“We are not saying this legislation is bad policy,” Hubert Wirtz said of House Bill 104 and SB 43. “It is, however, an incomplete policy that will be ineffective at meeting the stated goal.”

HB 104 is being championed by Reps. Margaret Ann Ruhl, R-Mount Vernon, and Peter Stautberg, R-Cincinnati.

SB 43 is jointly sponsored by Sens. Dave Burke, R-Marysville, and Charleta Tavares, D-Bexley.

The proposed legislation would grant courts clear authority and criteria to mandate court-ordered treatment.

“We understand the intent of this legislation and the struggles of families and individuals living with mental illness can be profound,” Wirtz said. “We are equally aware that current mental health and addiction treatment service capacity is insufficient to meet the current demands for services in many communities across Ohio.”

Wirtz said SB 43 and HB 104 “assumes treatment and recovery support service capacity is available in every community across Ohio.”

“It is not,” he said, adding that research has not demonstrated that court-ordered outpatient commitment, in and of itself, is effective.

“The essential element that matters is having a mental health and addiction treatment service system that includes a comprehensive array of needed treatment services and recovery supports with capacity to respond to people’s needs.”

Wirtz said that when a person with a serious mental illness has access to the right level of intensive services, with or without court-ordered treatment, the person’s condition improved and overall total cost of care is reduced.

“Ordering a person with mental illness to receive treatment when the treatment they need is not available or not covered by their insurance does not help the individual or their family,” he said.

“As currently drafted, this legislation is a feel good bill targeted at public safety rather than a meaningful investment in the treatment and overall health of persons with mental illness. Without an investment in services, this legislation perpetuates the illusion of treatment and fuels false hope for families. We must do better.”

Wirtz said that when New York enacted similar involuntary outpatient commitment, called Kendra’s Law, in 1999, the state made a “substantial investment” in the continuum of care.

“This type of investment and appropriation is needed in Ohio to support treatment for individuals subject to court-ordered outpatient treatment,” he said.

Fairfield Municipal Court Judge Joyce Campbell offered testimony in support of HB 104 and SB 43.

“I am here ... not only as a municipal court judge but also as a member of the board of directors of the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Ohio,” she said, adding that she has a “vested interest in the outcome” of the bills.

“Lack of awareness of illness is believed to be the single largest reason why individuals with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder do not follow through with treatment.”

In many cases, Campbell said people can be persuaded to follow their treatment plan through a court order.

“While it is not the answer for everyone who meets the criteria, for some it could mean the difference between living a quality life in the community and cycling in and out of courtrooms like mine,” she said.

“For others, the difference could be even greater. It could mean the difference between life and death.”

Campbell said she appreciates the concern that court-ordered outpatient treatment would force the mental health system to triage clients so that those who are most ill would be served first and others may have to wait longer to receive care.

“Unfortunately, turning individuals in need of mental health services away has been a sad reality of our underfunded system for years,” she said. “SB 43 and HB 104 provide the mechanism to help ensure that those who need care the most can receive it.”

Campbell also addressed concerns that the bills have the potential to violate an individual’s rights.

“SB 43 and HB 104 do nothing to change current law which ensures that all individuals are afforded full due process rights, including having the right to legal counsel,” she said. “Additionally, current law provides that the court order shall not exceed 90 days, unless there is a full hearing and the court determines that it should be continued, and if continued needs to be reviewed every two years.”

Without passage of court-ordered outpatient treatment, Campbell said many people and their loved ones will “continue to suffer the anguish of untreated mental illness.”

“At the same time, Ohio’s emergency rooms, hospitals, jails and prisons will continue to provide expensive care to many who otherwise could be successfully treated in a less expensive and more efficient outpatient setting,” she said. “I am convinced that SB 43 and HB 104 will save lives.”

HB 104 has not been slated for additional hearings.

[Back]