How can we go backwards in the fight for mental health parity. The human cost is even greater than the financial one this change is supposed to make. Note the word supposed to because it will NOT save money.
J
Joanne Green
9 years ago
Ultimately this system will be more expensive and less effective. New Jersey does not have to repeat the mistakes of other states.
A
Angela Kubisky
9 years ago
I am disappointed that our state is going in this direction. I have a younger brother living with Schizophrenia. With a track record of missing appointments due to his inability to remember dates/times, this new law will limit his care even more. Please reconsider passing this law and speak to families who have mentally ill people in it.
K
Kim Luthy
9 years ago
Really?
T
Theresa Norton
9 years ago
Please don't do this.
J
Joseph Kadian
9 years ago
Please do not jeopardize a community mental health system that delivers high quality services in a cost-effective model. With the proposed fee-for-service system, our provider-government collaboration may not be able to continue to provide the necessary "safety net" for our most vulnerable consumers.
J
Janet Freindlich
9 years ago
Communities need more mental health services, not less.
M
Marsha Domke
9 years ago
I need this to be delayed.
E
Eric Arnesen
9 years ago
At a minimum, fee for service will lower the standard of care provided to individuals with a mental illness. The potential will exist for far worse ramifications.
V
Vicki Sidrow
9 years ago
It is imperative that the state continue to provide a 'safety net ' for all individuals challenged with mental illness, not just a certain population.
Community mental health is cost effective and delivers positive outcomes . The impending loss of services to tens of thousands will be detrimental to individuals and will result in more costly services.
M
Marian Jekonski
9 years ago
At a time when mental illness is at the forefront of crime and homelessness, it is foolish for the State of New Jersey to cut back funds for the benefit of this very misunderstood population. Until the State has designed a program with the necessary funds to keep programs afloat and services easily and affordable for our citizens and the organizations that serve them, any financial cuts should be placed on hold. It is very unwise and dangerous to cause more anguish for this underserved population. There should be no barriers for them to get the help and support so necessary to this individuals and their families. It is our duty and responsibility to provide quality healthcare to all and to make it available in a clear, convenient and efficient manner. Rather than line the pockets of our legislators and their party favorites, take care of the New Jersey residents so in need of our care and understanding.
M
Mary L Rossettini
9 years ago
Advance Housing has had to close/transfer a RIST program to another agency because the program would function at a loss of approximately $500,000 per year. This program was funded by DMHAS only 5 years ago at a net unit cost of $54.00. The State has been artificially driving the rates down by requiring providers to increase their contracted units of service for supportive housing. Obviously we can't support this program at the currently proposed rates. If the State truly wants to support providers in this transition it will allow us at least a full year of billing CSS to Medicaid before ending our deficit funded contracts. After a year, if we can't make our programs fiscally sound, then the State could follow the same process it uses now and require an action plan for remediation. In this way, consumers will not lose their safety net and critical services will continue without interruption.
P
parker
9 years ago
My concern is simple: We need to "call the question" the FFS Implementation Plan timeframe -- it just feels too short to ensure its success. I appreciate the need and welcome Fee for Service as a business model - but there remains many, many questions – that will require additional time to experience, work out, and successfully implement the full plan - hopefully under a watchful eye of an Oversight Advisory Committee - that will ensure our most vulnerable population continues to receive at least the current level of services.
K
Kimberly Counsil
9 years ago
Featured
This population needs holistic services, and fee-for service is a medical model so it may set individuals up for failure. Fee for service doesn't pay for the wrap-around services necessary to thrive in the community.
L
Lori Barnhard
9 years ago
These services that are needed by the most vulnerable population. Please don't leave them without access to treatment and having the professionals at local community mental health centers not be able to treat them . Please re-evaluate this plan.
D
Donn miller
9 years ago
This is just too important to make it harder for people to access the help they desparately need
C
claire
9 years ago
foolish and short sighted
J
James lavin
9 years ago
Please reconsider this as it make it harder to obtain mental health services.
D
Donald C MacGowan
9 years ago
The Mental Health Association of Morris County, and other organizations like it, perform vital services for those in need of mental health services. The fee-for-service model works against what the MHAMC and others are doing. Please DO NOT implement this approach to funding.. It will undermine the good work these agencies are doing.
How can we go backwards in the fight for mental health parity. The human cost is even greater than the financial one this change is supposed to make. Note the word supposed to because it will NOT save money.
Ultimately this system will be more expensive and less effective. New Jersey does not have to repeat the mistakes of other states.
I am disappointed that our state is going in this direction. I have a younger brother living with Schizophrenia. With a track record of missing appointments due to his inability to remember dates/times, this new law will limit his care even more. Please reconsider passing this law and speak to families who have mentally ill people in it.
Really?
Please don't do this.
Please do not jeopardize a community mental health system that delivers high quality services in a cost-effective model. With the proposed fee-for-service system, our provider-government collaboration may not be able to continue to provide the necessary "safety net" for our most vulnerable consumers.
Communities need more mental health services, not less.
I need this to be delayed.
At a minimum, fee for service will lower the standard of care provided to individuals with a mental illness. The potential will exist for far worse ramifications.
It is imperative that the state continue to provide a 'safety net ' for all individuals challenged with mental illness, not just a certain population. Community mental health is cost effective and delivers positive outcomes . The impending loss of services to tens of thousands will be detrimental to individuals and will result in more costly services.
At a time when mental illness is at the forefront of crime and homelessness, it is foolish for the State of New Jersey to cut back funds for the benefit of this very misunderstood population. Until the State has designed a program with the necessary funds to keep programs afloat and services easily and affordable for our citizens and the organizations that serve them, any financial cuts should be placed on hold. It is very unwise and dangerous to cause more anguish for this underserved population. There should be no barriers for them to get the help and support so necessary to this individuals and their families. It is our duty and responsibility to provide quality healthcare to all and to make it available in a clear, convenient and efficient manner. Rather than line the pockets of our legislators and their party favorites, take care of the New Jersey residents so in need of our care and understanding.
Advance Housing has had to close/transfer a RIST program to another agency because the program would function at a loss of approximately $500,000 per year. This program was funded by DMHAS only 5 years ago at a net unit cost of $54.00. The State has been artificially driving the rates down by requiring providers to increase their contracted units of service for supportive housing. Obviously we can't support this program at the currently proposed rates. If the State truly wants to support providers in this transition it will allow us at least a full year of billing CSS to Medicaid before ending our deficit funded contracts. After a year, if we can't make our programs fiscally sound, then the State could follow the same process it uses now and require an action plan for remediation. In this way, consumers will not lose their safety net and critical services will continue without interruption.
My concern is simple: We need to "call the question" the FFS Implementation Plan timeframe -- it just feels too short to ensure its success. I appreciate the need and welcome Fee for Service as a business model - but there remains many, many questions – that will require additional time to experience, work out, and successfully implement the full plan - hopefully under a watchful eye of an Oversight Advisory Committee - that will ensure our most vulnerable population continues to receive at least the current level of services.
This population needs holistic services, and fee-for service is a medical model so it may set individuals up for failure. Fee for service doesn't pay for the wrap-around services necessary to thrive in the community.
These services that are needed by the most vulnerable population. Please don't leave them without access to treatment and having the professionals at local community mental health centers not be able to treat them . Please re-evaluate this plan.
This is just too important to make it harder for people to access the help they desparately need
foolish and short sighted
Please reconsider this as it make it harder to obtain mental health services.
The Mental Health Association of Morris County, and other organizations like it, perform vital services for those in need of mental health services. The fee-for-service model works against what the MHAMC and others are doing. Please DO NOT implement this approach to funding.. It will undermine the good work these agencies are doing.
Thanks Jeff for sharing