 |
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
February 23, 2006
MHANYS ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE – MARCH 13, 2006: Once again this year, MHANYS will hold its Annual Legislative Conference, which will take place on March 13, 2006 in Albany. Having grown in the number of participants over the past several years, this year’s Conference will require a larger, more prominent area and will take place in “The Well” of the Legislative Office Building, which is adjacent to the Capitol. For those who have not joined us in previous years, this event provides those to attend the opportunity to participate in the legislative process, get to know policy makers, and meet with their elected representatives. This year, MHANYS’ Legislative Agenda consists of several issues identified by participants in the regional forums held in the later part of 2005. As a result, MHANYS’ advocacy efforts will revolved around the following issues: Timothy’s Law, the need for additional housing options, protecting access to crucial medications, civil confinement of sexual offenders in the mental health system, and increases in state funding for mental health programs. MHANYS Board Member and outspoken parent advocate, Tom O’Clair, will once again share his thoughts with us regarding the legislation named in memory of his 12 year-old son, Timothy, who completed suicide nearly 4 years ago due to insurance discrimination. We will also hope to be joined by leaders in mental health policy from the Senate, Assembly, Governor’s office, and the Office of Mental Health who will share with us their perspective on the mental health issues under consideration in Albany this year. We have scheduled the official events to take place in the morning from 9:00 a.m. to Noon, during which a light breakfast will be served. This allows everyone the opportunity to meet with their representatives in the afternoon. While we leave scheduling of meetings with your Senator and Assemblymember up to you, these meetings are by far the most crucial part of the day because elected representatives hear from constituents from their district. Therefore, we encourage you to call your Senator’s and Assemblymember’s Albany offices to schedule a meeting with immediately for a meeting anytime after 12:00 on March 13th. You can contact the Albany offices of your representatives by calling (518) 455-2800 (Senate switchboard) and (518) 455-4100 (Assembly switchboard), and asking for your representative’s office. If you are unsure who your representative in the Assembly or Senate is, go to http://nymap.elections.state.ny.us/nysboe/. We hope that everyone will consider participating in this year’s Legislative Conference, hopefully making this year’s event the most successful to date. Additional information is available at http://www.mhanys.org/pubpol/conference06.htm and updated information will be posted to this website as it becomes available. We hope to see you on March 13th!
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS ON THE WEB: The latest issue of MHANYS’ publication, Community Connections, is on the web. The following stories are included in this edition: The
History of the Bell Symbol and Clifford Beers The entire edition can be viewed at http://www.mhanys.org/cc/cc2005-2006winter.pdf.
MEDICARE RIGHTS CENTER – MOST PEOPLE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS TO HAVE MEDICARE DRUG BENEFIT ALREADY HAD DRUG COVERAGE: Following is the text of a February 17th press release from the Medicare Rights Center.
LOUISIANA PARISH SEEKING PSCHOLOGICAL/COUNSELING RESOURCES: Coming to us via the MHA of Tompkins County, The United Way is seeking to set up post-traumatic stress counseling in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Counselors/therapists who are willing to volunteer may very well end up living in tents or in mobile medical vans for their time in Plaquemines Parish because there are few or no standing structures left there. Anyone interested can contact Mindy Riso, a United Way volunteer, at (225) 757-0425 or at mriso@cox.net.
IN THE NEWS: Sullivan
mental-health advocates lobby for laws. Albany - Members of Sullivan County's Friends and Advocates of Mental Health were among more than 300 mental health advocates who attended the recent National Alliance for the Mentally Ill-NYS Legislative Conference in Albany. They heard from advocates and lawmakers and talked with Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther about their legislative priorities. "We are very fortunate in Sullivan County to have such a dedicated and well-informed voice in the Assembly in Aileen Gunther," said FAMH Executive Director Lori Schneider-Wendt. Gunther received applause when she reaffirmed her commitment to the passage of laws that are high on NAMI-NYS's legislative priority list. These include a bill that would ban the use of prison special housing units (SHUs), the punitive 23-hour lockdowns, also known as "the box," for persons with mental illness, and provide for medical care instead. The group also seeks a law to ban the use of state psychiatric hospitals as holding pens for violent sexual predators once they are released from prison. The NAMI-NYS action agenda states that "by putting sexual predators into psychiatric hospitals, the state risks the safety of psychiatric patients (an already vulnerable population) and their caregivers, drains dollars, clogs beds in an already strained system and further exacerbates the stigma of mental illness." Schneider-Wendt and other advocates also say funding for programs for sexual predators belongs in the Corrections budget, rather than the Office of Mental Health budget. A third piece of legislation calls for mental health parity or nondiscriminatory health insurance for people with mental illness. Known in New York as Timothy's Law, it is named after Timothy O'Clair, who committed suicide at the age of 12, after his treatment ended, along with his insurance coverage. Every year, the Assembly passes this bill, but the Senate does not. Advocates are also hoping to pass a law to require accurate and timely statewide and local waiting lists of people with serious mental illness who need housing and services.
Impasse
over sexual predators - Republicans claim Democrats' bill has
gaping loophole. “Violent sexual predators” has been the headline phrase that dominated criminal justice debate this session. The question is will New York follow at least 15 other states that have enacted laws to lock such criminals away even after they’ve served their full prison sentence. Over the last two weeks a Senate/Assembly conference committee has met to try to bridge the differences between the two civil confinement bills. Wednesday was the committee’s deadline to decide whether to continue. Sparks flew last week over Senate Republicans’ opposition to a provision in the Assembly Democrats’ bill that would give judges and juries a choice between keeping an offender locked up or allowing him out on the street under intensive supervision. Both options include psychological treatment. Senate Codes committee chair Dale Volker said after a long meeting the Republican members of the conference committee “cannot bring ourselves to allow a person ajudged to be a violent sexual predator... to walk out on the street.” He said if that element remained in the Democrats’ bill there was no use in extending the conference committee. His counterpart Assembly Codes committee chair Joe Lentol responded that it wasn’t fair to end discussions because they disagreed on one issue. He maintained the Democrats bill backed civil confinement, that it had been “trashed” by defense attorneys as being too broad and putting too many people away. Lentol said he expected the Assembly process would end up confining upwards of 95% of offenders. However, in some rare cases he said juries should have a sentencing option because there would be individuals that with treatment and under strict supervision could progress from violent sexual predator status to never re-offending. Brooklyn Senator Martin Golden responded that the Democrats gave judges an impossible job of charging a jury if there was an option that the individual could be out on the street even with intensive supervision. Golden said he believed that the Court of Appeals would find such a law unconstitutional. The Republicans said the intensive supervision option should be pulled from the bill and discussed as a separate issue. Lentol said that wouldn’ t work constitutionally. Supervision added after the end of a criminal sentence could only be done in the context of civil confinement. Despite an appeal from Assembly Corrections Chair Jeff Aubry that there could be a blending of the two bills to accomodate both goals, Oneida county Senator Ray Meier said it would require a “leap of faith” to believe public safety could be maintained under the Democrats’ approach. Republicans, he said, weren’t willing to take that leap. Lentol suggested that the Republicans might have other more political motives for ending the discussion. He said they might want to use the issue in future campaigns rather than work out a solution. He added that the Republicans’ bill by having no supervision option would allow juries to let some sex offenders walk away with no monitoring at the end of the civil confinement process.
After
four meetings, the future of civil confinement committee is uncertain.
By Joseph Gerace Future of joint committee is uncertain It seems that for the joint conference committee on civil confinement, time may have just run out. Representatives from the two legislative houses that make up the committee did not finalize a law, come to any substantial agreements about what such a law should include or resolve a major question dealing with the option of parole for released sexual predators. Legislators made slow progress that could eventually lead to a common bill they say would protect New Yorkers from dangerous sexual offenders, but the civil confinement law that Gov. George E. Pataki set his sights on earlier in the year is far from realization. When both legislative houses passed separate bills earlier this year regarding the civil containment of sexual offenders about to be released from prison, it brought New York a step closer to passing a law that would comply with Pataki’s desire to, “provide our children and families with every possible protection from sexually violent predators,” which he called for in his Jan. 4 State of the State Address. But the Senate and Assembly bills were so incongruent that there is still no law to date. So two weeks ago legislative leaders found it necessary to call a joint committee conference into session. The conference brought a bi-partisan committee of five assembly members and five senators together to discuss dire dissimilarities in proposed civil confinement legislation. The committee was led by two chair people, Senator Dale Volker, R,C,-Depew; and Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, D-Brooklyn. Last Wednesday was the fourth and final meeting of the conference and at its conclusion it was apparent that no legislation had been finalized and both the Senate and the Assembly were not in a position to redraft a common bill on what Sen. Volker called a “very difficult and emotional issue.” Despite some conflict in the previous three conference committee meetings, Assemblyman Lentol came to the final meeting prepared with a list of 10 areas in which the Senate and Assembly bills were in agreement. The Senate and Assembly agree that the state attorney general’s office would be the prosecuting agent for confinement cases; a probable cause hearing would take place; there would be a full jury trial; and the same standards of proof and a unanimous verdict by the civil court jury would be necessary to proceed. But Lentol was often forced to play defense and guard the Assembly bill against Senators Volker and Raymond Meier, R-Western who argued that intensive supervision for proven sexual predators instead of civil confinement would endanger the public in its stated form or was not needed at all. Intensive supervision is a term that refers to a provision included only in the Assembly bill. That bill states, in short, that nine months prior to the release of a sexual predator from prison, committees and experts, as well as a judge, jury, the attorney general’s office and a defense attorney for the person on trial would meet to determine the fate of the criminal. In the Assembly bill, two separate trial phases would occur: the first to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the person to be released is a sexual predator. The next phase of the trial, which occurs with the same jury, attorneys and committees, determines if that sexual predator would be a candidate for civil confinement or if he or she should be released under “strict and intensive supervision.” The conditions of intensive supervision include, but are not limited to electronic monitoring or global positioning satellite tracking, specification of residence, prohibition of contact with identified past or potential victims, supervision by a parole officer, and any other lawful conditions determined to be necessary and treatment as recommended by a psychiatrist. “Intensive supervision is not a bad idea,” Sen. Volker said. “But the prime responsibility of this conference committee was to decide on a process with civil commitment of sexual predators.” Lentol volleyed many of the statements by Volker, who consistently served as the most obdurate supporter of the Senate bill, saying that supervision was unavoidable if a criminal was to be released into the public. “If [the sexual predator] goes out in society with supervision and with treatment he will not re-offend,” said Lentol. Meier, who seemed to be a base of opposition against intensive supervision as stated in the Assembly bill, but stressed that supervision in general would be an important part of civil confinement law. It would be a “leap of faith” to ask the public to accept intensive supervision of a sexual offender as an alternative to civil confinement, said Meier, though using intensive supervision as an additinal safeguard at the end of a civil confinement sentence would be a welcome addition to the Senate bill. “The Assembly would permit intensive supervision immediately after a person is determined to be a violent sexual predator,” said Meier. “I think after a period of confinement, if it appears that a sexual predator is responsive to treatment, then release them under intensive supervision. But should people who live in the community have to take that chance?” However, it seemed that as quickly as the committee rallied toward common and comprehensive action, last Wednesday’s meeting came to a close amid hazy questions about whether the guild of 10 legislators would even convene again. Meier later stated that from the public’s point of view, it might appear as if the committee was just doing a lot of in-house fighting, but progress was necessarily slow and “the public is demanding that we do something with these overall issues. That ultimately will drive a conclusion,” said Meier. “Both houses want a bill that protects the public.” His statement of confidence was vaguely reflected by that of Senate Democrat Thomas Duane, who insisted that, “A lot of time was importantly spent on clarifying decisions and putting intent on the table. I think slow is good.” Sen. Duane, D,WF-Manhattan, however, was unsure if legislative leaders would choose to renew the committee. “Assembly Democrats see more interest in keeping the committee going,” Duane said, “They want to reconcile the bills. Sen. Volker sounded more pessimistic about finding a common bill.” Lentol voiced concerns over the possibilities that the committee would not be renewed: “If we don’t do it at conference table we’ll revert to the same old scenario of three men in a room.” According to Mark Hansen, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, the Senate hopes to renew the committee.
New
drug plan costs New York $115 million, Schumer says. By Devlin
Barrett WASHINGTON (AP) -- New York has shelled out $115 million to help seniors get medicine amid the confusion of a new federal drug benefit called Medicare Part D, according to Sen. Charles Schumer. The federal government says it will ultimately repay those costs. From the launch of the program on Jan. 1 through Feb. 20, the state incurred $115 million in costs for the prescriptions of so-called "dual-eligibles," those who are eligible for coverage under Medicare and Medicaid. That figure does not include drugs for those enrolled in a state program called EPIC, or Elderly Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage, the senator said. By comparison, New Jersey officials said last week that they had spent some $44 million on "dual eligibles," a figure that does not include their payments for their own state's version of EPIC. Schumer said Wednesday that the New York figures were given to him by state officials monitoring the state's emergency effort to step in and make sure seniors confused by Part D don't lose access to medications while pharmacists and officials try to sort out the kinks. Federal officials have urged anyone with questions about the program to call 1-800-Medicare. A spokesman for the state's Division of Budget, John Sweeney, confirmed the $115 million cost. Schumer said the numbers are further proof that Medicare Part D is "the biggest government fiasco in decades." "This is like breaking your neighbor's window, and then asking him to pay for it. We can't treat state treasuries like bottomless cookie jars," Schumer said. The Part D program has become an election year political football. Seniors and lawmakers complain it is overly complicated and hard to navigate, and Democrats like Schumer and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have said it should be scrapped completely. Republicans concede there have been problems in the startup, but insist it will eventually be a great benefit for seniors. State and federal authorities are trying to nudge seniors into the Part D program in the coming weeks. After the program proved too difficult for many seniors, Gov. George Pataki announced the state would cover the costs and seek reimbursement from the federal government. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has pledged to reimburse states like New York that intervened. Under the Part D program, Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in private plans are supposed to have prescription drug coverage subsidized by the federal government. |
||||
 |
||||
