Relates to establishing a statewide person-centered mental health services work group

• Democratic30
• Republican3

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Luis R. Sepúlveda says this is needed

The current system for allocating funds for mental health care is spread across multiple state agencies and local jurisdictions. For example, housing development and support, the most commonly cited need in New York State Local Services Plan, can include federal HUD subsidies; state HCR, OMH and DSS grants and operating subsidies; and county and city subsidies. Organizing an effective long-term strategy to address the housing challenges of people with mental illness in a given jurisdiction requires input from not only the officials overseeing these various programs, but also a commitment from providers to a workable strategy, and from the people who need the housing about what they feel will best aid their recovery. Overall, the county-level, mental health planning process, outlined in Section 5.07 of the MHL is unable to achieve the person-centered, prevention-first system of care envisioned by state officials for several reasons: the counties have no control of the resources needed to address their challenges; the annual goal setting timeframe is too short; it's impossible to organize a fully realized system of care across 58 jurisdictions (57 counties and NYC); while counties are mandated to identify needs and goals, there is no corresponding require- ment to establish measurable outcomes so that progress can be tracked over time; and most counties lack the resources and technical expertise to develop a long-term strategic plan and continuous quality improvement system to monitor and adjust the plan over time. The moment to rework the behavioral health planning apparatus is now. In January 2024, CMS approved New York State's latest 1115 Medicaid waiver request to create region-based planning and service jurisdic- tions, called Social Care Networks, to address many of the same needs that have been consistently cited by officials and advocates for years: housing; access to integrated care; prevention services, which impacts both suicide and crisis care; reliable transportation; provider and CBO workforce challenges; and overdose deaths. Creating a unified planning structure that combines existing county initiatives with the new Social Care Network entity, a nonprofit whose governing body must be 51% providers and include peer members (required by the 1115 waiver), is a genuine opportunity to establish comprehensive and long-term strategic partner shims. Notably, instead of 58 separate annual plans (required by section 5.07 of MHL), the state would be organized around nine geographic areas (required by the 1115 waiver) and could replace annual plans with longer-range five to ten year plans that have measurable outcomes, mile- stones, funding allocations that integrate health and behavioral health budgets, and accountable performance standards. A reformed planning system could also enforce consistent use of metrics and performance data across all the SON regions, which would enable state planners (DOH, OMR, OASAS, etc.) to compare and assess the effec- tiveness of interventions from region to region. The most successful strategies could then be shared and taken to scale on a statewide basis. Repairing a system of care that has been dysfunctional for decades will require a highly coordinated commitment by funders and state leaders over an extended period of time. Such reform cannot be achieved within a single election cycle, making it imperative that a comprehensive plan- ning apparatus be established that promotes measurable outcomes, inno- vation and accountability.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.