PHOENIX, Ariz. - Thirteen thousand seriously mentally ill Arizonans lost most of their health benefits last year as state lawmakers made cuts to balance the budget. Now, a new report from the Arizona Council of Human Service Providers says, the cuts in care are actually increasing costs for taxpayers.

Council president Emily Jenkins says that without regular case management, counseling, transportation and proper medication, people with serious mental illnesses are ending up in emergency rooms, hospitals and even jail.

"We've seen a huge spike in admissions to the urgent psychiatric care center and people who are being admitted into in-patient hospitals. The problem is, when they come out there are no resources to support them, so they spiral right back in."

With proper care, Jenkins says, people with serious mental illness can be stable, productive members of society. The report graphically documents how quickly people's lives can decline without that care.

One example is a woman named Jane, who became highly unstable when she lost access to her public mental health provider on July 1st of last year. She wound up being repeatedly hospitalized, Jenkins says.

"Taxpayers have spent more than $100,000. She's been involved with the police. In 78 days, she had four different episodes of needing to go in and out of a facility. This is someone who was stable for years."

Before the state budget cuts, Jenkins says, the average cost for treating a mentally ill person was less than $7,000 a year.

"It's a lot more cost-effective to keep people in the program and on their medications than it is to try to take care of them in the emergency departments and the jails."

Although violent behavior by a mentally ill person is relatively rare, Jenkins says public safety is a concern when care has been denied.

"They can be a danger to themselves, to family members or to others in the community if they do not receive the support they need."

She says the threat of violence increases when people try to self-medicate with alcohol or drugs.

The report is available at http://bit.ly/pMSuhu.




get more stories like this via email

Today, groups working with lower-income families in Connecticut are raising awareness about the state's "benefits cliff" with a day of action.

The benefits cliff is when a person might get a raise, have a kid with a part-time job, or some other income increase which then makes them ineligible for certain benefits. The changes can have severe impacts on communities and disproportionately affect families with children.

Stephen Monroe Tomczak, professor of social work at Southern Connecticut State University, said it is part of a larger workforce problem.

"People, particularly people of low income, are in a sense disincentivized to participate in the labor force and denied adequate jobs and income when they try to do that," Tomczak explained.

Several General Assembly budget bills could have dealt with the issue but most failed, which inspired today's action, a mock funeral procession to the governor's office to eulogize the bills, including the refundable Child Tax Credit, a housing voucher funding boost bill, and a bill eliminating the asset limit on the HUSKY C medical insurance program.

Social service advocates know the bills will resurface in next year's budget process.

Rose Ferraro, program lead of health justice policy advocacy for the Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut, said people are taking alternate steps like going to food banks or avoiding medical care to cover lost benefits.

"Folks will lose their rental assistance and then, they will sort of have to make some tough decisions," Ferraro noted. "'Do I put food on my table or do I make sure to pay rent?' And, so it becomes a sort of untenable position."

Ferraro added interwoven state and federal funding makes it hard to reach the core of the issues leading to benefits cliffs. One eulogized bill would have established a benefits cliff pilot program. For two years, it would have provided subsistence for people who've reached the benefits cliff.

New York towns are reaping many benefits since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed.

Along with funds for larger clean energy projects, the state was awarded $158 million for the IRA's Home Energy Rebates program.

Smaller towns and villages use these grants to implement their climate action plans.

Brighton Town Councilmember Robin Wilt said an IRA grant they applied for will help upgrade the town's HVAC system.

"We will be implementing geothermal and then use a solar array to make the system close to net zero, not quite," said Wilt. "I think we'll get 55% of our energy back with the solar panels."

The bureaucratic process to access the funding was challenging, but some groups are working with the Department of Energy to improve it.

Wilt said feedback on the clean energy projects has been positive. Future projects using IRA funding include increasing walkability and sustainable redevelopment.

Critics have said the IRA includes multiple provisions to increase fossil fuel production.

Towns nationwide are using IRA grants to bolster clean energy projects.

Joel Hicks is a council member for the Borough of Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

They've just applied for a grant to work on energy efficiency and solar projects with Harrisburg. He said this will have positive impacts beyond establishing clean energy.

"We were really excited at this potential," said Hicks, "because we saw that the cost savings we would have for putting in substantial solar projects on our public property would actually fund many of our other public municipal goals."

These include purchasing an electric vehicle fleet and having more efficient solid waste programs.

One thing Hicks said he wants to see in future is state and local governments helping small towns and municipalities with putting together their IRA grant proposals.

A new report analyzes Pennsylvania's existing voucher programs, that divert public funds to private schools.

This comes on the heels of Gov. Josh Shapiro's plan to create a new voucher program for K-12 students.

Diana Polson - senior policy analyst with the Keystone Research Center - said last year's Commonwealth Court decision ruled that Pennsylvania's system of funding public education is unconstitutional, therefore the state doesn't have a dollar to waste on expanding existing private-school voucher programs or creating a new one.

"The basic-education funding commission estimated the state must pay $5.1 billion over the next seven years to make sure our public schools are funded equitably and adequately," said Polson. "Meanwhile, our report finds that existing private-school voucher programs are siphoning millions from taxpayers with little to show for it."

Supporters argue that vouchers let children leave under-performing public schools and get a better education at private schools.

Polson said Pennsylvania's voucher programs have no "meaningful educational or financial accountability," so they really have no way of knowing if these programs operate as intended or are beneficial to low-income or moderate-income students.

Polson said the report reveals that the programs have grown, and just this year they will cost the state nearly $500 million.

However, these voucher programs exclude students in rural areas, because there are few if any participating private schools in these regions.

Local public schools remain the primary option for most rural families.

"We also found that private schools receiving these funds are allowed to - and do - routinely discriminate against students for reasons including disabilities, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and more," said Polson. "These programs are also exclusive. They subsidize the state's most elite and expensive private schools as well as affluent families."

Polson said the report reveals that the Independent Fiscal Office estimated that the average EITC program scholarship was $2,314, while the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit was slightly less at around $2,000.

The cost of attending one of the top 25 private schools in Pennsylvania is around $41,000 per year. This means these schools are still out of reach for many low- and moderate-income families.