Relating to the payment of costs incurred by initiation of emergency detention hearings for persons with mental illness.
Impact
The implications of HB 2007 suggest a shift in financial responsibility that could impact both counties and private mental health facilities. By holding private hospitals accountable for the costs incurred during emergency detentions, the bill encourages responsible management of resources and discourages unnecessary reliance on county finances for private actions. This could lead to more scrutiny of the handling of emergency detentions in private facilities, balancing the burden of costs between public and private entities.
Summary
House Bill 2007 addresses the financial responsibilities associated with emergency detention hearings for individuals with mental illness. The bill outlines that the costs for such hearings will primarily be borne by the county that initiates emergency detention procedures or accepts applications for mental health services. A significant change introduced by this legislation is the stipulation that if a private mental hospital initiates the emergency detention, that facility must cover the associated costs unless otherwise agreed upon by the local county authorities. This change aims to ensure that private entities do not place the financial burden on public funds, particularly in situations where a public mental health facility is not available.
Contention
Notable points of contention surrounding HB 2007 involve the balance of fiscal responsibility between public and private mental health institutions. Supporters argue that requiring private hospitals to pay for emergency procedures fosters accountability, while critics may raise concerns about the potential financial burden this could place on those facilities, possibly affecting their willingness or ability to manage emergency cases. Additionally, there may be discussions regarding the accessibility and adequacy of funds available to counties in the event that public facilities are unavailable. Overall, the legislation demonstrates an effort to curtail unnecessary financial strains on public resources while addressing critical mental health services.
Relating to procedures applicable to the emergency detention of a person with mental illness at a mental health facility, including the detention, transportation, and transfer of the person and to certain best practices for courts with jurisdiction over emergency mental health matters.
Relating to procedures applicable to the emergency detention of a person with mental illness at a mental health facility, including the detention, transportation, and transfer of the person and to certain best practices for courts with jurisdiction over emergency mental health matters.
Relating to the authority of a peace officer to apprehend a person for emergency detention and the authority of certain facilities and physicians to temporarily detain a person with mental illness.
Relating to the authority of a peace officer to apprehend a person for emergency detention and the authority of certain facilities and professionals to temporarily detain a person with mental illness.