Relating to the transportation of certain mental health patients.
Impact
This legislation specifically impacts local statutes related to mental health transport protocols, signaling a shift towards more organized procedures that involve local governments. The requirement for counties to maintain a list of qualified transportation service providers aims to ensure consistency and reliability in how mental health patients are transported. It seeks to create a system that balances the urgency of mental health needs with the logistical realities of transport in regions with large populations and proximity to the border.
Summary
House Bill 369 addresses the transportation of certain mental health patients in counties located on the Texas-Mexico border with significant populations. The bill establishes a priority order for the transportation of individuals to mental health facilities, primarily allowing relatives or responsible persons to undertake this transport without remuneration, except for out-of-pocket expenses. When relatives are unavailable, the bill outlines a structured hierarchy for transport that includes facility administrators or local mental health authority representatives, ultimately leading to law enforcement personnel if others are not accessible.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 369 appears to be generally positive among mental health advocates and local officials, as it establishes clearer guidelines for patient transport, which can help improve the safety and efficacy of mental health interventions. Supporters argue that the bill represents a necessary step toward enhancing mental health services in populated border areas. Nevertheless, there may be concerns from advocacy groups regarding potential limitations or regulations that could arise from the implementation of such structured transport protocols.
Contention
While the bill emphasizes the importance of structured transport for mental health patients, there is potential contention around who qualifies as a 'responsible person' in the context of patient transport and the implications for mental health interventions. Some may argue that reliance on relatives or local authorities for transport raises concerns about the adequacy of care during transit. Additionally, the establishment of a list for qualified transportation service providers may lead to discussions on standards and criteria that could affect access to care based on geographic or economic factors.
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 an application for emergency detention, procedures regarding court-ordered mental health services, and certain rights of patients admitted to private mental hospitals and certain other mental health facilities.
Relating to the creation of and the powers of a comprehensive multimodal urban transportation authority, including the power to impose taxes, issue bonds, and exercise limited eminent domain authority.