We urge everyone to communicate the week of June 12 to the Governor (with a cc to the Lt. Gov.) that you are asking him to veto Section 298 of the House-Senate conference committee bill on the MDHHS budget. The Governor’s office phone is 517.373.3400, fax is 517.335.6863 and his email is firstname.lastname@example.org. The Lt. Governor, Brian Calley’s phone & fax are the same as the Governor’s office. Lt. Calley’s email is email@example.com.
You are welcome to use this template below:
TO: The Hon. Rick Snyder, Governor, State of Michigan
FROM: The Arc Michigan; Assn. for Children’s Mental Health; Epilepsy Foundation of Michigan; Mental Health Assn. in Mich.; Michigan Partners in Crisis; Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service; Michigan Psychiatric Society; NAMI Michigan; NASW Michigan; UCP Metro Detroit; UCPMichigan
DATE: June 12, 2017
We respectfully request that you veto section 298 of the House-Senate June 8 conference report on the DHHS budget (HB 4238), should that section ultimately be presented to you by the two chambers.
We make this request for several reasons:
*Requiring 1-3 pilots where Medicaid Health Plans (MHPs) control behavioral health Medicaid money is in direct contradiction to all three major state-initiated reviews of this issue since February 2016. The reviews were: Lt. Governor Calley’s Workgroup; the affinity groups (public meetings) MDHHS convened last fall, where consumers and family members constituted 69% of 1,100 participants; and the MDHHS Section 298 Facilitation Workgroup, where service providers and payers were 65% of voting members (with advocates representing the other 35%). Attached are numerous reasons why MHP control of Medicaid behavioral health services and supports should not be undertaken.
*The legislative language is totally unclear on the intent of a pilot program in Kent County, involving both Community Mental Health and MHPs. Are the involved parties to be equal and funded partners in a shared program, or will one side control the funding and the pilot authority? The Legislature’s failure to specify its desire here provides inadequate direction to MDHHS.
*The legislative language on the number of Prepaid Inpatient Health Plans (PIHPs) does not require that these entities must remain public (governmental) bodies. One might presume that the current PIHPs for Wayne, Oakland and Macomb, respectively, would remain in place. But what would be expected of the 4th (rest-of-state) is unclear. There should be specific guidance that PIHPs are to remain public (governmental) bodies.
Click HERE for full advocates letter in a .pdf version.