Understanding of the Senate Bill No-76 Introduced by Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review - Assignment Example

Running Head: political paper Essay of the of the of the Introduction The discussion aims to present an understanding over the Senate Bill No-76 introduced by Committee on budget and Fiscal Review. For this purpose, four questions have been addressed based on the summary of the bill, history of the bill, organizations supporting the bill and sources required. Each question has been discussed in a critical and illustrative manner making the discussion more succinct. Question-1: Summarize the bills in your own words. The Senate Bill No-76 has been introduced by the Committee on budget and Fiscal Review. It is an act to amend sections 5813.5, 5846, 5847, 5890, 5891, 5892, and 5898 of the welfare institutions relating to mental health services. The bill presents initiatives being taken on improving the welfare situations for individuals seeking mental health services. The bill was emended in the assembly of California on March 14, 2011 with a view of initiating changes in the existing bill. The existing law states that accountability of Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. Under the existing law, the commission is accountable and liable to approve county mental healthcare programs for expenses related to innovative programs and early interventions (Legislative Counsel State of California (2012) The existing law also states that the State Department of Mental Health is supposed to provide technical assistance to county mental health plans. In the current and new bill, the commission is authorized to offer technical assistance to county health plans rather departments. The existing law also requires county mental healthcare programs to prepare and submit 3 years plan that has to be approved by the department after the review of the commission. However, the current bill does not include the requirement of submitting a 3 year plan to be approved and reviewed by the department and the commission respectively (Legislative Counsel State of California (2012) Under the existing law, money in the Mental Health Services Funds was to be utilized for specific purposes including 5% for innovative programs and 5% for administrative costs pertaining to the California Mental Health Planning Council and the Commission. The new bill will reduce the 5% allocated for administrative costs to 3.5% along with allocating specific funds to specialty mental health services, mental health services for education pupils and early screening and diagnosis program (Legislative Counsel State of California (2012) The main purpose and modification in the existing bill revolves around planning for individuals’ needs reflecting the cultural, ethnic and cultural diversity of mental health consumers. The bill also states the need for sufficient reserve that can be used to serve children, adult and seniors without any difficulty. Every year, the State Department of Mental Health in tandem with California Mental Health Directors and Accountability Commission and Mental Health Planning commission will inform counties on the allocation of funds along with having a close discussion on yearly expenditure on health activities and services. It can be believed that the focus is entirely on facilitating mental health care services by streamlining processes and activities along with allocating appropriate sources and resources (Legislative Counsel State of California (2012) At the same time, the distribution of power and authority has also been centralized that further mitigates the scope for confusion and differentiation in approach in different counties. The current bill differs from the existing one in every sense that has been pin pointed in a succinct manner. The bill that has been introduced by the Committee on budget and Fiscal Review of California is still at a nascent stage and only time will tell about its significance and importance in eradicating mental healthcare problems along with offering a helping hand to many people suffering from mental health issues. The next part of the discussion presents the history of the bill along with motivation behind it. Question-2: History of the Bill and Motivation behind It The Senate Bill No-76 can be considered as an initiative being taken by the assembly of California under the leadership of the President Obama to ensure active and affordable mental healthcare services being offered to every individual suffering from mental disorders. It needs to be mentioned that the history of healthcare reforms is quite old starting in early 50s and 60s that got strengthened as the economy developed and boomed under the shadow of industrialization and rising health hazards. Almost every President of the United States in last 2 decades emphasized on the need for a number of healthcare reforms in order to facilitate the lives of millions in a systematic manner (Grohol, 2012) The Senate Bill No-76 was firstly introduced in the year 2004 to allocate funds to county health plans in order to take care of the healthcare needs of many people suffering from mental health disorders. The prime motivation was to offer healthcare insurance to every individual along with ensuring that healthcare needs of every child, adult and senior is met without any complications. However, there were issues concerning the management of health sources and resources because of the lack of streamlining process. The main motivation was based on the amendment of sections 5813.5, 5846, 5847, 5890, 5891, 5892, and 5898 of the welfare institutions relating to mental health services in order to make mental healthcare more effective and useful (Scheffle, Adams, 2005). Based on the above discussion, it can be said that the history of the bill is not that old considering the overall period of 8 years. However, with recent modifications in the existing bill, the bill seems to be more focused on streamlined in terms of offering mental healthcare services in various counties along with controlling the entire infrastructure through a judicious and systematic approach adding great value to the concept of mitigating the overall impact of mental healthcare issues through the allocation of funds and appropriate initiatives. Question-3: Identify individuals and organizations that support or oppose the potential legislation. Research the position of each side and briefly describe the rational for their stand. Attach any written materials that may support your analysis. The potential legislation will draw acceptance and criticism from many individuals and organizations. However, considering the introduction of the newly modified legislation, it can be assumed that there is still time left to assess the overall impact, influence and acceptance of the modified bill. (Felton, et al, 2010). Moreover, there are a number of people with no insurance coverage in the United States making healthcare needs a serious challenge in terms of treating health disorders. People with no insurance are offered simple medical insurance under Federal Mental Health Parity Law. On the other hand, every county will be under the control of State Department of Mental Health that will further help in allocating of sources and resources in a judicious manner (Feldman, 2009). Individuals and organisations getting benefitted are as follow Name of Individuals Individuals Oppose and Why Individuals Support and Why Health Leaders Health leaders will support considering the modifications in health reforms that will lead to proper care of mentally ill individuals and thus improving their standard of living. Politicians Opposition politicians may oppose considering the investment in health reforms Ruling politicians will support the act considering their initiatives in strengthening mental healthcare systems that is required for the growth and development of nation considering the role and contribution of every individual in shaping the economy by creating personal and social benefits. Doctors Doctors will get additional wages for their efforts along with using their skills. With more cases of mental challenged people, doctors can actually conduct more research and planning on improving their standard of living through innovative and planned treatments. Nurses Nurses will get more employment options with large numbers of mental hospitals requiring more man-power to handle mental patients. Individuals Individuals will be exposed to better mental healthcare services. At the same time, with better medical facilities and planned initiatives being taken to improve the lives of mental patients, families of mental patients will get benefitted in the form of little investment on medication under the insurance scheme and policy It can be believed that poor people with little insurance and healthcare practioners will be largely benefited by the proposed legislation. At the same time, assessing the legislation at the macro level offers an idea on the streamlining process of the state pertaining to controlling the mental healthcare needs of counties. The entire society will be getting benefitted by the purposed legislation especially people needing mental healthcare attention and counties requiring funds and guidance to facilitate the process of mental healthcare needs and requirements in a systematic and logical way (Coombs, 2005). Some of the organizations that may support or oppose the potential legislation are as follow: Name of Organizations Organizations Oppose and Why Organizations Support and Why Mental Hospitals Mental hospitals will support the legislation considering initiatives being taken to strengthen the operational and financial framework. This will also help them to be more considerate considering the take of the government on improving the medical rights of each individual General Hospitals General hospitals will support the legislation considering the rise in the number of patients that will fuel the number of cases along with generation of revenue, Social Organizations Social organizations working for the welfare of societies may support the legislation enhancing the social needs Community Health Care They may support because of getting guidance and assistance from the head operational body along with improving the standard of mental healthcare in different communities. Government Organizations Some government organizations may oppose on the grounds of healthcare investments Individuals will be exposed to better mental healthcare services. Moreover, jail inmates suffering from mental disorder will be considered for parole and medication that can further help in improving their lives. Question-4: Identify the representative you contacted and include – name, address, telephone number, e-mail, party affiliation, district number. In order to collect information over the Senate Bill No-76, I referred the website of Legislative Counsel of the State of California. The website offered information on the modification in the bill along with amendment being made for further improvements in mental healthcare needs. The main reason behind not contacting any individuals was based on the reason of little information over right people who can assist in the study. Moreover, being dependent on empirical studies and evidences offered a clear understanding over the Senate Bill No-76. It needs to be mentioned that the bill has been amended off late and therefore, there is not much information available for its usefulness, impact, influence and acceptance in the society at the macro level. Moreover, it was also not found whether large numbers of individuals and organizations will be supporting the bill or not. Thus, it was important to pay attention on available information not being manipulated by anyone considering the authenticity of the website. This also helped in saving time and energy as contacting relevant representatives might have required too much of time to have a response from their side and thus affecting the overall submission deadline in the University. The understanding over individuals and organizations supporting or opposing the legislation is based on assumptions and perceptions that may or may not be true. Overall, it can be said that I strongly relied on the genuine and transparent information offered by the website of Legislative Counsel of the State of California to complete the study and discussing its importance and relevance in healthcare initiatives being undertaken in various counties. References Coombs, J (2005). The rise and fall of HMOs: an American health care revolution. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 5–6 Felton, M; C, Cheryl E., and Brown, T. T. (2010). "What does it take? California county funding requests for recovery-oriented Full Service Partnerships under the Mental Health Services Act". Community Ment Health J 46: 441–451 Feldman, S (2009). "The Millionaires Tax and mental health policy in California". Health Affairs 28 (3): 809–815 Grohol.J (2012) Mental Health Care Benefits under Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Available at http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/06/30/mental-health-care-benefits-under-affordable-care-act-obamacare/41052.html Legislative Counsel State of California (2012) Bill Information. Available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov./ Scheffler, R. M.; Adams, N (2005). "Millionaires and mental health: Proposition 63 in California". Health Affairs: w212-w224 Read More