Social Links

Run of Site Leaderboard

6 responsesSubscribe to comments

  1. I’m not sure I understand how this type of plan can be cost effective. With high acuity patients, staffing becomes quite important. We live in a state that has opted for extremely restricted use of involuntary medication. The result is that patients often experience high levels of agitation that can lead to aggressive outbursts. The small facilities proposed by the governor will likely either have to be staffed quite generously or the state will have to accept a high incidence of staff and patient injury… or involuntary medication guidelines will need to be revisited.
    It’s also unclear how a group treatment model can be implemented effectively with a small census of individuals who will likely be dealing with a full spectrum of acute symptoms. This was already a problem at VSH where individual symptomologies frequently clashed. In a small group of extremely diverse highly acute mentally ill individuals, maintaining safety is often elusive; trying to create a therapeutic, open environment of trust is simply unrealistic.
    It’s disheartening that our governor appears so unwilling to listen to the advice of experts who have so much experience and education in the field of psychiatry.

  2. I don’t understand how the Governor’s proposal could be more efficient. 5 small units spread apart cannot be cheaper than 1 unit. The decentralization also will mean lack of high degree of expertise that VSH has had. The article mentions the reason for decertification of VSH was “because the facility didn’t provide patients with a therapeutic environment. Nonviolent patients with severe mental illness were housed with patients with violent tendencies, making treatment extremely difficult”. I don’t see how the the Governor’s proposition will help, it would do the opposite.

    Legislation may be necessary, but I would trust patient advocates and physicians who have the experience and knowhow to do it right and aren’t influenced by election years.

  3. Although it was a positive sign that the governor was not privatizing the mental health system, this plan is ill advised and is merely a poorly constructed band-aid. It is short sighted and all but admits that if the forensic population is increased, then they will be sent to the DOC. It is difficult to understand the shifting of more beds to the south when the population in the north is greater. Making the Brattleboro Retreat a facility that would admit patients that normally would be in the state hospital is a poor one. The location of the retreat and the proximity to New York and Massachusetts will guarantee that those states will “dump” patients they deem to be “problems” into southern Vermont. Setting Brattleboro up as a no refusal facility will require them to take these patients, thus making fewer beds available to Vermonters. If the governor wants to make a donation to the mental health systems of New York and Massachusetts, then he can make a tax deductible donation.

    I agree with Dr. Batra’s recommendations, in that a larger hospital with more units would allow for segregating more violent patients from those in a different type of distress. This would also allow for centralized services, training and treatment, all with a consistent theme. Treatment at the Brooks building was solely the work of the wonderful staff despite our last two governors not seeing the treatment of one of the most vulnerable populations as being important. A new facility, with a less institutional and more therapeutic makeup and enough space and units to provide more targeted care, is the right move. Hopefully our lawmakers will actually listen to people that provide care for these patients, something our governor has refused to do.

  4. I share Rep. Donahue’s concerns about this plan, and I will add a few comments of my own.
    I think that people need to keep in mind that this issue is surrounded by a network of federal rules and regulations that affect operating funds. When the old VSH was de-certified, the state lost Medicaid re-imbursements for treating some of the patients there. I believe that since patients are now at other private facilities, those re-imbursements have resumed. I think that if the state builds a new VSH with more than 15 patients that is not connected to a medical hospital, it will be classified in a way that also limits federal subsidies. So any plan has to be developed in the context of balancing all the money issues with the patient care issues.
    I personally would like to see a new large facility located in central VT or Northwest VT near a medical hospital that would have the depth of staff and expertise that is required for treating the variety of difficulties that patients have. The beds around the state are good, but can each small facility have enough depth of training and expertise? Better community treatment options are good — the problem will be to ensure continuous funding of these programs, because it is easy to make such promises and hard to fulfill them. But I tend to agree with the experts quoted in the piece above: the best thing for patients with the most acute conditions is to have a facility that the state controls directly that can provide the depth and variety of treatment that they need. I would design this facility in a way that would allow for flexibility, so that the different wings or modules could be used in different ways depending on the changing mix of the patient population. I wonder if there would be a way to incorporate a program for inpatient substance abuse treatment at the same facility. Certainly many of those with mental illness self-medicate with drugs or alcohol so this might be a natural fit, and substance abuse treatment programs are needed.
    While the decentralized model in the governor’s plan may be what we have to go forward with coming out of the Irene emergency, it is hard for me to see it as a permanent long term solution. But to do what I would want would likely take more money than is available and it would run into the federal rules again.

    Rep. Cynthia Browning
    Arlington

  5. It is most unfortunate to think, as I do believe this is the case, that if VSH served a patient population that was not as disenfranchised as the chronically mentally ill, that there would be no hesitation to serve their needs with more urgency, respect, and care.

    I strongly disagree that less beds is what’s needed. On the contrary, we need more and a greater variety of services, namely step-down programming, which works to ensure that when Vermonters come back to their county of residence that they have the greatest likelihood of maintaining their recovery – not to mention that the CHMC’s can work to meet their needs. With CHMC the high caseload rates as they are, with little liihood of decreasing, I don’t see how it is reasonable to assume that case managers can successfully support consumer needs. And, as research shows, the longer we allow individuals with major mental illness, specifically psychosis, to go untreated or under-treated, their likelihood of recovery diminishes. Why add to the problem with a loosely held together system of care, that does not hold itself to a common standard of care – as a variety of providers would bring about – knowing that oversight of this new proposal would be unwieldy at best.

    It is not the bricks and mortar that dishonor the patients, governor Shumlin. The Waterbury buildings, if one were to continue to employ metaphor as rhetoric, are strong, noble, and have shown themselves to evidence the resolve indicative of the rugged Vermont spirit. The facility could be radically improved with the $ 26+ million that is apparently available to devote to the highly specislized care of the mentally ill. It begs the question… Why was it permissable to allow Vermonters to give or receive care in an underfunded and neglected facility … to the point where patients and staff had to suffer – both literally and figuratively?

  6. I think any time you have a politician making medical decisions is a very scary time indeed. The fact that there will be five regional places to be staffed by people trained to work and care for the mentally ill instead of one centralized place makes absolutely no sense to me at all….

Leave a Reply

Comment policy

VTD requires that all commenters identify themselves by first and last name. You may wonder why we don't accept anonymous comments. The short answer is: We want to keep the discourse civil.

You might rightly ask, since most online newspapers accept anonymous posts from readers, what makes VTD so special?

The long answer is: Anonymous comments don't support our mission. We are a nonprofit news organization dedicated to enhancing democracy through in-depth journalism. Our role is to foster a civil online discourse, and one very simple and effective way to do that is to require commenters to identify themselves. This isn't a new idea, of course. This is the way newspapers have treated letters to the editor since time immemorial.

As a result of our comment policy, VTD has created a safe zone for readers who want to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

Donate Today

We're an independent nonprofit organization, your donation helps fund the digging, and, it's tax deductible.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Shumlin proposes to decentralize treatment centers to replace Vermont..."