Montpelier 5/22/2012
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 22, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
72°/54°

Run of Site Leaderboard

tipster

8 responsesSubscribe to comments

  1. I think this is a good plan for many reasons, however it begs the question of why the state is endorsing giving the Brattleboro Retreat, also a standalone psychiatric hospital, the money to refurbish its antiquated facilities to the tune of 7 million dollars and unknown millions in unreimbursed dollars to keep the beds open when the waiver expires. It seems privatizing state services is the name of the game.

  2. It is odd how when the state previously came calling CVMC had stated it did not have space within its current location for the proposed state-run facility, then later said it possibly could be accommodated on adjacent land. Yet, now along with FAHC they are proposing a new facility on its campus jointly operated by CVMC and FAHC, not with it being a state built and run facility, if I understand correctly from what is initially reported within the article. The thing is of course, as the article points out, this is merely just a concept being floated at this point. However, if they previously did not have space on the CVMC, where would it be located and also at what cost and whom would foot the bill? In addition, how long would it take to have such a facility built? It is also odd timing to finally be making and floating such a proposal this late in the game, just as the state is pushing forward with its own plan along these lines. It makes one wonder what is going on behind the scenes. Maybe, since the state is indicating how serious and committed it is to building a new facility, they must smell federal/state dollars in the making. Either that or possibly, if this proposal falls flat as it well could, at least they can say they had proposed something and cannot be faulted for not having done so, particularly if the state’s current plan for its own facility were to get bogged down somehow and not get built in the planned time frame.

  3. I’m an insurance guy.

    If I check into one of the new hospitals, do I pay the private company or do I pay Vermont? Who is watching me? Private hospital staff or state employees? If I am hurt while a patient at the private hospital, is the private hospital responsible or is Vermont?

    I sure wouldn’t want to be the state of Vermont person who has to insure against the mess this “put your faith in the private company” plan is going to result in.

  4. Let me get this straight. Shumlin, et al are fighting tooth and nail to wrest a huge chunk of the business of paying for health care away from the health insurance mafia. And now we’re expected to seriously consider handing a huge chunk of (mental) health care back to the health “care” mafia? That makes no sense at all. Seems to me that is like giving your second child to the kidnappers to pay ransom to recover the first.

    In the end, the kidnappers abscond with both children, and you go home having to pay ransom for both–which is what health care costs these days. Perhaps “Central Vermont Merry Fanny Mental” is a good idea, but I doubt it. Just consider who is proposing it.

  5. I’m glad to hear that the Governor is not in favor of this approach.

    If the state intends to make a substantial investment in infrastructure, it should be publicly owned. The hospitals’ proposal is analogous to a private prison. The taxpayers pay but at the end of 20 years we have no asset.

  6. Hoffer is right. A year or two into the contract, the private company could also decide to significantly (or even not so significantly)raise rates on the State to care for our severly mentally ill citizens. And after watching how long it took for Vermont to get this far in its future of mental health debate, I doubt the private companies will be tembling in their shoes at the prospect of us quickly building a properly sized, centralized facility to counter their price gouging. Way too risky to entirely turn this important State service over to private entities.

    Additionally, we’re all waiting to see what’s in the contracts the State is negotiating now with Brattleboro, Rutland, Fletcher Allen and the step-down facilities. That might give us a better idea of how this CV/FA deal would work, if it ever gets off the ground.

  7. What are our Washington Representatives doing about this “antiquated” rule? Are they beating on the Secretary of Health and Welfare, OMB, or the White House for either a change of the rule (takes too long under the Administrative Procedure Act), a waiver of the rule by H&W, or an appropriation act amendment allowing Vermont to collect Medicaid even if its hospital is too big?

    I have no dog in the fight over “state vs. private”. It’s silly that private wins because of a Federal rule that makes a 25 bed state run hospital more expensive to run (due to lack of Medicaid) than a private mental hospital “connected” (well, it’s on the same lot) to a general hospital.

  8. The IMD rule not an antiquated rule. The abuses of psychiatric hospitals are well known. The federal government did not want to be financing that.

    Medicaid excludes patients in institutions from receiving payments because it is the traditional responsibility of the states to take care of people in state hospitals. The policy has been in place since 1965 when Medicaid was enacted. At that time state and local psychiatric hospitals housed large numbers of persons with severe mental illness at (non-federal) public expense. Medicaid did not want to be financing “warehousing” in state hospitals. The idea is to create incentives for states to move patients out of state hospitals into community care.

    In the early 1980s the 16-bed exemption was legislated.

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, "FAHC, CVMC propose joint mental health facility"