MHAC Archives - Page 3 of 9 - Mental Health America of California

SB 691 (WAHAB) Prohibition on Body-Worn Cameras – Support

April 22^nd, 2025

The Honorable Jesse Arreguín
Senate Public Safety Committee
1020 N Street, Room 545
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Support for Senate Bill 691 (Wahab)

Dear Chair Arreguín,

Mental Health America of California (MHAC) is pleased to support Senate Bill 691 (Wahab), legislation that would require guidance to law enforcement personnel who wear body-worn cameras to limit the recording of medical or psychological evaluations, procedures, or treatment that may cause embarrassment or humiliation to the patient. The bill would also require a procedure for emergency service personnel to request the redaction of evidentiary recordings of a patient undergoing medical or psychological evaluation, procedure, or treatment.

MHAC is a peer-run organization leading the state in behavioral health public policy and advocacy since 1957. The mission of MHAC is to assist and encourage communities, families and individuals to experience hope, wellness and recovery from mental health and substance use disorder issues through voluntary services that are delivered in their local community with compassion and respect for everyone’s dignity and autonomy. The types of services and supports individuals receive during a mental health crisis require trust, rapport with providers, and an assurance of confidentiality.

People experiencing a mental health crisis are often in an immensely vulnerable, isolating, and sometimes life-threatening situation. In the event an individual must be forced into treatment, their right to privacy must be prioritized and upheld. Furthermore, recordings and sharable videos of individuals without their consent during moments of crisis may be used to further inflame and stigmatize individuals during assessments or conservatorship investigations. These potentially singular moments of crisis should not be used to define the entirety of an individual’s journey towards wellness.

MHAC is committed to reducing stigma and empowering individuals to seek and accept support and services for mental health challenges. A moment of crisis should not define them or prohibit their ability to establish a path towards recovery that works for them. It is for these reasons MHAC supports SB 691 (Wahab) and asks for your “Aye” vote. If you have any questions, or if MHAC can provide any assistance on this bill or any behavioral health legislation, please do not hesitate to contact me at hstrunk@mhac.org or our Director of Public Policy, Karen Vicari, at kvicari@mhaofca.org.

In Community,

Heidi L. Strunk
President & CEO

AB 1032 (HARABEDIAN) Coverage for Behavioral Health Visits – Support

September 25th, 2025

The Honorable Gavin Newsom
California State Governor
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: MHAC Request for Signature of AB 1032 (Harabedian)

Dear Governor Newsom,

Mental Health America of California (MHAC) is pleased to support AB 1032 (Harabedian), legislation that will allow health plan enrollees to be reimbursed for up to 12 visits with a behavioral health provider if they reside in a county where a state of emergency has been declared due to wildfires. This bill would also require health plans to notify enrollees of their eligibility and ensure these benefits would not be subject to utilization review.

During moments of crisis, especially ones brought about from natural disasters such as wildfires, access to proper support and services can be extremely difficult. The recent Los Angeles fires have displaced hundreds of thousands of people without proper access to critical mental health and substance use supports. The American Addiction Centers notes that natural disasters often lead to increased substance use.[1] As displaced individuals attempt to access mental health and substance use supports and services, cost and insurance coverage should not prevent them from accessing care.

This bill ensures that individuals who experience a crisis due to a natural disaster can receive critical care without cost becoming a barrier to continuity of care. It is for these reasons that MHAC supports AB 1032 (Harabedian) and asks for your signature. If you have any questions, or if MHAC can provide any assistance on this bill or any other behavioral health legislation, please do not hesitate to contact me at kvicari@mhac.org or our Public Policy Coordinator, Danny Thirakul, at dthirakul@mhac.org.

In Community,

Karen Vicari
Director of Public Policy
Mental Health America of California

[1] Stacy Mosel, L. M. S. W. (2025, April 4). The impact of natural disaster on Substance Use Disorders: AAC. American Addiction Centers.

MHAC Behavioral Health Services Act County Policy Manual Module 3 Recommendations

April 25th, 2025

Department of Health Care Services
Behavioral Health Transformation
1501 Capitol Ave
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Behavioral Health Services Act County Policy Manual Module 3

To Whom It May Concern,

Mental Health America of California (MHAC) is a peer-run organization leading the state in behavioral health public policy and advocacy since 1957. The mission of MHAC is to assist and encourage communities, families and individuals to experience hope, wellness and recovery from mental health and substance use disorder issues through voluntary services that are delivered in their local community with compassion and respect for everyone’s dignity and autonomy. Below are MHAC’s recommendations regarding the proposed Behavioral Health Services Act County Policy Manual Module 3.

Section E.2.1 IP Requirements

Recommendation #1: Add language encouraging meaningful stakeholder engagement in annual updates.

Reasoning: Although the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) does not require a full stakeholder process for annual updates, language in the Act implies ongoing involvement of stakeholders. For instance, Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5892 (e) (1) (A-C) requires counties to include funding for annual planning costs to fund stakeholder participation:

(e) (1) (A) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 5891, the allocations pursuant to subdivision (a) shall include funding for annual planning costs pursuant to Sections 5963.02 and 5963.03.

(B) The total of these costs shall not exceed 5 percent of the total of annual revenues received for the Local Behavioral Health Services Fund.

(C) The planning costs shall include funds for county mental health and substance use disorder programs to pay for the costs of consumers, family members, and other stakeholders to participate in the planning process.

Additionally, Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5963.03 (a)(2)(A)(i) retains original MHSA language which states:

(2) (A) (i) A county shall demonstrate a partnership with constituents and stakeholders throughout the process that includes meaningful stakeholder involvement on mental health and substance use disorder policy, program planning, and implementation, monitoring, workforce, quality improvement, health equity, evaluation, and budget allocations.

Meaningful stakeholder involvement in processes such as program planning, implementation, quality improvement and evaluation are not one-time processes that can occur once every three years, these are ongoing processes that must be implemented throughout a 3-year period as programs are rolled out and eventually evaluated.

Recommendation #2: Strengthen the language in this section to clearly state that the local agency must “provide an annual report of written explanations to the local governing body and the department for substantive recommendations made by the local behavioral health board that are not included in the final integrated plan or update.”[1]

Reasoning: This is a key section of the BHSA which ensures that Behavioral Health Board (BHB) recommendations are carefully considered. Behavioral Health Board meetings are an open and transparent forum for stakeholder involvement and their impact in the planning process should be maintained.

Section E3.4 Exemption Approval

Recommendation # 3: The manual should state that DHCS will provide counties with specific feedback on why exemption requests are denied.

Reasoning: Exemptions will allow counties to more effectively plan for services that meet local needs. Clarity in how to obtain these exemptions is vital.

Section E4.2 DHCS Review Standards

Recommendation #4: Require BHB review of revised IPs that are found to inadequately address local needs.

Reasoning: The Draft Module 3 states that DHCS may require counties to revise their IP if it fails to address local needs, including prevalence of mental health and substance use disorder and unmet need for mental health and substance use disorder treatment in the county, among others. Revisions to an IP for reasons as substantive as failing to address local needs should be subject to some form of stakeholder review. The input of stakeholders who are intricately involved in the system is vital to ensuring the appropriate use of funds to address local needs and BHB review would provide the opportunity for stakeholder input into revised IPs without unduly burdening the local agency.

E.5.3 Approval Process for Joint Integrated Plans

See recommendation #2

We ask these recommendations be included in the final version of the Behavioral Health Services Act County Policy Manual Module 3. If you have any questions, or if MHAC can provide any assistance regarding the implementation of the Behavioral Health Services Act please do not hesitate to contact me at hstrunk@mhac.org or our Director of Public Policy, Karen Vicari, at kvicari@mhaofca.org.

In Community,

Heidi L. Strunk
President & CEO

[1] WIC Section 5963.03 (b)

Coalition Re: Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Coverage Requirements

April 11, 2025

California Department of Insurance

Attn: Stesha Hodges, Assistant Chief Counsel, Kayte Fisher, Attorney V

Health Equity and Access Office
300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814

Via email <CDIRegulations@insurance.ca.gov>

Re: Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Coverage Requirements, Article 15.2 (commencing with section 2652.1) of Subchapter 3 of Chapter 5 of Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations, pursuant to the authority granted by Insurance Code sections 10144.4, 10144.5, 10144.51, 10144.52, 10144.53, and 10144.57

We thank the California Department of Insurance for its ongoing progress towards finalizing its Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity in Health Insurance Rulemaking (REG-2021-00008), to implement Senate Bill 855 (Wiener, Chapter 151, 2020) and Assembly Bill 988 (Bauer-Kahan, Chapter 747, 2022). We are grateful for the Department’s continued engagement with us on numerous issues related to implementation of the law and its drafted regulations. The Department’s proposed Rule lessens the possibility that disability insurers will exploit ambiguities to inappropriately limit insureds’ access to mental health and substance use disorder (MHSUD) care.

We encourage this comprehensive Rulemaking to be finalized as soon as possible and offer support for the Department’s April 3, 2025 additions to its drafted Rulemaking dated May 24, 2024. Specifically, we are supportive of the following key additions, as currently drafted:

Network adequacy monitoring. We support the Department’s added clarity as to what an insurer needs to do once someone has requested assistance identifying a health care provider including by adding that if an insurer cannot identify more than three in-network providers, that it must refer the person to those three and notify the Department of the service requested, type of provider, and location. This is an important mechanism for ensuring the Department has proactive insight into possible weakening parts of networks that could lead to or show existing network inadequacies. We applaud the Department for this forward-thinking change which we believe will protect insureds.
Defining coordinated specialty care. Providing a definition of Coordinated Specialty Care makes it much harder for insurers to deny or partially deny medically necessary services for individuals experiencing first and early episodes of psychosis. We applaud the Department’s further defining of these life-saving but seldom reimbursed services.

We encourage the swift promulgation of comprehensive regulations. Once promulgated, we encourage the Department to issue notices, bulletins, and/or general opinion letters regarding particular areas of enforcement concern. Our organizations stand ready to assist you in the identification of MH/SUD access issues and comprehensive implementation of the Rule in any way we can.

If you have any questions, please contact Lauren Finke (lauren@thekennedyforum.org). For matters requiring physical or printed communication, please send to 1121 L Street, Sacramento, California 95814 suite #300.

Sincerely,

Adrienne Shilton
California Alliance of Child and Family Services

Robb Layne
California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, Inc

Joy Alafia
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists

Chad Costello
California Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies

Carli Stelzer
California Behavioral Health Association

Tyler Rinde
California Psychological Association

Paul Yoder
California State Association of Psychiatrists

Danny Thirakul
California Youth Empowerment Network

Alison Ivie
REDC Consortium
Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy, & Action

Karen Fessel
Mental Health & Autism Insurance Project

Heidi Strunk
Mental Health America of California

Héctor Hernández-Delgado
National Health Law Program

Benjamin Eichert
NUHW

Samia H. Rafeedie
Occupational Therapy Association of California

Randall Hagar
Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California

Tara Gamboa-Eastman
Steinberg Institute

Lauren Finke
The Kennedy Forum

CC:
Ricardo Lara, Stesha Hodges, Kayte Fisher, Department of Insurance
Senator Scott Wiener
Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan

SB 367 (ALLEN) Expand the Lanterman Petris Short (LPS) Act – Oppose

April 4^th, 2025

The Honorable Caroline Menjivar
Senate Health Committee
1021 O Street, Room 3310
Sacramento , CA 95814

RE: OPPOSE Senate Bill 367 (Allen)

Dear Chair Menjivar,

Mental Health America of California (MHAC) respectfully opposes Senate Bill 367 (Allen), which would expand Lanterman Petris Short (LPS) Act involuntary commitment and conservatorship statutes by: 1) Requiring information about the historical course of a person’s medical, psychological, educational, social, financial, and legal conditions to be included in the assessment for an involuntary hold; 2) Authorizing conservatorships for people who have accepted voluntary care; and 3) Expanding the list of individuals or entities that can recommend conservatorship. These expansions of current law will risk infringing on peoples’ civil rights by inappropriately increasing conservatorships.

MHAC is a peer-run organization leading the state in behavioral health public policy and advocacy since 1957. The mission of MHAC is to assist and encourage communities, families and individuals to experience hope, wellness and recovery from mental health and substance use disorder issues through voluntary services that are delivered in their local community with compassion and respect for everyone’s dignity and autonomy. In accordance with our mission, MHAC supports increasing the availability of voluntary, accessible, culturally responsive, community-based services.

MHAC is opposed to SB 367 for the following reasons:

Requiring information about the historical course of a person’s medical, psychological, educational, social, financial, and legal conditions to be included in the assessment for an involuntary hold is an egregious and inappropriate expansion of involuntary commitment statute. Current law requires information on the historical course of a person’s mental disorder be considered only if it is determined that the information has a “reasonable bearing” on whether the individual meets criteria for involuntary treatment. Furthermore, current statute specifies limited sources of the historical information.[1] In contrast, SB 367 requires information on the historical course of a broad range of factors that are not relevant to an immediate mental health crisis, including educational, social, financial, and legal. We struggle to understand how the historical course of an individual’s education, for example, bears on their potential status as currently gravely disabled. Requiring this information in assessments risks wrongful involuntary commitments based on bias and prejudice rather than immediate mental health needs, and threatens the privacy of the individual. Furthermore, by not limiting or specifying the sources of this information, the bill would create excessive burdens on evaluation staff who are now required to collect this historical information.

Allowing conservatorships for individuals who have “demonstrated an inability to follow through with stated plans of self-care” is untenably broad and will likely result in wrongful conservatorships. Self-care is a term that can encompass a wide range of activities, including simple things like getting outside, getting enough sleep, meditating, etc.. Moreover, “stated plans” is a vague term that implies an unwritten expression of self-care goals.

Conservatorships remove individuals’ rights, autonomy and self-determination and should only be used when absolutely necessary and only after significant evaluation of the individual’s mental health. SB 326 expands authority to recommend conservatorships to a judicial officer, a treating physician or an emergency physician. These individuals are not likely to have sufficient knowledge of an individual’s mental health history to make an accurate conservatorship recommendation, which runs the risk of inappropriately increasing unnecessary conservatorships.

It is for these reasons MHAC is opposed to SB 326 (Allen). If you have any questions, or if MHAC can provide any assistance on this bill or any behavioral health legislation, please do not hesitate to contact me at hstrunk@mhac.org or our Director of Public Policy, Karen Vicari, at kvicari@mhaofca.org.

In Community,

Heidi L. Strunk
President & CEO

[1] California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5150.05

SB 418 (MENJIVAR) Prohibit Health Discrimination – Support

June 24^th, 2025

The Honorable Mia Bonta
Assembly Health Committee
1020 N Street, Room 390
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Support for Senate Bill 418 (Menjivar)

Dear Chair,

Mental Health America of California (MHAC) is pleased to support Senate Bill 418 (Menjivar), a bill that would prohibit discrimination or a denial of benefits from a health plan or insurer based on race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex with specific protections for the LGBTQ+ community.

As healthcare institutions face increasing scrutiny from the federal administration for providing gender-affirming care, denials of such care are expected to rise unless specific protections are established. These denials include limiting access to essential services and adopting policies that restrict or exclude the LGBTQ+ community from receiving gender-affirming care.

This bill strengthens protections for the LGBTQ+ population by explicitly defining discrimination based on sex to include sex characteristics, pregnancy and related conditions, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex stereotypes. Ensuring access to gender-affirming care is critical for the well-being of transgender individuals, as it provides access to necessary medical, mental health, and substance use services and supports. According to The Trevor Project, there has been a 72% increase in suicide attempts among transgender youth due to the rise in anti-transgender laws.[1] These laws attempt to erase the existence of the transgender community by denying access to direct services and critical care.

Everyone deserves access to essential services and support. It is for these reasons MHAC supports Senate Bill 418 (Menjivar) and asks for your “Aye” vote. If you have any questions, or if MHAC can provide any assistance on this bill or any behavioral health legislation, please do not hesitate to contact me at kvicari@mhaofca.org or our Public Policy Coordinator, Danny Thirakul, at dthirakul@mhac.org.

In Community,

Karen Vicari
Director of Public Policy
Mental Health America of California

[1] News, T. (2025a, February 11). Anti-transgender laws cause up to 72% increase in suicide attempts among transgender and nonbinary youth, study shows. The Trevor Project.

SB 823 (STERN) Adding Bipolar 1 to CARE Court Criteria – Oppose

March 18^th, 2025

The Honorable Caroline Menjivar
Senate Health Committee
1021 O Street, Room 3310
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: MHAC Opposition to Senate Bill 823 (Stern)

Dear Chair,

Mental Health America of California is writing to oppose SB 823 (Stern), legislation that would add Bipolar I Disorder to the criteria for a person to be petitioned into CARE Court and forced into involuntary treatment. CARE Court represents an ineffective approach to mental healthcare in California. It fails to address the systemic barriers individuals face and, in some cases, comes at the cost of their civil liberties.

The primary barriers to accessing mental health services include a shortage of providers, stigma, and lack of voluntary services and supports. Investing in the behavioral health workforce, reducing stigma through community engagement, and voluntary community-based services has proven to prevent mental health crisis, reduce hospitalizations, institutionalization, and incarceration.[1] In contrast, CARE Court fails to address the provider shortage, inadvertently increases stigma due to its court-based setting, and provides no additional funding to increase mental health services and supports beyond what’s currently available.

The ineffectiveness of CARE Court is demonstrated in the enrollment numbers. When San Francisco rolled out CARE Court in 2023, city officials projected approximately 2,000 eligible individuals, but only 11 referrals were made.[2] The Department of Health Care Services also released its Early Implementation Report in November of 2024 which recorded a total of 100 Care Court participants, yet state officials estimated 7,000 to 12,000 people would be eligible.[3][4] One of the primary reasons for the low enrollment is due to the many respondents who are receiving care voluntarily or receiving supports and services in a different way other than CARE Court. This further supports the idea that when voluntary supports and services are available, people will accept them.

The state’s failure to meet expectations shows an inherent flaw in the system that won’t be solved by expanding the criteria of who can be forced into treatment via a court order. For these reasons MHAC opposes SB 823 (Stern) and asks for your “No” vote. If you have any questions, or if MHAC can provide any assistance on this bill or any behavioral health legislation, please do not hesitate to contact me or our Director of Public Policy, Karen Vicari, at kvicari@mhaofca.org.

In Community,

Heidi L. Strunk
President & CEO

[1] Yehya, N. A. (2024, November 27). Report finds State’s mental health programs need consistent funding, community engagement. UC Davis Health News.

[2] SF Chronicle “S.F. Helped Only a Handful of People So Far through California’s Ambitious New Health Program” (2024)

[3] Depart of Health Care Services . (2024, November). CARE Act Early Implementation Report. Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Act.

[4] Mai-Duc, C. (2024, November 27). California falling short of enrollment goal as Mental Health Courts Roll Out Statewide. California Healthline.

AB 1429 (BAINS) Kaiser Behavioral Health Reimbursement – Support

April 4^th, 2025

The Honorable Mia Bonta
Chair, Assembly Health Committee
1020 N Street, Room 390
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Support for AB 1429 (Bains)

Dear Chair Bonta,

Mental Health America of California (MHAC) is pleased to support Assembly Bill 1429 (Bains), legislation that would require Kaiser to reimburse enrollees for out of network behavioral health services, including prescription medication.

Since 2011, Kaiser Permanente has consistently failed to provide its enrollees access to timely and adequate behavioral health care services. The Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) just released a Final Report of Nonroutine Survey of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and found that Kaiser failed to provide timely access to behavioral health services, failed to take effective corrective action to improve care in response to grievance and appeal deficiencies, and lacked quality assurance and oversight.[1]

Due to Kaiser’s consistent failure to meet the standards set by state law, patients must accept inadequate care or seek out-of-network care when Kaiser’s care falls short. AB 1429 would rectify this by requiring Kaiser to fully reimburse an enrollee for out-of-pocket costs for necessary behavioral health care obtained from non-Kaiser providers or facilities and mental health prescriptions obtained from a non-Kaiser pharmacy or provider. This reimbursement would be required until DMHC certifies that Kaiser has successfully completed implementation of their corrective action work plan.

In short, AB 1429 ensures that Kaiser patients do not have to choose between the inability to access critical mental health services or be forced to pay out of pocket for care they already pay Kaiser for. It places the financial responsibility where it belongs – with the health plan that has repeatedly failed to meet its legal obligations to provide adequate care.

It is for these reasons MHAC supports AB 1429 (Bains) and asks for your “Aye” vote. If you have any questions, or if MHAC can provide any assistance on this bill or any behavioral health legislation, please do not hesitate to contact me at hstrunk@mhac.org or our Director of Public Policy, Karen Vicari, at kvicari@mhaofca.org.

In Community,

Heidi L. Strunk
President & CEO

[1] OFFICE OF PLAN MONITORING DIVISION OF PLAN SURVEYS. (2025, February 25). FINAL REPORT NONROUTINE SURVEY OF KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. California Department of Managed Health Care.

SB 331 (MENJIVAR) Substance Abuse – Opposed Unless Amended

April 3^rd, 2025

The Honorable Caroline Menjivar
Senate Health Committee
1021 O Street, Room 3310
Sacramento , CA 95814

RE: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED Senate Bill 331 (Menjivar)

Dear Chair Menjivar,

Mental Health America of California (MHAC) respectfully opposes unless amended Senate Bill 331 (Menjivar), which would define a “mental health disorder” as a condition outlined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

MHAC is a peer-run organization leading the state in behavioral health public policy and advocacy since 1957. The mission of MHAC is to assist and encourage communities, families and individuals to experience hope, wellness and recovery from mental health and substance use disorder issues through voluntary services that are delivered in their local community with compassion and respect for everyone’s dignity and autonomy. In accordance with our mission, MHAC supports increasing the availability of voluntary, accessible, culturally responsive, community-based services.

The definition of “mental health disorder” as outlined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is not only overly broad, but also misaligned with the intent of the statute regarding involuntary commitment.

The current version of the DSM lists 265 conditions, a large number of which are inappropriate grounds for involuntary commitment. Some of these include sexual dysfunction, sleep wake disorders, communication disorders, stuttering, caffeine use disorder, and tobacco use disorder. [1]

The Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act was intended to “end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health disorders” by authorizing involuntary treatment in very limited circumstances. By defining “mental health disorder” as broadly as the DSM criteria, California risks expansion of involuntary commitment far beyond the intent of the LPS Act. Furthermore, the LPS Act requires the provision of evaluation and treatment services for individuals placed on involuntary holds. Yet, many of the conditions listed in the DSM are not appropriate for treatment within locked facilities.

While we are opposed to the current bill language defining a “mental health disorder” as outlined in the current edition of the DSM, we are not necessarily opposed to defining “mental health disorder” in statute. Ideally, we would like this provision removed from the bill but if that is not possible, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the author and sponsors to develop a more suitable definition.

It is for these reasons MHAC must oppose SB 331 (Menjivar). If you have any questions, or if MHAC can provide any assistance on this bill or any behavioral health legislation, please do not hesitate to contact me at hstrunk@mhac.org or our Director of Public Policy, Karen Vicari, at kvicari@mhaofca.org.

In Community,

Heidi L. Strunk
President & CEO

[1] American Psychiatric Association. (2013). DSM-5 Table of Contents.

AB 0416 (KRELL) Expanding 5150 Involuntary Hold Eligibility – Oppose

September 16th, 2025

The Honorable Gavin Newsom
California State Governor
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Request for Veto of AB 416 (Krell)

Dear Governor Newsom,

The undersigned organizations request your veto of Assembly Bill 416 (Krell), legislation which expands eligibility for people who can place individuals on a 5150 involuntary hold to include emergency physicians.

We are a coalition of youth, peer, and community-based organizations that envisions a society in which all communities, families and individuals can enjoy full, productive and healthy lives free from discrimination of all kinds regardless of previous or current issues with their mental health or substance use issues. Every person deserves access to appropriate, voluntary services that are delivered in their local community with compassion and respect for everyone’s dignity and autonomy. When an individual is experiencing a crisis, their civil liberties should not be substituted for convenience.

Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code currently designates who can initiate a 5150

involuntary hold, such as individuals working at county-designated facilities, peace officers, or specific county-designated professionals. ER physicians are already eligible for county designation under “professional person designated by the county”. The intent behind AB 416 is not to clarify state law, but to encourage non-designated ER physicians to gain designation under the guise of reducing overcrowding in Emergency Rooms. This bill represents a clear attempt to increase the number of hold writers and the holds written.

Our behavioral health system should aim at reducing the number of 5150 holds placed on individuals and prioritize the delivery of voluntary, community-based support and services that can prevent individuals from experiencing a mental health crisis. This trend of legislation to increase hold writers via clarity in eligibility represents a lack of due diligence to assess the risk and the impact of this expansion. Where do we draw the line? Who is next? Nurses? Teachers? Private Security? The current statute is clear on who is eligible for designation and how to obtain it. Any clarification serves to increase hold writers.

Expanding who can write a 5150 hold does not equate to more effective mental health services and should not be used as a justification to reduce emergency room overcrowding. Instead, investing in strategies that prevent crises, reduce emergency department utilization, and avoid placing a 5150 hold are more effective, person-centered approaches that help reduce systemic burdens. For these reasons we oppose AB 416 (Krell) and ask for your veto.

In Community,