Quote:
Heather Knight May 28, 2019 Updated: May 28, 2019 4 a.m.
San Franciscans will almost certainly be asked a groundbreaking question on the November ballot: Should all city residents be guaranteed the right to quick, effective mental health care?
. . . every San Franciscan . . . would be covered under a proposed program called Mental Health SF. It’s a twist on the 12-year-old Healthy San Francisco program, the first of its kind in the country, that ensured medical care for nearly every city resident. The proposal would . . . likely be the most comprehensive approach to mental health care in any American city . . . .
(Operating costs would be funded) with a new gross receipts tax on those companies that pay their CEOs upward of 100 times more than the median compensation paid to employees . . . .
Mental Health SF would center around the construction of a new treatment center, probably on the campus of San Francisco General Hospital, that would be open every day, around-the-clock. It would open by June 1, 2022 (and be paid for by) half of the revenue from (the proposed) IPO tax . . . . (It has been) estimated the tax would raise between $100 million to $200 million in the first two years.
Any city resident needing mental health or substance abuse treatment could walk in and receive quick access to psychiatrists, nurse practitioners, case managers and a pharmacy. There would be an acute crisis wing with beds for those who are so ill that they can’t safely be released.
Patients would be divided into two categories. “Bridge patients” would be those with private insurance or Medi-Cal who are having a hard time getting an appointment with a psychiatrist or a prescription written. The treatment center would help them and seek reimbursement from their insurance company.
“Core patients” would be those newly released from jail, uninsured people or others who need longer-term care provided by the city. Both sets of patients would be paired with a “navigator” who would help them obtain the care they need . . . .
The plan’s backers say it would cost the city an estimated $40 million to $60 million annually (but could) actually save money in the long term, which isn’t too far-fetched considering the Department of Public Health spends $370 million annually on mental health care and substance abuse treatment . . . .
|
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...s-13899585.php
This is the latest and perhaps the best idea to come along to actually do something about the plague of homeless people, many (nearly all the long-term ones) of whom are mentally ill or substance addicted, on SF's streets and their attendant litter, bodily evacuations and drug paraphenalia discarded in the gutters.
As the article mentions, the city already spends hundreds of millions on the problem and already has a program of guaranteed health care for all (known as Health SF), but what it lacks is (a) a single place anyone can go--or be taken by the police--to receive both immediate and long term care and (b) the ability to provide compulsory treatment when necessary.
The latter of these needs would be taken care of by an initiative backed by the Mayor to
expand legal conservatorships for the mentally ill and substance addicted.
I think San Francisco isn't the only city needing something like this. LA and Seattle and maybe Portland all probably do. I'm less familiar with the current state of eastern and midwestern cities but it's hard to believe at least some don't have a problem (in spite of less hospitable weather to living on the streets). And by reputation, some Canadian cities do as well (I've seen reports of a similar problem in Vancouver).
Threaded Mode