I am truly heartbroken for the many individuals in the state who will no longer meet criteria under the new emrergency regulations but benefit so greatly from services.  MHSS for many clients is the only effective support that they have and is often a prevenative measure for both medical and psychiatric hospitalizations.    MHSS provides a wide variety of skills traning in all areas of life to support mentally ill individuals in achieving their highest quality of life with the most independence. 

Requiring hospitalization is an ineffective way to ensure the most in need are receiving this service.  As an example, there are many individuals who have reported attempts of self-harm but were not identified as such by treating providers or did not seek medical treatment at all.  These clients are in no less need than those who have been through psychiatric hospitalziation.  As we continue to serve an aging population, there will continue to be problems with obtaining records for psychiatric stays that occurred 40+  years ago, so those that do meet the current critieria would not be able to receive services as documentation is no longer available, should these individuals be disqualified too? 

Certainly there is a more effective way to achive the budgetary goals that does not place such enormous barriers to receiving treatment and support for those who are mentally ill.  I agree that more regular enforcement of current guidelines to identify unethical providers would better serve the state.  Making additioanl more restrictive guideliens will only serve to harm ethical providers.   These guidelines, as they are written now, will certainly contribute to increases in hospitizations, both medical and psychiatric, incarcerations, homelessness and flood crisis/emergency services with clients who would otherwise be stable with community-based supports.  This will not be cost effective, it will significantly impact the state's budget as well effect communities throughout the state.