NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the
LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
SPONSOR: |
Harden |
DATE TYPED: |
3/5/03 |
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
8 County Regional Alcohol Treatment Center |
SB |
876 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Dunbar |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
$3,611.3 |
|
|
Recurring |
General
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
REVENUE
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
$3,611.3 |
|
Recurring |
DWI Program
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
Relates
to:
SB
638, HB 930 and HB 719
Responses
Received From
Department
of Health (DOH)
Health
Policy Commission (HPC)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
Senate Bill 876
appropriates $3,611,336 from the general fund to the DWI Grant Fund and then to
the Department of Health (DOH) for FY04.
SB 876 would
require the following expenditures:
·
$2,419,000
to operate a regional alcohol treatment and inpatient alcohol treatment
facility in Fort Sumner. It would provide alcohol treatment services to
residents of the eight counties identified.
Allowable expenditures include use of the facility, utilities, supplies,
office equipment, salaries of treatment providers and support staff, quality
assurance and evaluation services to monitor alcohol-related statistics.
The
legislation also addresses coordination, planning and evaluation programs to be
administered by no fewer than two representatives from the county health and
wellness councils of each county. The
bill provides for a board of advisors and representing each county that will
participate in alcohol prevention and treatment related training.
Significant
Issues
DOH questions specific intent of SB 876,
which was derived from the Eight-County Alcohol Initiative group. The department references the Center on
Alcoholism, Substance Abuse and Addictions at UNM, most studies have shown no
significant difference in the effectiveness between inpatient and outpatient
treatment in reducing recidivism of substance abusers. However, the cost of inpatient treatment is
significantly higher than that of outpatient treatment services. The DWI Grant Program currently provides
outpatient treatment services for DWI offenders in the eight county area.
Currently
there is shortage of inpatient treatment beds in the 8-County area. The closest inpatient treatment beds are in
Roswell or in Albuquerque. According to
the Office of Epidemiology of DOH, which maintains the state repository and
database for DWI offenders screened for alcohol/drugs, a total of 1747 DWI
offenders were screened from the eight county area during the period of July 1,
1999 to June 30, 2002. Of that total screened, 104 or 6% were recommended for
inpatient treatment services.
The Behavioral Health
Needs and Gaps in New Mexico analysis released July 2002 stated that
approximately 12% of all the people served in Region 4 (the southeast quadrant)
utilized 67% of the available substance abuse funding to pay for inpatient and
residential services. Although the
example covers both children and adults residing in the entire region it is clear
that the most expensive services went to the fewest number of people.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of
$3,611.3 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the DWI Program Fund.
Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of FY 04 shall
revert to the general fund.
The
critical fiscal implication relates to the origin of this funding. The language
used to identify the source of these funds in HB 719 is the “DWI Program Fund”.
This fund usually refers to a limited amount of money used to fund the DFA
Local Government Division’s DWI initiative. That budget is derived from a set
formula and would appear to be in conflict with this appropriation. Funds have
been allocated based on the formula. In
order to receive the funds that are necessary to operate the facility, a change
is required to the formula. Further,
the balances in the fund do not revert to the general fund.
The
Local DWI Grant Fund receives approximately $12,000.0 per year to distribute to
the local county DWI programs statewide.
This amount is distributed as follows:
·
$9,000.0
to the counties to run evaluation, prevention and treatment programs,
·
$1,000.0
to detoxification programs, and
·
$2,000.0 in grants to counties.
It is not clear in SB
876 how the proposed treatment facility and transitional programs would be
funded after 2004 when the proposed appropriation would terminate.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The administrative burden to DOH would be minimal. However, in order to coordinate the other statewide treatment services, the Regional Care Coordinators that coordinate care in De Baca and the counties of eastern New Mexico would be responsible for administering these funds under the oversight of BHSD.
DUPLICATION AND RELATIONSHIP
SB 876 relates to SB
638, HB 719 and HB 930 all of which seek appropriation for the 8 county area
for alcohol treatment services. SB
876 duplicates the facility and scope of services identified in SB 638 and
HB719 but conflicts with the funding mechanism in which $22.5 million from the
Local Grant Fund would be appropriated over five years, from 2004 through
2008.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
According
to the Office of Epidemiology, which maintains the statewide DWI screening and
tracking database, of the 1747 DWI offenders screened from the eight county
area; 824 (47%) were not recommended for any type of treatment services and 819
(46%) were recommended for outpatient treatment services.
Would
a request to develop a state planning process to assess the location and
financial feasibility of inpatient treatment facilities throughout the state be
considered before specific solutions are adopted?
WD/sb