Fiscal impact
reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative
Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance committees of the NM Legislature. The
LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are available on the
NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us). Adobe PDF versions include all attachments,
whereas HTML versions may not.
Previously issued FIRs and attachments may
also be obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR |
|
DATE
TYPED |
|
HB |
131 |
||
SHORT TITLE |
8
County Regional Alcohol Treatment Center |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST |
|
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated Additional
Impact |
Recurring or Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY04 |
FY05 |
FY04 |
FY05 |
||
|
$22,500.0 |
|
See Narrative |
Recurring |
DWI Program Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Department
of Health (DOH)
Children
Youth and Families Dept. (CYFD)
DDPC-
Brain Injury Advisory Council
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
House Bill 131 makes
available an appropriation of $22.5 million beginning in FY05 and ending in
FY09 from the DWI Program Fund to the Department of Health (DOH) to fund the
operation of an eight-county regional alcohol treatment center and intensive
after-care and transitional living programs for Curry, De Baca, Guadalupe,
Harding, Quay, Roosevelt, San Miguel and Union counties.
The bill proposes to provide:
q
$11 million to fund the operation of a regional
alcohol treatment center and inpatient alcohol treatment facility in
q
$11.5
million to fund intensive after-care and transitional living programs that will
enhance and supplement existing programs in the aforementioned counties.
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
representing each county that will participate in alcohol prevention and
treatment related training, mileage and per diem for the board of advisors, and
a quality assurance and evaluation services program to monitor alcohol related
statistics.
Significant Issues
DOH
recognizes a shortage of substance abuse treatment funding for all levels of
treatment services and specifically states that there is an absence of alcohol
residential treatment beds in the northeastern area of
However,
the need for an alcohol treatment center operated in De Baca County may not be
justified. 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 mentioned above, during the period from
July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2002. Of that
total screened, 104 or 6% were recommended for inpatient treatment services,
819 (46%) were recommended for outpatient treatment services and 824 (47%) were
not recommended for any type of treatment services. DOH states that it might be more cost
effective to increase funding to those providers already providing residential
treatment services in
According
to 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. The cost of inpatient treatment
however, is significantly higher than that of outpatient treatment services.
FISCAL
IMPLICATIONS
The
appropriation of $22,500.0 contained in this bill is a
expense to the DWI Program Fund over five years ($4.5 million per year) from
2005 through 2009.
Critical to this bill is
the use of the DWI Program Fund dollars. The language used to identify the
source of these funds in HB131 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.
The Local DWI Grant Fund
receives approximately $12 million per year to distribute to the local
·
$9 million to the counties to run evaluation,
prevention and treatment programs,
·
$1 million to detoxification programs, and
·
$2 million in grants to counties.
Currently
DOH Behavioral Health Services Division (BHSD) Regional Care Coordinators (RCCs) have allocated approximately $276, 500 for outpatient
services to persons who meet the clinical and financial criteria for substance
abuse treatment services in the 8 county region.
It
is not clear in HB131 how the proposed treatment facility and transitional programs
would be funded after 2009 when the proposed appropriation would terminate.
ADMINISTRATIVE
IMPLICATIONS
The administrative
burden would be minimal. The two DOH Behavioral Health Services Division
Regional Care Coordinators that coordinate care in these eight counties would
administer the funds.
TECHNICAL
ISSUES
The
language is HB 131 does not clearly define what is meant by “intensive
after-care or transitional living programs”. There is also no mention of the
use of evidence-based best practices in the legislation.
HB131
also would require the residential and the after-care-transitional living
programs to perform quality assurance and evaluation services to monitor
alcohol-related statistics without specifying what is meant by alcohol-related
statistics.
OTHER
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Currently
there is approximately $12 million per year available to distribute to the
local DWI programs statewide. If this
$12 million were
used for the eight counties, the statewide DWI initiative would be negatively affected.
It
is not clear in HB 131 how the proposed treatment facility, after-care, and
transitional living programs would be funded after FY2009.
ALTERNATIVES
It
is recommended by DOH that BHSD make the determination of where these proposed
funds would be best used based on social indicators and the Behavioral Health
Needs and Gaps analysis.
BD/lg