Our View: Maine shouldn't
forget mentally ill again
Twenty years after the AMHI consent decree was filed, vulnerable people still need care.
A mental hospital that used isolation cells and chairs with straps to restrain its patients sounds like something from the far-distant past.
A corridor of the former Augusta Mental Health Institution.
But it was only 20 years ago that a class-action lawsuit was resolved, leading to the shutdown of the Augusta Mental Health Institute and the creation of a system of community-based alternatives for thousands of Maine people with mental illness.
The last two decades have been far from perfect, and Maine still has a long way to go keep its promise to some of its most vulnerable citizens. But on this anniversary of the consent decree, it's worth noting how far we have come.
In 1988, five residents died during a heat wave in the old facility, which lacked air conditioning. At least one was strapped in restraints at the time of his death.
In 1989, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of all the hospital's residents, demanding better treatment. It was resolved the following year with a consent decree that required the hospital to close within five years and to be replaced with a system of community-based options.
The old hospital was finally replaced with the Riverview Psychiatric Center in 2004.
But moving care to the community has never been a smooth transition. Only three years after the consent decree was signed, the state was back before a judge for slashing its program budgets while it was releasing patients.
These days, Maine's county sheriffs indicate that there is a disproportionate number of people with mental illness in the state's jails. The same is true for homeless shelters.
More budget cuts to state programs make community services harder to access for the people who need them.
In a recent report on the status of the consent decree, former Maine Chief Justice Daniel Wathen, who is the appointed special master for the case, wrote that the state's increasing reliance on federal Medicaid funding is making services unavailable to people who do not qualify for the program.
Wathen has recommended spending $5.5 million more to provide adequate care and housing support.
It's important that the state does not forget about these people as we forgot about them in the past, during the days before the lawsuit was filed.
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
31 COMMENTS
JWR said...
The article on the whole is a vast understatement. They where simply dumped onto the streets. while some may have thought they solved one problem, they created one that's even worst. It has sucked resources from others in the community, in particular the homeless population. The mentally ill are merely wandering in a daze, and those forced to live with them end up in a daze also. There is no control, and while I certainly don't want to ever hear about or see what had transpired in the past, something must be done. As it stands now, we have condemn one group, the homeless population, while the mentally ill are no better off then they where 20 years ago. Shortsightedness, emotional reactions and the old and tired song and dance of 'out of sight out of mind' (plus most don't have to live with it) those of us who are out to save the world, yeah, while destroying another's quality of life. Thank you for nothing..
July 28, 2010 at 6:33 AM Report abuse
Hadley said...
Maine has not forgotten those who are struggling with mental illness. On the contrary, it is one of the first places the state looks for budget cuts.
July 28, 2010 at 7:31 AM Report abuse
common_cents said...
"mentally ill"..."struggling with mental illness"...the media catch-phrases just roll out and encompass a broad array of issues and social problems. Over the years, our neighborhood's large aging houses have become housing for people with a variety of mental disorders, who when they go off their medication or have their meds. changed, 'act out' on the streets and wander the neighborhoods. Police are called to round them up until the next time. Do they pose a danger to children who play in the streets? How many are violent? How many are sexual predators? No one knows...heck, no-one knows what the system is anymore, and who takes care of who? Tedford expands its non-profit empire; while Sweetser contracts. If you want to find out what DHHS knows about public reactions goto http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mh/ for their survey results.
July 28, 2010 at 8:02 AM Report abuse
common_cents said...
The surveys provide a very different view than the Media hype and bias does. Q4. Have crisis services been available to you when you have needed them? 88.6% said "YES" in 2008, and 88.3% in 2009 Other questions reveal that the level of services and accessibility is extremely good....Q1. Can you get the mental health services and supports you need?84.7% said yes in 2008, and 87.5% in 2009.Then you have all the service overlapping, i.e. corrections, VA; and the fact that 84% have MAINECARE and over half have never been married. Expand MAINECARE coverage; encourage partnerships; get creative instead of playing the partisan budget game?
July 28, 2010 at 8:14 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
Reagan thought mental illness was a figment of someone imagination --HIS!! So he kicked millions off SSI, until the court stopped him, years later. He dismantled the community mental health system, intended to be the safety net for de-institutionalization. And then he decimated HUD--viola instantaneous institutionalized homelessness.Prior to that "homelessness' was limited to a few, VERY few winos on the streets. Reagan's "government is the problem" and the resultant anti guv spending philosophy created and "birthed" institutionalized homelessness.
July 28, 2010 at 9:21 AM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
Henryelm,could it be that mental health care,or perhaps healthcare in general,may not be an appropriate function of the federal government? How about we leave local issues to local control and funding,no higher than the state level. If we were allowed to keep more of our money,perhaps we could deal with our own problems,rather than funding states with more political power. If government is,indeed,the problem,could bigger government cause bigger problems? Food for thought,if you can digest it.
July 28, 2010 at 10:45 AM Report abuse
Portcitylive said...
Lotke, the State of Maine showed what happens with out federal controls. They fail to provide basic services, people die and the state gets sued in federal courts. The dirty little secret about Mainecare for adults is that it will cover limited services and not inpatient services. So the severely mentally ill end up in jail or in hospitals that will not be paid for their stays. Hospital are not allowed to turn away people but they can and might discharge someone when they are "stable" rather then when they have supports ready to help them in the community. Thus the person destabilizes fairly rapidly and is back wandering the streets until the police pick them up and the cycle restarts.
July 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
Portcitylive,what you describe is the failure of government at every level to deal with what is,or should be, a local issue. The idea that government should be a"provider of services"is rampant in our culture,and is one of the most basic differences between the political left and right. We on the right generally insist that government strictly adhere to its Constitutionally limited functions. The government we deal with on a regular basis should be at the most local level,as it tends to be more responsive to our needs and demands. There is absolutely no provision in the Constitution for federal involvement in healthcare,which is why it's become so expensive and totally out of control. Unless and until we demand government perform its proper functions,and otherwise leaves us to deal with private matters,we can expect more of the same.
July 28, 2010 at 12:03 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
lotke you've got your wish ...now don't go complaining about "these folks" wandering the streets. So now what? Guv'ment pays for them any how and it probably costs more.
July 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
and lotke...What IS the purpose of government?? Think, look it up. hint--it is in the constitution.NOT the government as envisioned BY the right and Reagan BUT..the REAL purpose of government. Why have " peoples" formed societies( which later become more organized as "government"), since the beginning of time ?? The natural order is NOT isolation, living all alone and "it's everyone for themselves". IT is team work ( starting with the family) and sharing resources ( starting in the village). When money entered the picture it came in the form of taxation.
July 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM Report abuse
middleone said...
Lotekguy: Since you haven't read the Constitution: "We the People... in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish JUSTICE, insure domestic TRANQUILITY, provide for the common DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..., ...establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Where did you get your idea about govt? Rush? Beck?
July 28, 2010 at 3:59 PM Report abuse
middleone said...
What is the purpose of government? It includes providing for the common welfare of the citizens. I interpret that as finding ways to help those least able to help themselves, and the mentally ill are included in the provision of the common welfare.
July 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
You have to stretch the general welfare clause quite a bit to interpret it as meaning the federal government shall cater to each and every little detail of an individual's life. I doubt the Founding Fathers ever intended the insane, socialistic entitlement programs you liberals have foisted on us since FDR's time. As for mental health or healthcare in general,there's no way you can find a government role anywhere in the Constitution. The states,however,are free to institute such programs.
July 28, 2010 at 6:04 PM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
For the first century or so since America's founding,families and communities provided quite well for each other,often forming mutual aid societies,like the Grange,and early versions of organizations like today's Masons/Shriners,Knights of Columbus,and other fraternal organizations. The earliest Americans would be astonished at the scope and reach of our current federal government. Many of us have had enough,as is evidenced by the Tea Party movement--a throwback to our early history--and Arizona's stand on illegal immigration. And you ain't seen nothin' yet.
July 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM Report abuse
JWR said...
lotekguy said... "the Tea Party movement--a throwback to our early history"----That's a stretch..
July 28, 2010 at 6:30 PM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
JWR,considering the current climate in 21st century America,it's hardly a stretch. Many of us see parallels between the states'relationship with D.C.,and the colonies vis-a-vis the British Crown. The original Tea Party was protesting a tax of only a few dollars. Colonial Americans were up in arms over taxation without representation. Today,we have the estate tax--appropriately called the death tax--or as Steve Forbes quipped:taxation without respiration. If you're not outraged,you're either living off the taxpayer,or living in liberal LaLa-land.
July 28, 2010 at 6:46 PM Report abuse
JWR said...
And the President would very much like to address those issues. But some States have their own ideas and therefore it's a State wide issue. Unlike the colonies they did not have elected Representatives. The first dibs on any monies should always be the Federal Government. After all they provide our national defense and should by the very Constitution be doing a heck of a lot more. But decades of watered down regulations or none has laid this nation asunder. I doubt very seriously if the founding Fathers ever imagine the States going rouge.
July 28, 2010 at 7:17 PM Report abuse
middleone said...
I don't think the "general welfare" clause is a stretch. Do you really want mentally ill people wandering your street, untreated, confused, and potentially dangerous? This is a general welfare issue as I see it. The general welfare of all of us is at stake. Treating mentally ill people poorly is inhumane and for those of us who worship, unChristian.
July 28, 2010 at 7:27 PM Report abuse
JWR said...
July 28, 2010 at 7:39 PM Report abuse
JWR said...
'On The Tea-Party' Yet, even though the Golden Age is gone, the world irrevocably lost to the middle classes. (who supported Hitler in Germany and appear in their latest disguise) Noble Savages untouched by the general degeneracy. These are the men, if only they would leave us alone. - Leslie A. Fiedler 1954
July 28, 2010 at 7:45 PM Report abuse
Les said...
Isn't it ironic that Reagan died of Alzheimers's disease-a mental illness.
July 28, 2010 at 9:30 PM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
All of you who are so upset that the state of Maine was so negligent in the care of mental health patients should consider that the old AMHI,right here in the state capitol,a stone's throw from the state house and governor's mansion,was ill-served by this level of government. What makes you think that some faceless bureaucrat in faraway Washington,D.C.would be even more responsive to the needs of the mentally ill here in Maine? Why is it that you liberals always have the same knee-jerk response--the solution to government-created problems is.........MORE GOVERNMENT?
July 28, 2010 at 9:35 PM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
Another liberal showcasing his ignorance. Les,my lefty friend,Alzheimer's is not a"mental illness". It's a physiological brain disease. Even in his final stages,Reagan made more sense than some of you fools.
July 28, 2010 at 9:42 PM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
JWR,I watched that hatchet-job by Chris Matthews,hardly an unbiased observer. His portrayal of the Tea Party movement was typical Matthews. He's so horrified at the sight of ordinary American citizens being armed,he regularly goes nuts when he sees someone packing. Also,you'd have to look far and wide to find any pundit or talking-head who's more obsessed with race than Matthews. His treatment of patriotic Americans as gun-crazy racist haters is so over-the-top,it borders on caricature. This is,unfortunately,typical liberal fare.
July 28, 2010 at 9:53 PM Report abuse
common_cents said...
Too bad JWR failed that intelligence test for the Air Force...they need more trainable drones.
July 29, 2010 at 8:27 AM Report abuse
middleone said...
Mental illnesses are, for the most part, physiological illnesses in the brain...
July 29, 2010 at 10:03 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
"Isn't it ironic that Reagan died of Alzheimers's disease-a mental illness. It's existance was obvious in his first debate back in 1980.
July 29, 2010 at 2:30 PM Report abuse
Routone said...
The moment Republicans gain power, not only will the mentally ill be forgotten, they will be disenfranchised to the point of oblivion. Being a Republican is its own form of mental illness.
July 29, 2010 at 2:41 PM Report abuse
Routone said...
Lote, Odd you want "local issues left to local control." Didn't Republicans keep shifting on what was and wasn't up to state control, depending on what was most politically expedient? I recall Wall Street pet Republicans getting the Bush Administration to SUE the State of New York in Federal court to stop them from regulating the sub-prime market in their state, because the Bush administration refused to regulate that developing disaster! Republicans are an insult to the intelligence of most thinking Americans!
July 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
I believe Bush tried to warn of the impending disaster that was to eventually trigger the economic meltdown,that being the sub-prime mortgage mess created during the Clinton years. Government policies that forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy homebuyers who couldn't afford the homes they were purchasing. All in the name of"fairness",because it was perceived that blacks were victims of"red-lining". The government then guaranteed the banks against failure by promising to bail them out,at our expense. This would probably have gone on indefinitely had the bottom not fallen out of the real estate market. Fannie&Freddie,with Chris Dodd/Barney Frank making out like bandits,still unaccountable as Fin-reg didn't include Fannie/Freddie. Coincidence? Once we take back our government,we can hopefully get the country back on track.
July 29, 2010 at 4:30 PM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
Don't expect me to defend Bush and the republicans during the past decade. There's very little they did that pleased me,or just about anyone--liberal or conservative. They deserved to lose in '06 and '08. And when they again gain the majority,if they don't govern with principle,they deserve to just disappear. America doesn't need a party of the left,and a party of the middle. Liberal socio-economic policies got us to the sorry state we're in,but it was accomplished with the pathetic acquiescence of the spineless repubs. There is a strong"bench"of young,principled repubs with good,workable solutions to our problems,and they're ready to put the old guard--Snowe,Collins,McCain,Graham,Lugar....out to pasture. It's time for real"hope and change"and we're gonna bring it. Stay tuned.
July 29, 2010 at 4:47 PM Report abuse