Appealing Progress

While drawing out a court battle is not a good way to ensure that the state’s mentally ill are well cared for, the Baldacci administration’s decision this week to appeal a judge’s ruling to place the state’s mental health system into receivership has merit. It will be debated in court whether the judge, Superior Court Chief Justice Nancy Mills, overstepped her bounds in ordering the unusual step. What shouldn’t be debated is that the current administration has made strides in addressing the concerns raised by Justice Mills. Those efforts could be undermined if a completely new system of oversight is put in place.

In defending the decision to appeal Justice Mills’ order, Gov. John Baldacci stressed that his administration has maintained the services currently provided to the mentally ill despite a budget deficit in excess of $1.2 billion. Mental health parity has been expanded and a new $30 million hospital will soon open to replace the Augusta Mental Health Institute, the facility at the center of the legal battle, the governor said during yesterday’s cabinet retreat in Bangor.

In addition, a new special master is overseeing the state’s efforts to meet the terms of the AMHI consent decree, the 1990 agreement that Justice Mills ruled the state has failed to meet. Former Supreme Court Justice Daniel Wathen has set a more cooperative tone and immediately asked for a set of standards to judge whether the state is adhering to the consent decree. This is a very important step forward because both state officials and those who sued in 1989 to compel better care for AMHI patients say the standards of compliance are a moving target.

Now, Judge Wathen has said a set of standards must be written within five weeks. Previously, the state relied on industry and national standards to assess its compliance with the decree, an approach the judge found unacceptable. To develop the new standards, the state has taken the innovative step of hiring an expert who testified against the state’s approach in the current case.

There will no doubt be disagreement over whether the standards are adequate, but for the first time, both the state and the AMHI plaintiffs will know what the state is trying to achieve. If the standards are not completed quickly or are inadequate, more drastic steps, such as receivership, could come back into play.

It is encouraging that the state’s current proactive efforts may signal a new commitment to fixing a decades-old problem with new thinking and new vigor. However, when all the legal wrangling is over, the problem must be fixed. The court will decide whether the current efforts are enough.