OLR Bill Analysis
AN ACT CONCERNING TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE STATUTES REGARDING PERSONS WITH PSYCHIATRIC DISABILITIES AND PERSONS WITH SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS.
This bill makes several minor changes in the laws governing Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) operations. It:
1. repeals separate statutory authority for the superintendent of Blue Hills Hospital to regulate traffic on that facility's grounds;
2. appears to limit the ability of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) commissioner to ask a court to revoke or modify its order committing a child to a residential treatment facility;
3. allows the DMHAS commissioner to permit private physicians and psychiatrists to treat patients at DMHAS facilities, instead of requiring him to adopt regulations to permit such treatment; and
4. updates obsolete language describing patients, facilities and facility police, psychiatric conditions, substance abuse, and social workers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2009
TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
While the bill repeals separate statutory authority for the superintendent of Blue Hills Hospital to regulate traffic on that facility's grounds, another statute authorizes all DMHAS facility directors to regulate traffic on their facility's grounds. But repealing the Blue Hills Hospital statute effectively eliminates:
1. the immunity current law gives (a) Blue Hills Hospital police against criminal and civil liability for enforcing traffic regulations and (b) all hospital staff from confidentiality violations for reporting traffic violations;
2. the existing penalty for false reporting of traffic violations at the hospital, which is up to one year in prison, a fine up to $ 1,000, or both; and
3. the requirement that court records of traffic cases be sealed and available only to the respondent unless the court permits disclosure.
The law does not specifically extend these traffic-related immunities or penalties to other DMHAS facilities. But another statute immunizes state employees against civil liability for damage or injury caused within the scope of their employment or by the discharge of their duties as long as it is not wanton, reckless, or malicious (CGS § 4-165).
COMMITMENT REVIEW
Current law permits the DMHAS and DCF commissioners and any interested person to ask the court that committed an adult or juvenile to a state psychiatric hospital or “humane institution” to revoke or modify the commitment. The bill eliminates their ability to do this for people committed to humane institutions. The law the bill affects does not define a humane institution, but a statute that concerns medical assistance payments defines it as a state psychiatric hospital, community mental health center, treatment facility for children or adolescents, or any facility or program administered by DMHAS, DCF, or the Department of Developmental Services (CGS § 17b-222).
The change appears to affect only children committed to residential treatment facilities. Adults, by law, are committed only to psychiatric hospitals. But DCF can ask a court to commit a child to a child-caring facility, which includes residential treatment facilities (CGS § 17a-109). The parents or guardian of a committed child can ask the court twice a year to reopen the commitment, or the court can do so on its own (CGS § 46b-140).
COMMITTEE ACTION
Public Health Committee
Joint Favorable
Yea |
30 |
Nay |
0 |
(02/18/2009) |