Read on Twitter
We need to figure out a more effective way to explain to people what IMD exclusion rule is, why it was implemented, what it does, & why we support it. Too many people seem to think that being against its repeal means we don’t want people to get mental health care. That isn’t it.
Best explanation I’ve ever seen in support of maintaining IMD exclusion rule is this article by Jennifer Mathis of @BazelonCenter https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.201800413?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed
The IMD exclusion prevents the use of Medicaid funds for treatment provided in large “institutions for mental disease” - ie large inpatient psychiatric facilities.
As people are probably aware, these institutions still exist (although some states have closed their state-operated institutions in favor of providing care in the community). States that still have them have to put up money in their state budget; don’t get Medicaid $ from feds.
Cutting off a funding stream for the most expensive and inefficient way of providing care is probably a good thing. It incentivizes the provision of care in more integrated, community-based settings. That’s a good thing.
At this point, I’m repeating myself, so linking to this thread from the other day https://twitter.com/connconnection/status/1199284545113198592?s=21
Among the pieces I recommend people read are @slooterman’s first-person Vox piece https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/11/27/20985430/kamala-harris-mental-health-plan
Also check out this, by @BudrykZack in The Hill: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/472294-disability-advocates-raise-concerns-with-provisions-in-harris-buttigieg
And remember, the ONLY reason we criticize is that we care and want people to do better. At least, that’s my motivation https://twitter.com/connconnection/status/1161949040927485953?s=21
