HOUSE BILL NO. 290 "An Act establishing an alternative to arrest procedure for persons in acute episodes of mental illness; relating to emergency detention for mental health evaluation; and relating to licensure of crisis stabilization centers." 10:29:38 AM Co-Chair Johnston OPENED Public Testimony. ANDREE MCLEOD, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in opposition to the bill. She stated the legislation impacted people who experience acute psychiatric emergencies and the development of organizations with staff and it had not been vetted through the Health and Social Services Committee or the Labor and Commerce Committee. She stated that "we're all aware and we're all desperate for easy fixes to our broken mental healthcare system." She believed there was a tendency to grasp for almost any fix. She thought the bill was ill conceived. She stressed the need for a comprehensive package to fix the broken system. She pointed out that the bills all had impacts on the system. She opined that bills should not move forward when they were not vetted by the right committees. She appealed to members to vote against the bill and to include it in part of a comprehensive package in the future. Ms. McLeod stated that the bill criminalized mental illness. She stressed that the arrest followed the person who had an acute psychiatric emergency, which had severe ramifications for the person going forward. She used a hypothetical scenario where a person was arrested because they lashed out and hit someone while having a heart attack or some kind of extreme emergency due to high blood pressure. She asked members to consider that the symptoms of a person's illness could create a criminal record. She mentioned HB 312 sponsored by Representative Matt Claman that had passed several years earlier. She believed it had criminalized mental illness. She stated that people in API or any medical facility who exhibit symptoms that could be deemed threatening could be arrested and taken to jail. She emphasized that the court record followed the individuals and impacted their jobs and future living situations. She reiterated her desire to see HB 290 brought back in the future as part of a comprehensive package. Co-Chair Johnston CLOSED Public Testimony. She asked Representative Claman to provide a reintroduction of the bill. 10:33:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, highlighted that there had been questions at the last hearing about the definition of acute behavioral health crisis. He read the definition included in an email from the Department of Health and Social Services: a situation in which an individual's behavior or state of mind puts that individual at risk of hurting themselves or others or prevents them from being able to care for themselves or function safely in the community as a result of a mental health diagnosis or a substance abuse disorder. He explained that the bill did not include the definition because it was common in the law for the courts to look at what they refer to as the "plain meaning rule." He elaborated that from the perspective of the Department of Law's Civil Division, the plain meaning rule would take the definition of acute behavioral health crisis and recognize that it included both substance abuse and behavioral health issues. The division believed the bill was inclusive of the broad terms and there was not a need for a more specific definition in statute. He offered to provide a longer introduction and/or answer questions. Co-Chair Johnston asked Representative Claman to address the concerns raised in public testimony. She stated that the bill was more about keeping people out of jail as opposed to putting them in jail. Representative Claman agreed. The purpose of the bill was to divert individuals who were appropriate for treatment away from a repeat cycle where they were not getting successful treatment in jail. He detailed that many of the individuals could be stabilized in a short period of time. He shared that states that used the crisis intervention model had much better results and police officers found the method in the bill was a better way to work with repeat offenders in the community. He explained that they had actually been able to reduce criminal behavior and achieve savings in terms of psychiatric care and public safety expenses. 10:36:28 AM Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 290(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Carpenter OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Wool, Josephson, Knopp, LeBon, Foster, Johnston OPPOSED: Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter The MOTION PASSED (7/3). There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 290(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with six "do pass" recommendations, three "no recommendation" recommendations, and one "do not pass" recommendation; and with one previously published zero impact note: FN1 (LAW); one previously published indeterminant note: FN2 (DPS); and two previously published fiscal impact notes: FN3 (DHS) and FN4 (DHS).