HOW MANY MORE OUTSTANDING LAWSUITS CAUSED BY NH GOVERNMENT'S ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SCREW UPS WILL TAXPER'S BE FORCED TO PAY.

REPORTED IN 2014: "The state had a financial stake in 28 lawsuits, according to the state’s annual financial report. Of those, the state only lost one, won six and settled three. Eighteen are still undecided.
“This isn’t a problem of costs coming up unexpectedly, this is a problem of not being able to pay our bills when they come due and the Legislature seeing how long it can dodge the bill collector,” said Andru Volinsky, the lead attorney on the education funding lawsuits."

REPORTED IN 2015: "the next state budget, the potential $104 million price tag of two lawsuits looms large, the latest in a series of legal actions that directly affect New Hampshire’s bottom line.

The state settled a federal lawsuit over inadequate mental health services in 2013 that’s predicted to cost $24 million in the upcoming budget. A second settlement with hospitals over a controversial tax could mean roughly $80 million less in the state’s general fund. In an already tight budget of $10.7 billion, these costs won’t be easily swallowed."

REPORTED IN 2016: "Frankie Berger, director of advocacy at the nonprofit Treatment Advocacy Center, said the practice violates patients’ civil rights and must stop immediately.

“We had no idea this type of thing was happening,” Berger said. “Honestly, it’s appalling and shocking what we’ve learned so far. We need to see it fixed.”

The Arlington, Va.- based center is taking immediate action to investigate and press for action that could result in a federal civil rights lawsuit, Berger said.

“I don’t think it comes as a surprise that a national organization with expertise in this area comes to the conclusion that New Hampshire is violating patients’ rights,” Cushing said.

The Legislature recognized the problem in 2005 and 2010, he said. “Reports then acknowledged the potential for legal action against the state,” Cushing said.

“It’s long past time that the state of New Hampshire stop taking people who have never been charged with or convicted of a crime and sending them to prison. We should be sending them to hospitals, not prison,” Cushing said.

Berger agreed that the practice of commingling patients who haven’t committed a crime with convict criminals has to stop. “It doesn’t matter how many laws the Legislature passes in New Hampshire to say it’s legal. That doesn’t make it legal,” Berger said. “It is unconstitutional.”

REPORTED IN 2017: "Attorney Rus Rilee has a unique perspective on the tragic child abuse cases that have prompted intense scrutiny of the state Division of Youth, Children and Families.

He represents certain family members of 3-year-old Brielle Gage of Nashua and 21-month-old Sadie Willott of Manchester, both of whom died while their neglect and abuse cases were under DCYF review. He also represents the grandparents of two children who were victims in a highly publicized Claremont case involving the videotaping of sexual abuse.

Those cases have sparked at least three separate investigations into DCYF: an internal review; an examination of infant homicides at the state Department of Justice; and an outside review by an independent third party.

Pressure is on
Rilee says its no coincidence the immunity legislation has been proposed at this time, with potential civil lawsuits looming in these highly publicized cases.

“This is a direct result of the pressure that is being placed on them. As a result of these cases, the spotlight is being shone on their failures,” he said. “Unfortunately for my clients, it's too late, but they are adamant about the fact that they want to make sure this doesn't happen to another child. That's what our battle is all about.”

If Rilee is ultimately allowed to pursue his civil cases in open court, the result could be exactly what CASA and DCYF fear the most — more victims or their surviving family members going to court with claims of negligence or negligent supervision.

Minors who have been abused with personal injury claims have from 20 to 30 years to sue, depending on the nature of the abuse.

“If they have any allegation that what happened to them was caused by the acts or omissions of DCYF, CASA or any other state or private actors, they have until they are in their 20s or 30s to file,” Rilee said. “Once some of these cases come to light, there is going to be a flood of them.”

REPORTED IN 2018: "The state has agreed to pay $6.75 million to settle a suit brought by the grandparents of two young girls who were sexually abused by their parents while under the supervision of New Hampshire’s Division for Children, Youth and Families.

The lawsuit alleged DCYF and two nonprofits – Easterseals New Hampshire and CASA-NH – failed to protect the two girls from “horrific” sexual abuse by their biological parents in 2013 despite repeated warning signs.

Under the settlement, each child will receive $3.125 million and their grandparents, who have adopted the girls, will receive $500,000. The money will come from the state’s general fund and be released as soon as Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge Gillian Abramson officially signs off on the deal, said Rus Rilee, the attorney representing the family.

The girls’ parents pleaded guilty in 2014 to felony sexual assault charges and to manufacturing child pornography. Each was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. The suit alleged the abuse took place during supervised and unsupervised visits, sometimes during “bath time,” when an Easterseals worker was in another room.

Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards said the state has made larger total payouts in civil injury settlements before, but this agreement represents the largest amount paid to an individual plaintiff.

Settlements with CASA and Easterseals are confidential.

The lawsuit also brought key rulings, including one from the state Supreme Court, establishing the rights of plaintiffs in child abuse cases to sue in open court. Before, such cases were kept completely under seal to protect the privacy of children. Rilee had argued the state’s Child Protection Act had been interpreted too broadly, and that a child’s identity could be protected even if a complaint were made public.

“Transparency breeds accountability, and accountability brings change,” Rilee said.

DCYF has been under intense scrutiny since two toddlers under agency watch were killed by their mothers in 2014 and 2015. Lawmakers have since created an independent Office of the Child Advocate to oversee the agency and funded more caseworkers.

Rilee also represents William Boucher Jr., the father of Brielle Gage, a 3-year-old from Nashua who was murdered by her mother, Katlyn Marin, while under DCYF supervision in 2014. Boucher filed suit this February against the agency, which was warned about repeated abuse for a year before Brielle’s death.
______________________________________________

REPORTED IN 2011: "Michael McCord of the New Hampshire Business Review provides a good synopsis of why ten hospital administrators are so upset about the latest state budget that they’ve filed a lawsuit.

“Each October, New Hampshire and the state’s hospitals engage in an accounting sleight of hand set up in 1991. Hospitals wire the state millions of dollars to pay the “Medicaid Enhancement Tax,” and the state then wires the amount back, often within minutes.

The goal of the tax was to create the illusion of raising money so the state could apply for and receive more federal matching funds to cover uncompensated care costs for Medicaid services and indigent patients. Not all the federal funds go back to hospitals and doctors – New Hampshire has the second-lowest Medicaid reimbursement rate in the country – and money is diverted to the general fund. The ploy has been known over the years as “Mediscam.”

“We used to joke and say ‘What would happen if the state didn’t wire this money back?'” said Mark Whitney, vice president for strategic planning at Exeter Health Resources, parent company of Exeter Hospital.

A majority of the state’s 26 hospitals are about to find out the answer.”

That’s most of the Medicaid issue in a nutshell.  McCord goes on to explore other hospital complaints about forced layoffs and other budget problems that arose in the wake of this year’s legislative decisions.  Then he gives us this interesting tidbit,

“Meanwhile…the biggest change to the state’s Medicaid program was Senate Bill 147, which has mandated a transfer of all Medicaid services to a private managed care program on an expedited basis by July 1, 2012.

One national consultant familiar with New Hampshire’s Medicaid regulations and practices believes in the end the CMS [federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] will shoot down this latest legislative gambit. New Hampshire isn’t the only state that plays the Mediscam game but ‘the feds will take a very dim view of this,’ said Steve Scheer, a Chicago-based principal with Health Management Associates and adviser to the New Hampshire Hospital Association.

More importantly, he added, the CMS will need to disapprove because many states are already watching closely. If the CMS grants approval, some 33 other states could jump in line and, theoretically, it could lead to a dramatic rise in Medicaid payments to the states — not exactly an ideal scenario, given the immense debt and deficit pressures faced by the federal government.”
______________________________________________

REPORTED MAY 30, 2018: "NH Hospitals, State Agree on Uncompensated Care Payment Plan     

State officials have agreed on a deal to pay the state's hospitals back pay owed for previously uncompensated care.

By Dana Forsythe, Patch Staff | May 30, 2018 2:00 pm ET  

CONCORD, N.H. - In March, a federal court determined the federal formula New Hampshire used to determine payments to hospitals was wrongfully put in place. Now, a deal to has been struck. According to the Concord Monitor, the state owed $36 million more than had been budgeted for in 2018 – and $37 million in 2019.

Now, after heated public and private discussions, the state is on the cusp of a compromise: $22.1 million in fiscal year 2018 and $22.5 million in fiscal year 2019. And negotiators have found a new funding formula that will extend into 2024, overriding a previous agreement made in 2014 that was close to running out.

Under federal law, hospitals that treat significant numbers of Medicaid or uninsured patients may receive DSH payments – state and federal funds that help them recoup the higher costs associated with those patients. Exactly how much each hospital receives comes down to how many services it can count as "uncompensated care."

This month's agreement, packaged as part of an omnibus spending bill, House Bill 1817, pegs the state payments to hospitals at about 90 percent of the Medicaid Enhancement Tax they pay every year – an amount that gets doubled with a federal match.

To read the full article, visit the Concord Monitor."

THE NH JUDIARY CONDUCT COMMITTEE NEEDS A SERIOUS INVESTIGATION. 

WITH A SPANK ON THE WRIST, ABUSIVE JUDGES ARE REPRIMANDED THEN PLACED RIGHT BACK BEHIND THE BENCH WITH A BABYSITTER, OR JUST RUNNINNG FOR THE HILLS TO RETIRE AND COLLECT MILION($) OR SO IN PENSIONS PAID BY TAXPAYERS; ISN'T STOPPING THE CONSTANT ABUSE OF POWER IN NH.

STOP NH GOVERNMENT FROM INFLICTING DECADES OF MENTAL ILLNESS THROUGHOUT THE STATE

_______________________________________________

Judge called out for rude comments

By TODD FEATHERS
New Hampshire Union Leader May 18. 2018 4:29AM

"The last time the state’s Judicial Conduct Committee reprimanded Seabrook district court Judge Sharon DeVries, it said her actions were wrong but motivated by compassion.

In its two most recent reprimands, handed down in March, the committee found that rude comments DeVries made to litigants threatened the court’s impartiality.

One of the reprimands arose from a complaint in which a defendant accused the judge of publicly humiliating her for having a disability. In the other, DeVries questioned whether a defendant was stable enough to hold a security clearance and work for a defense contractor.

DeVries said in an interview that she respects and defers to the committee’s decision but disagrees with some of the accusations against her and regrets the mark on her record.

“I sort of liken it to how many people plead guilty to things they’re not guilty of — I know, I take those pleas,” she said.

“Some of it is the time, effort, money that would be required to contest something like that is huge. Yeah, it’s my personal reputation and am I upset about that? Of course.”

While the Judicial Conduct Committee was conducting the two investigations, DeVries was already enrolled in a retraining program at the National Judicial College, in Reno, Nev., as a result of a reprimand the committee issued in 2017. Following the newest sanctions, she will also have to complete an ethics course at the college and will be subject to monitoring in the courtroom.

While both of the most recent reprimands involved court cases from 2015, the reports were filed with the Judicial Conduct Committee on April 4 and April 10, 2017, several weeks after the committee issued a reprimand for DeVries in another case.

DeVries said she was surprised by the timing and thought the committee might have taken a sterner view of the complaints because they “piggybacked” on the other reprimand.

That matter began in 2015, when the New Hampshire Department of Public Safety accused DeVries of a “consistent pattern of judicial misconduct” as a result of her actions in 12 cases in 2014 and 2015.

The Judicial Conduct Committee eventually ruled in March 2017 that her actions in seven of the cases did not represent a violation of the judicial canons, but that in five cases she had unilaterally rejected or altered plea deals that both the prosecutor and defendant had agreed upon.

The committee had also reprimanded DeVries in 2009 for calling Superior Court Judge Larry Smulker, in a case she was not involved in, to request that he reverse his decision to release a juvenile from a detention facility. Smulker changed his order as a result of the call, but later reported the inappropriate contact to the Judicial Conduct Committee.

In those two cases, DeVries was “motivated by a compassion for others,” the committee wrote in its reprimand. But “then, as now, Judge DeVries had demonstrated a propensity to exceed the power of her office.”

In the first of the most recent reprimands, the Judicial Conduct Committee dismissed the majority of the accusations leveled against DeVries by a former litigant in her court, Joyce LaFrance, but determined that her comments suggesting LaFrance was not mentally stable enough to hold a security clearance threatened LaFrance’s right to be treated in a patient, dignified, and courteous manner.

In her response to the complaint, DeVries acknowledged that her comments were unnecessary.

In the second case, Wanda Cote, who was charged with assault, claimed as part of her defense that her knee was injured and required replacement surgery so she could not have committed the assault. Cote was a frequent plaintiff before DeVries, the judge said in an interview, and she had never before shown any evidence of physical impairment.

The Judicial Conduct Committee found that DeVries’ questioning of Cote regarding her injury was “overly zealous and fell well beyond a fact-finder’s need for clarification.”

It also ruled that DeVries had inappropriately polled the courtroom as to whether needing a knee replacement constituted a disability and referred to Cote as “somebody with that knee dragging along.”

DeVries said her question to the courtroom had been rhetorical.

Since 2011, the Judicial Conduct Committee has issued public sanctions against six judges, including DeVries.

Members of the committee declined to comment on a specific case, but the committee’s executive secretary, Robert Mittelholzer, said the nature and number of any judge’s reprimands will likely be taken into consideration if they are found to have violated the judicial canons again.

“If the judge finds him or herself in that situation again, I think the committee is going to evaluate how useful was that initial discipline and does it need to be anted up,” he said."

FACT 1: NH, IS AN ILLEGAL AND CURRUPT GOVERNMENT AND STATE.

FACT 2: DESPARATE TAX FREE NH STATE GOVERNMENT WILL BREAK ANY
               LAWS TO GAIN MONEY.

FACT 3: NOW BY ILLEGALLY DESPARATELY ROBBING

               PETER TO PAY PAUL.

FACT 4: NH IS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT NOT ONCE BUT TWICE NOW WITH
               UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

In September 2010, "The ten New Hampshire hospitals suing the state over Medicaid reimbursement rates do have a legal basis for their lawsuit. That’s according to an order issued today by a federal judge. 

The hospitals argue that the State’s slashing of more than $250 million in Medicaid funding in the last budget violates Federal guidelines. Those guidelines are meant to ensure adequate quality and access to health care for Medicaid recipients."

In April 2018, "New Hampshire is facing a budget shortfall of up to $36 million following a federal district court decision over hospital payments, setting up a high-stakes scramble among state officials to negotiate a solution ahead of a May 31 payment deadline.

The dilemma is a result of a failure by the Legislature to set aside funding last year in anticipation of the court’s decision. And it comes out of an ongoing, multi-state legal battle over how much state and federal governments must pay hospitals for uncompensated care under the Medicaid law.

Officials in the governor’s and state attorney general’s offices said they’re aware of the problem – which first appeared in early March – and are working with hospitals to craft a way forward. But the shortfall has thrown a political and financial wrench into an already-delicate time in the legislative calendar.

“They did not carry in the budget enough for the obligation,” said Scott O’Connell, an attorney representing a group of hospitals. “So somebody is going to be shorted.”

The issue stems back to the 2017 budget process. Last year, the Legislature set aside $166 million for the state’s uncompensated care fund in Fiscal Year 2018. That figure relied on a new payment formula from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) that allowed for lower payouts, even as hospitals warned the formula was improperly established and would be challenged in court.

On March 6, responding to a multi-state lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia handed down a ruling siding with the hospitals. The decision voided the CMS formula nationwide, putting New Hampshire back on the hook.

Now, the state’s hospitals are pushing for the full sum they say is owed – about $237 million – $71 million more than has been budgeted, according to Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem. Roughly half of that would come from state funds, with the rest paid through a federal match.

John Formella, legal counsel for the governor’s office, confirmed Friday that the upper limit that could be owed by the state amounts to “approximately $36-37 million per year in fiscal years 2018 and 2019.”

And in an April 10 letter to the hospitals provided to the Monitor, Deputy Attorney General Ann Rice acknowledged that the March 6 decision created new obligations.

“The state fully intends to follow the law in the amount of DSH payments that will be made by May 31, 2018,” Rice wrote to O’Connell, referring to the “disproportionate share hospital payments” owed by the state. May 31 is the federally-mandated payment deadline to hospitals under the Medicaid law."

The question is who will NH government rob now to pay this debt? NH still hasn't completed their settlement with the United States DOJ to invest $30 million towards mental healthcare with all stipulations required in a 2 year frame that ended in 2015.

As I have been saying, NH taxpayers have been screwed in more ways than one for decades by NH's government, just to remain a tax free state.  The clock has already now counted down almost half of a new year already.  Will NH finally figure out how to clean their mess? 

TIME IS ALL NH ONCE HAD.  NOW THAT HAS RUN OUT AS WELL!

UPDATED: MAY 17, 2018,  4:47PM

NH GOVERNMENT IS THE CAUSE FOR MUCH OF THE MENTAL ILLNESS EPIDEMIC AND LAWSUITS IN NH, COSTING TAXPAYERS FOR ALL THEIR MISTAKES BOTH IN NH HISTORY, THE PRESENT, AND IT's FUTRE.

_____________________THE STATE OF NH IS IRRESPONSABLE_____________________

FACT 1:"Novemeber 17, 2010
A wrongful death suit that addressed the balance between civil rights and the state’s role in providing care for the mentally ill has been settled out of court for $275,000.

Caitlin Bishop Murtagh of Rochester was awarded compensation nearly three years after her mother, Linda Bishop, was found dead in an empty house in Concord. Bishop, who suffered from bipolar disorder, died of starvation shortly after New Hampshire Hospital had granted her release.

She had been dead for four months when discovered in May 2008. Two notebooks describing her fear and loneliness were found by her side. Court documents said Bishop planned to receive support and follow-up care at the New Horizons Shelter in Manchester, but she instead wandered aimlessly before taking refuge in an empty house for sale on Mountain Road in Concord.

Her journal said she lived on apples that had fallen from a nearby tree, which she retrieved at night. She was spotted through a window by a potential buyer 2½ years ago, having died roughly four months earlier in January 2008, according to medical reports.

“It’s our opinion that there was a failure on the part of the state to provide proper diagnosis, evaluation and treatment,” attorney Hage Hodes said. “She was given an absolute discharge without any safety net to protect her if she failed.” 

...in January 2007, the state hospital petitioned to name Joan Bishop as her sister’s guardian, a request the probate court denied.

“People’s rights have to be protected, and they have to be allowed to leave if there are no guardians over them,” said Anne Edwards, part of the attorney general’s team that defended the state. “Because she didn’t have a guardian, she had the right to make her own decisions.”

Hage countered by saying the very fact that the state hospital sought to name Joan Bishop as her sister’s guardian proves the state knew she wasn’t fit to live on her own.

“The state by its own admission in filing a petition for guardianship believed that she was a danger to herself or others,” Hage said. “Just because (the petition) was denied, it was our position that shouldn’t have altered the state’s view of why it brought the petition for guardianship in the first place.”

Both sides said emotions played a part in their decision to settle. Edwards cited the feelings of a potential jury.  “Linda Bishop had maintained a diary that you get to read about her dying, and that is a very difficult thing for a jury to hear. There is often an emotional reaction to all of that.”

Hage spoke about the feelings of his client and her aunt.

“Any trial takes an emotional toll on people to have to relive the tragic events,” Hage said, “because this was a tragic case, a tragic outcome.”

Bishop’s death and the subsequent legal action have shone a light on the problems the medical community faces when assessing a patient with mental illness."

TAX FREE NH GOVERNMENT SHOULD NEVER MAKE

EMPTY PROMISES THEY CAN'T AFFORD!

________________________________________________________________________________

2012

 FACT 2:  ATTORNEYS FILE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST  STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FOR ITS FAILURE TO  PROVIDE ADEQUATE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES  TO CITIZENS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS 


DIABILITY RIGHTS CENTER, Inc.
Devine and Millimet
Attorneys at law

"CONCORD, NH – FEB. 9, –  Six state residents with psychiatric disabilities whose lives have been interrupted, disrupted, and even destroyed  by prolonged or needless stays at state institutions  today sued New Hampshire for its failure to provide adequate community-based mental health services.  A class action lawsuit, filed this morning in U.S. District Court in Concord, charges Gov. John H. Lynch and other state officials with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Nursing Home Reform Act (NHRA) for their failure to provide clinically necessary and cost-effective community services to avoid the needless institutionalization of individuals with disabilities.

The named plaintiffs are or have been institutionalized at New Hampshire Hospital (NHH), a stateoperated psychiatric institution in Concord, or at the Glencliff Home in Benton, a state-operated nursing facility primarily for individuals with mental illness.
 
The plaintiffs include a 22-year-old Newport woman whose 20 psychiatric hospitalizations at NHH over the past 10 years robbed her of the normal educational and social experiences of adolescence; a 65-yearold man who went to Glencliff as a ‘temporary residence’ in 2005 and remains stuck there seven years later; a 30-year-old Manchester woman who lost custody of her daughter while she cycled in and out of NHH; a 55-year-old woman from Dover who has spent much of the last five years at NHH or Glencliff, where she is so isolated that she rarely sees her mother, children, grandchildren, or siblings; a 45-year-old Rochester man whose wife was forced to sell their home while he languished at NHH; and a 54-year-old wife and mother from Danville who wants to be with her family and return to work, but without Assertive Community Treatment and supported employment services, has remained at NHH since April.

At a press conference this morning, attorneys for the plaintiffs called upon the state to fix its broken system and expand community services, as required by federal law. 

 “For many individuals, these prolonged institutional admissions and hospitalizations result from the inability of New Hampshire’s existing community programs to meet their basic treatment needs and to prevent their unnecessary institutionalization,” said Amy Messer of the Disabilities Rights Center, which is representing the plaintiffs along with Devine Millimet & Branch, the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and the Center for Public Representation.

Elaine Michaud of Devine Millimet pointed out that the needless institutionalization of the plaintiffs at NHH and Glencliff “is not only a human tragedy, but it is also a violation of their rights under federal law.”  The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act mandate an end to discrimination against persons with disabilities, which includes unnecessary segregation in institutions.  The NHRA requires the state to determine whether the needs of an individual with mental illness could be met in an alternative community setting before admitting him or her to a nursing facility such as Glencliff.  

The lawsuit, Lynn E. vs. Lynch, echoes the findings issued last April by the U.S. Department of Justice following its investigation of New Hampshire’s mental health system.  The DOJ found that the state is violating the ADA by failing to provide services to individuals with serious mental illness in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs,  and added, “Systemic failures in the state’s system place qualified individuals with disabilities at risk of unnecessary institutionalization now and going forward.” 

Named plaintiff Mandy D., 22, receives limited case management, counseling and medication monitoring, but not the services she needs to address her ongoing risk of unnecessary institutionalization: supportive housing, mobile crisis intervention, assertive community treatment, and supported employment.  “There are a lot of people like me that aren't getting the basic services they need,” she said.  Her mother and guardian, Louise D., added, “I watch my daughter missing life because she can't participate. Right now her life is her mental illness, but she has a lot to offer.”
Without community services, Mandy and hundreds like her end up back at NHH or at other statesupported psychiatric units across New Hampshire, where they get little more than custodial care in an environment that violates their privacy and dignity, and robs them of their independence. Their lives – homes, jobs, relationships, community activities – are disrupted or destroyed by long hospital stays. “Community-based services are far better for people like Mandy, and they are far less costly than institutional care.” said Messer. 
 
Yet New Hampshire, as the DOJ found, “has continued to fund costly institutional care at NHH and the Glencliff Home, even though less expensive and more therapeutic alternatives could be developed in community settings.”  On average, community services cost a fraction of institutional services. 
State officials have long known the system is broken.  Reports issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in 2008 and 2009 acknowledged that the systemic failings impact individuals, families and communities by contributing to homelessness, and placing undue stress on law enforcement, emergency departments, the court system and county jails.  The reports recommended many of the same remedies the plaintiffs are seeking today. 

At any given time, approximately 125 adults are confined at NHH and 120 adults are at Glencliff.  Most of them could be served and would prefer to be served in their own community.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of  individuals risk institutionalization at NHH because they lack access to needed community services, as evidenced by the large number of needless, and often repeated, hospitalizations.   

There were over 1,800 adult admissions to NHH in 2010, nearly 800 of which were readmissions of individuals who had been at NHH within the previous 180 days. More than 17% of adults discharged from NHH in 2010 were readmitted within 30 days, and 35% were readmitted within 180 days of discharge.  Several of the named plaintiffs have struggled to remain in the community with little to no support services, only to be forced into NHH’s revolving door for repeated and unnecessary admissions. 

Prolonged institutionalization is also a severe problem at Glencliff, where individuals not only experience the same deprivations, and rights restrictions as class members at NHH, but also are far from family and friends due to the facility’s remote location in northern New Hampshire.  

Moreover, few individuals ever return to the community from Glencliff.  Between 2005 and 2010, there were only 13 discharges from Glencliff, and 11 of them were to NHH or other facilities; only two people returned to their homes.  In recent years, more people have died at Glencliff than have returned to the community.  And now, even younger people are being placed in this remote nursing facility.  In 2010, 28% percent of the individuals at Glencliff, like one of the named plaintiffs, were in their 40s or 50s.

But they need not remain there, according to advocates for the plaintiffs. “People with serious mental illnesses, including those who have been institutionalized for years or have suffered repeated hospitalizations, can have successful and fulfilling lives,” said Steven Schwartz of the Center for Public Representation. “But living in one’s own home, maintaining relationships with family and friends, or finding and keeping a job can be challenging or even impossible without access to appropriate services.” 

Other states have proven that individuals with serious mental illness can recover and live productive lives in the community with services that include mobile crisis intervention, assertive community treatment, supportive housing, and supported employment.  Other states also have demonstrated that these clinically effective services are cost-effective as well, and reduce the need for expensive institutions.

With these services, individuals can access a coordinated array of psychiatric, rehabilitation, and medical supports in the community, and are able to live at home, obtain employment, and contribute to their communities.  

Ironically, New Hampshire was once a leader in the delivery of community services to individuals with disabilities, and in the late 1980s, was recognized by the National Institute of Mental Health for its leadership in providing services in community settings. However, the state’s commitment to communitybased services was short-lived, and the rates of institutionalization rose as community services declined.  New Hampshire reneged on its commitment to develop a system of community-based services, ignored the findings and recommendations of its own officials, and violated federal and state law.  As a result, from 1989 to 2010, annual admissions to NHH increased by 150% from about 900 to about 2,300.

In addition to Gov. Lynch, the other named defendants are DHHS Commissioner Nicholas A. Toumpas; DHHS Asst. Commissioner Nancy L. Rollins; DHHS Deputy Commissioner Mary Ann Cooney; and Erik G. Riera, the administrator of the New Hampshire Bureau of Behavioral Health."
____________________________________________________________________________________
FACT 3: State Agrees To $30 Million Settlement In Mental Health Lawsuit 
 

By Todd Bookman and

Brady Carlson

Dec 19, 2013

"The state of New Hampshire has agreed to settle a major class-action lawsuit over its treatment of residents with serious mental illness.

Under the terms of the agreement announced Thursday, the state will spend an additional $30 million on expanding services for the strained mental health system over the next 4 years.

NHPR's Brady Carlson speaks with Amy Messer, Legal Director for the Disabilities Rights Center, about the settlement of a major class action lawsuit regarding mental health services.

“The first priority in this case for the New Hampshire Department of Justice has been to ensure that the State of New Hampshire is able to develop its own plan for community mental health services that best meets the needs of its residents,” Attorney General Foster wrote in a statement. “This settlement agreement, developed in conjunction with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, enhances the State’s mental health services to address the concerns of the plaintiffs.”

The state agrees to spend an additional $6 million in the current budget, plus an additional $23.7 million in the next two-year spending plan. The resources will support more round-the-clock care for people in crisis, as well as more community housing and employment opportunities.

Governor Hassan says the settlement builds on the additional money she pushed for in the current budget for mental health services.

“Reaching this settlement ensures that we can continue addressing our mental health challenges in a fiscally responsible way that protects the state’s budget and that ensures that New Hampshire citizens are driving improvements in our mental health system – not federal judges,” she wrote in a statement. “Continuing the lawsuit would undoubtedly have cost the state millions of dollars in legal fees and untold millions more per year if the state had not prevailed in its case.”

Under the terms of the settlement, if the state legislature doesn’t agree to the funding levels, the plaintiffs in the case retain the right to resume their legal battle.

The state also agrees to pay the $2.4 million in legal fees accrued by the plaintiffs.

The Disabilities Rights Center brought the suit in February, 2012 citing violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It was joined by six residents with psychiatric disabilities who were allegedly subjected to prolonged or needless stays in state institutions due to a lack of community-based mental health services. The U.S. Department of Justice joined the case in March, 2012, citing the same failures.

Ken Norton with the National Alliance on Mental Illness of New Hampshire applauded the agreement. He says it will reduce the need for hospitalizations and provide critical services to residents in need.

“This negotiated settlement is a major step forward for New Hampshire,” says Norton. “It reflects the bipartisan recognition that services to adults with severe mental illness and children with serious emotional disorders must be improved immediately.”
__________________________________________
FACT 3.  THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARMENT SAID...

 “Today’s agreement realizes the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act for people with serious mental illness in New Hampshire,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division. “It will better ensure that effective community services will get to the people most in need when and where they need services – in their homes and communities. These services will help people with mental illness avoid and respond to crises without escalating them and without giving up their important connections to their communities. This agreement is also a testament to the vision and leadership of Governor Maggie Hassan and Attorney General Joe Foster.”
 
“The settlement of this landmark federal civil rights lawsuit marks a major step forward in New Hampshire’s treatment of one of its most vulnerable populations – those who suffer from mental illness,” said U.S. Attorney John P. Kacavas for the District of New Hampshire. “I commend the progressive leadership of Governor Hassan and New Hampshire Attorney General Joe Foster and their respective staffs, without whose efforts and will this achievement would not have been possible.”
 
The agreement requires the state to create and expand services over the next six years. The state will: create new mobile crisis teams and new community crisis apartments in Manchester, Concord and Nashua; expand and enhance Assertive Community Treatment team services, which will provide state-wide coverage for at least 1,500 people; add hundreds of new supported housing units and work to create community alternatives for people with complex health care needs; and expand effective supported employment services for hundreds of people. An independent expert reviewer will evaluate the state’s compliance with the agreement and will issue public reports on the state’s ongoing implementation efforts."
    
FACT 4:
"The state had originally agreed to spend an additional $6 million in the current budget, plus an additional $23.7 million in the next two-year spending plan. The resources will support more round-the-clock care for people in crisis, as well as more community housing and employment opportunities." 

So exactly what did happened to those reports supposedly done by an "independent expert" on the state's compliance with the agreement made 5 years ago to the United States Justice Department and NH!?!


"Stephen Day, the expert reviewer overseeing reforms called for in the NH settlement of a 2012 lawsuit by patients and advocates, said the state’s failure to keep its promises had left some patients without treatment, waiting in hospital emergency rooms for high-level care or institutionalized when they could otherwise be receiving care through community clinics and services.

“The time for patience on these issues is over,” Day wrote. He noted “the need for the State to be more aggressive, assertive, planful, and timely in its implementation and oversight efforts” of the lawsuit settlement.

Day, who in January issued his last assessment, said the state
“has been and currently remains out of compliance”

with its obligation to expand and upgrade so-called Assertive Community Treatment teams. Such teams are made up of caregivers with a range of skills and training and provide high-level, ongoing treatment in community settings to patients with serious mental illness.

The state had also failed to meet its obligation to develop community services that would enable 10 patients to move out of the Glencliff Home, a state-operated nursing facility, he wrote.

In addition, Day found that while the state had surpassed its goal of having at least 18 percent of its seriously mentally ill patients in supported employment, some regions fell well short of the target rate because the statewide rate was increased by placements in the Manchester area, which had a supported employment rate of about 37 percent.

Supported employment refers to services that help patients find and retain jobs.

Studies at Dartmouth and elsewhere have found that such services enhance and complement other treatments for serious mental illness.

West Central reported supported employment for 15 percent of its patients.

Day called for the state to have in place by Aug. 1 detailed plans for expanding and upgrading ACT teams, widening access to supported employment services and moving residents out of Glencliff. He also urged the state to begin issuing monthly progress reports on those plans.

Aaron Ginsberg, a lawyer for the New Hampshire Disability Rights Center, which represented the lawsuit plaintiffs, welcomed Day’s recommendations for action: “We hope the state follows that.”
Jeffrey Meyers, the state health and human services commissioner, acknowledged the shortcomings in the key areas identified by Day, but said his department “is committed to meeting the milestones set out in (Day’s) report and to continuing to implement the (settlement agreement).”

Meyers noted that Day had seen progress in data gathering and analysis, supported employment and efforts to find housing for mentally ill patients outside of institutions. “Access to quality mental health services is the (Health and Human Services) Department’s priority,” Meyers wrote in an emailed statement.

But Ken Norton, the executive director of the New Hampshire affiliate of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group for patients and their families, said the state’s deficiencies in mental health care extend beyond the issues addressed in the lawsuit settlement.

The state lacks “a clear strategic plan for mental health services and where we need to go,” Norton said. “The state has looked at the settlement agreement as the goal line but it’s really the starting line” for reform of mental health care, he added.

By one key measure, the state, which has an estimated 45,000 adults with serious mental illness, remains a long way from either line. The number of patients waiting on an average day in hospital emergency rooms for space in facilities that offer high-level treatment of serious mental illness rose to 28 in fiscal 2016, from 24 two years earlier, Day found. By comparison, the daily average in Vermont of patients waiting was less than one in 2015.

Day saw progress toward some goals of the settlement agreement, which was formalized in February 2014. For example, the state was “at or very close to compliance” with its obligation to expand the supply of so-called supportive housing for people with serious mental illness, Day found. There were 423 individuals in leased units and 26 approved for subsidies but not yet placed., which fell just short of the Settlement Agreement’s target of 450 placements by June 30, he said.

But the state fell far short of its goal for expanding the role of Assertive Community Treatment teams, which include psychiatrists and others with various caregiving skills. Such teams, which were a centerpiece of the reforms called for in the lawsuit settlement, promised to expand the availability of services and reduce the need for institutional care by reaching patients in their homes and communities.

But only 839 patients were receiving care from such teams, far below the 1,500 the agreement set as the June 30 target for ACT capacity, Day found. In addition, staffing at many teams fell short of the agreed-upon standard of seven to 10 professional caregivers.

West Central had the thinnest ACT staffing of any the state’s 10 community mental health centers, Day found, with only four full-time-equivalent positions on the team. West Central also had the fewest patients receiving care from its team — 26.

Suellen Griffin, the executive director of West Central, said the Lebanon-based nonprofit now has money in its budget to boost its ACT effort to the level called for in the settlement agreement — roughly, seven team members treating 70 patients. West Central is seeking to recruit the caregivers who would actually provide the services, she said.

Griffin, who heads a statewide organization of community mental health clinics and in the past had balked at the pressure to expand ACT services without being provided necessary financial support, said West Central and other groups now support the effort to expand and upgrade ACT teams: “We get that we need to share this responsibility.”

Meyers, who took over at HHS in January, had set a new tone in relations with the community mental health clinics, Griffin said. “We have a partner. We don’t have somebody lecturing us. That’s different.”

Day’s review was the product of visits to some state and community mental health facilities and meetings with parties to the lawsuit, which alleged that scores of patients were needlessly institutionalized because the state had illegally failed to provide sufficient community mental health services and care.

As of 2018, the state apparently is in contempt of court with the United States Department of Justice for it's failure  to comply with the 2012 agreement to invest $30 million in mental healthcare within the immediate following 2 years.  We are now 5 years later and in more of a crisis than ever before!"

What is New Hampshire really doing with TAXPAYER'S money because it clearly isn't going where it is suppose to!

SHAME ON NH'S GOVERNMENT FOR LYING ABOUT HELPING

MENTAL HEALTHCARE, SHAME ON YOU!

____________________________________________________________________________________

BONUS: WHAT THE NH BAR ASSOCIATION

                             HAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS CASE

"The Law Amanda D. et al v. Hassan hinged on the US Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead, which states that people suffering from mental illness have a right to receive treatment in their communities when “the State’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking in to account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities.” The decision clarified that segregation through mental health treatment in unnecessarily restrictive settings qualifies as discrimination under the ADA.

The state’s defense was that instituting the enhanced community-based care the plaintiffs were seeking would “fundamentally alter” the nature of the state’s mental health services and programs (28 CFR §35.130(b)(7) (1998)). The underlying federal regulation states that if a government entity can demonstrate that increased integration of people with disabilities would result in a fundamental alteration of services, the government could not be forced to implement the less restrictive policies and procedures. In Olmstead, the US Supreme Court recites the regulation “with the caveat that we do not here determine [its] validity.”

Olmstead has served as the back drop for similar civil rights cases around the country, many of which have ended in settlement. Over the past five years, the US Department of Justice has stepped-up its enforcement, conducting independent investigations and joining forces with plaintiffs, as it did in New Hampshire when it became an intervener in the case. John Kacavas, US Attorney for the District of New Hampshire, said the increased enforcement was a direct result of new leadership in the civil rights division at the DOJ.

Due to the complex factual and legal issues in the case, both sides sought litigation support from private firms. The state hired Sheehan Phinney; Devine Millimet, without the expectation of payment, agreed to assist the DRC, starting in 2010. The DRC also received support from two advocacy groups, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law in Washington, DC, and the Center for Public Representation, based in Newton, Mass. Dozens of lawyers, from New Hampshire and elsewhere, worked on the case.

There was some disappointment, on both sides, that the case didn’t make it to trial.
“We were about to get into the fun stuff,” said Turner, of Sheehan Phinney. “There were some good arguments, and it’s an interesting area of the law.”

Will, of Devine Millimet, said that through working on the case and spending time with the plaintiffs, he gained a better understanding of people who suffer from mental illness. “They are people who have a lot to offer and also have a lot of need, and they’re often overlooked,” he said, adding: “This is not part of our daily routine, and as a lawyer, professionally, it’s incredibly rewarding to be able to be part of something like this. It’s inspiring.” Discovery on a Different Scale “Inspiring” was not a word any of the lawyers who worked on the case used to describe the long process of electronic discovery.

Imagine a football field filled with rows of banker’s boxes, stacked 11 high. That’s the analogy one IT expert used to describe the immense volume of electronic data produced int he course of litigating Amanda D. et al v. Hassan.

“‘Terabytes’ was what we were using to describe it, and that was the first time we had heard state documents described that way,” said Edwards, of the NH Attorney General’s Office.
The plaintiffs and the United States sought extensive discovery, with requests covering New Hampshire’s mental health and long-term care institutions, as well as information regarding community mental health services, homelessness, housing, Medicaid, and budget and financial information. Messer, of the DRC, said the broad scope of discovery was essential to showing that people wanted community-based services and could receive them, without a fundamental alteration of the state’s system. The defense viewed the discovery requests differently. “Their strategy was to ask for everything under the sun,” Turner said.

It took more than a year for the parties to decide how electronic discovery would be collected, exchanged, stored and searched.

There was so much data that it could not be stored on state servers. The in-house litigation support specialist at Sheehan Phinney, Charlie Stewart, worked with software vendors to craft a custom, $80,000 software program capable of indexing, tagging and searching the vast collection of documents.

State technical experts worked with the IT staff at Sheehan Phinney to transfer the documents from state servers to new servers at the firm’s Manchester offices, where they will remain until the case is dismissed. It was the first

time a collection of sensitive state documents –hundreds of millions of pages of emails, patient notes, treatment plans, Medicaid records and much more – has ever left state control.

“It took months of the two IT staffs working together to figure out how to move them,” Edwards said, “and we could not make a mistake, because these are people’s mental health records.”
The US Department of Justice assisted the DRC and litigation partner Devine Millimet with storing and searching the electronic discovery, Messer said.

The plaintiffs identified more than 200 custodian sand made more than 200 requests for production and interrogatories. It was impossible for every electronic document to be reviewed, so the state relied on a claw-back provision in the electronic discovery stipulation and good faith on both sides to ensure no privileged information was released to the plaintiffs.

The files of former governor John Lynch and Gov. Maggie Hassan had to be stored on separate servers due to the special confidentiality rules related to executive privilege. Those files “could only be searched in certain ways by certain people,” Turner said.

“It was a very confusing process,” said Edwards, who explained that executive privilege is often challenged in litigation with the state. “We don’t really have a good Supreme Court case on executive privilege in New Hampshire.”

Not all of the discovery material in the mental health case was electronic. There were hundreds of boxes of paper files from the NH Department of Health and Human Services, New Hampshire Hospital and the Glencliff Home. Those boxes were crammed into rooms at NHH, where a group of attorneys pored over them for weeks, using Post-It notes to categorize them, and scanning them into the monstrous discovery database.

“Every single piece of paper got attorney’s eyes on it,” Turner said. Reaching Agreement The federal court granted the plaintiffs’ highly contested motion for class certification in September 2013, but by that time, a new round of settlement negotiations had already begun. After the Legislature added $24 million back into the state budget for mental health services last summer, the phone rang in NH Attorney General Joseph Foster’s office.

“US Attorney John Kacavas reached out to Attorney General Foster,” Edwards said. “He was not interested in watching people in his office and people in our office go to trial in a case where a settlement would have been better for everyone.”

New Hampshire had a new governor, political control had shifted in the State House, and the cost of litigation was mounting. Kacavas said he made the phone call, but that “the credit, in my view, goes to [Attorney General] Joe Foster’s office and the governor’s office.” The parties were newly motivated, “not just to resolve it from a litigation standpoint, but to start to remediate the problem of a lack of community resources for mental health care,” he said.

Accepted by the court in February, the settlement agreement, which requires the state and local mental health centers to institute a variety of community-based treatment programs, is contingent on legislative appropriations. The NH House last month approved a combination of state and federal funds totaling about $11 million for the remainder of the current biennium. The agreement also requires the state to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys fees totaling $2.4 million and to pay the DRC and an expert monitor to ensure state compliance over the next four years.

“I think the important thing is what’s not in the agreement,” said Edwards. The state fought against the reduction of funding for acute care and reducing the number of dedicated mental health emergency beds. “Closing beds has been a requirement of DOJ settlements in other states,” she said.
Although attorneys for the state believed they had some strong arguments, Edwards said, state officials wanted to avoid a settlement agreement that wouldn’t suit New Hampshire, which could have been the result, if the state lost at trial. “We knew we had vulnerabilities with the state system, because there had been cuts,” she said. “We were concerned that the outcome be New Hampshire-centric, not a cookie-cutter settlement.”

Both sides agreed that the New Hampshire attorneys who worked on the case were as collegial as possible, given the complex circumstances and what was at stake, but out-of-state lawyers who stepped in brought out-of-state practices with them, changing the tone.

The so-called “New Hampshire way” of practicing law involves a degree of collegiality aimed at moving the case along, rather than strategies that seek tactical advantage. While many attorneys here have found a balance that enables this type of practice – and not at the expense of vigorous advocacy for the client – lawyers in other places dothings differently. That became apparent inthis case, Edwards said.

“We were trying to do this in the New Hampshire fashion,” she said. “Sometimes it sounds a little hokey to say that, but it really is true.” A Big Step Although the litigation is over for now, in many ways the settlement marks the beginning of a new phase of the case – implementation and monitoring compliance.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public |Legal Links | Publications | Online Store Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE Search | Calendar New Hampshire Bar Association 2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301 phone: (603) 224-6942fax: (603) 224-2910 email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org ©NH Bar Association Disclaimer

The complexities of health care administration in New Hampshire, compounded by the move to managed care, the rollout of the Affordable Care Act and the debate over Medicaid expansion, led to many major benchmarks in the settlement agreement being pushed out to2015 and 2016, though some changes must be complete by the end of June.

The settlement agreement will cost the state more than$30 million between now and the end of the next biennium, but the enhancement of community-based mental health services, which are expected to keep people in their homes and out of institutions, has the potential for substantial cost savings over the long-term.

“People don’t  necessarily realize the cost of the system when it’s in dysfunction,” Dan Will said. “It’s a big cost.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

AMERICA IS WATCHING NH GOVERNMENT, NOT IN A GOOD WAY!

"A responsibility of every American citizen to each other is to preserve and protect our freedom by recognizing what truth is and is not, what a fact is and is not and begin by holding ourselves accountable to truthfulness and demand our pursuit of America's future be fact-based -- not based on wishful thinking, not hoped-for outcomes made in shallow promises, but with a clear-eyed view of the facts as they are, and guided by the truth that will set us free to seek solutions to our most daunting challenges."  said Rex Tillerson, Former Secretary of State.

STOP THE INSANITY MADE BY NH GOVERNMENT. 

THEN JUST MAYBE THE STATE WOULDN'T BE SUCH A "DRUG INFESTED DEN" FULL OF ALCOHOLICS AND MENTAL ILLNESS MAKING THE NEWS

Recent attempts to change NH drinking law

FACT 1. New Hampshire has considered lowering the drinking age to 18 as recently as 2009.

FACT 2. In 2016, a proposal to lower the legal age from 21 to 18 died in the House. 

FACT 3. In 2018, More recently, ONCE AGAIN NH now attempted to allow minors aged 18-20 to drink while in the presence of a responsible adult aged over 21, but it too was also shot down.

424 NH LAW MAKERS WHO ONLY ARE PAID $100 A YEAR ARE THE FOURTH LARGEST LEGISLATURE IN THE WORLD.

SEROUSLY?  THIS IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO FOR TAX FREE NH?____________________________________________________________________  

SAMHSA, Center for Behavioral Health
Statistics and Quality, National SurveyS

HEALTH BEHAVIOR BEROMETER FOR NH, 2015

2018 The Granite State is Hitting Rock Bottom

FACT 1. In New Hampshire, about 11,000 adolescents aged 12–17 (11.1% of all adolescents) per year in 2013–2014 reported using illicit drugs within the month prior to being surveyed. The percentage did not change significantly from 2010–2011 to 2013–2014.

FACT 2. In New Hampshire, about 31,000 individuals aged 12–20 (19.5% of all individuals in this age group) per year in 2013–2014 reported binge alcohol use within the month prior to being surveyed. The percentage did not change significantly from 2010– 2011 to 2013–2014.

FACT 3. In New Hampshire, about 2 in 3 (66.4%) adolescents aged 12–17 in 2013–2014 perceived no great risk from having five or more drinks once or twice a week—a percentage higher than the national percentage (60.9).  The percentage of adolescents aged 12–17 in New Hampshire who perceived no great risk from having five or more drinks once or twice a week did not change significantly from 2010–2011 to 2013–2014.

FACT 4. In New Hampshire, an annual average of about 82,000 individuals aged 12 or older (7.2% of all individuals in this age group) in 2014–2015 had an alcohol use disorder in the past year. The annual average percentage in 2014–2015 was not significantly any different from the annual average percentage in 2011–2012.

FACT 5. In New Hampshire, an annual average of about 13,000 adolescents aged 12–17 (13.4% of all adolescents) in 2014– 2015 had experienced an MDE - Major Depression Episode in the past year. The annual average percentage in 2014–2015 was higher than the annual average percentage in 2011–2012. 

FACT 6. In New Hampshire, an annual average of ONLY 5,000 adolescents aged 12–17 with past year MDE (41.2% of all adolescents with past year MDE) from 2011 to 2015 received treatment for their depression in the past year.

FACT 7. In New Hampshire, an annual average of about 57,000 adults aged 18 or older (5.4% of all adults) in 2014–2015 had SMI - Serious Mental Illness in the past year. The annual average percentage in 2014–2015 was higher than the annual average percentage in 2011–2012.

FACT 8. In New Hampshire, an annual average of about 105,000 adults aged 18 or older with AMI - Any Mental Illness (Only 49.3% of all adults with AMI) from 2011 to 2015 received mental health services in the past year.

 FACT 9. In 2015, 10,658 children and adolescents (aged 17 or younger) were served in New Hampshire’s public mental health system.  The annual average percentage of children and adolescents (aged 17 or younger) reporting improved functioning from treatment received in the public mental health system was lower in New Hampshire than in the nation as a whole. The annual average percentage for adults (aged 18 or older) was lower in New Hampshire than in the nation as a whole.

FACT 10. Among adults served in New Hampshire’s public mental health system in 2015, 45.0% of those aged 18–20, 27.1% of those aged 21–64, and 59.5% of those aged 65 or older were not in the labor force.

FACT 11. In 2014–2015, New Hampshire’s annual average percentage of adults aged 18 or older with past year serious thoughts of suicide was higher than the corresponding national annual average percentage.

FACT 12. In New Hampshire, an annual average of about 52,000 adults aged 18 or older (4.9% of all adults) in 2014–2015 had serious thoughts of suicide in the past year. The annual average percentage in 2014–2015 was not significantly any different from the annual average percentage in 2011–2012.

Source: SAMHSA, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, National Surveys on Drug Alcohol Use and Health, 2010–2012 to 2013–2015.

NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE HIDES JUDGES INJUSTICE FROM PUBLIC

FACT:13. "Portsmouth District Court special justice Sharon DeVries received the reprimand from the Judicial Conduct Committee in January 2009 for calling another judge about a pending case."               (ANOTHER COMMON PROBLEM IN NH)

The newspaper says the written reprimand was discovered while researching JCC complaints. But it says that unless someone specifically knew DeVries had a complaint file and asked to see it, or was reviewing all JCC complaint files, the public reprimand would have likely remained a secret."

FACT 14. NH JUDICIARY ACCOUNTABILITY has been graded (F) for the past decade.  According to complaints the previous 4 decades it was no better!

"If our leaders seek to conceal the truth and we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then as an American people we are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom,"  Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in his first public speech after leaving the White House. 

"If we do not as Americans confront the crisis of ethics and integrity in our society and among our leaders in both private and public sector, and regrettably at times even the nonprofit sector, then American democracy as we know it is entering its twilight years," Tillerson said.

"Never lose sight of your most valuable asset, the most valuable asset you possess: your personal integrity...This can be a very mean-spirited town. But you don't have to choose to participate in that." 

_________________________________________________________________________________

"Alcohol Consumption Problem in N.H., Not Just Heroin

2014
By We Believe
      Alcohol and Drug Addiction Center

      Carbondale, PA
     

New Hampshire has been in the news a lot lately due to the heroin epidemic and increasing numbers of overdose deaths. In fact, New Hampshire ranks third-highest  per capita for drug deaths nationally, falling behind West Virginia and New Mexico.

But that’s not the Granite State’s only substance abuse issue – not by a long shot.
Two years ago, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) issued a report (2012) which placed New Hampshire at #1 for amount of alcohol consumed per capita.

How Bad Is It?
At 4.65 gallons per capita consumption of ethanol, it was nearly twice the national average – 2.33. In fact, five New England states ranked in top 20, including Vermont, Delaware, Maine, and Rhode Island.  Connecticut came it at #26, which is baffling considering how conservative their alcohol consumption laws are.

The report compared sales data for alcoholic beverages with the 14+ population for all states, including Washington D.C., to account for underage alcohol consumption. Sales for beer, wine, and spirits were converted to estimate pure alcohol content.

In 2010, a plan was created by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Safety entitled Healthy People 2020. The goal of this plan is to promote health and increase disease prevention. It set the nationwide target for per capital alcohol consumption at 2.1 gallons. To hit that goal, that’d be quite a substantial alcohol consumption reduction in N.H.

Wine and spirits are preferred over beer, which means that New Hampshire residents are consuming drinks with a greater alcohol content than average. For example, in the U.S., beer makes up about half the alcohol consumption nationwide. In New Hampshire, however, it’s only 41%. This fact is partially what puts New Hampshire so high on the list.

On the positive side, however, drunk driving statistics seem to be steadily improving.

What is Heavy Drinking? What are the Dangers?
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, heavy drinking is 8 or more drinks per week for women, and 15 or more for men. Heavy drinking is the #3 cause of preventable death.
1 in 10 deaths among age 20-64 are due to excessive drinking – moreover, that’s about 88,000 fatalities. And most – about 70% – are men.

Also according to the CDC, a standard “drink,” is 12 oz. of beer, 8 oz. of malt liquor, 5 oz. of wine or 1.5 oz, of 80-proof liquor.

Heaving drinking may contribute to chronic diseases, including conditions of the throat, larynx esophagus, pancreas, stomach, and liver. It pretty much wreaks havoc on the entire digestive system – nothing is immune to its effects. It may also cause high blood pressure and increases the risk of heart-related diseases (cardiomyopathy).

House Bill 1616 Would Decrease the Legal Drinking Age
Meanwhile, A Seabrook state representative, Max Abramson (R) is looking to allow limited underage drinking. This would mean that 18-20 years could drink if in the presence of someone over the age of 21.

His position is that the legislation would increase the number of underage persons who are drinking responsibly. Indeed, teenage alcoholism is less prevalent in those countries with lower drinking ages, at least when compared to the United States.

The bill would make a .05 BAC legal for persons under 21, so binge drinking and intoxication still illegal. And the bill would only apply to beer and wine, not liquor.

Generally speaking, law enforcement doesn’t care much for the bill. For example, Hampton Chief Richard Sawyer stated he is against lowering the legal drinking age:

“I think it’s ridiculous, Any study will show you that the number of fatalities and tragedies based on alcohol consumption by people in that age group goes up when they’re allowed to drink. In my opinion, if we allow a law like this, we will see increasing instances of fatalities and tragedies.”

Commentary
Since the nationwide legal drinking age turned 21, there’s been a lot of complaints about what 18-year-old adults should or shouldn’t do. An example often used is that an 18-year-old can serve in the military and die for their country, but they can’t have a beer.

I’m not sure what the answer is, but given New Hampshire’s high rate of alcohol consumption, lawmakers should probably tread lightly. I find it a bit odd that this bill comes amidst the haze of all this substance abuse.

~ G. Nathalee Serrels, M.A., Psychology
Related: Delaware Supports Improved Rehab for Juvenile Offenders"