Now you see it, now you don’t. Here’s your $6 million; I’ll put it under one of these three cups. Now I shuffle them around. Okay, where’s the money? If you can guess, it’s yours.  

Last week, Entergy filed a statement with the Vermont Public Service Board agreeing to comply with the requirements for its recently-expired license while the board considers whether to okay continued operation of Vermont Yankee. VTDigger, April 3:

The filing states: “Entergy VY agrees with the Department that 3 V.S.A. § 814(b) applies and that, pursuant to that provision-which keeps intact Entergy’s existing certificates of public good pending the Board’s determination of Entergy VY’s petition for a certificate of public good authorizing post-March 21, 2012 operations-Entergy VY must comply with the conditions in the existing certificates of public good that the Department lists at pages 7-9 of its cross-motion.”

Those conditions include paying into the [Clean Energy Development] Fund, which has received around $6 million each year from Entergy through a generating tax.

Seems simple, no? Entergy agrees to meet the terms of its license, including the $6 million annual payment.

Oops, sorry! That cup is empty! VT Digger, April 9:

Last week, a spokesman for Entergy told VTDigger.org that a story stating the company’s filing meant Entergy would continue to make payments to the fund “got it wrong.”

And Entergy has failed to make a scheduled April 1 payment of $625, 000, thus winning the prize for Worst April Fools’ Joke, 2012. The Vermont Department of Public Service is not amused; it made a filing on Monday stating that “it is clear that Entergy is attempting to limit the concessions it made in its April 3 response.”

A polite way of saying, “Well, apparently Entergy was lying.” Especially since it had already failed to make its scheduled payment when it issued that smiley-faced April 3 filing. DPS now expects Entergy to argue that it does not need to fulfill its $6 million obligation because its memorandum of understanding — like its license — expired on March 21. And DPS cries foul:

That argument, the department claims, doesn’t fly. In essence, if the plant is operating on an expired license, the expiration dates on the obligations in the license don’t expire either.

“Entergy cannot have it both ways,” its filing states.

In a response to the DPS filing, Entergy says it will post its payments into an escrow fund, and won’t turn the money over to the state until the Public Service Board rules that VY can continue to operate.

The shell game starts to smell like blackmail.  

State Rep. Sarah Edwards will leave the State House after five terms in office, reports the Brattleboro Reformer:

Edwards told the Reformer that she is retiring from politics to spend more time working with a family foundation that is developing a model that can be applied to the preservation of coral reefs around the world.

(The story currently posted on the Reformer’s website is very brief; a longer story is promised in the Tuesday edition.)

Edwards is one of five Progressives in the House, and is the longest-serving Progressive. She’s been a vocal opponent of Vermont Yankee, and has been strongly involved in a variety of environmental issues.

Additional comments are welcome from those more knowledgeable about Edwards, and what her departure will mean for the House and the Progressive Party.    

Well, well. Three members of Bruce Lisman’s supposedly nonpartisan Campaign for Vermont made an appearance at a legislative hearing last week — an appearance special enough for CFV to put out a news release. And you’ll never guess what they talked about.

Yep, high taxes, electricity costs, and uncertaintly over health care reform. Three talking points that are high on Lisman’s list and also — purely coincidentally, I’m sure — key VTGOP campaign issues. But before we get to that, let’s take a quick look at CFV’s website, which has sprouted a poll question. I’m sure it’s a fair, unbiased attempt to gauge the opinions of Vermonters on a key issue facing the state.

NOT.

Should the legislature allow, as the federal law allows, citizens and small businesses the choice to purchase their health insurance inside and outside of the Vermont Health Care Exchange [sic; there is no question mark at the end of the sentence.]

— Yes, I think everyone should be allowed to choose where they purchase their insurance.

— No, I think only employees of big businesses and members of public unions should be allowed the choice of where they purchase their insurance.

I’ve written about Bruce Lisman and the CFV several times now. And this kind of BS is exactly why. CFV claims to be a nonpartisan group trying to ensure a better future for all Vermonters. Bruce Lisman makes all kinds of soothing noises about being positive, building consensus, and growing the economy while maintaining “an unwavering commitment to social responsibility and environmental stewardship.” (from CFV’s website)

But then he pulls crap like this. And he fills our airwaves with radio ads that are clearly aimed at reinforcing Republican ideology, with an occasional token gesture toward the center. (Never the left.) It’s this monumental, and patently obvious, hypocrisy and double-dealing that gets me so irritated with CFV. I’d be happier if they simply changed their name to “Campaign to Supplement an Ineffectual Vermont GOP Through Undisclosed Large Contributions From a Wealthy Vermonter.”

Sorry if the acronym CSIVGOPTULCFWV is a bit unwieldy, but it’s a hell of a lot closer to the truth.

And if you don’t believe me, just ask El Jefe General John McClaughry, Vice President of the Ethan Allen Institute and ruthless advocate for free-market economics:

“If there’s one Vermonter of distinction, ability and vision that Vermonters ought to listen to in these trying economic times, it should be Bruce Lisman,” said EAI VP John McClaughry.

After the jump: a Lisman mugshot, and Republican talking points on display.

I found that little gem in an announcement (pictured nearby, viewable in larger type here, love the mugshot) of a 2010 lecture by Bruce Lisman on growing Vermont’s economy, an event co-sponsored by — yep — the Ethan Allen Institute. All I can say is anyone who attracts the admiration of El Jefe General immediately earns my skepticism and mistrust.

(And anyone who would put out a flyer for a lecture entitled “Finding Skin” with a mugshot-style photo of a Hannibal Lecter lookalike is either absolutely clueless or has a wonderfully subversive sense of humor.)  

Now, on to the legislative testimony of three CFV “Partners”: Marc Sherman, owner of Stowe Mercantile*; Sean Walsh, General Manager of PBM Nutritionals, a Milton-based maker of infant formula sold under a variety of brand names; and William Sayre, identified as President of Duncan Hermanson Corporation, but known to WDEV listeners as Rob Roper’s frequent guest, sidekick, and substitute host on “True North Radio,” the conservative talk show underwritten by the Ethan Allen Institute. Sayre also happens to be the board chairman of Associated Industries of Vermont — another “nonpartisan” group. Not.

*Not to be confused with the other Marc Sherman, owner of Outdoor Gear Exchange in Burlington. They are two different people. Funny world, innit?

According to the news release, Sherman “expressed concerns about the cost and choices being proposed in Vermont’s Health Care Exchange.” A line that could have been lifted from Lisman’s health care radio ad, which is one long, loud anti-reform dog whistle.

That’s all for Mr. Sherman. On to Bill Sayre, who repeated his frequent contention that “Vermont’s tax burden has become one of the highest in the nation relative to income.” He’s been repeating this howler at every opportunity for years now.

And he knows it’s a howler. See, back in 2009, he was named one of three members of the Blue Ribbon Tax Structure Commission, a panel appointed by the Legislature to look into Vermont’s tax system. The Commission’s report was issued in 2011, and included this assessment of Vermont’s tax burden:

Vermont’s choice of tax base makes tax rates unnecessarily high as federal deductions pass through and reduce taxable income. The effective tax rates paid by Vermonters are competitive with other states.

The panel also debunked the myth that taxes are forcing people to leave Vermont.

Available data suggests that those entering Vermont earn more than those leaving. Also, Vermont’s top tax bracket is populated by high-income events, not high-income earners. While the data cannot determine something as subjective as why people are moving, it does demonstrate that definitive claims that the wealthy are moving out and about the effect of this migration are more complicated than currently assumed.

Blue Ribboner Bill Sayre disagreed with pretty much all the Commission’s conclusions, and submitted his own long-winded “Minority Perspective” alongside the Commission’s. In response to the finding that Vermont’s effective tax rates are competitive, he wrote the following:

Regardless of the tax mixture, Vermont’s tax burden is too high.

So he’s shifted from an evidence-based conclusion to an opinion: Screw the details, our taxes are too damn high. And on the subject of Vermonters fleeing our high taxes, he acknowledges that the data doesn’t support his contention. But…

Overall, Vermonters should not be satisfied if anyone is leaving Vermont due to high taxes, and there is substantial anecdotal evidence that it happens frequently.

So his argument boils down to (a) our taxes should be low enough to satisfy the most ardent libertarian, and (b) screw the data, I’ve got anecdotes.

So Bill Sayre exited the Tax Commission with his beliefs intact, and he continues to spout those beliefs even though he’s had a thorough exposure to contrary evidence.  And this week, he shamelessly peddled them to a joint legislative committee. Y’know, Mr. Lisman, for a nonpartisan, you have some funny friends.

Finally, Mr. Walsh, who made an odd and irrelevant point about electricity costs.

Mr. Walsh pointed out that Vermont may have one of the lowest electrical costs in New England, but that his cost per kilowatt hour was already double that of the company’s Idaho operation.

Ah, the classic Vermont/Idaho comparison. Like apples and, er, potatoes. Doug Hoffer, once and future (we hope) candidate for Auditor, posted a very cogent comment about this CFV news release. In it, Hoffer points out that Idaho has “several enormous hydro facilities. Indeed, 76% of Idaho’s electricity is generated from big hydro.”

So comparing Vermont to Idaho on electricity costs is like comparing Vermont to Saudi Arabia on oil reserves, or Vermont to Florida on average winter temperatures. Sorry, Sean, we can’t match Idaho and never will.

Walsh’s real concern was the Democrats’ commitment to renewable energy (like, ahem, hydro?), which he warns will increase electricity costs and, presumably, force our industries to move to Idaho.  

So there you go. Under the aegis of the “nonpartisan” Campaign for Vermont, three business leaders go to Montpelier and reinforce key Republican talking points. To paraphrase John McCain, that’s not nonpartisanship you can believe in.  

UPDATE: See correction and additional information in the comments from Allen Gilbert, Executive Director of the Vermont chapter of the ACLU, who has been working on this issue.

Jack McCullough

The Vermont State Senate is considering a bill that would allow law enforcement officers access to the Vermont Prescription Monitoring System, a statewide database that includes information on the patient, the prescriber, and the drug prescribed, for each prescription written for numerous medications.  Vermont Digger:  

In a joint hearing with the Senate committees on Judiciary and Health and Welfare, law enforcement officers tried to convince senators that allowing trained officers to request personal information surrounding controlled substances would help them deal with the state’s widespread prescription drug abuse problem.

We certainly have a huge problem with prescription drug abuse. And access to the database would certainly give police a new investigative tool to fight that problem.

It would also give police access to a broad array of unrelated information. It would also fundamentally alter the nature and purpose of the VPMS. And it would undermine the assurances given to the people of Vermont when the VPMS came into existence a mere three years ago.

In fact, I wasn’t sure where I came down on this issue until I read the warm fuzzy words on the state Health Department’s website, and realized that the Senate bill would constitute a big fat bait-and-switch:

The purpose of the database is to provide timely and useful information to both licensed prescribers and pharmacists. The VPMS will also help health care providers identify patients who may need treatment for drug abuse or addiction.

Only licensed health care providers and pharmacists, registered with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and registered with the VPMS, will have access to information in the database.

The VPMS was sold to us as a way to help providers and pharmacists manage patient treatment, not as a law enforcement tool. Even state licensing boards can’t directly access the database; they have to request information regarding a specific investigation. The bill before the Senate would give police direct, unfettered access.

After the jump: false assurances, harbingers of abuse, and why this might actually be irrelevant to fighting drug abuse.

Oh, but the access would only be given to “trained” officers. Whatever “trained” means. And we never see “trained” officers abuse their authority, do we? Was Lt. John Pike “trained” in crowd control measures?

Under what circumstances could the police access the database? Let’s say an officer conducts a routine traffic stop and the driver is acting a little strange. Can the officer call up a “trained” investigator to check the driver against the database? See what drugs he might have taken? Can a “trained” officer call up the prescription records of his ex-wife and see if she’s on antidepressants?

Generally, I don’t like slippery-slope arguments. They’re routinely abused in political debate to attack reasonable proposals by linking them to highly unlikely consequences. (e.g. Obamacare will lead to a government broccoli mandate.) But this isn’t an overhyped extrapolation of several-steps-removed consequences; this is a one-step, direct link. This is standing at the top of a slippery slope with a kind-hearted Senator behind your back asking if you want a push.

There are a whole lot of digital databases out there, and more are being created all the time. I’m sure a lot of them could be very useful to police. It could make law enforcement more efficient — if it doesn’t simply drown the police in a tsunami of data. (The biggest barrier to child-porn investigations isn’t information; it’s the personnel needed to do something useful with all the information they have.) But in a democratic society, there has to be a balance between the interests of law enforcement and the privacy rights of individuals.

There are other objections to this proposal. For one, the VPMS is actually doing a good job at its intended function: helping doctors and pharmacists discover prescription drug abusers. They communicate all the time. Doctors routinely get calls from pharmacists when there’s a questionable prescription on their desk. The vast majority of health care professionals want to prevent prescription drug abuse. (Of course, they don’t go to the cops; they do their best to treat the individual.)

Okay, you might say, if that’s true, why do we have a prescription drug abuse problem?

I don’t know, but my guess is that it has nothing to do with doctors and pharmacists. I’d bet the bulk of the problem comes from illegal trafficking, drugs brought in from out of state or Canada. Having our “trained” officers combing through prescription information won’t help them track down any off-the-books offenders; indeed, it might be counterproductive.

But it’s a shiny new toy, and the cops love a shiny new toy — whether it’s a Taser, a mini-tank, or a big ol’ database.

The Fox News Attack Machine has reached its hairy tentacles into the Green Mountain State, and picked up on a bit of undone housekeeping from President Obama’s visit last Friday.

A Vermont police chief said President Obama’s re-election campaign has failed to reimburse local taxpayers after his officers had to work overtime to provide security at two fundraising events.

Trevor Whipple, the police chief in South Burlington, told Fox News that his department incurred $4,200 in overtime expenses as a result of separate fundraising events featuring President Obama and the First Lady.

“At the end of the day, I’ve submitted an invoice and they haven’t paid,” Whipple told Fox News.

Quick work. And big expectations. The event happened one week ago; you totted up a bill and sent it to the campaign, maybe Monday or Tuesday? Allow a couple days for mail delivery, it’s Wednesday or Thursday. And here it is Friday, and you’re complaining that they haven’t paid.  

On the other hand, Burlington’s police chief is complaining about a much older unpaid bill, so maybe Chief Whipple is just trying to transition from invoice to complaint as quickly as possible.  

Burlington police chief Andi Higbee is exercised over an unpaid $2,100 tab for police overtime during Michelle Obama’s visit to the Queen City in June 2011. (The Fox reporter screws up that detail, but never mind.)

“Here we are in April and we still have this outstanding debt of approximately $2,100,” Burlington police chief Andi Higbee told television station WCAX.

The chiefs’ contention is that the Obama visits were not Presidential, but campaign-related. And therefore, the campaign should pay up.

They may have a point. But this line has gotten extremely blurry over the years, and the Bush/Cheney Administration was one of the worst offenders. Their appearances were almost always before carefully-vetted audiences, and virtually never in a truly public setting.

In any case, a strong argument can be made that a Presidential visit is, in itself, a good thing for a community. Or, in other words:

“The president is the president wherever he goes and whatever he does,” Vermont Democratic Party Chairman Jake Perkinson told Fox News.

In my opinion, the two police chiefs come across as sourpusses. And they’ve willingly provided one more talking point for the Fox News Attack Machine.  

Shap Smith has announced that he will not run for Attorney General. Instead, he’ll seek re-election to the House and another term as Speaker.

After careful consideration and valuable conversations with many Vermonters from around the state, I have decided to seek reelection as state representative, and if elected, will ask my colleagues to support me once again to lead them as Speaker of the House.  I see many opportunities to build a stronger Vermont by enhancing our education, tax, and healthcare systems, and I believe I can make the greatest positive impact in those areas as Speaker of the House.

My four years as Speaker have been the most challenging, yet fulfilling years of my time in state government.  We have made great progress in many areas: guiding the state out of a deep recession, building the infrastructure necessary for a strong economy, bringing civil rights to all Vermonters by passing marriage equality, and recovering from a devastating natural disaster.  There is still work to be done and I hope to remain in the legislature to see it through.

This leaves a two-way Dem primary between incumbent Bill Sorrell and Chittenden County State’s Attorney TJ Donovan. Last week, Donovan announced his campaign team. Don’t know if that scared Shap off; probably not. More likely, a lot of those many Vermonters told him it’d be a waste of talent for the Dems to have two good young candidates going for the same office. And, all things considered, he’s a pretty good Speaker. Not that I agree with him 100%, but he does keep things running.

And now, on to the primary…  

(Late breaking add: Entergy has agreed to continue paying the $6 million. Thus thoroughly destroying whatever was left of the business leaders’ complaint.)

Somebody call an amberlamps! Vermont’s business leaders got it bad, and that ain’t good.  A mass outbreak of BKS (Bunched Knicker Syndrome, an inflated sense of discomfort experienced by the high and mighty), as reported by Vermont Digger:

Business groups took a stand Wednesday against a provision in a miscellaneous tax bill that would require Vermont Yankee to pay $6 million in taxes to fund education, the Clean Energy Development Fund and a fund to help Windham County plan for the plant’s closure.

…At a press conference on Wednesday, the Vermont Energy Partnership and Associated Industries of Vermont said the tax was “arbitrary.”

“Arbitrary”, you say? Let’s see now… the tax replaces Vermont Yankee’s pre-March 21 obligation to pay money into the Clean Energy Development Fund. That obligation was part of its state license, which of course expired on March 21. But the plant keeps humming along (at a reduced rate, thanks to those gummed-up condensers). So the tax bill re-establishes an existing payment. What’s the opposite of “arbitrary”?  

William Driscoll, vice president of the Associated Industries of Vermont, which represents manufacturing businesses, said the tax is going after a captive industry in Vermont that cannot move its business elsewhere.

Oh, would that it could!

After the jump, more baseless whining and a Tiger tale.  

“To very quickly and with relatively little debate or consideration propose a new tax is poor policy,” Driscoll said.

He said doing so could hurt the state’s reputation as a place to do business.

Ah, the sound of the business community’s favorite dog-whistle! You know, Mr. Driscoll, what really hurts the state’s reputation is the business community’s constant yammering about how it sucks to do business in Vermont.

Quick story. Back in the 1990s, then-Detroit Tigers owner Tom Monaghan (yep, the Opus Dei nutbar) was campaigning for a new ballpark. He and his minions were constantly slagging Tiger Stadium as decrepit beyond repair, and complaining that the nearby area was unsafe and crime-ridden. You think they might have hurt attendance? Just a little bit? (Also his team sucked, which didn’t help any.)

Eventually the Tigers got a new, bland, ballpark. Hooray. They could have, and should have, done what the Red Sox did: promote their legendary stadium as a unique baseball shrine, and renovate it.  Likewise, our business leaders would do well to embrace the quirky charms of Vermont rather than trying to turn it into, say, New Jersey.

Thus endeth the lesson. As for Mr. Driscoll’s other point — about passing the tax “quickly and with relatively little debate” — I seem to recall that this issue has been on the Legislature’s plate throughout this entire session, and has been widely discussed and reported on. This isn’t something that Shap Smith pulled out of his pocket and decided to ram through.

Also, as VTDigger reports, the House-passed bill now goes to the Senate, where the Finance Committee has sought an Attorney General’s opinion on the propriety of the tax.

Sounds like the issue is getting a thorough and proper vetting. Not at all arbitrary or quick or with relatively little debate.

In short, the business community has no complaint whatsoever. But then, this isn’t really about a $6-million tax on Vermont Yankee. It’s about raising the same stink they always do whenever there’s talk about a tax increase of any kind anywhere anytime. “Bad for business,” “job killer,” “stifling free enterprise.”

These guys don’t seriously believe what they’re saying about the VY tax. They cannot possibly think that it will hurt VY to continue making the same payments it’s made since it opened forty years ago. They’re just beating their usual drum in service of their usual cause: making it as politically difficult as possible to raise taxes under any circumstances.  

Putative Republican Gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock is hoping to make a little hay over the GMD/CVPS merger deal. Specifically, over the $21 million that would go toward energy efficiency under a deal endorsed by the Shumlin Administration. As reported by Terri Hallenbeck of the Burlington Free Press, Brock today called for the money to be rebated to ratepayers instead.

Joining him on the podium were fellow Republicans Kevin Mullin, Joe Benning, and Oliver Olsen.

And Democratic/Progressive Senators Tim Ashe and Tony Pollina.

Whaaaaa?

(I’d include the photo in this diary, but I don’t want to run afoul of the Freeps’ copyright enforcement squad.)

Now, there’s a legitimate case to be made for a rebate, and the deal has sparked questions from all sides. But questioning the deal, even opposing it, is one thing; making a public appearance with Randy Brock during an election year is quite another. It’s bad taste at the very least, and dubious politics at worst.  

And this isn’t the only recent instance of Tim Ashe playing footsie with the Republicans. Does he harbor some resentment for losing the Democratic nomination for Burlington Mayor? Is this some statewide extension of the Burlington Progs’ sometime tactical alliances with Republicans? Or just a big f*ck-you to Shumlin?

The most charitable explanation I can think of is that Ashe and Pollina want to send a message that Shumlin can’t take the left for granted. That’s a message worth sending, but this wasn’t the best medium.

If anyone from the Prog camp would like to chime in, please do so in the Comments. I’d honestly like to know what’s up with this.  

And yes, I know that this category is renowned for its tough competition. But I think we have a winner here. And of course it comes from Florida.

If Tampa’s proposed rules for the Republican National Convention are passed, protesters could not bring squirt guns into a designated protest zone.

But they could bring real guns if they have concealed weapons permits.

That’s right. Squirt guns evil… real guns okay. Why? It seems that Florida state law doesn’t allow local authorities to restrict guns in any way. (Thanks, ALEC and NRA!)

Now, inside the convention itself, you can’t carry a gun. That’s because the Secret Service is in charge there, and they don’t take none of this sh*t.

After the jump: sticks, umbrellas, string, and other tools of Satan.  

Back to the city’s proposed restrictions, subject to approval by City Council on Thursday:

• Citywide, there would be a ban on carrying pieces of wood, hard tubes or anything else that could be used as a club, as well as water guns, super soakers, air guns, paintball guns, explosives, switchblades, hatchets, slingshots, brass knuckles, Mace, chains, crowbars, hammers, shovels, or any container containing urine, fecal matter or other bodily fluid.

• In the Clean Zone [which includes a big chunk of the city around the convention site], the ban would be expanded to prohibit ropes, straps, tape or string longer than 6 inches, glass containers, ceramic vessels, light bulbs, padlocks and bicycle locks, things that could be used as portable shields and gas masks.

• Inside the protest area, the ban would be expanded still further to prohibit aerosol cans, camping gear, coolers and ice chests, fireworks, lasers, bottles, cans, thermoses, sticks, poles, ladders and umbrellas with metal tips.

And here’s where Florida makes the logic machine go all smoky-sparky. They can’t ban firearms, but they still want to ban all this other stuff. Light bulbs? Coolers? Sticks? Squirt guns? And my personal fave, “any container containing urine, fecal matter or other bodily fluid.” (The Red Cross had better keep its distance. And whatever you do, don’t go to the hardware store during the convention!)

So, keep this in mind, members of Occupy GOP Convention: better leave your super soaker at home, but feel free to pack heat.  

Ready or not, Vermont is on its way to a decentralized mental health care system that will spread inpatient services around the state and place more of the burden on community-based treatment programs. More resources have been promised, so that these programs can provide better services to more people.

A couple of recent news items raise serious questions about the plan. The first reveals that Vermont routinely violates its own law on transporting severely mentally ill people by putting them in handcuffs and shackles. The second regards the death of a young man who’d been living in a small — ahem, community-based — mental health treatment facility.

Details after the jump.  

1. Vermont AP: Vermont Routinely Violates Law on Moving Mentally Ill.

In 2003, the Legislature passed a law requiring “the least restrictive means necessary” when transporting mentally ill people who are involuntarily under the state’s care. The law was updated two years later. Since then, it’s been pretty much ignored.

A very small percentage of patients are combative or are deemed to present a threat of violence, psychologists, sheriffs and others said. But about two-thirds of patients being moved by sheriffs or police are in handcuffs and ankle chains, data compiled by the state Department of Mental Health show.

The post-Irene closure of the Vermont State Hospital, and the increased use of the Brattleboro Retreat, has meant more transports over longer distances. Hence, more shackle time. How therapeutic.

Deputy Mental Health Commissioner Mary Moulton acknowledged the mental health system was not living up to the terms of the law… Moulton said her goal is to see, within a year, at least 60 percent of Vermont’s transports of mental health patients done without law enforcement involvement or the use of restraints.

It’s difficult to see how she’ll do that. Over the past five years, about three-quarters of such transports were done by sheriffs’ deputies or police — who lack the expertise to evaluate a patient’s potential for violent behavior. Their first concern, understandably, is security.

It might seem strange… counterproductive… unhealthy… for patients to be shackled and transported via police cruiser. Why not an ambulance? Two guesses, and the first one don’t count.

A ride with a sheriff is cheaper than one in an ambulance. And Jim Finger, president of the Vermont Ambulance Association, said some ambulance services balk at long-distance transports of patients covered by Medicaid because reimbursements from that government health insurance program are too low to cover the ambulance crew’s costs.

There’s also a numbers issue: if ambulances take over the transport duties, we’ll need more ambulances and EMTs. This will be a perpetual problem in a decentralized mental health care system, for two reasons:  

a. The balancing act. It’s easy to assign patients to beds in a single facility. But if, say, Brattleboro is full and Rutland has open beds, then some patients will be transported to Rutland. The entire system is designed to maximize use of available beds, so all facilities will be operating near capacity. Which will lead to frequent transports to get patients to available beds.  

b. Different patients, different issues. Some patients are violent, some are highly vulnerable. There are women and men, children, youths, adults, seniors. In the Shumlin system, patients will have to be moved to keep them away from incompatible patients, or to get the specialized care they need.  

So the question is this: if Vermont has been knowingly breaking its own law in order to save some bucks on patient transport, is it going to foot an ongoing and potentially larger bill in the future?

2. Vermont Digger: Patient’s Death at Eagle Eye Farm Leads to State Probe.

This story concerns the January death of Justin Ponzio, who was under the care of Eagle Eye Farm, a Northeast Kingdom residential facility for “traumatic brain injured survivors as well as other ‘at-risk’ populations,” acceding to its website. Ponzio walked away from the Farm on the night of January 5; his body was found the next morning. He’d apparently frozen to death.

The case has prompted two state investigations, and opened concerns about state oversight of community-based treatment facilities — which are about to become a more central part of our mental health care system, and are likely to see a larger and more demanding patient population.

VTDigger has learned that Eagle Eye Farm was cited for a number of serious deficiencies in two unannounced inspections by the Division of Licensing and Protection, which conducts inspections and oversight for the federal Medicaid program.

The deficiencies included a lack of training for staff, no background checks for most of its employees, and outdated and incomplete records for its patients. It was also providing custodial rather than therapeutic care. After the first inspection, Eagle Eye’s administrator provided a detailed action plan. But six months later — and about four weeks before Ponzio’s death — a second inspection found that Eagle Eye had failed to correct some of the violations.

A key issue in extensive legislative discussions on the new statute implementing the overhaul was assuring “the highest quality of care” in the new system through a broad array of reports and metrics, as well as creating an oversight system for patients under the “custody of the commissioner of mental health.”

If the Eagle Eye Farm case is anything to judge by, the state has a long way to go before it can assure high-quality care in the new system. For those who welcome the shift to community-based care, this should be a huge area of concern.

I’ve had my own experience searching for a good placement for a close relative, and I can tell you from bitter experience that it’s really difficult. A lot of places look good at first glance, and the deficiencies only become obvious over time. Almost every facility falls short of its promises — most often, providing care that’s more custodial than therapeutic. Under the Shumlin plan, we’ll be placing a greater burden on a licensing and regulatory system that seems incapable of handling its current responsibilities.

I’m not saying the Shumlin plan can’t work. But it will face significant obstacles, most of which have to do with resources. And to judge by these two news stories, the system already has big problems in that area. Given the fact that Shumlin wanted a 16-bed hospital because that was the best way to maximize federal dollars, can we trust him — and his future successors — to increase and then maintain the state’s financial commitment to mental health care? If not, his plan may turn out to be a slow-motion disaster.