Call to Order & Introduction of Keynote Speakers

Keynote Addresses

Audience Question & Answer

Panel: The Impact of the Mental Health Services Act on California's Mental Health System

Chair: Kathleen Foote, JD

Proposition 63, The Mental Health Services Act

Beginning in the early 1990s, California has been moving its public mental health system towards a more integrated and outcome-oriented one, with a focus on consumer empowerment. Realignment legislation, children's system of care, Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) grants, and funding of local mental health grants (AB34/2034) all laid the groundwork for the development and passage of Proposition 63, which is now known as the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). Passed in November of 2004, it aims to expand access to public mental health services and restructure California's public mental health system into a more consumer-oriented one that addresses a broad continuum of prevention, early intervention, and service needs for the recovery and resiliency of mental health consumers. MHSA's provisions are funded by a 1% tax on incomes over $1 million (affecting approximately 0.1% of California taxpayers). The tax is projected to generate approximately $254 million in fiscal year 2004-05, $683 million in 2005-06, and increasing amounts thereafter. This panel will discuss the implementation process to date, as well as a number of policy issues that have arisen, including questions on involuntary treatment, non-supplantation of existing mental health funds, and concerns with inter-agency collaborations under MHSA.

Petris Center Briefing Paper

Panelists:
Timothy T. Brown, PhD Stephen W. Mayberg, PhD Gale Bataille, MSW

Panel: The Economics and Policy of Stem Cell Research:
Progress, Set Backs, and the Road Ahead

Chair: Deborah Haas-Wilson, PhD

Proposition 71, The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative

Since August 9, 2001, when President Bush decided to limit federal funds for human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research¹, much debate has surfaced about the future of this type of research. In California, Proposition 71, The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, was passed in November 2005 in response to the federal funding limitations. This bond initiative (1) established the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, a California surrogate for National Institute of Health, to regulate stem cell research and funding (2) appropriated $3 billion from the General Fund to pay for bonds to finance this endeavor and (3) established a constitutional right to conduct stem cell research. To date, lawsuits have stalled the funding of Proposition 71. Meanwhile, other states have initiated their own stem cell and HESC research projects, and bipartisan Congressional support for HESC research has increased. These events may have substantially decreased California's "first-mover" advantage in HESC research, and others have called into question the economic returns of this bond measure. Many argue that this initiative will not pay for itself as its proponents claimed it would. Diverse groups who support HESC research have questioned the details of this policy experiment, focusing on ethical and oversight questions. Even if therapies are developed, the impact on California's healthcare system and consumers is uncertain and needs careful investigation.

Petris Center Briefing Paper

¹President Discusses Stem Cell Research: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html. Accessed on April 7, 2006.

Panelists:
Edward E. Penhoet, PhD Kenneth Taymor, JD Bruce Cohen, MBA

Closing Remarks