This story was originally published by The Lund Report, an independent nonprofit health news organization based in Oregon. It is republished with permission. You can reach Nick Budnick at [email protected].

A new rule issued by Oregon health officials scrambling to persuade a federal judge against issuing a contempt order and hefty fines against them is sparking concerns that it is disrupting a fragile area of care even as state lawmakers try to strengthen it — and now a group of hospital systems is trying to block the move in court.

Last week attorneys for the hospitals filed a petition asking the Oregon Court of Appeals to review a new rule issued by the Oregon Health Authority in February.

The new state rule is directed at managers of residential treatment homes and other facilities in communities around Oregon. It effectively blocks them from denying admission to criminal defendants who are being discharged from the state’s primary psychiatric institution, the Oregon State Hospital.

The petition is intended to open up space at the state hospital to ease civil rights and constitutional violations caused by keeping criminal defendants in jails that lack adequate treatment for their mental illness, rather than admitting them to the hospital for treatment promptly as required.

But while the move may help state officials avoid fines, it would hurt care and do little to address overcrowding, according to a variety of behavioral health providers and organizations, many of whom are raising concerns.

Depriving access for civilly committed individuals who are not facing criminal charges just mean they may well need to be lodged much more expensively at the Oregon State Hospital, some said, as opposed to “supporting individuals in moving into residential care for a shorter and more cost-efficient level of care for stabilization,” according to a comment submitted to the state on March 11 by Iris Sexton, the residential services vice president of New Narrative, a residential treatment provider.

After state officials told U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson they had no idea when the long-running violations would be cured, she all but invited outside groups to file a motion for contempt to try to achieve results.

Officials conceded in a memo accompanying the rule in February that it was intended to prevent the state from continuing to violate past court orders intended to prevent people experiencing mental illness from languishing in jails without treatment — the problem that has Nelson now considering a contempt order.

But critics say state’s rule creates a new problem: blocking an even more vulnerable population of patients from receiving the treatment they need: those who’ve been civilly committed to the care of the state

That violates the U.S. Constitution and state and federal anti-discrimination laws, according to the hospitals’ new filing.

“OHA is unilaterally mandating that individuals involved in the criminal justice system have first admission priority to residential facilities, and that civilly committed patients and all other individuals in need of those community resources be moved to the back of the line,” the petition argued, adding that the rule amounts to “a textbook example of disability discrimination and is expressly prohibited.”

Providers say depriving them of screening new admissions will hurt care, increasing the risk of relapse and poor outcomes.

“As a residential treatment provider, we are deeply concerned about the changes,” wrote Jim Sechrist, Pacific Northwest president of Jackson House, another residential treatment provider. “These rules do not create more capacity for mental health care—they just change who gets access, leaving many people without the services they need.

“The new priority system forces us to put forensic patients ahead of others, like those who are civilly committed or voluntarily seeking treatment. This means that our local community members—who are in crisis and need support—will have to wait longer, or worse, won’t be able to access care at all. This change is unfair, costly, and harmful to the very people we are supposed to help.”

Asked by The Lund Report in January about an early version of the rule, a state spokesperson wrote that it “is in direct response to Oregon State Hospital (OSH) being out of compliance with federal court orders.

“There are currently 60 people waiting to be admitted. The hospital cannot bring in more patients unless other patients are discharged. Right now there are 90 patients who have been deemed “ready to place” and are waiting on space in the community.”

The spokesperson denied that any specific fear of a contempt order sparked the rule, saying that compliance with court orders is the goal. The “rule is part of the hospital’s overall efforts to bring OSH back into compliance and not a direct response to any specific motion.”

This republished story is part of OPB’s broader effort to ensure that everyone in our region has access to quality journalism that informs, entertains and enriches their lives. To learn more, visit opb.org/partnerships.

News Source : https://www.opb.org/article/2025/03/21/oregon-health-officials-effort-to-dodge-a-federal-contempt-order-hurts-people-experiencing-mental-illness-critics-say/