Category: Testimony

New Jersey Should Reject Unjustified Giveaways to Sports Teams and Big Business

Posted on by Peter Chen

The continued expansion of corporate tax credits to induce economic development has yet to fully deliver on its promise. And yet, this bill proposes to send good money after bad, authorizing billions of state tax dollars to go towards private businesses and billionaires.

To be clear, the word “tax credit” is simply another word for subsidy – state tax dollars will go to pay for the development of real estate projects that benefit primarily private corporations and individuals, with the goal of creating long-term economic growth. Independent economic analysis from right, left and center have routinely cast doubt on the effectiveness of these credits.

Expanding the overall cap on credits by $3 billion has no justification.
The bill as written would expand the maximum total value of credits to $14.3 billion from the current cap of $11.5 billion. Basic questions remain unanswered such as why this increase is needed, given that credits remain unused in many years, and why such a dramatic increase does not include any additional safeguards on expenditures. Additionally, it’s unclear how this funding would all be used in the years remaining on the initial nine-year authorization.

There is no clear need for the sports and entertainment project described in the bill.
The renovation of a sports arena in a first-class city operating for 15 years with a seating capacity of 15,000 individuals applies only to one facility – the Prudential Center in Newark. The arena itself is less than 20 years old, and its entire initial cost was $375 million. Why less than two decades later it requires more than half as much to renovate as it did to build from scratch is a mystery.

In addition, sports stadiums and arenas remain among the worst possible investments for cities and states looking to increase economic activity. In state after state, and study after study, arenas produce pennies on the dollar, while saddling communities with white elephant buildings at the mercy of billionaire sports owners.

Although the requirements in the proposed bill admirably attempt to extract community benefits, at core these projects should not be the recipient of state tax dollars, given their woeful history.

As the state faces a shaky fiscal future, now is not the time to hand out more subsidies to billionaires and big corporations.

State Tax Credits Should Benefit the State, Not Just Private Businesses

Posted on by Peter Chen

The justification for economic development tax credits is that although they do subsidize billionaire businesses and developers, they should eventually have net benefits for the state – that the economic activity generated will offset the loss in revenues. Yet what this bill proposes to do is exempt megaprojects that cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars from this analysis, solely on the basis of their location in government-restricted municipalities.

The net-benefits test in the Economic Recovery Act of 2020 was a key accountability feature. Without it, a project could move forward without justifying that it would benefit the state and its residents overall, whose tax dollars are functionally subsidizing the project. In particular, the project has to actually have a positive revenue impact, not just generalized economic activity. If state tax dollars are subsidizing for-profit corporations, the standard for returns to the state must be set high.

Eliminating this net-benefits test for any project undermines the basic function of the EDA to evaluate projects for their benefit to the state. If these projects are indeed so transformational and critical, it should be easy to demonstrate their economic benefits to the state. If they cannot meet that standard, then they should not qualify for tax subsidies.

One final note: the upcoming budget already anticipates a roughly $1.5 billion structural deficit, with increasing costs and uncertain revenues. If anything, this should be a time for the state to be tightening accountability to ensure that these projects truly benefit the state’s budget, not loosening the purse strings simply because certain developers have not met current requirements.

At the very least, this committee should vote to hold this bill and await the budget projections for FY2027, before potentially losing more revenue to projects with limited fiscal benefit.

Protecting Confidential Data Sent to Government and Health Care Providers Keeps All New Jerseyans Safer

Posted on by Erica Boland

When New Jerseyans share personal identifiable information with any state or government agency, they do so with the trust that their information will be kept confidential.

Yet under current law, public entities routinely sell information to data aggregators, with limited protections on confidentiality. As NJPP Senior Policy Analyst Marleina Ubel has detailed in the November 2024 report Combating Surveillance and Protecting Privacy: Why New Jersey Needs the Immigrant Trust Act, federal immigration enforcement uses a dragnet of personal information that includes motor vehicle records such as scanned driver’s license photos and the license plate and vehicle data of nearly 3 in 4 adults.

When combined with available data sources such as credit records and geolocation data from phone providers, federal law enforcement can identify and track the locations of almost all Americans with a shocking degree of accuracy, without needing a warrant and in secret.

Current loopholes in state privacy laws make it far too easy for federal immigration enforcement to access sensitive data from schools, libraries, doctors’ offices, and government agencies. And with the new frontier of license plate readers, facial recognition, and extensive surveillance provided by cameras operated by government agencies or third-parties on their behalf, the amount of data that can be used to enact a vast dragnet has only increased.

As federal agencies have shredded existing privacy laws to hand over sensitive tax and Medicaid enrollment data to immigration enforcement, now is the time for states to step up to protect the sensitive data that residents share with the state.

New Jersey’s governments, health care providers, and schools should not be unwitting accomplices to vast data collection to supercharge federal immigration enforcement. Passing A6309 is an important step to keeping all New Jerseyans’ data safe and secure.

Protecting New Jersey’s Immigrants Keeps the State’s Communities and Main Streets Thriving

Posted on by Peter Chen

Immigrants drive economic growth in New Jersey, and keeping New Jersey immigrants safe in their communities makes the state stronger as a result.

Nearly 1 in 3 New Jersey workers are immigrants, as are nearly 1 in 3 nurses and half of Main Street business owners. As one of the most diverse states in the nation, more than 4 in 10 children in New Jersey have an immigrant parent. Immigrants in New Jersey form the very lifeblood of its communities, its schools, its Main Streets.

As draconian and indiscriminate federal immigration enforcement has increased, immigrant New Jerseyans have faced arrest and detention, but they have been protected by the existing Immigrant Trust Directive, which delineates how local and state government interact with federal immigration enforcement.

Without being able to trust local government, schools, and health care facilities, immigrant families and workers in New Jersey would increasingly be excluded from the state they call home. Fear created by immigration enforcement already deters participation in children’s health insurance programs, tax filing, and food security programs.

When it comes to the success of the state, protecting immigrant families is not negotiable; it is instead a necessary piece for a thriving state.

Hold Corporations Responsible for Hazmat Rail Safety

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

Good afternoon Chairman Sarlo and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony in opposition to S3389, which will move forward common sense safety measures for hazmat rail. My name is Alex Ambrose and I am a policy analyst with New Jersey Policy Perspective. NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

While moving hazardous materials (hazmat) by rail is the safest form of transportation for these dangerous chemicals, it still poses risks, particularly for the most vulnerable New Jersey communities and our first responders. Even as rail incidents have declined overall, incidents involving hazardous materials have increased and are still growing. One of the most startling revelations that came out of the 2023 East Palestine, Ohio disaster is that the train involved in the explosion was headed for south Jersey. That disaster was all too familiar for those New Jerseyans who still remember the 2012 Paulsboro derailment, in Senator Burzichelli’s district; many of those residents are still dealing with long-term physical and emotional consequences of exposure to toxic chemicals.

Policies like those proposed in this bill — including reducing train length, requiring wayside defect detectors, requiring a two-person crew, and mandating safety reporting and inspections — are how we start to mitigate those disasters. Requiring corporations to have a response plan in place prior to an incident is just common sense.

State leaders must take action to require safety measures because it is clear that corporations are unlikely to voluntarily increase safety measures. In the last decade, the seven biggest railroad corporations spent nearly double as much on stock buybacks, cash distributions, and dividends than on infrastructure investments. More specifically, in 2022, Norfolk Southern, the corporation responsible for the East Palestine disaster, spent three times as much on stock buybacks than on safety.

But when corporations are forced to prioritize safety measures, there are improvements. While four of the five biggest railroads faced higher accident rates last year, one saw them go down: Norfolk Southern saw their accident rates reduced after they were essentially forced to invest more in safety and infrastructure updates after the 2023 disaster in Ohio.

This bill moves forward evidence-based corporate responsibility measures to better protect New Jersey communities. Research shows that the two biggest factors that lead to hazmat rail incidents are track factors and human error. This bill, with its provisions to reduce train length, require wayside defect detectors, require a two-person crew, and mandate safety inspections and reporting, starts to address those factors. The train length requirement is a particularly important provision because it not only reduces the total overall amount of hazmat that could be involved in an incident, but also addresses the fact that the length of the train itself can be a hazard. The longer the train during a derailment incident in a densely populated state like New Jersey, the more likely a stopped train can block off parts of a community from emergency services.

It’s time to take the lessons to heart: We need lawmakers to lead the way on increasing corporate responsibility for safety to ensure that we do not continue to see disasters like Paulsboro and East Palestine. Residents’ safety, health, and well-being should come first in the Garden State and shouldn’t be threatened by opaque and unregulated corporate policies.

Thank you for moving this bill forward and we look forward to your continued leadership on this issue.

Federal Leaders Should Protect Access to Critical Health Programs

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

The Honorable Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201

RE: (Docket ID Docket: AHRQ-2025-0002) Opposition to Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act; Interpretation of ”Federal Public Benefit”

Dear Secretary Kennedy,

New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) is a nonpartisan think tank that drives policy change to advance economic, social, and racial justice through evidence-based, independent research, analysis, and strategic communications. For decades, NJPP has provided timely and insightful research to policymakers in New Jersey to improve outcomes and opportunities for families and individuals across the state.

NJPP strongly opposes any attempt to restrict access to Health and Human Services programs that help build healthy communities. All the programs now being considered “federal public benefits” under this rule proposal would harm the health of those individuals excluded and all residents of the state.

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs)

Federally qualified health centers provide critical health care to communities often underserved by the health care system as a whole. More than 1 in 4 FQHC patients are uninsured, substantially higher than the state average.[i] In 2023, the state’s 138 FQHCs served more than 570,000 patients, including 145,700 uninsured patients.

People get sick and require care regardless of immigration status. Pushing those people out of the health care system by treating them as a “public charge” does not make them healthier or reduce usage of public benefits. Instead, these punitive policies hurt overall health and well-being by pushing families with mixed immigration status away from care.[ii]

These restrictions ignore an important fact: the FQHCs provide a service for the general welfare. This policy ignores the role that better health, nutrition and education have on society as a whole. If one group of people is excluded from or avoided basic medical care, healthy pregnancy and infancy, or early childhood experiences, those costs multiply on everyone.

Also, immigrants have higher employment rates than native-born adults, contributing greatly to the state and local economy. In New Jersey, immigrants are a major driver of business growth. The roughly 2.2 million immigrants living in the state generate billions in economic activity and local and state tax revenue.[iii] Excluding large parts of this population from basic care will hurt their ability to remain economically independent. This aligns with research showing that the cost of insuring immigrant residents is generally lower than the cost of insuring native-born residents.[iv]

Other programs

Similar logic applies to the vast array of programs now being considered “federal public benefits” under this proposal. Almost all of these programs provide benefits to the community when they reach a broad population:

  • Head Start programs and high-quality early childhood education reduce lifetime costs for child participants and improve a wide range of health and academic outcomes.
  • Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services help reduce the risks of overdose and substance use disorder on families and communities.
  • Title X Family Planning helps families plan how many children to have and keep a family size they can support economically.
  • Community Services Block Grants provide funding to Community Action Agencies to deliver services that reduce poverty and promote independence.
  • Education and Training Voucher programs support youth aging out of foster care in pursuing higher education and developing independent living skills.
  • Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program ensures relatives who take guardianship of youth receive the guidance and resources needed to strengthen families, increase kinship placements, and promote long-term cost savings.

 

Simply put, these programs do not act as “benefits” to the recipients. Instead, these programs seek to reduce the overall cost to society and government by providing preventative measures that encourage economic independence and security.

NJPP urges HHS to withdraw this proposed rule that misclassifies these prevention measures that benefit all residents as “federal public benefits” that go to a select few.

Sincerely,

Brittany Holom-Trundy
Research Director
New Jersey Policy Perspective

End Notes

[i] New Jersey Primary Care Association, Federally Qualified Health Centers in New Jersey, March 2024. https://www.njpca.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/March-2024_NJPCA-Bifold-FQHC-Snapshot.pdf

[ii] Dulce Gonzalez et al. Mixed-Status Families and Immigrant Families with Children Continued Avoiding Safety Net Programs in 2023. Urban Institute, Aug. 7, 2024. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/mixed-status-families-and-immigrant-families-children-continued-avoiding

[iii] Marleina Ubel, New Immigrants Drive Economic Growth in New Jersey, New Jersey Policy Perspective, Apr. 15, 2024. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/new-immigrants-drive-economic-growth-in-new-jersey/

[iv] Neeraj Kaushal and Felix Muchomba. Cost of Public Health Insurance for US-Born and Immigrant Adults. JAMA Network Open. 2023;6(9):e2334008. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.34008

State Lawmakers Should Protect Residents from Federal Cuts to Vital Services

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

TO: New Jersey State Senate and Assembly
FROM: New Jersey Policy Perspective
DATE: August 7, 2025
SUBJECT: Federal Threats to State Affordability, Essential Services, and Budget Integrity

The recent signing of budget reconciliation bill H.R. 1, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) will have far-reaching and devastating consequences for New Jersey. Combined with other federal rules that are being rapidly rewritten — such as the Marketplace Program Integrity Final Rule  — the new law destroys federal funding for critical programs on which the state depends to support residents building their futures and raising their families in the Garden State.

Coming cuts to Medicaid, restrictions on access to affordable health coverage through the GetCovered NJ marketplace, cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), increased costs for student loan borrowers, cuts to climate programs, and increased funding for immigrant detention will harm Garden State families and threaten affordability and the state budget for years to come. Some changes will take effect immediately, while others will create destructive gaps in future state budgets.

Now is the time for lawmakers to protect New Jersey by strengthening our state reserves, identifying new funding sources, and taking proactive protective steps to maintain essential services for residents. Governor Murphy has ordered departments to study the effects of these actions. Some departments warned during this year’s state budget discussions about the coming budget holes and loss of coverage. Lawmakers must recognize these urgent deadlines and act quickly and decisively to prevent the harm to New Jersey families.

Below is a timeline of the most important dates for impending changes that will result in loss of health care coverage, worsened food insecurity, reduced affordability, and increased threats to immigrant communities.

Sincerely,

The New Jersey Policy Perspective Research Team

Brittany Holom-Trundy, Research Director
Alex Ambrose, Climate and Transportation Policy Analyst
Peter Chen, Tax and Budget Senior Policy Analyst
Marleina Ubel, Criminal Legal Systems and Immigrant Rights Senior Policy Analyst

 

Economic Development Tax Credits Should Provide Positive Net-Benefits to New Jersey’s Communities

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Economic development tax credits should be targeted towards projects that create good jobs for working people, spur needed economic development in areas of the state that have faced historic disinvestment, and provide positive net-benefits to the communities where projects are built.

The reauthorization of the state’s economic tax credit programs added statutory guardrails and accountability to prior programs through Emerge and Aspire, requiring that corporations that wanted state subsidies needed to prove they were providing real benefits to the state’s communities most in need of business development. New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) encourages state lawmakers to incorporate those principles into this program to protect the state’s finances and its residents from bad deals.

The simplest path forward: Build the manufacturing tax credit program within the existing structure of Emerge, rather than create it from scratch.

As it stands, the proposed program will take potential credits out of Emerge and Aspire, making less available for economic development and affordable housing construction in the parts of the state most in need. Instead of using the existing guardrails of Emerge or Aspire, the proposed bill instead delegates much of the responsibility for ensuring fair deals to the Economic Development Authority (EDA), rather than codifying them in statute.

The EDA has shown how Emerge and Aspire can encourage economic growth without giving up on enforcement of accountability measures for corporations truly committed to equitable growth in New Jersey. But a future EDA administration, without the statutory requirements of those programs, might take a trip back to the bad old days of unaccountable money going out the door without clear benefits for the state’s residents and communities.

Regardless of the overall merits of a manufacturing tax credit program, no one industry should sidestep the state’s existing guardrails and requirements for economic development tax credits. If corporations will get substantial state subsidization, the state should ensure its residents reap the benefits, not just corporate shareholders.

Federal Leaders Should Preserve the Quality of SNAP Data to Protect Program Integrity

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Attn: James C. Miller, Administrator
Food and Nutrition Service
United States Department of Agriculture
1320 Braddock Place, 5th floor
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program: Rescission of Changes to Civil Rights Data Collection Methods,
90 F.R. 20825 (RIN 0584-AF19, May 16, 2025)

Dear Mr. Miller:

I am writing on behalf of New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) in response to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) proposal to rescind the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Revision of Civil Rights Data Collection Methods final rule, which ended the practice of visual observations to determine SNAP participants’ race or ethnicity. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments expressing our concerns with this change in data collection methods.

NJPP strongly disagrees with the proposed rescission, which would reinstate the allowance of visual observation as a program standard for the collection of race and ethnicity data of participants. This would be a step backward for the reliability and accuracy of data and would threaten the fair administration of SNAP. We recommend that the rule remain in place to continue improved data collection practices, maintain the accuracy of program analyses, and respect the civil rights of participants. 

The quality of data significantly impacts its usefulness, including the potential scope and accuracy of analyses that can be produced. In the case of visual observation of race, studies have shown that conclusions using this practice are often inaccurate when compared with self-reported data by the person whose race is being evaluated, if the goal is to determine the individual’s identity, family background, and lived experience.[i] Additionally, the perceptions of the interviewers or administrators visually observing race can vary, resulting in errors that do not follow predictable patterns or allow for reliable adjustments when evaluating the data. This makes it more difficult to produce program evaluations with high levels of confidence in their accuracy.[ii]

In addition to the accuracy of data collected, visual observation of race and ethnicity as a practice can threaten the process of the interview itself. Establishing a standard practice of asking an interviewer to potentially report the race or ethnicity of an interviewee primes the interviewer to think about and evaluate the characteristics of the participant throughout the interview. This can lead to an increase in biases within the interviewer’s approach and harm their rapport with the interviewee.

By diminishing the reliability and accuracy of demographic variables like race and ethnicity, any analyses that look to determine whether SNAP continues to be administered in ways that comply with federal civil rights requirements will be limited in their ability to confidently produce accurate results. Although allowing the interviewer to report the suspected race or ethnicity of a participant may lead to fewer unreported results and increase the number of “complete” questionnaire responses, the filling in of these gaps with unreliable data further reduces the data’s utility and harms program administration and outcomes.[iii] Researchers, program analysts, and lawyers would face greater difficulties reporting on the quality of the program’s administration and its legal standing with regard to civil rights requirements.

If officials are interested in filling gaps in the program data reported and wish to develop methods of producing more complete files, they must recognize that the most reliable and accurate data will come from the participant, who knows their family and individual background and identification. In order to encourage participants to answer this sensitive question more often, officials should look to methods of building trust between caseworkers and participants, improve and promote the security of the data provided, as well as adjust the structure of the questionnaire and potential answers to best allow for the participant to answer fully and accurately.[iv]

Due to the concerns outlined above, NJPP opposes the proposed rescission of this rule and hopes that the Department will consider other methods of filling data gaps and improving the overall quality of program evaluations.

Sincerely,

Brittany Holom-Trundy
Senior Policy Analyst
New Jersey Policy Perspective

End Notes

[i] Note that if the goal of a study is to record the race or ethnicity that external people may observe — thus, studying biases in observations — then the reporting of a visual observation of race and ethnicity would be valid in terms of what it seeks to capture. However, with program data, the aim is generally to better administer the program and ensure that there are no unintended or intended exclusions of communities based on their demographic characteristics.

[ii] This is not just a challenge for visual observation of race and ethnicity, but is also a broader challenge for any externally imposed completion of missing race and ethnicity data. For a discussion of statistical challenges, see Megan Randall, Alena Stern, and Yipeng Su (2021), “Five Ethical Risks to Consider Before Filling Missing Race and Ethnicity Data,” Urban Institute,

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103830/five-ethical-risks-to-consider-before-filling-missing-race-and-ethnicity-data-workshop-findings.pdf.

[iii] The USDA’s Civil Rights Impact Analysis for the original rule recognized that the removal of visual observation as standard practice would increase the accuracy of its data: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-13058/p-35. Without additional study results showing outcomes to the contrary, the reinstatement of the practice remains unsupported and should be considered to most likely decrease accuracy.

[iv] The ability of participants to fully answer the question in a way that they identify as accurate can significantly impact the response rates and the validity of the data. See, for example: Garbarski, Dana, Jennifer Dykema, Cameron P. Jones, Tiffany S. Neman, Nora Cate Schaeffer, and Dorothy Farrar Edwards (2024), “Questioning Identity: How a Diverse Set of Respondents Answer Standard Questions About Ethnicity and Race.” Field Methods 36, no. 2: 113-130. For an in-depth discussion of data collection on race and ethnicity, see Sharghi, Sima, Shokoufeh Khalatbari, Amy Laird, Jodi Lapidus, Felicity T. Enders, Jareen Meinzen-Derr, Amanda L. Tapia, and Jody D. Ciolino. “Race, ethnicity, and considerations for data collection and analysis in research studies.” Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 8, no. 1 (2024): e182.

Legislators Must Protect the Rights of New Jerseyans & Invest in Long-Term Solutions for Mental Health Care

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good morning Chairman Vitale and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony in opposition to S4263. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

NJPP strongly opposes the permanent extension of involuntary commitment length, which threatens the health and rights of New Jersey residents. The role of involuntary commitment in treatment for those experiencing mental health crises has long been recognized as complicated and, often, problematic. Research has shown that racism, sexism, and other biases in health treatment settings lead to disparities not only in judgments about people’s pain or illness, but also in diagnoses of psychological disorders.[i] Because involuntary commitment requires medical judgments from healthcare professionals about whether a person is a “danger to self” or “danger to others or property,” emphasizing these situations further as a blunt tool for care without needed data opens doors to increased discrimination.[ii] Studies have shown that patients of color are more likely to be determined to be a “danger” and involuntarily committed than white patients.[iii] Meanwhile, there remains very little research on the medical effectiveness of 72-hour holds, let alone double that amount of time.[iv]

Though involuntary commitment may be necessary as a blunt tool to address an emergency situation, it is certainly not the ideal approach to care, and not one that should be prolonged arbitrarily. Hospitals often do not have the resources necessary to provide the standard of care for patients in involuntary commitment throughout its original 72-hour length; thus, extending the possible length of time simply invites worsening conditions resulting from staff and resource shortages.

The need for extended involuntary commitment remains low, and when it is utilized, it indicates other gaps in care. According to quarterly reports submitted to the Department of Human Services since the initial introduction of this extension, facilities requested extended holds for less than 1-2% of all hospitalizations due to psychiatric crises.[v] This means that these holds were needed for less than 1% of all patients screened for mental health crises, most of whom are discharged without hospitalization.

Such a small number does not indicate a pressing need to permanently suspend patients’ rights to reasonable, humane treatment in the standard timeframe. Instead, if our goal as leaders is to improve care, further decrease the number of cases in need of involuntary commitment, and address challenges within that system, then we must consider the question of why these patients were in need of help and were unable to receive that help within 72 hours (3 days), which should be achievable. In particular, attention to the following would allow for a better, more targeted response:

  • Whether and where beds were available at the time of the hold
  • Staff shortages at the facility holding the patient
  • Reports of refusals to accept patients based on complicating medical conditions, criminal history, insurance status, or other circumstances
  • Insurance status of patients held and payments charged

By considering these factors, lawmakers could determine if more psychiatric facilities and beds are needed; if increased staffing at hospitals should be prioritized; if staff need improved training, regulation, or support; or if facilities have financial incentive to keep some patients longer than others. Addressing these root causes of issues would provide better long-term solutions than the band-aid of simply extending involuntary commitment. Leaders could seek to invest state resources into long-term solutions to improve the mental health system so that we can decrease the number of people reporting mental health crises, improve treatment for those experiencing crises, and ensure the best, most efficient use of hospital care settings for both patients and healthcare workers.

New Jersey needs long-term investment in the mental health system, not a self-fulling solution that invites further abuse and ignores the cause in the first place.

We hope that the Committee will agree and hold this bill and consider these concerns today.

Thank you for your time.

End Notes

[i] Hamed, Sarah, Hannah Bradby, Beth Maina Ahlberg, and Suruchi Thapar-Björkert. “Racism in healthcare: a scoping review.” BMC Public Health 22, no. 1 (2022): 988; Zhang, Lanlan, Elizabeth A. Reynolds Losin, Yoni K. Ashar, Leonie Koban, and Tor D. Wager. “Gender biases in estimation of others’ pain.” The Journal of Pain 22, no. 9 (2021): 1048-1059; Garb, Howard N. “Race bias and gender bias in the diagnosis of psychological disorders.” Clinical Psychology Review 90 (2021): 102087.

[ii] Morris, Nathaniel P. “Detention without data: public tracking of civil commitment.” Psychiatric Services 71, no. 7 (2020): 741-744.

[iii] Shea, Timothy, Samuel Dotson, Griffin Tyree, Lucy Ogbu-Nwobodo, Stuart Beck, and Derri Shtasel. “Racial and ethnic inequities in inpatient psychiatric civil commitment.” Psychiatric Services 73, no. 12 (2022): 1322-1329.

[iv] Morris, Nathaniel P. “Reasonable or random: 72-hour limits to psychiatric holds.” Psychiatric Services 72, no. 2 (2021): 210-212.

[v] New Jersey Department of Human Services. Continued Hold Orders. https://nj.gov/humanservices/dmhas/publications/orders/

Older Posts »»