MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                      1761

of the problem of direct commitments to Veterans Administration
Hospitals and, as so modified, be enacted at the 1970 session of the
General Assembly.

Sincerely,

/s/ Marvin Mandel,

Governor.

Letter from Veterans Administration on S.B. 285.

May 8, 1969.

Honorable Marvin Mandel
Governor of Maryland
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Dear Governor Mandel:

Thank you for this opportunity to express the views of the Vet-
erans Administration concerning Senate Bill No. 285. We believe the
passage of this legislation would have a disastrous effect on the opera-
tion of the VA hospital system in Maryland.

By way of introduction, we believe it pertinent to mention that
the Federal statutes applicable to the Veterans Administration do not
provide procedures for the commitment and retention of mentally ill
patients in VA hospitals. The authority to establish such procedures
has been retained by the several states. The VA must necessarily
follow such procedures as set out in the State law. This is true even
though the VA hospital system has, of course, its own rules and
regulations for internal operations.

The proposed Bill apparently has overlooked this fact and the
necessity for "tieing in" the VA hospital system in Maryland with
legislation concerning the mentally ill. As a result, if Senate Bill
No. 285 is approved, there would be an almost complete vacuum of
applicable law since neither the Federal statutes nor the State code
would then provide legislation pertinent to the commitment and re-
tention of mentally ill veterans in the VA hospitals. For example,
the only means of admission of mentally ill veterans to VA hospitals
provided by the proposed Bill is the transfer of such veterans from
a State institution (Section 17 (d)). No provisions are made for the
frequently utilized procedures currently in effect, such as, commit-
ment on two doctors' certificates (Article 59, Section 32) and judicial
commitments (Article 59, Section 22). Also, there is serious doubt,
in view of the wording of Section 11 of the Bill, whether the VA
hospitals could accept voluntary admissions of mentally ill veterans
which is now provided for in Article 59, Section 37. In New York
State where legislation concerning admissions to mental hospitals
similar to Senate Bill No. 285 was enacted, it was necessary to in-
corporate a provision excepting VA hospitals. The actual wording
of this proviso is "except veterans of any war, military occupation
or expedition may be admitted to a veterans administration hospital
without regard to the provisions of this chapter" (McKinney's Con-
solidated Laws of New York—Mental Hygiene Law—Section 70 (2)).
Since the proposed Bill, therefore, will require all mentally ill vet-
erans who need or desire hospitalization in a VA hospital to first
be admitted to a State hospital, we believe the State would incur a
great deal of unnecessary expense for the hospitalization and the
transportation of the veterans involved.