HARRY HUGHES, Governor

3879

actual experience with Medicaid reimbursements justifies the
adjustment.

Therefore, for the above reasons, I have decided to veto
Senate Bill 1061.

Sincerely,
Harry Hughes
Governor

May 6, 1986
The Honorable Harry Hughes
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

RE: Senate Bill 1061

Dear Governor Hughes:

The above mentioned bill requires the Governor to include
certain funds in the operating budget for the Mental Hygiene
Administration for Fiscal Year 1988. Although the bill does not
prescribe a dollar amount, it does include a proposed formula for
computing this minimum level. The bill further provides that the
calculated amount is in addition to the amount of non-Title 19
monies appropriated in Fiscal Year 1987 for community residential
and support services for persons with mental disorders under the
age of 21. There are a number of problems with the computation
of the amount; in fact, it is not clear that a meaningful
calculation could be made.

The bill requires the inclusion in the Fiscal Year 1988
Budget of an "amount of funds at least equivalent to the
calculated amount of funds to be collected in Fiscal Year 1987"
in certain Federal reimbursement funds, less an amount equivalent
to the State's obligation of General Funds in Fiscal Year 1987
for in-patient, private psychiatric care for persons under 21.

The bill specifies a calculation for the first amount but
only refers to "obligation of General Funds" without being clear
as to what constitutes an obligation. If obligation refers to
amounts billed to the State, then the calculated amount requires
a number which will not be available, at the earliest, until the
first quarter of Fiscal Year 1988 while the calculations to
arrive at the amount is required by the bill must be made in the
second quarter of Fiscal Year 1987.

The formula arrives at the first amount by multiplying the
number of bed days for each eligible person in a Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene facility by the product of the number
of persons under 21 in the census of these facilities at some
undefined time during September of 1986 times $100. The effect
is to multiply the total bed days of all those under 21 by the
number of clients under 21. This clearly overstates the actual