With regard to Appendix G, I would like to comment on the use of the ISP/CEPP with regard to mobile crisis.  Not every mobile crisis contact requires treatment beyond the first contact because either the crisis is deesclated and no further treatment is needed, or the client needs a higher level of care and is then referred.  Therefore I still maintain that requiring an ISP for mobile crisis is an unnecessary burden placed upon treatment providers.  I can certainly see the utility in it for CSU services, but not for mobile crisis.

I would also like to see transportation addressed as a stand alone service for both TDO/ECOs and to facilitate a higher level of care in Mobile Crisis.  DBHDS only has one provider of alternate transport for TDOs/ECOs who refuses to expand or subcontract, and so I place the blame of not having the alternative transportation system we could have squarely on DMAS as they have refused to pay in cases of involuntary admissions, despite the laws having been in place for several years.  I think this could open an entirely new industry in the state and free up law enforcement as the laws have intended.