President’s Column – The Must-Read Advocacy Issue: Thank You For Supporting Psychiatry. This Advocacy Work Wouldn’t Be Possible Without You.

by Galya Rees, MD

Dear SCPS Members,

The April issue of our newsletter is dedicated to psychiatric advocacy in all its forms—the big legislative wins, the frustrating battles, the short- and long-term investments, and the many ways we can all get involved. Whether it’s integrating advocacy into residency training, strengthening our voice at the APA national level, or navigating the complexities of political action committees, advocacy is at the heart of what we do at SCPS. It’s how we protect our patients, support our profession, and push for policies that work for, not against, those we care for.

SCPS advocacy is powered by dedicated member volunteers who give countless hours of their time. However, to be truly effective, we also rely on professional lobbyists (SYASL) and administrative support—making advocacy the largest expense in our budget. This is a worthwhile investment because it directly benefits our profession and our patients.

Advocacy work isn’t easy. At times, it feels like an uphill battle or a delicate balancing act. But every conversation, every letter to a legislator, and every voice added to our collective effort makes a real difference. Advocacy is a shared responsibility, and SCPS’s efforts wouldn’t be possible without your support. By paying your membership dues, you are directly contributing to the work highlighted in this issue.

If you’re looking for simple ways to increase your involvement in advocacy, I highly recommend:

1. Signing up for APA action alerts or bookmarking this APA link. These updates will keep you informed on APA’s advocacy efforts, leadership statements, and policy initiatives while providing an easy way to engage with policymakers.
2. Reading the weekly CSAP newsletter and keeping an eye out for actionable items.
3. Join one of the many SCPS committees.

I want to take a moment to sincerely thank each of you for your support—whether through your membership, your time, or your direct involvement in advocacy. I hope this issue inspires you to stay engaged, speak up, and take an active role in shaping the policies that impact our work. If you’ve ever wondered whether your voice matters, the answer is yes—it absolutely does.

With gratitude,
Galya Rees

Welcome to the April 2025 SCPS Psychiatric Advocacy Edition

by Roderick Shaner, MD, Co-chair, SCPS GAC
Emily Wood, MD, Co-chair, SCPS GAC
Laura Halpin, MD, SCPS Rep to CSAP PAC, co-chair elect, SCPS GAC

When the three of us inaugurated the first Advocacy Edition of the SCPS Psychiatrist last April, it was just an experiment. It increased membership awareness of SCPS advocacy, stirred up some controversies, and garnered lots of member clicks! So, it is our great pleasure to welcome you to the second Advocacy Edition. Our goals remain the same.

1. To showcase the activity that takes up the biggest chunk of the SCPS budget and provides direct benefits to our profession and our patients.
2. To recognize the advocacy contributions of SCPS members, and APA members in our fellow Area 6 (California) DBs who join us in CSAP to help change California regulations that harm our patient care and to stop proposed legislation that is clinically unsound.
3. To inspire or goad you to weigh in on critical advocacy issues and become further involved in crafting policies and regulations that affect our work. Each of us -every member of SCPS—has unique and critical expertise to contribute.
4. To highlight the value of shaping our own advocacy rather than “giving input” to others.

We hope the articles that follow fully reflect the heart of advocacy: caring about our patients, our profession, and our communities. It thrives in a spirit of camaraderie and mutual respect and support—even when we disagree among ourselves about advocacy directions. That support was evident during the recent fires in the SCPS region that affected many of our members.

Finally, we wish to thank those who have contributed articles and expertise in the pages of this issue.

Psychiatrists Made California Laws Better Last Year – And Aren’t Going to Stop!

by CSAP GAC, Board, and Paul Yoder

In 2024, a raft of new bills, many sponsored or supported by CSAP, extended recent historic breakthroughs in mental health law. Here are six of those bills that are immediately relevant to our practices.

SB 42 (Umberg) Stops attempts by local CARE Court regulations to improperly limit families and clinical staff from the CARE Court Process through various means, including limiting communication.

SB 1184 (Eggman) Stops the local court practices that directly interrupt provision of antipsychotic medication in instances when court-controlled scheduling prevent timely Reise hearings.

SB 1238 (Eggman) Stops State DHS from hamstringing implementation of SB43 by blocking the use of LPS designated facilities for individuals with SUDs detained under WIC 5150.

SB 1400 (Stern) Stops counties and courts from releasing to the streets prisoners who are incompetent to stand trial without first determining whether necessary mental health care is available.

AB 2376 (Bains) Expands the availability of substance abuse treatment resources by increasing regulatory flexibility for SUD treatment facilities.

AB 1316  (Irwin) Ensures that the transfer of individuals with emergency psychiatric conditions from emergency rooms to LPS designated facilities is done in full accordance with LPS regulations.

AB 1842 (Reyes) Prevents insurance companies from requiring prior authorization or establishing other impediments like step therapy and UR to medication-assisted treatment for substance abuse in acute situations.

More is coming for 2025! CSAP is sponsoring or co-sponsoring a record number of bills. These will further improve our abilities to provide good patient care and maintain effective practices. They will help stave off any continuing efforts to roll back or block recent reforms. And they will forward our efforts to secure quality mental health services for everyone. Here are the bills, as of this writing:

Bill Text – AB-384 Health care coverage: mental health and substance use disorders: inpatient admissions. (Connolly) Prohibits required prior authorization by insurance companies or Medicaid for admissions of covered individuals admitted to 24-hour acute inpatient facilities for medically necessary treatment of mental health or substance abuse disorders. This will enhance medically determined access to need care for individuals with all behavioral health disorders.

Bill Text – AB-1105 Conservatorships. (Quirk-Silva) Permits a conservator to authorize the placement of a conservatee in a facility with a secured delayed egress, or other appropriate placement, based on the level of need. This will help conservators ensure the residential safety of conservatees without unnecessarily using acute inpatient facilities.

Bill Text – SB-320 Firearms: California Do Not Sell List. (Limon) Allows a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to, and subsequently remove their own name from, the “California Do Not Sell List” for firearms. This will help individuals with episodes of serious illness to further protect themselves from self-harm as California already has a waiting period for firearm purchases.

Bill Text – SB-331 Substance abuse. (Menjivar) Gives CARE Court original petitioners a larger role. Explicitly includes “chronic alcoholism” as a mental health disorder in LPS regulations and defines “mental health disorders” as those referenced in in the latest edition of DSM. This 1) gives families a greater ability to help determine CARE Court approved treatment for their loved ones, and 2) will lessen dangers from obsolete ideas about mental illness.

Bill Text – SB-367 Mental health. (Allen) Makes several significant changes to LPS-related assessments, including requirements to consider past history and the presence of neurocognitive disorders, and to clarify recommendations for less-restrictive settings.  This will greatly improve the quality of LPS assessments related to involuntary detention and conservatorship, increasing safety to patients and forwarding more useful and effective recommendations arising from LPS conservatorship investigations.

Bill Text – SB-820 Inmates: psychiatric medication: administration. (Stern) Authorizes a psychiatrist to administer psychiatric medication involuntarily to an inmate found incompetent to stand trial on misdemeanor charges. This will help provide proper psychiatric care to inmates who cannot otherwise receive needed treatment.

Bill Text – SB-823 Mental health: the CARE Act. (Stern) Would include Bipolar Disorder, type1 in the criteria for a person to receive services under the CARE Act. This will extend the benefits of CARE Court to individuals with severe symptoms of Bipolar Disorder.

But these bills won’t pass themselves. Please support them by staying engaged and involved though SCPS and CSAP. Senators Allan, Limon, Menjivar, and Stern all have districts in the SCPS region.

How Individual Psychiatrists Are in Fact Driving Needed Change

by Paul Yoder

Hello again everyone! I’m Paul Yoder, the “Y” in SYASL, and the guy who writes that weekly email blast that you get about legislative activity in Sacramento. I’m happy to have the opportunity again in the annual SCPS Psychiatrist advocacy issue to update you all on the question that was posed last year: “What can I—as just one busy psychiatrist—do to help drive legislative change?” Here’s an example from the California legislative session that just ended.

A CASE IN POINT: Making Riese hearing procedures less dangerous

If you’ve worked in psychiatric inpatient services, you know that Riese hearings that are meant to protect patients’ rights too often unnecessarily interrupt medical treatment and endanger patient care.  One SCPS psychiatrist, Erick Cheung,  after conferring with colleagues, suggested changes to Riese hearing law in California to mitigate this unintended consequence. The observation was this: that unfortunately from time to time, court calendars were such that individuals transitioned from one involuntary detention order to another, were going several days without medications due to a “gap” in legal proceedings.

This observation, and a proposed solution, was vetted within SCPS and then forwarded to the Government Affairs Committee (GAC) of the California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP). The CSAP GAC agreed that something should be done, and the Board did as well. My firm, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange (SYASL), was tasked with trying to make the recommended changes in state law.

And that’s what happened. As you may have read about from time to time last year in the CSAP Newsletter that comes out every Friday, SB 1184 (Eggman) was amended to include the proposed solution and successfully ushered through the Legislature with the help of SYASL. It is now law, which you can view here.

WHAT’S NEXT

This year, CSAP is already sponsoring and co-sponsoring at least seven pieces of legislation; many of the ideas contained in these bills came from SCPS members! Every one of them has to potential to improve your ability to protect and care for your patients and deliver the highest quality professional care. Over the next weeks and months, I’ll keep you updated in my weekly email blast about what these bills are and how they progress to what we hope will be passage into California law. At this point, we can’t predict their fates. But we do know that advocacy by individual psychiatrists can tip the balance for any of them.

WHAT YOU CAN DO (AND HOW SYASL CAN HELP)

You, as a voting SCPS member, have direct representation in CSAP (calpsychiatrists.org) You call the shots in terms of CSAP’s robust advocacy to advance mental health policies that support the needs of the psychiatric profession, allied fields, and patients in California.

Here, based upon my experience, are the critical ways that you can develop your important advocacy ideas and turn them into action.

• Stay informed by reading your weekly email blasts.
• Contribute your ideas freely to SCPS committees, participating in committee debates on advocacy choices in areas in which you are passionate.
• Take advantage of your tremendous credibility with the public and with the legislature and government agencies to drive the changes needed.

That last point is exactly where my SYASL team and I can help make you most effective. Given the complexity of Sacramento and its politics, it’s good to have expert guidance. I, along with my team at SYASL (https://syaslpartners.com), usually provide that guidance at the CSAP Board level. But I’m also often working directly with members like you to gather ideas and present persuasive professional testimony.

I’ve been a lobbyist in California for over thirty years and have worked with physicians much of that time. In addition to its relationship with CSAP, SYASL also provides state advocacy services to the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (Cal-ACAP) and the California Medical Association (CMA). I understand private practice issues. And I am also experienced in public behavioral health issues by virtue of also representing over twenty of California’s fifty-eight counties. SYASL is annually ranked in California’s Top Ten Advocacy Firms.

Believe me, I know that it’s scary when you first talk with legislators or testify at a committee hearing in Sacramento. But you will be surprised at how influential your presence can be, especially with a little coaching. Some key bills that CSAP is currently sponsoring in Sacramento have resulted from one or two psychiatrists having an idea and forwarding it to SCPS Council Members, staff, or to me directly.

Got an idea? My email is paul@syaslpartners.com – try it and see for yourself!

-Paul Yoder Principal, SYASL

Advocacy Training in Psychiatric Resident Education: It’s an ACGME requirement!

by Manal Khan, MD, Chair, SCPS Academic Liaison Committee

The American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires that residents graduating from psychiatry residency programs demonstrate competence in advocating for quality patient care and optimal patient care systems, competence in advocating for the promotion of mental health and prevention of mental health disorders and learn to advocate for patients within the healthcare system to achieve care goals. Additionally, psychiatry residency programs aspire to train residents and fellows who respect and respond to the mental health needs of diverse patient populations, understand and address social and structural determinants of health, and attend to the needs of their local communities.

Psychiatric organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and its district branches including Southern California Psychiatric Society (SCPS) provide residents and fellows with opportunities to learn about and practice advocacy. Through specialized fellowships, council and committee participation, and resident-fellow member representation, trainees can collaborate with like-minded colleagues on issues of importance to them. Organized psychiatry can play a critical role in shaping policies, promoting mental health, and supporting psychiatrists in their practice. As the next generation of psychiatrists, trainees can utilize these existing structures to advocate for their patients and communities.

As psychiatrists, it is difficult to imagine the health and welling of our patients without considering the context (or systems) in which they exist. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s quote, “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhuman” highlights health as a product of social care. Without considering and addressing the impact of poverty, racism, financial adversity, food insecurity, neighborhood resources, and access to healthcare and housing, we cannot meaningfully restore our patients’ health and wellbeing. Therefore, we need to consider policies, in addition to prescriptions and psychotherapy, as important tools for patient care.

In that spirit, the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship program along with the psychiatry residency training program at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) offer career enrichment opportunities in community and global psychiatry for children, adolescents, and adults. These programs each have a specific Community Psychiatry and Global Mental Health concentration that provides a structure for these opportunities.   Partnerships with SCPS leaders have provided important opportunities for education and mentorship. Additionally, SCPS has taken significant initiative in reaching out to training programs in the Southern California region to build valuable connections between training programs and organized psychiatry. Other SCPS initiatives through the platform of the Diversity and Culture Committee include facilitating critical conversations about community service, the future of diversity, inclusion, and equity in mental healthcare, the role of organized psychiatry, and access to healthcare.

As we prepare our trainees to meet the needs of their diverse patients in a changing socio-political environment, it is our responsibility to ensure that they are fiercely patient-centered, highly conscientious, aptly skilled, and collectively supported to do so. Advocacy is not just an ACGME requirement but an integral component of patient care and our professional identity.

The CSAP Secret Sauce Recipe

by Roderick Shaner, SCPS GAC Co-Chair, CSAP Board Chair

The California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP) celebrates its fifth anniversary this year. It restored member-directed legislative advocacy for California APA members. It quickly ascended to become a formidable voice for psychiatry in state politics, advocating for essential mental health legislation annually and securing notable victories for both patients and the profession. Since 2022, the alliance has enjoyed the united support of all five California district branches and the APA.

We must not take our success for granted. History teaches us the pitfalls of complacency in member-driven political action in California and the difficulty of uniting five independent DBs under a single—and costly—umbrella. Determining what makes CSAP effective is crucial for its preservation.

Having served as an SCPS representative to the CSAP Government Affairs Committee and Board of Directors for three years, I am nearing the end of my term as Board Chair in three months. This reflection on CSAP’s formula has led me to identify several key elements that could guide SCPS Council support for CSAP in the future.

1. A strong blueprint that requires consensus among all district branches for major legislative initiatives and ensures regular and fair leadership rotation.
2. A principle-driven advocacy consulting firm, SYASL, led by Paul Yoder, that shapes APA psychiatrists’ goals into sponsored legislation, facilitating access to key legislators and administrators.
3. Transparency that’s crucial; CSAP keeps members informed and avoids strategies based on hidden alliances.
4. A CSAP Government Affairs Committee (GAC) that comprises equal membership from all five branches, making recommendations but not acting independently.
5. A fair assessment of costs that ensures that greater resources do not automatically grant disproportionate power to any DB.
6. A political action committee (PAC) that benefits each donor DBs more than does independent action.
7. An unambiguous relationship with the APA Assembly Area 6 Council that ensures alignment in state legislative activities, reflecting the coherent will of the five DB councils.

These ingredients contribute to CSAP’s success, but perhaps you see them differently or have concerns about their toxicity. Please share your thoughts through SCPS media, town halls, representatives, or elections. Legislative processes have been compared to sausage-making, and we aim for well-seasoned products.

APA National Advocacy – Just When We Need It the Most

by Rachel Johnston, Regional Director, State Government Relations, American Psychiatric Association

During this period of critical new national policy proposals related to healthcare, APA needs your engagement and help now more than ever. Here is why and how.

Why:

Advocacy has the power to shape decisions on a national and state level. There have been many changes introduced by the new Administration and Congress regarding mental health and substance use services, making it critical that APA members take action.  APA staff are working very closely with the APA Board of Trustees to ensure that APA’s policies are protected, and that the voice of psychiatry is heard. We are committed to advocating for policies that protect and advance the practice of psychiatry and the patients you serve. Core to this is our work to promote evidence-based policies to shape the future of mental health care.

In response to several Executive Orders and other actions from the new Administration, APA has issued numerous statements, action alerts, and is working closely with Congress and healthcare allies behind the scenes.  APA has been promoting and defending critical issues of importance including but not limited to access to psychiatric medications, physician payment and access to care – Medicaid, Medicare and fair reimbursement, and mental health funding (see our new advocacy action center for more information).

APA continues to partner with other mental health and medical specialty society organizations and coalitions such as the CEO Alliance for Mental Health, the Mental Health Liaison Group, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American College of Physicians and others to amplify our voice through joint statements, which can have a greater impact among policymakers.

How:

We encourage you to sign up for our advocacy updates & alerts and our Congressional Advocacy Network to keep up to date on our advocacy activities and send messages to Congress on legislation and issues important to psychiatry.  California has a powerful voice with the most representation in the United States House of Representatives, with 52 Representatives. It is imperative to amplify your voice at the national level. The time to get involved is now!

CSAP PAC: Powerful and Transparent

by Laura Halpin, MD, SCPS Treasurer-Elect, CSAP PAC Representative from SCPS

The California State Association of Psychiatrists, your state-wide advocacy organization, has formed a political action committee (PAC). As your PAC representative from SCPS, I hope to demonstrate how PAC contributions are an important, transparent way to influence the political process – and not a seedy way to pass unmarked bills under the table to crooked politicians! And, I will provide an update on our recent actions.

While money is NOT the main way that we, as psychiatrists, can or should influence policy, it’s undeniably part of the political process that shouldn’t be overlooked.  PACs are highly regulated with the goal of transparent advocacy, not mechanisms for unethical financial influence. PACs allow professionals to pool resources and amplify their collective voice in policy discussions that directly impact patient care, public health, and the future of our profession. By supporting candidates and legislation that align with evidence-based medicine and ethical healthcare policies, PACs help ensure that lawmakers understand the complexities of mental health care and the broader medical field. Importantly, PAC contributions are transparent, regulated, and serve to educate policymakers rather than buy influence. Without organized advocacy efforts like the CSAP PACs, the voices of psychiatrists risk being drowned out by competing interests that may not prioritize patient well-being or our profession.  Contributing to a PAC, financially and otherwise, when done intentionally and transparently, can really make a difference.

In California, PACs are subject to regulations enforced by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Knowing these limits helps give perspective to the large amounts of money involved in campaigns. Per regulations, the max contribution that an organization can contribute to a PAC (e.g. from SCPS to CSAP PAC) is $9,100. The max that an individual or PAC can contribute to a single candidate is $5,900 per election (primary and general are considered separate). For governor elections, for which the next scheduled election is in 2026, the limits are higher.

Your CSAP PAC is currently formed with one representative from each of the 5 California APA District Branches. According to our CSAP procedural code, all decisions made by the PAC are unanimous, meaning all representatives and DBs must agree. Since its inception in 2023, SCPS has contributed the max allowed by state law to the CSAP PAC, which is $9,100.   This is funded by a small portion of your dues which are already earmarked for advocacy. Money used for advocacy is not tax deductible – this is why it is highlighted when you pay your dues. Most of the remainder of the advocacy funds go to other advocacy-related operating costs.  Our goal is to gather as much input from members and be as transparent as possible regarding these financial transactions. To this end, we have formed an ad hoc committee to further discuss next steps.  Thus far, CSAP PAC has met once this year and voted to support the following candidates:

Senator Caroline Menjivar (D), Senate district 20, Burbank, San Fernando Valley.  As she is the Chairperson of the Senate Health Committee, our connections with her will be essential to advancing our legislative priorities this year. She is a former Marine and attained a Master of Social Welfare degree from UCLA.  She previously worked as an EMT and crisis/DV therapist and her wife is a marriage and family therapist.   Key issues she has addressed in the past include infertility coverage, consumer/tenant protections, protecting vulnerable communities, environmental justice, childcare, foster youth, individuals found incompetent to stand trial, and CalWORKS.  The PAC committee approved a contribution of $5,900.  The plan is to provide this at an in-district fundraising event that members of the GAC will attend to connect with Senator Menjivar.

Countering Psychiatric Group Think—It’s critical (and fun, sort of…)

by Joseph Vlaskovits, SCPS Councilor, Ventura Region

“Diversity and independence are important because the best collective decisions are the product of disagreement and contest, not consensus or compromise.” – James Surowiecki.

As physicians, we are taught that the best way to resolve conflict among ourselves is to come to a consensus for the patient’s needs.  As psychiatrists, this is naturally amplified by our focus on the patient’s subjective state.  While these are essential to ensuring our good clinical care, I would respectfully submit that these approaches may sometimes stand in the way of effective advocacy.

I have been fortunate to be part of SCPS’s Government Affairs Committee, and am in awe of the diversity, wisdom and experience of its members.  I am further deeply appreciative of the extensive time and volunteer work that is incumbent on the co-chairs (and some of its members) to present an agenda each meeting that tracks the numerous issues critical to our practice of psychiatry, at federal, state and local levels.

The complexity of these issues and legislative measures is simply remarkable, and it is no exaggeration that if our organized advocacy was not on “alert,” major and deleterious changes for our patients and practices could easily be cemented into legislation.  In this specific setting, it is my belief that we should look a little outside of medicine and psychiatry to counter the complacency and danger of group think.

I learned from the renowned Dr. Philip Resnick, in whose forensic psychiatry fellowship the art of sharpening an argument was a weekly occurrence at Thursday morning supervision.  I, like many of the fellows, sometimes found myself picking up my ego on the way out of supervision after my wooly-headed thinking on a particular issue had been exposed, demolished; falling short of clarity, or in some (embarrassing) instances, the truth.  Dr. Resnick adopted this manner of supervision from the way a judge would use law clerks to argue positions to produce the best possible judgement.

While I do not think that GAC or Council should mimic this precisely, I genuinely believe that putting our diverse thinking and arguments to the test and allowing us as a group to sharpen them and understand their advantages and disadvantages is critical to generating our best advocacy.  And so long as we are certain to focus on the ball and not the player, while accepting our common human foibles, it can be fun, too.

Therefore, I would encourage others to join us in this endeavor and not fear the sometimes-lively debate.  After all, paraphrasing Churchill, democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other.  You may rest assured; it is well and alive at SPCS.

Political Action Alerts as Necessary Nuisances: How to shoot a quick and effective email to your representative

by Emily T. Wood, MD, PhD, Co-Chair, SCPS GAC

As long as the United States remains a representative democracy, your voice is a powerful tool. Contacting your elected officials, especially your representatives in Congress, is crucial for influencing policy and ensuring your concerns are heard. This is particularly true if you live in a potential swing-district.

Why swing districts matter

Districts where election results were close in 2024 and are expected to be close again in 2026, hold significant sway. Currently, 8 of the 10 most competitive congressional districts for 2026 are in California and four of those districts have areas within SCPS. These four districts are currently represented by George Whitesides (D, Dist 27, northern Los Angeles County), Ken Calvert (R, Dist 41, parts of Riverside County), Young Kim (R, Dist 40, parts of Orange/Riverside/San Bernardino counties), and Derek Tran (D, Dist 45, parts of Los Angeles and Orange counties). These representatives, who faced tough re-election races, are more likely to be responsive to their constituents’ concerns. In particular, in our current slight Republican-majority US House of Representatives, the swingable Republican votes can be decisive, potentially making outreach to Calvert and Kim even more impactful. (I’m talking to you Inland Empire!)

To make your voice heard: shout clearly and succinctly with many others

Legislators rely on constituent feedback to understand the needs and priorities of their districts and respond when they hear from large numbers of their constituents. According to the experts (legislative staffers), this is how it works: When you write or call in, they need to know your address so that they can check that you are a constituent. (They like messages sent through their website because it checks your address). Each written or recorded message received is quickly examined and the sentiment is recorded in a spreadsheet. Your thesis on the importance of adding certain language to a bill or voting a specific way on a piece of legislation is unlikely to be convincing.^# These representatives are convinced by the number of their constituents who care enough to communicate and are therefore likely voters. This is also why short, personal messages are more influential than long templated ones (like those sent through advocacy websites).

Here’s how you can effectively communicate with your legislators:

• Identify Your Representatives:
  – Use online tools to confirm who represents you.
  – You can also find out how they are voting online.
• Go to your legislator’s website
  – Locate the “Contact” and/or “Email your legislator” links.
  – You will have to verify your address as a constituent.
  – George Whitesides message page
  – Ken Calvert message page
  – Young Kim message page
  – Derek Tran message page
• Be clear and concise:
  • State your opinion clearly and, ideally, as a directive. There is usually a subject line for this.
    • e.g. “Do not decrease funding for Medicaid.“
  • Limit your commentary to no more than 3 sentences
    • e.g. “You must protect funding for Medicaid and Medicare in the budget and vote NO on any funding cuts. As a physician and constituent, I know that Medi-Cal is critical for our community’s health. Over 40% of Riverside residents rely on Medi-Cal for essential mental health and medical services.”
  • Press send to influence policy and hold your representatives accountable

^# If your thesis is medicine/psychiatry related, please send it to SCPS so that we can represent your position in our advocacy efforts! Your reasons and expertise DO matter when we are speaking one-on-one with legislators and their staff to impact the direction of legislation.

The Necessity of Preserving a Diverse Workforce: Observations from The Intersection of DEI and Psychiatry SCPS Conference

by Cathy Banh, MD and Austin Nguy, MD

In our discussion for the SCPS virtual event in February entitled The Intersection of DEI and Psychiatry, we posed the following question to the SCPS members: What are diverse, equitable, and inclusive recruitment strategies?

We based our discussion on the premise psychiatry’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) must go beyond preservation, especially during times when the values of DEI are attacked.

To help ensure that attendees shared a common definition of diversity, equity, and inclusion, we offered the following:

Diversity is “a way to describe all aspects of humanity” and the practice of including all people and valuing their differences, from socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, to gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, and age. American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC)

Equity recognizes that resources are unevenly distributed and considers the specific needs or circumstances of a person or group to provide the resources needed to help them be successful.

Inclusion “provides the opportunity and environment where everyone has a meaningful experience in and contribution toward our medical schools and health systems and discourages feelings of being unwelcome, left out, or out of place”.  (AAMC)

Psychiatry attendings, faculty members, and resident physicians who attended the conference highlighted the strategy of promoting sub internship programs for students from backgrounds that are underrepresented in psychiatry with fully paid accommodations so that no cost is incurred to students with financial need.

One colleague suggested that to address the underrepresentation of black and brown psychiatrists we need to start at medical school admissions, looking at the cost of applying to medical school and medical education overall. According to the AAMC, the 2025 medical school application fee is $175 for the first school and $46 for each additional school and on average, applicants apply to 16 schools. The average medical school-related debt load for students in 2023 was $202,453, excluding other graduate and undergraduate debts.

We also discussed recruiting medical students from conferences hosted by Student National Medical Association and Latino Medical Student Association.

Another part of our discussion considered how DEI initiatives translate into patient care.  A PGY4 cited data suggesting that black and brown doctors often have better patient outcomes; a study from JAMA reveals that Black PCPs are associated with better survival outcomes for Black patients (1). Women surgeons have decreased follow-up and adverse post operative outcomes (2). Data on older Medicare patients admitted to hospital in the US showed that patients treated by international graduates had lower mortality than patients cared for by US graduates (3).

These studies suggest that patients benefit from having Black, female, and international medical graduate physicians. That is why we must persist in striving for DEI in medicine and psychiatry, for our patients and their outcomes.

Our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) must go beyond preservation. Institutions across the nation have had funding withdrawn due to open support of DEI programs. Learning from the experiences of our patients and peers from a wide variety of cultures, ethnicities, and socioeconomic statuses is critical in teaching us how to care for all.  We appreciated the opportunity to discuss DEI issues in psychiatry at this annual SCPS conference.

Snyder JE, Upton RD, Hassett TC, Lee H, Nouri Z, Dill M. Black Representation in the Primary Care Physician Workforce and Its Association With Population Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(4):e236687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.6687

Wallis CJD, Jerath A, Aminoltejari K, Kaneshwaran K, Salles A, Coburn N, Wright FC, Gotlib Conn L, Klaassen Z, Luckenbaugh AN, Ranganathan S, Riveros C, McCartney C, Armstrong K, Bass B, Detsky AS, Satkunasivam R. Surgeon Sex and Long-Term Postoperative Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Common Surgeries. JAMA Surg. 2023 Nov 1;158(11):1185-1194. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.3744. PMID: 37647075; PMCID: PMC10469289.

Tsugawa Y, Jena A B, Orav E J, Jha A K. Quality of care delivered by general internists in US hospitals who graduated from foreign versus US medical schools: observational study  BMJ  2017;  356 :j273 doi:10.1136/bmj.j273

The Curious Case of Advocacy in Private Psychiatry

Matthew Goldenberg DO, SCPS Private Practice Committee Chair

Last month I wrote about the importance of APA developing a Private Practice Component. While many APA components currently touch on private practice issues, none focuses on the practice of medicine, the legal, scope and other issues that directly impact psychiatrists in private practice.

An important aspect of the new APA Council on Private Practice will be to identify those members who are in private practice to coordinate their efforts and experiences to shape APA positions and advocacy efforts. For those in private practice, this will become a valuable member benefit. In addition, this renewed focus on private practice may well help to persuade non-members to join APA.

As one example, each APA component is given a presentation forum at this year’s APA conference in Los Angeles. Unfortunately, there will not be one focused on private practice psychiatry this year.

Would you be interested in presentations and workshops focused on the practice of psychiatry?

If so, let us know and what topics you would be interested in learning more about and we will communicate the list to APA!

In the coming months, SCPS will continue our outreach to the APA and to the APA assembly expressing the importance of a Council on Private Practice Psychiatry.

In the meantime, SCPS and CSAP have been hard at work advocating for the private practice psychiatry at the local and statewide levels. At SCPS, our private practice committee has provided a regular and deliberate effort, through CSAP, to flag policies and legislation that have a specific impact upon private practice. This is direct advocacy on behalf of SCPS members.

This collaboration with CSAP allows the SCPS private practice committee to present distilled material to private practitioners in the Los Angeles area who may be not have the time and experience to obtain and review the material themselves. For those members who have limited time, but are interested in engaging in the advocacy process, this empowers private practitioners with limited time to selectively advocate through contacts with legislators.

The SCPS private practice committee also serves as a hub for outreach to the other four California APA DBs and the Area 6 Council. In this way, SCPS private practice related advocacy and initiatives, can effectively solicit interest and engagement from psychiatrists across California. In the future, we may consider a statewide private practice committee or workgroup for the purposes of informing and coordinating private practice advocacy across California.

A major focus of our efforts should include increasing access to care and increasing psychiatrists’ ability to take insurance of all types. For example, statewide coordination should include and should advocacy for private practice psychiatrists in County behavioral health FFS Medi-Cal provider panels.

Advocacy is and will continue to be a significant aspect of SCPS’s work on behalf of all psychiatrists in the Los Angeles area. While there are many important focuses for our efforts, private practice psychiatry needs to be one of those priorities.

If you are interested in getting involved with our SCPS private practice committee, please let us know!

Your  Patients’ Medications – The Government Wants a Say

by Emily T. Wood, MD

The national stimulant medication shortage that started in Fall 2022 continues to ravage pharmacies and restrict appropriate treatment to patients across the SCPS region. The reasons behind the shortage are quite complex. Without getting too deep in the weeds, what we thought was related to one Adderall manufacturing plant going unexpectedly offline in October 2022, has turned into the DEA recently publicly declaring that prescription stimulants are the next opioid crisis and that they are taking all necessary measures to limit diversion. This comparison to opioids is not founded in the clinical data or neuroscience of these medications and the conditions they treat. This stance by the DEA may be contributing to delays, leading to pharmacies developing policies limiting access to medications to prevent flagging the DEA Suspicious Orders Reporting System, and inadequate treatment for individuals with ADHD.  The Stimulant Shortage Task Force at SCPS will continue to work to improve access to the first-line treatment for individuals with ADHD.

Your  Parity in Peril? – The Importance of the DMHC Help Line

by Robert Burchuk, MD, SCPS Access to Care Committee Co-Chair

Behavioral health parity in insurance coverage is intrinsically linked to the availability of treatment services for the vast majority of the US population.

Last year, we wrote about the imminent final CA regulations guiding the implementation of 2020’s CA SB 855, especially requirements for the provision of out of network services when an in-network provider is unavailable, and for utilization management based on independent, non-profit medical necessity criteria. It’s fair to say health plans have not rushed to be first in class when it comes to behavioral health and compliance with the new regulations is lagging.

This article focuses on proposed SB 363 as the next incremental improvement.

It is crucial that you help inform patients of the DMHC Help Center, 1 888 466 2219, and consider posting and providing copies of this DMHC document in your offices. https://www.dmhc.ca.gov/Portals/0/Docs/DO/BehavioralHealthCareFactSheet.pdf

SB 363 seeks to strengthen the DMHC.

In February, Sen. Scott Wiener (D SF) chaired an Informational Hearing of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee exploring the persistent inadequacies in patient protections, despite efforts by the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC). https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/senate-budget-and-fiscal-review-committee-20250219

The first 2 hours were devoted primarily to Behavioral Health Parity including Sen. Weiner describing the DMHC Independent Medical Review (IMR) data findings as an “indictment” (min 38) of the State’s oversight. His criticism was based on the >75% overturn rate in favor of the patient for BH cases and the small numbers of BH IMR’s (557 and 483 for 2023 and prelim 2024, respectively) that are requested due to the complexity of the process.  Additionally (1’30” to 1’50”), there are especially interesting advocacy positions by our allies. There is also a statement from the California Association of Health Plans (CAHP) who assert network adequacy concerns are based on workforce limitations and suggest providers have excessive payment expectations.

DMHC also reported on nine of 29 targeted BH reviews initiated in 2023 to evaluate plan compliance with SB 855.  The DMHC has found every plan in violation and referred them to enforcement. Another 4-5 plan’s reports are expected in the next few months.

Behavioral Health Investigations Phase One Summary Report 2023

Behavioral Health Investigations Phase Two Summary Report

Senator Wiener has proposed SB 363 in an effort to add another layer of enforcement and greater specificity in reporting of insurance disputes. His proposal calls for severe mandatory fines based on a plan whose IMR overturn rate exceeds 50% with a minimum fine of 1 million dollars for a third case and lesser fines for the first 2. Here is his proposed bill:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB363

What can you do? If you want to help, it is critical that you talk about the DMHC and its Help Line when you hear patients and people in your personal networks describe frustration getting to a covered provider. The DMHC is generally very helpful to individuals, but not until a person or their representative calls.

While non-urgent cases are supposed to be appealed to the health plan prior to reaching out, DMHC staff noted that their clinical staff expedite cases to IMR about 40% of the time based on their assessment of urgency. The routine standard process requires an appeal to the patient’s health plan prior to an IMR.

And please share your experiences with the SCPS.  We are especially interested in vignettes about experiences with patients struggling to access care.  What is happening out in the field is that patients will seek out-of-network treatment for lack of an adequate network however they should first seek DMHC assistance.

APA Presentations with Relevance to the Wildfires and Other Disasters

APA Annual Meeting 2025 – Register Now

Disasters and Their Consequences – Tuesday, May 20, 3:45 pm – 5:15 pm

Session description: Mental health consequences of climate-induced disasters, of war, famine, and political displacement result in traumatized communities, families, and individuals. Compounded by a lack of mental health professionals, a focus on short-term emergency aid instead of long-term prevention, and political posturing, mental health suffers from inadequate attention after cataclysmic events. This panel of international experts in trauma, disaster relief, and refugees offers lessons from war-torn Ukraine, climate-ravaged Greece, and the US to underscore programs and strategies that can alleviate some of the more devastating mental health effects of disaster. From mainstream trauma-informed care and psychological first aid, to innovative programs that train and prepare lay communities in disaster relief and crisis support, speakers will present the empirical literature, their own research, and the more powerful narratives from their work.

Understanding and Addressing the Mental Health Impact of Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters – Saturday, May 17, 3:45 – 5:15 pm

Session description: Climate-driven disasters, such as the recent devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, have profound and lasting effects on individual and community well-being. Beyond the immediate physical destruction, these events exacerbate pre-existing social determinants of mental health, disproportionately affecting marginalized populations with limited access to resources and recovery support. This session explores the intersection of natural disasters and social determinants of mental health, emphasizing the unique challenges posed by wildfires and their associated disasters, such as displacement, air pollution, and economic instability.

Attendees will gain insights into the acute and long-term psychological consequences of disasters, including trauma, PTSD, anxiety, and environmental grief. The session will highlight the role of systemic inequities in disaster response and recovery, examining how factors such as socioeconomic status, housing security, and access to healthcare shape mental health outcomes. Participants will also learn practical strategies for integrating disaster preparedness, mental health first aid, and resilience-building into clinical and community-based interventions.

Through presentations and a panel discussion, this session will equip mental health professionals, community leaders, and policymakers with the tools needed to address the mental health toll of climate disasters. Attendees will leave with a deeper understanding of how to advocate for equitable disaster recovery efforts and implement trauma-informed approaches that foster community resilience. By recognizing the broader social determinants at play, we can develop more effective, inclusive, and sustainable responses to future natural disasters, ensuring that no community is left behind in the recovery process.

Disasters and Preventive Psychiatry: Building Your Skills to Care for Patients Through Hurricanes Civil Unrest Pandemics Climate Change and Beyond – Monday, May 19, 8:00 – 5:00 pm – (Paid course)

Psychiatrists are crucial to caring for patients, consulting leaders, and educating the public during disasters to optimize resilience and long-term community recovery. Hurricanes Helene and Milton, mass violence, infectious disease outbreaks, and civil unrest cause far-reaching and long-lasting adverse behavioral and psychological responses. Distress reactions, risky health behaviors, and psychiatric disorders produce significant morbidity and mortality, causing dysfunction and impairing recovery. Certain populations are at increased, such as individuals with SPMI, children and adolescents, geriatric adults, first responders and emergency workers, those of low socioeconomic status, and other marginalized communities. Understanding of risk and protective factors can enhance cultural competence and reduce health disparities in disaster response and recovery. Early interventions reduce distress by enhancing the essential elements of safety, calming, social connectedness, efficacy, and hope. Risk and crisis communication is a population health intervention to build trust and facilitate health behaviors during disasters. Crisis leadership actions are critical to restoring well-being and improving functioning. The course will help psychiatrists understand unique aspects of different disasters to aid patients and their communities. Climate-related disasters are frequent and severe, disrupting and displacing large populations. An understanding of challenges related to displacement, destruction of homes and possessions, loss of access to healthcare resources and other factors enables providers to prepare their patients and practices for these extreme events. Pandemics and other disasters involving exposure and contamination, such as chemical spills and bioterrorism, result in unique fear-based responses. Uncertainty about exposure, isolation and quarantine, concerns about the supply and safety of treatment measures, and trust in institutions shape community response. Mass shootings and other community violence amplify fear and undermine feelings of safety. Acts of terrorism increasingly targeting groups based on race, religion, and gender identity furthers community disruption. Participants are strongly encouraged to complete the free CME training “Disaster and Preventive Psychiatry: Protecting Health and Fostering Community Resilience” at the APA Learning Center, which can serve as a foundation for this course. During the course, participants will review fundamental principles in disaster and preventive psychiatry, using interactive case-based scenarios that enhance understanding of how to leverage current psychiatric skills to aid patients and communities before, during, and after disasters. Participants will then engage in an interactive, immersive, disaster tabletop exercise using role play and simulation. Q&A, audience engagement, networking, and the provision of high-quality, action-oriented resources will be used throughout the course.

The Role of Psychiatry in Creating Workplace Resilience in the Face of Disaster  – Monday, May 19 1:30 pm – 3:00 pm

National disasters such as fires, floods, earthquakes can affect large communities, including causing stress, loss, strain for workforces, including employers, employees, and their colleagues and neighbors and family members. It is important in this context to have resources available to support the well-being of all affected by natural disasters, and in this context mental health providers including psychiatrists (as well as psychologists, social workers, and others), can play an important role for treatment but also sharing resources more generally available for those affected. As an example, the Los Angeles Fires destroyed over 5K structures (home, buildings, etc.), and also more broadly affected safety of neighborhoods leading to closure of living areas more broadly than those directly destroyed. This as an example, raises issues of emotional/mental well-being, the importance of sharing information on how to manage the financial, logistical and other operations of affected neighborhoods, with challenges affecting quality of living for many over an extended period of time. Prior examples of large-scale, events, such as Katrina in New Orleans, serve as important examples for how mental well-being is important to support as well as other affected social determinants of health for individuals, families, and environment. This presentation will share the lived experience in this context of some individuals, to highlight the importance of support needed; and will share strategies that have been used in prior disasters and pandemics/endemics such as COVID-19, and are being explored/implemented for the Los Angeles fires, by mental health providers, including trainings, outreach, digital resources, and other strategies based on national models, evidenced based practices, and local experiences working with affected groups, with a special focus on employers and employees. (More details on the models to be reviewed? Experience with other disasters – etc.). These examples will be discussed by clinicians/ researchers and employer and employee members, audience discussion to clarify meaning and future directions for psychiatry and other mental health providers.

Don’t Call Us Vulnerable: Stories and Data on Resilience in Disaster – Monday, May 19, 1:30 pm – 3:00 pm  

There are many stereotypes fostered by the public (and the profession) about disaster and mental health outcomes. While it is certainly true that some individuals facing disasters will develop (or have exacerbated) mental health conditions, it is actually more common that individuals and communities will manage well with support, and many will actually experience post-traumatic growth. “Vulnerable” populations can also be resilient, and this disaster psychiatry presentation will provide descriptions of strength-based responses to disasters/crises as well as data regarding such individuals/populations. In addition, there will be a brief presentation on the commonalities and differences between general psychiatry and disaster psychiatry.

When the Mouth Speaks the Whole Person Heals: Understanding Integrative Community Therapy Through Experiential Learning – Sunday, May 18, 8:00 – 9:30 am  

Integrative Community Therapy (ICT) is an open, large group communal dialogic practice in which participants engage in guided conversation to share lived experiences of emotional suffering. Dialogue with other community members provides exposes each participant to alternative methods of managing their dilemmas in a way that enhances the individual’s and community’s sense of agency and empowerment. This community-based intervention developed in the favelas of Brazil is now spreading globally backed by a growing body of evidence that it is an effective intervention for a range psychopathologies including depression, anxiety, and PTSD, as well as emotional distress phenomena such as burnout. This workshop will allow participants to participate in and experience a full “round” or session of ICT. Presenters will additionally briefly describe the history, theory and structure of ICT. The “round” will be followed by a group debrief and an audience driven discussion of the strengths, utilities and challenges of using this method in America.

Welcome New SCPS Members!

We are proud to spotlight some of our newest members:

Audrey Chen, MD – Resident-Fellow Member

Dr. Chen is currently with Torrance Memorial Physician Network, where she spends half her time working as a consult-liaison psychiatrist at Torrance Memorial Medical Center and the other half in outpatient psychiatry.

All new SCPS members are invited to provide Membership Spotlight materials.  (Providing these materials is optional.)

A Lawyer Whose Struggle With Psychosis Captivated WSJ Readers Returns Home – The Wall Street Journal

SCPS Council Member, Timothy Pylko, MD, appeared in a story in the Wall Street Journal on March 16, 2025

February Council Highlights

by Gillian Friedman, MD

Council Highlights
February 13, 2025
Zoom Meeting 7-9 pm

I. CALL TO ORDER – 7:02 Dr. Rees

II. Check-In – fires, Federal Gov’t Executive Orders, Etc.

III. December Council Minutes approved with no amendments/corrections

IV. Committee Reports

A. Diversity and Culture.
Busy for February – special edition of the newsletter dedicated to DEI. Upcoming Black History Month event Mon Feb 24th 7-8:30, online– panel of speakers, invitation of participants to share. 1) Importance of maintaining diverse workforce, 2) Role of organized psychiatry in times of polarization.

B. Disaster Response Committee
Thank you to everyone who reached out, wanted to get involved, joined the committee. 1) Listening session virtually – Dr. Red facilitated, Dr. Rees and Dr. Shaner shared experiences. Have talked about doing a couple more listening sessions. 2) Committee contacted SCPS members it could identify who had homes in the affected areas. 3) Send survey to SCPS members asking what help would be needed. 4) Mindi put resources on website, including trainings. 5) APA Foundation contacted committee b/c wanted to give donations to local organizations, 6) Meeting with California Disaster Mental Health Commission (what are other organizations, such as psychology organizations, doing?). 7) Considering writing an action paper about future responses to disasters. 8) Psychiatric News reached out to the committee – will see what they wrote. 9) SCPS invited to participate in upcoming LACMA Resource Fair

C. Stimulant Task Force

New DEA proposed rule about telehealth prescribing of controlled substances, considering how we would like to respond to it. Areas of concern – only 50% of Schedule II prescriptions can be via TeleHealth. Concern of listed specialties. Concern about documentation and patient identification. Plan to draft a letter – impact on clinical care and access vs. how many of these things will not significantly impact diversion. Concern about new Make America Healthy Again plan from federal gov’t that came out today that specifically targets stimulants and SSRIs.

D. Child and Adolescents Committee
Reported on recent joint meeting between SCPS and Southern California Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry group on Stimulant Shortage Crisis, which covered ADHD presentation (child vs. adult), importance of good assessment, importance of access to good treatment (e.g. stimulant medications). SCPS’s Dr. Emily Wood presented. Dr. Sid Puri, MD, talked about how to treat and monitor for signs of diversion/misuse and still effectively use medications.

E. Unhoused Workgroup.
No new updates.

F. Private Practice
The committee set aside time to process potential upcoming changes related to changes in health policy with new administration – concerns about non-evidence based suggestions in Making America Healthy Again. Pertinent working topics: stimulant shortage, change in teleprescribing rules, Medicare, access to care issues. A lot of interest from early career members.

G. Awards Committee
Helps to identify nominations for awards (Distinguished Service Award, Outstanding Resident Aware, Outstanding Achievement Award, Appreciation Award, Special Awards). Contact Mindi or Matt if you have a nominee in mind, or if you would like to help in the process.

H. Alternatives to Incarceration
No new updates.

G. Access to Care
Discussed new DEA teleprescribing rules and concerns about “specialist” certification requirements for reduced face-to-face visits. (Noting that the Stimulant Task force is addressing this with APA). The fires resulted in an All Plan Letter from Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) emphasizing that “out-of-network as in-network” coverage should be provide more liberally.

H. APA Representation Task Force
Dr. Red discussed action to date.

I. Academic Liaison Committee
Working on awards for academic contribution.

J. Ethics Committee – long-standing chair Dr. Arroyo stepping down, Dr. Reba Bindra has agreed to be new chair. Ask for committee members – each time three-member panel of the committee hear the case. Has one pending review.

K. RFM (Resident-Fellow)
Had first meeting, came up with some ideas for some evening programming with interest both to RFMs and others (changes such as CARE Court, etc.), how to help and protect and soothe your undocumented patients.

V. Government Affairs Committee (GAC) Report – Dr. Shaner

A. No motions to bring, as this is a transitional period in legislature.
B. Discussion about upcoming NAMI meeting
C. Working with new administration in Washington
D. Summary from APA of what they did last year, what they want to work on next year – goal to include diversity of opinions. SCPS asks how this will affect DEI.
E. DB Area 6 Council Meeting – Many other DBs interested in our thoughts about disaster response, would like to look at developing guidelines for disasters for Area 6.
F. DB Area 6 Council Meeting – potential changes in APA vote-by-strength rules in the Assembly. We should be paying careful attention to how this will affect our ability to advocate effectively in the Assembly
G. CSAP PAC funding – we have given SCPS portion for 2024, budgeted for 2025. If going to effectively advocate for what we want with PAC, may be important to have some consensus about PAC contributions
H. Paul Yoder moving forward on working with Senator Eggman as consultant. Sponsorship of some issues coming out of SCPS (e.g. CARE Court reform)
I. Behavioral Health Task Force for California (Executive Committee by Newsom) – alliance of organizations, NGOs, CSAP has been given a seat on this alliance
J. Review of bills we are following – e.g., AB-416 bill that would have state-mandated authorization for ER doctors to write 5150s.
K. AB 348 – would give first crack at FSP to people associated with justice system. How would this affect access of other populations to FSP, and judgment of psychiatrists about who needs this care?
L. CARE Court legislation – hoping to get sponsorship for bill that NAMI really wants that if someone fails in CARE Court after a year, MUST be considered for conservatorship (not “may”)
M. Stern bill (possible) forcing counties to fund board and cares.

VI. Assembly Reports – discussed possible upcoming changes in Assembly processes, positive feedback about how SCPS has handled issues – committee in place. Reading action papers –AAPI youth suicide. No final votes taken. Larry is moving on as Area 6 trustee.

Mindi discussed meeting for EDs about dire budget straights for APA, possibility of considering non-MD/DO memberships.

VII. Treasurer’s Report — Dr. Wood
A. November Financials and Cash on Hand Report
Dr. Wood reviewed various financial metrics, 2024 year totals and 2025 year-to-date. Overall, SCPS is in good fiscal health.

VII. President Elect Report – Dr. Kelly

A. Newsletter Updates were provided about the February Issue, hosted by Diversity and Culture, and focused on importance of DEI. Thanks to the individuals who contributed for February. SCPS Candidate Statements included. Announcement of the upcoming article assignments for March.
B. NAMI meeting Agenda discussed
C. Election Processes – Bylaws Section 3.2 presented, including process of nomination by petition – requires support of 25 members to be added to the slate as candidate for that position
D. Position of Secretary – current election slate has no candidate, but Dr. Shaner now willing to run, needs support of 25 members (any SCPS member). 25 members in council provided the bylaws-required support.
E. Position of Representative to the Assembly of the APA – current election slate has C. Freeman as the slated candidate. Petition being put forth for Dr. Goldenberg to run as well (supporting Bylaws goal to have contested elections). Dr. Goldenberg to forward petition “signatures” (members can email signifying that the email serves as their signature) to Mindi and to Gillian (as Secretary). Secretary will confirm to Mindi when 25 signatures received.

VIII. President’s Report – Dr. Rees

A. APA Reception – Mon 5/19/2025 4-6pm. Flemings DTLA. Close to convention center. Invitations sent — priority to SCPS members.
B. APA Election Results are in.
C. Meeting with APA CEO Dr. Wills on 1/7/25 – talked about approach over next year, plan to be very strategic, partner with other medical organizations, protect minority health.
D. Sun, Feb 23 10am-2pm LACMA Fire Support Resource Fair at Collins and Katz YCMA in West LA
E. Technology 1) AI for minutes – pros/cons, various AI platforms to be discussed by Task Force. 2) Using TEAMS for Council and committee communications. 3) Using WhatsApp/alternatives (Signal) for SCPS Communications. If anyone is interested in helping to explore/evaluate these technology options, reach out to Galya.
F. No longer receiving detailed applications from APA for membership review. APA changed their process for accepting applications — streamlined on the front end (can fill out the application and able to join in the same session), but no longer providing detailed membership applications to DBs like ours that have active membership chair tasked with reviewing some answers on the application (e.g., answers to ethics questions). SCPS will need to have discussion about what we want to do in SCPS with this change. (Unclear whether APA moving to do away with DB say in who we can accept to DB – we are not allowed to ask for a separate application).
G. Executive Committee/Diversity and Culture Discussion – concern from a member came to Executive Committee – discussed and contacted the member
H. Code of Conduct – C. Freeman involved in working on development of Code of Conduct for SCPS
I. Advocacy Talks updates (training programs we have already talked to, ones on the radar)

VIII. Membership Report – Dr. Ijeaku
A. Membership Report
Membership report was approved

Information about SCPS Dues and Tax Deductibility

Your continued membership is of great value to SCPS and the California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP).

For 2025, 28.2% of your dues will go towards direct advocacy services. The remaining 71.8% may be written off as a business expense. Please consult your accountant regarding deductibility.

For 2024, 25% of your dues went towards direct advocacy services. The remaining 75% may be written off as a business expense. Please consult your accountant regarding deductibility.  A portion of your 2024 advocacy dues were used to make a CSAP PAC contribution.

We know that membership is a choice and we thank you for choosing to support your profession, your patients, and your colleagues.

Sincerely,

Ijeoma Ijeaku, M.D.
Chair, Membership Committee