Vermont State Hospital and the Futures Plan

The process to replace the Vermont State Hospital (VSH) continues to draw attention of advocates, community members and the media. The Futures plan calls for one primary facility, and two smaller satellite inpatient programs, sixteen beds in new community recovery residential programs, and some enhancement of peer services. Discussions of the satellite inpatient programs involve expansion of services at Rutland Regional Medical Center and the Brattleboro Retreat. Plans for the primary facility have been focused upon Fletcher Allen and the benefits of locating the project proximal to a major hospital and medical academic community. A series of public hearings were scheduled, in tandem with conversations with city leaders; however, there is at present no agreement from the city of Burlington to host the new facility and a number of important questions about the nature of the facility, staffing, budget, and its impact upon the city remain yet unanswered.

During the legislative session, the Agency of Human services requested a waiver of CON process from the House Committee of Human Services, arguing that it would slow replacement of the long-outdated hospital. The Committee denied the request for exemption, noting that given the great significance and complexity of replacing VSH, the CON process will provide important analyses and oversight, which in the long run may ultimately save time and costly mistakes. Advocates, survivors, legislators, and the media are in agreement that a project that will shape the future of mental health services in Vermont for decades to come warrants sufficient time and oversight to do it right.

The process to find locations for the subacute components of the Futures plan has drawn particular public critique and media attention. While past attempts to gain approval from towns identified as possible sites have been met with a regrettable dose of stigma, AHS has been broadly criticized by the media and public for a lack of up-front communication with towns, open dialogue with residents, and guarantees that the state will keep commitments it makes to host towns. Earlier attempts to locate a facility in Vergennes and Greensboro failed; efforts are now focused upon a site in Williamstown. A recent announcement that the Department of Health will pursue a Certificate of Approval (COA) rather than apply for a CON raised new concerns about the lack of requirement for public hearings or oversight. As nothing in the COA prohibits public involvement, we strongly urge AHS to modify the process to provide meaningful opportunities for public input as project progresses.