Advertisement

Public choice and organizational determinants of state mental health expenditure patterns

  • A. P. Schinnar
  • A. B. Rothbard
  • D. Yin
  • T. Lutterman
Articles

Abstract

The authors developed and applied multivariate computer models to study factors that determine state mental health agencies' (SMHA) budgets in relation to other state health and welfare expenditures and factors that determine the allocation of SMHA funds between state hospitals and community services. It was found that policy decisions are based on socioeconomic conditions, supply and demand of mental health services, and organizational structure of the SMHA and the political context of state government.

Keywords

Mental Health State Health Health Service Socioeconomic Condition Computer Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1987).Measuring state fiscal capacity.Google Scholar
  2. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1988).Significant features of fiscal federalism (Vols. I and II).Google Scholar
  3. Black, D.The theory of committees and elections. (1958). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Braddock, D. (1990). Discussion based on a private conversation with Trevor R. Hadley regarding the unpublished draft, Community mental health and mental retardation services in the American states: A comparative study of resource allocation.Google Scholar
  5. Downs, A. (1957).An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  6. Frank, R.G. (1985). A model of state expenditures on mental health services.Public Finance Quarterly, 13, 319–338.Google Scholar
  7. Frank, R.G., & Kamlet, M.S. (1986). Quality, quantity and total expenditures on publicly provided goods: The case of public mental hospitals.Journal of Public Economics, 29, 295–316.Google Scholar
  8. Gaynor, M. (1990). Incentive contracting in mental health: State and local relations.Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 18, 33–42.Google Scholar
  9. Goldman, H., Morrissey, J.P., & Ridgely, M. (1990). Form and function of mental health authorities at RWJ foundation program sites: Preliminary observations.Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 41, 1222–1230.Google Scholar
  10. Gonzalez, R.A., & Mehay, S. (1985). Bureaucracy and the divisibility of local public output.Public Choice, 45, 89–101.Google Scholar
  11. Haas, P.J. (1989). A comparative analysis of state mental health policy.Journal of Management Science and Policy Analysis, 6, 9–27.Google Scholar
  12. Hadley, T.R., Culhane, D., Snyder, F., & Lutterman, T. (1991, March). Trends in SMHA expenditure and revenue patterns. Reports submitted to NIMH in fulfillment of a subcontract, Contract #278-88-0021(BA), to the NASMHPD Research Institute, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  13. Hudson, C.G. (1987). An empirical model of state mental health spending.Social Work Research and Abstracts: Spring, 3–12.Google Scholar
  14. Hudson, C.G., & Dubey, S. (1984). State mental health spending under ADAMHA Block Grant: An empirical study.Journal of Social Service Research, 8, 1–23.Google Scholar
  15. National Institute of Mental Health. (1984).Inventory of mental health organization: Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration. Rockville, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  16. Lutterman, T., & Hogan, M. (1990, April). Funding source and expenditure for state mental health agencies: Revenue/expenditure study results. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors.Google Scholar
  17. Manderscheid, R.W., & Barrett, S.A. (Eds.). (1987).Mental health, United States, 1987. (DHHS Pub. No. ADM87-1518). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  18. Niskanen, W.A. (1971).Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  19. Organizational characteristics of state mental health agency. (1990, August). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Mental Health Agency Program Directors.Google Scholar
  20. Romer, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1982). Median voters or budget maximizers: Evidence from school expenditure referenda.Economic Inquiry, 26, 556–578.Google Scholar
  21. Schinnar, A.P., Rothbard, A.B., & Yin, D. (1990, December). Public choice and organizational determinants of state mental health expenditure patterns (Wharton PMW Report No. 9101). Philadelphia, PA: Univ. of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  22. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1981–1988.Google Scholar
  23. Taube, C.A., & Barrett, S.A. (Eds.). (1983).Mental health, United States, 1983. (DHHS Pub. No. ADM83-1275). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  24. Trends in revenues and expenditures of state mental health agencies fiscal years 1981, 1983, and 1985. (1987).State Health Reports: Mental Health, Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. Intergovernmental Health Policy Project. Special Issue, No. 34, September/October.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1988).Estimates of the population of the United States. Series P-25.Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Bureau of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.Employment and earnings, monthly data for 1982–1988.Google Scholar
  27. U.S. National Center for Health Statistics.Vital Statistics of the United States, Annual, 1981, 1983, 1985 (pp. 55, 57, 59, 61, 63); 1987 (p. 59, 61, 63, 65, 67).Google Scholar
  28. U.S. Social Security Administration.Social Security Bulletin, December 1982, 45∶2; December 1986, 49∶12.Google Scholar
  29. Weingast, B.R. (1984). The congressional-bureaucratic system: A principal agent perspective (with application to the SEC).Public Choice, 44, 147–91.Google Scholar
  30. Wyckoff, P.G. (1990).The simple analytic of slack-maximizing bureaucracy. Public Choice,67, 35–47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. P. Schinnar
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. B. Rothbard
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. Yin
    • 3
  • T. Lutterman
    • 4
  1. 1.Dept. of Public Policy and Management, The Wharton SchoolUniv. of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Dept. of PsychiatryUniv. of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Dept. of Public Policy and Management, The Wharton SchoolUniv. of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.National Association of State Mental Health Directors Research Inst., Inc.Alexandria

Personalised recommendations