Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mhsa Innovation Ehr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves MHSA innovation plan to join statewide SmartCare EHR; avoids reversion of $473,000
Summary
Yolo County supervisors approved staff’s recommendation to submit a Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) innovation plan that would opt into a CalMHSA‑led SmartCare electronic health record, preserving $473,000 that would otherwise revert and freeing MHSA funds for direct services.
On April 29 the Yolo County Board of Supervisors approved a staff recommendation to submit an MHSA innovation plan that would let the county join a CalMHSA (California Mental Health Services Authority) electronic health‑record initiative known as SmartCare. The board vote cleared the way to avoid conditional reversion of $473,000 and to capture a potential shift of existing MHSA administrative costs into capital/technology categories, which staff said could free roughly $1.2 million over two years for direct services.
Interim mental‑health director Tony Kildare told the board that the county’s current electronic health record and billing workflows have created delays in Medi‑Cal billing and reporting, and that the SmartCare product is being adopted by multiple counties. Staff and the county’s behavioral‑health oversight board acknowledged implementation risks, including early software “bugs,” limited customization, and the scale of an IT transition. Kildare said 25 counties have already opted into SmartCare and staff believes the system would better support billing, outcomes reporting, and interoperability with partners.
Kildare and staff explained the timeline: the innovations plan must go through a 30‑day public comment period, local behavioral‑health board approval, and state review by the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (BHSOAC). If the board declined to approve the plan now, staff warned the $473,000 would be subject to reversion. Staff proposed a three‑year funding profile for the EHR implementation and noted estimated total costs for the initiative in the staff presentation (roughly $5.25 million over three years, with some existing electronic‑health costs consolidated into the proposal).
Supervisors asked clarifying questions about risk, customization, procurement and the ability of local partner organizations (including nonprofit providers such as NAMI) to share data or participate. Kildare acknowledged implementation would be challenging, and that other counties have reported problems; he said staff weighed those risks against ongoing billing difficulties and compliance obligations.
The board approved the staff recommendation (moved by Supervisor Villegas, seconded by Supervisor Barajas). The roll call was recorded with Supervisor Ferrigs absent; the motion passed. Staff said the approval would allow county staff to pursue the CalMHSA plan and submit required documents to avoid reversion and to pursue longer‑term savings and service‑reallocation options under MHSA and the forthcoming Behavioral Health Services Act (Prop 1). The plan will still require state approval and additional board oversight as work proceeds.
