Mental health cuts false economy, just a ticking time bomb

In a time when mental health challenges are surging across the country, the decision to cut funding for vital mental health services is a dangerous gamble with far-reaching consequences. The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) faces a $25 million cut to its Behavioral Health Division despite unprecedented demand for mental health and substance abuse programs. This decision exemplifies the false economy of reducing services to patch budget gaps, with repercussions that will ultimately cost far more in law enforcement, education, and welfare systems.

Consider the rising demand for mental health services. In 2023, 500,000 more young people between the ages of 12-17 and 3.4 million more adults sought mental health treatment than in the previous year. This increase reflects a deeper and more widespread mental health crisis, likely worsened by the isolation, stress, and economic hardship brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, despite this clear and growing need, the Behavioral Health Division now faces severe cuts, largely to fund property tax relief.

The pandemic not only exacerbated mental health issues but also created staffing shortages, delaying the ability of agencies to fully utilize allocated funds. As Neil Broders, executive director of Behavioral Health Specialists in Norfolk, explained, many treatment centers struggled to staff their facilities, not because the need for services was absent, but because they could not find or afford qualified personnel. After years of struggling to rebuild, facilities like Broders’ are now fully staffed and meeting the overwhelming demand, with more than 100 referrals a month for 58 beds. Yet, just as these agencies begin to regain momentum, further funding cuts threaten to reverse progress.

Mental health funding cuts are often seen as politically expedient because the financial benefits of mental health services are less visible than those of infrastructure projects or tax breaks. However, the costs of cutting these programs are real and immediate, spilling over into other critical areas of society. For example, law enforcement is increasingly called upon to address mental health crises that should be handled by trained professionals. Programs like Lincoln’s CenterPointe “Alternative Response” initiative have proven that investing in mental health services can reduce strain on police departments and cut down on emergency custody incidents. Over the past year, this program has not only freed up officer time but has also helped house a dozen people and decriminalized homelessness. Cutting funding for such programs will reverse these gains and push more people into jails, emergency rooms, and the streets.

In education, students grappling with untreated mental health conditions are more likely to fall behind, face disciplinary action, or drop out altogether. The growing demand for youth mental health services signals that children and teenagers are struggling. Without adequate support, they may turn to self-destructive behaviors or face lifelong mental health struggles, becoming more likely to depend on welfare systems or face legal troubles later in life. Cutting funding for these services merely shifts the cost burden onto schools, welfare programs, and, ultimately, taxpayers.

Proponents of these cuts argue that immediate savings are necessary to balance budgets and provide relief to overburdened taxpayers. However, reducing mental health services is a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The short-term financial gain is a mirage, as untreated mental health conditions will lead to increased spending elsewhere. Law enforcement, hospitals, and social service programs will bear the brunt of these cuts, and the cycle of mental health crises will continue unchecked.

To save money and lives, policymakers must recognize that mental health services are not expendable luxuries. They are essential components of a functioning society. Investment in these services leads to healthier individuals, safer communities, and reduced reliance on more expensive emergency and criminal justice systems. In the long run, cutting mental health funding is not only fiscally irresponsible—it is morally indefensible.

It’s time to stop treating mental health care as an afterthought and start recognizing it as the cornerstone of a thriving society.