Behavioral and Mental Health in Nevada

The Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health is responsible for providing public and mental health services to people living in or visiting the State. The Division is organized into four branches: Community Services Branch, Regulatory and Planning Services Branch, Clinical Services Branch and Administrative Services Branch. The Clinical Services Branch provides statewide inpatient, outpatient, and community-based public and mental health services. State employees provide mental health services, and contract providers deliver substance use services. Mental health services are additionally organized by age and geography. Adults with mental disorders are treated statewide through the Division of Public and Behavioral Health. Children with mental disorders are served through the Division of Child and Family Services within the populous urban counties (Washoe, Clark and Carson City) and the Division of Public and Behavioral Health across the 14 rural and frontier counties. Services are supported through Medicaid, the Nevada General Fund, and Federal grants. The Division of Public and Behavioral Health is located within the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, under the Executive Branch of the State, and serves as its Public Health Authority and Mental Health Commissioner. By statute, the Commission on Behavioral Health is responsible for the following: establishing policies to ensure development and administration of services for persons with mental illness, persons with intellectual disabilities and related conditions, and persons with substance use conditions; reviewing programs and finances of the Division; and providing reports to the Governor and Legislature regarding the quality of care and treatment provided to individuals with mental illness, intellectual disabilities, and substance use disorders [Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 433.314]. Historically, the governance structure of Nevada’s behavioral and mental health system has been centralized at the state level with limited involvement at regional and local levels. A policy study conducted during 2014 identified Nevada as one of only four states in the country that directly operates community-based mental health services (Kenny C. Guinn Center for Policy Priorities, Mental Health Governance: A Review of State Models & Guide for Nevada Decisions Makers, December, 2014). During that same year, the State began to consider ways to move from its centralized governance structure to a more localized model involving regional, county and city entities. A key consideration was a growing recognition that increasing the State’s responsiveness to the unique needs of individual communities is crucial. Nevada’s plan to restructure the governance of its state mental health system is not without challenges. For example, the numbers of Nevada residents covered by Medicaid benefits almost doubled when Medicaid coverage was expanded by Governor Brian Sandoval under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) during 2014, increasing from 351,315 persons in 2013 to 654,442 individuals in 2015 (Woodard and Nevada Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, 2016). On its face, the increase in numbers of residents covered by Medicaid benefits is a positive outcome. However, the existing mental health provider network was not adequate to serve the increase in numbers of individuals covered. As detailed in later sections in this chapter, the increase in health care coverage appears to have impacted the frequency with which Nevada residents used health care services, most notably hospital emergency departments and inpatient facilities. Thus, the dual influences of increased health care coverage, and limited access to appropriate and optimal mental health services are reflected in the dramatic increase in residents’ utilization of emergency department services for a wide range of mental health-related conditions during 2015, after the expansion of Medicaid during 2014. Also discussed in later sections is the fact that almost all of the State qualifies as a mental health professional shortage area (Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA). Therefore, moving from a primarily centralized or state control model to a local control model will require accommodation for the shortages in mental health professionals within communities that lie outside the State’s urban centers

The cost of music

What is the cost of music in the so-called Anthropocene? We approach this question by focusing on the case of sound-recording formats. We consider the cost of recorded music through two overlapping lenses: economic cost, on the one hand, and environmental cost, on the other. The article begins by discussing how the price of records has changed from the late 19th to the 21st century and across the seven most economically significant playback formats: phonograph cylinder, gramophone disc, vinyl LP, cassette tape, compact disc, digital audio files on hard drive, and streaming from the cloud. Our case study territory is the United States, and we chart the gradual decline in the price of recorded music up to the present. We then examine the environmental and human costs of music by looking at what recordings are made out of, where those materials come from, and what happens to them when they are disposed of. Despite what rhetorics of digital dematerialisation tell us, we show that the labour conditions in the digital electronics and IT industries are as inhumane as ever, while the amount of greenhouse gases released by the US recording industry could actually be higher today than at the height of any previous format. We conclude by asking the obvious (but by no means straightforward) question: what are musicians and fans to do

The Vice Presidential Home State Advantage Reconsidered: Analyzing the Interactive Effect of Home State Population and Political Experience, 1884-2008

Previous research has found that presidential tickets perform particularly well in a vice presidential candidate\u27s home state when that state is relatively low in population. In this article, we argue that selecting a vice presidential candidate from a small state is not sufficient to produce a large vice presidential home state advantage; rather, state population should matter only insofar as the vice presidential candidate has extensive experience within that state\u27s political system. Analysis of presidential election returns from 1884 through 2008 demonstrates the statistically significant interactive effect of home state population and political experience on the size of the vice presidential home state advantage. The models presented in the article perform much better than models that do not account for this interactive effect

The VP Advantage: How Running Mates Influence Home State Voting in Presidential Elections

A widespread perception exists among political commentators, campaign operatives and presidential candidates that vice presidential running mates can deliver their home state\u27s electoral votes in a presidential election. In recent elections, presidential campaigns have even changed their strategy in response to the perceived VP home state advantage. But is the advantage real? And could it decide a presidential election? In the most comprehensive analysis to date, Devine and Kopko demonstrate that the VP home state advantage is actually highly conditional and rarely decisive in the Electoral College. However, it could change the outcome of a presidential election under narrow but plausible conditions. Sophisticated in its methodology and rich in historical as well as contemporary insight, The VP Advantage is essential and accessible reading for anyone interested in understanding how running mates influence presidential elections

Home Court Advantage? An Empirical Analysis of Local Bias in U.S. District Court Diversity Jurisdiction Cases

In granting diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to the federal courts, there is an underlying assumption that federal courts will be less biased toward out-of-state litigants as compared with state courts. While this may be true, the assumption fails to consider an important empirical question: to what extent do federal courts favor home state litigants or disfavor out-of-state litigants when deciding diversity jurisdiction cases? Relying on the Integrated Database (IDB) compiled by the Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Offices of the U.S. Courts, we present an original, empirical analysis of diversity jurisdiction case outcomes in the U.S. districts courts from 1988 through 2021 to assess whether home state or out-of-state litigant status influences case settlements or case verdicts. The empirical analysis reveals that while diversity jurisdiction cases are more likely to settle than other cases heard in federal courts, these settlements are particularly likely to occur when both parties are out-of-state litigants. In addition, the analysis does not uncover systematic evidence of home state favoritism in judgments for the plaintiff. However, the results provide evidence that corporate litigants—who are most likely to have significant resources and serve as “repeat players” in the judicial system—are most likely to prevail in diversity cases. Given that the empirical results suggest that federal district courts do not systematically advantage or disadvantage litigants based upon in-state or out-of-state status, these findings have important implications for litigation strategy and forum selection

Presidential Versus Vice Presidential Home State Advantage: A Comparative Analysis of Electoral Significance, Causes, and Processes, 1884-2008

This article compares the electoral significance, causes, and processes associated with presidential versus vice presidential home state advantages. Our analysis of presidential election returns from 1884 through 2008 demonstrates that presidential candidates generally receive a large, statistically significant home state advantage. However, vice presidential home state advantages are statistically negligible and conditioned on the interactive effect of political experience and state population. Furthermore, the results indicate that the mobilization of new voters primarily accounts for presidential home state advantage, while vice presidential home state advantage is mainly due to the conversion of existing voters. Although home state advantages do occur in presidential elections, according to our analysis, a presidential or vice presidential home state advantage has not changed the outcome of any presidential election since 1884

Will the Vice Presidential Candidates Matter this Year? Maybe, But Not the Way You Think

Veepstakes speculation is rampant as we approach the national conventions for both major political parties. Media reports have detailed the wide array of options available to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as they decide who will be their number twos for this campaign, and perhaps for four or eight years to come. Who will Trump and Clinton pick? That depends on each candidate’s goals – both for the remainder of the presidential campaign and after Nov. 8. Political observers widely agree that the most important characteristic to look for in a running mate is the ability to serve as president in the event of unforeseen circumstances, like a president’s death, incapacitation, resignation or impeachment. However, when campaign staff and trusted political advisers vet potential running mates, they are certain to also weigh political considerations. That is, whether a given running mate will help or hurt the presidential ticket, with voters in general or with a key voting group. Particularly if the campaign is at a competitive disadvantage, its strategists may look to the running mate as a potential “game changer.” The electoral advantage most commonly associated with vice presidential candidates is geographic. In other words, they are expected to deliver their home state or region in the Electoral College. But do they actually deliver? Usually not. In our book, “The VP Advantage: How Running Mates Influence Home State Voting in Presidential Elections,” we employed a multi-method approach to empirically test the purported home state advantage. We used both state-level election returns since 1884 and individual-level survey data since 1952 in our analysis. Ultimately, we found no evidence of a general vice presidential home state advantage, on average. Based upon the data, it is unlikely that Hillary Clinton’s or Donald Trump’s running mate will deliver a crucial battleground state, like Ohio or Virginia. Instead, the presidential candidates would be wise to select a respected running mate who can effectively serve as vice president

Why the Kaine vs. Pence Vice Presidential Debate Matters

Tim Kaine and Mike Pence both have been described as boring. Many Americans still don’t know who they are, and they share their parties’ tickets with two of the most controversial and unpopular presidential candidates in modern political history. So, it’s a safe bet that their first and only debate on Tuesday night will not draw the record-setting ratings of last week’s first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – or even come close. With the possible exception of 2008, when Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were vice presidential candidates, running mates simply are not the focal point of presidential elections. Their effect on vote choice is minimal. Research in our recently published book, “The VP Advantage: How Running Mates Influence Home State Voting in Presidential Elections,” shows that running mates generally do not influence voting in their home state, let alone at the national level. Even in the short term, Gallup polling data suggest that vice presidential debates rarely change voters’ opinions. So, why take these candidates seriously

What Trump’s Picks for the Presidential Medal of Freedom Say about Him

President Donald Trump awarded his first ever Presidential Medals of Freedom this month to seven recipients: Babe Ruth, Elvis Presley, Antonin Scalia, Orrin Hatch, Roger Staubach, Alan Page and Miriam Adelson. It is the nation’s highest civilian honor. These ceremonies, which normally occur once or twice per year, provide Americans with an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of various people who have made an important contribution to U.S. culture. Because the president selects recipients with total discretion – American or otherwise, living or dead –- this award also says a lot about the president himself. What achievements or contributions does the president consider important? What groups of people most easily win his favor? And how does he hope to shape his legacy, judging by the company that he chooses to keep? To find out, we’ve analyzed every Presidential Medal of Freedom ever awarded, and the presidents who awarded them – including Trump