OFFICIAL OPINION No. 27

OFFICIAL OPINION No. 27 Liability for treatment under Act 63-Gommitment procedures under Act 63-Efject of r epeal of Act of August 20, 1953. 1. Except as to minors the cost of treatment provided pursuant to the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Act of April 14, 1972 (Act 63) should be paid accord- ing to the provisions of Article V of the Mental Health and Mental Re- tardation Act of 1966 (50 P.S. §4101 et seq.) 2. Commitments under the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Act of April 14, 1972, (Act 63) should be made according to the commitment provisions of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966. (50 P.S. §4101 et seq.) Richard E. Horman, Ph.D. Executive Director Governor's Council on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Dear Dr. Horman: Harrisburg, Pa. March 30, 1973 You have requested advice regarding two questions, both of which involve the relationship among the following three legis- lative acts: The Drug and Alcohol Abuse Act of April 14, 1972, (Act 63); the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966, 50 P.S. §4101, (MH/ MR Act); and the Act of August 20, 1953 (P. L. 1212) entitled in part "An Act providing for the study of the problems of alcoholism; the treatment, commitment, re- habilitation and protection of persons, addicted to the excessive use of alcoholic beverages .. .. " (Act of 1953). Your questions were: 1) Should the cost of treatment provided pursuant to Act 63 be paid by the counties or through the scheme set up by the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966? 2) Should commitments made pursuant to Act 63 be made under the procedures set out in the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966 or under the provisions set out in the Act of August 20, 1953, P. L. 1212? 1) The Act of August 20, 1953, provided that certain costs of the treatment of alcoholics be paid by the counties. However Act ?3 clearly repeals the liability provisions of the Act of 1953'. Section 15 (a) of Act 63 states: OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL "The following acts and part::; of acts are repealed to the extent indicated: "2) Except Sections 1 and 4, the Act of August 20, 1953, (P. L. 1212 ) .. absolutely." 65 Neither Sections 1 nor 4 of the Act of 1953 impose liability on counties. Therefore, the liability provisions of the Act of 19·53 are repealed "absolutely." Act 63 also provides that: "Except for minors, all persons receiving treatment under this Act shall be subject to the provisions of Ar- ticle V of the Act of October 20, 1966 (P.L. 96), known as the "Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966", in so far as it relates to liabilities and payments for services rendered by the Commonwealth." Section 13. Article V of the MH/ MR Act allocates liability for costs of treatment amo~1g the patient ( 50 P.S. §4501), the patient's leg- ally responsible relatives ( 50 P.S. §4502 ), and the State and counties (50 P.S. §4503 et. seq.). Act 63 incorporates these lia- bility provisions of the MH/ MR Act, except as to minors.I 2) The repealer clause of Act 63 (Section 15(a), supra) re- peals the commitment provisions of the Act of 1953 because neither Sections 1 nor 4 of the Act of 1953 relate to commit- ment procedures. Section 5 of Act 63, however, clearly states: "Admissions and commitments to treatment facilities may be made according co the procedural admission and commitme11t provisions of the Act of October 20, 1966 (P. L. 96), known as the Mental Health and Men- tal Retardation Act of 1966." Therefore, commitmc;nts under Act 63 should be made pur- suant to the MH/lVIR Act of 1966, not pursuant to the older Act of 1953. In summary, you are advised that both the allocation of costs for treatment under Act 63 (except as to minors) and the com- mitment procedures to be used under Act 63 should be governed by the relevant provisions of the Mental Health and Mental Re- tardation Act of 19-66. Very truly yours, ROBERT F. NAGEL Deputy Attorney General ISRAEL P ACKEL Attorney General 1. Minors and their legally responsible relatives are not liable for the costs of the minor's treatment under Act 63. See Attorney General's Opinion No. 26. 66 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL