This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. Last year, I went through many different life changes. I needed to take a pause and examine how I was feeling in the inside to better show up for the ones who need me to be my best version of myself. When you're navigating life's changes, Talkspace can help. Talkspace is the number one rated online therapy, bringing you professional support from licensed therapists and psychiatry providers that you can access anytime, anywhere.
Living a busy life, navigating a long-distance relationship, becoming a first-step father, Talkspace made all of those journeys possible. I could speak with my therapist in the office. I could speak to my therapist in the comfort of my home. I was never alone. Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay.
No insurance, no problem.
Now get $80 off your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at talkspace.com. Save $80 with code space80 at talkspace.com. It's 5.05 and welcome in to a Wednesday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT, I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you.
A North Carolina House Select Committee, which is studying involuntary commitment and public safety, is recommending a broad set of changes to the state's mental health and criminal justice systems. The recommendations aim to reduce violent incidents, ease strain on hospitals and law enforcement, as well as addressing what lawmakers describe as a quote revolving door of untreated mental illness. The hearing taking place in Raleigh this week as these recommendations follow months of hearings with law enforcement, doctors, judges, and mental health providers. The committee was formed in response to a series of high-profile killings involving individuals with severe mental illness, most notably, without a doubt, the 2025 murder of Irina Zarutska aboard the Charlotte Light Rail. Those cases and their intensified scrutiny on whether the state's mental health and court systems failed to intervene.
And do their jobs. North Carolina Representative Hugh Blackwell, the Republican out of Burke County, said that those concerns demand a high level of urgency, saying during the meeting in Raleigh: from a priority standpoint, we do not need to be waiting on lots of things because we don't think they are high priority. There's a lot of stuff that needs to get done. We need to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time. The recommendations detailed in an April 2026 report to the North Carolina General Assembly focus on expanding telehealth for mental health evaluations in jail, increasing the mental health workforce, addressing psychiatric bed and staffing shortages, as well as expanding the use of outpatient commitment and enhancing data collection and sharing between various state agencies.
At the center of the committee's work is the state's involuntary commitment process, also known as IVC. This is a legal mechanism that is used to require mental health treatment for individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others. Lawmakers found the system too slow, fragmented, and overburdened. Long waits for evaluations and limited treatments have unfortunately made those delays worse. This leads to repeat encounters by the same individuals with law enforcement.
One of the committee's proposals is expanding the use of telehealth in county jails to conduct an initial mental health evaluation. The report argues that this would reduce law enforcement transportation demands, shorten wait times, and ease pressures on hospital emergency departments. The committee is urging the lawmakers to fund telehealth infrastructure statewide and to direct agencies to develop a uniform implementation model for said telehealth. One of the other questions and discussions in Raleigh was expanding the mental health workforce, which is a major bottleneck identified in that report, is a limited number of providers authorized to conduct involuntary commitment evaluations. To address this, the committee recommends expanding the pool of qualified examiners by amending state law, so it would obviously have to go through the General Assembly and enhancing training programs through the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, NCDHHS.
The report also highlights a persistent shortage of psychiatric beds. The problem is then compounded by staffing limitations that prevent full use of some of the existing capacity that already exists here in North Carolina. Representative Timothy Reeder, the Republican from Pitt County, said that the issue is not a lack of funding positions, but a shortage of workers to fill them. With Reader telling the committee, when it comes to staffing, we have funding positions and we are struggling to find people. The goal is to get facilities operating at higher capacities.
Lawmakers are also calling on DHHS to develop a detailed plan to increase capacity, including rewriting hiring practices, improving retention with workers that are already there, and exploring new funding sources and partnerships with non-state facilities. Another recommendation from the committee is increasing the use of outpatient commitment as well, which would allow courts to require individuals to follow treatment plans while living in said communities. The committee found that the outpatient commitment is largely underutilized in North Carolina, despite evidence from other states that it can reduce repeat hospitalizations and improve treatment compliance. Lawmakers are Are urging a review of the state statutes concerning some of those outpatient commitments and requesting dedicated funding to support expanded use. But some lawmakers raised concerns that the current approach reflects outdated policy assumptions, with Representative Carla Cunningham, the Democrat from Mecklenburg County, pointing to decades-old deinstallation efforts as part of the problem.
This is what Cunningham had to say during the committee meeting. But one of the things that we need to revisit is that we're operating on 1970s, 1980. when President Kennedy decided to deinstitutionalize. And that's been going on for years and years and years. And now we're at a point in society where we may have to look at the disability issues that was done then because they're not contextual to the time that we're in right now.
And what I'm saying is that, yes, we let everybody out and the resources were supposed to be in the community. And it took a long, long time for those resources to get in there. But these individuals with severe mental illness that cannot be managed in society, in normal society, we have to figure out another way to look at those individuals that are not going to self-medicate. They're not going to self-medicate because, and they also know how the system works because they're in and out of the system.
So they learn how to manipulate it. Whether you think their capacity is there or not, they still learn some things in order to bypass the system. There's Representative Cunningham out of Mecklenburg County talking about some of that deinstitutionalization and some of those efforts going back to the 1960s, 70s, and 80s in which we have continued to operate. She mentioned that during the committee meeting in Raleigh this week. A recurring theme throughout the report that I mentioned that came out just a couple of weeks back is the lack of reliable data across the system.
To address the issue, the committee is also recommending legislation requiring the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Information Technology, and the Administrative Office of the courts to study and implement improvements in data collection and sharing. The proposals include updating commitment forms to capture better information, increasing data sharing between courts and healthcare systems, exploring a public-facing dashboard, and enabling long-term tracking of individuals through the system. The report also highlights the challenges that sheriffs and And other law enforcement are facing as they are often the ones responsible for transporting and supervising individuals awaiting evaluation or placement. To address this, the committee is also recommending giving law enforcement real-time access to state behavioral health bed registries, also known as BH scan. along with the ability to reserve beds.
The change is intended to reduce the time that law enforcement spends locating available placements and minimizing unnecessary transport across the state. One of the more scathing conclusions in the report is that North Carolina's system allows individuals with serious mental illness to cycle repeatedly through jails, hospitals, and the community without sustainable treatment. Lawmakers warned that this revolving door raises the risk of future offenses. The committee also recommended creating a Department of Health and Human Services-led workgroup to develop solutions and report quarterly to the North Carolina General Assembly.
Some of the additional recommendations, and there were plenty during the committee meeting, including reviewing and potentially aligning legal standards for involuntary commitment and competency to stand trial, as well as guardianship, expanding the state's safekeeper program for managing inmates with significant medical or mental health needs, studying how behavioral health care is delivered in jails across the state, and finally enhancing the role of mobile crisis teams, including adding licensed clinicians to improve their effectiveness in the commitment process. Despite the wide selection of recommendations, lawmakers emphasized that the work is far from complete. The committee is. Is asking the General Assembly to extend its works through the 2026 short session and reestablish for the 27-28 biennium. There are a lot of details out of this committee hearing.
We've got a lot of quotes from various lawmakers. All of those details are available over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. Look for the story with the headline: Report Calls for Reform to Involuntary Commitment, Mental Health Treatment. When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more.
Granger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Granger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe, and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRANGER, clickgranger.com, or just stop by. Granger for the ones who get it done. It's 5:21.
Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. Don't forget, if you miss any portion of our program here each and every weekday morning, you can subscribe to the show in your favorite podcast app. Just simply search for the Carolina Journal News Hour, or you can watch the show live or on demand over on our Carolina Journal YouTube channel. Here's an interesting headline over on our website this morning, CarolinaJournal.com: A new study: North Carolina gains a new resident every seven minutes. New IRS migration data shows that Americans continue moving out of high-tax states like California and New York into lower-tax states, including North Carolina.
The latest analysis from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation points to a steady pattern of population and income shifting towards more tax-competitive states, giving North Carolina an average of one newcomer every seven minutes and 36 seconds.
So by the time we finish this segment, there will be a new person living here in North Carolina. According to the study, Migration in Minutes, which focused on high-income individuals earning more than $200,000 a year annually, North Carolina is the third most popular destination state in the country, behind Texas and Florida.
South Carolina and Tennessee, two of our neighboring states, round out the top five, with analysts saying that the movement reflects a mix of factors. including housing costs and job opportunities, but tax differences continue to play a central role in these relocation decisions. Andrew Wilford, who is the director of the state policy, is the director of state policy for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, said, quote, there is a very strong correlation among all taxpayers between tax rates and migration trends, but it's strongest among high-income earners. Florida and Texas, with North Carolina in third place and South Carolina in fourth place, are the biggest states that attract the most high income earners. Leading outbound of migration, no surprise, California, New York, and Illinois, which two of the three have the highest income tax rates in the country.
As I mentioned, a new person or new resident moving to the state every seven minutes and 36 seconds on average. In California, somebody is leaving every two minutes and 37 seconds. New York not faring much better as well, three minutes and 20 seconds, according to the report from the National Taxpayer Union Foundation. New Jersey and Massachusetts round out the top five of states with the most population loss and have tax income rates over nine and three-quarters percent. Wilford said states that have a tendency year after year to increase tax rates are always looking for more sources of revenue.
They're the ones that actually have budget problems every year because they're losing tax revenue to states that are lowering their rates. Among the points made by the study, Florida's growth is not necessarily all retirees flying south. Of Florida's 113 plus thousand new residents, just 16,000 were over the age of 65, while 51,000 of them were between the ages of 35 and 55.
Some of this may come as unwelcome news for North Carolinians who prefer lower crowding and lighter traffic, but overall the state is expected to see an increase of nearly $600 billion in new tax revenue from the into migration of high-income residents just this year. For the most dramatic shift, Florida will see an additional $3.5 billion in revenue. California will have $4 billion less, according to the study. Researchers who put the report together show the drastic geographic shift gained during the COVID-19 pandemic. With the rise of remote work opportunities, workers with more affordable jobs seek out quality of life factors, forcing states to compete for residence instead of solely industry growth.
North Carolina's relatively, and I'll use that word clearly, relatively lower housing prices, expanding suburban metro areas around Charlotte, Raleigh, and Wilmington, plus strong job hubs in tech, finance, healthcare are big draws to the Tar Heel state, especially among senior or high-income workers who are no longer tied to a job location. According to Wilford, he says the main thing that COVID did was increase that mobility. If you're no longer physically having to go into the office, you can keep working for the same employer and go live somewhere else. Since 2021, 26 states have reduced their income tax burden, including North Carolina. The state's phased reduction of the individual income tax rate is set to go down further from where it is right now at 3.99% to 3.49% on January the 1st, 2027.
So less than a year away, based on economic growth triggers, a tax reduction strategy that Republicans launched when they took control of the legislature back in 2011. That trajectory is expected to be a focal point in the upcoming spring legislative session that we are, of course, keeping a very close eye on here at the Carolina Journal News Hour, where lawmakers in the North Carolina House. and Senate, as well as Democrat Governor Josh Stein, are calling to slow or stop tax cuts, citing revenue forecast reports. The North Carolina Senate and other proponents argue that a tax reduction path has demonstrated that it strengthens North Carolina's ability to attract economic activity while ensuring that the state remains competitive with other low-tax states. Back to Justin Wilford.
He says, quote, the more you can bring down your rates, the better. People can kind of see the writing on the wall. That is why people are moving out of Washington state even before the new capital gains tax rate and before the new high earner tax on millionaires were passed into law. People see the conversation, they know that they're next, so they decide to get out before it is too late. Obviously, growth does come with its frustrations and struggles as well.
We have seen, and while real estate prices are again relatively low compared to many other places across the nation, we have seen a ballooning in property valuations and real estate transactions over the last couple of years here in North Carolina. The urban sprawl continues, with many more rural or smaller areas in the state of North Carolina, even starting to see some major population booms themselves. This will remain a major topic of discussion, as we mentioned, as lawmakers are expected to be in Raleigh next week and begin the process of debating a budget here in the short session. It does not remain immediately clear this morning whether we are talking about a full state budget being passed by the North Carolina House and Senate or whether we are talking About a series of mini-budgets funding things like teacher pay increases, more funding for Western North Carolina, and other policy preferences from lawmakers.
However, we should have a more clear picture of that in the coming weeks. We'll keep you up to date over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com, and of course, right here on the Carolina Journal NewsHour. It's 5.36. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM. WBT, I'm Nick Craig.
Good Wednesday morning to you. A major case with more than $3 billion on the line is now sitting in front of the North Carolina Supreme Court. It deals with over 200,000 state retirees to walk us through what is expected to be a very interesting couple of weeks as it relates to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, we're talking big numbers: 220,000 plus state retirees, $3 billion worth of potential funding, and a potentially a major decision here from the North Carolina Supreme Court.
What are you tracking as we move through the month of April?
Well, this case has been in the court's nick now for almost a decade and a half. This stems out of a change that took place in 2011 when legislators were looking at the state health plan and retirement costs and basically said that they were going to change the plan to initiate co-pays. And some government retirees filed suit saying, wait a minute, we were promised when we came on board as state employees that when we retired, we would get this full health coverage without having to pay any co-pays. And basically, over the course of 14, getting close to 15 years, this lawsuit has been moving through the courts. And one of the things that happened that was very significant was that in 2022, the state Supreme Court issued a ruling that said that the suit could move forward.
And in fact, the case was all ready to go to trial in March of 2025 when the defendants in the case, which are the state health plan and the state retirement systems, and the treasurer, since the treasurer oversees those plans, got some court orders that blocked the trial from happening and basically appealed back to the state Supreme Court saying, look, this is a class action suit. But it can't move forward as a class action suit because, based on your ruling from the state Supreme Court in 2022 and what has happened since then, we have all kinds of proof. That the types of potential damages in this case and the amount of money that would have to go to particular people is so individualized that it can't move forward as a class action suit. And basically, that is the argument that went forward this week before the North Carolina Supreme Court for oral arguments: whether this case can move forward and go to trial as a class action suit or whether it fails as a class action suit and it can only move forward. Under the initial couple dozen plaintiffs.
And if anyone else wanted to file suit and still is eligible, they'd have to file their own suits. It's a very interesting debate. And the Supreme Court, the debate within the court was really among two justices. Justice Richard Dietz and Justice Anita Earls asked almost all of the questions. At one point, Justice Allison Riggs piped in with a question, but most of the debate was Justice Richard Dietz and Justice Anita Earls, and they focused on two very different aspects.
Dietz basically was looking at the class and saying, there are all kinds of problems with the class, and doesn't it make sense for the Supreme Court to step in now and address those issues now rather than having this go through a trial, have there be some sort of ruling for the trial, and then it come back to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court say, well, you messed up the class.
So you're going to have to go back and go through the whole trial process again. That was his argument. On the other side, Justice Anita Earls was concerned that the defendants in the case brought this back to the Supreme Court, challenging the class certification when that could have happened years ago. And she basically said this is the sort of issue that could stop a class action suit from ever happening again in North Carolina if future defendants use the same sort of tactic.
So it'll be very interesting to see what the Supreme Court decides, whether this case goes to trial as a class action or whether they throw out the class and the only people left would be the plaintiffs. And it's not clear from the debate today how many of those original plaintiffs are still actually in the case because we know the lead plaintiff Former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly Lake, whose name is the first name on the list, he died years ago, and he's remained as the lead plaintiff on the case, even though he is no longer in this world and no longer participating in this case as an active participant.
Well, and Mitch, you're talking about a completely different situation here with potentially just a handful of individual plaintiffs in this case, as you mentioned, going back about 14 or 15 years when it was originally filed, versus potentially as many as what is this, 220 plus thousand state retirees that fall under this, where they claim that, hey, we were promised no, no copays, no costs with this stuff moving forward. I mean, you're talking about dramatically different cases and huge variations in dollar amounts depending on whether this is tried as a class or not. Yeah, that's right. You mentioned 220,000. That's the number of people who are estimated to be potential plaintiffs in this case.
And the dollar amount, according to the state health plan and state retirement systems, could be $3 billion if all of them get the money that the plaintiffs argue from their experts could be owed to the people who are participating in this case.
Now, whether it would be $3 billion or not actually kind of depends on the details of the trial and whether a judge says this group does comply with what the court has said in the past and this group does not. But $3 billion is sort of the out there total potential liability for the state if everything that the plaintiffs are asking for actually gets to them after a trial takes place.
So this would have a very significant impact on the North Carolina state budget, which is one of the reasons why people other than these retirees. Should be interested in the outcome of this case. One of the things that's interesting and that people who are following this from afar should know is that there really is, although it's 220,000, that number is not growing.
So, as people retire, they don't become potential plaintiffs. The case is limited to people who became retirees in the past. The state has also shut off the potential for there being a problem in the future because some years back they cut off retiree health benefits for any new employees who are hired after a certain date.
So, this is the type of thing that's not going to be a problem in the future, but it certainly is an issue for all of those who were hired, who retired under the old rules that are in place. And as we said, it could affect potentially 220,000 people and have a price tag, according to the health plan, of $3 billion. Mitch, let's assume that that $3 billion is the kind of pie-in-the-sky estimate, probably not coming to fruition. Even if we pare that down, what I would call pretty significantly down to even $1 billion, that would still have a major impact on the state's economy. We've talked a lot about, and not as it relates to this, but other stories here in North Carolina in recent months about the Medicaid rebase and skyrocketing costs associated with that.
We're looking at more than a billion dollars needed there as well. You're talking about skyrocketing health care costs in the state of North Carolina. And of course, meanwhile, we do not have a state budget and lawmakers in Raleigh are still arguing over this point about revenues to deal with potentially some of these issues in the future. This is one specific case we're talking about, but I think it's got a lot of tentacles that are playing into a lot of different discussions taking place in our state capital. Yes.
Now, one thing that's helpful is that this is probably if the trial moves forward, if the judge finds in favor of the plaintiffs, and if the judgment is upheld on appeal, and those are a lot of ifs, if all of those things happen, you're probably looking at a one-time payout rather than an ongoing expense that would have to be added to the budget year after year after year. But as you suggested, $3 billion would be a huge one-time hit. And even if you scaled it back to a billion or even $500 million as a one-time hit to the state budget, that's going to be something that the budget writers and potentially taxpayers will feel. It's not like we're talking about a couple million dollars here and there, which is still a lot of money, but probably could be absorbed in a state budget, state general fund budget of $30 plus billion dollars. If you're talking...
half a billion, a billion, or up to that total price of $3 billion, that's a major one-time impact that will have some sort of effect on the rest of the state budget moving forward. Mitch, as you're walking us through the details from these arguments in front of the state's highest court, this is specifically dealing with the class and whether that is a real thing or not or whether we're talking about just individual people in this case. Walk us through how the rest of this process is likely to play out. Obviously, there's still a lot of unknowns, whether there will be a class or not. Is this still likely to be a long-term legal challenge that we're keeping an eye on?
Or is this something that is expedited and could be wrapped up relatively soon?
Well, I doubt we're going to see a resolution very soon. The state Supreme Court could come out with a ruling relatively quickly, depending on how quickly they could come to an agreement either for or against the class certification issue. But once that's settled, then the case goes back to a trial court.
Now, the trial was scheduled in this case in March 2025. And depending on what the Supreme Court says, that could ramp up again relatively quickly. But once you have a trial, then you would have to wait for the trial judge to issue a ruling, which could take a while. And then you could have an appeal. It might go through the state court of appeals or might jump back to the state Supreme Court directly.
My guess is... that all of the parties would be interested in the state Supreme Court seeing it again rather than the Court of Appeals since it's already now made a second trip to the state Supreme Court. But I think even if it has its quickest option that the Supreme Court rules relatively quickly now, that a trial ramps up fairly quickly, and then you have the trial, you have the judges ruling in a not too long timeframe, and then you go through all the other appeals. My guess is you're still a Couple more years at least before getting this whole thing resolved. And remember, this case is already a decade and a half old.
Many of the plaintiffs have died. And so it will be interesting to see by the time this is resolved, if it's resolved in the plaintiff's favor, how many of them actually end up benefiting. Yeah, no question about that. And appreciate you setting those expectations here, Mitch. We're not talking about months, we're potentially and likely talking about years as it relates to this case.
We'll keep a close eye on what's going on in the North Carolina Supreme Court. Keep an eye out for a decision there for either for or against this classification and all of those details. We've got extensive coverage of this legal challenge over on our website this morning, CarolinaJournal.com. We appreciate the information and the insight. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
Good morning again. It's 5:55. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT, as we recap our big story this morning out of the North Carolina General Assembly. A House Select Committee on Studying Involuntary Commitment and Public Safety is making a wide set of recommendations to state lawmakers to try and figure out how to deal with what they call a surge in violent crime committed by individuals that are struggling from severe mental health issues across the state of North Carolina, most notably probably the one that is on everybody's mind: the 2025 murder of Irina Zarutska aboard the Charlotte light rail by known individual to Carlos Brown Jr., struggling with some serious mental health issues. Lawmakers are wanting the state to focus on speed, access, and public safety, examining the mental health workforce, talking about bed shortages as well as the staffing crisis within that, pushing for expanded outpatient commitment within the legal system, talking about data gaps and coordination failures between multiple state agencies.
To make sure that individual agencies have all of the correct and most up-to-date information and data, relieving some of the strain that the mental health crisis puts on law enforcement as they spend a significant amount of time waiting for evaluations to take place, transporting individuals around the state, as well as addressing what lawmakers are calling the revolving door of individuals cycling repeatedly through jails, hospitals, and communities without sustained treatment. And unfortunately, we see cases like the brutal murder of Arena Zarutska on the Charlotte Light Rail by known individuals who are absolutely struggling with these severe mental health issues. Lawmakers are continuing to work on some of these issues. They do note that they look to reestablish this committee for the 27-28 biennium.
So it is not immediately clear whether lawmakers will vote on any changes to state law as it relates to. Involuntary commitment or mental health issues across the state. Nevertheless, we'll keep an eye on the details right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
Well, that's going to do it for a Wednesday edition. WBT News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back with you tomorrow morning, 5 to 6, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. Yeah.
