Michigan’s mental health care system is on the brink of a seismic shift, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Imagine a $4 billion system serving 300,000 people—many battling severe mental illness—being overhauled in a way that could either mend its gaping holes or tear it further apart. The state’s plan to revamp mental health care has ignited a fiery debate, with critics and supporters clashing over its potential impact. But here’s where it gets controversial: is this a bold step toward fixing a broken system, or a reckless move to privatize care, stripping away local control and widening the very gaps it aims to close?
At the heart of this controversy is a proposal to open up bidding for the management of federal Medicaid dollars—about 90% of the system’s budget. Supporters, including the former director of Michigan’s mental health system, argue this could address issues like those exposed in the Target 8 investigation, Tormented Minds, Broken System. The investigation highlighted tragic cases, such as the 2024 death of Hank Wymer, shot by Grand Rapids police, and the mass stabbing at a Traverse City Walmart by Bradford Gille. Both men had long histories of mental illness, yet the system failed to track their care as they moved between counties. Jim Haveman, the former director, believes the plan will fix these gaps by prioritizing high-risk individuals, eliminating waitlists, and improving data tracking across regions. He sees it as a chance to inject competition and accountability into a system he calls ‘the fox guarding the henhouse.’
But critics paint a starkly different picture. They argue this is a thinly veiled attempt to privatize mental health care, handing control to large nonprofit insurance companies like Blue Cross or Priority Health. Dr. Michael Brashears, CEO of Ottawa County Community Mental Health, calls it an ‘existential threat’ to an already fragile safety net. He warns that privatization could lead to higher overhead costs—jumping from 2% to 15%—and reduced access to care, as seen in other states. ‘This problem will be compounded tenfold,’ he cautions. Community mental health agencies have already sued to block the plan, fearing they’ll be reduced to mere providers, stripped of their ability to coordinate care locally.
And this is the part most people miss: the plan would divide the state into three regions, excluding the existing 10 regional entities from bidding. Robert Sheeran, CEO of the Community Mental Health Association of Michigan, fears this will pave the way for corporate nonprofits to take over, prioritizing profits over patient care. ‘When people hear ‘nonprofit,’ they think small, local organizations,’ he explains. ‘But these are massive corporations with a bottom line to protect.’
The debate doesn’t end there. Former U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow has slammed the proposal, arguing it will increase costs and reduce access to critical services—especially in light of recent federal cuts to Medicaid. ‘Now is the time to pause and evaluate,’ she urges. Meanwhile, the state insists the plan is designed to improve service quality, increase accountability, and streamline administration, based on feedback from beneficiaries, families, and advocacy groups.
As State Court of Claims Judge Christopher Yates prepares to rule on the proposal in December, one question looms large: Can a system already riddled with gaps afford to gamble on such sweeping changes? Is privatization the solution, or will it deepen the crisis? We want to hear from you. Do you think this plan will fix Michigan’s mental health care system, or is it a risky experiment with lives on the line? Share your thoughts in the comments—this is a conversation we can’t afford to ignore.
