The judgment also states that, "although [appellant] is able to provide for his basic personal needs, outside the institutional setting[,] [he] is not now receiving such care as is necessary for his health or safety." It is unclear whether the trial court intended that statement to form a separate basis for the commitment, under the basic needs provision, ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B). We agree with appellant's argument, and the state's concession, that, in any event, there was not sufficient evidence to support a commitment under that provision.