Showing posts with label Fletcher Hartsell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fletcher Hartsell. Show all posts

19 July 2012

Arc NC's Legislative Summary

From The Arc of North Carolina
Legislative Summary regarding Developmentally Disabled Populations of North Carolina

[ original post ]


In this year’s legislative session, the General Assembly adjusted the budget, created policy direction in the budget, and passed important policy bills. The Arc worked on and monitored many issues of importance to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities as well as their families during the session. Below we have provided a brief recap of some of the most important issues.

Kindergarten Developmental Screening

Kindergarten Developmental Screening is part of the new budget bill (H950, which was passed by the General Assembly, vetoed by Governor Perdue, whose veto was then overridden, making the bill law). Section 115C-83.1 E orders the State Board of Education to ensure that every student entering kindergarten shall be administered a developmental screening of early language, literacy, and math skills within 30 days of enrollment. Section (e) states that the assessment shall be reliable, valid and appropriate for use with all children, including those with disabilities.

NC Teaching Corps to Include Disability Training

The new budget bill (H950, which was passed by the General Assembly, vetoed by Governor Perdue, whose veto was then overridden, making the bill law) establishes the North Carolina Teaching Corps, a training program for those who wish to become teachers via lateral entry (in other words, for those whose degree is not in teaching). The program is to include training on identification and education of students with disabilities, positive management of student behavior, effective communication for defusing and de-escalating disruptive and dangerous behavior, and safe and appropriate use of seclusion and restraint.

Personal Care Services and Short Term Rental Assistance to Adult Care and Group Homes

Personal Care Service (PCS) is a Medicaid funded service aimed at assisting individuals with disabilities with activities of daily living. Currently people who have Medicaid and live in a licensed residential setting receive one hour a day of this service.

The General Assembly choose not to follow the DHHS recommendation to create a 1915i option to address federal Medicaid officials’ concerns around Personal Care Services. The 1915i option is a relatively new Medicaid option for states to use. It allows for states to put in place Medicaid home and community based services without a Medicaid waiver. The Arc believes this option would best used to expand community based services for people with IDD.

Instead of following DHHS recommendations, the General Assembly passed language that will require DHHS to create a new Medicaid state plan amendment creating a comparable PC service for individuals living at home and in facilities. This impacts people living in Group Homes and Adult Care homes. The Arc has concerns that the new plan will eliminate PCS for some people (we are attempting to determine the scope), which could cause significant service reductions.

As part of H950, the Modify 2011 Appropriations Act, the State provided $39.7 million of non-recurring funding to provide temporary rental assistance to adult care homes. These funds will help pay rent at adult care homes for residents who are no longer eligible to receive Medicaid reimbursable personal care services (PCS), but for whom a community placement has not yet been arranged. Unfortunately, this fund will not assist residents who live in group homes and lose PCS. One of The Arc's top priorities for the interim will be to work with DHHS and the legislature to assure people living in group homes are not adversely affected.

Community Service Funding Cut

There was a $20 million non-recurring cut to community services funding. Approximately $345 million in State general funds remain in the budget for LME/MCOs to purchase community based services.

The Arc is disappointed in this cut. The original Senate budget had no cut in this area, and the original House budget had only a $10 million dollar cut. The change was made only two days before the final budget bill passed, giving little time for input from The Arc, other advocacy organizations, and families. We hope the General Assembly will restore this much needed funding during next year’s budget session.

Money for Transition to Community Living

As part of H950, the Modify 2011 Appropriations Act, the State allocated $10.3 million in recurring funding to speed up the transition of individuals with severe mental illness to community living arrangements, including establishing a rental assistance program. Some of the impacted individuals are dually diagnosed with a developmental disability as well. We believe this funding was allocated to respond to a potential negotiated settlement with the US Department of Justice (US DOJ) over North Carolina's use of Adult Care Homes as placements for people with Mental Illness, which it says violates Medicaid law.

Medicaid Shortfall Bills

There was a great deal of press surrounding the multi-million dollar Medicaid budget shortfall for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. The shortfall, initially estimated at $205,500,000, was addressed by S797 (Payment of 2012 Medicaid Costs/Inmate Medical Costs) early in the session. S797 drew funds from receipts, unanticipated federal bonus money, and Repair & Renovation Reserve Funds for the University of North Carolina System.

Unfortunately, in the last few weeks of the legislative session, it became obvious that there was an additional gap in Medicaid funding of approximately $94 million. To address this gap, the General Assembly passed H14, the Use R&R Funds for 2011-2012 Medicaid Costs Act. This bill appropriated $94 million from the Repairs and Renovations Reserve Account from the UNC System be transferred to the state controller. The controller was to manage Medicaid funding for the remainder of the 2011-2012 fiscal year.

LME/MCO Governance Bill(s)

HB1075 came out of the House subcommittee that studied the LME/MCO Governance issue led by Representative Nelson Dollar. It dealt with rules governing the makeup of LME/MCO Boards of Directors. The bill as proposed by the sub-committee, while not perfect, was a compromise reached with input from most stakeholders in the MHDDSA system. After the bill passed the House, Sen. Fletcher Hartsell added a controversial amendment to the bill would have allowed LME/MCOs that had been operational for three years to become “Behavioral Health Authorities.” This new classification significantly changed the method of accountability and operation of the MCO system. Most advocates, including The Arc, opposed these changes due to serious concerns on how the LME/MCOs’ new authority would impact people with disabilities and their families.

Ultimately, some legislative maneuvering resulted in a new bill (S191, LME Governance) that included the original Board member rules, excluded the Behavioral Health Authority amendment, and allowed for MCO's with over 1,200,000 people to create new board structures, if approved by the Secretary of DHHS.

Parents as Providers

As many of you know, there were quite a few changes made to rules surrounding parents as providers. These changes were by and large not changes in laws, but in administrative rules. The Arc is very concerned with these changes and will delve into the problems around this and related issues in the near future.

The following bills did not become law this past session

The Arc's Proposed Changes to H916
Though our proposal did not receive formal consideration, we were pleased with the broad based legislative support it received. We believe that the majority of legislators now understand why it is important to have an independent person working with families and individuals to write their Person-Centered plan. In a future addition of Policy Partners, we will discuss in more detail why this proposal continues to be a critical component if managed care is to be successful. For now, we want to thank you for your incredible advocacy efforts you undertook towards making these changes. Your voice was heard!

Eugenics Compensation Bill (Did Not Pass)

This bill would have set up a fund to reimburse victims of forced sterilization at the hands of the State. A large percentage of NC’s sterilization victims were individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The bill passed the House, but was not taken up in the Senate.

On a somewhat brighter note, a last minute compromise between the House and Senate provided funding for the Eugenics board to continue its work during the 2012-2013 fiscal year.

Incapacity to Proceed (Did Not Pass)

If a person with I/DD is arrested, they (like everyone else) go to jail while they await a bail hearing/trial. Often, people with I/DD are found to lack the capacity to proceed to trial, and are sent to an institution for treatment. Often, they eventually reach a point where they are deemed capable to proceed with their trial, at which time they are sent back to jail, and their trial is put back on the schedule. Once back in jail, the person with I/DD often regresses, is once again deemed incapable to proceed, and is sent back to an institution for treatment as the cycle continues. There are documented cases of individuals with I/DD arrested for a crime spending far longer (years even) bouncing back and forth between treatment institutions and jail before trial than they would spend in jail if they were tried and convicted.

H1048 would of made outlined clear steps to avoid this type of situation for both misdemeanors and felonies. This bill passed by an overwhelming margin in the House (114-0), but was not taken up in the Senate. Representative Pat Hurley has said she will file this bill again in 2013.

We are disappointed that the Senate chose not to put such an important and widely supported bill on this year’s agenda, and hope they choose to take it up in 2013.

Voter ID Bill (Veto was not overridden)

Originally, The Arc worked extensively with Representative David Lewis during the 2011 long session on what became known as the Voter ID Bill (H351, Restore Confidence in Government). We tried to address the many concerns that existed in the disability community around the topic of voter ID. While we came up with compromise language that would of addressed most of our concerns, unfortunately the compromise language was ultimately stripped from the version of the bill. This stripped down version of the bill passed the General Assembly and was vetoed by Governor Perdue in 2011.

While an override attempt of this bill was on the calendar throughout the short session, it never happened. The bill is dead for this year, but a new version of the bill is expected in 2013. We again will work diligently with the bill sponsors to ensure that the concerns of people with disabilities will be addressed.

07 June 2012

NCGA 6/12 HHS Committee Meet & New Bills

NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE
AND
BILL SPONSOR NOTIFICATION
2011-2012 SESSION

You are hereby notified that the Committee on Health and Human Services will meet as follows:

DAY & DATE: Tuesday, June 12, 2012
TIME: 10 :00 am
LOCATION: 544 LOB
COMMENTS: The following bills will be considered:
BILL NO. HB 975
SHORT TITLE: Promote Local/Healthy Food.
SPONSOR: Representative LaRoque, Representative Sanderson, Representative Insko 
BILL NO. HB 1098
SHORT TITLE: Continue the Sustainable Local Food Advisory.
SPONSOR: Representative Sanderson, Representative LaRoque 
BILL NO. SB 433
SHORT TITLE: Local Human Services Administration.
SPONSOR: Senator Hartsell 
BILL NO. SB 525
SHORT TITLE: Streamline Oversight/DHHS Service Providers.
SPONSOR: Senator Tucker, Senator Hartsell
Respectfully,
Representative Current, Chair
Representative Dollar, Chair
Representative Hollo, Chair

I hereby certify this notice was filed by the committee assistant at the following offices at 1 PM o’clock on June 07, 2011.

Principal Clerk
Reading Clerk – House Chamber

Wendy Miller (Committee Assistant)

30 May 2012

NCGA HHS 5/31 Meeting & Bills

NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE
AND
BILL SPONSOR NOTIFICATION
2011-2012 SESSION

You are hereby notified that the Committee on Health and Human Services will meet as follows:
DAY & DATE: Thursday, May 31, 2012
TIME: 10 :00 am
LOCATION: 1228 LB
COMMENTS: Bills Added
The following bills will be considered:
BILL NO. : HB 1075
SHORT TITLE : LME/MCO Governance
SPONSOR : Representative Dollar, Representative Burr 
BILL NO. : HB 981
SHORT TITLE : Dix Property Sale to Require GA Approval.
SPONSOR : Representative HurleyRepresentative Dollar
Representative Burr
 
BILL NO. : SB 433SHORT TITLE : Local Human Services Administration.
SPONSOR : Senator Hartsell

Respectfully,

Representative Current, Chair
Representative Dollar, Chair
Representative Hollo, Chair

I hereby certify this notice was filed by the committee assistant at the following offices at 9 AM o’clock on May 30, 2011.

Principal Clerk
Reading Clerk – House Chamber
Wendy Miller (Committee Assistant)

11 May 2012

Parent Legislative Correspondence from Colleen

Colleen is the parent a 12-year-old son and CAP recipient with multiple diagnosis and special needs including an auto immune disease and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) attributing to many medical, developmental and behavioral issues. She also has another child with needs who is not being served.


Colleen is in NC House District 36, Senate District 17 and will fall under Alliance Behavioral Health Care LME (formerly the Durham Center) upon implementation.

Legislative Correspondence

from another Parent Perspective

From: COLLEEN
Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM
To: Govornor Beverly Perdue <governor.office@nc.gov>,
Commissioner Sharon Lewis <sharon.lewis@acf.hhs.gov> ,
Deputy Commissioner Jamie Kendall <jamie.kendall@acf.hhs.gov>,
Deputy Administrator Cynthia Mann <cynthia.mann@cms.hhs.gov>,
Connie Martin <connie.martin@cms.hhs.gov>,
House Speaker Thom Tillis <thom.tillis@ncleg.net>,
Representative Paul Stam [paul.stam@ncleg.net],
Representative Justin P. Burr <Justin.Burr@ncleg.net>,
Representative William A. Current, Sr. <Bill.Current@ncleg.net>,
Senator Fletcher Hartsell <fletcher.hartsell@ncleg.net>,
Senator Tommy Tucker <tommy.tucker@ncleg.net>

Governor, Heads of DD Departments, Committee Members, House Speaker, Legislative Members:

I respectfully submit to you to look into this issue and seek to get real numbers on the "success" of this Pilot Program with a look into the various lawsuits connected to PBH regarding the change to Innovations Waiver 916 and the misuse, arrogant "above the law" responses to the lawsuit, even being held in "contempt of court" at one point! Some revealing excerpts from BlueCross below:
"However, Medicaid appeals from adverse actions made by PBH account for more than 50% of our cases. More important is the fact that PBH does not choose to meaningfully participate in OAH-sponsored mediation, thus requiring every appeal to proceed to hearing".

"It is our experience that PBH has adopted an interpretation of federal Medicaid regulations that deprive recipients of any right to maintenance of services pending appeal. This interpretation saved PBH money and also served to pressure recipients to accept a lower level of services."

North Carolina Constituents don't want it and they will be VOTING in November!  This is not fiscal responsibility - it is smoke and mirrors appearing to make it seem like a cost savings. I entrust you to get to the truth of this matter as elected representatives for NC's most innocent members of our society and their families. 

From: COLLEEN 
Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM
To: "Patricia Porter (Mental Health)" <Patricia.Porter@ncleg.net>
Cc: "Rep. Nelson Dollar" <Nelson.Dollar@ncleg.net>, 

"Candace Slate (Rep. Dollar)" <dollarla@ncleg.net>

Mrs. Porter,

I do appreciate your response and the time it took to formulate it.  However, I advocate heavily for my child and this Population and I have educated myself on the very issues you speak to regarding the current transition.

My "anxiety" is over a failed PBH model that the State continues to press forward with (there are currently lawsuits pending due to concerns I sited in my previous e-mail to you, which demonstrate it's failure see.... http://www.salisburypost.com/News/041112-PBH-court-ruling-qcd).  So I'm not sure how the determination was made regarding the "quality, access and consumer satisfaction"!  I would like to know where I can publicly view this plethora of "data" you refer to as it should be made part of public record from these "internal and external sources" to support the forward movement with this Innovations Waiver, as my tax dollars are paying the salaries of those who are supporting it's forward motion and should be considered when voting next election.

Cost effectiveness regarding Targeted Case Management that is currently executed by a single person, will now be replaced by two people (a Community Guide and Care Coordinator and really a third, if you consider the extra workload to QP's to write short term goals). While Advocacy isn't the right word for what a Case Manager does - it is more mediative. They know the rules concerning the CAP Waiver Program and they have direct contact with the Recipient and their families.  They are able to balance the needs with the rules, without being directly employed by the State creating more objectivity and fairness in their assessments.  Their financial incentives are not driven by the cost savings. My concern is not with the "delivery" of services but rather with the MCO being the same entity to decide how much services your child gets while at the same time, having financial incentive to decrease those same services!  Currently, you have a middle person who sees both sides and helps mediates what is fair - I see this elimination and replacement with MCO as a tremendous conflict of interest!  Concerning the Community Guides - many of the TCM's will not even take these jobs as the educational requirements are only high school diploma which directly affects the pay scale (and reimbursement rates).  So the "transitioning to Community Guides" is not happening as you suggest. Meanwhile, new MCO employees are making tremendous salaries and building new facilities to house themselves as well as taking employees from local Agencies delivering services because they can't compete with the offers being made to these new MCO employees. That doesn't sound like fiscal responsibility to me.

After the initial Alliance meeting this week, there were more questions that were answered with "we aren't sure at this time" or "that hasn't been decided yet" or "we don't know" then there were actual solutions and thought out consequences to changes.  It appeared to those in attendance, that many details have not been well thought out and the consequences for that failure to communicate with both the Recipient Families and the Agencies Serving them (which is who the DHHS/Legislature should be gathering their information from concerning what works and what the needs are), is going to be on the backs of the families who struggle already.

There are no current answers being communicated to families, concerning whether a child will continue to have habilitative services and enhanced personal care for those with intense personal/self help, daily living needs. Enhanced Personal Care or it's equivalent is imperative to families with intense personal care needs. I have previously addressed this when the last version of the CAP Waiver was attempting to remove it then. There are serious consequences to families without that distinction between PC and EPC.

The new SNAP "replacement" called SIS that is being done by the MCO appointed "MD or Psychologist" for families is "clinical" in nature - this is not person centered at all, hinging service level determinations on inadequate information at best.  While I do agree that there are instances where families are over served and under served (I waited 6 years to receive CAP) - I think the best way to curtail some of that is to go directly to both the TCM's and Agencies that service Recipients!  They know who is taking advantage of the system - document and act accordingly to abuses found.  Families like mine who have ambitious home programs that they work very hard at to habilitate their child and give them the most skills possible and best shot at quality of life, should not be penalized by these families not doing their part.  Trying to come up with some sort of "obamanomics" for equal distribution of services is neither fair or helpful and will dramatically increase your costs in institutionalization of children as families succumb to the pressures without adequate supports. There are factors beyond what is seen that should be considered in the mix for service level determinations.  For instance, we have a second child with special needs that doesn't have CAP but requires tremendous effort to assist daily. Those factors should be considered as well, when determining services.  There are families I know that have cancer or other debilitating illnesses and they rely on CAP to allow their child to remain home, without the proper levels of care, they would succumb to institutionalization and that will DEFINITELY increase the States Costs and are very real unintended consequences to these changes.

Respectfully,

Colleen


On May 3, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Patricia Porter (Mental Health) wrote:

Hello Ms. [last name redacted],
 
Representative Dollar has asked that I respond to your message to him regarding the CAP Waiver Program. 

I understand the your son receives services currently funded through the CAP-MR/DD Medicaid Waiver and you are pleased with those services as well as the agency providing your case management. You have concerns that as the state transitions to the Innovations Waiver that will be operated under the Medicaid B-C Managed Care waiver that his services may be in jeopardy. In addition you believe that the model may increase costs  and that there may be a problem with the same agency providing service as is authorizing those services.

First let me say that I understand the anxiety that comes with this kind of transition.  Many families who have children with disabilities have struggled long and hard to get the services their children need provided by people they trust.  There is no doubt, however, that the MH-DD-SA system that we have had for the past 11 years could not continue to operate as it has.

Long waiting lists, unqualified and unreliable providers, no fair or equitable way to allocate resources and precious service money wasted just could not be sustained, especially in this fiscal environment.  The General Assembly in partnership with the state agency determined that we must convert to an operation that is efficient, with highest quality service providers and with services provided according to the actual needs and preferences of the individual and his/her family.  While it sounds like your services were just right for your child, there are many thousands of people who went underserved or unserved in our state while some received services that could not be justified by their need.   Because we have not had an increase in CAP slots for the past 4 years, many families received Case Management and nothing else… literally having someone call them up periodically to see how they are doing but to report that there was no money to pay for the actual services they needed.  Those families reported that they would gladly forgo the monthly calls in order to have the money supporting those calls go to actual services.
 
The state was fortunate to have a model of managed care unlike any other in the country in PBH.  This pilot project has operated successfully for 7 years on behalf of MH-DD and Services. There were plenty of data available on costs, quality, access, consumer satisfaction both from internal and external sources and the decision to move to this model that was actually made by the state some 4 years ago was actually implemented this year.  The model will be expanded statewide.  The General Assembly wanted to maintain our system as a governmental operation with all of the control and oversight that implies rather than moving to full privatization and handing the MH-DD-SA system to a for-profit private company.  This was particularly important for service management for people with intellectual and other developmental disabilities.
 
You expressed concern that the same agency providing services is the same agency authorizing those services.  The LMEs will not be providing services at all, they will be contracting with the same agencies that are currently delivering services if those agencies meet the quality standards.  They will be authorizing services using a standardized, equitable approach that will address the needs of each individual.  Targeted Case Management, which in the past included assessment, service plan development, referral to services and monitoring of those services is no longer allowed by Medicaid. Rather, the LMEs will provide care coordination to cover all of these activities. You will notice that advocacy and community navigation is not included in the service definition for Targeted Case Management. This was viewed as so valuable by consumers and families that a new service will be offered called “Community Guide” and will be available to all families who wish to have it.  Many agencies that once provided Targeted Case Management have transitioned to providing Community Guide Services as well as a number of other DD services. Services are contracted by the LME and provided by the private sector.
 
Data review demonstrates that Targeted Case Management did not reduce costs and to my knowledge, this model of managed care has not been operated anywhere else and costs were  not increased in our own in-state experience. The General Assembly wisely made sure that there are special provisions in state law to protect the interests of people with DD and their families within this new system.  The new system comes with clear expectations, continuous monitoring and review, safeguards to assure cost controls and, most importantly, quality and consumer satisfaction. Surely there will be some costs as the LMEs consolidate and take on a new operational models with new employees needed with specific skills.  This was planned for and expected and the new model will still result in significant administrative cost savings. These cost savings will not be at the expense of service quality or access. The essential goal, and one that will be closely monitored is that those individuals who are eligible for services receive the services they need, no more and no less.
 
The state has made the decision to move to statewide expansion of the B-C Managed Care Waiver.  Be assured that the General Assembly remains vigilant to assure that the high goals planned for this system are achieved. Your perception is very valuable and your input always welcomed.
 
I hope this information is useful to you.  Please let me know if I can help further.
 
Patricia Porter, PhD, Consultant
Health and Human Services
North Carolina General Assembly
301-B Legislative Office Building
300 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919)301-1982

From: COLLEEN
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 08:22 AM
To: Rep. Nelson Dollar
Subject: Medicaid CAP Waiver Program

Representative Dollar:

As a constituent and parent of a CAP Waiver child with developmental disabilities, I have some grave concerns regarding the direction that the NC Legislature is being guided to "more cost effectively" deliver services to recipients like my son, via a Managed Care model.  This has been done in the past with unsatisfactory and increased cost results.  It is also a very questionable idea to have the same entity that is providing services be the one writing CNR's to "advocate" FOR those same services, when there is an obvious financial incentive to keep costs low and deny or reduce those same services to the very recipient they are "advocating" for!  I see a huge conflict of interest in this model with the discontinuation of Targeted Case Management, specifically.  There is a proven model of privatization and healthy competition that results in superior delivery of services and reduced cost.  This looks like "big government" to me and upon further research, I am disgusted to see the amount of money that is being spent to "transition" to this previously failed model and know of employees that have left case management type positions to make significantly more money working for the MCO.  This is not "cost effective" and seems like a recipe for corruption and greed.  I'm also aware of several lawsuits pending in other Counties where this very thing I am concerned about, is happening to families!

I would like to know what you are doing to advocate for your constituents that are dealing with children that have developmental disabilities such as mine, to ensure this is not going to be a disaster for our family.  Specifically, I would like to see you advocate against this change to the new Waiver, especially, regarding the loss of targeted case management - our main advocate and mediator between the State and Families.  My votes will be going toward the legislative representatives that are most closely representing the needs of our families.  We have enormous struggles on a daily basis and don't need the added stress of law makers who don't understand these struggles and make laws or changes, that increase those burdens and decrease our supports.

I have been extremely blessed by the current Waiver we are under and the advocacy skills of my current Case Manager and the delivery services of my Agency - A Small Miracle Inc..  These services are vital to my families ability to not only function with our other children, but also for my son to make significant progress and have quality of life.

Respectfully,

Colleen