NC House Bill 916 is NOT the Answer!: correspondence

Showing posts with label correspondence. Show all posts

21 February 2013

Insult to Injury: Expungement?

Re: Talk about insult to injury?!! Fwd: [lme_providers] Expunction of Criminal Records in North Carolina
From: Crystal J. De la Cruz
Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Dear Families, People of Conscience, Senators and House Members, and Federal Representatives,

Pardon my French, but seriously, WHAT THE HELL?

Please see below an listserv I received today in which Eastpointe MCO's CEO, Karen Salaki, offers up to her colleagues and underlings a helpful reference guide to Expunction of Criminal Records in North Carolina presumably for MHDDSA professionals and staff... which, in my humble opinion, is not only completely inappropriate for this field, but begs to question:

Is criminal activity really such a problem for employees in North Carolina's field of Health and Human Services that it warrants dissemination of this information to the entire NC Local Management Providers listserv?
And this problem, is it a global epidemic throughout the entire I/DD field or is it isolated to say, direct care staff who work with clients who can neither defend themselves and, in most cases, communicate their needs or fears?
Is there such a shortage of decent, trustworthy, qualified applicants that we gotta break the levy in order to widen the pool because it's near impossible to find direct care staff willing and able to work for what pitiful portion of funds are left after the hierarchy trickle-down?
Would you knowingly allow a convicted felon (even a non-violent one?) access to your home and more importantly, to babysit your children? How about a someone with just a little ole Class 2 Misdemeanor charge (in NC, charges of Simple Assault and Shoplifting are both Class 2 Misdemeanors, while Speeding is a Class 1) And would you allow this same individual to care for your elderly mother with dementia?
When are we as a society, as a state, as a community - going to STOP subscribing to this unwritten American caste system of human value?

I really hope this is a misunderstanding, however, given the trends of this entire Medicaid process, it feels more par for the course.

We, the parents and family members, are still waiting to be heard and taken seriously regarding our experiences, knowledge, expertise, fears, concerns, and stuff like this that we're simply shocked and appalled about. Gosh, there's really no end to all we could accomplish if we all chose to work together... Just sayin'.

Thank you in advance for you time and attention. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time.

Kind regards,
--
Crystal J. De la Cruz - Hopper
Mother, Advocate & Concerned Citizen

When we allow the value of human life to be determined by capital gain, when we sacrifice the well-being of the most innocent among us to compensate our own shortcomings, and when we judge the worth of our most fragile, not by their character nor intention, but rather their abilities – We Are in Crisis.

http://no2nchb916.blogspot.com/

"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life . . . the children; those who are in the twilight of life . . . the elderly; and those who are in the shadow of life . . . the sick . . . the needy . . . and the disabled."
--Hubert H. Humphrey

----- Forwarded Message
From: Listserve Administration
Reply-To: Listserve Administration
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:53:33 -0500
To: NC Local Management Providers
Subject: [lme_providers] Expunction of Criminal Records in North Carolina

To: Provider Network
From: Karen Salacki, Chief of External Operations
Re: Expunction of Criminal Records in North Carolina

Attached is a very helpful guide on how to have eligible offenses removed from criminal records. Please share with applicable staff within your agencies.

This e-mail is for informative purposes ONLY.

Please do not reply to this e-mail.

---

You are currently subscribed to lme_providers as: janet.presson@asmallmiracleinc.com.

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.unc.edu/u?id=53091867.3571bb40e36a7e70f1361fb08a87d445&n=T&l=lme_providers&o=32779787

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to leave-32779787-53091867.3571bb40e36a7e70f1361fb08a87d445@listserv.unc.edu

Public Records Law Statement:
Please be advised that any e-mail sent to and from this e-mail account is subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Confidentiality Statement:
This e-mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential health information, such documents are legally privileged. The authorized recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing this information to any other party unless required to do so by law or regulation. Recipients are required to destroy such information after its stated need has been fulfilled. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of these documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail and accompanying file attachment.

------ End of Forwarded Message

EXPUNCTION OF CRIMINAL RECORDS IN NORTH CAROLINA.PDF [460K]

06 September 2012

Parent Correspondence re CAP MRDD transition

Fwd: Waiver Update: CAP-MR/DD to IDD

MaryKShort@aol.com <MaryKShort@aol.com>

Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:37 PM

To: MaryKShort@aol.com

This is about the CAP-MR/DD to IDD transition ... not NC Innovations or MCO's! It looks like the change to the IDD waiver (and the 40 hour rule) will happen on Sept. 28th for those of you still on the CAP waiver. Remember: You have a right to request a reasonable accommodation or an exception to the 40 hour policy under the ADA (American with Disabilities Act.) You simply request the ADA exception with the reason WHY you need the exception. You also have a right to request an ADA reasonable accommodation or an exception to the SNAP/SIS score guideline/limit on the amount of services that are "medically necessary for health and safety." Katie SNAP's at a Level 3 and received Level 5 Home Supports, exception was granted for her medically necessary for health and safety level of services. You can request an ADA accommodation to any rule, policy, procedure or whatever. Only you know what it is that will truly meet the "medically necessary for health and safety" level of services.

For those of you who switched to the IDD services way back when (November?) and who have been working more than 40 hours BECAUSE the state was not enforcing the limit because the waiver was not CMS approved ... It is my guess that you will now be required to come into compliance or request the ADA accommodation.

Mary K. Short
828-632-5888 or 704-451-4144 (cell)

From: Connie.Martin@cms.hhs.gov
To: MaryKShort@aol.com
Sent: 9/4/2012 10:43:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Waiver Update: CAP-MR/DD to IDD

Good morning, Ms. Short,

Ms. Johnson left DMA a couple of months ago to take another position in the community according to the outgoing voice mail on her old telephone number. At the end of June, CMS granted the NC DMA another extension to run until September 27^th, 2012, so there have been no gaps in coverage. CMS has recommended approval of the waiver renewal and it is going through the sign off process now.

Thank you,

Connie

From: MaryKShort@aol.com [mailto:MaryKShort@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 7:26 PM
To: Martin, Connie L. (CMS/SC)
Subject: Waiver Update: CAP-MR/DD to IDD

Hello Connie. I wrote to NC DMA (Susan Johnson, below) asking about the CAP-IDD waiver and have not heard back. A number of families have asked me I knew for SURE that the CAP-MR/DD to CAP-IDD waiver had been approved by CMS or if there was an extension. In fact, DMA's web site only officially lists the extension to the end of June! That would imply there is no CAP-MR/DD or IDD waiver. Please let me know where it stands. Thank you.

Mary K. Short
828-632-5888 or 704-451-4144 (cell)

From: MaryKShort@aol.com
To: susan.e.johnson@dhhs.nc.gov
Sent: 8/30/2012 1:47:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: CAP-MR/DD to IDD

Is the MR/DD going to IDD on October 1st or not? I can't find anything in a Medicaid bulletin or Update ... I only see IU #92 that said until 6/29/12. What's up?

Mary K. Short
828-632-5888 or 704-451-4144 (cell)

25 June 2012

ECBH Finance Called to Question in news

Mary beat me to it... [download the 3 news articles here]

Mary K. Short is a strong and active advocate and the parent caregiver of an adult DD recipient with profound needs. She fights tirelessly for the rights of her daughter, Katie and other special families, as well as a great deal of time keeping folks informed! Posted with Mary's permission.

Mary and her daughter live in NC House District 88 and Senate District 42. Her daughter is being served by Smoky Mountain LME.

MaryKShort@aol.com <MaryKShort@aol.com>

Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:09 PM

To: jjennings@alexandercountync.gov, rmayberry@alexandercountync.gov, jmoose@alexandercountync.gov, drobertson@alexandercountync.gov, lyoder@alexandercountync.gov

Cc: MaryKShort@aol.com

Dear Commissioners: I have appeared before you and I have tried to tell you about my concerns regarding this change from a statewide CAP-MR/DD waiver to an LME/MCO run NC Innovations waiver. I have expressed my concerns about this change to an "at-risk insurance company." I am hopeful you will take the time to read this series of newspaper articles regarding ECBH (East Carolina Behavioral Health).

I am asking that you contact me by email to tell me that this is NOT also true of what is happening at SMC (Smoky Mountain Center) which is due to "go live" with the change on July 1st.

Mary K. Short
828-632-5888 or 704-451-4144 (cell)

In a message dated 6/25/2012 10:31:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Crystal J. De la Cruz "
Date: June 25, 2012 10:14:44 EDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: NC Medicaid Waiver - financial mysteries with ECBH

Dear US Government Officials, members of the NC General Assembly, DHHS representatives, and fellow concerned parents and NC Citizens,

Please find attached 3 news articles from The Daily Advantage, a small paper in the eastern part of the state which highlights some very frightening issues surrounding the Medicaid Waiver and budgetary concerns expressed by Camden Co. Commissioner Mike McClain, also an accountant and ECBH board member.

Also attached, my recent open letter and outline (with supporting documents) addressing related concerns, in the event you have not had an opportunity to review.

Kind regards,

--

Crystal J. De la Cruz - Hopper

Mother, Advocate & Concerned Citizen

When we allow the value of human life to be determined by capital gain, when we sacrifice the well-being of the most innocent among us to compensate our own shortcomings, and when we judge the worth of our most fragile, not by their character nor intention, but rather their abilities – We Are in Crisis.

http://no2nchb916.blogspot.com/

"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life . . . the children; those who are in the twilight of life . . . the elderly; and those who are in the shadow of life . . . the sick . . . the needy . . . and the disabled."
--Hubert H. Humphrey

From: ncadvocacy@yahoogroups.com
Reply-to: notify-dg-ncadvocacy@yahoogroups.com
To: ncadvocacy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 6/25/2012 6:15:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: [ncadvocacy] Digest Number 2039

The Daily Advance ECBH 'lost' $11.4 Million - East Carolina Behavior
Posted by:
Date: Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:05 pm ((PDT))

_Click here: The Daily Advance_
(http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/mclain-ecbh-8216lost8217-114m-1113601)

NC Advocacy: As you have to subscribe to see the article - I've pasted it
below.

The Daily Advance
June 24, 2012
McLain: ECBH ‘lost’ $11.4M

“This is basically Albemarle Mental Health on steroids.” 
-quote by Mike McLain Camden commissioner

By Reggie Ponder

East Carolina Behavioral Health — the Greenville-based agency that
oversees mental health services in the region — has lost $11.4 million in the
current fiscal year and is losing about $1 million a month, an ECBH board
member charged last week.

Camden County Commissioner Mike McLain, who sits on ECBH’s Area Board of
Commissioners, said the current management at ECBH is 10 times worse than
Albemarle Mental Health Center’s ever was.
“This is basically Albemarle Mental Health on steroids,” McLain said,
referring to the now-defunct organization that was shuttered in 2009-10 in the
wake of a state audit that uncovered glaring mismanagement.

But ECBH Director Leza Wainwright categorically denies that ECBH is losing
money. “We are not losing money,” Wainwright said Friday when asked
about McLain’s concerns.

McLain, an accountant and an instructor in accounting at Hampton
University in Virginia, said he noticed while reviewing financial statements
recently that revenues do not match expenses.

McLain said when he asked about the discrepancy, which ECBH records show
amounted to some $11.4 million for the 2011-12 fiscal year as of May 31, he
was told not to worry about the figures.

McLain said he was told that ECBH expected to lose $6 million when it
launched its Medicaid waiver program but the actual loss has been more than $11
million. ECBH has managed Medicaid funding for programs serving people
with developmental disabilities under a waiver system since April.

Wainwright and ECBH Assistant Director Joy Futrell insist the loss exists
only on paper and is the result of board-approved fund balance transfers
coupled with an especially conservative way of accounting for potential
liabilities. They say the accounting method was recommended by a consultant as
the safest way to begin ECBH’s foray into the Medicaid waiver field.

A financial report for May presented to ECBH’s Finance Committee shows
expenses of $87 million as of May 31 but revenues of only $75.6 million — a
shortfall of $11.4 million.

While Wainwright acknowledged that while the report shows a net loss of
$11.4 million, those figures reflect one-time transfers from fund balance
that were authorized by the board, she said.

ECBH transferred $6.7 million out of fund balance into a retiree health
insurance trust account and $4.5 million for the Medicaid waiver start-up.

She said the reality is that ECBH is not losing money but is between $1
million and $1.5 million to the good.

Futrell explained that once ECBH gets further along with the Medicard
waiver program, staff will be able to estimate Medicaid service liability more
precisely.

“Typically and in the future, ECBH will estimate outstanding Medicaid
service liability utilizing data which considers providers’ billing history,
specifically considering the average number of days it takes for providers to
bill and get paid,”

Futrell said in an e-mail response to The Daily Advance. “Due to the
waiver starting up in April, there was no history to estimate the outstanding
Medicaid liability and there was no authorization data to utilize, so the
recommendation was made to use the most conservative approach in estimating
the Medicaid liability to be 100 percent of what was not spent for Medicaid
services based on the budget.”

As an example, and noting she was using “completely made-up numbers” for
the purpose of the explanation, Futrell said that if ECBH had budgeted $500
per month for Medicaid outpatient services but spent only $200 in a given
month, ECBH still considered the entire $500 a liability.

This accounting method was chosen because it is the most conservative,
assuming that all Medicaid service funds will be spent, she said. ECBH plans
to use the conservative approach until the agency has enough history with
providers to be able to make accurate estimations, Futrell said.

But McLain said ECBH is making light of very real risk. The new ECBH model
is essentially that of an insurance company, he said.
“There’s a lot of risk in being an insurance company,” McLain said. “You’
re on the hook for potential liabilities.”

Although the ECBH board has been assured there are risk management
procedures in place, board members have not been informed of what those procedures
are, he said.
“That scares the heck out of me,” McLain said.

The ECBH Area Board of Commissioners will meet Tuesday at 7 p.m. in the
EMS building at 205 E. Main Street in Williamston. The meeting will include a
public hearing on ECBH’s 2012-13 budget.

201204-05 TheDailyAdvance - ECBH Money Management.zip 5029K

Leg. Correspondence, CMS, US HHS & Reports

Mary K. Short is a strong and active advocate and the parent caregiver of an adult DD recipient with profound needs. She fights tirelessly for the rights of her daughter, Katie and other special families, as well as a great deal of time keeping folks informed! Posted with Mary's permission.

Mary and her daughter live in NC House District 88 and Senate District 42. Her daughter is being served by Smoky Mountain LME.

From: MaryKShort@aol.com
To: Bev.Perdue@nc.gov, Thom.Tillis@ncleg.net, Phil.Berger@ncleg.net
CC: MaryKShort@aol.com, louis.pate@ncleg.net, justin.burr@ncleg.net, nelson.dollar@ncleg.net, martha.alexander@ncleg.net, william.brisson@ncleg.net, bill.current@ncleg.net, mark.hollo@ncleg.net, pat.hurley@ncleg.net, bert.jones@ncleg.net, marian.mclawhorn@ncleg.net, tom.murry@ncleg.net, fred.steen@ncleg.net, austin.allran@ncleg.net, doug.berger@ncleg.net, stan.bingham@ncleg.net, harris.blake@ncleg.net, jim.davis@ncleg.net, fletcher.hartsell@ncleg.net, eric.mansfield@ncleg.net, martin.nesbitt@ncleg.net, william.purcell@ncleg.net, tommy.tucker@ncleg.net, james.forrester@ncleg.net, andrew.brock@ncleg.net, ralph.hise@ncleg.net, marilyn.avila@ncleg.net, rayne.brown@ncleg.net, tricia.cotham@ncleg.net, beverly.earle@ncleg.net, shirley.randleman@ncleg.net, mitchell.setzer@ncleg.net
Sent: 6/25/2012 11:06:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Delay NC Innovations Expansion - URGENT

Dear Gov. Perdue, Speaker Tillis, President Pro Tempore Berger, and ladies and gentlemen of the NCGA:

I have tried over and over again to inform you of the urgent concerns I have had about DHHS/DMA/DMHDDSAS (the Department and its Divisions) in regards to the Medicaid 1915(c) waivers for the IDD/MR/DD/Autism population. I have tried to inform you of my urgent concerns regarding the role of CMS in approving waivers that were in violation of any number of federal statutes beyond CMS's own regulations, particularly the ADA and Olmstead.

On June 12, 2012, the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued a report entitled, "Oversight of Quality of Care in Medicaid Home and Community Based Services Waiver Programs." I have provided the link to that report and copied the summary posted to the OIG.HHS.GOV web page below. Please see in particular the text I have highlighted in red/underline/bold.

I am once again asking you to stop the further implementation of the NC Innovations waiver. The fact that too much money has already been spent on the ADMINSTRATIVE components of implementation, is no justification for continuing the implementation. None of the LME/MCO's that have already transitioned have been adequately prepared. The absolute proof is NOT whether any one beneficiary has been institutionalized since their transition, but rather, the fact that none of the LME/MCO's is negotiating "enhanced" rates with providers for those beneficiaries who had been receiving CAP-MR/DD Enhanced services. Those Enhanced services are not available in the NC Innovations waiver.

Appendix J: Cost Neutrality Demonstration of the CAP-MR/DD Comprehensive Waiver (CMS NC 0662.R00.02 Jul 01, 2010): d. Estimate of Factor D. i. Non-Concurrent Waiver (chart). This document lists: Enhanced Personal Care Services # Users 366; Respite Nursing LPN # Users 37; Respite Nursing RN # Users 41; and Enhanced Respite Care # Users 415.

PBH, Pam Shipman, stood before the DWAC on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 and said that only 4 persons had a reduction/denial in services due to the transition: "No denials except for 4 requests for services or items not allowed under Innovations." [Link to document: (see page 11) http://www.ncdhhs.gov/mhddsas/providers/1915bcwaiver/dwac/6-20-12/pbh-presentation6-20-12.pdf.]

Please, delay the further implementation of the NC Innovations waiver.

Mary K. Short
828-632-5888 or 704-451-4144 (cell)

http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-08-00170.asp
Report (OEI-02-08-00170)

06-21-2012
Oversight of Quality of Care in Medicaid Home and Community Based Services Waiver Programs

Complete Report

Download the complete report: http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-08-00170.pdf

Summary
WHY WE DID THIS STUDY

In recent years, States have altered their approach to providing Medicaid-funded long-term care services. Rather than providing the majority of that care in institutions-such as nursing homes-States are now providing more care in homes and other community-based settings. States most often provide this care through 1915(c) home and community-based services (HCBS) waiver programs, and the individuals served by these programs are most commonly disabled and/or over age 65. In fiscal year 2010, Medicaid expenditures for HCBS waiver programs serving this population totaled an estimated $8.9 billion. Strong oversight of waiver programs is critical to ensuring the quality of care provided to HCBS beneficiaries. The beneficiaries who rely on HCBS waiver programs are among Medicaid's most vulnerable, and the nature of these programs puts beneficiaries at particular risk of receiving inadequate care.

HOW WE DID THIS STUDY

States must operate their HCBS waiver programs in accordance with certain "assurances," including three assurances related to quality of care. To meet these assurances, States must demonstrate that they have systems to effectively monitor the adequacy of service plans, the qualifications of providers, and the health and welfare of beneficiaries. We based this study on a review of documents from CMS's most recent quality review of waiver programs from 25 States, as well as information gathered from structured interviews with staff from the 10 CMS regional offices.

WHAT WE FOUND

Seven of the twenty-five States that we reviewed did not have adequate systems to ensure the quality of care provided to beneficiaries. Although CMS renewed the waiver programs in all seven of these States, three did not adequately correct identified problems. Not only did these States fail to correct these problems before renewal of their programs, they also had still not adequately addressed the problems long after renewal. In addition, CMS did not consistently use the few tools it has to ensure that States correct problems related to quality of care.

WHAT WE RECOMMEND

We recommend that CMS: (1) provide additional guidance to States to help ensure that they meet the assurances, (2) require States that do not meet one or more assurances to develop corrective action plans, (3) require at least one onsite visit before a waiver program is renewed and develop detailed protocols for such visits, (4) develop a broader array of approaches to ensure compliance with each of the assurances, and (5) make information about State compliance with the assurances available to the public. CMS concurred with four of the recommendations and partially concurred with our recommendation to require onsite visits.

18 June 2012

Parent PBH Inquiry

Pat Wiegand is the parent caregiver of two adult DD recipients, Casey and Jason, who depend upon CAP Waiver supports to keep her family together and maintain some small level of community involvement.

You may recognize their names from their May 22nd Arc video at the Coalition Rally or from the touching Family Stories video earlier this year.

Pat and her family reside in Senate District 9 and House District 18. Her children, Casey and Jason, receive services through Southeastern Regional MH/DD/SAS Services (SRMHC) LME.

Parent Perspective and PBH Inquiry

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pat Wiegand
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: re- PBH Inquiry
To: Rachel Porter

Dear Ms. Porter,

I am interested in the salaries of all PBH executives. I feel as the families of the IDD consumers we have a right to know how much of the funding is taken from them to pay high salaries. We as a group would also like to know how PBH is paying 14 million dollars for a building that to the best of our knowledge is for paper pushers. We don't believe there are any services in the building benefitting clients if this is not accurate information I will be glad to pass along any corrections you may have.

Thankyou,

Ms. Patricia Wiegand

ps I would appreciate a response before the DWAC meeting wednesday

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:57 PM,
Rachel Porter wrote:
> Dear Ms. Wiegand,
>
> I am responding to your inquiry regarding Pam Shipman’s salary. Ms. Shipman
> has held the position of CEO at PBH since July, 2011. Her salary is $160,000
> annually.
>
> Please let me know if I can help further.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rachel Porter
>
>
> M. Rachel Porter
> Director of Communications
> 4855 Milestone Avenue
> Kannapolis, NC 28081
> www.pbhsolutions.org
> 704.939.7705
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
> confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
> disclosure or use is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
> notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.

------ Pat's original email, sent 6/13 ------

To Whom it may concern

I am writting this request to find out if and where the salaries for executive officers of PBH can be found . It is our understanding that as a goverment funded company it should be made available to the public.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible as we have meetings where I would like to present the needed information.

Respectfully,

Patricia Wiegand

14 June 2012

Legislative Correspondence: A Blast From the Past...

Mary K. Short is a strong and active advocate and the parent caregiver of an adult DD recipient with profound needs. She fights tirelessly for the rights of her daughter, Katie and other special families, as well as a great deal of time keeping folks informed! See below legislative correspondence regarding some of the same issues regarding DMA's 8M Clinical Coverage Policy from 2007. Posted with Mary's permission.

Mary and her daughter live in NC House District 88 and Senate District 42. Her daughter is being served by Smoky Mountain LME.

From: MaryKShort@aol.com
To: Representative Nelson Dollar <nelson.dollar@ncleg.net>,
House Speaker Thom Tillis <Thom.Tillis@ncleg.net>
BCC: MaryKShort@aol.com
Sent: 5/30/2012 9:14:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: 2007 email that is still timely!

Dear Speaker Tillis and Rep. Dollar:

I was "cleaning" old mail on my computer. Look what I found. I hope you both can see the ridiculousness of the NC Innovations Waiver having the same 40 hour policy that I was writing to you about in 2007 and I hope you can put an end to this ridiculous policy once and for all.

Additionally, I have received copies of the Public Comments that were made to DMA's Clinical Policy 8M CAP-MR/DD last June/July/August. There are over 500 comments. I have told you both before that only 1091 parents are paid to provide Home Supports out of the 10,000+ on the CAP-MR/DD waiver. It is astounding that most of those comments are families BEGGING DMA to not eliminate Home Supports. Yet, that is precisely what DMA did. It looks like about 500 out of 1000 felt strongly enough to actually WRITE an email. I already gave Sen. Daniel's LA (Andy) the Word documents from a thumb drive I brought with me to Raleigh today. (I only received the documents yesterday.) I am in the process of looking into a web site where I can post the documents and where they can be read rather than downloaded onto a computer. (My families will appreciate that!) I will send an email to everyone after I have that done. I also have to read ALL of it ... I skimmed all the pages.

Mary K. Short
828-632-5888 or 704-451-4144 (cell)
___________

From: Representative Nelson Dollar <Nelsond@ncleg.net>
To: MaryKShort@aol.com
CC: Legislative Assistant for Representative Thom Tillis <Tillisla@ncleg.net>,
Malcolmg@ncleg.net
Sent: 5/4/2007 11:38:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: RE: DHHS/DMA - DD (not MH/SAS)

Dear Ms. Short,

Thank you for your e-mail and for sharing your personal experience. We will need to research were this legislation stands in the two Chambers, and any language or special provisions regarding these funds that may be in the House budget proposal. I appreciate having your "draft" proposal as a guide to your thinking on this issue.

My office will get back with you this coming week with an update on where this issue is in the legislative process.

Thank you again for your correspondence and your kind words.

Best Regards,
Nelson Dollar

Rep. Nelson Dollar
N.C. House District 36
Legislative Building, Suite 1209
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.715.0795
___________

From: MaryKShort@aol.com [mailto:MaryKShort@aol.com]
Sent: Mon 4/30/2007 11:02 AM
To: Representative Nelson Dollar
Cc: Kristen Feneley (Rep. Tillis); Sen. Malcolm Graham
Subject: DHHS/DMA - DD (not MH/SAS)

Dear Mr. Dollar,

I am writing to you in order to ask for your help with legislation regarding the DD community. I am sending copies to my Mecklenburg representatives and am asking that you all work together to help. If it is at all possible that any of you disagree with what I am asking, would you please at least respond with your reasons why? Please.

Mr. Dollar, I have seen you a number of times on UNC-TV Legislative Week in Review and feel I have gotten an understanding of your interests in general and in DD (developmental disability) and mental health issues as well. I did see that you have sponsored specifically H 674 and therefore feel comfortable that you have an understanding of the DD community.

Mr. Tillis, you were kind enough to meet with me and my daughter in Cornelius for over an hour back in February to discuss my concerns with what was happening in the CAP-MR/DD waiver program. Mr. Graham, I regret to say that you and I have not spoken other than at an initial meet the candidates evening at Davidson's Town Hall years ago!

I am asking for help to stop the proposed Technical Amendment to 1915 (c) CAP-MR/DD Waiver dated 3/2/07 (http://www.ncdhhs.gov/mhddsas/ and then click on What's New to see "The New Technical Amendment No. 4 ..." which will take you to the CAP-MR/DD pages. Specifically, Services and Supports Provided by Legally Responsible Individuals, Relatives, and Legal Guardians, Appendix B-2, Attachment 1.

I was hoping you could look at my proposed "DRAFT" and determine if there was a way to amend a pending bill (such as Sen. Shaw's S 1188) to include some/all of the language in my "DRAFT" ... I am just a parent of an ADULT Medicaid beneficiary, a private citizen, and if Technical Amendment No. 4 is implemented, then I will have no choice but to go to the Clerk of Courts and resign my guardianship. A new guardian will then need to be appointed and that new guardian had better get busy, because my daughter will no longer be able to live in my home. I simply cannot watch her be abused by "staff" AGAIN and especially not IN MY HOME. The truly crazy thing about Technical Amendment No. 4 is that is does not SAVE one Medicaid penny and it does not prevent a stranger from working more than 217 hours! My daughter's plan of care is what is funded, not her family! The services are going to be paid for whether I receive the paycheck or some stranger (or combination of strangers) does. And I just refuse to teach her to have "appropriate" behavior while she is naked in front of constant rotating staff! And I refuse to interview and train staff for FREE. I volunteer all the hours that are NOT funded now ... my ADULT daughter requires 24 hour staff, 7 days a week, 365 days a week ... she simply is someone who forever and always will be in the care of others.

DRAFT

Whereas, the General Assembly of North Carolina acknowledges the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services definition used for State Plan Medicaid services can be found at State Plan Manual:

4480. PERSONAL CARE SERVICES

D. Definition of Family Member. -- Personal care services may not be furnished by a member of the beneficiary's family. Under the new final rule, family members are defined to be "legally responsible relatives." Thus, spouses of recipients and parent(s) of minor recipients (including stepparents who are legally responsible for minor children) are included in the definition of family member. This definition necessarily will vary based on the responsibilities imposed under State law or under custody or guardianship arrangements. Thus, a State could restrict the family members who may qualify as providers by extending the scope of legal responsibility to furnish medical support."

Whereas, the General Assembly of North Carolina acknowledges that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services allows States to extend the scope of legal responsibility to furnish medical support,

Whereas the General Assembly of North Carolina acknowledges that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services allows states to enact further specific State Plan and/or 1915(b)(c) Waiver definitions,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

Section 1 (I do not know, but is a number). Chapter (again, who knows, but it is a number) of the General Statutes to read:

The General Assembly adopts the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services definition of "family member" as written for Medicaid State Plan and 1915(b)(c) Waiver services and specifically does not extend the scope of legal responsibility to furnish medical support or authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enact any rule or policy that would change the definition or extend the scope from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services definition or scope.

SECTION 2. Nothing in this act shall require the General Assembly to appropriate funds to implement it or require a local management entity to spend additional funds to implement it. The provisions of this act are not intended to create a burden, financial or otherwise for the Department of Health and Human Services or local management entities.

SECTION 3. This act is effective when it becomes law.

Okay. That is my DRAFT. I am trying desperately to take away the current power of the Secretary of DHHS to take my daughter away from me simply because she is POOR and is DEPENDENT on Medicaid tax dollars. I have documented proof of the abuse she has suffered at the hands of others here in North Carolina ... please, please, respond.

Mary K. Short
P.O. Box 1994, Davidson, NC 28036
704-896-5735

07 June 2012

Legislative Correspondence to Re. Tim Moffitt

Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:37 PM

From: Crystal J. De la Cruz

To: Representative Tim Moffitt

Re: DMA 2011 Public Comment Documents on CAP I/DD

Dear Representative Moffitt,

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to say hello and quickly introduce myself today; you were most kind given the chaos and time constraints at the General Assembly today. I do look forward to sitting down for a more comprehensive discussion regarding the 1915(b)(c) Medicaid Waiver and the impact upon recipients and families, as well as the countless dedicated professionals, staff and small business owners whose livelihoods will be be affected - many who may be forced to leave a field that they love for self-preservation.

I am forwarding with this mail, an email sent to Representative Current yesterday with attachments to include the 2011 Public Comments to DMA regarding both phases of 8M Clinical Policy proposals for CAP I/DD services and supports. The first 8M proposal was posted for 46 days, while the second, with more drastic cuts was posted for only 15 days. I'm not certain by whom these were reviewed but certainly not by the appropriate persons in my humble opinion. They are quite lengthy documents, described in more detail in my mail to Dr. Current below, but given that as I meet with members I continually hear that they're not hearing from many parents, I do believe it is worth a scan. These are the missing voices.

For everyone's convenience, I plan to try to break down the the comments and highlight the significant feedback, suggestions, testimonials and desperate pleas.

I have further included with this mail the detailed email and attachments sent to Governor Perdue and members of the General Assembly in February of this year.

I understand this is a great deal of information; I've probably read shorter books. As I mentioned, there really is no way to put it in a nutshell. My goal, while we struggle to salvage the State's fiscal integrity, is to make certain no one forgets the human element in all this - the most vulnerable and least responsible of our citizens. The train may have left the station already, though I firmly believe there can be a better destination.

Thank you in advance for your time, attention and compassion toward our special populations and the families who love them.

If I can be of assistance in any way whatsoever, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time.

Warm regards,

Crystal J. De la Cruz - Hopper

Mother, Advocate & Concerned Citizen

When we allow the value of human life to be determined by capital gain, when we sacrifice the well-being of the most innocent among us to compensate our own shortcomings, and when we judge the worth of our most fragile, not by their character nor intention, but rather their abilities – We Are in Crisis.

http://no2nchb916.blogspot.com/

"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life . . . the children; those who are in the twilight of life . . . the elderly; and those who are in the shadow of life . . . the sick . . . the needy . . . and the disabled."

--Hubert H. Humphrey

[Quoted text hidden]

3 attachments

20110512-0626 NC-DHHS-DMA Public Comments 8M CAPIDD.doc [598K]

20110728-0811 NC-DHHS-DMA Public Comments 8M CAPIDD.doc [2786K]

20120223 Ltr to Governor Perdue re NC HB 916 & 1915bc Waivers, FINAL.pdf [5019K]

Legislative Correspondence to Sen. Tommy Tucker

Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:48 PM

From: Crystal J. De la Cruz

To: Tommy.Tucker@ncleg.net

Re: DMA 2011 Public Comment Documents on CAP I/DD

Dear Senator Tucker

My sincere apologies for the delay in following up after our May 15th visit. I'm sure you can appreciate the sentiment when I say I've been "running around like a chicken with my head cut off."

I greatly appreciate your time and attention in meeting with [name stricken] and I regarding Medicaid Waiver concerns for the DD populations, their families and the wonderful providers who have kept us all afloat throughout this rocky journey. I recognize that this is not an easy time for NC and I do not envy your job as a Senator, so it means a great deal that you are open to having a dialogue. I sincerely believe that you want to see this baby put to bed and sleeping safely and soundly, so to speak, and I do admire your unwillingness to compromise your character... and that is why I sought to meet with you.

No, it's not an easy life raising a child with profound special needs - in fact, unimaginable to most, but I can tell you one thing with the utmost certainty: at the end of the day, it's our special folks who keep it real and truly put life in perspective. That is why I do what I do because I am the mother Isabel needs me to be. I firmly believe special people were not born to be tested, rather to serve as litmus to the rest of us.

And that's why I maintain that there's so much more to these issues than fiscal accountability; besides Merriam-Webster defines accountability as: "the quality or state of being accountable; especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions" Who among us are least accountable, least responsible for this mess than our special populations?

Several members have expressed that they haven't heard from many parents. I keep pointing out that it is not an easy feat for many of these folks to pack up their kids with all their meds, supplies, sensory items, and equipment and travel hours away for a 30 minute - an hour meeting and well, most don't have the time nor vacation time because they use it all going to appointments with doctors and specialists. --Most of us do the very best we can with what we got and sometimes there's no extra left over. And sometimes when we do let the laundry or dishes go or forgo a shower to take the time to sit down and write a letter, send an email - pleading for help, it falls on deaf ears.

Families need a little more acknowledgment than a pat on the head. Some of us are quite knowledgable, some are professionals in the field, some of us have really great ideas and we've been navigating system after system after new-and-improved system - but we are each experts in what we know. We need and deserve the respect of being heard by our Governor, the General Assembly and the administrators of entities entrusted to assure order and means in the survival of those they serve.

I am polishing up additional materials for you that I hope to send later today regarding our prior visit and conversation, though meanwhile I wanted to share with you the attached documents forwarded to me by fellow parent Mary K. Short who finally received them yesterday from Brad Dean at the DHHS Office of Public Affairs. Attached are the Public Comment response records from 2011 regarding the 8M CAP I/DD Clinical Policy proposals posted from 5/12 thru 6/26 and from 7/28 thru 8/11 -- a total of 540 comments; 618 pages. Pretty interesting reading. And this is what's missing - the human element.

Comments were made from across North Carolina by many parents and caregivers sharing heartfelt details of their lives as well as professionals, providers, and advocates in the DD field who know well the devastating impact such changes and service cuts would have not only on the recipients and families they serve and care for, but on their small businesses, their livelihood and the lives of staff they employ as well.

My sincerest hope that our elected officials - our Governor and members of the North Carolina Senate and House of Representatives - aspiring candidates, policy-makers, Health and Human Services administrators, LME's, MCO's, and other stakeholders and powers that be take the time now to hear that voice as our lives are in your hands... not merely the quality of our lives but rather our ability to live.

I know I'm asking a lot of you to sit down and skim through a 'book' like this but I also believe you want to assure this thing is done right; currently it's not. There's far more at stake than our State's broken-back budget - A budget crisis which cannot be rectified by plugging the dike with our finger and hoping for the best. Hoping there's not another crack - if we cement this model as it, the levee will break.

Thank you again for your time and attention and thank you in in advance for your considerations and efforts toward improving our State and our lives.

Sincere regards,

Crystal J. De la Cruz - Hopper

Mother, Advocate & Concerned Citizen

http://no2nchb916.blogspot.com/

--Hubert H. Humphrey

2 attachments

20110512-0626 NC-DHHS-DMA Public Comments 8M CAPIDD.doc [598K]

20110728-0811 NC-DHHS-DMA Public Comments 8M CAPIDD.doc [2786K]

Legislative Correspondence to Rep. Bill Current

Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM

From: Crystal J. De la Cruz

To: Representative "Dr. William A. Current, Sr."

Dear Dr. Current,

My sincere apologies for the delay in following up after our May 15th visit. It was a great pleasure meeting you and getting to know a bit about you as a person; I'm so glad the time afforded us a chance to chit-chat. Both [name stricken] and I were moved by your deeply-rooted integrity and moral compass. I dare say the world could use more people like you Dr. Current and your family is very lucky to have you.

Several members have expressed that they haven't heard from many parents. I keep pointing out that it is not an easy feat for many of these folks to pack up their kids with all their meds, supplies, sensory items, and equipment and travel hours away for a 30 minute - an hour meeting and well, most don't have the time nor vacation time because they use it all going to appointments with doctors and specialists. Most of us do the very best we can with what we got and sometimes there's no extra left over. And sometimes when we do let the laundry or dishes go or forgo a shower to take the time to sit down and write a letter, send an email - pleading for help, it falls on deaf ears.

I am polishing up additional materials for you that I hope to send later today regarding our prior visit and conversation, though meanwhile I wanted to share with you the attached documents forwarded to me by fellow parent Mary K. Short who finally received them yesterday from Brad Dean at the DHHS Office of Public Affairs. These are the Public Comment response records from 2011 regarding the 8M CAP I/DD Clinical Policy proposals posted from 5/12 thru 6/26 and from 7/28 thru 8/11 -- a total of 540 comments; 618 pages. Pretty interesting reading. And this is what's missing.

I know I'm asking a lot of you to sit down with a book like this but I also know you understand the importance of the messages inside. Thank you again for your time and attention and thank you in in advance for your considerations.

Kind regards,

Crystal J. De la Cruz - Hopper

Mother, Advocate & Concerned Citizen

http://no2nchb916.blogspot.com/

--Hubert H. Humphrey

2 attachments

20110512-0626 NC-DHHS-DMA Public Comments 8M CAPIDD.doc [598K]

20110728-0811 NC-DHHS-DMA Public Comments 8M CAPIDD.doc [2786K]

from CMS re Comprehensive & Supports Waivers

From: Connie.Martin@cms.hhs.gov
To: MaryKShort@aol.com
Sent: 6/6/2012 10:00:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Follow-Up re CAP-IDD waiver

Dear Ms. Short,

The CAP-IDD waiver (a.k.a., NC 0662, Comprehensive waiver) is not yet approved. We continue to work with the State toward getting the waiver approved.

We are also working with the State to get the NC 0663, Supports waiver for MR/IDD individuals approved. NC 0663 has the same extension date as the Comprehensive waiver. As you probably already know, the Supports waiver provides services for those individuals who needs are less severe than the individuals in the Comprehensive waiver.

Thank you,
Connie

From: MaryKShort@aol.com [mailto:MaryKShort@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 6:39 PM
To: Martin, Connie L. (CMS/SC)
Subject: Follow-Up re CAP-IDD waiver

Hi Connie. Here it is the beginning of June and we are all wondering (AGAIN - not your fault that our DMA does not let anyone know anything) if the CAP-IDD waiver is approved? We all know there is an extension to 06.28.2012. Thank you.

Mary K. Short
828-632-5888 or 704-451-4144 (cell)

05 June 2012

Parent Perspective & Legislative Correspondence

Mary and her daughter live in NC House District 88 and Senate District 42. Her daughter is being served by Smoky Mountain LME.

Parent Perspectives

and Legislative Correspondence

From: Mary K. Short June 5, 2012
Hello all. As I have been trying to stop the further implementation of the NC Innovations waiver, one of the things I have repeatedly told the Members of the NC General Assembly (NCGA) is that the Department and Divisions DO NOT LISTEN TO FAMILIES. One of the things that had been bothering me is the fact that "Proposed Clinical Policy 8M CAP-IDD" was never posted to the DMA web site as approved. You should recall that it was posted for public comments twice, for a 45-Day period (May 12, 2011 - June 26, 2011) and then again for a 15-Day period (July 28, 2011 - August 11, 2011). The 15-Day comment period was when Home Supports was eliminated! I submitted a Freedom Of Information Act request (FOIA) and after some delay by the Department and Divisions, I did actually receive the documents! They sent me Word file documents of ALL the public comment they received. The links below are to those documents. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT I HAVE NOT REMOVED ANY INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENT DOCUMENTS. They contain email addresses, addresses, phone numbers, WHATEVER was submitted is what was released. I have not edited the information in any way.

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D6195569_4698706_718588 (Part 1: 539 pages; 439 comments; 15 day comment period.)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D6195569_4698706_718581 (Part 2: 79 pages; 101 comments; 45 day comment period.)

They are tremendously moving to read. I want to thank every single family who submitted comments. I want to add that MOST of the comments are NOT from people who are directly on my email list. I know some of you forward my emails, and so, I want to thank you for doing that. I don't care if the comments are from my email group or members of The Arc or UCP or Case Management providers or service providers, whoever, I am just thankful for the families who did comment. Except for two that I remember, they were in COMPLETE AND TOTAL OPPOSITION to the elimination of Home Supports, the implementation of a 40-hour policy, and opposed denying the use of Respite on the same day as Home Supports or Residential Supports.

After having all of it printed and READING EVERY SINGLE PAGE, I sent the following email:

From: MaryKShort@aol.com

To: Governor Beverly Perdue <governor.office@nc.gov>,

Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger <Phil.Berger@ncleg.net>,

House Speaker Thom Tillis <Thom.Tillis@ncleg.net>,

Senator Louis Pate <louis.pate@ncleg.net>,

Representative Justin P. Burr <justin.burr@ncleg.net>,

Representative Nelson Dollar <nelson.dollar@ncleg.net>,

Representative Martha Alexander <martha.alexander@ncleg.net>,

Representative William Brisson <william.brisson@ncleg.net>,

Representative William A. Current, Sr. <bill.current@ncleg.net>,

Representative Mark W. Hollo <mark.hollo@ncleg.net>,

Representative Pat B. Hurley <pat.hurley@ncleg.net>,

Representative Bert Jones <bert.jones@ncleg.net>,

Representative Marian McLawhorn <marian.mclawhorn@ncleg.net>,

Representative Tom Murry <tom.murry@ncleg.net>,

Representative Fred F. Steen, II <fred.steen@ncleg.net,

Senator Austin Allran <austin.allran@ncleg.net>,

Senator Doug Berger <doug.berger@ncleg.net>,

Senator Stan Bingham <stan.bingham@ncleg.net>,

Senator Harris Blake <harris.blake@ncleg.net>,

Senator Jim Davis <jim.davis@ncleg.net>,

Senator Fletcher Hartsell <fletcher.hartsell@ncleg.net>,

Senator Eric Mansfield <eric.mansfield@ncleg.net>,

Senator Martin L. Nesbitt, Jr. <martin.nesbitt@ncleg.net>,

Senator William R. Purcell <william.purcell@ncleg.net>,

Senator Tommy Tucker <tommy.tucker@ncleg.net>,

Senator Andrew C. Brock <andrew.brock@ncleg.net>,

Senator Ralph Hise <ralph.hise@ncleg.net>,

Joint Caucus Leader Marilyn Avila <marilyn.avila@ncleg.net>,

Representative Rayne Brown <rayne.brown@ncleg.net>,

Representative Tricia A. Cotham <tricia.cotham@ncleg.net>,

Representative Beverly M. Earle <beverly.earle@ncleg.net>,

Representative Shirley B. Randleman <shirley.randleman@ncleg.net>,

Representative Mitchell S. Setzer <mitchell.setzer@ncleg.net>,

Representative Tim Moffitt <tim.moffitt@ncleg.net>

CC: MaryKShort@aol.com

Sent: 6/4/2012 7:34:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time

Subj: Public Comments to 8M Clinical Policy - links provided

Dear Gov. Perdue, Sen. Berger, Speaker Tillis, and Members of the NCGA:

On 04072012 I sent a Public Records request to DHHS. I have no idea why there was a problem with getting it to the right person. That FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request was for ALL of the public comments that were submitted to DHHS/DMA for Proposed Clinical Policy 8M CAP-IDD. There were two comment periods. May 12 - June 26, 2011 (45 days) and July 28, 2011 - August 11, 2011 (15 days.)

In a phone call with Susan E. Johnson at DMA on 05082012, she told me she had compiled and sent that 8M public comment information to DHHS. (Additionally, on 05082012, I emailed her requesting the "best practice documentation" for the family as provider 40 hour policy. However, as of today, I still have NOT received the best practice documentation. I followed up with her on 05172012 and her reply on 05182012 was that she had asked DHHS to assist her.)

Brad Deen, DHHS, spoke with me at the MCAC (Medical Care Advisory Comm.) Meeting on 05182012 and told me he had sent the documents to a different Mary Short email address. I was confused by that since I had made the request in an email to begin with. I gave him the correct information and he said he would send it. When I had not received the information by 05292012, I tried email again. Two emails and a phone call later, I received the documents on 05292012. They are in Word. I have provided links to the documents rather than attaching them to this email.

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D6195569_4698706_718588 (Part 1: 539 pages; 439 comments; 15 day comment period.)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D6195569_4698706_718581 (Part 2: 79 pages; 101 comments; 45 day comment period.)

When we were in Raleigh on 05302012 and 05312012, I had the documents on a thumb drive with me and I told as many legislators as I could about what was in the documents I had barely had a chance to read. Sen. Daniels' LA, Andy, downloaded the documents. I have sent them as email attachments to some other people, too. Additionally, I have sent them to the HHS/OCR attorney in Atlanta who has been assigned my (our) complaint because I specifically complained about 8M and that DHHS/DMA/DMH not listening to the comments.

On Friday, 06012012, I had both documents printed out. Over the weekend, 06022012-06032012, I did read every single page. There were two comments in favor of the proposed changes, both from LME/MCO's. Mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, or any other family relation you can imagine, all wrote to beg that DMA not change the CAP-IDD(MR/DD) waiver by eliminating Home Supports or limiting families to 40 hours a week. These are very, very compelling comments. Agencies, such as The Arc or UCP or ASNC (Autism), all wrote to oppose the elimination of Home Supports or to oppose the 40 hour limit. And yet, DMA did just that. You must be wondering, just as I am, why it is that if there are 1,091 +/- parents performing Home Supports in all of NC and 500 comments were received in opposition to the elimination of Home Supports or the 40 hour policy, then why would DMA do it? I sincerely believe it is because they are simply mean-spirited. There is no logical reason to believe otherwise.

I have spent time and effort in an attempt to convince you that there is a problem at DHHS/DMA/DMHDDSAS. I don't know what it is you need to have in your hands in order to believe me and in order to take any action to stop the further expansion of the 1915(b)(c) waivers and more specifically, the 1915(c) NC Innovations waiver. Please. The PBH pilot of the Innovations waiver INCLUDED its own HOME SUPPORTS service definition. It was just in July of 2011 that the NC Innovations waiver eliminated Home Supports and implemented a 40 hour policy. The NC Innovations waiver that is being expanded is NOT the Innovations waiver that was piloted by PBH all those years.

The fact the CMS has approved any State Plan or State Plan Amendment or Waiver is NOT proof that what DHHS/DMA/DMHDDSAS has done is legal. You all are acutely aware of the DOJ findings with regard to ACH/IMD and Personal Care Services. The fact that there is a pending lawsuit (K.C. v NCDHHS, PBH, et al.) brought against PBH after the changes to the piloted Innovations waiver is also proof of some level of disregard of the PEOPLE impacted by the Innovations waiver.

The financing of this waiver through a capitation formula which results in a month to month variable check to the LME/MCO's rather than an annual appropriation by the NCGA which always allowed for growth (moving people off of the wait list and into direct services) is flawed or a sham, or both!

The fact the MONEY has been spent by LME/MCO's on this expansion is not an argument to continue the expansion. Clearly, DHHS/DMA/DMHDDSAS has wasted millions of dollars in the past on policies or programs that have failed. Those live human beings in the IDD community are simply the least able to recover from another DHHS/DMA/DMHDDSAS "failed" policy.

Please stop the further expansion of the NC Innovations waiver. Thank you all, again.

Mary K. Short and Katie

828-632-5888 or 704-451-4144 (cell)

I have not given up in any way. Because the public comments are public documents, you can forward the links to anyone you choose.

Finally, I want to address the issue of "our" information being public. I am sorry if any of you did not want your information released, but the DMA web site is very clear that the information that is given as a public comment can, in fact, be released as a public document. I am hopeful that all of us feel it is more URGENT and IMPORTANT to speak out against these changes, than to be silenced by the threat that our information may be made public. Of course, you can always sign up for a gmail or yahoo email account rather than using your "real" email account to send "public comment" from!

Mary K. Short

828-632-5888 or 704-451-4144 (cell)

Pages & Links

21 February 2013

06 September 2012

25 June 2012

18 June 2012

Parent Perspective and PBH Inquiry

14 June 2012

07 June 2012

05 June 2012

Parent Perspectives

and Legislative Correspondence