Here's the latest document asking policy makers to look at alternatives to the Best Practices method. The administration wants $174 million to come from purchase-of-service "standards," or "best practices" as the Legislature has started calling them. This idea has been rejected repeatedly by the legislature and opposed by every community advocacy group in years past. While standards and best practices sound good they are actually cost cutting measures that will change service: (1) eligibility, (2) duration, (3) frequency, (4) rates, (5) provider qualification, etc. for everyone, establishing standard arbitrary limits as opposed to our current method of determining needs through the person centered IPP or IFSP.
Spread the Cuts Equitably
The $750 million in General Fund cuts proposed by the Governor were ultimately reduced by the Budget Conference Committee to just over than $577 million – still a very large reduction, particularly combined with the hundreds of millions in federal dollars that will also be left on the table.
The Administration argues that they will “continue to strive to keep the cuts as far away from the clients as possible. And we will not violate the law. {Lawsuits; Nancy Lungren, DDS spokeswoman, Sacramento Bee, March 7, 2011).But that is not what is happening!
The initial cuts, including payment reductions and cuts carried over from last year, were nearly twice as large on community services (9%) than they were on other parts of the system (5%). These inequitable cuts to direct services do the greatest harm to people with developmental disabilities while protecting State operations and primarily administrative functions.
The final $200 million in cuts, just approved by the Budget Conference Committee, continues this inequitable distribution of the pain and suffering. We have a fairer and more appropriate way to achieve what unfortunately must be achieved to help balance the state budget.
There are 4 distinct parts of the Developmental Services system in California
1)State owned and operated Developmental Centers
2)Regional center operations
3)Purchase of Services (community-provided services purchased by regional centers)
4)DDS Headquarters
The cuts as finally adopted by the Budget Conference Committee are inequitably distributed across the 4 parts of the system.
January 7, 2011
Dear Friends,
If you, or someone you care for, lost services through a regional center without an IPP/IFSP team meeting since 2009 -- and if you want the services restored -- now is the time to ask for a team meeting to consider restoring them.
Likewise, if you are eligible for an exception or exemption to a categorical service cut, and you want the service back, you should consider asking for a team meeting now.
A planning team meeting now may -- or may not – result in your services being restored. But it should give you a chance to try to restore them.
What’s changed now is that the Department of Developmental Services has sent the regional centers an important notice as a result of a bill that The Arc sponsored and Assembly Member Wesley Chesbro authored in 2010. We sought the bill because some IPPs and IFSPs had been changed without the planning team meetings that the Lanterman Act requires.
At the end of the 2010 legislative session, at our request, Mr. Chesbro negotiated an agreement with the department. He withdrew consideration of the bill, and the department promised to notify the regional centers that the Lanterman Act planning process is still the law.
The department now has kept its promise and issued the notice, called an “advisory,” reminding regional centers that the Lanterman Act procedures for changing IPPs and IFSPs “remain intact and must be followed.”
The department’s advisory notes that 2009 legislation “established new criteria for the purchase of some regional center services.” This legislation was the Schwarzenegger administration’s budget cut that we tried and failed to stop in the Legislature.
“However,” the department’s advisory states, “the person-centered/individualized planning process, which is the cornerstone of the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, was not changed as a result of this legislation.
“Decisions concerning the consumer's goals, objectives, and services and supports that will be included in the consumer's IPP or IFSP and purchased by the regional center or obtained from generic agencies shall be made by agreement between the regional center representative and the consumer or, where appropriate, the parents, legal guardian, conservator, or authorized representative at the program plan meeting,” the advisory states.
It goes on to remind the regional centers that the law “also contains exemptions and exceptions to some provisions of law.” Separate legislation adopted last year requires the regional center to tell you if you are eligible for an exemption to a categorical cut – usually for health and safety reasons. Mr. Chesbro also authored that legislation, sponsored by The Arc and Disability Rights California.
When you request an IPP or IFSP team meeting, remember that you have a right to invite anyone you want to be part of the team. This can include a service provider, a friend or relative, or anyone else you want. You never have to go to a team meeting alone, whether the meeting is in person or by phone.
Thanks to all of you who responded to our urgent pleas for support for the bill that brought this about. Our victory, though limited, shows that grassroots advocacy throughout the state coordinated with professional advocacy in the Capitol can pay off for our community. Sometimes.
Thanks, too, to Assembly Member Chesbro for authoring this important legislation, to Disability Rights California for their very strong support, and to the Department of Developmental Services for negotiating this agreement and then carrying it out.
And as always, thank you for your advocacy.
Greg
PS. Please forward this to anyone you know who might be able to use this information.
"Advocacy, respect, and commitment to people with intellectual and all developmental disabilities since 1950"
Spanish version curtesy of The Arc of Imperial Valley
Estimados Amigos: Si usted ó alguien quien conoce ha perdido sus servicios del Centro Regional sin haber tenido una junta (IPP/IFSP) desde 2009 – y si quiere recibir servicios nuevamente – ahora es cuando hacer una cita para que consideren reinstalar sus servicios.
Del mismo modo, si usted es elegible para una excepción de un recorte de servicios por categoria y quiere que le reinstalen tales servicios, pida que le hagan una cita para tener una junta para obtener de nuevo tales servicios.
El hecho de tener una junta no garantiza que le reinstalen los servicios pero por lo menos se hara un intento para tartar de reinstalar sus servicios.
Lo que ha cambiado es que el departamento de servicios de desarrollo a mandado un aviso importante a los centros regionales segun el proyecto de ley escrita por el miembre de la asamblea, Wesley Chesbro en 2010. Se busco el proyecto de ley por que el algunas ocasiones, hubieron cambios en los (IPP /IFSP) sin juntas correspondientes a tales cambios como el Acta Lanterman lo requiere.
Al final de la sesión legislativa de 2010, el Sr. Chesbro negocio un acuerdo con el departamento. Retiró el proyecto de ley recordando a los centros regionales que el Acta Lanterman sigue siendo ley y se tomara al pie de la letra.
El asesor del departamento nota que en 2009 se establecieron nuevos criterios para la compra de ciertos servicios del centro regional. Sinembargo, El Acta Lanterman; que se enfoca en el proceso del plan del individuo y centrado en el individuo (IPP) no ha cambiado. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Las decisiones que se tartan a cerca de las metas, objetivos y servicios de los consumidores que se incluyen en el plan individual el mismo (IPP) seran hechas por el representatnte del centro regional y el individuo ó los responsables legales del consumidor.
Se les recordó a los centros regionales que hay algunos cambios en la ley en cuanto a quienes estan eccentos en cuanto a los criterios de quienes recibir servicios que por lo general tiene que ver con cuestiones de salud.
Cuando solicites tu junta, recuerda que tienes el derecho de invitar a quien quieras para que forme parte de tu equipo. Puede ser un miembro de tu familia, una Amistad un pariente ó quien gustes.
Gracias a todos quienes participaron para seguir adelante con el procedimiento legal para el beneficio de los consumidores del estado.
August 10, 2010
Great News on the FMAP Extension
The House of Representatives just voted 247-161 to extend the increase in the federal share of Medicaid, known as the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP). The House had been called in for a one day session by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to vote on the $26.1 billion Medicaid-Education Jobs bill, H.R. 1586. The bill now heads to President Obama for his expected signature.
…The bill is fully paid for but it reduces the amount of federal support for FMAP from the $24 billion that would have been available under previous versions of the extension. The provision would phase out the enhanced FMAP during the six-month period from January 2011 through June 2011, providing states with a 3.2 percentage point increase in the second quarter of fiscal year 2011 and a 1.2 percentage point increase in the third quarter of FY 2011.
The Arc has actively supported the FMAP extension and the education funding as they are both critically needed to prevent harmful cuts to services and schools. However, we are concerned that it is partially paid for by scaling back future food stamp benefits which serve many people with disabilities.
If you have any questions, please contact Paul Marchand.
Here’s how the California delegation voted.Please call and thank those who voted to for the extension, it will bring in almost $2.5 billion to our budget (already accounted for) and saves us from almost certain further devastating cuts which would have negatively impacted the lives of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.
The following voted for the measure:
Yea
CA-1
Thompson, C.
Yea
CA-5
Matsui, Doris
Yea
CA-6
Woolsey, Lynn
Yea
CA-7
Miller, George
Yea
CA-8
Pelosi, Nancy
Yea
CA-9
Lee, Barbara
Yea
CA-10
Garamendi, John
Yea
CA-11
McNerney, Jerry
Yea
CA-13
Stark, Fortney
Yea
CA-14
Eshoo, Anna
Yea
CA-15
Honda, Michael
Yea
CA-16
Lofgren, Zoe
Yea
CA-17
Farr, Sam
Yea
CA-18
Cardoza, Dennis
Yea
CA-20
Costa, Jim
Yea
CA-23
Capps, Lois
Yea
CA-27
Sherman, Brad
Yea
CA-28
Berman, Howard
Yea
CA-29
Schiff, Adam
Yea
CA-30
Waxman, Henry
Yea
CA-31
Becerra, Xavier
Yea
CA-32
Chu, Judy
Yea
CA-33
Watson, Diane
Yea
CA-34
Roybal-Allard, Lucille
Yea
CA-35
Waters, Maxine
Yea
CA-36
Harman, Jane
Yea
CA-37
Richardson, Laura
Yea
CA-38
Napolitano, Grace
Yea
CA-39
Sanchez, Linda
Yea
CA-43
Baca, Joe
Yea
CA-47
Sanchez, Loretta
Yea
CA-51
Filner, Bob
Yea
CA-53
Davis, Susan
Those who vote against:
Nay
CA-2
Herger, Walter
Nay
CA-4
McClintock, Tom
Nay
CA-21
Nunes, Devin
Nay
CA-22
McCarthy, Kevin
Nay
CA-24
Gallegly, Elton
Nay
CA-25
McKeon, Howard
Nay
CA-26
Dreier, David
Nay
CA-40
Royce, Edward
Nay
CA-41
Lewis, Jerry
Nay
CA-44
Calvert, Ken
Nay
CA-45
Bono Mack, Mary
Nay
CA-46
Rohrabacher, Dana
Nay
CA-48
Campbell, John
Nay
CA-49
Issa, Darrell
Nay
CA-50
Bilbray, Brian
Nay
CA-52
Hunter, Duncan
Those who didn’t vote:
Not Voting
CA-3
Lungren, Daniel
Not Voting
CA-12
Speier, Jackie
Not Voting
CA-19
Radanovich, George
Not Voting
CA-42
Miller, Gary
Non-Profit Web Hosting provided by myhosting.com
The Arc of California, 1225 8th Street, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95814. Office (916) 552-6619, Fax (916) 441-3494