DD Task Force and Admissions Review Team
Developmental Disabilities Advocates
Chris Hartzog
--
ddadv...@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
--
Les Parker
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use or disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----Original Message-----
From: <ddadv...@gmail.com>
Cc: dd-coa...@googlegroups.com <dd-coa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 10/19/2012 12:03:17 PM
Subject: Re: [dd-coalition] DD Task Force and Admissions Review Team
Bob Gee G & G
Thanks for forwarding this. I just posted it to my Facebook wall.
Bob Gee
From: dd-coa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:dd-coa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ddadv...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 9:03 AM
To: dd-coa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: dd-coa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [dd-coalition] DD Task Force and Admissions Review Team
This is horribly tragic and I hope that the DD Task Force will now understand that oversight is much better quality assurance than investigations after the fact. Thank you to KING 5 informing us of these critical issues.
--
Cheryl Felak
--
DiMichele, Deborah
Cheryl, part of the problem is that the adult DDD services are not an entitlement in any state in the country. In the schools it is set up as an entitlement and it is up to the schools to search out and serve those who are entitled to the services. In the adult community it is up to the adults with disabilities or their advocates (usually means family) to find and apply for services and then they must continue to do whatever is needed to assure that the services remain in place, which involves continuing to fill out and send in paperwork, set up and go to appointments, follow through on phone calls etc. Many of our students who are graduating from schools do not have the ability to do that for themselves nor do they have family members who can do it for them. Since school services are an entitlement the state is obligated to serve students until they are 21 but there is no such legal obligation for adults so when budgets get cut it is the adult services that go first.
--
Saskia Davis
>> Our state has taken away the choice for those under 21 to access some life saving services. In order to attempt to recieve these services, the person must submit an application for placement which then goes to the Admissions Review Team. If you look at this linkhttp://www.leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/DDSSTF/Documents/Sep%2025%202012/92512%20DDD%20INFORMATION%20SHEET%20%20Admission%20Review%20Team%20-%20FINAL.pdf
>> you will see the data from the applications that have gone to this team in the past year.
>>
>> 12 of the 26 who requested RHC placement were 21 or under. This is amazing given that we hear from DDD and others that people do not want these services. Obviously these services are needed and are desired for people. These families should continue to have the choice for these life saving services.
>>
>> I can tell you that there are many more who have requested this service from their case manager or the regional DDD manager and were told "no" and an application was never even addressed or filled out. I sat in on a meeting with a parent (one of those on the list) and Michelle Bauchman, Region 2 Director. Ms. Bauchman told the mom that her son, who has stabilized at Fircrest, must now leave because our state prohibits those under 21 form utilizing these services long term.
>>
>> This mom clearly articulated that she had looked at about 8-10 community homes and gave specifics as to why these homes were not safe and moving her son would put his life in jeopardy. This mom is still continuing to look at community homes but there are no alternatives that are safe for her son. Ms. Bauchman could only offer that they continue to look and work with the Roads to Community Living Folks and she also suggested a community ICF/ID. I informed Ms. Bauchman that the community ICF/IDs do not have nursing care nor does one that she mentioned even have nurse delegation - the residents "self-medicate". She was unaware of this fact and that the services in the community ICF/IDs are not comparable to the services in the state ICF/IDs.
>>
>> I brought up the issue of "exception to rule" with Ms. Bauchman, who then did say that yes, this family could ask the case manager to fill out the application for long term placement, which would then go to the Admissions Review Team. This step would never have been brought up if I had not been there to ask since this choice has now been taken away from our families.
>>
>> I wonder how many more of you out there have requested services at the ICF/ID and been told you can not have them. We know there are many who did not even make it to the statistical data of submitting an application. DDD only tracks the applications that have been submitted, not the families who have been told "no" in conversations or meetings.
>>
>> This boy was denied admission. He is still at Fircrest because there are no alternatives. DDD has stated though that they will make an exception to the rule and find him his own house with his own caregivers. This is totally unacceptable for many reasons - mainly this will cause isolation and increased restrictions and will increase the risk of abuse to this boy given the lack of oversight and high staffing turnover in community homes. The family is against this option and they are still requesting long term admission. A request for a Fair Hearing will be the next step.
>>
>> Why, when the family has requested this safe community ICF/ID home for their son who they see has stabilized due to having adequate supports, is DDD denying them this service? Why would DDD "offer" an unsafe alternative that would be much more costly to our state when the family doesn't even want that? This is illogical. If anyone sees the logic in this, please write and let me know what it is because I don't see it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>
--
----
--
Saskia Davis
--
Saskia Davis
--
ddadv...@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
--
ddadv...@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
--
DiMichele, Deborah
I don’t know where you’re getting your information but I don’t believe RHC’s are operated on an entitlement basis. They should be a choice that parents/guardians/advocates are informed about but there is no entitlement as far as I know. The concept of entitlement has to do with funding and legal rights at the state level.
--
ddadv...@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
--
Cheryl Felak
from Washington State Institute for Public Policy http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/09-10-3901.pdfCare in an institution is an
entitlement, meaning if a client is eligible, he or she
cannot be denied institutional care. When an
individual with developmental disabilities
participates in the state’s waiver program, he or she
waives the right to be institutionalized and agrees to
receive alternative services in the community. Any
Section 1: Overview
11
client assessed as needing 24-hour active
residential care in a structured facility and who
meets the Medicaid and state eligibility
requirements for institutional care is entitled to a
place in an institution. A waiver enables the client to
receive the same level of service (24-hour, active
care), but in a community setting.
are Medicaid entitlements, which are “guaranteed”
to an individual who meets the eligibility criteria,
but the majority of services are limited by both
DiMichele, Deborah
Yes, I see where you are getting this and the language does say ‘entitlement’. So maybe the problem is the words ‘eligible’ and ‘assessed need’. Are there any coherent standards in place to define these? Because if not then anyone could be denied.
--
CMarshall
"DiMichele, Deborah" <dadim...@seattleschools.org> wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:29 PM, <ddadv...@gmail.com<mailto:ddadv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>I'm sure someone on this list can clarify but it had to do with CMS. When I get home and am able to get better resources than I can do on my phone I will get the information for you unless someone else answers. But, yes it is a choice. Entitlement dies not mean that you need to choose that. This may be different from one system to another.
>
>Cheryl
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Oct 19, 2012, at 12:56, "DiMichele, Deborah" <dadim...@seattleschools.org<mailto:dadim...@seattleschools.org>> wrote:
>I don't know where you're getting your information but I don't believe RHC's are operated on an entitlement basis. They should be a choice that parents/guardians/advocates are informed about but there is no entitlement as far as I know. The concept of entitlement has to do with funding and legal rights at the state level.
>
>From: dd-coa...@googlegroups.com<mailto:dd-coa...@googlegroups.com> [mailto:dd-coa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ddadv...@gmail.com<mailto:ddadv...@gmail.com>
>Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 12:22 PM
>To: dd-coa...@googlegroups.com<mailto:dd-coa...@googlegroups.com>
>Cc: dd-coa...@googlegroups.com<mailto:dd-coa...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [dd-coalition] DD Task Force and Admissions Review Team
>
>Yes, DDD services are not an entitlement but the RHC is. That is the only part of the adult DDD system that is I believe yet people's choices to utilize this are not suggested or offered.
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:46, "DiMichele, Deborah" <dadim...@seattleschools.org<mailto:dadim...@seattleschools.org>> wrote:
>Cheryl, part of the problem is that the adult DDD services are not an entitlement in any state in the country. In the schools it is set up as an entitlement and it is up to the schools to search out and serve those who are entitled to the services. In the adult community it is up to the adults with disabilities or their advocates (usually means family) to find and apply for services and then they must continue to do whatever is needed to assure that the services remain in place, which involves continuing to fill out and send in paperwork, set up and go to appointments, follow through on phone calls etc. Many of our students who are graduating from schools do not have the ability to do that for themselves nor do they have family members who can do it for them. Since school services are an entitlement the state is obligated to serve students until they are 21 but there is no such legal obligation for adults so when budgets get cut it is the adult services that go first.
>
>From: dd-coa...@googlegroups.com<mailto:dd-coa...@googlegroups.com> [mailto:dd-coa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cheryl Felak
>Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 11:08 AM
>To: dd-coa...@googlegroups.com<mailto:dd-coa...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [dd-coalition] DD Task Force and Admissions Review Team
>
>Part of the benefit of the RHC is that it is a community - I know that there are many who do not believe this but for those residents it is a safe community which is the least restrictive for them. The RHC is the most cost effective system of care for a portion of the population. People should be free to choos this option since it is an entlement but for those under 21, this choice has been taken away and for others, it is not a choice that is often honored.
>
>Yes, we do need a full continuum and in order to do that we also need to utilize a cost effective model rather than close the cost effective model only to cause increased costs in the community which will then decrease the overall availability of services to all.
>
>It's not just the level of care but the level of oversight that is needed to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens are not taken advantage of, harmed or otherwise not taken care of.
>
>We also need to look at options to raise revenue so that as a state we can live up to our constitution and provide services that we state we do.
>
>Cheryl
>On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Les Parker <Lpa...@rescare.com<mailto:Lpa...@rescare.com>> wrote:
>I think given the rules as they are we need to push our legislature to provide a community model that affords the level of support that is offered in the RHC's otherwise there will continue to be gaps in the types of care and different fundamental views until an equal level of care can be provided.
>
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use or disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original message.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: <ddadv...@gmail.com<mailto:ddadv...@gmail.com>>
>Cc: dd-coa...@googlegroups.com<mailto:dd-coa...@googlegroups.com> <dd-coa...@googlegroups.com<mailto:dd-coa...@googlegroups.com>>
>
>Sent: 10/19/2012 12:03:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [dd-coalition] DD Task Force and Admissions Review Team
>
>This is horribly tragic and I hope that the DD Task Force will now understand that oversight is much better quality assurance than investigations after the fact. Thank you to KING 5 informing us of these critical issues.
>
>Cheryl
>
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:46, Chris Hartzog <c...@chrishartzog.net<mailto:c...@chrishartzog.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> During last year's efforts by the Governor and DSHS to close down the Morgan center, DSHS tried to convince us to accept transfer into a SOLA placement. A number of the Morgan center residents were under 21. Family members asked DSHS how they would assure the same level of care and safety in a SOLA. DSHS could not provide a convincing answer. Yesterday, KING 5 news ran a story on repeated abuse and safety violations in SOLAs. Here is the link to the story: http://www.king5.com/news/investigators/Repeat-violations-threaten-shut-down-of-group-of-state-run-group-homes-174864591.html
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Developmental Disabilities Advocates wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have a choice?
>>>
>>> Our state has taken away the choice for those under 21 to access some life saving services. In order to attempt to recieve these services, the person must submit an application for placement which then goes to the Admissions Review Team. If you look at this link http://www.leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/DDSSTF/Documents/Sep%2025%202012/92512%20DDD%20INFORMATION%20SHEET%20%20Admission%20Review%20Team%20-%20FINAL.pdf
>>> you will see the data from the applications that have gone to this team in the past year.
>>>
>>> 12 of the 26 who requested RHC placement were 21 or under. This is amazing given that we hear from DDD and others that people do not want these services. Obviously these services are needed and are desired for people. These families should continue to have the choice for these life saving services.
>>>
>>> I can tell you that there are many more who have requested this service from their case manager or the regional DDD manager and were told "no" and an application was never even addressed or filled out. I sat in on a meeting with a parent (one of those on the list) and Michelle Bauchman, Region 2 Director. Ms. Bauchman told the mom that her son, who has stabilized at Fircrest, must now leave because our state prohibits those under 21 form utilizing these services long term.
>>>
>>> This mom clearly articulated that she had looked at about 8-10 community homes and gave specifics as to why these homes were not safe and moving her son would put his life in jeopardy. This mom is still continuing to look at community homes but there are no alternatives that are safe for her son. Ms. Bauchman could only offer that they continue to look and work with the Roads to Community Living Folks and she also suggested a community ICF/ID. I informed Ms. Bauchman that the community ICF/IDs do not have nursing care nor does one that she mentioned even have nurse delegation - the residents "self-medicate". She was unaware of this fact and that the services in the community ICF/IDs are not comparable to the services in the state ICF/IDs.
>>>
>>> I brought up the issue of "exception to rule" with Ms. Bauchman, who then did say that yes, this family could ask the case manager to fill out the application for long term placement, which would then go to the Admissions Review Team. This step would never have been brought up if I had not been there to ask since this choice has now been taken away from our families.
>>>
>>> I wonder how many more of you out there have requested services at the ICF/ID and been told you can not have them. We know there are many who did not even make it to the statistical data of submitting an application. DDD only tracks the applications that have been submitted, not the families who have been told "no" in conversations or meetings.
>>>
>>> This boy was denied admission. He is still at Fircrest because there are no alternatives. DDD has stated though that they will make an exception to the rule and find him his own house with his own caregivers. This is totally unacceptable for many reasons - mainly this will cause isolation and increased restrictions and will increase the risk of abuse to this boy given the lack of oversight and high staffing turnover in community homes. The family is against this option and they are still requesting long term admission. A request for a Fair Hearing will be the next step.
>>>
>>> Why, when the family has requested this safe community ICF/ID home for their son who they see has stabilized due to having adequate supports, is DDD denying them this service? Why would DDD "offer" an unsafe alternative that would be much more costly to our state when the family doesn't even want that? This is illogical. If anyone sees the logic in this, please write and let me know what it is because I don't see it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>--
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>--
>
>
>--
>
>
>--
>
>
>--
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>--
>
>
ddadv...@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
--
Saskia Davis
Cheryl Felak
Rick Jensen
We all have our technology limits!!!!
Rick Jensen
855 Trosper Road SW #108-321
Tumwater, WA 98512
RickJ...@ScatterCreek.com
--