|
SAMPLE LETTER
May 24, 2011
TO: Members, Assembly Budget Sub-Committee #1
Members, Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Sub-Committee #3
(Add YOUR Assembly Member and YOUR Senator)
RE: Comments on Trailer Bill Language: Department of Developmental Services; Budget Item 4300
Dear Members of the Legislature:
I am {name} and am (a consumer, family member, direct care staff, executive, board member, business partner, interested community member, etc.) who is very concerned about proposed cuts to services for people with developmental disabilities.
In the last two years, our services have been cut nearly $1 billion in State funds alone! Many of our services have been reduced and some have been eliminated. Another cut will be detrimental!
The Department of Developmental Services' overall budget proposal now before you is more balanced and keeps cuts further from the lives of people with disabilities than in the past. But there are still issues that should be addressed. We ask for your help in the following areas:
Federal Revenue Enhancement
We applaud the Department's efforts in recent years to maximize federal funding. We believe, however, that significant dollars may still be available, through both the Home and Community Based Services Waiver and through the 1915(i) State Plan Amendment - perhaps more than $50 million. We urge you to do all that can be done to maximize this resource, save general fund costs, and further reduce impacts on direct services to people with developmental disabilities.
Trailer Bill Language
ISSUE: Full Day/Half Day Billing in Day Programs (Trailer Bill Number 663)
Converting a daily rate to a full or half day payment may have the consequences of further penalizing already struggling service providers. There are many variables that are out of the control of a provider that are responsible for clients going home early. Personal emergencies, medical appointments, behavior issues and limited transportation options are just some of the reasons people arrive late or leave early.
a) Most of the day program rates have been frozen for more than a decade. When they were created they were based on actual historical costs that are far out of date.
b) Under existing law, a program receives no reimbursement when a consumer does not attend the program for any reason.
c) If there are to be adjustments for partial attendance during a program day, the following parameters should be included in the plan:
i. If a consumer plans for half day programming, then the tailored day service discussed earlier in this trailer bill should be considered, with a new rate developed, and not the simple application of a prorated payment based on the hours of attendance.
ii. While the term "half day" is used in the language, a consumer must be present for 75% of the day or payment is reduced in half. We question why a half day of participation is not defined as 50% of the day.
iii. If the partial day is caused by someone other than the provider, such as medical/health and safety exception, voluntary leave, emergency or illness unexpected personal crisis then the discounted payment should not be applied.
iv. Tracking the partial attendance by consumers could add a great deal of administrative record keeping. There should be a possible exception for financial hardship to the agency.
ISSUE: Supported Living Services (Trailer Bill Number 662)
The proposal to add additional assessments of consumers in, or seeking, supported living services lacks detail and clear definitions in several areas. The proposed language also raises concerns regarding choices and adherence to the IPP process.
a) More than 3,000 existing and all new consumers seeking this service would be put through a costly and confusing secondary assessment of need.
b) Who will the "independent" assessors be?
c) How will this information me incorporated into an IPP? Will it have greater weight than other input?
d) If the findings of the independent assessor differ from the needs for support assessment done by the provider, how will that impact the actual service plan to be delivered?
e) While it may be practical in some instances for roommates to share support on common tasks, there is concern that a person might be required to make significant changes in lifestyle or engage in activities with a roommate that they would prefer not to engage in. Schedules and other factors would have to be given considerable weight.
ISSUE: Annual Family Program Fee (Trailer Bill Number 659)
This proposal starts us down the slippery slope of means testing in the world of developmental disabilities. We stand together with the Arc of California and families in saying there are many complex issues associated with the development and implementation of such a proposal and we are opposed in principal to means testing for families.
ISSUE: Prevention Program (Trailer Bill Number 665)
We support the reduction in overall funding and shift of funding to Family Resource Centers (FRC) that will enable otherwise non-eligible babies to have access to generic services. We want to make sure, however, that the role of Family Resource Centers are clear and that they are not exposed to expectations or liabilities that they are not set up to meet.
a) The determination of degree of disability and thus eligibility to return to regional centers for the more intense early intervention services must remain the primary responsibility of the baby's doctors. If a FRC notices changes, they can certainly bring that to the attention of the appropriate persons. But they cannot be assumed to have that responsibility.
b) How will the funds set aside in this trailer bill be allocated to various FRC's?
Once again, we appreciate the work of the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) that went into developing these proposals to implement General Fund savings. We look forward to working with the Department and with the Legislature to effectively bring about the changes envisioned by these proposals.
Sincerely,
Name
Title
Senate & Assembly Committee Contact Info
Assembly Budget Sub-Committee #1
Holly J. Mitchell - Chair
State Capitol, Room 2176
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: (916) 319-2047
FAX: (916) 319-2147
Assembly Member Jim Nielsen - Vice Chair
State Capitol, Room 6031
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: (916) 319-2002
FAX: (916) 319-2102
Assembly Member Wes Chesbro
State Capitol, Room 2141
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: (916) 319-2001
FAX: (916) 319-2101
Assembly Member Kevin Jeffries
State Capitol, Room 5128
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: (916) 319-2066
FAX: (916) 319-2166
Assembly Member William Monning
State Capitol, Room 6005
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: (916) 319-2027
FAX: (916) 319-2127
Assembly Member Allan Mansoor
State Capitol, Room 4177
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: (916) 319-2068
FAX: (916) 319-2168
Assembly Member Bob Blumenfield
State Capitol, Room 6026
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: (916) 319-2040
FAX: (916) 319-2140
Senate Budget Sub-Committee #3
Senator Mark DeSaulnier, Chair
State Capitol, Room 5035
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: (916) 651-4007
FAX:(916) 445-2527
Senator Elaine Alquist
State Capitol, Room 5080
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: (916) 651-4013
FAX: (916) 324-0283
Senator Bill Emmerson (R-Bakersfield)
State Capitol, Room 4082
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4037
FAX: (916) 327-2187
A special thanks to the California Disability Services Association (CDSA) for the information provided in this Advocacy Alert.
| 
