New RI BHDDH Director Cancels Plan For "Health Home" Case Management Model

By Gina Macris

This article has been corrected and updated.

A costly and controversial proposal for privatizing the management of individualized services for adults with developmental disabilities in Rhode Island has been axed by the new director of the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH).

The director, A. Kathryn Power, acted out of concern that the state would face a “financial cliff” after an initial start-up period almost entirely funded by the federal Medicaid program, according to a BHDDH spokesman.

The managed care initiative, which Medicaid has labeled a Health Home, would have created a third-party entity to plan, coordinate and monitor services on a person-by-person basis.

“Director Power was concerned whether the Health Homes initiative represented the right direction for consumers and families, as well as the Department, given the temporary nature of the federal funding,” said the spokesman, Randal Edgar.

The Medicaid program offers 90 percent federal funding Health Homes for two years, but after that, the state would be responsible for nearly half the cost of maintaining the Health Home. On Feb. 28, a BHDDH spokesman said that long-term, the Health Home would have cost the state about $5 million a year.

Throughout the past year, the Division of Developmental Disabilities “conducted extensive stakeholder engagement around the design” of a Health Home for adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities, the spokesman said. “The scope and the projected enrollments were then used to guide the proposed rate methodology and cost analysis,” resulting in future costs estimated at about $5 million, the spokesman said. (It was incorrectly stated in an earlier version of this article that BHDDH had not calculated the long-term dollar amount that the state would have borne before Power cancelled the plans for a Health Home application.)

Power had been aware of community opposition to the Health Home idea. That factor, “coupled with her own experience of looking at the integrated health home model, led her to question the viability of this initiative,” Edgar said. Power returned to BHDDH after about 15 years in the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

She said BHDDH will continue to pursue a case management model to satisfy a Medicaid rule that states eliminate conflicts of interest in three functions:

• funding

• delivery of services

• case-management; the planning,coordination, and oversight of supports.

Currently the state controls a critical element of the planning phase, an assessment called the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS.). The score from the SIS is fed into a secret algorithm that determines funding for a particular person,

The SIS was designed by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities to assist planners in compiling a program of services meeting the needs and preferences of particular individuals, an approach compatible with the Integration Mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Mandate, reinforced by the Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, says that individuals with disabilities have the right to services and supports they need to live, work, and play in their communities.

Using the SIS to determine individual appropriations resulted in a cookie –cutter approach that incentivized a system of sheltered workshops and day care centers when it was begun in 2011 as a key feature of Project Sustainability, a fee-for-service reimbursement system for privately-run developmental disability services.

Two years later, the operations of one of those workshops attracted a civil rights investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice that has led to federal oversight of the developmental disability service system until 2024. The key goal: to correct violations of the ADA’s integration mandate.

The Health Home proposal would not have touched the link between funding and the SIS, which was singled out for criticism by the DOJ in 2014 findings that led to a statewide consent decree.

Opposition to Health Homes has come from the special legislative commission which recently concluded a study of Project Sustainability, the Developmental Disability Council, the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island, and many families also have raised concerns about the Health Home.

In general, the critics have said a Health Home would have created an expensive and unnecessary bureaucracy at the same time that the services themselves are underfunded. .

The wages of direct care workers and related staff remain below the levels offered by Connecticut and Massachusetts for the same work, generating high turnover. The agencies employing the workers teeter on the edge of solvency, according to a recently released report compiled by BHDDH consultants. Families who manage a loved one’s program themselves also have had trouble finding staff.

RI DD Legislative Commission Seeks To Change Payment Methods For DD Service Providers

By Gina Macris

Louis DiPalma * All Photos By Anne Peters

Rhode Island must find an alternative to the fee-for-service system used to reimburse private agencies that provide services to adults with developmental disabilities, a special legislative commission has concluded after more than a year’s study.

The 21-member panel chaired by State Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, is finalizing more than a dozen recommendations, most of them aimed at changing key provisions of the payment system, known as Project Sustainability, which has been in place since 2011. Then, Rhode Island’s approach to serving adults with developmental disabilities relied heavily on sheltered workshops and day centers, an approach that figured in a civil rights investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice two years later.

Rhode Island no longer has sheltered workshops, thanks to a 2014 consent decree resulting from the DOJ investigation, which calls for enabling adults with developmental disabilities to become part of their communities in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision reaffirming the Integration Mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

But the underlying regulations of Project Sustainability, coupled with inadequate funding, still hinder the best efforts of state officials, professionals and families to help adults with developmental disabilities engage in the activities they choose in their communities, according to testimony heard by the commission.

DiPalma presented the recommendations at a Jan. 14 meeting that concluded the work of the Project Sustainability Commission but set the stage for continued engagement by a smaller steering committee and subcommittees to advance the implementation of legislative and other changes.

The commission would replace fee-for-service reimbursement with “bundled” allocations for individuals that would give providers a set sum for each client over the course of a year, providing greater flexibility in individualizing programs. One recommendation would also simplify the billing process.

The current system guarantees funding for only three months at a time, with documentation of daytime activities required in 15-minute increments. By regulation, staffing ratios are linked to one of five levels of funding a particular person receives, not to the staffing required to support a person at any given time.

In this scenario, some residents of a group home may end up going along on a housemate’s outing, even though they have no interest in it. The commission recommends such ratios be eliminated to allow providers greater flexibility in assigning staff.

The commission’s recommendations cover some of the same ground as outside consultants who are in the midst of an 18-month study of the developmental disability system at the behest of the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH). The consultants are supervised by the New England States Consortium Systems Organization (NESCSO), which is expected to conclude its work June30.

DiPalma’s expectation is that NESCSO will recommend a way forward for a new funding model to support individualization and integration in the community, with an emphasis on increasing employment opportunities for adults with developmental disabilities.

Kerri Zanchi (R) Speaks while A. Kathryn Power, NewBHDDH Director, Listens

Kerri Zanchi, a commission member and director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities at BHDDH, reminded DiPalma during the Jan. 14 meeting that NESCSO was hired to provide the department with options, not to make specific recommendations on ways it should restructure.

DiPalma said he appreciated Zanchi’s remarks, but “we’re here because of 2011,” the year the General Assembly enacted Project Sustainability, with a $26-million budget cut that ignored recommendations by outside consultants. The average pay for direct care workers still falls below the benchmark of $13.97, an hour recommended by the consultants in 2011.

“We’re still trying to claw our way out of that hole,” DiPalma said. He reiterated his view that NESCSO should be asked to make recommendations, not simply suggestions.

High on DiPalma’s priority list is a multi-year effort to address critical shortages of direct care workers by gradually increasing wages to make Rhode Island competitive with Massachusetts and Connecticut, one of the funding-related recommendations supported by the commission.

He encouraged commission members to continue their advocacy in a direct and respectful manner. “Do not take no for an answer on changes that are necessary,” DiPalma said. “Do not be combative,” he said, but open the door to collaboration and compromise by outlining the problem and asking for help in figuring it out.

The Commission’s funding-related recommendations said the budgeting process should be transparent. The developmental disabilities caseload should be part of the Caseload Estimating Conference held in conjunction with the Revenue Estimating Conference twice a year by the chief fiscal officers of the governor and the legislature to better inform budget preparations regarding the state’s social service obligations, the commission said.

In addition, the state should no longer use a disability-related assessment for calculating individual funding allocations according to a secret formula, or algorithm. Instead, the commission said, the assessment, called the Supports Intensity Scale, should be used for helping planners design programs of support for adults with developmental disabilities, the purpose for which it was designed by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

To eliminate inherent conflicts of interest between the state funding apparatus and service providers, individual service programs should be written by independent planners, the commission recommended. It did not favor a separate multi-million dollar social service case-management entity, called a “Health Home,” which BHDDH hopes to set into motion with Medicaid funding to satisfy federal conflict-of-interest regulations.

The commission also wants to bring to the table a barrier cross-section of public agencies to work on eliminating barriers to integration, like challenges in transportation and employment-related services. These agencies would include the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority and the state Department of Labor and Training (DLT), in addition to BHDDH and the Office of Rehabilitation Services, as service providers, families and consumers.

DiPalma said he would like to see BHDDH ask DLT to take the lead on employment services for adults with developmental disabilities.

Among other recommendations are these:

• BHDDH should establish crisis intervention capabilities that can respond to mental health emergencies in the community and prevent costly psychiatric hospitalizations

• The state should create a seamless transition for young people and their families from high school to adult services. The existing process has been compared to “falling off a cliff.”

DiPalma said the recommendations will be finalized in the coming week to incorporate comments made at the meeting. A steering committee, including himself and seven other commission members, will remain active, setting into motion small working groups to address legislative and other issues and reconvening every three months to review progress.

He asked the commission members “to do one thing: hold yourself and each of us accountable to stay on track” on behalf of the 3,835 people who currently receive developmental disability services.

Rebecca Boss, Director Of RI BHDDH, To Step Down Dec. 31

By Gina Macris

Rebecca Boss * Photo By Anne Peters

Rebecca Boss, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) for three and a half years, will step down at the end of this month - in three weeks - to pursue “new opportunities,” according to a departmental announcement December 11.

As director, Boss has supervised the state’s services for adults with developmental disabilities, mental illness, and substance abuse disorders. She has brought stability and effective leadership to the Division of Developmental Disabilities, becoming actively engaged in implementing a 2014 Olmstead federal civil rights consent decree, which calls for a transformation of daytime services for some 4,000 adults with developmental disabilities over a 10-year period.

During her tenure, Rhode Island has emerged as a national model for its response to the opioid crisis, and BHDDH has begun a campaign to combat the stigma of mental illness and substance. But correcting chronic shortcomings at the state hospital has proved problematic. Early in Boss’ tenure, the Eleanor Slater Hospital in Cranston nearly lost its accreditation. And last month, state and federal inspectors found widespread deficiencies in standards of care at the Zambarano unit of the hospital in Burrillville.

In a statement, Boss said, “I have truly enjoyed the 15 years I have spent at the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals serving some of Rhode Island’s most vulnerable individuals.”

“I’m grateful for the opportunity I’ve had to work for the Governor and the people of this state. We’ve built an amazing team of compassionate staff who are dedicated and committed to this work,” she said.

Boss, previously the department’s top official in behavioral healthcare, became acting director in mid- 2016, succeeding Maria Montanaro, and was confirmed by the Senate in May, 2017.

Governor Raimondo said, “Becky Boss is a dedicated public servant, a compassionate leader, and a champion for Rhode Island’s most vulnerable residents.”

“I’m grateful for her 15 years of service to our state, especially her work as Director of BHDDH the past three and a half years. There’s no question that Rhode Island has benefitted from her leadership,” Raimondo said in a statement.

State Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, the General Assembly’s most prominent advocate for people with developmental disabilities, said Boss is well respected and “will be missed.” In his 11 years in the Senate, DiPalma said, she is the only gubernatorial nominee he has testified for.

A BHDDH spokesman said the details of Boss’ “next steps will be forthcoming.” The search for a new director will begin immediately, he said. The spokesman could not immediately say whether there will be an interim director. Boss’ annual salary is $141,750.

In the field of developmental disabilities, Boss is leaving in the middle of an 18-month long rate review and analysis of the BHDDH fee-for-service reimbursement system for private service providers. The existing payment methods, enacted in 2011, have been criticized both by the U.S. Department of Justice and the former court monitor in the consent decree case.

Another big initiative underway in the Division of Developmental Disabilities is an effort to reach consensus with the community on the parameters of third-party case management which would satisfy rules of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for programs of care that are free of conflict among funding interests, direct service providers and case managers. The bureaucratic name for the initiative is “Health Home,” but it is neither a home nor a health care center.

Public Slams RI DD Funding Constraints

By Gina Macris

Funding for Rhode Islanders with developmental disabilities works against the individualized care that is at the core of the state’s vision for social services.

That was the assessment from families and developmental disability professionals who responded to an outside consultant’s call for public comment Nov. 5 about the rates and rate structure governing Rhode Island’s privately-run system of care.

Rick Jacobsen * All Photos By Anne Peters

Rick Jacobsen, a representative of the New England States Consortium Systems Organization (NESCSO), hosted an open-ended conversation with an audience of about 40 people during a public forum at the Barrington Public Library sponsored by the Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH).

There is wide concern among families that “in many cases the funding doesn’t seem to be reflecting the support needs” of the individuals in question, said Claire Rosenbaum, who has a daughter with developmental disabilities and also works as Coordinator of Adult Services at the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College.

Claire Rosenbaum

Rosenbaum said Individuals with varying needs seem to be assigned the same middle-of-the-road funding, according to what she has heard anecdotally in her position at the Sherlock Center.

Much of the discussion focused on the fee-for-service reimbursement system called Project Sustainability that the state implemented in 2011. The state uses a highly scripted interview process, called the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS) to determine the support needs of each adult approved for developmental disability services. Then a closely held algorithm is applied to the SIS score to come up with one of five funding levels for each person.

The core issue is “how you get from the (assessment) score to the level of funding,” said Cliff Cabral, vice president of Seven Hills Rhode Island, a service provider. That process is a “complete mystery,” he said.

Cliff Cabral

He pointed out that the developer of the assessment, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, did not intend it to be used as a funding tool.

And Cabral noted that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has criticized the seeming conflict in having the same state agency both performing the SIS assessment and controlling funding for individuals’ services.

“The need to keep consumers’ resource allocations within budget may influence staff to administer the SIS in a way that reaches the pre-determined budgetary result,” the DOJ said in findings that led to a 2014 consent decree with the state to reform disabilities services.

BHDDH is having a series of community conversations about outsourcing individual service planning and case management functions to a third party to comply with federal conflict-of-interest rules, but some who have attended these sessions say they understand that the parameters of the discussion do not include an outside entity taking on the SIS assessment.

Asked for comment after the forum, BHDDH has issued a statement which said that the discussion around the third-party Health Home “has included an expressed interest in a fire wall between assessment and funding. In these discussions, which are informing the case management redesign, BHDDH has agreed to consider future assessment responsibility.”

If the assessment were put in the hands of a third-party, it would relieve the tension, said Mary Beth Cournoyer, who has a son with developmental disabilities.

In Novemeber, 2016, the SIS was updated and the interviewers were retrained. But at the Barrington forum, Claire Rosenbaum said the re-cast “SIS-A” is not very different than the old one. And parents, including Dorie Carder, whose 20 year-old son has developmental disabilities and a medical condition, reported that interviewers are still argumentative, challenging their perceptions of their children and trying to pull the answers to the questions in one direction or another.

Another problem cited at the forum involved appeals by familes and providers who disagree with the funding resulting from the SIS. Rosenbaum said the appeals require a “ton of staff time.” And she said they must be filed annually or every three months, depending on the situation.

Sue Joinson

Sue Joinson agreed, pointing out that the appeals also cost BHDDH social workers extensive time. Joinson, whose daughter has extensive medical needs, also has worked on appeals in her job as director of nursing at the Corliss Institute, a developmental disabilities service provider.

Dorie Carder, the parent with the 20-year-old son, said the first SIS she had was a “horrible experience.”

Dorie Carder

When she appealed the results, she faced off alone against a BHDDH lawyer and a social work supervisor, who challenged her on the medical details of her son’s case. Then, Carder said, she had to wait a year to get the results of the appeal. Still dissatisfied, she went to the Director of Developmental Disabilities, Kerri Zanchi, who ordered a new SIS interview that resulted in a better funding level.

Before the SIS was adopted in 2011, the state accepted a questionnaire called a personal capacity index, combined with a “situational assessment” of the individual in various settings, to come up with an overall evaluation of need, said Joanne Malise, executive director of Living Innovations, which specializes in supporting adults with developmental disabilities in shared living arrangements in private homes.

Connie and John Susa

At one point, John Susa, a parent and long-time advocate, turned the tables on Jacobsen, the consultant, and asked Jacobsen if he thought Rhode Island has a system where “the money follows the person”, meaning that funding is tailored to meet individual needs.

Jacobsen replied, “There are a lot of constraints that intervene with that” personalized funding.

The audience provided examples of the constraints:

• Agencies must bill for services in 15-minute increments for each person during the day and cannot bill for time if a client is absent for any reason, even though the agency must maintain the same level of staffing

• Transportation funding is limited to one round trip daily, not conducive to community integration

• Staffing for community-based activities is linked to specific ratios that depend on individuals’ funding levels, not to the desired destination of any one person.

• For families who direct a loved one’s individual program, money is forfeited if it is not used within the three-month period for which it is allocated, for whatever reason, including staff shortages or hospitalizations.

Joinson recounted how, on the one hand, her medically-fragile daughter’s social service allocation was unused while she was hospitalized, and on the other hand, her social worker pushed back against her attempts to get a residential placement for her daughter, saying that there wasn’t enough money and others had more pressing needs.

“He tried to make me feel guilty,” Joinson said of the social worker, but a residential placement is what her daughter wants. BHDDH is trying to limit high-cost group home placements and instead wants to increase the number of shared living arrangements in private homes, lower-cost options which families and providers alike say often do not work for those with extensive needs.

Meanwhile, Cabral, of Seven Hills, noted that most adults with developmental disabilities do not have families to advocate for them, leaving the agency to act as the family.

The agency cannot turn down the individuals the state refers for residential placement, but these referrals often need a high level of behavioral support that make them a bad fit with those already living in the agency’s group homes, Cabral said.

NESCSO’s consultants have spent months reaching out to service providers and Jacobsen said they still plan to do some site visits.

But Cournoyer urged Jacobsen and other NESCSO representatives do a “deeper dive” into specifics from the family perspective.

Jacobsen was asked what impact NESCSO’s recommendations would have on the system. He said NESCSO was hired to give BHDDH a range of options, from small changes to blowing up the entire system and putting a new one in place. But in the end, the “choice is not mine,” he said. Instead, BHDDH officials have reserved the right to decide which options to pursue - or not.

Whether NESCSO’s recommendations ultimately result in real improvements will depend on the advocacy of the community, he said.

Jacobsen said he spent 20 years working for Medicaid in Rhode Island and no one ever asked him “how to spend more money.” Quite the opposite, he said.

If BHDDH asks for more money, Jacobsen said, someone “beats them over the head.”

BHDDH was not represented during the discussion, which was recorded and posted on the Facebook page of RI FORCE, a family advocacy group. Asked to comment on the recording, the department provided this context:

“BHDDH has invested sizable resources into a rate review process to provide the needed analytics and options to support system transformation. The department is committed to quality, safety and access through its vision of individualized, person centered, self-determined and community-based supports.

We recognize that this vision requires system transformation. While the system has certainly made progress, the underlying reimbursement system remains grounded in past practices. The purpose of this rate review is to assess the costs of services and explore other models for reimbursement. This work must also extend to understanding the system as a whole for consideration of both structural efficiencies and complexities that could hinder or promote transformation. This work is in progress and this is why feedback and input from the community remains vital and welcomed.

While the department has demonstrated its responsiveness through modifications and investments within the current structure, we look forward to the completed analytics and options that NESCSO will deliver to support both near term and long-term changes.”

RI DD Plans For Electronic Visit Verification and "Health Homes" To Be Aired Next Week

By Gina Macris

(This article has been updated.)

Plans for two Important changes in the system that provides services for Rhode Islanders with developmental disabilities will be aired at two important public meetings Aug. 27 and Aug. 28.

On Tuesday, Aug. 27, officials of the state Division of Developmental Disabilities will discuss electronic visit verification (EVV) for services delivered in the homes of consumers and families who direct their own programs.

At that meeting, officials also plan to discuss how consumers who self-direct can gain better access to supported employment services. Meanwhile, a panel of individuals with experience in self-direction of individual programs will offer insight to those who might be considering managing their own programs, according to a BHDDH spokesman.

On Wednesday, Aug. 28, officials will address their proposal to create an independent entity called a “Health Home” to provide case management for state-funded services. Until now, the state has funded and managed these services. All states are required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to separate funding from case management to avoid conflicts of interest.

Both meetings will be in the Warwick Public Library, 600 Sandy Lane, Warwick. The Aug. 27 meeting for so-called “self-directed” families will run from 10 to 11:30 a.m. The Aug. 28 meeting on Health Homes, hosted by the advocacy group RI FORCE, will run from 4 to 6 p.m.

RI “Not Far” From Institutional System Of DD Services, Antosh Tells Legislative Commission

A. Anthony Antosh

By Gina Macris

Other than moving people out of institutional living with the closing of the Ladd School in 1994, Rhode Island hasn’t made life appreciably better for adults with developmental disabilities, according to state’s most prominent academic in the field.

A. Anthony Antosh, director of the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College, said that every week he gets calls from parents who say how “complicated it has gotten” to deal with state-funded services and “how unstable the system is.”

“Our system is not institutional, but it’s not far from that,” Antosh said. He has been active as an educator and researcher in the field of developmental disabilities since the 1970s and was a plaintiff in a lawsuit that ultimately closed the Ladd School.

If the state transfers control of its services – even partially -- to the people who are served, “you begin to change what the system looks like,” he said. Individuals will become “more responsible for themselves.”

Antosh made the comments May 22 as a member of the Project Sustainability Commission, a special legislative commission studying the current state of developmental disability services. Antosh and other commissioners outlined their reform suggestions at the session.

He zeroed in on a requirement now in place that sets out ratios for staffing according to the degree to which a person is perceived to be disabled – a “naive notion” in his view. The ratios allow one-to-one or small group staffing only for the most challenged individuals and were designed for day care facilities or sheltered workshops.

The funding rule remains in place even though the state in April entered the sixth year of a ten-year agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice requiring it to change to an integrated, community-based system of care. The last sheltered workshop in Rhode Island closed last year.

Antosh said an alternative structure could be a community support team responsible for a certain number of people. The team would figure out how to arrange its time to meet the individual needs of its clients in the community.

DD Council Weighs In

Kevin Nerney, executive director of the Rhode Island Developmental Disabilities Council, also said that he wanted a system “driven by the person and the family.”

There is much talk about “person-centered planning,” he said, but “sometimes, the person is at the center and the other people are doing the planning.”

Nerney recommended that the person receiving services and the family take the lead in drawing up a plan for life in the community. They would be guided by an independent facilitator, not by someone who works for the state funding agency or a private service provider.

The individual and the family would have control over the budget assigned to them and would be able to hire whom they choose to provide paid supports.

Until recently, Nerney said, individuals and families who direct their own services were allowed to use the money allotted to them only to pay for support workers.

Those who choose to receive services from an agency should at least know how much money goes into each category of support, Nerney said.

Antosh, meanwhile, said that funding should be organized by function so that individuals and families have a clearer idea of its purpose.

The notion that plan-making and case management should be separated from the funding agency and the service provider is already embedded in federal Medicaid rules under the title of “conflict free case management.”

“Health Home” Merits Debated

The state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) wants to set up a Medicaid-funded “Health Home” as an independent planning and case management entity for persons with developmental disabilities.

But some commission members have wondered aloud whether a Health Home would be just another layer of bureaucracy.

And Nerney said most people don’t even like the term “conflict-free case management.”

Antosh agreed that “conflict-free case management” should be made simple. The state should have a list of trained independent facilitators, or “navigators,” as he referred to them, to help individuals and families develop plans and mediate any differences among those contributing to an individual plan.

Individuals and families should have a choice of managing their own services, signing up with an agency, or designing a customized combination of self-directed supports and agency-managed services, he said.

Tom Kane, Left, With Antosh

Tom Kane, who represented a service provider’s perspective, agreed that the people should be in control, with the services following their needs.

To lay the groundwork for real choice, the system should help adults with developmental disabilities “discover their options,” and providers should follow their lead in delivering services, said Kane, CEO of AccessPoint RI.

Kane recommended a concerted statewide marketing campaign aimed at employers that promotes adults with developmental disabilities as an enthusiastic and reliable workforce.

Several other recommendations from Kane echoed recurring issues among members of the commission including:

• A need for funding that reflects the real costs of services, as well as salaries that will attract and retain talented employees. Recommendations that arise from the review of the funding model and rates that is now underway should be presented to the General Assembly “without edit,” Kane said, and should be used as the basis of funding a new system. He noted that the last review came up with recommendations which the legislature never used.

• Concerns about a lack of housing options

• A need for consumers’ access to technology to help them achieve the greatest independence possible.

A Call For A More Stable Funding Cycle

All the commission members, except Antosh, favor annualized budgets for individuals. Antosh said arrangements should be made in two-year increments for funding and services. He also said that there should be a single streamlined application process, no matter the source of the funding, which may come from BHDDH, the Office of Rehabilitative Services, or the Department of Labor and Training.

Families of youngsters deemed eligible for adult services while they are still in high school should also get a budget for exploratory activities, because they don’t know what choices are possible until they experience various options, he said.

The state now determines funding levels annually on paper but reserves the right to change the amount actually released for spending every three months – on a quarterly basis. Families and providers agree that the quarterly allocation - the only one like it in the nation – is a major impediment to the systematic planning necessary for a stable system of supports.

Kane provided some history on the quarterly allocations:

In 2010, he said, payments to private service providers ran over budget and the state told them their reimbursements would be cut for two months – one month retroactively – to make up the difference.

Some providers sued, Kane said, arguing that the state was still obliged to fulfill its contract with them. The providers won, but the next year, in 2011, BHDDH introduced quarterly allocations along with Project Sustainability, the fee-for-service system that significantly reduced reimbursements and is at the center of the commission’s deliberations.

Mental Health Services Lag

The issue of mental health received considerable attention, with Nerney recommending that the system develop and implement a variety of strategies to prevent crises or resolve them once they occur.

Nerney supported the idea of a mobile crisis unit that he said was suggested by Gloria Quinn, Executive Director of West Bay Residential Services, at the previous commission meeting May 6.

Quinn recommended convening a group to explore successful practices in supporting those with complex mental health and behavioral needs in the community, minimizing the need for excessive psychiatric hospitalization.

Rebecca Boss, the BHDDH executive director, and Kerri Zanchi, the Director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, both indicated they are aware of a need for greater support and intervention in the area of behavioral health for persons with developmental disabilities.

“We don’t have a good handle on the needs of families in crisis,” Zanchi said.

The assessment tool that BHDDH uses to determine funding levels, the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS), garnered a new round of criticism, despite efforts in 2016 to reframe the questions it asks to better identify support needs and the re-training of all the social workers who conduct the highly scripted interviews..

L To R, Kerri ZanCHI, Brian Gosselin, Acting Consent Decree Coordinator; Christopher Semonelli, Peter Quattromani. All Are Commission Members

Critic Says Assessment Method Is “Demeaning”

Peter Quattromani, executive director of United Cerebral Palsy RI and spokesman for the Providers Council, said the state should return to using the Personal Capacity Inventory to identify funding needs because it reflects a more collaborative approach than the SIS.

Quattromani said he sat in on several SIS interviews and found the SIS to be a “very demeaning experience” with “very intrusive questions.” In some cases the interview varied, depending on who was asking the questions, he said.

Antosh said when parents experience the SIS for the first time, “they are absolutely horrified by it.”

He suggested that when the SIS was first piloted, it was not intrusive. It was “a conversation”, albeit a lengthy one, lasting for or five hours, Antosh said. Afterward the responses were correlated with funding needs.

Antosh said the SIS was designed to help professionals develop support plans, not as a funding tool, even though Rhode Island and other states use it that way.

Antosh said he would recommend that Rhode Island design its own assessment tool, not necessarily eliminating the SIS but using multiple factors to determine funding, including an exploration of behavioral health issues and other areas not covered in the SIS.

Heather Mincey, assistant director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, said not all the comments abut the SIS process she has received from families have been negative, with some parents saying it “wasn’t all that bad.”

The May 22 meeting concluded individual members’ presentations on recommendations for change, which will be reviewed and consolidated along common themes and incorporated into a plan for moving forward, said the Commission chairman, Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown.

He said he anticipated a five-year process for implementation, with the aim of making Rhode Island achieve top national ranking among state systems of developmental disability services.

In the meantime, DiPalma said that he next commission meeting, on June 18, will feature remarks by the state Director of Labor and Training, Scott R. Jensen; and the CEO of the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, Scott Avedesian Employment and transportation are two topics that have sparked a lot of complaints, DiPalma said. He said he expects the commission to continue meeting into July.