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

A. Anthony Antosh

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, 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

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.

RI Consent Decree Task Force Details Concerns About DD Services In Report To Federal Monitor

By Gina Macris

Many young adults with developmental disabilities in Rhode Island are still not receiving services to which they are entitled in a timely manner. Some are not getting services at all.

These conclusions have emerged as the consensus of the Employment First Task Force (EFTF) concerning Rhode Islanders with intellectual and developmental challenges who are trying to get regular jobs and other integrated services promised by a federal consent decree signed nearly four years ago.

The EFTF grew out of a provision of the 2014 federal consent decree which called for a bridge between the public and state government.  An independent court monitor on the case has made it clear that he expects the EFTF to provide a reality check from the community as the state tries to desegregate its services for adults with developmental disabilities to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The Task Force, including developmental disability professionals in the private sector, family members and consumers themselves, summarized its observations and recommendations covering the last half of 2017 in a recent progress report to the court monitor, Charles Moseley.

In 2016, under pressure from Moseley, the U.S. Department of Justice, and U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., the state cleared a backlog of as many as 250 applications for adult services and developed an “eligibility by 17” policy.

The policy is intended to allow families plenty of time to plan a smooth transition for their sons and daughters to move from high school to the adult world. Most special education students eligible for adult services from the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) stay in school until the age of 21.

Nearly a year after the “eligibility by 17” policy was announced, in July, 2017, EFTF members were still hearing comments relayed by special education professionals that some families of students were notified of their eligibility but weren’t told how much money they would be allocated in time to plan individualized and meaningful services.

In response to follow-up questions from Developmental Disability News, a BHDDH spokeswoman said in an email August 3 that the agency, working with the Rhode Island Department of Education, local school districts and the Rhode Island Parent Information Network,  is “able to adhere to (the state’s) ‘eligibility by 17 policy.’ ”

"Logjam Cited In Onset Of Adult Services

 But five days later, Claire Rosenbaum, an EFTF member who works as the adult services coordinator at the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College, said at a public forum that “there seems to be a logjam” when families are trying to figure out how much money the state has awarded them and what it will buy.

At the time, Kerri Zanchi, director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, (DDD) said her division aimed to give families a one year to plan before their son or daughter leaves left high school and needs needed adult services.

But Rosenbaum said a year is not long enough. Families may explore their options and settle on a particular agency, only to be told it cannot accept a new client with a particular disability or disabilities, she said.

That scenario is not uncommon. A precarious fiscal landscape has prompted many providers of developmental disability services to limit the number of new clients. 

Often, families turned down by one or more agencies  decide that the only way they can get a customized, high quality program is to organize it themselves and pay individual workers through a designated fiscal agent that handles the budget. Once that decision has been made, the families must begin planning all over again, Rosenbaum said, reiterating her conclusion that a year is not enough.

In December, DDD provided data about "eligibility by 17" that EFTF had requested six months earlier, including:

  •  The number of applications and the ages of applicants
  •  The number found eligible and the time span between application and eligibility determination
  •  The number of newly eligible persons who received an initial needs assessment and the time span between the eligibility determination and the assessment interview
  • The number who began receiving adult services and the time span from the completion of the needs assessment

In its report, EFTF said that DDD is “actively charting when and why gaps in the process appear.” 

The “gaps in the process” are not defined in the report. But it said Task Force members and state officials agreed to meet regularly to “determine what issues, if any, exist in this process and how to address these issues.”

Data released by BHDDH in quarterly public forums in November and February shed light on some of the requests that had been made by EFTF; the number of applications, the ages of the applicants, and a breakdown on the proportion found eligible. 

The “eligibility by 17” policy assumes that 16 and 17-year olds are submitting applications to BHDDH for adult services, but the most recent data indicates that the 16 and 17year-old age group accounted for only 11 percent of applications between August, 2016 and February 10, 2018. The lack of applications from younger students suggests that the “eligibility by 17” policy hasn’t been thoroughly communicated to families. (See chart below.) 

graph on age distribution of applicants.JPG

At the same time, one table indicates that the proportion of applications from 16 and 17 year-olds has been increasing in the last year.

students applying earlier.jpg

At the most recent public forum, BHDDH officials also presented information on the proportion of applicants that have been found eligible for services. Of 635 applications received between August, 2016 and Feb. 16, 2018, a total of 595 have been decided, including 264, or 44 percent, that were approved without any additional documentation.

The data indicated that an additional 158, or 27 percent, eventually would be approved once documentation was completed.  

Other Issues Raised By Task Force

The Task Force also expressed concerns about other issues. They include:

  • A lengthy needs assessment done for each person eligible for services
  • The ramifications of a push for more individualized, or “person-centered” services and the planning that goes into them
  • An overall approach, dubbed “conflict-free,” in which planning, funding, and service delivery are handled by separate entities so that the best interests of individuals with developmental disabilities are not compromised. Currently, BHDDH handles funding and assessment and approves individual service plans developed by private agencies or independent developmental disability professionals.

Assessing Individual Needs  

 In November, 2016, the state implemented a revised needs assessment, called the SIS-A  (Supports Intensity Scale - A). The SIS-A had been promoted as more accurate than the previous version, and the Task Force concurred.

“Reports seem to indicate better results,” the report said.

At the same time, the Task Force found “ongoing challenges.”

For example, the Task Force said the SIS-A, developed by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, was “not intended to be a funding mechanism.” That’s the purpose for which it is used in Rhode Island and many other states.

The Task Force recommended that an independent third party be chosen to provide “better interviews” and eliminate conflicts with funding decisions.

Highly detailed interviews with persons eligible for developmental disability services and their families are at the heart of the SIS-A assessment process. Both the assessment and the individual funding decisions are in the hands of BHDDH.

During the interviews, families are very reluctant to speak in great detail about the “deficits and struggles” of the individual at the center of the assessment process, but they don’t understand that this hesitance may result in lower funding for their loved one, the Task Force said.

“Families don’t understand that the first ten minutes of questions which capture exceptional medical and behavioral issues dictate a substantial difference in funding,” the report said.

The Task Force recommended that community organizations, like Advocates In Action, the Cross Disability Coalition, The Rhode Island Public Information Network, and a new parent advocacy group called  RI-FORCE, offer training to their constituencies on the interview process of the SIS-A.

A Call for True Conflict–Free Planning

The report tackled the challenges of so-called person-centered planning, in which the needs and preferences of an individual drive short-range and long-range career and life goals, regardless of the immediate limitations of program offerings of a particular agency.

 In person-centered planning, these individual needs and preferences also drive budgetary decisions, although it is generally understood that not all the supports needed by a person with developmental disabilities will be provided by paid staff.  

“It is our opinion that implementing real, conflict free person-centered planning could have a greater positive effect on people’s lives than the consent decree itself,” the Task Force wrote.

“While there has been some recent movement on the issue,” according to the report,  Rhode Island has been out of compliance for four years with Medicaid regulations for conflict-free individualized planning and management of services.

The Task Force said individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, and service providers all have shown resistance to the person-centered planning initiative now underway.

Some consumers and their families “view this as an additional layer of bureaucracy, while others would prefer all their dollars go to services rather than planning. Some family members are concerned that they would not be as involved using this process,” the report said.

Service providers, who are paid for planning individualized client programs, fear that they will not be able to meet the individualized needs of clients, particularly with limited funds, high staff turnover, and limited transportation options, according to the report.

There is a concern that “conflict-free” removes the staff who best know the individual from the planning process, the Task Force said.

It also expressed concern that there are no additional funds to provide conflict-free planning, saying that redistributing existing planning funds that now go to private providers “may destabilize already underfunded services.”

While calling for additional funding for person-centered planning, the Task Force also urged a continuation of a series of workshops on “person-centered” thinking and planning that is offered by the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College to promote better communication on the topic. 

Some of the perceptions about person-centered planning “are based on misunderstandings and the general fear that comes with any change,” according to the report. “Communication on this issue will be extremely important.”

BHDDH is trying to address the issue of funding, both to achieve conflict-free planning and case management and to balance its budget in the next fiscal year.

Governor Gina Raimondo’s budget proposal seeks the General Assembly’s approval to amend the Medicaid State Plan so BHDDH can apply for a Health Home waiver that would provide a 90 percent reimbursement rate for person-centered planning and other specific services for two years. 

The earliest such a Health Home might begin operation, on a pilot basis, would be in January, 2019,  and that might be optimistic, according to Rebecca Boss, the BHDDH director.

Supported Employment At Issue

The Task Force, meanwhile, expressed concern about the overall effectiveness of a pilot program in supported employment that is intended to focus on the individual.

“Task Force members expressed concerns regarding the ‘person-centeredness’ of the program, the training requirements to participate, communications regarding the program, and overall effectiveness,” the report said.

Existing staff-to-client ratios prohibit individualizing job seekers’ daily and weekly schedules, according to the Task Force, although that comment did not refer specifically to the pilot program.  DDD also offers job-related services outside the demonstration program.

The Task Force recommended some of its members meet with state officials regularly to review data and develop strategies to ensure the success of the Person-Centered Supported Employment Performance Program.

RI BHDDH Banking On Pilot With Higher Federal Match To Preserve Status Quo On DD Services

By Gina Macris

Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo’s budget for developmental disability services creates a dramatic imperative for cost-cutting during the next fiscal year, one that would reduce spending by a total of $21.4 million in state and federal Medicaid funding.

Developmental disability administrators are exploring the option of a pilot Medicaid program with a 90 percent federal match called a Health Home to fill in the gap, but have not yet determined whether it is feasible, and if so, to what extent.

The overall $21.4 million reduction represents the difference between the governor’s $272.7-million proposal for resolving the current deficit in developmental disabilities and the lowered spending ceiling of $250.8 million for the next budget cycle. The budget reduction would involve slashing $18.3 million in reimbursements to private providers and cutting almost $3.1 million from the state-operated network of group homes effective July 1.

Raimondo’s budget numbers reflect a central tension between those who believe that the state simply spends too much on Medicaid entitlements and those who believe that services for adults who struggle daily to cope with developmental disabilities have been chronically underfunded.

Raimondo’s plan for the 2019 fiscal year beginning July 1 treats a multi-million dollar deficit in the existing budget as a one-time event, while the record of the last several years shows that the shhortfall in developmental disability spending is a chronic or structural problem in which the actual cost of authorized Medicaid services exceeds the budgeted figure. 

In addition, Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) officials have made it clear that an improved assessment for gauging individuals’ support needs has been resulting in higher per-capita costs. The conversion from the old assessment to the new one, a process which started in November, 2016, is expected to take another year or two to complete as clients of BHDDH undergo re-assessment, one by one.

BHDDH officials did discover incorrect implementation of some questions in the cases of 46 individuals assessed with the new instrument, resulting in financial authorizations that were higher than appropriate.

In a recent interview, Rebecca Boss, the BHDDH director, said assessors have been retrained on exactly when they should ask those follow-up questions about behavioral and medical needs. The department has no intention of discontinuing the assessment, she said.

For the 2019 fiscal year, BHDDH officials have an idea about how to bridge the funding gap that they say makes both fiscal and programmatic sense. 

 The idea involves a new approach to case management for adults with developmental disabilities called the Medicaid Health Home. The approach would bring in significant increases in federal money, but the concept has yet to be fleshed out.  And the state is only considering a pilot program to test the model.        

 Successfully implementing the new Health Home option appears to be the state’s only safety net to protect the developmental disability service system from service reductions, waiting lists or rate cuts to providers.

In her budget message, the governor promised to reduce neither eligibility nor services for Medicaid recipients, which include adults with developmental disabilities.  

Boss, the BHDDH director, was reminded of Raimondo’s pledge and was asked whether maintaining existing levels of eligibility and services would mean cutting reimbursement rates to service providers.

Boss said, “I don’t think the department is ready to go to a rate cut” to service providers.

Boss said BHDDH has scrapped a plan for reducing reimbursement rates to providers for a relatively small number of group home residents during the third quarter of the current fiscal year.

The state’s private providers of developmental disability services have been struggling financially for years.

“The fiscal stability of our providers is very important to us,” Boss said. BHDDH counts on its private providers to enable the state to comply with demands of a 2014 federal consent decree which invokes the integration mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act in requiring Rhode Island to end its over reliance on segregated daytime care and sheltered workshops for adults with developmental disabilities.

Boss said the budget for the next fiscal year contains $6.8 million for  reimbursements to private providers for delivering supported employment services required by the consent decree. That’s $2 million more than is expected to be paid out by the end of the current fiscal year for employment-related supports.

The possibility of assigning case management – or coordination of care – to a third-party through a Medicaid Health Home is appealing to BHDDH officials for a couple of reasons.

Using the Medicaid Health Home approach could save the state significant sums of money in the short term. States can apply for an enhanced federal reimbursement rate of 90 cents for every state dollar expended for a maximum period of two years, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The current federal Medicaid reimbursement rate is a little more than 50 cents on the dollar.  Medicaid funds all developmental disability services in Rhode Island.

The concept also could solve a looming compliance problem with federal Medicaid regulations. 

In the next few years, the Medicaid Final Rule on Home and Community Based Services will require case management to be conflict-free. That means it must be divorced both from funding agencies, like BHDDH, and from providers who have a vested interest in billing for services.

BHDDH now has about 24 in-house social workers who coordinate services for some 3,700 adults with developmental disabilities.

The Health Home option, a managed-care arrangement which pays a per-capita rate, was first introduced as part of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and was crafted to encourage providers of medical care to take a holistic approach to their patients’ well-being.

To what extent the objectives of Health Homes encompass the social services has yet to be determined.

Boss indicated that many questions remain unresolved, such as:

  •  Which clients of the Division of Developmental Disabilities would qualify for Health Home coverage?
  •  What kind of entity would be equipped to serve as a Health Home for case management, and possibly other services?

According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, (CMS) Medicaid clients eligible for Health Home coverage must have at least two chronic conditions, or one chronic condition, with risk for a second; or have a serious and persistent mental health condition.

 It is not unusual for individuals with cognitive challenges to also struggle with mental health issues or chronic medical conditions, or both. 

 CMS says that Health Homes may offer what it calls comprehensive care management, as well as care coordination, health promotion, comprehensive transitional care follow-up, patient and family support, and referral to community and social support services.

 Boss envisions a two-year pilot program for the Health Home model, beginning sometime in the next fiscal year.

Here are the overall budget numbers, which reflect all sources of funding for all developmental disability programming, both state operated and private:

Fiscal Year 2018

  •  Currently authorized: $256.9 million

                                           plus $15.3 million

  •  Governor’s proposal:  $272.2 million

            

Fiscal Year 2019

  • Governor’s FY 18 revised budget: $272.2 million

·                                                          minus $21.4 million

  •   Governor’s proposal:                   $250.8 million

 

The $21.4-million reduction includes a cut of nearly $12.5 million in state funding and a loss of $8.4 million in federal Medicaid reimbursements, according to the budget proposal. Other miscellaneous pluses and minuses round out the $21.4 million total cut.

After the first quarter of the current fiscal year, the Division of Developmental Disabilities was overspending at a pace of almost $26 million in federal and state Medicaid funding, including a state share of $12 million. 

But a second-quarter spending report shows the projected deficit for developmental disabilities has shrunk to about $15.7 million, including about $5.8 million provided by the state and nearly $9.9 million in federal funds.

The governor’s proposal covers nearly all of the $15.7 million shortfall. The remaining gap concerns a bookkeeping question: whether BHDDH or the Executive Office of Health and Human Services should be charged for the state’s contract with the independent consent decree monitor.