Legislative Report #6

[Guest guest]

Developmental Disabilities 

Legislative Session Report #6

By Kingsley Ross 

Summary: The sixth week of the session focused principally on appropriations for people interested in developmental disabilities. 

Action during week 6:  The Senate Budget committee passed out the General Appropriations Act (SB 7050) including SB 7096 a conforming bill related to services to people with developmental disabilities (DD).  SB 7096 is a condensed version of SB 1516 which makes major changes to FS 393.  There were no major dollar changes to what Sen. Negron recommended to his subcommittee last week including a $78 million increase for Waiver services and $100 million for the deficit. 

In addition, a meeting was held by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) with stakeholders to review a strike-all amendment for SB 1516.  The meeting revealed that APD is implementing the phase-in of the iBudget in the panhandle area using a modification to Option A that includes funding Adult Day Training and an individual review with consumers and their parents or representatives.  The modified Option A excludes funding for transportation, dental and several other services.

Anticipated Action in Week 7:   The full Senate should vote out its appropriations act (formerly SB 7050; now SB 2000) and related conforming bills.  That should put them in the posture to begin the conference process as early as next weekend. 

A House version of SB 1516 could be heard in the Health and Human Services Committee as early as Thursday.

Action Needed.  First, please sign the thank you petition drafted by a West Palm Beach parent at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/florida-senate-supports-dd-funding/ .  It is intended to thank Rep. Matt Hudson and Sen. Joe Negron for their appropriations recommendations related to Waiver services to people with DD. 

Second, please email or phone Sen. Negron and Rep Hudson and ask them to make sure that people have the transportation services necessary to get to their ADT programs. Ask them to make sure that their efforts to insure that people have the funds for ADT do not end up being a hollow promise because there is no way to get there except to cut back on ADT or other services.

First Name

Last Name

District Phone

Tallahassee Phone

Email Address

Matt

Hudson

matt.hudson@...

Joe

Negron

negron.joe.web@...

 Background Analysis: 

The meeting with APD about the strike-all amendment to SB 1516 changed the landscape in terms of whether or not ADT has really been added back to the iBudget phase-in.  After repeated questioning, APD revealed they were still using the Option A to implement the iBudget in the panhandle. 

Option A was described at a public APD meeting in December and its current use includes two modifications.  First, it adds back the cost of ADT to an individual’s budget and second, implementation requires that support coordinators meet with individuals and their parents to see if the person’s needs can be met with the “algorithm” budget.  If the needs can’t be met then the support coordinator can ask for a reconsideration of the person’s iBudget at the Area Office level.  Option A comes into play for 40% of the consumers receiving Waiver services.  The rest, according to APD, should receive their current cost plans.  This is because 40% of the consumers will receive cuts based on the current funding for the iBudget.

There are at least three problems with this process as it is currently implemented.  First, support coordinators have been told that if they can’t make this system work, managed care will follow.  So the extent to which support coordinators will really ask for reconsiderations is questionable. 

Second, because transportation is not included in the “algorithm” budget, unless some low or no cost way of getting someone to an ADT program exists, then the individual will quite likely have to reduce other services to get to there.  The same is true for dental, respite, speech as well as dietician, specialized mental health, environmental adaptations and companion services.

Examples given in terms of how this is working out in the panhandle is that in some cases people are cutting their ADT days to fund the transportation to get there. So in these cases, having ADT added back to Option A is somewhat of a hollow promise.  It is important to note that APD chose the panhandle as the first area to begin implementing the iBudget because they knew fewer people would have their cost plans reduced there as compared to the rest to the state.  The consumers at an ARC agency in the panhandle are looking at losing a total of $178,000 of their cost plans (before reconsideration results if any).  These kinds of “adjustments” are likely to increase as APD implements the iBudget in the rest of the state.

Finally, the process by which APD will judge requests for reconsideration has not been announced and it has yet to be tested. There is no way to judge whether the process will be objective, consistently administered or reasonable in meeting the needs of people with developmental disabilities.

Before the APD meeting, it looked like most of the issues related to SB 1516 were being worked out.  Now, given the information on how the iBudget is being administered, more changes will be needed if stakeholders are going to support this bill.

  Regards,Ven Sequenzia, Jr. 

PresidentAutism Society of AmericaState of Florida Chapter