Services to Older and Disabled Adults Committee

Minutes

Services to Older and Disabled Adults Committee

December 11, 2002

 

 

1.       Review Agenda, Approve Minutes and Set New Agenda Items

Present:  Jan Elliott, Marvin Rouse, Kathleen Cruh, Susan York, Kay Barrow, Kathleen Holbrook, Bill Hayes, Evelyn Johnson, John Margolis, John Tanner, Shannon Wilson, Vicki Kryk, Suzanne Merrill, Rosalyn Pettyford, Geoff Santoliquido, Dennis Streets, Gary Cyrus 

 

Conclusion:  Minutes-Kathleen Holbrook made motion to approve October minutes.  Motion carried.  There was no November meeting.

 

 

Action Items:

·          

Person Responsible:

 

 

Deadline:

 

 

 

2.       Policy Issues

Discussion:  Rosalyn Pettyford reviewed guardianship policy changes.  These changes stem from numerous calls received related to inter-county cooperation when “county of residence” differs from where “client is found”. There was a workgroup formed with county participation, but determined requirements would be difficult to dictate without “rule” to back the policy.  This document therefore provides best practice guidance to counties.  It is the county’s responsibility to decide how this is done.  It was recommended that we each write policy on how your county would handle these requests.  One question about how to fund the service was raised and it was noted that counties could charge other counties. We got into a discussion about what the public guardianship system should look like and how should it be funded?  Philosophically, is this a service or a legal procedure? Concerns raised about some counties having more than their fair share and the need to look at reimbursement options.

 

John Margolis reviewed APS policy.  He noted some of this evolved from exploitation conference last year.  Consistently hear DA’s don’t do anything.  DA said information that was provided by us determined their response.  Developed format that allows staff to better state their findings. (packaging)  Talked to AG and realized the written report doesn’t meet requirement to notify, so initial report is also needed and included in this policy. Reorganized the material. Other new guidance re: unsubstantiated report states we should visit the disabled adult to advise them that there will be no further APS involvement (best practice). 

 

Conclusion:  Recommend approval

 

Action Items:

Person Responsible:

Deadline:

3.       Long Term Care Planning

Discussion: Dennis Streets-Long Term Care Plan model pilot. This is a Department initiative growing out of the Institute of Medicine study and Senate Bill 1115 (DOA is taking the lead). This proposes that Commissioners set up local planning group that includes certain constituencies. In spring will invite interested counties to attend meeting to go through approach and invite volunteers to participate.  Anticipate counties with some capacity and that are already “on the road” will apply.  If enough interest, will go through RFP and select 2 counties.  Put in expansion budget a request, but doubt will have funding. The goal is to test county planning processes, strengthen consumer participation, foster innovative approaches and develop tools to help implement LTC planning.  They would hope counties not actively participating could share in information.

 

Conclusion: Group supported with suggestion of adding one additional site to allow for rural, urban and multi-county pilots.

 

Action Items:

·          

Person Responsible:

 

 

Deadline:

 

 

 

 

4.       SA Demo

Discussion:  John Tanner discussed SA demo findings.  A full report will be going to the Legislature in January and the counties will get a copy. Good data is coming from the pilot and the 377 participants.

The Division is recommending to the General Assembly that this go statewide. Have put in an expansion budget request to support this that includes automation and staff. Don’t anticipate will get funding to expand.  John proposed a phased in approach with limited slots of 800 in year 1 and an additional 800 in year 2.  Staff could be paid for with At Risk Medicaid without state participation.  He wanted our recommendation on this approach.  Counties participating indicated this had been a positive experience.  Noted that case management time takes about 1.5 hours per month once get past assessment.

Conclusion: The committee supported the expansion budget request and taking the program statewide.  Failing to get the funding, we supported a phased in approach as described by John.

 

Action Items:

·          

Person Responsible:

 

Deadline:

None

 

 

 

5.       Scope of Work

Discussion:  Group reviewed Scope of Work document as presented.

 

Conclusion:  Scope of Work approved.

 

Action Items:

·          

Person Responsible:

 

Deadline: