DOJ, RI Spar Over Contempt In Olmstead Case

Federal Courthouse in Providence

By Gina Macris

The state of Rhode Island told a judge it cannot be held in contempt of a 2014 civil rights consent decree seeking to integrate adults with developmental disabilities in their communities because of circumstances beyond the state’s control.

But the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) says that the state has only itself to blame for its failure to comply.

The state’s “persistent choices to under-fund the system have created a dramatic provider shortage” that has left the target population isolated, the DOJ said in a counter-argument submitted Friday, Sept. 10, to the U.S. District Court.

The “refusal to adequately fund the Consent Decree is precisely the kind of self-imposed inability to comply” that undermines the state’s arguments in its defense, the DOJ said.

The decree stems from a 2014 finding by the DOJ that the state violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by relying too much on sheltered workshops paying sub-minimum wages and isolated day care centers, which kept people with disabilities out of mainstream society. The Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has re-affirmed the rights of people with disabilities to receive support in their communities to give them a chance to live regular lives.

The DOJ further cites warnings of an independent court monitor a year ago that the state will be unable to comply with the consent decree by 2024 unless it came up with a multi-year plan to overhaul its developmental disabilities system, which for a decade has encouraged segregated care over integrated services. Such a plan has not been forthcoming.

The state’s lawyers, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Hilton, submitted arguments Sept. 1 in response to a DOJ motion two weeks earlier that asked the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court to find the state in contempt of the consent decree and impose fines ranging up to $1.5 million per month. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. has scheduled a hearing the week of Oct. 18 through Oct. 22.

The state’s lawyers maintained the state could not meet benchmarks for integrated employment and other criteria because of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as resistance by adults with developmental disabilities themselves to work and non-work activities in the community.

But in its reply Sept. 10, the DOJ said the state’s characterization of the population “paints an inaccurate and offensive picture of people with developmental disabilities” and “reflects a profound misunderstanding of the nature, purpose, and obligations of the Consent Decree.”

DeSisto and Hilton, meanwhile, also argued that numerical targets for employment of adults with disabilities were not required by the consent decree, even though, as the DOJ said, documents show that state officials have admitted the opposite in numerous statements to the court since 2014, in writing or in person..

The state’s lawyers also maintained the state cannot be held in contempt until after the agreement expires on June 30, 2024 – an interpretation the DOJ said is unheard of in litigation involving system-wide reform.

In picking apart the state’s position over 28 pages, the DOJ said the state is urging the court “to adopt an interpretation of the consent decree that is “at odds with the decree’s text and purpose,” the DOJ said.

The state maintained the consent decree “imposed what could only be described as a cultural shock on the targeted community. After years of receiving services in “non-community” settings, “they are being told that their lifestyle must change,” the state’s lawyers said.

The DOJ disagreed. Rather than being told what they must do, the DOJ said, those eligible for services and their families have the right to make informed choices after receiving education and support about what working and enjoying leisure activities in the community might mean for them.

The state’s own data show that it “dramatically overstates” the resistance to integrated services, with 80 of 1,877 persons, or 4 percent, opting out of integrated services through a formal variance process, the DOJ said. And it cited a report from a court monitor in 2016 who had said he found “strong broad-based acceptance of the goals and desired outcomes of the consent decree.”

Similarly, the DOJ lawyers rejected the state’s argument that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented compliance with the annual employment targets in the consent decree. The pace of new job placements had slowed significantly more than a year before the onset of COVID-19, the DOJ said.

While the pandemic did make compliance more challenging, the state made “minimal efforts” to serve the consent decree population during the pandemic, the DOJ’s civil rights division argued.

“Given the availability of enhanced federal matching funds for providing integrated Medicaid services like those the Consent Decree requires, the State has the opportunity to increase funding for integrated employment services, provide the full amount of integrated day services to each target population member, and enhance wages to attract the required number of service providers,” the DOJ said. Its memorandum is signed by Rebecca B. Bond, chief of the DOJ’s civil rights division, as well as trial attorneys expected to litigate the case in October.

The state did earmark $39.7 million in federal-state Medicaid money to raise the wages of workers and their supervisors by $2 to $3 an hour in the current budget, a roughly 15 percent increase, but only at the conclusion of court-ordered negotiations between state officials and providers.

DeSisto and Hilton, the state’s lawyers, also said the state is finalizing the language in a request for outside proposals “for evaluation and implementation of new rate and payment options for (the) Developmental Disabilities Services System.” The preparation for the request for proposals indicates that BHDDH plans to go out to bid through the state purchasing system, which can take several months.

The state last conducted a rate review in 2010 and 2011, but the General Assembly did not follow the recommendations of the consultant, Burns & Associates. Instead, it set dozens of reimbursement rates for private providers roughly 17 to 19 percent lower than Burns & Associates recommended, with the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) saying that it still expected providers to maintain the same level of service.

In November 2018, a principal in Burns & Associates, Mark Podrazik, testified before a special legislative commission that that a rate review was already overdue. Rates should be reviewed every five years, he said.

A few months later, BHDDH hired NESCSO, the nonprofit New England States Consortium Systems Organization, to analyze Rhode Island’s developmental disabilities system from top to bottom.

Although the NESCSO contract called for a rate review and analysis of alternatives to the state’s fee-for-service reimbursement system, NESCSO was asked to present options for change but to make no recommendations.

The BHDDH director at the time, Rebecca Boss, said the department wanted to expand its analytical capability and make its own choices going forward.

The 18-month contract, which cost $1.1 million, produced a final report and supplementary technical materials which, among many other things, said the provider system was significantly underfunded. Since the report was completed July 1, 2020, BHDDH has remained silent on its findings, and has not exercised options for renewal of NESCSOs services.

In their memorandum, the state’s lawyers said that “the intention of the rate review process is to strengthen the I/DD system and services provided to individuals, as well as to address provider capacity to deliver those same services. Thus, the State can and will at hearing clearly demonstrate that it has been ‘performing its obligations’ under the various sections of the Consent Decree.”

The DOJ has scoffed at that notion. The DOJ said in its original filing in August that it is prepared to show the “State failed even to ask its Legislature for a sufficient appropriation, and that the State failed to make efficient use even of the resources it had – for example, by failing to modify State rules and incentives that favor providers of less integrated services over providers of more integrated services.

Proposed $10M Cut In RI DD Spending Overshadows Reform Plans

By Gina Macris

Thursday’s initial briefing on Governor Daniel McKee’s proposed budget for adults with developmental disabilities highlighted a $15-million set-aside to plan changes in the system, in response to a federal court order enforcing a 2014 civil rights consent decree.

At the same time, the budget legislation submitted to the General Assembly later in the day, on March 11, shows that overall spending on developmental disabilities would be $10 million less than spent this year.

McKee proposes adding $476,573 to the current developmental disabilities allocation for a total of nearly $304.5 million in federal and state Medicaid money and miscellaneous other sources of funding to close out the current fiscal year June 30.

The budget bill for the next fiscal year cuts overall spending on developmental disabilities to $294.4 million. That total includes $5 million in federal funds and $10 million in state revenue earmarked in the budget for the $15-million “transformation and transition fund” to plan reforms to comply with the consent decree.

The spending cut reflects projected savings from phasing out the costly state-run group home system. Residents would be moved to less costly group homes run by private service providers, according to the budget plan.

But the private agencies, who were in a precarious financial position even before the onset of the COVID pandemic a year ago, have been reluctant to take on additional clients in recent years because the amount the state pays does not cover the actual cost of services, according to repeated testimony before House and Senate finance committees, as well as testimony in federal court.

The state’s own consultants, the non-profit New England States Consortium Systems Organization, highlighted the providers’ fiscal problems and the way the demands on them strained capacity as part of an exhaustive 18-month study completed last summer for the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH).

The core long-term problem, exacerbated by COVID-19, is an inability to find workers for jobs that carry a high degree of responsibility but provide an average starting wage of about $13.18 an hour, less than some fast food and retail chains and less than Amazon, according to testimony before Chief Judge John J. McConnell of the U.S. District Court.

McConnell, who enforces compliance with a 2014 civil rights decree requiring the integration of adults with developmental disabilities in their communities, has ordered the state to raise workers’ wages to $20 an hour by 2024 as part of a comprehensive three-year overhaul of the developmental disabilities system.

The state budget indirectly controls how much the private providers can pay their workers by setting reimbursement rates for various services, but no money in McKee’s proposal is carved out for a rate increase.

Nor does it appear the McKee administration anticipates the heightened level of spending in the next several years that would support the kind of investment needed to comply with requirements of the consent decree to accommodate clients’ desire to be part of their communities, at work and at play. The consent decree gets its authority from the Integration Mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

McKee’s budget summary anticipates costs for developmental disabilities services will increase 4 percent annually through 2026.

A 4 percent annual increase would come nowhere close to fulfilling the court-ordered hourly wage of $20 an hour which, according to one estimate, would require an budget hike exceeding 45 percent.

The budget summary indicates the state aims to save a net $11.4 million by transferring the operations of the state-run group home system to the privately-run system by October 1.

The state-run system, called Rhode Island Community Living and Supports, (RICLAS) is currently allocated $29.7 million to care for 116 group home residents. The budget summary says transferring RICLAS operations to the private group home system would save $19.2 million in federal-state Medicaid funds in the RICLAS account in the fiscal year beginning July 1.

At the same time, a total of $7.8 million would be added to the private provider system to care for the former RICLAS residents. The budget for the next fiscal year would still leave about $9 million in RICLAS through June 20, 2022. A BHDDH spokesman could not immediately say how long the RICLAS phase-out would take.

The $19.2 million cut in RICLAS would eliminate the equivalent of 50 full-time jobs, mostly from attrition or transfer, the BHDDH spokesman said. RICLAS caregivers are paid a minimum of $18 and receive state employee benefits.

The last time BHDDH announced plans to move large numbers of people in residential care, in 2016, it achieved only a small fraction of the savings the Office of Management and Budget had calculated.

Of 100 persons projected to move from group homes to less costly shared living arrangements in private homes during the first six months of 2016, only 21 made successful matches with families.

Instead of projected savings of $19.3 million, the state recouped a few hundred thousand dollars in that six-month period.

Between March, 2016 and July, 2020, the number of people in shared living arrangements increased from 288 to 399. Since then, the number has decreased to 378, according to BHDDH figures.

The $15-million transformation and transition fund would support a policy and planning effort to carry out reforms required for compliance with the consent decree, according to the budget bill.

BHDDH informed Judge McConnell in February that the changes would take 18 to 24 months to implement, with a target date of December, 2022.

According to the budget language, the fund will be dedicated to:

• Help providers “strengthen” their operations to “support consumers’ needs for living meaningful lives of their choosing in the community”

• Allow providers the chance to participate in a performance-based payment model

• Reduce administrative burdens for providers

• Invest in “state infrastructure” to implement and manage these initiatives

• Prepare for a new way of approaching budgeting of the developmental disabilities caseload in the future.

Beyond the language in the budget bill, there were no details immediately available from BHDDH on what the transformation and transition fund will pay for.

Families Struggle While Federal Judge Awaits Progress Report On RI DD System Reform

By Gina Macris

Tonya LeCour, a teacher who is scheduled to return to work Sept. 1, also serves as the sole caregiver for a family member with developmental disabilities.

What will happen to her job if she can’t find daytime supports for the person who depends on her?

LeCour was among several participants who sounded similar concerns at a virtual forum hosted online by the Rhode Island Division of Developmental Disabilities Aug. 17, with technical assistance from the Rhode Island Parent Information Network.

The comments reprised the July 30 testimony of Carol Dorros, M.D., who told Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court of her experience caring for her adult son with developmental disabilities fulltime, and her inability to practice medicine, since the COVID-19 pandemic hit Rhode Island in March.

Those familiar with the developmental disabilities community say they believe there are hundreds of people facing wrenching stituations similar to those described by Dorros and LeCour.

Rhode Island is now days away from a court-imposed deadline of August 30 – the first of six such target dates – to outline its strategies for shoring up the developmental disabilities system in the short term and ensuring it complies in the long run with a 2014 consent decree seeking to enforce the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The court’s review comes against the background of strained state finances.

The state budget office has sent a memo to all department heads, including A. Kathryn Power, director of the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) to submit budget proposals for the next fiscal year that cut overall spending by 15 percent.

In a statement, a spokesman said “BHDDH, like all state departments, is working with its financial team and program managers to assess all options in meeting the 15 percent reduction in FY 22 spending, per the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) guidance.”

At the same time, the state Division of Developmental Disabilities has convened several “workgroups” to tackle the issues, and, according to McConnell’s order, is expected to submit a report Aug. 30 that will “describe the process or strategy” for addressing the problems, the timeline for resolving them, and the particular agency or agencies responsible for each item. ( Update: The report was submitted to an independent court monitor, A. Anthony Antosh, who said it was under his review the week of Sept. 6 and would be submitted to the court when the review is finished.)

The developmental disabilities issues are complex. They include include reimbursement rates keyed to staffing ratios that were designed for congregate care and do not translate well to community activities.

For example, the reimbursement structure may require a support person to take along five people with the same budget authorization on a community activity, whether or not their needs or interests fit into the purpose of the outing. Conversely, staffers may have to jump through hoops to come up with an activity that will appeal to all members of the group.

People receiving services may opt for one-on-one assistance, but that decreases the number of service hours during the week. A typical funding authorization for one person translates into about six hours a week of one-on-one help, according to calculations of the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island, a trade association.

In re-shaping the system, the state has at its disposal a recently-completed 134-page report from the New England States Consortium Systems Organization (NESCSO), which was hired more than 18 months ago at a cost of $1.1 million to conduct a comprehensive study that grew out of increasing demand for a review of rates paid to private providers of developmental disability services.

At the request of BHDDH, NESCSO’s consultants did not make specific recommendations but conducted an exhaustive assessment of the current y situation and presented options for change that the state might consider.

NESCSO described the financial position of the three dozen agencies providing services as “tenuous,” re-affirming interim findings made before the pandemic hit.

The report suggested that an increase in long-term employment among adults with developmental disabilities could save the state millions of dollars in the long run that would otherwise be spent on daytime supports.

However, increasing employment, a goal of the consent decree, would require an up-front investment in employment-related supports and retaining the staff necessary to carry them out.

NESCSO estimates that a 33 percent increase in wages, now an average of $13.18 for front line workers, will result in a 50 percent reduction in turnover, which ranges up to 58 percent in some agencies.

BHDDH has not made any public comment on the report.

In the meantime, service providers seem to be keeping a lid on the pandemic in group homes but are struggling to provide scaled-up daytime supports that meet safety guidelines under the current funding structure.

As of Aug. 25, a total of 164 group home residents had tested positive since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, three more than reported July 21. Of that total, 48 have been hospitalized and 10 have died, according to a BHDDH spokesman. The numbers indicate that the five people who were hospitalized in late July have all been discharged. The most recent death was reported in June.

During the Aug. 17 public hearing, Kevin Savage, director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, said, “we don’t want to just go back to doing things the old way.”

He offered to speak privately after the meeting with several individuals, including LeCour, the teacher, and a woman whose sister was in a group home and having problems eating as a result of the social isolation brought on by the pandemic.

Linda Ward, executive director of Opportunities Unlimited, chimed in with the providers’ perspective:

“It’s not about re-opening (daytime services) but meeting a person’s needs one person at a time,” she said. Funding limitations may dictate that individuals get one day a week of services, she said.

And there’s no “community” to access except for a socially distanced one, Ward said. Moreover,

staff are concerned about exposing themselves and their families to the virus, she said.

“I know that’s not helpful to families desperate for supports but we have to do it one at a time,” Ward said.

Meanwhile, the state’s finances, battered by the COVID-19 pandemic, remain in flux. Much could change before the budget is finalized for the 2022 fiscal year, which begins next July 1. The state budget director, Jonathan Womer, says as much in his memo to department heads dated Aug. 7.

In terms of developmental disabilities issues, Judge McConnell has ordered officials in both the executive and legislative branches, who hold the state’s purse strings, to participate “as needed” in a year-long review of 16 specific issues of concern, and to help find solutions to them.

BHDDH has held initial meetings of five “workgroups” to address issues raised in the judge’s order. In its most recent developmental disabilities community newsletter, the agency put out a call for volunteers interested in working on one of the five committees.

“We are looking for individuals receiving services and family members to participate in their choice of one of five workgroups to add their expertise and input into the system reform,” the newsletter said.

Anyone interested may email Cindy Fusco at Cynthia.Fusco@bhddh.ri.gov.

The newsletter described the workgroups as follows:

1. Eligibility Process Workgroup: This workgroup will look at the process for determining the support needs of each individual and the need to consolidate the application for all pertinent RI services into one process.

2. Appeals Process Workgroup: This workgroup will look at the appeals process for individuals as it relates to eligibility, level of need, or funding level, including the L9/S109 (appeals) process for requesting additional funding.

3. Individual Budgets and Authority Workgroup: This workgroup will look at the process and timeline for developing annual individual budgets responsive to individual needs, allowable costs, and flexibility.

4. Fiscal Workgroup: This workgroup will look at authorizatons, rates, and billing units.

5. Contracts Workgroup: This workgroup will look at the timeline and process by which individuals contract with providers, billing procedures, and how to increase individual control over their services and how their budget is spent.

RI: Private DD Agencies Show “Concerning Level Of Financial Vulnerability,” Consultants Say

By Gina Macris

Many of the private agencies serving adults with developmental disabilities in Rhode Island teeter so close to the fiscal edge that they need cash advances from the state to keep their doors open from one year to the next.

“It is evident that the advance payments made by BHDDH constitute a crucial lifeline for many of the agencies,” said consultants to the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals.

A review of nearly three quarters of the state’s payments to private developmental disability service agencies showed that all but two among a representative sample of 16 large, mid-sized, and small organizations fall below a nationwide standard for financial health, the consultants said.

The consultants, working under the auspices of the New England States Consortium Systems Organization (NESCSO), were hired to expand the analytical capacity of BHDDH in reviewing the rates and payment structure for the privately-run developmental disability system.

While it is outside NESCSO’s scope to make specific recommendations, the consultants nevertheless concluded that there is a “concerning level of financial vulnerability for a substantial portion” of the private system, the backbone of state-funded developmental disability services.

The financial review represented some of the interim findings in an 18-month, $1.3 million contract between NESCSO and BHDDH that concludes at the end of June.

The report appears to be incorporated in an addendum to the BHDDH budget request for an additional $4 million in federal-state Medicaid funding beginning July 1 to help provide incentives for advancement to front-line workers by raising the salaries of supervisors, support coordinators, job developers and professionals an average of 8.2 percent. Direct care workers also would receive an additional 10 cents an hour.

The governor adopted the language of the BHDDH proposal “to provide an investment in the overall human resource infrastructure” of the provider network for adults with developmental disabilities. She nevertheless cut the $4 million request to $2.2 million. That recommendation includes $1 million in state funding and the remainder in matching federal Medicaid funds.

The raises are offset by $2.2 million in savings from caseload figures that the governor’s office says showed slower growth than BHDDH projected. The budget office projected a 1.5 percent caseload growth for the next fiscal year, or one percentage point less than BHDDH estimated.

The NESCSO fiscal report, meanwhile, said 71 percent of all BHDDH payments for privately-run services to adults with developmental disabilities went to 16 of the 39 agencies licensed to operate in the state. For the analysis, the agencies offered a total of 27 audited financial statements, some for 2018 alone and others for 2017 and 2018.

Of the 27 audit reports from those two fiscal years, 15 showed operating losses and 6 showed surpluses between 1 and 2 percent, according to NESCSO. Only 6 reports showed healthy income margins of 3 percent or more, prompting the consultants to comment on the “concerning level of vulnerability” for the system as a whole. The consultants noted that the audits covered all operations for the respective agencies and were not structured to allow a more detailed analysis of only those activities supported by BHDDH funding.

To the extent that agencies use other sources of income to subsidize developmental disability services, the providers themselves may feel that the analysis “does not fully represent the fiscal challenges of serving the I/DD (intellectual and developmental disability) population,” the consultants wrote.

The NESCO report analyzed two other indicators of financial health:

• liquidity, or the ease with which assets can be converted to cash

• solvency, or the ratio of assets to liabilities.

All but two agencies fell below the liquidity level considered healthy by the NonProfit Finance Fund, according to the consultants.

NESCSO used two measures to calculate liquidity:

• the number of months of cash on hand, with two agencies meeting the standard of three months or more

• working capital, which calculated as current assets minus current liabilities and then further refined to determine how many months of operational costs the working capital could cover. Three agencies met this standard.

The NESCSO consultants added that advance payments from the state, which show up on audits as liabilities, in effect function as sources of operating cash and working capital for the agencies. The report did not say how many agencies have received such payments, nor did BHDDH respond to a request for clarification.

The consultants’ report included a financial note they said was found in many audited statements. It reads:

“This amount represents approximately 45 days of funding for operating the residential and day programs. This amount is due to the State of Rhode Island if the company ceases operation of a residential or day program within the scope of the original advance funding agreement or if it is no longer licensed or certified to provide serves (services) to individuals with developmental disabilities. During 2017, the State of Rhode Island requested payment of these funds prior to the end of the fiscal year at which time additional funds were provided to the Company/Agency.”

Another way the state subsidizes the agencies’ operations is leasing properties to them for nominal amounts, the consultants said.

Although 17 of 27 agency audit reports showed assets that were two times greater than liabilities, the organizations are more vulnerable than those figures might indicate on their face, the consultants said, because a “critical portion” of the assets are property and equipment “intertwined in daily operations,” like group homes.

As an example, the NESCSO’s consultants cited the case of one agency, Bridges, Inc, The agency had assets that exceeded liabilities but also faced a second consecutive year of losses from operations in 2017. In that case, Bridges closed its doors in 20017 but transferred its entire business to Looking Upwards, another agency.

“That approach likely preserved capacity within the system but highlights the risk of loss of overall provider capacity,” the consultants wrote.

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 Rate Reviewer To Seek Public Comment at Nov. 5 Forum In Barrington

By Gina Macris

The public will have a chance to talk with consultants reviewing the Rhode Island’s rates and payment structure for developmental disability services during the next community forum sponsored by the state Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) Tuesday, Nov. 5 in Barrington.

The forum will run from 4 to 5:30 at the Barrington Public Library, with officials from the New England States Consortium Systems Organization (NESCSO) facilitating a conversation with the audience during the last half of the meeting.

NESCSO’s work will not be completed until next June, but consultants have said they expect to make some interim recommendations by the end of the year, in time to be incorporated into the budget that begins next July 1. .

NESCSO officials also plan to reach out to those served by DDD at the annual statewide conference of Advocates in Action Thursday, Oct. 31 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Warwick, according to a spokesman for the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH).

The first half of Tuesday’s meeting will feature updates on the BHDDH strategic plan and its initiatives. The library is at 281 County Road (Route 114), adjacent to the Town Hall and school department offices.

NESCSO Will Not Offer “Magic Number” on RI DD Rate Review, Leaving Decisions To BHDDH

Rick Jacobsen *** All Photos By Anne Peters

By Gina Macris

A consultant to a regional consortium reviewing Rhode Island’s developmental disability service system outlined the scope of the group’s work and time line to a July 30 meeting of a special legislative commission.

The consultant also disclosed some preliminary findings about “Project Sustainability,” the fee-for-service reimbursement system also being studied by the General Assembly’s commission. No one appeared surprised by the early findings.

For example, the developmental disabilities caseload has had a compounded annual growth rate of 3 percent in the last five years, from 3,744 to a current total of 4,297.

And the data shows that the private agencies that provide most of the direct services – and bear the brunt of the work necessary to comply with a federal civil rights agreement - operate on precarious financial margins.

The presentation to the Project Sustainability Commission was made by consultant Rick Jacobsen and his boss, Elena Nicolella, executive director of the New England States Consortium Systems Organization (NESCSO), a non-profit group that provides analysis in the fields of health and human services to five states. The meeting was held at the Arnold Conference Center at the Eleanor Slater Hospital.

Nicolella and Jacobsen encountered pushback when they explained the role defined for NESCSO by the state Department Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals.(BHDDH).

NESCSO will present options to BHDDH for system improvements toward the project goal of maximizing “opportunities for people to fully participate in their community,” according to a Powerpoint presentation that accompanied the talk. But it won’t deliver an independent recommendation or “magic number” on costs, Jacobsen and Nicolella said.

Tom Kane, CEO of AccessPoint RI, a private provider, said long experience in system-wide reform has taught him that the approach chosen by BHDDH is doomed to fail unless the effort also states the true cost of evolving to an integrated community-based model.

L. to R.: Andrew McQuaide, Kim Einloth, Tom Kane

There has been no “tolerance” for even “having a (public) discussion about the cost of investing in the change process,” said Kane. “If you shift funds in an underfunded system, it’s not going to work. It’s just going to make the hole deeper,” he said.

In the 1980s and 1990s, when advocates pushed to close the Ladd School, the state’s only institution for people with developmental disabilities, “there was a community behind us, and we put an investment in the system in order to make that change happen, and it was dramatic change,” Kane said.

But there was no investment in changing the system in Project Sustainability, enacted in 2011, Kane said.

While the healthcare consultants Burns & Associates recommended an investment that was millions of dollars more than was being spent, Kane said, that number was never made public or discussed in the General Assembly. “What we ended up with was millions of dollars cut,” he said.

A few years later, when the demand grew for more community-based services, those reimbursement rates increased, but rates for center-based care decreased, despite the fact that providers continued to have the same fixed costs, Kane said.

The history of Project Sustainability has prompted a certain amount of “agida” among service providers regarding NESCSO’s work, said Andrew McQuaide, a Commission member.

“Having gone through a similar process and getting an end product that turned the system around and took us backward,”he said, providers are nervous that “we could go through a very similar process and come up with a poor product.”

He said his remarks did not reflect in any way on the current administration. Rebecca Boss, the BHDDH director, and Kerri Zanchi, the director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, are both commission members and attended the meeting.

McQuaide and A. Anthony Antosh, another commission member, both urged Boss to make public all the data and reports produced by NESCSO, whose contract runs through June, 2020.

Antosh said there ought to be a direct relationship between the goals of the rate review and the recommendations of the commission. Commission members have submitted individual recommendations, which all advocate for the self-determination of adults with developmental disabilities. Their work will be synthesized into a final report, according to the commission chairman, Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown.

The manner in which NESCSO’s work will be shared with the public is under discussion, Boss said. She and Zanchi said they didn’t think it would be the best use of everyone’s time if the public discussion got bogged down in the minutia of the analytics at each stage in the process.

“We don’t want to be pulled off course but be mindful of the project as a whole,” Zanchi said.

Jacobsen and Nicolella said that NESCSO intends to produce data to enable BHDDH to make both near-term changes and longer-term reforms.

Preliminarily analysis of the audited financial statements of 16 private provider organizations confirms that the system is operating on a very close financial margin, said Jacobsen.

Elena Nicolella

That’s not unusual, he said. Human services agencies across the country are in similar positions. At the same time, the tight finances mean the agencies may tend to be averse to risks like investing in system change or taking on new clients, Jacobsen said.

Jacobsen presented a preliminary analysis of audited financial statements from 16 provider agencies over the last two years, with tables organized according to the number of fiscal reports. The agencies were not identified.

For example, out of a total of 27 audited financial statements, 15 showed deficits and 11 showed surpluses. Of the 11 surpluses, 6 were less than 3 percent of revenues.

In another table summarizing 24 financial statements, 12 of them showed less than a month’s cash on hand at the end of the fiscal year.

And a third table on liquidity said that of a total 24 financial statements, only 4 had working capital to carry their agencies longer than 2 months. At the other extreme, 7 statements said their agencies had no working capital or were lacking up to two months’ worth at the end of the fiscal year.

Jaccobsen said the state has made advance payments to some struggling agencies, but these advances have been carried as liabilities on the books.

Commission members said that for some organizations with multiple sources of income, the agency-wide audited statements do not give an accurate picture of the fiscal margins in developmental disabilities.

Regina Hayes, CEO of Spurwink RI, and Peter Quattromani, CEO of United Cerebral Palsy, suggested that the financial picture is worse than it looked in Jacobsen’s tables and asked him to go back and look only at the income and expenses related to developmental disabilities.

Jacobsen said NESCSO will spend the entire month of August listening to providers. Engagement with consumers and their families is scheduled for September.

An analysis of earnings figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for May, 2018 indicated that the wages for direct care workers in Rhode Island are close to the median in comparison to other states. That doesn’t mean that agencies can hire and retain employees, Jacobsen said.

Here too, Jacobsen was asked to look more closely at the figures.

Louis DiPalma and Rebecca Boss

The commission chairman, DiPalma, said the figures Jacobsen used didn’t account for a raise the Connecticut legislature gave to all its developmental disability direct care workers to a minimum of $14.75. In Massachusetts, 30,000 people working as personal care attendants, including many working with adults with developmental disabilities, make $15 an hour, DiPalma said. And the figures Rhode Island reports to the Bureau of Labor Statistics put developmental disability workers in the same category as home health aides, who make more, DiPalma said. According to a trade association representing two thirds of private providers in Rhode Island, entry-level direct care workers make an average of $11.44 an hour. (They are soon to get raises.)

When Jacobsen mentioned that NESCSO plans to compare Rhode Island’s developmental disability services to those in other states, Kane, the AccessPoint CEO, said the consultants must make sure to include the amounts the other states spend on institutional care.

A comparison of community-based services among states does not yield a true picture of total state spending on developmental disabilities, since most other states also have institutions, Kane said. But Rhode Islanders who in other states would be institutionalized live in the community in Rhode Island instead, said Kane.

Jacobsen also presented other preliminary statistics:

• There has been a 15 percent compounded increase in the number of people who direct their own programs in the last five years. NECSCO will look further at whether the increase has occurred by choice or whether it results from individuals and families being unable to find suitable services from agencies. “I suspect it’s a mix of both,” Jacobsen said.

• Of a total of nearly $216.2 million in reimbursement claims paid by the state in the 2018 fiscal year, 51.4 percent was for residential expenses and 48.6 percent was for daytime services, case management, respite care, and independent living or family supports.

· In the category of daytime services, 4.2 percent, or nearly $4.5 million, was spent for employment-related and pre-vocational activities. Increasing employment is one of the main goals of the consent decree.

RI DD Rate Reviewers Asked To Fix Payment System That Still Promotes Segregated Care

By Gina Macris

This article was updated June 17 with a response from the Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals.

The Rhode Island state agency which funds services for adults with developmental disabilities has acknowledged for the first time that its underlying reimbursement system for private providers is structurally deficient for complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act as required by a 2014 federal civil rights decree.

While the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) has pursued services promoting greater independence for adults with developmental disabilities, “the underlying reimbursement system has lagged,” according to a statement of the scope of work outlined for a consortium tasked with reviewing reimbursement rates.

The rate structure “is grounded in past practices and cost bases associated with the provision of services in the sheltered workshop setting,” BHDDH officials wrote.

“In order to adequately meet consumers’ needs, providers have been paid supplemental funds to address the deficiency in the payment rates,” BHDDH explained in the contract.

BHDDH has a contract with the New England States Consortium Systems Organization (NESCSO) to update a rate structure that has not been reviewed for eight years and to suggest alternates to the current payment methods.

In describing the work ahead for NESCSO, BHDDH says it is:

“seeking to further promote the development of a service system and associated reimbursement arrangements that maximize the opportunity for persons with DD to participate to the fullest possible in community-based activities.”

In 2014 the U.S. Department of Justice found that the reimbursement system incentivized segregated care in sheltered workshops and day centers in violation of the Integration Mandate of the ADA, reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Olmstead decision.

The Obama administration began vigorously enforcing the Olmstead decision in 2009, but the consent decree in Rhode Island was the first settlement that addressed segregation in daytime services rather than housing.

The consent decree provides a decade-long period of federal oversight of the state’s efforts to change the system. Enforcement of the consent decree entered its sixth year April 9. It will take at least another year for changes in rates and payment methods to go into effect, with the approval of the General Assembly. Enforcement of the decree is set to expire in 2024, but the state would have to show substantial compliance before federal oversight ends.

While some improvements in services have been made, the contract with NESCSO indicates that BHDDH officials believe the reimbursement system has held back compliance efforts.

Staffing Ratios Hinder Needed Flexibility

The underlying problem, said the BHDDH director in an interview, is a rule that requires a ratio of 60 percent funding for community-based activities and 40 percent funding for center-based daytime care in each client’s individual authorization.

The contract language alludes to this situation in describing staffing ratios. It says two areas of “particular focus” are daytime rates paid for employment-related and non-work services. In sheltered settings, for example, there might be one worker for every ten clients. But in the community the number of clients for each worker would have to be much smaller.

Rebecca Boss, the BHDDH director, said the department seeks a “predictable rate structure not driven by very precise ratios” but rather by the needs and preferences of individual clients.

The supplemental payments intended to mitigate the deficiencies in the underlying system “are an increasing portion of overall payments, reflecting the inadequacy of the current rates,” the contract language explained.

According to department officials, that language was meant to refer to the historical trend, in which supplemental payments had increased to as much as $7.8 million in a three-month period.

Boss froze new approvals at the end of 2017, except for emergency health and safety considerations and a couple other narrowly defined exceptions, to try to curb a multi-million dollar deficit at a time when Governor Gina Raimondo seemed inclined to cut developmental disability services significantly.

According to records BHDDH turns in to the General Assembly every month, the supplemental payments from January through March of this year have declined to $3.6 million, about half the total for the same period in 2018.

Historically, supplemental payments have been awarded only when consumers, families, or providers have made successful appeals of individual authorizations. The appeals, which often have required considerable time and energy, must be made annually, or the authorization reverts to the original amount. The appeals process is but one facet of what many families and providers describe as an unstable system.

Kerri Zanchi, director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, said supplemental payments are still a big part of reimbursements to private providers, and BHDDH wants NESCSO and its consultants to scrutinize them as part of the review process.

Study Commission To Hear from NESCSO

The rate review coincides with the work of a special legislative commission studying the current reimbursement system, called Project Sustainability.

On June 18, the commission will meet to hear presentations about employment and transportation issues from Scott Jensen, director of the Department of Labor and Training; and from Scott Avedesian, CEO of the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority.

On June 25, the executive director of NESCSO, Elena Nicolella, is scheduled to appear before the commission to give an update on the rate review now being conducted by four consultants under NESCSO’s supervision.

In the meantime, some commission members have given BHDDH their own statements on how they think consultants should approach the work and their ideas for a new system of services that allow consumers and their families to shape the way state funds are used.

A spokeswoman for providers has urged NESCSO and its consultants to gain a thorough understanding of what it costs for a private agency to provide services under the terms of recently-revised regulations for provider operations and quality certification standards.

These bureaucratic steps are part of the state’s efforts to comply with the consent decree and the federal Medicaid Home And Community Based Final Rule (HCBS). Like the consent decree, HCBS embraces the integration mandate of the ADA, but it is a nationwide rule applying to all community-based services funded by Medicaid.

Paradox In Unspent Funds For Employment

Tina Spears, executive director of the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island, warned that simply looking at the way providers utilize the current reimbursement model, which is based on segregated care, will not give the complete picture of the needs of the system.

She did not mention specifics, but a case in point is the performance-based supported employment program, which was funded by a $6.8 million allocation made by the General Assembly in the fiscal year that began July 1, 2016. That allocation still has not been completely spent.

Excluding a start-up period from January through June of 2017, the program spent $2.5 million the first year, from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. It’s expected to spend $4 million in the fiscal year ending June 30, according to a BHDDH spokesman.

Providers initially complained that they could not meet their costs with the series of one-time incentives offered by the program, which was built on same reimbursement system designed for center-based care.

Incentives and enhancements were made more generous during the second year, and negotiations are underway for a third year of the program.

In the meantime, Rhode Island’s last sheltered workshop closed last year and BHDDH says community-based, competitive employment has increased to about 29 percent of adults with developmental disabilities.

A study released by two nationwide associations of providers in January said Rhode Island’s rate of competitive employment was about 19 percent, but that figure dated from 2015. The “Case for Inclusion” ranked Rhode Island 32nd in the nation on its integration efforts. It was compiled by ANCOR - the American Network of Community Options and Resources, and UCP – United Cerebral Palsy.

Consumers Want More Control Over Money Assigned To Them

Kevin Nerney, executive director of the Rhode Island Developmental Disabilities Council, and Kelly Donovan, who receives state-funded supports, each called for a system that allows greater consumer control of state funding and greater flexibility in the way it is used.

The state should “ensure that funding is available across all imaginable living arrangements,” particularly in situations where a consumer owns or rents a property and a caregiver or family would like to move in. The caregiver or consumer should be allowed a stipend, as is permitted in many other states, to make this type of arrangement viable, Nerney said.

The state should also ensure that adults with developmental disabilities have the support of familiar staff while they are hospitalized to avoid the trauma of being in an unfamiliar environment where they can neither make themselves understood nor understand what is being said to them, Nerney said.

In addition, the state should adopt a way to assess the support a person receives from family or friends in deciding funding levels. While most of those receiving services from the Division of Developmental Disabilities live in the family home, that home may include a large healthy family, a single aging parent, or a grandparent with Alzheimer’s and a sibling who also has significant needs for support, Nerney said.

And he called for more funding for those hired by self-directed consumers and their families to write support plans necessary to qualify for state funding. The expectations for the plan writers have multiplied over the last 20 years but the fees remains the same at $500 for the initial plan and $350 for an annual renewal, Nerney said. There should be an allowance for self-directed families who need ongoing coordination of services, he said.

Kelly Donovan, who herself receives services from BHDDH gave a concrete example of what greater control and flexibility might look like.

She said people should be able to enjoy an outing without:

A: going home early because a staffer’s shift ends

B: taking everyone in your group home with you, even if one or more of them really didn’t want to come.

“People should be able to have their designated time to themselves and opportunities to be involved in community activities,” she said.

The public may submit comments or questions about the rate review process by email at BHDDH.AskDD@bhddh.ri.gov. Please copy and paste the email address into your email program, or get a link by visiting http://www.bhddh.ri.gov/developmentaldisabilities/community_forums_event.php

In response to this article, Randal Edgar, a spokesman for BHDDH, released the following statement on June 17:

The article published on June 12 on the Olmstead Updates blog presents a misleading picture of Rhode Island’s system of care for adults with developmental disabilities.

The headline claims this system “promotes segregated care.”

This assertion is false.

The article attempts to back up this assertion up by referring to language in a state contract with a consultant that is reviewing the rates paid to DD providers. But in referencing the contract language, the article misreads the intent of that language.

The contract language speaks from a historical perspective. It states that while the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals has pursued the development of “a services system that supports greater independence” for the DD population, “the underlying reimbursement system has lagged.” It goes on to say that the “basis for the development of prevailing rates is grounded in past practices and cost bases associated with the provision of services in the sheltered workshop setting.”

Acknowledging that the existing rates are grounded in past practices and need to be updated is not the same as saying the system as it operates today promotes segregated care, and in saying it does, the article ignores and/or minimizes many steps the department has taken to improve the care provided to adults with developmental disabilities. It should be noted that the reporter met with BHDDH officials for more than an hour but did not press this assertion and obtain their view of the contract language.

The article is wrong again when it states that department froze new approvals for supplemental payments in 2017 to help offset a budget deficit. The department reduced those approvals, applying more stringent standards, not because of a possible budget deficit but because this made sense from a policy standpoint.

Finally, the article gives voice to people outside the department, asking them to describe where the DD care system should go, without giving BHDDH officials a chance to share their vision. In the process, it conveys a false impression that BHDDH officials are not passionate about moving this system forward.

We are disappointed that the article did not present a more complete and accurate picture.

Separately, the public may submit comments or questions about the rate review process by email at BHDDH.AskDD@bhddh.ri.gov. Please copy and paste the email address into your email program, or get a link by visiting http://www.bhddh.ri.gov/developmentaldisabilities/community_forums_event.php

RI BHDDH Wants Consultants' Comprehensive ‘Best Strategies’ For Integrated DD System

By Gina Macris

The most recent meeting of Rhode Island’s “Project Sustainability” commission Aoril 25 left members surprised by news that an outside review of Rhode Island’s rates and reimbursement methods for private providers of developmental disability services will not conclude with consultants making dollars-and-cents recommendations for a new scale of payments.

In a follow-up question, Developmental Disability News asked officials of the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) to elaborate on the reasons for the approach it has taken in commissioning the outside review, which is intended to help the state meet the requirements of a 2014 federal civil rights decree..

In a statement, a spokesman said the department is looking for the “best strategies” for developing and paying for an “integrated and individualized system of services” - characteristics which would comply with the consent decree.

That decree draws on the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision, which reinforced the integration mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The existing reimbursement system for private agencies led to over-reliance on facility-based care and sheltered workshop employment, in violation of the integration mandate, according to findings of the U.S. Department of Justice, which laid the groundwork for the consent decree. The fee-for-service reimbursement system, called Project Sustainability, resulted to significant pay cuts for direct care workers, high turnover and a high rate of job vacancy.

“Determining how to stabilize the workforce and what to pay direct care workers is a broad question that touches on many moving parts,” said Randal Edgar, the BHDDH spokesman.

The salary of workers, called “direct support professionals,” is an important part of the rate structure, but there are other costs which are “vital to a provider’s enhanced functioning,” Edgar said. He listed these costs:

• employee benefits

• training

• supervision

• management capacity

• information technology

• connection and liaison with community

“Asking the consultants to determine just one of the vital elements would not meet the overall financial needs of the Rhode Island Developmental Disabilities system. We are looking for the consultant to identify best strategies for providing an integrated and individualized system of services and help us develop best strategies to pay for that system. But we do not think it is the consultant’s job to say what direct care workers should be paid,” Edgar said.

Anyone who has questions about the rate review may submit them to BHDDH.AskDD@bhddh.ri.gov, Edgar said. (Please copy and paste the email address.)

Meanwhile, the special legislative commission studying Project Sustainability will meet Monday at 2 p.m. in the Senate Lounge of the State House, according to its chairman, Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown.

DiPalma said the session will focus on members’ recommendations for changes to better enable adults with developmental disabilities to live the lives they want with the supports they need.

NESCSO Review of RI DD Reimbursement Won’t Generate Specific New Rate Recommendations

By Gina Macris

Elena Nicolella and Rick Jacobson All Photos By Anne Peters

The non-profit consortium hired to review the reimbursements Rhode Island pays private agencies serving adults with developmental disabilities will not produce a new set of recommended rates, its executive director said April 25.

Rather, consultants supervised by the consortium will review the impact of the existing system and present facts and data that will enable the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) to make more informed policy decisions, based on available funding and other factors, said Elena Nicolella. She is executive director of NESCSO, the New England States Consortium Systems Organization.

Nicolella addressed a special legislative commission studying the current fee-for-service rate structure, called Project Sustainability.

DiPalma and Kelly Donovan, A Consumer Advocate

For more than an hour, the commission chairman, Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, and other members of the panel peppered Nicolella and consultant Rick Jacobson with questions as they struggled to come up with a clearer idea of what NESCSO’s recommendations might look like.

The pair, aided by BHDDH officials, did flesh out the picture somewhat. But DiPalma, said Nicolella will be invited back in June to give an update on the work, which is underway.

“We will not be issuing recommendations on specific rates,” Nicolella said, explaining that is not within the scope of the work outlined in the contract between NESCSO and BHDDH.

The work will assess current rates quantitatively and qualitatively and analyze “the impact of the rate structure and payment methodology on people receiving services and the provider agencies and make recommendations for the future,” Nicolella said.

NESCSO will develop scenarios or “roadmaps” of what it would take for the state to achieve certain goals, putting the priority on the state’s obligation to meet the requirements of a 2014 civil rights consent decree with the federal government. That means the work will focus on day services and employment supports, at least initially, Nicolella said.

Some of the recommendations, however, will have implications for the entire system of services, she said.

Rebecca Boss, the BHDDH director, gave an example of one system-wide priority – creating a stable workforce.

She was asked after the meeting why BHDDH structured the work the way it did.

Boss reiterated that NESCSO would present “facts and data” in an analysis based on certain assumptions. She and Nicolella said the policy decisions would be up to BHDDH.

“If the decisions we make (at BHDDH) don’t meet expectations, it will be out there,” Boss said, emphasizing that the work will be transparent.

The assumption at the heart of Project Sustainability was that providers could do the same work with less money. A former BHDDH administration relayed that assumption to the General Assembly in an unsigned memo that contained a slew of reimbursement rate reductions that formed the basis for cuts enacted in 2011 to inaugurate Project Sustainability. The reductions averaged 17 percent.

Boss said “that’s not the kind of assumption we’re talking about.” Instead, the assumption for one analysis might be that industry-wide, providers should have health insurance for their employees, Boss said. Another assumption might be the amount it costs providers to cover employee-related overhead, she said.

In a separate conversation outside the meeting, Nicolella said the recommendations would be “driven by the data” and “not limited by the by the state budget.”

At the same time, NESCSO will “stop short of what was recommended last time,” she said, alluding to the specificity of rates proposed by Burns & Associates, healthcare consultants who worked on Project Sustainability.

In 2011, Burns & Associates recommended rates that would have paid entry-level workers nearly $14 an hour, but after the General Assembly cut $26 million from developmental disability funding, many workers ended up at minimum wage.

Since then, wages have increased only incrementally, resulting in high turnover and job vacancy. Providers say the reimbursement rates do not cover their actual employee-related costs, like payroll taxes, health insurance, and the like.

During the meeting, Nicolella assured a spokeswoman for providers that the rate review will look at the agencies’ figures. At least one agency, Spurwink RI, has laid out its gap in dollars and cents several times before the House Finance Committee.

At the commission meeting, Spurwink’s executive director, Regina Hayes, asked Nicolella and Jacobson whether the review would pay attention to compatibility with current law.

For example, she said, the Affordable Care Act requires employers to pay health insurance for workers who put in at least 30 hours a week. But Project Sustainability assumes that only those working 40 hours a week are entitled to health insurance, Hayes said.

Nicolella responded, “That’s exactly the kind of information we should be hearing right now, because it’s extremely helpful.”

She and Jacobson both said the assessment of the impact of the current system will include engagement with consumers and families,as well as providers. But neither of them could lay out a schedule or format for that type of engagement.

NESCSO is required to produce a series of reports for BHDDH between June and December, she said. It is the consortium’s intent to complete the work in time for BHDDH to make its budget request for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020, Nicolella said.

Nicolella explained that NESCSO’s only mission is to serve the New England states as they seek to research issues and solve problems in the fields of health and human services.

“We are not a consulting company. We don’t sell our services,” she said.

In this case, NESCSO is overseeing four outside consultants, including Jacobson, who are doing the actual work.

NESCSO’s board of directors includes health and human services officials from five of the six New England states, according to its website. Only Maine is not listed as a member.

Nicolella said Rhode Island’s designated board member is Patrick Tigue, the Medicaid director. (Nicolella herself is a former Rhode Island Medicaid director.)

The consortium’s two sources of revenue are state dues and proceeds from a national conference. The BHDDH review is a member benefit, Nicolella said. The contract encompasses not only the work on developmental disabilities but a review of rates for behavioral healthcare services and a model for outpatient services for patients of Eleanor Slater Hospital. But the state still must pay for the consultants’ work - $1.3 million over an 18-month period.

Ongoing RI DD Rate Review To Be Aired Thursday At Project Sustainability Commission Meeting

By Gina Macris

Elena Nicolella, executive director of a non-profit consortium overseeing a review of the rates Rhode Island pays private providers for services to adults wlth developmental disabilities, will address the Project Sustainability Commission Thursday, April 25.

Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, the commission chairman, said Nicolella will explain the scope of the work, the timetable, and the documentation that is required under the terms of the consortium’s contract with the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH).

Nicolella is executive director of the New England States Consortium Systems Organization (NESCSO), a non-profit collaboration involving five of the six New England states that aims to promote policies and programs that will serve the needs of the region in a cost-effective manner, according to its website. Only Maine does not belong to the regional group.

DiPalma said he expects that “everything will be on the table” about Project Sustainability, the fee-for-service payment system which providers say hamstrings their ability to offer integrated services in the community as required by a 2014 federal consent decree.

Project Sustainability, enacted by the General Assembly in 2011, forced providers to cut workers’ pay to minimum wage levels, wiping out established career ladders that helped bring continuity to the care of adults with developmental disabilities.

In November, Mark Podrazik, the consultant who advised the state in planning Project Sustainability, told DiPalma’s commission that reimbursement rates should be reviewed every five years.

Thursday’s Project Sustainability Commission meeting featuring Nicolella will begin at 2 p.m. in the Senate Lounge at the State House, according to DiPalma.

NESCSO has a $1.3 million contract with BHDDH over an 18-month period to review private provider rates for developmental disabilities and behavioral healthcare service. The contract also calls on NESCSO to provide technical assistance in connection with creating out-patient services for patients of Eleanor Slater Hospital.

The work in developmental disabilities represents about $700,000 of that total, according to a BHDDH spokeswoman.