RI DD Rate Review: "Refresh" Or "New Analysis" of Project Sustainability?

By Gina Macris

Under court order, Rhode Island is conducting a comprehensive review of how it provides services for adults with developmental disabilities – a study that could have a profound effect on the quality of their lives.

Will the rate review go far enough to realize the goal of a 2014 consent decree – a system of services individualized enough to enable persons with developmental disabilities to become integrated in their communities?

In seeking a consultant for the rate review, the state said it wanted to “shift toward a system of community based supports that promote individual self-determination, choice and control.”

In the end, the state’s evaluation committee selected the firm that offered “more a refresh of a prior model than a new analysis,” Health Management Associates, the parent company of Burns & Associates (HMA-Burns). Under an independent corporate structure more than a decade ago, Burns & Associates helped the state create the problematic reimbursement system now in place, called Project Sustainability.

With completion of the study not expected until December, it’s too early to tell what the final recommendations might look like.

But the selection process suggests the state does not want to stray too far from the structure of Project Sustainability.

One of the three finalists for the rate review, Guidehouse Inc., said as much in its proposal:

“Guidehouse assumes in our proposed approach that BHDDH is not looking for an overhaul of those mechanisms now in place.”

While there have been some changes in Project Sustainability, a federal judge has found that that some of its features amount to administrative barriers to the system of individualized, integrated services required by the 2014 consent decree.

Those barriers, which are expected to be addressed in rate review, include

• A lack of individualized budgeting

• Exhaustive documentation of staff time with each client that detracts from services and is a costly burden for providers

• Staffing ratios that make integration in the community challenging

The state scored five bidders in two categories. Before cost could be considered, a four-member committee conducted a technical evaluation, valued at 70 percent of the overall score, which determined how closely the submissions matched objectives of the state’s request for proposals. Three firms, Guidehouse, Milliman and HMA-Burns exceeded the minimum of 60 points to be considered finalists.

HMA-Burns scored 61 points in the technical evaluation, one more than the 60 points necessary to qualify.

The evaluation committee found the HMA-Burns approach was “clearly defined, and the data approach is strong. However the methodology seems more a refresh of a prior model than a new analysis.” The proposal also “has a continuation of ‘buckets’ for funding rather than a robust approach to individual budgeting,” the committee said.

By comparison, the committee said Guidehouse, the top scorer, had an “engaging proposal, well written, visually engaging with good content.” There was also a “wide range of relevant experience, including recent experience assessing self-direction. (families and individuals designing their own service programs.)”

Among other things, the committee noted that Guidehouse had a “good understanding” of supplementary needs assessments that could lead to more accurate budgeting and reduce appeals that have resulted in the award of millions of dollars annually for supplemental services to which adults with developmental disabilities were entitled.

The cost proposals counted for 30 percent of the overall evaluation, but the committee did not score the originals from the three finalists. The original bids were:

• HMA - $339,680 - 1,516 hours

• Guidehouse - $499,350 - 2,235 hours

• Milliman - $1,203,181 - 4,628 hours

In its evaluation memo, the committee expressed concern that the bids reflected too much of a variation in the effort that would be devoted to the project. It did not interview the vendors, a common practice among public purchasing officials.

Instead, the committee asked for a second round of bids for a project that would encompass 3,000 hours, which the committee said would be sufficient to complete the rate review.

The results:

• HMA- $490,875

• Guidehouse - $670,290

• Milliman - $773,4000

After the second round of bidding, HMA-Burns tied with Guidehouse in the overall scoring but remained the lowest bidder. The final decision was made on the basis of cost.

ISBE MEANS A SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE OWNED BY AT LEAST ONE PERSON WHO IS A WOMAN, MINORITY OR HAS A DISABILITY

During two meetings encompassing the evaluation process, the four-member committee awarded a single score in each category for each proposal through a collective group decision, or consensus, rather than individual scoring.

Individual, independent scoring is recommended as a “best practice” by the Center for Procurement Excellence. The Center is a non-profit organization that promotes education and training of pubic procurement officers and excellence in solicitation practices.

Members of the evaluation committee were Kevin Savage, Director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities; Anne LeClerc, Associate Director of Program Performance at BHDDH; Marylin Gaudreau, Data Analyst II at BHDDH, and Ashley Bultman, Senior Economic & Policy Analyst in the Office of Management and Budget at the Department of Administration.

In the end, the second round of bidding narrowed the range between the lowest and highest cost proposals but their relative positions didn’t change. Nor did the evaluation committee gain any additional information about the differing approaches.

In their cover letters with the second bids, both HMA and Guidehouse reiterated that they believed the work could be done in less than 3,000 hours.

Milliman, on the other hand, stated again that it believed the rate review would take more time. In fact, the letter said that if they were chosen, they would have to revise their technical proposal to conform with 3,000 hours’ work.

Gomes, the DOA spokesman, said purchasing rules gave the committee the choice of scoring proposals individually and interviewing the finalists, but he did not say why the committee did not do so.

Asked whether the evaluation process was designed to steer the project to a refresh of Project Sustainability instead of a new analysis of the system, Gomes said: “The goal of a competitive bid is to retain the best services at the most competitive price.”

“The request for proposals process evaluates both the technical aspects of the proposal and the submitted cost,” he said.

“When there is a wide discrepancy in the cost proposals, the Division of Purchases and agency initiating the procurement will provide an estimated level of effort (i.e. number of hours needed to complete the scope of work) and ask the respondents to submit a best-and-final offer.”

He said a “best and final offer process” is described in state Rules and Regulations 220-RICR-30-00-6(D) and state law R.I. Gen. Laws § 37-2-20(b) read in conjunction with state law R.I. Gen. Laws § 37-2-19(d) and (e).

Consultant with Link to RI DD System Chosen To Recommend Fixes

By Gina Macris

This article has been updated.

The parent company of the healthcare consulting group Burns & Associates, instrumental in setting up the Rhode Island developmental disability system that led to a federal civil rights investigation, has been selected to help fix the problem.

Burns & Associates is now a division of Health Management Associates (HMA), which has been awarded a contract for a rate review expected to shape the state’s ultimate compliance with a 2014 consent decree.

Rhode Island’s Director of Developmental Disabilities, Kevin Savage, shared the news in a remote meeting Jan. 25 with a community advisory group on developmental disabilities that was created by the consent decree.

Savage did not disclose the cost of the contract or other terms of the agreement, except to say that he expected the review would be completed by the end of 2022 as part of the state’s court-ordered “Action Plan” for compliance by June 30, 2024..

Savage said HMA “won it ethically and fairly,” meeting all requirements of the state purchasing division. There were four other bidders.

Savage did not say whether anyone from the Burns & Associates division of HMA will work on the rate review. (Clarification: He did say no person who worked on Project Sustainability in 2010 and 2011 would return for the new review.)

HMA will engage with the developmental disabilities community in drawing up its recommendations, Savage said.

HMA’s connection with its Burns & Associates division will bring a lot of baggage to to the rate review.

A decade ago, Burns & Associates worked a year on a review that gave state officials the foundation for a new fee-for-service system called “Project Sustainability.”

State officials promoted Project Sustainability as a way of bringing equity and flexibility to the developmental disabilities system. But consumers, their families, and providers said the bureaucracy was nothing but a smokescreen for budget cuts.

Years later, the president of Burns & Associates said that while flexibility was the goal, the final version of Project Sustainability was shaped by intense pressure on BHDDH to control costs.

Going into the work, “we did not know what the budget was” for Project Sustainability, said Mark Podrazik, president and co-founder of Burns & Associates, who is now a managing partner in Health Management Associates. “We were not hired to cut budgets.”

In the final version of Project Sustainability, the state undercut Burns & Associates’ recommended menu of rates by 17 percent to 19 percent and used the bureaucracy built into the new system for a second round of cuts three months later.

For example, Burns & Associates recommended a starting rate of $13.97 an hour for front-line workers, effective July 1, 2011. By October the actual hourly rate was $10.66.

In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice found that the system incentivized segregated care through sheltered workshops and day care centers in violation of the Integration Mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which enshrined the righte of individuals with disabilities to choose to live regular lives in their communities, like everyone else.

The DOJ investigation resulted in the consent decree, which requires the state to overhaul its system to provide individualized, integrated services by June 30, 2024.

In 2018, Burns & Associates co-founder, Mark Podrazik, returned to Rhode Island to testify before a special legislative commission studying Project Sustainability at the behest of the commission chairman, State Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown.

Podrazik said he agreed because DiPalma was very persuasive and because he wanted to set the record straight on his firm’s role in Project Sustainability.

Overall, Podrazik said, Burns & Associates believed the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) had neither the capacity or the competence implement Project Sustainability or to carry out the mandates of the 2014 consent decree.

“I think people were a little shocked” by the requirements of the consent decree and the question of who would implement the changes, Podrazik said of the DDD staff in place at the time.

Podrazik worked for the state monitoring the spending of Project Sustainability funding until January, 2016. His firm was paid more than $3 million in all.

In 2018, Podrazik told DiPalma’s commission that working on Project Sustainability wore him down. He has since switched to working with hospitals, he said.

This is a developing story.

For complete coverage of Mark Podrazik’s testimony before the Project Sustainability Commission, click here.

For a history of Project Sustainability, click here.

RI Dodges Contempt With DD Action Plan

By Gina Macris

The Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court welcomed Rhode Island’s action plan to turn around the lives of adults with developmental disabilities, saying in a hearing Oct. 20 that the state has taken “historic and comprehensive” measures to set it on a path to comply with a 2014 civil rights consent decree.

Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (left) approved the plan, which commits at $50 million in the next few years to stabilize and expand a skilled workforce and promises a structural overhaul of the way services are delivered and providers are paid, according to summaries provided by a lawyer for the state and an independent court monitor.

“This a major step in improving the lives” of adults with developmental disabilities, McConnell said in the hearing, which was streamed remotely via the Internet.

McConnell said that in his 30 years as a lawyer and ten years on the bench, he’s “never seen the state move as quickly, effectively and positively.”

“Make no mistake about it. Moving that mountain was a mammoth undertaking,” McConnell said.

“You have my thanks,” he said, singling out State Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, and Kevin Savage, Director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, for their roles in negotiating the action plan.

Without the action plan, the state could have faced fines of up to $1.5 million a month for contempt of court for continued violations of the consent decree.

The ultimate goal is the systemic restructuring of the system so that those with intellectual and developmental disabilities can live the lives they want in their communities, consistent with the Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, McConnell said. The Olmstead decision re-affirmed the Integration Mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Making a real difference in the lives of those protected by the consent decree “will be another heavy lift,” the judge said. “That’s a long-winded way of saying, good job; there’s a lot of work ahead of you.”

Both the monitor, A. Anthony Antosh, and a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), said they will be watching very closely to measure the real-life impact of the action plan on life circumstances of individual service recipients.

Victoria Thomas, the DOJ lawyer, said she and her colleagues in the civil rights division are “cautiously optimistic” that the action plan will achieve the goals of the consent decree by the time it is set to expire in 2024.

“Recent comments indicate that there are many people in Rhode Island that are not getting what they need, want, or are entitled to get” under the law, Thomas said.

Those eligible for services say “they want to be working,” Thomas said.

Families who “rely on day services to function” are essentially trapped,” she said. “They can’t go to work and in some cases can’t leave their homes.”

To focus on the state’s progress, the DOJ and the monitor will review data every 90 days to determine what services eligible persons receive and their duration, Thomas said.

“Rhode Island businesses are eager to hire, and people with developmental disabilities are eager to work,” she said. “The action plan has multiple strategies to do that,” both on a short-term and long-term basis, Thomas said.

Antosh, the court monitor, said the action plan responds to a years-long drive to stabilize and expand the private provider workforce which the state relies on to bring it into compliance with the consent decree, and more recently, a series of court orders spelling out what that effort should look like.

The one that sent ripples through the State House said the state wages must hit $20 an hour by 2024. The action plan says the state will deliver on that pay hike, along with an interim raise, from $15.75 to $18 an hour effective July 1, 2022.

McConnell said “the court’s role is not to tell state what it should do or to run the agency,” a reference with the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH.)

“The court’s role is to ensure compliance with the consent decree. The state, after many years, agreed it has systemically violated the rights of people with developmental disabilities All parties agreed the consent decree would be the vehicle to ensure (those) rights,” McConnell said.

Antosh, meanwhile, said the significant investment in funding higher wages will be accompanied by a shift in strategy for recruiting and retaining new staff to offset the fact that the traditional population interested in caregiving jobs is shrinking.

He said there will be a public-private partnership led by the Department of Labor and Training, the Community College of Rhode Island and other workforce and educational organizations. Together, they will re-define the roles of caregivers and creating targeted training programs, professional credentialling, and career ladders.

“A major strategy is to help people to achieve individual career goals,” Antosh said.

He explained other highlights of the action plan including an upcoming rate review, which he described as “the instrument” for changes that hopefully will create a better-functioning system.

Five consulting firms have bid for the job, and the state has committed to awarding the contract by November 1, with the work to be completed in a year’s time. It will include a reimbursement rate schedule that is indexed to the cost of living, Antosh said.

He said he will push to have a finished report sooner than that. The rate review, or portions of it, should be reflected in the next three budgets, he said.

In another change intended to stabilize financing, the state for the first time will include the developmental disabilities caseload in the semi-annual Caseload Estimating Conference, giving policy makers a realistic projection of developmental disability costs as a basis for budget preparations. The first such Caseload Estimating Conference will be later this month.

There will also be changes that will help increase individuals’ access to services by decreasing administrative burdens on providers. For example, the state plans to eliminate a requirement that staffers document their time individually in 15-minute increments for each person in their care, he said.

Another requirement on its way out is linking reimbursement to pre-determined staffing ratios based on each client’s general level of independence, or lack of it. These staffing ratios do not individualize needs, except for those with the most extreme disabilities, and do not take into account the amount of support necessary to carry out a particular task. Antosh said the complicated billing system will be replaced by two different rates.

The state has said the work on the administrative changes will be done by March 31.

Other innovations in the works will aim at increasing funding for transportation enabling the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority to become a Medicaid provider and by setting aside $2 million for the acquisition of technology for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, Antosh said.

There are already specialized 400 apps available which aim at improving the quality of life for people with varying intellectual and developmental challenges, he said.

Kate Sherlock, the lawyer representing Antosh in recent negotiations, said the will to “get there” by restructuring the system “has been there all along, among consumers, their families, providers, and state officials, but change has been held back by a lack of funding.”

The action plan is a “significant step in the right direction,” she said. “We’ll be watching carefully to see what happens.”

To read the state’s action plan, click here.

To read the monitor’s memorandum on the action plan, click here.

RI General Assembly Will Handle Court-Related DD Issues DD Issues In Regular Budget Talks

By Gina Macris

The pace of discussions for complying with a court-ordered overhaul of Rhode Island’s developmental disability system is expected to pick up as early as next week, when newly elevated Governor Daniel McKee rolls out his budget proposal for the fiscal year beginning July 1.

McKee was sworn in March 2, replacing Gina Raimondo, who resigned as governor after clearing final hurdles in Washington, DC to become Secretary of Commerce. Raimondo’s office said in mid-January that McKee, then Lt. Governor, would be responsible for submitting the budget proposal to the General Assembly.

It remains unclear to what degree, if at all, the proposed state budget will incorporate additional money for initial steps toward compliance with a federal court order enforcing a 2014 civil rights agreement.

While uncertainty about funding hovers, court-ordered discussions organized by the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) have been underway since last August to develop a path forward for providing services that will encourage integration of adults with developmental disabilities in their communities, in accordance with the 2014 consent decree and the Americans With Disabilities Act.

A recent report to Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U. S. District Court indicates short-term recommendations are taking shape to address some of the 16 points the judge laid out in a reform agenda last summer.

He gave the state until June 30 to develop a three-year implementation plan that will achieve full compliance with the consent decree by 2024.

Representatives of the House and Senate leadership participated in some court-ordered reform talks until McConnell issued an order Jan. 6 which said the three-year plan must include these specifics:

• a $20 minimum wage for direct care workers by fiscal 2024.

• Incorporation of the developmental disabilities caseload in the formal process for estimating the state’s public assistance obligations for budget calculations, beginning this year.

On March 3, House Speaker Joseph Shekarchi and Senate President Dominick Ruggerio issued a new statement on how they will handle legislative issues raised by the reform efforts:

“Specific issues will be analyzed and discussed in legislative committees as part of the public hearing process on pending legislation as well as the upcoming state budget.”

The two leaders continued: “The members of the General Assembly care deeply about individuals with developmental disabilities and ensuring a strong continuum of care, and the Senate President and House Speaker believe that we have an obligation as a society to provide strong services and supports for all vulnerable Rhode Islanders.”

The leadership had withdrawn from reform talks out of concern that their representatives’ participation could be perceived as tacit approval of change outside the legislative process, according to separate letters sent to McConnell Feb. 3.

Shekarchi’s and Ruggerio’s statement did not specifically mention the direct care worker wages or making the developmental disabilities numbers part of the twice-yearly Caseload Estimating Conference, the budgeting tool used by the governor and the legislature.

Development of a new approach for determining how to support the individualized plans of the developmentally disabled population is at the heart of the overhaul. The existing fee-for-service system was designed 10 years ago for congregate care, where one or two staff members could oversee as many as ten clients in a day care center or sheltered workshop. The U.S. Department of Justice found that model violated the ADA’s Integration Mandate.

In November, McConnell heard testimony that the current funding ceiling for the private provider system, roughly $268.7 million in federal/state Medicaid money, will not support integrated services, which are much more labor-intensive — and thus, more costly — than congregate care. The cost of correcting the non-compliance could increase the developmental disabilities budget by nearly 50 percent, according to one estimate.

Because of the uncertainty over funding, five workgroups organized by BHDDH are focusing on short-term changes that can ease administrative burdens on providers and make the state bureaucracy more user-friendly for the individuals served and their families, according to a progress report submitted to McConnell at the end of February.

According to the report, BHDDH expects to have detailed information by March 31 on:

• shifting from quarterly to annual per-person budget authorizations

• streamlining dozens of private provider billing codes, many of which require documentation of staff time in 15-minute increments for each client served

• simplifying the process of writing each client’s annual service plan “to reduce repeated questions, frustrations, and errors requiring correction and intervention.”

The report recommends adding a second assessment or new questions or criteria to improve the accuracy of the standardized Supports Intensity Scale-A, (SIS-A) interview, used to determine service needs and funding levels.

Improved assessments would reduce reliance on appeals. Interviewers also need training on cultural differences, it said.

Additional recommendations include:

• a training program for parents on how to approach the SIS-A, which has been the subject of frequent complaints over the years from parents

• clarification of the process for appealing funding determinations made as a result of the SIS-A, and developing ways to more quickly resolve appeals

• consolidation of separate applications for Medicaid and for Medicaid-funded services into one process

• a request for a waiver from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for Medicaid eligibility redeterminations for persons with developmental disabilities, who have life-long conditions.

The report said long-term revision of the fiscal and reimbursement system will be implemented by December, 2022.

The workgroups developing the recommendations include both state officials and representatives of the community, including individuals who themselves receive services, families, advocates, and service providers.

The groups’ recommendations are reviewed by the appropriate department-level directors and other key officials, according to the report.

Once final recommendations are analyzed and decisions made by the state, a “cohesive workplan” that will be submitted to McConnell on or before June 30 as required by an order the judge issued last July 30, the report said.

Federal Judge Orders RI DD System Overhaul, $7 Worker Pay Hikes By 2024

By Gina Macris

Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court has tightened his reins on Rhode Island’s developmental disability system in an order that gives the state two and a half years to raise the hourly wages of direct care workers nearly $7, to $20 an hour, as part of a sweeping overhaul to comply with the Integration Mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Through its budget, the state controls the parameters of wages for front-line caregivers, who make an average of $13.18 an hour working for some three dozen private agencies under license from the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH).

McConnell’s order, issued Jan. 6, distills recent recommendations of an independent court monitor, who said that Rhode Island cannot fully comply with a 2014 civil rights decree unless it overhauls its entire developmental disabilities system and increases funding. The civil rights consent decree says federal oversight is to expire June 30, 2024, but only if corrections of civil rights violations have been in place for at least a year.

Low front-line worker pay is widely regarded as the biggest weakness of the state’s developmental disability system. Provider agencies, as well as those independently coordinating their own services or the services of loved ones, have found it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain staff, who often can make more in fast food restaurants and retail stores, or at an Amazon distribution center. The staffing situation has only been exacerbated by the COVId-19 pandemic in the last year.

With the 2024 deadline in mind, McConnell’s order gives the state about six months to develop a three-year budget plan that will subsequently reach the $20 hourly worker rate. That pay increase would be effective in the 2024 fiscal year, which begins July 1, 2023.

The budget plan also must provide:

• Proportional wage increases for other categories of support staff, like job developers and supervisors

• Increased funding to address the costs of moving from a segregated system of care to one that integrates adults with developmental disabilities in their communities for work and leisure time.

• A per-capita amount for technology. Mobile phones and other hardware would provide internet connectivity still inaccessible to many adults with developmental disabilities as well as provide other kinds of assistance, depending on individual needs.

• Increased funding for transportation, found to be a barrier for many in getting to work or attending community events.

• Increased funding for the individualized planning that is supposed to drive purposeful services designed to help people lead meaningful lives.

Other than the direct care wages, McConnell’s order specified no dollar amounts for the three-year fiscal plan, which he said must be completed before the next fiscal year’s budget is finalized. (Plans aside, the General Assembly can only authorize funding one year at a time.)

The judge said the amounts must be negotiated between state officials and representatives of the community, including “individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, families, organizations that provide services and supports, and other stakeholders.”

And beginning this year, McConnell said, the legislative and executive branches must take into account the developmental disabilities caseload in calculating its public assistance obligations in the semi-annual Caseload Estimating Conference, which occurs in May and November in conjunction with the Revenue Estimating Conference. The costs of the developmental disabilities services historically have been omitted from caseload estimating conferences, which are used by the executive and legislative branches in annual budget planning.

In addition, the judge’s order said the state has until June to complete the revision of “all aspects of the developmental disabilities and funding system,” a reference to basic assumptions and regulations that for the last decade have been designed to promote group or congregate care. That effort has been underway since last July. Its parameters are already subject to a separate court order.

Since 2016, state officials have strived to provide pilot programs to support regular employment and increase community activities for adults with developmental disabilities, but it has become increasingly clear that the existing level of funding and the associated reimbursement rules for private service providers will not support system-wide change.

A full discussion of the issues reflected in the judge’s order are contained in a recent fiscal analysis submitted to the court by the court monitor.

RI Faces High Cost For Fixing DD ADA Violations

By Gina Macris

After funding services for adults with developmental disabilities below their actual costs for nearly a decade, the state of Rhode Island is about to experience sticker shock.

The system of private agencies that provides most services for adults with developmental disabilities is on the verge of collapse, by all accounts, and a federal judge has given the state until Dec. 18 – five days from now – to come up with the money to keep it afloat until the next fiscal year.

The state also is under court order to devise and execute a plan for strengthening the system during the next three years so it can comply with a federal civil rights agreement that requires Rhode Island to integrate adults with developmental disabilities into community life by 2024. With the judge ready to use his power to enforce the consent decree, those costs could increase spending on developmental disability services by a third or more in the next several years.

Last month, a federal court monitor addressed the short-term fiscal gap by suggesting that the state release $2 million a month in unspent funds already allocated to developmental disabilities simply to keep the agencies’ doors open over the next six months. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced agencies to shrink services and drastically reduce billing.

Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.

In a recent hearing before Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court, a spokeswoman for service providers took a different approach, saying the state needs to immediately raise direct care pay, now an average of $13.08 an hour, to enable the private agencies to recruit and retain employees during the pandemic.

Roughly two thirds of these essential workers are women and more than half are people of color, according to the trade association spokeswoman.

A recently-completed report from the association, the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island (CPNRI), fleshes out projected costs:

• An hourly increase of $2.32, to $15.50, would require nearly $44.1 million a year, or 16.4 percent more than the state has currently budgeted.

• A hike to $17.50 would mean an additional $79.8 million, or a 29.7 percent increase in the annual budget

• A $20 hourly rate would add $124.5 million to the budget. That would amount to a 46.4 percent increase in spending.

The report, “A System in Crisis,” said employers need to be able to offer $17.50 immediately to get job applicants in the door during the pandemic. In Fiscal 2022, which begins July 1, the rate should be increased again to $20 an hour.

Monitor’s Calculations More Limited In Scope

The monitor, meanwhile, agrees with the need for pay hikes, although he would allow the state more leeway on the timeline. In his latest report, filed with Judge McConnell Nov. 30, the monitor, A. Anthony Antosh, said the state should raise hourly wages to $17.50 “as quickly as possible” and to $20 by Fiscal 2024, which begins July 1, 2023.

A. Anthony Antosh

Antosh’s fiscal analysis focuses primarily on the changes needed in the final three years of the consent decree. He said there is consensus among various stakeholders with whom he has consulted that staffing and fiscal issues are the two main concerns in implementing the 2014 civil rights agreement.

“The state budget deficit resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic significantly complicates any fiscal analysis and any decision-making about budget planning,” he said.

Antosh makes no specific dollar recommendations but says that figures should be negotiated with provider agencies in a three-year budget plan to be completed in time to begin in the next fiscal cycle on July 1, 2021. He emphasized that the agencies provide 83 percent of the services necessary to support those protected by the consent decree.

Antosh said an ongoing review of the entire fiscal and reimbursement system, itemized in a 16-point court order issued by McConnell July 30, should be complete by June 30, 2021.

He also recommended that steps be taken now to make sure that the specific costs of a strengthened developmental disability system are acknowledged when future state budgets are being developed.

For example, the data on caseloads provided monthly by the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) to the General Assembly should be included in the Caseload Estimating Conference used to determine human service needs in the overall state budget. That is also one of the final recommendations of the “Project Sustainability Commission,” a a special legislative commission headed by Staite Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown.

While not acknowledging the actual costs, which pay for entitlement services under provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the General Assembly has often criticized the state’s developmental disabilities system for running over budget.

The governor typically relies on the November caseload and revenue estimating conferences to draw up the budget that is submitted to the General Assembly in January. The legislature, in turn, relies on more finely tuned caseload and revenue estimates in May to finalize a spending plan for the next fiscal year.

Monitor’s Numbers “Illustrate” Solutions

Antosh’s report includes five sets of fiscal projections that can best be described as starting points for discussion rather than cost estimates for system-wide change. For reasons related to the language of the consent decree, the monitor’s numbers cover individuals who were identified in confidential documents between 2013 and 2016 and today make up about 67 percent of the entire population with developmental disabilities.

Antosh said the tables of projections and descriptions of the associated costs “illustrate” various options in reconfiguring daytime services for the 67 percent.

The most comprehensive “illustration “ of the cost of re-inventing daytime employment and leisure activities for the specific portion of the population protected by the consent decree would add $35.6 million to the budget in Fiscal Year 2022, which begins next July 1, Antosh said. An additional $14.9 million would be needed in Fiscal 2023 and $15.8 million extra would be added in Fiscal Year 2024.

In addition to protecting a particular class of people, the consent decree is supposed to lead to a system-wide transformation. And state officials have made clear that they intend to include all people eligible for developmental disability services in a reformed system, not just those identified at the time of the consent decree.

The three increases projected by Antosh add up to about $66.3 million a year in three years’ time. Antosh said the increases need not all come from Medicaid funding but draw on a variety of other public and private sources.

The current annual approved budget for the private service providers is about $268.7 million in federal-state Medicaid funds, although the providers’ ability to bill for reimbursement has shrunk since the start of the pandemic.

Actual spending on privately-run services was about $240.8 million in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2019, according to state budget figures. Antosh said the increases need not all come from Medicaid funding but draw on a variety of other public and private sources.

CPNRI, meanwhile, offered estimates for system-wide reform that would not only increase wages but provide for more labor-intensive supports in the community in keeping with the requirements of the consent decree. The organization’s report said that at a direct care rate of $17.50 an hour, the more labor-intensive option would cost between $112.9 and $158.9 million, depending on the number of hours provided and other variables, including the level of independence of each individual as perceived by the state’s assessment tool.

CPNRI’s report incorporated work completed earlier this year by BHDDH consultants, as well as earlier projections done for the state by different consultants.

COVID-19 Exacerbates Inequities

The pandemic has highlighted the inadequacy of the poverty-level pay of direct care workers in the private sector. The average wage of $13.18 an hour falls below many entry-level jobs in retail, delivery, warehouse, restaurant and janitorial fields, according to the recent report from CPNRI.

That rate is also nearly $5 less than the $18 minimum hourly rate the state pays its own employees to do the same work, running a small parallel system of group homes for about 125 adults with developmental disabilities.

The years-long difficulties faced by providers in recruiting staff have reached critical proportions during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving many individuals without services and crippling the agencies’ ability to generate income.

The crisis has been nine years in the making.

In 2011, the General Assembly devalued the private provider system when it adopted a new reimbursement model and budget cuts that were justified with an executive branch memo that simply said providers could deliver the same services with less money.

The $26- million budget cut resulted in layoffs and slashed wages. Entry-level positions for caregivers, once the starting point of a career ladder for caregivers who did not necessarily have college degrees, became minimum-wage, dead-end jobs.

At the time, the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities (BHDDH) ignored the recommendation of an outside consultant who said direct care workers should receive a minimum of $15 an hour within a year’s time.

The state pleaded poverty in the aftermath of the financial crash of 2008 and 2009, but by 2011, most other states were either holding steady on previous cuts or beginning to reverse reductions in human service spending, including those for people with developmental disabilities.

The austerity move accompanied a new reimbursement system billed as “Project Sustainability,” intended to equitably distribute available funds to eligible adults with developmental disabilities. The reimbursement model incentivized congregate care in sheltered workshops and day care centers – the least costly form of supervision. Subsequently, the DOJ found that an over-reliance on congregate care violated the Integration Mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act. That finding led to the consent decree.

In a recent report, CPNRI said that COVID -19 has thrust a system developed and funded for congregate care into one that must deliver personalized services to mitigate infection among a vulnerable population.

Long-term effects of neglect on the system prevent providers from being “agile and responsive to meet the demand and needs of the community,” said the report. For example, the reimbursement model assumes that 40 percent of services will be delivered in center-based care, which is prohibited by public health concerns.

Read the court monitor’s report here.

Read the CPNRI report, “System in Crisis” here.

Federal Judge Orders RI To Re-Invent DD System

By Gina Macris

Judge McConnell

Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court has signaled that if it becomes necessary, he is prepared to order the state of Rhode Island to fund services for adults with developmental disabilities in an amount that complies with a 2014 consent decree that the state agreed to follow.

“I can’t tell you how impressed I am with people who work day in and day out” to support this vulnerable population and “how committed I am that people with developmental disabilities will get the rights guaranteed them under the Constitution,” McConnell said during a July 30 online hearing on the state’s progress in complying with the consent decree.

“I’m prepared to say, ‘Find the money,’ “ McConnell said after hearing from the state Director of Developmental Disabilities, a spokeswoman for providers, and the mother of a 25-year-old man with complex needs who has had no outside supports since the COVID-19 pandemic struck Rhode Island in March.

“Everyone is attempting to follow the requirements” of the consent decree, “but they are stymied by a lack of funds,” McConnell said, summing up the presentations. In addition, they lack funds to deal with the unexpected costs of protecting people during the COVID-19 pandemic, McConnell said.

He said he finds it “frightening” that private service providers, the backbone of the state’s system, are on shaky financial ground. And, McConnell said, “my heart breaks” when he hears of the burdens on families who have a loved one with intellectual or developmental challenges.

A Personal Story

Carol Dorros, M.D. testified about her 25-year-old son, Sidney, who has heart and lung disease, profound deafness, albeit mitigated by a cochlear implant; significant language limitations; a seizure disorder and diabetes. He nevertheless had an active life before the pandemic, volunteering at a soup kitchen, working at a custodial job in a financial services building, and participating in group activities three days a week. He also had a coach who helped him make art for cards sold at a local bookshop and at some craft fairs, his mother said.

Dorros, an internist who has practiced in Rhode Island for 30 years, said she has not been able to work in the last four months. She said she and her husband have been terrified to have Sidney go out in the community or have staff come to the house, because the family doesn’t know what the outsiders’ circles of contact might have been.

Last week, one support person came to the house to work with Sidney for 90 minutes on his art. “We’re looking forward to that person coming back,” she said.

“Really, we are living quite day-to-day.” Dorros said. She has chosen to direct Sidney’s program independent of an agency, but she said it’s “extremely hard to find staff” with the expertise to manage Sidney’s insulin and communication needs. The coronavirus aside, other parents who direct services for their adult children have made similar remarks about the difficulty in finding the appropriate support people. Dorros said she believes the staffing issue comes down to funding.

Referring to state officials who hold the purse strings, McConnell said,” I fear that the right people aren’t on this call.” In the future “we will need someone from the Department of Administration” and any other pertinent executive branch agency, the judge said.

McConnell said he needs to know how much money the developmental disability service system needs to get through the pandemic, and what it will cost to proceed with the goals of the consent decree, which call for individualized services.

“I want the doctor to have confidence in the people providing the service,” the judge said, referring to Dorros, and he said he wants providers to be funded to provide individualized services. Once the funding is figured out, McConnell said, he wants to see the “problem-solvers, not the problem-makers.”

“If we don’t come up with a way to systemically support the providers, then the whole thing will be meaningless,” McConnell said. “If anybody couldn’t tell, I am obsessed with the issue of funding as essential for us to get there,” McConnell said, pointing out that the consent decree requires adequate funding. (No figure is specified.)

Four-Week Deadline

He gave the state until August 30 to lay out the strategy or process for resolving the funding issue and more than a dozen other barriers to compliance with the consent decree, the time line for resolution of each item, and the agency or agencies with primary responsibility for resolving each problem.

The Aug. 30 deadline is but the first of a year-long court-ordered calendar for working out a new system of developmental disability services.

Providers On Shaky Footing

Tina Spears, executive director of the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island (CPNRI), a trade association, said she wanted to emphasize the “unstable nature” of the private agencies that provide services to the adult population with developmental disabilities. Spears represents about two thirds of the three dozen agencies licensed to work with adults with developmental disabilities in Rhode Island.

The day after the court hearing, one of CPNRI’s 23 members, Resources for Human Development, told its clients and their families that it is closing its doors, leaving an estimated 150 persons without services, according to multiple reports. Efforts to reach the director, Rebecca Dimant, were not immediately successful.

The current funding model and administrative rules perpetuate “congregate services and poverty wages for front line workers,” a staffing issue that disproportionately affects women and minorities, Spears said during the July 30 hearing.

COVID-19 has complicated the situation by requiring intensive cleaning protocols, face masks and other personal protective equipment, and social distancing, Spears said. The provider system can’t meet the needs of its consumers with the available resources, she said.

While the incidence of coronavirus in group homes has been low, 11 residents have lost their lives, Spears said. (A spokesman for the Department of Behavioral Healthcare Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) reports that one of the 11 died of other causes.) Spears said 160 group home residents and 200 staff members have tested positive. About 1180 people with developmental disabilities live in group homes in Rhode Island.

During the past few months, Spears said, providers have been working in close partnership with state officials. Providers have received two months of advance payments during April and May to keep their doors open, as well as a 10 percent temporary rate increase for group home operations and work stabilization funds for front-line employees.

Workers, who make an average of a little more than $13 an hour, temporarily got an additional $3 an hour, Spears said, but it still wasn’t as much as they could get in unemployment benefits.

While the various categories of financial assistance were “very critical and welcome,” Spears said, “they all have stopped and ultimately have not done anything to stabilize the system.”

She said she has been disappointed by a lack of current support from the administration prioritizing developmental disability services for virus infection testing, personal protective equipment and a living wage for workers. In a separate letter to Governor Gina Raimondo dated July 29, Spears has asked for a task force representing the Governor’s office, the court monitor for the consent decree, the state developmental disability service agency, and private service providers to design a “COVID-19 transformation model” over a four-week period.

Spears’ letter also requested

• an increase in reimbursement rates to raise wages to a minimum of $15.00 an hour

• a new funding model that supports individualized services and community inclusion, in compliance the Medicaid Home and Community Based Services Rule (HCBS). (The rule was adopted by Medicaid to follow through on the 1999 Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which reinforces the Integration Mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

• Priority status for testing and protective equipment for adults with developmental disabilities in congregate care and their staff.

State Agencies Report On Efforts

During the court hearing, Kevin Savage, the acting state Director of Developmental Disabilities, said he agreed that going forward, services must have “different financial supports.” BHDDH has “tremendous value for the providers,” not only CPNRI agencies but the entire community of service providers, Savage said.

BHDDH has sent providers draft rules for reopening and asked for comments from them next week. “The biggest issue is safety for people with developmental disabilities,” he said. “We can’t just re-open programs in a way that we need to shut them down again,” he said, in an apparent allusion to congregate day care centers that were still in operation before the coronavirus reached Rhode Island.

People with developmental disabilities have the same rights, but different needs, he said. Some want to get back to groups, but smaller groups. Some want access from home, Savage said.

Joseph Murphy, a spokesman for the state Office of Rehabilitation Services at the Department of Human Services, told McConnell that the agency has switched to online employment supports when the state closed down in March. “We are open for business, trying to provide services as best we can on a virtual platform” and making sure that bills from providers are paid, he said.

David Sienko of the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) also testified. He said the developmental disability population is part of a larger conversation on re-opening schools. RIDE is responsible for providing transitional services to high school students with developmental disabilities to prepare them to live and work in their communities as adults.

His conversations with special education directors indicate that “pretty much everyone is looking at a hybrid approach” of online and person-to-person instruction, Sienko told the judge. “We know some people need more in-person” teaching, and while that is troubling because of safety considerations, schools still have to address the needs of vulnerable children, Sienko said.

Judge Finalizes Order

The day after the hearing, July 31, McConnell entered an order requiring the state, in collaboration with providers and the community, to address 16 issues identified by the court monitor as fiscal and administrative barriers to compliance with the consent decree.

Antosh, the monitor, said during the hearing that the list of issues reflect “items that have been raised over and over again” for years.

“What we’re looking for is the impetus to get them done,” he said. The list addresses not only the amount of funding for services, but asks for a streamlined application process and addresses a bureaucracy that:

• is designed to link eligibility and funding in a way that translates into the amount of supervision a particular person might need in a congregate setting, as opposed to the individualized services that person needs to accomplish goals.

• limits access to already-approved individual budgets

• Requires documentation of daytime staff time four times in an hour for each client served.

• Forces providers and families to make appeals related to eligibility or funding using an opaque process that does not include a hearing. Even if appeals are successful, the process must be repeated every year.

Read McConnell’s order here. Read the CPNRI letter to Governor Raimondo here.

Judge Signals Stepped-Up Oversight Of RI Olmstead Consent Decree

By Gina Macris

John J. McConnell, Jr.

Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court is gearing up to order a soup-to-nuts overhaul of Rhode Island’s troubled developmental disability service system and he wants a detailed plan hammered out during the next year. 

Chronic problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic have pushed McConnell’s long-simmering concerns over the fiscal stability of developmental disability services “front and center,” as the judge put it during a public hearing in mid-May.

At that time, he asked an independent court monitor to recommend steps for ensuring the long-term survival of a reformed system that will be in full compliance with the Integration Mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed directive resulted from the monitor’s recommendations.

The order, sent to lawyers for comment earlier this month, says the state must fix systemic problems that pose “fiscal and administrative barriers” to compliance with a 2014 civil rights consent decree, which calls for integrated work and non-work activities based on a 40-hour week of services.

The barriers to compliance include the major pillars of a fee-for-service system the General Assembly enacted in 2011 that incentivized segregating adults with developmental disabilities in sheltered workshops and day care centers, in violation of the ADA’s Integration Mandate, according to findings of the  U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The Integration Mandate was re-affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1999 Olmstead decision.

Although the last sheltered workshops closed in 2018, some center-based day programs were still in operation before the pandemic hit.

Hearing Scheduled July 30

McConnell has given state and federal lawyers until July 30 to  tell him why his three-page directive should not move forward as a formal order, with a deadline of June 30, 2021 to develop a new system that meets the needs of the roughly 4000 individuals it serves.

Lawyers for the state and the DOJ have responded with an agreed-upon list of topics to be discussed at an upcoming hearing on the status of consent decree compliance.

The agenda, filed with the court July 23, said the state would address both long-term compliance with the consent decree and the immediate pressures posed by the COVID-19 pandemic on the developmental disabilities system.

Specifically, the lawyers said they would present information on:

• Integrated employment and day services and the state’s phased reopening

• Support for providers and families during the continuing COVID pandemic

• Preparations for a potential second wave of the pandemic

• The fiscal issues and administrative barriers identified by the judge and a plan by the state to resolve them in phases, beginning with quarterly funding authorizations, staffing ratios, and the requirement to bill for daytime services in 15-minute increments.

Finally, the agenda said the discussion would include the state’s plans for substantial compliance with all requirements of the consent decree by 2024, the year it expires.

The judge’s proposed order would involve the state’s Medicaid administration, the Governor’s office, and the General Assembly in developing solutions to problems in the developmental disability service system and would require progress reports every two months between August 30 and June 30, 2021.

McConnell also wants the state to collaborate with families and providers in developing their plans.

McConnell is expected to take up the proposed order during the remote video hearing on July 30, beginning at 2 p.m. The public may sign in to attend no later than 1:45 p.m. through video or telephone, with instructions posted on the court’s public access web page, here.

COVID-19 Forced Near Shutdown Of Day Services

The coronavirus has hit hard at gains made in the number of regular jobs worked by adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities and the time they spend enjoying non-work activities as part of their communities.

A spokesman for the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) indicated that about 35 percent of those who had jobs March 1 were still working at the end of May.

Non-work recreational and other activities also have been decimated, but no figures were available from BHDDH about the number of people who don’t have any daytime supports or can’t get the same number of service hours they had before the pandemic.

Parents expressed alarm about a lack of guidance on the resumption of services during a July 21 on-line forum hosted by the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island (CPNRI.)

Susan Willemsen, a parent, wrote in the chat box that accompanied the video meeting: “This is very scary, especially for the parents who need to work and your child does not understand the situation. It is very difficult to be home working 40 hours to survive and take care of a child who is 100% dependent on you. Trying to understand where we go from here.”

Tina Spears, executive director of CPNRI, said providers remain in a precarious financial position and called on the entire developmental disabilities community to press state and federal officials for more funding and priority status for group home operators to conduct on-site testing and gain access to personal protective equipment.

By all accounts, some three dozen private service providers licensed by the state to support adults with developmental disabilities were in tenuous financial condition before the coronavirus pandemic hit Rhode Island in March.

Coping with the pandemic has further exposed gaps in funding and service delivery, which in turn raise questions about the providers’ ability to survive long enough to benefit from a court-ordered restructuring without more immediate and urgent intervention. 

For example, the need for social distancing calls for one-on-one or small group staffing, preferably with the same clients consistently matched to the same support people. But the current funding structure typically will pay for six hours a week of one-on-one support, according to Spears.

Judge Spells Out Requirements

McConnell, meanwhile, indicated he wants change from the first moment an individual or family applies for services from the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD).

McConnell said there is a need to consolidate application procedures “for all pertinent RI services into one process.”  That includes streamlining the process for determining Medicaid eligibility and eligibility for developmental disability services, respectively, as well as any other state-funded supports a person might need.

Within the developmental disability service system itself, the judge wants the state to “review, address, and develop a strategy” for resolving problems in the following areas:

• The process and timeline for determining DDD eligibility and individual budgets, as well as the process and timeline in which individuals select private provider organizations.

• The process in which families and service providers appeal DDD’s decisions on eligibility, designated level of need, or funding level.

• The requirement that providers document each staff person’s time, in connection with each client, in 15-minute increments during the day as a condition of reimbursement.

• Reimbursements that are linked to specific staff-to-client ratios. McConnell didn’t spell out the details of how those ratios hinder integration, but one provider has offered a memorable example: The provider said the staffing ratios forced him to group together five clients with widely differing interests for job exploration in one community setting where he could supervise without help from another staffer. 

• Funding authorizations for each client that last only three months at a time, with no ability to carry forward any unused portion of the budget beyond the designated fiscal quarter. That feature, combined with the fee-for-service structure of the billing services, means that unless there is 100 percent attendance by all persons at all times, the spending ceiling can never be reached. A consultant’s study several years ago found that providers billed for an average of 85 percent of funding authorizations.

  The requirement that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, recognized as life-long conditions, must periodically re-establish their eligibility status for services.

McConnell also asked the state to come up with:

• A clear definition of functions and activities for which funding is permitted, along with the associated rates for each.

• Different funding levels for different activities that are “responsive to individual support needs.”

• Guidance on combining individual budgets at the request of the people involved

With the state shutdown beginning in March, service providers shifted their attention to the safety of those in group homes.

A total of 10 group home residents have died from COVID-19, according to a BHDDH spokesman. As of July 21, 161 group home residents had tested positive and a total of 48 had been hospitalized at one point or another. Five people were in the hospital on July 21, the spokesman said.

Spears, the CPNRI director, explained during the virtual public forum that providers have faced unprecedented costs in securing personal protective equipment for staff, carrying out aggressive cleaning protocols and paying for overtime, while being unable to bill the state for many services.

Providers did get some emergency federal assistance channeled through the state, albeit less than what was originally promised, to continue operations through periods of the highest risk and to give temporary pay raises to staff. But those supports have now ended, Spears said, and there’s “no grand way or plan forward” for moving the system to a new normal.

Spears said a top priority is permanent pay hikes for staff, who have been chronically underpaid and have “a thousand reasons” during the pandemic to stay home.

State officials are waiting for Congress to decide on a second stimulus package before moving ahead to set the budget for the current fiscal year. The pace of budget deliberations is expected to pick up in early August, said State Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, who is first vice-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

In a brief interview the day after the meeting, Spears said the imperative for moving forward with a plan for re-opening developmental disability services should flow from the state’s legal and moral responsibility, not the budget.

State officials can “sit in a holding pattern and worry about the budget all you want, but these are human lives we’re talking about,” she said.

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

By Gina Macris

This article has been corrected and updated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• funding

• delivery of services

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Calls For Plan To Overcome Barriers In Implementing RI Olmstead Consent Decree

By Gina Macris

The Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island has ordered an independent monitor to bring him a new plan for implementing a 2014 civil rights agreement that seeks to integrate people with developmental disabilities in work and leisure activities in their communities by 2024.

With the state falling short of its job-placement goals in two of three categories in 2019, as well as other developments in recent months, indicators are mounting that the current approach isn’t working.

In an order issued Feb. 3, Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. has charged the interim court monitor with gathering a wide range of data and information from multiple sources, including comments from people with developmental disabilities, their families and representatives of the community, as a baseline for discussions on the way forward.

McConnell gave the monitor, A. Anthony Antosh, until April 30 to complete the information-gathering process and until August 30 to complete the plan, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Justice, state officials and community representatives who serve on the Employment First Task Force, a committee created by the consent decree as an advisory group to government.

The judge went so far as to specify what agencies and officials Antosh should seek out, including “any interested legislators re: consent decree policies and funding.”

The process appears poised to capture the recent recommendations of a special legislative commission on the state’s fee-for-service funding system, as well as an ongoing rate review being conducted by outside consultants at the behest of the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities, and Hospitals.

McConnell said he wants Antosh to identify:

• Policies, activities and funding needed to achieve substantial compliance by 2024

• Obstacles and barriers to full implementation

• Service gaps that might hinder full implementation

• Structural components for a compliance plan

• Criteria for substantial compliance

The standards for compliance have become a matter of debate between lawyers for the DOJ and the state in the context of a prototype for the 2014 consent decree, the so-called Interim Settlement Agreement (ISA) of 2013, which affects about 88 former sheltered workshop employees who once attended the Birch Academy at Mount Pleasant High School and later worked at the now-defunct Training Through Placement.

The city of Providence was released from federal oversight in connection with the ISA last September in unusually celebratory courtroom proceedings, with accolades from all sides on the way it has changed the culture at the Birch Academy and turned around the lives of students.

But the performance of the state on implementing the ISA has not received such rosy reviews, an indication it is struggling with the consent decree as well.

In the ISA, the city and its school department have been responsible for opening the doors to integration through inclusive classes and internship programs, while the state has been charged with picking up where the educational system leaves off, to match individuals with jobs and help them participate in activities of their choice in the community. The state’s role in the ISA mirrors its relationship to school departments throughout Rhode Island in the consent decree, except on a broader scale.

Statewide, the number of adults with developmental disabilities who s must be offered employment by 2024 currently totals 1,987, according to the state’s latest consent decree data. That number is a little more than half the population protected by the consent decree.

After five years and nine months of the decade-long enforcement period of the consent decree, a total of 894 people, or 45 percent of the target number, have landed jobs, the state said in a report that captures progress through December 31, 2019.

The state exceeded the cumulative goal for employment in 2019 by more than 100, but missed targets in two subgroups, named “youth exit” and “sheltered workshop,” labels chosen to reflect whether individuals were young adults who had recently left school or working in enclaves at the time the consent decree was signed.

The state has never met the job targets for the “youth exit” group, which also represents the segment of the population that is applying for adult services for the first time, often from agencies that are hard-pressed to meet the needs of existing clients, let alone take on new ones.

In a third group labeled “day program” to describe those in day care centers in 2014, the number of new jobs recorded through 2019 rose to 385, or 160 over the goal, enough to overcome the shortfall in the other two categories.

But the the pace of new jobs has slowed. There were only 14 new job placements statewide for the last quarter of 2019 and 74 for the entire year. The remainder of the new jobs were recorded in previous years.

State of RI graphic representation of cumulative employment totals by quarter in 2019 under terms of Consent Decree

State of RI table of cumulative employment totals, by quarter, in 2018 and 2019 under terms of Consent Decree

One group not counted in the target population for employment is “youth in transition,” a total of 1,201 high school students with developmental disabilities, or 32 percent of the entire class protected by the consent decree. Many of them are expected to enter the labor market in the next several years.

Last fall, within the limited scope of the ISA, Antosh’ predecessor as court monitor, Charles Moseley, found that the state has made considerable progress in improving the lives of former Birch students – but not enough to warrant the end of federal oversight.

McConnell asked Antosh to review materials developed by Moseley, which include a 70-page exhaustive assessment of the state’s performance in meeting dozens of specific standards in the ISA.

In a draft report, obtained by Developmental Disability News, Moseley said the state has made considerable progress in changing the lives of the nearly 90 people still protected by the ISA, – but not enough. He completed the report at the end of September.

Moseley said the state fell short in several key areas:

• The number of people it had connected with jobs

• The number of hours logged by the job holders, some of whom said they wanted to work more

• The degree to which non-work activities in the community promoted interactions with non-disabled people

• The specificity and sense of purpose in the written short-range and long-term goals and supports that are supposed to fit together in a cohesive career development plan tailored to the individual

In a notice to Judge McConnell submitted in late December, the DOJ said that while the state “made initial progress in implementing the Agreement’s provisions, recent monitoring has showed that the state’s efforts have stalled such that it may not independently act to achieve the requisite outcomes before the Agreement ends.”

In its reply, the state acknowledged that it had not found jobs for 15 members of the protected class but said the barriers included health and behavioral problems, family resistance, and other issues.

The agreement itself says that “substantial compliance is achieved where the State and City have implemented all of the provisions of the Interim Settlement Agreement for all individuals in the Target Populations.”

In the context of that language, the state lawyers maintained that implementation means it has “mechanisms and/or policies” in place to carry out any of the specific requirements of the agreement, whether or not a particular numerical target is reached, as long as the “Court is satisfied that the State is on track to reasonably reach the requirement.”

Those who don’t want jobs can file for an exception, or variance, with the monitor, but Moseley said he had not received any such requests from the 87 members of the protected class. The state’s lawyers said officials wanted to keep working with the 15 unemployed persons rather than have them opt out of the search for employment.

Moseley’s report goes into great detail in evaluating the state’s performance on dozens of standards, many of them bureaucratic, that are nevertheless important for creating a high quality system of social services designed to sustain itself after the consent decree is long gone.

Among other things, the standards cover multiple aspects of:

• quality improvement

• detailed data collection

• benefits counseling for job seekers so that they know how earned income will affect their government disability payments, if at all

• the clear communication of each person’s short-term and long-term objectives in detailed career development plans

• staff training

In several areas, Moseley said he did not find enough documentation or evidence to make an assessment, although the state says it has supporting materials to show it has met the standards in question.

For example, Moseley said he didn’t have enough information to determine whether the state is following proven, or “evidence-based”, practices in its approach to employment supports for adults with developmental disabilities.

He also said the state hadn’t given him enough documentation to show whether the private agencies delivering services have the wherewithal, or capacity, to serve adults with developmental disabilities as required by the ISA.

Both Moseley and Antosh are experts in the research on supporting adults with developmental disabilities.

Antosh wrote the proposal that established the federally-funded Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College and served as its director from its inception in in 1993 until October, 2019.

Moseley, a former director of Vermont’s developmental disability system, worked as a top official in the national association of state developmental disability directors before he became the court monitor. Moseley stepped down for health reasons at the end of September.

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.

RI Project Sustainability Commission To Meet Jan. 14 To Wrap Up Recommendations

By Gina Macris

The special legislative commission studying the way Rhode Island pays for developmental disability services will hold its final meeting Jan. 14 to summarize some 70 recommendations that have been submitted by the commission’s 21 members, according to its chairman, State Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown.

The panel, which began its deliberations during the fall of 2018, has been dubbed the Project Sustainability Commission after the name of the fee-for-service reimbursement system for private agencies that deliver most state-funded social services to some 4,000 adults with developmental disabilities.

Project Sustainability, enacted by the General Assembly in 2011, has been widely criticized by service providers and families as an excuse to cut funding.

Project Sustainability is under review by the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals, which has hired outside consultants to expand its analytical capabilities. The review, expected to conclude in June, is separate from the commission.

The commission meeting on Jan. 14 will begin at 2:30 p.m. in the Senate Lounge of the State House.

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.

RI Faces Uphill Climb Halfway Through DD Consent Decree Implementation

Bar graph from RI’s latest report to federal court monitor indicates RI is on track to meet one of three categories of employment targets in 2019. “Youth Exit” refers to those those who left high school between 2013 and 2016. “Sheltered Workshop” and “Day Program” refer to persons who spent most of their time in those respective settings when the consent decree was signed.

By Gina Macris

Halfway through Rhode Island’s decade-long agreement with the federal government to ensure that adults with developmental disabilities can work and enjoy leisure time in the larger community:

• Rhode Island has linked 38 percent of its intellectually challenged residents to acceptable jobs, prompting a federal monitor to warn that it needs to step up its game

• Service providers argue that continued progress will take a larger financial investment than the state is making

• Success stories abound but some families remain skeptical about whether the changes will ever work for their relatives.

Five years and three months after Rhode Island signed a federal consent decree to help adults with developmental disabilities get regular jobs and lead regular lives in their communities, 857 people have found employment. Yet, 1,398 others are still waiting for the right job match or for the services they need to prepare for work.

The pace of adding individuals to the employed category has slowed dramatically. Only 37 individuals were matched with jobs during the first two quarters of the current year. To meet its overall employment target for 2019, the state will have to find suitable job placements for 199 more adults. That would require a pace in the second half of the year that is five times faster than the first half.

Though the federal consent decree was signed in 2014, meaningful efforts to comply with its terms did not get underway until two years later, when a federal judge threatened to hold Rhode Island in contempt and levy fines if it did not take numerous and precise steps to begin compliance in a systematic way. At that point, state officials were struggling even to come up with an accurate count of the number of individuals protected by the consent decree, so inadequate was its data collection.

The active census of the consent decree population has grown since 2016, when the judge ordered the state to improve its record-keeping and the monitor forced the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) and the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) to look again at special education students who might be eligible for adult services.

The most recent figures show that there are 3,764 intellectually challenged adults active either with BHDDH or RIDE who covered by the consent decree.

Of that total, 211 were employed in the community prior to the consent decree. Some have signaled they don’t want to work, either because they are of retirement age or for other reasons. Nearly 1,200 others are still in school and not yet seeking jobs.

Of the 2,255 adults who must be offered employment over the life of the consent decree, 38 percent have landed jobs.

The figures are re-calculated every three months.

Employment data from the state’s report to the consent decree monitor as of June 30, 2019. broken down by categories of persons who must be offered jobs. “Youth exit” refers to those those who left high school between 2013 and 2016. “Sheltered Workshop” and “Day Program” refer to persons who spent most of their time in those respective settings when the consent decree was signed.

Rhode Island agreed to overhaul its services for the developmentally disabled population after an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice found the state’s over-reliance on segregated sheltered workshops and day care centers violated the integration mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

People with disabilities have the civil right to the supports and services they need to live as part of their communities to the extent that it is therapeutically appropriate, the U.S. Supreme Court said in the Olmstead decision of 1999, which upheld the integration mandate. In other words, integration should be the norm, not the exception.

Some people couldn’t wait to get out of sheltered workshops when the consent decree was signed and quickly found jobs in the community with a little bit of assistance. But some families with sons and daughters who have more complex needs saw sheltered workshops close without any transition plan. For some of them, the consent decree continues to represent a sense of loss.

At a recent public forum, Kerri Zanchi, director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD), and Brian Gosselin, the state’s consent decree coordinator, had just finished applauding the successes of those who have found jobs or are on their way to shaping their careers, when Trudy Chartier spoke up on behalf of her daughter.

Trudy Chartier * all photos by Anne Peters

Her daughter is 55, deaf, has intellectual and behavioral problems and uses a wheelchair, Chartier said. She wants a job in the community and she’s been looking for five years.

Her daughter was in a sheltered workshop for a while, Chartier said, and “she loved it.”

“She didn’t care about making $2 an hour,” her mother said, and she made friends there. Now, she said her daughter “is not getting anywhere” and is “so dissatisfied.”

At the age of 80, Chartier said, she doesn’t have the energy she once had to help her daughter change things.

Later, Douglas Porch sounded a similar concern. “I can understand that the idea is to get them into the community, but what it’s actually done is destroyed my daughter’s community, because you’ve taken away her friends.”

“She’s in a group home, with nothing for her to do,” Porch said.

Zanchi, the DDD director, said that the consent decree certainly has changed the way people receive services. The intent is “not to isolate, but the opposite, to build communities,” she said.

“If that’s not working and it sounds like it’s not, we need to hear about that,” Zanchi said. “We can help you so that she can engage with her peers more effectively.”

Another parent, Greg Mroczek, also spoke up. “In terms of all the possible models, isn’t a sheltered workshop for a segment of the DD population the best possible model? Isn’t that what people are saying? It worked for my daughter as well,” he said, and nothing has replaced it.

Kerri Zanchi

He asked whether the sheltered workshop is “off the table” in “any way, shape or form” in Rhode Island.

Zanchi talked about the state’s Employment First policy, which values full integration and“investing in the skills and talent of every person we support.”

“We know that individuals of all abilities have had successful employment outcomes. We also know that employment is not necessarily what everybody wants,” Zanchi said.

“Striking that balance is a challenge,” she said. The state’s developmental disability service system and and its partners are working hard to help meet people’s needs, Zanchi said.

Rebecca Boss

When Zanchi was hired at the start of 2017, she was the first professional in developmental disability services to run the Division of Developmental Disabilities in about a decade.

Zanchi and Rebecca Boss, the BHDDH director, have improved the bureaucratic infrastructure to foster employment, professional development, quality control, and communications with families and consumers and the private agencies the department relies on to deliver services that will meet the monitor’s standards.

For example, the developmental disabilities staff has been expanded and reorganized. An electronic data management system has been introduced. BHDDH invited providers and representatives of the community to the table to overhaul regulations governing the operations of the service providers and has maintained a quality assurance advisory council, with community representation.

Broadly speaking, the leadership of Boss and Zanchi has set the tone for a philosophical shift in which employment is part of a long-range campaign to open the door to self-determination for adults with developmental disabilities – in keeping with the mandates of the consent decree. The state’s last sheltered workshop closed in 2018.

The consent decree also has fostered a revival of advocacy in the community and the legislature, where there had been a vacuum once an older generation of leaders had passed on.

So why isn’t the glass half full at the halfway point in the decade-long life of the consent decree? In a word, money.

Advocates say a central issue is the lack of an investment in the ability of the system to reach more people with the array of services that will open doors and enable them to find their places in the community.

To satisfy the requirements of the consent decree, the state relies on the efforts of private agencies that provide the actual direct services.

The federal monitor in the consent decree case, Charles Moseley, has asked the state to get to the bottom of what he described as a lack of “capacity” on the part of these private agencies to take on new clients.

BHDDH is circling around the funding issue with an outside review of the fee-for-service rate structure governing developmental disability services. That analysis is designed to expand the analytical capabilities BHDDH, leaving the policy decisions to the department leadership.

Advocates for adults with developmental disabilities, most prominently state Senator Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, say there must be a public discussion about how much money it will take in the long run to complete the transformation from sheltered workshops and day care centers into one that assists people in finding their way in life. DiPalma chairs a special legislative commission studying the current fee-for-service system.

In the meantime, DDD is soliciting a proposal for the third iteration of its performance-based supported employment program, which is designed to focus on people who have never held a job. This group includes young people completing high school and seeking adult services for the first time, as well as adults who face multiple challenges and would find it difficult to fill the standard job descriptions put out by employers.

The new Person-Centered Supported Employment Performance Program (PCSEPP 3.0) is expected to launch Jan.1 with an emphasis on “customized” employment, tailored to match an individual’s strengths and interests with the needs of an employer who is willing to carve up the work at hand in a non-traditional way.

The concept of customization is not new.

In Rhode Island, a few adults with developmental disabilities have had customized employment for many years, most often arranged with the support of their families, who hire staff and direct a unique array of services for them rather than relying on an agency.

In addition, the Rhode Island Council on Developmental Disabilities promotes self-employment, a form of customization, through a business incubator created with the help of the Real Pathways RI Project sponsored by the Governor’s Workforce Board.

The DD Council highlights the products and services of self-employed adults with developmental disabilities as part of its annual holiday shopping event, Small Business Saturday Shop RI, scheduled this year for Nov. 30 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Warwick.

The U.S. Department of Labor defines customized employment as a “flexible process designed to personalize the employment relationship between a job candidate and an employer in a way that meets the needs of both. It is based on an individualized determination of the strengths, needs, and interests of the person with a disability, and is also designed to meet the specific needs of the employer.”

Since the supported employment program started in 2017, providers have expressed concerns that, because it is tied to the fee-for-service reimbursement system, it does pay for initial investments the agencies might have to make to participate.

Those concerns persisted during a meeting between DDD officials and potential applicants for the customized employment program in mid July. At the providers’ request, DDD has extended the application deadline to October 4.

Womazetta Jones

The state’s new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Womazetta Jones, has promised to be a careful listener to the concerns of the developmental disability community.

Speaking at the recent public forum, after just eight days on the job, Jones acknowledged the state’s efforts to improve services for adults with developmental disabilities but also cautioned against complacency.

Even though the state has substantially increased funding for developmental disabilities in recent years and gained “stable and effective leadership” at BHDDH, “that doesn’t mean anyone in this room or state government is content with recent progress,” she said.

“The moment we think we don’t have more to do, is the moment we have lost our way,” Jones said, signaling that she is available for further discussion of issues affecting people with developmental disabilities.

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

A. Anthony Antosh

By Gina Macris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DD Council Weighs In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Health Home” Merits Debated

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Kane, Left, With Antosh

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

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

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

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

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

• Concerns about a lack of housing options

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

A Call For A More Stable Funding Cycle

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

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

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

Kane provided some history on the quarterly allocations:

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

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

Mental Health Services Lag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critic Says Assessment Method Is “Demeaning”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RI DD System Needs Stable Funding For Quality Services and Productive Lives - Commission

By Gina Macris

A successful model for funding Rhode Island’s developmental disability services would be more complex than simply increasing workers’ wages, members of a special legislative commission agreed at a meeting May 6.

Kelly Donovan, a commission member who herself receives services, said the work of the support person is “not a job; it’s a commitment.“

In a high-quality system of services, Donovan said, direct support professionals and the people they serve have a relationship. They develop strong bonds.

The discussion nevertheless returned repeatedly to the lack of funding that permeates the system, with rules that commission members say make it rigid and unresponsive to those needing services.

Peter Quattromani, CEO of United Cerebral Palsy of Rhode Island, said agencies that ask their employees to “ commit” to the persons they serve also require them to commit themselves to “a life of poverty” because employers, dependent on state funding, can’t pay salaries commensurate with professional work.

As a result, Quattromani said, the agencies are hiring “very temporary employees.”

“We don’t appreciate what it takes on the part of the individual to turn their life over to a staff person,” Quattromani said. Every time there’s turnover, there’s a new intrusion in that person’s life, he said.

The CEO of West Bay Residential Services, Gloria Quinn, said “I can think of examples when people go along with people and don’t know them. It gets complicated to do the right thing at the right time.”

But West Bay Residential has an annual staff turnover rate of 34 percent and a job vacancy rate of 15 percent, said Quinn, who recommended a system that is adequately funding, “including appropriate compensation for a well-trained workforce.”

At the same time, she said, there are employees who are doing an “incredibly important and skillful job” even without the compensation they deserve.

Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, the commission chairman, said there is a great disparity in pay in two parallel systems of services.

“We do value the profession” of supporting adults with developmental disabilities, he said, as long as it is the state-operated network of group homes and facilities called RICLAS, short for Rhode Island Community Living and Supports. But private providers, who perform the same direct support work, are not valued, DiPalma said, referring to the state’s chronic underfunding of these agencies.

He said he never saw the situation quite that way until Tom Kane, CEO of AccessPoint RI, framed it in those terms during a recent budget hearing before the Senate Finance Committee.

RICLAS workers start at about $18 an hour, while entry-level workers in the private system average about $11.40 an hour. On an annual basis, the starting salary at RICLAS is $37,291, according to a spokeswoman for the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH). As state employees, RICLAS workers also get a full package of benefits.

DiPalma said that when the current fee-for-service reimbursement model was enacted by the General Assembly in 2011, the “right questions weren’t asked. We can’t let that happen again.”

He said he firmly believes that today, all legislators would say they value the work done in supporting adults with developmental disabilities, but “the critical thing is ‘how do we get there’? “ He alluded to a reimbursement model in which wages reflect the value of the work.

In Kelly Donovan’s vision of the future, adults with developmental disabilities will receive training and support in making their own decisions in an informed manner. And support persons will respect those decisions, she said.

Kate Sherlock, a commission member and lawyer with the Rhode Island Disability Law Center, concurred.

For a long time, the role of the staff person has been to “speak up for people,” she said. Instead, staff should facilitate decisions made by clients.

But clients “do not have the real opportunity to decide what they want, because there are not enough options,” Sherlock said. Decisions should not be “either-or,” she said. “It shouldn’t be ‘do you want chocolate or vanilla ice cream.’ “

“People want to live with people they choose. They want a job they like and they want to make a decent amount of money,” Sherlock said.

Enabling clients to make meaningful decisions about belonging to their communities and engaging in activities they want, as well as giving them the opportunity to eat healthy foods and be active and fit will at the same time elevate the staff role into a position that can have greater impact and be more desirable – even fun, Sherlock said.

The Disability Law Center supports a bill that would give legal standing to adults who support those who need assistance in decision-making, Sherlock said, but the measure is encountering difficulties in the Senate. DiPalma said he would look into it.

Commission members agree that Rhode Island needs to abandon its fee-for-service reimbursement system in favor of one that gives clients an annual budget with flexibility to spend it on what they want and need to enable them to live regular lives in their communities, in accordance with a 2014 consent decree and federal Medicaid rules reinforcing the Integration mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Not only is the current system under-funded but it is saddled by rules that make it too restrictive, they say.

Among the needs discussed May 6 are funding for:

• training and career paths for staffers

• Technology, such as smart phones and other devices and software, that can help clients become more independent from staff.

• ·Easier access to transportation, which might include Uber and Lyft options to lessen clients’ dependence on staff time, which can be better used providing other types of supports

• Better access to affordable housing

• More intensive community-based mental health services that can prevent psychiatric hospitalizations.

In addition, the developmental disabilities caseload must be counted in a way that better informs budget makers, according to Quinn, the CEO of West Bay Residential Services.

All the recommendations which members have presented through May 6 can be found here .

The next meeting will be May 22, when commission members are expected to continue presenting their recommendations.

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.