Visitation Ban Imposed On RI DD Group Homes As COVID-19 Surges Again

By Gina Macris

(This article was updated Nov. 18)

Rhode Island group home residents living every day with intellectual and developmental challenges will now have to cope with yet another hurdle - a ban on receiving visitors or visiting family homes – coming just a week before Thanksgiving.

With the state headed toward a lockdown to contain a surge in coronavirus cases, the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) has advised operators of all state-licensed congregate care settings, including 291 group homes for adults with developmental disabilities, to suspend visits of residents with family and others except in “very specific compassionate care situations.”

At the same time, group home operators “must have a process in place, at all times, to facilitate remote communications between a resident and a virtual visitor” through video calls and other applications on cell phones or tablets, according to BHDDH director A. Kathryn Power.

Kevin Savage, the Director of Developmental Disabilities, announced the visitation ban during a quarterly public forum Monday, Nov. 16. He said BHDDH issued the advisory Friday, Nov. 13 to service providers.

Among the 291 group homes for adults with developmental disabilities, 63 staff members and 33 residents have tested positive for COVID-19 in the last two weeks, Savage said, but none have been hospitalized during that time.

Those figures were disputed Nov. 18 by David Reis, CEO of the Fogarty Center, a private service agency, who said that one staff member died of COVID-19 on Monday and four group home residents are currently hospitalized. A BHDDH spokesman said he would make every effort to double-check the state’s figures as soon as possible.

On Nov. 10, the spokesman said that earlier in the year, a total of 12 people had died from COVID-19, including 9 residents and 3 staff members.

Savage recognized the impact that long-term quarantine or social isolation may have on everyone involved. He urged people to use the mental health activities that BHDDH puts out online. For the BHDDH COVID_19 resources page, including mental health tips, click here.

He also promoted a new series of free, virtual workshops for caregivers sponsored by the Rhode Island Parent Information Network, starting November 17.

Called “Powerful Tools for Caregivers,” the 90-minute virtual workshops feature six weeks of group sessions aimed at helping caregivers cope with issues involving stress management and communication. To learn more or sign up, call the Community Health Network at 401-432-7217 or visit www.ripin.org/chn. The Community Health Network is an initiative of the RI Department of Health administered by RIPIN.

In the wake of reduced social services resulting from the pandemic, Savage indicated that individually-allocated budgets may be used for supports other than staff time, like cell phones or tablets that would help those with developmental disabilities keep in touch with families and friends.

Those who don’t know how to go about requesting the technology, or want to explore other options for their budgets, should start with their social caseworkers, and if they can’t be reached, their supervisors, Savage said. Social workers “won’t get in trouble” if their supervisors are called, he said in response to questions from the online audience. If all else fails, he advised, those seeking information should call the main number at the Division of Developmental Disabilities. That number is listed as 401-462-3201 on the BHDDH website.

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

By Gina Macris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BHDDH has not made any public comment on the report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The newsletter described the workgroups as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Pandemic Pushes Worry Over RI DD System Survival “Front And Center” - Judge McConnell

By Gina Macris

Judge McConnell

The federal judge overseeing the reform of Rhode Island’s developmental disability system says the COVID-19 pandemic has sharpened his concern about the financial ability of the state and its service providers to meet long-term goals of the consent decree, which mandates integration of the target population at work and at play.

Other participants in a May 18 hearing in U.S. District Court in Providence echoed the judge’s concerns, but they also said the pandemic has created a great opportunity to cement changes that might not otherwise have come as quickly.

“The fiscal health and stability of providers has always been in the back of my mind,” said Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr., noting that his worry has come “front and center with this crisis.” Stability is “essential for the consent decree to play out and be seen as accomplished,” he said.

The state and federal governments in 2014 agreed to a civil rights consent decree mandating employment-related services to provide access to jobs in the community for people with developmental disabilities as well as supports to allow them to enjoy integrated non-work activities. The decree runs until 2024.

Kevin Savage

During the hearing, Kevin Savage, the state’s new Director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, disclosed immediate financial concerns. He said that the state has not received approval from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the second of three advance payments promised to keep private providers fiscally afloat during the height of the pandemic.

On March 26, the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) announced that a total of $15.4 million in federal-state Medicaid funding had been set aside for these so-called “retainer payments” during April, May, and June.

While the April payment has received CMS approval, the one for May has not, Savage said. A BHDDH spokesman later said that $5.1 million in advance payments to providers were made May 15.

Savage said it was “important that the state make that payment” to the providers.

The BHDDH spokesman later elaborated:

“When the retainer payments were first described and provided in Rhode Island, CMS had not issued technical guidance on these types of payments.” Since then, he said, CMS has limited retainer payments to a 30-day period, but that “the state is actively working with CMS to expand this time frame.”

CMS reimburses a little more than half of any Medicaid cost applied to the Division of Developmental Disabilities, but if the federal government ultimately does not approve the May 15 payment to providers, the state will be responsible for the entire $5.1 million.

As to the June advance payment, Savage said during the court hearing that the money will be re-cast as an increase in Medicaid rates that adds up to the same amount originally promised to providers.

He also disclosed that one provider decided to change the type of services it offers and the executive director resigned over the issue. Going forward, Savage said, he understands that particular agency would be “less focused” on the kind of individualized work his division wants to do, but he reserved further comment until he has had a chance to speak in depth with agency officials.

The hearing was streamed via the internet application Zoom, as have been previous U.S. District Court proceedings since the federal court building on Kennedy Plaza was closed in early March at the start of the pandemic. For the first time on May 18, however, the hearing was arranged so that the public could see the participants as well as hear them.

Victoria Thomas, a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice, said the DOJ is “very focused” on how those protected by the consent decree will get community-integrated services going forward.

The capacity of providers to deliver those services involves more than funding, she said. The state needs to make administrative changes to ensure a stable system of integrated services and supports.

A. Anthony Antosh, the independent court monitor in the case, pressed for two immediate administrative changes:

● Annual funding authorizations for service recipients to replace the quarterly allocations now in place.

● The end of prescribed staffing ratios according to five funding “tiers,” which are based on perceived levels of disability and do not necessarily reflect the amount of support needed for a task at hand.

Savage said the staffing ratios are written into Medicaid rules, and BHDDH could work administratively with CMS to eliminate them. The ratios were designed for center-based day care and providers have argued that the ratios do not work in an individualized community setting. Families and other advocates also oppose them.

Savage said the quarterly funding authorizations were enacted by the General Assembly and cannot be changed without its approval. The fiscal arm of BHDDH favors quarterly payments, he said.

Melody Lawrence, Director of Policy and Delivery System Reform at the state Executive Office of Health and Human Services, said the argument for quarterly authorizations is to “ensure that the resources go to those who need them most.”

McConnell questioned how often people’s service needs change.

“You are doing more frequent checks to make sure people actually need those services,” Lawrence replied.

Two experts have testified before a special legislative commission that Rhode Island is the only state with quarterly funding of adult developmental disability services, a feature which providers have said repeatedly makes it difficult for them to plan ahead or prepare for the kinds of long-term changes the consent decree demands.

The commission, led by State Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, recommended more than a year ago that the state switch to annual funding of individualized service plans. It is generally accepted among developmental disability professionals that barring unexpected events, like the death of a family member, the needs of individuals with intellectual and developmental challenges remain fairly stable and predictable throughout their lives.

Savage said that fiscal officials at BHDDH are committed to creating a funding model that is “easier and more straightforward” for providers and families to navigate.

Thomas, the DOJ lawyer, told Savage: “We’ve been hearing that quarterly authorizations create an administrative burden on providers. We like hearing that you want to reduce administrative burdens.”

McConnell asked Antosh to report to the Court by the end of June what the state has done to ease administrative burdens on providers.

Antosh indicated his report will also include a rundown on the changes the state must undertake to satisfy the consent decree by 2024.

Based on his comments in the hearing, he is likely to include recommendations for increased reimbursement rates to providers and provisions for universal access to internet technology for those receiving developmental disability services.

During the hearing, Antosh asked Savage in the short term to eliminate the scale of rates it pays for various daytime direct support work and instead pay the highest one – assigned to community-based activities - for all front-line staff work.

Savage reminded Antosh of the state’s budget deficit, which has been estimated at $234 million in the fiscal year ending June 30 and a whopping $800 million if the next budget cycle is included in the total. He said his division would start on a case-by-case basis by focusing on funding the needs of each individual authorized to receive supports.

Antosh said a lack of access to internet technology has emerged as a big failing during the pandemic. Group home residents need access to wireless networks, as well as to tablets and other hardware that could help them feel less isolated and in the long run could assist providers with remote wellness checks and the like.

A relative handful of people receiving BHDDH-funded supported employment services have been able to work from home, Antosh said, but more would like to try, according to survey results passed on to him.

Technology must be part of the long-term future for the developmental disabilities service system, he said.

The pandemic has curtailed most daytime services and providers’ ability to bill for them in the current fee-for-service reimbursement system. Most of the daytime activities that have occurred have involved outdoor exercise, Antosh said.

At the same time, providers have had to bear the burden of costly cleaning protocols and other unexpected expenses in group homes that are not automatically reimbursed by the state.

As of Tuesday, May 19, the coronavirus affected 47 congregate care sites, according to the BHDDH spokesman. A total of 115 people in congregate care have tested positive, including 5 who were reported hospitalized on Tuesday. An additional 98 people have been exposed to the virus because of where they live but were asymptomatic. And 7 more persons have died from COVID-19, the spokesman said.

Antosh, meanwhile, said the coronavirus crisis has highlighted the fragility of families as well as providers as they have scrambled to support loved ones with developmental disabilities.

Families often have had no support in caring for adult children or siblings who may need attention of one kind or another all their waking hours – and during the night as well.

Antosh said those who direct their own program of services have had difficulty finding staff to relieve them during the crisis. About 700 persons or families direct their own programs, and BHDDH relaxed its rules on hiring staff to allow any capable adult – including parents and legal guardians who might otherwise be out of work.

Savage said a long-standing prohibition against paying legal guardians to support adults who receive BHDDH funding will not be re-instated after the state of emergency is over.

Antosh said 80 percent of family members answering a questionnaire distributed by a coalition of community organizations reported a high level of anxiety.

Seventy percent said they were concerned about what might happen if their loved one needed to be hospitalized or if they themselves became ill and could not continue as caregivers.

(The state Department of Health recently advised hospitals to make exceptions to their no-visitation policy during the pandemic for those who needed assistance in communications and the support of a familiar caregiver to understand medical procedures.)

Outside BHDDH and the Rhode Island Department of Education, which is responsible for transition services for high school students with developmental disabilities, state officials have been “slow to realize how vulnerable this population is,” Antosh said.

But once they understood, officials in other state agencies have become very sensitive to the needs of those with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

He cited the hazard pay awarded to group home workers, a large order of personal protective equipment (PPE) delivered to providers two weeks ago, and another large order for family caregivers that arrived last week, and an increased focus on testing individuals and staff over the last several weeks.

Antosh said “all parties” have joined in discussions about “what re-opening looks like.”

File photos by Anne Peters

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

By Gina Macris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NESCO report analyzed two other indicators of financial health:

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

• solvency, or the ratio of assets to liabilities.

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

NESCSO used two measures to calculate liquidity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RI DD 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

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.

DiPalma: RI Must Invest In Transformation of DD Services To Protect Most Vulnerable

By Louis P. DiPalma

The Rhode Island Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) in the Department of Behavioral Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Hospitals (BHDDH) is undergoing a significant transformation, much like Department of Children, Youth and Families. This transformation requires financial investment to succeed, not the proposed cuts.

As legislators, we must work to ensure we invest in the most vulnerable populations in our state, including the more than 4,000 individuals living with intellectual/ developmental disabilities (I/DD) who are served by BHDDH-DDD.

From a programs perspective, there are at least two critical elements of transformation the agency is undertaking. The first element is required by the 10-year 2014 consent decree settlement with the Department of Justice for violation of the civil rights of individuals with I/DD. The state, currently in its fourth year of transformation, is now under a court order.

The key focus of this transformational initiative is to transition individuals with I/DD from working in sheltered workshops to integrated employment and community-based programming. And, while the state is making progress in many areas, there is still a need for increased focus and attention.

When all is said and done, in 2024, successfully achieving the goals of the Consent Decree will require approximately $25 million in annual state and federal funding. The Department of Justice is closely monitoring our investments and commitment to reforming our practices toward full inclusion of individuals with disabilities in local communities and businesses. We must invest and commit to the ideals of inclusion for individuals with I/DD.

Another critical element of transformation is the transition of individuals with I/DD from living in group homes to alternative living arrangements, such as shared living arrangements. This transformational, voluntary program, when fully implemented, will require less funding than what is currently needed to support the same individuals in group homes.

The state is making progress in ensuring new DD clients who enter the system have the opportunity to live independently with supports, though challenges remain. During this multi-year transition, the agency will be required to sustain and maintain both systems, necessitating additional investment for multiple years, including in additional personnel. Without it, the transition will not be successful, individuals will not be in the most appropriate settings, and the savings would be unrealized.

Gov. Gina Raimondo has committed to new leadership for BHDDH and DDD to lead this transformation, and progress is being made. However, we are at a point in the transformation that requires investment in the division and the services they fund.

A review of the proposed budgets for the BHDDH-DDD, shows a revised current year budget, including general revenue and federal funding, of $269 million and the proposed fiscal year 2019 budget of $248 million, a reduction of $21 million.

A $21 million reduction in funding at a time when investments are needed. As a legislator, I appreciate the challenge the governor is confronting, especially in light of our structural deficit. Any increases in revenues should be invested in Rhode Island’s most vulnerable citizens, including individuals living with I/DD. It is the right thing to do, and it will help continue progress toward system transformation and compliance with the consent decree.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt said it best: “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.”

Louis P. DiPalma, a Rhode Island state senator, is a Democrat serving Newport, Middletown, Little Compton, and Tiverton