Skip to comments.Services for Autistic children under attack by Gov. Schwarzenegger !!
Posted on 12/04/2003 7:47:02 PM PST by pollywog
From: Marty Omoto, Legislative Director Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 5:06 PM Subject: CA UCP CAPITOL REPORT #176-2003: Senate Budget Subcommittee Hearing Rescheduled for 12/10
CALIFORNIA UCP CAPITOL REPORT #176-2003 DECEMBER 3, 2003 - Wednesday Senate Budget Subcommittee Hearing on Governor's Spending Cuts Including Lanterman Suspension, IHSS and Respite Program Elimination Scheduled for 12/10 Wednesday 11:00 AM - Protest Rally Set for 10 AM
The Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services, chaired by Sen. Wes Chesbro (D-Arcata) has rescheduled the informational hearing on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's current year budget cuts for December 10, Wednesday morning at 11:00 AM in the State Capitol, Room 4203. The hearing will cover the Governor's health and human services related cuts proposed by the Governor, including suspension of the landmark Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act - the civil rights act that protects people with developmental disabilities, proposed elimination of many programs including respite (for people with developmental disabilities), enrollment caps and waiting lists for a wide range of health programs - including regional center services, elimination of the In-Home Supportive Services residual program which employs parents and other family members to provide assistance to family members with disabilities.
Advocates for people with developmental and other disabilities and others - furious with the proposed cuts and suspension of the Lanterman Act, are mobilizing across the state, with protests and rallies. A large protest rally, planned for today (Dec 3) to coincide with hearings that were scheduled for today but postponed, is now planned for December 10, Wednesday morning at 10 AM on the North Steps of the State Capitol. For more information contact Marty Omoto at 916/446-0013 for more details (or send email to address below).
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Department of Finance released Tuesday late afternoon actual draft legislation (referred to as "trailer bills") that details his proposals announced last week to suspend the landmark Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act - the civil rights act that protects people with developmental disabilities in California, along with draft language covering proposed massive cuts to Medi-Cal, regional center funded services, In-Home Supportive Services and other programs. These cuts, proposed for the current year budget that California is now operating under, were announced last week as part of the Governor's package of proposals to address the state's fiscal crisis.
The Governor's proposals all require approval of both houses of the Legislature. The Senate Budget subcommittees - including the subcommittee that deals with health and human service programs were all scheduled to hold initial hearings Wednesday, December 3 on the Governor's spending cut proposals, however due to the urgency to pass the proposed bond and spending cap measures, those hearings were postponed, possibly until next week.
The draft legislation from the Governor stunned advocates for people with developmental and other disabilities, already reeling from what one parent called an absolutely "devastating" proposal to suspend the historic Lanterman Act and includes the following: * Would make drastic changes to the authority of a person's "individual program plan" by allowing regional centers to ignore any requirements in order to keep within their individual budgets. * In addition, the draft language proposes even tighter restrictions on spending for individual regional centers that fund services provided by community based organizations and others by prohibiting any overspending of their individual budgets for any reason. * It also appears that this draft language would propose to limit who could receive regional center services to the caseload of individual regional centers as of December 31, 2003 - and just a statewide caseload total.
DRAFT LANGUAGE TO SUSPEND THE LANTERMAN DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SERVICES ACT AND LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS SERVED BY REGIONAL CENTERS (Draft submitted to Legislature 12/2/03) Welfare and Institutions Code Section 1. Section 4631.6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is added to read:
(a) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to limit the caseload of the regional centers to the total number of individuals served by regional centers as of December 31, 2003. (2) Effective January 1, 2004, notwithstanding any provision of law or regulation, including but not limited to, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and the California Early Intervention Services Act, the total number of consumers for whom each regional center provides service coordination, develops an individual program plan or purchase of services or supports may not exceed the total number of consumers who were served by that regional center on December 31, 2003. However, regional centers shall continue to provide each individual with intake and assessment and shall determine whether each individual would be eligible for services if the caseload were not limited. (3) Effective January 1, 2004, no regional center may make new consumers eligible for services unless and until attrition occurs at that regional center. In determining which consumers are to be added to the regional center's caseload, the regional centers shall give priority to those consumers whose health or safety is jeopardized.
(b) The prohibitions contained in subdivision (a) shall not apply to consumers transitioning from a developmental center or state- operated facility pursuant to a community placement plan.
(c) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature that regional centers shall not exceed the amount appropriated for regional center services in the annual Budget Act, even if the result is that consumers with developmental disabilities are denied services or supports that have been included in the consumer's individual program plan. (2) Notwithstanding any provision of law or regulation, including, but not limited to, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and the California Early Intervention Services Act, no regional center may expend more than the amount allocated in that center's contract with the State Department of Developmental Services for that fiscal year. (3) Each regional center shall have the authority to deny, modify, reduce or terminate services to any consumer, including, but not limited to, those services and supports identified in the consumer's individual program plan. (4) Unless required by the Social Security Act or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, none of the provisions of Chapter 7, section 4700 et seq., including the right to fair hearing, shall apply to any consumer whose services or supports have been denied, modified, reduced or terminated pursuant to this section.
Section 2. Section 4631.7 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is added to read:
Unless required by the Social Security Act or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, effective January 1, 2004, notwithstanding any provision or law or regulation, including but not limited to, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, consumers receiving services through the Habilitation Services Program may not transition to a day program with an employment component or to service codes 055 and 063, unless the consumer is unsuccessful in the Habilitation Services Program.
Section 3. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: In order to make the necessary statutory changes to implement budget reductions relating to public social services during the 2003- 04 fiscal year, it is necessary that this bill take effect immediately.
DRAFT LANGUAGE ON REGIONAL CENTER SERVICE ELIMINATIONS (Draft submitted to Legislature 12/2/03) Welfare and Institutions Code Add Section 4659.1 (a) Effective January 1, 2004, notwithstanding any provision of law or regulation, including but not limited to, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and the California Early Intervention Services Act, no regional center may expend purchase of service funds for any existing or new consumer for any of the following services or supports: respite, social recreation activity, social recreation program, camp, or non-medical therapy.
(b) The services and supports identified in subsection (a) include the following service codes as contained in or established pursuant to Title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 54340 through 54356: 008, 028, 072, 084, 106, 525, 625, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, and 850; and, to the extent that the service is for the purpose of providing respite, the following service codes: 074, 405, 415, 420, 707, 740, 742, 743, 744, 760, 851, 854, 856, 858, 860, 862, 864, 868, 869, 905, 910, 915, 920, 925, 930, 935, and 940.
(c) Unless required by the Social Security Act or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, no consumer whose services or supports have been denied, modified, reduced or terminated pursuant to this section shall have a right to a fair hearing as described in Chapter 7, section 4700 et seq., and the regional center shall not comply with Chapter 7, section 4700 et seq. if it denies, modifies, reduces or terminates a service or support pursuant to this section.
NEXT STEPS * SENATE: postponed budget subcommittee hearings scheduled for 12/3 but may reschedule for next week to consider the Governor's proposals. Passage of many of the Governor's proposals are very uncertain. * ASSEMBLY: the Assembly budget subcommittees did not schedule hearings this week - and may meet next week, and as in the Senate - passage of many of the Governor's proposals is very uncertain. * GOVERNOR - Schwarzenegger is hoping for swift passage not only of his proposed spending cap and bond measures (the deadline for that is December 5 in order to qualify for the March 2004 primary ballot) but for his spending reduction proposals - many of which assume passage by January 2004. The Governor's Department of Finance is urging quick passage in order to achieve the greatest savings for the current year budget.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CA UCP CAPITOL REPORT * This is a online report for all Californians with developmental (& other disabilities), families, providers and other advocates, from the California Coalition of United Cerebral Palsy Associations a link to the California Community Advocacy Network. * If you would like to get on this distribution (and conversely, get off of it) please send an email with that request to: martyomoto@r... Sharing information is part of our organizing effort. Please feel free to forward or copy this (attribution is nice). We're all in this together! Marty Omoto, Legislative Director - CA Coalition of United Cerebral Palsy Associations 1225 8th Street Suite 480 Sacramento, CA 95814 VOICE PHONE: 916/446-0013 FAX number: 916/446-0026 email: martyomoto@r... Coalition Chair: Philip Ksarjian (UCP of Greater Sacramento) Past Chair: Ron Cohen (UCP of LA and Ventura Counties)
PROTEST RALLY NOW SCHEDULED FOR: 12/10/03 10:00 AM NORTH STEPS OF STATE CAPITOL "FIGHT FOR THE PROMISE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND SENIORS!" and then come and attend and testify at the Senate Budget Subcommittee hearing that will consider the Governor's spending cut proposals at 11:00 AM.
I can tell you have never had experience with a autistic child or adult.The wear on a marriage, family and then trickle down effect into the community is staggering.!!
Therefore nothing vital has been cut.
BTW did they ever remove the luxury phone tax imposed as a temporary measure during the Spanish American war.
To California go back to mexico where you want to be.
Another way to save a significant amount of money with these programs is to means test them and have the users pay for them on a sliding scale. The greater the income, the greater the user contribution. That doesn't save the full amount, but it's much more difficult for someone to argue that people with decent incomes shouldn't pay for a portion (or all, if they're making a large income) of respite and other services. And those families who can't afford respite services are still fully covered.
IHSS ,( In Home Supportive Services),is basically a program to enable parents to keep their disabled adult children at home and not have to place them in a institution. We receive IHSS right now in order to provide someone to come help us with our handicapped son. We cannot possibly think of doing it alone. He weighs 180lbs, and we are in our 60s!!My husband bathes, cares for,feeds , shaves, etc, our son. Without help from the outside we will have to place him in a government facility!!
That's what churches and charities are for. You ARE a member of a church aren't you? If so, ask and ye shall receive.
How about cutting funding to illegals!! How about cutting out " FREE HEALTH" to those children who come across our borders illegally? How about stopping the " Save the Whales" projects??
That should all be privatized.
sadly FreedomCalls, the needs of autism often require help from trained individuals that are able to work with special needs. I would love to see the church rally to this need, and I do agree that we need to see more of it in local congregations, but even at that, the needs of the disabled should be at least one of the services to be maintained and not cut.
Half the welfare money does not go to staff or administration. The biggest cost in the welfare budget in every state is Medicaid, far and away. That is payments to hospitals, nursing homes, doctors, etc. as reimbursement for services. We can argue as to whether those payments are too high, whether people who shouldn't be covered are covered (like illegals), etc. But it's a myth that administration is where most of the money goes.
If there's waste in welfare (aside from the illegals issue), it is the way that people with decent incomes (NOT poor) find ways to qualify for Medicaid and other programs. In particular, the games played with estates so that the taxpayers end up subsidizing someone's inheritance. Or the assumption that every person receiving a government service must be dirt-poor and can't possibly contribute part or all of the cost of the service.
There are lots of things to cut in welfare programming. But the assumption that there's a $1 billion program out there called "waste, fraud, and abuse" that can simply be cut and everything will be hunky-dory is wildly optimistic. And how do you think fraud and so forth is prevented? That requires just a bit of staff, doesn't it?
I don't work for any social welfare agency, but I do know that most of those people are overloaded and stressed out as it is. Lay off more of them and you'll create workloads that will end up with them leaving in droves, and pretty soon you'll have inexperienced people making tons of mistakes and the waste, fraud, and abuse will increase.
netmilsmom, we are putting that in place right now. We know that there will come a day when he will have to be in a program.( and probably with SSI and partial government funding !), but for now we long to keep him home with us.
|Without help from the outside we will have to place him in a government facility!!
Well, in a way that's true. That's because most of the money goes to medical providers who serve the poor. If a Medicaid recipient spends 5 days in a hospital and runs up a $6,000 bill, that's $6,000 paid by the taxpayers to the hospital, not to the Medicaid recipient. Would you rather see the state cut a check to the recipient in hopes that he'll turn around and pay the hospital, just so you can say that the welfare dollar gets to the poor person?
I know autistic kids and their parents and I have no idea what you're talking about. Especially the bit about how it's staggering to the community???
They just sign up. They advertise food stamps to families who make more than 2 grand a month these days! I've heard these ads with my own ears.
Health Care and funding for illegals was already voted out by the people and the judiciary put it back. Nothing Arnold can do (at least right this moment -- he SHOULD be finghting to get 187 back in play). The Feds have already ruled that health care is for anyone who walks in an emergency room door. The only way to stop giving care is to close the Hospitals.
I feel bad or you, but someone's ox will get gored. I would have preferred that he rolled everything back to 1999 levels +20%. That would have fixed us up in a year. And I suspect your program would have been cut there also.
Why is it Government's job to take care of long-term illnesses? It used to be a familial obligation.
we're talking in generalities, of course. In a perfect system a person who makes $20G's would have healthcare providers making offers for their services.
I wasn't talking about public school employees. Re-read the thread and you'll see that the subject was welfare system employees, i.e. welfare caseworkers.
Those people deal with large caseloads, have to interact with welfare recipients day after day (or do protective services work with some pretty scary families), they have massive forms to fill out for each person (the forms are that large to prevent fraud, by the way), and the expectations for them are quite high. If you "save" money by eliminating a bunch of them, you'll see an increase in fraud and abuse.
This isn't someone sitting in an office ordering supplies. These people have to sit in an office day after day as one applicant after another, many of whom are trying to scam the system, comes up with a hand stuck out, seeking money from the taxpayers.
Now I'm not trying to make them sound like saints or anything, but the idea that most or even a significant portion of welfare spending goes to state employees is absolutely false. If we, as conservatives, are going to confront the issue of government waste, we need to identify where the waste is, not believe in myths that sound nice.
And what if they don't turn around and pay for the service. What's the hospital going to do, spend the next few months sending bill collectors after the person? You think hospitals would like that? The reason Medicaid pays the bills directly to the provider is because neither the state nor the provider trusts the recipient to spend the check on the service. And you'd be creating an even greater delay in the provider receiving payment. Hospitals are already up in arms about slow payments from insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid. Just imagine how annoyed they'll be when they have to wait even longer for Johnny Welfare to get around to paying the bill.