|
Overall, it was a mixed session for MDCRCC. On policy issues,
a few bills passed concerning (1) a prioritization system for investigations, (2) the right for individuals receiving services
from DDA to be informed of all the most integrated setting service options and (3) written plans of habilitation. In addition,
MDCRCC’s proactive CHOICE legislation did not receive a vote in committee. However, the coalition was very successful
on budgetary matters and issues concerning closure of facilities or attempts to move people from the centers into the community.
All in all, it was a good session for the Coalition in only its second session as a coordinated group representing the interests
of those individuals residing in the state residential centers.
Placement of Individuals in the Community and Facility
Closure Attempt
As originally introduced, House Bill 148 and Senate Bill 127 (both failed) had language that stated
“…for fiscal year 2006, the Community Services Trust Fund may be used by the Developmental Disabilities Administration
of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for the purchase of community based services for 40 individuals leaving the
Rosewood Center and 40 individuals on the waiting list for community based services.” We were able to defeat this language
and keep it out of the final passage of House Bill 147, the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2005 (passed). In
addition, we were again faced with the recommendation from the budget analyst to close one of the centers – this time
the Potomac Center was the target. Last session we were successful in beating back an attempt to close Rosewood. This year
we were again successful in beating back a closure attempt. The budget documents stated “…to contain long term
growth in facility and personal cost, DLS recommends closing Potomac Center in fiscal 2006.” This closure was estimated
to save the state $9 million. We will need to continue to be vigilant in the upcoming years as additional attempts will
be made to close any and all of the 4 remaining centers.
Developmental Disabilities Administration Funding
The
Developmental Disabilities Administration provides direct services to individuals with mental or physical impairments that
result in substantial functional limitations and are likely to continue indefinitely. Services are provided in four State
residential centers and through funding of a coordinated service delivery system that supports the integration of these individuals
into the community – home and community-based (group home) services.
The developmental disabilities budget
grows $38 million in fiscal 2006 – a result of several recent initiatives intended to increase access to and quality
of community services. General funds represent $17 million, or 45 percent of the budgeted growth. Of the total increase,
$16 million is dedicated to the fourth year of the initiative to increase wages for community direct service workers.
Concern that direct care workers employed by community providers were not being compensated at the rate of employees in State
residential centers led to legislation, enacted in 2001, to eliminate the wage disparity over a five-year period.
Individuals
with Developmental Disabilities
Senate Bill 776/House Bill 988 (both passed) make it a right for each developmentally
disabled
individual receiving services from DDA or from a DDA licensee to receive treatment,
services, and habilitation in the most
integrated setting and to be informed of all the most
integrated setting service options. An individual’s annual reevaluation
must include a
determination of whether services could be provided in more integrated settings. This is an attempt to
further promote (push) community placement related to the residents of the state residential centers.
Senate Bill
714/House Bill 794 (both passed) require an individual with a developmental disability living in a DDA residential center
to receive independent resource coordination services and have the individual’s written plan of habilitation reflect
the coordinator’s recommendations. This is another attempt to promote group home placement of the remaining citizens
residing at the state residential centers by removing the state employed resource coordinator from the individual’s “team.”
MDCRC CHOICE Legislation
Building upon the success of last session, MDCRC met with Chairman Norm Conway
prior to the 2005 session and requested that legislation be introduced again in 2005 concerning the issue of choice for individuals
to receive services at the state residential centers. Delegate Conway introduced House Bill 1534 (failed) entitled “Intermediate
Care Facilities for Individuals with Developmental Disability - Freedom of Choice". The purpose of the bill was to allow
Marylanders with disabilities access to a wider range of services and guarantee their right to choose the setting that best
meets their needs. Although the bill was given a late hearing date in session and did not receive a vote by the Health and
Government Operations Committee (HGO), we are hopeful that dialogue between Delegate Conway and opponents in the legislature
of the bill during the last days of session will help foster negotiation during the interim that will lead to a successful
legislative effort in the 2006 session. As we will discuss in the NEXT STEPS section, if MCRCC find that this dialogue is
not productive, there are other options available to the coalition that we have discussed and explored over the past 2 years.
2005
Interim Recommendations (Next Steps)
The MDCRC Coalition needs to continue to make its presence known in Annapolis
and around the state. We will need to continue to be active and voice support for individual’s ability to choose services
at the state residential centers. In addition, we will need to be active and open discussions with the Administration on
how to utilize the centers betters and continue to discuss the community resource center model as an economically viable option
for Maryland. The MDCRC C needs to continue to work with others to supports choice. The issue of deinstitutionalization
is not going away, and the MDCRCC needs to be diligent in its work for residents of the centers and their families.
Submitted
by:
Mark E. Engberg (MD State Coordinator - VOR)
Member of MCAR and MD CRC Coalition
410-546-1087 (H) mengberg@comcast.net
|