TESTIMONY OF MR. GARY BLUMENTHAL,
(former Johnson County Legislator and one of the authors of the original Developmental Disabilities Act in 1993; former SRS Regional Director, former state protection and advocacy for people with disabilities Director, former Director of Johnson County Developmental Supports (JCDS) and current Executive Director of the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers in Massachusetts.)
To: House Social Services Budget Committee
From: Gary Blumenthal
Date: March 18, 2009
Chairperson Mast and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide input regarding the recent approval of Special Tier funding for persons with challenging behavioral and medical needs served by Community Living Opportunities, Inc. (CLO).
I am a former Johnson County Legislator and one of the authors of the original Developmental Disabilities Act in 1993. I am also a former SRS Regional Director, former state protection and advocacy for people with disabilities Director, former Director of Johnson County Developmental Supports (JCDS), and the brother of a person with a developmental disability that has been served by both JCDS and CLO. As such I have a lot of experience with this issue.
I currently reside in Massachusetts, where I am the Executive Director of the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers.
The fact that CLO sought reimbursement relief from SRS is not newsworthy; it is in fact very old news. CLO has been appealing for additional reimbursement for serving people with challenging behaviors and medical needs since its inception over thirty years ago. They have made similar appeals to every Secretary of SRS dating back to the Administrations of Governors Carlin, Hayden, Finney, Graves and Sebelius.
In my opinion, the relevant issue is the conflict of interest inherent in the final passage of the Developmental Disabilities Reform Act, enacted in the mid 90’s, which allowed one provider to be both the fund distributor (CDDO) and a competing service provider.
For several years, there has been at best a strained relationship between CLO and JCDS. JCDS functions as both a service provider and the Community Developmental Disability Organization (CDDO), which manages Medicaid and State funds for services. I can attest, as the former JCDS Executive Director, to the details of this difficult relationship. JCDS has been reluctant to serve the type of challenging individuals served by CLO, while also being very reluctant to respond to CLO’s repeated requests for financial assistance. JCDS has operated for over 30 years a workshop-oriented program. That level of service is not regarded as best practice or cutting edge. CLO has stepped in and provided cutting edge programs, supporting people with multiple disabilities and challenging behaviors. Seeking reimbursement based upon actual cost is their right and responsibility as effective advocates.
I believe the Legislature can best remedy this situation by separating CDDO responsibilities from competing provider agencies. CDDOs have the responsibility of managing state and federal funding for services, quality assurance, intake and referrals for services, and dispute resolution. A CDDO should not be allowed to also provide services in direct competition with its affiliate providers.
Five regions of Kansas currently have CDDOs that do not provide direct services. This is a model that is in the best public interest for the rest of the State. In fact, this is the legislative position that CLO has recommended for several years, a position that has been strongly resisted by the existing CDDO network and InterHab. Thus the criticism from InterHab is not surprising. The fact that the press has unwittingly gotten involved in an internal turf fight is however surprising. I hope the Legislature avoids getting caught in this turf fight; however it is often the final duty of the Legislature to settle such turf battles.
The suggestion that CLO should not or could not appeal the treatment that it receives from CDDOs is wrong on many levels. To tell a provider that they may not appeal to the Secretary is to suggest that the CDDO has the final authority with regard to rates and other funding and quality decisions. I do not believe there is any statutory basis to suggest that the Legislature ever intended to strip the Secretary or itself of such authority. The CDDOs exist under contract with the State, and the Secretary as the state’s administrator. The Secretary has the final authority, not the CDDO.
Should you have questions about the opinion or information I’ve provided, please feel free to contact me.
