Services for Autistic children under attack by Gov. Schwarzenegger !!

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.

Polly, I'll be praying for you and your family. I knew there would be a cold reaction by some who are fortunate enough to not know the first thing about this topic. Hang in there.

I know this is drastic, but have you considered relocating to another state?

Actually, up until now, California has been one of the states that has had the most resources for those suffering with this plight. There are many right now with autistic children here in California that have rallied and are going to put the pressure on our government to at the least keep the resources we currently have. ( I believe someone posted a note to this effect last night.) We will know within the next few days just how this will effect us come January 2004.

as a Christian nation we have a duty and responsibility to care for each other

We have a duty and responsibility to care for each other through our networks of family, friends, churches, and charitable organizations. It is not the responsibility of government lessen your "stresses" or to make you comfortable. Your family, friends, and church are always there when you need them. Why not ask them for assistance? Should you run to the government for every ailment that befalls you?

in sum, my toast to you, "may you life end in a gutter." by that I mean, may your family die before you, social security go bust, and that you go blind and are left to die in a gutter by FreedomCalls II

Wow! I guess you did not buy into the "compassionate conservative" side of the Republican Party. All I want is for people to seek assistance from family, friends, and their church before running to the government for money. That's not asking for much. The fact that asking for that simple act would generate so much vitriol from you shows how ingrained we have become to sucking on the government teat instead of helping each other. I suspect you are a lost cause to conservatism, but I always hope you can see the light. In this 2003rd Christmas season I ask that you think of helping someone else this winter in some way (even if they don't ask) to see what joy that small acts of kindness can bring you. Don't assume that everyone gets everything they need from the government. I will pray that the rage that lives in you can be diminished. May God bless.

I certainly do _not_ want a sleep deprived elderly individual driving and risking _my_ neck on the road.

Driving 200 miles was the "worst case" scenario. First one should ask for assistance from family, friends, your church, and charities. Then if they can't help, try for government assistance. If that is not available, you can't move closer to medical treatment, your insurance money has ran out, you've sold all your expensive possessions, and still can't get the treatment you need, -- then, then I would suggest someone drive 200 miles to a doctor. It's not a solution for everyone.

To address your point precisely, the vast rural America is filled with elderly who drive long distances to get to essential services. Do you want everyone to live in the city?

My hope is that the need will open the eyes of the Churches and Communities and that we will see organizations open up and rally to the need across the country.

Yes!! That is exactly what we need to happen. My town has a several monthly support groups that meet so that people can share their experiences and help each other. There are ones for cancer, diabetes, MS, and several others that meet at several of the churches in town. We get along just fine with minimal government intervention.

The bottom line is that government isn't God despite some people's expectations.

It seems there are plenty of people ready to pray to government rather than praying to God. I always thought the Democrats looked at government as a quasi-religion, but given that so many people think that way here on what is a conservative forum, it will be more difficult than I thought to wean people off of it.

I support cutting these programs for disabled children because I think we have to trim every program across the board. However, if the federal or state government offers programs for disabled children, there should not be a means test. Here's why: medical costs (defined broadly, to include physical therapy, etc.) are usually subsidized by a government or an insurance company, so that the quoted prices for anything medical are astronomical. This being the case, a family with a handicapped child could run up hundreds thousands of dollars if they were being billed directly for the services. Only the mega-wealthy could absorb costs like these, leaving the merely "rich" without sufficient funds to pay for the programs, yet unable to qualify for government programs. Tough luck, you say? Well, I think you could make a strong libertarian argument that these programs should not exist in the first place, but as long as they do exist, if there is a means test, you'll have the merely rich folks paying for the poor folks via exhorbitant taxes, yet these taxpayers would themselves neither qualify for the programs nor be able to afford private care that would rival what the poor folks would get gratis. (Yes, I know, "rich" folks should have private insurance, but insurance companies are far less generous than the government when it comes to paying for things like a social worker to shadow each autistic child at school every day. Again, I'm not defending such programs in the first place; I'm just saying that if taxpayers are going to offer them to anyone, let's not screw a guy who's "rich" because he makes 100k a year, but has four kids, one of whom is disabled.)

But, if you mean the RICH, then it is different.

The really wealthy would find the best in the nation to meet their child's needs, and give no thought to the money spent.

When it comes to all of these tax funded programs, there should be cuts across the board, if California is ever to become solvent.

And besides, this looks more like a freeze, than a cut, to me.

I understand Freeper pollywog's concern. And yet, I do think there must be multiple programs that she can access to assist her and her family. I would be digging deep and hard, for any information I could find, not just railing against the governor.

Upon further investigation I found out that Lanterman was being investigated by the state for numerous waste, fraud, and abuse issues.

When a state bureaucrat says it is for the children, look deeper than the headlines. I think this why they got shut down.

Straight Pipes, I know you are right. There is so much waste and abuse. Most of the tax payer dollars are spent on the top of the pile bureaucrats! But that sure doesn't change the fact that we down here on the bottom getting squished, are still in need. What to do, I haven't a clue. Perhaps we need some real serious investigation going on!!

Cajun, we certainly could afford that. We have tried. You cannot get anyone to handle a 180lb autistic client that tantrums !! It usually takes a trained person who has been through classes. It really is a lot different that " babysitting". These adults are severe in their tantrums and behaviors.

I am fully aware of the difficulties of autism. I have been a case manager and worked in social services for over 10 years. There are older college students who are mature enough to handle the training needed to be a good caregiver. Look in nursing departments, lots of big strong men are in that field. Talk with a non profit agency service provider who has to train folks and see if there is a way a group of you parents could offer a training in service program for persons who would be good respite workers. I know it's frustrating and frightening but I am just throwing out ideas that might be useful.

If you can afford it then why can't you hire any of the workers who may lose their jobs with the budget cuts? There ARE people out there who can help even if it's not exactly what you are receiving now, any relief is better than none.

Are any of the other parents financially able to afford hiring private help too? What if you all formed your own "agency" where you served as a central point of service.

I guess what I am saying is you know what is needed, the other parents know what works and what doesn't, make a list of those requirements and advocate for your family members with autism.

Sorry for the ramble. Just some ideas that's all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.