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.

(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.</>

I don't think your ox is being gored. The Gov. is trying to run on a real budget. This is a freeze, not a cut.

Why can't these programs be privatized? They are needed. So they will exist. But they don't have to be a gov program. They can become a nonprofit.

There are privatized non-profit agencies out there. I worked for one. It was not a pleasant experience. The staff were lazy. They did the barest minimum for the people we supported. The clients were all nonverbal, so they couldn't tell anybody what was going on. And my manager and assistant manager (both women) were having an affair. In the house. While the men were home. Each would take turns coming out of the office to wash their faces.

At their work program (a different private company) two other women were caught in the act in the middle of the room when another "house" came to pick up their clients. In front of the people they "support."

Abuse reports were filed. Investigations were done. The staff was reprimanded. The end.

unreal! Drive once or twice a week 200 miles for therapy on TOP of dealing with autism?

Yes!

I know someone who lives 6 hours one way from UT and he drove twice a week to night classes after work to finish his degree. He only got two hours of sleep those nights, but he did it -- just for a degree, and here you won't even think of driving your OWN SON for some needed therapy. I would if he were mine. My wife has a quarterly doctors appointment that requires she drive 120 miles one way to see him. That's just a part of the rural lifestyle. If I couldn't deal with it, I would move to a big city. this is your SON'S health we are talking about after all.

Both your and my ancestors said good-bye to everyone they ever knew, gave away everything they ever owned, endured a 30-day storm-tossed ocean voyage, and picked up and moved to an uninhabited wilderness, where they had nothing but each other in order to have freedom and get away from an oppressive government and you won't even drive your OWN SON 200 miles for some therapy instead you insist that some government bureaucrat should vacuum money up out of my wallet so you can avoid life's stresses. That is not what government is for.

You do what you have to do.

Well said. And true. People cope without the assistance of government slackers all the time. When did we start looking for a government solution to life's little problems first before we asked our friends, family, and church for assistance?

If he were my son, I would drive him the 200 miles to the therapist. Why can't you? Here in West Texas, we think nothing of driving 250 miles just to go shopping or to eat at an Olive Garden for goodness' sakes.

I have a 13 year old son with PDD (pervasive developmental disorder) which is another form of autism. When he was younger, I'd pack him up in the car with his siblings to visit my sister who lived almost 150 miles away. He would fall asleep for an hour then for the rest of the ride he would scream and cry himself hoarse. He would only stop once I took him out of the car.

I get the sense from this post that you are assuming we are making a " kill" on government money here!! Nothing could be further from the truth. SSI comes to most disabled adults. I can tell you it is probably the best tax dollars we spend. What I'm trying to get a "sense" of is the extent of what gov't is truly providing you and the extent of your entitlement expectations. These are the sorts of questions you should anticipate when you start complaining to taxpayers that they're not doing enough. It is fair for taxpayers to ask about the benefits you're receiving beyond the ones you're concerned about being cut.

I'll probably catch flack for posting this. I would rather that fat cat bureaucrats, multiple levels of administrators etc were taken down first before others were jammed as they may soon be instead.

The rats and bureaucrats scurry better than easy targets like the ones depicted above.

Check yur local community for services or charities that may be able to help. Good luck.

"elimination of the In-Home Supportive Services residual program which employs parents and other family members to provide assistance to family members with disabilities. "

I am very sorry for those who have such burdens to bear. However, o you think the government -- i.e. OTHER TAXPAYERS should PAY the parents to take care of their own children? What's wrong with this picture? THIS is one of the things that they will cut, very sensibly too.

DO NOT WORRY. Get to your regional center and ask for the booklet entitled "Making it Happen, Obtaining third party health insurance coverage for autism services."

The state cannot afford these services, but the wealthiest companies doing business in Cullyforneeah can. The health insurers. They are doing heads over teakettles fantastically, and they are required to pay for all autism services under Assembly Bill 88.

Thank attorney (and father of a boy with autism) Christopher Angelo for getting this bill passed. Basically, this bill makes it MANDATORY for all insurance companies, even HMOs, to cover any medically necessary services for our chronically disabled kids, with autism, cerebral palsy, etc. if they would cover them for "other medical conditions," such as brain trauma from a car accident.

Your insurance company will not point this out to you. You need to fight for it, but there are forms you can use to get them to pay.

It is better this way than having the state pay, anyway. FReepmail me for Mr. Angelo's addy/tel no. of you want. He is a passionate lecturer on this subject. I hope you all have a chance to inform yourselves about this wonderful ally we have in AB 88.

But government workers are NOT lazy or slackers? Never been any corruption in government -- no siree, never happens.

My husband worked in a maximum state prison in MA for years. He has many stories about lazy staff who have made the job more dangerous than it should be.

I'm sorry if I've offended you.

My husband worked in a maximum state prison in MA for years. He has many stories about lazy staff who have made the job more dangerous than it should be.

I'm sorry if I've offended you.

No offense here. I am aware of the lazy workers and those who corrupt the system! ......if we could only find a method of " clearing them out" without destroying the benefits of those in need. *sigh*.....

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.