Illinois Home Services Program Attempts to Cut Lifeline Services to Persons with Disabilities

Home-Care-WorkerAs an advocate concerned about the Home Services Program (HSP), I find capping IP services hours egregious! HSP, critically important to thousands of people with disabilities across the state of Illinois, ensures that everyday HSP customers receive care from their Individual Providers (IPs).
Capping the hours that IPs can work at 40 will mean that people with disabilities will not be able to access personal care assistance. In most places throughout Illinois, HSP consumers cannot find, hire and keep decent good IPs.
Parents, siblings and other relatives who act as IPs, with whom Illinois desires to cut work hours below 40 hours, jeopardizes financial and supportive IP, positive outcomes and quality of life. Until more effective policies emerge for persons with disabilities, this reduction of IP hours becomes cumbersome, undo-able and strict.
HSP customers and IPs deserve flexibility, not rigidity. Please eliminate the cap hours a week is too harsh and will put too many people’s lives at risk.
Photo from http://blog.abbeyspanier.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Home-Care-Worker.jpg
Advertisements

STATE OF OUR STATE: ALLIANCE IN ACTION on the ROAD TO RECOVERY 

By James Jones – Metropolitan Family Services
January 26, 2016

This morning we are embarking on a trip to try to save stable and productive lives, at least in Illinois. Cutting the programs for mental health facilities in this state shows an apathy that could very well cause a travesty that could also prove tragic. We have seen on buses, on the streets, and even in programs for help, people with oftentimes severe mental disturbances that could be potentially dangerous. This is why this trip is so mandatory to many of us who need these programs just as much as any with a physical impairment. If someone had a broken arm or shattered ribs, you would want them to get medical attention immediately. But a broken psyche or shattered nerves, then what would you do? The answers to that do not come as easily because of the intricate workings of the mind. This is just one of the many reasons we must protest in numbers against the cuts to our communities, to stem the illnesses before they grow out of control.
Also, the stigma attached to mental illness is far greater than the physical could ever be. Derogatory terms for mental illness are plentiful, many used in everyday conversation. If the same would be said about someone in a wheelchair or crutches, it would be deemed cruel and distasteful. But mental illness, at whatever level it would be, is fair game for ridicule unless it is hushed up, swept under the rug, or in lower levels, ignored. These have not been effective methods to achieve mental wellness.
That is why this Road to Recovery to Springfield is so important; to have our voices heard. If no one speaks out there will be no attention or empowerment, and without these, there can be no recovery. We must stress the need for these programs clearly, distinctively, and in no uncertain terms. We have the right to stand firm and express that we cannot take this lying down. Remember that many would most likely be closer to stability had it not been for previous cuts; those many who could have lived productive lives and helped more clients in need by giving their stories as examples. We have gained great strides in the education and treatment of mental disturbance and made far too much progress to stagnate or regress. We will not slow down as we approach the finish line, or listen to nay-sayers who say we will not make it or try to cast us idly aside.
This is why it is so invigorating to be part of such a huge assemblance of different mental health services coming together for such a needed common cause, battling for the soul of Illinois. Not only did we experience unity in numbers but truth in numbers, which is one of the most powerful strengths of all, giving us a renewal of spirit in case the foibles of red tape leave us frustrated and downtrodden.
It is also ironic that I felt a sense of mass therapy with so many groups converging on Springfield showing that we care enough to come to the heart of the state to let our feelings be heard, if not heeded. It is a gamble if our showing will make a difference…Whether or not the [legislators] actually do anything legislatively, they can’t say they didn’t hear our voices loud and clear. That the funding for our facilities cannot be sliced to the bone. They cannot ignore that we made a bold statement in the state capitol. We pitched straight, now it’s up to them to catch.

Mpowered | Government Affairs & Strategic Initiatives
Metropolitan Family Services
One North Dearborn, Suite 1000 | Chicago, IL 60602
P: 312-986-4227 (direct) | F: 312-986-4334
www.metrofamily.org | jenningt@metrofamily.org

My testimony about the Department of Human Services (DHS) Proposed Changes on 08/26/15

082615 DHS Hearing

August 26, 2015

Ms. Tracie Drew, Bureau Chief
Bureau of Administrative Rules and Procedures
Department of Human Services
100 South Grand Avenue East
3rd Floor, Harris Building
Springfield IL 62762

Dear Ms. Drew:

Re:

Department of Human Services, Proposed Rules, 39 Illinois Register, pages 7301 est seq., May 29, 2015

As a Medicaid recipient of medical assistance and home services, I face a serious threat to my rights because the State of Illinois’ proposed hearing rules impose many overwhelming barriers for me to maintain my medical assistance benefits. I feel that the proposed rules would make it

difficult for me to appeal the Department of Human Services (DHS) decisions to terminate or deny my medical benefits, especially if I personally need to appeal a denial or termination of benefits.

Initially, I do not understand why

these proposed changes are necessary.

Secondly, because the hearing officer will impose the order of call of witnesses as she/he deems necessary, this two-hour hearing may be inadequate for me to fairly present my views in five minutes. I come here today to express my concerns.

Request for accommodation

To accommodate my disabilities, I request that DHS allow a 60-day appeal period, the historical time period, and that any delay caused by my medical condition may cause me medical and economic hardship. I suggest that a 30-days appeal period insufficient.

I request an accommodati

on for my disabilities that DHS offers me the option of an in-person hearing.

Benefits protection under federal law

The proposed rules are overwhelmingly complicated and confusing, and conflict with federal statutes and regulations that protect my eligibility rights for my Medicaid and Home Services benefits programs below noted.

Adequate notice

The proposed rules do not require adequate notices about termination or denial of my benefits. I suggest that DHS add language to the proposed rule to require a clear statement for the reason of its action. I suggest that the DHS does not delete the requirement that all written notices bear the same date as the date of their mailing and delivery.

DHS will not apprise me that I may request a hearing before a date of action (not the date of notice). I suggest that DHS gives me enough time to respond properly ‎to my notice. I suggest that it offers me a means to comment.

In the past, DHS sent me a notice of termination that did not allow me to respond to my resident agency service office in a timely manner, i.e., the respondent office was not

my assigned office. I did not have enough time to acquire the information requested. This made me spend 6½ hours travel and waiting time, and three office visits to submit my missing documentation. I needed to leave one office due to my long wait in an office with permeating fecal smell. After a two-hour wait, I had to leave to avoid vomiting. I returned to a fresher office the next morning. There were 250 people waiting before me, so I had to wait again. The condition of the two offices that I entered I found filthy, bug-infested, moldy and unhygienic. My visit to 5050 N. Broadway caused me to have an asthma attack.

With the proposed deletion of the word “adequate” in notices suggests that DHS thinks that notices can be something less than adequate, yet still be legally sufficient. If I receive a vague notice and think that it does not affect my benefits, I will lose my benefits. By the time I understand that DHS terminated my benefits, my appeal time and benefit payment pending appeal may have expired. I will again lose my needed medical benefits while I reapply and appeal.

Hearing judges

At a minimum, due process requires that hearing officers must be impartial. I suggest that the DHS include qualifications for hearing officers for all hearings, and specifically that hearing officers be licensed attorneys. An impartial hearing officer holds appeal hearings to determine fairly ‎the areas of agreement and disagreement. I strongly suggest that DHS replace the deletion of “unbiased” with “impartial” throughout the rules.

Free access to records

The proposed rules do not assure me free and timely access to my records for appeals. I suggest that DHS avail me of my full case record in the least burdensome manner.

I suggest that DHS not withhold my “confidential information” because that would restrict my review of my case record during an appeal process. DHS should not withhold anything in my case record for my review during the appeal process. Confidentiality is my choice, privilege, and not that of DHS.

Reasonable access to hearings

The proposed rules changed the hearing locations where I may not have reasonable access. I understand that long-term medical assistance, assigned to Chicago or Decatur, does not reimburse travel and associated costs. I could not afford to travel to Decatur.

The Bureau of Hearings (BOH) has the capability of taking appeals requests by telephone and has been doing so for many years. The proposed rules will not accept medical assistance appeals by telephone. This does not make any sense to me.

Due process

The proposed rules do not provide me with due process. I am entitled to administrative hearing procedures that have integrity and are fundamentally fair. The proposed rules require that only I may personally file a medical assistance appeal. I suggest that DHS permit my Power of Attorney agent, guardian or an authorized representative, and/or legal counsel to file appeals on my behalf. I suggest that the appeal form request attachment of my Power of Attorney document or other authorization form.

There is no rule requiring DHS to make the written appeal form readily accessible, although it requires acceptance of only written medical assistance appeals. There is no rule requiring the department to make the written appeal form readily accessible. Presently, I can only find the appeal form online and I do not always have Internet access. I suggest that DHS enclose a blank appeal form with any notice that initiates my appeal rights.

The proposed rules say that if I “improperly” request an appeal, then the BOH will advise me of the proper appeal process. I do not understand what this means. What is an “improper” appeal? Do I lose time to file my appeal? May I bring witnesses, pursue any argument without undue interference, submit evidence to establish all pertinent facts and circumstances, and question or refute any testimony or evidence, and include the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses?

I commend DHS for proposing to make an electronic recording of the hearing proceedings available to me at no cost and if such recording is not available, to make a transcript available to me at no cost.

Confusing deadlines

The proposed rules require that I provide evidence to DHS at least 3 days ( business?) days in advance of my medical assistance appeal or the hearing officer may not consider that information. This worries me because I have limited access to email, fax and/or scanned required documents. Will DHS provide me with free legal representation? What happens if my correspondence or records are lost?

The rules do not consistently specify identify deadlines; whether due dates are counted in calendar days, business or working days. I suggest that time be consistently stated throughout the rules.

Benefit payments pending appeal process

Presently, I understand that a provision exists that I am entitled to continued benefits pending appeal if I appeal in a timely manner. I cannot locate it in the proposed rules.

Burden of proof

The proposed rules require me to prove that DHS’s action is wrong, rather than requiring DHS to identify why the action is right. Because of the above-mentioned lack of reassurance for me to access to my records for the appeal, I could be unable to provide proof. This seems distinctly unfair to me. Since DHS has full access to my records located in various agency data stores, warehouses, databases, prisons, telephone records, emails and at different agency locations, I think that DHS is in a better position to provide the burden of proof.

If an attorney does not represent me, I do not have the wherewithal to defend my position within the network of governmental agency policies and procedures. Given my limitations and the inaccessibility of DHS staff, it is unfair to place the burden of proof on me.

Task-based services

Now that DHS moved to task-based staffing and special processing units, my accessibility problems have increased. With the task-based system, trying to talk to someone about my case in my DHS agency office requires me to recapitulate my entire DHS history at every encounter; affords me with little or no timely availability of my records; and, completely loses consistency of my issues with a different task worker every time. I need a caseworker to follow my case, not a task worker.

While task-based staffing and special processing units provide efficiencies for DHS, in the appeal context, it has the potential to overwhelm me and force me to abandon my meritorious appeal rather than try to navigate the system. I feel so discouraged.

In summary, these proposed rules will cause wrongful termination of my entitled benefits that will cause serious threats to my health and economic security. I implore you to review these proposed rules and their due-process violations, barriers, and uncertainties, through my eyes, as an at-risk citizen. Accordingly, I suggest that DHS withdraw the proposed amendments and refile them with adequate descriptions and reasons for every proposed change, addition and deletion in the rules.

Sincerely,

Kathleen A. Powers, A.A.S.
Northside Action for Justice, Member of the Board
The Alliance for Community Services, Steering Committee Member
Medicaid Recipient082615 DHS Proposed Changes Testimony

Ask a Casework – Event 2

Ask a Caseworker

August 19, 2014 Time log Alderman Cardenas Hearing on Chicago Mental Health Clinic Closures

 

1:00 Doors to Chambers open. Witness slips filled in and collected.
1:15 Bechara Choucair starts CPHD powerpoint presentation.
2:43 Alderman Fioretti cuts off Choucair.
2:56 N’Dana stated that most of Choucair’s statements are false.
3:13 Alderman Cappleman gave jail discharge services a black eye.
3:35 Heather O’Donnell says mental illness safety net is broken due to systemic stigma.
3:42 Client interrupted hearing before her turn
3:50 Mark Heyrman says city, county & state need to transition discharges from jail and police should not be mental health taxi services.
4:02 Chattel start testifying.
5:55 Kathy Powers just asked for an official apology from the city for the harm they inflict on persons living with mental illness.
7:37 Hearing adjourned.

 

Meeting with Alderman Waugespack on 10/9/2013

My name is Kathy Powers. I am here today with the Community Counseling Centers of Chicago (C4) and the Mental Health Justice Group. I am 63 and have lived with bipolar illness since I was 11. I spent years in hospitals in four separate states. I used to receive excellent care at the Northtown/Rogers Park Mental Health Clinic. Due to funding cuts to the city system in 2010, with no warning or referral services, I lost the opportunity to see a psychiatrist. Because of this, I could not get my medicine.

On one occasion, I went to an emergency room to get a prescription that lasted a month. Then I needed hospitalization when my meds ran out. I did well in the hospital when I received meds and services, but after discharge, I could not find a psychiatrist who would accept Medicare or Medicaid. Then the six Chicago clinics closed completely, leaving me med-less and therapy-less.

After my second hospitalization in a month, I began to receive minimal psychiatric services at C4. Through group therapy, I discovered that I was not alone in trying to receive services.

I am now involved with the Mental Health Justice Group at ONE Northside as advocacy is an important part of my recovery. We are a group of people living with mental illness and allies from the community fighting for the rights of people living with mental illness throughout the north side specifically in Uptown, Edgewater, Lakeview, Lincoln Park and Rogers Park. 

Our view on mental illness is that recovery is possible. We believe that people living with mental illness should live in the least restrictive setting possible. We believe people living with mental illness are not dangerous or violent. In fact, studies show that people living with mental illness are more likely to be victims of crimes, rather than perpetrators. Though we hold these beliefs and have much evidence to support them, the mainstream stigma associated with people living with mental illness can be overwhelming. We want to end this stigma.

One way in which this can happen is through increasing the number of Crisis Intervention Trained (CIT) police officers. CIT is a 40 hour training program for Police Officers to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness and de-escalation techniques. We want the CIT program used more, become better known in the community and have mental health providers promote the program.

We see police officers as first responders who define how communities treat people living with mental illness in crisis. We want to increase the number of CIT-trained officers in our communities and throughout the city to improve appropriate placement of persons in crisis, divert persons in crisis to treatment centers rather than prison, and to reduce the stigma for people living with mental illness.

Through our research and meetings with stakeholders, we discovered that there is a waiting list of over 400 officers who want CIT training. A bottleneck effect occurs because there are only 2.5 full staff CIT-training members in the entire Chicago Police Department. We want to get that number increased to 10 full-staff training members so that more officers are trained and in the streets working in our communities.

We seek support from legislators, the police department and mental health provider agencies to accomplish this goal.

I ask for your support in two ways. First, will you send a letter to your local District Commander to push for their support of the CIT Program locally? (Alderman Waugespack agrees.)

Secondly, will you join us in bringing this issue to the monthly Com Stat meeting of the CPD in the next few months to encourage an increase to ten full-time staff members within the CIT training division to end the bottleneck effect?

My Testimony on 2/21/14 at Stean-Cassidy-Cassidy Town Hall

My name is Kathy Powers. I am on the Steering Committee of the Alliance for Community Services and on the Board of Northside Action for Justice. I live with bipolar illness since the age of 11. I thank goodness that I have Medicare and Medicaid.

I sincerely believe that the four-drug limit be abolished. I take 20 different medications a day. If I had to choose only four of drugs on my list, I would have to choose losing my kidneys, thyroid, gi tract, perennial rhinitis, chronic pain that goes along my five back fusions, liver, suffer parkinsonian symptoms, suffer movement disorder symptoms that involve me biting my mouth spasmodically, lose control of my diabetes and/or risk my psychiatric welfare. When the rules change for dual-eligibles (persons with Medicare and Medicaid benefits), the reality of a medication limitation looms closer every day.

When the well-intentioned prior authorization process was added, there was some hope to obtain sufficient medication. Unfortunately, the prior authorization process yielded unworkable results. Persons at my C4 drop-in center had their medications denied. The reasons for the denials included “denial because it is denied,” “denial because it was already approved.”The latter denial of medication caused my friend to cut herself from head to toe in total frustration and spend a lengthy hospital time to heal from her physical wounds while she received her needed medication. The authorization process is broken and dangerous.

When one takes medications as I do, this situation effects dental health. I have three teeth left on the bottom of my mouth and I’m missing four teeth on the top (show). This lack of teeth causes me to choke a great deal when I eat, makes it almost impossible to chew. I need dentures, at least on the bottom, so I will stop choking, but I can’t afford them and can’t find any assistance to get them. I’ve been known to choke on liquids and solids, and now I have an unnecessary risk for heart disease because of my poor dental health.

Since prescribed medications prevent medical emergencies, hospitalizations and lower doctor visits, I think Congress would be wise to consider the cost savings by removing the limit on medications allowed, just as an economic boost to the Medicaid economy. As far as dental health goes, I’m sure I’m not the only one who is at risk for cardiac disease or a choking emergency or death because of lack of dental care.

Thank you for your time.

%d bloggers like this: