During the past couple of months our State Governor Schwarzenegger has charged that fraud and integrity was out of control within the In-Home Supportive Services Program. Later this charge had been proven in part, mostly wrong. Yet, because of this initial charge, there has developed a climate that the In-Home Supportive Services Program needs more program integrity and investigating of possible fraud by its users.
Under the disguise of cutting services to the most needy and vulnerable of this State’s population, the elderly and individuals with disabilities, our State legislatures voted to pass Assembly Bill 1x4 as amended by the Senate July 23, 2009. This bill requires reducing assistance to many throughout the State, though some, hopefully, will be able to adjust to not having minimum services such as cleaning the house, meal preparation and cleanup, laundry, and etc.
These may seem minor, but they could lead to more poor health conditions than necessary within the elderly and people with disabilities community
What’s difficult to understand, especially after all the debate about needing to make cuts in the budget that will hurt, our State Legislatures approved to fill 67 positions to work in our Capitol. Twenty-five of these positions to be filled this fiscal year and the remaining forty-two positions to be filled in fiscal year 2010-2011. These positions are to work in the State Department of Health Care Services and the State Department of Social Services to develop program integrity and fraud prevention within the In-Home Supportive Services program.
The funding for these positions will total $3,004,000 (50/50 State and Federal funding.). In addition to this, our State Legislatures have appropriated $10 million for the purpose of fraud investigations and additional program integrity efforts related to the In-Home Supportive Services Program. This is to be distributed to the Counties after they have developed an approved plan to address fraud and program integrity surrounding the In-Home Supportive Services Program of the County.
If our State Legislatures really wanted to curtail fraud and promote the program integrity of the In-Home Supportive Services Program they would not hire the 67 positions planned to be filled in the Capitol of Sacramento. They would invest this funding on top of the $10 million into the In-Home Supportive Services Program at the County level to investigate fraud and develop program integrity.
Our County programs do not need more tiers of management in the Capitol, but need more support on the ground in the County from the State!
Who am I? My name is Charlie Bean. I am a Triplegic, one of those that will more than likely lose my In-Home Supportive Services, which is okay for me. But is it okay for others much worse off than I am Senator Wiggins and Assemblymember Chesbro?
Showing posts with label chesbro. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chesbro. Show all posts
Friday, August 7, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Fingerprinting/Timesheets Ltr to Representatives
I am sharing my letter that I am sending to Speaker Bass, Senator Steinberg, Assemblymember Chesbro and Senator Wiggins of California. I hope that others on this mailing list takes the opportunity to send your representatives in the State your views regarding the need of fingerprinting and the new timesheets that was recently passed under SB 19 X4 affecting the IHSS program (You may differ regarding my letter, but that is okay.).
Subject: SB 19 X4 (Ducheby) – Fingerprinting IHSS Recipients/Providers and Timesheets
As an individual paralyzed from a Spinal Cord Injury for 35 years and who has used the In-Home Supportive Services Program from time to time; I believe that requiring “Fingerprinting of IHSS Recipients and Providers” is unreasonable and in the long-run will only cost the State and other agencies more money.
It may be true that providers will pay for their own fingerprinting and background check (Which is usually paid for by the employer.), but even this is a little more than what is needed in my opinion. Considering the “Provider” in many situations is a relative of the individual they are assisting (Originally, the IHSS program was started to supplement loss income caused from caring for relatives.), fingerprinting for a criminal background is more than likely not important to the recipient.
Under SB 19 X4 (Ducheny) if we have a relative assisting us and they have a criminal background, will they not be able to assist us? The requirement for fingerprinting a provider should be left as it is, the recipient’s choice (Refer to I-24-04 (09/10/98) Fingerprint brochure – Humboldt County number?).
Requiring recipients to get fingerprinted is also a great blunder of the Governor. Not only because individuals under the IHSS program are more likely receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), but who will pay for it? Current SSI recipients are well below the poverty level and in many cases barely paying the rent if they live away from their relatives. Having discovered that a recipient has a criminal record will they be denied services?
It is also being required to replace the current timesheets being used with new timesheets with spaces for the index fingerprint. Here one only has to question what is needed to do this. Besides spending more money on printing the timesheets needed to meet this; but the cost of having ink available when the timesheet is being completed (May not be that difficult, but really is this necessary?). What is going to be done with the old timesheets, more unused forms in a warehouse?
Replacing the old timesheets is just another example of something that does not improve the system and costs more money, but also discourages appropriate time keeping. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the program and how the timesheets are used.
The requirement of fingerprinting recipients and providers will in the long-run only cause an undue burden on individuals needing assistance to stay out of the nursing homes and a bigger cost to the State tax-payer in the long-run!
If our State legislatures wish to reduce costs to the IHSS program, get the user involved so the program can be reduced without losing services that individuals need to live as independently within their community as possible.
Subject: SB 19 X4 (Ducheby) – Fingerprinting IHSS Recipients/Providers and Timesheets
As an individual paralyzed from a Spinal Cord Injury for 35 years and who has used the In-Home Supportive Services Program from time to time; I believe that requiring “Fingerprinting of IHSS Recipients and Providers” is unreasonable and in the long-run will only cost the State and other agencies more money.
It may be true that providers will pay for their own fingerprinting and background check (Which is usually paid for by the employer.), but even this is a little more than what is needed in my opinion. Considering the “Provider” in many situations is a relative of the individual they are assisting (Originally, the IHSS program was started to supplement loss income caused from caring for relatives.), fingerprinting for a criminal background is more than likely not important to the recipient.
Under SB 19 X4 (Ducheny) if we have a relative assisting us and they have a criminal background, will they not be able to assist us? The requirement for fingerprinting a provider should be left as it is, the recipient’s choice (Refer to I-24-04 (09/10/98) Fingerprint brochure – Humboldt County number?).
Requiring recipients to get fingerprinted is also a great blunder of the Governor. Not only because individuals under the IHSS program are more likely receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), but who will pay for it? Current SSI recipients are well below the poverty level and in many cases barely paying the rent if they live away from their relatives. Having discovered that a recipient has a criminal record will they be denied services?
It is also being required to replace the current timesheets being used with new timesheets with spaces for the index fingerprint. Here one only has to question what is needed to do this. Besides spending more money on printing the timesheets needed to meet this; but the cost of having ink available when the timesheet is being completed (May not be that difficult, but really is this necessary?). What is going to be done with the old timesheets, more unused forms in a warehouse?
Replacing the old timesheets is just another example of something that does not improve the system and costs more money, but also discourages appropriate time keeping. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the program and how the timesheets are used.
The requirement of fingerprinting recipients and providers will in the long-run only cause an undue burden on individuals needing assistance to stay out of the nursing homes and a bigger cost to the State tax-payer in the long-run!
If our State legislatures wish to reduce costs to the IHSS program, get the user involved so the program can be reduced without losing services that individuals need to live as independently within their community as possible.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Hearing Rights Pamphlet
Responding to what I received at the bottom as a reponse to my inquiry to Assemblyman Chesbro about receiving the "Hearing Rights" pamphet quarterly for every one in my family.
Dear Ms. Moss,
After reviewing how my representatives voted (Senator Wiggins and Assemblyman Chesbro), I am not to positive they considered other cost saving initiatives that the State of California could do to appropriately use pubic funds.
My original inquiry about the "Hearing Rights" pamphlet mailed out quarterly to individuals receiving Medi-Cal was an attempt to look at a part of waste our Government does every day in doing business.
I understand that this came about because of a lawsuit, referencing "Jackson vs Rank" that required this to all those receiving Medi-Cal.
What I don't understand is why it is sent to every member of a family, even a child that can not read, or even understand what the pamphlet is for. This is a waste, and I can't believe the intent of the lawsuit was that every recipient of Medi-Cal was to get this, especially a child.
On top this, every time an individual visits a social services office you are handed a group of pamphlets with the same information - You visit the office a couple times a month, you get the same information, and then,it is even mailed to your home after you have been approved or denied services.
What is the cost for this?
This is one thing that needs to be reviewed. If our State Government is truly concerned about costs and receiving a valued use of public funds, the "Jackson vs Rank Lawsuit" needs to be revisited.
I hope that my two State Representatives consider this as a goal in actually saving our State money in how business is conducted.
You folks have a great day!
Charles L. Bean
From: "Gail.Moss@asm.ca.gov"To: charles.bean@yahoo.comSent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:00:50 PMSubject: From the office of Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro
Dear Mr. Bean:
I apologize for the delay in obtaining an "official" response with regard to your inquiry regarding the quarterly insert sent on behalf of Medi-Cal.
Below is the "official" response from the Department of Health Care Services:
"Hearing Rights" brochure being sent out: Pursuant to the Jackson v Rank lawsuit, DHCS must send these brochures out to all Medi-Cal beneficiaries quarterly.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact our offices in the future with any comments or inquires.
Sincerely,
Gail Moss, Executive Secretary to Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro
Sonoma County District Office
Dear Ms. Moss,
After reviewing how my representatives voted (Senator Wiggins and Assemblyman Chesbro), I am not to positive they considered other cost saving initiatives that the State of California could do to appropriately use pubic funds.
My original inquiry about the "Hearing Rights" pamphlet mailed out quarterly to individuals receiving Medi-Cal was an attempt to look at a part of waste our Government does every day in doing business.
I understand that this came about because of a lawsuit, referencing "Jackson vs Rank" that required this to all those receiving Medi-Cal.
What I don't understand is why it is sent to every member of a family, even a child that can not read, or even understand what the pamphlet is for. This is a waste, and I can't believe the intent of the lawsuit was that every recipient of Medi-Cal was to get this, especially a child.
On top this, every time an individual visits a social services office you are handed a group of pamphlets with the same information - You visit the office a couple times a month, you get the same information, and then,it is even mailed to your home after you have been approved or denied services.
What is the cost for this?
This is one thing that needs to be reviewed. If our State Government is truly concerned about costs and receiving a valued use of public funds, the "Jackson vs Rank Lawsuit" needs to be revisited.
I hope that my two State Representatives consider this as a goal in actually saving our State money in how business is conducted.
You folks have a great day!
Charles L. Bean
From: "Gail.Moss@asm.ca.gov"
Dear Mr. Bean:
I apologize for the delay in obtaining an "official" response with regard to your inquiry regarding the quarterly insert sent on behalf of Medi-Cal.
Below is the "official" response from the Department of Health Care Services:
"Hearing Rights" brochure being sent out: Pursuant to the Jackson v Rank lawsuit, DHCS must send these brochures out to all Medi-Cal beneficiaries quarterly.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact our offices in the future with any comments or inquires.
Sincerely,
Gail Moss, Executive Secretary to Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro
Sonoma County District Office
Friday, January 23, 2009
Approve A Budget!
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro
Senator Patricia A. Wiggins
I am writing to urge you to take action to help reach a final budget agreement that will address the ongoing state budget deficit. As you are aware, State Controller John Chiang recently called for immediate action on the part of the Governor and the Legislature to reach a consensus for the current fiscal year and Fiscal Year 2009-2010 and announced that California will face an enormous cash flow deficit that will begin on February 1st of this year.
More specifically, I am concerned about his reports that our State is showing no signs of any economic recovery and that California will face a $346 million cash flow deficit by the end of February and a projected $5.2 billion shortfall by the end of April. This amount may exceed $10 billion by July, which is particularly alarming since we have failed to make progress in meeting the $41.6 billion deficit projected over an 18-month period ending June 2010.
In response, the State Controller is proposing to delay payments for programs and services that are not mandated by the California Constitution, Federal law, or court rulings and may be forced to issue registered warrants in the immediate future. Although he will issue payments for some of these programs, I am concerned about the ways in which the cash flow shortage will impact the state economy, certain programs and services for seniors and people with disabilities, and state agencies that administer programs if the State Controller is obligated to implement his proposed plans.
I understand that the Governor and Members of the Legislature have political and ideological differences that impede a budget agreement, but these differences pale in comparison to the tragic human and economic consequences of continued impasses. Accordingly, I respectfully urge you to do all that you can to help vulnerable populations and our diminishing state economy that threatens the lives and well being of all Californians.
Sincerely,
Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro
Senator Patricia A. Wiggins
I am writing to urge you to take action to help reach a final budget agreement that will address the ongoing state budget deficit. As you are aware, State Controller John Chiang recently called for immediate action on the part of the Governor and the Legislature to reach a consensus for the current fiscal year and Fiscal Year 2009-2010 and announced that California will face an enormous cash flow deficit that will begin on February 1st of this year.
More specifically, I am concerned about his reports that our State is showing no signs of any economic recovery and that California will face a $346 million cash flow deficit by the end of February and a projected $5.2 billion shortfall by the end of April. This amount may exceed $10 billion by July, which is particularly alarming since we have failed to make progress in meeting the $41.6 billion deficit projected over an 18-month period ending June 2010.
In response, the State Controller is proposing to delay payments for programs and services that are not mandated by the California Constitution, Federal law, or court rulings and may be forced to issue registered warrants in the immediate future. Although he will issue payments for some of these programs, I am concerned about the ways in which the cash flow shortage will impact the state economy, certain programs and services for seniors and people with disabilities, and state agencies that administer programs if the State Controller is obligated to implement his proposed plans.
I understand that the Governor and Members of the Legislature have political and ideological differences that impede a budget agreement, but these differences pale in comparison to the tragic human and economic consequences of continued impasses. Accordingly, I respectfully urge you to do all that you can to help vulnerable populations and our diminishing state economy that threatens the lives and well being of all Californians.
Sincerely,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
