georgia association of homes and services for children october 3, 2001 called membership meeting

Georgia Association of Homes and Services for

Children

October 3, 2001

Called Membership Meeting

Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children

Purpose of Meeting To inform the membership

concerning developments in funding from the State,

To determine our reaction to DHR's answer to our specific requests,

To decide how the Association will proceed in a determining a rate methodology for services,

To inform the membership concerning developments in funding from the State.


What we Know

DHR will be making 2.5% cut in the FY2002 budget.

DHR will be making another 2.5% cut in FY2003 budget.

DHR is looking for programs to cut completely out of the budget.


What They did to Us

47 of 79 IFC providers did not get what was promised.

32 IFC providers got at or more than promise.

IFC Providers were paid an average of 90.57% of their true rate.

IFC Providers got an average of 56% of cost.


What They did to Us

MATCH providers got 95% of what was promised.

Pup, Early Intervention, and Parent Aide Services were reduced 34%


The Hardest Hit 19/79 of IFC providers got less

than 85% of what was promised. 9/13 DJJ agencies got less than

75% of what they should have received.

4/12 TFC 2 providers got a reduction from last year of over 20%.


Our Requests:1. The reinstatement and implementation of the

rate setting methodology for State FY2002,

2. Restoration of funding for early intervention programs,

3. Adequate rates for all Therapeutic Foster Care Agencies,

4. Active involvement in any discussions concerning new rate methodologies.


1. The reinstatement and implementation of the rate setting methodology for State FY2002,



The Department’s Answer

“We did an appeals process . . . And we aren’t going to do no

more.”



Department’s Answer

“We are facing cuts in every area.”




“We did an appeals process and we are not doing anymore.”




“GAHSC will certainly be at the table of any discussions concerning rate

setting methodology.”


Our Response Options:

Nothing Cessation of Services Continued Negotiation Increase Advocacy


Nothing

Suck it up and go on to plan B.

Positive: easy to do, preserves status quo with the department.

Negative: no partnership, State in drivers seat, Providers will always be at the mercy of State.


Cessation of Services:Providers like any contractor or vendor,

refuse to provide a product at the terms provided. Most providers would have to participate.

Positive: Status Quo preserved, State is required to deal with crisis in real terms.

Negative: State may look for other options, may move to other providers, providers may be seen as less dependable.


Continued NegotiationAssociation would continue talking with Department and with increased advocacy put pressure of department to deal with

issues.

Positive: preserves relationship, buys increased time for advocacy, puts pressure on Governor, supports Department.

Negative: Nothing may not happen, status quo may be preserved, agencies continue to hurt


Increased AdvocacyUse media, use coalitions, use friendly

legislators to put pressure of the Department to deal with Association.

Positive: puts us in a good position for the FY2003 budget recommendation of Governor. Allows us freedom to negotiate. Other options continue to be available.

Negative: success rests on effective advocacy, unified approach, and a realistic threat to the state and Governor.


Where from here in regard to our Response to the State?


How will the Association proceed in a determining a rate methodology for services?


Rate Setting Methodologies

Cost of Care Negotiated Contracting Levels of Care


Cost of Care

Much like what we have now. Cost are determined based on the cost

to provide the care.


Cost of Care

Pros: reflects the actual cost of providing care.

Cons: no incentive for efficiencies,


Negotiated Contracting

Contracts are negotiated by each individual agency based on a

negotiated process or a contracted process.


Negotiated Contracting

Pros: Agencies may get what they need to provide care,

Cons: Depends on good faith on both parties.


Levels of Care

Costs are determined by level of care provided by a vendor.

Reimbursement is determined for each level of care.


Levels of Care

Pros: Level playing field for all providers.

Cons: Rates must be negotiated by two equally powerful parties.


How does the Association proceed with determining a rate setting

methodology?


In Conclusion

georgia association of homes and services for children october 3, 2001 called membership meeting

Documents