Sometimes it pays to stay until the end. I was reminded of
that at yesterday’s hearing on DDS’s FY 2016 budget before the DC Council’s
Health and Human Services committee, chaired by council member Yvette Alexander
(Ward 7). DDS director Laura Nuss
testified (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B489LE-2ltOgcEI0dWVZd1ZPTFU/view?usp=sharing)
after seventeen other witnesses, and the chair’s very last question to her
touched on eligibility criteria for waiver services and the inclusion of
persons who have a developmental disability but not an intellectual disability. The director indicated that DDA is planning
to institute greater flexibility with respect to the IQ cutoff of 69 or below, but
on expanding eligibility, I was concerned to hear her reply that “a better
financial climate for the city” is required.
I’ve heard Laura speak much more forcefully on this subject before, and I’m
concerned her answer may mean that expanding Medicaid waiver services to other
D.C. citizens in need is not going to be a budget priority for the new mayor. I continue
to be encouraged, however, that the issue has the committee chair’s attention, and
hopefully she’ll keep the light shining on this grave and longstanding concern.
The budget hearing ranged across a great variety of topics. Witnesses’ testimony fell mainly into the
following categories (recall that DDA and RSA both fall under the DDS budget):
- -- Advocates applauding DDA and strongly supporting
its budget. Several individuals currently
benefiting from the DDA waiver (almost all of them receiving services from one
particular provider) spoke out forcefully in this regard. In my own testimony, I advocated in favor of
the proposed budget to ensure that DDA can meet its current commitments to
waiver-eligible individuals, but at the same time I pointed to the need for
services to expand to others who are not currently eligible.
- -- Advocates for the proposed increase in the RSA
budget. Several of these witnesses were from
organizations that have received funding from RSA, and in the interest of
transparency, I believe the council should require witnesses to disclose any
such past, present, or potential financial interest in their testimony. These favorable commentaries were challenged
by at-large council member Grosso, who said he has heard from many individuals
– some of whom testified in February at the performance review hearing - about
substandard service from RSA.
- -- Critics of DDS, a number of whom spoke about
reimbursement rates and other policies affecting DDS providers while others addressed
problems with the department’s internal personnel policies. At-large council member David Grosso was
especially vocal about this last issue, on which several individuals had apparently
approached him personally. One parent
also spoke eloquently about the difficulties she has had in gaining waiver
eligibility for her daughter and her ongoing struggles in getting appropriate,
community-based services from DDA.
Committee chair Alexander asked whether my personal experience was similar,
and I confirmed that it was, although this family’s ongoing challenges with DDA
are more significant than those we’ve encountered recently.
I realize this summary won’t provide enough detail on the
particular concerns that you may have, and I encourage you to watch the video
of the hearing at http://dc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=32&clip_id=2649. The hearing actually starts about 20 minutes
into the video and begins with an initial panel from the Office of Disability
Rights. Then come several panels of witnesses
addressing DDS issues, and DDS director Nuss’s testimony starts around the beginning of the third hour.
Finally, a word on council members’ attendance. Committee chair Alexander was of course there
for the whole time, and very engaged.
At-large member Grosso had to leave a couple of times, but had a staff
member there throughout and was obviously extremely active and interested in
the subjects covered, especially but not only where he saw overlap with the Committee
on Education, which he chairs. Ward 1
member Brianne Nadeau was briefly there at the beginning of the hearing and made
a statement. And the remaining member of
the committee, Mary Cheh, as in February, won the prize for her utter,
complete, and unexplained absence. I
hope she does not imagine there are no persons with disabilities in Ward 3.
In light of some of my past postings about the need for DDS
to get more information online, I’d like to give Erin Leveton a shout-out for
having provided the link to the Power Point presentation on the budget: http://dds.dc.gov/node/1049692. You should find this quite a bit more readable
than the version I scanned for my last posting.
