Legislative Issues

 

New 2008 Autism Bills:
The press conference is up on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlXehHbQthI.

From Senator Tom Torlakson's Office:
SACRAMENTO - California Lawmakers today unveiled a comprehensive legislative
package of eight bills to address the rise in diagnoses of children with
autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in California. The bills were inspired by a
report issued by the California Legislative Blue Ribbon Commission on
Autism.

"This Commission was charged with providing real solutions and
recommendations to improve the lives of individuals with autism spectrum
disorders (ASD) and their families," said Senate pro Tempore Don Perata
(D-Oakland), who authored the resolution that created the commission (SCR
51, 2005).

The Commission consists of health experts, family members, business leaders,
educators and researchers and is chaired by Sen. Darrell Steinberg
(D-Sacramento).

"The increase in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders affects
families, schools and communities all over California," Steinberg said.
"Today this Legislature is responding strongly to the challenges this
disorder poses to the state."

After conducting extensive public hearings and town-hall meetings throughout
California, the Commission submitted its findings and recommendations to the
Governor and Legislature in its report: An Opportunity to Achieve Real
Change for Californians with Autism Spectrum Disorders; September 2007. You
can read the report at: http://senweb03.senate.ca.gov/autism/index.html

"With the broad participation of parents, families, consumers, educators,
clinicians, researchers and advocates the Commission's report provides a
momentous step in forging new directions for real change," said Dr. Barbara
Firestone, Commission Vice-Chair and President & CEO of The Help Group.

The Autism legislative package includes the following bills:

. SB 1563 (Sen. Perata) to provide appropriate and equitable coverage for
ASD by private health plans and insurers

. SB 527 (Sen. Steinberg) to improve the early identification and
intervention for young children with ASD

. SB 1175 (Sen. Steinberg) to expand the housing and independent living
opportunities for adults with ASD

. SB 1475 (Sen. Tom Torlakson) to improve the coordination of ASD services
and programs between regional centers and school districts for children from
birth to five years of age

. SB 1364 (Sen. Gil Cedillo) to improve community awareness and outreach
efforts on ASD by the California Department of Public Health

. SB 1531 (Sen. Lou Correa) to improve the training and knowledge of ASD
among law enforcement officers

. AB 2303 (Assembly Speaker-Elect Karen Bass) to expand the credentials that
would qualify teachers to educate students with ASD

. AB 1872 (Asm. Joe Coto) to establish a state clearinghouse for the
education of students with ASD.

The Autism Legislative Package is supported by numerous families and
stakeholders such as actor Gary Cole, the parent of a child with ASD.

"The Autism Commission has not only garnered enthusiastic support from
stakeholders and autism organizations, but today's California autism
legislative package brings real hope into the lives of individuals and
families coping with autism throughout our state and nation," said Cole.

Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), commonly referred to as autism, are brain
based developmental disabilities characterized by language/communication
problems, impaired social interaction and repetitive rigid behaviors and
interests. Once considered rare, autism is the fastest growing serious
developmental disability and is more prevalent than juvenile diabetes,
childhood cancer and pediatric AIDS combined.

Autism now affects 1 in every 150 children in the United States; every 20
minutes another child is diagnosed. Autism is four times more common in boys
than girls and occurs in children of all racial, ethnic and socioeconomic
backgrounds. Nationally, the diagnosis of autism has increased tenfold in
the last decade. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have called
autism a national public health crisis. The economic impact of autism is
estimated to exceed $90 billion annually.


Information From CDCAC February 2007-
Number of Autism Related Cases "Exploding" Across Nation & State
* About one child in 150 develops autism or a related disorder like Asperger's syndrome by the age of 8, according to a federal government study released February 8th, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  The analysis involved these states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
* The study, which looked at cases of  autism spectrum disorders in 14 states in 2000 and 2002 confirmed recent estimates used previously by federal and state government agencies,  which put the number at roughly one in 160 children.  In the 1980's the number was estimated at 1 in 200 children. 
* Researchers said the study was the most comprehensive analysis to date of the increasing numbers of children with autism or related disorders in the US.
*  In California, the numbers of current caseload of persons with autism being served by the 21 non-profit regional centers under the Department of Developmental Services have as one advocate put it "exploded" with a dramatic increase  from 4,911 in August 1993 to over 31,000 persons in 2006. The State reports that about 77% of those persons are children under the age of 18 years.  It is considered by advocates and state officials as the fastest growing major developmental disability in California touching every community and ethnic group. 
* The Department of Developmental Services reports that the California's autism caseload increased by 634% from 1987 to the end of 2002, with about a net increase of over 3,000 persons with autism being added every year to the caseload.  The state considers autism as the fastest growing developmental disability.
* The percentage increase in the number of children and adults with autism who received services through the 21 regional centers under the Department of Developmental Services during the first quarter of 2005 more than tripled the percentage increase in the number of individuals for the three other primary types of developmental disability combined, according to the State. 
* Those numbers do not include thousands more who may not know of those services or fall outside the eligibility requirements to receive it.
 [Note: The State changed eligibility standards - some critics say significantly narrowed it - that came into effect in 2004. The Governor, as part of his budget for 2007-2008, proposes to continue the change in eligibility that originally was supposed to expire last year.. Democrats in both houses of the state Legislature seem at this point to support doing so, according to Capitol observers]
* The California Department of Education reported that in the 1992-93 school year, there were 1,982 students with autism who were enrolled in grades Kindergarten through 12th grade with that number dramatically increasing by 2004  to 21,948.  The Department of Education says the number of students with autism enrolled in K-12 schools has increased over 1,000% in the past 23 years with nearly every region of the state reporting a doubling of the numbers of children with autism being enrolled in recent years. 

Ask Your Senators to Sign Onto the Lifespan Respite Appropriations Letter Today!

Contact your Senate offices today and ask them to sign a letter (see PDF) being circulated by Senators Clinton and Warner to the Senate Appropriations Committee requesting $40 million for the Lifespan Respite Care Act for FY 08. Deadline for Senators to sign on is April 23.

The Lifespan Respite Care Act authorizes competitive state grants to Aging and Disability Resource Centers in collaboration with a public or private non-profit state respite coalition or organization to make quality respite available and accessible to family caregivers regardless of age or disability. The law allows grantees to identify, coordinate and build on federal, state and local respite resources and funding streams, and would help support, expand and streamline planned and emergency respite, provider recruitment and training, and caregiver training.

To identify your Senators and their contact information, visit http://www.congress.org/ and enter your zip code. The most effective way is to call them directly. Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for the Senator’s office and then ask for staff who handles appropriations or health issues.



From CDCAC 2007
SOME EFFORTS IN CALIFORNIA

To see web cast of the Blue Commission meeting held in Sacramento on March 1, 2007 re: autism visit:
http://www.calchannel.com/


Autism Speaks Applauds Introduction of Legislation

Autism Speaks joined with Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Wayne Allard as they announced the introduction of the Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act of 2007, landmark legislation that would dramatically expand federal funding for life-long services for people with autism. Read more. Plus, see photos from the announcement. And click here to ask your Senators to co-sponsor the bill.


* LEGISLATIVE BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON AUTISM - In California, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (Democrat - Oakland) authored SCR 51, which passed in 2005, that created a  Legislative Blue Ribbon Commission on Autism to study issues including the early identification and intervention of Autism Spectrum Disorders and to also  identify gaps in programs, services and funding related to the early identification, education and treatment and provide recommendations to close the identified gaps.  The commission is required under SCR 51 to report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and to the Legislature no later than September 30, 2007.  SCR 51 passed both houses of the Legislature overwhelmingly.  In the State Senate it passed 39-0 with one senator absent or abstaining.  In the Assembly it passed 75-1, with only Republican Assemblymember (now retired) Ray Haynes voting no. 

February 2007 News....
Tommy G. Thompson, Co-Chairman

Roy E. Barnes, Co-Chairman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 13, 2007

Contact: Jennifer W. Adams
Phone: 202/285-4268-C

Commission Releases Final Report for
NCLB Reauthorization
Recommendations to Serve as Blueprint for Change

WASHINGTON, DC —Today the Commission on No Child Left Behind released its final recommendations for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).  The 75 recommendations in the report focus on making sure teachers and principals are effective, improving accountability measures, effective school improvement and student options, rigorous standards, and strengthening high schools.  “We hope this report will serve as a blueprint for Congress and the Administration as they work to reauthorize NCLB this year,” said Secretary Tommy Thompson.  “The commission worked tirelessly and in a bi-partisan manner to come up with a comprehensive package of reforms that we believe will significantly improve the law.”

“It is our hope that the administration and Congress will build on what we have learned about NCLB in its first five years,” said Governor Roy Barnes.  “We believe our recommendations will help improve academic achievement for our Nation’s students and, most importantly, quicken the closing of the achievement gap.”

When it was first passed in 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act was one of the most significant steps taken by the Federal government to focus on raising student achievement for all children while addressing the achievement gaps that separate disadvantaged students from their non disadvantaged peers.  The Commission’s charge was to identify the successes of NCLB as well as its challenges and problems and to develop solutions that will improve the law’s impact on raising student achievement and closing these achievement gaps.  These recommendations were produced through a bipartisan independent process that included 12 public hearings and roundtables around the country and over 10,000 emails, submissions of written testimony, meetings and letters from those with thoughts on how to improve the law.

Most of the Commission’s recommendations can be grouped into 5 broad categories:

  • Ensuring Teachers and Principals are Effective at Improving Student Achievement
  • Accelerating Progress through Accurate and Fair Accountability Measures
  • Effective School Improvement and Quality Student Options
  • Rigorous Standards Tied to College and Workplace Readiness
  • Strengthening and Reforming High Schools

It is expected that Congress will begin work to reauthorize NCLB this year.  The Commission will work with Congress, the Administration, the education community and the general public throughout the reauthorization process to make the case for our recommendations.  In the coming weeks, the Commission will be announcing a schedule of events and continuing analysis and research that will be conducted to support the reauthorization process.

The entire Commission report can be read, ordered and downloaded at www.nclbcommission.org.

The Commission on No Child Left Behind is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Spencer Foundation. This document is published to communicate the results of the Commission’s work. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in the Commission’s documents are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the donors.     

***


  Newly Published information from The M.I.N.D. Institute
The MIND Institute - this article is about a link between neurons in the amygdala (part of the brain related to emotion, particularly identifying and responding to emotions) and autism, specifically in boys.  http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/releases/archives/mind/2006/amygdala7-2006.html


***BREAKING NEWS  February 2007***
From US Autism & Asperger Association

If you missed the new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that finds that autism is more prevalent than ever before estimated, affecting roughly 1 in 150 American children, you were either in another country where you didn't have access to the Internet, or you were on vacation mimicking the Corona commercials that recently appeared during the Super Bowl time outs. The news appeared everywhere, in newspapers, television and radio. The problem was, that in many cases, the story was buried.

Enter the words MMRW (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report), CDC, and autism in Google. What appears is the MMRW home page that even positions the autism prevalence studies as the third story behind "Unintentional Poisoning Deaths," and "Indicators for Occupational Health Surveillance." If the report, from the CDC, on autism states that "ASDs are more common than previously thought and are conditions of urgent public health concern," and is considered less important that recreational drug use with a prevalence of 7.1 in 100,000 population, then it may be difficult for the news media to understand the significance of the autism epidemic. Ironically, the autism prevalence report appears directly across from the recommended immunization schedule for persons aged 0-18 years. Is the placement ironic or is it a carefully planned position on this page?

Let's look at some of the headlines and comments from different media sources from this past week.

  • ABC News, "Autism: What's in a Number?", identified that the Washington Post had the report on page A6, The New York Times on page A12. Gary Langer from ABC news says, "...before we blame the media [on the positioning of the story], we might take a look at the source of the confusion — the news conference the CDC held to announce the study Thursday."
  • KOMOTV.com, Seattle, Washington, "Study: Autism on the rise; state urged to take action." In Washington state, the numbers are similar to the national findings. The University of Washington's Autism Center is known as a leader in both diagnosis and treatment, but Dr. King says there are not nearly enough services for everyone. "We've known that this is a problem for a long time and we still have the waiting lists, we still have the lines," he said.
  • Tuscaloosanews.com, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, "Experts: State autism higher than listed." Centers for Disease Control survey showed that the prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder among 8-year-olds in Alabama was 3.3 per 1,000 compared to a national average of 6.6 per 1,000. The medical professionals said the state's numbers were low because researchers had access only to health department records, while most of the other states allowed use of education department records as well. They said Alabama also has fewer autism programs than the other states, limiting the information available. University of Alabama at Birmingham professor Russell Kirby, [who] organized Alabama's data collection for the study, said Alabama education officials cited privacy laws in not allowing access to their records. “We're fairly well convinced that we missed a lot of cases because of our inability to review records in schools," Kirby said.
  • nj.com, The Star Ledger, New Jersey, "Study: N.J. leads nation in rate of child autism." New Jersey leads the nation in child autism rates, according to a study that examined at the prevalence of the disorder across the country. An estimated one in 60 boys are diagnosed with autism in the state."
  • Deseret News, Provo, Utah, "Utah autism rate among highest; increases twentyfold in 20 years." "With numbers like this, I think it qualifies as an urgent public health concern," said Judith Zimmerman, Ph.D., assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the U. [University of Utah].
  • Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, Utah, "'Wake-Up Call' on Autism: Study shows dramatic growth in syndrome." In Utah alone, the study revealed, 1 in 133 children have an ASD - the third highest rate among the 14 U.S. sites that gathered data. Boys in Utah, the study revealed, are six-and-a-half times more likely to have autism than girls. About 1 in 79 boys have it, compared to 1 in 500 girls.
  • newswise.com, from the University of Indianapolis, "Increases in Autism Rates Not Surprising to Education Expert." “We have seen the rates of autism increase dramatically over the last seven years,” notes Dr. John Somers, director of graduate programs and coordinator of special education in UIndy's School of Education. The rise in autism cases puts intense pressure on schools to meet the needs of autistic children. “Schools are reeling today to accommodate the needs of the increasing number of children diagnosed with autism,” Somers explains. “Because students with autism embody a multitude of needs and services (special education teachers, speech-language pathologists, physical and occupational therapists, etc.), the increase is overwhelming and we do not have enough school personnel trained in this area to deliver much needed services.”
    • <>Medicalnewstoday.com, "National Autism Association Renews Call For CDC To Declare Autism A National Emergency." "While it's nice that the CDC has shared these findings with the public, they must move forward with a plan to treat the children suffering with autism now," said NAA board chair Claire Bothwell. "This agency has yet to answer the question, 'Why are so many children sick?' If this were an epidemic of practically any other disease among the children of this country, they would have long since investigated how it could have happened and made earnest attempts to find treatments."

    ****Insurance NEWS 2007****


    Autism INSURANCE information regarding AB 88
    from the web site:
    "Insurance Help For Autism" by T. S. Eliot
    http://www.insurancehelpforautism.com/index.html
<>
Supreme court hearings regarding special education
* U. S. Supreme Court *

For Supreme Court news, commentary and analysis, orders, opinions, and multimedia, go
to Scotusblog at:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/

The most recent article about the Winkelman case is "Argument Recap: Winkelman v.
Parma City School District on 2/27" by Molly Cutler of the Stanford Supreme Court
Litigation:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/03/argument_recap_14.html

Oyez is the Supreme Court multimedia site where you can hear podcasts, interviews, and
take a virtual tour of the Supreme Court building:
http://www.oyez.org/

To learn more about the Supreme Court, and the procedures that govern the Court, go to:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/about.html

===============

* Contact and Subscription Info *

The Special Ed Advocate is a free online newsletter about special education legal and
advocacy issues, cases, and tactics and strategies. The Special Ed Advocate is published
weekly (usually on Tuesdays or Wednesdays, with occasional breaks). Subscribers also
receive "alerts" about news, events and special offers on Wrightslaw publications and
products.

To subscribe, please go to http://www.wrightslaw.com/subscribe.htm

Regulations for IDEA 2004

It is expected that the federal regulations to implement IDEA 2004 will be issued in late August by the U.S. Department of Education. Look for the latest information on www.pacer.org or www.fape.org.



September 8, 2005

* AB 1662 Special Education Bill Passes Senate 38-0
* Amended on Senate Floor Just Before Final Vote
* Returns to Assembly for Approval of Senate Amendments
* Approval in Assembly Expected Later Today

SACRAMENTO  -   Legislation to align state special education law to changes made to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorized by the US Congress last December, passed the State Senate early this evening by a vote of 38-0.  The bill, AB 1662 by Assemblymember Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View), was amended on the Senate floor just before the vote, to address concerns raised by school boards, school administrators and other groups.  The details of those amendments were not yet available. 

Sen. Jack Scott (D-Altadena) who asked for approval of the measure on the Senate floor said the bill was important to pass because it "will ensure that California receives its share of special education funding", estimated to be over $1.3 billion for the 2005-2006 budget year. 

He said that the bill also had provisions that would "alleviate confusion" and address "non-compliance" issues in the field.  A more detailed report on this bill will be issued in soon.   The bill heads back to the Assembly for approval of the amendments made in the Senate.  Both houses are scheduled to adjourn this evening and the Assembly is expected to approve the bill later this evening. 

*************

 New DVD-
Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board
When Parents and the School Board Disagree

For more information onm this DVD, Contact Harbor House Law Press, Inc. at http://www.harborhouselaw.com
or call 877-LAW-IDEA


*****************


The latest three supplements to the 27th Edition of the A Composite of Laws covering amendments to California Education Code are available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/.

 

Supplement III incorporates the changes made by Senate Bill 65, Chapter 497, Statutes of 2005, with an effective date of October 4, 2005.  SB 65 makes fiscal and technical changes to the education portion of the budget bill and the education budget trailer bill amending 6110-161-0001, 6110-161-0890, and 6110-001-0890.

 

Supplement IV incorporates the changes made by Senate Bill 512, Chapter 677, Statutes of 2005. The bill, an urgency measure covering various education issues, became effective on October 7, 2005.  This bill is the annual Senate Education Committee "clean-up" bill that makes various non-controversial revisions to statute.

 

Supplement V amends the California Education Code to conform to federal law by Assembly Bill 1662 (Lieber), Chapter 653, Statutes of 2005.  The bill, an urgency measure covering various education issues, became effective on October 7, 2005.   This bill makes revisions generally to conform state law to the federal requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as amended in 2004, relating to, among others, pupil identification, assessment, and eligibility; individualized education program development, including notice, representation, and hearing procedures and requirements; and pupil data confidentiality, and would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes.

 
SUMMARY OF AGNEWS RELAED BILLS MENTIONED IN THIS REPORT
AB 1662  Special Education - Aligning CA Law With IDEA Improvement Act of 2004
Author: Assemblymember Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View, 22nd District)
What this bill would do: Makes changes to state special education laws to align them with changes enacted by the US Congress in December 2004, with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act.  The bill is an urgency or emergency bill, meaning it will go into effect immediately upon approval by the Governor.
Last Amended (Changed):  09/08/05 on the Senate Floor
Currrent Status as of 09/08/05: PASSED Senate 38-0. 
Next Steps:  Returns to Assembly Floor today for approval of amendments made in Senate. [note: both houses are scheduled to adjourn today, so action by the Assembly  will happen today
Impact To ADA/Olmstead/Lanterman Act/IDEA:  Major impact to how the changes made by US Congress last December to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is implemented in California
CDCAN Comment:  Parent advocacy groups and other organizations supported previous version of this bill - though their position on the most recent amendments made on the Senate floor this evening is not known.  The Governor is expected to sign the bill.  YES!!!!

California Education Code web site http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=edc&codebody=&hits=20
56343. An individualized education program team shall


For Parents...

Resources for your IEP:
http://www.taalliance.org
http://www.fape.org

Also: CA Disability Community Network Capitol News Report - Issue #176-2004
Linking people to disability rights and unified action visit  http://www.cdcan.us


PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE, in accordance §300.503, is required, because graduation from high school with a regular diploma constitutes a change in placement (see §300.122(a)(3)). School districts will be expected to provide the notice "a reasonable time" before proposing to graduate a student -- in order to ensure that there is sufficient time for the parents and student to plan for, or challenge, the pending graduation. (See analysis of comments related to §300.122(a)(3)); and
 
Parents & Caregivers:  In order to comply with special education law, prior written notice must be given to the student and/or parents when special education students graduate with a regular diploma because it is a change in placement.
 
What is Prior Written Notice?
 
It is a procedural safeguard. Schools, under certain circumstances, must provide parents & guardians with a written explanation, including reasons and the criteria for their decision, for their proposed action or refusal. Here's an excellent publication that describes  the process in easy to understand language:
 
Reference Sites:
IDEA information- http://www.ideapractices.org

IEP Information- http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/

Composite of Laws-
http://www.eit.otan.dni.us/speced/laws

California Special Ed Law- http://www.cde.ca.gov/spbranch/sed/

Family Education lawyers write this web site- http://www.familyeducation.com

Educating the student with AS-
http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/

Autism resource site-
http://www.autism-resources.com

American Disability Act - ADA-
http://www.ada.gov/votingck.htm

Education for Autistic Children Act
(TEACH Bill 2003)
http://www.autism-society.org

CA Disability Cummunity Action Network
http://www.cdcan.us

Special Ed Law-
http://www.edlaw.net
http://www.specialed.about.com
http://www.reedmartin.com
http://www.specialedadvocate.com
http://www.educationaltools4kids.com
NEWS Regarding LRE (Least Restrictive Environment): As you are aware, the IDEA provides that States must have in place procedures assuring that, "to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institution or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aide or services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C. §1414(a)(5)(A)
Supplementary aides and services should be looked at first before a district pulls a child to a more restrictive environment. A supplementary aide or service could include a 1:1 aide or a reading specialist who can modify the general ed curriculum. 20 U.S.C. §1401.


Assembly Bills and Issues that affect Autism:

 The House appoints IDEA Conference Committee Members
On October 8, 2004 the U.S. House appointed its representatives to a joint House-Senate conference committee.  They will be negotiating a compromise regarding the IDEA re-authorization bill.  This is scheduled to take place after the November elections.  If a re-authoriazation agreement is not reached, the conference committee will review the IDEA Bill again in 2005.
 
New and Available- No Child Left Behind Act -
A Parent's Guide for children who struggle to learn.  Please download this free 22 page guide!  Go to http://www.ld.org/nclb



No Child Left Behind

go to http://www.dredf.org or http://www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com.
Or http://www.SchwabLearning.org/NCLB


Updates on current Bills:

 http://www.arccalifornia.org/Bill_Update_Page.htm

New Child Development Bills Are Introduced (Thanks to Tim Fitzharris, Ph.D.  Legislative Advocate CDPI)

AB 1662 (Lieber) - Special Education: Confidentiality - As introduced
Digest Summary: Existing law provides that, in accordance with specified federal law, personally identifiable information about individuals with exceptional needs is confidential. This bill would prohibit the education records of individuals with exceptional from being released to participating agencies without the consent of his or her parent or guardian, unless authorized to do so under applicable federal law, as specified.

 

SB 640 (Escutia) - Special Needs Children - As introduced
Digest Summary: Existing law, the Child Care and Development Services Act, provides for a system of child care and development services for children, including children with exceptional needs, by public and private child care providers. This bill would declare that it is the intent of the Legislature to appropriate the sum of $5,000,000 to the State Department of Education for purposes of funding, in the 2005-06 fiscal year, certain activities related to child care providers with respect to serving children with exceptional needs. _______________________________________________________________________________________




Update on the Olmstead Act http://www.cdcan.us/cdcan_reports/frame.htm

To find your Congressperson or Senator, go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials

SACRAMENTO  -  California Health and Human Services Agency Secretary Kim Belshe announced the the appointments of the 30 member state Olmstead Advisory Committee, which was created under executive order (S-18-04) by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last fall.   Belshe, who directs the state agency that oversees departments that have responsibility for most of the major programs and services for people with disabilities and seniors, including Medi-Cal, regional centers, developmental centers, health facilities, SSI/SSP, rehabilitation and independent living centers.

The committee will advise the state on its compliance with the landmark 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead decision, that required states to take measures to prevent the "unnecessary institutionalization" of people with disabilities and seniors.  The first meeting of the committee, according to Belshe, will be sometime in February, pending the schedules of the new committee members.  Gov. Gray Davis created an Olmstead advisory committee in late 2002 within the Health and Human Services Agency, but the group never met and went out of existence with the change in Administrations in the fall of 2003.

Belshe said that Gov. Schwarzenegger is "committed to providing services for persons with disabilities and seniors in the most integrated setting and adopting policies and practices that make it possible to remain in the community and avoid unnecessary institutionalization."

Many disability and senior advocates assert that the Governor's proposed budget cuts to In-Home Supportive Services, SSI/SSP, regional centers and other services important to people with disabilities and seniors undermines his commitment to the State's compliance with Olmstead.  The Schwarzenegger Administration however points to its efforts in closure of Agnews Developmental Center and involvement of stakeholders with redesigning Medi-Cal as evidence that California is moving toward full compliance.

Brenda Premo Appointed Committee Chair
Belshe also announced that Brenda Premo, currently director of the Center for Disability Issues and the Health Professions, and former director of the California Department of Rehabilitation, will serve as chair of the advisory committee. Also announced was the Governor's appointment of Sarah Steenhausen as Health and Human Services Agency Assistant Secretary for long term care.  Her responsibilities will include the Long Term Care Council and the Olmstead Advisory Committee.

Schwarzenegger issued his executive order immediately after he vetoed last September, SB 1365 by Sen. Wes Chesbro (D-Arcata, 2nd District) which would have required the California Health and Human Services Agency to create an Olmstead advisory group.  Many senior and disability advocates were dismayed with the Governor's veto, including State Council on Developmental Disabilities Area Board 4 Chair  Nastaha Littletree, who died a few days later.  Some friends suggested that Littletree, who had developmental and other physical disabilities, became despondent over the veto believing that the State was no longer committed to Olmstead.
The Governor's subsequent executive order directed the Secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency to inform the Administration's "understanding of the current system of care and provide leadership in developing future initiatives".  The Heath and Human Services Agency received a large number of applications for the committee and originally was scheduled to announce membership last fall, but that was delayed due to committments with work on Medi-Cal redesign, the 2005-2006 budget and other critical issues.



Schwarzenegger 2007-2008 Budget Proposal

Major Items

Affecting People with Developmental Disabilities

http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis.aspx?year=2007&chap=0&toc=0

http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2007/health_ss/hss_06_4300_anl07.aspx#Developmental%20Services%20(4300)


Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Health and Social Services

Developmental Services (4300)

A developmental disability is defined as a severe and chronic disability, attributable to a mental or physical impairment that originates before a person’s eighteenth birthday, and is expected to continue indefinitely. Developmental disabilities include, but are not limited to, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, and disabling conditions closely related to mental retardation. The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act of 1969 forms the basis of the state’s commitment to provide developmentally disabled individuals with a variety of services, which are overseen by the state Department of Developmental Services (DDS). Unlike most other public social services or medical services programs, services are generally provided to the developmentally disabled at state expense without any requirements that recipients demonstrate that they do not have the financial means to pay.

The Lanterman Act establishes the state’s responsibility for ensuring that persons with developmental disabilities, regardless of age or degree of disability, have access to services that sufficiently meet their needs and goals in the least restrictive setting. Individuals with developmental disabilities have a number of residential options. Almost 99 percent receive community-based services and live with their parents or other relatives, in their own houses or apartments, or in group homes that are designed to meet their medical and behavioral needs. Slightly more than 1 percent live in state-operated, 24-hour facilities.

Community Services Program. This program provides community-based services to clients through 21 nonprofit corporations known as regional centers (RCs) that are located throughout the state. The RCs are responsible for eligibility determinations and client assessment, the development of an individual program plan, and case management. They generally pay for services only if an individual does not have private insurance or they cannot refer an individual to so-called “generic” services that are provided at the local level by counties, cities, school districts, and other agencies. The RCs also purchase services, such as transportation, health care, respite, day programs, and residential care provided by community care facilities. The department contracts with the RCs to provide services to more than 212,155 clients each year.

Developmental Centers (DC) Program. The department operates five DCs, and two smaller leased facilities, which provide 24-hour care and supervision to approximately 2,800 clients. All the facilities provide residential and day programs as well as health care and assistance with daily activities, training, education, and employment. More than 7,700 permanent and temporary staff serve the current population at all seven facilities.

Current-Year Deficiency. The DDS periodically estimates future caseload and utilization costs for RCs based upon historical data. The DDS has updated its projection of the cost of RC purchase of services during 2006-07 based upon the most recently available actual RC caseload and cost data. The data suggest that funding provided for this program in the 2006-07 Budget Act will be insufficient by about $51 million General Fund. The deficiency results from two adjustments: (1) an increase of $18 million related to the recent state minimum wage increase, and (2) an increase of $33 million related to updated utilization and caseload projections for the RCs. The administration has indicated that funding for this deficiency request will be pursued through a supplemental appropriation bill.

Overall Budget Proposal. The budget proposes $4.3 billion (all funds) for support of DDS programs in 2007-08, which is a 5.7 percent increase over estimated current-year expenditures. General Fund expenditures for 2007-08 are proposed at $2.6 billion, an increase of almost $37 million, or 1.4 percent, above the revised estimate of current-year expenditures.

Community Services Budget Proposal. The budget proposes $3.6 billion from all funds ($2.2 billion General Fund) for the support of the Community Services Program in 2007-08. This represents a $47 million General Fund increase, or 2.2 percent, over the revised estimate of current-year spending. The increase is a result of caseload growth, higher utilization rates for services, the effect of the increase in the minimum wage, and other program changes. Of the total $3.6 billion in funding proposed for RC programs in 2007-08, $501 million is for RC operations and $3.1 billion is for the purchase of services. The community services budget plan includes the following proposals:

  • Increased Federal Reimbursements for Intermediate Care Facilities for the Developmentally Disabled (ICF/DD). The budget plan assumes that the federal government will provide matching funds for day programs and nonmedical transportation services for RC clients residing in ICFs/DD. This would require a Medi-Cal state plan amendment which would result in a General Fund savings of approximately $44 million.

  • Fund Shift From Public Transportation Account. The budget proposes a one-time allocation of $144 million from the Public Transportation Account in lieu of General Fund to provide certain transportation services to RC clients

  • Continued Implementation of Medicare Part D. The budget plan proposes an increase of $708,000 in total funds ($357,000 General Fund) and eight positions to support workload associated with implementation of Part D of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003.

Developmental Centers Budget Proposal. The budget proposes $712 million from all fund sources ($393 million General Fund) for the support of the DCs in 2007-08. This represents a net decrease of $9.9 million General Fund, slightly more than 2 percent below the revised estimate of current-year expenditures. The DC budget plan includes the following proposals:

  • Agnews DC Closure. The budget plan continues to assume the closure of the Agnews DC in June 2008. In 2007-08, DC expenditures decrease by $10.4 million ($5.6 million General Fund) to reflect decreased staffing costs as Agnews’ population is relocated into community placements or to other DCs. The RC budget would provide $50.7 million ($37.9 million General Fund) to reflect the costs of providing community-based services to former Agnews residents.

  • Employee Compensation. The budget plan also proposes $33.1 million ($19.2 million General Fund) in 2007-08 for increased employee compensation and benefits.

Headquarters Budget Proposal. The budget proposes $40 million from all funds ($26 million General Fund) for support of headquarters. About 62 percent of headquarters funding is for support of the community services program, with the remainder for support of the DC program.

Regional Center System: Rapid Spending Growth Continues

The cost to the state of operating regional centers for persons with developmental disabilities has continued to escalate at a rapid pace with total spending projected to increase by almost $1.7 billion, or about 89 percent, between 2000-01 and 2007-08. In this analysis we examine recent caseload and program spending trends, assess the Governor’s caseload projections, identify an opportunity to draw down additional federal funds ($11 million in the current year), and recommend the Legislature increase oversight of the department’s rate reform effort.

Background

How Do RCs Provide Services for Their Clients?

The RCs provide services to clients through two mechanisms. First, RCs purchase services directly from vendors. These services are commonly referred to as “purchase of services.” Secondly, RCs assist their clients in obtaining services from public agencies. These services are commonly referred to as “generic services.” We discuss both types of services further below.

Purchase of Services. The budget for purchase of services consists of ten main service categories, plus one additional category referred to as “other adjustments.” (A more detailed description of these categories is provided on page C-162 of our Analysis of the 2005-06 Budget Bill.) Figure 1 shows the Governor’s proposed spending plan for these purchase of services categories in 2006-07 and 2007-08.

 

Figure 1

Regional Centers Purchase of Services Funding
By Service Category

(All Funds, Dollars in Millions)

Service Category

2006‑07a

2007‑08a

Difference

Year-to-Year Percent Change

Day programs

$700

$754

$54

7.7%

Community care facilities

688

770

82

11.9

Support services

488

551

63

12.9

Miscellaneous

268

312

44

16.4

Transportation

203

214

11

5.4

In-home respite

165

180

15

9.1

Habilitation services

148

150

2

1.4

Health care

83

91

8

9.6

Out-of-home respite

48

49

1

2.1

Medical facilities

18

18

—

—

Other adjustmentsb

—

-44

-44

N/A

  Totals

$2,809

$3,045

$236

8.4%

 

a  Reflects Governor's revised estimate for 2006‑07 and the budget proposal for 2007‑08.

b  Reflects adjustments for changes in the rate structure for Intermediate Care Facilities for the
Developmentally Disabled.

 

Generic Services. Under state law, generic services are defined as those being provided by federal, state, and local agencies which have a legal responsibility to serve all members of the general public and that receive public funds for providing such services. There are more than a dozen different generic services that are regularly accessed by RC clients. For example, medical services for an eligible developmentally disabled person might be provided through the Medi-Cal health care program for the poor. City or county park and recreation programs also provide generic services for developmentally disabled clients. State law requires that RCs access generic services first and make purchase of services only when generic services are unavailable.

Some Purchase of Services Provided Under a Federal Waiver. Under the federal Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waiver, federal funds can be drawn down to pay for about one-half the costs of certain community-based services for individuals at risk of institutionalization. The 2007-08 budget plan assumes that RC programs will draw down $818 million in federal funds under the HCBS waiver.

Overall Spending and Cost per Client. Between 2000-01 and 2007-08, total spending is forecast to increase by almost $1.7 billion if the administration’s budget plan were adopted as proposed. During the same period, spending per person, after adjusting for inflation, would go up 11 percent and unadjusted spending per person would go up by 36 percent, as shown in Figure 2.

 

RC Caseload Below Projected Levels

Background

Between 2000-01 and 2007-08, the RC caseload is projected to grow from about 163,613 to almost 221,000, an average annual growth rate of almost 4.4 percent. The caseload trend is shown in Figure 3.

 

Figure 3

Regional Center Caseload
Growth Trend

Average Annual
Population

 

Increase From
Prior Year

Fiscal Year

Caseload

Amount

Percent

2000-01

163,613

 

8,651

5.6%

2001-02

172,714

 

9,101

5.6

2002-03

182,175

 

9,461

5.5

2003-04

190,030

 

7,855

4.3

2004-05

197,355

 

7,325

3.9

2005-06

203,823

 

6,468

3.3

2006-07a

212,155

 

8,332

4.1

2007-08a

220,600

 

8,445

4.0

 

a  Administration caseload estimate.

 

Several key factors appear to be contributing to ongoing growth in the RC caseload. Medical professionals are identifying persons with a developmental disability at an early age and referring more persons to DDS programs. Improved medical care and technology has increased life expectancies for individuals with developmental disabilities. The RC caseload growth also reflects a significant increase in the diagnosed cases of autism, the causes of which are not fully understood.

Governor’s Budget Proposal

In accordance with past practice, the 2007-08 budget plan reflects DDS’ updated projections for the number of RC clients for the current and budget years. The budget plan indicates that the actual caseload in the RC system in 2006-07 is tracking very closely to the original budgeted level. Specifically the average annual caseload for the current year is estimated at 212,155, or just 70 clients less than the estimate of 212,225 that was the basis for the RC system’s appropriations in the 2006-07 Budget Act. The budget plan further estimates that the average annual RC caseload will grow to almost 221,000 in 2007-08, a year-to-year increase of 8,445 clients or 4 percent.

As described above, the administration proposes to increase the level of current-year funding provided for RC purchase of services by about $33 million General Fund. This further adjustment reflects updated expenditure data on utilization and caseloads for RC purchase of services.

For 2007-08, the Govenor’s budget proposes to increase spending for the RC system by about $251 million including an increase of about $46.5 million from the General Fund. This increase mainly reflects estimated growth in caseloads, costs, and the utilization of services by RC clients.

Recent Data Suggest Caseload Overstated. The Governor’s budget request is based on data that was available through July 2006. However more recent data through December 2006 indicate that the average annual caseload is likely to be about 1,460 below the level that DDS has estimated in the current year and about 1,500 below the level that DDS has estimated in the budget year.

Analyst’s Recommendation

Based on the most recent information available, it appears the caseload is potentially overbudgeted by roughly $14 million General Fund in the current year and $15 million General Fund in the budget year. However, the department has indicated that in some cases in the past, lower-than-anticipated caseload costs have been offset by increases in utilization. It is possible that the reduction in caseload will be offset by an increase in utilization cost. We recommend the Legislature require the department to report at budget hearings on the specific causes for increased utilization and costs. In our view, without accurate information about what is causing increased utilization and costs, the Legislature lacks the information it needs to assess the causes of the rapid growth in the RC program and determine which policies would be most effective to contain these costs.

We note that in our Analysis of the 2006-07 Budget Bill, (page C-156) we recommended that the Legislature direct the Department of Finance’s Office of State Audits and Evaluations to conduct an audit to evaluate the accuracy and the consistency of the purchase of services data now being reported by the RCs. Because the accuracy and consistency of these data are now uncertain, the state lacks tools that are needed to exercise strong fiscal oversight over RC spending. An improvement in the way expenditure data are reported has additional potential benefits. It could improve the quality of the data used by DDS for budget forecasts, so that its budget request to the Legislature could more closely match the actual funding required to support community services programs.

The administration has indicated that it will provide updated information on the overall RC caseload trend, change in the mix of RC clients, and trends in the cost and utilization of services at the time of the May Revision. We will continue to monitor caseload trends and will recommend appropriate adjustments, if necessary, in May when DDS’ updated budget request is presented to the Legislature.

ICF/DD Rate Restructure Would Leverage Federal Funds

Background. The ICF/DDs are often located in the community, sometimes in single-family houses, and provide residential services for the developmentally disabled including 24-hour personal care. In our Analysis of the 2004-05 Budget Bill (page C-185), we described how the state could draw down additional federal funds to offset the state costs of day programs and transportation services provided to RC clients residing in ICFs/DD by modifying the ICF/DD rate and implementing other related changes.

Specifically, in order to capture these additional federal funds, the state would have to redefine the ICF/DD program as an “all-inclusive service.” Currently the ICFs/DD are paid a rate based only on the specific nursing care services they provide. Additional services that a client may receive such as transportation or a day program are generally paid for separately by the RC or provided through a generic service provider. Under this option, ICFs/DD would be redefined to be an all-inclusive service and the responsibility for providing day programs, transportation, and other assistance (in cases where generic services were unavailable) would shift from the RC to the ICFs/DD. In turn, these services would be reflected in the rates paid to ICFs/DD.

Budget Plan Assumes Savings in 2007-08. The state plan is an agreement between the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the state regarding the operation of the state’s Medi-Cal Program. The Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) is pursuing a revision to the Medi-Cal state plan to include coverage and payment for day program and nonmedical transportation services for RC clients residing in ICFs/DD. The budget plan assumes (1) approval of the state plan amendment and an increase of $44 million in federal funds in 2007-08 and (2) a commensurate reduction in state General Fund support for day program and nonmedical transportation services. The budget plan does not assume any savings in 2006-07.

Current Year Savings Opportunity. In some cases, once a state plan amendment is approved by the federal CMS, states may submit claims and draw down federal funds retroactively to the date of submission. For example, if the DHCS submitted the proposed state plan amendment to the federal CMS in April of 2007, and it was approved in July of 2007, the state may be able to submit claims for federal reimbursement going back to the date when the state plan amendment was originally submitted.

Based on discussions with DHCS, the department has been working on developing a state plan amendment for about two years. Given the time DHCS has spent on developing this state plan amendment, we believe that it is reasonable to assume that the department will be able to submit it to the federal CMS by April.

Analyst’s Recommendation. We recommend the Legislature assume that the state plan amendment will be submitted by DHCS to the federal CMS in April of 2007 and that it will be approved. We estimate that this would result in an additional $11 million in federal reimbursements for 2006-07. We recommend that the Legislature recognize a commensurate amount of state General Fund savings in the current year for RC purchase of services.

Rate Reform Progressing Slowly

Background. The Legislature has taken some actions in recent years to slow growth in state costs for the RC system. Beginning in 2003-04 and continuing through 2006-07, it acted to control costs by adopting legislation imposing rate freezes and other cost-control measures on selected community services. The rate freezes and cost-containment measures were intended to be temporary actions to help address the state’s serious fiscal problems while allowing time to consider permanent and ongoing strategies to help contain RC costs such as rate reform.

Rate Reform Efforts. Historically, there has been significant variation in the way that rates are set for the RC vendors who provide services, and the rate-setting approach overall has lacked a rational and consistent approach. The 2004-05 Budget Act provided four permanent staff positions and $500,000 in one-time funding for contract resources to enable DDS to develop standardized rates for certain types of RC vendors. As part of its review process, DDS was to evaluate the existing rate-setting methodology, identify inadequacies or drawbacks in the way rates were set, identify and develop any statutory and regulatory changes found to be necessary, and implement and monitor a revised rate-setting methodology. The rate reform activities approved by the Legislature were intended to be part of a more comprehensive cost-containment program for the RC system.

Progress to Date. The rate reform process has generally focused on those services for which rates are set through negotiations between RCs and service providers. Over a multiyear period, several RCs have been surveyed to obtain specific information about how they determine rates for 16 different services provided to RC clients. The last of three waves of surveys were sent out to the RCs in January 2006.

The DDS has developed a regulations package for rates for supported living services that is currently in the formal regulatory review process. (Supported living services consist of a broad range of services to developmentally disabled adults who choose to live in homes they own or lease in the community.) The DDS planned to circulate an initial regulations package for comment in January 2007 regarding some of the other rates included under the reform effort. At the time this analysis was prepared, these regulations were not yet available for comment.

As noted above, DDS was provided $500,000 in one-time funding for contract resources to enable DDS to develop standardized rates for certain types of RC vendors. In November 2005, DDS awarded a contract to a consultant to provide assistance with analyzing data and evaluating findings and recommendations regarding certain services purchased by RCs. The consultant completed a report and provided it to DDS in the fall of 2006.

State Savings Lost as Rate Reform Plods Along. More than two years have passed since the Legislature provided staff and funding resources to support the administration’s rate reform initiative. The proposed spending plan offers no indication of when DDS will implement any significant rate reform for services other than supported living.

Analyst’s Recommendation. We recommend that the Legislature require DDS to report at budget hearings on the timeline for implementation of revised rate-setting methodologies for RC services to ensure reasonable progress is made towards implementing rate reform. Specifically, the department should report on the services that are under study for rate reform, the timeline for proposing revised regulations packages and other measures, and the estimated savings for implementing rate reform for specified services. This will provide the Legislature with the information it needs as it deliberates on the continuation of temporary cost-containment measures.

Developmental Centers Program

Residential Care Models Allow Shift From Institutions to Community

We recommend the Legislature adopt supplemental report language directing the Department of Health Care Services to submit a report based on a comprehensive evaluation of the Intermediate Care Facility for the Developmentally Disabled-Continuous Nursing pilot program. This will help ensure the Legislature has sufficient information upon which to base decisions about the future of this pilot program.

State Shifting From Institutional Care Model to Community-Based Care

The population of the DCs has declined steadily over the last 20 years. The continuing decline in the population of the DC system is partly the result of the 1994 Coffelt v. Developmental Services lawsuit settlement, which required the state to make more community-based residential services available as alternatives to institutions. The DCs initially downsized in population by about 2,000 in response to the Coffelt settlement. The administration is currently implementing its plan to close Agnews DC, by July 2008.

The downsizing of the DCs is also partly a response to federal policies that promote community