The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLong Term Support Planning Committee 08-22-1996ST. CROIX COUNTY NOTICE OF COMMITTEE MEETING TO: Robert Boche, Chairman St. Croix County Board FROM: Ron Lockwood, SW Supervisor Long Term Support Unit DATE: August, 13, 1996 -------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE TITLE: Long Term Support Planning Committee MEETING DATE: Thursday, August 22, 1996 MEETING TIME: 4 : 30 pp m. 1982 Conference Room(across from Board Room) MEETING LOCATION• St. Croix Co. Health & Human Services Complex ____ 1445 N. 4th_Street I- New Richmon_d, WI ____________________________ CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: ADOPTION OF AGENDA: ACTION ON PREVIOUS MINUTES: DATE/LOCATION OF NEXT MEETING: AGENDA: (Agenda not necessarily presented in this order) UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Long Term Care Redesign - Consumer Perspective 1997 Budget for Long Term Support Programs NEW BUSINESS: 1) Financial Report 2) Variance & Purchase Requests 3) Waiting Lists 4) Adjourn at 5:00 p.m. to participate in Human Service Board Public Hearing on 1997 Budget. ANNOUNCEMENTS & CORRESPONDENCE: POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING: ADJOURNMENT: Copies to: County Clerk's Office Committee Members /lts-com/notice ST. CROIX COUNTY LONG TERM SUPPORT PLANNING COMMITTEE THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1996 Members Present: Lorraine Darnauer, Honorine Gedatus, Keith Gregerson, Terri Heinbuch, Fern Johnson, Ray Mealey, John Mortensen, Robert Palewicz, Joan Richie, Marguerite Sumner, Wanda Viellieux, Glenda Zielski Members Excused: James Craig, Lee Kellaher Members Absent Larry Weisenburger Meeting was called to order by Chair Ray Mealey at 4:30pm. Roll Call: 12 present; 2 excused; 1 absent Adoption of Agenda: Motion by John Mortensen to adopt agenda as presented; second by Marguerite Sumner; carried. Action on Previous minutes: Motion by Keith Gregerson to accept minutes from previous meeting as presented; second by John Mortensen; carried. Date/Location of next meeting: The next meeting of this committee will be Wednesday, September 25, 1996 at 2:OOpm. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Highlights of the information on Long Term Care Redesign that had been mailed to members. Ron Lockwood suggested that the next meeting have a larger amount of time devoted to redesign issues. 1997 Budget for Long Term Support Programs were highlighted by Ron Lockwood. A summary of issues/programs that are not or will not be served in 1997 due to keeping the County Levy for the Human Services Budget at the same dollar amount as last year. Motion at 5:OOpm to adjourn by Lorraine Darnauer; second by Robert Palewicz; carried. Submitted by Michele Johnson, LTS Clerk As you know, the Department of Health and Family Services is currently involved in a planning process to redesign Wisconsin's long—term care systems. The Office of Strategic Finance, which is organizing the effort, asked the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups to arrange a series of focus groups with consumers and stakeholders. The Coalition, with grant money from the Helen C. Bader Foundation, partnered with The Management Group to conduct 18 focus groups with participants and caregivers across all target groups and care settings with help from Department staff. The facilitators and recorders found the focus groups to be an excellent vehicle for obtaining customer feedback and were struck by the insightfulness and thoughtfulness of the focus group participants. The following is a brief summary from the focus groups. For more information, please contact Joyce Allen, Deputy Director of Planning, Office of Strategic Finance, Dept. of Health and Family Services. Her phone numbers is 608-266-1351. ♦ Perceptions of the Current System • Complexity: The current system is widely perceived as complex, and many said they felt the system could be managed more efficiently and effectively. People expressed difficulty getting consistent, timely information about available service options. • Locus of Service: People commented that it was harder to get funding for services at home than for services in an institution, even though institutional care might be more expensive. Several said they prefer the social model to the medical model for care. • Service Limits: Service limits and waiting lists were of enormous concern to many consumers and caregivers. A lifetime benefit was not seen as practical for progressive conditions. Many recommended that service limits be negotiated. • Role of Government: Participants in many of the focus groups expressed distrust of government and anger at some recent government decisions. Some said government has the power to do both harm and good and they were concerned about this government's priorities. ♦ Perceptions of Key Redesign Components • Single Access Point: People liked the idea of one —stop —shopping, but the desire for simplification was balanced by an equal concern that entry point staff understand their special needs. • Mandatory Assessment: There was widespread agreement that public funding should be provided based on an assessment (and reassessment) of functional and financial need. • Role of Case Manager: There was widespread agreement that case managers should be knowledgeable advocates who partner with the participant and family to develop, coordinate and manage services. The level of case management service should be flexible. (Continued on Reverse) 5 FOCUS GROUPS (Continued) I • Program Mana ement: Participants expressed that the long—term support programs should not be managed like Medicaid. They desired a flexible approach to service authorization that could be tailored to meet individual needs. • Consolidation and Portability of Funding: The concept of consolidated funding met with wide approval, but many consumers expressed a desire that the money be effectively and efficiently managed in accordance with program values and in a uniform manner statewide. The idea that money should follow the person was very favorably received. • Cost Sharing and Cliff versus Sliding Scale Eligibility: Most people preferred a sliding scale to a cliff approach to eligibility. Many said they wanted to pay as much as they could, but were concerned they would be asked to pay so much they could no longer afford to remain the community. • Financial Control: There were varying opinions about who should control the money and be responsible for purchasing services. Some wanted control over their own money. Some wanted involvement in decision making, but wanted someone else to purchase the services. Perceptions of Managed Care • Managed Care: Managed c of control, but many indiv Concern was expressed that by care will be driven by money rather WELCOME TO ASHLAND CO. LTS PLANNING COMMITTEE OUR NEWEST LTS GROUP MEMBER! FOR $25 PER YEAR YOUR COMMITTEE CAN BE A VOTING MEMBER OF CWAG AND RECEIVE THE LEGISLATIVE UPDATES AND NEWSLETTERS. 0