Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAd Hoc ADRC Planning Committee 11-05-07 f NOTICE OF MEETING AD HOC ADRC PLANNING COMMITTEE Monday, November 5, 2007 1:00- 4:30pm First Presbyterian Church Fellowship Hall 1901 Vine Street, Hudson, W1 54016 Members of the ADRC Ad Hoc Committee will be attending a meeting facilitated by Buck Rhyme, Senior Partner at Organizational Skills Associates (OSA). The Wisconsin Bureau of Aging and Disability Resources extended an arrangement with OSA to serve as consultants to ADRC planning groups "in order to promote effective planning and strengthen the quality of ADRC applications ". Mr. Rhyme has worked with both individual counties and regional groups to help them prepare for ADRC implementation and operation. An invitation to this forum has also been extended to members of the County Board, Council on Aging, Long -Term Support Board, and Health and Human Services board. This is not a regular committee meeting. Committee members will be in attendance to obtain information that may be used in making future recommendations or decisions. SUBMITTED BY Kjersti L.O. Duncan, Tuesday, October 23, 2007 COPIES TO County Clerk Committee Members Items for County Board approval must be submitted to the County Clerk's office by Wednesday morning preceding a County Board meeting. 10/23/2007 4:00 PM MEETING MINUTES OF AD HOC ADRC PLANNING COMMITTEE Monday, November 5, 2007 1:00- 4:30pm First Presbyterian Church Fellowship Hall 1901 Vine Street, Hudson, WI 54016 CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 1:00pm ROLL CALL — Present: ADRC Ad Hoc: Peg Gagnon, Kjersti L.O. Duncan, Norma Vrieze; Health & Human Services/Long -Term Support Staff. Fred Johnson, Ron Lockwood, Marion Mottaz, Cathy Carlson, Cia Westphal, Elizabeth Larson, Kelly Weber, Mike Traynor; Human Resources Staff: Tammy Funk; Long -Term Support Board Members: James Craig, Keith Gregerson, Marge Wolske, Ron Jansen; Health & Human Services /County Board Members: Esther Wentz, Gordon Awsumb; County Board Chair: Buck Malick; Council on Aging/County Board Members: Charlie Grant, John Mortensen; Council on Aging: Alfie Shrank, Sue Nelson, Vince Tubman; Department on Aging Student Intern: Abby Kubly; Consumer /Stakeholders: Betty Phillipo, Janice Thompson, Fred Ball, Inge Blier, Marge Quale, Miles Wetting, Vi Rouquette, Laura Rebin, Leanne Brown, Mary Boots, Jessa Nelson This meeting was facilitated by Buck Ryhme, OSA, Consultant. The following questions were discussed in both small and large groups: What are the worst possible outcomes that would result from the development of an ADRC? - Hiring an outside agency and then being dissatisfied with them - That private entity using their own agencies [being biased towards certain agencies] - The outside agency being a for - profit agency - Department on Aging will no longer be a stand alone agency - Using county people to head the ADRC ( ?) - ADRC would be understaffed - Too many hoops to jump through to receive services - Those individuals receiving services now would lose them - Self- directed care only - Funding limitations would hinder services provided - The physical location would not be convenient to all individuals who need services - Quality control [how would we ensure that the quality of services was high ?] - What is the cost to the consumer? - Not knowing what to expect from the ADRC - What options would be provided? - Would there be a funding cut and if so, how would we get rid of the waiting lists? - Would the different jobs lower morale among employees? - Not enough staff positions given the funds - Inadequate services and time - Largest growing county in Wisconsin percentage wise (significant population growth) - Consumer outcomes -would the ADRC have a negative impact on individuals? - Loss of employees /jobs would cause a ripple effect - ADRC is not effective - It would not satisfy the NEEDS of people Items for County Board approval must be submitted to the County Clerk's office by Wednesday morning preceding a County Board meeting. 12/14/2007 8:49 AM - Where is the safety net? - Is the funding source secure? - Loss of funding from the federal government - Deteriorating services - Focus on only one population - Poorly planned -would not serve individuals effectively - Would it be a pilot program? (Could it be dropped if we did not like it ?) - Possibility of people getting lost in the system Still no collaboration for help [between DoA and HHS] Consumers not involved Confidentiality [loss of confidentiality from the aging and disabled individuals being combined] - Lack of understanding of needs - Waiting lists would still be there - Not enough money to do things right - DoA is doing a good job now. May not be any advantage to them taking on more responsibility - We should be building on current experience rather than developing something new Current services could be diminished in ADRC implementation [if HHS and DoA combined] - Change could be scary and confusing to the elderly - There's an assumption that we don't need to change [doing it right now so why change it] - People may not use it - Top heavy administration gobbling up the resources - Gridlock will set in because of inability to compromise [governance issue, HHS& DoA] - There will be fewer people making the decision for everyone else - Lack of continuous funding What are the best possible outcomes that would result from the development of an ADRC? - Everyone will receive needed care and be satisfied with it - The boat won't be rocked too much [continuity of care will continue] - People will be able to come to the ADRC and receive high quality services - Collaborative planning [everyone's needs are met] - No long -term care waiting lists - Adequate funding will be available to provide services - We will have a back -up plan in case things do not go well - All 5 target groups will be integrated and all children will be served - One -stop shopping - A central location to receive needed answers - Everyone will get answers to their questions - DoA and HHS will work together - Consumer has a good outlook [of ADRC and in general] - Enough staff to meet consumer needs - No waiting lists - New opportunities for staff and consumers - Harmony among agencies to provide services - The harmony within the agencies would be transferred to consumers Items for County Board approval must be submitted to the County Clerk's office by Wednesday morning preceding a County Board meeting. 12/14/2007 8:49 AM a Consolidated resources Cost effective and efficient One person for input contact [one place to go for help] Unlimited funding Get $ from the state - Majority of people will be benefited and receive satisfactory service Collaborative process so that all in departments /waiting lists can be served and satisfied Create the same programs across different counties so people can move about easier [universalism] - Accessible no matter your location in the county - Fulfills its mission and informs people of their choices It will have a knowledgeable, compassionate staff It will be a centralized, non - biased reference source and an amenity to the communities served - Cost - effective long -term counseling will be provided - Improved services for all consumers and for those not currently being served Effectively serves all clients Questions will be answered within 24 hours Respect and quality work will be received from the staff Services are prioritized and rated most cost efficient within tax payers ability to fund them [don't waste tax money] Staff are skilled enough to direct consumers to the correct services [the ones that will serve them best] - Putting consumers at ease and calming their fears - Find out what the current needs are for individuals on waiting lists - Public education about planning and preparing for long -term care - Preventative health How can the Ad -Hoc committee keep the public involved and receive their input during this process? - Distribute current information in the - Volunteers to educate others in the community community - Group homes - Keep the information simple and easy to - Clinics /doctor's offices understand - Senior centers - DoA poll members from all groups, - Libraries long -term support currently in process of - Churches polling people ( ?) - TV- Public Service Announcements - Consumers be invited to meetings and - Articles in the newspaper informed of what is currently happening - Radio announcements - Have a model of what services are going - More question and answer meetings to be provided - Involve the local government groups [city - Contact people on the waiting lists and board members] include 5 of them as members of the Ad- - Community education Hoc committee - One -on -one time with individuals - Open hearings /meetings - Surveys Items for County Board approval must be submitted to the County Clerk's office by Wednesday morning preceding a County Board meeting. 12/14/2007 8:49 AM r 1 - Locate groups in the community that represent - Collaboration between Ad -Hoc the 5 target groups committee and city governing boards - Meetings are open to the public [keep the [consumers can go to a city board media/public informed of progress] meeting and express their opinion and - Ad -Hoc committee should represent the larger know it will get back to the Ad -Hoc population and include consumers [it is too committee] small] - Inform new legislative members of - Get more input from other communities with needs thus far and give current members ADRCs that are already functioning to find "refresher courses" so they are all on the out what worked and what didn't same page - On -going quality assurance - follow up surveys - Focus groups to consumers on what services they currently - Must inform people of the need for need change but minimize the panic - Make Ad -Hoc committee member addresses associated with it available so individuals can send letters - Send county board members to senior stating their opinions centers to analyze need and current services provided ADJOURN — The meeting ended at 4:30pm. SUBMITTED BY Kjersti L.O. Duncan, December 13, 2007 COPIES TO County Clerk Committee Members Items for County Board approval must be submitted to the County Clerk's office by Wednesday morning preceding a County Board meeting. 12/14/2007 8:49 AM