First, Ms. Delgadillo used the continuing availability of new vendors in response to a question regarding the affect of existing rate cuts. It bears noting that new vendors receive higher rates than the older vendors that currently have most of the capacity. The number of agencies closing, assuming it is small, might be evidence that rate cuts aren't too damaging but the number of new vendors is entirely irrelevant as a datum.
Second, the audit suggestion depresses me. DDS needs to find ways of lowering the cost of the system other than by raising the cost of the system.
7 comments:
[doug say] DDS needs to find ways of lowering the cost of the system other than by raising the cost of the system
you'd think the red queen was DDS director
eliminating ARCA would save $1-2M and could be done today...oh/and DDS should tell the gov she cant be a part of these cuts and resign if necessary...
still listening to the 10FEB senate budget hearing...so far some from the lip opine/comments:
10feb hearing a replay of the 3feb hearing...wouldn't be surprised if both were replays of the past decade of hearings.
the assembly members seem to be more into the issue than the senate (except for the senate chairman)...
senators seems more interested in bean counting issues...tho neither senate nor assembly addressed the effect of cuts on program quality...
actually the advocates didn't either...their message was sad stories and "dont cut"...but good,heart felt testimony...and perhaps quality nwas mentioned.
assembly (maybe senate) did ask DDS to fess up that cuts would be the death knell of Lanterman...DDS said they would not repeal Lanterman and would maintain entitlements...
thats DDS bs...not sure they even recognize it...they have played the bureaucratic game too long...cuts and POS standards indeed sound the Lanterman death knell...system ready for intensive care now and is not getting it.
at neither hearing did anyone ask why DDS/RC submitted budgets based on historical cost vice NEEDS as mandated by lanterman.
as said ad nauseam (sorry) a relatively moderate tax increase to sunset when the economy picked up solves the financial issue...the program quality would still be a problem, tho.
it wont happen as legs pander to degrees of the likes of the author of the following comment:
"What a disgusting waste of money. And they continue to defend the fact that they rip the taxpayers off at every chance they get under the guise of "helping others". There is no justification for this. Sickening! And they want more from the taxpayers so this kind of crud continue???? Forget it!" [sacbee blog]
[my response to above]
agree, what do you suggest "ovens" or back to the snake pits (developmental centers)...FYI DCs cost the compassionate christian, any religion, citizen/voter $250-$300,000 per capita...maybe ovens are cheaper...would like to see LAO cost study.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DDRIGHTS/message/6656
stanley seigler
Testimony of Shirley Dove
Good Morning Senator Mark DeSaulnier, and members
My name is Shirley Dove I am here representing The Arc of California as a member of the board of directors but most importantly I am the mother of a home owner entrepreneur woman who also has a developmental disability.
I am one of those parents who you heard about who struggled during those early years prior to the Lanterman Act.Our family made many sacrifices and we were and are very clear of our responsibility as a family.Telling us as family members that we need to put into law that parents are responsible for their children is an insult and it’s unbelievable gall that government would think they can dictate a mother’s love and that we are somehow responsible for the state’s fiscal crisis is even more unbelievable.
Our primary message to you is that this massive cut of $750 million is way beyond what our beloved Lanterman Act can endure.It is more than the 240,000 children and adults with intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, autism, Down syndrome, and all other developmental disabilities can endure and all of our families. The governor's proposal that does not tell you really how they will make the cuts means they are asking you to approve a result by any means they come up with ahead of time. There is no way you could even know the implications of your actions.
And to say the government will achieve most of this through an extensive rewrite of the Lanterman Act through statewide cuts to individuals called "standards", is one of the scariest thoughts I've heard since it was brought to you annually a few years ago - luckily you rejected that idea every time.
Please keep the commitment and legacy of Ronald Reagan and Frank Lanterman in tack, make this approach to budget resolutions more fair, and do everything you can to assure the state's resources make it to the people it was intended for.
Thank You,
Shirley Dove
Thanks for passing these along. As you know, I think well of Ms. Delgadillo. I think less well of providers who have been caught making big profits from the system, but I agree with you that if regional centers and DDS had done their jobs better, that would be harder to do. Hang the wealthy providers but set aside some stockade time for the people who never noticed clients being deprived.
[doug say] I think well of Ms. Delgadillo
and so do i...i really respect most supporting the least...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call them when they are not doing their jobs...
MsD basically supports the status quo...as did what's his name for 10years...ie/eg, the gov say jump and they jump...(will take msd 8 days a wk over what's his name)
yes i know her job is on the line...but the LIVES of the least are on the line...
she (any director) should tell the gov (any gov) exactly what advocates tell her: these cuts will ensure unsafe, p-poor quality for our children and adult friends...lanterman's death knell.
resign if necessary to reinforce her stand.
telling DDS directors what a hard job they have; we know how hard the are trying; and then tell them what are great job they did...doesn't help the children/adults in the system.
lets see some results...
stanley seigler
DDSR back and breathing! (if not yet pulsating with excitement) Oh, happy day!
Since Mr. Seigler is posting testimony (from others) I'll post my testimony. Delivered in written form to the senate subcommittee rather than presented. I wanted to present it but a growling stomach led me to a nearby restaurant and away from the enormous line of presenters. How's that for dedication to the Cause?
Anyway, here it is ... and great to see you back blogging on this stuff, D.
Public Testimony Senate Budget Committee Hearing 2011
In 1934 the German government began a propaganda campaign against its developmentally disabled citizens. Within a year the propaganda that blanketed the country described developmentally disabled people as “lives unworthy of life” and as “useless eaters.” Their “cost” to Germany was calculated and put on posters that hung in schools and libraries and museums. By 1938 the government was rounding up everyone with a developmental disability and sending them to be murdered to places that would later be among the death camps of 12 million other people. The disabled were chosen for what was a rehearsal of the holocaust because of the lowliness of their status in German society … Still, the Nazis were surprised by how little opposition they encountered, how few objections were raised, when they began rounding up these people and sending them away.
In the United States at this time we were sending thousands of babies, children and adults with developmental disabilities away for life to state prisons that we called state schools and state hospitals.
A few years earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled, in Buck vs. Bell, that states had the right, if not obligation, to forcibly sterilize people with developmental disabilities. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes summed up the opinion of the Court with one short and brutal declaration, stating that “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Make no mistake, the developmentally disabled are the most oppressed, devalued, and dehumanized group of people in human history.
In the 21st century, our Society stands as the richest, most advanced civilization that has ever existed. If it holds ambitions to being, in the words of Lyndon Johnson, a Great Society, it will be judged as achieving its aspiration not by its redevelopment agencies or by the pensions of its prison guards. It will be judged by how it cares for its people with the greatest needs and the lowest social standing.
This legislature has the opportunity, at this point in History, to respond to the prejudice and propaganda that casts human beings as “useless eaters”, and to respond to Chief Justice Holmes, by taking the position, as the leaders of a Great Society … that “Ten thousand years of murderous oppression, are enough!”
I understand that you face many seemingly impossible choices. But ultimately, your choices are not impossible. Not if you can keep in mind those choices upon which a Great Society is judged.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Andrew Pereira
Service Provider
Santa Cruz, CA
[andy say]...surprised by how little opposition they encountered...Oliver Wendell Holmes summed up the opinion of the Court with one short and brutal declaration, stating that "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
COMMENT: weel, I am not surprised at the *little opposition* to program cuts, by our religious, compassionate, legs/society...many feel the same as holmes...
we talk compassion and walk greed...*we have met the enemy...*
stanley seigler
I absolutely adore reading your blog posts, the variety of writing is smashing.This blog as usual was educational, I have had to bookmark your site and subscribe to your feed in i feed. Your theme looks lovely.Thanks for sharing.
Hearing aid accessories
Post a Comment