• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
15 region 2 stakeholder minutes-2010-08-31.doc

15 region 2 stakeholder minutes-2010-08-31.doc






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    15 region 2 stakeholder minutes-2010-08-31.doc 15 region 2 stakeholder minutes-2010-08-31.doc Document Transcript

    • REGION 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES Meeting Date: August 31, 2010 Meeting Time: 1:00pm-4:00pm Meeting Location: Lewiston Meeting Facilitator: Margaret Henbest, BHTWG Member Introduction of Margaret Henbest by Ron Beecher, Regions 1 and 2 Regional Director. PowerPoint Presentation Questions & Comments: 1. Q: I’d like clarification on braided funding. A: Braided funding is meant to bridge gaps in funding. It allows access to services that would not otherwise be available. An example of how it would work would be the Department of Administration creating a contract based on requests from the Boards stating what they need. 2. Q: Are we going to keep clinicians? I’m worried about children’s mental health. The system is a massive failure. We need 1 person responsible for the entire system. Too much money is wasted. We need additional revenue that could come from the beer tax. A: We are hearing this from all over the state. These are horrible economic times. Part of the issue is running out of money and the other part is a lack of coordination across agencies. Another issue is the overuse of agency dollars by one agency. The plan incorporates a Transformation Champion who oversees the agency heads and bridges funding gaps with braided funding. A beer tax is a possible resource. Your participation in contact legislators is necessary. The clinical role would be filled by the private sector. 3. C: Don’t privatize children’s mental health services. It is currently effective and not broken. A: Thank you for your comment. 4. Q: We need to know the nuts and bolts of the plan. Who is the Transformation Champion and who is paying for them? Are we talking about throwing all money into one pot and the ones with the most clout get the contract? How is this really going to work? Rural services are getting more and more scarce. If the state doesn’t do it, it won’t happen. People have to say they are an IV drug user to get substance abuse services.
    • A: We are giving you a skeleton plan. Each region needs to determine what they need. Information can then be taken to the council and Transformation Champion to define core services and how it will be available in each region. Unique geography and work force issues effect each region. The vision for the Transformation Champion is not a political appointee but the job description is not yet defined. Your input on the survey form is necessary. It would be a state employee probably from the executive branch. Position would be described in legislation. This is not the 11th hour. Please feel free to weigh in. Regions have told that they could do it themselves. This plan will give them the ability to do that and will solve connection problems within the regions. If you think it won’t work, please tell us why. 5. C: Being a regional board member is too much responsibility for a volunteer. They are people who work full-time with little support. A: Legislation has not been written. The make up of the Regional Boards would be persons who have responsibility at the regional level for funding and are publicly employed. 6. C: You won’t get county commissioners to sit on boards and do this work. A: We are in conversation with county commissioners and they are aware. We appreciate your feedback and concerns. 7. Q: How do we protect the solely mental health patients who do not have substance abuse issues? A: This is a challenge but try not to make assumptions. Business Psychology Associates (BPA) is need based. We are trying to do away with this. We would like a system that cares for consumers in an integrated manner but does not favor one diagnosis over another. For those who solely have a mental health issue, they will not fall down in priority. 7. C: This is a good chance to seek provider input. BPA is not looked upon favorably. Private providers are not valued in this state. Those who move from being a state employee to the private sector will make less money and lose benefits. Expertise is no longer valued. A: Moving forward, do you see a place where your voice can be heard? Please advise us on the structural component. The WICHE technical panel report recommended that DHW was removed as a provider of services and instead becomes a monitor of services and outcomes. There is a conflict of interest when providing AND also monitoring services. This issue was identified by WICHE and other studies. 8. Q: Did members of the work group see BPA as a successful model? Most states provide services and contract out evaluation.
    • A: We are not attempting to adopt a BPA model. You may make suggestions on state providing services. We are looking at incentivized services that work early on to prevent acute care and robust early intervention services. BPA has acuteness as an entrance into program. 9. Q: What state model has the work group been using? A: We have not been using one model. WICHE panel used multiple state input and arrived at a uniquely Idaho plan. 10. C: Services slow to access in Washington State In Comparison To Region 2. Here, agencies come together in the best interest of the children. Things are working well in Region 2. The plan devalues services provided currently. 11. C: We need a great grant writer. Hope we will begin accessing grants the way other states do. We need the infrastructure in our state before passing off services. We need more training and education from clinicians to private sector. A: We understand the challenges and think that more work could be done with colleges and universities in the area. 12. C: Private providers are the first to feel the economic crunch but the state talks inconsistently about funding. It’s not a priority to maintain quality employees who have consistently provided care to consumers. A: This gives opportunity from a global standpoint to create and save a robust funding center. The Transformation Champion and the Cooperative will work together to capture savings and reinvest in frontend services to prevent crisis. 13. C: I’m still struggling with funding issues. Good providers are struggling. There is a difference between braided funding with silk and with rope. Other states access grants. Idaho doesn’t have enough to braid. We are 48th in the nation for funding mental health services. A: Additional revenue streams are being looked at such as the beer/wine tax. There is no intention to pull from the counties to create funding. 14. C: Counties always have to pick up the ball when someone can’t get care. 15. C: This is an unambiguous plan. There are two boards and too many questions and no funds available. A: Go back to the structure of the plan. How do you see two boards limiting treatment? We appreciate your comments on the form. 16. Q: Where is the consumer in all of this? Funding from up above will take more away from the mentally ill. This is just another level of bureaucracy.
    • A: We are replacing entities and integrating functions rather than creating another level of bureaucracy. A new office is not created. 17. C: The system works. We have miracle workers in this region. Have you thought about polling consumers? Pulling patients from caregivers will create a horrible long-term crisis. This will be an enormous disaster. A: Please see the schedule of consumer/family meetings scheduled. Please add your comments to the survey form. To do: 1. Post responses on website 2. Reach out to attendees