15 region 2 stakeholder minutes-2010-08-31.docDocument 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
1. Post responses on website
2. Reach out to attendees