20 region 6 stakeholder notes-2010-09-08.docx
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

20 region 6 stakeholder notes-2010-09-08.docx

on

  • 259 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
259
Views on SlideShare
259
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

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.

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

20 region 6 stakeholder notes-2010-09-08.docx 20 region 6 stakeholder notes-2010-09-08.docx Document Transcript

  • REGION 6 STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES Meeting Date: September 08, 2010 Meeting Time: 4:00pm-7:00pm Meeting Location: DHW in Pocatello Meeting Facilitator: Sam Hulse, BHTWG Team Member Key Discussion Points: 1. Sam introduced himself to the group and went through the presentation. 2. Q: How do you handle crisis services in areas like Salmon and Challis? A: There needs to be a discussion on what makes up a region. Regions may need to combine in order to provide services. People who are local need to be part of the discussion and utilizing the Transformation Champion will be key. 3. Comment: Would feel better if new the workgroup was keeping an eye on rural areas rather just population centers. 4. Q: Has the group looked at health care reform? How has this been addressed? Whatever system we will have will need to be flexible because we just don’t know. However, the other states have stated that Idaho is in an enviable position because they can set up their system to deal with the change whereas the other states are not necessarily in that position. 5. Q: How will the regional providers be structured? Will it be a single provider? Has this been recommended? A: Will need some state level contract overseeing to ensure quality however not sure if there will only be one provider. 6. Comment: If the funding is not there, larger providers will not provide services to a rural area. Example: Montana, Utah. Response: Trying to push the funding down to a regional level so they can determine how best to meet needs. 7. Q: Is the group trying to mimic the transportation recommendations? A: That is not the intention. 8. Q: Will there still be specialty areas? The fear is that mental health will be the catch all for everyone even though the certifications are different. A: We have to ensure capacity is maintained and this is a concern of the group. The Transformation Champion will be instrumental in this as well and the interagency cooperative will replace ICSA in 2011.
  • 9. Q: What will be the makeup of the interagency council? A: Chaired by the Transformation Champion the council will include representatives from a multitude of agencies. 10. Q: Regional boards were in place in 1964 and were changed because there wasn’t any way to enforce. Is this why a transformation champion is proposed? A: It is a piece, also the guarantor of care will fulfill a role. 11. Q: Why don’t we see what the outcomes will be in the system? A: The measurement of outcomes will have to be there and we will need a statewide system. 12. Q: What will the task force tell the Governor? A: The group will report back as to what the goals should be and the framework in how to achieve those goals. 13. Q: How is this different from the WICHE report? A: This is an affirmation of the WICHE report. However, the group only took a portion of the recommendations from the report as it would be too overwhelming to try to take on all recommendations at this time. 14. Q: Will the regional mental health boards take over mental health services? A: We are proposing to bring the services down to the regional level. 15. Comment regarding above: This idea is already currently in the state statute however it is not practiced. 16. Q: Crisis intervention teams [CIT] will be a critical piece in moving forward. Are the sheriff’s on board? For the entire state? A: There are currently meetings to discuss this issue now and how it would work. May be 2-3 years out in the larger communities and then on a case by case basis. 17. Q: Elections are in 2-months, both candidates have different approaches. What will happen if Otter is not reelected? A: It is a concern of the group as there are a lot of unknowns. We are not sure about the remainder of the legislature and their priorities. 18. Q: Why is this being pushed through so fast? A: We are trying to finalize before the legislative session in order to gain support. The initial deadline had been for the 2o10 legislative session. 19. Q: How many Idaho jobs will be lost? What is the estimate? A: It is not known. We are hoping the positions will change rather than be lost however there has not been any study in regards to this. 20. Comment: In a study to be published in October 2010, it is demonstrated that there is a 60% shortage of certified PSR’s in Region 6.
  • 21. Q; Funding is not enough. Where is it going to come from? Is the legislature going to step up? A: With this report, we should be able to communicate to the legislature that funding cuts equal higher suicides; higher corrections costs and we need a more accountable system. We cannot allow the lack of money to paralyze. 22. Q: Have you looked at relationship between co-occurring developmental disabilities and mental health? Can we draw systems together? A: Not looking at this issue with this study however it is a valid point.