Mayview Service Area Planning Steering Committee
July 21, 2006
Members Present: Kelly Burda, Kim Campbell, Tim Casey, Laverne Cichon, Mary Jo Dickson, Bob Harms, Emily Heberlein, Darryl Holts, Shirlee Hopper, Nancy Jaquette, John Klenotic, Rich Kuppelweiser, Pam Loaskie, Carol Loy, Gerard Mike, Kim Patterson, Brandi Mauck Phillips, Rich Rach, Laura Steiner, Janice Taper, Rick Tully, Lisa Tumolo, Valerie Vacari, Dean Virgili and Linda Zelch. Others Present: Nora Novitsky (OMHSAS), Sherry Shaffer (CCBHO). Members Absent: Carol Horowitz, Steve Plyler, Pat Valentine and Deb Wasilchak, Mary Fleming
I. Review of Meeting Summary from June 16, 2006
The minutes from June 16, 2006 were reviewed and approved with amendments.
II. MRSAP Update
County Update/Statues report re: Phase 1
· Beaver County reported they had three discharges through the month of April and the fourth is scheduled for July 31, 2006 in connection with the Project. The average length of stay was five years.
· Lawrence County reported they had four total discharges in Phase 1, one of which was discharged through the CSP process. The person had been there for 13 years, was discharged to a CRR/LTSR and is doing well.
· Washington County reported that three people were targeted for discharge by July 31, 2006.
· Greene County reported no discharges. State funds it receives in the future will be used for diversion.
· Allegheny County reported that 16 people have been discharged and six additional people are on track to be discharged by July 31, 2006.
· Linda Zelch emphasized that the current list should be final and asked if any person on the list will not be discharged by the 31st, Nora Novitsky must be contacted.
Work Group Status Update
· Front Door Work Group reported that there had been one meeting to date.
· The work group determined the waiting list and the Mayview admission processes in the urban and suburban counties were similar and all counties would need stronger case management/CTT to decrease the flow of patients onto the waiting list and into Mayview.
· This work group recommended that the case manager/CTT should be involved more than 30 days before discharge from a long term stay or from the prison system.
· This work group recommended reconvening to set target dates for the front door issues before making formal recommendations to the Steering Committee.
· Linda Zelch recommended that the counties will need to begin reporting on diversions.
· Phase 2 Selection Criteria Work Group reported that there had been three meetings to date.
· This work group presented a list of its recommendations and suggested that if 30 additional people were to be discharged by June 30, 2007, 60 people would need to be assessed and CSP’s would need to be completed for all 60.
· The Steering Committee reviewed and adopted the work group’s recommendations agreeing that length of stay was one of the most important criteria to be considered and recommended that everyone with a length of stay of ten years or more be considered.
· DPW will need to review and approve the list of 60.
· State Operated Services Work Group met once to date.
· The work group developed a “wish list” of services and other criteria.
· The Committee will put together a recommendation paper regarding what each of the counties believes its needs will be and whether regional services can be created.
· Tracking/Reporting Work Group
· Will meet on July 27, 2006 to discuss state reporting requirements and the tracking process.
· Nora Novitsky discussed tracking people after discharge through the CSP process.
III. Assessment & Discharge subcommittee Update
· Emily Heberlein reported that the subcommittee met June 30th.At this meeting, the committee did a review of the CSP process and reviewed the Guiding Principles for framing of Phase 2.
· The A&D subcommittee discussed how to improve the patient orientation process and how to increase involvement/availability of advocates and peer support in the process.
· The committee also requested that the Steering Committee identify what they should work on for Phase 2. The Steering Committee will contemplate the role of this committee.
IV. Phase 2 Discussion
· Linda Zelch reported there is no approval from OMHSAS for Phase 2 and that the budget allows for 60 new CHIPPs but the East wants more than 60. OMHSAS will have no definite decision about CHIPP allocation until January 2007.
· The Steering Committee recommended a web-based system for communicating the assessment results and CSP plans be considered by the counties as a way to improve the process.
· The Steering Committee recommended the clinical assessment tool and process be revised to improve efficiency.
· The Steering Committee recommended that the counties consider their roles in training and selecting the facilitators and recorders for Phase 2.
· Key dates and deadlines were discussed and the Steering Committee recommended moving forward with the early Phase 2 deadlines.
V. Stakeholders’ Meeting – planning session
· The agenda for the August 2, 2006 Stakeholder meeting was discussed.
· The Steering Committee recommended county participation and that the new Peer Mentoring Program be explained.
· The committee discussed developing a place for stakeholders to drop questions for the Q&A portion if they are not comfortable talking in a group setting.
V. Other Items
1) AHCI will meet with the counties to discuss contracts.
2) Linda Zelch requested a future discussion of rate setting (i.e. how diversion would be built in and how capitation will be calculated, from member level detail to an average SMI user).
3) Pat Valentine has arranged for a video conference with administrators from the HSH region to address tracking and monitoring issues and state operated services.