Mayview Service Area Planning Steering Committee

Meeting Summary

April 21, 2006


I.  Introduction: 


Members Present:   Kelly Burda, Kim Campbell, Tim Casey, Laverne Cichon, Mary Jo Dickson, Mary Fleming, Bob Harms, Emily Heberlein, Carol Horowitz, Nancy Jaquette, John Klenotic, Rich Kuppelweiser, Tawnya Lewis, Pam Loaskie, Carol Loy, Gerard Mike, Kim Patterson, Brandi Mauck Phillips, Rich Rach, Laura Steiner, Janice Taper, Rick Tully, Lisa Tumolo, Patricia Valentine, Dean Virgili, Deb Wasilchak, and Linda Zelch


Others Present:  Darryl Holts, PP&A advocate and Andrea Kepler, Executive Director, Consumer Resource Team, Harrisburg 


Members Absent: Shirlee Hopper, Steve Plyler, and Valarie Vicari                


II. Review of Meeting Summary from March 17, 2006


The minutes from March 17, 2006 were reviewed and approved.


III. Assessment & Discharge Committee Update


Kim Patterson provided an update on the Community Support Plan (CSP) process.  The majority of the CSPs are completed.  Final drafts of the CSPs are expected by April 30, 2006.  There are a few CSPs that will not be complete until late May or early June. 


To date, the services that consumers require as a result of their CSPs are as follows: 


·        Fourteen CSPs recommend CTT services and fourteen recommend case management services.

·        Thirteen CSPs recommend LTSR, PCH, or CRR services.

·        Eleven CSPs recommend various levels of housing support and seven consumers will be living independently or with family members.

·        4 CSPs recommend Nursing Homes.

·        2 CSPs recommend services for Traumatic Brain Injury.


The Steering Committee recommended that Kim learn about the MR and COMCARE waivers as a means of providing funding for some services identified in CSPs.


Kim discussed some barriers to implementing the CSPs.  One barrier is the time gap from when a facilitator completes the CSP, and the services described in the CSP are secured.  Hospital liaisons have been working to locate resources mandated by the CSPs.


The Committee recommended the following to help improve the CSP process:


·        Each County should have a designated person to follow/monitor the CSP process.

·        Develop a signature process at the end of the facilitator/recorder meeting to assure that everyone is in agreement with the current status of the CSP.

·        For Wave 2 CSPs, ICM/CTT providers must be involved earlier if the need for services is evident and if the consumer is eligible.

·        Convene a small group of Steering and/or Assessment & Discharge Committee members to develop and collect data on the Wave 2 CSPs.


Lisa Tumolo provided the Committee with a revised version of three Post-CSP processes.  Based on Committee suggestions during the meeting, another draft will be circulated on Monday, April 24th to the Committee.  Any additional changes must be emailed to Lisa by Monday, May 1, 2006.  As a final step, a meeting will take place with the Counties to finalize the three processes.  


IV. Finance & Data Committee Update


Rick Tully explained the progress being made related to both Wave 1 and Wave 2. With respect to Wave 1, the County administrators agreed that the $3.2 million budgeted for Wave 1 will be split by County based upon a weighting of 70% on ADRP & 30% based on population. Each County is to be budgeting for the services required for Wave 1 discharges, and the remaining funds would be used for funding start-up and infrastructure development. 


Questions/comments/requests raised by the Committee regarding the financial model for Wave 1 included:


·        What impact will the budget for the Wave 1 consumers have on capitation rates? The impact on capitation rates will be determined once HealthChoices eligibility is confirmed and once the budgets are finalized from the Counties. 

·        What percentage of Wave 1 consumers are eligible for Medicaid?  AHCI will review eligibility statistics on the Wave 1 consumers and forward the results to the Committee.  Rick approximated that 77% of Wave 1 consumers are eligible to receive Medicaid services.

·        Can Counties receive credit for costs incurred to date (i.e. work done by AHCI) as infrastructure costs?  Yes, Counties may use these costs as credit toward infrastructure costs.

·        Should Counties include funds they are using in advance of the $3.2 million from the State?  Counties should include any existing and reinvestment funds as start-up money on the budget template. 


A follow-up meeting will be scheduled with the County administrators to discuss Wave 1 funding.


V. SAP Update


Mary Fleming reviewed the agenda for the May 19th meeting with Joan Erney.  The Committee agreed that a presentation should be prepared for Joan and should include:


·        Policy issues and goals of the project.

·        Summary of wave 1 budgets for the $3.2 million.

·        Request that those targeted within Wave 2 are individuals with varied lengths of stay, including those with less than two years.

·        Discuss challenges and share experiences of the 25-30 bed reduction.  Identify the next steps of the project.

·        Discuss the results of the CSP process as they relate to the challenges faced regarding Medicaid spend-down, and the Compass system.

·        Discuss the Service Area Plan Resource and Networking Guide.

·        Quality enhancements in CSP process for Wave 2 consumers based on Wave 1 experience.


A conference call with the county administrators will be scheduled for next week to plan the presentation for the meeting.


Mary informed the Committee that the provider-only meetings that were held in early April were helpful.  The most frequently asked questions will be posted to the Mayview website. Additional provider training to increase awareness of the services needed by consumers discharged from Mayview State Hospital was recommended.


Some members of the Steering Committee visited Columbus, Ohio to obtain information on Columbus’ crisis system. 


VI. Andrea Kepler Presentation


Andrea shared her expertise on how to listen to the needs of consumers living within a State Hospital, and how to effectively prepare to successfully transition consumers to the community.


VII. Other Items


Communication – The County’s shared their populations’ responses to the Mayview bed reduction.   The goal of the five counties:  Allegheny, Beaver, Greene, Lawrence, and Washington are working together to ensure that people receive the services and supports that they want and need to live outside of Mayview State Hospital.  The Committee recommended that Mary Fleming act as point person for all media.


Newsletter – The Committee is interested in having a newsletter related to MRSAP prepared.  The newsletter would be recovery-focused and include articles from all Counties to highlight people living successfully in the community, a frequently asked questions section, and recognition for provider that have made positive changes in the community.  AHCI agreed to have a draft of a newsletter for the May meeting.