Topeka (June 5, 2002):

• 36 stakeholders/agency representatives attended. Also about 30 TAO supervisors and staff.
• The materials were very thorough, clear, and educational, and I think it allowed us to provide competent information sharing.

• Are HCBS consumers still exempt from co-pay on pharmaceuticals?
• Parental co-pay for HCBS services----is it voluntary, and how much will it be?
• Will Community Service funds be available to reduce the number of children in OOH?
• Is respite care and attendant care available to parents whose children are on waiting lists?
• Will there be an RFP process for the monies that were transferred to SRS for the School Violence Prevention program?
• Does care-management for drugs include state hospital patients/residents?
• Won't limiting Family Preservation Services increase FC services?
• Noticed the decrease in FC caseload costs---why did that happen?

Topeka (July 10, 2002):

• 31 stakeholders in attendance; 2 Hospice Care, 2 UW, 1 KAPE, 1 Mainstream, 2 Odyssey, 2 YMCA, 1 Families Together, 1 PARS, 1 FSGC, 1 K-State, 1 Breakthrough House, 1 Florence Crittenton, 1 KCDD, 1 Topeka Community Foundation, 1 Community Action, 3 KNI Parent & Guardian Group, 1 The Villages, 1 KLS, 1 KANZA, 1 CYFRC, 1 KCSL, 1 National Alliance on Mental Illness, 1 United Methodists, 1 Jayhawk Area Agency on Aging, 1 citizen. Audrey Nogle, a legislative budget analyst, attended the meeting.

Identify the most significant (3-5) impacts and implications related to policy changes made by the 2002 Legislature in order to meet FY03 budget reductions, in your community(s). List specific examples.

• Reduction in funding for Family Preservation; if dollars not spent on prevention, SRS will spend more money on maintenance.
• Recommend ‘04 funding for Family Preservation return to $12M
• Concerned about service delivery which is impacted negatively when SRS has high vacancy rate, does not have money to give employees COLA raises and step increases. It is already very difficult to attract and retain direct care staff in state hospitals, nursing staff and other professionals in state hospitals.
• The use of waiting lists reinforces institutional care and should be reduced or eliminated.
• Community mental health affected by waiting lists
• Increased need for services
• Increase or maintain funding to avoid negative impact on communities

Should the 2003 Legislature change any of the policy decisions that were made?

• Use of Children's Initiative Funds, which typically are used for prevention programs should not be spent on other programs or needs, such as education.
• Amount of regulations put on local providers – contributes to reduced access and cost of care; find a way to reduce regulations.
• Put more $s in prevention programs.
• Use $s from family financial participation to directly reduce waiting lists.
• SRS leadership needs to keep data on the impacts of cuts in one program on other programs.
• Does SRS have leeway to move funds from direct support to other programs?
• With Welfare Reform (‘96) TANF block grant frozen at caseload sizes (‘94), what is happening to the extra TANF $s if caseloads are reduced?

For consideration of the 2003 Legislative, what are the lowest and highest priorities for continued services? What service gaps exist? (The responses were all viewed as priorities and are not listed in any order.)

• With more budget shortages coming – need to involve communities early on as to where to make the cuts. Go to the specific communities/populations and plan with them. For example, HCP meet with MR/DD consumers and families.
• There should be somewhere in government to cut in order to put the $s in the facilities such as KNI for physical and mental care – reduce or eliminate waiting lists.
• Maintain home-based services.
• Find match $s for federal $s.

Identify what steps the community needs to take to prepare for the immediate budget crisis and what steps can be taken to deal with the policy changes likely to be taken by the 2003 Legislature.

• Lack of understanding by legislators on real impact on people. Make the impact more dramatic. Put a face to the people who are hurt by the cuts.
• Individuals need to contact their state and federal legislators and explain what services they want funded. Legislators pay most attention to individual contacts they receive.

Questions:

Q: Why does SRS plan to cut child care grants when they are not state funded?
A: The money may be taken out of grants, but still put into other child care services.

Q: Explain the issues around consensus caseload and increase in HealthWave enrollment.
A: Consensus caseloads are cases that are open for SRS funded services for people that meet eligibility criteria for TAF, General Assistance, Nursing Facilities - Mental Health, Regular Medicaid Assistance, Foster Care, and Adoption. The legislature agreed to fund the projected consensus caseload estimate for FY03.

The HealthWave budget for FY03 allows for some growth in the number of program recipients, but not as much as if CIF dollars were also added for additional HealthWave recipients.

Q: What are Children's Initiative Funds?
A: The Children's Initiative Funds are what used to be called the "Tobacco money." It is money paid to Kansas from tobacco companies as part of the settlement for Kansas and other states suing tobacco companies for the cost to provide medical services to people with tobacco related ailments.

Q: Does the local SRS have lobbyists?
A: No, not official, paid lobbyists. SRS Secretary Schalansky and her leadership and management team members work closely with the Governor and legislators to inform them what SRS thinks are the best service funding and programs, and how the programs help SRS consumers. Someone in the audience added that individuals receiving SRS services or are aware of service impacts are the best lobbyists.

Written statements received by Tom Stratton, Kansas Legal Services of Shawnee County Office:

Regarding the limitation of the length of GA and MediKan to 24 months, the impact in ‘03 is accurately shown as none. Because significant impact on affected Kansans is expected at the expiration of the 24-month period, it is important that this not be relegated to "out of sight, out of mind" status. Cessation of this support during a time when receiving a favorable ruling on disability claims within 24 months may be impossible will likely result in displacement of a number of persons who, as a group, have historically received this minimal level of support.

Written statements received by Bev Graham, COO, United Way of Greater Topeka:

It is such a priority for funding within the family services area. SRS local area offices need to have resources to fund innovative strategies at a local level. Each community has different needs, resources, etc. The cost/benefit to the state when children are served in their own homes and communities justifies an increased investment by the state. We are just beginning to see a decrease in out of home placements in Shawnee County because of local solutions (i.e., community care program.) These local managed funds will continue to have significant impact and need to retain current funding with planned increases.

Back to Map