Bill Summary – FastDemocracy

Public Health Committee
                           JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
    Bill No.: SB-328
               AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROVISION OF DEVELOPMENTAL AND SOCIAL
        Title: SERVICES IN THE STATE.
 Vote Date: 3/31/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable
   PH Date: 3/8/2021
    File No.: 554
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
The Public Health Committee
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill makes various changes related to the provision of services to individuals with
intellectual disability. Principally, it:
   1. Requires the DDS commissioner to develop a strategic plan to reduce the wait time for
      DDS services and report the plan to the Public Health Committee by January 1, 2022.
   2. Requires the OPM secretary, starting October 1, 2021, to consult with relevant
      stakeholders before implementing any plan to close a DDS facility.
   3. Requires the DDS commissioner to provide notice to each person with intellectual
      disability, or his or her legal representative, before the persons eligibility for state
      services ends.
   4. Authorizes the DSS commissioner to contract with hospitals and nonprofit
      organizations to provide social services and referrals for these services to frequent
      users of hospital services (e.g., emergency department services).
   5. Establishes a nine-member task force to study DDSs level of need assessment
      system and requires the task force to report its findings and recommendations to the
      Public Health Committee by January 1, 2022.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Jordan A. Scheff, Commissioner, Department of Developmental Services (DDS):
While the provisions of SB 328 and SB 329 appear to be well-intended, DDS is concerned
with the lack of specificity in their language and possible duplication of provisions that DDS is
already implementing.
Over the last two decades, DDS has accomplished moving more individuals into the
community with appropriate, lower-cost services via the advancement of new residential
models. These lower-cost models allowed the department to stretch residential funding and
provide services for more people on the residential waiting list.
If the intent of these bills is to require DDS to reduce the waiting list by a substantial amount,
additional funding allocation would be needed in the budget and annualized over the next
several years. Previous waiting list funding initiatives have allowed DDS to move more than
100 individuals each time from the residential waiting list into residential services. While these
initiatives did reduce the numbers on the waiting list, they only reduced the waiting list
numbers for a while and did not come close to eliminating the waiting list. The Governor's
proposed budget for FY 2022 & FY 2023 does not include funding for the waiting list initiative.
The requirement for the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) and DDS to consult with
stakeholders when DDS is in the process of closing a state-run facility is already an
established DDS policy. Stakeholder input has proven vital in ensuring that individuals
relocated due to facility closure would find comparable, appropriate residential services.
Additionally, this bill refers to the end of "eligibility" for an individual with intellectual
disabilities. The department is unsure what type of "eligibility" is of concern. If services are at
risk of a waiver services termination because the individual or their legal representative has
not yet reapplied for Medicaid, DDS already has a remedy in place. The DDS Medicaid
Operations Unit notifies these individuals and any applicable legal representative through the
individual's case manager.
The third provision, which we understand to mean that an individual's services are ending as
that person has been redetermined not to have an intellectual disability, DDS can assure you
that this type of decision is rare. Once a person is determined to have an intellectual disability
as defined in Section 1-1g of the general statutes, substantive evidence is required to prove
that the person did not have an intellectual disability before the age of 18.
A redetermination of such magnitude would require that some substantive information that
was not available at the time of initial determination had come to light. In the unlikely event of
the DDS Eligibility Unit receiving this new information, the individual is notified of a
redetermination hearing. The individual could present evidence refuting the claims. The
individual can also exercise their Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) hearing
rights up to and including the right to challenge any redetermination decision in Superior
Court.
DDS believes we currently have the resources and the necessary systems to comply with its
general provisions and have been meeting the proposed bill's requirements as a matter of
state agency best practices for the last several years. With that, the department shares that
                                                                             Page 2 of 3 SB-328
neither of the proposed bills is necessary. Due to their requirements' vagueness, it leads to
confusion rather than to clarify the department's responsibilities.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
None
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
None
Reported by: Beverley Henry                             Date: May 7, 2021
                                                                          Page 3 of 3 SB-328