NC State Legislature Proposes Bill to allow LME's to Completely Avoid Oversight, USING YOUR TAX $$, In Order to Give LME CEO's Whatever Salaries They Want
If you want to post a comment to Richard Craver's article below associated with this extremely important matter, you must be: 1. logged onto facebook (which the paper is using) 2. wait 5 minutes after posting 3. refresh your computer to see if your post is there 4. If it is not, take out any links as facebook requires someone at the paper to allow you to post if you have links in your post 5. when all else fails, call this nice woman at that paper: kbazner@journalnow.com: 336 727 7338
********************************************************************
1. "The bill removes the requirement that county commissioners approve the hiring of an MCO director, giving that responsibility to the MCO board. Advocates say many LME boards already operate as rubber stamps for their executive directors."
2. The LME's need no longer have anyone w/ mental health challenges or associated family member present on the LME Board.
3. It would eliminate tops on executive salaries THUS USING FEDERAL AND STATE DOLLARS TO PAD THE POCKETS OF CEO'S OF PUBLIC ENTITIES. (It's Wall Street----and its with your tax $$)
4. The LME's would act completely like private enterprises, all the while taking Federal and State Tax dollars and doing whatever the hell they wanted to with that money. It would excempt the LME's from ANY OVERSIGHT AT ALL.
IS THIS WHAT NC CITIZENS WANT?
___________________________________________________
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/jun/18/wsmain01-changes-to-bill-would-give-more-power-to--ar-2364680/#fbcomments
Changes to bill would give more power to groups overseeing mental health services
Behavioral health authority powers
The new language to House Bill 1075 allows a behavioral health authority to operate similarly to a hospital authority or UNC Board of Governors, including:
By: RICHARD CRAVER
Winston-Salem Journal
Published: June 18, 2012
» Comments
Post a Comment
A late change to a bill giving more power to groups that oversee behavioral-health services in the state is raising concerns among advocates because the new language allows oversight groups to gain even more authority than the initial bill did.
The changes to the bill would create a new category of oversight group — a behavioral health authority. A BHA could borrow money and buy or sell property, would have no limits on executive salaries and would not be required to have any advocacy group members on its board.
The new language was inserted into N.C. House Bill 1075 on June 11 — five days after the bill had passed the House.
The substitute bill has been put on the Senate's agenda for Tuesday. If approved, the bill would return to the House for review and potential passage.
The changes would allow a local management entity (LME), such as CenterPoint Human Services, to become a behaviorial health authority after three years of serving as a managed-care organization (MCO) under the Medicaid waiver program being rolled out in the state.
The waiver program is intended to combine the management of Medicaid and state funds at the community level to reduce costs and add more accountability. MCOs would operate with fewer restrictions on how they manage the mental-health, developmental-disability and substance-abuse providers and services they oversee.
Becoming a behavioral health authority would take the oversight groups' level of independence to a higher level since public authorities can borrow money and buy or sell property. Authorities have limited or no local government oversight on their overall operations. They are allowed to file lawsuits and have a legal staff.
The initial bill already shifted much of the oversight of an MCO from county commissioners to the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services. The DHHS secretary would be required to approve a group's change to a behavioral health authority.
Local and statewide advocates expressed exasperation when informed of the new language. They worry that past mistakes in state mental-health reform will be repeated, hurting patient care and costing the state tens of millions of dollars in wasted spending.
David Cornwell, executive director of N.C. Mental Hope, said the proposals before the latest change already gave MCOs the best of being a private and a public entity.
"I don't see how it's conscionable for largely clueless legislators to consider such far-reaching changes to an already shattered system at a time the state faces multiple lawsuits over its (behavioral-health) services," Cornwell said.
Controversies over care
The bill is the latest development in the controversial recommendations submitted in September by Piedmont Behavioral Healthcare and the N.C. Council of Community Programs.
The bill's primary sponsors are state Reps. Nelson Dollar, R-Wake, and Justin Burr, R-Montgomery. The bill has bipartisan co-sponsor support.
Senate sponsors of the new language are not identified. Dollar and Burr could not be reached for comment about whether they approve of the new language.
Piedmont Behavioral Healthcare is the only local management entity operating as an MCO, but 11 MCOs, including CenterPoint, are supposed to be operating statewide by Jan. 1.
The council, led by CenterPoint executive director Betty Taylor, wants to eliminate limits on top executive salaries because MCOs compete with private-sector insurance companies for staff with specific expertise. Salary proposals would not require the approval of the DHHS secretary.
The bill removes the requirement that county commissioners approve the hiring of an MCO director, giving that responsibility to the MCO board. Advocates say many LME boards already operate as rubber stamps for their executive directors.
The benefit for county governments, particularly those with tight budgets, is that the changes could limit their liability for MCO overspending and put it on DHHS.
The new language represents substantial additions to those recommended by a 24-member General Assembly subcommittee before the legislative session began in May.
For example, advocates and analysts said they are concerned that although membership on a BHA board is expected to reflect expertise on local needs and priorities, including at least one family member or individual from an advocacy group is suggested only "when possible."
"There appear to be no absolute compositional requirements for the board of a behavioral health authority," said Mark Botts, an expert on mental health records and confidentiality at UNC Chapel Hill School of Government, in an email to advocates.
The initial bill required MCO board seats for a county commissioner, individuals or family members of those with behavioral-health issues, a member of the general public and professionals with expertise in health care.
Botts' email said a behavioral health authority would have even fewer requirements for board composition than in the current statutes or the previous version of the bill.
Laurie Coker, a local advocate who served on the General Assembly subcommittee, said a major concern is whether MCOs will be more responsive to customer demands.
"There have been troubling additions to the original bill on MCO governance," said Coker, who also serves director of the N.C. Consumer Advocacy, Networking and Support Organization.
"We could move toward much more privatized system management, in that public input and responsibility through counties could be cut out altogether from local management. Yet we supposedly are to have a public managed-care system, and not a private one."
Coker said the initial bill reflected agreements derived from "a level of critical discussion rarely had in committee meetings that involve such a variety of perspectives.
"North Carolina doesn't need further complication and confusion added to our already substantial system change. We need the inclusion of consumers, family members and county officials to ensure best outcomes locally."
Worries about unknowns
Al Delia, acting DHHS secretary, acknowledges that patients and caregivers are worried about the unknown. He said LMEs must clear several hurdles with state regulators before managed care is instituted, and mistakes are being fixed.
"DHHS believes this amendment represents a substantive change and that it deserves more thorough discussion," said Julie Henry, DHHS' acting director of public affairs.
"We are concerned about the limits the measure places on DHHS' authority and oversight. The amendment would exempt BHAs from provisions of the state mental health statute."
In an exchange reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Jim Davis, R-Macon, said "this whole thing scares me to death" during a discussion of the House bill before it was referred to the committee on mental health and youth services. The discussion, which lasted several hours, appears to have taken place before new language was inserted.
If lawmakers struggle with this bill, Davis asked, "How are we going to take care of the folks that this governance is supposed to be protecting?"
********************************************************************
1. "The bill removes the requirement that county commissioners approve the hiring of an MCO director, giving that responsibility to the MCO board. Advocates say many LME boards already operate as rubber stamps for their executive directors."
2. The LME's need no longer have anyone w/ mental health challenges or associated family member present on the LME Board.
3. It would eliminate tops on executive salaries THUS USING FEDERAL AND STATE DOLLARS TO PAD THE POCKETS OF CEO'S OF PUBLIC ENTITIES. (It's Wall Street----and its with your tax $$)
4. The LME's would act completely like private enterprises, all the while taking Federal and State Tax dollars and doing whatever the hell they wanted to with that money. It would excempt the LME's from ANY OVERSIGHT AT ALL.
IS THIS WHAT NC CITIZENS WANT?
___________________________________________________
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/jun/18/wsmain01-changes-to-bill-would-give-more-power-to--ar-2364680/#fbcomments
Changes to bill would give more power to groups overseeing mental health services
Behavioral health authority powers
The new language to House Bill 1075 allows a behavioral health authority to operate similarly to a hospital authority or UNC Board of Governors, including:
By: RICHARD CRAVER
Winston-Salem Journal
Published: June 18, 2012
» Comments
Post a Comment
A late change to a bill giving more power to groups that oversee behavioral-health services in the state is raising concerns among advocates because the new language allows oversight groups to gain even more authority than the initial bill did.
The changes to the bill would create a new category of oversight group — a behavioral health authority. A BHA could borrow money and buy or sell property, would have no limits on executive salaries and would not be required to have any advocacy group members on its board.
The new language was inserted into N.C. House Bill 1075 on June 11 — five days after the bill had passed the House.
The substitute bill has been put on the Senate's agenda for Tuesday. If approved, the bill would return to the House for review and potential passage.
The changes would allow a local management entity (LME), such as CenterPoint Human Services, to become a behaviorial health authority after three years of serving as a managed-care organization (MCO) under the Medicaid waiver program being rolled out in the state.
The waiver program is intended to combine the management of Medicaid and state funds at the community level to reduce costs and add more accountability. MCOs would operate with fewer restrictions on how they manage the mental-health, developmental-disability and substance-abuse providers and services they oversee.
Becoming a behavioral health authority would take the oversight groups' level of independence to a higher level since public authorities can borrow money and buy or sell property. Authorities have limited or no local government oversight on their overall operations. They are allowed to file lawsuits and have a legal staff.
The initial bill already shifted much of the oversight of an MCO from county commissioners to the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services. The DHHS secretary would be required to approve a group's change to a behavioral health authority.
Local and statewide advocates expressed exasperation when informed of the new language. They worry that past mistakes in state mental-health reform will be repeated, hurting patient care and costing the state tens of millions of dollars in wasted spending.
David Cornwell, executive director of N.C. Mental Hope, said the proposals before the latest change already gave MCOs the best of being a private and a public entity.
"I don't see how it's conscionable for largely clueless legislators to consider such far-reaching changes to an already shattered system at a time the state faces multiple lawsuits over its (behavioral-health) services," Cornwell said.
Controversies over care
The bill is the latest development in the controversial recommendations submitted in September by Piedmont Behavioral Healthcare and the N.C. Council of Community Programs.
The bill's primary sponsors are state Reps. Nelson Dollar, R-Wake, and Justin Burr, R-Montgomery. The bill has bipartisan co-sponsor support.
Senate sponsors of the new language are not identified. Dollar and Burr could not be reached for comment about whether they approve of the new language.
Piedmont Behavioral Healthcare is the only local management entity operating as an MCO, but 11 MCOs, including CenterPoint, are supposed to be operating statewide by Jan. 1.
The council, led by CenterPoint executive director Betty Taylor, wants to eliminate limits on top executive salaries because MCOs compete with private-sector insurance companies for staff with specific expertise. Salary proposals would not require the approval of the DHHS secretary.
The bill removes the requirement that county commissioners approve the hiring of an MCO director, giving that responsibility to the MCO board. Advocates say many LME boards already operate as rubber stamps for their executive directors.
The benefit for county governments, particularly those with tight budgets, is that the changes could limit their liability for MCO overspending and put it on DHHS.
The new language represents substantial additions to those recommended by a 24-member General Assembly subcommittee before the legislative session began in May.
For example, advocates and analysts said they are concerned that although membership on a BHA board is expected to reflect expertise on local needs and priorities, including at least one family member or individual from an advocacy group is suggested only "when possible."
"There appear to be no absolute compositional requirements for the board of a behavioral health authority," said Mark Botts, an expert on mental health records and confidentiality at UNC Chapel Hill School of Government, in an email to advocates.
The initial bill required MCO board seats for a county commissioner, individuals or family members of those with behavioral-health issues, a member of the general public and professionals with expertise in health care.
Botts' email said a behavioral health authority would have even fewer requirements for board composition than in the current statutes or the previous version of the bill.
Laurie Coker, a local advocate who served on the General Assembly subcommittee, said a major concern is whether MCOs will be more responsive to customer demands.
"There have been troubling additions to the original bill on MCO governance," said Coker, who also serves director of the N.C. Consumer Advocacy, Networking and Support Organization.
"We could move toward much more privatized system management, in that public input and responsibility through counties could be cut out altogether from local management. Yet we supposedly are to have a public managed-care system, and not a private one."
Coker said the initial bill reflected agreements derived from "a level of critical discussion rarely had in committee meetings that involve such a variety of perspectives.
"North Carolina doesn't need further complication and confusion added to our already substantial system change. We need the inclusion of consumers, family members and county officials to ensure best outcomes locally."
Worries about unknowns
Al Delia, acting DHHS secretary, acknowledges that patients and caregivers are worried about the unknown. He said LMEs must clear several hurdles with state regulators before managed care is instituted, and mistakes are being fixed.
"DHHS believes this amendment represents a substantive change and that it deserves more thorough discussion," said Julie Henry, DHHS' acting director of public affairs.
"We are concerned about the limits the measure places on DHHS' authority and oversight. The amendment would exempt BHAs from provisions of the state mental health statute."
In an exchange reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Jim Davis, R-Macon, said "this whole thing scares me to death" during a discussion of the House bill before it was referred to the committee on mental health and youth services. The discussion, which lasted several hours, appears to have taken place before new language was inserted.
If lawmakers struggle with this bill, Davis asked, "How are we going to take care of the folks that this governance is supposed to be protecting?"
posted by Marsha V. Hammond, PhD at 1:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home