Transcript of Public Hearing Warsaw
BEFORE THE
INDIANA FAMILY AND SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
OLMSTEAD PLAN
DRAFT PLAN FOR COMMUNITY INTEGRATION
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
PUBLIC HEARING
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
PETER SYBINSKY, HEARING OFFICER
CONFERENCE ROOM
BOWMAN CENTER
850 NORTH HARRISON STREET
WARSAW, INDIANA
APRIL 23, 2001
ACCELERATED REPORTING AGENCY
2766 NORTH 600 EAST
FRANKLIN, INDIANA 46131
317/736-6115
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Opening Remarks by Hearing Officer Sybinsky
Public Comments:
Jack Norton
Anita McCallister
James Cook
Scott Harvey
Joyce Gordon
Linda Yoder
Written statement attached as Exhibit 1
Bonnie Blossum
Jane Green
Jean Scribner
Written statement attached as Exhibit 2
Barbara Judish
Adjournment
PROCEEDINGS
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: Good afternoon. I'm Pete Sybinsky. I'm Deputy Secretary of Family and Social Services. I'd like to welcome here to this meeting.
To being with is there anyone in the audience who needs in interpreter or interpreter services?
(No response.)
If not, thank you very much. Today we're coming out to listen to what you have to say about the principles and ideas that we've put out in our draft plan for community integration for persons with disabilities.
I'd like to mention that I'm not the only one here from central staff or from FSSA. I think a lot of us have come to listen and hear what you've said, and we're making sure that some of our top administrators are at every meeting so that people do get an understanding of what you are telling us.
I'd like to spend just a couple of minutes giving a bit of background for the draft plan and telling you how it was put together, and then the meeting is yours.
In 1992 Central State Hospital was closed. It was the first big institutional closure in Indiana's history and looking at Central State as kind of a key point, because it really began in a real way to move to community integration in Indiana.
In 1997 and 1998 two state developmental centers, New Castle and Northern Indiana both closed and the folks who lived there were moved into community living. This started the trend, started the activity for persons with developmental disabilities. Large scale across the board since then actions have happened to bring people into community integration.
In our mental health programs we have moved people out into the community so that they're actually 500 fewer beds in our institutions because people are living in the community more successfully.
There's 74,000 people who are being treated in the community through our mental health programs. There's 700 fewer persons in institutions in our developmental disabilities program, and 4400 total people receiving community services in their own homes and the community.
We've tried in Indiana to use various funding mechanisms to pay for this. Medicaid waivers and Medicaid funding has been very critical to this effort. Very recently we completed two new Medicaid waivers, one for assisted living and another for adult foster care to broaden the array of option that can help people to move into community living or stay in the community as opposed to going into an institution.
In 1999 the legislature appropriated $39 million to assist 1300 people at risk of going into institutions to stay in the community and have community life. The mental health division has had a special effort to try to reach even the toughest persons to be institutionalized, long-term patients, and has moved 23 patients out of the hospitals who were in there for eight, ten, twelve or more years, and now they're living in the community.
But this is just the beginning. We all know that's there much more to do. An awful lot begins with planning. Governor O'Bannon executive's order issued last fall made it very clear that he wants the state to build on what it's done already, but thoroughly to involve elderly and persons with disabilities throughout the process of planning a new system. One that will provide community integration for everyone who can benefit from it.
He also wants us to assess the state's compliance with the Supreme Court's Olmstead decision and ensure that we are going to be moving forward in the direction as the state is certainly legally required to but also to continue the good work and the good activity that has been going on already.
We've gone out already to get consumer input. We've done everything we could to get input from consumers, families, advocates and providers. In November we went out and had three public meetings across the state to get information, to get input on our planning process, on how we plan to do this.
Then in January and February of this year we called together three subcommittees. One appointed to help us with mental health issues, one with developmental disabilities issues, one with issues for persons who are elderly or physically disabled. And these subcommittees met and gave us quite a lot of direct input and feedback that have already gotten into this plan.
We also called together focus groups, consumers, families, advocates, providers from across the state to get their input, even people beyond these subcommittees and interviewed a good number of folks to get their input as well. So we've done a lot of spade work, we hope, to gather information and to gather feelings so that we could put this set of directions together.
Now we're at the standpoint of where we want to run those up the flag pole and get the public's input. This is one 12 meetings that we're going to be holding across the state to gauge people's ideas and reactions to what we've put down. In June we will submit our final report to the Governor and that report will basically send to him our recommendations on what we should be doing from now on.
This plan is not meant to be a detailed focus on specifics. It is supposed to be a road map with system goals we can work on together and ways we can work together and directions we can go together to better serve persons with disabilities and the elderly.
I think the focus that we've gotten from a lot of the input already is that we need to really emphasize our efforts to assist consumers and their families in making choices about their care and particularly care in the community.
While the emphasis is community-based care, we do have to take care of people who are in institutions as well. Their needs are not going to be lost or overlooked in all of this.
There are basically six policy directions, and I'm going to go just very lightly over them because you have them in the brochures, you've looked at them in the plan.
First of all increasing consumer choice is a very, very high priority so that people across the state whether they're in an urban area or a rural area will have choices that are meaningful to them about service, the location they take the service in and who gives them the service.
The second policy direction is to improve access to information and assistance. Wewant to emphasize informed choice. That unless people know what the options are there won't be any informed aspect and there won't be any choice aspect. So we really have to do a better job at informing people of what's available and how they can access those services.
Third we need to support an informal network of families, friends, neighbors and communities in general helping them to take care of people in their charge. The informal caregiver network is such an important one and so many people have testified about their personal experience that they really need help. This is a key area where we really need to focus.
The fourth direction is to strengthen quality assurance, complaint systems and advocacy efforts. We need to have a quality system. We need to make sure that people are getting the services that they need in a respectful and complete manner. And we also have to have ways, if they aren't getting those services that they can complain to us and let us know. So that we can rectify the matter and we need to do better in that.
The fifth direction is to increase our capacity for high quality care. We've heard many, many statements from across the state from varieties of people about the additional services that are needed and the things we have to do to strengthen our service delivery system.
The final policy direction is to create a coordinated work force development system. Again we've heard from all over the state that there aren't enough workers, that there isn't enough training, there isn't enough in the way of people to provide the services that are needed, and sometimes even those that are funded.
That's the overview of what we've done and what we've said. It's now time for us to listen. We've got a court reporter here that's taking down everything we say and it's going to be a public document. It will be on the FSSA internet site so you'll be able to get it in about 10 days from now, I expect.
We will basically have these documents available to people so that they can see what was said across the state. We are going to use this information and take it back and crank into our planning process and use it to improve our plan.
I'd like to ask at least initially that you try to focus your comments and limit them to make sure that everybody says what they can say and what they have to say. If you need to you can say more at the end, because we'll give you a chance to do that too.
Letters, written comments and e-mails can be forwarded to us with testimony or comments up until April 27, 2001. We're going to read and look at and work with every comment that is made.
If you don't feel comfortable at standing up and saying something today, please feel free to write it down. In fact, please write it down and send it to us, because we really want to hear what you have to say.
I'm now going to take my seat, and give you all a chance now to speak and say what you want to say in terms of your reactions to this plan and your thoughts about what we need to do.
I'm going to go along first of all to the sign-up list and then after that it will be an open floor and I'll call on whoever raises their hand.
JACK NORTON
My name is Jack Norton, and I'm with Grant-Blackford Mental Health. And I have ADD, and what would happen -- I live in just a sleeping room. We have no use of a telephone. And what I'm trying to do is, I'm trying to get back into a group home where I can be watched 24 hours a day.
And there are people there that disagree with my thoughts on that. Is there anyway that I can get something done about this situation to where I would be able to live in a group home, instead of just a little sleeping room.
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: Thank you very much. I will take the personal issues that you bring up and try to crank them into our policy making process. We can't give anybody an individual answer on what we can or we can't do because we don't have that information always available, but we will take it in and put it into the process.
Thank you very much, Jack. Yes. Your name, please.
ANITA McCALLISTER
The Indiana Commission on Aging provides the following comments relative to the draft plan entitled Comprehensive Plan for Community Integration and Support of People with Disabilities, Policy Options to Support Individualized and Person Centered Services and Funding.
Reference is made to the adult guardianship program on page 37, Appendix E of the draft plan. The adult guardianship program is a valuable program. 284 individuals received adult guardianship services last year, fiscal year 2000. Only 23 counties are covered by six providers, four Area Agencies on Aging and two Community Mental Health Associations.
Additional guardianships are needed on a statewide basis. The Commission on Aging recommends that the guardianship program be expanded statewide to eliminate the present waiting list and to serve all counties of the state. The program expended $390,376 in FY 2000. An additional $600,000 is needed each year.
Reference is made to the state's CHOICE program on pages 37 through 43, Appendix E of the draft plan. Indiana's statewide in-home services program of which CHOICE is a part has been recognized by the national governor's association as a national model for its flexibility and responsiveness to consumer input. 12,338 individuals received services under the CHOICE program in FY 2000. An additional 7,400 individuals were on the waiting list for CHOICE services.
The present CHOICE funding is $42,623,785 per year, each year of the biennium. The Commission on Aging recommends that an additional $32 million per year for each year of the biennium is needed to meet the growing demands for services.
Reference is made to the need to redesign the home and community based service waivers to incorporate the flexibility currently exhibited by the CHOICE program, page 43, item 17 of the Appendix of the draft plan. The Commission on Aging agrees with this statement.
On page 37, Appendix E of the draft plan, reference is made to the need of a unified vision across state agencies. Several groups have created vision statements including the CHOICE board of which the Commission on Aging chair is a member. The Commission recommends that the CHOICE board vision statement be used as the beginning point in establishing a vision across state agencies.
The CHOICE board's vision statement is: The citizens of the State of Indiana shall have a full array of long-term care services that includes a range of individual options based on the principles of independence, quality, dignity, privacy and personal choice as directed by the consumer.
Note long-term care includes in-home care, community and facility based services including assisted living.
Reference is made to funding for community-based services being currently very limited, page 38, item 2, Appendix E of the draft plan. The Commission on Aging agrees with this statement and recommends that the state fund the 10,000 aged and disabled Medicaid waiver slots that have been approved by HCFA but have not been funded.
The state is currently only funding 2,500 individuals versus 12,500 approved slots. The Commission on Aging further recommends that the funding of Medicaid waiver slots be through a separate appropriation for the Medicaid waiver program and the utilization of CHOICE funds as a match for the Medicaid waiver program be eliminated, $4.9 million per year.
Reference is made to the Ombudsman program, the money management program, adult protective services program on page 37, Appendix E of the draft plan. These programs are under funded. The Commission recommends that an additional $500,000 is needed for the Ombudsman program, presently $477,922, to allow Indiana to add more local Ombudsman to bring the state closer to the standard of one Ombudsman for every 200 nursing home residents.
An appropriation of $400,000 is needed each year for the money management program statewide, presently zero funding. It depends on volunteers. And approximately 200 individuals are served each year.
An additional $1 million is needed for the adult protective services program in order to expand the hours of operation, from five to seven days and 24 hour access to service, presently serve approximately 12,000 individuals per year with an $856,224 budget per year.
Reference is made to the 16 Area Agencies on Aging serving as the single point of entry for in-home and community based services, page 37, Appendix E of the draft plan. The Commission recommends the continued support and the expansion of the single point of entry for services to older adults and individuals with disabilities of all ages to include new services as they become available in the State of Indiana, and to enhance the infra-structure of the Area Aging network as necessary to stay current.
Reference is made to assisted living and adult foster care on page 43, Appendix E of the draft plan. Full funding is needed for both of these programs that are scheduled for implementation in fiscal year 2002.
The Commission on Aging established the following priorities through year 2006, along with the governor's task force on Alzheimer's disease and related senile dementia, CHOICE board, and money management advisory council.
The Commission on Aging recommends that these priorities be addressed in the integration plan: Education, in the areas of health, aging, financial planning; health care; assisted living; transportation; and employment volunteering.
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: Thank you, Anita. Who else would like to testify?
JAMES COOK
Do you know what happened to the SILP, semi-independent living program? That's where the state funded money to different mental hospitals and they drifted it out about two years ago?
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: Thank you very much.
SCOTT HARVEY
My name is Scott Harvey. Me and my wife was thinking about moving this year and we found out if we would move to a different city or location for mental health facilities, something about Hoosier Health Plan, like they only pay the mental health facilities six months, then after that you've got to wait until that six months is up and it's like if we were going to move, we couldn't get case management or anything like that until it went through the six months.
And what I was thinking, people should have a choice of where they want to go for their mental health facilities and where they want to move. I was thinking also maybe they said that they would help us but it would have to be a life-threatening situation. I think that needs to be changed.
Thanks.
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: Thanks, Scott. Yes.
JOYCE GORDON
My name is Joyce Gordon and we have a son at the Fort Wayne Developmental Center, and I'm very emotional, so you'll have to bear with me. They're in the process of trying to place him into a group home. John is autistic and borderline retarded. John is going to a group home and probably have two or three people, caregivers, over him where he's had a multitude of caregivers.
Because I know it's pressure from this program being integrated why they're really pushing to get these people out. They say they've done all they can for John 'cause he does have potential.
But as he was home the last time -- these little things mean so much -- when he was home the last time, they've had a great deal of difficulty with him eating too fast, and when he came home the last time, he sat at breakfast and counted in sign language as he chewed, one, two, three, four, five. Now that may seem like a very little thing to you, but when you have a son that has potential choking, it's a big thing. He's not going to get that care.
The thing that really upsets me is that what I'm hearing so much of is dollars and cents.
Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: Thank you very much, Joyce. Next person who would like to testify? Yes, please.
LINDA YODER
My name is Linda Yoder. I'm the Supervisor of Case Management in Elkhart County and today I'm representing the Area 2 Agency on Aging, which is a five-county program, including Kosciusko, Marshall, LaPorte, Elkhart and St. Joe Counties.
The current administration can be justly proud of the national recognition Indiana has received for it's In-Home Services Program. In addition, Indiana has been recognized on the federal level for its single point of entry system for its in-home services program.
This system is based on a network of trained case managers who act as gatekeepers for the single entry point.
One assessment tool is used for all programs, including CHOICE, Older American's Act, Social Services Block Grant, and Medicaid Waivers.
This service system is not only social minded in that home care is the preferred alternative of our elderly and disabled Hoosiers, but it has proven to be a cost effective alternative to institutional care.
Vision, developing Indiana's long-term care program into a long-term care system that is person based, not located based, would enable elderly and disabled Hoosiers to have a full array of adequately financed long-term care services based on the principles of independence, quality, dignity, privacy and personal choice.
Financing, Indiana can have a long-term care program that provides a full range of quality services in a cost-effective manner. For each person who is diverted from a nursing home, $20,144 is saved per year. The savings from one person who is not institutionalized could annually serve three additional people in the community.
If the number of nursing home residents in Indiana, 43,026, were reduced by 10 percent, 4,303, the savings of $86,679,632 could serve 11,893 people at an average cost of $7,288 per year under the CHOICE program. And this figure, 11,893, would increase based on the cost shared calculation applicable to those whose income exceeds 150 percent of the federal poverty guidelines.
It should be noted that these are conservative numbers and represent only a fraction of the number of institutionalized residents who, if given the choice, would thrive in an alternative setting.
Similar savings are being achieved through the O'Bannon administration's effective use of Medicaid waivers for people with developmental disabilities and now persons with traumatic brain injuries.
Expansion of these programs to serve those in greatest need should be a key priority area of the O'Bannon administration as we continue the commitment to home and community based services.
Future, as the aging and disabled population increases, what do we today is vital. Soon there will be nearly three-quarters of a million people in Indiana over age 65. Presently only 5 percent of the over 65 are in nursing facilities. In contrast to the traditional notion, the majority of those who need long-term care do not live in nursing homes.
Indiana's commitment must be to shore up the continuum of care by providing cost-effective alternatives to institutionalization which include in-home services, assisted living and foster home care.
Indiana's budget should be sufficiently flexible to fund alternatives that make sense. There are no waiting lists for nursing homes. It should follow therefore that no waiting list should exist for in-home care and alternative care, especially when that option is less costly and preferred by the client.
As a practical matter all alternatives for care, in-home services, including foster-care and assisted living, should be considered before any institutionalization. This means that an alternative care system must be responsive to the needs of our people.
Conclusion, the O'Bannon administration must act promptly to provide care for the aging of Indiana. I know Indiana will face difficult funding challenges as it seeks to divert the elderly and the disabled now going to nursing homes into other more viable and appropriate levels of care.
However, with the extension of life and the baby boomers entering the aging population, now is the time to begin the process that will avert financial crisis in the relatively near future.
Cost is a critical reason to consider better ways to provide appropriate care within Indiana's long-term care system. Quality of life is an equally important reason.
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: Thank you very much, Joyce. Next, please.
BONNIE BLOSSUM
My name is Bonnie Blossum, and I've been in a mental health facility off and on all my life. I kind of fell through the cracks. I really think education needs to be the key, especially for mental illness. Just because I look normal you don't think I have it, and I think education needs to be the key too.
Everybody is talking about money and stuff like that, that's a need. But I really feel that to go along with that money, education needs to be the key for the community.
For my mental illness they don't understand. And also my main concern is I wanted to go back to work but I'm slow at going back to work because of all my benefits will just disappear real quick. And I won't have a chance to bounce back and get back into the working community and I feel that they shouldn't be taken -- you shouldn't get penalized for trying to get back into the community, and be put back into community.
So I think that needs to be an aspect to look at too, so that persons don't lose their benefits because they're trying to better themselves.
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: Thank you very much, Bonnie.
More testimony? Yes.
JANE GREEN
I'm Jane Green, and I'm the President of Cardinal Center, the local agency here in Kosciusko County. We also serve people in Marshall and Cass County.
We have received a number of individuals from Fort Wayne State Development Center, as a matter of fact about ten in the last three months. I realize that the plan is intended to be a direction, but I really want to know the specifics, the timing, and all of the objectives associated with it.
The plan is very exciting in terms of possibilities for people with disabilities, but we need more information. Overall I think the direction is good. I strongly encourage the state to -- as decisions are being made so that actions taken are not at odds with the plan.
I think something needs to be added in the CHOICE section. It's definitely a very positive thing for people with disabilities to have choice over their living arrangements or day service arrangements, but there are cost considerations, and I really feel that if you don't make mention of that, you're doing the families a terrible disservice, particularly for supports for people with very severe disabilities.
But the deinstitutional goal is consistent with the national philosophy and it was also refreshing to see some mention of the fact that Indiana has more DD folks than any other state that are residing in nursing homes, and I concur that it's time to begin looking at that and finding more appropriate placement for some of those individuals.
Adult guardianship is a huge need, particularly with the massive deinstitutionalization and some providers have created their own guardianship programs to meet the local needs down to try to meet Medicaid regulations and we're one of those providers.
I think we're guardian to maybe 45 people at this time, and that gets very awkward as a provider to serve as the guardian for the person that you're a service provider for. But we were not able to find any other people willing to be guardians for individuals who were not able to voice their own rights.
Another thing that's very difficult about the guardianship issue is that if you have a person move from one county to another and you've agreed to be the guardian for them and another guardian is not found by the new provider, then you continue being the guardian for that individual and that really creates some logistic issues that are not compensated for providing the guardianship service.
So again, I strongly concur that that's necessary. I may have missed it but I saw no plan to shore up the transition between high school special education services and DD services. And as public school kids who have a need for special education are exiting the school system there are still a number of kids that are falling between the cracks and I think it's just mainly a resource issue where the schools are very, very busy and the special education departments don't always have control over the school systems that they provide support to, and so they're kind of colorless a lot of times, but I think we really need to pay more attention to that and provide more support to those kids that are exiting the public schools.
I'm assuming that the regional behavioral centers discussed during this legislative session are to provide more local support to people with disabilities that are not responding well in their current environment. And again that's a real issue as we have more and more people from the state institutions moving out and being served locally. And if the person is not adjusting well to their environment for whatever reason, the supports that are available to help providers meet the needs of those individuals are slim to none, and if you have a person that's very aggressive is the home in jeopardy.
As a provider a lot of times we're just stuck with those individuals and we don't have the resources to be able to provide the support that they need.
It would be extremely beneficial to providers if an automatic consumer price index increase was made available for the waiver, title 20 and SILP services.
SILP has not seen a rate adjustment in over eight years and yet the providers and the insurance expenses are increasing by double digit figures and we're having to provide wage increases and so on to our staff.
And the reality is that the staff that we have are making some of the lowest wages in the county and they have much more demanding work than a lot of the other fast food industries as a comparison.
When a person is determined no longer eligible for ICF/MR services or there is a need for an emergency placement, there needs to be effective response mechanism for finding an appropriate placement in a timely manner. Funds are now available to serve a person temporarily, but four to twelve weeks of moving from one person's home to another until a more permanent placement can be found, can be devastating to the person served.
So on one hand it's very positive that at least there's some resources, but you still have the person having to move around a number of times before we can finally find a placement or a more long-term solution.
Overall I'm very supportive of the direction expressed in the Olmstead document. Of course, it is unachievable without resources being made to make it a reality. I'm encouraged that Governor O'Bannon has gone on record saying that the needs of people with disabilities are one of his top four priorities. I am encouraged by the actions that the O'Bannon administration has taken so far and look forward to seeing many of the ideas outlined in the Olmstead report implemented.
Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: Thank you very much, Jane.
Next person? Yes.
VOICE: I was wanting to know we have a lot of turnover of case management and ours was turned over and over and over the past few years, especially the last couple of years, and I was wanting to know is there a number you can contact, if you do not believe you're treated right?
I do believe the case managers ought to be going through a test at least once a year.
Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: Some people are asking questions and some of those questions are kind of specific, but like I said we can't answer them in the meeting. But there are people that came out from Indianapolis and you can ask questions after the meeting. So we'll all stick around and maybe we can get into a little more detail if you need to.
VOICE: Thank you.
(Some questions and answers among the audience.)
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: We'll have a number at the end of the meeting for those of you who want to get the complaint hotline, you'll be able to report things, and we should find out about those.
Next person to testify? Yes.
1 JEAN SCRIBNER
I'm Jean Scribner. I'm with the Council on Aging, Advisory Committee for the area, also their Legislative Committee.
And consistently I've heard comments about how wonderful Governor O'Bannon's plan is. I've been all through these things here and the one thing that I've noticed nobody has really mentioned is our legislature, how do we get them to put up the finances necessary.
That's what happened not too long ago on the CHOICE program which has always been a very tight budget with people having to wait two or three years to get in. Many of them have already gone to a nursing home or died before they get in.
Is that neglect? Mostly it's a lack of money. Our legislators -- the governor has a certain amount, block grants for different things, but it's never anywhere near enough.
And the legislators have pretty much slanted the monies granted even through the Medicaid program, which comes from the federal government, so that the Indiana funds go to nursing homes.
I think nursing homes are 74 percent occupied on the average. What we need to do is be getting to our legislators. Say, we really need these things. I've seen people a couple on Social Security as low as $600 a month, and they were trying to buy supplemental insurance for the two of them, $120 a month. I said, but weren't you advised that at that rate of income -- that's the only income they had -- you're eligible for Medicaid.
Nobody ever told them that. Shouldn't that be a part of Medicaid, rather than them having to find out from someone who -- I have done a lot of work with elderly people with insurance. I've done a lot of work with their taxes, things like that. We need to get our legislators responsive to our needs.
But that is one of the breakdowns in integration, it's the financial end. The plans are beautiful, but what if you don't get the money to do it? It takes money. Other than that, it's the problem with a lot of the nursing homes.
The state keeps cutting back or slowing down on reimbursements and you can go out -- as someone mentioned go to McDonald's or any of the fast foods, you can get more money in a lot of instances, you go to a factory, you get double pay. It's a matter of money.
These people have paid taxes all their life, a lot of them, let's get after our legislators to get the money to them.
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: Thank you very much, Jean.
Next person? Yes, please.
BARBARA JUDISH
I'm Barbara Judish, and I have a concern that -- I have a son at Fort Wayne Developmental Center, and my concern is that while these programs are very good that we're trying to institute -- but I'm concerned for him because he is very severely retarded and what is going to happen to some of these people if they try to close out the facilities.
I'm hoping this never happens. He's been there for 40 years. He is blind and he has a mentality of seven months.
In the recent evaluation that we had, if he was to be put into a group home or anything like this, he would need 24-hour care. He would need a one-on-one person. And he would need someone to monitor him at all times. So this is a concern of mine, to try to implement him into a group home or anything like this it appears to me that it would be almost an impossibility for him to have good care.
So this is a big concern of mine, that there is a facility left for these people that are -- I don't know what to call them -- not able to be out in the community at all, but that you would consider this very carefully.
HEARING OFFICER SYBINSKY: Thank you very much, Barbara.
Next person? Who else would like to testify?
Is there anybody that wants to expound on the testimony they gave?
Okay. We will stick around afterwards, if you have anything you want to say or ask any questions or give us information that we can take back, please feel free to do so. Thank you very much for coming. And believe me your comments, your ideas will be integrated into our plan. Thank you very much.
(Hearing ended at 4:30 p.m. on April 23, 2001.)
STATE OF INDIANA )
) SS:
COUNTY OF JOHNSON )
I, Linda R. Merkl a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public, in and for the County of Johnson, State of Indiana, do hereby certify that the foregoing hearing was taken on behalf of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration in the matter of the Olmstead Act, beginning at 3:30 p.m. on the 23rd day of April, 2001, by Court Reporter Andrea Jacobs; That said hearing was taken down in stenograph notes and afterwards reduced to typewriting under my direction; and that the typewritten transcript is a true record, to the best of my knowledge and belief;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by notarial seal this 27th day of April, 2001.
____________________________
Linda R. Merkl
Notary Public
Residing in Johnson County
My Commission Expires:
January 27, 2009
