Regional centers are private nonprofits that contract with Califorinia's Department of Developmental Services to coordinate or provide services for people with developmental disabilities. The 21 regional centers help disabled people and their families help find and access a variety of services.
David Gorn reports at California Healthline:
According to children’s health advocates, roughly half of the providers who work with the 9,000 children with autism at the state’s regional centers could be excluded from seeing those kids as the state shifts to managed care.
Beginning March 1, the state Department of Health Care Services will start the transition at 21 regional centers across the state. These centers are nonprofits that contract with the state to provide services for people with developmental disabilities.
State officials say the regional centers will continue to serve the kids. The children will not experience a disruption in service because no one will lose a provider without another one lined up, they say.
The change is merely a shift in payment systems, according to state officials — moving from a Medi-Cal program run by the regional centers to one coordinated by managed care companies.
But as a practical matter, advocates say, the families of up to half of these kids could find themselves searching for new providers. The reason: The state’s new rules seem to exclude longtime providers from payment unless they are supervised by people with newer credentials.The article quotes Dan Unumb of Autism Speaks: "If you’ve eliminated half of the providers in the regional centers, where are you going to get new providers?” Unumb said. “Where is the other half going to come from? That’s the big question. How are they going to do this?”
State Senator Holly Mitchell has introduced legislation (SB1034) to address the problem, but it may not take effect in time.
“What’s going to happen is there are a whole group of providers who can’t serve the kids they’ve been serving. So in practical terms, you’re going to have kids who are not having continuity of care,” Unumb said.
The department has promised “continuity of service,” which is slightly different from continuity of care, Unumb said. The state doesn’t have a legal obligation to ensure beneficiaries keep the same provider.
“Folks feel they were misled,” Unumb said, “because this should just be a financing change. Families aren’t going to be perusing the State Plan Amendment and then cross-referencing the Institutions and Welfare Code to see if they can keep their provider. This whole thing is so unnecessary.”
