Follow the link below for a PDF of the 2013 House Committee schedule:
Follow the link below for a PDF of the 2013 Senate Committee schedule:
Kyle Frohne, long-time friend and self-advocate
AdvocacyDenver mourns the loss of friend and ally Kyle Frohne. Our deepest condolences go to his family and all those grieving the loss of an inspirational life.
“Kyle Alan Frohne, 41, died peacefully in his home on Sunday, November 4th 2012. Kyle will be lovingly remembered by his mother, Gerrie Frohne; his father and stepmother, Jim and Sharon Frohne; his sister Erica (Frohne) Conner, her husband John Conner and their son Grant; and his brother Alex Frohne, his wife Jackie Frohne and their children Molly and Wesley.
Kyle was born in Evanston, Illinois on May 15th, 1971. In 1978 Kyle and his family moved to Lakewood Colorado. Kyle’s childhood was rich growing up with his sister Erica and his brother Alex. He graduated from Golden High School in 1992 and attended Red Rocks Community College. Kyle went on to enjoy working at the Golden Public Library, sponsored by The Golden Optimist Club. He was also employed at Sun Bright and other dry cleaners in Lakewood and Golden throughout his adult life. Kyle loved engaging with people creating countless genuine friendships in his work and personal life. He was an avid sports fan, to say the least, always rooting for his Denver teams and attending several games and events a year with his brother. Kyle treasured his weekly activities including swimming at the Easter Seals warm water therapy pool and Feldenkrais® therapy led by Ginger Mitchell. Kyle enjoyed many family vacations including trips to Alaska, Illinois, and Washington state. Kyle accepted Christ with the loving support of his life-long friend Becky Blondin and was baptized in 2004. He valued his time as part of the Praise Team and young adult bible study within his home church. To know Kyle is to know how unmistakably captivating his personality was, permanently overcoming any pre-conceived notions about his disability.
Donations may be made in his honor to Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (www.ccdconline.org/get-involved/donate 655 Broadway, Suite 775, Denver, CO 80203).”
2012 Voter Guide on Disability Issues
Follow the link below to access the 2012 Voter Guide which outlines issues ranging from Medicaid, to juvenile justice, to pending federal legislation that all affect the community of individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Use the guide to contact candidates for both Colorado legislature and U.S. Congress to raise awareness about these issues.
2012 AdvocacyDenver Voter Guide
Don’t forget to vote on Election Day on November 6th, 2012! Our voices count!
Calabrese Life Opportunities Fund open to grant applications
The Arc of Colorado is a support and advocacy organization for individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (I/DD) and their families. The Arc believes in self-determination by empowering people to make informed choices. We believe that children with I/DD should have the supports and services they need to live in their family homes, to succeed in school and to partake in all of the experiences of childhood. Adults with I/DD should have the opportunity to lead lives of their own choosing, to be free from poverty, to be employed, to reside in the community, and to live independently with ready access to whatever services and supports they need. The Arc is known as a responsive nonprofit organization, constantly evolving to meet the changing needs and circumstances of people with I/DD and their families. Based on the values of The Arc and the need to be responsive to the needs of our community The Arc of Colorado has created The Calabrese Life Opportunities Fund. The fund is named in honor of Elizabeth Calabrese – a longtime Colorado advocate and supporter of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities.
The Calabrese Life Opportunities fund is designed to help people with developmental disabilities of all ages in a variety of areas – including, but not limited to:
∙ Self-determination – The Arc strives to empower people to get involved in their community, become more independent, and experience authority over their own lives. This fund will assist self-advocates to purchase items to live more independent lives, such as assistive technology devices, accessibility equipment, as well as, attendance at conferences and other educational programs intended to enhance independent living.
· Family Preservation – families are being stretched beyond their capabilities caring for family members. The fund will provide resources to keep families together and well cared for. Examples include extra behavioral supports, counseling for parents and siblings, conferences, educational opportunities, and respite.
· Emergency – funding for unexpected situations not covered by publicly funded programs such as anesthesiology for dental care – or the cost of emergency housing when a self-advocate becomes homeless.
Any individual with an intellectual and/or developmental disabilities in The State of Colorado is eligible to apply for assistance through a grant application to the Calabrese Life Opportunities Fund. For more details and to access the grant application please visit http://www.thearcofco.org
Please contact Cassidy Dellemonache at The Arc of Colorado with any questions.
Applications are due by Friday, September 17th Please email completed applications to cdellemonache@thearcofco.org or via mail The Arc of Colorado Attn: Cassidy Dellemonache 1580 Logan Street Suite 730 Denver, CO 80203
The Arc Reacts to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision on the Affordable Care Act
People with intellectual and developmental disabilities have been waiting for generations for the insurance reforms put in place by the Affordable Care Act. Today’s ruling removes any doubts that the law Congress enacted should stand and will benefit millions of people with and without disabilities. It ends discriminatory insurance practices and makes health coverage more affordable and accessible – important protections which too many people with disabilities have been deprived of for too long. Go to our blog for the top reasons why The Arc supports the law.
But the ruling is not perfect for people with I/DD. The Arc is concerned that disallowing the federal government the ability to withhold Medicaid dollars from states that don’t expand their program to cover more of the uninsured might mean that people with I/DD who would have benefitted from the expansion could be left behind. Medicaid is an incredibly important lifeline for people with I/DD, providing health care and long term services and supports.
We will carefully watch how states react to this development and encourage our advocates across the country to put pressure on their state leaders to do the right thing and expand their Medicaid program.
-Marty Ford, Director of Public Policy for The Arc
Bill Strengthens State’s Medicaid Fraud Prosecution
Senate Bill 60, sponsored by State Senator Ellen Roberts, and passed with nearly unanimous bipartisan support, will put some teeth into the prosecution of Medicaid fraud across the state. Currently, the Attorney General’s office prosecutes provider fraud. But recipient fraud is handled through the counties, who often lack the personnel to conduct the investigative process.
In an interview with Catherine Strode, Coordinator of the Health Care Advocacy Program, State Senator Roberts said the bill’s main intent is to create a stronger system of tracking Medicaid fraud carried out by both health care providers and benefit recipients.
Why is this bill good for the state of Colorado?
“Because it will give us good information. Currently we don’t have any streamlined system to inform the legislature as to how much it’s occurring, who’s doing it, provider versus recipient. I think we have people out there saying one thing or another as if there’s strong data to back up their claims. When I went after getting that strong data, I couldn’t locate it.”
How will it be implemented?
“Medicaid fraud is handled in two different ways in Colorado. Grantee or recipient fraud is handled through the counties. The Departments of Human Services at the county level, when they see something that they’re concerned about, are to investigate it. If it rises to the level of abuse, then they are to turn it over to District Attorneys to prosecute the case. If it’s provider fraud, a physician or a hospital, then the Attorney General’s office is supposed to investigate and prosecute. So we have a split system which is why we don’t know at the State Legislature who’s doing what. How much Medicaid fraud is occurring? What’s being pursued? What I have heard from folks is there’s wild speculation both in terms of who’s doing it, how much money is involved, and how many people who actually deserve Medicaid benefits are being deprived because money is being filtered off the system by those who aren’t entitled to it.”
Are there statistics on Medicaid fraud in Colorado?
“No. That’s the point. There are some people who say it’s rampant. And yet last fall when I was trying to get a handle on this, nobody could give me accurate numbers. HCPF has data for what they cover but it’s not the state agency’s responsibility to pursue it on the recipient side. The Attorney General’s office has a Medicaid fraud control unit which has several million dollars a year that they recover. But that is only providers, not recipient fraud. What happens at the county level, because often the dollars involved are much smaller, there’s not really a strong pursuit of going after Medicaid fraud because it takes more time and personnel than they think they will actually recover. The way the statute currently reads is that even if a county were to recover Medicaid fraud proceeds, they have to turn it over to the state (the state being Health Care Policy and Financing) so there’s no incentive for the counties to really pursue it because they have to help pay for the District Attorney to actually prosecute. If they recover any money, they don’t even get the cost of prosecution.”
What is the effect you want the implementation of this bill to have?
“With the huge increase in Medicaid eligibility, the system is going to be overwhelmed for awhile, as we have more and more people enrolled both because we at the legislature expanded eligibility but also depending on what’s happening at the federal level. So I just want to make sure that those entitled to receive Medicaid benefits actually get them. That we don’t have a siphoning off of state money to people who aren’t entitled, or are abusing the system, whether they be providers or recipients of the benefits. There’s so much money at stake in Colorado’s Medicaid budget. That’s why I think we need to get to the bottom of this.”
House Minority Leader Rates Jobs Bills As Success
House Minority Leader Mark Ferrandino rates the passage of bills that have supported small businesses as the most significant ‘hallmark’ action of the Democratic caucus during the 2012 legislative session. Bills which have been proposed by the Democratic caucus to support job growth, but have failed, he rates as his greatest disappointment.
In an interview with Catherine Strode, Coordinator of the Health Care Advocacy Program, Minority Leader Ferrandino discussed his personal accomplishments and goals of the 2012 session. What does he consider as his greatest personal accomplishment of the session: state personnel reform. What is his greatest goal: passage of a bill to support Civil Unions.
What do you view as your greatest success of the 2012 session?
“You know getting a budget to pass 64 to 1 is a huge success for both parties. I think that’s a significant success. I think sticking on the message of jobs and the economy and the bills that we’ve pushed forward to help small businesses, to help entrepreneurs, really has been a strong hallmark of the Democratic caucus in the House. Some of those bills are still alive, some of them have passed and become law, and we’re still working with Republicans to try and find common ground on those. On a personal issue, I’ve worked hard on the personnel reform that the governor was pushing. That’s the bill that I’ve spent hours negotiating with both state workers and department heads to try and come to a good balance. I think we have that balance and it passed the House unanimously and just passed the Senate unanimously and it’s coming back to the House for consideration. I think that will be a significant piece of legislation. You know one thing that I’m just, personally, very hopeful for, it’s still in the process but, is civil unions. It’s going to be an uphill battle but if we can get that passed – that will be a significant victory for Colorado.”
And what’s your greatest disappointment so far?
“I think a lot of the jobs agenda that we’ve been pushing. Some of the things like (Representative) Max Tyler’s investment in small business development centers. (Representative) Dave Young’s tech transfer incentives, (Representative) John Kefalas’ angel investors. All those don’t seem as of right now that they’ll be moving forward and those are good, smart job creations with proven incentives, and investments. And, so unfortunately, we weren’t able to find bipartisan support for some of those. Maybe it will change in the next couple of weeks because some of them are still alive. I think some of my disappointment has been around places where we all agree we need to focus on job creation but we weren’t able to come together – Democrats and Republicans – to compromise and find the right vehicle to get those smart investments done for our economy and investments. And, so unfortunately, we weren’t able to find bipartisan support for some of those. Maybe it will change in the next couple of weeks because some of them are still alive. I think some of my disappointment has been around places where we all agree we need to focus on job creation but we weren’t able to come together – Democrats and Republicans – to compromise and find the right vehicle to get those smart investments done for our economy.”
What do you think are the most significant pieces of health care legislation to come out of the 2012 session?
“Representative Young and now Representative Gerou have a bill, 1281 on Medicaid Payment reform, which I’ve been involved with, on a pilot program and then opening it up to looking at global payment methods, and paying for performance, and outcomes versus fee for service. It could have a significant change in the way we deal with health care in the public sector. So I think that’s the most significant. I think that it has a very good chance of becoming law this year. Outside of that, I think the budget is always a significant health care bill because it deals with a lot of the funding for health care. Not having to cut provider rates at all this year, helping to put some more money into DD slots, some of those things I think were good in health care.”
And what is your opinion of the health care Long Term Services Relocation bill being proposed?
“When I was on the budget committee, I spent a lot of time raising concerns about how the Department of Human Services was managing the finances of the DD line items. And so I was pushing for people to look at should we move this to HCPF – given that a lot of the funding comes from HCPF because it goes through Medicaid. HCPF is a Department that’s much better at handling money – they’re kind of like an insurance company – where the Human Services is more of a service provider. So it might make sense to move more of the controls and financing to HCPF. That being said, there a lot of concerns that have been raised– what is this going to do to people with developmental disabilities? Are we going to make sure at the end of the day we’re not harming that population? And that’s the biggest key. I don’t think anyone wants to have a negative impact on that population. So we have to be very careful and diligent. The question is – is this the right way to do it? My hope is that they do it in a deliberate, systematic way that builds upon community input to try and do it. And if it moves forward – keep an open door through the process – to make sure that community concerns are addressed as both the bill moves forward and if the bill passes – then as the transition actually happens.”
Report Debunks High Salaries For Insurance Execs
Long Term Care Bill Stirs ‘Turf Wars’
State Senator Linda Newell is sponsoring Senate Bill 127, ‘Medicaid Health Homes Long-term Care Providers.’ The bill creates a provision for long-term care services to be included in Medicaid health homes for those individuals who are “Dual Eligibles” – or – eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits. It ensures that these services will be included in the Accountable Care Collaboratives established under the guidelines of state health care delivery reform.
To ensure passage of the bill, State Senator Newell brought together a wide range of stakeholders including representatives of: senior organizations, hospital associations, assisted living facilities, and insurance plans. She told Catherine Strode, Program and Outreach Coordinator of the Health Care Advocacy Program, that negotiations over the final version of the bill resembled ‘turf wars.’
Senator Newell, please explain the intent of the bill and who brought it.
“The intent of SB 127 is to make sure that those who are dually eligible do not fall through the cracks and that they are allowed to get every service they possibly can being dually eligible. So we first worked with Leading Age Colorado on it, and then after that, the Colorado Health Care Association and the Center for Assisted Living. They came on board. Then the Behavioral Health Care Council came on board. And then AARP came on board and total long term care. Those are the major stakeholders. We also included Rocky Mountain Health Plans, United Healthcare, all of the major health care plans that cover this population. With all of this health care reform, we want to make sure that as they’re developing these Accountable Care Collaboratives and the Regional Care Organizations, they remember the long term care dually eligible. We wanted to make sure that as the Department of Health Care Policy and Finance is putting their rules together, that they are providing coordinated care. We want to make sure that the mental health or behavioral health care needs are met, not only the chronic condition. The integration of the care was really critical. To me that’s one of the most important parts of this bill – that it does promote that integrated care model.”
How would the bill be implemented?
“It’s very general and broad on purpose. So that as HCPF is putting their definitions together, it is allowing for all of these long term care providers to be at the table. Nobody is left out. It’s more of one of those bills that lays the foundation prior to the action. It’s putting into statute, and directing HCPF, to include the providers of long term care and services as part of their health home when they’re putting together their programs.”
What were the stakeholders’ concerns about SB 127?
“HCPF said they would be promulgating the rules around it but the stakeholders thought we needed to direct them to do it now because we don’t know what it might look like as they go about it. We had to work with the insurance plans to make sure that we came up with all of the language that they felt was broad enough but wasn’t restricting. On the other hand, one of the concerns was we didn’t want anything in statute with a definition that would give preference to any one kind of long term care provider or an insurance plan. So we wanted to make sure we were on equal footing. Once we came up with the language for that, – we did get it passed unanimously.”
What did you learn in promoting this bill?
“Like anything else in this building, it’s sad to see so much energy on turf wars as opposed to care for long term. The concern was “We don’t want them to have preference in the statute.” What makes me sad sometimes is – where’s the patient in all of this? They’re all so worried about their own political stature or their piece of the pie. The patient gets lost, I think, sometimes. For me, as someone who has worked closely with people who are dual eligible, it’s just wrong. These are our most vulnerable and we should be looking out for the patient. The good news is we did all get to the table and we all did come up with something that was equitable.”
Sister’s Death Inspires Respite Care Bill
House Bill 1226, sponsored by Representative Mark Barker, imposes a surcharge on persons convicted of crimes against at-risk persons. The bill would allow the surcharge to be placed into a fund to be used for programs that provide respite services for caregivers.
Representative Barker is the guardian of his deceased sister’s 30-year-old son who is developmentally disabled. In an interview with Catherine Strode, Program and Outreach Coordinator of the Health Care Advocacy Program, Representative Barker said the death of his sister inspired him to support the well-being of all caregivers by sponsoring this bill that would fund respite care.
What made you bring this bill to provide funding for respite care?
“It appealed to me because I have a nephew who is developmentally disabled and he’s currently in a care facility so he receives the 24 hour care. But I’m his guardian by default. My sister died and she had cared for him from birth. And for many years she couldn’t have a job because he required 24 hour day care. She had the family to call upon when she needed to go to the grocery store, go shopping, and to do other things and so she would drop him off with one of us. So she had some support. But her health deteriorated, she never had money, she was always in a really bad situation. He has -like most people who are developmentally disabled, they have other problems -seizures – and – things like that. So it requires someone who knows what to do in those sort of situations. So it appealed to me. She died. I think it shortened her life dramatically because of having to deal with this all that time. I really feel like respite care is essential for people that are caretakers and I think the money that we put towards that – whether it is from the perpetrators of crimes against the at-risk adults – whether they be developmentally disabled, or Alzheimer’s, or whatever, identity theft is a big one – is well spent. Because by providing respite care to the family members and guardians who are providing that care – we are preventing them from going on welfare, food stamps, housing, they’re able to maintain more of their self support – and care for this developmentally disabled person or otherwise ‘ at-risk adult’ with less public assistance.”
What kind of need is out there that was expressed in the testimony?
“I think hearing from the parents and from the caregivers that they have no time, they have no sort of replacement shift – at the end of an eight-hour shift, at a care facility, someone else takes over. At home, when they’re a parent, or a child of an alzheimer’s senior citizen, there’s no new shift coming on. It’s 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And there’s no shift coming on to replace you.”
What are the mechanisms financially behind the bill to make it work?
“This doesn’t charge anyone any funds who’s not been found guilty of committing a crime – but if the Judge chooses to use that option of assigning a fee – a surcharge – to the perpetrator of a crime against an at-risk adult – then the funds that are paid in by that perpetrator would go into that special fund for the respite care. And those funds will be administered and dispersed to organizations who meet all the requirements of the funding and that is to be set up. They have to be bonded and licensed and they have to have certain types of facilities and their people have to be trained and they have to have guarantees that the people are going to be adequately equipped to deal with the needs of the people that are going to be dropped off into their care. So it flows from the perpetrator to the fund- and in the fund to the provider- and the Department of Human services. We were actually looking at several different state organizations and I believe that’s the one that was found to be the most practical. But from that they will administer it only to make sure that the funds are used properly and then it will go to the agency that is providing the respite care.”
Will there be enough money in the fund to support respite care and is this something that can grow?
“It can grow and the reason I believe it will is partly because we have a bill that is to fix the identity theft statute that was sort of crippled by a supreme court decision. If that bill for the identity theft statute passes, it will allow prosecutors to directly attack that crime. A large number of the people who are the victims of identity theft are senior citizens, at-risk adult. And if they’re convicted of a crime against an at-risk person, and the judge chooses to apply the surcharge, then those funds can go into this respite care. I believe that with the passage of the identity theft bill, there will be an increase over time of surcharges that are applied to these perpetrators. Also, it’s my understanding that if the state, the legislature passes this bill, the respite care bill, that it may attract other investors who see the need then. So in a way what we’re doing is we’re creating a surcharge fund that will be sort of symbiotic and maybe even seed money for other investors to come in and look at donating money for these sort of respite care facilities.”
What is your answer to those who say ‘it won’t provide enough money?
“It draws attention to a problem. Nobody was under the illusion that this was going to create a multimillion dollar fund as a sole source of funding for respite care. But it draws attention to the need and hopefully more sources of revenue for the respite care.”