Print 🖨

This report focuses only on the bills listed below.
 
Schwertner noted all amendments will be laid out in committee by a committee member but none will be adopted in committee. All amendments will be laid out on the floor; amendments are to be presented Wednesday.
 
SB 200 – Nelson, Relating to the continuation and functions of the Health and Human Services Commission and the provision of health and human services in this state.

  • Continues HHSC for 12 years
  • Makes structural changes in accordance with unanimous recommendations from the Sunset Commission
  • Decisions intended to address:
    • Making it easier for clients to access services
    • Removing barriers to system-wide improvements
    • Consolidating administrative functions
    • Aligning programs that reflect how services are delivered today
  • 84% of services are delivered through managed care and the system needs to be updated to reflect that
  • Significant changes within committee substitute:
    • DFPS remains independent for four years; would transfer in 2019
    • DSHS remains independent for four years; mission focused squarely on public health before transferring to HHSC in 2019
    • The rest of Sunset decisions remain intact
    • Consolidates administrative functions by September 1, 2016
    • Establishes oversight committee with legislative members and public members
    • Statutorily defines divisions of HHSC:
      • Client services division
      • Regulatory division
      • Facilities division
      • OIG
      • Administration

 
SB 202 – Nelson, Relating to the Department of State Health Services, the provision of health services in this state, and the regulation of certain health-related occupations and activities.

  • DSHS is suffering from competing priorities
  • The broad goal is to restore DSHS’s most important mission of protecting public health
  • All licensures are being removed from the agency
  • The bill discontinues 10 regulatory programs
  • Transfers 12 occupational licensing programs to TDLR
  • Moves 4 more to TMB
  • Includes Sunset recommendations to improve mental health, aligns best practices, streamlines performance measures
  • Develops a resource guide to educate judges to community alternatives to state hospital beds
  • Directs the agency to establish clear public health goals
  • Strengthens the security of vital statistics
  • Provides tools to protect against fraud
  • Would like to leaver the bill pending in order to use the House bill when it comes over

 
Q&A

  • Estes asked about fiscal implications
    • LBB believes the bill will begin generating savings in 2019 but there will be upfront costs
  • Estes noted he would like to see a fiscal note or something before the bills go to the floor
  • Zaffirini asked why HB 2292 has not been fully implemented by the agencies
    • Have not heard any acceptable reasons from the agencies
  • Zaffirini asked if all advisory committees have been abolished
    • There were 33 committees; decided to eliminate all but 2-3 that the federal government requires; giving the commissioner the authority to establish or re-establish committees as necessary
  • Zaffirini asked what role the legislature would have in establishing advisory groups
    • The legislative/public oversight committee will be very active and make recommendations in that regard
  • Zaffirini asked if they have actual authority
    • Sarah Kirkle, Sunset, noted the Sunset recommendation was for the oversight committee to approve the framework established by the Commissioner; Legislative Counsel noted it would be unconstitutional because it would mean the legislature was approving the will of the executive branch; now the bill states they will make recommendations
  • Zaffirini asked if other oversight committees are unconstitutional
    • Unsure
  • Zaffirini noted many of the advisory committees would be better served by not being abolished such as the nonprofit council and the interagency coordinating committee
    • Kirkle noted they are addressing many of the same issues and are made up of the agencies; combining them may foster a more robust discussion between the agencies
  • Zaffirini asked how many times the agencies were reorganized in the past
    • In 2003 there was a large reorganization and since then numerous attempts were made since then to adjust those provisions
  • Zaffirini sked why the legislature should believe this reorganization should work
    • It is reorganized functionally which is a big difference from other reorganizations; recommending a system where all functionality areas are combined
  • Zaffirini asked how people with co-occurring issues will be benefitted
    • Right now indigent behavioral services are handled at DSHS but other non-indigent populations are spread throughout the agencies; creating a more functionally aligned entity will help people with co-occurring issues
  • Zaffirini asked if advocates’ feedback was considered
    • Their concerns were considered through all five agency reviews through all steps of each review
  • Zaffirini asked why there isn’t a men’s health program similar to women’s health programs
    • They can be obtained through general health programs
    • Kyle Janek, HHSC Commissioner, replied that women’s health is looked at with additional focus because a few discrete areas such as reproductive health and breast and cervical cancer require a separation; there are obstetrics and gynecology experts in practice and not such experts, generally, for men’s health
  • Zaffirini asked if Janek believes this restructuring is better than previous ones
    • Yes, this makes it easier to administer current law and clears up blurred lines of authority; not just a consolidation
    • Nelson noted she sees this as a realignment of a broken system
  • Uresti believes HB 2292 was rushed and focused on cuts which is a big reason many disapproved; asked why DFPS and DSHS were not included in the combination of agencies
    • Nelson noted a transfer of all services may be disruptive to the ongoing transformation plan
    • Janek noted because missions are different, if the legislature has hesitation about how fast the transformation will occur, leaving DSHS and DFPS out there makes sense because of the separate type of services they provide and are responsible for; will allow them to focus on their individual missions
  • Rodriguez asked what the best practices are out there for these types of agencies; what do other states do
    • 9 states have a single agency; 6 have umbrella agencies with oversight of other agencies (including Texas); other are more differently organized

 
Both bills left pending
 
SB 204 – Hinojosa, Relating to the functions and operations of the Department of Aging and Disability Services; increasing penalties.

  • Sunset Commission recommended consolidating DADS with HHSC
  • Strengthens DADS enforcement ability on nursing homes and other long-term service providers
    • Focus on violations regarding abuse and neglect
    • Includes provisions of CSSB 304 – Schwertner, Relating to the abuse and neglect of residents of certain facilities.
  • Requires the agency to ensure progressive sanctions for repeat offenders; limits “right to correct” provisions
  • Requires DADS to close the Austin SSLC
  • Establishes SSLC restructuring commission to recommend the number and locations of SSLC in Texas
  • Requires DADS to expand crisis intervention teams
  • Requires DADS to establish in rule the array of services a SSLC can provide
  • Places more scrutiny on day habilitation facilities
  • Requires DFPS to track data on day habilitation facilities
  • Requires DADS to post ratings in each provider and to immediately note when a facility has lost its Medicaid certification

 
SB 207 – Hinojosa, Relating to the authority and duties of the office of inspector general of the Health and Human Services Commission.

  • Sunset Commission found deep management and process-related concerns particularly with OIG’s ability to detect and prevent fraud, waste and abuse
  • Provides for HHSC commissioner to appoint OIG
  • Provides for a timeframe for OIG to conduct investigations
  • Requires OIG to improve basic management practices
  • Requires OIG to conduct quality assurance reviews
  • Strengthens oversight
  • Better defines OIG’s role in managed care
  • Streamlines the credible allegation of fraud appeal process
    • Limits the scope of appeal hearings
    • Removes requirements for providers to pay for half of hearing cost
    • Clarifies that fraud does not include technical or clerical errors

 
Q&A

  • Uresti asked the 6 years special Sunset review; what will happen
    • A lot of health care providers have been put out of business because of fraud allegations which has decreased available Medicaid providers; want to ensure the legislature is paying attention to what is going on with the OIG
  • Uresti asked if there is anything keeping the legislature from making changes before the 6 year Sunset review
    • No
  • Zaffirini asked what focus there will be on preventing crisis for people with mental health issues or developmental disabilities
    • Janek noted the best thing that can be done is to ensure providers are available for patients to access services; mental health is a different type of issue because the ability to receive services and the desire to receive services can be hindered by their health issues themselves; can only help people when the realize they need help so that will be a focus
  • Zaffirini asked what the process for closing SSLCs will be; how will people be transitioned
    • With the creation of the special committee the agency will not be making decisions alone; seeing populations in SSLCs are flattening out and people who can be incorporated into the community have been; do not want to overshoot and realize services have become unavailable to those that need them
    • Hinojosa noted the bill makes the decision to close the Austin SSLC, the restructuring commission would look to determine whether or not others need to be closed; very aware of the sensitivity of the issue; the Austin center is one of the oldest and has lots of issues with infrastructure; it is a long process in terms of the restructuring commission
  • Zaffirini asked how the bill impacts the waiting list for people wanting to move to independent living
    • Jon Weizenbaum, DADS Commissioner, noted it does not affect those people; it does enhance some services available to people in the community such as crisis intervention teams; the primary way the department is trying to address people on interest lists is through the appropriations process
  • Zaffirini hopes the Finance Committee keeps a focus on the waiting lists
  • Kolkhorst asked if any of the Austin SSLC residents will be moved to other SSLCs
    • Weizenbaum replied that individuals or their guardians are offered the choice of whether they would like to move to a different SSLC or to be moved into the community; they cannot be forced into a community waiver program if they do not wish to go; over half of the residents of the Austin facility have indicated a preference toward services in another SSLC
  • Kolkhorst asked if a definitive number of SSLCs to be abolished has been removed
    • Ken Lavine, Sunset, replied there was a specific number in the original Sunset recommendations; that has been replaced with the commission
  • Kolkhorst asked about OIG provisions; concerned about the tremendous power the HHSC commissioner will have especially in that they will be able to appoint the OIG
    • Stuart Bowen, OIG, noted that for oversight to be effective there should be an arm’s length relationship between the oversight and those being overseen
    • Lavine noted Medicaid is directly under the commissioner, that would be separated out under this approach; problems occurred in the current setup because of how the OIG is appointed
  • Kolkhorst asked if the bill is providing safety for potential bad actors; doesn’t allow clerical errors or technical errors to be allegations of fraud, doesn’t require providers to pay for half of appeals process; very concerning
    • Hinojosa noted he doesn’t want the OIG to be wasting time and money to focus on technical errors; also, there aren’t many other areas in the law that require people to fund their own appeals cases; this bill complies with federal requirements and doesn’t interfere with OIG going after fraud, it helps target those bad actors by moving resources away from providers making honest mistakes
  • Perry noted one problem with OIG was failure to communicate; would like to see procedures developed for a new communication structures
    • Bowen noted IGs in different agencies are different; some are investigative
  • Perry asked for an estimate of people who will be needing SSLC services
    • Janek noted it is a complex population; cannot make that determination
  • Perry noted he believes there are legitimate solutions in the private sector today so that the process doesn’t have to be reinvented
    • Janek noted using data analysis to determine where a billing pattern may be awry will save time and money; have argued from the beginning that independence of the OIG is necessary in order for there to be true oversight
    • Kirkle noted that because of the federal requirements of the OIG, the office must be a part of the agency that handles federally funded program, CHIP/Medicaid/TANF
  • Kolkhorst asked about the holds for credible allegation fraud; how many were there in a year
    • 30 in 2013, 76 in 2012 and 6 in 2011; the effort
  • Kolkhorst asked if 2292 created the OIG
    • Yes
  • Kolkhorst asked what there was before that
    • There was a series of audit shops within the agencies
  • Kolkhorst asked how many cases have seen payments made as a result
    • Schwertner noted $5.5 million has been collected because of OIG cases
  • Kolkhorst noted it doesn’t seem like there are thousands of CAF cases; very nervous where the bill is going in that regard
  • Hinojosa believes Sunset recommendations do a lot in that regard; took a balanced approach to ensure the OIG has the power to deal with fraud and at the same time stopping the wasteful use of resources going after minor errors

 
Bills left pending.
 
SB 206 – Schwertner, Relating to the functions of the Department of Family and Protective Services and procedures applicable to suits affecting the parent-child relationship, investigations of child abuse and neglect, and conservatorship of a child; affecting fee amounts and authorizing an administrative penalty.

  • DFPS needs to get back to the basics of operating an effective and efficient agency rather than developing a new process for every crisis that comes up
  • Caseworkers currently spend just 26% of their time with families
  • Eliminates and streamlines burdensome prescriptive and statutory requirements
  • Makes changes aimed at improving the safety and well-being of children in DFPS conservatorship
  • Requires CPS to implement an annual business planning process
  • Requires DFPS to maintain and develop a long range foster care redevelopment plan
  • Strengthens child care licensing efforts
  • Gives DFPS flexibility in setting licensing fees and renewal processes
  • Committee substitute makes the following changes:
    • Consolidates statutory requirements for caseworkers to notify parties of significant events
    • Adds exceptions to current DFPS interview recording requirements
    • Allows children to remain in the same school
    • Provides DFPS flexibility to establish a process for permanency planning
    • Eliminates language requiring courts to make a determination on adoptability
    • Removes language regarding child attendance at permanency hearings
  • Rodriguez noted he had concerns about DFPS policies and caseworker salaries; this bill has so many positive changes that it can put the agency in the right direction

 
Bill left pending.
 
SB 277 – Schwertner, Relating to the abolition of certain health-related task forces, work groups, advisory councils, and advisory committees.

  • Not a Sunset bill
  • The bill, as filed, repealed 16 health related task forces and advisory committees
  • Committee substitute would:
    • Remove 13 groups which will be abolished through the normal Sunset process; these three will remain in the bill:
      • Medicaid and Public Assistance Fraud Oversight Task Force
      • Advisory Committee on Inpatient Mental Health Services
      • Interagency Inspection Task Force
    • Adds provision to repeal the Electronic Benefits Transfer Task Force

 
Bill left pending.
 
Public Testimony
John Moore, South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind

  • Oppose SB 212
  • State program should be continued and kept under its same jurisdiction – Comptroller Office only focuses on the bottom dollar even though products are market competitive

 
Jamal Creighton, Self

  • Support SB 204
  • People with disabilities want to live in the community and not in the state school

 
Julian Cordova, Self

  • Support SB 204
  • Lived in the Abilene State school and now lives in a house with four other men and is happy

 
Charlie Jurik, Self

  • Support SB 204
  • Lived in the Austin and San Antonio state school for over thirty years and then lived in an apartment with a job at Burger King – successful within the community

 
Beverly Barrington

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Sister lived in Austin state living center and died while living in a group home – suffocated while under group home care

 
Blair Barrington

  • Oppose SB 204

 
Frank Cho, Texas Medical Association and March of Dimes

  • On SB 200
  • Perinatal care requires extensive input from all stakeholders in Texas to ensure quality of infrastructure
  • Perinatal Advisory Council is too important to suspend – currently serves on this committee
  • Vice-Chairman Kolkhorst asked if Dr. Cho

 
Cam Malarkey, Citizen

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Frightened to have sister placed in a community center – hope Austin SSLC will be reevaluated and potentially used for multi-purpose uses

 
Nora Malarkey Miller, Guardian

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Recommended an extended two year observation of Austin state supported living centers

 
Forest Novy, Retired educator for children with disabilities

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Austin SSLC closure in unwise and premature – community based option is not appropriate for brother

 
Kate Murphy, TPPF

  • Support SB 202
  • System has never worked as efficiently as it could – need of significant change and reform
  • Use capacity efficiently (e.g. contracted hospital beds)
  • Delivery of integrated outcomes – encouraging robust community services and integrate substance abuse with mental health

 
Dave Wells, West Texas Lighthouse for the Blind

  • Oppose SB 212
  • Jobs program would turn into a low-price procurement program – result in loss of jobs for thousands of individuals with disabilities
  • Propose keeping the council and have an advisory committee help the council run the program – add several members to the Comptroller’s Office to look at cost funding

 
TPPF

  • Support SB 200, 204
  • Support reorganization of HHS to complete the restructuring of SB 2292 – committee substitute should be taken swiftly and responsibly and not extended
  • In favor of SSLC consolidation, Texas is only state in the union that has not taken into consideration consolidation of IDD

 
Eric Womber, Texas Medical Association

  • SB 208
  • Bill strikes the 1-800 number for DSHS listed on tanning bed services, operates must be present and issue warning, and machines must be properly calibrated – amendment would add local law enforcement contact information in case location violates law

 
Karen Yaman, Children’s Policy Council

  • Amend SB 200
  • Children’s Policy Committee should continue in operation considering it has a zero-budget besides transportation costs
  • Committee presents recommendations to effectively and efficiently cover policies representing children with disabilities

 
Lindsey Robertson

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Individuals that live in Austin SSLC receive services that might not be provided in community centers

 
Miriam Nussbaum, NASW Texas

  • On SB 200
  • Bill places too much authority with Office of Commissioner –more checks and balances needed

 
Kevin Barker

  • Support SB 204
  • Families need both incomes to support family especially in rural communities

 
Craig Martens, Pharmerica Pharmacy

  • On SB 207
  • OIG should not be going for overpayment of pharmacies when there is no harm to the state or its patients – need increased transparency

 
Lynn Brooks, Registered Nurse

  • On SB 200
  • Support changes to improve the advisory committee process – stakeholder input should be increased
  • Council should include three members of the public to serve in staggered terms

 
Mr. Hunt

  • On SB 208
  • Service delivery system could be optimized – seamless delivery system under one agency through increased training and the use of assistive technology

 
Katie Rinkley, Orthotics and Prosthetics Practitioner

  • On SB 202
  • Complex medical profession that needs its own committee oversight

 
Easter Seals Central Texas

  • On SB 200 and SB 212
  • Agree with SB 200 but think agency consolidation is at a bad time due to the current HHS transition into managed care – resources should be spent on managed care instead of agency consolidation
  • Comptroller’s Office has minimal experience in working with people with disabilities

 
Anne Dunkelberg, CPPPF

  • On SB 277
  • Loss over the years of vehicles of public input with removal of agencies – recommendation to specify a timeline for the transition of each advisory committee
  • Schwertner noted that Commissioner should take into account stakeholder recommendations listed in the Sunset Review
    • More structure and specifications need to outline steps to be taken during one year gap of transition period
  • Vice-Chairman recognized there is merit to establishing a timeline on advisory committee structure

 
Everett Evans, Dentist

  • Support SB 207

 
Linda Johnson

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Sister has been well-cared for over the past thirty years at the Austin SSLC
  • Texas A&M professionals conducted a study of the Austin SSLC and gave the center positive reviews

 
Joe Tate, Community Now

  • Support SB 204
  • Need to downsize Texas SSLCs – Austin is arguably the worst SSLC within Texas and state needs to start somewhere
  • 83,000 people are on the waiting list to join HCS community centers – average wait time is 14 years
  • Crisis intervention teams need to have more structured benchmarks to make sure they are fulfilling their responsibilities

 
Adapt to Texas

  • On SB 204
  • Transition team has to acknowledge that institutional systems are the wrong answer for good health
  • DFPS reform should include the adult-side of the situation – difficulty to appeal decision when there is no witness to on

 
Sandy Frizzell, Providers Alliance for Community Services of Texas

  • On SB 204
  • Support DADS to go after bad actors within the system – greater penalties do not lead to better quality of staff members

 
Linda Litsinger, Self

  • On SB 277
  • Advisory committees should not be removed or consolidated – if there is a crisis and expertise is needed there will be a lack of organization to call on these individuals

 
Liz Bizell, Self

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Sister is in the Richmond SSLC and receives excellent care and therapy
  • Should not rush to close Austin SSLC – opportunity to work together

 
Respiratory Therapist

  • On SB 202
  • Respiratory therapists should be licensed to make sure patients are safe and cared for properly

 
Nancy Crawford,

  • On SB 277
  • Workgroups work closely with HHSC and DADS to improve consumer directive services – cost effective oversight of long-term services

 
Texas State Independent Living Center

  • On SB 204 and 207
  • Consolidation of work groups and agencies will put stakeholder input at risk – need for increased timelines and structure within bill could eliminate concern

 
Ricky Bruchard, IDD Redesign Committee

  • On SB 207
  • Committees are important to be left together – stakeholders need to be included in the conversation regarding issues that affect them

 
Andy Nyser, Self

  • Support SB 212

 
Gwen Nyzer, Self

  • Support SB 204
  • People in the SSLC should have the same chances and be able to live in the community

 
Alan Freeze, Self

  • Support SB 212
  • People with disabilities should have a voice and work – should get paid at least minimum wage

 
Michelle Dooley, Self

  • Support SB 204
  • Crisis team intervention is needed to support families – group homes need to be supported

 
Cindy Pascal, Community Now

  • Support SB 204
  • Restructuring committee is needed

 
Phyllis Hanvey, Arc of Texas

  • On SB 200
  • Expertise in handling population found within HHS – should not eliminate advisory committees
  • Meetings must be held in person so that people with disabilities can participate

 
William Garner, Austin SSLC

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Austin SSLC has developed knowledge and resources to maximize experience for residents – medical risk in moving these residents to group homes

 
Pamela McPeters, Texas Association for the Protection of Children

  • On SB 200
  • PDI strategy should be placed under a certain division in DFPS

 
Deborah and Justin Wallace, Self

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Son lives in Austin SSLC and received great care under its services

 
Texas Food Safety Training

  • Oppose SB 202

 
Diana Martinez, Texas Assisted Living Association

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Residents need help with daily living but do not need ongoing nursing care – majority of these facilities are privately owned
  • Rating by DADS require posting of safety lines – government should not regulate

 
Katherine Barillas, OneVoice Texas

  • On SB 200 and 206
  • DFPS protects vulnerable children and adults across the state – department should go on the exclusion list on SB 200

 
Ray Smith, Prosthetic Practitioner

  • On SB 202
  • Support going to TDLR if practitioners have their own oversight committee – expert advice needed to help make the determination of what type of devices patients should have and need

 
Russell Graham, Texas Society for Respiratory Care

  • Support SB 202
  • Move to medical board is necessary

 
Thomas Collins, Greek Oaks Hospital

  • Oppose SB 200
  • Northstar program has been lined out and should be lined back in – then agree with the goals of Sunset but not with the process in getting there

 
John Holcombe, Texas Medical Association

  • On SB 200, Support SB 207
  • Concern with time to determine eligibility for Medicaid – language provision in written testimony
  • Drug Utilization Review Board is a statute but the composition of the board is not

 
Jeff Miller, Disability Rights Texas

  • On SB 200 and 204, Support SB 212
  • Reorganization based on function and elimination of duplicate functions can be good if done in a timely manner – emphasize the need for timeline
  • Texas should be more in line with employment first mentality

 
Rebecca Gould, Self

  • Oppose SB 202
  • Bill would take away dyslexia licensure – quality care should be given to therapists providing services

 
Courtney Hoffman, Academic Language Therapy Association

  • On SB 202
  • Dyslexia is a neurological brain disorder – therapy through repetition of exposure
  • High number of dyslexic individuals within the prison system

 
Alex Smith, North Texas Behavioral Health Authority

  • Oppose SB 200

 
Amanda Frederickson, AARP

  • Support SB 204

 
Cindy Corley, Texas Environmental Health Association

  • Oppose SB 202
  • Add language regarding food handler training – current language would eliminate DSHS ability to approve local food handler training programs (e.g. online accreditation programs)

 
Jason Smith, Abilene Chamber of Commerce

  • On SB 204
  • Oppose the creation of a BRAC-stop committee to make the decision of closure
  • Economic impact of closing SSLC facilities should be taken into consideration
  • 2% of current workforce in Abilene would be lost with closure of center

 
Ashley Butler, Texas Advocates

  • Support SB 204
  • Wants to live in the community and not an SSLC

 
Texas Society for Respiratory Care

  • Support SB 202

 
Gary Hidalgo, Arc of Texas

  • On SB 204
  • 100,000 people are on a waiting list for community centers
  • Support the restructuring committee and closure of five more SSLCS by 2022

 
Tiffany Walker, Texas Society of Radiological Technologists

  • Support of SB 202
  • MRTs are an integral part of the healthcare system – imaging examination must be performed properly for patients to be served properly

 
Rachel Hammond, Texas Association for Homecare and Hospice

  • On SB 204

 
David Dodson, Expandco

  • Oppose SB 212
  • Comptroller Office will take away an objective voice from stakeholders

 
Snapper Carr, Hanger Clinic Attorney

  • On SB 202
  • Support of administration help by TDLR but reservations with turning independent board into an advisory board

 
Kevin Jackson, Texas Council on Purchasing from People with Disabilities

  • Oppose SB 212
  • No representation from the state council on Commission in the pricing of products
  • All prices have been reviewed by TPASS

 
Bill Ruth

  • Oppose SB 200
  • Traumatic brain injury is the leading cause of death in individuals with disabilities – there should be an increased attention to protecting individuals with these injuries

 
Jill Switzer, Mental Health America of Texas

  • On SB 200 and 206
  • Lack of robust stakeholder input and details of allocation of resources

 
Sean Quigley

  • Oppose SB 212
  • Loss of jobs for disabled Texans

 
Dennis Borel, Coalition of Texans with Disabilities

  • Support SB 204
  • US Supreme Court ruling should be used in determining resident placement during SSLC closure

 
Chase Bierden, Coalition of Texans with Disabilities

  • On SB 202
  • Members use orthotics and prosthetics – individuals receiving services should have greater protections than the suggested advisory committee oversight

 
Katherine Lewis, Disability Rights Texas

  • On SB 202
  • Not all crisis centers should be licensed but some definitely should to ensure patient safety

 
Kendall Nelson, Texas Assisted Living Association

  • Support SB 204
  • 46% of assisted living centers serve 15 residents or fewer – penalty suggestions could seriously hurt smaller providers
  • DADS should allow assisted living center evaluations to go to a third party

 
Deborah Coleman, Texas State Supported Employees Union

  • Oppose SB 204
  • SSLCs and group home options should be made available to all individuals with disabilities

 
Maureen Milligan, Teaching Hospitals of Texas

  • On SB 200 and 207
  • Continue Hospital Payment Advisory Committee
  • OIG should be required to use federal coding guidelines regarding payments and quality reporting

 
Ashley Harris, Texas Cares for Children

  • On SB 206
  • DFPS annual report should include the number of pregnant foster care children and the number of children gone missing due to trafficking

 
Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority of Harris County

  • On SB 202
  • Regional allocation of state hospital beds should recognize false positives of care

 
Sarah Siright

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Sister enjoys her time at the Austin SSSLC and the services provided on-site

 
Patsy Izigary

  • Oppose SB 200
  • Testified in the House last week to keep blind services together
  • She is deaf and blind at 27 years old and in the process of starting her own business through DADS
  • If services are moved to Texas Workforce Commission, ensure expert training is in place

 
Texas State Employees Union

  • On SB 200
  • Oppose consolidation of agencies into one single agency – executive commissioner would have total authority over 54,000 person agency
  • Agency policy decision would have less input from the public
  • HHSC negative track record in consolidation creates serious concern

 
Barrel Steele, Self

  • On SB 200
  • Current attendant is great and does not want to lose the same quality service

 
Kate Carroll, Volunteers of America Texas

  • Oppose SB 200
  • Support for SB 204
  • Several programs do not meet standards that inhibit providers from delivering good services – rules should require consistency in handling abuse and mental illness

 
Kathy Cranston, Adapt Texas

  • On SB 200 and 277
  • Workgroups and advisory councils are important and should be retained – currently sits on STAR+ Plus Council and engages in detailed work

 
Bob Kafka, Adapt Texas

  • SB 7 last session talked about integration of STAR+ Plus –accountability language is not included within the Sunset bill regarding Managed Care
  • Metrics on recruitment and retention needs to be addressed more specifically

 
Texas Alliance of Brain Injury Providers

  • On SB 200
  • Agree with Sunset commission – CRS program is a non-managed care program

 
Deborah Elkins, Texans Care for Children Advisory Board

  • Opposed to abolishment of advisory groups in SB 200
  • The purpose of the groups is to provide outside voices

 
Abigail Golden, Self

  • Opposed to SB 212
  • The program as it exists now works well
  • Will result in fewer jobs for people with disabilities

 
Renee Lopez, Self

  • Support SB 204
  • Parents chose not to place daughter into SSLC – now has a job and her own house
  • Community centers should be emphasized as a priority
  • SSLCs have a zero waiting list and have been in institutions for over thirty years – change is hard but necessary to accommodate the most individuals

 
Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

  • On SB 202
  • State function of DSHS to finally get ahold of individual needs of patients going into state hospitals and then educate authorities of these problems – better data needed

 
Susan Payne, Self

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Texas cannot have a waiting list at an SSLC – no decision should be made regarding centers considering recent identification of corruption

 
Albert Metz, Adapt Texas

  • Lived in SSLC and girlfriend in center died due to mistreatment
  • Oklahoma is closing its last SSLC and Texas should follow in its footstep

 
Jane Boutte, Texas Traumatic Brain Advisory Council

  • Amend SB 200 – keep advisory council in statute to protect independent voice
  • Brain injury is much more than rehabilitation
  • When council was not in statute – considered a council in name only for funding purposes

 
Regina Blye, Texas State Independent Living Council

  • On SB 200
  • SILs relocation services should be included into Medicaid managed care services
  • Against the elimination of councils and advisory committees

 
Adapt Texas Volunteer

  • On SB 200 – raise attendant minimum wage to maintain recruitment and retention
  • Support SB 204 – in favor of consolidation

 
Tami Parker, Self

  • Oppose SB 204
  • Sister has lived in Austin SSLC for over fifty years and has enjoyed her time there
  • Has many medical needs that require in-depth and well-trained people to take care of her and these services are not provided in community centers

 
Candace Aylor, Registered Nurse

  • On SB 200
  • Reflect full recommendation of Sunset Advisory Workgroup – require maintenance of advisory committee

 
Josette Saxton, Texans Care for Children

  • On SB 200
  • Elimination of advisory bodies would not guarantee protection of individuals receiving benefits from these  oversight committees

 
Lee Johnson, Texas Council for Community Centers

  • On SB 202
  • DSHS Sunset bill affect members –regional  reallocation of hospital beds will not be well-received by community stakeholders
  • Peer review process is promising and would like to be explored further

 
Janie Metzinger, Mental Health Association of Greater Dallas

  • On SB 200
  • Allow time to build on foundation and include integrated care by reinstating the crossed out language in 2.16-2.24 and add language of SB 1979 by Senator Hall to allow study for recommendations on law enforcement and individuals that receive services from Northstar

 
Sherry Cusumano, NAMI Dallas

  • On SB 200
  • Interested in study mentioned by Mental Health Association – make decision by Jan 2017

 
Cynthia Humphrey, Association of Substance Abuse Programs

  • On SB 202
  • Patient experience can be improved if substance abuse victims also receive mental health services

 
Grace Davis, Caldwell Council on Alcohol and Substance Abuse

  • Support SB 202
  • Allow entities other than a mental health authority to contract
  • Leave decision of services to more authority figures than just one executive commissioner

 
Erin Lawler, Texas Council of Community Centers

  • Sister lives very well in a community center format
  • Support provisions that would enhance data collection of quality of adult day centers services

 
Catherine Mize, Orthotics/Prosthetics Practitioner

  • Support the move to TDLR if independent board status can be maintained