I know that many states have waiting lists for community-based waiver services (Medicaid), but this story in the Reno Gazette Journal today, State's failure leaves families awaiting help, surprized me.
Apparently, Nevada is putting children on waiting lists for early intervention services because they have more applications than they can handle. IDEA is an entitlement--there should be no waiting lists. According to the article, state officials recognize that they are violating the law but cite dramatic increases in referrals as the source of the problem. But, the State Bureau of Early Intervention Services also seem to be trumpeting the "success" of being in compliance with the law 96.3% of the time in an August press release. Disability advocates in the state blame unrealistic projections of service needs in the budget combined with political pressures to cut costs.
This seems pretty outrageous to me. Mostly compliant is hardly good enough when it comes to access to early intervention services. One of the children in the article was diagnosed with Autism at 18 months and aged out of Part C before receiving any services. There isn't a big window of opportunity here.
If it is a money issue, they need to allocate more--it will save the state money in the long run (both through prevention and fewer legal costs).
I hope this is a very isolated case, but I don't really know. Anyone know of similar issues in other states?
4 comments:
Yup. We were just put on a waiting list for speech therapy in the state of Virginia. They said we could go private, but they wouldn't pay a dime. (We currently receive all county services free through a financial waiver.)
So, they admit that your child needs speech therapy--but they aren't going to provide it? Did they say how long the wait was likely to be?
Has anyone contacted OSEP regarding filing a complaint? The blatant use of waiting lists just boggles my mind. Especially since Georgia is currently being monitored closely by OSEP regarding their timelines for starting services after the IFSP is written. I don't believe Part C actually states a specific timeframe in which services must begin & I'd have to check the exact wording, but I know it states something about the timeframe being reasonable. I also know in Ga. that if we didn't have a contracted provider available & that service was on the IFSP, we had to send the child to a private agency & pay for it.
I was amazed too, Debbie. Complaints have been filed in Nevada, I think. I don't know if much attention has been given to the issue in other places. But from responses I've received on some discussion boards about this issue--I think it is becoming more common. I also think most states (although maybe not the federal regulations) provide a short timeline for early intervention services to begin. While they can charge for services (although many do not charge), they must provide for payment on a sliding scale or similar equitable financing arrangement. No one is supposed to be refused for inability to pay.
Post a Comment