1. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children October 3, 2001 Called Membership Meeting

2. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Purpose of Meeting To inform the membership concerning developments in funding from the State, To determine our reaction to DHR's answer to our specific requests, To decide how the Association will proceed in a determining a rate methodology for services, To inform the membership concerning developments in funding from the State.

3. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children What we Know DHR will be making 2.5% cut in the FY2002 budget. DHR will be making another 2.5% cut in FY2003 budget. DHR is looking for programs to cut completely out of the budget.

4. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children What They did to Us 47 of 79 IFC providers did not get what was promised. 32 IFC providers got at or more than promise. IFC Providers were paid an average of 90.57% of their true rate. IFC Providers got an average of 56% of cost.

5. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children What They did to Us MATCH providers got 95% of what was promised. Pup, Early Intervention, and Parent Aide Services were reduced 34%

6. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children The Hardest Hit 19/79 of IFC providers got less than 85% of what was promised. 9/13 DJJ agencies got less than 75% of what they should have received. 4/12 TFC 2 providers got a reduction from last year of over 20%.

7. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Our Requests: 1. The reinstatement and implementation of the rate setting methodology for State FY2002, 2. Restoration of funding for early intervention programs, 3. Adequate rates for all Therapeutic Foster Care Agencies, 4. Active involvement in any discussions concerning new rate methodologies.

8. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children 1. The reinstatement and implementation of the rate setting methodology for State FY2002,

9. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children 1. The reinstatement and implementation of the rate setting methodology for State FY2002, The Department’s Answer “We did an appeals process... And we aren’t going to do no more.”

10. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children 2. Restoration of funding for early intervention programs,

11. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children 2. Restoration of funding for early intervention programs, Department’s Answer “We are facing cuts in every area.”

12. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children 3. Adequate rates for all Therapeutic Foster Care Agencies,

13. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children 3. Adequate rates for all Therapeutic Foster Care Agencies, Department’s Answer “We did an appeals process and we are not doing anymore.”

14. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children 4. Active involvement in any discussions concerning new rate methodologies.

15. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children 4. Active involvement in any discussions concerning new rate methodologies. Department’s Answer “GAHSC will certainly be at the table of any discussions concerning rate setting methodology.”

16. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Our Response Options: Nothing Cessation of Services Continued Negotiation Increase Advocacy

17. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Nothing Suck it up and go on to plan B. Positive: easy to do, preserves status quo with the department. Negative: no partnership, State in drivers seat, Providers will always be at the mercy of State.

18. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Cessation of Services: Providers like any contractor or vendor, refuse to provide a product at the terms provided. Most providers would have to participate. Positive: Status Quo preserved, State is required to deal with crisis in real terms. Negative: State may look for other options, may move to other providers, providers may be seen as less dependable.

19. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Continued Negotiation Association would continue talking with Department and with increased advocacy put pressure of department to deal with issues. Positive: preserves relationship, buys increased time for advocacy, puts pressure on Governor, supports Department. Negative: Nothing may not happen, status quo may be preserved, agencies continue to hurt

20. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Increased Advocacy Use media, use coalitions, use friendly legislators to put pressure of the Department to deal with Association. Positive: puts us in a good position for the FY2003 budget recommendation of Governor. Allows us freedom to negotiate. Other options continue to be available. Negative: success rests on effective advocacy, unified approach, and a realistic threat to the state and Governor.

21. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Where from here in regard to our Response to the State?

22. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children 1. The reinstatement and implementation of the rate setting methodology for State FY2002, 2. Restoration of funding for early intervention programs, 3. Adequate rates for all Therapeutic Foster Care Agencies, 4. Active involvement in any discussions concerning new rate methodologies.

23. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children How will the Association proceed in a determining a rate methodology for services?

24. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Rate Setting Methodologies Cost of Care Negotiated Contracting Levels of Care

25. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Cost of Care Much like what we have now. Cost are determined based on the cost to provide the care.

26. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Cost of Care Pros: reflects the actual cost of providing care. Cons: no incentive for efficiencies,

27. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Negotiated Contracting Contracts are negotiated by each individual agency based on a negotiated process or a contracted process.

28. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Negotiated Contracting Pros: Agencies may get what they need to provide care, Cons: Depends on good faith on both parties.

29. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Levels of Care Costs are determined by level of care provided by a vendor. Reimbursement is determined for each level of care.

30. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Levels of Care Pros: Level playing field for all providers. Cons: Rates must be negotiated by two equally powerful parties.

31. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children How does the Association proceed with determining a rate setting methodology?

32. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children In Conclusion

33. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children