[1]NOTE:
As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the
standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative
Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information
in this report when used in any other situation.
Only the most recent
FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the
LFC’s office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
|
SPONSOR: |
Martinez |
DATE TYPED: |
02/06/02 |
HB |
HJM 59/aHJC |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
State Plan to Address Olmstead Decision |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Chabot |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY02 |
FY03 |
FY02 |
FY03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$50.0 See Narrative |
Non-Recurring |
General Fund |
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR)
Governor’s Committee on Concerns of the
Handicapped (GCCH)
LFC Files
Department of Health (DOH)
Human Services Department (HSD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of HJC Amendment
The House Judiciary Committee amendment changes
line 20 on page 3 to read as follows:
“departments,
agencies, advocacy groups, providers of services to people with
disabilities, groups whose members”
This amendment adds providers of services to the
membership of the task force to assess the impact of the Olmstead decision.
Synopsis
of Original Bill
House Joint Memorial 59 resolves that GCCH lead
a task force, with the cooperation and participation of HSD, DOH and other
appropriate agencies and stakeholders, to develop a comprehensive and
coordinated state plan in response to the United States Supreme Court’s Olmstead
decision including timelines for implementation and fiscal impact on the
state. It is further resolved that HSD
and DOH will report to the interim legislative Health and Human Services
Committee in their October 2002 meeting and that these reports include an
assessment on the numbers of people currently in institutional settings
statewide and their ability to live in community-based settings.
Significant
Issues
The United States Supreme Court in 1999 in the
case of Olmstead v. L.C. provides the legal framework to enable persons
with disabilities to live in the most integrated setting appropriate to their individual
needs. The court ruled that “States
are required to place persons with mental disabilities in community settings
rather than in institutions when the State’s treatment professionals have determined
that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care
to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and
the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources
available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities.” It further stated that “Undue
institutionalization qualifies as discrimination ‘by reason of
disability.’”
On June 18, 2001, President Bush signed
Executive Order No. 13217, Community-Based Alternatives for Individuals with
Disabilities that provides for the federal government to assist states and localities
in implementing the court’s ruling throughout the United States. The development of a statewide plan will
enable will allow individuals to return to less restrictive settings. A comprehensive action plan could also serve
as a defense against lawsuits filed under title 2 of the American with
Disabilities Act and the Olmstead decision.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
No appropriation is included in this Joint
Senate Memorial but costs by participants will be incurred.
GCCH states that they have the administrative
capacity to lead the task force; however, an appropriation of $50.0 would allow
them to contract facilitators, arrange meeting rooms throughout the state, and
contract with experts in compiling the report.
Considerable staff time will be needed to gather the information,
analyze the data and write the report.
With a staff of only seven FTE, GCCH could use outside assistance in
preparing the report. GCCH has a
history of working with the New Mexico disability community and will solicit
their support in the study.
DVR states there may be individuals currently in
institutional settings that should be in settings with increased
independence. When this occurs, some of
these need to be referred to DVR for assessment of attaining a vocational goal,
planning for and providing the services to secure that employment. This could have an impact on the division in
the form of increased referral and assessment costs and staff time for the case
management. This would need to
quantified during the study.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
GCCH will have to determine who will participate
in developing the plan especially other state agencies not specified in the
joint memorial and representative stakeholders. A meeting schedule, objectives and timelines will need to be
developed to ensure that the required reports are made to the interim
legislative Health and Human Services Committee in their October 2002 meeting.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The joint memorial specifies that GCCH will lead
the task force but does require the agency to report to the interim legislative
Health and Human Services Committee.
Recommend that page 3, line 25 and page 4, line 1 be changed to
read:
“BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the governor’s committee on concerns of the handicapped,
the human services department and the department of health jointly report to
the legislative health”
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Since DOH and HSD did not respond to this joint
memorial, they should testify on their willingness to support the task force.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
1. Do you have a rough estimate on the numbers of
individuals that are currently institutionalized but could live satisfactorily
in more independent settings?
2. What problems are anticipated in complying with this
joint memorial?
[1]Begin typing on the * in replace mode. Do not add or delete spaces.