- Emily Fencl provides an overview of the following presentation.
ADD PRESENTATION HERE
Questions from the MHB Board Members:
C. Meschini asks about Medicaid as it pertains to programming at Clearbrook. Emily gives an overview of how Medicaid works in regard to programming.
- There is Medicaid Insurance but that does NOT cover a Day Program or In Home Support but one needs to be Medicaid eligible in order to be approved for the waiver from the Division of Developmental Disabilities.
C. Schofield asks if the MHB is the only source of funding for the individuals being served and funded by the MHB funding. E. Fencl states that the individuals that are being served through the WON funding, there is NO other funding. Clients can have any type of insurance, private or government, but insurance cannot be used for Day Services or In Home Support as insurance does not cover this services. The WON funding is only utilized for individuals waiting for the approval of waiver from Division of Developmental Disabilities. Once a client gets an approved waiver from the Division of Developmental Disabilities, that client is no longer eligible for the MHB WON funding as the agency can bill State Medicaid dollars for the services.
C. Schofield asks if there is The Choice Program in other counties. E. Fencl states there used to be one in Evanston and in Park Ridge, but Covid caused many problems and now it is just offered in Crystal Lake and Woodstock. C. Schofield asks if that is due to the funding the MHB can offer. E. Fencl states yes and because of the need, and because of the strong networking and collaboration that happens in McHenry County. E. Fencl states that Clearbrook had home based services out here and Clearbrook was asked by the MHB to add and provide these services to the county. C. Meschini states that her and the former Executive Director of MHB approached Clearbrook as Pioneer was the only other provider of these services.
C. Schofield points out that the original request was for $100,000, which was fully funded. Then there was a request for $150,000 and now it is for $160,000 for less individuals and can you explain the numbers.
E. Fencl states the following points:
- The first year Clearbrook was brought in, one lump sum which was utilized as needed: capital, building programs, etc.
- Then Clearbrook applied for WON funding. Clearbrook has no way of planning on when someone will get approved for the state funding and removed from the WON funding. Could happen during an MHB funding cycle or may never happen.
- Clearbrook's intention is to be as transparent as possible and not over ask for dollars that could not be spent.
- In previous years, the process has been very fluent, and agencies were encouraged to come back for additional funds requests. Estimating is difficult as there could be new clients in the middle of the funding cycle, or clients are sick and that is not billable. FFS dollars are very difficult to predict. The current board has a new process which has caused a pause as to how to make the next request and if there is only one lump sum awarded, additional clients would have to be denied.
- C. Schofield states she challenges some of the statements made as the board was and still is extremely supportive of the program and fully funded the original request which was a rarity this cycle. C. Schofield states she takes exception in some of the comments that we do not support the IDD community as it has been a priority for the MHB, and we are the only county in the state that incorporates this into our mission. The questions brought up are related to using historical data, the previous requests were much higher and that Clearbrook should be requesting more if the need is higher. As a board member we are accountable to utilize the dollars and there are many other agencies and if all the other agencies used the same philosophy, we would be stuck with 25 agencies coming before the board asking for additional funding with a small amount to give. C. Schofield suggests that moving forward do not over ask but have a solid reality of an ask and then at the second round capture the needs or excess and having a solid plan is beneficial for the board and the agency.
- E. Fencl states she has learned a lot from this year's cycle and hopes the board has learned from her this year as well.
A. Rath states that she appreciates that the process/rules have been changed mid-year and yes, it is a higher request but understands the numbers and Clearbrook was caught up in the process and hopefully a more holistic view can be taken in the future.
C. Meschini requests L. Rizzi to speak and provide further comments. L. Rizzi states the big difference in FFS vs. Grant and encourages board members to get their questions answered before board meetings if possible. Please come to and use the staff for questions. L. Rizzi states that this could have passed last month, and it is embarrassing that the families are present and a presentation when the work could have been done last month.
C. Schofield states that it is inappropriate for L. Rizzi to be commenting on board decisions and L. Rizzi clarifies she is commenting on board process and coming to staff for answers before the board meetings.
C. Meschini stops the conversation between C. Schofield and L. Rizzi to resume the meeting.
R. Lapinas states that at the end of the year FY22 is higher than what was requested the following funding cycle. R. Lapinas states that the request should be at least the same as you would never need less, which would be understandable. E. Fencl gives an overview of when state budget and rate changes happen and how estimates are made and will take the suggestions of the board when submitting the next application for funding.
M. Baber states that he feels there is enough information to vote, and the board needs to make a decision.