Federal funds sought for non-residential treatment options

The Health and Human Services Committee heard testimony Feb. 7 on a bill that would require the state to seek federal funds for services for children with serious emotional disturbances (SED).

LB270, sponsored by Lincoln Sen. Kathy Campbell, would require the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to submit a state plan amendment or waiver to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by Sept. 1, 2013.

Campbell said the bill was the result of studies undertaken as part of the Legislature’s examination of the state’s child welfare system. She said the analysis suggested that Nebraska seek federal funds to replace the use of general funds for providing non-residential services to children with SED.

Under the bill, the amendment or waiver would be required to serve youth ages four through 21 who have been deinstitutionalized or diverted from a psychiatric hospital level of care. Services under the waiver would include:

• attendant care;
• independent living and skills building;
• short-term respite care;
• parent support and training;
• professional resource family care; and
• facilitation of community-based wrap-around services.

Sarah Forrest of Voices for Children in Nebraska testified in support of the bill, saying children with serious mental and behavioral health needs should be able to obtain care in the least restrictive environment possible.

“When youth can be close to home, their outcomes are better,” Forrest said. “This is just better for kids.”

James Goddard of Nebraska Appleseed also testified in support of the bill. He said the organization continues to receive calls from families who are “pushed to the brink” and are considering relinquishing their children to the state in order to obtain services.

Vivianne Chaumont, director of the Division of Medicaid and Long-Term Care at DHHS, testified in opposition.

She said the bill would create an expansion of Medicaid services and eligible individuals. In addition, she said, the extensive research and planning required for a state plan amendment or waiver could not be done within the bill’s timeframe.

“Sept. 1, 2013, is not realistic,” Chaumont said.

The committee took no immediate action on the bill.