CAPA Compilation of Comments – DRAFT on ... - IHSS Coalition

<strong>CAPA</strong> <strong>Compilation</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Comments</strong> – <strong>DRAFT</strong> on Provider Enrollment Regulations: October 2, 2012
These look fine to me and match what we have already seen in the ACLs with the following notes:
1) The section referenced in 30-776.683(a)(1) is incorrect. 30-776.531 mentioned should be 30-
776.541
2) These regulations require the county (which is defined to include IHSS PA) to conduct
investigations into court records that can be very complex and time-consuming. In some cases the court
records may not be within the county that is required to conduct the investigation.
a. Section 30-776.511(a)(1)(B) requires investigation <strong>of</strong> certain fraud charges to determine if they
relate specifically to a health care or supportive services program. That information is typically not on
the CORI, or subsequent arrest notices.
b. Section 30-776.921(b)(1) requires the investigation through the court system <strong>of</strong> any subsequent
arrest for a crime that would be disqualifying to determine the disposition <strong>of</strong> the case.
IHSS Application Process:
--Proposed 30-759.1, need to clarify that applications may be taken over the phone and signed by a
social services staff person per MPP 30-009.224
--Proposed 30-759.2, although I understand that the health care certification is now required in order to
get services, I am concerned that allowing eligibility determinations to occur 30 days after the signed
and completed health care certification form is completed could result in serious delays (which are
already a problem in many counties). It could be very easy for the health certification form to get
delayed, or for people not to understand that the 30 day time period for an eligibility determination
doesn’t begin to run until after the health cert form is submitted. At minimum, would need the option
<strong>of</strong> an extension <strong>of</strong> emergency IHSS services.
Provider Enrollment Requirements:
--Proposed 30-776.3. Need to clarify the consequences for those deemed/determined ineligible due to
failure to complete enrollment requirements or respond to the notice in 30-776.32. Someone could fail
to respond because their potential employer/consumer’s plans changed, because they could not afford
the background check, because notices got lots in the mail, etc. There should be a good cause
exceptions.
--Proposed 30-776.42 (retroactive payment). What is the authority for this provision It seems
inconsistent with the fact that a consumer can get a retroactive payment <strong>of</strong> more than 90 days in some
circumstances. For instance, if an individual files for a fair hearing, and receives a retroactive award
from the ALJ, this could easily be more than 90 days, and the provider’s lack <strong>of</strong> certification should not
prevent them from getting paid.

--Proposed 30-776.422. Change “County shall have the discretion” to “County shall.” Providers should
not be penalized for administrative errors or delays. Also, add an additional (c) for other good cause at
counties’ discretion.
<strong>DRAFT</strong> REGULATIONS FOR PROVIDER ENROLLMENT REQUIREMENTS:
PG 2-3.
1. (.3, .42 and .42) Consider using 3 calendar months verbiage instead <strong>of</strong> 90 days to calculate the exact #
<strong>of</strong> days. Otherwise, the example given on page 3 is incorrect. 90 days would be retro pay from Sept 24,
not Sept 22 (potential <strong>of</strong> two work days not getting paid); the period that the individual would not be
eligible to receive payment from the IHSS program would be from August 12, 2012 through September
23rd (not Sept 21).
2. (.51) Consider adding SOC 426 after provider enrollment form the first time mentioned.
PG 4.
(.512) Consider changing "individual" to "applicant provider" for consistency.
PG 5.
1. (.514a) Consider removing the word "positive". It does not add value or meaning to the sentence.
Consider rewording sentence to: "An unexpired ID document issued by a state or federal government
agency, including a photograph (or physical description) and/or signature.
2. (.514b2) Consider requesting the right to work docs WITH the social security card (when it includes
the need for DHS auth), otherwise, the burden is on consumers and/or the DO staff to verify this info.
3. (.514b2A) Add an "i" to information.
4. (.515a) Confirm that our (DPSS) record retention matches this one year period.
5. Clarification needed: who will retain these docs PA, DO, IHSS recipient Specify. If PA/DO, confirm
that our DPSS record retention matches this time-frame.
PG 6.
1. (.53) Consider adding SOC 846 after the provider enrollment agreement is first mentioned.
2. (.531b) Remove "and fingerprinting, when implemented" since according to SB 930, the IHSS recipient
fingerprinting has been eliminated.
3. (.532) Confirm that our DPSS record retention matches this "indefinitely" retention period. HR regs
for Riverside County is currently set at 75 years.
4. (.541a) add a colon after crimes instead <strong>of</strong> a period since a list proceeds.

5. (.541a2A) Consider removing the "HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE" since the next section is part <strong>of</strong> the
existing section.
PG 7.
1. (.541a2A) Consider removing "HANDBOOK ENDS HERE" (same reason as above).
2. (.541b) Specify "date" to date "prints submitted" OR date "results received"
3. (.541c) Add comma after facility.
4. (.562a) Specify how the verification will be done: as evident in authoritative docs from court, district
attorney's <strong>of</strong>fice, etc. How is this going to be done The ENRL fingerprint field is for "results received"
and NOT for "clearance". Also, one cannot look solely at "CORI Date" fields because PRIOR to Feb 2011,
"not cleared" determination were not populated to the ENRL screens.
PG 8.
1. (.563) Specify if originating county is same as "DOJ county" on ENRL screen (consistency).
PG 12.
1. (.683) Consider removing "HANDBOOK ENDS HERE" since the following section (d) is part <strong>of</strong> the
existing section.
2. (.733b) Is something missing after "and"
PG 13.
1. (.842) Confirm with our existing record retention matches this period.
2. (.921b) Add "a" within is disqualifying.
PG 14.
1. (.922) Specify for how long this info will be retained.
2. (.922c) Add a period at end <strong>of</strong> sentence instead <strong>of</strong> a semicolon.
Page 1/Section .11
• Question or Concern–I understand the definition but this cause lots <strong>of</strong> problems
thorough out the rest <strong>of</strong> the document when is says the “county” will, in some
counties the Public Authority does those functions so the document would have
to be amended to say county/county PA
• Suggestion – modify the definition
Page 2/Section .42

• Question or Concern - comment, is this legal. If a provider worked and has
subsequently been deemed eligible, can we limit the time What about the
situation when the provider through no fault <strong>of</strong> their own takes longer than 90
days (DOJ delay notice) we would not be obligated to pay them
• Suggestion - Seek legal counsel guidance as to labor laws. So long as the
provider completed all requirements and does not fall under a Tier I then the
person could be paid retroactively back to the date the Recipient would have
been eligible to IHSS. For Tier I or Tier II Appeals with the state DSS, they would
only be eligible from the date a decision was rendered by their Appeals Officer,
and would not be retroactive.
Page 4/Section B
• Question or Concern – This puts an enormous responsibility on the “background
check entity” (County or PA) to gather and interpret information. For example,
why will a court in Los Angeles give this information to the PA <strong>of</strong> Stanislaus
County Who would be contacted Is there going to be an <strong>of</strong>ficial form for this
developed Any conviction (felony/ misdemeanor) or only felony convictions to
be followed up on
• Suggestion – pursue Legislative remedy and develop uniform statue regarding
charges for fraud against government health care or supportive services. The
purpose <strong>of</strong> the Subsequent Arrest notice is to alert the Home County <strong>of</strong> any
further arrests or convictions. Per ACL10-59 it is the Home or originating County
who is responsible to notify any subsequent county <strong>of</strong> any convictions that would
disqualify (Tier I or II) the Provider in the new county.
Page 5/Section 2
• Question or Concern – Again this puts an additional workload on the
“background check entity”. Will Immigration Services quickly (keeping the 90
timeframe in mind) provide this information to counties/PA
• Suggestion – make it the responsibility <strong>of</strong> the applicant provider If is the
responsibility <strong>of</strong> the Applicant Provider to submit the required documentation to
the Public Authority. If the Applicant Provider cannot provide a valid government
issued identification, Social Security Card or pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> Legal Permanent
Residency then they cannot be a paid IHSS Provider.
Page 5/Section 2A
• Question or Concern –Recipient required to keep documents secure “or what”
Will they be removed from IHSS, have some criminal or civil penalty What if the
recipient dies or is incapacitated
• Suggestion – remove this requirement, it is unnecessary, the counties/PA have
this information
Page 6/Section (after E)
• Question or Concern – add that the applicant provider watch the State
Orientation Video

• Suggestion – above
Page 6/Section .532
• Question or Concern – add that the copy can be an electronic copy
• Suggestion – above, we are being buried in paper that requires physical space
and resources to file and retrieve. Allowing e-copies is much more efficient.
Page 8/Section A 1
• Question or Concern – this is creating a second process, the DOJ process,
where records are kept secure and can’t be shared and the “Originating County”
is required to send all notices and the court documents process where results
can be shared with all counties so the other counties have to send the required
notices.
• Suggestion – just stick to one process and have the “Originating County” send all
notices.
Page 9/Section .652
• Question or Concern – the addition <strong>of</strong> 273 a & 273 d are expansions <strong>of</strong> the
crimes and may not be allowable.
• Suggestion – research or consult with legal counsel for opinion.
Page 14/Section .922 a
• Question or Concern – this appears to be a potential violation <strong>of</strong> DOJ
requirements. DOJ Records must be kept in a secure location. Normally
provider files are kept non-secure locations (available to all staff). This would
require all files to be in DOJ secure locations and limit access to staff.
• Suggestion – remove the requirement to keep DOJ records in provider files. I
disagree. Provider DOJ’s should be kept in a locked and secured location with
minimal number <strong>of</strong> staff having access.
IHSS APPLICATION PROCESSES
PG 1. (.12) Consider "referral" instead <strong>of</strong> "services" at beginning <strong>of</strong> sentence. Also, specify exception to
this protected date <strong>of</strong> eligibility if the initial request/referral was incomplete.
________________________________________
REGULATIONS HC CERT DOCUMENT
PG. 1
30-752

1. (.13) Add a comma at end <strong>of</strong> sentence.
2. (.15) Add a period at end <strong>of</strong> sentence.
30-754
(.1) Add comma after services.
PG. 2
30-754
(.213) Be specific <strong>of</strong> what type <strong>of</strong> document the licensed health care pr<strong>of</strong>essional will be signing.
PG. 3
(.313) The word certification is outside the paragraph flush and there is an extra space separating a
sentence.