CDASS Audit Response

Submitted by admin on July 10, 2015 - 1:54pm
 
You may know that an audit was done on the CDASS program and the report came out one month ago. The report was biased and inaccurate and hence we needed to respond. 
 
CCDC and many others in the disability rights community contributed to the attached response rebutting inaccurate assumptions made during the audit of the CDASS program.   We encourage members to read the audit for yourselves.  You can also listen to it.
 
Senator Balmer was saying that services offered by home health agencies were just as good--and that maybe CDASS was not needed.  He had a lot of misinformation.  Senator Neville was agreeing.  If you want to let him know your personal experiences with home health agencies 
 
If you want to contact all members of the committee and express your agreement with our response and share your personal home health agency story please contact them.
 
It is important to note that there are a few home health agencies that belong to an organization called CLASP that includes PASCO, Accent on Independence, The Independence Center of Colorado Springs and a few others that are NOT against CDASS.  In fact, CLASP SUPPORTS CDASS and provides In Home Support Services.   The group that worked this audit was the Home Care Association.
 
 
==============================================================================
 
CCDC Logo Smaller
 

Executive Summary Audit Reply

Medicaid at the federal and state level support the utilization of consumer directed service delivery options.  In order to move forward it is imperative that the Legislative Audit Committee understand the facts and the nuances that make this option credible, reliable, and cost efficient when meeting the needs of clients in the Long Term Care system.  We do not believe there was malice or incompetence on the part of the auditors.  This is a very unique program and completely outside of the box in terms of usual government programs.   Auditors likely have no comparison for a program like this.  The attached response is meant to provide a detailed explanation and correction. 

Major Issues: 

1)    Auditors used a monthly assessment for a budget process that is annual.  Monthly spending does not have to equal 1/12th of the annual allocation.

2)    Auditors did not use adequate sample and did not speak to enough clients to understand how the program works.

3)    Auditors did not appear to understand the concept of budget authority, and that the allocation development uses metrics such as hours for specific tasks, but that those metrics become irrelevant after allocation development.

We believe that people from all political perspectives can agree that a program that gives clients increased personal responsibility, promotes employment, brings jobs to Colorado, and reduces unnecessary bureaucracy is a good thing that should be protected and preserved.

If members want to meet with client representatives that have a deep understanding of the program please contact Julie Reiskin at 303-667-4216 or jreiskin@ccdconline.org and a meeting will be facilitated with a couple of representatives from your district.



About Us | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement | Contact Us
© Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition
Pro Brono Web Design Grant provided by TechScouts