1 / 31

State & Local Relationships Work Team: Allocations

State & Local Relationships Work Team: Allocations . December 11, 2012. AGENDA. Follow up from last meeting Brief review of key points Fund 4750 detail Focus of this meeting: ALLOCATIONS Highlight current examples/variability

manny
Download Presentation

State & Local Relationships Work Team: Allocations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. State & Local RelationshipsWork Team: Allocations December 11, 2012

  2. AGENDA • Follow up from last meeting • Brief review of key points • Fund 4750 detail • Focus of this meeting: ALLOCATIONS • Highlight current examples/variability • Future goals: predictability, better alignment, an approach that one can easily explain

  3. AGENDA, 2 • GRF 421: Four areas for discussion • Community medication subsidy • Mental health formerly known as 505 (the non-hot spot $$) • ODADAS treatment (non-criminal justice part) • Mental health hot spots allocation • Statewide leveraging, special projects • Additional work to be done

  4. Key Points from last meeting • Block Grant for each MH and SAPT awards require separate department MOE – this will result in separate MH allocation and AOD allocation from state funds (and separate reporting of each) • Fed funds: Allocations total approx. $53 million – not including direct-funded grants • State funds: Allocations total approx. $100 million – not including direct-funded grants

  5. Fund 4750 Detail • Fund 4750 serves multiple needs/initiatives including: • Targeted prevention/treatment initiatives • Community funding (board allocations) • Medicaid • Program Management • See attachment #1

  6. Fund 4750 – Recent History • FY 12-13 budget had to address ODADAS Medicaid • FY 12 GRF 501: $23 million Fund 475: $7 million (of total appropriation $16 million) = $30 million state share “match” for Medicaid • FY 13 • GRF portion appropriated within JFS Medicaid • ODADAS to transfer $7 million cash from Fund 475 (of total appropriation $14 million)

  7. Fund 4750 – Recent History, 2 • Fund 4750 plan was altered during Mid-Biennial Review process

  8. Today’s Meeting Focus: ALLOCATIONS • We will set aside discussion of direct funded grants, which is the only other portion of major subsidy line item GRF 421 • Subject at future meeting • Reference materials provided at last meeting • We will examine individual parts of this line item, gather input and identify next steps • Examples of allocations today (variety)

  9. Attachment 2 and 2(a): Current Allocations with Formulas • FY 13 total allocations with formulas is $146 million • Some form of Per Capita (true population count, or with modification) is being applied to $68.4 million or 47% of allocations • Is per capita a valid baseline?

  10. FY 13 distributions included in new proposed GRF ALI 335421

  11. Community Medication Subsidy • Approximately $9 million in FY 13, including small set-aside for methadone • Previous meetings: scope expanded to include MAT if prioritized by the board • Board could spend more or less on Rx • Previous formula based on prior years' experience • Challenges with this approach

  12. Community Medication Subsidy, 2 • For FY 14, potential disposition options: • Continue the FY 13 amounts to each board area • Allocate these resources on a per capita basis • Run the historical formula in FY 14 • Create a completely new formula • See Attachment 3 - comparison of models A&B • Amend strategy for FY 15 and beyond?

  13. Community Medication Subsidy, 3 • Because this is no longer a stand alone line item, the process will change somewhat • By a specific date, board must indicate to MHA the amount it plans to commit to central pharmacy, and those amounts will be held at the state level to the benefit of the board • Our procurement strategy will be changing • We are seeking volunteers to work through logistics

  14. Mental Health GRF Subsidy(non-hot spot) • Includes $48m + $3m, so all boards are now included • Strong sense that we should not take sudden, bold steps to destabilize any community's current funding (consistent with last two years' discussions) • In recognition of boards' interest in examining subsidy levels among communities, does it make sense to apply a transitional formula that - over time - better aligns non-Medicaid funding levels with current, measurable factors (e.g., census figures and/or some other approach)?

  15. Mental Health GRF Subsidy, 2 • In previous meetings we discussed concept of total state commitment to communities (GRF + other state + federal + possibly Medicaid) • Since we don't have clarity regarding a Medicaid decision, and since Medicaid has variable impacts throughout the state, we propose to set that factor aside at this time • It would be possible to apply a consistent approach to GRF and BG base subsidies

  16. Mental Health GRF Subsidy, 3 • Review strategy employed by DMH during MBR process to make targeted investments in communities that had less relative GRF subsidy for non-Medicaid • See Attachment 4: MBR 505 allocation • DMH committed to including the field (and specifically boards) in discussions of future investment options

  17. Mental Health GRF Subsidy, 4 • At beginning of this process, we recognized that some policy/operational changes might require multi-year transition strategies • In absence of a huge resource infusion, a “leveling” approach, if undertaken, would need to be transitional • Predictability is important • Sound, clear measures are important

  18. Mental Health GRF Subsidy, 5 • Following model is for discussion purposes only, designed to generate discussion & inform next steps • No decisions have been made – will have subsequent meetings • This is not a consensus process, but a transparent and collaborative one

  19. Mental Health GRF Subsidy, 6 • Potential model #1 – Of the $51 million, boards receive 95% of amount that was received in FY 13 • The other 5%, approximately $2.5 million, is applied in the same manner as the $600k from the MBR • In FY 15, an additional $2.5m is redirected in this manner • See Attachment 5 demonstrating impacts

  20. Mental Health GRF Subsidy, 7 • The MBR process focuses on per capita disparities among communities • Other measures might be used, separately or in concert with per capita • Quick review of 2008 work (FYI only) • What is easily explained? What can be accomplished in a straightforward, objective manner?

  21. Funding Principles (2008 work) • In the summer of 2008, ODMH staff met with an advisory board comprised of local boards and established system finance principles to be considered by ODMH when developing a new formula to distribute 408 dollars to the local boards.

  22. 2008 Funding Principles • Uniform access to a core set of services and supports appropriate to the need of the consumer • Scare resources are prioritized to those most in need • Maximize dollars to direct services • Funding supports economically viable provider system • Funding supports outcomes that are consumer-drive, effective, high quality, least restrictive, and most appropriate • Funding supports culturally competent services

  23. Outcome of 2008 Work • Formula was developed with OSU Center for Health Outcomes Policy Research Studies – research paper was published in Journal of Community Mental Health • Formula is weighted at 45% prevalence, 35% poverty, 20% population • Formula was applied to MHBG “base” allocation amount in 2012-13 ($7.5 million)

  24. Outcome of 2008 Work cont. • Department and Board representatives continued to study prevalence to determine if other factors could/should be included within prevalence estimate • Administration and policy changes occurred. • Feedback given last year at allocations discussion meeting was an interest in requesting and funding prevalence research project

  25. Mental Health GRF Subsidy, 8 • Potential model #2…? • Potential model #3…? • Identify next steps for discussion & analysis

  26. ODADAS Treatment • Approximately $5 million of GRF 421 • Must be evaluated in concert with SAPT and Fund 475 allocations, since specific revenue sources have been used over time to address some gaps & funding challenges • As point of departure, examine “disparity” issue with same lens as DMH used in the MBR • See attachment

  27. ODADAS Treatment, 2 • Is this type of analysis relevant? Why or why not? • Apply the same “leveling” or “redirection” concept to ODADAS subsidy funds • Is this appropriate? • What other factors should be considered? • Other/different ideas for a model?

  28. MH Hot Spot Resources • $10.6 million in FY 13 • Our commitment: continue inter-community projects that are working • Is this consistent with what folks want? • In FY 14, alignment will need to occur if any catchment areas change • In FY 14, alignment with the mission of the new agency?

  29. Hot Spot Resources, 2 • What modifications (if any) should be included in the approach? • Discussion

  30. Attachment 6: Community Investments • Using FY 14 Proposed program structure for “Community Investments” Program – this spreadsheet shows the Continuum of Care and Statewide Treatment & Prevention allocations and formula descriptions applying the FY 13 program/project amounts • Next meeting: consider other allocations/amounts to apply

More Related