Gov. Brown proposes nearly $500 million cut in IHSS

En español |Would cut assessed hours by 8.4 percent, eliminate domestic and related services for consumers living with their providers, and require a physician’s written certification for IHSS services. UDW’s detailed response to the governor’s proposal will be available shortly.

Below are details from the Governor’s Budget Summary. It is also available online at http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/HealthandHumanServices.pdf

The In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program provides support services, such as house cleaning, transportation, personal care services, and respite care to eligiblelow-income aged, blind, and disabled persons. These services are provided in an effort to allow individuals to remain safely in their homes and prevent institutionalization.

The Governor’s Budget proposes $1.1 billion General Fund for the IHSS program in 2011‑12. Absent the program changes described below, the average monthly caseload inthis program is estimated to be 456,400 recipients in 2011‑12, a 3.4‑percent increase overthe 2010‑11 projected level.

IHSS services in general exceed similar services provided in other states and serve amuch wider population. Major cost drivers for IHSS include caseload, cost per hour,and hours per case. Over the last ten years, caseload has increased from 249,000 in 2000‑01 to 429,000 recipients in 2009‑10. This accounts for more than 50 percent ofthe increase in total costs over this period. Also over this period, state law triggered a series of increases in the hourly amount up to which the state participates in IHSS worker wages and health benefits. This accounts for more than 35 percent of the increase in total costs. Hours per case account for approximately 10 percent of the increase in costs from 2000‑01 to 2009‑10.

To contain costs, several reductions are proposed for 2011‑12. Each IHSS reduction proposal assumes enacting state legislation by March 1 and implementation of eachproposal July 1, 2011. Each reduction is described in detail below.

Across-the-Board Reduction to Service Hours.
This proposal would implement an 8.4‑percent reduction to assessed hours for all IHSS recipients for General Fund savings of $127.5 million in 2011‑12. This proposal, combined with the 3.6‑percent reduction enacted in 2010‑11, would bring the total across-the-board reduction in assessed hours for IHSS recipients to 12 percent. Under this proposal, qualified recipients at risk of out‑of-home care placement because of the reduction could apply for supplemental hours. As such, it is estimated that approximately 21,000 recipients will ultimately receive full restoration of their assessed hours, and this impact is reflected inthe savings assumed in the budget.

Eliminate Domestic and Related Services for Certain Recipients.
This proposal would eliminate domestic and related services (which include housework, shopping forfood, meal preparation and cleanup, and laundry) for consumers living with their provider. Approximately 48 percent of IHSS providers live with the consumers for whom they care.In addition, this proposal would eliminate domestic and related service hours for recipients under eighteen years of age who live with a parent who is able and available to provide the domestic and related services.

Currently, when an IHSS applicant/recipient resides in a shared living arrangement and his/her need for any domestic or related service is met in common with other household members, the authorized hours are pro‑rated by county social workers based on the number of household members. Under this proposal, IHSS applicants/recipients livingin any type of shared living arrangement would not be eligible for domestic and related services that can be met in common with other household members. IHSS applicants/recipients who have a need for domestic and/or related services that cannot be met in common due to a medically verified condition of other members of the shared living arrangement could be authorized hours for any of these services that meet the need-assessment metrics. Similarly, when minor recipients are living with their parent(s),the need is being met in common; hence, the need for domestic and related service hours would no longer be allowed. Since minors would not be expected to be able to perform these services independently, the parent would be presumed available to perform these tasks unless the parent could provide medical verification of his/her inability to do so.

Eliminating domestic and related services for recipients in shared living arrangements and minor recipients living with an able and available parent is estimated to impact more than 300,000 recipients. The proposal will provide General Fund savings of $236.6 million in 2011‑12.

Eliminate IHSS Services for Recipients Without Physician Certification.
This proposal would require the provision of IHSS services to be conditioned upon a physician’s written certification that personal care services are necessary to prevent out‑of‑home care. Under current law, upon Medicaid eligibility determination, IHSS applicants are required to be assessed by an authorized county social worker to determine the types of services needed and the number of hours required for each service category. Current IHSS recipients must also be reassessed by county social workers every 12 months (18 months if certain exemption criteria are met). Lacking in the current assessment/reassessment process is a medical evaluation, which would provide an increased level of certainty that IHSS services are being provided to those most at‑risk of institutionalization. This proposal would require a medical level of review for all IHSS applicants/recipients to ensure services are needed to avert out‑of‑home placement.

Eliminating IHSS services for recipients without physician certification would result in the loss of services for approximately 43,000 recipients, providing General Fund savings of $120.5 million in 2011‑12.

Eliminate State Funding for IHSS Advisory Committees.
This proposal would eliminate the mandate for counties to establish advisory committees, for General Fundsavings of $1.6 million in 2011‑12. Chapter 90, Statutes of 1999 mandated that counties act as or establish an employer‑of‑record for IHSS providers and establish advisory committees for IHSS purposes. Advisory committees submit recommendations to their respective county boards of supervisors on the preferred mode of IHSS service to be utilized in their counties. Although this proposal would eliminate state funding for advisory committees, counties would have the option to continue advisory committees attheir own expense. Those counties that choose to do so would be eligible for matching federal funds.

See additional detail and info on our State Budget Page

Share and Save:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • email
  • Print
  • Steve Campitelli

    It is my understanding that the current 3.6% across-the-board cut was supposed to be a negotiated settlement designed to end ongoing litigation and provide the state and care-givers alike a stable set of agreements on into the future.

    What Governor Brown is proposing undermines that settlement entirely. He must be told that the settlement was binding upon the State and that any attempt to brush it aside will be met with a new round of lawsuits and revived claims for unpaid wages. After all, care-givers have been forced to forgo TWO wage increases under the union contract. Their wages are not merely amongst the lowest, they ARE the lowest of any state workers.

    During his campaigh Jerry Brown said that he did not think it made sense to cut programs for which there are matching federal funds available. We simply must insist that he either keep his pledge or find some way to return to the members of the union every cent contributed to his campaign and every vote cast for him, based on those very assurances.

  • http://www.udwa.org Steve Mehlman

    The 3.6 percent cut in IHSS was not a “negotiated settlement”. It was part of the budget adopted by the legislature last year. It had no effect on the current lawsuits aimed at earlier actions by Gov. Schwarzenegger and the legislature. UDW opposed the 3.6 percent cut in IHSS, and we oppose the cuts proposed by Governor Brown as well.

    I would remind you, however, that the cuts proposed by Gov. Brown are a far cry from those we would have gotten from Meg Whitman. As you may recall, Ms. Whitman claimed that the fraud rate in IHSS was more than 70 percent! So while we’re not at all happy about further cuts to IHSS, it can be argued that the efforts we made to elect Jerry Brown in effect saved the IHSS program from devastating cuts or even elimination by Gov. Whitman.

  • susanna

    In reply to Steve,
    These cuts are unacceptable.These cuts will be devastating. To say that the cuts are far less than what Whitman would have done is not proactive at all. It’s asinine. We are being asked to forego rate increases while every other union has gotten their wage increases that were prior approved. I appears to me that Gov Bronw has a too cozy relationship with the teachers union. Why else would they be totally spare any pain of cuts?
    We have the second highest paid teachers in the nation and our kids are testing out at 49th in the nation.
    I would like to point to you that these proposed cut by Gov Brown will seriousily weaken the union. Remember that less hours means less prorated dues for the union. If these cuts go into effect, I feel the union will be totally impotent and no longer relvant.

  • janice

    I am a democrat but Brown is ridiculous. He will put more people in poverty and he is as bad as swarts!I hope ther are enough democrats and republicans that do not agrr with the cuts. If you have to cut then just make a 10%cut in hours across the board and people still have some dignity.or i guess u like the poverty better!!!

  • janice

    Democrats will really be losing a lot of supporters if these cuts go through and me for one will never vote again it is TOTALLY RIDICULUS

  • Jessica La-Belle

    What exactly are the domestic and related services that are to be eliminated? Is it just what is mentioned above or is there more? I care for my 9 year old son. Does this effect bathing, bowel and bladder care, feeding?

  • janice

    Right on steve,Jerry is just another liar like all the rest.We should insist on keeping his pledge or returning the money and take back our votes. You said it right!

  • mike

    I guess there’s really no difference between Democrats and Republicans, if one’s not trying to kill you by taking everything you have and throwing you onto the streets the other is making false promises then once elected, tax you to death!!! I have made a decision today I WILL NO LONGER VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN AS THEY ARE ALL LIARS!!!!

  • http://www.udwa.org Kristine

    Hello Jessica,
    If you look on your latest “Notice of Action” (the form you get in the mail showing your authorized hours) it will have several categories. Two of these are Domestic and Related Services. Here is a sample from mine:

    Domestic Services
    Wash kitchen counters, clean floors, stove, refrigerator, bathroom, store food, supplies, take out garbage, dust, pick up, bring in fuel, change/make bed and misc.

    Related Services
    Prepare meals, meal cleanup, routine laundry, shopping for food, other errands.
    ******************************************************

    I and all other consumers that live with their provider would lose the above services under the proposed cuts. It is my understanding that those consumers with Protective Supervision may retain some of their domestic hours as Protective Supervision is calculated differently. Protective Supervision is a category where the consumer must have supervision to prevent them from harming themselves and others. Protective Supervision is authorized only for mental disabilities as in Alzheimer’s or developmental disability).

    Categories for Non-Medical Personal Services; Accompaniment Services (to Dr. appointments) and Paramedical Services would not be cut. The tasks of bathing, dressing, etc fall in the Non-Medical Personal Services category.

    UDW will fight these cuts. I will fight these cuts. My sincerest hope is that the sadness and difficulties of these tough times do not divide the homecare community and that no one gives up in despair. Please continue to take action where you can and help to make our representatives listen to the voices of the people they represent.

    Kristine

  • Lisa

    Kristine – you are not safe with Protective Supervision … my son receives 195 + other services and the 3.6% cut was applied to the total hours including PS. However, I think those with severe impairment might have some protection, unless the elimination of the related services of meal prep and meal cleanup, which are used in calculating the qualifying 20 hours/week to get the severe impairment designation and 283 hrs. Nevertheless it is my understanding that even the 283 hours are cut with the 3.6% unless you have unmet needs hours on the books.

    Mark – has anyone looked at how many workers will loose their health care with the hours cuts?

    Lisa

  • http://udwa.org Kathy

    I am also a provider and have 283 hours and yes the hours were also cut by 3.6 and that is with protective service hours and a Doctor’s cert. No one was spared on the 3.6 cut from what I can tell. I just wish they would make up there mind what they are going to cut and stick to it and stop making us worry everytime we turn around. We have enough stress we don’t need anymore added!! I am greatful for the IHSS program and would like for the legislators to realize this shouldn’t be a program that is on the chopping block every budget year.

  • http://www.udwa.org Steve Mehlman

    Susanna:

    We know these cuts will hurt. And you can be sure that UDW will continue to fight any cuts in IHSS. We will be “proactive”; you can count on it.

    But c’mon now, are you trying to say that a cut of 8.5 percent will do as much damage as a cut of 70 percent or more? That makes no sense. Whitman would have gutted IHSS; she basically said so throughout her campaign. And unlike Whitman or Arnold, at least Gov. Brown is willing to sit down and consider alternatives. And he understands that we need revenue, not just cuts, to solve our state’s budget crisis. So please don’t suggest that we were wrong to support Brown over Whitman.

  • Аrkadiy

    I voted for Gov. Brown! And now I”m very disappointed.
    The biggest problem in my opinion is that the democrats in Legislature have fought against Shvarzneger cuts because he was Republican, but now our democratic legislators could support the Gov Brawn cuts because he is Democrat.Anyway we should fight hard to safe our hours.We need to fight even in court to safe our jobs and benefits.

  • Jerry Garza

    Keep in mind, these further budget cuts are just proposals right now albeit looming though over everyones heads.

  • susanna

    Hi – Again, It’s my understanding of this situation is that there is:
    1st Cut of 3.6% (from 2010-11 budget)
    2nd Cut of 8.4% (from 2011-12 budget)
    This eguals a cut of 12.0%. Next we have the elimination of domestic service, meal prep, meal cleanup, shopping for food and other shopping.
    Add these cuts to the 1st and 2nd cuts above and it will equal an cut of 24%!
    Can anyone tell me if there are any other unionized workers in the that are taking a 24% cut – anywhere? Or is it just us?
    Brown said that there will be even more cuts to IHSS if the voters do not approve increases in revenue on a ballot measure. Historically I don’t think the voters will approve any increase in taxes. So don’t be surprised if we lose even more.
    If Whitman had been elected (I didn’t vote for her) then I think the union would have really fought hard to stop her. Since we do have Jerry instead, I certainly hope that the union fight with everything they have. Remember whatever weaken us also weaken the union. Member dues will be less because we will be getting less hours and many will lose their health insurance.
    Whitman said that she would cut IHSS if elected butprior to his election Jerry said that he understood the cost effectiveness of it but now once elected he has put it on the chopping block. He has done an about face in 60 days! I really feel sold-out by him

  • Mark

    To Steve M: I’m not sure what your definition of “guted” means but if you look very closely at Browns proposed cuts I’m inclined to believe it falls right under “guted” for at least 50% of us. It’s a complete insult to those of us who reside in the same home with those we take care of and are allowed at least a small compensation for the amount of time and care we provide. Those particular cuts would reduce the over all amount of hours allowed down to almost nothing for that individual on the program as long as we live together. Add in an additional 8.5% reduction in hours that will be allowed and I’m thinking I’m feeling pretty guted by these suggested cuts. Not to mention the integrity of the program itself which was designed to avoid institutionalizing those who are non ambulatory would be crossed. My relative could not live alone 24/7 just so that I could get those hours only given if we didn’t live together.

    These proposed cutes really do add up when those providing care and services for clients outside their home taek on an additional reduction in hours I’d say that alleged 70 percent cut by Whitman is looking pretty familiar but with Browns name attatched to it along with the word guted for those of us living with the one we care for.

    I don’t care what side of the arena one sits politically. It would be waisted energy to decide who would have been better in salvaging our pay and a clients hours. We have who we have sitting in that office now and we have to appeal to what they are offering. What I do care about is the fact that we need to remain a collective body that fights like hell against these cuts. The only suggestion I’d agree to would be Dr’s certification as to what each client needs in order to live outside a facility and in their own home with or without someone residing with them. Penalizing an IHSS provider for living with a client is ridiculous and shaving off additional hours is also getting ridiculous when we just embraced that along with zero increase in hourly wage. Honestly if some of us were paid fairly for all we provide we’d be making very close to an LVN or an RN that works in a skilled nursing facility.

  • http://topsy.com/www.udwa.org/2011/01/gov-brown-proposes-nearly-500-million-cut-in-ihss/?utm_source=pingback&utm_campaign=L2 Tweets that mention Gov. Brown proposes nearly $500 million cut in IHSS at UDW — Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by SOLR S. CA. SOLR S. CA said: RT @UDWA: New post: Gov. Brown proposes nearly $500 million cut in IHSS http://www.udwa.org/2011/01/gov-brown-proposes-nearly-500-millio … [...]

  • http://www.udwa.org Steve Mehlman

    My definition of “gutted” is the 70+ percent cut Meg Whitman advocated. But please understand, UDW opposes ANY additional cuts and will do all we can to stop them.

  • http://www.udwa.org Steve Mehlman

    You can be sure that UDW will fight with everything we have to stop ANY cuts in IHSS. Because we believe that Meg Whitman would have done worse things to IHSS than Gov. Brown does NOT mean we support the governor’s proposal.

  • SERGIO RAMOS

    BY WEN WILL WE KNOW ABOUT THE NEXT PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS TO TAKE PLACE I SIRIUSLY NEED TO KNOW SO I CAN PART MY OWN WAY FROM MY RECIPIENT AND MOVE OUT ASAP… I AM A MEDICAL ASSISTANT GRADUATE I STAY HELPING MY RECIPIENT THAT I LIVE WITH BECAUSE THE PAY IS FAIR…BUT NOW IM GOING HAVE TO PART MY OWN WAY AND MOVE OUT. THE PAY WONT BE THAT GOOD NO MORE BUT MEDICAL ASSISTING NOW SOUNDS MUCH BETTER…IM GOING TO FEEL REALLY BAD FOR MOVING OUT BECAUSE MY RECIPIENT WONT AFFORD THE APARTMENT JUST HER SELF AND HAS NO HELP AT ALL FROM FAMILY OR ANYONE ELSE ONCE I MOVE OUT… SHES A REALLY NICE LADY TO BE ON HER OWN AND GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS…

  • Steve Campitelli

    I would hope the Union will address the blatent discrimination seen in the Governor’s proposal to eliminate payment for domestic and related services when those services are provided by someone who lives with the recipient.

    The Governor’s rationale runs smack into the Miller v. Woods decision of 1983 (Miller v. Woods (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 862 [196 Cal.Rptr. 69]). In that case, the court found the state had made volunteers out of housemates based on the unfounded presumption that anyone living with the recipient would be obligated to provided services without pay.

  • Steve Campitelli

    I also think that the holdings in the recent Dominguez v Schwarzenegger decision apply equally to the Governor’s proposed reductions in payments to providers. In that case the United States Court of Appeals found that the CA legislature enacted a statute that conflicted with the Medicaid Act.

    The court stated:

    “Thus, we hold that before enacting legislation that has the effect of lowering payments to providers—here, § 12306.1(d)(6)—the State must study the impact of that decision on the statutory
    factors set forth in § 30(A) [Medicaid Act]. See California Pharmacists II, slip op. at 3346.”

  • Steve Campitelli

    In my county (Riverside) the social services people act like your speaking a foreign language when you ask them to document anything even resembling an exception to the time-for-task guidelines. This failure is a violation of law. The guidelines are NOT to be used in place of actual times and it is the duty of the social worker to “document” the exceptions.

    This brings me to point out the fact that social workers are not documenting “unmet needs” in Riverside County. As it happens, in my case, I have an Administrative Law Judge’s written decision to refer to in lieu, but for others the situation would not be as promising.

    The Union needs to take a stand against laziness and dilatory practices on the part of social workers who see their jobs descriptions as optional.

  • Steve Campitelli

    Disabilty Rights Advocates have generated a legal memo on the county’s burden when there is to be a reduction in aid. Summarizing the memo, it says that once a benefit level or amount has been established that represents the recipient’s property (meaning IHSS is NOT welfare, folks!) under the Social Security Act; and that any reduction in aid must be based on a documented change either in the person’s condition or living circumstances. It is the county’s burden to document such changes and those changes MUST be shown on the Notice of Action. Failing that, a reduction in aid based upon a reassessment (usually conducted by the case worker) is unlawful.

  • susanna

    Reply to Steve Mehlman,
    It seems that you are saying that any cuts up to 69% by Gov Brown are ok. That it would still be better than Whitman’s cut of 70%. Whitman was wrong and now Jerry Brown has done a flip on the importance of in-Home care. The Union seems to be in love with Brown but he has just shown everyone what his true beliefs are. He does not value the care we give our loved ones. Care that saves the State so much money. I feel that the Union has been seriousily weakened. Also, thanks Steve Campitelli for your thought provoking posts. They are great information.

  • http://www.udwa.org Steve Mehlman

    I am saying no such thing, Susanna. UDW opposes ANY cuts in IHSS, whether proposed by Schwarzenegger or Brown. We are disappointed in Brown’s proposal. We think he is wrong. And we will fight the cuts with everyting we have.

    We hope you will join with us in the coming weeks in our campaign against the governor’s IHSS proposal. Keep checking back on our website for the latest development.

    Some people have been questioning why we supported Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman. My point was that we would be a whole lot worse under Whitman. Meg said that more than 70 percent of all IHSS cases are fraudulent. Do you like being called a crook? If you think an 8.5 percent cut in IHSS is bad, what about a 70 percent cut?

  • susanna

    Steve Mehlman: According what Brown has proposed we will be a 24% cut. Please see my prev. post where I broke it down.
    It’s 24% now and Brown says there will be more cuts coming. It’s the 3.6 and now the 8.5 and then the loss of hours for dom. services. These all add up.
    It is conceiveable that we could get to the 70% mark if Brown keeps whittling away at us.
    Being called a crook doesn’t bother me a bit. Whitman did not value our efforts now it is apparent that Jerry doesn’t either. I voted for him and I am so disappointed that he has chosen to take so much away from those who have so little.

  • Steve Campitelli

    I want to pass on a bit of wisdom to others who may be facing a reassessment in addition to these proposed legislative cuts.

    I won the administrative hearing and one of the tools I used to contradict the county’s meritless hourly reductions is a neat litte item that sets forth the amount of time it takes to perform everyday tasks. It is published by the United States Department of Labor and goes by the name “ATUS” (The American Time Use Survey).

    “ATUS” is the sort of authorative source of which the law directs judges to take “judicial notice.” This means the courts are directed to seek guidance from such sources.

    “ATUS” includes many tables that show about 475 daily activities and how much time is spent on each by average Americans. This clearly trumps the “time-for-task guidelines since they are nothing more than a compilation of the already-reduced times input on cases by social workers. In other words, they’re rigging the numbers.

    Google “The American Time Use Survey” before your next assessment. Faced with having to fight off across the board cuts by the legislature, the last thing any of us needs is to see the hours reduced through a flawed and targeted reassessment.

  • Steve Campitelli

    As I read it, the budget proposal calls for a cut of 8.4% to “assessed hours.” There is no such thing as “assessed hours.” The term is “authorized hours.” This would mean if your “authorized hours” are already too low, you should demand a reassessment.

    The Union needs to back us up with legal counse OF BY forcing the county to pay for a lawyer to be assigned to the case. We’re dealing with a population whose substantive rights are at issue each time a social worker steps through the door. Most of them ought to be in conservatorships. I’vwe read the conservatorship manual and there’s nothing in it that says the conservator can act in place of an attorney. Social workers don’t even know the regulations (try asking one to cite the reg. he or she is referring to next time you hear something that sounds a bit off) let alone the statutes involved.

    It takes a panel of federal judges to figure out this complex stuff yet the providers and recipients are expected to fend for themselves against a system that can’t make itself known in fewer than 9 volumes and thousands of regulations. That there’s called “practicing law,” my friends. And it is illegal to practice law without an actual license.

    No, you can’t get a license watching re-runs of “Matlock.”

    It’s way past time for this union to start turning up the heat. We’ve been getting our brains beat out in a legal sense for decades. They pay us crap, give us health benefits that evaporate when we get sick for a prolonged period; no vacations; no sick pay’ and we are the only employees not paid for hours worked.

    Turn up the heat!

    OR ARE WE ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE LAWYERS FOR OUR DISABLED OR ELDERLY CHARGES?

  • SERGIO RAMOS

    I AGREE VERY MUCH STEVE CAMPITELLI

  • Belinda Hutchings

    I am a provider for my niece, who I took physical custody of 12 years ago. Because of the extent of her disabilities, I cannot work out of the home anymore. Now that she’s out of high school, we are finding it difficult to find a day program that will accept her where I live.
    I’m more than willing to make a sacrifice to help with the state’s fiscal crisis, but it has to be fair and equitable. Cutting domestic services? How many other parents have to wash all bedding, plus 3 sets of clothing on a daily basis? (without a dryer…)How about sanitizing the tub and shower several times a day after diapering? Making separate meals, as the client has eating disorders?
    I’m so frustrated, and now I’m frightened as well.

  • Lisa Brown

    Hi Steve, gotta disagree with you regarding Dominguez v Schwarz perceived protections. First off, that reduction was based on reducing the state’s participation in wages that the court has determined was in violation with Medicaide rules because of lack of research that clients would still be able to receive services w/o time gap or lowering of quality of care should the pay reduction occur.

    That case is still in the court of appeals where the state has requested that the injunction be reversed, the appeals court hasn’t decided yet on what to do. That case is set to go to trial in June this year at the Federal Court.

    If you are aware of the Legislative Analyst Office’s report to the legislature on Thursday, one of the recommendatons was for the governor to move again to cut worker’s wage contribution by the state as with Dominguez, only this time basis RESEARCH THAT THEY NOW UNDERTAKEN, showing that the cut would not result in loss of services, gaps or diminished quality of care.

    Quite frankly, I thought this research would prove to be an impossible task for the state to “prove.” If in fact they have done so, it will be up to the legal eagles and the court to decide whether in fact they have proven this. If so, the Domingues cuts could go forward even as these additional hours and service cuts are moving forward.

    The other case, on Function Index Score cuts, had its injunction upheld in the appeals court and we are awaiting the Federal Supreme Court to decide whether to take action on the case.

    —————————————-

    Steve Campitelli wrote: “I also think that the holdings in the recent Dominguez v Schwarzenegger decision apply equally to the Governor’s proposed reductions in payments to providers. In that case the United States Court of Appeals found that the CA legislature enacted a statute that conflicted with the Medicaid Act.”

    The court stated:

    “Thus, we hold that before enacting legislation that has the effect of lowering payments to providers—here, § 12306.1(d)(6)—the State must study the impact of that decision on the statutory
    factors set forth in § 30(A) [Medicaid Act]. See California Pharmacists II, slip op. at 3346.”

  • http://facebook,com Audrey Richards

    Whatever the reason for a cut, no matter what a service is, there is no excuse for elminating services. We have already been made to suffer the indignities of being fingerprinted as if we were common criminals or thugs. The state assumes so much about us, as if we are not doing our job.We have to fight for every change, defend our position. Might I point out, none of us are doing this because we are lay abouts who are looking for easy money. If we didnt take care of our friends and loved ones, the state would have to take over which would be an even greater cost. Why does the government go on the attack and contstantly try to shred whats left of our dignity? Why in the world do we have union representation if someone higher up can come along and wave a wand and decide that we dont need to provide services? Its ludicrous that people have to constantly fight and defend their rights and thier position. Why is what we do not important? Why can someone just decide away part of our paycheck? Did we create the deficit within the state? Or are we just being punished, are we just a convenient whipping boy, because so much is assumed about us as a body of people. I will not sit still for this! I hate to say this as a liberal democrat, but im ashamed of the Governor for being so miserly where the poor and disabled are concerned.

  • susanna

    Brown is trying to do the same thing that Whitman said she would do if elected – that is gut IHSS. Brown pretended that he supported IHSS but once elected he has shown what he truly feels about the care we give our loved ones and clients.
    Brown is “gutting” the program in steps.
    Not all at once but step by step. We will be at the 70% mark soon. First the cut from last year of 3.6% now a cut of 8.4%, next take away the hours for domestic services, meal prep, etc.
    Added to this is Brown trying to roll back the wages to minimum wage by going forward in the court with Arnie’s old plan to cut wages.

    Let’s see – 1. Cut in hours twice,
    2. Cut in hours for certain
    types of care
    3. Roll back wages to mini- mum wage

    To me this spells one thing the program is being “GUTTED”.
    Program gutted by Gov Brown who says he supports the IHSS program!
    Let’s face it – Brown has sold us out BIG TIME!

  • http://www.udwa.org Kristine

    UDW is very disappointed by Brown’s budget proposal. We are mounting various campaigns to oppose all cuts to IHSS. This is when we need the support and participation of members more than ever. Although I completely understand your frustration (I am FI index #5, working disabled consumer of IHSS) I would like to say that our best strength is our UNITY and our combined voices so we need to NOT be divided. Thank you very sincerely for your activism.
    – Kristine

  • susanna

    Kristine,
    I totally agree with you. I get the feeling that our union is so happy that Whitman didn’t get elected that they fail to see what Brown is doing. He is gutting IHSS piece by piece. I care for my 32 yr old dau. who has autisim and uses a wheelchair. I am scared of what lies ahead. I can go out and get a job as my field is still hiring. BUT- what do I do with my dau.? She needs protective supervision. I can’t leave her alone for 5 minutes much less 8 hours while I go to work. I am sure that there are many more like us.
    As a Union we need to be strong and fight these cuts with everything we ever had. I would encourage everyone in the Union, members and employees as well as anyone who is an advocate for the disabled to fight like h*ll to protect our loved ones and clients. Now is the time to fight and fight hard before we lose even more. I hope that the Union will let everyone know how they can help. Yes, we all need to stand together. I would like to ask the Union to lay off the “Whitman” stuff as it is not relevant and we are not better off with Brown.
    I intend to stand and fight the fight.

  • http://www.udwa.org Kristine

    I stand by the union’s choice to help elect Brown instead of Whitman. But this is much bigger than a political (partisan) issue. What we are up against is a shift of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy and to corporations. The media is calling it a recession. The unions are calling it Wall St. vs the Workers which I believe is more truthful.
    – Kristine

  • sharon

    Are our union, IHSS recipients and participants being Re-exploited to capture more funding that we will never see to support and provide services?

    All under the false pretense of Fear of Losing the Entire Programs.

    Maybe its time to “COOK CHICKEN LITTLE”

    Remember The Congress of the United States are our biggest Advocates they are our voices but if we cannot get to them because of our bargaining powers we are just settling for crumbs….

    Steve C. you are right our UDW needs to step up it’s game and stop settling. We are nonexpendable and this State needs us. As a matter of Fact the State of CA has Mastered the Game of Exploiting the Severly Disabled and Elderly….

    The State of Calif gross the highest in the Nation of the Nations Taxpayors Money to support our Medicare/Medical Programs.

    Our State always establishes a precedence for persuasiveness across the Nation.

    The Federal Govnt is not saying no to matching Funding it is the Fact that this State wants to pay its Bills with the Nations Taxpayors Money. Even if it means Targeting Critical Programs such as Medical and IHSS.

    Now is that Legal or is that Called Fraud, Waste and Abuse……

    More than 5 consecutive presidents have been in our corner….. To protect the elderly and disabled. We are now standing under the Protection of the Olmstead Law Executive Order and Numerous Federal Titles established by the former President George Bush…..

    Where are the petitions to repel these new state laws that set precedence over Federal Regulations?

    Is the state of California commiting crimes against the Federal Government and the Nations Taxpayers by violating established Laws, illegally Procurring, Funds. Is the State of California violating it’s Abuse of Discretion and Manipulating the Delivery Systems and withholding information about other Waiver Programs from the people.

    Why do you think its called “unmet needs….” Why doesn’t anyone talk about the other Medical Waivers that support Government Funding.

    Medical Waivers that set precedent over State Laws Policy and Procedures.

    Last I heard Federal Law over-rules Statutory Law.

    Sounds like the UDW and all members are parties to one of the “Hugest Medical Fraud Class Action Lawsuit of the Century”. Some legal representation should go after these deep, deep, deep pockets out there not to mention the monetary awards from Medical/Medicare….. for finding Fraud within a system…..

    I am being damaged behind this creating huge emotional distress….

    Have we no legal representation within our Union or have we bargained away our Constitutional and Civil Rights when we organized as a union?

    Stop arguing about Jerry Brown and Meg and start organizing as a union members to uphold our “MORAL COURAGE TO ACT AS VOICES TO PROTECT ALL HUMANITY” Focus on how to appeal these cuts. Come on line and talk about issues with merit and points that can uphold the laws… and provide help to each other.

    STOP THE RE-Exploitation President OHBAMA SENT OVER 600 billon dollars for Medicare/Medical to the State of California. Something is wrong with this picture……Where did all that money go?

  • sharon

    Note: I apologize for misspelling/Typo of President Obama’s name in previous Blog. Thank You!

  • Mark

    Does anyone have an idea when these new cuts would ( god forbid ) come into play? I am in the same exact situation as Susanna where I could access another job to make up for cuts but there is no way that I can safely leave my mother home alone for 4 – 8 hours by herself. She’s completely non ambulatory and requires bowel and bladder care throughout the day along with meal prep and serving the meals. There is no way I’d leave her alone sitting in her scooter or laying in bed the entire day.

    She is very alert mentally. I made her a promise she would never be forced to remain sitting or laying in her own waist if an accident occurs like many in long term care facilities are forced to do while waiting for a CNA to clean them up. If I was gone when she needed to relieve herself she would have no other choice. I will not allow my mother to be degraded as long as I’m walking on this earth. This includes the alternative choice to put her in a nursing home. The only way she ends up there is if I’m not alive.

    I can accept a reduction in cleaning the home but the laundry, personal hands on care ( bowel, bladder care, and bathing and mobility assistance ) along with shopping and food prep needs to remain in effect. I’m sure many of you also have specific menus for the one you take care of which is many times very separate from you nutritional intake.

    I don’t know how many of you are using a laundromat but I do and it’s daily and the cost is coming out of my pocket. No I obviously would not be doing this many loads although I’ve made some great friends at the laundromat I go to LOL.

    Although Mr. Brown feels as long as you live with someone with special needs you should willing offer it for free apparently he’s never been in this situation because in my family I have no assistance whatsoever with my mother and not one of them feels any obligation to help her and that included her mother when she was alive. Not to mention it is so absolutely insulting to hand someone else a paycheck that includes hours of care for tasks that I wouldn’t get simply because we live at the same residence.

    These cuts have to be avoided. I’d challenge my county rep to provide live in care for my mother for one month and then look me in the eyes and tell me without blinking these cuts are fair to those who share the same residence.

  • susanna

    Reply to Sharon, I agree with you 100%.
    I don’t know what is going on here. Why we are supposed to think that IHSS is so much better off with Brown as Gov.? I don’t understand. He seemed to be a friend before election, to our program but it is apparent he is not. We need to fight with everything we’ve got. And so does the union. The Supreme Court is hearing the cases later this year and if they decide to roll back our wages to minimum wage and state takes more hours away – why even have the union? I don’t want to pay union dues on minimum wage with no benefits. So now is the time for the Union to fight as they have never fought before. Forget Whitman and realize that Brown is NO friend to IHSS.

  • http://www.udwa.org Steve Mehlman

    Your union is doing everything possible to fight these cuts. But we need YOUR help. Go to the home page and click on the “Help UDW Fight IHSS Cuts” link for more information.

  • Kristine

    Many of you are asking what the union is doing to stop the proposed cuts and we want to assure you that UDW understands the seriousness of what is taking place. There is no doubt that our community is facing its most serious threat in many years.

    As a member of the IHSS Coalition ( http://www.ihsscoalition.org/), UDW works together with numerous other organizations which also include national organizations like the ACLU. UDW is part of the driving force behind the lawsuit filed to protect our member’s wages that is now going before the Supreme Court.

    All that being said, NONE of these organizations can stand up for the rights of their members without strong support in the field from those that we represent. Legislators will not listen if there is not strong public outrage and “push-back” about what amounts to an unfair and life-threatening “selective tax” on the low income elderly and disabled citizens of California. To limit the damage, we need a strong show of support from the community. That means you and the people you know throughout the state.

    We also want to thank you very sincerely for everything that you do; we understand it is difficult for homecare providers to leave their clients or bring clients to rallies or legislators offices. Yet we must ask you to make this sacrifice because our representatives and the community need to see the real faces and real people that are being impacted.