<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gottfried and Silver Approve Medicaid Redesign Team Recs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2011/02/25/gottfried-and-silver-approve-medicaid-redesign-team-recs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2011/02/25/gottfried-and-silver-approve-medicaid-redesign-team-recs/</link>
	<description>Gotham Gazette&#039;s blog about New York policy and politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 08:50:59 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Susan Dooha</title>
		<link>http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2011/02/25/gottfried-and-silver-approve-medicaid-redesign-team-recs/comment-page-1/#comment-115251</link>
		<dc:creator>Susan Dooha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:57:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/?p=9193#comment-115251</guid>
		<description>There appears to be a remarkable unanimity about these proposals among policy makers. Less so in the community--where we&#039;re worried about slashing and burning services for the elderly and disabled and imposing higher out of pocket costs on the poorest in the State.

In less than a day, without review or debate, a handful of powerful provider groups voted to reduce or eliminate protections and supports for people with disabilities and the elderly. Proposals were voted on that had never seen the light of day. They are often vague and undefined. In a process that is supposed to curtail costs-proposals were included that will increase costs.  Proposals put forth by the community were not included. Those proposals we put forth that were included were attributed to others—as if our voice did not count. 

Based upon a cursory analysis, it appears that some proposals can have a positive impact on the health of people with disabilities—care coordination can be helpful for many, automatic renewal for people with disabilities on fixed incomes would be helpful, addressing housing needs of those seeking to leave institutions is vital, we have advocated strongly for a proposal to address health disparities in access and outcomes based upon disabilities. 

Others will reduce choice, affect public health, eliminate protections, and curtail access—no indication is given that these proposals may actually cause costs to rise—imposition of copayments and onerous limits on community-based care and rehabilitation are notable.  

It is impossible to understand why proposals from the disability community that would draw down additional federal dollars were excluded given the costly and speculative nature of many proposals that were approved by the MRT.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There appears to be a remarkable unanimity about these proposals among policy makers. Less so in the community&#8211;where we&#8217;re worried about slashing and burning services for the elderly and disabled and imposing higher out of pocket costs on the poorest in the State.</p>
<p>In less than a day, without review or debate, a handful of powerful provider groups voted to reduce or eliminate protections and supports for people with disabilities and the elderly. Proposals were voted on that had never seen the light of day. They are often vague and undefined. In a process that is supposed to curtail costs-proposals were included that will increase costs.  Proposals put forth by the community were not included. Those proposals we put forth that were included were attributed to others—as if our voice did not count. </p>
<p>Based upon a cursory analysis, it appears that some proposals can have a positive impact on the health of people with disabilities—care coordination can be helpful for many, automatic renewal for people with disabilities on fixed incomes would be helpful, addressing housing needs of those seeking to leave institutions is vital, we have advocated strongly for a proposal to address health disparities in access and outcomes based upon disabilities. </p>
<p>Others will reduce choice, affect public health, eliminate protections, and curtail access—no indication is given that these proposals may actually cause costs to rise—imposition of copayments and onerous limits on community-based care and rehabilitation are notable.  </p>
<p>It is impossible to understand why proposals from the disability community that would draw down additional federal dollars were excluded given the costly and speculative nature of many proposals that were approved by the MRT.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
