Notes On Data Committee Meeting
July 09, 2004


Jump Directly To... Update on data reported What should be in the report Review charge to the Committee Process to identify data recommendations and Improvements Public Comment Commentary

Present: Karen Myers Malcolm (CQC), John Allen (OMH), Nancy Martinez (OCFS), Karen Oates, Lisa Kagan (OMRDD)

John Allen brought up the issue of waiting lists. He said that the waiting list issue is part of the community services section in the original legislation, but when he looked at the charges for the Committees, he noticed it is a Data Committee charge. The Committee needs to discuss what charge they should give to the technical workgroup.

Update on data reported
The Committee has received data from OASAS, OMH, OCFS, OMRDD and DHCR. They asked for a variety of data including the number of people in institutions and the number of people in the community who are dependent on community services to avoid institutionalization. The Committee discussed getting data from State Ed. about residential school placements. They also need data from SOFA and DOH. CQC will look at their Protection and Advocacy programs because this service prevents institutionalization. DDPC has grants including the Nursing Facility Transition starter grant. OCFS will query Adult Protective because they help people avoid institutionalization. John will bring the data that has been collected to the full MISCC meeting on 7/12 and ask for feedback. The Committee will also ask OTDA for data.

What should be in the report
The Committee has the summer to draft the report. They need to think about the format, including having an introduction and data tables. The Committee also needs to determine if they want to analyze the data and make recommendations for analyzing data for identifying future trends. The Committee will ask the full MISCC for feedback on this at the meeting on 7/12. Karen Oates suggested that the Committee gives the MISCC prompts from the goals. John questioned whether they should look at this in the public hearings.

Review charge to the Committee
John pointed out that the waiting list is related to community services in the legislation, but the charge is with the Data Committee. Need to identify waiting lists and time frames for accessing services. Lisa commented that this is going to difficult. John pointed out that OMH doesn't really have waiting lists. He said that this is really a charge for the Committee's technical workgroup. Lisa advised that the Committee needs to let the full MISCC know that we haven't done this yet. Karen advised that the Committee needs to define waiting lists and the acceptable timeframes. Need to know the guidelines and statutes that affect this. For certain programs, waiting lists don't exist. John pointed out that even if there is not a waiting list, there are lag times. The Community Services Committee should work with the Data Committee on this.

Process to identify data recommendations and Improvements
John noted that the Committee could consider analytical tools. The full MISCC is supposed to present a report card on how the state is doing in terms of Olmstead. Lisa commented that when they looked at trends, they show more people moving into the community, but there might be nuances. Karen O. questioned how state data collection impacts community data collection. Need to determine how this plays out at the local level. When people look at OMH and OMRDD de-institutionalization, it's huge, but must also consider waiting lists and lag times. The local piece has to be fed up to the state level. Local variations must be taken into consideration. John commented that on the macro level things look good, but it might not be so great for the person. Karen O. noted that it might be going great in an urban area, but not in a rural area. John questioned what it is that we don't collect that might be helpful to know. Karen O. noted that her organization started to collect data on why people were calling, where they were calling from, etc. There is data that the state currently doesn't collect which would be helpful to inform the system. Lisa commented that Karen should write this up as a best practice. Karen O. suggested that there should be 10-12 items that are tracked that influence the system. John advised that we need to find out how our local entities access data from local providers and recipients to get feedback that will drive the system. This might be one of the Committee's recommendations. Karen O. commented that there should be 10-12 principles. Need to determine how the state level ensures that policy level Olmstead is enacted at the local level. The 10-12 items could be analyzed on a 6 month basis. The state could ask the local entity to capture the data.

Public Comment
Tracie Crandell commented on the issue of data collection. She questioned if specific demographic data is being collected. Data might show that certain age groups or people with specific disabilities are still institutionalized. Tracie also pointed out that data is not always available in a timely manner for public review. The Committee needs to consider how data is disseminated. Tracie also pointed out that for many DOH programs there are not waiting lists, but there if definitely lag time in accessing services. For example, sometimes Certified Home Health Agencies will deny people for services because of staffing shortages. This creates a barrier to accessing services. Other people are denied services for other reasons. This does not currently create a waiting list.

Commentary
The Data Committee needs to work with the Community Services Committee to create waiting lists for community-based services. Some services, such as home health care, currently do not have waiting lists, but at the same time, people are often denied for services for staffing shortages. In accordance with the MIS Law, waiting lists should be created. Furthermore, data must be collected in a way to ensure that people with all types of disabilities are moving to the most integrated setting.


Back To Top