olmstead ppt

24
“[W]e confront the question whether the proscription of discrimination may require placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions.” “The answer … is a qualified yes.”

Upload: kramere7

Post on 11-Jul-2015

575 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Olmstead Ppt

“[W]e confront the question whether the proscription of discrimination may require placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions.”

“The answer … is a qualified yes.”

Page 2: Olmstead Ppt

“A public entity shall administer services, programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.”

Page 3: Olmstead Ppt

“A public entity shall make reasonable accommodations in policies, practices and procedures …

unless … making the modifications would fundamentally alter the service, program or activity.”

Page 4: Olmstead Ppt

Two women, Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, who were institutionalized at Georgia Regional Hospital …

sued Tommy Olmstead, the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Human Resources

Page 5: Olmstead Ppt

Ruled for Ms. Wilson & Ms. Curtis

Found that Georgia “could provide services to [Ms. Wilson & Ms. Curtis] in the community at considerably less cost than is required to institutionalize them.”

Page 6: Olmstead Ppt

Sent the case back to the trial judge on cost of community care

Asked “whether the additional expenditures … would be unreasonable given the demands of the State’s mental health budget.”

Page 7: Olmstead Ppt

“First, institutional placement of persons who can handle or benefit from community settings … perpetuates unwarranted assumptions … that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life.”

Page 8: Olmstead Ppt

“Second, confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including: Family relations, Social contacts, Work options, Economic independence, Educational advancement, and Cultural enrichment.”

Page 9: Olmstead Ppt

When “the State’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate,

the transfer from the institution to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual,

Page 10: Olmstead Ppt

and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account ◦ the resources available to the State ◦ and the needs of others with disabilities.”

Page 11: Olmstead Ppt

When the State, “generally rely[ing] on the reasonable assessments of its own professionals,” determines that habilitation needs can only be met in an institution.

Page 12: Olmstead Ppt

When “in the allocation of available resources, immediate relief … would be inequitable, given the responsibility the state has undertaken for the care and treatment of a large and diverse population of persons with disabilities.

Page 13: Olmstead Ppt

“If the State were to demonstrate that it had

a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified individuals with disabilities in less restrictive settings,

and a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace, not controlled by the State’s endeavors to keep its institutions fully populated,

the reasonable-modifications standard would be met.”

Page 14: Olmstead Ppt

“[T]he range of facilities the State maintains for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities,

and its obligation to administer services with an even hand.”

Page 15: Olmstead Ppt

“Nor is it the ADA’s mission to drive State’s to move institutionalized patients into an inappropriate setting, such as a homeless shelter.”

Page 16: Olmstead Ppt

“We emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings.”

Page 17: Olmstead Ppt

“Nor is there any federal requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it.”

Page 18: Olmstead Ppt

Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Page 19: Olmstead Ppt

Total Nursing Home Population in the United States:

~1.35 Million

SOURCE: CMS Minimum Data Set 2.0 (1st Q 2010)

Page 20: Olmstead Ppt

Medicaid: 54% (729,000) Medicare: 25% (337,500) VA: 1% (13,500) Self/family: 13% (175,500) Private insurance: 9% (121,500)

SOURCE: CMS MDS 2.0

Page 21: Olmstead Ppt

Total: $61 Billion Total: $45 Billion

Institutional Spending: Nursing Homes: $49 Billion ICF/MR (for persons

with developmental disabilities):

$12 Billion

Community Spending: Home and Community

services (waivers, all disabilities): $30 Billion

Personal Care option: $11 Billion

Home Health: $4 Billion

Page 22: Olmstead Ppt

Under 30: .5% (6,750) 31 to 64: 14% (189,000) 65 to 74: 14% (189,000) 75 to 84: 28% (378,000) Over 85: 50% (675,000)

Page 23: Olmstead Ppt

An acute care hospital: 61%

Another nursing home: 13%

A private home with no home health services: 10%

SOURCE: CMS MDS 2.0 (1st Q 2010)

Page 24: Olmstead Ppt

United States: 23% (310,500) California: 27% (26,460) Illinois: 25% (18,250) Louisiana: 16% (4,000) Michigan: 30% (11,700) New York: 21% (22,260) Oregon: 35% (2,555) Texas: 20% (18,600) Utah: 37% (1,872)SOURCE: CMS MDS 2.0 (1st Q 2010)