IBJNews

Indiana child care agencies protest cost of new rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana effort to shift some foster care costs to the federal government would throw up more red tape and make it harder for caretakers and providers to get services for troubled children, a coalition of child care agencies said Friday.

The group called IARCCA, an Association of Children and Family Services, also said rules proposed by the Indiana Department of Child Services would shift some costs from the state to the federal Medicaid program at the expense of residential treatment centers and child placement agencies.

IARCCA wants the proposed rules withdrawn.

The IARCCA concerns, which were to be presented at a public hearing on the new rules Friday afternoon, marked the latest round in a fight between DCS and foster parents and agencies over cost-cutting steps taken by Gov. Mitch Daniels' administration. Foster parents and agencies claims the cuts threaten services for children with special needs, including medical and emotional conditions.

IARCCA, which has more than 100 member agencies, won a federal injunction in January blocking DCS from cutting payments to foster and residential care agencies.

"They're going to delay children getting therapies," said Cathleen Graham, IARCCA's executive director of IARCCA. "The additional referrals we will have to get for these therapies will be in the thousands" for all the children affected.

DCS has said the rules would shift about $22 million in state costs to Medicaid, but Graham said it would cost agencies and centers more than $26 million in additional paperwork, staff time and other expenses to comply with the rules.

Graham also said Indiana has not yet filed an amendment to its state Medicaid plan seeking federal approval for the new costs. She said the federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare services rejected a similar attempt in 2002 to shift some state costs to the federal health plan for needy people.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT