Challenges for "Change"

by: JulieWaters

Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 06:16:00 AM EST

Federal Waiver

In order to derive maximum benefit from the redesign, the state will seek a Global Commitment-style super-waiver from Washington that covers all human service programs across a number of federal agencies, including HHS, USDA, and HUD.  The waiver will provide for unprecedented flexibility from federal requirements.  The state will pass the flexibility granted by the federal government through to its service providers.  Additional flexibilities should not be construed to release the state or providers from obligations to ensure that consumer rights are protected and payments are appropriate.

While a federal waiver is preferable, the overall redesign should not be contingent on the waiver.  In fact, the overall project should be structured on independent tracks, so if any one track fails, the other tracks would be unaffected.  As tracks ultimately intersect and join together, the whole of the project will be greater than the sum of its parts.

I recently posted about the Challengese for Change document which the legislature placed into law without any real notification or warning to the general public.  Today, I'd like to focus on the section quoted above.

Another aspect of what that agent does is to help people who do not understand or comprehend what it is they are being asked.

I've blogged previously about my trouble simply applying to Catamount.  A lot of the issues I had with those applications had to do with the fact that everything was done remotely.  Simple paperwork requirements took months to complete because they did not tell me everything they needed.  They kept telling me one thing they needed, then the next, and so on, until I finally ended up finding a full time job which insured me without Catamount.

But if we rely on technology as a substitute for this human contact, where does this leave us?  I've been hearing stories about people trying to work with economic services who are having an extremely hard time making their way into the system.  What I've been hearing specifically is that those who are already in the system are fine, but getting into the system at all is a nightmare.  Not as in "it's a little tricky," but as in "no, we can't accept your paperwork in person at this office.  Here's a number you can call," which leads to a number that no one answers.

So are these requirements for providing proper, good and acceptable service, that we're seeking to get a waiver from?  Are we looking for "unprecedented flexibility" to dramatically reduce access for the disabled or illiterate?  Are we looking to be able to avoid "obligations" to provide fair and reasonable access to our most vulnerable members?

I don't know that the people involved in this decision making process even know the answers to these questions.  I don't see any indication that there's been the proper amount of time to assess these issues in a reasoned and deliberate fashion.  This vote came fast, too fast, and our legislators and other candidates for higher office need to go on the record as to exactly what they expect this legislation to do and how they expect it to happen.