Subsidy allocations discussion
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 19

Subsidy Allocations Discussion PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 61 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Subsidy Allocations Discussion. Future Department of Mental Health & A ddiction Services January 3, 2013. Agenda. Summary of meeting materials Brief overview of work products assigned at last meeting Parameters for our work going forward Potential models for allocation strategies

Download Presentation

Subsidy Allocations Discussion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Subsidy allocations discussion

Subsidy Allocations Discussion

Future Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services

January 3, 2013


Agenda

Agenda

  • Summary of meeting materials

  • Brief overview of work products assigned at last meeting

  • Parameters for our work going forward

  • Potential models for allocation strategies

  • Identify next steps

    • Meeting dates

    • Agenda for next meeting


Assignments from 12 11 12

Assignments from 12/11/12

Accountability is important!


Data analyses assigned

Data Analyses Assigned

  • Per capita comparison of all non-federal general subsidy (both AOD and MH). What we did:

    • GRF + Fund 475 = $80.7 million

    • GRF less medication + Fund 475 = $71.4 million

    • GRF only = $76.6 million

    • GRF less medication = $67.3 million

  • Attachment 1 Scenarios contain overviews of each of these approaches and related data


Data analyses assigned 2

Data Analyses Assigned, 2

  • Per capita comparison of general AOD subsidy (federal and non-federal). What we did:

    • GRF + Fund 475 + SAPT block grant = $47.9 million

    • See attachment 1 scenarios

  • Per capita comparison of ALL general subsidy (federal and non-federal)

    • GRF + Fund 475 + SAPT and MH block grants

    • See attachment 1 scenarios


Parameters going forward

Parameters Going Forward

  • Goal: a shared, succinct allocations plan prior to budget deliberations

  • Taking into account the 12/11 discussion, certain decisions must be reached before work can proceed at a meaningful pace

    • Disposition of existing money

    • Disposition of new money (if applicable)

    • Inputs related to disposition


Parameters existing money

Parameters: Existing Money

  • Remains allocated to the community currently receiving it

    • No moderate redistribution of x%

    • We examined possibilities but ultimately determined that redirection is not pragmatic

    • Sets aside 53 individual allocation histories without attempting redress

    • Ohio decision regarding Medicaid expansion/no expansion will have impacts that vary among communities


Parameters existing money 2

Parameters: Existing Money, 2

  • No redirection enables the field to focus on the future rather than disagree about the current or past

  • Let’s not spend time now contemplating how a subsidy reduction would be handled

    • Block grant strategy, if/when reduction occurs, will be vetted with the field.

    • Transparency & timeliness are important philosophies for the new department


Parameters new money

Parameters: New Money

  • This is where we articulate the vision

  • Need a model that anyone can explain

    • Can be scaled based on resource availability

    • Focus our work here

  • Enables us to recognize that all communities would benefit from additional resources, but that targeted investments may be more helpful when taking into account specific needs


Parameters allocation inputs

Parameters: Allocation Inputs

  • For any new, additional appropriation in Continuum of Care line item

  • Propose to use per capita as a core data element, but perhaps use in a variety of ways, e.g.:

    • Straight per capita

    • Per capita as comparative factor between communities in the existing funding level

    • Other?


Parameters allocation inputs 2

Parameters: Allocation Inputs, 2

  • Per capita is not a panacea, but it is:

    • Immediately available

    • Objective

    • Clear & understandable

  • For future biennia, as new timely & relevant information is available, it would be possible to re-open discussions about inputs; however, no commitment now to absolutely do so.


Potential allocation models

Potential Allocation Models

  • Caveats & reminders…These are for discussion to obtain feedback and identify next steps

    • Other concepts are welcome

    • Two funding scenarios run for each model, merely to demonstrate how it works. These amounts are completely arbitrary!

  • Will walk through each model, respond to questions, and discuss all models at the end


Potential model 1

Potential Model #1

  • Allocate any additional amounts on a straight per capita basis

    • See attachment for Model #1, which contains two hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate impacts at various funding levels

    • Questions?


Potential model 2

Potential Model #2

  • Allocate 60% of any new appropriation in the same manner that DMH allocated the $619k in the MBR (i.e., targeted to “per capita disparity” boards.) 

  • Allocate the other 40% in a straight per capita to all boards

  • See attachment for Model #2

  • Questions?


Potential model 3

Potential Model #3

  • Allocate 75% of the new amounts in a straight per capita to all boards

  • With the other 25%, establish a “pool” that MHA will use to make targeted investments to incentivize collaboration, augment an area that experiences a specific problem, focus on a specific policy topic, etc. Process would be established (this month.)

  • See attachment for Model #3; Questions?


Potential model 4

Potential Model #4

  • Allocate 50% of any new appropriation in the same manner that DMH allocated the $600k in the MBR (i.e., targeted to “per capita disparity” boards.) 

  • 25% to all boards via straight per capita

  • 25% to a pool that MHA would distribute as described in Model #3

  • See attachment for Model #4; Questions?


Discussion

Discussion

  • Pros and cons of each model?

  • Other concepts folks would like to see that are NOT reflected in one of these models?

  • Are there any models here that are more preferred than others?

    • Goal: narrow to 1-2 and modify those for our next discussion

  • Any other constructive feedback?


Parking lot issues

Parking Lot Issues

  • At logical point in January, we still need to address/discuss:

    • Provider specific subsidies for AOD

    • Community medication logistics

    • Topics of concern to 6 boards with single focus

    • Hot spots approach for FYs 14/15

    • Reporting in the new environment for MOE


Next steps

Next Steps

  • Meetings scheduled: January 10, 16, 24

    • 10am – 12pm

    • Same location and call-in available

    • Meetings will be canceled if not needed

  • Agenda for January 10th

  • Other assignments?


  • Login