12/29/10 N.Y. St. Reg. PDD-41-10-00024-A
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:
Action taken:
Amendment of Parts 635 and 671 of Title 14 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Mental Hygiene Law, sections 13.07, 13.09(b) and 43.02
Subject:
Reimbursement of equipment and property insurance.
Purpose:
To revise and streamline the methodology for reimbursement of equipment and property insurance.
Text or summary was published
in the October 13, 2010 issue of the Register, I.D. No. PDD-41-10-00024-P.
Final rule as compared with last published rule:
No changes.
Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Barbara Brundage, Director, Regulatory Affairs Unit, OPWDD, 44 Holland Ave., Albany, NY 12229, (518) 474-1830, email:
barbara.brundage@opwdd.ny.govAdditional matter required by statute:
Pursuant to the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, OMRDD, as lead agency, has determined that the action described herein will have no effect on the environment, and an E.I.S. is not needed.
Assessment of Public Comment
OPWDD received one comment on proposed regulations from the Executive Director of a provider which primarily serves individuals with cerebral palsy and related disabilities. A high proportion of these individuals are non-ambulatory.
COMMENT: The Executive Director asserted that the new methodology to reimburse moveable capital equipment and property insurance discriminates against those providers serving populations of individuals with physical disabilities. He alluded to the disproportionately high costs incurred by those providers because the individuals they serve require specialized equipment as compared to populations which primarily have cognitive impairments. He suggested, further, that adaptive modifications to the physical environments contribute to higher insurance rates. As costs rise and this population ages and manifests increasing needs, he predicted that the substitution of an inflationary trend factor applied to fixed values, as opposed to pass through payments for capital moveable equipment and property insurance, will not be adequate.
RESPONSE: OPWDD disagrees. OPWDD fashioned these regulations to factor in, on a provider specific basis, the highest capital outlay for capital moveable equipment and property insurance over a recent three year period. Accordingly, the fixed values are predicated on individual providers’ actual costs and do recognize differences in resource demands among providers. Absent exceptional circumstances, providers are not likely to be impacted negatively. Rather, these measures intend to safeguard provider revenues while they facilitate streamlining in OPWDD’s administrative operations. They are regarded as cost neutral. Not only do the regulations prohibit the imposition of any future efficiency adjustments on these components of reimbursement, a remedy for losses is available through the price adjustment process. In addition, OPWDD cites its intention to examine the effects of these regulations as warranted in five years. The regulations are unchanged.
