Home » 2014 Issues » December 31, 2014 » OMH-52-14-00002-E Implementation of the Protection of People with Special Needs Act and Reforms to Incident Management
OMH-52-14-00002-E Implementation of the Protection of People with Special Needs Act and Reforms to Incident Management
12/31/14 N.Y. St. Reg. OMH-52-14-00002-E
NEW YORK STATE REGISTER
VOLUME XXXVI, ISSUE 52
December 31, 2014
RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES
OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH
EMERGENCY RULE MAKING
I.D No. OMH-52-14-00002-E
Filing No. 1015
Filing Date. Dec. 11, 2014
Effective Date. Dec. 11, 2014
Implementation of the Protection of People with Special Needs Act and Reforms to Incident Management
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:
Action taken:
Amendment of Parts 501 and 550; repeal of Part 524; and addition of new Part 524 to Title 14 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Mental Hygiene Law, sections 7.07, 7.09 and 31.04
Finding of necessity for emergency rule:
Preservation of public health, public safety and general welfare.
Specific reasons underlying the finding of necessity:
The immediate adoption of these amendments is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of individuals receiving services.
In December, 2012, the Governor signed the Protection of People with Special Needs Act (PPSNA). This new law created the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs (Justice Center) and established many new protections for vulnerable persons, including a new system for incident management in services operated or licensed by OMH and new requirements for more comprehensive and coordinated pre-employment background checks.
The amendment of OMH regulations is necessary to implement many of the provisions contained in the PPSNA.
The promulgation of these regulations is essential to preserve the health, safety and welfare of individuals with mental illness who receive services in the OMH system. If OMH did not promulgate regulations on an emergency basis, many of the protections established by the PPSNA vital to the health, safety and welfare of individuals with mental illness would not be implemented or would be implemented ineffectively. Further, protections for individuals receiving services would be threatened by the confusion resulting from inconsistent requirements. For example, the emergency regulations change the categories of incidents to conform to the categories established by the PPSNA. Without the promulgation of these amendments, agencies would be required to report incidents based on one set of definitions to the Justice Center and incidents based on a different set of definitions to OMH. Requirements for the management of incidents would also be inconsistent. Especially concerning regulatory requirements related to incident management and pre-employment background checks, it is crucial that OMH regulations be changed to support the new requirements in the PPSNA so that this initiative is implemented in a coordinated fashion.
For all of the reasons outlined above, this rule is being adopted on an Emergency basis until such time as it has been formally adopted through the SAPA rule promulgation process.
Subject:
Implementation of the Protection of People with Special Needs Act and reforms to incident management.
Purpose:
To enhance protections for people with mental illness served in the OMH system.
Substance of emergency rule:
The emergency regulations are intended to conform regulations of the Office of Mental Health (OMH) to Chapter 501 of the Laws of 2012 (Protection of People with Special Needs Act or PPSNA). The primary changes include:
• 14 NYCRR Part 501 is amended by adding a new Subdivision (a) to Section 501.5, “Obsolete or Outdated References,” that replaces any reference throughout OMH regulations to the Commission on Quality of Care and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities with a reference to the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs.
• 14 NYCRR Part 524 (Incident Management) has been repealed and revised to incorporate categories of “reportable incidents” as established by the PPSNA and includes enhanced provisions regarding incident investigations. The amendments make changes related to definitions, reporting, investigation, notification and committee review of events and situations that occur in providers of mental health services licensed or operated by OMH. It is OMH’s expectation that implementation of these amendments will enhance safeguards for persons with mental illness, which, in turn, will allow individuals to focus on their recovery. The amendments also require distribution of the Code of Conduct, developed by the Justice Center, to all employees. Providers must maintain signed documentation from such employees, indicating that they have received, and understand, the Code.
• Revisions to 14 NYCRR Part 550 are intended to facilitate and implement the consolidation of the criminal background check function in the Justice Center, and to make other conforming changes to the criminal background check function established by the PPSNA.
This notice is intended
to serve only as a notice of emergency adoption. This agency intends to adopt this emergency rule as a permanent rule and will publish a notice of proposed rule making in the State Register at some future date. The emergency rule will expire March 10, 2015.
Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Sue Watson, NYS Office of Mental Health, 44 Holland Avenue, Albany, NY 12229, (518) 474-1331, email: Sue.Watson@omh.ny.gov
Regulatory Impact Statement
1. Statutory Authority: Chapter 501 of the Laws of 2012, i.e., “The Protection of People with Special Needs Act,” establishes Article 20 of the Executive Law, Article 11 of the Social Services Law, and makes a number of amendments in other statutes, including the Mental Hygiene Law.
Section 7.07 of the Mental Hygiene Law, charges the Office of Mental Health with the responsibility for seeing that persons with mental illness are provided with care and treatment, that such care, treatment, and rehabilitation are of high quality and effectiveness, and that the personal and civil rights of persons with mental illness receiving care and treatment are adequately protected.
Sections 7.09 and 31.04 of the Mental Hygiene Law grant the Commissioner of the Office of Mental Health the authority and responsibility to adopt regulations that are necessary and proper to implement matters under his or her jurisdiction.
2. Legislative Objectives: These regulatory amendments further the legislative objectives embodied in the Protection of People with Special Needs Act, as well as Sections 7.07, 7.09, and 31.04 of the Mental Hygiene Law. The amendments incorporate a number of reforms to regulations of the Office of Mental Health (OMH) in order to increase protections and improve the quality of services provided to persons receiving services from mental health providers operated or licensed by OMH.
3. Needs and Benefits: The amendments include new and modified requirements for incident management programs, codified at 14 NYCRR Part 524, and also add and revise provisions of Parts 501 and 550 to implement Chapter 501 of the Laws of 2012. Known as “The Protection of People with Special Needs Act,” this new law requires the establishment of comprehensive protections for vulnerable persons, including persons with mental illness, against abuse, neglect and other harmful conduct.
The Act created a Justice Center with responsibilities for effective incident reporting and investigation systems, fair disciplinary processes, informed and appropriate staff hiring procedures, and strengthened monitoring and oversight systems. The Justice Center operates a 24/7 hotline for reporting allegations of abuse, neglect and significant incidents in accordance with Chapter 501’s provisions for uniform definitions, mandatory reporting and minimum standards for incident management programs. In collaboration with OMH, the Justice Center is also charged with developing and delivering appropriate training for caregivers, their supervisors and investigators. Additionally, the Justice Center is responsible for conducting criminal background checks for applicants, including those who will be working in the OMH system.
Chapter 501 of the Laws of 2012 also created a Vulnerable Persons’ Central Register (VPCR). This register contains the names of custodians found to have committed substantiated acts of abuse or neglect using a preponderance of evidence standard. All custodians found to have committed such acts have the right to a hearing before an administrative law judge to challenge those findings. Custodians having committed egregious or repeated acts of abuse or neglect are prohibited from future employment in providing services for vulnerable persons, and may be subject to criminal prosecution. Less serious acts of misconduct are subject to progressive discipline and retraining. Job applicants with criminal records who seek employment serving vulnerable persons will be individually evaluated as to suitability for such positions.
Pursuant to Chapter 501 of the Laws of 2012, the Justice Center is charged with recommending policies and procedures to OMH for the protection of persons with mental illness. This effort involves the development of requirements and guidelines in areas including but not limited to incident management, rights of people receiving services, criminal background checks, and training of custodians. In accordance with Chapter 501, these requirements and guidelines must be reflected, wherever appropriate, in OMH’s regulations. Consequently, the amendments incorporate the requirements in regulations and guidelines recently developed by the Justice Center.
The amendments make changes to OMH’s incident management process to strengthen the process and to provide further protection to people receiving services from harm and abuse. For example, the amendments make changes related to definitions, reporting, investigation, notification, and committee review of events and situations that occur in providers of mental health services licensed or operated by OMH. It is OMH’s expectation that implementation of the amendments will enhance safeguards for persons with mental illness, which will in turn allow individuals to focus on their recovery.
4. Costs:
(a) Costs to the Agency and to the State and its local governments: OMH will not incur significant additional costs as a provider of services. While the regulations impose some new requirements on providers, OMH expects that it will comply with the new requirements with no additional staff. There may be minimal one-time costs associated with notification and training of staff.
Chapter 501 created the Justice Center, which assumes some designated functions previously performed by OMH. The Justice Center manages the criminal background check process and conducts some investigations that had previously been conducted by OMH. OMH experienced savings associated with the reduction in staff performing these functions; however, because the staff shifted to the Justice Center, the net effect is cost neutral.
There may be some minor costs associated with necessary modifications to NIMRS (the New York Incident Management Reporting System developed by OMH) to reflect Justice Center requirements.
Any costs or savings will have no impact on Medicaid rates, prices or fees. Therefore, there is no impact on New York State in its role paying for Medicaid services.
There are no costs to local governments as there are no changes to Medicaid reimbursement.
(b) Costs to private regulated parties: It is difficult to estimate the cost impact on private regulated parties; however, OMH expects that costs to providers will be minimal. OMH already requires the reporting and investigation of incidents. The implementation of these reforms in general will not result in costs. There may also be additional costs associated with the need for medical examinations in cases of alleged physical abuse or clinical assessments needed to substantiate a finding of psychological abuse. Again, OMH is not able to estimate these cost impacts. There are no costs associated with a check of the Staff Exclusion List. Other amendments made in the rule making merely clarify existing requirements or interpretive guidance, or can be implemented without cost to the provider.
OMH anticipates that generally any potential costs incurred will be mitigated by savings that the provider will realize from the improvements to the incident management process. OMH expects that in the long term, the amendments will ultimately reduce incidents and abuse in its system and increase efficiency and quality in the reporting, investigation, notification, and review of such events. OMH is not able to quantify the minor potential costs or the savings that might be realized by the promulgation of these amendments.
5. Local Government Mandates: There are no new requirements imposed by the rule on any county, city, town, village; or school, fire, or other special district.
6. Paperwork: The new regulations require additional paperwork to be completed by providers. Examples of additional paperwork are found in new requirements pertaining to reporting reportable incidents to the Justice Center and making additional notifications. However, the Justice Center will likely predominantly utilize electronic format for incident reporting.
7. Duplication: The amendments do not duplicate any existing State or Federal requirements that are applicable to services for persons with mental illness. In some instances, the regulations reiterate current requirements in New York State law.
8. Alternatives: Current definitions of incidents in OMH regulations that require reporting and investigation exceed the criteria in the new statutory definitions in Chapter 501. OMH considered reducing or eliminating requirements applying to events and situations that do not meet the criteria in the statutory definitions for “reportable incidents.” However, OMH chose to propose the continuation of protections associated with these events and situations.
9. Federal Standards: The amendments do not exceed any minimum standards of the federal government for the same or similar subject areas.
10. Compliance Schedule: The regulations will be effective immediately upon filing to ensure compliance with Chapter 501 of the Laws of 2012. OMH intends thereafter to continue to develop and transmit implementation guidance to regulated parties to assist them with compliance.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Effect on small business: OMH has determined, through its Bureau of Inspection and Certification, that approximately 732 agencies provide services which are certified or licensed by OMH. OMH is unable to estimate the portion of these providers that may be considered to be small businesses (under 100 employees).
However, the amendments have been reviewed by OMH in light of their impact on small businesses. The regulations make revisions to OMH’s requirements for incident management which will necessitate some changes in compliance activities and may result in additional costs and savings to providers, including small business providers. However, OMH is unable to quantify the potential additional costs and savings to providers as a result of these amendments. In any event, these changes are required by statute and OMH considers that the improvements in protections for people served in the OMH system will help safeguard individuals from harm and abuse; thus, the benefits more than outweigh any potential negative impact on providers.
2. Compliance requirements: The regulations add several new requirements with which providers must comply. Amendments associated with the implementation of Chapter 501 include a requirement that providers report “reportable incidents” and deaths to the Justice Center. In addition, the regulations impose an obligation on providers to obtain an examination for physical injuries; however, OMH anticipates that providers are already obtaining examinations of physical injuries. While Chapter 501 also establishes an obligation to obtain a clinical assessment to substantiate a charge of psychological abuse, it is not immediately clear who will be responsible for obtaining, and paying for, that assessment.
Current OMH regulations require reporting and investigation of incidents, and that providers request criminal background checks. While the amendments incorporate some changes and reforms, the basic requirements are conceptually unchanged. OMH, therefore, expects that additional compliance activities (except as noted above) will be minimal. There is no associated cost with checking the Staff Exclusion List. The cost to check the Statewide Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment is $25 per check; providers serving children are already incurring this cost. However, this would represent a new cost for providers who previously did not request such checks, though this cost could be passed by the provider to the applicant.
Providers subject to these regulations are already responsible for complying with incident management regulations. The regulations enhance some of these requirements, e.g., providers must comply with the new requirement to complete investigations within a 45-day timeframe. Providers must also comply with new requirements to enhance the independence of investigators and incident review committees. However, OMH expects that additional compliance activities associated with these enhanced requirements will be minimal.
3. Professional services: There may be additional professional services required for small business providers as a result of these amendments. The definition of psychological abuse references a need to determine specific impacts on an individual receiving services by means of a clinical assessment, but it is not immediately clear at what stage in the process that assessment must be maintained or who is responsible for obtaining and paying for it. The amendments will not add to the professional service needs of local governments.
4. Compliance costs: There may be modest costs for small business providers associated with these amendments. There may be nominal costs for providers to comply with the expanded notification requirements, but OMH is unable to determine the cost impact. Furthermore, providers may experience savings if the Justice Center or OMH assumes responsibility for investigations that were previously conducted by provider staff. In the long term, compliance activities associated with the implementation of these amendments are expected to reduce future incidents and abuse, resulting in savings for providers as well as benefits to the wellbeing of individuals receiving services.
5. Economic and technological feasibility: The amendments may impose the use of new technological processes on small business providers. Providers have already been reporting incidents and abuse in NIMRS, and that technology will continue to be used. However, statutory requirements to report reportable incidents to the Justice Center in the manner specified by the Justice Center may impose new technology requirements if that is the manner specified by the Justice Center. However, this is not a direct impact caused by the regulations.
6. Minimizing adverse impact: The amendments may result in an adverse economic impact for small business providers due to additional compliance activities and associated compliance costs. However, as stated earlier, OMH expects that compliance with these new regulations will result in savings in the long term and there may be some short term savings as a result of the conduct of investigations by the Justice Center.
OMH has reviewed the regulations to determine if there were any viable approaches for minimizing adverse economic impact as suggested in section 202-b(1) of the State Administrative Procedure Act; none were readily identified. However, OMH did not consider the exemption of small businesses from these amendments or the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements since OMH considers compliance with the amendments to be crucial for the health, safety, and welfare of the individuals served by small business providers.
7. Small business participation: Chapter 501 of the Laws of 2012 was originally a Governor’s Program Bill which received extensive media attention. Providers have had the opportunity to become familiar with its provisions since it was made available on various government websites last June. Furthermore, in accordance with statutory requirements, the rule was presented to the Mental Health Services Council for review and recommendations.
8. The amendments include a penalty for violating the regulations of a fine not to exceed $1,000 per day or $15,000 per violation in accordance with section 31.16 of the Mental Hygiene Law and/or may suspend, revoke, or limit an operating certificate or take any other appropriate action, in accordance with applicable law and regulations. However, due process is available to a provider via 14 NYCRR Part 503.
Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
1. Description of the types and estimation of the number of rural areas in which the rule will apply: OMH services are provided in every county in New York State. Forty-three counties have a population of less than 200,000: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Cayuga, Chautauqua, Chemung, Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, Cortland, Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Genesee, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Livingston, Madison, Montgomery, Ontario, Orleans, Oswego, Otsego, Putnam, Rensselaer, St. Lawrence, Schenectady, Schoharie, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins, Ulster, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Wyoming and Yates. Additionally, 10 counties with certain townships have a population density of 150 persons or less per square mile: Albany, Broome, Dutchess, Erie, Monroe, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Orange, and Saratoga.
The amendments have been reviewed by OMH in light of their impact on rural areas. The regulations make revisions and in some cases enhance OMH’s current requirements for incident management programs, which will necessitate some changes in compliance activities and result in additional costs and savings to providers, including those in rural areas. However, OMH is unable to quantify the potential additional costs and savings to providers as a result of these amendments. In any event, OMH considers that the improvements in protections for people served in the OMH system will help safeguard individuals from harm and abuse and that the benefits more than outweigh any potential negative impacts on all providers.
The geographic location of any given program (urban or rural) will not be a contributing factor to any additional costs to providers.
2. Compliance requirements: The regulations add some new requirements with which providers must comply. Amendments associated with the implementation of Chapter 501 include a requirement that providers report “reportable incidents” and deaths to the Justice Center. In addition, the regulations impose an obligation on providers to obtain an examination for physical injuries, and there is a requirement that, for a finding of psychological abuse to be substantiated, a clinical assessment is needed in order to demonstrate the impact of the conduct on the individual receiving services.
Current OMH regulations require reporting and investigation of incidents, and that providers request criminal background checks. While the amendments incorporate some changes, the basic requirements are conceptually unchanged. OMH therefore expects that additional compliance activities associated with these changes will be minimal. However, there will be additional compliance activities associated with checking the Staff Exclusion List.
Providers must comply with the new requirement to complete investigations within a 45-day timeframe. Providers must also comply with new requirements to enhance the independence of investigators and incident review committees. However, OMH expects that additional compliance activities will be minimal since providers are already required to comply with existing incident management program requirements; these revisions primarily enhance current requirements.
3. Professional services: There may be additional professional services required for rural providers as a result of these amendments. The amendments will not add to the professional service needs of rural providers.
4. Compliance costs: There may be modest costs for rural providers associated with the amendments. There also may be nominal costs for rural providers to comply with the expanded notification requirements. However, all providers may experience savings if the Justice Center or OMH assumes responsibility for investigations that were previously conducted by provider staff.
In the long term, compliance activities associated with the implementation of these amendments are expected to reduce future incidents and abuse, resulting in savings for both urban and rural area providers as well as benefits to the wellbeing of individuals receiving services.
5. Minimizing adverse impact: The amendments may result in an adverse economic impact for rural providers due to additional compliance activities and associated compliance costs. However, as stated earlier, OMH expects that compliance with these enhanced regulations will result in savings in the long term and there may be some short-term savings as a result of the conduct of investigations by the Justice Center.
OMH has reviewed the regulations to determine if there were any viable approaches for minimizing adverse economic impact as suggested in section 202-b(1) of the State Administrative Procedure Act; none were readily identified. However, OMH did not consider the exemption of rural area providers from the amendments or the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements, since OMH considers compliance with the amendments to be crucial for the health, safety, and welfare of the individuals served by rural area providers.
6. Participation of public and private interests in rural areas: Chapter 501 of the Laws of 2012 was originally a Governor’s Program Bill which received extensive media attention. Providers have had the opportunity to become familiar with its provisions since it was made available on various government websites last June. Furthermore, in accordance with statutory requirements, the rule was presented to the Mental Health Services Council for review and recommendations.
Job Impact Statement
A Job Impact Statement for these amendments is not being submitted because OMH does not anticipate a substantial adverse impact on jobs and employment opportunities.
The amendments incorporate a number of reforms to improve the quality and consistency of incident management activities throughout the OMH system. However, it is not anticipated that these reforms will negatively impact jobs or employment opportunities. The amendments that impose new requirements on providers, such as additional reporting requirements and the timeframe for completion of investigations, will not result in an adverse impact on jobs. OMH anticipates that there will be no effect on jobs as agencies will utilize current staff to perform the required compliance activities.
Chapter 501 of the Laws of 2012 and these implementing regulations will also mean that some functions that are currently performed by OMH staff will instead be performed by the staff of the Justice Center. OMH expects that the volume of incidents and occurrences investigated will be roughly similar. To the extent that the Justice Center performs investigations, oversees the management of reportable incidents, and manages requests for criminal history record checks, the result is expected to be neutral in that positions lost by OMH will be gained by the Justice Center.
It is therefore apparent from the nature and purpose of the rule that it will not have a substantial adverse impact on jobs and employment opportunities.
