This is a comment to the entry, APD Changes.  This gives some clarification and slightly different point of view.  Thanks for your comment.

I have received this email as published at APD Changes also. I would also look at the descriptors. Your support coordinator can give you a copy.

I do know that the agency that operates the group home where my brother lives has had clients Res Hab reviewed. (This includes minimal level clients which means the possibility of clients being bumped down to basic level.) The email you posted did not have that rate for basic level but I think it is someting like 1,100 dollars.

I have heard that it is APD’s view that the organization APD had contracted with to approve services (and the level of those services) had been approving services incorrectly. APD no longer contracts with that agency and is approving services on there own (I think).

It appears from the email you posted that group home clients are being warned to review their support plans to make sure the support plan justifies the level of Res Hab. There appears to be an assumption that there is a problem with the way support plans are written.

I do not understand the line, “but the judge will only be looking at what was actually submitted. You will not be allowed to give the judge more documentation during your hearing”

If the problem is a support plan that was written incorrectly by a support coordinator and wrongly approved, why can’t a client inter new information that shows they need the service? It does make you wonder about the recent requirement on insurance (a long standing requirement that was never inforced). Will support coordinators become responcible for the loss services because of poorly written support plans?

One other thing. I wonder why the email you posted (unless I missed it) does not include supervision of self administration of medication under minimal Res Hab (the copy of the descriptors I have list that). In that every group home I know of administers the medication I would think this requirement would be met.