TOPSHAM

Care providers would like to see more advocacy and oversight for the developmentally disabled, and a pair of proposed state bills might do just that.

There will be hearings for two bills — that would require more oversight for the care of developmentally disabled residents — today.

The first calls for improved advocacy for the developmentally disabled. A second bill would allow for more access into Department of Health and Human Services investigations of suspicious deaths. The bills are in response to a federal audit last year that showed the state failed to investigate deaths in group homes for the developmentally disabled, and only investigated a small number percentage of abuse complaints received.

Ray Nagel, the executive director for the Independence Association, said the bill has overwhelming support from care providers.

“Every provider I know wants these two bills to pass,” he said. “These two entities would keep

DHHS on their toes.”

Nagel explained providers would welcome increased oversight into neglect or unexplained deaths, as most situations are usually explainable after an investigation. Without a proper investigation, however, a cloud is left over providers as well as the state. Currently, the state doesn’t have the necessary resources in place, according to Nagel.

“The state is woefully understaffed,” he said. “They can’t address the volume of incidents that occur.”

A number of things could trigger a report, including an emergency room visit. Nagel believes if the bill passed, allowing the Developmental Services Oversight and Advisory board access to DHHS investigations, it would reveal a number of deficiencies in the state’s staffing.

The bill seeking to reestablish an office of advocacy has already been amended, as it is now seeking for the office to operate within DHHS. The original office of advocacy was discontinued once Gov. Paul LePage took office. Nagel said money that once went to the office of advocacy was then given to Disability Rights Maine.

He believes the office of advocacy worked more efficiently than Disability Rights Maine. The office of advocacy had individuals who worked in the field, he said, and could better respond to problems with care providers.

Richard Estabrook, a former chief advocate for the Office of Advocacy, echoed Nagel’s sentiments that an internal agency was needed to better advocate for those with intellectual disabilities. He also believes the state needs to be able to fund such an agency for people’s needs to be met.

“An internal agency typically works better when advocating for a certain group,” Estabrook said. “It needs to be publicly funded in nature. You are advocating for people that may not have the resources to do so.”

chris@timesrecord.com

The Times Record Sustaining Sponsor
We believe a community must be informed to thrive. bowdoin.edu