ILNews

DCS settles final issue stemming from 2009 suit over rate cuts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Department of Child Services announced Tuesday that is has reached a legal settlement with IARCCA, an Association of Children & Family Services, over rates paid to cover additional staffing costs and cost-of-living expenses to residential facilities and foster care agencies that serve abused and neglected children.

The settlement says that DCS will primarily adjust cost-of-living rates to providers and pay for additional staff per child with providers. According to a statement released by DCS, the settlement agreement provides a one-year adjustment on rates for 2013. The state estimates the adjustment will cost $15 million.

In 2009, IARCCA filed a lawsuit after DCS said it would cut rates paid to the agencies that provide foster care placements and intensive residential treatment for children who are abused or neglected, beginning in 2010.

After changes in Indiana property tax law in 2008 shifted responsibility of payments for provider services to state government from county governments, DCS realized that there was a wide range of pricing of services among providers.

DCS contracts with IARCCA’s members to provide services to children as described in Title IV-E of the Federal Social Security Act.

Since the suit was filed, IARCCA and DCS have settled other issues cited in the suit. In 2011, the two reached an agreement regarding the reimbursement rate cuts. Stephanie McFarland, spokeswoman for DCS, said that the settlement announced Tuesday stems from a 2011 filing in the original lawsuit. Now that the issue over rates paid to cover more staff and cost-of-living expenses has been settled, no issues from the 2009 suit remain.

IARCCA Executive Director Cathleen Graham said in the statement that her membership is pleased with the settlement result. She noted that further work needs to be done, and IARCCA is “equally pleased that DCS agreed to meet regularly in partnership to enhance Indiana’s child welfare system. It takes both the public and private sectors working together to truly meet the complex needs of the abused, neglected and delinquent children and their families.”

For nearly three years, DCS has been trying to implement consistent rates for providers across the state based on actual costs incurred. McFarland said DCS is on course to achieve that goal.

“Although costs vary from region to region within the state, rates are tied to actual and verifiable costs, so the range of rates is not as large as what had been the case prior to 2009,” she said. “Administrative rules have been established regarding rates, and this settlement acknowledges those rules.”
 

IARCCA was represented by Faegre Baker Daniels LLP; James Payne, the named defendant in the suit and former director of DCS, was represented by Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP and Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT