ILNews

Nonprofit sues over DCS rate cuts

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A nonprofit organization made up of agencies that provide services to abused and neglected kids is suing the Indiana Department of Child Services for cutting rates paid to the agencies next year.

The Indiana Association of Residential Child Care Agencies Inc. filed suit Monday against DCS and director James W. Payne in Marion Superior Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

DCS contracts with IARCCA's members to provide services to children as described in Title IV-E of the Federal Social Security Act, which include foster care placements and residential placements. About 80 members provide services that include a residential component.

According to the suit, No. 49D11-0912-PL-056480, the DCS informed residential members earlier this month that the rates for 2010 will be cut between 4 and 14 percent and no less than 20 percent for licensed child placing agencies. DCS allegedly told the licensed child placing agencies that it would transfer the children to other locations if the providers didn't sign the new contracts with the lower rates within five days of receipt.

The contracts provide for a per diem rate set by DCS, but there is no written explanation as to how these reimbursement rates are calculated.

IARCCA accuses the DCS of failing to establish any rules or method by which it sets provider reimbursement rates and that DCS arbitrarily is cutting rates paid to providers.

IARCCA says the cuts will affect the quality of the children's care, result in higher ratios of children to staff supervisors, higher caseloads for therapists, and reductions of tutoring and mentoring programs.

IARCCA wants the court to declare that DCS' setting of per diem rate payments to providers other than pursuant to promulgated rules violates Indiana Code Section 4-22 and Title IV-E. IARCCA also seeks a preliminary injunction preventing DCS from reducing its rates until it has promulgated rules governing the establishment of per diem rates, and permanent injunctive relief requiring the agency to set rates and to change rates in accordance with written standards in state and federal law. IARCCA also wants relief to prevent DCS from taking any action concerning children in the care of providers based solely on decisions about the rates to providers.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT