T• Recommend Spend-down for all Long-Term Care waiver categories. This language is already in
the CCC+ waiver. This language should be moved to all categories.
• B.3. Recommend that Patient Pay be considered an Income Related Work Expense (IRWE).
IRWEs are already considered when countable earned income is considered. Reasoning -
without waiver services, an individual would not be earning at the level they are earning. But,
earning at a higher level is forcing them to incur a Patient Pay. This is a disincentive to earn
wages at a higher level.
• Recommend Special Group Category Consideration – SSI/SSDI waiver recipients increasingly
have retired, disabled or deceased parents and the waiver recipient’s income increases because
their parent’s FICA account is opened and a portion of this account is received by the waiver
recipient. This amount (now SSDI) often puts the waiver recipient over the 300% gross income
limit. The first thing the individual does is quit work if working. These individuals should be put in
a “protected category” which will disregard the amount of the new income (SSDI) that will cause
them to become ineligible for waiver services. This protection is considered when looking at
continued Medicaid eligibility. (https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/Inx/0501715015)
• Recommend Subsidies and Special Conditions as deduction for wages earned (per SSA
definitions). If the individual is not fully earning his or her wages because the work is performed
under special conditions (e.g. close and continuous supervision, on the job coaching, etc), then
we should deduct that part of his or her wages that are not “earned” by the individual from his/her
average gross wages. This is true whether or not the employer or someone else provides the
special on-the-job conditions. Most work supports that an individual receives in order to earn
income is provided under LTC (i.e. transportation, personal attendant services, job coaching, etc).
However, under current Medicaid LTC regulations, if they earn over 300% of federal benefit rate
(FBR), they are penalized. Many individuals do not have the out-of-pocket expenses that are
needed to bring down countable earned income due to the LTC supports that they are receiving
at no cost to them. However, they would not be earning at the level that they are earning without
the waiver provided supports. Subsidies and Special Conditions would give value to the supports
that are provided to the individual that enables them to work and earn income.
https://www.ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/wi/subsidies.htm
• Recommend the addition of the following language - “The support coordinator is responsible for
determining which Waiver provider will receive the greater Medicaid reimbursement, and will
therefore be responsible for collecting the Medicaid co-payment from the individual. The support
coordinator will notify all Waiver providers which provider will collect the monthly co-payment and
in what amount. Notification will be in writing from the support coordinator to the individual and to
all Waiver providers.”
12VAC30-122-80. Waiver approval process; authorizing and accessing services.
• C.3.- add at the end “and other service plans as applicable.”
• C.4.- Following initiated within change “30 days” to “90 days,” Taking into account the existing
workforce recruitment timeframes, training requirements, etc., services may not realistically be 
initiated in only 30 days. If there are other requirements to notify DSS within that timeframe then
the 30-day requirement in line 4 will have to remain. Ensure that references to days (days vs.
calendar days) are consistent. There are a variety of reasons that can create a delay of service
initiation beyond 30 days. The individual should not be penalized by having to undergo another
financial eligibility determination because the provider does not initiate services in a timely
manner. It is unlikely that there would be a significant change in financial circumstances within a
30-day period. Furthermore, since the individual/family have up to 30 days to contact the
provider, should this contact be made on day 29, services clearly could not be initiated by day 30.
• C.6.c.- Following approve change “suspend” to “pend” whh is the terminology currently utilized
when seeking more information.
12VAC30-122-90. Waiting list; criteria; slot assignment; emergency access; reserve slots.
• C.1.a. – Following care for the individual add “a primary care giver who is 70 years of age or
greater”. While we recognize that the age criterion was removed during the “redesign,” we feel
that the impact has been significant on older families. It also limits the family’s ability to assist
their adult children to make life decisions before it is an emergency.
• C.1.a- Following there are no strike “other”
• C.1.b.(1)- Following effectively managed strike “by the primary caregiver or unpaid provider”. Not
everyone has a primary caregiver.
• C.1.b.(2)- Following managed strike “by the primary caregiver”
• C.1.d- Following IDEA services and strike “is transitioning to independent living” and add “has
expressed a desire to live independently”
• E.3- Strike “A regional WSAC session will then be held for the remainder of available slots,
reviewing those individuals meeting criteria for the Priority Two and then Priority Three.” We feel
strongly that all slots should be for the Priority 1 list – if the service array in the BI Waiver is not
attractive to those on Priority 1 then either the slots should be re-purposed or the service array
should be changed.
12VAC30-122-120. Provider requirements.
• A.4.- Change “30 calendar days” to “90 calendar days” (See comment above in Section 80)
• A.5.- Strike “medically necessary services and supplies” and add “services and supports”
• A.6.- Strike “supplies” and add “supports”
• A.10.d- Strike “Such documentation shall be written on the date of service delivery.” This is not in
keeping with the definition of Progress Note in 122-20 and as referenced earlier in comments.
• A.10.d- Strike “medical” in the first sentence
• A.10.f- Add “if applicable” within the parenthetical phrase “including specific timeframe”
• A.13- Change 37.2-600 to 37.2-607
• A.14- Strike “-s of Licensing and”. Abuse and neglect are reported to the Office of Human Rights
not the Office of Licensing.
• D- Strike “may” add “shall” in last sentence. If the purpose is to improve or remove poor
providers - then this should not be an option.
12VAC30-122-180. Orientation testing; professional competency requirements; advanced
competency requirements.
• A.2. refers to the standardized test as “DMAS approved” while the 2016 version of the regulations
refers to the test as “DBHDS” approved. Please clarify which agency must approve the test,
describe the process of approval, and include a list of approved standardized tests and resources
for providers.
• C5. The orientation is a knowledge-based assessment, while the competencies are both
knowledge and action based. On many of the competencies, you are required to assess action
and knowledge. Where I have found the deficiencies to be is in the action part of the
competencies. Therefore, retaking the orientation test is not a valid way of training for action.
Having statewide readily available online training tools for the competencies from department
would be helpful.
• D.1- The reference should to the “personnel file” not the “provider record”
• D.2- Change sentence to “Completed documentation from the online certificate shall be
maintained in the Personnel File.”
• E.7- Add “only” before specific to the needs; and following specific to the needs strike “and level”
• E.8- add “only” before “specific to the needs”; strike “and service levels”. These changes clarify
the intent have the advanced competencies applicable as the needs of the individual requires.
12VAC30-122-190. Individual support plan; plans for supports; reevaluation of service need.
• A.8- Add “by the support coordinator” before with a copy of the. This clarifies that the support
coordinator is responsible for providing a copy of the ISP to the individual family.
12VAC30-122-200. Supports Intensity Scale®
requirements; Virginia Supplemental Questions;
levels of support; supports packages.
• A.1- Delete “to 72” and add “or older” after “years of age.” If the SIS is only validated to age 72
then language should be added to automatically assign all individuals age 72 or older to Level 5,
Tier 4. Level 5 is the highest level denoting significant need in general but not specifying it to
medical or behavioral. Tier 4 is mid-range denoting significant need, which is appropriate for an
aging population. However, there should be a statement that these individuals shall not be
excluded from consideration of an individualize rate because of medical or behavioral needs.
• Recommend the addition of “Individuals who are older than 72 years of age shall be assessed
using either the SIS or an alternative instrument (alternative instrument or instruments to be
named in the regulations).”
• A.2.a - Change “three” to “four” to stay consistent with the CL application
• A.4.- DELETE. The specific scoring protocol should be in a Medicaid Memo, not in the
regulations.
• D – DELETE entre section/paragraph. This is a reserved section intended to explain the
establishment of supports packages as a profile of the mix and extent of services anticipated to
be needed by individuals with similar levels, needs and abilities. Due to 2019 General Assembly
budget language which prohibits the implementation of supports packages unless specifically
authorized by the General Assembly, this section is not necessary.
• Add a new D – “Requires that the results of the SIS be provided within 10 days of scoring in an
understandable format and that the service coordinated be required to explain the results and
implications of the SIS score and avenues of appeal.”
• Add a new E.- “An automatic, independent review of the SIS administration process and results
when an individual’s SIS Score changes despite a lack of change in their health or other
circumstances, upon request.”
12VAC30-122-210. Payment for covered services (tiers).
• A.4.e. – Modify the language to “The DMAS designee shall review each individual’s needs on at
least…..” An individual’s needs are being reviewed not an individual themselves.
• C.1. Recommend an increase to the $5,000 annual limit on assistive technology deemed
appropriate to the cost and utility of today’s technology. The current limit is years old and has not
kept up with changes in technology and/or the emphasis on expanding the use of technology to
replace more cost intensive staffing services. If raising the overall limit is not feasible at this time,
we recommend adopting a multi-year limit, such as $10,000 over the course of two years, etc.
This would allow greater flexibility for individuals to accommodate upfront costs of purchasing
new assistive technology without raising the overall multi-year dollar limits. The limit is also
included in 12VAC30-122-270 Assistive technology service.
• C 1: Recommend an increase to the $5,000 annual limit for environmental modifications from the
current maximum annual cap of $5,000 to a level deemed appropriate to the cost of such
modifications. This limit is years old and it is increasingly difficult for families and individuals to
secure modifications that will allow them to remain in their homes over their lifespan for this small
amount of funding. If raising the overall limit is not feasible at this time, we recommend adopting a
multi-year limit, such as $10,000 over the course of two years. This would allow greater flexibility
for individuals to accommodate upfront costs of purchasing new environmental modifications
without raising the overall multi-year dollar limits.