Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Case Funding And Documentation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CPMT approves funding for foster care and related services after dispute over Medicaid billing documentation
Summary
After entering closed session to discuss cases, the Tazewell County CPMT approved funding for foster care, CPS, Cumberland and related services; during open session a dispute arose between a member and the coordinator about whether Medicaid billable amounts were consistently included on case summaries and about the origin of the phrase 'Medicaid process for funding has been examined.'
The Tazewell County Community Policy and Management Team on April 22 approved funding for Foster Care, Child Protective Services, Cumberland services, Court Services and Tazewell County Schools after a closed‑session review of cases.
Jeff Brintle moved and Robin Jackson seconded a motion to enter closed session to discuss those cases; the CPMT certified the closed meeting pursuant to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. Following the closed session, Ryan Thomas moved to approve funding for the cases discussed; the motion, seconded by Jeff Brintle, carried unanimously.
During the open‑session review of CSA pool funding approvals, Lori Gates‑Addison, Cumberland Mountain Community Service Board member, objected to approving payments when the Medicaid billable amount was not included in case summaries. Gates‑Addison said the current summary format left her unable to determine whether the county’s payment amounts reflected Medicaid offsets.
The coordinator responded that case managers and workers had been told repeatedly to include Medicaid billable amounts on service plans and on CSA funding summaries and that some workers complied while others had not. The coordinator further said the phrase 'Medicaid process for funding has been examined' had come from a prior meeting and had been added to summaries as a notation for audit purposes; Gates‑Addison denied that she had supplied that language and asked the coordinator to produce the minutes for verification. The coordinator said she would provide the minutes and, in the exchange, said she was 'not a liar' and that she did not need to 'make up' information.
Gates‑Addison suggested adopting a spreadsheet format used by neighboring counties to make approval summaries easier to read; the coordinator said Tazewell would not simply copy another county’s form and asked CPMT members to agree on what should be included in a new local template. The coordinator committed to sending three follow‑up emails after the meeting: typed minutes and notes concerning the disputed phrasing; a notice that Medicaid billable amounts on service plans are mandatory and that CPMT will not approve CSA funding without them on the IFSP; and a draft template for a new Tazewell County CPMT CSA Funding Request form for member feedback.
The meeting returned to open session, and members adjourned at 12:00 p.m. The next CPMT meeting is scheduled for May 20, 2024.
The transcript records the dispute over documentation and phrasing but does not resolve whether the contested wording originated with Gates‑Addison; the coordinator promised to provide the minutes to clarify the record.
