Minutes of June 10, 2002 HIV Health Services Planning Council meeting

HIV HEALTH SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING

Meeting Date: June 10, 2002

Meeting Place: 25 Van Ness Ave., Rm. 330A

Meeting Time: 4:30pm - 7:30pm

I. Call to Order
4:30pm

II. Roll Call
See Attachment A.

III. Review and Approval of Agenda
Agenda was approved without changes.

IV. Review and Approval of Minutes
No minutes were presented for approval at this meeting.

V. General Announcements

VI. Public Comment
There was no public comment.

VII. Presentation - HIV Consumer Rights Advocacy Project
Richard Bargetto explained the Advocacy Project, and what services are provided. He stated several examples of Client Services and the agencies in his referral network. He also answered questions from Council Members.

VIII. Presentation - California Statewide Coordinated Statement of Need
Laura Thomas, SDPH, HIV Health Services, distributed copies of the California Department of Health Services, Office of AIDS and the California All-Titles Planning Group November 2001 Statewide Coordinated Statement of Need. Council Members and guests reviewed this document.

IX. Presentation - MediCal Benefits for People with HIV
Jane Gelfand, Positive Resource Center gave a lively and informative presentation on the few, yet varied, public assistance programs available for persons with HIV/AIDS in California. Many of the programs discussed, SSI, SSDI, MediCal, Medicaid, etc. have varying degrees of eligibility requirements that often are difficult for CARE clients to navigate and respond to. There were many questions from Council members regarding the difficulty for CARE clients to access public benefits, and the role benefits counseling plays in assisting them.

X. Committee Reports

Steering Committee
Discussion - Prioritization Process Laura Thomas stated that many Committees have expressed an interest in a general discussion about Council priorities (or service categories) that may be cut or eliminated, and how the Council may approach these matters. Which services are essential and which may be downsized? Eric Whitney stated that the systems work very well now, yet the current system must change to accommodate funding declines. Sam Kaplan proposed general guidelines, such as the exploration of alternative sources of funding for some services. The Needs Assessment is a good tool for prioritization and he feels confident that it represents accurately the needs of the SF CARE population. He stated his long list of priorities. Kevin Johnson stated that Mental Health is a high priority in his judgment. Cecilia Chung wants to know more about possible 'additional funding sources' and what they cover. She feels that Council Members need more information and training on these possibilities, to make informed decisions. Charlene Pugh questioned prioritizing, and Jeff Byers stated that the Eligibility criteria can be changed. Ken Pearce needs statistics of total clients served per unit of service, and amounts of unit of service per clients. LT reviewed how Title I funds may be used. (35 sub categories). Charles Siron encouraged Council Members to attend the 3-Year Plan Working Group. Elyse Graham remarked that the Needs Assessment may still leave out many persons with most severe needs including Incarcerated population and who is actually affected. Donald Frazier agrees that the AIDS Office information will help to create a better picture of populations in need. KJ suggested that some of the monies that were not being used last year can be first priority in elimination. JB reiterated that Ryan White is the funding of last resort, and it is necessary to know the funding cuts. Jim Illig suggested using REGGIE information to track where and what clients will be using most and identifying high-need clients.

Services vs. needs? EW stated that either 'across the board' cuts can apply, or if the Council needs to prioritize if a greater amount is cut. Jim Mitulski challenges all Members to think outside the box and consider funding most essential programs, and perhaps increasing the most essential needs. CG questioned eligibility requirements and the need to analyze. Cost per unit of service, looking at emerging populations and trends, needs assessment analysis, utilization.

Updates from committees were postponed until the next Council meeting.
Membership Committee
PWA Caucus Committee
Housing Committee
Implementation & Evaluation Committee

XI. New Business
There was no new business
XII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 7:30pm