The Potential Cost of Medical Residential Placements to Public School Districts
The decision to place a student in a residential educational program, like all other educational placement decisions, is required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to be made by an Individualized Education Program team (IEP team) comprising professionals from the student's school district of residence and the parents.
February 22, 2019 at 04:00 PM
4 minute read
Public school districts are, by definition, not mental health service providers. However, there are times when a student's medical needs and educational needs are deemed by fact-finders to be so intertwined that students require residential placement to access their education. The decision to place a student in a residential educational program, like all other educational placement decisions, is required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to be made by an Individualized Education Program team (IEP team) comprising professionals from the student's school district of residence and the parents.
That team must decide whether the student requires a residential educational placement in order to receive a free appropriate public education. If parents disagree with an IEP team placement decision, they can initiate a special education due process hearing against their school district of residence.
However, without the resident school district's prior knowledge or input, students are sometimes deemed by Pennsylvania Medical Assistance to require residential clinical treatment due to acute medical necessity. The cost of this medical placement is funded by the insurance carrier for as long as it continues to extend such coverage.
Once the carrier determines that the student no longer requires the medical placement due to acute medical necessity, it notifies the parents that funding will imminently terminate. Parents who disagree and who are concerned about their child returning home without adequate mental health supports often look for an immediate funding source to continue the residential placement. While there may be an appeal process in place for parents to challenge their insurance carrier decisions, parents often choose to initiate a special education due process action. This is a complaint form that is simply filed online with the Pennsylvania Office for Dispute Resolution—against their resident school district, seeking to force it to pick up the residential placement bill at taxpayer expense.
If a special education hearing officer orders the resident school district to continue funding residential placement for a student, the cost to the school district may be as much as several hundred thousand dollars each year per student. This cost is diverted from educational programming for other school district students (both disabled and nondisabled).
This means that a school district that did not place the student in a residential facility for educational purposes through an IEP team decision may be left footing the full bill for a placement decision made by an insurance company for noneducational purposes once that carrier cuts funding. Because insurance companies decide to place students in medical treatment facilities without consulting the resident school district, the school district has no way of budgeting in advance for the potential number of students to whom it may be required to offer residential placements originating from these third-party medical decisions in any given school year. Thus, they are left having to scramble to find the funds, money which will necessarily be diverted from educational services for all of the students in the school district.
This potential outcome begs several questions. Will the Department of Education increase funding to our school districts so that they can meet the increasing mental health and other expenses of their special education students while still providing quality education to the rest of the student body? Will the mental health system be required to submit to tighter regulation directing it to fund-needed mental health support for our youth in a manner equal to the increasingly rigorous standards to which public school districts are held? Moreover, if the answer to these questions is no, at what point will the department and our judiciary recognize that public education simply cannot continue to function if school districts are required to fund services within the purview of other public agencies without increased support?
Gabrielle C. Goham joined Delaware County full-service law firm Raffaele Puppio in 2010 as a partner and chair of the special education department. She represents school districts, charter schools, private schools and intermediate units in special education matters.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250