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
© 2024 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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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