May 27, 2022
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this public comment.
Please note: In this document, I will use the term “peer supporter” as a general reference to the Peer Recovery Specialist, Family Support Partner, and Youth Support Partner.
As the peer support workforce in Virginia has grown and continues to grow, we now have the role of Youth Support Partner (YSP). This form of peer support is a young adult, typically 18 – 30 years of age, who have direct system(s) experience as a youth. The YSP is in recovery from their behavioral health challenges and is assigned to work with children, adolescents, and/or young adults to support them on their recovery journey. A portion of the YSPs currently working in Virginia have completed the PRS Training and are working on obtaining their certification as a PRS. I would offer to add this role as a recognized form of peer support by DMAS. I would suggest adding this title in all areas that reference “Peer Support Services and Family Support Partners” to state: Peer Support Services, Family Support Partners, and Youth Support Partners.
As peer support is a universal form of support for youth, their family members and individuals on their recovery journey, regardless if it’s mental health or substance use-related, is it possible to not segregate ARTS-specific information from mental health-specific information? I would offer to remove these references to reflect peer support as a form of support for anyone on a recovery journey.
Throughout this document, there are references to “mental health conditions and substance use disorders” and “mental health and substance use disorders”. With the needs of youth, they may not necessarily have actual diagnoses of mental health and/or substance use disorders, however, they do display challenging behaviors. There may be youth with school-related needs that stem from their behaviors, resulting in a 504 Plan or an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Only using the reference to “mental health and substance use disorders”, may exclude these youth and their caregivers from receiving peer support services that could be instrumental in supporting positive outcomes for these individuals and the overall education system. I would offer to expand the description of caregivers being eligible for a Family Support Partner to include “youth with mental health, emotional and/or behavioral challenges, and/or substance use challenges”. I would offer the same reference for youth who may benefit from the direct support of a Youth Support Partner.
In addition, this document has multiple references to “his or her”; I would offer to use the term “their” to be more gender-inclusive.
PEER RECOVERY SUPPORT SERVICES
1ST Paragraph:
2ND Paragraph:
DEFINITIONS:
Provider Enrollment
While it is appreciated that this list has been expanded to incorporate more environments that a peer supporter could be utilized to impact a youth, their Caregiver and/or an individual’s recovery journey, this list is exclusive to the variety of peer-run agencies, Recovery Community Organizations, and the like, that are located throughout Virginia. Maintaining this exclusionary list will negatively impact the accessibility to the evidence-based model of peer support for those either in recovery or wanting to start their recovery journey. I would offer to add to both the ARTS and MH sections – “Recovery Community Organizations approved by DBHDS’s Office of Recovery Services”; and “Peer-Run agencies approved by DBHDS’s Office of Recovery Services”.
The ARTS list of providers has the General Acute Care Hospital and Hospital Emergency Department listed separately. The MH list has them combined in the first listing. I would offer to replicate the MH entry (#1.) in the ARTS list to maintain consistency.
Peer Recovery Specialists
Peer Support Services and Family Support Partners shall be rendered by a PRS who: Being that there two different definitions for Peer Support Services and Family Support Partners, using “PRS” here seems to actually be excluding the FSP role, based on the definition listed in this manual for the Peer Support Services.
In considering the effects of language and the fact that peer support services are nonclinical, I would offer the following: remove the term “caseload” and replace it with “assignment load”; remove the term “client” and replace it with “youth”, “Caregiver” and “individual”; or remove it all together to reflect “…time allowing for new assignments as those…”
In addition, I believe assignment loads (FT – 15/ PT – 9) should be determined by the Supervisor and their peer support staff based on the peer supporter’s availability and ability to effectively provide the service, as well as the program’s needs. Does DMAS offer these types of limitations on other professions?
Supervision of Peer Recovery Specialists
I would offer to expand this reference to include the Family Support Partner.
Direct Supervision of the PRS shall be provided as needed…
As referenced in the section above, supervision needs should be determined by the Supervisor based on their program’s needs. I would offer to remove numbers one and two in this section. Also, are these recommendations stipulated in other professions?
Service Delivery
ARTS – Peer Support Services
ARTS Family Support Partners
DOCUMENTATION OF REQUIRED ACTIVITIES
Recovery, Resiliency, and Wellness Plan
Review of Recovery, Resiliency, and Wellness Plan
Progress Notes
In this section, add “or Caregiver as applicable” where “member” is referenced.
Care Coordination Documentation
SERVICE AUTHORIZATION AND BILLING:…
LIMITATIONS:…
Respectfully submitted,
Cristy A. Corbin, CPRS
President-Family Support Partners of Virginia, Inc.
804.723.1215