top of page
Search

Send Your Public Comments on Safety Beds!

Writer's picture: End Ohio's Parent PenaltyEnd Ohio's Parent Penalty

The Ohio Department of Medicaid is drafting a new rule regarding when Medicaid will or will not agree to cover the cost of a medically necessary safety bed. We still have a couple more days to send in our comments for consideration. Here's how to participate:


Open up a blank email. Put Rules@Medicaid.Ohio.gov in the "To" line.


In the subject line, you can write "Opposition to Unsafe and Impractical Requirements in Draft Rule OAC 5160-10-37" or any other subject line you like.


For the body of the emal, you can copy/paste our suggested comments below, or write your own. Don't forget to sign your name at the bottom.


NOTE: Public comments are public record! Do not include the name or diagnosis of your loved one!


Suggested Comments:


Good afternoon,

I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the proposed rule OAC 5160-10-37, which imposes dangerous, legally questionable, and impractical barriers to safety bed approval.


1. Violations of OAC 5123-2-06: Prohibited Restraints

The rule prompts families to "try" alternative measures, some of which are mechanical and chemical restraints explicitly prohibited under OAC 5123-2-06:

  • Chest restraints & protective helmets (mechanical restraints) require Human Rights Committee approval. Any provider who imposes them may face sanctions.

  • Sedating individuals to keep them in bed is a chemical restraint, violating OAC 5123-2-06(C)(1). Advising families to attempt sedation before approving a safety bed creates legal and ethical liability for providers.


2. Dangerous & Medically Unsound Alternatives

Several listed alternatives are inappropriate, unsafe, and ineffective:

  • Blankets, pillows, bolsters – Known suffocation hazards, especially for individuals with poor motor control.

  • Placing a mattress on the floor – Does not prevent elopement, seizures, or self-injurious behaviors.

  • Electronic monitoring – Alerts caregivers after an injury occurs; does nothing to prevent harm.

  • Behavior modification strategies – Seizures, involuntary movements, and elopement due to cognitive impairment are medical symptoms, not behaviors to be "modified."


3. Unrealistic & Burdensome Caregiver Identification Requirement

The rule requires listing all caregivers assisting with the safety bed, but:

  • Direct care agencies rotate staff constantly, meaning families cannot predict or control which DSPs are assigned.

  • This requirement invades privacy, forcing families to disclose names and relationships of unpaid caregivers (e.g., siblings, extended family, or friends).

  • No other medically necessary equipment (e.g., wheelchairs) requires disclosing caregivers—this is an unjustified government overreach.


Recommended Revisions

  1. Remove all references to prohibited mechanical & chemical restraints to prevent illegal or unethical practices.

  2. Eliminate dangerous alternatives (e.g., blankets/pillows, behavior modification) that could lead to injury or death.

  3. Acknowledge medical necessity for conditions such as epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and autism-related elopement.

  4. Remove the caregiver identification requirement—it is unworkable, intrusive, and does nothing to improve safety.


This rule, as written, prioritizes bureaucratic cost-cutting over medical necessity, ignores disability rights laws, and exposes providers to legal risks. I strongly urge ODM to revise this language to align with existing safety standards and protect individuals with disabilities.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]



83 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

コメント


Subscribe to Our Mailing List

  • White Facebook Icon

© 2024 Lindsey Sodano. Powered and secured by Wix.

bottom of page