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
Remove all references to prohibited mechanical & chemical restraints to prevent illegal or unethical practices.
Eliminate dangerous alternatives (e.g., blankets/pillows, behavior modification) that could lead to injury or death.
Acknowledge medical necessity for conditions such as epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and autism-related elopement.
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]
コメント