Ventura County*

Fiscal has no knowledge of how the Operations Committee members conduct their business.

Fiscal has no knowledge of how the Oversight Committee conduct their business.

Fiscal has no knowledge of any statements that were made regarding this issue.

Disagree The County has a choice to participate or not participate in the 奎 voluntary SACPA allocation reduction.

Agree If the annual reporting is referring to the County Plan, direct treatment services include the Central Assessment Center.

Agree The County Prop 36 Plan was presented on the June 8, 2004 Board letter.

Disagree Total available funding was $3,945,652 per the June 8, 2004 w/ Board letter, however, the requested budget was $3,331,341 Interpretat leaving a balance of $614,311 funding for FY05-06 (See ion by G.J Schedule A attached).

Disagree Percentages for the "core treatment services" in the board letter w/ are intended for the provider contract services only. However, Interpretat these "core treatment services" percentages were applied by ion by G.J the Grand Jury to the total 75% "direct substance abuse treatment" costs in Table 2, F-227. (See Schedule An attached).

Disagree 1) FY04-05 Allocation Amount: It appears that the column represented the "core treatment services" percentage for the total "direct treatment services" which did not agree with the Board letter's intent 2) FY03-04 Actual Expenditures: The column data does "not" match HCA fiscal data. It is not known where the Grand Jury obtained the data for this schedule. (Note: The bottom of and top of of the report indicates the Auditor/Controller's office supplied accounting transaction information.) 3) Current FY Expenditure (Thru May 2005): HCA fiscal provided the County's May 2005 "Detail Listing of Obligation VS. Budget (A103)" report. However, the Grand Jury schedule only matches on the CSA/CAC-Salaries and Benefits line. Other amounts on the Grand Jury schedule 7/27/2005 <b>Confidential Working Draft</b> Ventura County 2004-05 Grand Jury Report Response To Prop. Fiscal Findings: do not agree with the data submitted to them. 4) Current FY Budget: The column total in the Grand Jury report is $2,899,407 and the County A103 Report provided is $2,839,407. The Grand Jury report is overstated by $60,000 which appears to be a duplication in "CAS/CAC - Everything Else" line.

Disagree Amounts shown in Table 2 per this reference, do not agree with information submitted to Grand Jury by HCA. It is possible that the A/C submitted other information.

Fiscal has no knowledge of the CAS assessment program hours.

23%<br>2% F-231<br>F-232

Fiscal can only confirm CAS space of 5,900 square feet.

[| Agee | s—“—S™SOSOCSOOCOCOCOCOCOCSC“‘SCSCN Agee [OO HCA can not respo nd to Probation Budget. F-235 F-236 No comment, editorial by Grand Jury. However, if ADP has the funding to provide services for the Prop 36 clients F-237 treatment, this will enable HCA to have more funding in the To F-238 Prop 36 budget for other cost. F-239 gree | The County utilized SATTA (Substance Abuse Treatment & . Testing Accountability) funding from ADP. C-01 to C-22 — No fiscal issues raised in Conclusions 01 — 22. C-23 to C-25 | Disagree | Treatment providers were paid based on the negotiated contract rates in agreements signed by both parties. The negotiated rate is all- inclusive of direct and indirect costs. It is a very common business practice to only reimburse for units of services to the clients. As an example, doctor bills a patient for services rendered and the rate charged covers all the doctor’s overhead costs of operation. There is no separate bill for administration costs of billing, collecting, etc. as these costs are built into the rate. However, it should be noted that the providers claim they are not able to collect on the copays from the clients that the Court determined. This appears to be a major factor in the providers total reimbursement concerns. 712712005 Confidential Working Draft Ventura County 2004-05 Grand Jury Report Response To Prop. Fiscal Findings: The County pays the providers per Board approved contract | terms as agreed to by the providers. HCA has no authority to make additional payments beyond the contracted rates. To go back to prior years and pay providers “accrued accounts receivable” would require contract changes. It should be noted that the providers claim they are not able to collect the copay amounts required of the clients by the Courts. This appears to be a point of discrepancy in the total payments the providers were expecting to collect. 712712005 S00z/e/8 , ™ jeosiy wou Aq poredelg “Wodeu ysoo jenuue jenjoe jeuy oly WIM ee/6e 0} paysn[pe eq |IIM SO/0E/9 Ie SWIBID JSOD jenuUY oF dol peyBWRSy (q) "S6p'Z68'Z$ 3B JSOO JUEURBEI %GZ OL) 0} eLBdWOD SB OOL'SLLS Aq Yo S| ¢ EIGEL Ul {B10} Spun; jUBUNBeL! :ZE7Y - Nodes Ain pues EYL (dD) "SOOINES JUEURREL) SJUBIIO 9¢ dold 10} }eBpNq dav elf O} 000'SZ$ JO UORBOOTI2B UB SepNjoU pun; ysmy gE doug EYL (a) yeBpnq SVS 1210} OY} 0} Joyo" pseog p0/9/9 WO % SEOINES JUEWUESIL BOD OLY peyeoo|e Podeu Ainr pueig oy} yeu suBedde }] (\y) JeyUed JUEWUSSEssY |EUED dVS/GHE - SVD :810N - UORBOOIIY 8181S ceed (9) _g6z'OL2'% Tk = reI0L, beers JOUIO 1210} ng Buyalj seqos go6'rZ UONBOYIXOJEp /EO|PE/y 26r'Sel't ZEr'6rs Nag juaHedjno €@2'6627'b jueWReIL JeHUEpIseY yUSWEEN Esnge eoURISgNs eNIG.%SGZ | Zro'vgh'e [eee'tec’c | r Burpun [e901 ; ~ (xoyep Jedipew) yueuneey jeyuewejddns JO) JOIIE Z€0'288 | 000'006 ZOv'OLL %2Z OOV'OLL %G2 ges'zes AousBy uojeqoid - eoRSsne jeujWED s6r'z6s'z | ogo'res'z | [oreeerz —==s«|med BtE'rlg'z %SL 90S‘86r'% 89 22 , 3809 2e-v Aunog ogt‘os wejsks SO U0 UoRe}oesdeg geg'sse'L J9]U9D JuELUSSessY 20262 : dQv - 3809 yusujeesl © ¢83'0e6 ge dolg -}s0D JuoUjealL SVD -9AS $ jueunEeN asnqe eourysqns jeg Bulpuny siqeyeae [e}01 (90-S0Ad 40 unowe perlesey) - .90-S0 03 yOed PIPH, 000‘000'F oe ¥r0'080'L ‘Bulpuny JOAoOY og9'9se'z. g09'S98'z UORBOOITY 9121S 90-S0 g0/0e/9 yodey (a) se6png SUUIEID SOD Jenuuy |- Aunp pueig peydopy (q) 9¢ dalg 383 Aine pueig V 9inpeyos , _ Hodey Aunr puelg so-p00zZ Ajunoa eine,

F-236 No comment, editorial by Grand Jury. However, if ADP has the funding to provide services for the Prop 36 clients

HCA can not respond to Probation Budget.

No comment, editorial by Grand Jury. However, if ADP has the funding to provide services for the Prop 36 clients treatment, this will enable HCA to have more funding in the Prop 36 budget for other cost.

The County utilized SATTA (Substance Abuse Treatment & Agree Testing Accountability) funding from ADP. C-01 to C-22 No fiscal issues raised in Conclusions <math>01 - 22</math>. C-23 to C-25 Disagree Treatment providers were paid based on the negotiated contract rates in agreements signed by both parties. The negotiated rate is all-inclusive of direct and indirect costs. It is a very common business practice to only reimburse for units of services to the clients. As an example, doctor bills a patient for services rendered and the rate charged covers all the doctor's overhead costs of operation. There is no separate bill for administration costs of billing, collecting, etc. as these costs are built into the rate. However, it should be noted that the providers claim they are not able to collect on the copays from the clients that the Court determined. This appears to be a major factor in the providers total reimbursement concerns. 7/27/2005 Confidential Working Draft Ventura County 2004-05 Grand Jury Report Response To Prop. Fiscal Findings: