{"report_id":187,"form_id":"23","user_id":81,"organization_id":10,"question_id":"120","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"The provider issuing a person a service termination as necessary for her welfare and her needs couldn\u2019t be met was strongly influenced by the fact that available external mental health and crisis services required a person to be in danger of losing their housing. The provider noted that they did not have an actual intention of terminating the person\u2019s services, but instead wanted to ensure that the person could access needed mental health services. The case manager had difficulty in finding other providers to work with her due to a lack of appropriate crisis services available statewide and so requested that the provider issue the service termination to help access alterative crisis and mental health services. People with a residential placement are deprioritized on crisis service waiting lists as priority must be given to people without or in danger of losing housing. There are also few locked facilities in Minnesota, which the team thoughtT this person could need to help manage the person\u2019s escalating elopement and physical aggression concerns. This lack of locked facilities in Minnesota is impacted by the state\u2019s regulations that focus on providing services in a least restrictive setting, the Olmstead vs. LC lawsuit, Minnesota\u2019s Olmstead Plan, Minnesota Statute 245D and the Jensen Settlement \u2013 which created the need for Minnesota\u2019s Olmstead Plan and the stronger focus on utilizing less restrictive settings. Minnesota\u2019s Moratorium on foster care and other residential settings (ICF\/DDs) also prevented providers from opening settings that were sometimes seen as more restrictive settings, leaving fewer options for people who may need this type of environment.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"6\/11\/2021 1:59:14 pm","created_at":"6\/11\/2021 1:59:14 pm","id":44277}