Comment #5: Conflicts of Interest in Person Centered Planning and Self-Determination

[This is a continuation of my comments to the Michigan Department of Community Health on proposed changes to the Self-Determination Guideline.]

Participants in person centered planning should be reminded that its purpose is to serve the individual. It is important to recognize possible conflicts of interest with this goal:

• Community Mental Health (CMH) agencies are not immune from making unwise and uninformed decisions about people with DD based on their own lack of knowledge and conflicts of interest that put administrative convenience and the desire to save money ahead of the interests of the individual.   
• Service providers may have a financial interest in persuading a person with DD to choose their services over others.  
• Professional advocates promoting Self-Determination who espouse an ideology of full inclusion, the idea that everyone should lead a life fully integrated in the community, often support limitations on choice and restrictions on access to specialized programs that serve people with DD, regardless of the needs or desires of the individual or his or her family. Other conflicts of interest arise when an advocacy organization purporting to represent the interests of people with disabilities, receives funding to promote Self-Determination over other options or to provide services to implement Self-Determination arrangements such as fiscal intermediary services or “independent facilitation” of person centered planning. [A quick Google search brings up three organizations in southeastern Michigan - the ARC of Oakland County, The ARC of Northwestern Wayne County, and the ARC of Western Wayne County - that provide such services.] Whether an advocate is acting on behalf of the individual or on behalf of the organization as a service provider is brought into question.

When guardians have conflicts of interest that interfere with their duties, this is a matter for consideration by the Probate Court, not CMH or other participants in person centered planning. Person centered planning that leads to the development of Self-Determination arrangements is a cooperative effort that should promote the exchange of ideas about how best to serve the individual, but ultimately the guardian’s opinion is a stand-in for that of the individual in areas where the person is unable to make or communicate his or her own decisions. Sometimes a guardian who intervenes on behalf of the disabled loved-one is the only line of defense for a vulnerable person placed in harm’s way.

The proposed Self-Determination Guideline correctly recognizes the need to put the interests of the individual first, but it presumes that the guardian, because the guardian has authority to speak on behalf of the ward, has somehow usurped the rights of the individual and will not honor the wards needs and preferences. Furthermore, the only parties that would be sanctioned in this proposed Guideline for a perceived conflict of interest are the guardian and the individual for whom the guardian speaks. The Guideline would allow CMH to suspend or deny Self-Determination arrangements based solely on the individual’s status as ward and the presumption that the Guardian does not truly represent the interests of the ward. This is blatant discrimination and should not be part of any state policy for providing services to people with DD.