To protect individuals from unwanted and unneeded restrictions of their rights by community providers, the State of Kansas requires that restrictive treatments be presented to and approved by that agency's human rights (behavior management) committee. This creates a couple of problems.
First, each provider and provider agency, regardless of size, is required to have an HRC. At best this means inconsistency between committees and, at worst, it means that committees may act on behalf of the provider rather than the individual.
Second, some providers assume that if another HRC has approved the treatment plan, their agency that serves the same individual does not need to give approval. Other providers insist that their agency's HRC must also approve the treatment plan. Ultimately, there's the potential for shopping around treatment plans between HRCs to find one that approves as well as the potential for an urgently needed treatment to be slowed down or even nixed by one of the several HRCs that are required to review it.
I'd like to know how this is handled elsewhere.