In arguing for Fernald's closure in a brief filed this past March with the appeals court, the administration said only that it wanted to close Fernald. It made no mention of the possibility of the closure of any of the other five remaining facilities. In fact, the brief appeared to seek to reassure the court in this regard, stating:
DMR currently has sufficient capacity to meet the needs of all Fernald class members in the community or, if families choose and it is appropriate, in an ICF/MR (state facility). (emphasis added)
The brief didn't happen to mention, 'oh, by the way, we're going to close four of the those six remaining ICFs/MR by the year 2013.'
The brief, in fact, went on to note that “each (remaining) ICF has the ability to provide equal or better services” to Fernald residents who might be transferred there. It's hard to believe that in March of this year, when the administration filed this brief, the just-announced plans to close four of those six facilities were not already in the works.
In fact, we had long suspected that these plans have been in the works since the start of the Patrick administration.
Interestingly, when Patrick was running for governor in 2006, the Massachusetts Coalition for Families and Advocates for the Retarded, Inc. (COFAR) repeatedly sought his views on keeping Fernald and the other facilities open. There was strong hope that he would break with the Romney administration and side with the facilities and the family members. The Patrick campaign, however, never responded to the COFAR questionnaire sent him nor to several subsquent requests for a response.
Similary, during his first six months in office, Patrick declined to disclose his plans even with regard to Fernald. It was only after Judge Tauro issued his order in August 2007 that Fernald must remain open as an option to its current residents that the administration disclosed its position on Fernald by appealing Tauro's order to the appeals court.
In announcing the appeal in September 2007, Secretary of Health and Human Services JudyAnn Bigby was quick to issue the following supposedly reassuring statement to the familes of the Fernald residents:
We understand and respect that people who have lived much of their lives in institutions and their families may wish to continue instiution-based services. The Department of Mental Retardation will ensure that these residents will have an opportunity for placement at one of Massachusetts' remaining institutions.
Funny that this statement also didn't mention, 'oh, by the way, in addition to Fernald, we're going to close three of those remaining institutions by the year 2013.' We weren't provided with that caveat until this past Friday, fully halfway through Governor Patrick's term.
But even now, the adminstration continues to play coy. Will there even be two facilities left when this administration is done, or will there not? With the planned closure of the Fernald, Monson, Glavin, and Templeton developmental centers, only the Wrentham and Hogan centers will remain. Or will they?
In a fact sheet distributed to the media on Friday, Secretary Bigby stated that the administration will provide “assurance of longterm institutional placement at the Wrentham Developmental Center for those residents who choose to remain in an institutional setting.” Hogan, the fact sheet said, will accept placements “on a limited basis.” Yet this same fact sheet also stated that Hogan's future remains undecided. That facility may, in fact, close as well.
By the way, we've heard that Wrentham actually has only 84 beds available for residents from Fernald and the other facilities slated for closure. We've argued repeatedly that the numbers don't add up in the administration's planning. If there are currently 900 plus residents living in the six remaining facilities and 476 in the four facilities the administration now says it will close, how are 84 beds at Wrentham going to provide any “assurance” of placement in an institutional setting to them?
And given the record so far, can we even trust this administration's statement that Wrentham will remain open?
Disclosure: I do some work for Mass. COFAR, a coalition which includes the Fernald League and other facility family groups, as well as groups and individuals careing for people with MR in all other settings.
<
p>The Governor and Secretary Bigby continue to abuse the financial crisis to accelerate the attack on the most disabled DMR clients, and push the system into privatization and decentralization, and away from the families and guardians.
<
p>What jumped out at me in the Friay announcement was a five-fold deflation of the phony savings argument put before the federal court as recently as 2007. DMR insisted that it costs more thand $134,000 more per person to maintain a Fernald resident than to keep someone in the community. Although Dave and I have both written about
what’s wrong with that number, DMR’s publications last Friday now set the savings of closing four facilities over four years at half the facilities budget line, about $80 million. But they plan to use $45 million in the transition, building new group homes, some of which will be on the grounds of the existing developmental centers, but will magically be “in the community” instead of “in an institution.” So the savings of moving 316 people “into the community” might actually be $35 million in DMR’s new opinion. Spread over four years, that looks more like $27-28,000 than $134,000.
<
p>The most painful aspect of DMR’s numbers lies is that they have worsened the split between advocates for people with MR/DD. Many young families have been lead to believe that their loved one is being denied services because of the high costs of taking care of the aging and fragile residents of the six developmental centers.
<
p>DMR’s adjusted numbers work out to less that $300 a year when spread over the other 32,000,000 DMR clients. Assuming that those savings materialize and stay in the DMR budget.
<
p>My belief is that worsening financial crisis will in fact mean further cut-backs for all disabled people, and more broken promises of a professionl transition for facility residents. The Governor has announced a four-year plan when his term ends in two years. Whether the legislature will fund the plan is an open question. No court action forces them to do so — and giving facility residents only one reliable facility-placement option (Wrentham, in the southeast corner of the state) may actually be a violation of their rights under the 1993 federal court disengagement order, to another facility placement. If the only other placement is remote from family guardians, they will have a choice betwee being able visit to their loved one often (supporting their progress and keeping them safer), or the safest and most appropriate setting.
<
p>Because if there’s one image that comes to mind when you think of Deval Patrick, it’s that of a heartless bastard looking for an excuse to cut off services for society’s most needy. Yep, that’s it exactly.
and cutting 67% are two very different things.
<
p>
<
p>Yes, 4/6 = 67% is a terrible metric. I don’t know the details in terms of dollars or beds, but I’d be surprised if you could frame this as a minor trim.
more of a reorganization of how we do things.
<
p>Focusing less on institutionalizing patients and more on group home options not only will save this state around $40 million, but is also said by most experts I’ve read to be a better form of care.
<
p>You could say it’s a cut because we’ll be spending less money on it, but if it’s a reorganization that could lead to better care for most… those are the kind of “cuts” government should be making.
and while some of the savings can be attributed to physical plant savings, some are achieved by paying the workers less than state employees, a truly progessive approach.
we’re not closing down all the large institutions. Presumably, the some who are not best for group homes won’t go there. If you have a good argument that says otherwise, let’s here it.
<
p>I also haven’t seen a good enough argument suggesting that we should pay more simply to actually pay more. If we’re paying more and getting a great return on that cash, then great. But, from what I’ve read, group homes are usually the best in terms of health and wellness and improvement for people with these kinds of problems. The best arguments people have come up with against closing Fernand and others is a sort of reverse NIMBYism – which is just offensive – and the fact that this is where these folks have spent years and decades and families don’t want to make them go through the move. I sympathize with that argument, but we’ve got to do right by this state. So long as the quality of care isn’t going to go down (indeed, I’ve read it’ll go up), then we can’t simply spend $40 million extra just to make families feel better.
To me, that was the best way to go.
<
p>Weirdly, Patrick seems hell bent on emulating Dukakis, who released the patients from mental hospitals without actually building the group homes for them to move into. We already know how THAT turned out – why would he repeat such a blunder? His attitude betrays a lack of actual contact – how can you think a group home is cheaper when you see the specialized medical equipment, etc., needed for Fernald patients? The only ‘group’ home some could move into would be a nursing home, and at that, nursing homes are severely limited in the amount and type of medical care they can dispense.
<
p>It seems that Fernald residents may spend their lives like Flying Dutchmen, careening about in ambulances going to and from the emergency room. (Note: My mother died after several severe srokes, and her declining years were spent in such an ambulance – every sniffle, every infection, and off she went on a road trip again, as her nursing home was unable treat even the most minor illness). It is difficult to see how the governor thinks this will save any money.
these patients will be kicked on the street when all I’ve read indicates they’ll be going to group homes instead of big institutions. Presumably, we’ll need more of group homes, but half the ‘savings’ of closing Fernand and the other institutions will be going to the increased costs those community homes will need. So the group homes get $40 million and the state saves another $40 million. I think especially in these fiscal times, this makes a lot of sense… least of which being because the group homes are usually better for these people according to what the experts say.
And again, I saw this happen before – close the institution without the alternative housing in place. It was and is a disaster for the mentally ill.
be sent to one of the two remaining hospitals.
<
p>If there aren’t enough beds, then we should hold off until ready, but absolutely we should transition in this direction as quickly as possible.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS GOVERNOR PATRICK AND DMR!!
<
p>Could someone in your offices please tell all the residents, families and guardians why such an announcement was made days befor all the holidays? I guess the answer is that Governor Patrick and all the higherarcy of his adminstration would have to be that they lack compassion for our loved ones. I do hope that the Govoner never has to face an eviction notice for his family, or worry about were they will be calling “home”. Oh sorry that will never happen!!
<
p>This action at this time is shameful and inexcusable!
<
p>Would the first of January made such a big difference making this announcement?
<
p>My Sister has lived at Fernald for 54 years and intends to stay there. She lives in a community!
<
p>My sister has lived in the “community” for 54 years and intends to stay there. Oh, sorry to mention the name of the community residence she lives in is “Fernald Developmet Center”.
<
p>mam
Everyone who has an opinion on the proposed closure of the Fernald Developmental Center by June 2010 and three other developmental centers should remember these points:
<
p>1. The decision by Governor Patrick which was probable made by the Secretary of Health and Hunan Services, the Assistant Secretary and the Department’s Commissioner did not have to made, two weeks before Christmas. There is no judicial, legislative or other bureaucratic reason for this announcement before January 5, 2009. The only reason was to insult the residents and their families one more time before Christmas and Hanukkah.
<
p>2. At a Friday conference call to the involved families the Commissioner was challenged that her estimate of how many guardians of developmental residents would chose a community residence or, relocation to the Wrentham Developmental Center or Hogan Regional Center did not added up with the number of mentally retarded individuals involved. The Commissioner reminded the families that these people were part of a geriatric group and there would be mortality. [Emphasis is mine]
<
p>3. The whole affair (conference call, press conference and a proposed family meeting at Fernald on December 20) confirms that being a human being is not a prerequisite to work for the Executive Office of Human Services in Massachusetts.
<
p>4. One community zealot said that the announcement means that “now” the developmental center residents will be allowed to relocate. I want to remind everyone that transfers out of a developmental center were never closed in the 35-year history of the Ricci lawsuit. Admissions have been closed at the discretion of the Commonwealth and during this time the guardians of many younger mentally retarded individuals were deprived of the opportunity to evaluate this residential option.
<
p>5. The Department’s standard response is “No one ever asks for a developmental center placement.” The reason is that except for some politically connected families no families are allowed to evaluate a developmental center placement objectively.