As we read the Senate language, it offers far weaker protection to the Fernald, Monson, Glavin, and Templeton Developmental Centers than last month's House budget amendment. The House measure would require legislative approval of the cost-benefit analysis before any state facility for persons with mental retardation could be closed.
The Senate version appears to take away the need for any legislative approval of such an analysis. The House version is the only version that will protect any of the facilities.
That's why JudyAnn Bigby, Jean McGuire, and Elin Howe, the administration's privatization troika, are probably feeling so relieved today. They're happy to put together another fraudulent “cost analysis” for the Legislature, which will be filed away on a shelf and never be seen again.
We have been making the case on this site alone for almost two years that the administration's cost numbers regarding Fernald are bogus.
We've also pretty much been out there on our own, warning that the administration was operating without a plan, long before the administration announced this past December that Glavin, Tampleton, and Monson were slated for the chopping block in addition to Fernald.
Unless the House cost-analysis amendment is adopted by the conference committee and unless it survives a veto by Gov. Patrick, it will be full steam ahead for Bigby, McGuire, and Howe, as they run our system of care for the mentally retarded into the ground, in the service of privatization and in the name of “community first.”
May I have the maturity
To accept the things I cannot control
Even when I do not like the things I cannot change or control.
<
p>The courage to change the things
That are worth fighting over, but leave the rest alone
<
p>And the wisdom
To accept changes I do not like
when fighting change is the wrong thing to do
Because fighting the change is worse then the change itself..
With all due respect, Amber…we have a service provider running the DMR/DDS and her mission is to take away a medical model from the weakest of the weak and FEED IT TO THE GAPING MAW OF THE SERVICE PROVIDERS. It is never wrong to fight for the weak…it is morally unacceptable to accept “change” when it threatens the survival of fragile people. Sorry, but I can’t go there with you.
You have this quote along with your posts,
“The world was made for people who aren’t cursed with self-awareness.” ~Annie Savoy, Bull Durham
This is a trait that people with developmental disabilities have. Wouldn’t that lead one to believe that they shoulld live in the world and not in an institution?
Because I haven’t drunk the “koolaid.” There are people who need a centralized service delivery model – and others that don’t. It shouldn’t be a one-sized fits all, cookie cutter approach. And it’s offensive that you would presume that people who reside at the facilities don’t “live in the world.” The residents actually go on shopping trips, attend church, visit with family and friends – so where you do you off, Anne? Are you a vendor or just a vendor advocate?
gives a “3” if you haven’t drunk the Koolaid. Pass the word.
with you is a vendor or vendor advocate? I suspect that if the average unbiased citizen were fully briefed on the long sad saga of the state’s struggle to deal with these costly, inefficient and clinically ineffective institutions (in the face of vocal union and family resistance) he or she would advocate to “stop the bleeding” and pursue reasonable alternatives.
<
p>I hold no illusion that discourse with you is going to change your perspective. I post only to emphasize to the less informed reader that there are well supported arguments for closing these dinosaurs coming from all sectors (not just “vendors or vendor advocates”).
Ah – not so much. I have cited a peer-reviewed cost study that appeared in the AJMR, that not only puts to bed the notion that group homes are any cheaper than facilities. Residents with high medical needs, requiring 24 nursing, do not cost any less than the community. The study reviews a variety of white papers and studies that are routinely used to close facilities – it sites the costs that the facilities are saddled with vs. the costs that group homes can push off, ie food stamps, Section 8, etc. while not acknowledging the cost sharing of Medicaid. Another thing that is routinely left out of the analysis is the start up costs; building all those group homes is a significant chunk of change. Another cost factor is the staffing; state employees are unionized, better paid and better educated, which allows for continuity of care. The turnover rate in the group homes is phenomenal, but of course, they’re paid a pittance, so who can blame them?
<
p>Let me ask you this, johnmurphylaw – if the analysis is on the side of double-dipping service provider commissioner, why is she resisting a feasability study? Why not sharpen the pencil and explain the big cost savings?
Neither, just a mom
What you will never see is a facility “mom” advocating to have group home residents evicted from their homes, and have their services watered down.
“The courage to change the things
that are worth fighting over”
<
p>THIS is one of the things worth fighting over! It sure is not about funding a gazebo, but rather about human lives and basic dignity.
Sorry, Amber. I was a little hotheaded this morning. đŸ™‚ My family is very aware that in terms of this battle, I have mentally painted my face half-blue, and fully prepared to go “braveheart” on this one. Thanks for clarifying.
our friends in the Senate who did their very best to get the language in the budget. Those courageous Senators are:
<
p>Senator Michael Moore
lead sponsor)
<
p>Senator Susan Fargo
<
p>Senator Jennifer Flanagan
<
p>Senator Stephen Brewer (who offered the amendment that cut Fernald out of the pack – not sure what happened there)
<
p>Senator Harriette Chandler
<
p>Senator Thomas Kennedy
<
p>Senator Anthony Galluccio
<
p>Senator Bruce Tarr
<
p>Senator Richard Tisei
<
p>Senator Steven Tolman
<
p>Thank you for all your efforts. Because of you, our crusade to keep centralized service delivery models alive for the profoundly disabled lives to fight another day. God bless.
I wish to pass along my thanks to the senators who threw the residents of Fernald a life line. Your efforts are appreciation more than I can express.
<
p>I am so grateful for the life line but I am still outraged that a senator could propose such DISCRIMINATORY language in the first place. Sorry but that is the way I see it. The senator who wrote the language made sure the people in his district were covered but the heck with anyone else. I found it most offensive. The mentally retarded in his district are worthy of a cost analysis and scrutiny of the numbers before they are thrown out of their homes but the mentally retarded in Waltham are somehow lesser human beings and not worthy of the same consideration. What ever happened to equal rights?
<
p>I guess civil rights don’t matter when the administration wants something–namely the Fernald land–and they don’t care what they have to do to get it. What other reason could there be to leave it out.
<
p>We do have a private provider running the DMR. I would like to share some information I learned on the attorney general’s website and therefore is in the public record. It was just a quick search but it might give an idea of just lucrative the service provider industry is.
<
p>One of the leading advocacy organizations pushing for the closures has a significant financial relationship with a private provider association. The association has 600 members. That information led me to one provider whose gross revenue last year was $42+ million of which $41+ million was taxpayer money. It also lead me to another provider whose gross revenue was $82+ million of which $81+ million was taxpayer money. That is just 2 of the potential 600. I think just these two examples give an idea of the magnitude of the dollars involved.
<
p>I’ll ask the question for the unteenth time. Whose interests are truly being served by this closure policy. Certainly not the residents or their guardians.
In a recent newspaper article the journalist closesd with the question: “Anyone listening to JP has to wonder whether the tragedy might be letting the fear of doing the wrong thing for one group of vulnerable citizens stop Massachusetts from doing the right thing for all vulnerable citizens.”
<
p>No, the premise of JP’s arguments is based on the assumption that Fernald and the other developmental centers are operated as a Department of Correction institution which means once a person enters the institution, they never leave to enjoy the social interaction of normal living.
<
p>Developmental centers are actually the equivalent of the retirement community where I live and it meets all the Social Security Act Title XIX requirements. Each set of residents come and go as necessary to work, attend movies, go shopping, enjoy vacations and do all the other things which Ms. Peck and many other community only advocates assume can only be enjoyed by persons living in a four bedroom house in suburbia.
<
p>The least restrictive living situation is a function of an individual’s ability. Is a person in a power wheelchair safer riding in a retirement community or on Main Street? From either location with some assistance the person can venture out and enjoy all the pleasures of life.
<
p>My cousin, lived at Fernald for 39 years and now 4 in a community duplex. Church on Sunday, Saturdays at my home, dinning in restaurants, summer vacations, shopping trips are all the same; her community interaction has not changed.
<
p>We do not advocate for the bricks and mortar of a developmental center but the full array of Title XIX services for our loved ones. We advocate for the services. Dramatic budget cutbacks are planned through out the entire DMR system and when all services for a specific individual are evaluated the services in a developmental center is less.
<
p>DMR Commissioner acknowledged this at that hearing in Gardener Auditorium last week that there will not be $42 million savings over the next four years but the closure was a philosophical decision. DMR should not use the average cost to service 33,000 community clients who mostly have mild retardation and minimum medical complications against the inflated cost of the 858 profoundly mentally retarded, who have similar medical complications to MP.
<
p>All advocates agree we do not want the individual isolated in their apartment due to a lack of adequate support staff. The proposed budget cuts are across the board.
<
p>Mav
DMR should not use the average cost to service 33,000 community clients who mostly have mild retardation and minimum medical complications against the inflated cost of the 858 profoundly mentally retarded, who have similar medical complications to MP.
<
p>Do you know the 33,000 individuals in the community settings? What do you base the above comment on?
There are many individuals who are profoundly dissabled living in community settings. There are many families who’s children will never live indepently. At the hearing last week there were several of those families testifing.
If you were in that room you couldn’t have missed them.
All I can tell you that those of us who are advocating for facility-based care fully support those families and guardians who chose the community-based system. The Fernald families and guardians know from experience that facility-based care is most appropriate for their loved ones. There is no need to pit one group of people against the other. Both types of care can be accomodated in a cost-effective way with proper planning.
<
p>Mav’s point is that the administration has not done the proper planning and has used an apples-to-oranges comparison to make its case that the care provided to one group is excessive. If the same levels of care are compared, there is no evidence that it costs more to provide it in a facility than in a community-based setting. I’d be happy to debate that point with the MassArc any day.
But your not answering my question. The piece that I quoted states:
33,000 community clients who mostly have mild retardation and minimum medical complicationst
This seems to imply that individuals in institutions are more disabled than those who are not.
show that 74 percent of the residents of the state facilities had severe or profound mental retardation. That number is likely to be even higher today. The average level of mental retardation of people living in the facilities is certainly higher than in the community system.
<
p>In information provided to The Fernald League, DMR stated that “The ICF/MR program (nationwide) generally serves people with more severe disabilities than non-ICF/MR residential services.”
<
p>DMR cited a 1987 federal survey, which found that nearly 70 percent of all ICF/MR residents had severe or profound mental retardation, compared with 35 percent in non-ICF/MR residentail settings.
I am convinced that most of the individuals at Fernald would flourish in the community. It is a small perecentage that need nursing home level of care.
that most of the individuals at Fernald would flourish in the community. But let’s not continue to discount the knowledge and experience of the guardians of those individuals, most of whom are not convinced of that.
<
p>Your statement has a number of qualifiers. You say most would flourish, but you appear to acknowledge that not all would flourish. Also, you acknowledge that some percentage–you call it small–would continue to need nursing home level care. By that, I assume you mean ICF-level care. Do your residences provide that level of care?
<
p>You note that 40 percent of your clients function in the profound to severe range. I would say that your group home or group homes are not typical of most community-based provider residences. But even at 40 percent, most of your clients are therefore in the moderate to mild range. The situation is reversed in the facilities.
<
p>Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying that there aren’t group homes out there such as yours that are capable of providing excellent care to persons with severe or profound mental retardation. But given the makeup of the current community-based system, we believe the chances of finding equal or better care in the community for persons in the facilities are not good. U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan agreed with us, and that’s why he recommended keeping Fernald open.
Forgive my prior rantings. My brother is a 40+ year resident of Fernald and it is extremely difficult to sensor my rage and emotional responses.
<
p>The numbers and facts that support keeping these facilities operating are apparent but have been obscured by misinformation put out by the advocacy groups, services providers and the administration. If you say something loud enough and often enough, people will believe it. They have done their jobs well.
<
p>Its common sense that people with severe medical and development disabilities require more care (costs more) than those with milder forms of disabilities regardless of their location. To date the state has provided no real data to support the case that the costs are less in community. The basic assumptions of their comparison are wrong.
<
p>Residents of developmental centers have had the option of community for 30+ years. Community is not a new concept and residents are not forced to reside there. Guardians have decided its their best option for all of those 30+ years. Did anyone every ask themselves why?
post script. Left out a word or two.
<
p>Development centers have provided the best option for their residents for 30+ years. As your self why.