As long as those residents are still alive, they must continue to be cared for. If Fernald is closed, that care will have to be provided either at one of the remaining state facilities (probably the Wrentham Developmental Center), or in state-operated or privately operated group homes.
Certainly, if dozens of Fernald residents are transferred to, say, Wrentham in the coming fiscal year, there will be additional costs in the Wrentham budget to accomodate them. What are those costs? Do they offset the $15 million in “savings” that Howe is implying will occur if Fernald is shut next year?
I sent a couple of faxes to Howe's office last week and this week to try to get answers to those questions. Yesterday, I received a response from the DDS general counsel, Marianne Meacham, who said that Howe has informed legislative committees that due to the planned closure of Fernald “and other facility consolidation,” the governor's budget contained a $13 million reduction in the facilities account.
Meacham's letter did not comment on the $15 million savings claim in closing Fernald. Nor did it address our question whether that $13 million “savings” in reducing the facilities account will be offset by costs of relocating the residents elsewhere. So, I emailed Meacham again with those questions, and got this response:
Over time, as individuals move (from Fernald), accounts funding state-operated or provider-operated programs will increase to reflect the costs of new placements…Further, there may be some addition to the Wrentham budget for individuals who transfer there, although, again, base vacancies may be utilized. The facilities account will correspondingly decrease as there is a reduction in costs at the closing facility as the census is reduced. For further information on these projected costs, see the DMR (DDS) Community Expansion and Facilities Restructuring Plan. (emphasis mine)
So, what is the real savings here? We still don't have an answer. Meacham is acknowledging that other accounts will increase when Fernald is closed and there may be “some addition” to the Wrentham budget. But as usual, there are not enough specifics to give us a real idea as to what is going on.
The Communiity Expansion and Facilities Restructuring Plan says only that there will be a $12.3 million “savings” in the coming fiscal year in shutting Fernald and that there will be a $41.9 million “savings” over a five-year period in shutting all four DDS facilities slated for closure. It doesn't say where these savings numbers come from or how they were derived.
Should the Legislature be satisified with that? I hope not. If anything, Meacham's response is final confirmation that we need a comprehensive and independent cost-benefit analysis before the administration can take the major step of closing these critically important facilities.
Just a few months back, this administration was saying saying there would be $85 million a year in savings in closing the four DDS facilities. Then it was $42 million over five years. Now, I think they are admitting, they have no idea.
DDS/DMR hopes to close the Fernald Developmental Center by June 30, 2010 and has told the legislature on two occasions that they have assumed the closure in the FY 2010 budget and if Fernald remains open DDS/DMR will need an additional $15 million.
<
p>In his posting Dave from Hvad discusses his letters and faxes to Commissioner Howe about the cost per resident has to be accounted for in some line item. The famous comment about the money follows the individual.
<
p>If DDS/DMR is successful in relocating all the Fernald residents, we will see the money for their care in some line item because Dave mentioned that the cost goes to zero only when an individual dies.
<
p>However here is an other item to consider. DDS/DMR will continue operating the Fernald power plant, which is the bigest money eater on the property long after all the residents are gone. The Marquardt Skilled Nursing Facility is scheduled to remain at Fernald and receives its heat and hot water from the power plant. The Metro Boston regional office is also located at Fernald and receives its heat and hot water from the power plant. Ninety percent of the he Tufts Dental Clinic patients live in community residences. The Tufts Dental Clinic is located at Fernald and receives its heat and hot water from the power plant.
<
p>Patients and staff will be visiting these three facilities and I assume the property landscaping, snow removal and building housekeeping contracts will be continued. Were these costs factored into the $15 million savings?
<
p>Finally as long as these three facilities remain in their current buildings, the steam lines will operate under Fernald. No developer will purchase the property, redelop the property and generate jobs and income for the City of Waltham.
<
p>Mav
As usual Mav, great details.
<
p>I was not aware that Marquart was on the Fernald’s power plant. Since it is one of the newer buildings on the grounds, I assumed it had its own.
<
p>It would appear they left a lot out of their imaginary savings numbers.
<
p>
Unfortunatley this is not just about money anymore…It is about not caring for people who can not care for themselves! Governor Patrick should be ashamed of himelf for what he is doing to all the disable in Massachusetts!
What has he given up personally in this budgetary crisis? Nothing I’m sure!
I have to wonder why “legal” counsel has to respond to your inquiry.
<
p>I am getting a headache trying to follow the numbers.
<
p>The last figures I heard regarding the cost per individual at Fernald was…lets see….it started at about $256,000 per person, then I believe that dropped a couple of times…then I believe testimony at the committee hearing was around $133,000 (can’t put my hands on my notes right now).
<
p>Now its only going to cost $15 million to keep Fernald open for another year. Does that work out to less and $100,000 per person (approx 152 resident) not even factoring in the other facilities on the grounds? Again, I can’t keep the numbers straight.
<
p>The legislature should demand a feasibility study.
In response to a comment by ssurette. The Marquart Skilled Nursing Facility is the original Thom Hospital on most plot plans of the Fernald campus. It was renovated as part of the Ricci Class Action Lawsuit under the direction of Judge Tauro. The Thom Hospital was reopened in 1989 or 1990 as a 14 bed acute care clinic.
<
p>The Fernald League suggested nameing the clinical unit after two longtime advocates but the facility director rejected the idea. However the advocates portraites are in the lobby.
<
p>Mav
Mav, thanks for the clarification. Your detailed knowledge of Fernald and the campus is remarkable.
is still a facilities budget!!
<
p>So let’s look at it this way.
<
p>The DDS has two pairs of “housing” jeans; one is “facilities and state ops” and the other is “vendor op.” Taking money out of the Fernald pocket and sticking it into the Wrentham pocket doesn’t save any money. Taking money out of the Fernald pocket and sticking it into the vendor op pocket (start up housing costs, continued care, etc.) still doesn’t save any money. Dave from Hvd…you’re totally right. It doesn’t make any sense unless the administration thinks these folks are going to die. They must think it’s a neat trick….but anyone can see what’s happening.
<
p>We really need to hold the Administration accountable for this shell game. We should be FOIAing the reports of the Community Expansion and Facilities Restructuring Plan. Actually – we should start calling this project what it is: The Service Providers Enrichment Plan.
Actually, Justice4All, I did FOIA all the analyses behind the administration’s savings claims for the four facilities and what I got was the Commuity Expansion and Facilities Restructuring Plan. I appealed to Secretary Galvin’s Public Records Division, saying the Plan was not responsive to my request because it did not provide any analysis behind its savings numbers. My appeal was denied without any explanation.
<
p>I agree with you that this is a shell game. My guess is the $15 million in “savings” claimed by Commissioner Howe in closing Fernald relates to lower salary costs projected due to layoffs. But in addition to the costs of continuing to care for transferred residents when Fernald is closed and continuing to use the power plant, as Mav notes, how about the costs of taking down and removing the abandoned facilities? And what about the costs of leasing all of the group homes that are being built? Those costs are simply not factored in here.
<
p>Similarly, I think the $41.9 million in “savings” for all four facilities in the Community and Facilities Restructuring plan are based solely on layoff projections at the facilities and not on the real costs of closing them. Yet these numbers are put in a report, labeled “savings,” and handed out to the Legislature and the public as truth.
Justice4all: You and Dave are right. It is a huge shell game.
<
p>We do need to hold the administration’s feet to fire…but it is really easier said than done.
<
p>The Fernald League has been fighting this closure since Governor Romney announced the closure. Considering the adversary, the League (on their own for most of that time) has done an amazing job thus far. But….what is the next step?
<
p>The real question is how do you hold them accountable? The administration can and has blocked any attempt to get detailed information. I don’t think the detail really exists.
<
p>Despite the administration’s constant whining about the budget crises, they have endless money and hundreds of lawyers on the payroll and think nothing of spending those “scarce” resources on lenthly legal battles. They don’t have to sit down, negotiate, and do what makes sense….they know they can bleed any opponent dry in a legal battle.
<
p>How do you hold the administration’s feet to the fire when you can’t tell the difference between the service providers and the supposed advocacy organizations because they are so intertwined and the administration is okay with that?
<
p>How can you hold the administration accountable when the voices/influence of the service providers and supposed advocates are louder than the people they are supposed to be caring/advocating for?
<
p>