The home has eight beds. That works out to a cost of $257,000 per bed over the 20-year period. Given that DDS has projected that it will be using the same lease-purchase arrangement to develop state-operated housing for 26 Fernald residents, the total cost of those homes will be $6.68 million, based on the cost of the CIL home.
However, that $6.68 million cost is only part of the actual cost of developing alternative housing to Fernald. There are approximately 140 residents remaining at Fernald. Thus, if DDS were to use the lease-purchase arrangement to develop state-operated group homes for all 140 residents, it would cost $36 million.
You have to start wondering how the administration can continue to claim a savings in closing Fernald and three other state facilities, given the cost of the lease-purchase option they have chosen for at least a portion of the Fernald residents. After all, the administration has claimed that renovating Fernald to keep it open–which they estimate to cost between $14 and $20 million–is prohibitively expensive. But that sounds like a bargain compared to the $36 million cost of developing group homes for all of the Fernald residents.
(The $14 to $20 million estimate, by the way, ignores the fact that Fernald advocates want to develop a smaller Fernald, which would cost far less, and allow the development of the remainder of the property, which would generate employment and taxes.)
That high cost of developing group homes is apparently why the administration is saying that it will provide as many as 84 beds for Fernald and other former state facility residents at the Wrentham Developmental Center. We have not yet seen any cost projections for the renovations that will reportedly have to be done at Wrentham (although we have asked for them). But we would suspect that the cost per new bed at Wrentham would have to be less than $257,000 over 20 years.
But if that's the case and it is cheaper per bed to renovate a state facility than to build new group homes, doesn't that undercut at least part of the administration's rationale in closing the state facilities?
We may never know the answer to that question because the Legislature decided last month that there is no need for undertaking a cost-benefit analysis prior to closing Fernald. Interestingly, Gov. Patrick personally promised Cathi Valeriani, a Fernald guardian, at a town meeting in Pembroke last week that he would see to it that a cost-benefit analysis is done for Fernald. We certainly hope that the governor holds to this promise and that the cost-benefit analysis takes into account the amount that DDS is already spending, and plans to spend, on group homes.
We would note that DDS's Community Services Expansion and Facilities Restructuring Plan projects the development of a total of 268 new state-operated beds for residents of all four facilities slated for closure. By our calculations, that will cost the state $69 million over 20 years. Where are the savings here?
And there aren’t any savings. The cost of Fernald has been the club that the Administration has used to beat the parents into submission about closure. The push for closure is about privitization and always has been. This is about closing the facilities and getting those contracts into the hands of the service providers. It’s about taking jobs away from well-educated, well-trained (and reasonably compensated) state employees, paid a living wage…in favor of service providers, who pay their employees a pittance, thereby ensuring inconsistent care, inadequate monitoring and oversight.
<
p>With friends like this, do we need Republicans? I think not.
Considering the amount DDS is paying to lease these group homes, maybe they should consider keeping Fernald open…as a cost-saving measure! At the very least, the administration should do a cost-benefit analysis, and do it correctly. By the way, do you think we should hold our breath for the Legislature’s Children and Families Committee to hold a hearing on the cost of these group homes?
Holding your breath for a hearing on the cost of these particular group homes. The last thing this administration wants is to have empirical evidence to show what a joke this is. Although I would LOVE for Senate President Murray to tell Elin Howe to sharpen her pencil. đŸ™‚
Please don’t hold your breath! I agree with Justice4All..it could be dangerous.
<
p>The more information you find out about the numbers, the less sense this makes. From what is presented here, Fernald IS the bargain.
<
p>You make the great point, it IS cheaper to renovate the existing state facilities than to build new ones. People make this determination everyday when they decide to renovate or put additions on their homes rather than buying or building a new home.
<
p>I guess we will have to wait and see if the Governor keeps his promise of including Fernald in the cost-benefit analysis. I was surprised when I heard this. Even with that, I remain skeptical. A MAJOR concern for me is who is accomplishing the analysis. Will it be a true independent analysis or will it be the DDS (DMR). I think the results would different depending on who accomplishes it. If it is accomplished exclusively by DDS, I doubt we will see anything different than what they have been putting out all along.
<
p>I will have to hope for the best.
<
p>
We have long advocated a “postage-stamp” arrangement, under which a smaller version of the Fernald Center would occupy a portion of the current campus, while the rest of the property would be open to development.
There’s no reason why the Commonwealth shouldn’t sell the entire Fernald campus.
<
p>With the proceeds they could replace what I think you are referring to as the group home housing tucked away in the corner; postage stamp is the right adjective. I’ve not been inside those buildings, but it looks like they are well past their useful life.
<
p>As a real estate development professional, I could do this deal in 10 minutes — purchase the campus, build as many new beds as you need on site or elsewhere nearby, perhaps even give the group home an endowment, all at a massive net profit to the state.
<
p>Why is this not an option? Why are we spending $257,000 per bed? I can build a small suburban home for that.
This could be a win-win situation. There’s no reason why the administration should be forcing people out of their longtime homes and into residences costing $257,000-per-bed in far-flung corners of the state. New, cost-effective group homes could be built at a fraction of that cost and be tucked away in the postage-stamp area on the property. (One of the things that that needs to be re-examined is that expensive leasing arrangement.) As long as the ICF-level of care remains, everyone would be happy. Of course, the administration doesn’t want to maintain that standard. But if we could get them to see the value of building on site, we would have won half the battle.
Fernald’s been empty for years. A lot of state hospitals have been sold off, what’s the hold up here?
and it is home to about 140 people. They are class clients and entitled to the same as, or better, level of care for the rest of their lives. Their families want ICF-MR care for them. The Patrick “thinks” (and I am using the term loosely)that privatizing Fernald contracts, and outsourcing them to service providers is the way to go. It is neither cost efficient nor an appropriate level of care. If the Administration wanted to do the right thing, they would go with the postage stamp approach and let the Fernald residents live in an ICF. Unfortunately, this Administration has service providers running the department…so it will be about what’s in the best interests of the service providers instead of what’s right, fair, and appropriate for the residents.
I guess I have a hard time believing that the Governor or anyone for that matter is really doing this to benefit service providers.
<
p>I mean is it possible that the best care for these residents for the best cost is what the Governor is proposing?
Yes I did. And I don’t buy it.