…the era of Dickensian, deservedly maligned institutions housing those who are least able to voice their objections to them must come to an end, beginning this June 30 at Fernald.
“Dickensian,” Leo? You would think nothing has changed in the state's Immediate Care Facilities for the developmentally disabled since the 1840s. Nevermind that the American Health Care Association says the following about ICFs around the country:
Changes and improvements in ICF/DD support and training services have created one of the most progressive and technically advanced programs anywhere in the world. For residents, quality of life has improved dramatically, as access and choice have become hallmarks of the ICF/DD program.
No, none of that matters. In addition to “Dickensian,” Sarkissian manages to refer to Fernald and the other Massachusetts ICFs in his column as “decrepit,” “under-populated,” “archaic,” “inferior,” and “outdated.” But even that's not enough. Sarkissan feels its important to his argument to point out the true–though currently irrelevant–fact that prior to the 1970s, treatment at Fernald was “deplorable.”
Can you blame Fernald supporters for feeling somewhat insulted by this?
And then there's the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers, the vendor-supported organization that shares the same Waltham address and certain payroll expenses with the Arc of Massachusetts.
Gary Blumenthal, the ADDP's executive director, is now arguing on the organization's website that the Patrick administration isn't even going far enough in closing four of six remaining state-run ICFs in Massachusetts. All care for persons with disabilities in the state should be immediately privatized, he asserts. Why stop now with two ICFs still left in operation? Shut 'em all down and give us those state contracts expand the “community private provider system,” Blumenthal states.
Here is a little more of Blumenthal's reasoning:
…how can the Commonwealth shred every other element of the state safety net and all other state programs, while a few legislators work aggressively to keep whole an obsolete service model that drains millions of dollars to maintain six campus settings, including dozens of empty buildings that are still draining funds from other individuals needing DDS services and supports?
The only problem is the second half of this statement is completely untrue. No one has advocated that we maintain six campus settings with empty buildings. ICF advocates and supportive legislators have consistently argued that these campuses can and should be downsized to accomodate their current populations. No one is saying these facilities have to be large. ADDP and the Arc have never acknowledged that point and the Patrick administration has never seriously considered it either.
What the Patrick administration is doing right now, as it shuts down four state ICFs, is actually to temporarily expand two remaining ICFs and develop some additional state-run community-based group homes to accomodate the residents of the closed facilities. We believe the administration's intention is ultimately to close those two remaining ICFs and privatize the group homes. Along with this, the administration wants to eliminate ICF-level care, with its strict federal standards, and replace it with the looser standards applicable to community-based care.
The administration is carrying out this agenda even as it continues to cut funding and services to those in the private, community-based system. There are no plans as far as we know to expand the community-based system to accomodate the thousands of people still waiting for care in it.
Blumenthal recognizes this fact. But he has a huge conflict of interest in asking the state to turn over all developmental disabilities funding to the vendors. The evidence is overwhelming that a completely privatized system of care would be inferior to a system with state-run, ICF-level care, in which employees are better trained and receive better pay and benefits.
In a letter to the Waltham Tribune in response to Sarkissian's column, Bill Fowler, a former Waltham firefighter and fire inspector, wrote:
I have personally observed some of the deplorable living conditions that exist in many of these group homes…It has always left a bad taste in my mouth that the leading voice in favor of closing Fernald works in the industry that has the most to gain if the Fernald is closed. All one has to do is look at the outrageous salaries of the upper management of the corporations that run the community-based facilities and you will see why they think closing Fernald makes sense.
And then there was this statement from a letter to the Tribune from Marion Julian of Braintree:
Our family's experience with the private vendor homes was disgusting and life threatening. My loved one went downhill and was hospitalized because of inadequate care, lack of care and neglect. Where were these wonderful caring people for my child in the private vendor setting? They were not there; the private vendor did not care and was not made accountable.
Julian writes that after her family member was moved to a state-run group home, she gained back 40 pounds after receiving “proper nutrition, proper supports, and medical care.”
We thank people like Bill Fowler and Marion Julian for sharing their personal experiences in order to counter the continuing myths and misrepresentations about care for the developmentally disabled.
What kind of “advocate” finds a reason to celebrate the eviction of severely mentally and physically disabled people from their life-long home?
<
p>Give me a break ARC Mass. Is digging up horrors of the distant past and a name not used for Fernald since 1883 the best you can do to support argument? I think that says it all.
<
p>Regardless of all the ARC Mass’ and ADDPs negative propaganda, one indisputable fact remains. The guardians of ICFs are fighting to maintain these facilities and thus the homes of their loved ones. If it is as ARC Mass and ADDP contend, why would these guardians continue fighting. Who would fight (for 7 years now) to keep their family member in a terrible place? If ARC Mass’ and ADDPs characterizations were accurate you would expect a stampede to get out. Instead, these guardians are fighting with everything they have to stay.
<
p>ARC Mass is a lobbyist–nothing more. I’ve known that for years but it revealed that fact in the referenced article. An advocate-any advocate-support 100% of the people associated with its cause. ARC Mass has decided that the lives of the 5% it acknowledges can not adapt to life in the community have no value.
<
p>If nothing else, Leo, thanks for revealing your true self.
<
p>
Unfortunately, those who repeat a lie loudly, and repeat it many many times come to believe their own untruths.
It really is like a crusade that has gone too far.
<
p>We have come full circle. If you buy ARC Mass’ and ADDP’s BS, we are essentially back where we started and I don’t understand how anyone can’t see this.
<
p>In the distant past, everyone was just forced into one mold, an institution, regardless of the disability. We all know the result of that. The lawsuits that changed all that focused on people being treated as individuals, with dignity, each with their own set of disabilities and abilities as well as particular needs both physical and medical.
<
p>ARC Mass and ADDP have decided that EVERYONE can live in the community–so much for treating people as individuals. They are guilty of doing exactly what was done in the distant past. Forcing everyone into one mold, regardless of the fit. And surprise–it just happens to be the mold they created. And along the way it just happens to increase the vendors bottom line since it eliminates all competition for the $$$$ that follow the people.
<
p>So when you boil it all down, we are right back where we started. With one exception, now the developmentally disabled have become a valuable commodity. Treating them as people has been trumped by corporate greed.
<
p>Since they have aleady made it known that they don’t care about the 5% who require ICF level care, who will be the next percentage of people categorized as “inconsequential” when their needs start to effect the wallets of the vendors?
Where to cut costs? How about those poor defenseless DD folks? Moonbats = Libertarians. Screw those that can’t defend themselves. Aren’t we great and powerful? Weren’t we just talking about bullying leislation? Oh, its ok, they can’t respond! All sincerity intended here, you people are worse than Libertarians.
Billxi- Your comment reminded me of something I saw on the news a while ago when the bullying issue was coming to light. It was the Governor talking to school kids about how he was bullied as a child and how he felt powerless.
<
p>Well he is the ultimate bully here. Using the full power and resources as the Governor against the most powerless people in our society.
<
p>Disgusting.
<
p>
your comment was one I could agree with. It’s not at all clear who “you people” are – those who have posted above in opposition to what is about to happen to the residents of Fernald?
Governor Patrick and all his coat holding hack democrats. Pick on the weakest demographic of our population. What are they going to do? Vote him out of office? No governor. But their friends and family might. Along with all those SEIU Personal Care Attendants you just fired.
how high the body count has to get before we recognize that this vendor-driven, but governor-embraced policy of privitization is a losing one? We’ve already seen this in California in the 1990’s; Dr. David Straus et al, wrote several studies on the mortality rate in the post-deinistitutionalization era….and it wasn’t pretty. So the question is…how high does the body count have to go?
<
p>I note that Chris is handing out 3’s again…are you really all that comfortable with “one size fits all” policy or is it that anything the Governor does is all right with you?
But we will never know the body count. Current privacy regulations are a perfect shield to hide behind when trying to get this type of information and the DDS certainly will never let you know when a move is less than successful.