The original purpose of the Commission was to monitor the “quality and effectiveness” of services for people with mental retardation (now developmental disabilities) and to resolve disputes between DDS and its clients over care. It no longer does that.
Last year, we reported here on BMG that the Patrick administration had taken over the Commission after it had been allowed to lapse by the previous Romney administration. (www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=14397)
But in reconstituting the Commission, Gov. Patrick terminated the Commission's independent administrator and closed its office. He never provided the Commission with a staff or budget, but instead put Jean McGuire, assistant secretary of health and human services in charge of it. Patrick also failed to appoint anyone representing state facility residents to the 13-member Commission.
So, it comes as no suprise that the Commission sent a letter to senators opposing a budget amendment requiring the cost-benefit analysis in closing the state ICFs, which the Senate began considering last week. The letter fully supports the administration's plans to close four of six remaining state ICFs; and it claims, which no fiscal backup or explanation, that every month of delay in closing Fernald costs the state $1.3 million.
Of course, the letter doesn't mention all of the additional costs the state is incurring in closing Fernald as fast as it can, such as the $2.5 million it is spending to expand the Wrentham Developmental Center to accept former Fernald residents. Does anyone note the irony in the fact that the Commission is claiming that the state is losing money in delaying the closure of Fernald, and yet the Commission opposes a cost-benefit analyis of the closure?
(Remember that while a cost benefit analysis was initially approved by the Legislature last year for the three other state ICFs slated by the administration for closure, the Legislature decided to exempt Fernald from that analysis. Gov. Patrick later personally promised a Fernald family member that such an analysis would be undertaken. But that promise was never kept.)
But back to the Governor's Commission. COFAR, a statewide advocacy group for persons with developmental disabilities, has termed the reconstituted Commission:
…a disgraceful shill for the DDS, refusing to hold public hearings, having very few meetings, none of which are publicized, and never taking a single stance on behalf of the individuals it claims to represent, unless that stance is aligned with DDS.
In a press release issued in December 2008, when the administration announced it was closing the four state facilities, the administration stated that the Commission would have oversight of the facility closures. We asked in our previous post how this Commission could act with any kind of impartiality in carrying out that oversight.
We also suggested that the real purpose of the Commission would be “to provide political cover to the administration as it dismantles the facilities.” Now, we see that our concerns were well-founded.
So, if I have this straight, the Governor resurrected a commission that no longer functioned to do the opposite of its original intent. And maybe nobody would notice. George Orwell had it right.
Dave, I agree with 90% of your blog but the Governor’s Commission on Intelectual Disability was never objective since its creation in 1993.
<
p>Yes former Governor Weld formed the Commission as part of the agreement for the federal court’s disengagement order. Orinally the 9-member commission was required to have 3 commissioners picked from District Court Judge Tauro’s Quality Control Panel. The first Commission had a three year term and the Governors since then have watered down the Judge’s representatives. First, by eliminating the requirement from the Commission statue and later by increasing the number of commissioners.
<
p>May 25, 2010 the Daily News Tribune printed my statistics letter about the limited number of Fernald guardians who chose the over rated community option for relocating their loved ones. This group of guardians are the only guardians who were allowed to evalute the services objectively since the facility or intermediate care facility option is not granted to intelectually challenged individuals who are not members of Judge Tauro’s Ricci Class. I said “Leo Sarkissian said in a May 12 Tribune article that opposition to community residences ignores the fact that overall health care, shelter, food, employment and other services for people with disabilities is of superior quality and improved efficiency when delivered through a network of state-sanctioned, community-based homes and program settings.
<
p>Actually, the majority of Fernald individuals, who cannot voice their own preferences, have family member guardians and not corporate guardians to speak for them. The family member guardians have been weighing all the options objectively.
<
p>There were 290 individuals living at Fernald in February 2003. Today 94 individuals have better services because God called them to live with Him; 64 have committed to equal services at Wrentham Developmental Center; 29 have committed to equal services at Glavin, Hogan, Monson or Templeton; 30 have transferred to a skilled nursing facility; 45 are holding out; and only 28 have committed to a community group home.
<
p>Conclusions: It is time to look beyond the bricks and mortar. The real question is Social Security Act Title XIX regulated Intermediate Care Services vs the Home and Community Care Waiver Services option. Most guardians working with DDS clinical staffs recommendations accepted a lateral transfer to another ICF/MR (38 percent) or a SNF (10 percent); only 11 percent chose Sarkissian’s vision of utopia. What would the numbers seeking ICF/MR services be, if younger guardians were offered the intermediate care facility option objectively?”
<
p>Now I am reading an ARC/MA e-mail that they are publishing the pictures of state senators who sponsored an amendment in favor of a feasibility study and against the ARC/MA position on the imediate closure of intermediate care facilities. PICTURES!!
<
p>Mav
It is truly amazing how this letter appeared, like a rabbit out of a magician hat, from a commission we haven’t heard anything from in the year and half of its existence. The letter isn’t on “Commission” letterhead, they must have forgotten to order it, or maybe they thought no one would notice. It is not dated.
<
p>The entire letter is offensive but two sentences in particular are over the limit…..”creating barriers and causing delays to the forward movement….sends a mixed message to families who are trying to determine the best course for their loved ones.” You have got to be kidding me. The families have already decided what the best course of action is–Fernald. If that wasn’t the case, there would be no need for this obnoxious letter. And the next sentence….”We would respectfully ask that such an important and personal decision not be made more difficult.” Again, you have got to be kidding me.
<
p>The letter is filled with budgetary concerns, fiscal realities, the work of the commission (the commission with no staff, budget or paper) but absolutely no regard for the impact of this closure on the residents of Fernald.
<
p>I can’t comment on ARC Mass “wanted posters” with out the use of profanity that I think is not allowed on BMG.
<
p>
You might also consider changing the name of your corporation. The word “retarded” is no longer used in polite company. Oh, never mind…