(Cross-posted from the COFAR blog)
The Fernald Developmental Center may be almost closed, but it’s now apparently being used as a political football by the administration and the human service providers who are seeking to close at least three additional state facilities for persons in Massachusetts with intellectual disabilities.
In the past month, both the providers and the administration have cited an allegedly high current operating cost for Fernald as a reason to oppose a cost study prior to closing the Monson, Templeton, and Glavin centers. Nevermind that Fernald is not even included in a proposed state budget amendment calling for the cost study.
Moreover, while we haven’t yet seen the Fernald budget numbers the providers and the administration are citing, we understand the reportedly high cost is due to a decision by the administration to maintain an unusually high number of staff at the facility for its 19 remaining residents. The reason for the high staffing level isn’t clear. The guardians of those remaining residents have filed administrative appeals of Fernald’s closure.
During the ongoing budget debate in the Legislature, the Department of Developmental Services and the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers have been telling legislators that it is costing as much as $917,000 per resident per year to operate Fernald. As the linked State House News story shows, ADDP President Gary Blumenthal last month cited that Fernald cost figure, which was disclosed by DDS, in order to discredit a House budget amendment requiring an independent cost study prior to closing Monson, Templeton, and Glavin.
The logic of the administration and the provders appears to go something like this: “Because we’re spending an unusually high amount this year to keep the Fernald Center open for the remaining residents, we shouldn’t even waste time studying the cost of closing or maintaining three other facilities where the costs actually happen to be considerably lower. The Fernald cost shows we must close all four of these facilities as fast as possible.”
That this tactic has had an impact in the Legislature became clear when a small group of COFAR members met on Wednesday of last week with a staff member of Senator Stephen Brewer, chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, to push for the cost study amendment. The staffer, without any prompting, mentioned she had heard Fernald was costing $18 million this year to operate.
That afternoon, in a conference call, I asked DDS Commissioner Elin Howe about the reported $18 million cost. Howe said the cost was closer to $15.6 million, which would translate to a still sky-high figure of $821,000 per person to keep Fernald running this year. When I asked what the money was being spent on, Howe said the high cost was due to the fact that 95 staff remain at Fernald — a staff-to-resident ratio of 5 to 1.
I was so taken aback by what Howe had just said that I didn’t think to ask her why the administration is maintaining such a high staffing ratio at Fernald. That ratio appears to be the reverse of the 1 to 3.2 staff-to-resident ratio required under federal regulations for Intermediate Care Facilities. The next day, at DDS’s request, I submitted a written question to Howe about the situation. I haven’t yet gotten a response.
Howe, by the way, said that if I wanted to get the same Fernald budget numbers that Blumenthal was citing to the State House News Service and which DDS has apparently provided to legislators, I would have to file a freedom of information request. I did so the next day.
I then heard that day from Senator Brewer’s office that the high staffing level at Fernald is reportedly due to a court order that has prevented DDS from moving the remaining 19 residents there into one building on the campus. But we’ve heard from other sources that there may not actually have been any such court order.
Whatever the reason for Fernald’s current operating cost, to introduce Fernald into a debate over whether to even study the cost of operating the Monson, Glavin, and Templeton centers is disingenuous and misleading. Luckily, Senator Brewer now appears to understand that. “We know it’s not accurate (to link the alleged Fernald cost to the other three facilities),” the staff member said.
Every time I read a report like this, I’m stunned by the reluctance, inability, or simple refusal of DDS leadership, the governor, and legislators to compare apples with apples. And there “may” or “may not” be a court order that affects Fernald staffing ratios? And COFAR must file a Freedom of Information request for information that has already been released to the ADDP and, apparently, to legislators? Amazing. Just amazing. This kind of transparency requires cataract surgery.
at work.
No one has studied the impact of suddenly stripping solo practitioners all across the state, including in underserved areas of a portion of their practice, the copy shops and office supply stores that serve them, or the client’s who have local attorneys to serve them, and who are willing to come to their homes to meet as needed. No one has studied how many secretaries will lose their jobs, how many paralegals will be laid off, how many copy shops will lay off staff, or how different a the practice model of staff attorneys who cannot say no to expanded case loads, or who are sent all over the state from a few central offices would be. Despite saying “this will save money” there is no proof at all – just a football made of vulnerable indigent residents and the attorneys who accept court appointments.
I think the issue of the high cost of keeping Fernald open is very relevant to the issue of efforts of Rep. Gobi and Senator Mike Moore to further delay the state’s institution reduction plan. COFAR encouraged families to resist closure of the institutions at all costs and through all mechanisms including endless appeals and endless studies. Now the Commonwealth faces the reality of how expensive delay costs. For Fernald, it is costing over $15 million a year with individual costs ranging from lost estimates of $700,000 per individual to $917,000 for 15 individuals. These costs are not included in the budget and are being covered by continuing supplemental budget requests, while the Legislature is considering dropping 4000 people from Family Support Services and Day Hab programs are threatened with collapse. In the meantime, COFAR and its allies have to understand the relationship between their urging resistance at all costs to each closure and the loss of state services for thousands of others. The Gobi and Moore Amendments are relevant as one delay tactic that will cause more heartache, more delay and more uncertainty for families in developmental centers and the community as the entire service system is used as a tool by a small group of individuals. I found it ironic to hear the COFAR representative on the DDS call ask why DDS was maintaining high staffing at Fernald. Any reduction of staffing is questioned by COFAR as a quality reducer and now COFAR asks, why so many staff?
COFAR has not encouraged families to resist the closures of the developmental centers through endless appeals etc. COFAR is not even a plaintiff in the Ricci case and has had no standing to bring any appeals.
In 2004, the Fernald plaintiffs (some of whom are COFAR members) urged Judge Tauro to reopen the Ricci case, not to delay Fernald’s closure, which Tauro said he would not do, but to investigate apparent violations of Tauro’s order that transfers out of Fernald must result in equal or better care. It was the Patrick administration — not COFAR or the Fernald plaintiffs — who then went to court to appeal Tauro’s 2007 ruling in which he found that DDS had engaged in a systemic violation of his order.
In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned Tauro’s 2007 ruling. The Fernald plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Appeals Court had not given Tauro due deference in their decision. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Since that time, the individual Fernald guardians have exercised their regulatory rights to file administrative appeals of the transfers of their wards from Fernald, on the basis that these transfers would not result in improved services. COFAR has not publicly encouraged or discouraged these appeals. We fully support the personal decisions that any guardian chooses to make in these cases.
As far as staffing at Fernald is concerned, we have been concerned about layoffs of staff there during the past two years at Fernald because the apparently poor management of those layoffs was resulting in declining care and conditions at the facility.
Now that most of the residents have been removed, there suddenly appears to be an excess of staff for the number of residents. This situation has conveniently enabled the DDS and the ADDP to claim that the costs of Fernald are astronomical and to then to draw the misleading conclusion from it that three other developmental centers in Massachusetts should therefore be closed.
We would like to know why DDS has apparently disclosed figures on the cost of operating Fernald to the ADDP and not to us. These numbers have nothing to do with the cost of operating the Glavin, Templeton, and Monson facilities, and it is misleading and irresponsible for the ADDP to use these figures in that context.
No mention here about the thousands who will be impacted by the closure of the specialized dental services at the Tufts Dental Clinic located at Fernald. At last count 2200 disabled from the community use that facility. Its scheduled to close in June. Moving to who knows where. What are those 2200 people supposed to do. No mention of the hundreds who will be impacted by the closure of therapeutic pool located at Fernald. Its still open and still available to the community but who knows for how long. There is no other therapeutic pool in the area. The pool at the Y is not therapeutic. For some it is the only form of exercise there medical issues will allow. So thousands are using the facilities at Fernald yet their relation or relevance in the cost of operating Fernald is just ignored. Where is the concern for these thousands?
point to a need to do a reliable study of the costs of operating the other centers slated for closure, as well as validating the numbers provided for Fernald thus far–not to be conducted by DDS or any of its “private” vendors. But this would require accurate data for analysis, something Commissioner Howe is reluctant to provide.
Maintaining Fernald staffing at a level higher than that required by regulations leaves one with the impression
that the purpose is to falsely elevate the per-person cost to even higher levels.
I must disagree with Gary…COFAR does not encourage its members to resist change at all levels. In fact, COFAR encourages thoughtful planning, examination of resources, and placement decisions placed on our relatives’ strengths and needs. Sure, if my cousin, for whom I am guardian, was 20 yrs old instead of 60 yrs old (38 of which have been at TDC)we would be looking at different challenges.
I plan to call my Senator, Mike Moore, and thank him for his steadfastness in looking out for the rights of the most vulnerable…
I represent the remaining Fernald residents. On May 6, 2011, Lawrence Tummino, Deputy Commissioner of DDS, submitted an affidavit in connection with a Middlesex Superior Court appeal of a transfer decision. The affidavit stated that the cost of keeping Fernald open is approximately $9.8 million per year. Of that amount, approximately $4 million is for staff and $3.4 million is for energy costs. The total does not include some administrative services not paid from funds appropriated to DDS. The energy cost is so high because they are keeping the central power plant open.
We are appealing what we allege is the failure of DDS to comply with the law’s requirement that any involuntary transfer result in “improved services, supports and quality of life” for the resident.
I am not aware of any order prohibiting transfers to consolidate remaining residents into a single building.
Stephen M. Sheehy
At what costs does Fernald and the other institutions stay open?o
People of all abilites are successfully living and thriving in their communities. The residents at Fernald are not as unique as you would like everyone to believe, they just cost A LOT more. The younger families are not interested in this kind of life for their loved ones, but they could benefit from the money being allocated/wasted on power plants and overstaffing. mahu, Sounds as if you have given up on any possibilites for a fuller life for your cousin. How sad for him.
skn: how exactly do you know what the abilities of the Fernald residents are? And I have to wonder what makes you think that elderly people (some of the residents are in their 80s) who as young children suffered years of unspeakable neglect and abuse before their family members had the courage to step forward and demand better treatment and choices in Federal court doesn’t make them unique. The only reason the younger families of today have a choice is because of the courage of the parents of these elderly residents to demand better. It is amazing how short memories are. These people have been abused enough in their life. There is plenty of room for compromise here that would allow these people to live out the rest of lives happily and still be fiscally responsible. We truly are a society of no compassion.
Has anyone thanked the elderly residents of all these facilities lately for paving the way to the choices the younger families now enjoy?