(Cross-posted from the COFAR blog)
It’s now clear that there will be no independent study of the cost of closing versus maintaining the Templeton, Monson, and Glavin developmental centers for people with profound intellectual disabilities in Massachusetts.
Instead, the Patrick administration will continue on its path of closing these critically important institutions on the basis of its largely unscrutinzed claim that doing so will save money.
We figured the administration and the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers wouldn’t want an independent assessment of that savings claim. Now we know the leadership in the House and Senate didn’t want it either. As a result, it will not happen.
Last week, the Senate leadership scuttled a budget amendment, which would have specified that a study of the cost of closing Monson, Templeton, and Glavin be undertaken by a non-governmental entity selected by the Inspector General.
This occurred after the House had scuttled a similar amendment, and after the ADDP and The Boston Herald had cited inflated numbers on the cost of operating the Fernald Developmental Center. (Fernald, by the way, wouldn’t even have been included in the proposed cost study.)
What were the administration and the ADDP, in particular, so afraid of?
I think I can guess. There is a possibility that the entity selected to undertake the study would have come up with a conclusion that the administration, the ADDP, and the legislative leadership didn’t want to hear, i.e., that there would be little or no savings in closing the three facilities.
Even if you believe we will save money in closing these institutions, why not verify that with an impartial study? Because it might delay the closures of these facilities by a few months?
In fact, the administration is on schedule, as far as we know, to close all of these facilities as of Fiscal Year 2013. Fernald, which was first on the closure list, remains open, not because of any cost studies that have been conducted, but because of administrative appeals filed by the guardians of its remaining residents.
The administration has steadily moved residents out of all four of these developmental centers. This has caused tremendous displacement and anxiety among hundreds of families and guardians, and is leading us toward a system that no longer meets the same high federal standards of care as do the developmental centers.
Elderly residents of these centers are being forced to leave homes many have known for practically their whole lives. The key justification the administration has given for doing all this is saving money. Yet, we are told we cannot afford to have an impartial review of that savings claim because it might slow down this march of “progress” by a few months.
The fact is that studies in other states have come to conclusions that don’t support the Patrick administration’s claim that closing developmental centers saves money. (See, for instance: Journal of Mental Retardation cost studies review and Connecticut DDS studies of the cost of closing the Southbury Training School.) Were an independent study in this state to reach a conclusion similar to those out-of-state studies, it would present a public relations problem, at the very least, for the Patrick administration.
That, it seems to us, is the real reason the administration and the ADDP fought so hard to make sure the independent cost study amendment didn’t see the light of day here in Massachusetts. Last month, Rep. Brian Dempsey, House Ways and Means chairman, wouldn’t allow the study amendment, which had been sponsored by Rep. Anne Gobi, even to come to a floor vote in the House.
A staff member for Senator Michael Moore, the sponsor of the independent cost study amendment in the Senate, would only say this week that “(Senate) Ways and Means was not supportive” of the amendment. As we understand it, Moore was first told he would not be allowed to include language in the measure requiring legislative approval of the study.
Then Moore was told he would have to knock Templeton and Monson out of the amendment, and restrict the study just to Glavin, which is in Moore’s district. Moore complied with all of those directives. But it didn’t help.
Moore’s watered-down cost study amendment was nevertheless then reportedly bundled with other budget amendments in the Senate’s consolidated “no” pile, meaning it was doomed to be rejected, along with all the other amendments unwanted by the leadership, in a single voice vote on the Senate floor. You couldn’t have done in this cost study amendment more thoroughly if you tried.
You have to hand it to the administration and the ADDP. If they don’t want something getting through the legislative process in Massachusetts, it apparently doesn’t get through. The problem is that doesn’t say much for the democratic process in Massachusetts.
Just saying “this will save money” without real numbers, real analysis, or an actual independent study means that what is really being said is “I say jump, you say how high.”
The exact same process of “because we say so” psuedo-analysis is being used to potentially dismantle zealous, independent indigent defense in this state.
Thanks David for the update, as disappointing as it is. I continue to be dismayed by the arrogance of our administration and legislature…their dismissive and cruel abdication of the rights of our most vulnerable residents is despicable. I don’t know how to proceed in planning for my cousin…I promised his mother I would look after him in the way she did, and I will do that, but how could this situation be in Massachusetts???
mau
The lack of support for an independent study is disappointing, but not surprising. Nonetheless, it was worth the effort. I wonder what future reports from the administration and the department will show about the costs/savings? Those reports can probably be written right now.
I don’t believe the Administration, The Arc or ADDP are afraid of an independent study, but recognize it for what it is, one more ploy by the opponents of closure to slow the process down. The facts seem to be clear, except to a small group of individuals who are in the minority in the disability community. The federal and state governments are not able to sustain the way Medicaid currently spends dollars and it is incumbent upon the disability community to look at itself and ask are we using every dollar wisely. Can the state continue to afford six developmental centers and support a community system and provide in home family supports? The answer seems to be no. At the federal and state level we are beset by fiscal shortfalls. It seems impossible to continue business as is; and thus if the equal or better care can be provided in the community, it is appropriate to close excess state facilities, and use all dollars more efficiently. Opponents of closure suggest that people in state institutions are more medically fragile than people in the community, despite evidence to the contrary. Research validates that larger numbers of people with extensive health and behavioral needs are actually living in the community, not in institutions. (Fortune and Auerbach, 2009).
Delaying tactics, including endless studies and endless appeals and objections can be harmful to the people who remain in state institutions and their families. Institutions are closing throughout the nation. Reduced numbers of institutions is inevitable with declining census and with declining federal and state dollars to support excess centers. Telling families that their continued resistance is a good move is just plain wrong. It gives them false hope and it limits their options of choices to be made. I only hope that opponents of closure will visit with families who have made successful moves to the community and listen to their stories of success. For those who still feel an institutional setting is still a better choice, the state plan keeps Wrentham and Hogan as an option. I fear valuable time is being lost for families and their loved ones. The discussions in Washington led by Rep. Ryan and others may take many choices away and force even more rapid closure. We need to move ahead as a state and as family members.
that you say shows people in institutions are not more medically fragile than those in the community? I was not able to find the article that you cited as Fortune and Auerbach 2009.
You say this article states that more people with extensive medical and behavioral needs are living in the community in instituions. That’s obviously true because more people in general live in the community than in institutions. Not much new there.
Also, dcjayhawk, please stick to facts and stop characterizing our motives. You say our independent study proposal as reflected in Senator Moore’s amendment was a “ploy” to delay the closures of the developmental centers. This is untrue and an unfair characterization of our motives, which you can’t possibly know. It’s just as insulting as calling us “hard core” and “extreme.”
As I recall, Anna T. was kidnapped from her developmental center home either directly or indirectly by the administration, placed in the “community” where she was denied visitors and denied contact with the community of peers with whom she had lived for many years. The last time she was sighted she had visible bruising.
Please explain dcjayhawk how that was equal or better for her.
The request for an independant study has been asked again and again. And once again, it has been denied. This alone should raise eyebrows and concerns by every legislator, and should be raising questions.
With the exception of a very few we seem to be standing alone in our fight to save our loved ones. The compassion and concerns are dwindling. Fernald remains open because of dedicated,strong opposition from family members. Without that dedication and strength from families the battle will be lost, and the closures will happen.
Our loved ones are not only slipping through the cracks,they are being pushed by the very people that are suppose to serve and protect them. Shame on them!!!!!!