(Cross-posted from The COFAR Blog)
Despite the Patrick administration’s determination to close the Glavin Regional Center by next June, families of residents in the facility are prepared to wage a legal battle to save it, The Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported on Sunday.
The families are planning to use the same administrative and court appeal process to stay at Glavin that guardians of 14 residents of the Fernald Developmental Center have used to keep that facility operating more than two years past its scheduled closure date.
The appeal process is based on a state law, which says that the state must prove that a resident’s services and quality of life will be improved if he or she is to be transferred to another location.
“We’re not going to leave here without a fight,” Wilfred Dumont, the father of 28-year-old Stephen Dumont, a Glavin resident, told The Telegram & Gazette. Dumont and his wife, Rosemary, are among several Glavin guardians who are actively opposing the transfers of their loved ones from the facility.
Not only has Glavin provided a high level of care that these families have not been able to find in the Department of Developmental Services community-based system, but Glavin has also provided a range of medical, dental and other services to community-based DDS clients.
As COFAR Executive Director Colleen Lutkevich stated in a letter submitted yesterday to the editor of the Telegram & Gazette:
…the reality is that Glavin is a wonderful community of residents, families, and staff. Instead of closing this innovative state-of-the-art residence, built with such hope and promise not that long ago, we call on Governor Patrick and DDS Commissioner Howe to admit their mistake and cancel Glavin’s closure. It is not only the morally right thing to do, it is good economics.
Ironically, the Glavin families, like their Fernald counterparts, have been forced to adopt the administrative appeal strategy because key state legislators have never supported proposals for either an independent cost study prior to closing those facilities or for legislative approval of the closures.
Senator Stephen Brewer, chairman of the Senate Ways & Means Committee, is quoted in the Sunday Telegram & Gazette story as saying he wouldn’t support an independent cost study for Glavin this year because the fight to preserve the center “is unwinnable.” He also raised a perennial red herring about the $10 million cost of operating Fernald for 14 residents (more about that below).
All along the way, however, Brewer has tried to play both sides of the fence, telling The Springfield Republican in May 2010 that he did support a cost study prior to closing Glavin and three other facilities, and saying: “We’re in this to try to help the people stay in the places they call home. Some of those people have been there 60 years.”
It’s now clear that Brewer himself has personally played a major role in bringing about the closures of Fernald, Glavin, and the Monson and Templeton centers. Meanwhile, he’s still trying to have it both ways. In the debate over the current-year budget, Brewer supported an independent cost study prior to the closure of Taunton State Hospital, a Department of Mental Health facility.
As to the contention that Fernald and the other DDS centers have become too expensive to continue to operate, here’s what we’ve said many times: confirm that with an independent study. No one in Massachusetts has done a comprehensive and independent study of the relative cost of care in the developmental centers versus community-based group homes. That’s why COFAR began calling in late 2011 for such a study to be done by an accounting firm or other entity selected by the Inspector General.
If Senator Brewer and other opponents of the DDS developmental centers are convinced it is more expensive to continue to operate them than to move everyone in them to community-based group homes, why do they oppose an independent study of that issue?
It is true that the cost per resident at Fernald, in particular, is currently very high. But as DDS Commissioner Elin Howe herself has noted, the cost per resident of any institution that is being closed spikes as fixed costs are spread over a shrinking base of residents. Let’s not forget, it was the administration’s choice, not the families’ and guardians’ choice, to move residents out of Fernald, Glavin, Monson, and Templeton.
The fact is that state funding for the four developmental centers has dropped by close to $70 million in the past four years. Yet, funding for community-based programs such as transportation services, family supports, and day programs remains well below what it was in Fiscal Year 2009. That the $70 million in so-called savings hasn’t helped those community line items should be of more concern to Senator Brewer than the temporary cost of continuing to operate Fernald or Glavin while guardians there exercise their lawful appeal rights.
Meanwhile, Brewer and other legislators should also be concerned about the loss of the intensive Intermediate Care Facility (ICF) model that is occurring as Fernald, Glavin, Templeton, and Monson are shut down. ICF care conforms to federal standards that are much more stringent than the standards that govern community-based care. This has real implications for care.
In their study of a major deinstitutionalization in California in the mid-1990s, Robert Shavelle, David Strauss, and Steven Day found that as of 1999, there had been 81 deaths among residents transferred from institutions to community-based group homes — a 47 percent increase in mortality over that expected in the institutions. (The results were significant at the 95% confidence level.)
The California study concluded that the reasons for the higher mortality rate in the community system were the less intensive medical care and supervision available in the community than in the institutions in that state.
We should also respond to statements made by DDS Commissioner Howe in the Telegram & Gazette story on Sunday. Howe said, among other things, that closing the developmental centers in Massachusetts follows a New England and national trend; that Connecticut has only one institution for people with developmental disabilities, and that none of the other New England states have any such facilities.
First of all, Connecticut currently has a total of six state-run ICFs that provide care under the same federal standards as Glavin, Fernald, Monson, Templeton and two other facilities in Massachusetts. The Connecticut public ICFs include the Southbury Training School and five regional centers.
In addition, Connecticut has 69 privately operated ICF facilities, and private ICFs also exist in Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Massachusetts, however, has no ICFs outside of six state-run facilities, four of which are targeted for closure.
While the national trend has been to move people from large, state-run institutions to smaller, privately run facilities, the ICF model is not being phased out nationally as it is in Massachusetts. More than 7,000 public and private ICFs operate nationwide, according to the American Health Care Assocation. For the record, we have long supported the downsizing or “rightsizing” of the remaining developmental centers in Massachusetts. What we oppose, as noted, is the phase-out of the ICF model.
We also prefer that the ICFs continue to be state-operated because state workers tend to receive better pay and benefits, and consequently have less turnover, than those in privately run facilities.
Howe also maintained that the community system and two remaining developmental centers in Massachusetts “are strong enough to meet all of the individuals’ needs.”
Tell that to Wilfred and Rosemary Dumont, who were unable to find a community-based facility that could successfully treat Stephen, who had a habit of opening up a permanent wound on his head by repeatedly banging his head on hard objects. Tell that to Brad and Joan Douty, whose daughter Anna hit herself in the head so often while living in a group home that she eventually detached the retinas in both eyes and is now blind.
Both Stephen Dumont and Anna Douty have been living successfully at Glavin for several years.
Or tell that to Roland Charpentier, who moved his brother Richard out of Glavin and into a non-ICF group home on the Glavin grounds a few years ago. After his brother contracted pneumonia four times, Roland had him moved back into Glavin.
“My intention is to keep Richard here (at Glavin) no matter what the state wants to do,” Roland Charpentier told The Telegram & Gazette. “I’m going to stand and fight for Richard’s rights.”
what’s wrong with this state? WHY does it insist on dismanteling something that works? It has already made the investment in Centers like Fernald, Glavin, etc. both in terms of the structures and personnel and it works. You’d think they would be trying to figure a way to keep what works, but I guess we’ll have none of that–it makes way too much sense.
Good luck with the fight Glavin!
As for the folks at Taunton State, we’ll have to wait and see how long Senator Brewer is for it until he is against it and ultimately stuff those people under the bus too.
for your continued eloquent and accurate reporting on this issue and the plans of the administration to eliminate services for the developmentally disabled in MA. It’s an important story that needs to be told and needs even more to be heard by those who think they know best for everyone else.
It’s pretty clear at this point that information coming from the administration cannot be relied upon.
refreshing if just once the information from the administration was truthful, complete and accurate?
…that posts on this subject seem isolated from the rest of BMG? I don’t contribute much to threads on this subject because I don’t know much about it (maybe that’s true for other BMGers), though I have heard from those who seem to have a legitimate different view on this matter who certainly are not lacking in commpassion, which is how I would describe the Governor. It seems that those who have posted on this thread so far ONLY appear when this is the topic and never engage on anything else.
Dave (from Harvard and all) is an articulate and forceful advocate for his positions. Bravo.
It’s just that these posts tend to be so one-sided, painting well-meaning opponents as greedy fools with no empathy for those served by the closing facilities. The reality is far more complex.
The close relationship between COFAR and the MNA on these issues (see e.g.: http://www.massnurses.org/files/file/myMNA/unit7/u7cofarletter0209.pdf ) also makes me quesy. “It’s All About Patient Care” seems a bit of an Oreweillian slogan for a labor union. And the fact that this MNA letter concludes with the redundant “Please remember it is all about our patients, IT’S ALL ABOUT PATIENT CARE!” seems more like a pollster’s advice to a candidate than a genuine belief.
It’s all about the services, which are well-defined and federally licensed in the developmental centers for the developmentally disabled. But that is not at all the case in the privately-run settings.
As to why posts on this topic may seem isolated to some, as at least one of you has pointed out, you don’t know much about the issue. That’s probably because developmental disability is a rather low-incidence disability, and I’m guessing you would say that since these matters do not affect you personally, you haven’t paid much attention to them.
Nonetheless, disability services in MA are governed by politics, often mucky politics. Jeanne McGuire had committed to cleaning up the system with increased transparency and equity of services, but now she’s gone and the positive changes never materialized.
And the groups with the “diffetent view” do not speak with an independent voice–they’re funded to one extent or another by the administration. Frankly, I’d prefer to join with Mass Nurses.
1. While I appreciate LoquaciousLiberal’s compliment that I’ve been articulate, LL also says my posts tend to be one-sided and paint “well meaning opponents as greedy fools with no empathy…”
I try to adopt a tone of spirited debate while remaining completely factual and journalistic. I back up as many of the statements I make as possible with links to sources. If I mention a study, as in the post above, I link to it.
It’s true that I’ve tended to be critical of DDS and of organizations such as the Arc and the ADDP. If that makes me one-sided, so be it. They are free to post their side of the story. I don’t believe, however, that any of the people I’ve criticized are greedy or foolish and would challenge LL to be specific about where I’ve ever said or implied that.
2. As for Christopher’s comment, I try when I can to comment on a number of different posts and topics on this site. I can’t speak for all those who comment on my posts.
It seems to me that the purpose of a site such as BMG is to promote a wide range of political discussion among people with a wide range of viewpoints and interests. Is it necessary that they all comment on every topic that comes up on the site?
It’s true that few outside commenters regularly comment on my posts. Personally, I think that the issues involved here lie at the heart of what government is all about, and I’d like to see more people comment on them. But people should be free to comment or not comment as they see fit. And just as I don’t see any point in criticizing people for not commenting on my posts, I don’t see any point in criticizing those who do.
It is regrettable that COFAR, a small group of individuals who represent a tiny fraction of families and individuals served by the Department of Developmental Services, continues to urge families to resist the State at all costs while trying to stop the inevitable closure of four un-needed ICF facilities for people with developmental disabilities.
COFAR opposes the closures and falsely tells families that their loved ones needs won’t be met by community programs. What COFAR fails to let families know is that for nearly every individual in state institutions, there are people with the same level of disability living successfully in the community.
COFAR’s rhetoric attempts to frighten families by telling them of higher mortality rates in community programs versus ICF programs by citing a flawed 1993-1998 California mortality study whose methodology and findings have been discredited by multiple expert researchers including: O’Brian and Zaharia, Mental Retardation (AAMR), October 1998; Conroy and Adler, Mental Retardation 36(5): 380-385; Lehman, Apgar, Jordan, Mental Retardation, 41(4): 225-236 and Heller, Factor, Hsieh, Hanhn, American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103(3): 236-248.
COFAR calls Fernald and Glavin state of the art resources, which they are not in the opinion of disability experts. They are formerly large institutions built to serve many people which now are not wanted by more than a handful of people and thus cannot exist without eating up very limited fiscal resources. The Massachusetts ICF model is dependent upon a larger population being served within them; as the population continues to diminish due to the families and consumers of today not wanting ICFs, their costs will continue to be disproportionately high compared to what it should cost to deliver this level of service and supports.
A fundamental question that COFAR cannot adequately answer (doesn’t want to answer) is why should the state continue to fund six state institutions when the population in these centers is so small? The cost of operating six ICF with scarce tax dollars is something the state simply can’t afford to continue doing in this economy or for years to come. The state is planning on keeping two ICFs open for those families who want an ICF type service.
By keeping Fernald Forever or Glavin Forever, COFAR and their allies are in effect depriving other individuals of access or reduced access to services in order to keep inefficient old programs open.
COFAR has urged families to appeal and resist and then appeal again, without any regard for how much this delay is costing the taxpayer or hurting other families without service.
In the case of Fernald, the State now faces the difficult task of finding $10.6 million for 14 individuals, in the next budget, while thousands of other families seeking help to keep their loved ones in their homes are told there is not money to support their requests. (11,000 families have lost DDS Family Support in home services since 2009).
And now, COFAR is working to urge Glavin families to follow the Fernald example, while feeling no responsibility for the lack of services or money to support others without service.
I expect dave-from-hvad, the COFAR voice (and now the Connecticut closure opponents voice), to criticize my position because I am the President of ADDP. My members are not gaining from the closure experience as David has frequently stated. I and others in ADDP believe in community integration because we believe it is the right thing to do and that it represents best practice.
As the brother of an individual with a developmental disability who lived for nearly 30 years in a state institution and now thrives in a community placement, I hope families will resist COFAR’s costly delay game and work for the best future available for their loved ones recognizing that we have a responsibility to use every tax dollar wisely while pursuing best practice for our loved ones, not merely clinging to old models.
Let’s build the future together, not hold onto a system that is no longer viable. Urging families to fight forever is bad advice and ill serves people with disabilities.
As I have said before, there is no “one size fits all” model that meets the needs of this community. Some thrive in community settings – some die. The “one size fits all” same treatment for everyone model kills people. There are times when intensive site care is what is needed for a long period of time or intermediate period of time, or triage. JayHawk is an accurate title, really, because “at the time of the Civil War, “JayHawks” were partisan bushwhackers, often in the pay of big money partisans. Yeah, I know, it is all about the money JayHawk – whether your paymaster, or setting up straw men. Glavin is very different from Fernald, and the decrease in inventory, and the keeping of promises to Fernald families being painted as “selfish” rather than honorable is right in line with your usual divide and conquer type argument. Nothing like pitting the defenseless and needy against one another to turn my stomach.
Unfortunately, you have repeatedly mischaracterized COFAR’s position and much of what I said in my post.
First of all, COFAR has not given anyone any advice to oppose the closure of the Glavin, Fernald, or any other facilities. The families and guardians of the residents of those facilities are capable of making their own decisions in that regard. We did provide the Glavin guardians with information about the state law (Chapter 123B), which provides for the appeal process they are seeking.
Secondly, COFAR hasn’t falsely told these families that their needs won’t be met in the community. Those families have reached that conclusion themselves out of long and hard experience. Please give them some credit for being able to think for themselves.
Third, COFAR represents families throughout the DDS system in Massachusetts and has several affailiated member organizations, including the Advocacy Network, The Wrentham Association, and the Glavin Family Association. Please stop trying to marginalize us.
As far as the California mortality study I cited is concerned, it was peer reviewed and published in the Journal of Data Science. It will be difficult to verify the studies you claim contradict it since you haven’t listed the names of the studies or linked to them. It would be helpful if you could do that.
I appreciate it and know that circumstances make it difficult for you to be active right now. (You and your husband are in my prayers, BTW.) I believe that both Dave and Jayhawk speak for their respective sides for a living. Nothing wrong with that, though it should be prominently disclosed. In this case I am especially grateful for jayhawk’s contributions if only to give balance to a story that my instinct says has at least a couple of sides and we always hear the COFAR/Fernald side. I still am not in a position to come to my own conclusion on this matter, but whenever I only hear one side red flags go up. Maybe that also explains my tendency to push back on anti-casino posts, because I only see one side here and the most prolific diarist on that matter, Les Bernal, directs an organization committed to preventing them.
Every time I posted the same 5 anti-community posters would attack. It was like talking to oneself. I too wish that more people were interested in having real dialog on these threads.
It is my belief that almost every person is better served in the community. I would love to tell success stories but telling stories would betray confidentiality. I do know that my organization has provided excellent services since 1985 to people just like the ones still living at Fernald in the past few years. When the individuals moved into the house in 1985 their parents had some of the same concerns the COFAR parents have. When we had our 25th anniversary party parents sat around talking about their fears and how the things they feared never materialized.
I think Christopher’s point about David and Jayhawk both being paid to represent one side or the other is a good one. I don’t know David, I do know Jayhawk and it bothers me that he gets vilified here. He has probably done more for people with DD than almost anyone else in the state. He certainly has been a strong advocate to make sure the legislature pays attention to the DD community.
…where some do better in one setting and some in another. LynPB, can you tell stories without using names (or use pseudonyms)? Those are sometimes helpful to the understanding of these matters.
Dave-from-hvad’s defense of a deeply flawed California mortality study cites it’s publication in the Journal of Data Science; which is a source not viewed as having any expertise in the field of developmental disabilities. That referenced study has been disproved by multiple disabilities experts recognized by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (formerly AAMR). The sources I cited earlier are listed in the official AAIDD (AAMR) publications as I cited by volume and page numbers.
The fundamental issue that COFAR and it’s defenders still continue to ignore is how or why should the state pay for six ICFs when the demand for them is very small. Why are two ICFs insufficient? Why should COFAR encourage 14 families to cost the state $10.6 million, at over $770,000 per person, when 11,000 other families lose in home supports and respite care. Those families are struggling to survive every day in their own homes and are desperate for assistance but cannot obtain it in this difficult economy as the state struggles to balance its budget.
COFAR is now urging the Glavin families to follow the Fernald example and object, appeal and cause delay and greater expense. Is that a responsible position for families to take when so many others are suffering and going without? There are services available to meet the needs of the Glavin and Fernald families; it may not be in the same location but they are quality services and supports. When the state is paying for the service do families have the right to say to the state, that the state must keep it in the same location forever despite the cost of the service and the impact on others.
I don’t think these are unfair questions, but these are questions that COFAR avoids answering and feel no responsibility to answer.
It may be pointless to discuss these issues on BMG. COFAR has very few members and represents a tiny fraction of the disability community however it does appear that many of COFARs members actively post on BMG. Those posters respond quickly and uniformly and are unwelcoming to those who disagree with them, not caring for a full discussion of these crucial issues.
We live now in a changed world, a world of diminishing tax resources with a political climate that will likely lead to less financial resources from Washington and the Commonwealth. The state and federal government will no longer fund everything as they have in the past. To deny this is to simply ignore reality. COFAR could be an effective voice, if its leadership can accept the challenges of the future, however COFAR appears unwilling to leave the past, despite the cost to the Commonwealth and other people with developmental disabilities who languish without services or supports.
As president of the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers, you have a responsibility to back up your statements with facts, just as I do as communications director for COFAR.
Yet you continue to make unsubstantiated statements about COFAR and our positions, and continue to try to marginalize us as an advocacy organization. Before you revealed your true identity on BMG, you accused us under your anonymous username of being “hard core extremists.” Now you’re still attempting to marginalize us by saying we have “very few members” and that we represent “a tiny fraction of the disability community.”
Please cite your sources for that information, Mr. Blumenthal. We certainly represent a greater percentage of the disability community than does the ADDP, which represents only the vendor/providers who contract with DDS.
As for the California mortality study that you are so eager to discredit, the authors as far as I can tell are eminent academics and statisticians. David Stauss is professor emeritus of statistics at the University of California. He received a distinguished service award from the Arc of California in 1998 and is an elected fellow of the American Statistical Association.
Dr. Robert Shavelle is technical director of the Life Expectancy Project and a Fellow of the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine.
Are there more people in the institutions than in the community? Or do you also represent those who live in state ops?
As i noted earlier, discussions on BMG with COFAR and you are not the most productive or appropriate forum. Your responses or lack of response to specific questions speaks volumes for the marginalization of your position. And your personal attacks are not worthy of response. The AAIDD experts who have disproved the flawed California study are well known and renowned experts in the DD field and are so acknowledged by the DD professional community. It is unfortunate you are not familiar with them or their extensive credentials.
As Fernald, Glavin and the other ICFs move towards closure hopefully families will look to how to build the future without wasting very limited and diminishing fiscal resources. The state treasury is not a bottomless resource. The disability community will continue to face fiscal challenges from Washington and the state. Responsible organizations will work with government, self advocates, families and other advocates to face the future in a responsible manner. Demanding a world that has passed is not the responsible path.
Fanning the flames of fear and anger may be your choice and style, but it is not helping the greater disability community who expect more from their supporters, leaders and advocates.
refreshing if just once the information from the self-proclaimed “advocates” was truthful, complete and accurate?
…is if the advocates didn’t snipe at each other. I would also be curious about the interests and background of truthaboutdmr and ssurette as those are the two I meant when I refered to people who only comment on this topic and seem to be dave from hvad’s cheering section.
I’m ssurette. Its not a secret that I’m a Fernald guardian. I’ve made that fact known countless times. The only reason I post comments here at all is its probably the only place this topic is aired. I’m not a journalist, or have any other credential I needs to worry about. No one is paying me to put forth a particular view. I’m one person trying to do what’s best for my profoundly mentally retarded brother and I say it like I see it.
Frankly, I am sick to death of the holier than thou dcjayhawk/ADDP/ARC et al. I am more than offended by supposed advocates that use whatever influence they have to target and advocate against 14 old, mentally retarded and physcially disabled people. Read your posts–who is villifying who?
How dare they suggest that I or any guardian should sacrifice the safety and well-being of their family member for the greater good–how dare they? Particularly since these same elderly people have already done their part for the greater good by taking the state to Federal court to put an end to years of abuse and resulted in the creation of the industry (community care) that now pays dcjayhawk to advocate against them. How dare they?
These supposed advocates are not involved in Fernald or Glavin. They have no knowledge–NONE–about the people or what DDS has offered in the way of alternative placements. They have more than nerve than a bad tooth making comments here, in this public forum, about what is or is not safe, right, appropriate or anything else for that matter as if they are somehow in the know–when they know nothing about it.
I’ve said it here, on BMG, about a million times, community care is great for those who have the ability to cope with that situation. For those who can’t there should be alternatives. Somehow its difficult to reconcile placing those individuals in one place (the existence of the other facility is still undertermined)is in line with the pitch. Isn’t it creating one of those large institutions. Isn’t creating several small down-sized, right-sized centers–keeping what is good and eliminating what is excess resulting in places more in line with the current philosophy.
Being a guardian is a perfectly legitimate interest, just something I didn’t remember. Since most BMGers comment on a wide range of topics, but you only appear when this is discussed it did provoke my curiousity.
Thanks for your interest on this subject. Clearly, dcjayhawk’s comments hit a raw nerve. I wonder what his comments would be if the shoe was on the other foot–they decided to shut down the system of care that worked for his family member. No one could blame him for speaking out strongly against it.
I do read other posts on BMG but I am not even a little bit political so it is rare that I make other comments.
Again, thanks for your interest.
I have faced the termination of services for my brother and the program that provided him services as the service models changed and evolved over his lifetime. While my family and I were also frightened by those changes, we got involved in disability and political advocacy and learned not to be frightened by how disability services were changing.
I understand the fear families feel about the changing world of disability services and the change in funding support for these services. That doesn’t change the fact that the Commonwealth and the federal government will not always be able to afford to continue old systems at every single location that they have in the past. The state doesn’t have the capacity or the funds to operate six ICFs forever. I don’t know how we as families with loved ones who have disabilities can justify thousands of others going without services because a few people object to their service program being downsized or consolidated with the remaining two other programs.
The vast majority of self advocates and families I know with loved ones with developmental disabilities feel a sense of responsibility to help build a system that is rational and supports as many people as possible. The State is not saying to Fernald or Glavin families you can no longer have ICF services or no services at all. They are saying we need to use our limited resources wisely to see that thousands of others are also being supported.
DDS is offering to provide services at other ICFs, or other state operated programs that are of the same or better quality. Fighting the State to object for objections sake is a bad strategy that is harming thousands of other families and straining very limited tax dollars.
I respect your love and devotion for your family member, but what do you propose happen to the thousands of others who go without service? Are they irrelevant because a very small minority of the disability community demands that the world stand still for them and never change?
First, there you go again, questioning my (and others)motivations. Not exactly sure how you figure that anyone is objecting just for the sake of objecting.
Just so you have one fact that you can twist in whatever way you like, the department has taken me into the legal process–not the other way around–because I’m unwilling to accept a placement that “is unsafe and inadequate to meet ISP recognized rights and needs” (direct quote from decision).
I ask the question, how many individuals have to be put in harms way before it becomes relevant.
I do not know the details or specifics of your loved ones needs, however I do believe that for the 14 individuals who reside at Fernald, there are people with very similar needs living in the community. I would be happy, only if you would be willing and interested, to set up opportunities for you to see community programs that might be good for your loved one.
I respect both sides on this and certainly believe they are all sincere. From reading the back and forth (and I am glad there was actual discussion this time) it sounds as though the solution that dcjayhawk advocates best serves the greatest good for the greatest number, which for me is often the key criterion for determining the best policy if a mutually exclusive choice must be made.
I note that one commenter on this site has called attention to the lack of response from others to specific questions speaking volumes, yet he and his group have failed to answer fundamental questions regarding the actual costs of providing services to the disabled in an intermediate care facility setting. But he expects others to prove their claims with validated independent studies and links to those studies.
To profess “I do not know the details or specifics of your loved ones needs” and then claim that one-size-fits-all services are just fine. Really?
As to complaints about current costs of supporting those still living at Fernald, the administration is getting exactly what they wanted when they set up the situation to drive up the costs of running Fernald—so why are they now complaining to everyone else? The people still living there are being used as pawns.
we believe that appropriately downsizing the existing developmental centers will meet his criteria of providing the greatest good for the greatest number.
Maintaining the current number of smaller, cost-effective centers would allow the current residents to remain in their longtime homes at Fernald, Glavin, Monson, and Templeton while providing a good deal for taxpayers. Dcjayhyawk says we haven’t addressed the cost issue in operating the developmental centers, but we have addressed that issue repeatedly.
The administration is now creating one massive institutional complex in Wrentham and sending everyone to it. It is located far away from most of the families involved in the four centers slated for closure.
The centers that are being closed are strategically located around the state. The administration’s approach makes no logical or fiscal sense to us. Glavin, in particular, is a small and particularly well-run facility that has the potential to be very cost-effective to run. We would hope the administration and the ADDP would be willing to discuss a mutually acceptable solution to this.
sounds reasonable, balanced, fair, and fiscally responsible—worthy of serious consideration.
The issue of closure of the ICFs has been decided. The battle is over. The legislature and the Governor have confirmed and ratified this decision numerous times over the course of the last four years. COFAR refuses to accept that outcome and is more interested in continuing to fight this matter on multiple fronts, including every appeals avenue in order to delay the inevitable, without any concern for the tens upon tens of millions their delay tactics continue to cost the Commonwealth. COFAR’s members only accept their own conclusion about best practice and the fiscal perspective and reject anyone who disagrees with them. COFAR will only accept agreement with their conclusion to keep these excess ICFs open. In the meantime, thousands of other consumers and families go without services, while the cost of operating Fernald has escalated to over $770,000 per person; while community programs and other sites offer the same service for substantially less cost.
Now COFAR, having reinforced 14 families to hold out forever at Fernald, is offering to bring the same obstructionist strategy to Glavin families which could likely cost the Commonwealth more millions in delay. This does not sound like a reasonable use of very limited tax dollars and places COFAR in the role of causing the Commonwealth millions upon millions of dollars while so many others suffer in this state. The bill is being picked up taxpayers. This type of action is indefensible in this and any other economic period.
An earlier poster on this thread simplistically refers to community programs as “one size fits all”, which demonstrates a lack of knowledge about community programs. Community programs are diverse with a tremendous variety of supports and services tailored to individual need. As long as COFAR continues with its obstructionist strategy thousands of people will continue to suffer as they go without services and the Commonwealth struggles to balance its budget.