Today’s article in the Boston Herald concerning the excessive cost of Fernald Developmental Center was insightful for a number of reasons. The facts stated by the reporter were that six residents remain at Fernald; while the Legislature allocated $11 million last week to cover this cost.
Mr. Kassell contends that the state’s decision to close Fernald is wrong because the Commonwealth disagrees with COFAR’s position advocating for continued use of a very expensive, worn down and obsolete facility that includes dozens of closed buildings and a heating system that costs millions to run each year, even when used for a fraction of the number of buildings on site. COFAR and Mr. Kassell’s position has always been the only answer is to keep this facility open indefinitely regardless of the cost to the state, even when identical or better services were available at other programs for much less cost. To COFAR, all cost analysis done by the State are wrong. The only right one is one that agrees with their preconceived idea of keeping Fernald open.
Shocking to read in the article was Mr. Kassell’s statement on behalf of COFAR: “It’s not the residents’ responsibility to think about all the taxpayer implications of this,” referring to the enormous cost of operating an inefficient and isolated program.
I, and others found that statement to be over the line.
The cost of operating services that cost $11 to $16 million for 6 to 14 people drains the state budget, resulting in other people with dire human needs not being served. It results in the Commonwealth not being able to offer homeless programs with those dollars, or family support programs or other critical state needs.
Fighting to the bitter end, as recommended by COFAR and Mr. Kassell (dave-from-hvad), has resulted in the Commonwealth spending over $40 million over budget since 2010 with no concern from COFAR or Mr. Kassell who mock taxpayers by saying it’s not their responsibility to be concerned about cost.
Perhaps in a few short months this sad episode will be over as this obsolete and expensive to operate facility is shuttered for good and the land sold likely to the City of Waltham. By June, the state estimates there will be two residents left and at that point all federal funds to operate Fernald will be stopped by the Federal Government; and if Fernald remains open it will be funded only with state dollars, a decision unlikely to be supported by state decision makers.
Shed the excess from Fernald and only pay for what is actually used, and use the rest to pay for other methods. I suspect that different people are best served in different ways.
Funds to operate developmental disability programs are funded mostly through the Medicaid program (called Mass Health in the Commonwealth). The federal government, through both the U.S. Department of Health of Human Services-Center for Medicaid & Medicare Services and Congress, are requiring states to be both cost effective and in compliance with the ADA; thus it is problematic for costly programs to exist when less costly and equal in service programs are available. With increasing federal deficits and looming future budget fights, it is unlikely we can ignore the impact of keeping expensive and obsolete programs in operation while less costly programs offer the identical or better level of service.
As I said, Fernald could and should have been properly downsized in order to reduce the excess in cost that has been attributed to it as the population has been reduced. And, as you said, people with different needs should receive different levels of care. The care at Fernald is more intensive than what is available in the community system. The federal regulations that apply to “ICF” facilities such as Fernald are more stringent as well.
We hadn’t heard from you in a while! I hope this will spur people to read my post to see for themselves whether I really said any of the things you’ve attributed to me. Thanks for that! And since you have declined as usual to identify yourself as the president of the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers, I’ve put in the usual notice about that.
One important detail that Mr Kassell and COFAR do not acknowledge: For every person currently served at Fernald, there are people with a nearly identical disability profile being served in the community at less substantially less cost. The services provided at Fernald are not unique to that location.
1. We don’t think the cost of care in the community system has been systematically calculated, so we really don’t know if the cost is substantially less for identical services. Many studies have shown there is no drop in cost in community- based care when the same levels of care are compared.
2. If the care was really equal or better in the community system, why have 87 percent of the people transferred from the developmental centers that have been closed in Massachusetts chosen to go to other developmental centers or state-operated group homes? Only 13 percent have gone to corporate, provider-run residences. Many of these people know, from experience, that the level of care and the conditions are not the same.
Its almost a full time job keeping track of all of COFAR’s misinformation. People moved from Fernald and other closed facilities moved into existing program vacancies. The overwhelming vacancies were in state operated programs.
The Governor’s Institutional Closure plan built additional state operated group homes, creating vacancies to support the continued employment of state employees in those new homes so they could preserve their state pensions and state employment. Private providers never saw this as a business opportunity, as you and COFAR continually allege. Closing obsolete institutions was about the concept of community living, inclusion and using limited state dollars effectively and efficiently. I still find it shocking that in the Boston Herald you said that it doesn’t matter what taxpayers think. Within ADDP and other groups I’ve worked with, most folks understand that the state and federal treasury is finite and not a bottomless pit. The cost of care does matter. $11 million for a facility serving only 6 people is simply impossible to defend, no matter how COFAR and you spin it.
to serve only 6 people? Can you point out the specific words I said or wrote in defense of that cost?
It’s true I told the Herald reporter that I don’t believe it’s the responsibility of the Fernald residents or their families or guardians to consider the impact on taxpayers of their legal appeals. But you are taking that statement out of context. The point I was making was that the families’ and guardians’ first responsibility is to their wards and loved ones. They are not responsible for running Fernald cost-effectively, DDS is. The families and guardians have no control over the way Fernald is run and how or whether it is properly downsized.
Are you saying that the families and guardians should not have exercised their right to appeal the transfers of their loved ones from Fernald because they should have first considered that their appeals might cost taxpayers a lot of money? That makes no sense at all. In that case, the Legislature is at fault as well for enacting the law that provided for those appeals.
I’ve been accused of, namely my statement that the vast majority of former developmental center residents have chosen to remain in state care. dcjayhawk (Gary Blumenthal) says that the fact that such a large number of people went to state-operated group homes was not due to any preference on their part but rather to a DDS plan to build additional state-operated group homes to preserve jobs for state employees.
However, the DDS plan in 2009 also projected that more than 50% of the former developmental center residents would go to provider-operated residences. In actuality, less than 13% actually did. So, the DDS plan didn’t match the reality. If you believe the providers didn’t see the closure of the developmental centers as a business opportunity, I have a bridge I can sell you. Unfortunately, it just didn’t quite work out as they had hoped.