Tag Archives: community

Children’s Mental Health and Developmental Disabilties

After watching the House Health and Human Services Appropriations and Oversight Committee Work Session from December 1, 2011, I really saw that the mental health folks are much more aware of the cross systems issues and the problem with “silos” that the DD folks seem to be unaware of.  DDD really needs to look again at the services that their clients receive and share accurate data.  The data they share is so full of inaccuracies that those who use DDD and DSHS data as their facts (The Arc Chapters) are only hurting the very people who they are advocating for.

 

This is clear by the crisis that we have dug ourselves into.  There was NO cost savings from closing Frances Haddon Morgan Center as many were led to believe.  Now instead of using that “savings” for more in the community setting, those who are in the “community” settings are going to lose even more – This treatment is inhumane and is done by the very agency that is set up to protect our most vulnerable.

 

I wish that members of the The Arc chapters would look at some of the data that I have been able to gather and realize that what DDD is giving them is misinformation.  Rather than censoring me or accusing me of abuse because I have questioned the DDD and DSHS reports, it would benefit all of us if someone would actually look at this data and realize that what I have is critical information.

 

The fact that my questions to the authors of some of these reports and the administrators in DSHS and DDD are not answered  should be a big clue that there is information there that they do not want to acknowledge – I would assume because it would show that they are not being truthful in their approaches to policy.  If they were , I believe they would gladly answer my questions or at least tell me that I’m wrong.  I’ve not heard that I’m wrong either.

 

If anyone would like that data, I’m more than willing to share.  The more who are aware of this and who understand it, the better for ALL people, with and without developmental disabilities.

 

I will be posting another letter with some very specific questions that DDD and DSHS need to answer.

Resident hours per day charts

 

Thank you,

Shutter Rainier School?

This proposal is thoroughly lacking in sound judgement.

1.  To close this facility will cost our state millions of dollars – the data that these decisions have been made on have been missing many cost areas and are wholly inaccurate.  Please take a look at the charts here residential Cost Charts for a much more realistic view of the actual costs.   Bear in mind that even these costs do not take into account several critical areas of cost:  Food, Medical and Habilitation.

2.  Aside from the issue of cost – What about the PEOPLE?  Are we not here to help care for others?  Take a look at this essay which illustrates how we recently cared for one of our most vulnerable citizens  Risks outweigh Benefits.  Is this what we want to replicate with moving residents from their safe, stable homes at Rainier?

3.  This IS NOT THE ANSWER – LEAVE OUR STATE OPERATED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES ALONE – THEY ARE THE BACKBONE AND SAFETY NET OF CARE!

Hidden Costs, Access to Health Care, What are we to do?

I have attached two essays which help explain part of the problem of access to healthcare and hidden costs when people and agencies which masquerade as Disability Advocates push for the closure of the Intermediate Care Facility for People with Developmental Disabilities (ICF/DD).  These so-called advocates’ agenda is based on old school ideas and false information for today’s population.  The proposals they have will end up costing more, reducing services all around and hurting everyone.

 

Now is the time for some new thoughts and actions – please read the attached and post comments.

 

Thank you – Cheryl

Medical Home Essay

Hidden Costs of care

 

Developmental Disabilities Coalition for Washington State

Dear Advocate for our citizens with Developmental Disabilities,

We are gathering people and organizations to become members of our Developmental Disabilities Coalition for Washington State. We realized that the support is very fractured across the state and with this new coalition we will be able to communicate, educate and interact with others who maintain that a continuum of care for our citizens is critical.

DD Advocates support person-centered care which focuses on quality of life issues, health, safety and community for our loved ones.  We uphold the U.S. Supreme Court Decision Olmstead which guarantees choice to the individual.

This letter is going to all groups within our state who advocate for our citizens with developmental disabilities.  Please pass it on to new groups or interested people.  Also, please read the enclosed  Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Letter regarding their position on H.R. 2032, a bill which does not uphold the U.S. Supreme Court Decision Olmstead.

There is much work to be done particularly with the onset of more budget cuts.  This is not the time to continue a fractured advocacy movement. 

Please commit to the support of a continuum of care model and join our online group at

 dd-coalition@googlegroups.com

 

Jacqueline C. MacRae Therapy Garden

Friends of Fircrest is honoring Jacqueline C. MacRae with a Dedication Ceremony on Thursday, August 25, 2011 at 10AM in the Therapy Garden.

There is a lovely new bench sculpted by Pat McVay in honor of our appreciation for Jackie.

 

 

Formation of Washington State Task Force to Look at DDD Services

Attached below is my letter to Don Clintsman, Assistant Director, Division of Developmental Disabilities.  He had responded to a letter which I had written to MaryAnne Lindeblad, Assistant Secretary, Aging and Disabilities Service Administration, inquiring about the formation of the Task Force and the importance for a balanced perspective of the participants.

Dear Mr. Clintsman,

 

Thank you for responding to my letter to Ms. Lindebland.  It is hopeful to hear that the The Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Developmental Disabilities finally understand the concept of and have adopted the term “continuum of care.”

 

We, as grassroots disability advocates have always stressed the importance of the continuum of care, realizing that each person needs to be looked at individually and their needs met according to their assessed support needs.  The only way to accomplish this goal and also accomplish it within a reasonable budget is to continue to offer the full continuum of care to all – regardless of their age group.

 

Once one realizes the critical importance of this continuum, I’m hoping that the budget figures and reports will more accurately be reported to reflect the true cost of care – especially for our most vulnerable citizens and those with high acuity levels in several areas. 

 

It has never been disputed that citizens with high acuity can be accommodated in neighborhood communities and it’s wonderful that this arrangement can work for many.  It is neither realistic nor safe to consider this the best option or even a viable option for many of our citizens who currently reside in the state operated residential communities or those who have requested admittance but have been denied access to these communities. 

 

Given the many constraints of resources – not only dollars – but people and housing, it only makes economic sense to utilize the concept of “scale of economies.”  This concept utilizes the fact that being able to serve more people with the same type of support needs and sharing some of those services within a community actually saves dollars.  Within these communities, the residents also receive their comprehensive health care – minimizing many transportation costs, emergency back up costs, and extra personnel costs used to transport residents to other appointments just to highlight a few examples of costs which are often forgotten.   The residents have much better preventative care and follow-up care, are not traumatized by being “taxied” around town for various appointments such as lab draws, xrays, dental exams, eyeglass fittings, etc. 

 

I will highlight one example of a woman in her mid 30’s.  She lives in a supported living arrangement, has cancer and many other health related problems.  She came through the department in which I work to have her port-a-cath changed due to mismanagement and infection.  This is very unusual to need a port-a-cath replaced, particularly if the first one has only been in a short while.   This woman presented in surgery, unaccompanied by a guardian, unable to comprehend all that was going on.  She had missed many of her scheduled doctor’s appointments related to not only her cancer treatment but preventative and follow-up care for other health issues.  It is stories such as this that I see as totally preventable when a person lives in a residential community with comprehensive care.  What budget does the cost of her care due to mismanagement of her health problems get attributed to?  This doesn’t even take into the account the effects of pain and suffering to this woman. 

 

I know from  looking at many sources which DDD and DSHS provide regarding costs of care, services requested and provided and even the cost of care for the 30 highest cost DDD residents  that you provided to me, the figures that have been used for cost comparison are extremely inaccurate with missing costs, cost shifting and data input errors.    Data that was used for these cost comparison reports was taken from reports with many inaccuracies – therefore, the data pulled is essentially useless if getting an accurate assessment of the cost was the goal.   

 

 

In addition to the issues of safety for our residents, we must also look at safety and training for the caregivers.  I will be looking into the L&I cost of “on the job injuries” to caregivers and charting from which type of facility the highest percentages originate from. 

 

Again, hearing that The Department has now adopted and supports a continuum of care, maybe we can really move forward with innovative systems which are cost effective to safely support our most vulnerable citizens. 

 

I will be following up this letter with data which supports the need for a continuum of care.  In addition to having accurate data, it is critical for some very prominent advocacy groups to realize that denying our citizens with the support needs which are available in the residential communities is not only denying these people their human and civil rights but will weaken the whole system by putting an undue financial burden on our state.  These actions which they advocate for will actually minimize the services to many who have less acute support needs.  The dollar can only be stretched so far without something giving.

 

 If one were to follow their example of “everyone needs to live in the community” I’m afraid that we will lose many of our beloved family members. 

 

Again, thank you for your follow-up letter and I will be communicating with the Task Force Members often once the committee has been decided.

DD Coalition

Check out this new group:

DD Coalition  

dd-coalition@googlegroups.com

Developmental Disabilities Advocacy Coalition for Washington State. This group advocates for a
continuum of care for our citizens with DD.

This includes person-centered care
which focuses on quality of life issues, health, safety and community for our
loved ones.

Letter to the Editor in The Seattle Times

 

 

Link to letter to the Editor regarding Governor Gregoire signing Substitute Senate Bill 5459 into law.  This is a sad commentary on the priorities of our state with regards to the care of our most vulnerable citizens and their quality of life, health and safety.

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2015341101_govgregoirevetoespartsofmarijuanabill.html

 

 

Local News | What did and didn’t pass in Legislature this year | Seattle Times Newspaper

When I read this article and see no mention of SSB 5459 in this – I realize that the bill that was so critical in my mind was of little significance to the state as a whole.  I have a hard time coming to grips with this and then wonder, if this bill was of such little significance, why didn’t legislators listen to the sensible and responsible facts that were brought to their attention and vote NO on SSB 5459?  There must be another reason that overrode responsibility, basic human and civil rights, personal choice on residence as guaranteed under the Federal Olmstead decision and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services guidelines.

If anyone could enlighten me as to what deals were made which caused this bill to pass I would love to know.  Maybe if I understood what was exchanged in order for a responsible, humane and sensible person to vote yes on this bill,  I could understand why innocent people were made scapegoats for such an “insignificant” bill.

Local News | What did and didn’t pass in Legislature this year | Seattle Times Newspaper.

Stop thisTrainwreck waiting to happen!

Please stop SSB 5459 – There is so much wrong with this bill that it will be hard to sum up in a concise and effective letter.  The critical issue is to stop this now and think about what the ramifications of such drastic changes will be if this bill is passed.

  1.  This bill is based on regurgitated false information from years past.  Senator Adam Kline continues to talk about “the 1970’s” with regards to our facilities today.  He is correct about the changes that needed to take place in 1970 but he’s far removed from the realities of the situation today and the recommendations from the experts of TODAY
  2. There are many in the community who are eligible and have requested admission to an RHC.  DDD has continually denied admission.  This is the only reason for a declining census in our RHCS.  There needs to be a survey sent out to all in the community who are eligible to inquire about their choice.  I believe you will find many who have chosen the RHC but their choice has been denied.  It is time that DDD actually supported and adhered to the Olmstead decision and respected people’s civil right to have a choice in where they want to live.  This is the very first thing that should be done before any or our RHCS are consolidated or closed.
  3. The reports that are generated by DDD are based on false information.  These need to be scrutinized.  I have researched the data and have found so many errors and flaws in the analysis of that data.  It is incredible that these reports are continued to be passed around as “fact” without anyone in the department questioning the concerns that I have raised.
  4. Rather than answering my letters regarding the fact that the “key points” are not supported by the data, DDD ignores the questions; Executives from The Arc accuse me of being “abusive” for questioning these reports.  As any person who has done research would know, it is expected to have people question your work.  When they question you, it is an opportunity to prove your point – not to call the questioner ABUSIVE.
  5. DDD reports that they have a Quality Assurance program which is up to date.  I will be sending  a synopsis of the issues I have had in researching the QA reports that should have been done, that DDD says they do, and the lack of knowledge about where they are, if they were even done and the multitude of players involved who do not communicate or know who has what report.  It’s a huge issue of “passing the buck” and nothing is getting done.  This NEEDS to be addressed before anything else can move on.  How can DDD say they have quality assurance when they don’t even have reports done, completed or available or even know who does them? DDD has not even complied with the requirements of The Roads to Community Living grant by completing the necessary surveys of the people who have participated.  The whole grant could be in danger without DDD following through with the requirements.
  6. People contacted regarding QA – still no data available – these people just keep sending emails around saying the next person has the data.  No one has it.  Players involved in this game:  (12 names which I won’t post here but sent to our House Ways and Means Committee members)  You would think that one of these people would be able to give a straight answer.  It’s time that DDD and the DDC are held accountable for their actions and lack thereof.
  7. DSHS is focusing their efforts on closing the RHCs.  The RHCS are about the only safe place for our citizens with DD.  The community homes which DDD so proudly talks about are a shambles – no safety or QA oversight, poorly trained staff with a high turnover, inadequate staffing levels and this is just the beginning.
  8. We hear about how wonderful the homes are in the community.  Just this past month I have been told by family members who have a grown brother and a 17 year old son in an Alpha Supported Living home and a SL Start home respectfully that they are not allowed to bring a visitor to the house.  What type of home is it in which as a sister or mother (or other family member) cannot even drop in to see their loved one or to bring a visitor to meet with them?  Why would they have these policies?  This is certainly not a home in which I would place my loved one. At the RHC, I can visit whenever I want, I don’t have to pre-arrange a visit, I can bring whoever I want to visit with my son.  There are no restrictions on my visitation with my own son.
  9. Rather than embarking on projects that are experimental and also on successful programs with people who are happy with those programs, it is time for DSHS and DDD to fix and bring up to standard the issues in the community.  This is where the energy and money needs to go.  These advocates talk about how they support those in the community yet their actions are contrary to that.  The problems with abuse, lack of oversight, lack of trained caregivers, and lack of services in the community will only be compounded by passing SSB 5459.

Please for the sake of not only our most vulnerable citizens who are safe and healthy in their current homes but also for all those in the community who will be hurt even more by the changes  that this bill support, DO NOT PASS SSB 5459.