Tag Archives: Residential Habilitation Centers

Pilot Program Promising

Comprehensive, coordinated and cost-effective care – this is not impossible!

Children’s Comprehensive Care Clinic is a pilot program in Texas which is showing promise.  In Washington, we could expand on this by utilizing the campus communities at the Residential Habilitation Centers to become “Comprehensive Care Clinics” for our citizens with developmental disabilities.  The report, Medical Care Task Force Jan 2002,  outlines a process to establish comprehensive, coordinated and cost-effective care.

When looking at cost of care for residents in the supportive communities or dispersed communities, some of the major costs that are not included in the dispersed community costs are medical, psychological, and therapeutic costs.  Removing these costs from the cost analysis does not mean they are free – it means they are not available or accessible or not provided.  Of the many, many studies that have been done this issue of not including medical costs is a problem.  What is interesting though is that the studies that have been conducted in the UK are more accurate – different funding and different agendas.  The UK studies have consistently found that dispersed community services are more expensive than institutional services.

Another interesting issue is “quality of care” and “quality of life”.  The Arc and other DD Advocates do not look at issues that are outside the personal outcome measures, such as choice and community involvement.  They are missing a huge part of “quality of care” issues by their narrow focus and do not realize that “quality of care” influences “quality of life”.

Quality of care (health and safety outcomes) can be measured objectively where as “quality of life” is more subjective.  We meed to include measurements of quality of care into our assessments and cost analysis.  Below are some examples of areas needing evaluation.

a..  access to comprehensive health care services (primary, psychiatric and dental care as well as ancillary services, including care coordination)
b.  rates and status of abuse/neglect reports and investigations (including victimization in the community)
c.  mortality review
d.  access and utilization of behavioral services and
e.  similar direct measures.

When people who require complex care from a variety of professional services receive all their care in a “medical home” model, such as the ICF/ID, dispersing these people  will make access to healthcare, therapies, nursing, recreation and more unavailable. It is well documented that people with ID have higher rates of chronic medical and psychiatric illness than the general population.   It is also well documented that people with ID have an increased incidence of medical illnesses and have need for comprehensive, coordinated medical services. (Kaye McGivney, 2008)  For the best care it is critical to maintain the same providers over time and to avoid disruption of services. (Kaye McGivney, 2008) No longer will services be accessible or able to be shared.    This means that either the cost of care will greatly increase or that the person will not receive care.

Research also shows that those with DD, when admitted to the hospital, stay longer than those without a developmental disability.  People with DD are also less likely to be discharged to their pre-hospitalization living arrangement due to the fact that the needed supports were not accessible.  This fact highlights the importance of having specialized residential centers (ICF/IDs) to help alleviate the cost of care, crisis care and hospitalizations.  Having such centers increases stability is cost effective and provides stability to the citizens.  (Haier Saied, 2003)

Developmental Disabilities are not only experienced by the person but by the family.  We need to look at not only individual quality of life but the families’ experience and quality of life too. (Colvin, 2006) It is critical to the health and safety of our most vulnerable citizens and  a responsibility of our communities and government to realize that we need supportive communities such as the ICF/ID to best care for some of our citizens in the most cost effective, stable, reliable and safe method.

To do otherwise, is negligent.

Works Cited

Colvin, A. D. (2006). Variables Influencing Family Members’ Decisions Regarding Continued Placement of Family Members with Mental Disabilties in One State Operated Institution.

Haider Saeed, H. O.-J. (2003). Length of Stay for Psychiatric Inpatient Services: A Comparison of Admissions of People with and without Developmental Disabilities. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 30(4), 406-417.

Kaye McGinty, R. W. (2008). Patient and Family Advocacy: Working with Individuals with Comorbid Mental Illness and Developmental Disabilities and their Families. Psychiatric Quarterly, 193-203.

 

Is our state allowing clinical trials on our most vulnerable citizens without an ethical review?

Human Subjects Research being done on our most vulnerable citizens with no consent or ethical review.

Senator Adam Kline is proposing legislation, again, which is an experiment on our most vulnerable citizens.  Why are we allowing this happen right under our noses and why aren’t more people calling him and others out on this unethical practice?

The year 2011 saw passage of a bill which legislated age discrimination in violation of the US DD Act and the US Supreme Court Decision Olmstead by not allowing those 21 and under to receive the life saving and life sustaining services in the Residential habilitation Center (RHC).  This bill also called for the closure of one of our state’s RHCs and froze admissions to another one.  There was one negligent death just one year ago of an individual who was evicted from his  RHC home into his “own” community home.  He suffered needlessly due to incompetent and untrained caregivers before dying from swallowing laundry detergent which had been stored on the counter in a milk carton.

Now, Senator Kline is again pushing our DD Service System Task force to run more experiments our most vulnerable.  He is advocating for closure of another RHC (he states 360 people – which is the number of people who reside at Rainier School) in the quote below transcribed from the Task Force meeting on October 9, 2012.

“You’ve got some number of families – of those 360,  would want to have their loved on in a RHC, receiving the kind of care that they have and their choice is in “hither or yon” or in the community.  The whole point of sub F (part of legislation that Senator Kline is trying to get passed)– take a look at it – is to guarantee as best we can – that the treatments – we spell it out – medical, nursing, dental, behavioral, mental, habilitation, employment, day support, that those, that the degree of applicability in the RHC is met in the community above and beyond what the residential provider provides.

So, the point is there may be some people, there will be some people for whom, a small number, for whom it will be more expensive to provide a vast needed bundle of services and supports in the community more expensive than it would be in the RHC.  I get that – for a small number of people and we’ll do it because for the much larger number of people, the same or better services can be provided at less cost and we can eat into that 13,000 waiting list.  Okay, there is an equity involved here, alright? “

October 9, 2012

Developmental Disabilities Service System Task Force

Olympia, WA

My questions:

Given that Senator Kline is clearly talking about closing an RHC and  he clearly states that community services will be more expensive.  Yet, Senator Kline has idea what the number will be of those whose care will be more expensive in the community than in their current RHC home.  This means that he will have to have a threshold of who will receive appropriate care and who will receive negligent care .

1.  How many people will Senator Kline allow to have their assessed needed services in the community?  10%, 25%, 50% 75%?

2. What is the cut off for not having ones assessed needs met?

3. What happens to those who then fall on the other side of that cut off?

4. Do we accept negligent care for them because their care is now too expensive?

Why would anyone consider moving people who are happy in their homes, not requesting to move and have their assessed services met in a cost effective system to an untested and most likely more expensive system?

Isn’t this illogical and unethical?  Well, this is exactly what Senator Adam Kline and others who are pushing for – an  expensive and experimental system change.  Where are the ethicists in this experiment?

Look at the  Code of  Federal Regulations  and ask about the protection of human subjects.  Why are our legislator allowed to play experiments on our loved ones without an ethical review team looking into this.

Is our state allowing clinical trials on our most vulnerable citizens without an ethical review?

Please look at the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Agreement and the Belmont Report (A Guide to Research Ethics, 2003) below and tell me why these experiments are even being talking about without going through an ethical review.

The Nuremberg Code has 10 guidelines:

1. Research participants must voluntarily consent to research participation

2. Research aims should contribute to the good of society

3. Research must be based on sound theory and prior animal testing

4. Research must avoid unnecessary physical and mental suffering

5. No research projects can go forward where serious injury and/or death are potential outcomes

6. The degree  of risk taken with research participants cannot exceed anticipated benefits of results

7. Proper environment and protection for participants is necessary

8. Experiments can be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons

9. Human subjects must be allowed to discontinue their participation at any time

10. Scientists must be prepared to terminate the experiment if there  is cause to believe that continuation will be harmful or result in injury or death

Helsinki Agreement

•  The necessity of using an independent investigator to review potential research projects

•  Employing a medically qualified person to supervise the research and assume responsibility for the health and welfare of human subjects

•  The importance of preserving the accuracy of research results

•  Suggestions on how to obtain informed consent from research participants

•  Rules concerning research with children and mentally incompetent persons

•  Evaluating and using experimental treatments on patients

•  The importance of determining which medical situations and conditions are  appropriate and safe for research

The Belmont Report outlines:

1. The ethical principles for research with human subjects

2. Boundaries between medical practice and research

3. The concepts of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice

4.  Applications of these principles in informed consent (respect for persons), assessing risks and benefits (beneficence), and subject selection (justice)

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!

Imprisonment for people, death to some – It’s coming down to that –

Our state is in a crisis – that’s not news to anyone.  Some of the crisis is self-made from some “advocates” who have pushed inaccurate information to our legislators.  The false information and reports based on inaccurate data were utilized in decision making – decisions that are now coming back to bite us.

There are some solutions but people will have to acknowlegde some mistakes that were made.  Here is just one solution – retention of Direct Support Staff -

We need to think of Quality of Life for our citizens with developmental disabilties.  Having staff turnover rates up up to 44% is not only disturbing but dangerous and expensive.  Do you know that if we changed and tweeked the system just a little, we could save over $28,000,000 and improve the quality of life not only for residents but also for caregivers?

Do you know that moving some residents to small community homes will be imprisonment for them?  Without staff to care for them or staff to take them to appointments and community outings, they will be imprisoned in their homes – is this the type of life that you would wish on anyone?

One can clearly see there is a huge problem: Not even taking into account the effect on residents and the loss of knowledge and skills in relating to residents when staff leave, the lack of continuity in care (all which add to stress and increased behavior issues in residents), all the other issues with staff turnover that are seen in the business world are seen here too.

On average it is concluded that it costs about the annual salary of the person to replace that person – so given that, how much money could be saved in retention of staff (increased wages would help and would clearly offset the cost of staff turnover) which would then improve the quality of life.

Group Home Direct Care Staff make roughly $10.00/hour (some more, some less range is $8.55 – 13.62 in 2010) so that calculates out to about $20,000 for each person – so for 2010 in group homes that comes to $2,100,000 dollars on just staff turnover!!!!

Supported Living is $28,900,000

Now those are some ridiculous numbers – One of the keys to this problem is to look at staffing and how to retain the staff – This is what will not only save money but  improve the quality of life for EVERYONE!!!

Now is the time to think about new systems  – think outside the box (sorry for the cliche)

 The data for this chart was obtained from the DDD Residential Programs Staffing Wage & Turnover Study, years 2008, 2009 and 2010

Type of Program 2008 2009 2010
Group Home 48.1 44.3 39.2
Supported Living 44.7 37.8 35.8
SOLA 18.9 14.9 14.4

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

 

DD Advocates need to come clean with accurate information!

It is critical to drop the adherence to the ideology that “community” living is best and less costly than living in an ICF/DD for many of our high needs citizens with developmental disabilities.  This dogmatic approach is hurting everyone of us – disabled or not.  A continuum of care model takes variety into consideration in addition to cost effectiveness, safety and quality.  A continuum of care model is what needs to be looked at – a model which benefits everyone – disabled or not.

Please see this link for information Come Clean.  This roughly outlines some of these issues.  Resources and accurate data taken from DDD and DSHS management sources.

 

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

 

State Audits Show DSHS lost over 2 million dollars due to mismanagement

The Department of Social and Health Services is so mismanaged that they have lost over 2 million dollars in our public funds in just the past couple of years.

I want to know why the department is not scrutinzed and held accountable for thier lack of ability to manage payroll, contracts, benefit payments etc. yet say they do not have the budget for cost effective, crucial programs and services for our citizens with developmental disabilities.

Why is DSHS allowed to cut programs, why do some prominent agencies which masquarade as disability advocates, some of these even paid with our public funds themselves, advocate for closure of needed and desired programs while at the same time pushing for the undertaking of costly experiments with the lives of our most vulnerable citizens?

I am outraged by not only the lack of accountablity but the lack of integrity in the managment of DSHS and the integrity of some advocates (The Developmental Disabilities Council, The Arc Chapters, just to name two – there are more involved in this scandulous cover-up)

Our legislators and public are not told the truth about the costs nor are they told the truth about what is found in the data of many reports.  Not only is much of the data misrepresented but U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, such as Olmstead, are misrepresented by these agencies.

It is time that we, as grassroots advocates, make these issues known and upfront.  It’s a hard battle to fight but we need to do it for those who cannot do it themselves.

See this document for resources, facts, Washington State Auditor’s reports and other issues.  Many of these issues were defered and will be looked into this year, hopefully.

DSHS Audits and losses

Washington State, DSHS and DDD discriminate against our youth

With the passage of a new law which our Governor, DSHS Secretary and some prominent groups which masquerade as disability advocates celebrate as “historic,” they are certainly correct.  The reason that this law is “historic” is because it discriminates against our most vulnerable citizens and in particular our youth with complex needs. 

 

 I must admit that I am still stunned by the passage of SSB 5459.  The process with which this bill was passed, the rhetoric which was continually pushed and the total dismissal of facts derived from data from the Department of Social and Health Services and The Developmental Disabilities Division’s own reports all pointed to a pre-planned action to dismantle the service system which supports a continuum of care for our citizens with disabilities. 

 

There are so many issues relating to this bill which are questionable from a legal standpoint in addition to total violation of Federal Statutes as determined by The Olmstead Decision.  Yet, for some reason, Governor Gregoire and DSHS Secretary Susan Dreyfus are celebrating what many of us consider one of the darkest days in disability advocacy. 

 

SSB 5459 prohibits admission of children under age 16 to a Residential Habilitation Center (RHC) for people with developmental disabilities and limits RHC admissions of youth, age 16-21, to short-term respite or crisis care.  Both of these two age groups are greatly discriminated against in this bill.  The civil rights of these groups are being singled out and denied.  This is a travesty – not only for these children but for their families and our communities as a whole. 

 

What we need to focus on are the needed supports for our citizens.  Prohibiting one group, based solely on age, even though they may require the needed supports that are provided in the RHC is denying these citizens their legal and civil rights.  DSHS states that the children should be living with their families and in their communities.  Yes, that is ideal but what DSHS and DDD are failing to realize is that there is a continuum of needs and this continuum goes across all age ranges.  For some, living in a community home or family home is not safe due to the limited supports available.

 

Ms. Dreyfus and many others, speak about the residents in the RHCs as if most are elderly, have lived there most of their lives and that the families and guardians are fearful and unaware of the services in the community.  Ms. Dreyfus is very misguided in her understanding of this. 

 

In fact, there are many newer and younger residents who have been admitted to the RHCs in the past years.  These families have chosen the RHC community as the better option for their children mostly because the services and community supports were not adequate or safe for their children.  The RHC has saved the lives of many of these youth and strengthened their families by providing comprehensive, safe and healthy care to their loved ones. 

 

I recently asked Ms. Dreyfus what would happen to these children under 16 who could not be safely cared for in a community residential home or family home.  Her response to me was that the families will always have the choice of an RHC but they will have to go out of state.  I ask, is that really a CHOICE?  From my experience and others, the other choice that DDD would offer is to have the police take our loved one with a developmental disability to jail.  Why are Washington State, DSHS and DDD refusing to allow our eligible youth full access to the needed supports and services which they are legally, by Federal Statutes, entitled to?