Stop the Harm
Support A Continuum of Care
Family Homes – Respite – Crisis Care – Fircrest – Rainier –
– Supported Living –
Lakeland Village – Intensive Tenant Support – Medicaid Personal Care –
– Family Support – Home Ownership –
It is time to stop and think about what has previously been believed. Many hear that people with intellectual disabilities with the highest support needs can be served in the “community” at a lesser cost than they are cared for in the Intermediate Care Facility or People with Intellectual disabilities (ICF/ID) and that by closing and consolidating the ICFs/ID there will be a windfall of savings which can then be used for more services.
This is a totally false assumption that is not based accurate data. The chart that I have attached is based on reported data from various sources which all point to the issue that the higher the support needs of a person, the higher their cost of care.
The data taken from the Division of Developmental Disabilities, the Department of Social and Health Services, Internal Revenue Services, Certified Cost Reports submitted by individual agencies reporting the support needs index (average hour per resident day), the Support Intensity Scale Assessment, the CARE assessment all agree with the fact that a person with higher support needs has a higher cost and for those particular residents their cost of care is actually more cost effective in the ICF/ID than in another environment.
What is particularly troubling is the continued inaccurate reports that are used to support false claims. One of the major reports which came out last year was “Assessment Findings for Persons with Developmental Disabilities Served in Residential Habilitation Centers and Community Settings.” http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/5/36.pdf.
The author, Barbara Lucenko, states the residents in the “RHC and community residential” have the same support needs. This was written in the “Key Points” of this report yet that conclusion was not supported by the data in the actual report. The actual report had three categories of residents: Residential Habilitation Centers (RHC), Community Residential and Other Community. There were significant support needs differences reported between RHC and community residential yet Ms. Lucenko chose to combine those two categories in her summary
“Support needs are higher in most general life tasks, such as daily and community living activities, for DDD clients served in RHCs and community residential settings than for those supported in other community-based settings.”
This statement is inaccurate and misleading to readers of the report. One can also see from this data collected by the agencies themselves, the support needs of the ICF/ID resident and the residents in community settings are very different. I have attempted to contact the author of this report several times to question this inaccuracy, she has never responded.