Senate Health Committee Hears Bill which looks to close ICF/IDD

Today SB 5594 was had public comments in the Senate Health Committee (Washington State)

There are actually some wonderful new ideas expressed in this bill (Federally Qualified Comprehensive Community Healthcare Clinic!!) but plans  to consolidate  from a combined campus of a skilled nursing facility and an intermediate care facility to just a skilled nursing facility is troubling.  This is  not explicitly written in the language but it is clear this is the goal.

The bill states a building at Fircrest must be remodeled and updated to serve as a skilled nursing facility.  Other steps must be taken to consolidate other buildings and ensure residents are provided the opportunity to stay at Fircrest or move into the community.

Given that Fircrest will only have a skilled nursing facility, what will happen to the residents who are not eligible for those services but choose to stay at Fircrest in an ICF/ID?  The bill does not address this population that currently resides at Fircrest.

“Former Fircrest School residents who fail to succeed in the community may, after repeated failures, remain in the community or may choose to move to another residential habilitation center; however, former Fircrest School residents may not return to Fircrest School.”

The other HUGE issue is that the community is far from ready to be able to accommodate the needs of the number of residents who may choose to live off campus.  Already there is a long waiting list for housing, staff and other services.

The critical issue that needs to be addressed before any changes can be made is that of supported living wages and supports.  These wages and supports need to be appropriately funded to provide the services.  This is the system that will provide stability, success and sustainability to community residential settings and is the issue that needs to be addressed as a first step to any issues of consolidation of the intermediate care facility.

Congregate is not the same as segregate

I am very disappointed with the Joint Position Statement published June 23, 2016 by The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD).

While there is quite a bit of quality information in this statement it is obviously clear that these organizations also have a strong bias against choice of residential settings.  It is unfortunate that these organizations do not understand that congregate care is not the same as segregated care.

“Everyone with an intellectual or developmental disability deserves to live in the community where they have the opportunity to experience vibrant lives that include work, friends, family, and high expectations for community contributions.”  These goals can and are also accomplished in congregate and campus type communities.

Many states have built systems that utilize group homes as a key way to support people in the community. When people find themselves in a situation where they need to live outside of their family home, they are often placed in an “open bed” versus being offered person-centered supports designed specifically to meet their needs. In many of these situations, people remain as isolated in these settings as they do in a large-scale institution. A process for creating and sustaining supports that make their living situation a home in a neighborhood is needed.

It is clear from the above statements that these organizations realize there is a problem with the funding and system that many supports are built around.

Yet AAIDD and AUCD are doing exactly what they chastise others for doing – categorically denying the individual the personal choice for individualized care in the residential setting they choose.  The setting is not what necessarily causes the segregation – separation from familiy, friends and community causes segregation.  Unfortunately that segregation can happen in any residential setting.

It is the segregation that needs to be called out – not the setting.

 

 

Not Just the Next Empty Bed

Recently we moved our son from the intermediate care facility to a home in the community under a supported living arrangement.  It was a difficult decision to make given all the research that I have done regarding care and oversight.  Many people wrote to me telling me of the terrible decision I was making and with horror stories of things that had gone wrong in the community.  I was well aware of many of these issues and still am aware of the lack of choice and quality of care that is offered in many settings.  I am aware of the cost issues and the cost-shifting that occurs making it appear that care in the community setting for those with complex care needs is less than the cost of care in the ICF/ID.

But, there were some circumstances that necessitated this move – a move that we thought we would not be making for a long time – namely that the ICF/ID was not able to provide the prescribed medical and nursing care that my son needed and his health was in danger.  There had been charges of medical/nursing neglect, many medication errors, and other issues related to personal and healthcare concerns.  The ICF/ID healthcare providers refused to follow the prescribed treatments of my son’s medical specialists and I was forbidden to teach nursing or personal care staff how to administer special medications or how to apply his splints correctly.  My hands were tied  due to the inability of the facility to acknowledge problems – not one specific problem but many.  I needed to visit several times a week in order to do his nursing care while at the same time being told that my visits were doing him a disservice.

But, my son had one option in this that most other people do not have – the option of CHOICE.

While on the wait list for the Roads to Community Living grant I was able to try to maintain my son’s health until we were able to choose a home that would work for him.  We had specific criteria – number one being that he needed to remain in our local community, the one in which he grew up and in which the ICF/ID was also in.

Of course, the supported living agency had to choose my son first before he could choose them and that took over a year and probably 8 rejections from local agencies.  When Alpha Supported Living Agency said they could support him, it then took time to hire and train staff and planning for which house would work best for him given the mix of the residents.

One of the major reasons that my son had this choice was due to the fact that he had continued to live in our local community and we involved natural supports to help with his care and community integration. He did not have to take the “next empty bed” as his choice for this move (that was how he got into the ICF/ID to begin with)

We are so thankful for this opportunity and my son’s health has greatly improved since his move and he has blossomed in many other areas too.

It is my assumption that many problems that arise from community residential services is that “the next empty bed” is the only choice available.  This is not a system which supports person-centered choice or real community.

There needs to be changes and more alternatives for true choice – from congregate, campus based care to individual homes – as long as the person is appropriately supported one can have a very meaningful life. Many times this takes much collaboration and team effort and adequate funding to support – but it can be done.

Please check out The Autism Housing Network for and ideas on how to increase choice and alternatives for adults with intellectual disabilities.

Disability Rights Washington has filed a lawsuit against Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and the Washington State Health Care Authority to help speed up transition and provide supports in the community.  My son is a member of this class-action lawsuit although I was not aware of it until it was made public this week.

Letter from DRW to DSHS and HCA

DSHS and HCA response letter

We need to provide choices – not restrictions

Please view the video which highlights the need for choices and options in our efforts to provide services and appropriate care and homes for those who live with intellectual and developmental disabilities.  This is one example of many that need to be options allowed and promoted.

 

 

The last of the Institutions – Part 5

Unfortunately, once again, Susannah Frame has mislead people in this “investigation” series on King 5 in Seattle.  There is much to clarify in this recent segment which aired December 8, 2015.

Myth 1

“Only a handful of states operate more institutions for people with developmental disabilities than Washington. And in Washington, more people live in these segregated settings than most of the rest of the country”

Fact of the matter:ICF ID Table 2013

The above table is only the STATE Operated ICF/ID’s

26 states have fewer State operated ICF/ID s for a total of 25 facilities which are home to 11, 294 people (Average per facility – 451 people)

24 state have more State operated ICF/IDs  for a total of  828 facilities which are home to 42,553 people (Average per facility – 51 people) –

Hardly what I would call a handful of state (or facilities for that matter!)

 ICF ID Chart by state 2013

Myth 2

“Since the 1970s when the deinstitutionalization trend started, 16 states have closed all of their institutions that once housed the developmentally disabled, including Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii. And 21 states, including Idaho, have fewer than 100 residents total living in these types of public facilities”

Nursing Facility and over 16 residents 2013

CMS cost reported by states 2013

The above table is taken from the CMS-64 report.  Again, Susannah Frame is incorrect with her “facts”.  There are only 8 states that have not reported funds for a STATE OPERATED ICF/ID.

It is interesting to note of those states with no costs for a state operated ICF/ID,  6 of those reports costs for private ICF/IDs.  Some of these are quite pricey to the states that have them.

Interesting that only 12 states do not have a large State operated Facility and only 7 states have less than 100 people in these state operated ICF/IDs and Nursing Facilities.

More to come about the private facilities in each state and the funding for both the ICF/IDs and the Home and Community Based Waivers (HCBS).

I believe Ms. Frame and King 5 have some additional investigative work to do.  This is a very sloppy example of research which they are promoting.

Myth 3

According to Mr. Bagenstos, supposedly a “top Department of Justice attorney in the Civil Rights Division” Washington state “remains kind of stubbornly, an outlier”

Look at the tables above and see for yourself.  By the definition that I understand, Washington is CERTAINLY NOT an “outlier.” 

That’s all for today – more myths to be examined from this episode withing the next few days.

Data Retrieved from the following resources:

Medicaid Expenditures for Long-Term. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-topics/long-term-services-and-supports/downloads/ltss-expenditures-fy2013.pdf

(2013). Residential Services for Persons with Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities: Status and Trends through Fiscal Year 2011 (2013). National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services (NASDDDS), Human Services Research Institute (HSRI), Association of Professional Developmental Disabilities Administrators (APPDA). University of Minnesota.

United States Census Bureau – Population Estimates – National Totals 2014. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/2014/index.html

Univesity of Colorado Department of Psychiatry. (2015). The State of the States in Developmental Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.stateofthestates.org/index.php/intellectualdevelopmental-disabilities/state-profiles

 

The Olmstead Decisions is Misinterpreted

 

 

Catch 22 – The Arc “issue”

I recently came across an article written by Irene Tanzman on LinkedIn entitled “Advocacy Organization Catch 22” published June 22, 2015.  I would encourage reading this and in addition taking a look at some of the other insightful articles that she has published.  I felt a breath of fresh air when I first read this yesterday.

There are many concerns regarding “The Arc Issue” as I will call it.  In addition to the facts that Ms. Tanzman has addressed it is important to realize that in order for a chapter to call itself “The Arc” that chapter needs to be aligned with the agenda and policies of the national organization.   Every local and state Arc sign an affiliation agreement with Arc US that the chapter will support the policies of Arc US.  if for some reason a chapter does not support a particular position they are to remain silent and not comment.   So, regardless of what is happening in your region or state, your local Arc can only speak on policies that are dictated from the national organization.

The national policy of The Arc US (taken many years ago in the late 70’s and early 80’s) is that “community” is best and ALL people can be served in the “community.”  There are many problems with this policy:

  1. It is outdated
  2. It is not in alignment with the 1999 US Supreme Court Decision Olmstead v. L.C.
  3. It is not person-centered
  4. It does not indicate why they think this is best, or how it will be achieved.

What are some of the solutions?

King County DD Wrap up for The Arc of King County Legislative Forum 2014

Letter to King County Legislators – December, 2014  (letter sent as a wrap up after watching the forum on TVW)

Thank you very much for attending the King County Legislative Forum on November 24, 2014. I was unable to attend and present some information regarding critical needs and access to services for many in our communities but do appreciate the opportunity to share the information with you at this time.

With Governor Inslee’s budget proposal it is clear that we will again be looking at more cuts to services for people with Intellectual/developmental disabilities. It is critical to have accurate information regarding community care, respite, crisis care and cost of care in order to make informed decisions.

What is most concerning to me is that facts are not being shared regarding access to and cost of care – particularly for the much needed respite and crisis care. I have gathered the information below in hopes of sharing some solutions to the problem. You heard some heart wrenching stories, particularly from Janice Lawrence and Laura Jorgenson regarding lack of respite and crisis care. My family, too, has experienced these issues – my son faced jail as the only option left for “care” as a 14 year old with profound intellectual and developmental disabilities. Multiple and prolonged hospitalizations were our crisis care until the denial of services was able to be appealed and he was admitted and stabilized at a Residential Habilitation Center (RHC). I understand the agony of these families in trying to secure appropriate care for their children and I work hard to advocate for this care.

You may recall in 2011 our state passed 2SSB 5459. There was quite a bit of controversy regarding this bill for several reasons – mainly closing of the Frances Haddon Morgan Center (FHMC) based on “cost savings” which never materialized and a state law which goes directly against Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services admission of eligible clients into the Intermediate Care Facility for those with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/ID) or the Residential Habilitation Centers (RHCs). Washington State passed a law prohibiting those under 21 from admission to the RHC, regardless of choice and eligibility requirements being met.

The plan was to open up several crisis care centers for youth throughout the state. This plan was not fulfilled – again for several reasons but mainly because there was NO cost savings in closing FHMC from which these crisis care centers were to be funded.

Developmental Disabilities Administration was able to secure one home in Lakewood which can care for only 3 youth at a time. Since opening this Crisis Care Center (you heard one mother, Janice Laurence, talk about her son’s utilization of this center) in December 2012, 12 youth have been able to access these services. Of those 12, only one was able to return to the family home – all others either went to an RHC or a licensed residential home for youth. The daily cost of care in the Lakewood Crisis Stabilization is $1,165.

Frances Haddon Morgan Center (which today sits empty and unused) was able to care for about 22 respite clients per month for a cost of at a daily rate of $541 (federal and state costs combined) – clearly, utilizing the RHC for much needed respite was not only more cost-effective but much more accessible to our communities in need.

Data taken from the Executive Management Information System also clearly indicates how our RHCs serve those in our communities throughout our state. We often hear about the number of “permanent” residents in the RHCs but rarely hear about the much larger numbers of community residents who receive much needed crisis care and respite care. The community members served in our RHCs are more numerous than the numbers of permanent residents served in the RHCs. Also, the RHCs can provide this expert and comprehensive care at 46% of the cost for similar care at the Crisis Stabilization Center in Lakewood.

It only makes sense to continue to utilize the facilities we have and use them to capacity to best serve our communities in need. Closing or consolidating our RHCs is not the answer as evidenced by the wasteful “experiment” we have experienced due to passage of 2SSB 5456.

number of community members who access respite services

Average Daily Cost of Care for Respite

References:

Data received from the Department of Social and Health Services, Executive Management Information System with correspondence from Mark Eliason, DSHS Office Chief of Policy and Programs; Janet Adams, DSHS Quality Programs and Stakeholders Office Chief; Carol Kirk, DSHS RHC Program Manager; Monica Reeves, Monica Reeves, Crisis Services Program Manager.

DDA Policy regarding ICF/ID Admissions

Report to the Legislature – December 5, 2011

TVW.org 25th Annual King County Legislative Forum sponsored by King County DD and The Arc of King County

http://54.185.64.84/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014110041