Shame on Frame – King 5 “Investigative” report

Susannah Frame is doing a great disservice to our community. Her total lack of appreciation for the diversity of our population of citizens with intellectual and developmental disabilities is more than problematic.   Without an understanding of this diversity one cannot even begin to understand the complexities involved in the care of our community members.  Below are some bullet points that need clarification from Ms. Frame:

  •  mentioned several times about biases in the “scientific studies” but fails to mention what those biases are.
  • refers to cost of care being less expensive in a community setting – but she has not explained what “cost of care” is or how it is measured.
  •  has not shown any indication that the cost of care is higher for those with higher support needs.
  • refers to the families who have had their loved ones in the RHCs for 20-30 years and are afraid – unaware that there are many young people who live in these therapeutic communities and many more who were denied this care.
  •  has not offered any solutions or real alternatives or how those alternatives could be achieved.
  •  seems unaware of the crisis in our community care system with so little oversight that many fear for their health, safety and lives in these community settings.
  •  has not addressed the issue of access to care in the community such as medical care and transportation.
  •  has not spoken with any of the agency service providers in the community about their inability to staff and appropriately care for an influx of people with very high support needs.
  •  has not addressed what a person’s community is and personal choice in making that decision.

If one is going to talk about de-institutionalization without addressing safe and appropriate supports in the community, this type of advocacy endorses neglect and risk for our most vulnerable citizens. The environment that is the Least Restrictive for that Person is the environment which allows that person to interact with and be part of the community to their fullest potential. As stated in the 1999 US Supreme Court Decision of Olmstead, for some that may be the institution.

The issues above need to be addressed and discussed in any conversation dealing with care of our loved ones. The answer is not arguing  “institution vs community” – the answer is to look at  the diversity of the population and understand their needed supports and then how to fund and maintain those supports.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”  John Adams

Cost of Care

Yes, it is absolutely correct that DSHS costs for care in the RHC is greater than DSHS costs for care in a community setting. Looking only through the eyes of DSHS it would make sense to close the RHCs to save DSHS funds – but looking at the big picture of how things work that is exactly the opposite of what one should do if cost was a factor. .

Cost of care is one issue discussed  – but not what “cost of care” means for each setting nor the support needs of the residents in each setting.  The graph below is a good example of missing costs – but necessary costs for care.  Looking at the cost breakdowns for areas of care, it is clear the RHC provides a much more comprehensive package of care than the community settings.   The greatest cost of care in community settings is the personal care cost and for people with higher support needs, that personal care cost is extremely high as evidenced by the data from DDA.

RHC and Community Cost

All of these are included in the RHC Cost

Where are they in Community costs?

Other Costs

Resources:

Developmental Disabilities Administration. (2012). Cost of Community Clients with High Support Needs.

(2011). RHC Cost Details and Federal Reimbursement – CMS.

Community Cost of Care Reports, Public Disclosure Information Revealed. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.becausewecare1.com:https://becausewecare1.com/community-cost-of-care-reports-public-disclosure-information-revealed/

Clintsman, D. L. (2011). Assistant Director, Department of Social and Health Services. 30 Community DDD Residents – highest costing to DDD.

Atkinson, M. (2011). DSHS: Developmental Disabilities Services Overview. Office of Program Research and Senate Committee Services, Joint Legislative Task Force. Retrieved fromhttp://www.leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/DDSSTF/Documents/Oct2011/DevDisabOverview.pdf

Barbara A. Lucenko, P. a. (2011). Assessment Findings for Persons with Developmental Disabilities Served in Residential Habilitation Centers and Community Settings. Department of Social and Health Services. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/5/36.pd

Support Intensity Scale. (n.d.). Retrieved from American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities:http://www.siswebsite.org/cs/SISOnline

Division of Developmental Disabilities: Intake and Determination of Developmental Disabilities. (n.d.). Retrieved from Washington State Legislature: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=388-823&full=true

(Data taken from Certified Residential Program Costs of Care Reports for 2010. The agencies from which data was retrieved:

Aacres WA, LLC – Tacoma Aacres WA, LLC Abbott House –  Alpha Supported Living – Ambitions of Washington – Region 4 Ambitions of Washington – Region 5-  The Arc of King County – The Arc of Spokane –  Bethesda Lutheran Communities Camelot –  Centerpoint Services –  Community Alternatives for People with Autism –  Community Homes –  Community Integrated Services –  Community Living – Bellevue –  Community Living – Kent/Auburn –  Community Living – Kent Intensive Community Living – Sunnyside –  Community Living – Yakima –  Destiny House –  Educational Programs in Home Living –  Friends of Families –  Friendship House –  Group Action for Peninsula People –  Harbor Alternative Living Assoc. – Inglewood Residential Services –  Integrated Living Services –  Kitsap Residences –  Kitsap Tenant Support Services –  Life Skills Center –  Maksu, Inc –  Premier Care Services –  Provail  – Puget Sound Regional Services –  ResCare –  Shamrock Living Services –  Shared Journeys –  SL Start – Grandview –  SL Start – Seattle –  SL Start – Spokane –  Stand Together Total Living Concepts (2010)

King 5 News “Investigation” is misleading

Clarification on some of the information that Susannah Frame has reported in her “investigation” is needed.  My goal with providing clarification and resources is to encourage a discussion based on facts.

The nature of  an intellectual disability means people have cognitive impairments which may mean that other people will need to help them to make decisions, or make decision on their behalf.  Their quality of life will depend on the availability of skilled supports.  Some people will need more than others and this is why we need to have a full continuum of care to manage the wide variety of needs of this heterogeneous population. Personally, it does not matter to me what community a person chooses but it does matter that the person is given the truth about the options and that they have a choice.

Again, the story is not “community vs institution” but how do we best serve our most vulnerable people.  Continuing the either/or argument only hurts everyone.  Let’s look at the facts – not just wishful thinking – and work together to improve the quality of life for people all across the board.

  1.  Susanna Frame stated ” In all, 16 states have closed all of their large facilities for the developmentally disabled, including Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska, New Mexico and Oklahoma. These states are serving this entire population in community settings” http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/investigations/2015/11/03/washington-state-developmentally-disabled-residential-habilitation-center/75065984/
  2. In actuality, they may have closed their “state operated” intermediate care facilities (ICF)  but there are private ICFs in almost every state and if the state does not have a private ICF to use for a resident, the state will send that resident to another state for that care.
    1. Reviewing the reports to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare  – form 64 (CMS -64 – the statement of expenditures for which states are entitled to Federal Reimbursement) there are only 2 states which did not receive reimbursement for ICF costs. (Oregon and Vermont did not have any costs, Arizona is excluded due to their non-reporting on this CMS report)
    2. If what Susannah Frames states is correct, why are these states receiving Federal funds for something they have closed?  That needs to be investigated.

The chart below has data retrieved from the CMS 64 Quarterly report for 2012.  As one can see, Washington is not “decades” behind when the data and resources are revealed.

ICF costs for 2012

References

“CMS – 64 Quarterly Expense Report.” 2012. <https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Computer-Data-and-Systems/MedicaidBudgetExpendSystem/CMS-64-Quarterly-Expense-Report.html&gt;.

“Community Living and Participation: Embracing the Complexity.” Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 51.5 (2013): 423-427.

Larson, S.A., Hallas-Muchow, L., Aiken, F., Hewitt, A., Pettingell, S., Anderson, L.L., Moseley, C., Sowers. M., Fay, M.L., Smith, D., & Kardell, Y. In-Home and Residential Long-Term Supports and Services for Persons with Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities: Status and trends through 2012. Minneapolis: Univer: University of Minnesota, Research and Training Center on Community Living. Institute on Community Integration, 2014.

United States Census Bureau – Population Estimates – National Totals 2014. 2014. <https://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/2014/index.html&gt;.