Cost of Deinstitutionalization

A quick review of the hospital data from the Washington State Hospital Association provided the information below.  Granted this is far from a thorough review of the information but it does provide some insight into the problem that has been addressed by the DD Ombudsman and the recent issue at Mason General Hospital regarding the “dumping” of people with IDD at the hospitals when community care providers are unable to provide the contracted care.

This data is only for numbers of people discharged (therefore does not include people in the Emergency Departments or people that were on “observation”).  It also does not state the reason for admission but does report the service provided.  For my review, I chose the service “Organic disturbances and Intellectual disability”

June 2017 – June 2018

total discharges 967
average cost per discharge $75,332
average number of days for each person 20.3
average cost per day $3,709

Total cost for the year for these 967 people who were discharged was

$72.8 Million Dollars

Wow – think how much better spent that money would be and how much better off these people would be if that money was used wisely for a full continuum of care – meaning the RHCs, local crisis stabilization, respite and supported living

This waste of money is what the “deinstitutionalization” craze has caused.  Since these costs are not paid for from the DSHS or DDA budget, they are not counted in the cost of care for those with IDD – If I am wrong about this, please let me know and show me the sources.

It’s not Scientific Research – part 2

The Policy Report that Susanna Frame refers to as “scientific research” is not scientific research but a literature review looking at one aspect of life. The Policy Brief she shares is not a scientific research and the authors note that for those with severe intellectual disabilities with complex support needs there has been a huge gap in the research.

Promoting choice and person centered supports comes with an added responsibility to ensure that individuals and families are given the opportunity to have accurate information about the many complexities involved with their care.

While the deinstitutionalization movement started with great intentions – this movement has gotten out of hand without a grip on the reality of the situation.

Wolf Wolfensberger (1934-2011) was instrumental in the formulation of the concept of personal value and meaningful integration and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities.

“Wolfensberger (2003) has indicated that the advent of the ideologies of radical individualism coupled with radical self-determination and the derivative constructs of ‘choice’, self-advocacy and empowerment has resulted in many people with ID being turned loose without any, or without sufficient, supports, guidance, tutelage or outright controls.  Wolfensberger singles out for particular criticism the kind of assertiveness training promoted by People First and other collective advocacy groups. “(Jackson, 2011)

There are several groups that are supported by public funds that partake in this radical advocacy movement.  They refuse to collaborate with others who are more holistic, take a strident tone and alienate those who may question their tactics or ideology.   The Arc, SAW (Self-Advocates Washington), SAIL (Self Advocates in Leadership), Parent to Parent, Washington State Parent Coalitions for Developmental Disabilities are several of these organizations which have become wedded to this radical agenda of black/white choices.

These groups are working with for-profit vendors to polarize advocates to “community” or “institutionalization” to the complete exclusion of true choice and alternatives.  The politicization of the research agenda which is dictated by external bodies is doing our citizens a great disservice.

This so-called “investigation” by Susannah Frame from King 5 plays right into this agenda.  It has been clear from the start of the biases and lack of research and facts.  The complexities of the issues have not been addressed nor has there been any information given as to why advocates may not agree with the “choice” that they are told is the “right” choice.   Many question the credibility and ethics of the authors of the reports and the so-called “scientific” research.

While it seems that community cost is less by the limited data that is provided, it is not really about cost – nor is it really about choice – it is about something else – it’s about an ideology that is going to lead to disaster if no one is allowed to question it.

Paradoxically, instead of being genuinely enabling, empowering and liberalizing, ideology is being deployed to support policies which benefit the for-profit vendors.  This is big business and many community vendors are making a large profit from the care of vulnerable people.

Scott Livengood, CEO of Alpha Supported Living, would be able to tell you that his company cannot accommodate many residents with the high support needs of Yusuf – the young man portrayed in the recent segment.

Alpha Supported Living does a great job of supporting Yusef and others but some of these agencies are not so well staffed or managed well.   Records indicate that Yusef’s daily personal care comes to about $370.00 a day – yes that is less expensive than the daily care rate at the RHC but what is missing from this information is the cost of all the other aspects of care – food, shelter, health care, transportation – just to highlight a few costs that can add up rather quickly.

Any Supported Living Provider will say that they cannot afford to care for people with this level of care with the low rate of reimbursement that they receive from our state.  The funding for this care comes from the Home and Community Based Service Waiver (HCBS) and each state has a different program for funding.

While it has been stated that Washington is decades behind – the facts show otherwise.  There are 12 states that do not have any large State-Operated ICFs but that does not mean that they do no not have private ICFs or nursing homes or utilize those services from an ICF in another state.  In order to move people from the ICF to a dispersed community setting, it would be critical to know what the resources are in the community and if there is funding available to provide the specialized services and to sustain them.

The chart below has data taken from The State of the States (the same resource that Susannah Frame used for her information).  One can see that every state has some residents in an ICF/ID or nursing home.  It is also important to note the HCBS per capita spending for those who live in dispersed community settings.  The states with fewer people in larger facilities spend much more per capita on the HCBS waivers.

Washington, with a HCBS cost of $87.00 is below the national average of $129.00.  Those states with no large state-operated facilities spend an average of $175.00 per capita on HCBS waivers.  This care also comes with a cost. It needs to be noted that the HCBS costs do not include cost of living expenses such as rent, food, medical care which are all included in the ICF/ID costs.

If this was all about cost we would not be having these discussions.

Data taken from “The State of the States in Developmental Disabilities” Fiscal Year 2013 and Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Home and Community Based Spending FY 2013

Graph sorted by percent of ID residents in /ID and Nursing Facilities

HCBS spending per capita and ID residents 2013

 

Graph sorted by State spending on HCBS waivers FY 2013

HCBS spending with ID Residents

 

King 5 “Last of the Institutions” Part 4

 

Resources used:

 

Ailey, Sarah H., et al. “Factors related to complications among adult patients with intellectual disabilities hospitalized at an academic medical center.” Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities 53, no. 2 (April 2015): 114-119.

Arnold, Samuel R. C., Vivienne C. Riches, and Roger J. Stancliffe. 2014. “I-CAN: The Classification and Prediction of Support Needs.” Journal Of Applied Research In Intellectual Disabilities 27, no. 2: 97.

Bershadsky, Julie, Sarah Taub, Joshua Engler, Charles R. Moseley, K. Charlie Lakin, Roger J. Stancliffe, Sheryl Larson, Renata Ticha, Caitlin Bailey, and Valerie Bradley. 2012. “Place of Residence and Preventive Health Care for Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Services Recipients in 20 States.” Public Health Reports 127, no. 5: 475-485

Bigby, Christine. “Known well by no-one: Trends in the informal social networks of middle-aged and older people with intellectual disability five years after moving to the community.” Journal Of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 33, no. 2 (June 2008): 148-157.

Centers for Medicaid and Medicare, 2015. Medicaid Expenditures for Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) in FY 2013: Home and Community-Based Services were a Majority of LTSS Spending June 30, 2015, s.l.: Centers for Medicaid and Medicare.

Cooper, Sally-Ann, et al. “Multiple physical and mental health comorbidity in adults with intellectual disabilities: population-based cross-sectional analysis.” BMC Family Practice 16, no. 1 (August 2015): 1.

Erickson S, LeRoy B. Health literacy and medication administration performance by caregivers of adults with developmental disabilities. Journal Of The American Pharmacists Association: Japha [serial online]. March 2015;55(2):169

Felce, David. “Costs, Quality And Staffing In Services For People With Severe Learning Disabilities.” Journal Of Mental Health 3.4 (1994): 495-506.

Friedman, Carli, Amie Lulinski, and Mary C. Rizzolo. “Mental/behavioral health services: Medicaid home and community-based services 1915(c) waiver allocation for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.” Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities 53, no. 4 (August 2015): 257-270.

Hamden, AnnNewton, RichardMcCauley-Elsom, KayCross, Wendy. “Is Deinstitutionalization Working In Our Community?.” International Journal Of Mental Health Nursing 20.4 (2011): 274-283.

Hamelin, Jeffery P., et al. “Meta-Analysis Of Deinstitutionalisation Adaptive Behaviour Outcomes: Research And Clinical Implications.” Journal Of Intellectual And Developmental Disability 36.1 (2011): 61-72.

Hewitt, Amy. “Presidential Address, 2014—Embracing complexity: Community inclusion, participation, and citizenship.” Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities 52, no. 6 (December 2014): 475-495.

Jackson, R. “Invited review: Challenges of residential and community care: ‘the times they are a‐changin’.” Journal Of Intellectual Disability Research 55, no. 9 (September 2011): 933-944.

Kelly, Susan, and Yani Su. “Psychotropic and anticonvulsant medication: Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who transitioned to the community from an institution.” Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities 53, no. 4 (August 2015): 289-300.

Lakin K, Prouty R, Polister B, Coucouvanis K. Data Briefs: Change in Residential Placements for Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in the USA in the Last Two Decades. Journal Of Intellectual And Developmental Disability [serial online]. June 1, 2003;28(2):205-10.

Larson S, Lakin C, Hill S. Behavioral Outcomes of Moving From Institutional to Community Living for People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: U.S. Studies From 1977 to 2010. Research & Practice For Persons With Severe Disabilities [serial online]. Winter2012 2012;37(4):235-246.

Luckasson, Ruth, and Robert L. Schalock. “Standards to guide the use of clinical judgment in the field of intellectual disability.” Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities 53, no. 3 (June 2015): 240-251.PsycINFO, EBSCOhost (accessed November 28, 2015).

Mansell, Jim, and Julie Beadle-Brown. “Deinstitutionalisation and community living: Position statement of the Comparative Policy and Practice Special Interest Research Group of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities.” Journal Of Intellectual Disability Research 54, no. 2 (February 2010): 104-112

Martinez-Leal, R., et al. “The Impact Of Living Arrangements And Deinstitutionalisation In The Health Status Of Persons With Intellectual Disability In Europe.” Journal Of Intellectual Disability Research 55.9 (2011): 858-872

Nøttestad, Jim Aa., and O. M. Linaker. “Psychotropic Drug Use Among People With Intellectual Disability Before And After Deinstitutionalization.” Journal Of Intellectual Disability Research 47.6 (2003): 464-471.  2015.

Snell, Martha E., et al. “Characteristics and needs of people with intellectual disability who have higher IQs.” Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities 47, no. 3 (June 2009): 220-233.

Stancliffe, Roger J, Eric Emerson, and K Charlie Lakin. “Community living and people with intellectual disability: Introduction to Part I.” Journal Of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 25, no. 4 (December 2000): 1-4.

Stancliffe, Roger J, and Sian Keane. “Outcomes And Costs Of Community Living: A Matched Comparison Of Group Homes And Semi-Independent Living.” Journal Of Intellectual & Developmental Disability25.4 (2000): 281-305.

Swenson S, Lakin C. A wicked problem: Can governments be fair to families living with disabilities?. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal Of Applied Family Studies [serial online]. February 2014;63(1):185-191

Ticha R, Hewitt A, Nord D, Larson S. System and Individual Outcomes and Their Predictors in Services and Support for People With IDD. Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities [serial on the Internet]. (2013), [cited November 27, 2015]; 51(5): 298-315.

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;.

Is Washington State “decades” behind the times?

This has been an interesting week for TV Investigations into issues of care for our citizens with Intellectual Disabilities.

One deserves to be heard and is a real investigation into real and current issues of abuse and death of an innocent man who happened to live with an intellectual disability.  Well, the other report, is not really an investigation – at least not yet – but looking into what happened in the institutions over 40 years ago with video of the horrible conditions in bygone years.

Kudos to Tracy Vedder from KOMO News for her investigation into the death of Jessy  Hamilton and the total mistreatment of him while under the care of the court system.  Jessy’s death is a tragedy and could have been prevented if the judge, lawyer, Cetralia Police Department and the Developmental Disabilities Administration were capable of doing their jobs.

lhttp://www.komonews.com/news/investigations/AutismDeath.html

On another station, Susannah Frame of King 5 News has started her investigation series titled “The Last of the Institutions” with this video.

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/investigations/2015/11/03/washington-state-developmentally-disabled-residential-habilitation-center/75065984/

Unfortunately, the information that Ms. Frame has shared is decades behind and not factual.  She has gathered her information from biased reports and has chosen to use video which does not depict our state’s therapeutic communities as they are today.  She has chosen to show one campus from a back gate separating the campus from a neighboring park – the only fence she could find on the campus.  When questioned about this blatant misrepresentation of what the campus looked like she wrote “it was the only public space they could find”.  Ms. Frame ought to know better – the campus itself is public property – no gates or fences – she could very well have chosen a setting to show what the campus actually looked like.

Washington STate DSHS did make a clarification of this shot on a comment on the King 5 Website:

DSHS Clarification of Fircrest Video by Susannah Frame

Ms. Frame states that there will be more coming in which she will delve into the various issues more thoroughly.  My hope is that she has facts – not just wishful thinking.

I will be following the “investigation” closely and adding comments here and on King 5 Facebook and website.  I will provide facts and resources.

The issue is not “community” vs “institution” but about how are state can provide quality care to those who need it bases on their support needs and their choice.

We are way ahead of other states but we do need to have better quality of care, better oversight in the community, better pay for caregivers and better training and support.  Continuing to keep the “community” vs “institution” issue as a focus will only detract from what we really need to look at and investigate.  This is irresponsible reporting.

Happy ADA Anniversary – DDC Interview tomorrow!

ON this eve of my interview with the Washington State Developmental Disabilities Council I am thinking of all the people who are not able to have their voices heard.  My hope is that the DDC does uphold the 1999 US Supreme Court Decision Olmstead v. L.C. and that they do honor person centered planning.

My hope is that they understand that “inclusion” is defined by the person and what is optimal for that person.  This has been a very difficult concept for many to understand.  Also, we need to take into consideration all the caregivers and support people and what “inclusion” means for them too.  We are all in this together and we need to work together for what is best for the whole.  Not everyone is going to get their way with everything but that does not mean that there are not success stories.

Updates after the interview –

The Arc wants to eliminate respite care

There is so much that does not make sense but one of the top things with advocacy for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities is that The Arc of Washington is against a bill which will continue to provide much needed respite care for people in our communities.

This graph illustrates the number of community clients who receive care at our state’s Residential Habilitation Centers (RHCs).  SB 5243 aims to maintain Yakima Valley School for residents and respite clients.  The Arc of Washington opposes this bill.  Yakima Valley School serves an average of 32 community clients per month for respite  – without this resource our community members will have much less access to the already minimal respite care available.

Community Respite in RHCs

The Arc of Washington supported the closure of Frances Haddon Morgan Center (FHMC) in 2011.  Frances Haddon Morgan Center had a well respected and much used respite program.  Since the closure of FHMC in 2011, it is clear that the need for respite in other RHCs increased.

Please support SB 5243 and help reverse some of the damage done by the bill in 2011 which caused at least one death and led many other people into crisis.   Advocates should be looking at care, protection, choice and progress – not the opposite.  In my experience, The Arc of Washington is not acting as an advocate.

 

Data Retrieved from Developmental Disabilities Administration

Executive Management Information System

June 2010 – June 2014

 

The count for respite clients for each month is the unduplicated count of clients who accessed respite for the month. 

 2015 Developmental Disabilities Bills of Interest – published by The Arc of Washington State

Face the facts

Knowing that more budget cuts are coming down the line it is really time for our legislators and advocates to face the facts.  We’ve listened to the rhetoric long enough and many have come to believe what they have heard –  – but the truth has been misinterpreted too long.

When looking at costs for those with intense support needs we need to look at the costs for that population – not the average of the whole.  These costs are dramatically different.  We can all figure out very easily that when people share costs, the individual costs decrease – this is very simple to understand.  Yet, when we are talking about sharing costs for those with developmental disabilities, this simple fact is totally ignored.

I do not hear any advocates saying that someone is “too disabled” to live in the community and I also do not hear the cost of those with intense support needs who choose to live in a community setting.  So-called advocates do not want this talked about but a few of them have slipped out what their sons and daughters have cost our state to allow them the choice of community homes. Everyone should have the choice but also let’s be honest with what these choices cost – not only to the state but the individual themselves, their families and the local cities and communities.

1.  One young man was able to live in the community with the help of 19 hours of nursing care a day for 17 years.  His situation is talked about frequently to illustrate that those with high medical support needs can live in the community but the fact of his state funded 1:1 nursing care is never mentioned.

2.  One young woman lived in a group home for a couple of years until it closed.  She has lived in the intermediate care facility for about 5 years now and is getting ready to move out to a community home of her own.  Our state has spent over $150,000 sound-proofing and remodeling this home that she will live in by herself – and two staff people 24 hours a day.  She will have a male and a female staff person each of the 3 shifts 24 hours a day every day of the year.  Her staffing costs alone will be over $265,000 a year.  This does not include any other costs for her care in the community.

I understand these are two extreme examples but they are real examples of the level of care that those who live in the intermediate care facility could require if they chose to live in a community setting.  When we are talking about downsizing the ICFs we need to look realistically at the costs and they will be astronomical if we even consider safe and appropriate care as a human right.

These are the types of costs that we need to look at when hard choices are made regarding state funds for where those funds will be applied.  I will argue that denying those who choose the ICF/ID as their home not only denies that person but costs everyone in our state.  The costs are not only dollar amounts but costs of quality of life – quality of life for the person, their family and our communities.

It’s time to face the facts and get real about the situation.  Let’s stop the pretending – the pretending is certainly not beneficial to those we are trying to help.