Budget downsizes (closes) Fircrest

Write to your Washington State Legislators and the leaders of both chambers:
Senator Sharon Nelson, Senator Mark Schoesler, Representative Dan Kristiansen and Speaker Frank Chopp – remind them of the need for a continuum of care and remove these sections from the budget.

 

Dear Speaker Chopp,

I am a constituent and am writing to you with some concerns regarding ESSB 5048 – particularly Section 205 – Part 1 (K), Part 2 (C) and Section 206 Part 18.   I am also a registered nurse specializing in the care of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and a parent of a young man who recently transitioned from Fircrest to supported living in the community.

These sections state that appropriated funds will be  “provided solely for transitioning clients from Fircrest school residential habilitation center into community settings.” The clients from both the nursing facility and the intermediate care facility would be forced to move and it appears that this is a step towards closing Fircrest.

There are many concerns raised regarding attempts to close or downsize Fircrest through a budget proviso.  It is written in law (Olmstead v L.C. 1999)  and supported by CMS regulations that a person has a choice to live in an intermediate care facility.  In addressing the issue of changing care from an institutional placement to a community placement, there is a three part test to determine if community placement is appropriate:

  1. The State’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate
  2. The transfer is not opposed by the affected individual and/or guardian
  3. The placement can be reasonable accommodated by the resources available to the State

If the above points are satisfied, then it is appropriate to have people move but I know that they are not met for the majority of the residents who live at Fircrest or other RHCs in our state.

It is important to address the crisis we have with community care before taking steps which would only increase the risk of harm to some of our most vulnerable citizens.

It is critical to keep our RHC communities open to best serve the diverse population of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

The Last of the Institutions – corrections to investigation

Update January 7, 2016 regarding inaccurate data used in the DD Audit by Washington State Auditor – see red notes below

Corrections and clarifications are needed by Susannah Frame from King 5 News regarding her “investigative” series “The Last of the Institutions.

Ms. Frame and Russ Walker, Executive Producer King 5 Investigators, have both been notified of these issues and have been given more accurate and objective data and research.  Our hope is that they review the information and research they have been provided and produce a more accurate portrayal of the very complex issues involved with the care of our citizens with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

  1. DDA Case Load and Costs Oct 2015 with Explanation – the reporters failed to mention that the costs attributed to the RHCs actually include costs for an average of 65 “community” clients who utilize the RHCs for short term stays, respite care, crisis care and other services.  This link has the explanations as provided by the Communications and Performance Unit Manager at DDA.
  2. These 65 clients are a non-duplicated number each month so in reality there could be 780 community clients who have their care and services billed to the RHC.  When looking at it this way it is clear that the RHC serves those in the community just as much as it serves the permanent residents.
  3. The DD Performance Audit is riddled with inaccurate data and has failed to capture much of the critical information needed to run a real performance audit.  Information about some of the issues can be found on this website under DD Audit.
  4. The DD Audit also uses resources that non-existent.  For instance, the DD Audit states they used the National Core Indicators Consumer Survey for Washington State 2009 -2010.  Washington State did not participate in the Consumer Survey by the National Core Indicators for the years 2009-2010.   Still trying to locate the data and the report the DD Audit team used for their information.
  5. In addition to questionable resources being used, the National Core Indicators are biased in their ability to capture the voice of those with more profound levels IDD and/or pronounced communication impairments. This population is excluded from the survey
  6. The NCI data is not a “national average” as reported by the DD Audit report.  The survey is only an average of the 16 states that voluntarily use the survey.

 

Response from the Human Services Research Institute in answer to my questions about our State Auditor DD Performance Audit which incorrectly referenced the NCI data for their audit.

In the past, WA collected the Adult Consumer Survey data during a time period that crossed over two separate NCI collection years – between Jan 2007 and Dec 2008.  (see below email from Lisa Weber, PhD) 

Because of this, the data could not be included in the national averages for the year 2009-10.  WA was issued a separate state report on these data (see attached.).

However, these data were included in the chart generator for the 09-10, but are NOT included in the NCI average on the chart generator for that year.  When you look at the data on the chart generator from 09-10 for Washington, please keep in mind the circumstances described above (especially if when comparing to the NCI average.)

Your question brought to my attention that this information should be noted in the chart generator for WA for that year.  I will work on getting that info added.

Referenced email from Lisa Weber, PhD (Washington State):

The attached file contains our data from the NCI Consumer Interviews.  There were 545 adults who participated in a Consumer Interview.  The interview responses and feedback forms are store in separate Access databases.

We have a two year data collection cycle, so this data was gathered between Jan 2007 -Dec 2008.  It was all gathered using the old version of the interview form.  We modified the data entry forms a bit to cover our additional questions and to make the data entry easier for our quality assurance staff, but the numbering of the NCI items in the tables has been left intact. 

Please write to Susannah Frame at sframe@king5.com and rwalker@king5.com to express concerns regarding the lack of objective reporting in this investigative series.

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

 

 

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;.

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.

Scattered, dispersed housing = Community?

A letter from the National Council on Disability (NCD) was published urging the US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to swiftly comply with the US Supreme Court Decision of Olmstead.  This is great – except the interpretation of Olmstead is incorrect and the NCD assumes that independent choice is the apparent optimal  goal for people with intellectual disabilities (ID).

I cannot disagree more with the Federally funded National Council on Disability, which states they represent and advocate for our loved ones. My response letter is available  here.  (May 21 letter to HUD)  Community is not a place but relationships.  NCD does not consider relationships and what those relationships mean to many in supportive communities.

We need to define choice and what that means to various people.  Those with severe intellectual disabilities with or without co-occurring psychiatric disorders are by the very definition of their condition, not able to make informed choices.  If independent choice is the apparent goal, would an independent choice of someone with severe ID and psychiatric disorder by wise and safe?  I would tend to think not.

When thinking about choice and housing it is critical to understand what type of choice is desirable – independent or supported.  One should not presume that independent choice is always the most desirable outcome.  “A well-supported choice leading to selection of a wise alternative may be preferable to a more independent but ill-informed choice that results in problems.” (R.J. Stancliffe, 2011)

With this distinction about the definition of choice and what may be safe for each individual, we then can examine Olmstead and the arguments of many regarding community housing for those with ID.

The other very concerning issue other than that of “choice” is what about the caregiver.  Does the NCD not understand that many of these people who they so want to make independent choices often need 24 hour live in and AWAKE care?  If all these people choose to have their own house, who will be there to care for them?  Does the NCD not realize that we are already in a crisis trying to find qualified caregivers for those who may live in supported communities or group homes – how will we be able to safely staff isolated and dispersed homes?

Scattered and dispersed housing does not a community make!

Do you know what you advocate for?

As a parent who has survived a revolving door of crisis after crisis and of a child who was given a second chance at life by being allowed his right to admission into a Residential Habilitation Center, I write this letter with hopes and dreams but also with sadness.  If one person’s life is saved by this, it’s worth it and I do know that I become a broken record – but it is necessary to be heard.

When our child lived at home we had no other life but trying to keep him safe and healthy.  I was not able to attend any meetings or participate in  advocacy beyond trying to work with DDD to approve the “allowed” services and support on the waiver he was on.  After several years of fighting just to get him prescribed supplies (DDD denied them as ‘unnecessary”) I turned to The Arc.  The Arc was no support at all – I was told to call my legislator.  Well, as a parent in crisis, that recommendation seemed ridiculous (now I know different) but I think that someone from The Arc could have helped me – they had no interest in helping me or our son.

Up until then, I had assumed that The Arc and the other DD advocates really did have the best interest of those with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) in mind.  I now know differently.  I see the false advocacy and hidden agendas and mud slinging that is done in addition to the personal assaults and censorship that allowed.  This letter will name specific people  – a practice that I have realized that I need to do in order for them to have some accountability to our community.

Why aren’t these advocates held accountable to being responsible stewards of our public resources?  They are failing us.  It’s time that these folks answered questions and responded to inquiries, rather then writing personal attacks to and about the person who asks the questions.  I would gladly discuss the issues with them or answer their questions about the research I have done or the data I have collected – they are not interested in even looking at though.

Mark Stroh – Executive Director of Disability Right Washington 

Sylvia Fuerstenburg – Executive Director, The Arc of King County

Senator Adam Kline

Developmental Disabilities Council

Please ask these people to:

1.  Read the US DD Act

2.  Read the 1999 US Supreme Court Decision Olmstead

3.  Review the data regarding cost of care for people with high care support needs. (https://becausewecare1.com/2012/06/11/will-negligence-become-the-new-standard-of-care/)

4.  Defend the research in the Report entitled “Assessment Findings for Persons with Developmental Disabilities Served in Residential Habilitation Centers and Community Settings” – also, if you know anyone who does any research, have them take a look at this and see if they can defend the author’s findings.  Let me know what you find out.

5. Ask them if they understand the significance of the Support Intensity Scale and the DD Assessment which looks at activities of daily living. (https://becausewecare1.com/2012/06/09/to-the-arc-and-other-community-advocates-for-people-with-intellectual-disabilities/)

6.  Have them review the non profits and financial statements which work with ID clients in our state

7.  Have them look at the issues of, lack of stability and sustainability of our caregivers, which directly affects the health and safety of our loved ones. (https://becausewecare1.com/2012/06/14/how-can-we-have-stability-and-sustainability-with-up-to-45-staffing-turnover/)

I’m not interested in hearing the same rhetoric from The Arc Advocates and their constituents – that information is inaccurate and misleading.  I’m interested in speaking with those who actually would like to know what the data means, where it came from and what it represents.  Those in The Arc do not know this information.  DRW does not know this information. Community Residential Service Association does not know this information.

 It has been shared with all of these organizations but they will not acknowledge the information because it does not support their agenda.

I can say that I have appreciated conversations which I have had with Sue Elliott, Executive Director of The Arc of Washington.  She has been candid and has indicated that yes, I am correct in stating that for those with high support needs the cost of care would be more expensive in community settings.  The Arc, though, believes that no one should live in any congregate care and that is what they advocate for.  It is fine to advocate for no congregate care but in so doing one also has to use accurate data and say that they do not agree with congregate care but it will cost more.  They are not doing that – they are giving false information to support their advocacy.  This is very detrimental to ALL with ID.

Please, I welcome questions and concerns.  I would appreciate feedback and will get back to you.  I have researched much of this data and have the public records and citations of all resources.

Please share with those who may need to know or understand this information or have them contact me.  I would be very happy help anyone understand the complexities of caring for a person with ID who has very high support needs.