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.

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.

Please support respite and crisis care

Clients & Families can’t wait another year for help. Most of us have been in the position of having to wait for services….let’s try to cut the wait time for others.

Now is the time to write the members of the House Committee on Early Learning & Human Services.  They are having an executive session on Thursday March 26, 2015.

It is very important that the YVS  (E2SSB 5243)bill be sent moved on. If it does not pass out of committee (Executive Session) it is delayed another year.

This bill will help reverse some of the damage and lost respite care from 2011 when the legislature decided to close Frances Haddon Morgan Center.

Bill information:  http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2015&bill=5243

Please send comments of support for the bill E2SSB 5243 to the following House Committee Members:

PLEASE~If you have not as yet contacted Early Learning & Human Services Committee in the House regarding E2SSB 5243, please do so now.

You can call their office, or the Legislative Hotline at 800.562.6000 or email them.

Ruth Kagi, Chair                                                          ruth.kagi@leg.wa.gov                         District 32        (360) 786-7910

Brady Walkinshaw, Vice Chair                                    brady.walkinshaw@leg.wa.gov            District 43        (360) 786-7826

Maureen Walsh, Ranking Minority Member                maureen.walsh@leg.wa.gov               District 16        (360) 786-7836

Elizabeth Scott, Asst Ranking Minority Member         elizabeth.scott@leg.wa.gov                District 39        (360) 786-7816

Tom Dent,                                                                   tom.dent@leg.wa.gov                         District 13        (360) 786-7932

Brad Hawkins,                                                             brad.hawkins@leg.wa.gov                  District 12        (360) 786-7832

Christine Kilduff,                                                          christine.kilduff@leg.wa.gov               District 28        (360) 786-7958

Bob McCaslin,                                                             bob.mccaslin@leg.wa.gov                  District 4          (360) 786-7820

Lillian Ortiz-Self,                                                          lillian.ortiz-self@leg.wa.gov                 District 21        (360) 786-7972

David Sawyer,                                                             david.sawyer@leg.wa.gov                  District 29        (360) 786-7906

Tana Senn,                                                                 tana.senn@leg.wa.gov                       District 41        (360) 786-7894

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

Where’s the Respite Care?

We hear that many people are in need of respite care and I’m sure this is true.  I know that when my son was at home the thought of having respite care provided was just a dream.  Even though he was on a Home and Community Based Waiver which included respite, he was never approved to have respite.

With respite “beds” in such dire need, it is mind-boggling to me that those who need respite and some major advocacy groups still desire to close the Residential Habilitation Centers (RHCs) in our state. They are oblivious to the facts that the RHCs are part of the continuum of care, providing care for many from various community settings.  If they are aware of the facts and they advocate for closure or consolidation, they are really advocating against safe and appropriate care for those who need respite.

For the time period from July 2012 through August 2014, there has been a steady rise in the respite care at our four remaining RHCs.  Yakima Valley School, the RHC which has most recently been “studied” for closure, serves an average of 34 community respite clients per month.

When talking about the RHCs these so-called advocates talk only about the permanent residents of the RHCs.  We hear that there are only 70 people at Yakima Valley School – forgetting that over the past 2 years there have actually been 920 people served there.  Many more people from the community are served at Yakima Valley School than permanent residents.

This is a part of the discussion that needs to be heard.  The RHCs are part of the continuum of care and serve many people who reside in the larger community.  Without the RHCs, where would these people receive the much needed respite?

Cleints served at Residential Habilitation Center

 

The cost of care in the Residential Habilitation Centers is mostly for community care – the permanent residents are less than 50% of the number of clients served.

If The Arc chapters and the Developmental Disabilities Council continue to advocate for consolidation and closure of the RHCs, they are only advocating for fewer and fewer services, both for those in the community and those who are the permanent residents of the RHCs.  Where would all the people go and receive care?

Data from Executive Management Information System – Department of Social and Health Services

Washington State

July 2012 through August 2014

Centers of Excellence – change from the bottom up

We often hear about Centers of Excellence but what does this mean?

I think it should be fairly obvious but apparently it’s not.  For parents, family members, people with intellectual/developmental disabilities (IDD), advocates, community members, healthcare providers, vocational and recreational support people, it generally means a community which interacts and supports those with IDD in all aspects of their life in a manner which provides the best quality of life for that person.  It is a collaborative effort from all angles.

This can be done but for some reason, even though we hear about needing centers of excellence, they are being broken down rather than built up by the very agencies which should be supporting them.

Here in Washington State the Developmental Disabilities Administration recently proposed a “feasibility study” at the cost of $601,000 to actually dismantle much needed Nursing Facility for those with IDD which also provides respite for many across the state, evicting the current residents from their home to create a “Center of Excellence” which has a totally different definition than one would expect. There are so many things wrong with this proposal which was most likely generated by a recent court decisions regarding people with mental health issues and the fact that federal reimbursement for care is better in the Developmental Disabilities Arena than in the Mental Health Arena.

This proposal needs to be stopped before it goes any further, wasting our valuable funds on things when those critical funds could be used for so much better, actually providing services and supports utilizing existing resources and building up what we have rather than tearing down, dismantling and rebuilding programs which would actually provide less than what we currently have.  This makes no sense.

Our state has a history of doing just that.  In 2012 Frances Haddon Morgan Center was closed, a Residential Habilitation Center  (RHC)which was home to over 50 residents and provided much needed respite care.  FHMC was also situated on the western side of the state providing an alternative which was closer to many people’s homes of origin.  This was a huge political mess with much misinformation provided and believed by those who made the decision but the decision was made which The Arc, the Developmental Disabilities Council and others celebrated as a victory.

At least one young man’s life was lost as a direct result of this closure and many others were displaced more than once from one home to another.  This alone is inexcusable.  The other issue is the misinformation regarding “cost savings” and the fact that many now are being denied services which could have been provided if FHMC was still operational.  FHMC is currently just a building, empty, sitting unused for many reason – it is a shame to walk through the campus and know what good use it could if only it would be allowed to be utilized.  Families and communities are hurting due to this decision.

What did happen was that there was no cost savings at all – in fact, just the opposite.  Rather than building several crisis care centers located strategically around the state, there has been one center for youth which has can serve up to 3 youth at a time.

The program which was built to “replace” FHMC has been open since December 2012.  To date they have served 12 children, only one of whom returned to their family home (which was one goal of this program). The current cost of this program is $1,165 per day.

This is the program for which FHMC was shut down for – how many people are now going without help, are suffering in crisis due to this huge error on the part of some so-called advocates?

We can’t let history repeat itself yet that is exactly what this “feasibility study” is doing.  It must be stopped before it goes any further.  Let’s look at what a “Center of Excellence” really is and build these up with the resources and available space we have – it’s all there already – it just needs to be utilized appropriately.

 

DDA CenterofExcellence

 

Arc alert

Today, the Arc of Washington issued an action alert.  There is inaccurate and misleading information in their alert.  I have written to Sue Elliott,  Executive Director and Diana Staddon, Policy Director with my concerns about using false information which doesn’t even relate to the bill (SB 5371).  When, and if, I hear back from them, I will post their answer.  I do hope they correct their errors.

I understand The Arc opposes this bill but I do need the organization to explain why and the reasons.  They claim SB 5371 is bad policy.  I claim their false information and unrelated information are bad policy.

The is funded with thousand of public dollars and I do not appreciate my dollars being spent in “false advertising”  and especially when those dollars are to be used to advocate for improvements to the care of our citizens with developmental disabilities but are used against them.  I believe we can do better if our public was allowed to be better informed.  I do not want to post their alert since it provides information which is wrong.  You can contact The Arc  – Washington State for information.

I need to post this on my own blog because I am blocked from posting on The Arc websites.  I cannot give the link since I am unable  to access their website. They consider my questions an attack against their organization.  All I would like are answers.

If you are interested I have attached my letters to our Senate Health Committee here.  I have commented on both SB 5370 and SB 5371

Senate Health Committee SB 5370

Senate Health Committee SB 5371

AFH citations for repeated violations

WA State Licensed Adult Homes for People with DD Citations 2011 and  2012 Samples