…the era of Dickensian, deservedly maligned institutions housing those who are least able to voice their objections to them must come to an end, beginning this June 30 at Fernald.
“Dickensian,” Leo? You would think nothing has changed in the state's Immediate Care Facilities for the developmentally disabled since the 1840s. Nevermind that the American Health Care Association says the following about ICFs around the country:
Changes and improvements in ICF/DD support and training services have created one of the most progressive and technically advanced programs anywhere in the world. For residents, quality of life has improved dramatically, as access and choice have become hallmarks of the ICF/DD program.
No, none of that matters. In addition to “Dickensian,” Sarkissian manages to refer to Fernald and the other Massachusetts ICFs in his column as “decrepit,” “under-populated,” “archaic,” “inferior,” and “outdated.” But even that's not enough. Sarkissan feels its important to his argument to point out the true–though currently irrelevant–fact that prior to the 1970s, treatment at Fernald was “deplorable.”
Can you blame Fernald supporters for feeling somewhat insulted by this?
And then there's the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers, the vendor-supported organization that shares the same Waltham address and certain payroll expenses with the Arc of Massachusetts.
Gary Blumenthal, the ADDP's executive director, is now arguing on the organization's website that the Patrick administration isn't even going far enough in closing four of six remaining state-run ICFs in Massachusetts. All care for persons with disabilities in the state should be immediately privatized, he asserts. Why stop now with two ICFs still left in operation? Shut 'em all down and give us those state contracts expand the “community private provider system,” Blumenthal states.
Here is a little more of Blumenthal's reasoning:
…how can the Commonwealth shred every other element of the state safety net and all other state programs, while a few legislators work aggressively to keep whole an obsolete service model that drains millions of dollars to maintain six campus settings, including dozens of empty buildings that are still draining funds from other individuals needing DDS services and supports?
The only problem is the second half of this statement is completely untrue. No one has advocated that we maintain six campus settings with empty buildings. ICF advocates and supportive legislators have consistently argued that these campuses can and should be downsized to accomodate their current populations. No one is saying these facilities have to be large. ADDP and the Arc have never acknowledged that point and the Patrick administration has never seriously considered it either.
What the Patrick administration is doing right now, as it shuts down four state ICFs, is actually to temporarily expand two remaining ICFs and develop some additional state-run community-based group homes to accomodate the residents of the closed facilities. We believe the administration's intention is ultimately to close those two remaining ICFs and privatize the group homes. Along with this, the administration wants to eliminate ICF-level care, with its strict federal standards, and replace it with the looser standards applicable to community-based care.
The administration is carrying out this agenda even as it continues to cut funding and services to those in the private, community-based system. There are no plans as far as we know to expand the community-based system to accomodate the thousands of people still waiting for care in it.
Blumenthal recognizes this fact. But he has a huge conflict of interest in asking the state to turn over all developmental disabilities funding to the vendors. The evidence is overwhelming that a completely privatized system of care would be inferior to a system with state-run, ICF-level care, in which employees are better trained and receive better pay and benefits.
In a letter to the Waltham Tribune in response to Sarkissian's column, Bill Fowler, a former Waltham firefighter and fire inspector, wrote:
I have personally observed some of the deplorable living conditions that exist in many of these group homes…It has always left a bad taste in my mouth that the leading voice in favor of closing Fernald works in the industry that has the most to gain if the Fernald is closed. All one has to do is look at the outrageous salaries of the upper management of the corporations that run the community-based facilities and you will see why they think closing Fernald makes sense.
And then there was this statement from a letter to the Tribune from Marion Julian of Braintree:
Our family's experience with the private vendor homes was disgusting and life threatening. My loved one went downhill and was hospitalized because of inadequate care, lack of care and neglect. Where were these wonderful caring people for my child in the private vendor setting? They were not there; the private vendor did not care and was not made accountable.
Julian writes that after her family member was moved to a state-run group home, she gained back 40 pounds after receiving “proper nutrition, proper supports, and medical care.”
We thank people like Bill Fowler and Marion Julian for sharing their personal experiences in order to counter the continuing myths and misrepresentations about care for the developmentally disabled.