Written by Cheryl Felak in response to invitation by S. Frame to comment for a special "comment" story following discovery that King-5's comment section is not available for public viewing.
Dear Susannah,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to do an investigation of the Developmental Disabilities System in our state. My hope is that there is come clarity that will become evident with a full disclosure of cost distribution, services and the choices of the families and people who live with intellectual disabilities.
As a parent of a young man with profound developmental disabilities and a mental health illness (dual diagnosis) and as a healthcare professional working with many in this population, I understand there is a huge variation in support needs of this population. There are many reasons why a person/family may choose to live in a campus based community versus scattered homes in the community at large.
I also know from having had my son in both of these settings and from extensive research from the Certified Cost Reports required for each agency to submit annually to DDA, CMS reports, Certificate of Evaluation reports and academic research journals, that the costs analysis used in this series is incorrect.
It is a fact that those with higher support needs have a higher cost to their care than those who may not need as much support. This is true regardless of the residential setting. The difference in cost is deceptive due to the fact that only one budget (Developmental Disabilities Administration) is looked at.
When a person lives in a supported living home or other home in the community at large the cost of rent, food, medical, employment support and other supports come from other budgets. Subsidized rent, food stamps, Apple Health Care, Behavioral Health Care, Vocational support, transportation subsidies are just an example of the different budgets that help support residents in the community. These costs are not included in any of the cost comparisons of community homes to RHC costs.
Typically, the cost one sees attributed to care in the community is only that of the Direct Support Professional (DSP). This cost of care for those with high support needs can be much more than the same DSP cost in the RHC given that lack of ability to share staff and resources in scattered homes throughout the community.
Another issue concerning the deception in cost reporting is the use of the “average” cost of community care in reporting the RHC costs more than community care. What we do know is that for those with high support needs their care costs for direct support only can be as high as $750.00 day for an individual’s direct support care. In the community each person’s cost of care is known since the agency negotiates with DDA for each contract. The RHC does not have individual costs applied to each resident and so an average cost must be used.
That being said, we do need to be able to pay the DSPs a higher wage. This is hard (although rewarding) work and takes a toll on one’s body. There is a high turnover of staff mainly due to the lack of supports for the DSP – healthcare, short staffing and high use of overtime and a baseline pay that is not enough for one to live on without working 2 or 3 jobs.
We do have a shortage of providers but the reasons are not due to the RHC – they are due to limits put on bed usage and pay by the legislature.
We cannot let neglect become the standard of care by underfunding these critical services.
Written/submitted to K-5, by Cheryl Felak, RN, Parent/Guardian
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Monday, April 4, 2016
RHC COSTS, NEEDS, UNIONS IN PERSPECTIVE
King5's comment page has been disabled. When I contacted Ms. Frame to request it's reinstatement, she cited technical problems and offered to do a special story just featuring reader comments. Here are mine.
Dear Susannah,
As you know, I am one of the advocates who supports keeping RHCs open. One of that "small, powerful group" that you blame for this travesty.
You raise the question about why the state would spend $97,000,000 in the next 10 years. Would you question the costs of sustaining the University of Washington, or any of the state's Universities which are also institutions? I suspect you would simply accept that the costs were justifiable because of the service provided. Most people would. Or do you think we should hire private tutors for all the students? Maybe the legislature could privatize the universities, establish a system of contractors to run small, home-based learning centers? Pay the professors less or even have one supervise many poorly paid grad students. Just forget about sustaining those expensive campuses with all their old buildings. This may sound silly to you, but to me, it is no sillier than suggesting closure of all the RHCs in favor of subsidized businesses that run residential services for people with IDD.
The most important thing is to recognize the purpose and value of the institutions in question. Especially in the case of the RHCs, we need to recognize that their residents are real people, many very fragile, emotionally and psychologically as well as physically. They can be harmed by callous determinations. They are not pawns to be moved about in order to satisfy somebody's ideological values or somebody else's economic opinions. In fact, the law dis-allows both of those reasons. Yet, together, those two reasons seem to form the basis for your series.
If DSHS would allow admission to RHCs of people who choose them, honor their American Disabilities Act Supreme Court Olmstead Decision-ensured right to choose them, the cost, per capita, would be reduced. Your series is, quite simply, in support of an industry of vendors. But it isn't even free enterprise you are championing. The state determines the rate, chooses the vendors and pays them. The competition that encourages excellence in free enterprise is lacking. The oversight that would ensure even decency and safety is also lacking. Steve O'Ban's bill that was signed into law today, that requires the state to check on some people is a start; but serious amendments will be needed before the level of protective oversight that is needed ever becomes law.
Susannah: You say in your ending comments that it is hard for people whose family members have been in RHCs for years to consider change. Your statement discounts most of our families, whose loved ones are in RHCs, today, because they were already failed by the community-at large. Most RHC families have sacrificed and struggled valiantly to keep our loved ones at home. When that failed, we tried community-at-large venues, often, several. When those failures finally forced us to face the fact that we had to use the services of an RHC, we suffered terrible guilt and remorse. But then, we discovered that our loved ones were getting what they needed, FINALLY.
Once they see their loved ones' gains in RHC care, many try to exercise their loved one's Olmstead-ensured right to choose an RHC over a community-at-large venue, but few have the financial resources to bring the federal case to court. Knowing that, DSHS continues to press it's policy of "diverting" them to community-at-large venues, requiring vulnerable people with idd to be failed several times by the community-at-large before allowing them into an RHC. Why don't those people's experience count for you? Why do you discount it?
The community-at-large successes that you showcased were exemplary. Somehow, you failed either to find or to showcase the ones that sit idle, day after dreary day, in their lonely, isolated, community-at-large homes.
Susannah, over and over again, in this series, you have taken potshots at the unions. The unions are responsible for high continuity of care due to low caregiver turnover in the RHCs. As a family guardian of a non-verbal, totally dependent person, I am immensely grateful for that. In part, my sister thrives because of the relationships she has formed through years of knowing and having her every nuance known by the same caregivers. Here is something that happens as a result of decent-enough pay: those long term workers are not just in it for the money; I know from years of experience with them that their ability to stay on the job that is afforded by unionization also affords them the ability to work with heart and dedication for each, unique person in their care.
Of course, there are families who can afford to subsidize higher caregiver wages and benefit packages for their loved-ones living in the community-at-large, but most cannot. So their loved ones must suffer the constant turnover of workers, stranger after stranger after stranger assigned to take care of them before moving on to a higher paying job, maybe one with benefits. For the person with idd, the situation is fraught with risk.
Thank you, Susannah, for having offered to create a story to feature our comments. I hope you have many such as mine to use together. I look forward to seeing the story. If you do it as a video, if you could please pay us the courtesy of avoiding your practice of using the least flattering visuals you can create or find of the facilities, I and other families and guardians would appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Saskia
Saskia Davis, Family Guardian
ddexchanges @gmail.com
206 364 7762
Dear Susannah,
As you know, I am one of the advocates who supports keeping RHCs open. One of that "small, powerful group" that you blame for this travesty.
You raise the question about why the state would spend $97,000,000 in the next 10 years. Would you question the costs of sustaining the University of Washington, or any of the state's Universities which are also institutions? I suspect you would simply accept that the costs were justifiable because of the service provided. Most people would. Or do you think we should hire private tutors for all the students? Maybe the legislature could privatize the universities, establish a system of contractors to run small, home-based learning centers? Pay the professors less or even have one supervise many poorly paid grad students. Just forget about sustaining those expensive campuses with all their old buildings. This may sound silly to you, but to me, it is no sillier than suggesting closure of all the RHCs in favor of subsidized businesses that run residential services for people with IDD.
The most important thing is to recognize the purpose and value of the institutions in question. Especially in the case of the RHCs, we need to recognize that their residents are real people, many very fragile, emotionally and psychologically as well as physically. They can be harmed by callous determinations. They are not pawns to be moved about in order to satisfy somebody's ideological values or somebody else's economic opinions. In fact, the law dis-allows both of those reasons. Yet, together, those two reasons seem to form the basis for your series.
If DSHS would allow admission to RHCs of people who choose them, honor their American Disabilities Act Supreme Court Olmstead Decision-ensured right to choose them, the cost, per capita, would be reduced. Your series is, quite simply, in support of an industry of vendors. But it isn't even free enterprise you are championing. The state determines the rate, chooses the vendors and pays them. The competition that encourages excellence in free enterprise is lacking. The oversight that would ensure even decency and safety is also lacking. Steve O'Ban's bill that was signed into law today, that requires the state to check on some people is a start; but serious amendments will be needed before the level of protective oversight that is needed ever becomes law.
Susannah: You say in your ending comments that it is hard for people whose family members have been in RHCs for years to consider change. Your statement discounts most of our families, whose loved ones are in RHCs, today, because they were already failed by the community-at large. Most RHC families have sacrificed and struggled valiantly to keep our loved ones at home. When that failed, we tried community-at-large venues, often, several. When those failures finally forced us to face the fact that we had to use the services of an RHC, we suffered terrible guilt and remorse. But then, we discovered that our loved ones were getting what they needed, FINALLY.
Once they see their loved ones' gains in RHC care, many try to exercise their loved one's Olmstead-ensured right to choose an RHC over a community-at-large venue, but few have the financial resources to bring the federal case to court. Knowing that, DSHS continues to press it's policy of "diverting" them to community-at-large venues, requiring vulnerable people with idd to be failed several times by the community-at-large before allowing them into an RHC. Why don't those people's experience count for you? Why do you discount it?
The community-at-large successes that you showcased were exemplary. Somehow, you failed either to find or to showcase the ones that sit idle, day after dreary day, in their lonely, isolated, community-at-large homes.
Susannah, over and over again, in this series, you have taken potshots at the unions. The unions are responsible for high continuity of care due to low caregiver turnover in the RHCs. As a family guardian of a non-verbal, totally dependent person, I am immensely grateful for that. In part, my sister thrives because of the relationships she has formed through years of knowing and having her every nuance known by the same caregivers. Here is something that happens as a result of decent-enough pay: those long term workers are not just in it for the money; I know from years of experience with them that their ability to stay on the job that is afforded by unionization also affords them the ability to work with heart and dedication for each, unique person in their care.
Of course, there are families who can afford to subsidize higher caregiver wages and benefit packages for their loved-ones living in the community-at-large, but most cannot. So their loved ones must suffer the constant turnover of workers, stranger after stranger after stranger assigned to take care of them before moving on to a higher paying job, maybe one with benefits. For the person with idd, the situation is fraught with risk.
Thank you, Susannah, for having offered to create a story to feature our comments. I hope you have many such as mine to use together. I look forward to seeing the story. If you do it as a video, if you could please pay us the courtesy of avoiding your practice of using the least flattering visuals you can create or find of the facilities, I and other families and guardians would appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Saskia
Saskia Davis, Family Guardian
ddexchanges @gmail.com
206 364 7762
Thursday, March 24, 2016
RHC PARENT PROTESTS KING-5 - FRAME SERIES DECEPTIONS
For a few days, the comment section of the King-5 series entitled, "The Last of the Institutions," has been down. It appears to be censorship, but when one reader complained, she was told it is due to technical difficulties. If that is true, we hope they will demonstrate at least enough integrity to fix it and bring all the comments back.
At the author's request, I am posting this letter, which she sent, today and tried to post on the missing comment section. Please chime-in in the "comment" section below this post. Click on "Comment" to open a dialogue box.
To: Russ Walker, Executive Producer / KING 5 Investigators 333 Dexter Ave N Seattle, WA 98109
Dear Mr. Walker:
I am stunned by the uneducated, biased reporting of one of your investigators, Ms. Susannah Frame. She is actually telling lies about the quality of care our residents receive at our Residential Habilitation Centers (RHCs). Her LAST OF THE INSITUTIONS series is beyond insulting to our hardworking, experienced, professional and support staff. Her dialog is preposterous. I am a parent of a son who has lived at Rainier School since he was 14 years old. He is now age 67. Ms. Frame is not anywhere near telling an accurate story of the wonderful, specialized care he as received there for so many years.
Why isn’t Ms. Frame participating in any of the many ongoing RHC staff training classes and spending time working on the houses along side our staff and residents in order to get accurate first hand information? ARC’s president, Stacy Gillet’s (and Ms Frame’s choice of others to interview) comments are equally as grossly distorted and untrue. It is unbelievable that Ms. Frame accepts this one sided account of RHC care.
Our RHC’s are miracle facilities and anyone who does not know that, has not spent much time there. My son is a prime example! He was never expected to have lived for so long and had such a productive, meaningful life. Your station would have done a great disservice to our most severely disabled with broadcasting even one Susannah Frame report let alone to send out an endless stream! Somebody needs to question the motivation of KING TV’s owners and directors and stop this damaging attack on our severely disabled citizens and their RHC caretakers.
Please take the time to read the true accounts of Residential Habilitation Centers in our supportive dialog.
Sincerely,
Jeanie Barrett, member ACTION DD, a non-profit organization that supports any service that is of benefit to our developmentally disabled citizens. We advocate for a full continuum of care that includes RHCs.
Mother of son who has lived at Rainier School for over 53 years.
Former special education teacher for multi-handicapped, medically fragile, severely-profoundly developmentally/intellectually disabled students
At the author's request, I am posting this letter, which she sent, today and tried to post on the missing comment section. Please chime-in in the "comment" section below this post. Click on "Comment" to open a dialogue box.
To: Russ Walker, Executive Producer / KING 5 Investigators 333 Dexter Ave N Seattle, WA 98109
Dear Mr. Walker:
I am stunned by the uneducated, biased reporting of one of your investigators, Ms. Susannah Frame. She is actually telling lies about the quality of care our residents receive at our Residential Habilitation Centers (RHCs). Her LAST OF THE INSITUTIONS series is beyond insulting to our hardworking, experienced, professional and support staff. Her dialog is preposterous. I am a parent of a son who has lived at Rainier School since he was 14 years old. He is now age 67. Ms. Frame is not anywhere near telling an accurate story of the wonderful, specialized care he as received there for so many years.
Why isn’t Ms. Frame participating in any of the many ongoing RHC staff training classes and spending time working on the houses along side our staff and residents in order to get accurate first hand information? ARC’s president, Stacy Gillet’s (and Ms Frame’s choice of others to interview) comments are equally as grossly distorted and untrue. It is unbelievable that Ms. Frame accepts this one sided account of RHC care.
Our RHC’s are miracle facilities and anyone who does not know that, has not spent much time there. My son is a prime example! He was never expected to have lived for so long and had such a productive, meaningful life. Your station would have done a great disservice to our most severely disabled with broadcasting even one Susannah Frame report let alone to send out an endless stream! Somebody needs to question the motivation of KING TV’s owners and directors and stop this damaging attack on our severely disabled citizens and their RHC caretakers.
Please take the time to read the true accounts of Residential Habilitation Centers in our supportive dialog.
Sincerely,
Jeanie Barrett, member ACTION DD, a non-profit organization that supports any service that is of benefit to our developmentally disabled citizens. We advocate for a full continuum of care that includes RHCs.
Mother of son who has lived at Rainier School for over 53 years.
Former special education teacher for multi-handicapped, medically fragile, severely-profoundly developmentally/intellectually disabled students
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
ANSWERING BIASED READER COMMENT IN NOW DISABLED KING 5 COMMENT SECTION:
God Bless Maralyn Chase and Frank Chopp and all the other legislators who understand the need for and continue to vote for RHC survival. My non-verbal, sister, intellectual age-18 months, with severe spastic quadraplegia, major motor seizures and bi-polar disease thrives because her RHC home is still open. PT, OT, ST, nursing, medical, dental, dietary and well-managed, specially trained attendants cooperate to provide care according to her individual, interdisciplinary team plan. I am part of the team. Without the centralized services available on her RHC campus, her needs could not be met as she needs them to be. They are too intensive and complex.
Don't trust the cost comparisons cited by Susannah Frame. She is perpetuating myth, not quoting "science". When comparisons are made between RHCs and community-at-large costs, they are apples-to-oranges, inaccurate because: 1. No way to aggregate all the piece-meal therapies and services in the community-at-large has been devised. 2. DSHS only tracks the costs that accrue to it's budget. 3. Costs are included on the RHC side of the ledger that don't apply to the residents being compared, and in some cases, even to the RHCs: eg: utility costs for unrelated, campus property tenants who pay no rent but benefit from free utilities from the facility. 4. People who are promised services in the community-at-large if they agree to be moved from an RHC don't always get the services they had or were promised; this, of course, lowers their costs.
Before her RHC admission, my sister was terribly abused in her community-at-large home. Oversight that is designed to PREVENT abuse is still needed in the community-at-large. Federal standards and audits to enforce them make the RHCs the safer option for people as vulnerable as my sister is.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
URGENT: CONTACT YOUR US HOUSE REPS NOW
For clarity, I have paraphrased an urgent plea from VOR. See my message below it.
March 16, 2016
Dear Friends and VOR Members,
We urge you to act immediately.
Pursuing an agenda to limit residential service for people with Intellectual Developmental Disabilities (IDD) to service in community-at-large homes which are provided by subsidized businesses, Protection and Advocacy Agencies (P and A) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) file mass actions with the purpose of closing Intermediate Care and Nursing Facilities* for People with Intellectual Developmental Disabilities (ICFs/NFs-IDD).
It is unjust to require parties who oppose an action to be party to it. However, typically, the P and A agencies and DOJ file their class actions without consultation with the parents and/or guardians of the residents who would be displaced from their homes. Consistently, the parents and guardians have opposed such actions.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Supreme Court Olmstead decision compels the government to respect each person's right of choice between institutional and community-at-large residential placements.
The following is the not paraphrased.
Please email your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives immediately and request that he or she contact the House Appropriations Committee by March 23, 2016 and ask the Committee to include language in two appropriations bills which will protect the rights of individuals with I/DD who require and choose an ICF/IID level of care.
Taking action is easy. Please click on the link below to be taken to a ready-to-send email to your U.S. House Representative. You can edit it, if you wish, before sending.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Please feel free to forward this alert to others who would like to help.
Gratefully,
Hugo Dwyer
Here is the message I am using: Feel free to appropriate and/or modify it.
Honorable_________:
Thank you for your service.
By March 23, 2016, please ask the House Appropriations Committee to include in two appropriations bills language which will protect the rights of choice by people with intellectual developmental disabilities who need and choose Intermediate Care or Nursing Facility care. Please ask that the language prohibit class action lawsuits against ICF's/NFs/IDD unless they are filed following consultation with and consent for inclusion in the lawsuit by each of the parents and guardians of the facilities' residents.
Background:
Pursuing an agenda to limit residential service for people with Intellectual Developmental Disabilities to service in community-at-large homes which are provided by subsidized businesses, Protection and Advocacy Agencies (P and A) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) file mass actions with the purpose of closing Intermediate Care and Nursing Facilities for People with Intellectual Developmental Disabilities (ICFs/NFs-IDD).
It is important to understand that ICFs/NFs-IDD are not the isolating institutions of scores of years ago. On the contrary, while they vary in style, they are modern, full service, therapeutic communities. Often, they are campus-based. Like all neighborhoods, they function interactively with their larger, surrounding communities. Also, due to higher federal standards and auditing, they typically are the safer option for especially vulnerable persons.
It is unjust to require parties who oppose an action to be party to it. However, typically, the P and A agencies and DOJ file their class actions without consultation with the parents and/or guardians of the residents who would be displaced from their homes. Consistently, the parents and guardians have opposed such actions.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Supreme Court Olmstead decision compels the government to respect each person's right of choice between institutional and community-at-large residential placements.
Repeating my request:
By March 23, 2016, please ask the House Appropriations Committee to include in two appropriations bills language which will protect the rights of choice by people with intellectual developmental disabilities who need and choose Intermediate Care or Nursing Facility care for people with IDD. Please ask that the language prohibit class action lawsuits unless they are filed following consultation with and consent for inclusion in the lawsuit by each of the parents and guardians of the facilities' residents.
Sincerely,
Saskia Davis, RN, Family Guardian
*Please note that I have changed all references to ICFs to include NFs (nursing facilities). In WA and some other states, state operated facilities may be solely ICF or NF or may be a combination of them. The people in both settings need and deserve the same protections. (20 or more years ago, ICFs were the only choice, and so nationally, the language was used in place of "institution". Now, we need to remember not to exclude the residents whose conditions require more intensive nursing care and so have been assigned to those facilities rather than ICFs.)
http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/50829/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=17918
March 16, 2016
Dear Friends and VOR Members,
We urge you to act immediately.
Pursuing an agenda to limit residential service for people with Intellectual Developmental Disabilities (IDD) to service in community-at-large homes which are provided by subsidized businesses, Protection and Advocacy Agencies (P and A) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) file mass actions with the purpose of closing Intermediate Care and Nursing Facilities* for People with Intellectual Developmental Disabilities (ICFs/NFs-IDD).
It is unjust to require parties who oppose an action to be party to it. However, typically, the P and A agencies and DOJ file their class actions without consultation with the parents and/or guardians of the residents who would be displaced from their homes. Consistently, the parents and guardians have opposed such actions.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Supreme Court Olmstead decision compels the government to respect each person's right of choice between institutional and community-at-large residential placements.
The following is the not paraphrased.
Please email your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives immediately and request that he or she contact the House Appropriations Committee by March 23, 2016 and ask the Committee to include language in two appropriations bills which will protect the rights of individuals with I/DD who require and choose an ICF/IID level of care.
Taking action is easy. Please click on the link below to be taken to a ready-to-send email to your U.S. House Representative. You can edit it, if you wish, before sending.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Please feel free to forward this alert to others who would like to help.
Gratefully,
Hugo Dwyer
Here is the message I am using: Feel free to appropriate and/or modify it.
Honorable_________:
Thank you for your service.
By March 23, 2016, please ask the House Appropriations Committee to include in two appropriations bills language which will protect the rights of choice by people with intellectual developmental disabilities who need and choose Intermediate Care or Nursing Facility care. Please ask that the language prohibit class action lawsuits against ICF's/NFs/IDD unless they are filed following consultation with and consent for inclusion in the lawsuit by each of the parents and guardians of the facilities' residents.
Background:
Pursuing an agenda to limit residential service for people with Intellectual Developmental Disabilities to service in community-at-large homes which are provided by subsidized businesses, Protection and Advocacy Agencies (P and A) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) file mass actions with the purpose of closing Intermediate Care and Nursing Facilities for People with Intellectual Developmental Disabilities (ICFs/NFs-IDD).
It is important to understand that ICFs/NFs-IDD are not the isolating institutions of scores of years ago. On the contrary, while they vary in style, they are modern, full service, therapeutic communities. Often, they are campus-based. Like all neighborhoods, they function interactively with their larger, surrounding communities. Also, due to higher federal standards and auditing, they typically are the safer option for especially vulnerable persons.
It is unjust to require parties who oppose an action to be party to it. However, typically, the P and A agencies and DOJ file their class actions without consultation with the parents and/or guardians of the residents who would be displaced from their homes. Consistently, the parents and guardians have opposed such actions.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Supreme Court Olmstead decision compels the government to respect each person's right of choice between institutional and community-at-large residential placements.
Repeating my request:
By March 23, 2016, please ask the House Appropriations Committee to include in two appropriations bills language which will protect the rights of choice by people with intellectual developmental disabilities who need and choose Intermediate Care or Nursing Facility care for people with IDD. Please ask that the language prohibit class action lawsuits unless they are filed following consultation with and consent for inclusion in the lawsuit by each of the parents and guardians of the facilities' residents.
Sincerely,
Saskia Davis, RN, Family Guardian
*Please note that I have changed all references to ICFs to include NFs (nursing facilities). In WA and some other states, state operated facilities may be solely ICF or NF or may be a combination of them. The people in both settings need and deserve the same protections. (20 or more years ago, ICFs were the only choice, and so nationally, the language was used in place of "institution". Now, we need to remember not to exclude the residents whose conditions require more intensive nursing care and so have been assigned to those facilities rather than ICFs.)
http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/50829/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=17918
Saturday, March 19, 2016
"PROTECTING OUR MOST VULNERABLE" VIDEO
See our video about RHCs. It's just 5 minutes. Worthwhile. Let me know what you think.
Here are 2 links. The first is one I saved of the original version. The second is the same except we added a "thank you" to professional staff in order to cover help protect them from being accused of using government time to share their expert views.
http9qnfKk0vuGY&feature=youtu.bes://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZh8SQoOs18&feature=share
Here are 2 links. The first is one I saved of the original version. The second is the same except we added a "thank you" to professional staff in order to cover help protect them from being accused of using government time to share their expert views.
http9qnfKk0vuGY&feature=youtu.bes://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZh8SQoOs18&feature=share
RESUMING DDEXCHANGE: What's new? What's Not?
I'm back. Almost 5 years ago, I put DD Exchange on hold because my plate was too full. Finally, I've realized that, at the very least, even if I don't always have time to stay current, whenever I have time, I can use it as a place to chronicle what I am seeing.
What do You think? Probably, most everyone has forgotten this blog, but since you are reading this, please speak up in the "comment" section. I would love to hear from You!
Rereading old posts, I find many that could be mistaken for current. There have been surprisingly few changes.
What do You think? Probably, most everyone has forgotten this blog, but since you are reading this, please speak up in the "comment" section. I would love to hear from You!
Rereading old posts, I find many that could be mistaken for current. There have been surprisingly few changes.
My sister's home: Fircrest School (RHC) is still a great home for her and others. I will post our video, entitled "Protecting Our Most Vulnerable," separately. It's about RHCs in Washington rather than just Fircrest, but Fircrest is well represented. New programs, such as Art, Gardening, and special communications classes have been added. iPads are enhancing the communications skills and recreational pleasure of many. Thanks to some inconvenient, but needed observations/citations by Federal auditors, RHC residents, statewide, will be engaging in activity programs that more closely fit their needs and interests. (RHCs are state-run, campus-based, full service, therapeutic
communities known
in WA as "residential habilitation centers" and in other states as
"residential centers" or "ICFs." In WA, ICF's are only one facet of
RHCS. The other is NFs, a specialized, nursing home program.)
Sad to say, Dr. Asha Singh, Fircrest's excellent
Superintendent and Medical Director of more than 20 years has retired. A
nationwide search for her replacements (in each position) is ongoing. The interim
Superintendent, Jeff Fleshner, has been terrific, but he will not be
staying on.
The RHC closure push in WA:
Pressure continues in WA to close state-run RHCS. Currently,
Yakima Valley School is scheduled to close by forced attrition unless a
current bill, which takes it's closure out of statute, passes. We are holding our collective breath during this overtime legislative session.
Propaganda: After 26 years as an advocate, I thought I had become too jaded to be shocked or completely disillusioned, but King 5, a Seattle TV station that was a staple in my household when I was growing up, has proven me wrong! They have run several
video editorials (some call them "infomercials") that they bill as
"special reports." They are designed to bias the audience against
RHCs. Toward that end, they have used selectively misleading video
footage as well as doctored photos* + not-so-clever, carefully deceptive
verbal reporting that only just barely squeaks by the "factual" test.
If you have the stomach for them, please don't read or watch any of the
editorials without going to their comment section to correct their lies. For some reason,
they require that you be signed onto facebook in order to register a
comment. The series is entitled "The Last Of The Institutions" King5.com is the URL.
*Doctored photo example: I've been trying to upload the combo, but my resources
aren't up to the job. Here is the photo that was doctored. Now for your imagination as I describe the visual lie that was created: King 5 CUT AWAY ALL THE COLORFUL FUN AND NATURAL BEAUTY, THEN, INSERTED THE REMAINING RESIDENT AGAINST THE STARK CORNER OF A 3 STORY BRICK BUILDING. Apparent intention: create a cold picture of an institution! Frame is the name of the reporter. I call the series, "The Frame Deceptions." Shame on Frame.
Missing: Protective oversight for WA's vendor-owned-home residents with ID/DD: Community-at-large residents with intellectual developmental disabilities (IDD) or severe physical disabilities (DD) in WA and many other places, nationwide, are still at high risk for abuse neglect. There is still no protective oversight that would prevent their abuse and neglect in homes run by businesses contracted by DSHS.
In large part, those of us who work to keep the RHCs open do so because, historically,
regular and surprise CMS audits have raised the
standards in those facilities and have helped to protect their residents
from harm. This level of oversight is sorely lacking in Washington's
subsidized system of vendor-operated, community-at-large homes. I am told that this deficit is also a problem in many other states.
National-Including WA: The
same groups are still actively pushing to close the RHCs, nationwide. Even if we're paranoid (paraphrasing an old saw), it doesn't mean they aren't colluding to close the RHCs:
RHC closure zeolots including ARC and the vendors it
represents, had managed to hoodwink the Justice Department into
misinterpreting the intent of the Supreme Court Olmstead decision.
Olmstead explicitly does not require institutional closures. What it
does require is CHOICE between residential care in an institution and; a community-at-large home. According to reports, the DOJ has
visited several governor's around the country, putting them on notice
that if they don't play ball and initiate institutional closures, their
states will be audited. Rather than face the harassment head on, some
weak governors have capitulated. Other governors, who have not
capitulated have had to face the combined pressure of the DOJ and the
vendor supported groups as they have fought to keep their facilities
open. Many such battles are raging, nationwide. For ongoing news, subscribe at VOR.net.
The DOJ
visited Lakeland Village School (RHC near Spokane WA), after some well-justified changes had satisfied a CMS audit. LVS survived the DOJ.
VOR (Formerly, the "Voice of the Retarded") (VOR
is our nationwide advocacy group for people with intellectual
developmental disabilities (IDD) Advocacy includes people who live in in
community-at-large homes as well as those who live in RHCs. )
Tammy Hopp, ultra-dedicated VOR Director and Master Juggler, par excellence, has also moved on. Tammie, who wore numerous, important hats at VOR, was a challenge to replace. With the new Director, Hugo Dwyer, (whom I have found to be very responsive), reorganization is happening. Probably, the result will be that the organization will be even stronger, with several people and groups taking over the many responsibilities previously carried by Tammie.
Tammy Hopp, ultra-dedicated VOR Director and Master Juggler, par excellence, has also moved on. Tammie, who wore numerous, important hats at VOR, was a challenge to replace. With the new Director, Hugo Dwyer, (whom I have found to be very responsive), reorganization is happening. Probably, the result will be that the organization will be even stronger, with several people and groups taking over the many responsibilities previously carried by Tammie.
Missing Costs Mislead: Cost comparisons between campus-residential, full service, therapeutic communities and community-at-large facilities continue to be based on incomplete community-at-large program data. Such inaccuracies lend illusory weight to assertions that RHCs are too expensive.
Please see the next post for our video entitled: "PROTECTING OUR MOST VULNERABLE".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)