Archive
Governor Healey’s proposed FY ’25 budget for DDS raises questions about her priorities for state vs. corporate-run care
Governor Maura Healey last week proposed a budget for Fiscal Year 2025 that includes an increase in funding for the Wrentham and Hogan Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs) and state-operated group homes in Massachusetts.
But the governor’s budget doesn’t appear to be an attempt to change a longstanding practice of underfunding those state-run services and steadily increasing funding to corporate group home and community-based day program providers.
Healey proposed an increase of only $1.2 million in the ICF line item, which would amount to a funding hike of less than 1%, for FY ’25. That is well under the current average inflation rate for New England of 2.9%. As such, the governor’s budget proposal represents a cut in the ICF line item when it is adjusted for inflation.
Healey’s proposed $15.3 million increase in the state-operated group-home line item would amount to a 4.8% funding boost. While that is above the inflation rate, it is still far less than the governor’s proposed percentage increases in many DDS corporate provider line items.
For instance, Healey is proposing an 18.5% increase in the community-based day program line item, a 19.3% increase for transportation providers, and a 22% increase for respite providers.
Corporate group home cut would be offset by reserve account increase
Healey cut the DDS corporate provider group home line item by $40.3 million earlier this month as part of an across-the-board series of “9C” cuts in the face of a decline in projected revenues in the current fiscal year.
But in her FY ’25 budget, the governor is proposing not only to restore $23.2 million of the $40.3 million cut to the line item, she is also proposing a record-breaking $217 million increase to a separate reserve fund for the corporate providers. The governor’s FY ’25 budget would bring total funding under the Human Services Provider Reserve fund to $390 million.
So it would appear that despite the declining revenues, corporate DDS and other human services providers would receive a net increase of nearly $200 million under the governor’s budget plan.
Questions about provider reserve fund
Last week, The Boston Globe reported that Healey was planning in her FY ’25 budget to “tackle the staffing crisis plaguing social service care providers with a big investment…” That investment appears to include the governor’s proposed $390 million appropriation to the human service provider reserve fund, plus $95 million from a number of other reserve funds.
The total of $485 million in proposed additional funding is projected by the administration to raise direct-care wages to $20 an hour, “at the lowest,” the Globe reported.
We have a number of questions about the oversight of the reserve fund, however. We have long been unable to get answers to those questions, including the amount that has been spent from the fund to actually raise direct-care wages.
Also, for the past two fiscal years, the Legislature has inserted language into the line item for the reserve fund stating that 75% of the funding under the account must be directed to boost direct-care wages. Yet, this language is not included in Governor Haley’s FY 25 proposal for this line item.
Also. the governor’s FY ’25 budget plan indicates that zero dollars were expended in FY ’23 from this same line item that year even though $285 million had been appropriated to it. (See screenshot below.) It’s not clear what has been expended from the line item in the current fiscal year. This raises further questions for us as to where the money in the line item gone.
Minimal increase for ICFs
Gov. Healey’s FY ’25 budget would increase the ICF line item (5930-1000) by $1,777,048, or less than 1% over the current year appropriation. The FY ’25 ICF line item proposed amount is $124,809,632.
We are recommending a $5 million, or 4%, increase in the ICF line item in the FY ’25 budget. That would nominally raise the line item to $128,577,887. That increase would allow the line item to keep pace with inflation moving forward.
The news is better for the state-operated group home line item (5920-2010). The governor’s FY ’25 budget would raise that line item by $15,327,687 or 4.8%. That would raise the line item to $333,099,736.
ICF budget language
We are continuing to recommend changes in the ICF line item language. (The language doesn’t appear to be a part of the governor’s proposed budget. It gets added by the Legislature.)
The legislative language in the current year budget states that DDS must report yearly to the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees on “all efforts to comply with …(the) Olmstead (U.S. Supreme Court decision)…and… the steps taken to consolidate or close an ICF…” (my emphasis). However, closing institutions was not the intent of the Olmstead decision, which was written by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
We are concerned that the misstatements in the ICF line item in the state budget each year could allow the administration to justify continuing to underfund the line item, and possibly to seek the eventual closures of the Wrentham and Hogan centers.
We believe the budget language should be changed to state: “…the steps taken to consolidate or close an ICF and the steps taken to inform families of the choices available for residential care including ICF care.”
Secondly, the legislative line item lists three conditions for discharging clients from ICFs to the community, but leaves out one of the key conditions in Olmstead, which is that “the client or their guardian does not oppose the discharge.” We are requesting that that condition be added to the language in the line item.
In sum, we hope the governor and her staff will begin to understand the importance of state-run services as a part of the fabric of care for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We are seeking a meeting with the governor and her staff to explain the disastrous result if current budget trends are allowed to continue.
Secondly, we think the administration and the Legislature need to understand that adequate oversight is needed of the hundreds of millions of dollars in budget appropriations that are intended to raise direct-care staff wages.
Family thanks DDS commissioner for referral of sister to the Wrentham Center
[Editor’s Note: We are reprinting a letter below that was written by Joan Norman, a sister of Ellen Gallagher. Ellen, who has an intellectual disability, had been living in a corporate, provider-run group home, which was moving to evict her because they admittedly couldn’t meet her needs.
Ellen has Alzheimer’s disease and limited mobility mainly due to limited vision issues and age. Joan describes her as “sweet and social,” but said she had been declining in the group home due the advancement of her disease and “sub-par medical and mental health care.”
In November, after advocacy on Ellen’s behalf by her family and members of COFAR, Department of Developmental Services (DDS) Commissioner Jane Ryder granted Ellen a rare admission to the Wrentham Developmental Center.
The number of residents at Wrentham and the Hogan Regional Center has been steadily declining for several years. That is because a succession of administrations has had a policy of declining to offer Wrentham or Hogan as residential options even when families ask for them.
We think Joan’s letter to Commissioner Ryder is an eloquent testimonial to the quality and importance of the care provided by state-run Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs) such as the Wrentham and Hogan Centers.]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Commissioner Ryder,
This letter is to formally thank you for supporting our sister’s referral to the Wrentham Developmental Center (WDC) back in November.
As you might remember, Ellen Gallagher, a 55-year-old Down Syndrome woman on hospice, with advanced Alzheimer’s, was living in her group home’s family room due to losing the ability to walk or get to her 2nd floor bedroom for almost 4 months.
We fought hard to find the appropriate placement with 24/7 nursing care so that Ellen could live out her remaining time with dignity and proper medical and mental health services. She needs services that include continuity and onsite care, rather than visiting the ER, hospital stays and unnecessary tests when she has had minor issues such as dehydration.
Now that she has settled in at WDC and has spent 6 weeks there, we can confirm it is an amazing living environment where her medical needs are finally being met and she is safe. She now has a handicap accessible bathroom and there are appropriate safety measures to match her abilities and changing needs.
We realize there is a push to keep people out of ICFs like WDC, but for medically complex clients it should be an option and it should be offered willingly by DDS. Families should not have to fight so hard for the care they need. ICFs are not the institutions of the past.
In this case, WDC is an example of the type of culture that is needed in community-based homes where a client’s medical care doesn’t involve neglect, safety issues and unprepared front-line workers.
We suspect costs are a driving factor behind limiting ICF placements. If you look at costs in community-based homes, many medically complex people end up with unnecessary emergent care because they don’t have onsite nursing care. Caretakers (with little to no medical background) use ambulances and hospitals “to be safe” when issues arise. Or worse, many clients go without proper medical care when they need it.
In my sister’s situation, in one incident, she was so dehydrated she ended up in the hospital nearly unconscious for days after being left virtually alone with a COVID infection. The staff handed her over to us after her isolation period, and we took her directly to the ER. She never gained back her strength, and it began a downward spiral of physical and mental decline for her.
In theory, nursing staff should be available to coordinate client medical care in group homes, but that is not how it often works. This can result in sub-par care, but also higher costs for the state’s Medicaid program when emergent care and unnecessary hospitalizations are used in place of qualified medical workers who can properly assess and address medical issues properly.
We urge you to continue supporting families who are seeking placements in an ICF like Wrentham, particularly for medically complex clients. Quality 24/7 medical care is not available in community-based homes, or it is patched together at best. WDC can offer this type of care.
There is a federal regulation supporting the choice of an ICF: Individuals seeking care, and their families and guardians, should be given the choice of either institutional or home and community-based services. [42 C.F.R. § 441.302(d)]. We got our choice for Ellen, and we sincerely thank you for supporting that decision. Please consider supporting others as well.
Sincerely,
The family of Ellen Gallagher
Gov. Healey cuts provider-run group home and other DDS spending as budget shortfall looms
Faced with $1 billion in declining state revenue projections, Governor Healey yesterday ordered $375 million in spending cuts across the board in state government, including in programs for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD).
It appears the governor’s actions, known as “9C” cuts, will affect three line items in the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) budget: Community Residential (corporate provider-run group homes), Community Day and Work programs, and the Autism Division in the current fiscal year.
No cuts are being made in the line items funding the Wrentham and Hogan Centers or the state-operated group homes.
However, the Community Residential line item (5920-2000) will be cut by $40.4 million, bringing funding under the line item close to even with last year’s funding level. Not only does that amount to a cut when adjusted for inflation, it is occurring in the middle of the current fiscal year.
But DDS Commissioner Jane Ryder said the funds being cut in the Community Residential account are “projected amounts to be reverted anyway due to delays in placements and getting back to services,” according to the Arc of Massachusetts, a key lobbyist for DDS-funded providers. The Arc reported that Ryder promised that, “no (provider) contracts are being amended.”
It does appear, however, that the Community Residential cut could reduce planned increases in wages of direct-care staff in provider-run group homes. According to the Arc, the cut could affect “recruitment of qualified direct support, supervisory, and clinical staff; fringe benefits; and training allowances in our home and community services.”
The Community Day and Work line item (5920-2025) will be cut in the current fiscal year by $13.8 million, and the Autism Division line item (5920-3030) will be cut by $1 million.
The day program cut is also potentially concerning given the ongoing shortage of adequate staffing and meaningful activities in those programs.
Another source of concern is a $294 million cut that Governor Healey has made in MassHealth fee for service payments. Although that cut won’t affect the DDS budget, it will have an unclear effect on services in MassHealth-funded programs for people with I/DD.
The following breakdown of the governor’s 9C cuts affecting DDS line items came from the State House News Service:
Despite Commissioner Ryder’s reassurances, these cuts will not help the situation in the provider-run group home and day program system, which The Boston Globe has already characterized as “hobbled by poor staffing and struggling with allegations of abuse and neglect.”
Ultimately, we think these problems are due more to a lack of proper oversight of the provider-run system than to a lack of resources. Nevertheless, across-the-board budget cuts are almost never helpful in solving those problems.
Globe update report has devastating findings about DDS provider-run group home system. Is the administration listening?
In the second of two reports on the corporate, provider-based group home system in Massachusetts, The Boston Globe last week characterized the system as “hobbled by poor staffing and struggling with allegations of abuse and neglect.”
Last week’s article was a follow-up to a report in September by the Globe’s Spotlight Team, which had focused on widespread abuse and neglect in provider-run residential schools for children and teens with autism.
We think the Globe’s reporting raises some important questions, one of which is whether the Healey administration and the Legislature are listening.
The Globe’s reporting echoes assertions about abuse and neglect in the system that we have been making for years. Moreover, we think the Globe is on the right track in noting a key factor plaguing the system, which we have long emphasized, of underpaid and undertrained staff.
Last week’s Globe article stated that most of the parents of autistic children whom the paper had interviewed asserted that, “Massachusetts has never solved long-term systemic problems of low pay and inadequate training” in the system.
The paper noted that although “the state has directed millions of dollars to group home providers to help them recruit and keep staff, pay remains similar to that of some retail and fast food workers; $17 to $20 an hour is typical.”
The Globe further stated that “a number of parents who spoke with (the newspaper) requested anonymity because they were afraid that (as we have long reported) state officials or providers would retaliate against them or their child if they spoke out.”
Paper needs to examine the causes
We hope the Globe will investigate the causes of that culture of retaliation and intimidation of families who complain about inadequate care and even abuse and neglect of their loved ones; and that it will investigate the causes of the underpayment of staff.
Understanding the causes of the underpayment of staff might help explain where the millions of taxpayer dollars went, given the money, as the Globe implied, doesn’t appear to have been used to raise staff wages to any significant degree. It might also explain why direct-care workers in the provider system have historically been underpaid and undertrained.
We think an investigation of the causes will reveal that the corporate provider system has always been been about making as much money as possible for its executives while paying its direct care workers as little as possible. That appears to explain why the privatization of human services has never met the promise of both delivering high-quality care and saving money. It may also explain why continual efforts to raise the pay of direct care workers don’t seem to lead to that result (see Massachusetts Inspector General’s 2021 Annual Report, page 27).
State-run services ignored as potential solution
Last week’s Globe article referred to concerns raised by the Arc of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers (ADDP) — both of which actually lobby for the providers — about the shortage of staff and a lack of available group homes.
But while organizations like the Arc and the ADDP publicly decry the poor care and abuse of clients and the underpayment and shortage of staff, they both oppose a key potential solution to the problem, which would be to open the doors of the Wrentham and Hogan Developmental Centers and provide state-operated group homes as options to individuals seeking residential placements.
The state-run Wrentham and Hogan Centers and state-operated group homes have better trained and better paid staff than the provider-run homes. Yet the state-run facilities are losing population even as the number of people waiting for placements is growing. That is because the administration is not offering state-run facilities as options to people seeking placements, and is even denying requests made by families to place their loved ones in them.
The Arc and the ADDP appear to offer no solutions to those problems other than to ask the state to direct more money to them. In our view, those problems will never be solved unless the state changes the incentives driving privatized care.
Real oversight needed
In addition to providing families with state-run facilities as options for residential care, the state needs to take steps to ensure that group home providers really do raise the pay of their direct-care workers. It could begin to do that by establishing true financial oversight of the provider system. Currently, that oversight is practically non-existent.
Successive administrations and the Legislature have been committed to the privatization of DDS care for decades. They have maintained an extraordinarily close relationship with the corporate provider system in that respect. As noted, the Globe pointed out that both DDS and the providers often retaliate against parents and family members who dare to complain about poor care in the group homes.
We hope the Healey administration will not allow the anti-family culture and the continuing underpayment of direct-care staff in the DDS provider system to continue. We also hope the administration will consider reversing the longstanding administration policy of allowing state-run residential facilities to die by attrition.
The breakdown of the DDS system caused by decades of runaway privatization and mismanagement is finally being reported by the Globe. We hope the Healey administration is listening.
COFAR blog 