Federation members pack hearing room on latest bill closing residential habilitation centers

A bill with good intentions but unintended consequences came under fire Wednesday in the Senate

SB 6780 would require DSHS to submit a plan by the end of the year on how to move RHC residents to the community and close RHCs. It requires specific plans on how to close Frances Haddon Morgan Center by Dec. 12, 2012, and the remaining RHCs by Dec. 31, 2014.

The intent is to make sure resources, including state-run State Operated Living Alternative (SOLA) facilities, exist before RHC residents are moved out.

But the bill’s underlying assumption that RHCs must go troubled family members, Federation members and even one prominent senator on the committee.

Sen. Chris Marr, D-6th Dist., questioned DSHS cost analyses showing that community options are cheaper.

He said there’s no real apples-to-apples cost comparison covering cost transfers, local transportation costs, Medicaid transportation costs, housing subsidies and community support services.

“At the end of the day, (the governor contends) this would be less costly in the long run, but if we don’t know what it’s costing us today, then how can we suggest that it will be less costly in the long run?” Marr asked.

“I can’t see anything in the analysis that addresses savings.”

The hearing came in the wake of the Seattle Times’ three-part expose of abuses in the adult family home program, which was set up to handle those moved from private nursing homes. The fear is the same model of abuse would arise if RHC residents were moved into a similar loosely overseen network of homes.

“People with developmental disabilities and an individual who resides at an RHC cannot be cared fro on the cheap,” said Maureen Durkan, whose sister lives at Fircrest School in Shoreline.

“I think there’s been a number of attempts to compare apples to apples between the community’s and the RHC costs,” said Federation Executive Director Greg Devereux. “I think it has fallen short in many instances but when you boil it down, if you provide the same level of acuity care in the RHC or in the community, that should be a fixed cost—if you’re providing the same care.

“The major difference is, I believe, the labor cost, and that would be in health care and in pensions. And that to us represents skills and experience over the years (and) you’ll stabilize a workforce by providing pensions and good health benefits.”

By the end of the hearing, even committee chair and prime sponsor Sen. Karen Keiser, D-33rd Dist., pressed DSHS for better data.

“I think what we need is more details, because what we have here seems to be very vague and not very specific,” Keiser said.