Friday, September 30, 2016

Funding and the availability of support services for I/DD are not keeping up with the demand


4,902,835 with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (I/DD) in USA
1,389,611 supported in an out-of-home residential setting
852,923 individuals living with a caregiver 60 years or older
244,195 residential placements funded from 1994 - 2011

Excerpts from the Madison House Autism Foundation (MHAF), "5 Things You Need to Know about Disability Housing and Advocacy" by Desiree Kameka:

Funding for support services for adults with autism and other I/DD is not keeping up with the demand

States are hoping that families will continue to support their loved ones with disabilities until they no longer can, but delaying assistance until a crisis or death occurs should not be the only option. Parents are often forced to leave the workforce, and adults with I/DD are not given opportunities to grow by leaving the nest. In the best situations, adults with I/DD are content at home but become increasingly dependent on an aging family caregiver; in the worst situations, they are stuck in an abusive and isolated home as states assume that living with one’s family is the best option for everyone. States may even offer financial support to keep an adult with I/DD in his family home. It is essential that people have access to public funding for the supports and services they require to live in a setting outside of the family home. The graphic [above] shows the enormous need for housing alongside the actual growth of residential support.

Check out your State Profile from the State of the States in Developmental Disabilities, a study that has tracked data for more than 35 years. To find residential trends in your state click here.

...

Government officials do not hear from everyday families nor recipients of publicly funded supports services with I/DD, and this impacts future housing and support choices

Who is talking to CMS or other policymakers as they develop regulations? The most prominent voices today are paid, professional advocates in the DC-metro area. These paid advocates schedule meetings, create statements, attend government events and hearings, and sit on various task forces made up of others in the same circles. While their policy recommendations may make sense from an ideological standpoint, these ideas are often unrealistic in implementation and lacks generalizability when considering the diverse needs and preferences of individuals who utilize waivers. For example, CMS regulations on HCBS waivers requires waiver recipients to come and go from their house at any time. This is an important right for many people, but implementation of this regulation without additional funding for the wide array of waiver recipients makes the regulation simply words on paper.

Let me illustrate: For an autistic adult who can not identify the difference between his front yard and the street, leaving the house without support staff is unsafe and may put that person at risk of being hit by a car. Reimbursement of support staff may allow for only one staff person to support three individuals living in the house. Following CMS regulations, if the staff member is required to accompany one of the housemates on a walk, the two remaining housemates would be left unsupervised at home. If these housemates lived in a pedestrian-oriented gated-community, they could all walk freely in their neighborhood as cars are intentionally restricted. Unfortunately, a neighborhood of this design would be considered isolating by CMS’s standard.


See also the Coalition for Community Choice

Read the full article here

2 comments:

Dr Gary Gesualdi said...

Great explanation about obstacles and challenges ahead. What do you think about private equity firms involvement in affordable housing ICF/IID etc? Lots trepidation and personal bad experience for me as medical director of provider agency when it was taken over by inexperienced investors. I expect more private equity firms getting involved to bail out financially stressed providers. Under funding of state regulatory/advocacy agencies means less oversight and more opportunities for private equity firms. Any experience with this trend by you?
Thanks, gary

Jill Barker said...

I do not have any personal experience with this, but you could try asking someone at the Coalition for Community Choice - http://coalitionforcommunitychoice.org/ . They support non-profit family-initiated projects for housing and services to people with autism and I/DD. I believe the people they help are all non-profits, but they may have stories to tell about for-profit private equity firms moving in to take over disability housing.