Archive for the ‘HELP FOR THOSE IN INSTITUTIONS WHO WANT OUT’ Category.

D O J files several Olmstead Briefs

 

________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                      CRT

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2010                                                                         (202) 514-2007

WWW.JUSTICE.GOV                                                                        TDD (202) 514-1888

BRIEFS FILED IN CALIFORNIA AND ILLINOIS SUPPORTING THE SUPREME COURT’S OLMSTEAD DECISION

 WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today announced it has filed briefs in cases in California and Illinois as part of its continuing effort to enforce civil rights laws that require states to end discrimination against and unnecessary segregation of persons with disabilities.  The briefs were filed as the department prepares to celebrate the 20th Anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on July 26, 2010.

 The briefs allege that public entities in both California and Illinois administer their health care systems for Medicaid-eligible individuals in a manner that violates the ADA and the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C.  The Olmstead ruling requires states to eliminate unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities and provide those individuals with services in the most integrated setting appropriate.  The department’s briefs follow a series of recent filings in Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Georgia and Arkansas that demonstrate the administration’s increased enforcement efforts following President Obama’s proclamation of the “Year of Community Living.”

 “Unnecessary institutionalization deprives individuals of the opportunity to live their lives as they choose.  We are working tirelessly to end the unjustified institutionalization of individuals with disabilities,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The department is committed to ensuring that community-based services are provided to enable individuals with disabilities to live fully integrated lives in their communities.”

 The Justice Department’s brief in Napper v. County of Sacramento asserts that Sacramento County’s redesign of its outpatient mental health service system puts thousands of Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, recipients with mental illness at substantial risk of institutionalization in violation of Olmstead’s community integration mandate. According to the brief, the plan proposed by the county will decrease the availability of necessary mental health outpatient services, putting plaintiffs at risk of entry into institutional settings.  The brief also alleges that the time frame for the new system roll-out puts some persons at risk of institutionalization. 

 In Illinois, the Justice Department filed a brief in Hampe v. Hamos, supporting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of a group of young adults with severe disabilities who have “aged out” of a Medicaid program which provides home and community-based services.  Under the state regulatory scheme, Illinois restricts eligibility for this program to individuals under the age of 21.  Because the adult program to which most of these individuals transfer has significant funding caps and does not provide community services at the same level, plaintiffs may be forced to enter institutions in order to receive the medical services they need to survive or to remain in their homes without adequate medical care.  In its brief, the Justice Department states that certification of the proposed class is proper because class actions are an effective means of achieving the systemic reform that is necessary to address community integration claims.

 The full and fair enforcement of the ADA and its community integration mandate is a major priority of the Civil Rights Division. During the past year, the department has filed briefs or filed suit in federal court in 18 different cases raising Olmstead issues.

            People interested in finding out more about the ADA can call the Justice Department’s toll-free ADA Information Line at 1-800-514-0301 or 1-800-514-0383 (TTY), or access its ADA website at www.ada.gov, where all relevant case filings can be found.

Forced Institutionalization of People with Disabilities is Illegal

“Forced Institutionalization of People With Disabilities Is Illegal” – DOJ and Federal Court Ruling.

Information Bulletin #317 (6/2010)

By Gail Zoppo – Jun 25, 2010 reprinted from DiversityInc.

The U.S. District Court in Jacksonville, Fla., ruled this week that Michele Haddad must be provided with services that will allow her to stay in her home. Haddad, who has a spinal-cord injury caused by a motorcycle accident with a drunk driver three years ago, was at risk of being forced into a nursing home because of changes in her caregiver situation.

Although the 49-year-old woman has been on the waiting list for Medicaid community-based waiver services for two years and had alerted the state of her need, she was told that the requested services would only be available if she was admitted to a nursing home for 60 days.

In Haddad v. Arnold, the plaintiff argued that she would suffer irreparable harm if forced to enter a nursing home.

The court agreed, ordering the state to offer Haddad community-based services. The reason: Segregating people with disabilities is a form of discrimination, as found in Olmstead v. L.C. This landmark disability-rights decision determined that isolating people with disabilities in institutional settings deprives them of the opportunity to participate in their communities, interact with individuals who don’t have disabilities and make daily choices. The ruling also acknowledged that unnecessary institutionalization stigmatizes people with disabilities.

The Olmstead decision, which marks its 11th anniversary this week, is not the first such case that the U.S Department of Justice has filed briefs.

The DOJ is involved in several other cases in Illinois and New Jersey, as part of its mission to end discrimination against people with disabilities.

“In the Olmstead case, the court recognized that the unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities stigmatizes those individuals as unworthy of participation in community life,” stated Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas E. Perez. “By supporting Ms.

Haddad in this case, we seek to ensure that individuals with disabilities can receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate, where they can participate in their communities, interact with individuals who do not have disabilities and make their own day-to-day choices.”

The Department of Justice’s involvement in these cases reinforce the Obama administration’s national efforts to protect the rights of all people.

“This work is a priority for the Civil Rights Division, and we are committed to aggressive enforcement of Olmstead so that we can build upon progress made over the last 11 years,” said Perez earlier this week. “But our work is only one piece of a larger, administration-wide effort to make the promise of Olmstead a reality for individuals with disabilities nationwide. Real reform requires a holistic approach. As a lifelong public servant, I recognize that the most vexing problems a government faces are those that require unprecedented interagency collaboration and coordination. The unnecessary and illegal institutionalization of individuals with disabilities who would be better served, and better able to contribute to their communities, if they were provided services in integrated settings, is one of those problems.”

Disability Advocates:

Are there Michele Haddad’s in your States?

Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Even With Federal Help States Keep People in Nursing Homes

Despite Federal Help, States Struggle To Move People Out Of Nursing Homes

by Phil Galewitz

April 23, 2010

PEACHTREE CITY, Ga. — Richard Hasselbach and Deborah Kadlec met in a nursing home and dreamed of a life together outside its walls.

Their health conditions made living on their own a challenge: Hasselbach, 63, is disabled from a stroke and lost a leg to a blocked artery. Kadlec, 52, has multiple sclerosis. They both use wheelchairs and need help with chores such as bathing, cooking and remembering to take their medicines. Most of their relatives live in other states.

Despite those obstacles, Hasselbach and Kadlec got their own apartment and a personal care aide last summer through the help of a federally funded program run by the state. The program, known as Money Follows the Person, is the nation’s most ambitious effort to move people out of nursing homes and other long-term-care facilities. It aims to help people live on their own and also save tens of millions of dollars for Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for the poor and disabled that pays for two-thirds of nursing home bills in the U.S.

Nationally, nursing home care averages about $75,190 per patient each year. Care in the home, through such services as meals-on-wheels and daily visits by a health aide, averages $18,000 a year, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute.

The program gives nursing home residents personal and financial help to live on their own or in small group settings, as well as payments for costs such as apartment security deposits, household furniture and alterations to make homes or cars accessible to the handicapped.

Georgia is one of 29 states and the District of Columbia participating in Money Follows the Person. Its experience shows both early successes and an illustration of the program’s slow start nationwide. Georgia had hoped to move 1,312 people from nursing homes and other long-term-care facilities by 2011. But through the end of last year it has moved out only 221.

Progress On Goals Wide-Ranging

Congress established Money Follows the Person in 2005, and states set a combined goal of moving out more than 37,000 residents from nursing homes and other facilities by 2013. Most states, including Georgia, started their programs in 2008. Two years later, just 5,774 residents have moved nationally, according to state data collected by Kaiser Health News.

The new health overhaul signed into law last month extends the program to 2016, adds $900 million to what was a five-year, $1.3 billion initiative and loosens eligibility rules.

“The impact could be very significant,” said Debra Lipson, a senior researcher at Mathematica Policy Research, a Princeton, N.J. based think tank that is evaluating the program for the federal government.

Most states are moving slowly for various reasons: problems finding affordable housing, resistance from nursing homes, stringent federal rules that limit who is eligible and what types of community settings they can move into, according to a recent study by Mathematica.

Alice Hogan, who heads the Money Follow the Person program in Georgia, said she considers the program a success. “Like most states, we wished things were going along faster but implementation has been more difficult than expected,” she said. “But personally I am not disappointed because I am very happy with those that we got out because each of them is a real person who is now in the community.”

State data show wide-ranging progress on goals:

- Texas has moved 2,029 people out of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. That’s more than one-third of the national total.

- A dozen states have moved fewer than 60 people. States moving the fewest: Louisiana (10), North Dakota (19) and Delaware (22).

- Illinois, which set the highest goal, is furthest from its target. The state had set 3,357 transitions as its goal by 2013, but through last year has done just 58. “Meeting that goal by 2013 appears nearly impossible,” said Jean Summerfield, the Illinois project director.

Many states blame their slow start on the program’s requirement that people live in nursing homes and other institutions for at least six months to qualify for transition assistance. State officials said those residents are hard to move because they often have the most complex medical conditions and have typically lost their home and family support system.

Congress last month lowered the requirement to a stay of three months that is paid by Medicaid.

In addition, the program’s rules bar participants from moving into group homes that house more than four people, which effectively shuts out most assisted-living options.

A More Realistic Target

Georgia earlier this year cut its 2011 target by more than half to 618 people. Joye Burton, spokeswoman for the Georgia Community Health Department, said the updated goal is more realistic given early problems finding housing and arranging funding for community-based services.

While dozens of people have been helped by the program, advocates for the poor and disabled say the program’s slow start highlights the state’s lack of investment to help people live on their own.

“I’m discouraged,” says Ruby Moore, executive director of the Georgia Advocacy Office, a non-profit agency that works with the disabled. “We have a disproportionate number of people in nursing home facilities who do not need to be there.”

Advocates for the disabled have pressed the state for years to improve its community-based services. A lawsuit filed against the state led to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1999 that “unnecessary institutionalization” is a form of discrimination. That decision had been expected to spur states to enhance home and community services to help people avoid nursing homes, but Moore says too little has changed.

“Cutting the benchmark in half has never been known to be a good strategy to improve performance,” Moore said.

The state has contracted with a private company, B&B Care Services, to handle the nursing home transitions. The firm’s employees visit nursing homes to identify residents who might be interested and work with family members and nursing homes to smooth the way.

One sign of the program’s value, according to Lynnette Bragg, CEO of B&B Care Services, is that of the 107 nursing home transitions, only 10 people have returned.

Jay Wright, a transition coordinator for B&B, helped find a home for Joe Morman, who had spent two years in an Atlanta nursing home after being hospitalized with an infection of the brain or spinal cord. Morman has moved into an apartment in a gated community in Decatur, Ga. The program paid his security deposit for the apartment and utilities, covered his moving expenses, bought him a bed, chair, dining room table, a microwave and even some food. And it arranged to get him a personal care aide eight hours a day to clean, cook and run errands.

“It feels absolutely wonderful,” Morman said. “I feel alive again.”

But Bragg notes that many parts of the state don’t have public housing subsidies or appropriate housing options.

Christine McDaniel, 50, has been trying to move out of an Atlanta nursing home for about a year. “I didn’t come here to live. I came here to get better and I’m ready to move on,” said McDaniel, who has HIV and has been treated for hepatitis. Even though she qualified for a Medicaid waiver to help cover her cost of care, the program has had trouble finding her a place to live in Northwest Georgia – near her family — with her $675 a month Social Security check.

Nursing home officials say most of their residents are happy where they are. “The advocates feel like every person in a nursing home could go home and live successfully. That is not realistic,” says Norma Jean Morgan, CEO of Effingham Extended Care Center in Springfield, Ga. Yet she adds: “You do not want a person staying in an institution if he or she can be viable at home.”

The transition back home has not been seamless for Kadlec and Hasselbach. They’ve had trouble accessing public transportation and Kadlec is unable to maneuver her wheelchair to use the apartment shower. Still, neither wants to move back to the nursing home.

“I’m much happier here,” Hasselbach says, sitting by Kadlec in the living room of their one-bedroom apartment that overlooks a golf course in this leafy Atlanta suburb. “We’re free.”

This story was produced through collaboration between NPR and Kaiser Health News (KHN), an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health-care policy research organization. The Kaiser Family Foundation is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

New Agreement In Illinois Suit for Individuals with Mental Illness

The following is from the March 15th Issue of the Chicago Tribune:

 

Chicago Tribune reporters

 

March 15, 2010

Thousands of psychiatric patients are likely to move out of nursing homes and into community-based settings in the next five years under a landmark legal agreement designed to reshape Illinois’ troubled long-term care system.

The agreement, expected to be filed Monday in federal court in Chicago, lays out a schedule for state officials to offer approximately 4,500 mentally ill nursing home residents the choice to move out of two dozen large facilities known as “institutions for mental diseases” and into smaller settings that experts say are more appropriate and less expensive.

“This is a momentous day for people with disabilities in Illinois,”

said Benjamin Wolf, associate legal director for the ACLU of Illinois, which filed a lawsuit in 2005 that led to the agreement. “It is the beginning of transforming a system that has been focused on institutionalizing people for decades into one that actually delivers what people want and need.”

More than any other state, Illinois relies on nursing facilities to house younger adults with mental illness, including thousands with felony records. A recent Tribune investigation detailed numerous reports of sexual assault, violence and drug abuse in some facilities where psychiatric patients got little treatment or supervision. Some of the homes failed to create adequate programs or discharge plans for residents who milled about or watched TV in dreary common areas.

One of the state’s most troubled mental institutions, Somerset Place in Uptown, was shuttered Friday after Tribune reports and state and federal inspections documented a pattern of abuse, violence and substandard care.

The ACLU sued Illinois for reform, citing a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as the Olmstead decision that requires states to place patients in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their disability.

Settling that lawsuit was considered critical to 38 proposals recently introduced by Gov. Pat Quinn’s Nursing Home Safety Task Force, formed in reaction to the Tribune’s investigation. Chairman Michael Gelder said a settlement would bring federal court oversight to Quinn’s push for alternative treatment and housing options for psychiatric patients.

The panel’s proposals also were designed to make facilities safer for elderly and disabled residents. State lawmakers are negotiating with industry representatives and advocates to transform the recommendations into law this spring.

While Monday’s settlement covers only residents of the mental institutions, there are at least 10,000 other mentally ill people living among elderly and disabled residents in other nursing homes that ar e not classified as mental institutions.

In a statement, Gelder said, “several thousand new units of supportive housing will be identified in partnership with community providers over the next five years to serve those who no longer wish to receive care in such nursing homes. This commitment can be fulfilled, even in this severe recession, by receiving significant federal financial support for care in the community.”

Another advocate, Mark Heyrman, a University of Chicago Law School professor and chair of public policy for Mental Health America of Illinois, said it was “a very happy day for everyone who cares about persons with mental illnesses in Illinois. Many years ago the state embarked upon an ill-conceived policy of placing thousands of our most vulnerable citizens in nursing homes where they received little care and little effort was made to help them recover. … Hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been wasted. This settlement marks the beginning of the end of this tragedy.”

Under the settlement, every resident of a mental institution will be evaluated to determine whether he or she is eligible to be moved into a less-restrictive setting, and what is needed to thrive there. The evaluation is voluntary, and residents can decline to take part and remain where they are.

All 4,500 mental institution residents would be evaluated within two years, and then annually after that. The settlement outlines a strict timetable for moving those who want to leave the institutions – slowly for the first two years, then more rapidly as the state builds its capacity for serving and treating people in communities.

The former nursing home residents will be placed in so-called supportive housing – subsidized apartments or group homes where staff are on-site or visit frequently to provide therapy, job and life-skills training, substance-abuse programs and case management.

State officials made a commitment to provide adequate therapeutic, vocational and life-skills programs to support the former institution residents as they transition into communities. The court will appoint a mental health expert to independently monitor the state’s compliance with the agreement.

“The main thing is to have someone who has independence and expertise,”

said Wolf’s co-counsel Barry Taylor, legal advocacy director at Equip for Equality.

The lawsuit’s plaintiffs contend the agreement will be less costly than the state paying for housing people in mental institutions. The state also will be eligible to receive federal Medicaid reimbursements for medications and health care that the former residents receive in a community-based setting. Ed Mullen, managing attorney for community integration at Access Living, said the state could save more than $50 million over the next few years.

The papers expected to be filed Monday ask U.S. District Judge William Hart, who is overseeing the case, to schedule a “fairness hearing” to consider the specifics of the plan. There will be a period of at least two months in which interested parties can file objections, Wolf said.

In reaching the settlement, the state denied violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws that protect people with disabilities.

Tony Zipple, head of the community mental health provider Thresholds, called Monday’s settlement a “historic moment for public mental health in Illinois. This is probably the single best opportunity in 10, 20 years to really do systemwide reform and not have people relegated to nursing homes.”

dyjackson@tribune.com

gmarx@tribune.com

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-sub-nursing-home-olmstead-0315-20100314,0,20514.story

 

___________________________________________________________

The following information is forwarded to you by the DBTAC-Great Lakes ADA Center (www.adagreatlakes.org) for your information:

 

Press Release · Press Release · Press Release · Press Release

 

Contact:  Edwin C. Yohnka, ACLU of Illinois, 312.201.9740, ext. 305

                Barry Taylor, Equip for Equality, 312.895.7317

                Ed Mullen, Access Living, 312.640.2131

                M. Emily McKee, Bazelon Center, 202.46.5730, ext. 120

                Kate Kortenkamp, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 312.862.2890

                

March 15, 2010

 

Historic agreement reached to transition Illinois residents unnecessarily housed in large, impersonal nursing homes

 

CHICAGO – A landmark agreement between the State of Illinois and thousands of persons with mental illnesses will result in significant reforms of Illinois’ outmoded, overcrowded and scandalized nursing home system.   The agreement, filed in federal district court in Chicago on March 15, 2010 will begin a systemic process of giving approximately 4,500 persons with mental illnesses the choice to move out of large nursing homes known as “Institutions for Mentally Diseases” (IMDs) and into community-based settings with the supports they need to be successful.   These large, impersonal IMDs are operated in a manner that allows individuals little opportunity for independent living and personal growth.  

 

Today’s settlement, if approved by the court, will offer people who no longer want to live in these institutions the opportunity to move to community-based settings with the kind of care and services that is appropriate for their individual circumstance.   

 

“This is a momentous day for our clients,” said Benjamin Wolf, associate legal director for the ACLU of Illinois, one of five legal organizations representing the plaintiffs.   “It also is a good day for the people of Illinois.  This agreement moves us from antiquated, failed policies that forced people into these large institutions and embraces the current best practice across the nation of permitting persons with mental illness to live in the most independent setting possible.”

 

“We are pleased that the administration has made the commitment to improve the care and services provided to these often ignored citizens,” said Donna Welch, a partner with Kirkland & Ellis, LLP.      

 

The agreement is the latest development in the case Williams v. Quinn, originally filed in August 2005 by two individuals forced to live in Chicago area nursing homes.   The process for transition outlined in the agreement builds on recently-released recommendations of the Governor’s Nursing Home Safety Task Force.  After examining the state’s troubled and scandalized nursing home system, the Task Force concluded that “(t)here is . . .  remarkable consensus that many people currently admitted to nursing homes with serious mental illness would be better cared for in specially designed and monitored community residential settings.” 

 

If the agreement reached between the parties is approved by the court, the State will develop a specific plan (in consultation with the plaintiffs’ counsel) to transition those persons with mental illness currently housed in IMDs to community-based settings.   Trained professionals will be hired to evaluate eligible members of the class who reside in IMDs to determine: a.) if they are able to transition to permanent supportive housing and other community-based settings; and, b.) what additional services will be necessary for each individual as part of the transition process.   An individualized plan for each person will be developed, implemented and tracked.  

 

“This settlement is about people with mental illnesses in Illinois having the freedom to the live the lives that we take for granted everyday, like making their own breakfast and buying their own groceries,” said Jennifer Mathis, deputy director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.  “With appropriate supports, people with mental illnesses can live and thrive independently in the community and disprove the myth that people with mental illnesses are unable to live on their own.”

 

The parties have agreed that the transition of all those eligible for transfer will take place over the next five years.   It is estimated by most experts that a vast majority of the more than 5,000 persons with mental illness who are housed in IMDs across the State would flourish living in a community-based setting.  

 

“Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States have found that unjustified institutionalization of people with disabilities is a form of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act,” said Barry Taylor, Legal Advocacy Director at Equip for Equality.   “By entering into this agreement, the State is demonstrating its commitment to making the ADA’s promise of integration a reality for people with mental illness in Illinois.”   

 

Ironically, the agreement actually will relieve some of the state’s financial burden created by housing individuals in IMDs, which are supported by 100% state funding.   Not only will the costs be less expensive, but the state will be eligible to receive federal Medicaid reimbursements for medications and health care when an individual is receiving those services in a community-based setting.  

 

“Illinois’ antiquated policy has been bad for the individuals and costly for the State,” added Ed Mullen, Managing Attorney for Community Integration at Access Living.   “Estimates are that the State could save more than $50 million over the next few years by transitioning residents from IMDs into the community.  Given the state’s current fiscal crisis, this is a welcome development.” 

 

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs are from a coalition of organizations, including Access Living, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Equip for Equality, the Roger Baldwin Foundation of the ACLU of Illinois and the Chicago office of the law firm Kirkland & Ellis.

 

The papers filed today ask Judge William Hart who is overseeing the case to schedule a “fairness hearing” to consider the specifics of the plan.  Once the agreement is approved, the State and the advocates involved on behalf of the class of IMDs residents will move quickly to begin the planning process. 

 

Persons Leaving a Nursing Home

Public Act 096-0477
 

SB0134 Enrolled

LRB096 05840 DRJ 15920 b

    AN ACT concerning health.
 

    Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,

represented in the General Assembly:
 

    Section 5. The Nursing Home Care Act is amended by changing

Section 3-417 as follows:
 

    (210 ILCS 45/3-417)  (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 4153-417)

    Sec. 3-417. Transfer or discharge; alternative placements.

The Department shall offer transfer or discharge and relocation

assistance to residents transferred or discharged under

Sections 3-401 through 3-415, including information on

available alternative placements. Residents shall be involved

in planning the transfer or discharge and shall choose among

the available alternative placements, except that where an

emergency makes prior resident involvement impossible the

Department may make a temporary placement until a final

placement can be arranged. Residents may choose their final

alternative placement and shall be given assistance in

transferring to such place. No resident may be forced to remain

in a temporary or permanent placement. Where the Department

makes or participates in making the relocation decision,

consideration shall be given to proximity to the resident’s

relatives and friends. The resident shall be allowed 3 visits

to potential alternative placements prior to removal, except

 

where medically contraindicated or where the need for immediate

transfer or discharge requires reduction in the number of

visits.

    When the Department provides information on available

alternative placements in community-based settings for

individuals being discharged or transferred from facilities

licensed under this Act, the information must include a

comprehensive list of a range of appropriate, client-oriented

services and the name of and contact information for the ADA

coordinator in the relocation locale. The comprehensive list

must include the name and contact information for each agency

or organization providing those services and a summary of the

services provided by each agency or organization. A hotline or

similar crisis telephone number must also be provided to

individuals relocating into the community.

(Source: P.A. 81-223.)
 

    Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon

becoming law.

Effective Date: 8/14/2009

HUD and The Vouchers

March 11, 2010

Come on HUD, Free People from Nursing Homes

From Steve Gold (2.16.10):

Come on HUD, Free People from Nursing Homes. Steve gold picFrom the “Aging and Disability in America” blog Information Bulletin # 301

by: Steve Gold

Ah, the hopes raised by a new HUD administration. Early last year, Congress provided funds for 4,000 Mainstream Vouchers for Non-Elderly People with Disabilities.  New Secretary of HUD, Shaun. L. Donovan, met with ADAPT and agreed with ADAPT that 1,000 of these vouchers should be used to help disabled people move out of nursing homes.

On June 22, 2009, HUD issued a “Proposed Notice” in the Federal Register.
Comments were due by July 14, 2009. A number of you responded with comments.

Before any of these 4,000 vouchers can be used, HUD must publish in the Federal Register a Notice of Financial Availability (NOFA) so that Public Housing Authorities and others can submit competitive bids for these vouchers. Yes, another Federal Register publication.  After that occurs, HUD must review the bids and then allocate the vouchers.

How many people will die before one voucher is used?  How many people with disabilities will develop bed sores in nursing facilities? Urinary tract and other infections in these institutions? How many people in what President Obama called “the year of community living” exist in nursing homes waiting for these vouchers?

Hmm.  Why has it taken more than SEVEN months and still NO NOFA?  Doesn’t HUD understand that there are people unnecessarily institutionalized solely because they cannot afford to rent an apartment without the rental assistance of a voucher?  Doesn’t HUD and the White House realize there are actual cost savings from using the vouchers and having people live in the community?  Doesn’t anyone in the White House or HUD have a relative in a nursing facility who wants to get out?  Don’t they understand how dangerous nursing facilities are?

Here is one excuse we’ve heard – approval of the NOFA is “in process at OMB.”  Well, tell Secretary Donovan to at least pretend that these vouchers and ending discrimination against people with disabilities is a HUD priority.  Tell him to get his butt down to OMB and tell them he’s not leaving until these vouchers get out of OMB!  If he needs company at OMB, let us know.

Send HUD an email – Shaun.L.Donovan@hud.gov to “Free Our People.”

>>>For More Information