FIGURE 4.1Comparative Costs <strong>of</strong> Institutions, Group Homes and Family Homes in Three StatesAverage annual per person costs for those considered "most severely disabled"Thousands <strong>of</strong> dollars8 0 ^Institution$72,000Group homesFamily homesMichigan(Macomb-Oakland)FY85Nebraska(Region V)FY85New Hampshire(Region V)FY86* Family home refers to individuals and families, not the natural parents, who take a person(s) with severe disabilities into their ownhome or apartment.
ai gains skills and income but remains alwaysavailable both to the individual with a disability andto the employer. 47Kathy Moore, executive director <strong>of</strong> New EnglandBusiness Associates, provided the Commission withthese examples <strong>of</strong> people active in the program:J. C. pr<strong>of</strong>oundly deaf, legally blind, severely retarded1987-88 earnings $7,860.00M. D. pr<strong>of</strong>oundly deaf, legally blind, brain tumor,mentally retarded, institutionalized at birth 1987-88 earnings$6,220.85M. Gl. pr<strong>of</strong>oundly deaf, totally blind, pr<strong>of</strong>oundly retarded,institutionalized at birth 1987-88 earnings $7,221.60M. K. pr<strong>of</strong>oundly deaf, totally blind, severely mentallyretarded 1987-88 earnings $2,163.00E. R. pr<strong>of</strong>oundly deaf, totally blind, severely retarded,progressive sensory neural loss 1987-88 earnings$10,400.00L. T. pr<strong>of</strong>oundly deaf, totally blind, severely retarded,institutionalized at birth 1987-88 earnings $332.13"A similar program for adults with autism andsevere behavioral difficulties has been operating inMontgomery County, <strong>Maryland</strong>, for almost 8 years.This program, run by Community Services forAutistic Adults and Children, included over 46persons ruled "unemployable" by every agency theyhad ever contacted. After living most <strong>of</strong> their livesin institutions, now all live in small homes inRockville, <strong>Maryland</strong>, and all earn at least theminimum wage in a program using supported employment.49An 8-year longitudinal study <strong>of</strong> the costs andbenefits <strong>of</strong> supported employment for 117 personswith moderate to severe mental retardation foundthat, in comparison to the $1,361,951 that wouldhave been required in SSI payments and alternativeservice programs had these persons not been employed,the supported employment program cost$1,212,117. Those participating in the program47Interviews with Kathy Moore, Executive Director, NewEngland Business Associates (Sept. 19-20, 1988).48Id.49Interview with Susan Goodman, Executive Director, CommunityServices for Autistic Children and Adults (Sept. 17, 1988).earned wages totaling $l,503,779. 50 In other words,in place <strong>of</strong> a net average cost <strong>of</strong> $11,640.61 for eachperson with moderate or severe mental retardation,with supported employment there was a net averagebenefit <strong>of</strong> $2,492.84 for each such person. Theauthors <strong>of</strong> the study pointed out that with ongoingjob retention, the net benefit will significantlyincrease over time, since the costs <strong>of</strong> supportiveemployment are substantially frontloaded while theaverage income is constant or increasing. 51 Furthermore,they noted:Our university-based demonstration is very small; in fact,the. . .consumers served over 8 years are unfortunatelydwarfed when compared with large day programs inwhich the sole purpose is to provide vocational or daycare services. Consider the dramatic savings in programs,over time, if substantial reorganization <strong>of</strong> the operations atthe centers were converted to community- or industrybasedprograms. It is in this area where the truly largedollar savings can be made over a multi-year time period. 82ConclusionDisability does entail cost. But the real economiccosts now associated with disability are less afunction <strong>of</strong> the disability or its severity than <strong>of</strong> apolicy that tends to segregate and isolate, at enormouspublic cost, those persons considered mostseverely disabled. The assumption has been that thelevel <strong>of</strong> severity <strong>of</strong> disability is the major determinant<strong>of</strong> lifetime costs and, consequently, that themore severely disabled a child may appear to be atbirth, the less likely it is that the child will be able tocontribute as an adult to his or her own economicsufficiency and the more expensive it will be to meetthat person's basic needs. Although this assumptionis unfounded, it has resulted in a self-fulfillingprophecy: a diagnosis <strong>of</strong> severe disability leads toplacement <strong>of</strong> a person in an institutional and nonworkenvironment that significantly limits thatperson's capability and entails far more expense thannecessary.50Hill, Wehman, Kregel, Banks & Metzler, Employment Outcomesfor People with Moderate and Severe Disabilities: An Eight-Year Longitudinal Analysis <strong>of</strong> Supported Competitive Employment,12 J. Ass'n for Persons with Severe Handicaps 182, 185-86 (1987).51Id. at 187-88.53Id. at 188 (emphasis in original).55
- Page 1 and 2:
MedicalDiscriminationAgainstChildre
- Page 3 and 4:
idments • Section 504 • Medical
- Page 5:
LETTER OF TRANSMITTALThe PresidentT
- Page 9 and 10:
CONTENTSExecutive Summary 11. Funda
- Page 11:
12. The Performance of the Federal
- Page 14 and 15:
• The role of economic considerat
- Page 16 and 17: disabilities at the time that the c
- Page 19 and 20: generated by health care personnel
- Page 21: ing how they would obtain medical r
- Page 24 and 25: The Commission sees several advanta
- Page 26 and 27: acquiescence in the death or elimin
- Page 28 and 29: Services of the Department of Healt
- Page 30 and 31: Chapter 1Fundamental Rights: An Int
- Page 32 and 33: Carlton Johnson was evaluated by a
- Page 34 and 35: "that Mr. and Mrs. Doe, after havin
- Page 36 and 37: American Coalition of Citizens with
- Page 38 and 39: Chapter 2The Physician-Parent Relat
- Page 40 and 41: In all but a few cases, the parents
- Page 42 and 43: the family, and the family went alo
- Page 44 and 45: Chapter 3The Role of Quality of Lif
- Page 47: transition from education to employ
- Page 50 and 51: tion programs can become productive
- Page 52 and 53: unsuccessful efforts of a private a
- Page 54 and 55: [S]ince I have been at Children's M
- Page 56 and 57: Another survey by Siperstein, Wolra
- Page 58 and 59: of life with a child who is disable
- Page 60 and 61: Chapter 4The Role of Economic Consi
- Page 62 and 63: ©TABLE 4.1Pediatricians' Responses
- Page 64 and 65: • The differences in average cost
- Page 68 and 69: Chapter 5State LawWhat is the law g
- Page 70 and 71: Like all authority. . .parental aut
- Page 72 and 73: This decision, however, was promptl
- Page 74 and 75: No otherwise qualified handicapped
- Page 76 and 77: Bloomington's Infant Doe in April 1
- Page 78 and 79: ONONTABLE 6.1Physician's assessment
- Page 80 and 81: Essentially, HHS interpreted the su
- Page 82 and 83: Final 504 RuleHHS received nearly 1
- Page 84 and 85: lifesaving operations to close her
- Page 86 and 87: any further implementation of the F
- Page 88 and 89: handicapped infants might violate S
- Page 90 and 91: the provision does cover discrimina
- Page 92 and 93: of the infants. The review mechanis
- Page 94 and 95: Under the law, the Department of He
- Page 96 and 97: that "the phrase 'or holds the reas
- Page 98 and 99: allows an infant to be denied nutri
- Page 100 and 101: avoid the explicit standards set fo
- Page 102 and 103: (as opposed to the far) future, the
- Page 104 and 105: It was recognized, therefore, that
- Page 106 and 107: als with the particular disability
- Page 108 and 109: cared for. They are thus different,
- Page 110 and 111: medical advice. Given the magnitude
- Page 112 and 113: tions at all regarding the subject
- Page 114 and 115: strates that there is a grave dange
- Page 116 and 117:
Disincentives to Whistle BlowingDen
- Page 118 and 119:
Using a cumulative scaling procedur
- Page 120 and 121:
Of that 300 we targeted, approximat
- Page 122 and 123:
Conclusionphysicians set forth in t
- Page 124 and 125:
taking place when a report of suspe
- Page 126 and 127:
where the parents say "the child fe
- Page 128 and 129:
Nevertheless, the organization oppo
- Page 130 and 131:
Chapter 11The Role and Performance
- Page 132 and 133:
a member of the American Academy of
- Page 134 and 135:
possibilities that "will be most li
- Page 136 and 137:
clearly indicate that the committee
- Page 138 and 139:
Reviewing the first 30 months of th
- Page 140 and 141:
Webster's defines "suspected" as "t
- Page 142 and 143:
Chapter 12The Performance of the Fe
- Page 144 and 145:
The baby's doctor, E. Laurence Hode
- Page 146 and 147:
to achieve a reasonable life". . .w
- Page 148 and 149:
an unmarried mother receiving welfa
- Page 150 and 151:
can be sure all appropriate actions
- Page 152 and 153:
inquiries to determine whether they
- Page 154 and 155:
Chapter 13The Protection and Advoca
- Page 156 and 157:
authority to conduct retrospective
- Page 158 and 159:
facility that uses such a committee
- Page 160 and 161:
Chapter 14Findings and Recommendati
- Page 162 and 163:
as the coordination and development
- Page 164 and 165:
in the advisory process who is conc
- Page 166 and 167:
A Dissenting View on the Report Med
- Page 168 and 169:
arts) to depend upon knowledge of h
- Page 170 and 171:
Attachments to Statement of William
- Page 172 and 173:
medical facility. Considerations su
- Page 174 and 175:
Fund for the Improvement of Postsec
- Page 176 and 177:
eports such as Kopelman et al. demo
- Page 178 and 179:
Appendix 1EXPOSING OUR CHILDREN, EX
- Page 180 and 181:
abilities or functions, they are de
- Page 182 and 183:
My principal reason for objecting t
- Page 184 and 185:
I derive this hint from the many co
- Page 186 and 187:
moral distinction. A girl is a huma
- Page 188 and 189:
Appendix 2SURVEY OFSTATE BABY DOE P
- Page 190 and 191:
insure the immediate referral of po
- Page 192 and 193:
Hospital Liaisons Designated in Mos
- Page 194 and 195:
BABY DOE COMPARED WITH REGULAR CPS
- Page 196 and 197:
We also asked state CPS offices wha
- Page 198 and 199:
Limited information was available o
- Page 200 and 201:
one-quarter felt that baby doe case
- Page 202 and 203:
Appendix 3INFANT CARE REVIEW COMMIT
- Page 204 and 205:
and guidelines concerning the withh
- Page 206 and 207:
treated to assure the prompt ^repor
- Page 208 and 209:
3. Educating Staff and FamiliesThre
- Page 210 and 211:
One of the 10 ethics committees vis
- Page 212 and 213:
asphyxiation during the birth proce
- Page 214 and 215:
Prospective Review -- Each committe
- Page 216 and 217:
OBSERVATIONSThe inspection found th
- Page 218 and 219:
May 1, 1989Page 2The Commission adv
- Page 220 and 221:
Doe 1 admitted on the record of the
- Page 222 and 223:
tion is the basis for failure to tr
- Page 224:
her (much appreciated) vote for thi