Facility #2, 3, 4, and 5, Interview with Steve
September 2, 2025
In-person interview with Steve
Facility #2, 3, 4, and 5
So, my oncologist did not discover I had a tumor until it was 15 pounds, and it was too much for them to handle. They referred me to a hospital who in turn referred me to a medical center and I had to be approved by a committee of 5 doctors there because of the advanced tumor and my age. They finally agreed that they would do surgery, and four doctors took 7 hours to remove the 15-pound tumor, my prostate and my bladder. Then I was at a facility for 11 months for rehab, then I moved to [facility #2] closer to home where I was a resident for well over a year. Unfortunately, at that facility as I reported to KABC earlier, there were some very serious medicine mix-ups. I called it to their attention and management and the final straw was when a 4 pm in the afternoon and a med tech came in my room and said “Steve, why did you order these COPD medicines, you’re not sneezing, you’re not coughing, you’re not congested” and I said, “I didn’t order them” and he responded that a nurse called and ordered them that morning. I then responded, “I didn’t see a nurse today”. What happened was that someone on staff at that facility #2 did an exam of a different patient and then called it in to my pharmacy and my doctor; it was a total mix-up. And that previous month, I had 3 medication mix-ups in my daily medication that had to get straightened out. The thing is, I’m not in rehab, I’m on Hospice and I’m counting on the organization to take care of me.
So, I left there and went to a different facility (facility #3). I was there for 27 or 28 days, and it was really very depressing because the place is dark: it’s not well managed. The manager had no training in facility’s management, or restaurant management. At facility #3, I was probably 25 or 30 feet from the kitchen; I got cold food every day. Most of the people there were what I would say as post-vocal. They are mainly silent. A lot of them grumbled to themselves. They don’t have the energy to say, “hey, take this food back” or “I want it warmed up”. Some of them don’t have any advocates. In that facility, I found out that they had very weak nursing staff. When I say “weak”, I would say, poorly trained. At least two of the nurses were impaired and I had two or three meetings with top management there to explain things. Even simple things like they had the kitchen door put on backwards. People kept bumping into each other, I mean it was so silly. The other thing is, as an example, the cake, you had to cut it with a knife and fork because it was so hard. I said to the director, “can’t you please follow the recipe on the box or bag about how to make a cake?” and it never came out any better. The place lacked good maintenance. Because of the food and the staffing issues, I left and went to another facility (facility #4).
Kansas has announced that it is exiting the Money Follows the Person (MFP) program, citing a drastic reduction in and possible elimination of federal funding. According to the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS), the state had planned to reinstate the program on July 1 after several years of inactivity. Instead, Kansas is now withdrawing from the program altogether. For many Kansans, this decision represents a significant missed opportunity. The MFP program was created to help states rebalance their long-term services and supports systems by making it easier for people to move from institutional settings, such as nursing facilities, back into homes and communities. The program provided funding for critical transition expenses, including home modifications, furniture, bedding, kitchen supplies, and other necessities that help make community living possible. At its core, MFP recognized a simple truth: most people want to live in their own homes and communities, not institutions. Research consistently shows that older adults overwhelmingly prefer to age in place. In an AARP survey, 75 percent of older adults reported wanting to remain in their homes as they age. Yet many feel they will eventually have no choice but to move into a facility because the supports needed to remain at home are unavailable or unaffordable. Programs like MFP help bridge that gap. When people remain in nursing facilities despite being able to live safely in the community, there are consequences, not only for the individual, but for the state as a whole. First, individuals lose autonomy and control over their daily lives. Living in the community allows people to decide when they wake up, what they eat, who they spend time with, and how they participate in their neighborhoods. These choices may seem small, but they are fundamental to dignity and quality of life. Second, unnecessary institutionalization can contribute to social isolation. People living in their own homes can remain connected to friends, family, faith communities, volunteer opportunities, and local activities. Community integration promotes both physical and emotional well-being. Third, keeping people in nursing facilities when they could thrive in the community often comes at a higher cost to the Medicaid system. Home and community-based services are frequently less expensive than institutional care while also aligning with what most people prefer. Helping individuals remain in the least restrictive setting can benefit both taxpayers and the people receiving services. Finally, programs like MFP help remove barriers that prevent people from exercising their right to choose where they receive care. Transitioning from a nursing facility to the community is often not as simple as opening the front door and leaving. Many individuals need assistance securing housing, obtaining household items, modifying their homes for accessibility, or coordinating services. Without dedicated funding and support, these barriers can become insurmountable. Kansas has made progress over the years in expanding home and community-based services, but significant challenges remain. Housing shortages, workforce shortages among direct care workers, and waiting lists for services continue to make community living difficult for many people. The loss of Money Follows the Person means one fewer tool available to help Kansans return home.
2026 legislative wrap-up for long-term care advocates in Kansas.