State health officials are moving to revoke licenses for all 12 legal care nursing homes in Massachusetts over care concerns. But this comes at a tough time. The state has already lost over 3500 rehab and long term care beds over recent years, leaving families in Western Mass with very few choices. [PDF 2025 EOHS report]
Reporter Sam Drysdale of the State House News Service explains what this crackdown means for rehab residents and staff currently at RegalCare in Massachusetts.
Sam Drysdale, SHNS: The immediate message is that RegalCare in Greenfield (and at other locations across the state) is not closing tomorrow, so families don't have to move their loved ones right now, but residents and staff should expect much closer scrutiny, with state inspectors visiting multiple times a week to assess staffing and training in cleanliness and the adequacy of supplies.
The bigger concern is the uncertainty that this creates for residents who depend on consistent care, and for the staff who are working under difficult conditions. And in western Massachusetts, where there are limited alternatives. it's this question of whether the facility will close.
Carrie Healy, NEPM: Senator Jo Comerford of Northampton is hearing from constituents who are deeply torn. I mean, they demand better care. But they also say that closing legal care facilities again, for instance, Greenfield or Holyoke would leave local families with nowhere else to go. So what are lawmakers actually hoping to achieve with this policy enforcement?
Yeah. The state says that their goal right now is to make sure that nursing home owners are held accountable and that residents are receiving safe and dignified care, because the allegations here are serious.
Officials have cited dangerous care failures and improper billing for medically unnecessary therapy for frail and elderly patients. So they're trying to ensure that owners don't put profits ahead of residents safety, but that may involve removing those owners, and that does need to be paired with a plan to preserve access to care.
Let's turn to a long term shift happening in the region. You recently took a closer look at dwindling K-12 school enrollment, which is down statewide to levels that we haven't seen since the 1990s. In simple terms, what's driving this drop?
The biggest factor is demographics. People are having fewer children, and Massachusetts has seen significant decline across the state, but specifically in rural and western Massachusetts. So, we're seeing smaller kindergarten classes year after year. And this is a long term shift.
And the question is about how communities adapt when there are fewer students...but the cost of running a school, buildings and transportation and staffing, those don't shrink at the same rate.
Oh for sure. And with fewer children, come big problems. How is that shrinking student body interwoven with housing and workforce debates going on in Beacon Hill?
These issues are deeply connected: if young families can't find affordable housing or good jobs in western Massachusetts and they leave, or they never move in the first place, and that means a smaller tax base and then tighter school budgets, or with less students, fewer opportunities for things like advanced classes, arts and sports.
It also points to a bigger economic challenge with fewer children. Today, it means a smaller workforce supporting an aging population in the future.
So, Beacon Hill is looking at the school funding formula, hoping to reconcile some of these challenges. But declining enrollment. It's not just an education problem, it's a regional economic problem.
And underneath us every day, Sam, is basic infrastructure. It's the water pipes in the ground. Last week, an event called Imagine a Day Without Water, was held at the Statehouse. You reported that we are at a water funding cliff in plain language. How does the federal government help keep the tap flowing in a city like Springfield and across the state?
The federal government helps cities and towns pay for the expensive work of replacing aging water mains and upgrading water systems. That money comes through programs offering affordable financing for local projects. And we know what's at stake in Springfield. There was a massive water main break [in 2023]. Roughly 24,000 kids had to stay home from school. And then that brings parents out of work. It has a trickle down effect across the city.
There has been a surge in federal funding for this program over the past few years. But now that it's ending and Massachusetts already has billions of dollars of unmet needs, the concern is that without any help, cities and towns will face tougher choices to raise water bills and property taxes, or to lay delay repairs or to risk more serious infrastructure failures.
Yeah, that federal infrastructure money that help falling now from $12 billion to just over $2 billion. What are state leaders pointing to as the long term funding fix?
They're pushing for more state investment because federal money was never enough by itself. Much of the existing funding comes as loans from the federal government, which can be more difficult for smaller or working class communities to repay.
The challenge is that Massachusetts needs $75 billion over 20 years for water infrastructure, which is obviously a huge amount. So that means more sustainable mix of state and federal funding in the long term.
