Accuracy of a resident's chart

A resident's chart is required to be complete, accurate, and legible.  The chart is a legal-medical document that is used to communicate among shifts, to document the resident's condition and to prove the care actually provided.  Often times the charts are false, fraudulent, or simply misleading.  In The Pittsburgh Channel's article, the facility falsely documented and forged a family member's signature for reimbursement.

Team 4 investigative reporter Paul Van Osdol reported that 77-year-old Gene Cable checked into Scottdale Manor last November. Just six days later, he was dead.   Cable's daughter, Rita Wilson, wanted to find out what happened, so she requested his medical records. When she got them, she was shocked. After Cable died, one of the first documents to catch the eye of his daughter was a Medicaid reimbursement form with what appears to be her signature.

"This was a document you were supposed to sign?" Van Osdol asked.

"Yes," Wilson said.

"You never did?" Van Osdol asked.

"No. I swear to God. I didn't sign that," Wilson said.

Wilson said she also saw a nurse's notes showing that her father supposedly went to the bathroom "when he was dead. And he was continent. That means he physically got up and went to the bathroom when he was dead."

Wilson complained to the administrator of Scottdale Manor Rehabilitation Center. She says administrator Brian Bazylak told her they took disciplinary action against the employee who allegedly forged her name and the employee who entered the inaccurate nursing notes.  Did they report them to the Board of Nursing?  Did they even fire them?  Did they audit all the other charts?

Attorney Peter Giglione, who has sued numerous nursing homes, says he is not surprised by what happened to Wilson. "We've had a couple cases tried here in Allegheny County where we've had staff members charting on our client after they're dead," Giglione said.

False Claims Act

Mark S. Armstrong wrote an interesting article about using the federal False Claims Act (FCA) in nursing home cases primarily involving Medicare and Medicaid claims.  Armstrong is a member of Epstein Becker Green Wickliff & Hall in its Health Care and Life Sciences practice group. He focuses primarily on regulatory, reimbursement and litigation matters.

Recently, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania employed the FCA to settle with a nursing home for submitting claims for payment for inadequate care involving the treatment and prevention of pressure ulcers, incontinence care, infection control, diabetic care, weight monitoring, nutritional provision and physician care. The theory in this case was that the nursing home submitted a false claim each time a bill to the government was presented for inadequate care. While this was not the first instance in which the FCA was used to target substandard care, it may signal a renewed prosecutorial interest as the government seeks to heighten its efforts to prevent fraud, waste and abuse, and increase quality of care.

The FCA makes it unlawful for a person to “knowingly” make a “false or fraudulent” claim to the government for payment of government funds. Although the FCA imposes liability only when the claimant acts knowingly, it does not require that the person submitting the claim have actual knowledge that the claim is false. A person who acts in reckless disregard or in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information can also be found liable under the FCA.

The government has routinely pursued FCA cases when nursing homes submit fraudulent claims, including, but not limited to, 1) bills for services that were not provided, 2) bills for services that were medically unnecessary, 3) bills for services or items that were included in the facility's per diem rate, and 4) claims to Medicare Part A when the resident is not eligible for the Part A benefit. In addition to these more typical enforcement actions, the FCA is being expanded to include billing for services where the care was substandard.

To participate in Medicare or Medicaid, providers must certify that they are abiding by all applicable statutes, rules and regulations regarding the provision of quality of care and safety. In FCA substandard care cases, the government alleges that by merely requesting payment, the provider implicitly certifies compliance with governing federal rules, regulations and contractual provisions that are a precondition to receiving payment. The government asserts this FCA implied certification theory when a nursing home submits a claim for Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement but is not fully compliant with quality of care regulations, including the Nursing Home Reform Act (“NHRA”).

The NHRA establishes quality of life and quality of care requirements that facilities must meet in order to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. For example, under the NHRA, a “skilled nursing facility must provide services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident,” including but not limited to nursing services, specialized rehabilitative services, pharmaceutical services and dietary services.

By submitting bills to Medicare or Medicaid, nursing homes implicitly certify to the government that they are in full compliance with applicable statutes, rules and regulations regarding the appropriate quality of care and safety. In its case against Willowcrest Nursing Home and Willow Terrace at Germantown (collectively, “Willowcrest”), the government pursued an implied certification theory claiming that by providing inadequate or worthless services, Willowcrest submitted false claims for reimbursement to the federal healthcare programs.

Facing a potential civil penalty in the maximum amount of $10,000 per claim, plus three times the amount of damages, Willowcrest settled its claim with the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Willowcrest's settlement requires that it 1) make a cash payment to the United States in the amount of $305,072, 2) hire a full-time physician assistant or nurse practitioner, and 3) retain a qualified monitor for three years who will assess the effectiveness, reliability and thoroughness of its internal control systems, training programs, and its response to quality of care issues.

It is likely that federal prosecutors will continue to use the theory of implied certification to combat substandard care when the government is paying for the provision of healthcare services. Accordingly, to minimize the risk of defending itself against the government's FCA claims for substandard care, a nursing home should develop and implement a comprehensive compliance program that serves to reduce fraud and abuse, enhance operational functions, improve the quality of healthcare services, and decrease the cost of health care. At a minimum, a comprehensive compliance program should contain written policies and procedures that are adopted to prevent fraud and abuse and ensure an appropriate level of care for the residents.

Even if a nursing home has current compliance policies and procedures, it should conduct a baseline assessment of risk areas, particularly in the area of quality of care. According to the OIG, common risk areas for a nursing home involving quality of care include:

* Inappropriate or insufficient treatment and services to address residents' clinical condition;

* Inadequate staffing levels or insufficiently trained or supervised staff to provide medical, nursing and related services;

* Failure to accommodate individual needs and preferences;

* Failure to properly prescribe, administer and monitor prescription drug usage;

* Failure to provide appropriate therapy services; and

* Failure to provide appropriate services to assist residents with activities of daily living (e.g. feeding, dressing)

The goal for a nursing home in conducting the risk assessment for quality of care is to ensure that the employees, managers and directors are aware of the risks and that it takes steps to minimize the types of problems identified. Written policies and procedures are an effective tool for improving quality of care for nursing home residents. But it is equally important to implement such policies through effective training and supervision.

By taking steps proactively to address quality of care deficiencies, a nursing home may not have to later defend itself from the government's FCA claim of substandard care.

 

Veteran Administration claims "Quality Assurance" Privilege

Philadelphia Daily News had an article about the Veteran Administration trying to conceal system wide neglect at a VA nursing home.  In a directive, VA officials informed local agency officials that inspection reports are no longer to be released to the public including family members of residents.  The directive came after the Tribune-Review disclosed details of a 2008 report on the nursing home that concluded the VA "failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment for their residents."   Such reports from the Long Term Care Institute - which the VA hired to inspect its facilities - are considered "protected" documents under the provisions of a federal law designed to promote improved quality, the directive states.  The Wisconsin-based institute, according to VA officials, conducted similar inspections of more than 100 VA facilities nationwide. Under last week's order, none of those reports will be made public.

The report cited by the Tribune-Review was released by VA officials in Philadelphia under a public records request.   It described how one veteran had to have his leg amputated after a serious infection had gone untreated for so long that it attracted maggots. It also described blood-stained floors, a fly infestation and life-threatening treatment of veterans dependent on tube feeding.

 

 

Medicare and Medicaid Cost Reports

Nursing homes continue to object and try to prevent residents from getting copies of medicaid and medicare cost reports despite the fact that this are public documents and federal regulations require the disclosure of the documents.  When the nursing home objects, inform the Court about the specific regulation requiring disclosure:

42 U.S.C. §1395i-3(g)(5)(A) which states,

Each State, and the Secretary, shall make available to the public–

(i) information respecting all surveys and certifications made respecting skilled nursing facilities, including statements of deficiencies, within 14 calendar days after such information is made available to those facilities, and approved plans of correction,

(ii) copies of cost reports of such facilities filed under this subchapter or subchapter XIX of this chapter,

(iii) copies of statements of ownership under section 1320a-3 of this title . . .
 

Order allowing cause of action for spoliation of evidence

One of the many ways nursing homes and other Defendants delay and obstruct discovery or make it difficult to prove what happened to a resident is for them to "lose" documents.  This happens in almost all of our cases.  Here is an Order from a respected South Carolina judge that allowed the Plainitff in that case to amend the Complaint to add a cause of action for spoliation of evidence. 

This cause of action has never been recognized or rejected in South Carolina because the South Carolina Supreme Court has never had the opportunity to decide.  It makes sens for the court to recognize spoliation of evidence as a separate cause of action.

Orders allowing Plainitff to talk to former employees of nursing home

Defendants often attempt to hide information by filing motions to prevent Plainitffs from interviewing former employees about facts material to Plaintiffs' claims of neglect and understaffing.  We have uploaded a couple of Orders here and here allowing contact between former employees and Plainitffs.  The Order discusses in detail the Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2.

Order compelling production of incident report

We have uploaded a great Order compelling the production of an incident report.  The defense attempted to claim that the incident report was work-product.  The Court rightly disagreed.  All nursing homes are required by state and federal regulations to investigate and prepare incident reports when an incident causing injury to a resident ha occurred.  This is done in the ordinary course of business and not as result of anticipation of litigation.  These incident report should be produced but defense attempts to hide these incident reports from the families of residents.

Motion for sanctions for deposition misconduct

We have uploaded a great Motion for Sanctions for deposition misconduct such as coaching witnesses and obstructive objections.  The motion was done by the well respected Minnesota nursing home lawyer Mark Kosieradzki.  Defense counsel in numerous cases interfere and obstruct the taking of depositions.  This is in violation of the Rules of civil Procedure and the oath of professionalism that lawyers must abide by in South Carolina.

Getting Medical Records

I read an interesting article about getting medical records earlier this week.  The article raised several important points:  1) Its hard to get your own records, but its much harder to get someone else's; 2) Its hard to get ALL records; 3) Its hard to be sure that the records are accurate.

USA Today specifically points out that its harder to obtain medical records from treating facilities after something has gone wrong.  In fact, the article suggests that one way to avoid just this sort of problem is to routinely request copies of medical records.  This advice, which I think is very good advice, led me to wonder, well, just how often do you request records?  I mean, consider you're in the hospital having a baby.  Do you request the records on day 2?  Do you request the records upon discharge?  Do you request the records on day 2 and upon discharge? 

The article also points out that under federa law, every patient or designated representative has the right to see and copy the patient's medical records.  This is aparently not the case in nursing homes.  Nursing homes in this area routinely say that once a patient is discharged, they are no longer a patient, and therefore have no right of access to their records, at least not until those records have been thoroughly reviewed by their corporate attorneys.  Clever, don't you think? 

Worse than that, try arguing with in-house counsel about whether or not your deceased client's daughter (who was the Responsible Party for purposes of admission, who likely signed an arbitration clause that the nursing home will try to enforce against her) is a "designated representative" for purposes of reviewing and/or receiving medical records.

The article is worth the read.  And I don't think its exaggerated.  And its certainly something to think about. 

Nursing home executives indicted for tax evasion

The indictment alleges that the men ran about 70 nursing homes in Texas and other states and were responsible for a $200 million operation but hid their control of the facilities. Payroll companies: More than 150 sham payroll companies were created to avoid paying taxes, according to the indictment.

A former Hurst nursing home executive who crisscrossed the Atlantic as part of a tax-evasion scheme pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiring to cheat the IRS out of $34 million.

As part of a plea agreement, Larry G. May will cooperate with the prosecution of two of his former North Texas business associates, who the government said helped control the nursing homes involved.  May, Stephen Michael Ewing of Bedford and Gary R. Trebert of Frisco were indicted in March on 29 federal counts including mail fraud, making false statements to a government agency, and defrauding the IRS and the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.

May also pleaded guilty Wednesday to perjuring himself by signing false tax returns for 63 nursing homes with payroll taxes totaling $4.45 million.  




Poliakoff & Associates, P.A., is one of South Carolina’s most respected and distinguished law firms. The Poliakoff firm began nearlyMore...