Judge stops eviction of resident

William C. Lhotka of the St. louis Post-dispatch wrote an article about a Judge preventing a nursing home from evicting a resident from a nursing home.  Below is an excerpt of his article:

A judge has barred an Ellisville nursing home from discharging a resident in a billing dispute because of the possible traumatic effects of transferring her to another care facility.  The judge found for the family of Barbara H. Lindsay and against Bethesda Long Term Care Inc. which operates Bethesda Meadow.  The ruling means the nursing home cannot move Lindsay to another nursing home when Bethesda alleged Lindsay's family owed the company past due bills.

Lindsay's son Douglas contended that the bill was erroneous and that his mother was too fragile to move.   Jacqueline Levey, attorney for the Lindsays, argued before Vincent that "any nursing facility wishing to expel an elderly or disabled resident can simply manufacture a series of grossly inaccurate billing statements."

Bethesda lawyer James W. Erwin had contended that some billing errors by Bethesda didn't negate the failure of the Lindsay family to make payments.  On the day before the hearing in October, the Lindsay family paid its bill in full. Nonetheless, the nursing home proceeded with the discharge, said Levey, the family's lawyer.

Vincent cited medical testimony in his order that Barbara Lindsay "is very fragile and has very little strength." The judge said the nursing home provided no evidence that "a safe and orderly discharge could be accomplished."


Threat of eviction silences complaints.

South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com has an article from Violette King, president of Nursing Home Monitors, a non-profit, all-volunteer advocacy group for nursing home safety about improper discharges and evictions of residents from nursing homes.  She encourages the media to put a spotllight on the injustices that occur daily in nursing homes throughout the country because the exposure will hurt the profits and therefore will deter bad behavior.

Long-term care facilities spend a lot of money to make sure that their beds are full. They know very well that bad publicity translates into the anathema of empty beds. Legislation to require facilities to give a reason for discharge should be spurred on by the media to add more protective measures. Legislators are under immense pressure from the many long-term care lobbyists who swarm their offices.

Involuntarily discharging a resident can lead to serious setbacks and even death from what is known as "transfer trauma." There are only three acceptable reasons for evicting a resident: The facility can no longer meet the resident's needs, the resident or Medicaid has failed to pay the bill, or the resident is a danger to him/herself or to others. The burden of proof should always be on the facility to prove its case, which should be done at a proper hearing where legal assistance is provided for residents who cannot afford an attorney.

Good profits and lack of oversight lead to far too many unscrupulous characters going into the nursing home industry. When a resident or the family complain about needs that are not met as agreed, the facility all too often asks them to leave.  Threat of eviction has a chilling, silencing effect on families who usually have no other choice for placement.

Admissions paperwork violates state law

The Kansas City Star has an article about a study from the National Senior Citizens Law Center discussing clauses in nursing home agreements that violate the law.  Some admission agreements skirt state and federal laws, misleading consumers about the care they can expect and inducing them to sign away critical consumer protections.  Advocates for the elderly said the study raised serious questions about how some nursing homes operate.

The National Senior Citizens Law Center, a Washington-based nonprofit legal advocacy group for seniors and elder-care lawyers, reviewed 175 admission agreements voluntarily provided by nursing homes. The study found agreements which improperly limited a nursing home’s obligations. Others allowed discharges for vague reasons, or stuck relatives with bills they legally didn’t owe.

Toby S. Edelman, a spokesman for the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, said similar studies in other states also show “ongoing concerns” with nursing home agreements.

The Missouri study found that nursing homes protect themselves by persuading seniors to waive their right to a jury trial. In 18 percent of the agreements, seniors were required to submit a dispute to arbitration, rather than sue in court.   Trial lawyers contend they have successfully fought the provisions in court as unconstitutional and unenforceable in health-care cases.

The study contends the agreements also thwart federal law by inserting provisions making it easier to evict residents. Federal law sets out six conditions that justify evicting a resident.

Carlson, the study’s author, said that under the federal reform law nursing homes cannot require a relative or a friend to become financially liable for nursing home expenses. Yet, the study found that 19 percent of the admission agreements required a financial guarantee “in direct violation” of federal law.   Such “co-guarantor clauses” are becoming more common.

Putting profits over care

A Rockport, Arkansas nursing home chose to evict an elderly resident who was chronically ill. The home dropped her off at a motel in Aransas Pass and never notified the family. 

The home claims it wasn't getting paid for her to stay there.  Ladewig suffers from chronic bronchitis and a muscle disease. Ladewig said she was brought to this motel room after getting evicted. Her family were never told about the move.

When nursing home personnel dropped her off, the family said they left her with food for the weekend and these two portable oxygen tanks that would last about eight hours.

"I would have run out of oxygen and died," said Ladewig. "That's what would have happened to me if she wouldn't have come out looking for me. That's what would have happened."

"There is no phone in this facility, even if in the middle of night she went in respiratory failure or a situation where she couldn't get up, she has no way to contact anybody, whatsoever," Biggs said.

The family said the nursing home was paid through early December.

Study critical of nursing home admissions paperwork

The Columbia Tribune of Missouri has an article about a new study that shows nursing home admission paperwork to be confusing and takes away a resident's fundamanetal rights without explanation to the residents.

Nursing home admission agreements are confusing, can run 10 pages or more with unfamiliar language, are often signed in moments of distress, and force residents to sign away fundamental rights.

"It’s a situation where they’re worried about health, they’re worried about their family, and often they’ll just sign anything," said Richard Royer, CEO of Primaris, a Medicare quality improvement organization.

A study released today by the not-for-profit National Senior Citizens Law Center evaluated 175 legal agreements signed by residents who entered Missouri nursing homes. The study found many agreements allow facilities to evict residents for almost any reason, limit their rights to be visited by family members and require family or friends to assume personal financial liability for care. All such provisions are in violation of the federal Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987.

The study found that 17 percent of surveyed nursing homes reserved the right to evict someone for any reason even though federal law lists only six valid reasons for eviction. Consequently, patients with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia or residents who complain about the care received are being evicted for being "difficult."

The survey also found that 19 percent of nursing homes required a guarantee asking a family member or sponsor to take financial responsibility for the cost of care. The study argues it’s illegal to require fiscal responsibility and that Medicaid is required to cover expenses when a resident is unable to pay.

The study found 5 percent of agreements instituted visiting hours for residents, also in violation of the federal law.

One of the things not mentioned in the study but is very disconcerting to many residents is the inclusion of an arbitration clause hidden in the admissions paperwork that waives the resident's right to a jury trial if the resident gets abused or neglected.

The study and a consumer guide outlining the rights of residents are available online at nsclc.org.

Facility evicts and abandons resident for failing to pay

This is an incredible article.  They should be arrested for leaving a vulnerable adult in this condition.

A northeast Nebraska care center has been fined for leaving an elderly resident alone and unattended.

A report, done by the state department of Health and Human Services, says Golden Living Center, in O'Neill, Nebraska, discharged a resident because the individual's family couldn't pay for the care.

The report says the facility contacted their family... and subsequently transported the resident to their family's home. But, the report says, when they got there, the family refused to accept the resident... saying they did not have the requisite expertise to care for their loved one.

The facility's representative placed the resident in a lawn chair, under a tree, at the family's home... and left.

The state fined Golden Living Center a measly $3,000 and placed the facility on probation for six months.


When can nursing home evict a resident?

Description of Federal Requirements

The federal regulation (483.12) articulates rights that the resident has related to admission, transfer, or discharge, some of the procedures facilities must follow, and records they must keep. The definition of transfer and discharge here applies to movement to a bed outside the certified facility (including differently licensed beds in the same physical plant), but does not apply to movement to a different bed in the certified facility. (Those Intra-facility transfers are discussed under 483.10, Resident Rights.)

The rules regarding transfer or discharge (a) establish the conditions under which a resident may be transferred involuntarily, including that the facility is closing, the resident has improved so that he/she no longer needs the care, the facility is unable to provide the resident with the necessary care, the resident is a danger to self or others, and the resident has failed to pay for care or (if supported by third parties, including Medicaid) has failed to have the care paid for.

The federal rule establishes expectations for documentation regarding transfers (including the reason), and written notice to the residents of at least 30 days, unless the reason for transfer is related to urgent medical needs of the resident or health and safety of others.

 The written notice must include the reasons for the transfer/discharge, the effective date, the location of discharge or transfer, the right of appeal, and notification of how to reach the long-term care ombudsman and/or the appropriate Protection and Advocacy agency in the case of individuals with developmental disabilities or persons who are mentally ill. Further, the facility “must provide sufficient preparation and orientation to residents to ensure safe and orderly transfer or discharge from the facility.”


Another section (b) of this regulation refers to bed holds and the resident’s right to return to the nursing home after being discharged for hospitals or therapeutic leaves. These policies are determined in part by the State’s policy about how long payment will be made to hold a bed for a resident after discharge. In any case, the facility needs to clearly disclose to the resident and family in writing the amount of time the bed will be held, and its policies for readmission after that time expires.

Under a provision for “equal access to quality care (c) , the policies that the facility develops for transfer, discharge, and provision of all the services covered in the State Medicaid Plan must be identical for all residents regardless of the resident’s source of payment. The regulation also States that facilities are not obliged to provide any services that are not under the State plan. The facility may charge privately paying residents any amount they chose for the services included in the State plan and other services, but are subject to requirements for disclosure in the Resident Rights regulation (483.10).

The final section (d) on Admission Rights articulates prohibits any facility that accepts Medicaid or Medicare from requiring residents to waive their rights to this coverage, prohibits facilities to require guarantees of payment from a third party as a condition of income, and prohibits the facility from soliciting any gift or donation as a consideration of admission or continued stay. The section also specifically states that States “may apply stricter admissions standards under State or local law to prohibit discrimination against individuals entitled to Medicaid.
Under 483.10 (Resident Rights) some general rights are enunciate that overlap with this regulation on admission, discharge, and transfer rights, especially as regards written notice about Medicaid and Medicare coverage.

The majority of States (29--including South Carolina) do not appear to have enunciated any rights or procedures governing admission, transfer, or discharge over and above those that are established in the rather detailed Federal provisions. States may have repeated some of the Federal requirements or inserted the names of their own agencies for notification without substantially changing the Federal requirements.

The most usual State requirements entail slight additions to the timing of notice of involuntary transfers for any or for a particular reason (such as notification of intent to go out of business) or state-mandated precise wording for notice forms. Colorado provides numerous specific forms. Three States (Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska) specify at least 12-point fonts for the notices, and Indiana also indicated that bold type face be used. Indiana rules for Inter-Facility and Intra-Facility Transfers are treated together in one section of the law, though each is well-defined. For that reason, the rights for appeal of Intra-facility transfer (described under Resident Rights in general) are unusually well-developed.

The most extensive requirements are found in Illinois and in Oregon. Among their many provisions are requirements that relate to facilitating adjustment in the community or the transfer placement, and allowing for return. Illinois has sections on pre-transfer or pre-discharge counseling, trial placements in the community, and the requirement that the facility accept State relocation teams in the facility, including in those giving notice of closing and those not intending to close. Oregon regulations contain particularly elaborate discussion of how to help prepare the resident for transfer, and give the resident the ultimate right to stay if transfer would be deemed harmful. In Oregon, the facility shall not involuntarily transfer a resident for medical or welfare reasons under the various reasons outlined in its regulations if the risk of physical or emotional trauma significantly outweighs the risk to the resident and/or to other residents if no transfer were to occur, and the the facility shall not involuntarily transfer a resident for any other reasons if the transfer presents a substantial risk of morbidity or mortality to the resident.

 A section called “Considerations for Involuntary Transfer” included many resident-centered components, and safeguards. In Oregon, prior to issuing a notice for an involuntary transfer, in order to determine the appropriateness of transfer, the facility shall consider the following: (1) the availability of alternatives to transfer; (2) the resident's ties to family and community; (3) the relationships the resident has developed with other residents and facility staff; (4) the duration of the resident's stay at the facility; (5) the medical needs of the resident and the availability of medical services; (6) the age of the resident and degree of physical and cognitive impairment; (7) the availability of a receiving facility that would accept the resident and provide service consistent with the resident's need for care. (8) the consistency of the receiving facility's services with the activities and routine with which the resident is familiar, and the receiving facility's ability to provide the resident with similar access to personal items significant to the resident and enjoyed by the resident at the transferring facility; (9) the probability that the transfer would result in improved or worsened mental, physical, or social functioning, or in reduced dependency of the resident. (10) the type and amount of preparation for the move, including but not limited to: (a) solicitation of the resident's friends and/or family in preparing the resident for the move; (b) Visitation by the resident to (prior to actual transfer) or familiarity of the resident with the place to which the resident is to be transferred; and (11)on-site consultation by an individual with specific expertise in mental health services if the basis for considering transfer is behavioral, e.g., gero-psychiatric consultation. [NHPlusComments: These considerations are material seems particularly resident-centered and also contain practical ideas about how to consider whether a move would be difficult for a resident and assist him/her to make transfers positive.]

Although much of the Federal and State attention regarding discharges and transfers is directed at ensuring that residents not be inappropriately discharged, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Oregon address the right to voluntary discharge or for the patients to discharge themselves or their guardians to discharge them. Illinois specifies that such discharges must occur even if the facility has reservations about the person’s ability to manage in the community, but in those cases a referral must be made to Adult Protective Services. In Maryland, a signed consent to voluntary transfer or discharge from a resident or family member is ordinarily required. Maine specifies that residents who are candidates for home health care should receive a list of certified agencies in their area, but that the facility must disclose if it has a financial interest in any of these home health agencies.

Among the 21 States with some requirements in this area, the remaining stipulations include a wide variety of matters. Several States (Arizona, Minnesota, and New Hampshire) require that medical information be transferred to the receiving organization. California requires that the facilities develop transfer agreements with other facilities. Arkansas requires consultation with families on involuntary transfers. Wisconsin states that except in an emergency, a receiving facility, agency, or program must receive advance notice of the arrival of a resident being transferred to it. Alabama re-iterates federal policy with the addition of a requirement for resident transport during transfers or discharges. The provision states that if a resident is unable to ride in an upright position or if such resident’s condition is such that he or she needs observation or treatment by Emergency Medical Services personnel, or if the resident requires transportation on a stretcher, gurney or cot, the facility shall arrange or request transportation services only from providers who are ambulance service operators licensed by the Alabama State Board of Health. If such resident is being transported to or from a health care facility in another state, transportation services may be arranged with a transport provider licensed as an ambulance service operator in that state. For the purposes of this rule, an upright position means no more than 20 degrees from vertical. The Table below provides links to the actual provisions in the States that have State-specific requirements in this area.

Important victory for residents' rights

When two residents at a nursing home in Santa Cruz got eviction notices last March, they decided to fight them. They called Linda Robinson of Advocacy Inc., a Santa Cruz nonprofit, to help them file appeals with the state Department of Health Services. A little more than a year later, the issue is being resolved according to an April 11 memo signed by Kathleen Billingsley, deputy director of the state health department.

The April 11 memo affects nearly 900 nursing home patients in Santa Cruz County as well as 1,400 nursing homes statewide with more than 133,000 beds.

"In a year, dozens, maybe hundreds, of [eviction] notices are sent," Connors said. "They get issued way too often in my experience. Patients have the right to be protected from arbitrary transfers"

Billingsley's April 11 memo to district managers covered policy and procedures for appealing eviction notices. It also said staff must receive training to make sure policy and procedures are followed.

Last year, a lawsuit was filed, complaining about a backlog of nursing-home complaints. This month, a state auditor, reporting on 17,000 complaints filed over two years, said the department had not completed about 60 percent of its investigations in a timely fashion.

See article here.

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