South Carolina Nursing Home Blog : South Carolina Nursing Home Lawyer & Attorney : Poliakoff & Associates Law Firm : Elderly Care, Senior Care

The Hartford Courant had an article about another greedy nursing home CEO. The former chief executive of a now defunct nursing home chain pleaded guilty to federal charges that he improperly used money intended for the homes to buy real estate.   Raymond Termini pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and engaging in unlawful monetary transaction.

Termini stole a $6 million loan for private business transactions, and up to $2 million for sprinklers at the nursing homes instead to buy real estate and other purposes.  Termini was CEO of Middletown-based Haven Healthcare, one of the state's largest nursing home chains before it filed for bankruptcy protection in 2007, operating 27 facilities in five states, including 15 in Connecticut.  Termini agreed to forfeit $500,000.  So he steals millions but he "agreed" to pay a measly half a million. 

"Mr. Termini admitted he made some errors," Keefe said. "Otherwise he did a lot of good for a lot of people in that industry."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Jackson Free Press had an interesting and scary article about presidential contender Haley Barbour's flip flopping on Medicare and history as a lobbyist and Tom Delay's indictment for illegal campaign donations.   When Haley Barbour was head of the Republican National Committee from 1993 to 1997, he loathed Medicare, and tried to gun it down in the GOP “Contract with America.”  By 2000, Barbour had returned to his lobbyist job at Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and had dramatically flip-flopped on Medicare, then lobbying for more federal tax dollars to be directed into the program. 

The Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care Inc. was formed in 2000 as a corporate coalition of 14 of the country’s largest for-profit nursing home companies to help ease the way for the corporate consolidation of the nursing-home industry.   The coalition opposed Medicare cuts and government regulation of nursing-home standards and consolidation, and, perhaps most vitally, wanted low caps on the lawsuit damages the companies had to pay for abusing and neglecting nursing-home residents. The coalition paid top dollar to ensure the election of candidates who agreed with its agenda.   It directed impressive campaign donations to mostly Republican candidates around the country who would, in turn, honor the wishes of one of the country’s most tenacious industries.

That resolve is how a check for $100,000 written three years ago this week ended up illegally funding Republican candidates for the Texas statehouse.  That’s also how that canceled check ended as a primary exhibit in the case of State of Texas v. Thomas Dale Delay et al.

Unlike Mississippi, the state of Texas has long taken campaign-finance violations seriously, especially donations coming from outside the state to try to tell Texans what to do, and how to vote.  Violation is a felony, punishable by hefty fines and up to life in prison.

Rep. Tom Delay appears to have put considerable effort into circumventing that law. The former bug exterminator from Sugar Land became majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives by his complicated web of political friends and family members including his own wife, Christine, and daughter, Danielle Ferro.

Delay has run a creative maze of schemes since the mid-1990s to get Republicans elected to office and “keep Republicans in lockstep,” using “threats and incentives,” as The Wall Street Journal characterized his style in June 2004.  He has been investigated five times and brought before the House Ethics Committee for his strong-arming of fellow members of Congress, trying to use donations to a children’s charity for a donor cruise, rewarding check-writers with face time with GOP stars, and other irregularities.

What prompted a grand jury of his home-state peers to indict him in September and again earlier this month on conspiracy and money laundering charges was his Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, known as TRMPAC.  Delay used the PAC to collect illegal corporate contributions (a third-degree felony) from January 2001 through the end of 2002 from corporations and then slip the money to 2002 candidates for the Texas statehouse (a first-degree felony). Much of the money was used to fund a last-minute campaign blitz—another violation of Texas law.

In return, the donors had a laundry list of demands—including tort reform and a blind eye to their consolidation plans.  The nursing-home industry, with its heavy reliance on government payouts for profits, is ripe for exploitation. And stories about the internal workings of nursing-homes aren’t exactly sexy enough for front page news.

“What we have seen is these corporations evolve to trying to shield themselves from liability or from paying taxes in such a way to finagle the law in ways no one imagined just a few years ago,” said Mississippi Rep. Jamie Franks, a lawyer and Democrat from Mooreville who is leading an effort to more closely monitor Mississippi’s nursing home industry.  “It’s amazing what high-dollar lawyers and high-dollar accountants can do.” He added: “And high-dollar lobbyists. You can throw that in there, too.”

What those high-dollar strategists did in 2000 was form the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care Inc., so that the industry giants—for-profit nursing homes that were members of the American Health Care Association—could pool their resources to overcome regulations regarding standard of care and limit lawsuit damages in as many states as possible and, ultimately, on the federal level in order to supersede state law.

The Alliance heavily lobbied the federal government to increase Medicare payments because for-profit nursing homes take more money from Medicare than Medicaid, which tends to sustain their competitors, the non-profit nursing homes. 

In October 2002, the Alliance invested in Delay’s scheme to pack the Texas statehouse (and thus Congress) writing a check for $100,000 to TRMPAC, dated Oct. 18 and signed by Alliance leader Stephen L. Guillard of Harborside Healthcare Corp. in Boston. On Oct. 21, Chris Winkle—then the chief executive of Mariner Health Care in Atlanta—met state Rep. Tom Craddick, R-Midland. They talked about the need to limit liability in lawsuits against nursing homes; then Winkle presented Craddick with the check, which TRMPAC deposited two days later. On Oct. 24, the Alliance contributed another $300,000 to the Texas Association of Business, an employers’ group that is now also under indictment in Texas for allegedly helping collect and launder illegal contributions.

After the 2002 election, in which 21 additional Republicans were elected to the Texas statehouse, Craddick became speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, and the Legislature quickly gave industry its desired “tort reform”—including $250,000 in non-economic damage caps and special provisions to shield nursing homes—that would become the model for industry efforts in other states, such as Mississippi in 2004 (which ended up compromising on $500,000 damage caps).

Ironically, it was one of the alleged conspirators who exposed the scam. The Texas Association of Business, or TAB, could hardly contain its glee over its success, reporting in a newsletter to members that it “blew the doors off the Nov. 5 election, using an unprecedented show of muscle that featured political contributions and a massive voter education drive.” And as the Wall Street Journal reported, its president, Bill Hammond, a former Texas legislator, bragged to the media that the group had used corporate money to finance a $2 million advertising campaign backing Delay’s slate of candidates.

Watchdog groups like Texans for Public Justice in Austin took notice and started following the money, ultimately finding that TRMPAC’s tax return showed that it had raised $1.5 million to help with the state races—and that $600,000 had come from corporate donations. Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle started investigating TRMPAC’s activities after Texans for Public Justice filed a complaint based on the revelations on the tax returns.

In September 2004, the indictments began when a Travis County grand jury handed down 32 indictment counts against TRMPAC and TAB and their leaders, as well as against eight companies that had supplied corporate funds, including State Farm Insurance, AT&T, the Union Pacific Railroad and the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care. On May 25, 2005, District Judge Joe Hart ruled in a civil case brought by 2002 Democratic candidates against TRMPAC that the use of corporate funds had violated the Texas Election Code.

On Sept. 28, 2005, the grand jury indicted Tom Delay and associates Jim Ellis and John Colyandro for conspiracy in the illegal scheme, and then on Oct. 3, a different grand jury indicted Delay on two new charges of money laundering.

Other friends of TRMPAC and its donors, such as now-Gov. Haley Barbour—who lobbied for the Alliance until he left his hefty stock in Barbour Griffith & Rogers in a reversible blind trust so he could take over the governor’s mansion in Mississippi—are distancing themselves from the beleaguered Alliance, if not from Delay.   It is not in dispute, that Barbour was lobbying in his client’s interest to block Medicare cuts at the same time that his client was presenting a $100,000 check to Craddick. (The $300,000 check from the Alliance to TAB followed a few days later.)

Andrew Wheat, the research director of Texans for Public Justice, balks at the idea that Barbour was not privy to the Alliance’s agenda—especially since his lobbying firm represented three of the corporate TRMPAC donors (the Alliance, Kindred Healthcare and Reliant Energy)—lobbying contracts worth $440,000 to Barbour Griffith & Rogers in 2002 alone. Barbour’s clients gave more money to TRMPAC than any of the other 10 lobbying firms who were represented. He was CEO of Barbour Griffth & Rogers and representing the nursing homes when the Alliance was created in 2000.

The Alliance’s agenda is one that is wreaking havoc in states like Texas, Arkansas and Mississippi, where its members control much of the nursing-home business and are now getting their way, thanks to a nationwide corporate realignment, consumer advocates say. The changes in the historically tightly regulated nursing-home industry are profound.

Franks points to the December 2004 sale of Mariner Health Care for $1.05 billion to National Senior Care, owned by New York real estate investor Harry Grunstein. Harry is Leonard Grunstein's brother.  Leonard Grunstein is partners with Murray Forman.  Harry sold Mariner’s assets to cover the costs of the acquisition, reducing the worth and assets of Mariner to $12 million and, critics say, operating the nursing homes more like rental units. “It basically became a real-estate transaction rather than a group caring for vulnerable adults,” Franks said. He added that, now, the nursing homes seem to be escaping accountability with these transfers. “There is no background check to find out whether they are financially solvent, or good corporate citizens. They simply transfer the license,” he said.

Because it is the licensee that is regulated, the process of stripping that licensee of its assets is essentially a tricky end run, allowing the real-estate owners, such as Grunstein, to escape liability. This, combined with the increased “tort reform” damage caps sought by the Alliance, insulates the corporate owners from the regulatory safeguards that are meant to protect patients and the elderly.   In turn, those licensees are now defaulting on money owed to vendors in states like Mississippi. And because assets are being ripped away from the nursing homes themselves, they end up with little to be sought in lawsuits brought by the vendors looking to be repaid.

One unpaid Mississippi vendor is the law firm Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes in Jackson, which is suing Mariner for $951,915.17 in legal fees for defending the nursing homes. In the complaint, filed in Hinds County Chancery Court, Brunini describes Mariner’s “leveraged buyout” scheme, which it alleges is “fraudulent.”   Franks points to hearings in Arkansas, called by a Republican and a Democrat, that just concluded that the state has ended up with “no” regulatory power over these companies, due to their maneuvering. “This is not partisan,” Franks said. “It’s a consumer issue. It’s about protecting vulnerable citizens and our tax dollars.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

My next three entries will discuss the exploits and complaints against OmniCare, Mariner, SavaSeniorCare, and Murray Foreman, Rubin Schron, and Leonard Grunstein who own and operate hundreds of nursing homes through a complex maze of corporate shenanigans, and were finally caught gaming the system to make millions and deprive our loved ones of the necessary care they deserve.  Our taxes are going into the pocket of these greedy corrupt men.

There have been numerous articles on these cases and I will try to organize, summarize, and paraphrase most of them in the next three days.  It is interesting that none of the article discusses Murray Foreman and Leonard Grunstein's ownership of Fundamental Long Term Care Company that owns and operates hundreds of other nursing homes using the THI name.

The Wall Street Journal wrote geriatric pharmacy company Omnicare Inc. will pay $98 million to settle charges that it engaged in several kickback schemes with drug makers and nursing homes.  The Justice Department alleged that Omnicare regularly paid kickbacks to nursing homes in order to induce the homes to refer their patients to Omnicare for pharmacy services.  Separately, the department said it was intervening in a lawsuit alleging that two nursing-home chains, Mariner Health Care Inc. and SavaSeniorCare Administrative Services, accepted kickbacks from Omnicare in return for pharmacy-service contracts.

Reuters had an article that added additional facts.   DOJ filed a complaint against two large nursing home chains, Mariner Health Care Inc. and SavaSeniorCare Administrative Services LLC, both of Atlanta, and their principals, Leonard Grunstein, Murray Forman, and Rubin Schron, for accepting a kickback from Omnicare in return for pharmacy services contracts.  The company allegedly solicited and received kickbacks in exchange for agreeing to recommend that physicians prescribe Risperdal, a  dangerous antipsychotic drug, to nursing home patients.

The government further alleged that Omnicare regularly paid kickbacks to nursing homes by providing consultant pharmacist services at rates below the company's cost and below the fair market value of such services in order to induce the homes to refer their patients to Omnicare
for pharmacy services.

The United States alleges that Omnicare, Mariner Health Care, SavaSenior Care, Grunstein, Forman, and Schron conspired to arrange for Omnicare to pay the nursing home chains $50 million in exchange for the right to continue providing pharmacy services to the nursing homes, which together constituted one of Omnicare's largest customers. Defendants attempted to disguise the $50 million kickback as a payment to acquire a small Mariner Health Care business unit that had only two employees and was worth far less than $50 million.

After they became aware of the government's investigation, Grunstein, Forman, and Schron allegedly created false backdated documents in a further attempt to hide the kickback. These
allegations are detailed in a separate complaint that was unsealed recently.  Read the Complaint here.

More to come tomorrow.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We are pleased to have Adrienne Carlson, who regularly writes on the topic of nurse practitioner schools, write the following guest article.

It’s a situation that we hope never comes to our loved ones, but if we are practical, we know that it could happen to even the healthiest of us. When elderly family members become sick and infirm and need constant round-the-clock care, we may not be able to provide what they need because we are too busy with our lives, work, social commitments and families. So we do the next best thing, choose a nursing home that caters to their every need and keeps them in comfort for the rest of their lives. When it comes to choosing a nursing home for your loved ones, here are a few salient points to keep in mind:

• Location matters: You’re going to want to visit frequently and check up on your loved one often. So choose a home that is near you, preferably not more than an hour’s drive away. The further your loved one is, the more you’re going to come up with excuses not visit and this could end up making your relationship deteriorate.

• Check it out: Never choose a home without checking it out at least twice. If possible, take your loved one with you so that they too have a say in where they’re going to live. They may also want to move in with a friend or loved one who is in a nursing home, so take their wishes into consideration too. Loneliness can weigh heavily on their mind, so it’s important that they have a friend in the facility.

• Talk to residents and staff members: Your instinct will tell you how good or bad a nursing home is. When you talk to people at the home, be it staff or residents, take in all their comments and answers without forming an opinion right away. Write down important aspects, then go home and discuss options with your loved one.

• Think of the cost factor: If you expect Medicare or similar programs to pay for the nursing home, you will be restricted to choosing one that is approved by the state under the guidelines of these programs. Visit those close to your location and choose one that is clean and has good service. Also ensure that adequate medical facilities are available to provide care during emergencies and for common conditions that occur with old age.

• Visit frequently: The only way to ensure that you’ve made the right choice of nursing home is to visit often and see that your loved one is well cared for and satisfied. If you’re not able to visit frequently, at least call and check if everything is ok.

Nursing homes are meant to be a home away from home for the elderly. So ensure that your loved ones are well taken care of when you put them in such facilities.

Adrienne welcomes your comments and questions at her email address: adrienne.carlson83@yahoo.com
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here is a link to The Frederick News-Post which had a terrific op-ed by Katherine Heerbrandt about accountability and the nursing home industry.  The editorial is below:

Nursing homes are places where residents go about the business of wrapping up their lives or recuperating from illness, so it's not surprising that many of us have an aversion to them. Perhaps we see a future we don't want to contemplate.  But as baby boomers age, living out our golden years in a long-term care facility is a real possibility. The size of the disabled older population who will need assisted or nursing home care will grow by more than 50 percent between 2000 and 2040, according to the Urban Institute.

Entrepreneurs are looking at long-term care facilities as good investments. But as private equity investors flood into the nursing home business, "it's become harder and harder for families, regulators or prosecutors to identify the right individual or business entity to hold accountable for bad care," Janet Wells, public policy director of National Citizens' for Nursing Care Reform, said in an interview.

"The Office of Inspector General says it has found as many as 17 limited liability companies in the ownership and operations of a single facility," Wells said. "Most of these companies are making profits from the business, but they can't be held accountable by anyone for what happens to an individual resident."

This trend, she said, triggered a transparency bill this year and is part of the controversial health care reform legislation currently before Congress. A similar bill failed last year, and compromises were made. The bill currently before the House requires Nursing Home Compare (Medicare.gov/NHCompare/home/asp) to report the number of adjudicated criminal violations by facilities or crimes committed by their employees. States will also have to post survey reports online so consumers can read the inspectors' findings.

It's an uphill battle for advocacy groups. Nursing home lobbyists have much deeper pockets. "The nursing home industry is extremely powerful," Wells said. "And although it claims it can't make a profit from operating nursing homes, spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying."

Lobbying, it seems, is a recession-proof profession. In the past decade, nursing home lobbyists' spending has risen from $25 million to $100 million, according to opensecrets.org, maintained by the Center for Responsible Politics.

Tyonja Bathgate became an unwilling advocate for nursing home residents' rights when her husband, Colin, moved to a local long-term care facility two years ago, and she worked with Delegate Sue Hecht on a bill to allow cameras in nursing homes. That bill failed this year.

Based on her experiences, Bathgate supports any legislation that will make nursing home operators more accountable and their operations more transparent.

Even if you or a loved one is not in a nursing home, she said, you are still affected by this legislation.

"Where do you think Medicare/Medicaid comes from? Those are tax dollars and nursing homes shouldn't be able to hide behind LLCs, or to spend millions on lobbyists. That's ridiculous," she said.

She's right. Why shouldn't the facilities entrusted with caring for our nation's chronically ill and elderly be held accountable for how they run their businesses?

For sample letters to your representatives and more information on the details of the nursing home transparency legislation, visit nccnhr.org.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There was a great editorial letter recently by Diana Rhodes in the Casper Star-Tribune Online discussing the need for updated regulations and reforms in the nursing home industry.  Below is a copy of the letter. 

Congress hasn't passed legislation to improve nursing home care since 1987. It has a chance to do so now in health care reform.

There have been a lot of changes in the nursing home industry in two decades -- not all of them good. Several large chains have been bought out by global private equity investors; in fact, a majority of nursing homes are owned by for-profit corporations. The way these companies structure themselves, even our state health regulators can't tell who owns them sometimes, especially when the owners are out-of-state. This can create a dangerous situation for the residents, because no one is truly accountable for what happens to them.

The Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act is part of the draft health care reform bills that the House and Senate are considering. It would make nursing homes disclose their owners and operators. It would also give families a lot more information about the nursing homes they put their loved ones in, including whether they have adequate staff. It would help the federal government get better oversight over these multi-state chains.

I want to urge Sen. John Barrasso, Sen. Mike Enzi, and Rep. Cynthia Lummis to support nursing home transparency and improvement in health care reform. The elderly and people with disabilities in our state deserve nursing homes that are transparent and accountable, and families need information to make good choices when they choose a nursing home for someone.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Below are excerpts from an article regarding arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts provided by Dollar, Burns & Becker, L.C.  Their firm website is here. 

Arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts have come under closer scrutiny in recent years. At the federal level, there has been a push in Congress to pass the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act, which would make any pre-dispute arbitration agreement between nursing homes and residents invalid and unenforceable.

At the state level, several state courts also have faced the issue of the enforceability of arbitration clauses in long-term care facility contracts. In Illinois, the appellate court upheld a ruling that the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act prevented nursing home residents from waiving their rights to a jury trial. The nursing home argued that the appellate court's ruling contravenes the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v Beverly Manor (273 S.W.3d 525) that arbitration agreements in nursing home contracts do not prevent the heirs or successors to the nursing home resident from bringing a wrongful death action in court against the nursing home.

In Lawrence, the daughter of a resident signed the nursing home contract with the arbitration agreement on behalf of her mother. Her mother died in the nursing home shortly after moving in. When the wrongful death action was brought against Beverly Manor, it sought to enforce the arbitration agreement against the daughter and son of the resident. The Missouri court refused to do so, holding that the arbitration agreement was not binding against the family in a wrongful death case.

 The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a wrongful death action is a separate cause of action. The court reasoned that the arbitration agreement did not bind the daughter and son in Lawrence because the deceased mother could not have brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the nursing home had she lived.

Thus, under Missouri state law, arbitration agreements signed by nursing home residents -- or by someone acting on their behalf, such as a son or daughter -- are not enforceable against anyone seeking to bring a wrongful death action in state court.

The Lawrence decision did not invalidate arbitration agreements in nursing home contracts.  The Lawrence decision, however, may be used in future cases to attempt to invalidate arbitration agreements in nursing home contracts altogether. Special Judge Glenn A. Norton wrote that he believed any agreements between nursing homes and residents requiring arbitration for personal injury were unconscionable and should be unenforceable.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Charlotte News & Observer had a great article on how the culture of nursing homes are changing.  Hopefully, for the better. This culture change is long over due and is desperately needed in most nursing homes.  Instead of a hospital-style nurses' station, staff members talk with residents in an area that looks like a comfortable office, den and kitchen in someone's home.  The physical and organizational structure of facilities is made less institutional. Large, hospital-like units with long, wide corridors are transformed into smaller facilities where small groups of residents are cared for by a consistent team.   All this means that the center has adopted the long-term care approach known as culture change.

What does culture change mean?  In the culture change model, seniors enjoy much of the privacy and choice they would experience if they were still living in their own homes.  Residents' needs and preferences come first; facilities operations' are shaped by this awareness.  To this end, nursing home residents are given greater control over their daily lives -- for instance, in terms of meal times or bed times, and frontline workers -- the nursing aides responsible for day-to-day care -- are given greater autonomy to care for residents.

A symposium in Raleigh on Tuesday will examine facets of the movement's main tenet: that residents' preferences should guide the way nursing homes are run, not what's most expedient for owners and staff.   The label "culture change," or "resident-centered care," may give the approach a touchy-feely sound, but it's serious business to the several facilities in central North Carolina already adopting the changes. Some are even spending millions in building renovations to make it all work.

Changes at Hillcrest include:

Allowing residents more choice in schedules and dining choices, a move away from the structured regimes of many facilities.

Creating "neighborhood" halls with an approachable nurse's work station, small kitchen and den to service 16 or so residents. Carpeting, wall sconces and light wells that bring in sunshine create a homier appearance.

Having frontline workers such as certified nursing assistants take on some housekeeping and food-preparation duties so that residents get consistent care from fewer staff members.

Taking soiled laundry outside -- out of living areas -- as soon as it's gathered, avoiding waste smells not usually evident in homes.

Getting medicine and housecleaning carts off the halls when not in use, making for easier walking and less of a hospital-corridor feel.

Advocates for older people have pressed for better conditions in nursing homes for decades, but the specific improvements grouped as culture change have gained momentum during the past 10 years. A survey in 2007 by the Commonwealth Group, a national nonprofit, showed that about 30 percent of homes have adopted the approach, with an additional 25 percent striving toward it.  Hopefully, this kind of change will become madatory throughout the country.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Herb Kohl (D-WI) reintroduced the Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act, a bill that would give consumers more information about individual nursing homes and their track record of care, give the government better tools for enforcing high quality standards, and encourage homes to improve on their own.

"Improving the quality of care in nursing homes is a constant challenge. More transparency, better enforcement and improved staff training are needed, and this legislation works to make changes in those areas and improve the quality of life of nursing home residents and to empower the family members and loved ones of those residents," Grassley said.

"Twenty-two years have passed since Congress last addressed the safety and quality of America's nursing homes in a comprehensive way," said Kohl. "As we prepare to debate reforms across our health care system, there has never been a better time to implement critical improvements to our nation's system of nursing homes. And as the GAO report demonstrates, many of these improvements are past due."

In addition to the bill introduced today, Grassley and Kohl released a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled "Medicare and Medicaid Participating Facilities: CMS Needs to Reexamine Its Approach for Oversight of Health Care Facilities." This report suggests that the survey and certification system is significantly underfunded relative to the scope of its oversight responsibilities, which have greatly expanded in recent years. The report found that survey frequencies have greatly lengthened due to resource constraints, resulting in some facilities receiving inspections only once every ten years. The Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act seeks to bolster the federal government's survey and certification system.

Grassley is ranking member and former chairman of the Committee on Finance, with jurisdiction over the federal health care programs that cover nursing home care, and former chairman of the Special Committee on Aging. Kohl is chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, a standing committee that conducts oversight of issues related to the health, safety, and financial well-being of older Americans. The Grassley-Kohl bill is the product of their work together on nursing home quality, which has helped to generate some positive results in recent years, including the government's new five-star nursing home rating system and the release of the Special Focus Facility program participant list, consisting of the 135 worst nursing homes in the country.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks