Role of Ombudsman in Nursing Homes

I was reading an article in the Herald Democrat about the importance of ombudsman in advocating for nursing home residents.  Unfortunately, the ombudsman in South Carolina are understaffed, underbudgeted, and without any power and authority.  It is rare they get involved when a family complains and it is very rare that they conduct a proper investigation.  The article discusses how in Texas each facility is assigned an ombudsman who visits at least once a month.   At the heart of the program is patient advocacy.   For example, if a resident is complaining about not getting enough water, the ombudsman would discuss this with the staff, and correct any substantiated issue.

Many issues revolve around the staff.  The high turnover rate, low pay, understaffing, and minimal training harms the overall care level.  Though ombudsmen focus on patient advocacy, they also work closely with the nursing home staff.   The ombudsmen can sit in on care meetings between patients and administrators. 

Interestingly, the Illinois State Register-journal had an article recently about how the budget of the Ombudsman's program was being cut  reducing the number of trained advocates who visit nursing homes to expose and prevent abuse and neglect.  Petrone said the 19 percent funding cut will result in layoffs and reductions in staff hours for people who regularly visit facilities, talk with residents and act as frontline watchdogs over an industry that serves more than 100,000 residents in 1,500 Illinois nursing homes, assisted-living and supportive-living centers.


 

Fraud and eviction led to death

The Daily Journal of New Jersey had an article about a lawsuit filed against a facility that intentionally misled a resident by promising she could remain in the facility after she depleted her substantial personal savings, and then threatening her with eviction when she did. 

The family of the late May Elizabeth Hunish contends in the complaint that the threat of eviction from Maurice House was a factor in her death soon after she received the notice in June 2007. The  lawsuit echos the findings of an 18-month investigation by the state Office of the Public Advocate. The results prove that Assisted Living Concepts Inc. involuntarily discharged or threatened with discharge from the company's facilities several elderly residents like Hunish when they drained their personal savings and became eligible for Medicaid.

Wisconsin-based Assisted Living Concepts operates Maurice House and seven other assisted living facilities in New Jersey.

Ronald Chen, state public advocate, said that administrators at the facilities "failed to inform and misled some residents" about their policy for accepting Medicaid.   Chen said the problem was caused by a change in corporate policy at the company in 2006, in which it sought to increase profits by reducing its number of Medicaid residents.

The lawsuit was filed in state Superior Court on behalf of Todd and Warren Buirch, the executors of Hunish's estate.  Todd Buirch is Hunish's grandson and Warren Buirch is her son.  The lawsuit  accuses Assisted Living Concepts of consumer fraud, breach of contract and negligence. The lawsuit contends that officials at Maurice House made verbal promises to Hunish's family that she could remain in the facility once she depleted her personal savings and became eligible for Medicaid. But after Hunish did become eligible for Medicaid in March 2007 by spending her savings of $150,000, the facility informed her family that she'd have to move into an apartment at Maurice House with another resident or leave the facility.  Two months later, Hunish slipped and fell while she was unattended in her bathroom at Maurice House, shattering her femur. While she was hospitalized, her family told her about a discharge notice issued by Maurice House to her on June 12.

"She grew increasingly distraught and her will to live decreased," the lawsuit contends. "She constantly cried and expressed that life was no longer worth living."

Hunish died on June 16, 2007. She was 84.

Todd Buirch said in an interview Monday his family filed the lawsuit "to prevent any other parents or grandparents from having to go through this with Assisted Living Concepts. It's not about money; it's about stopping this. We want to change the way they do business. We don't want to see any more people being evicted."

 

 

 

Report on CNAs

A recent report came out on the hourly wages, injuries suffered, and poverty of CNAs. CNAs are certified nurse assistants.  They are typically unlicensed health care providers with little education and training.  They provide 80-90% percent of the care and treatment given to residents in a nursing home, if not more.  It is rare an actual RN examines or assesses residents. 

This report summarizes conditions for CNA's.   More than 50% received at least one work-related injury last year, and roughly 16% don't have health insurance, mostly because of cost. More than 33% of CNA's are receiving some form of public assistance, such as food stamps or rental subsidies. Their median wage is $10.04 an hour.  They provide 8 out of every 10 hours of resident care.   Forty-two percent of uninsured CNAs cite not participating in their employer-sponsored insurance plan because they could not afford the plan. Years of experience do not translate into higher wages; CNAs with 10 or more years of experience averaged just $2/hr more than aides who started working in the field less than 1 year ago.

The nursing home industry exploits these workers and then they wonder why their turnover rate is so high and retention is so low?  Corporations who own these nursing home chains need to understand that they should train, pay, and provide health care to these front line workers.  Provide incentives to become LPNs and RNs.  Offer better benefits or paid vacation time.

Dog walkers get paid more than nursing home employees

SunTimes had a great article about the compensation given to employees of nursing homes.  Columnist Mary Mitchell does a great job explaining why the lack of good pay for nurses taking care of the sick and elderly proves that we as a country do not take care of the most vulnerable among us.   She starts the article with a simple fact:  On average, a certified nursing assistant in Illinois makes less than a dog walker.  She saw an ad offering $8.50 an hour to work as a certified nursing assistant at a suburban location.

Nationally, the annual median salary for the job, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $10.67 an hour, and certified nursing assistants (CNAs) who work in community care facilities for the elderly are the lowest paid.   After about 20 years or more on the job, these workers earn about $12 to $15 an hour, according to the Nursing Assistant Central Web page.

But with only one year of experience, a dog walker in this state can earn $11 an hour.  In New York, the amount jumps to $20.35.

We don't really care about what happens to our elderly.  But as a society, we don't care. We think we do, but we don't. What else explains why we put the most vulnerable members of society-- our children and our elderly -- in the hands of the lowest-paid workers.  Do you ever think about what that says about the value we put on these human lives?

That won't happen until we are willing to pay those who care for our children, the disabled and our elderly more than those who take care of our dogs.

 

 

Pay increases and turn over rates.

McKnight's had an article discussing salaries and wages of employees of assisted living facilities.
Directors of nursing at assisted living facilities saw a pay increase in the last year. Their national average salaries rose to $60,000 in 2008 from $59,627 in 2007, according to the eleventh annual 2008-2009 Assisted Living Salary & Benefits Report.

RNs and CNAs in assisted living fared better, receiving a 3.34% and 3.17% pay raise, respectively. Meanwhile, the turnover rate among assisted living RNs fell from 42.33% last year to 35.5% this year, though the turnover rate for CNAs held steady at just more than 42%. This number is very high and explains the lack of consistency in care at most assisted living facilities.

The annual salary and benefits report, which was published by Hospital & Healthcare Compensation Service (HCS) in cooperation with the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, tracks compensation for 16 management and 24 non-management positions in all types of Assisted Living facilities across the country. 

If salaries and wages were increased (as profits have increased), turn over rates would go down.  If facilities were truly interested in quality of care, they would use their resources to adequately pay the people proving the care instead of funneling money to the corporate owners of the facilities.

 

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."


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.



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