Wall St. Journal article on "Green Houses"

Below are excerpts of an interesting article about "Green Houses".  A new approach to taking care of the elderly.  The article is called: "Rising challenger takes on elder-care system" (06/24/08 Wall Street Journal) By Lucette Lagnado

In the spring of 2001, Bill Thomas, dressed in his usual sweat shirt and Birkenstock sandals, entered the buttoned-down halls of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  His message: Nursing homes need to be taken out of business. "It's time to turn out the lights," he declared.

Cautious but intrigued, foundation executives handed Dr. Thomas a modest $300,000 grant several months later. Now the country's fourth-largest philanthropy is throwing its considerable weight behind the 48-year-old physician's vision of "Green Houses," an eight-year-old movement to replace large nursing homes with small, homelike facilities for 10 to 12 residents.   "We want to transform a broken system of care," says Jane Isaacs Lowe, who oversees the foundation's "Vulnerable Populations portfolio." "I don't want to be in a wheelchair in a hallway when I am 85."

The foundation's undertaking represents the most ambitious effort to date to turn a nice idea into a serious challenger to the nation's system of 16,000 nursing homes. To its proponents, Green Houses are nothing less than a revolution that could overthrow what they see as the rigid, impersonal, at times degrading life the elderly can experience at large institutions.

Green Houses face a host of hurdles.  Plus, experts say the concept faces stiff resistance from many parts of the existing nursing-home system. Traditional nursing homes, many of which care for 100 to 200 patients, are predicated on economies of scale -- the larger the home, the cheaper it is to care for each individual resident.

"Robert Wood Johnson is making an important investment to try to make sure there is a sufficient cadre of early adopters of the Green House model -- and research to make sure the model is actually working," says Thomas Hamilton, who oversees nursing-home quality and regulatory issues for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. He says his agency is trying to coax nursing homes into changing their cultures and adopting more humane, "patient-centered" models such as the Green House.

The $122 billion nursing-home industry arose from the 1965 birth of Medicare and Medicaid, the government health-insurance programs for the elderly and poor that provide billions in government reimbursements. Made up of both not-for-profit and for-profit companies, the industry still generates most of its revenue from Medicaid and Medicare.

Ms. Lowe and her foundation colleagues began to shift that stance after their meeting with Dr. Thomas. A native of upstate New York, Dr. Thomas headed to Massachusetts to get his degree at Harvard Medical School, then returned to work as a doctor in a local nursing home. He says he was troubled by the experience. "I was distressed by the amount of emotional suffering that people were encountering even when they had good medical care," he says.

But it was Dr. Thomas's electric delivery -- officials liken him to an evangelist -- that got the group's attention. "Our energy needs to be around how to replace nursing homes. Not replace the building but replace the idea that older people can be taken away and put into an institution," Dr. Thomas recalls saying. He described his vision of homelike places where elderly residents could gather, dine together and sit before a blazing fire.

In 2003, Ms. Lowe traveled to Tupelo, Miss., where the first Green House had just opened, and says she marveled at how different it was from a well-regarded nursing home she'd previously visited. "Instead of thinking, 'I don't want to be here,' it was, 'How can I move in?'" she recalls.

Rebecca Maust, chief of the Division of Quality Assurance at the Ohio Health Department, says in a statement that the agency "fully supports" person-centered care but that Green Houses have to be on the same lot as the main nursing home to "ensure proper care of residents."

Mr. Hamilton of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services says his agency doesn't think existing rules "represent any serious barriers" to the Green House model. He added that he wants to "maintain open lines of communication" to any parties who believe that a regulation is a barrier.

"There are providers who don't want to change because of the capital investment they've made," adds Larry Minnix, CEO of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, which represents not-for-profits. But he says they need to. "Forty years ago, the paradigm was the 'minihospital' and that is what became the modern American nursing home," Mr. Minnix says. "That is not what is needed now." 

Robert Jenkens, who is spearheading the Green House project at NCB Capital for Robert Wood Johnson, says that some not-for-profits and at least one for-profit believe the model to be financially viable. St. John's Lutheran Ministries in Billings, Mont., operates both a nursing home and some Green Houses. In an internal review, officials found that it cost $192 a day to care for a resident in the traditional nursing home versus $150 a day in their Green Houses.

Based on this "first round" of Green Houses, they believe that it is financially doable, but they are rigorously testing the model and developing software that should help providers determine whether they can handle Green Houses financially.   "Green House belongs to the tradition of finding the better product, of building the better mousetrap," he says.

Increased payments to nursing homes went to profit margin instead of care

Below is an excerpt of an article I recently saw from The Choate News about how California nursing homes used an increase in reimbursements from the State for profit instead of providing adequate care.

Nursing Home Pocket Money Meant For Care
By Jordan Rau

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California’s nursing homes pocketed much of the $590 million that state lawmakers provided them to better tend to low-income people, while patient care declined by several key measures, according to a study to be released Tuesday.

A law boosting reimbursements from MediCal, the state’s health-care program for poor people, passed in 2004. By 2006, the first full year the higher rates were in place, average nursing-home revenues from MediCal had increased from $124 a day to $152 per day, according to the study by a team of researchers at the University of California, San Francisco -- but few of the promised improvements for patients or staff had come to pass.

Nursing attention for patients grew, on average, by 3 percent. But the study also found that 144 homes, or 16 percent, did not meet the state’s minimum staffing standard.

Average wages for nursing assistants increased from $10.61 an hour to $11.32, not quite enough to keep pace with inflation, the study said.   Turnover among nurses grew slightly worse, with nearly 7 in 10 leaving their jobs that year.

The amount nursing homes spent on direct patient care actually decreased by 3.6 percent, according to the study. Substantiated complaints of patient mistreatment increased by 38 percent. State and federal regulators cited homes for 6 percent more violations.

“They got so much money, they should have been able to do something,” said the study’s lead author, Charlene Harrington, a UCSF professor and nationally recognized authority on nursing homes.   “The fact that they let the nursing-assistant wages actually decline with inflation, I think there’s no excuse for that,” Harrington said. “They’re the bulk of the workers and they’re the lowest paid.”

The higher reimbursement rates were pushed through the Legislature in the final two weeks of its 2004 session by a powerful alliance between the nursing-home industry and Service Employees International Union, which represents many health-care workers.

At the time, several nursing-home advocates objected that the measure lacked sufficient safeguards to ensure that the money went to patient care.

Along with more money, the new law changed the way facilities were reimbursed from a flat fee for each patient to one based on how much the homes spent on workers, patients and the physical plant. Supporters pledged that the change would reward homes that hired more nurses and paid them better.

The average nursing home netted $248,047 in 2006, a 233 percent increase from 2004, the study said.   The study found some areas where nursing-home spending did increase substantially.

For example, administrators’ wages rose by 13 percent, and the pay for licensed nurses -- who have more training than assistants -- grew by 9 percent.

Nonprofit nursing homes raised their wages more than for-profit homes. Still, said Michael Connors of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, a patient watchdog group, “to a great degree, no one knows where the money went and how it was used. What’s clear is it hasn’t been used for beneficial effects on residents, which is appalling.”

Profits grow as quality of care declines

Here is an article showing how profitable the nursing home industry actually is while the insurance companies are requesting immunity and protection from their neglect and abuse.  

Robust Financial Standing Of California Nursing Homes Observed Amid Slump In Quality Care
Vittorio Hernandez - AHN News Writer

A study released Tuesday reported growing profitability of the nursing home industry, but declining health care quality.

Researchers from the University of California San Francisco found out that two years after the state passed legislation increasing reimbursements from Medi-Cal, average nursing home income from the state's healthcare program went up to $152 from $124 daily.

The same study discovered 16 percent of nursing homes in the state failed to measure up to California's minimum staffing benchmarks. A minimal rise in average salary for nursing assistants by less than one dollar was not sufficient to cover inflation rate increases. Even higher-paid nurses had a fast turnover rate, with 7 in 10 resigning from their jobs in 2006.

But average spending on direct patient care went down by 3.6 percent, while complaints of patient mistreatment proven went up by 36 percent.  Charlene Harrington, the lead author of the study, wrote as her comment, quoted by the Los Angeles Times, "They got so much money, they should have been able to do something."

See also the L.A. Times article on this study which added the following:

California nursing homes bolstered their bottom lines with $590 million that state lawmakers provided them to better tend to the poor, while patient care declined by several key measures such as turnover among nurses increased slightly, with nearly 7 in 10 leaving their jobs that year, the amount nursing homes spent on direct patient care actually decreased by 3.6%, and substantiated complaints of patient mistreatment increased by 38%. State and federal regulators cited homes for 6% more violations.  Said Michael Connors of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, a patient watchdog group, "to a great degree, no one knows where the money went and how it was used. What's clear is it hasn't been used for beneficial effects on residents, which is appalling."

Nursing home industry is very profitable

Brandunson.com has an article about Extendicare REIT reporting fourth quarter profits of $10.5 million.  Revenue in the quarter totalled $469.7 million, up from $453 million.

Extendicare REIT, through its owned subsidiaries, operates 269 nursing and assisted living facilities in North America as well as medical specialty services.

For the full year, Extendicare earned $70.4 million or $1 per diluted share on $1.8 billion in revenue. That compared with a loss of $35.7 million or 53 cents per diluted share on $1.73 billion in revenue in 2006. Shares in Extendicare, which released its results after the close of markets, were down 18 cents at $11.30 on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

This shows that nursing homes are very profitable even during bad economic times.  It also shows there is no need for ridiculous caps on damages.

Nursing Homes: A Failed Experiment


Here is an interesting article about attorney Ken Connor's appearance for an advocacy group for nursing home reform.  The seminar was titled "Nursing Homes: A Failed Experiment,".  Connor's appearance was sponsored by the advocacy group Kentuckians for Nursing Home Reform.

Connor said he classified nursing homes as "a failed experiment" because the current system puts the economics of the provider ahead of the life, health and safety of the residents.

"In other words, they put profit over people; they put revenue over residents," he said.

To increase profit, Connor said, staffing is cut. And some nursing homes are run by businessmen who have never been doctors or nurses and don't have any expertise in the medical field. They are, however, good at making money.

It's important for people to be educated about this issue -- to know what to do if they are confronted with a problem and know where to file a complaint. It's also good to know where to find support.

Connor urged the crowd to pay attention to signs such as pressure ulcers, infections, urine and feces-stained bed linen and foul odors. Also, the hollow eyes and parched tongues of loved ones display the lack of time devoted to them.

Connor said nursing home problems are pervasive throughout the country.   "Corral your congressmen and senators and make them understand the breadth of the problem," he said.

Kentuckians for Nursing Home Reform work to change state law so criminal background checks and random drug tests are required for all nursing home employees. They are fighting to ensure there is a minimum staffing standard.

Kentucky has cited about one in four nursing homes for serious deficiencies that caused "actual harm" or "immediate jeopardy". 

Nursing homes are VERY profitable

I do not understand how nursing homes continue to say that they can't make any money taking care of their residents.  The corporate executives of Manor Care will get more than $200 million for their sale to the Carlyle Group.  See the article here.

The head of America’s biggest nursing-home company is about to get intensive financial treatment. 

Chief Executive Paul Ormond will receive $118 million to $186 million from cashing in his company stock when the deal is completed this year.  Sixteen other top executives and recently retired officers at the firm to be purchased by the Carlyle Group, of Washington, can receive a total of $68 million for their stock.

In total, Manor Care officials stand to receive $200 million or more from their stock holdings.

The amount to be paid by Carlyle, a global private-equity firm that owns stakes in more than 500 companies and real-estate developments, may not be known for weeks.

The buyer said it will purchase Manor Care for $6.3 billion and hopes to complete the deal by the end of the year.

Mr. Ormond, CEO and chairman of the company that had $167 million in profits on $3.6 billion in revenue last year, is typically among the top-compensated corporate CEOs locally each year. Last year, he was compensated $18.8 million, an SEC filing shows.

The biggest chunk of looming stock payouts from Carlyle are to Mr. Ormond, whose 1.8 million company shares will be worth more than $118 million. They could be worth another $68 million if options on another 1.9 million shares he has are exercised for prices ranging from $20 to $53 each.

But the most recent regulatory filings show $55.5 million in stock payments could go to R. Jeffrey Bixler, former vice president and general counsel; Geoffrey Meyers, former executive vice president and chief financial officer; and M. Keith Weikel, former senior executive vice president and chief operating officer.

Company officers, directors, key employees, and some retirees stand to collect about $200 million for their existing stock, and possibly more than $250 million if unexercised stock options can be cashed in, the new SEC filings show.

Manor Care, No. 565 on the Fortune 1,000 list of the largest U.S. corporations, was once part of Owens-Illinois Inc. and started acquiring health-care facilities in the early 1980s. It spun off and became Health Care & Retirement Corp. and in 1998 merged with Manor Care Inc. of Gaithersburg, Md.

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