Collusion between nursing home operator with investigator

Lexington Herald Leader reported the guilty pleas of Moses Young, assistant director with the Office of Inspector General, and Sharon Harris, a state-employed nurse who covered up the inappropriate relationship and unethical behavior they had with at least one nursing home operator.  Kentucky investigators learned they each lived in Lexington homes owned by Ralph Stacey Jr.  At the time, Stacey owned Garrard Convalescent Home in Covington.

An April 1 indictment against Young alleged that Young lived rent-free from July 2005 to March 2008 in a condominium owned by a third party in violation of state ethics rules, identified in documents only as "R.S."  A plea agreement said Young admitted that he and others made bogus rent receipts and presented them to a federal grand jury. sIn exchange, the indictment alleged, Young provided R.S. with inside agency information and instructions that would assist R.S. in passing inspections and obtaining favorable treatment with regard to administrative actions of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. In exchange for the guilty plea, prosecutors said they would drop the charge related to Young allegedly providing inside information.

In her plea agreement, Harris admitted that she had "watched as others fabricated the receipts to thwart a criminal investigation." Her plea agreement said she told an FBI agent in April 2009 that she knew the rent receipts Young provided were genuine because she had personally delivered the receipts over time to the landlord.

Why didn't they arrest Ralph Stacey for bribery or something?

 Maybe this article from the Kentucky Lexington Herald Leader explains why. The Herald-Leader examined the industry's campaign donations following stories earlier this summer that revealed systemic gaps in the state's handling of abuse and neglect cases at nursing homes.  The nursing home industry gave at least $1.8 million to Kentucky politicians over the last decade while lobbying against bills that would require them to hire more direct-care employees, face higher fines for violations and abide by stronger precautions against elder abuse, among others.

Nursing home reform bills usually are assigned to the House Health and Welfare Committee, where they perish.  Committee chairman Tom Burch is invested in a real estate trust that includes nursing homes. Burch's former House aide, Eric Clark, now is chief lobbyist for the Kentucky Association of Health Care Facilities, the group representing for-profit nursing homes, and runs its political action committee, which has given at least $90,750 in campaign donations since 2005.  U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell gets more of the industry's money than any other Kentucky politician, at least $266,350 over the last decade. McConnell does not support nursing home reform.

The Kentucky Association of Health Care Facilities gives annual awards to nursing homes that raise the most money for its political action committee, with special emphasis on companies that use payroll deduction to collect the money from employees.

In 2008, for instance, Barren County Health Center in Glasgow won an award from KAHCF for "most contributions raised overall per bed" for its region. That same year, the same nursing home received a Type A citation — the most serious — from the state after a resident choked to death on a fried chicken dinner.

Overall, KAHCF honored four nursing homes and consultants Wells Health Systems that year for their political fund-raising, according to the group's 2009-10 Membership Directory and Buyer's Guide.

The majority of the industry's campaign money goes to Kentucky's congressional delegation. The industry's national group, the American Health Care Association, reports spending more than $1.1 million so far this year lobbying Congress on Medicaid payments and rules that would require public disclosure of the size of nursing homes' direct-care staffs and how much they are paid, among other items.

Also, the Herald-Leader in July reported that Type A citations issued against nursing homes by the state sometimes sit in Conway's office or with local prosecutors for more than 18 months while officials decide whether to pursue criminal charges.

 

Ranking nursing homes

U.S. News & World Report issues the best and worst nursing homes every year based on federal and state inspections, surveys, and required data on staffing.  Here is the most recent article.  The rankings are only as good as the investigators which in most cases is poor.  On a given day, 1.5 million people are living in the nation's 16,000-plus nursing homes, and in a typical year more than 3.2 million Americans will spend at least some time in one. 

 

The U.S. News rankings rely on Nursing Home Compare, a program run by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS analyzes information on all homes enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid.  The homes also receive ratings of one to five stars in each of three areas: health inspections, nurse staffing, and measures of care.

At Nursing Home Compare, you can search for a specific home or for all homes in a particular state or within a certain distance of your city or ZIP code. But you can't assume that all five-star homes, or those with three or four stars, are of the same quality. There are so many homes in each rating—1,855 in the five-star and 3,661 in the four-star categories alone—that the range of performance is bound to be very wide. Nor can search terms be combined if, say, you want only five-star homes within 50 miles of a specific city.

America's Best Nursing Homes addresses these and other issues. Homes are presented in tiers within each star category, based on their total stars in all three of the major areas. The topmost tier, for example, consists only of five-star homes that got 15 stars. The next tier down is five-star homes with 14 total stars, and so on.

Here are more details about the measures that go into the CMS ratings.

Health inspections. Because almost all nursing homes accept Medicare or Medicaid residents, they are regulated by the federal government as well as by the states in which they operate. State survey teams conduct health inspections on behalf of CMS about every 12 to 15 months. They also investigate health-related complaints from residents, their families, and other members of the public. "Health" is broadly defined, as is evident in the 180-some items on the checklist. Besides such matters as safety of food preparation and adequacy of infection control, the list covers such issues as medication management, residents' rights and quality of life, and proper skin care. A home's rating is based on the number of deficiencies, their seriousness, and their scope, meaning the relative number of residents who were or could have been affected. Deficiencies are counted that were identified during the three most recent health inspections and in investigations of public complaints in that time frame. State inspectors also check for compliance with fire safety rules, although their findings do not factor into the CMS ratings.

Nurse staffing. Even the best nursing care is not enough if there are too few nurses to spend much time with residents, so CMS determines average nursing time per patient per day. Homes report the average number of registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, licensed vocational nurses, and certified nurse aides who were on the payroll during the two weeks prior to the most recent health inspection and their number of hours worked. The information is compared with the average number of residents during the same period and crunched to determine the average number of minutes of nursing time residents got per day. 

Quality measures. Nursing homes have to furnish the latest three quarters of clinical data showing the status of each individual Medicare and Medicaid resident in 19 indicators, such as the percentage of residents who had urinary tract infections or who were physically restrained to keep from falling from a bed or a chair. The Best Nursing Homes rankings and Nursing Home Compare display data for each home on all 19. The ratings, however, are based on 10 that are considered the most valid and reliable, such as the two above and measures related to pain, bedsores, and mobility.

 

Should fines be limited to $10,000?

The State Journal-Register had an interesting article about how Illinois is challenging a decision by a Sangamon County Judge Zappa that puts a $10,000 limit on nursing home fines, but the ruling already has affected dozens of cases statewide.  Zappa issued his ruling in a case involving Peoria’s Rosewood Care Center, which had appealed a $25,000 fine stemming from the death of 95-year-old Katherine Martin in 2006.  Zappa found that the department violated state law and bypassed administrative rules when it began to impose fines of more than $10,000 several years ago. He barred the department from enforcing fines of more than $10,000 in past cases that remained pending and any future cases.

Public Health officials believe state law allowed them to boost fines to $50,000 whenever they determined that bad care directly caused a resident’s death. The department in 2006 also began issuing fines of at least $20,000 when residents sustained serious injuries connected with bad care.  High fines rightly punish and deter bad behavior, and promote better care.

Fines involving 40 Illinois nursing homes have been reduced, with the facilities agreeing to pay $10,000 or less, since the Feb. 13 decision.  I bet the facilities jumped at the chance to pay less than $10,000.   State officials are considering reducing individual fines that exceed $10,000 in more than 80 other cases going back to 2006.

The Department of Public Health hasn’t decided yet how to proceed in a pending case against Woodstock Residence, now known as Crossroads Care Center, in which the Woodstock nursing home was fined $300,000 — a record level — in May 2008. State regulators have investigated five suspicious deaths there, as well as a former employee who allegedly used drug cocktails on residents.

The article cited a few examples of cases in which fines against nursing homes have been reduced to $10,000 by the Illinois Department of Public Health because of Sangamon County Judge Leo Zappa’s order in February. These cases remain pending, and a final amount to be paid hasn’t been negotiated:

* Maryville Manor, Maryville: Original fine was $40,000, stemming from an Aug. 6, 2007, inspection that detailed a range of problems including multiple bedsores and pressure sores on residents, a lack of recreational activities and a situation in which a nurse’s aide resigned after injectable anti-anxiety medicine prescribed for a resident was found in the aide’s possession.

* Evergreen Nursing and Rehab Center, Effingham: Original fine was $25,000, stemming from a March 22, 2006, investigation into the June 22, 2005, death of an 84-year-old resident who suffocated after becoming caught in a bedrail that had a piece missing.

* Dearborn Court, Kankakee: Original fine was $30,000, stemming from a Sept. 4, 2007, investigation into the alleged physical assault of a 64-year-old female resident by two employees of the nursing home on Aug. 15, 2007. The employees allegedly hit the resident with plastic hangers, tied her up with a belt, punched her in the head and stomach and tried to choke her.

* Peachtree Estates, Jonesboro: Original fine was $20,000, stemming from a July 15, 2008, inspection that said the facility failed to obtain prompt medical attention for a 73-year-old female resident who fell and sustained a head injury June 19, 2008. About a month before that injury, the resident had fallen and broken her left arm; she also fell on June 20, 2008.

 

Member of the Family

Admissions suspended at Life Care Center of Red Bank

Our firm has a case against Life Care Centers of America for a facility that they operate in Hilton Head, S.C.  I was doing some research about Life Care Centers and ran across this article in the Chattanoogan.com about Tennesse suspending admissions in one of their facilities.

The article states that Tennessee Department of Health Commissioner Susan R. Cooper, MSN, RN, has suspended new admissions of residents to Life Care Center of Red Bank nursing home effective June 17, 2009, and imposed a one-time state civil monetary penalty of $5,000. A federal civil penalty has been imposed at $6,150 a day until the violations are corrected. A special monitor has been appointed to review the facility's operations.

Life Care Center of Red Bank was ordered not to admit any new residents based on conditions found during a complaint investigation and annual survey conducted May 26 through June 9.  During the survey, surveyors found violations of the following standards: administration, performance improvement, physician services, nursing services, medical records, and pharmaceutical services.

 

Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act reintroduced

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.

 

A summary of the bill and introductory floor statements follow.

Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act of 2009

Increases Transparency About and Accountability for Nursing Home Ownership and Operations

*Enables state and federal regulators to identify all persons and entities with a significant ownership interest in a nursing home, or that that play an important role in the management, financing and operation of a home.

*Strengthens accountability requirements for individual facilities and nursing home chains by requiring them to develop compliance and ethics plans to guard against civil, criminal and administrative violations.

*Provides for improved reporting of real-time nurse staffing information so that accurate comparisons can be made across nursing homes.

*Requires nursing homes to develop internal quality assurance and performance improvement standards to monitor and improve the quality of care provided to residents.

*Improves and expands the website, "Nursing Home Compare" to include information about and links to recent health and safety inspection reports.

*Requires CMS to develop and post a standardized complaint form online so that residents and families can readily voice their concerns. Also brings uniformity and structure to the complaint process by requiring states to establish organized processes that include complainant notification and response deadlines.

*Provides transparency on a nursing home's expenditures on direct care by modifying skilled nursing facility cost reports to require that they separately account for staffing.

Strengthens Enforcement

*Authorizes the Secretary to place CMPs in escrow accounts following an independent informal dispute resolution process that generates a written record and is completed within 30 days. Facilities that successfully appeal receive the full CMP amount, with interest, back. Federal CMP funds that are not returned to facilities may be spent on resident and family councils and other activities benefiting nursing homes that are approved by the Secretary.

*Authorizes the Secretary to reduce civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for those facilities that self-report health deficiencies, in cases where the violations do not result in actual harm, immediate jeopardy, or the death of a resident.

*Equips the Secretary with tools to address corporate-level quality and safety problems in nursing home chains by providing HHS with the authority to develop a national independent monitor pilot program to analyze and address chain-wide problems.

*Provides greater protection to residents of nursing homes that voluntarily close by requiring facilities to provide ample advance notice of closure as well as the development of a transfer plan, taking into account resident preference, which is submitted to the state.

*Requires a GAO study on the role that financial issues play in poor-performing homes.

*Authorizes demonstration projects for nursing home "culture change" and for improving resident care through health information technology.

Improves Staff Training

*Improves staff training to include dementia management and abuse prevention training as part of pre-employment training.

*Requires a study on increased training requirements either in content or hours for nurse aides and supervisory staff.

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance

Introduction of the Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act of 2009

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Mr. President, I am here today to introduce the Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act of 2009. I introduce this bill along with Senator Kohl, who serves as Chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, as I once did. This is a critical piece of legislation that brings overdue transparency to consumers regarding nursing home quality and operation. It also provides long needed improvements to our enforcement system.

In America today, there are well over 1.7 million elderly and disabled individuals in over 17,000 nursing home facilities. As the baby boom generation enters retirement, this number is going to rise dramatically. While many people are using alternatives such as community-based care, nursing homes are going to remain a critical option for our elderly and disabled populations.

As the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have a longstanding commitment to ensuring that nursing home residents receive the safe and quality care we expect for our loved ones. Unfortunately, as in many areas, with nursing homes a few bad apples often spoil the barrel. Too many Americans receive poor care, often in a subset of nursing homes.

Unfortunately, this subset of chronic offenders stays in business, often keeping their poor track records hidden from the public at large, and often facing little or no oversight or enforcement from the federal government. There is a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability, and sometimes in our approach to nursing homes, a lack of common sense. These are the things this legislation seeks to bring to nursing homes and their residents - transparency, accountability, and common sense.

First, let me talk about transparency. In the market for nursing home care, like in all markets, consumers must have adequate information to make informed choices. For years, people looking at a nursing home for themselves or a loved one had no way of knowing a nursing facility's record of care, inspection history, or which individuals were ultimately responsible for caring for their loved ones. This bill is intended to help change that. This legislation requires nursing facilities to make available ownership information, including the individuals and entities that are ultimately responsible for a home's operation and management. Too often, bad apples hide under layers of other entities designed to cloak and confuse. This leaves residents and their families without clear information about who is ultimately responsible for insuring that a resident is consistently provided with high quality care..

This legislation also requires more transparency concerning nursing home staffing and surveys. Homes differ widely in terms of the number of specialized staff available to residents as well as the number of registered nurses and certified nursing assistants who provide much of the hands on care. How a nursing home is staffed can greatly affect the care it provides, especially when dealing with complex conditions such as Alzheimer's. This legislation requires better tracking of this information and requires that this information is available to prospective residents and their families.

In addition, this legislation will help families have a better idea of a nursing home's track record in that it requires better transparency for nursing home inspection reports that are completed on a routine basis. The Secretary will also now be required to provide consumers with a summary of information on enforcement actions taken against a facility during the previous three years. This same transparency will also provide additional market incentives for poor homes to improve - if customers know about problems, that home is incentivized to improve or face going out of business. This effort also requires a strong, effective enforcement and monitoring system to ensure safe and quality care at facilities that wouldn't take the necessary steps voluntarily.

But even with improved transparency, there are some nursing homes that won't improve on their own. In the nursing home industry, most homes provide quality care on a consistent basis. So we need to give inspectors better enforcement tools. The current system provides incentives to correct problems only temporarily and allows homes to avoid regulatory sanctions while continuing to deliver substandard care to residents. This system must be fixed. Last year, CMS requested two things:

1. Statutory authority to collect civil monetary penalties sooner, and

2. The ability to hold those penalties in escrow pending appeal.

To that end, this bill requires nursing homes that have been found in violation of the law be given the opportunity to participate in an independent informal dispute resolution process within 30 days.

After that point, depending on the outcome of the appeal, penalties are collected and held in escrow pending the exhaustion of the appeals process. This will ensure that nursing homes found to be violating the rules actually pay the penalties assessed if it's determined to be appropriate. But we shouldn't have to resort to enforcement. Problems resulting in penalties should be avoided or detected and fixed immediately by the nursing home in the first place. That is why this bill would require all nursing homes to have compliance and ethics programs, as well as quality assurance and performance improvement programs.

In addition to increased transparency and improved enforcement, this bill provides common-sense solutions to a number of other problems as well. This legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a national independent monitoring pilot program to tackle problems specific to interstate and large intrastate nursing home chains. And, in the case of a nursing home being closed due to poor safety or quality of care, this bill requires that residents and their representatives be given sufficient notice so that they can adequately plan a transfer to an appropriate setting.

I am very sensitive to the fact that nursing home residents are often elderly and fragile. Moving them into a new facility is often very traumatic. So we've got to make sure these residents are transferred appropriately and with adequate time and care. This bill also aims to help nursing homes who self-report their concerns and who remedy certain deficiencies. By doing so, nursing homes may have any penalties reduced by 50%. This will encourage facilities to take the lead in finding, flagging, and fixing violations. This bill is also intended to strengthen training requirements for nursing staff by including dementia and abuse prevention training as part of pre-employment training. So I'm proud to introduce this bill today along with Senator Kohl.

Mr. President, the Chairman of the Aging Committee and I have a long history of working together on elder care issues and I am happy to continue that work. I would also note that today the GAO is releasing a report critical of CMS's funding of state oversight of entities such as nursing homes. This report notes that survey activity is sometimes so unreliable that certain homes haven't even been inspected in more than 6 years. The report makes a number of recommendations to CMS and I will be looking at those very carefully. In the meantime, it's important that we improve transparency and accountability for the inspections that are taking place.

We'll continue to do everything we can to make sure America's nursing home residents receive the safe and quality care they deserve. Increasing transparency, improving enforcement tools and strengthening training requirements will go a long way towards achieving this goal.

Floor Statement of Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI)

Chairman, Special Committee on Aging

Introduction of the Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act of 2009

Thursday, March 19, 2009

MR. KOHL: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in Morning Business for up to five minutes.

Mr. President, my colleagues just heard Senator Grassley present an excellent overview of our bill, the Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act of 2009. As chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, the quality of care that is provided to nursing home residents is of great concern to me, and I am proud to be introducing this bill today.

I have worked with Senator Grassley on nursing home policy for several years. We have commissioned GAO reports, sought input from both industry and reform advocates, and collaborated with the executive branch on various initiatives. This work has generated some positive results, such as the government's new five-star nursing home rating system.

But we must do more. We believe the bill we introduce today will raise the bar for nursing home quality and oversight nationwide, by strengthening the federal government's ability to monitor and advance the level of care provided in nursing homes.

First, our bill would give the government better tools for enforcing high quality standards. For instance, nursing homes would be required to disclose information about all the principal business partners who play a role in the financing and management of the facility, so that the government can hold them accountable in the case of poor care or neglect. It would also create a national independent monitor pilot program to tackle tough quality and safety issues that must be addressed at the level of corporate management.

Second, our bill would give consumers more information about individual nursing homes and their track record of care. Our bill would grant consumers access to a facility's most recent health and safety report online, and would develop a simple, standardized online complaint form for residents and their families to ensure that their concerns are addressed swiftly. And it would require the government to collect staffing information from nursing homes on a real-time basis, and make this information available to the public.

Finally, our bill would encourage homes to improve on their own. Under this legislation, facilities would develop compliance and ethics programs to decrease the risk of financial fraud, and quality assurance standards to internally monitor the quality of care provided to residents. We also authorize funds for a national demonstration project on "culture change," a new management style in nursing home care that rethinks relationships between management and frontline workers by empowering nursing aides to take charge of the personalized care of residents. Finally, our bill makes an investment in nursing home staff by offering training on how to handle residents with dementia.

Twenty-two years have passed since Congress last addressed the safety and quality of America's nursing homes in a comprehensive way. As we prepare to debate reforms across our health care system, there has never been a better time to implement these critical improvements to our nation's system of nursing homes. We ask our colleagues for their support.

 

New rule protects nursing homes and promotes secrecy

The Washington Post had an article about the Bush administration's rule to stop a source of information about abuse and neglect in long-term care facilities that are crucial to finding answers.

The rule designates state inspectors and Medicare and Medicaid contractors as federal employees, a group usually shielded from providing evidence for either side in private litigation.  The new rule, which was issued in September, generally prohibits state health departments and contractors from participating in private lawsuits involving facilities that are in the federal assistance program without approval by the head of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The restrictions affect about 16,000 nursing facilities and 3 million residents in the United States. The practical effect is to force families to go to greater lengths, including seeking court orders, to get inspection reports or depositions for cases they are pursuing.

The change, which affects the $144 billion nursing-home industry, was enacted with no public notice or attention.

"This change hurts nursing-home residents and their families by allowing bad practices to be kept in secret by nursing homes and inspectors," said Eric M. Carlson, an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center in Los Angeles. "Government inspectors have the right to go into nursing homes and investigate, and they learn things that residents and families otherwise could never find out."

The effect of the directives has started to play out in the nation's courtrooms. Requests for information, once fairly routine, now are stalled between state and federal officials.

 

Analysis of Pittsburgh's nursing homes

Pittsburg Tribune Review had an article discussing the failures of Pittsburgh's nursing homes.   The article mentions several examples such as one resident cried out for water before going to the hospital with dehydration; another broke an eye socket when a wheelchair rolled down a ramp and crashed; a patient died when workers improperly adjusted a breathing tube; two were so malnourished that they weighed less than 80 pounds each;  a resident did not get a hair wash for nearly four weeks;  and another was told to "go in your pants" when requesting help with going to the bathroom.   These are common complaints at all nursing homes around the country due to understaffing, burn-out, and lack of training.

Those cases and more were drawn from a Tribune-Review analysis of state surveys conducted at 118 nursing homes in Western Pennsylvania over the past three years.  Inspectors cited homes for 3,798 deficiencies, and in 33 cases, found serious lapses posing "actual harm" or "immediate jeopardy," under federal definition.  Among the deficiencies, inspectors noted hundreds of incidents that caused pain or discomfort for nursing-home residents. Those violations have the "potential for more than minimal harm." They include failures to treat skin ulcers or to help patients eat when they can't feed themselves.  Most often, problems related to quality of care or unsanitary conditions.

Rosalie Kane, a professor of public health at the University of Minnesota, said that the quality of life for nursing-home residents has not improved — even if surveys don't find as many alarming violations.  "Those surveys don't make nursing homes better over time," Kane said. "They just represent the lowest common denominator keyed to issues that are considered unacceptable."

The Trib's review followed the November arrests of five employees at Kane Regional Center in Glen Hazel, who were charged with abusing and tormenting a 94-year-old Alzheimer's patient. More than 2,800 complaints of abuse or neglect of nursing home patients are substantiated each year, according to the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Nursing homes do not spend enough money on staffing required to ensure adequate care.  Nursing home staff members decide whether residents' preferences are met. Too much of nursing home operations revolve around what's convenient for staff, not patients.

Nursing home staff and inspectors should ask residents whether they participate in meaningful activities, whether they have opportunity to have private conversations, and what they like or don't like about the food.

Under federal law, state health inspectors must survey nursing homes at least once every 15 months and whenever they receive a complaint. Often, homes are cited for a serious deficiency only after a patient is seriously harmed.

 

Analysis of Massachusetts nursing homes

Worcester Telegram & Gazette News had a great article discussing the deficiencies in nursing homes in Massachusetts although this article could have been written about any state.  

The article states that local nursing homes have been reprimanded in recent years for physical and sexual abuse, neglect and other serious mistreatment of elderly residents, according to state reports.   The deficiencies range from minor to serious including cold food to filthy bathrooms to violations of patient rights, medication errors and preventable falls in at least three patient deaths over the last three years.

A Telegram & Gazette review and analysis of hundreds of pages of state and federal inspection reports on the region’s nursing homes as well as summaries of state investigations prompted by patient and family complaints found:

• The state Department of Public Health rated 14 area nursing homes — more than 20 percent of the region’s 62 facilities — among the worst in the state as of November. Three of those were rated in the bottom 4 percent statewide, and four others in the bottom 6 percent.

• Federal regulators have fined 21 area nursing homes a total of more than $150,000 for serious and repeated violations of Medicaid regulations since 2005.

• The quality of local nursing homes varies widely from several that scored perfect or nearly so in state inspections to a handful of problem facilities whose scores are among the lowest in the region and that have been investigated repeatedly. The latter often were cited for poor care, in response to complaints from patients and their families.

Among those complaints, state inspectors validated at least five local cases of physical abuse and 10 cases of neglect over the last three years.

Among the scores of complaints lodged against area nursing homes and substantiated by state investigators were a number of claims of physical abuse.

Radius Healthcare of Southbridge, a for-profit nursing home licensed for 144 beds, was cited for physical abuse of residents in February 2006 and again in December 2006, according to investigation summaries. Third and fourth complaints of physical abuse in April and October were also investigated.

During an annual inspection in February 2008, the state surveyor reported residents whose wheelchairs would not fit under dining room tables, forcing the elderly patients to hold drinks and food in shaking hands for long periods. One resident of the nursing home also went more than eight months without seeing the facility doctor, according to the inspection report.

Medicaid reimburses nursing homes an average of $180 a day per patient in Massachusetts.  The state nursing home trade association puts the average retail price of care for those paying out of pocket at $270 a day, or more than $98,000 a year.

An advocacy group pushing for higher-quality nursing home care in the state, Massachusetts Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, maintains that a complete overhaul of the system is needed. The group is calling on the industry to move away from what it calls a “hospital-like model.”

 

Bush Administration secret rule related to nursing homes

Last night’s MSNBC Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported on a nursing home rule consumer advocates have been working tirelessly to highlight in the media and correct.   Before leaving office, President Bush silently pushed through this rule protecting the $144 billion nursing home industry. Occurring without any public notice or comment, the rule prevents families from receiving critical information about loved ones abused or neglected when suing nursing home corporations.

 

In addition to the Countdown segment, Bloomberg and Mother Jones have more on this rule that protects negligent nursing homes while leaving patients without details of government investigations into abuse and neglect.

 

The rule designates state inspectors and Medicare and Medicaid contractors as federal employees, a group usually shielded from providing evidence for either side in private litigation.  The restrictions affect about 16,000 nursing facilities in the U.S. and 3 million residents. The practical effect is to force litigants to go to greater lengths, including seeking court orders, to get inspection reports or depositions for cases they are pursuing or defending.

What is the point of an investigation or regulatory enforcement if the information is not made public?

Poliakoff & Associates, P.A., is one of South Carolina’s most respected and distinguished law firms. The Poliakoff firm began nearly 60 years ago by three attorney brothers: Matthew, J. Manning, and Bernard. With a history of believing the justice system...More...