Thursday, June 28, 2018

When Complexity in the Law Is the Biggest Barrier to Home Care

Karen Vaughn, a woman living with quadriplegia in her own apartment for some 4o years, was held against her will in a care facility after hospitalization for a temporary illness. She wanted to go home. The state argued it could no longer find a home care agency that could provide the level of services Ms. Vaughn needed following a tracheostomy  in 2012. 

Ms. Vaughn's case gave a federal district judge in Indiana the opportunity to revisit the Supreme Court's landmark Olmstead decision from 1999. In ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, the court rejected the state's arguments as based on complexity in reimbursement rates, not availability of appropriate care providers.  Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson observed,  in ruling in favor of Ms. Vaughn, that

The undisputed medical evidence establishes that at or near the time of the filing of this Complaint, Ms. Vaughn’s physicians believed that she could and should be cared for at home—both because home healthcare is medically safer and socially preferable for her, and because Ms. Vaughn desires to be at home. . . . That support has continued throughout the pendency of this litigation, through at least April of 2018 when Dr. Trambaugh was deposed. Based on the evidence before this Court, it concludes as a matter of law that Ms. Vaughn has established that treatment professionals have determined that the treatment she requests—home healthcare—is appropriate.
The court traced, and criticized, the Byzantine nature of Medicaid waiver programs that fund portions of home care:
[State] Defendants' own administrative choices—namely, the restrictions they have imposed on Ms. Vaughn’s home healthcare provision pursuant to their Medicaid Policy Manual—have resulted in their inability to find a caregiver, or combination of caregivers, who can provide Ms. Vaughn’s care in a home-based setting. It may be the case that other factors, such as the nursing shortage or inadequate reimbursement rates, contribute to or exacerbate the difficulty in finding a provider. But, at a minimum, Ms. Vaughn has established that Defendants' administrative choices, in addition to their denials of her reasonable accommodation requests, have resulted in her remaining institutionalized.
 
For the full opinion, with the judge admitting frustrations in finding a solution, see Vaughn v. Wernert, USDC, Southern District of Indiana, June 1, 2018.  The judge recognized that the court cannot simply order "return home" as an appropriate remedy, and instead set a "remedy hearing" for July 30 to explore all proposals, while also urging the parties to meet prior to that hearing in hopes of finding a mutually agreeable plan.  If any of our readers hear the result, please do share! Best wishes to Ms. Vaughn.
 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/elder_law/2018/06/when-complexity-in-the-law-is-the-biggest-barrier-to-home-care.html

Current Affairs, Discrimination, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment