Wednesday, January 17, 2018

FINRA FAQ for Elder Financial Exploitation

FINRA has released FAQs specifically to address elder financial exploitation. Frequently Asked Questions Regarding FINRA Rules Relating to Financial Exploitation of Seniors  explains the new rules that take effect on February 5, 2018.  "[T]he SEC approved: (1) the adoption of new FINRA Rule 2165 (Financial Exploitation of Specified Adults) to permit members to place temporary holds on disbursements of funds or securities from the accounts of specified customers where there is a reasonable belief of financial exploitation of these customers; and (2) amendments to FINRA Rule 4512 (Customer Account Information) to require members to make reasonable efforts to obtain the name of and contact information for a trusted contact person (“trusted contact”) for a customer’s account."(citations omitted) FAQs 1 and 2 deal with temporary holds, 3 with trusted contacts, and 4 with disclosures.  The FAQ are available here.

January 17, 2018 in Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Other, Property Management | Permalink

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Choice and Customer Service in Senior Living

My sister and I have been interviewing locations for several weeks as possible residential settings for our mother, especially as she is no longer able to handle the stairs in her two-story home, but feels trapped by not being able to choose on her own where to walk.  We know that the best way to approach this task is in small doses, and to do it before there is an emergency that limits choices.  This is actually our second go-round, as we also did this with Mom when we were looking at a place for Dad almost 5  years ago.  But we have been very struck by the changes in the marketplace in just that short period of time:

  1. There are many new options, both large and small, that have come into being in just the last five or fewer years.  We have looked at "classic" versions of continuing care communities, as well as what I would call "ala carte" pricing options for communities that offer a wide range of care alternatives, but each for a separate, escalating price and with no assurances of a placement. We've looked at both modest settings and high end "assisted living centers" that are so new the paint has not quite dried. But most of all, what we have found ourselves focusing on are smaller group homes, licensed under that state's law for "assisted living," and under that law the care includes almost all necessary care, other than certain so-called skilled services (such as catheters, feeding tubes, or I.V. hydration).  We liked the small group setting because they often were in a neighborhood that would make our mother feel at home, while still offering a purposeful renovation that included carefully designed toilets, showers and flooring for easier movement.  The price range is stunningly broad between these options, too.
  2. Doctors are not always the best advisors on choices.  We have found that even though our mother has a wonderful primary care doctor, and even though that doctor makes it known that most of his patients are older, he did not seem to be aware that there are group home options.  He kept telling us we'd need a "skilled care nursing home."  But, as Mom has a pretty detailed end-of-live directive that rejects feeding tubes, and similar skilled care interventions, it seems clear to us that we can look at a well-run facility licensed for assisted living that will be able to provide appropriate care through her last days.  
  3. A lot of the smaller places are accessed through what I would call "brokers."  When you do internet research, the odds are that your first contacts will be with some kind of "finder."  Most of these are paid by the facilities, rather than the families conducting the searches.  As such, there is the clear potential for them to steer families to "their" facility clients.  I know from insiders in the industry that the fees are often the equivalent of one month's fee at the chosen location.  While not necessarily a negative, as a good broker is only successful if he or she really knows the available inventory of residential options, the fees are something that can dramatically impact smaller group homes that are operating on a narrower margin.

Additional trends we noticed? We discovered that a small group home that appears to be a  "family" operation,  may actually be part of a chain of homes with a single corporate owner.  On the other hand, at several of the places we visited, we learned the owner had recently purchased another house in the same neighborhood, and was in the process of a second renovation.  Also, as for staffing, we noticed that in certain parts of the city, all of the caregivers were immigrants from the same country, whether Poland or Pakistan or elsewhere.  Another reminder that realistic immigration policies are a key component to senior living. 

Finally, probably our strongest reaction was to differences in what can only be called old fashioned "customer service."  One "famous," established  CCRC completely lost our interest when the person at the front desk never made direct eye contact with us, instead keeping one hand on a cell phone and the other hand on a very dirty "wet wipe" she said she was using to clean surfaces because it was "flu season." It didn't help that we went through three different people to find one who could give us a tour during a scheduled visit (the first two were so new they didn't have knowledge of the full campus.) At the smaller group homes, we definitely noticed when the persons we met with greeted current residents by name as they gave us a tour.  Also, did they know the names of their own staff members  -- and did they introduce us to each other?  When a trip hazard was lying in wait on the floor, did they pick it up -- or merely avoid it?  

In addition to asking about staffing ratios and open visiting hours, we wanted to know about how long each of the staff members we met had worked at the particular place.   Finally, our whole family likes dogs and therefore it was a plus when we found a place that had a "house dog" that the residents clearly loved, but we recognize that not every place can handle the extra work it takes to maintain a pet on site.  

A sad irony is that it is unlikely our mother will live in the same care setting that was so perfect for our father.  That place is an assisted living center with four cottages, purpose built for Alzheimer's care, on a five acre setting.  But it has become clear to us that even though Mom was the one who chose it for Dad, and it is a wonderful place, with people we still love, our mother probably doesn't want it for herself.  In the last few months of our father's residence there before his death, she visited less and less often, and we came to realize she had "already" rejected it for herself.  It wasn't about memories of Dad; rather, it was about what it meant to "also" have the same cognitive impairment.  The director, who has become a good friend of mine, said that is not unusual -- that even successful residential settings are rarely chosen by families for second or third placements because the next loved one can be hypersensitive to the reality of that choice.  Senior care living -- a tough business in which to generate repeat business. 

January 16, 2018 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (1)

Monday, January 15, 2018

Filial Friday on Monday: PA Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Further Appeal of "Reverse" Filial Support Case

Regular readers of this Blog will remember that we have been following the case of Melmark Inc. v. Schutt, wherein a residential facility for disabled children and adults in Pennsylvania, has sought to hold 70+ year-old New Jersey parents liable for approximately 13 months of care the facility provided for their autistic adult son after New Jersey stopped public payments for his support.  The parents were successful at the trial and intermediate courts of appeal in Pennsylvania, arguing that New Jersey, not Pennsylvania law controlled the issue of any filial obligation.  Pennsylvania statutory law imposes liability on certain family members, without regard to age, to cover costs of care provided to "indigent" children or parents, while New Jersey's filial support statute limits obligations for older adults, for "any person 55 years or over," to support for minor children or spouses.  See N.J.S.A. Section 44:1-140(c) (Relatives Chargeable).   The unpaid costs in question totaled more than $200,000, before the Melmark took it upon itself to take the son back to New Jersey, dropping him off at a local hospital.

On December 26, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the facility's request for further appeal on the following issues:

1. Whether the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in finding that New Jersey’s filial support statute, rather than Pennsylvania’s, applied
in this matter where there is no conflict between the New Jersey statute and Pennsylvania’s statute under the facts of this case?


2. Whether the Superior Court erred in finding that New Jersey has a greater interest in the application of its filial support statute where, inter alia, all of the relevant contacts, with the exception of the residency of Respondents Clarence and Barbara Schutt, are with Pennsylvania; where the Schutts took affirmative actions to keep their highly disabled son in a Pennsylvania nonprofit residential and therapeutic institution, Petitioner Melmark, Inc., with the avowed aim of Melmark funding his care for his “entire life,” including manipulating the Pennsylvania and New Jersey legal systems to prevent his return to New Jersey; and where the Superior Court’s decision results in Melmark being entirely uncompensated for providing an extended period of vital, intensive care for the Schutts’ son?


3. Whether the Superior Court erred in finding that the lower court properly denied relief on Melmark's claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment? 

I've been teaching Conflicts of Law for many years and I actually used a variation on this problem for the final exam in my Fall 2017 course.  As was true in the lower courts in the Melmark case, most of my students came to the conclusion that under the forum's choice of law rules, the state with the most substantial relationship to the issue of parental liability for statutory support was the state where the parents and son were residents, here New Jersey.  

My best guess is that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may go more deeply into  the common law claims for "quantum meruit and unjust enrichment" (which in Pennsylvania are usually treated as alternative names for the same causes of action, sometimes termed "quasi-contract" claims). 

As I've been saying for months now, this is a tough case for everyone.  

January 15, 2018 in Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, January 8, 2018

The Challenge of Finding Safe & Effective Pain-Killers for Older Adults

Over the holidays, unfortunately I had the experience of learning more about how older consumers struggle to understand what safe and effective treatments are available.  In this instance, my mother, in her 90s, was experiencing overwhelming back pain.   She has a long-history of osteoporosis (and it runs in the family on the female side, so my sister and I pay particular attention to this issue!) and in the last few weeks without any known "accident," she had begun to find it almost impossible to walk without pain.  She's not the complaining type, and, having been raised by parents who were Christian Scientists, she tends to follow a "mind over matter" approach to this kind of problem.  But, by Sunday last week, it was no longer possible to pretend she wasn't deeply uncomfortable.

We began another health care odyssey.  Some of the steps we had already learned from past "holiday" experiences with my parents, including calling the "non-emergency" 911 number to get an experienced EMT evaluation of her status in the home, and, if necessary, a transport from her home to the emergency room.  Then, recognizing that New Year's Eve is probably not the best night (if such a thing even exists) to spend in the local hospital's ER, we decided to go early in the morning.  

Five hours after our arrival in the ER, we left with a new "LSO" back brace, instructions on how to use it, and prescriptions for a different walker and a new pain medication.  On the latter point, we informed the ER physician of the fact Mom had not done well on narcotic pain relievers in the past ("why are those ants crawling on the walls") but we were told the drug prescribed was like a very strong Ibuprofen, but in a formulation that would not interact with the blood thinner she was on or her pacemaker.

We duly stopped at the pharmacy on the way home, and I signed my life away in order to pick up her prescription as she was unable to walk in to get it herself.  When we got home,  there were two documents in the bag with the prescription, including what I would call a typical "product insert" that looks like a page from the Physician's Desk Reference and a second sheet entitled "Directions for Use."  The top of the instructions warned, "This is a narcotic drug and not recommended for the relief of pain in...."  And then the list of disqualifying conditions included at least 3 of my mother's age-related conditions.  Yikes!  

My sister and I are  not usually intimidated by product inserts, but here the instructions seemed directly at odds with our concerns about narcotics for mom.  Everything we found on the internet only made us more confused and worried.  

By this time it was late on New Year's Eve, her pain was increasing, and we knew we couldn't persuade her to go back to the ER and her primary care physician wasn't on call.  The bottle said "every 6 hours."  The ER physician had orally told us "every 6 to 8 hours," and finally we knew we had no choice -- her pain was real and we started using it at 12 hour intervals, gradually moving down to 8 hour intervals before she seemed to have real relief.  It was another 5 days before her very kind primary care physician could squeeze us in for an appointment to have a more complete conversation -- and the good news is that we are now more comfortable about a longer range plan.

So on the heels of that multi-day experience, I was very interested in an article I spotted for my airplane trip home to Pennsylvania from Arizona. Phoenix Magazine had a detailed feature story in their January 2018 issue on "Pharma Chameleon," reporting on the arrest for fraud and racketeering charges of INSYS  Therapeutics founder, a "billionaire executive" in Phoenix, well-known for his work on painkiller medicines.  The history of this executive has nothing to do with my mother's pain relief medicine, but it was definitely a reminder that the pharmaceutical industry is deeply involved in pursuit of the "next" generation of painkillers.  And, of course, this article contrasts with the recent news that a different drug company is dropping R & D for a dementia drug.  Pain-killers are still "in," and dementia drugs apparently are "out."  

So, I recommend the Phoenix Magazine article!  I was particularly struck by this paragraph:    

In November, Kapoor [the Phoenix-based INSYS executive arrested by the feds] pleaded not guilty to all charges and is currently awaiting trial, along with the six other former executives, who pleaded not guilty last January. All have severed ties with INSYS, which continues to do business. In July, it received FDA approval for a new drug, Syndros, a synthetic form of THC, the psychoactive component found in cannabis, to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and loss of appetite in AIDS patients. As it did with Subsys, the company is looking into ways to manufacture the drug as a sublingual spray. Under Kapoor, the company donated $500,000 to the effort to defeat the measure to legalize marijuana for recreational use on Arizona’s 2016 general election ballot, paving the way for the synthetic substitute.

January 8, 2018 in Consumer Information, Crimes, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Science, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Filial Friday: Can Americans be Compelled by Germany to Contribute to Costs for a Parent's Care in Germany?

It has been awhile since I've written a "Filial Friday" post. Perhaps any question about legal obligations for family members to pay for care of another is an unfair topic during the holiday season.  A bit too downbeat, yes?  But, in fairness it is a topic that has reemerged in my "inbox," as I've recently received two communications from American adult children of biological parents in Germany.  In each instance, the reason is that Germany authorities are writing to American citizens to notify them that an aging German parent is or may be in need of "social welfare benefits" in Germany.  As one demand letter puts it:

"The above person is your mother.  According to [the Germany Civil Code] you have a basic obligation to pay maintenance for your mother.  According to Section 94 of the [Social Security Code] the maintenance obligations of a person eligible for benefits are passed on to [the Germany regional authorities] up to the amount of the expenses we incur in so far as this is not excluded for legal reasons."

In other words, it appears the German social service agency is saying that if it is called upon to incur expenses for welfare of a Germany citizen, it has the legal authority to seek contribution or reimbursement from the family members identified in German statutory law as having a maintenance obligation, including any children living in other countries.

As readers of this Blog know, I have a long-standing interest in such filial support claims, in large part because I live and work in Pennsylvania, the U.S. state that most frequently enforces a colonial-era law, permitting third-party providers of care in certain instances to compel adult children to pay reimbursement for costs of care, usually nursing home care.  The 2012 Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in Health Care & Retirement Corporation of America v. Pittas, where an adult son was found to be liable for more than $90,000 for his mother's nursing home care, is one of the most dramatic modern example of domestic enforcement in the U.S.   

The letters from Germany undoubtedly surprise, and perhaps frighten, the American children who have probably never heard of such a claim coming from public authorities.  (In the U.S., in the modern era the occasional claim usually comes from a nursing home that isn't being paid for long-term care by private or public means, and the claims are not coming from public agencies.)

Continue reading

December 21, 2017 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, International, Retirement | Permalink | Comments (2)

Friday, December 15, 2017

Getting to Know More about the National Center for Law and Elder Rights

Are you familiar with the National Center on Law and Elder Rights? If you are an academic teaching courses about any aspect of elder law, disability law, Medicare or Medicaid, you will want to know more about this resource.  If you are working in a legal services organization that represents older clients or disabled adult clients, you will want to now about this resource.  If you are a young lawyer and just handling your first case involving home-based or facility-based care for older persons who are can't afford private pay options,  you will definitely want to know about this resource.  In fact, if you are a long-time lawyer representing families who are struggling to find their way through an "elder care" scenario,  you too might benefit from an educational "tune up" on available benefits.  And the very good news?  This is a free resource. 

The National Center on Law and Elder Rights (NCLER) was established in 2016 by the federal Administration for Community Living. The new entity is, in essence, a partnership project, with the goal of providing a "one-stop resource for law and aging network professionals" who serve older adults who need economic and social care assistance. Justice in Aging (formerly the National Senior Citizens Law Center) which has primary offices on the east and west coast is a key partner, working with the American Bar Association's Commission on Law and Aging, the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), and the Center for Social Gerontology (TCSG). Attorneys at these four NCLER partners provide substantive expertise, including preparation of materials available in a variety of formats, such as free webinars on a host of hot topics.  The Directing Attorney is Jennifer Goldberg from Justice in Aging and the Project Manager is attorney Fay Gordon.  

It strikes me that a very unique way in which NCLER will be a valuable resource is through what the offer as "case consultations" for attorneys and other professionals.  Think about that -- you may have long-experience with one branch of "elder law" such as Medicaid applications,  but you have never before handled an elder abuse case with a bankruptcy problem. Here is the way to potentially get experienced guidance! 

The web platform for NCLER offers a deep menu of resources, including recordings of very recent webinars and information on future events. I recently signed up for a January 2018 webinar program on elder financial exploitation and even though it is a "basics" session I can tell I'll hear about a new tools and possible remedies, as the presenters are Charlie Sabatino and David Godfrey.  I just watched a recording of another recent webinar and it was very clear and packed with useful information.  There is a regular schedule for training sessions -- with "basics" on the second Tuesday of every month and more advanced training sessions on the third Wednesday every month. 

I confess that somehow NCLER wasn't on my radar screen until recently (probably because my sabbatical last year put me about a year behind on emails -- seriously!) but I'm excited to know about it now.  

December 15, 2017 in Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Health Care/Long Term Care, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Medicaid, Medicare, Programs/CLEs, Social Security, Web/Tech, Webinars | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, December 14, 2017

"Nursing Home Compare" Subject to Errors through Self-Reporting "Inflation"

In a new article published by Xu Han (Florida Atlantic), Niam Yaraghi (University of Connecticut) and Ram Gopal (University of Connecticut), their analysis of data used over a 4 year period for nursing home ratings  in CMS' "Nursing Home Compare" system reveals key concerns.  From the abstract:

We argue that the rating system is prone to inflation in self-reported measures, which leads to biased and misleading ratings. We use the CMS rating data over 2009–2013 and the corresponding financial data reported by Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and patients’ complaints data reported by California Department of Public Health for 1219 nursing homes in California to empirically examine the key factors affecting the star rating of a nursing home.

 

We find a significant association between the changes in a nursing home's star rating and its profits, which points to a financial incentive for nursing homes to improve the ratings. We then demonstrate that this association does not always lead to legitimate efforts to improve service quality, but instead can induce inflation in self-reporting in the rating procedure. A prediction model is then developed to evaluate the extensiveness of inflation among the suspect population based on which 6% to 8.5% of the nursing homes are identified as likely inflators. We also summarize the key characteristics of likely inflators, which can be useful for future audit.

For more, see the full article, Winning at All Costs: Analysis of Inflation in Nursing Homes' Rating System, published November 20, 2017 in the journal Production and Operations Management.

December 14, 2017 in Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Medicare, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

"Snake Oil," Tattoos & Why Some Hospice Doctors Prefer Medical Powers of Attorney

Are games and food supplements that promise to stave off the onset of dementia the modern day version of "snake oil?" I promised to write more about the Aging Brain Conference at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law on December 8, 2017.  Speaker Dr. Cynthia Stonnington, Mayo Clinic, offered an important look at ways in which law, ethics, medicine, and commerce can collide with her survey of a host of approaches receiving "popular" press treatment.  

She examined self-described "brain-training" programs, miracle diets, supplements and targeted exercise programs, noting that most studies that purport to demonstrate positive results from these items have serious flaws.  Thus, at best, programs that claim to provide "protection" against dementia are usually promising more than has been proven.  Dr. Stonnington, along with the morning keynote speaker, former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, reminded us that

  • maintaining social engagement,
  • engaging in lifelong learning,
  • getting regular exercise of any type,
  • having good blood pressure control,
  • getting adequate sleep, and
  • focusing on good nutrition (including eating plans such as the Mediterranean, DASH or MIND diets)

are  far more important than any single, magic game or exercise.

One of the most lively discussions of the day came near the end, in response to presentations by Dr. Patrica Mayer of Banner Health in Phoenix, Amy McLean of Hospice of the Valley. and Life Sciences Professor Jason Robert (ASU) speaking for himself and Susan Fitzpatrick (James S. McDonnell Foundation), about end-of-life considerations for persons with dementia or other serious illnesses.  What would be the most likely response of a physician or emergency personnel confronted with a "do not resuscitate" tattoo on the chest of an emergency patient?  Dr. Mayer stressed that she is seeking reliable methods of communicating end-of-life wishes, and for her that means a preference for a written, Medical Power of Attorney.  She wants that "live" interaction whenever possible, in order to fully explore the options for care for individuals unable to communicate for themselves.  But she also noted a frequent frustration when she contacts designated  POAs about the need to make tough decisions, only to learn they were completely unaware before that moment of having been named as the designated agent.  

LSI_Aging Brain 120817 Competency_and_Incapacity_1 SPEC (1)I was part of a panel of court-connected speakers, including Arizona Superior Court Judge Jay Polk (Maricopa County), neuropsychologist  (and frequent expert witness) Elizabeth Leonard, and experienced Phoenix attorney Charles Arnold.  I was interested to hear about  -- and will pursue more information on -- the psychologists' use of evaluative tools for clients that use scenarios that would appear to test not just for loss of memory, but impaired judgment.  I was speaking on the unfortunate need for judicial inquiries into "improvident transactions" by persons with problematic cognition and I used litigation approaches from other locations -- Ireland (common law) and Maine (statutory) -- as examples.  The Arizona legal experts reminded me to take a closer look at Arizona's financial exploitation laws.

For more from this conference, see Learning to Say the Word "Die"  --  about a pilot program developed by Dr. Mayer while she was an advanced bioethics fellow at the Cleveland Clinic.  I also recommend Dr. Mayer's article on CPR & Hospice: Incompatible Goals, Irreconcilable Differences

 

December 13, 2017 in Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Games, Health Care/Long Term Care, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Programs/CLEs, Science, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)

When "Emergencies" Last for Months -- and the Impact on Seniors

Over the last several weeks, I've been in an ongoing conversation with a good friend who operates a court-appointed special advocate program and guardianship agency in St. Croix, Virgin Islands.  I've visited her several times over the years, and in fact, was just there in May. We talked then about whether she would evacuate in the event of any predicted hurricane strike on her island.  Her answer was "probably not," in large part because of her commitment to sharing the workload for a community already under stress from lack of jobs and other financial pressures.  

She rode out the two hurricanes that hit her part of the Caribbean in September and while her own home was spared serious damage, she could provide only sporadic reports -- when she had cell phone service and enough battery power -- about the aftermath for her clients.  When she mentioned the trauma caused by the "simple" fact that having no way to escape heat and humidity, especially at night, was one of the most exhausting parts of the post-storm struggle for all ages, I searched my local stories for battery operated fans to send (and then we had the challenge of finding a way to get them to her island).  

The reality for seniors living day-after-day, week-after-week, and now several months in a row without a reliable source of power is part of the picture painted in a recent article in The New York Times.  

With large areas of Puerto Rico still in the dark three months after the first of the storms — according to government reports, only 60.4 percent of the pre-storm power grid load has been restored — older residents and those with chronic medical conditions are suffering in even more ways than their neighbors. Many nursing homes have no power. The failure to re-establish functioning telephone networks and transportation systems in many areas makes it difficult to get regular medical care. Fire safety systems are inoperable, posing special dangers for those who cannot easily escape.

 

A look inside the 356 units that make up Puerto Rico’s largest housing project for low-income seniors, Comunidad del Retiro, or Retirement Community, helps explain the hurricanes’ continuing impact on the vulnerable. Inside the complex, there is a man with apnea who cannot sleep at night without power to his oxygen machine. A woman with dementia who was scheduled for transfer to a nursing home before the storm. And Ms. Rodriguez de Jesus, who mistakenly drank a poison in the dark and came close to becoming another uncounted hurricane death.
There have been falls in dimly lit apartments. Special diets that could no longer be followed. Medical interventions, drugs and treatments missed or delayed.....

For more, read Lives at Risk Inside a Senior Complex in Puerto Rico With No Power

December 13, 2017 in Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Legal Implications of Biomarkers for Dementia Highlight ASU's Conference on "The Aging Brain"

The "Aging Brain" Conference hosted by Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law held on December 8, 2017 at the Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse in Phoenix (that's a double helping of Sandra!) proved to be a fascinating, deep dive into the intersection of medicine, ethics and law with a focus on neurocognitive diseases, including Alzheimer's Disease.  The panelists and audience included academics in a wide range of fields, plus practitioners in medicine, law, social services, and more, along with both state and federal judges.  United States District Judge Roslyn Silver is a long-time supporter of law and science programming with ASU. LSI_Aging Brain 120817 Competency_and_Incapacity_5 SPEC (2)

One of the important themes that emerged for me was the growing significance of pre-symptomatic tests that can disclose genetic markers associated with greater incidence of an eventual, active form of a degenerative brain disease.  Neurologist Richard Caselli from Mayo Clinic and Jessica Langbaum, principal scientist with Banner Alzheimer's Institute laid out the latest information on a variety of genetic testing options, including the possibly mixed results for "risk" connected to positive results for specific genetic markers.  A provocative question by a morning speaker, Law and Biosciences Professor Henry T. Greely at Stanford, captured the personal dilemma well, when he asked the audience to vote on how many would want to to know the results of a genetic test that could disclose such a connection, especially as there is, as yet, no known cure or even any clear way to prevent most neurocognitive diseases from taking hold.  

Taking that a step further, how many of us would want our employer to know about that genetic marker results?  How about our health insurers? As we discussed at the conference, some consumer information is already available through "popular" ancestry testing sites such as "23 and Me," which expressly offers testing for "genetic health risks," including "late-onset Alzheimer's Disease and Parkinson's Disease."  Arizona State Law Professor Betsy Gray, director of the Law & Neuroscience Program for ASU's Center for Law, Science and Innovation, who master-minded the conference, helped to identify a host of legal and ethical issues connected to this developing world of science and medicine. Jalayne J. Arias, a full-time researcher at University of California San Francisco's Neurology, Memory and Aging Center (and clearly a rising academic star and graduate of ASU Law) outlined the implications of pre-symptomatic testing from the perspective of long-term care insurance.  For more from Professor Arias, I recommend her 2015 paper for the Journal of Clinical Ethics on Stakeholders' Perspectives on Preclinical Testing for Alzheimer's Disease.

 I plan to write more about this conference, as many perspectives on legal, ethical and medical questions were offered.      

December 12, 2017 in Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Discrimination, Ethical Issues, Programs/CLEs, Science | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

California Law, Amended in 2017, Sets Process for Contesting Transfer Decisions in Continuing Care Communities

Following my recent post about "evictions" in Continuing Care and Life Plan Communities, Margaret Griffin, the president of the California Continuing Care Residents Association (CALCRA) provided me with a copy of legislation that was signed into law by the Governor in October this year, amending California law on Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) contracts.  This history is another window on how to handle involuntary transfers of residents.  California's law already provided detailed topics that must be addressed in admission contracts.  The newest provision requires greater sharing of any reasons for an involuntary transfer.  For "disputed" transfers the law now mandates that the provider:

"... shall provide documentation of the resident's medical records, other documents showing the resident's current mental and physical function, the prognosis, and the expected duration of relevant conditions, if applicable. The documentation shall include an explanation of how the criteria [supporting the involuntary transfer decision] are met.  The provider shall make copies of the completed report to share with the resident and the resident's responsible person. "

Further, the amended law provides that even though the CCRC has the right -- under certain conditions -- to transfer the resident, the resident may "dispute" the decision and have the reasons reviewed in a timely manner by the "Continuing Care Contracts Branch of the State Department of Social Services" in California.  That office has statutory authority to determine whether the facility has followed its own contractual basis and process for transfers, and "whether the transfer is appropriate and necessary."  

Ms. Griffin explains that the law "basically . . . requires an assessment be done to establish a functional reason for the transfer (as opposed to merely having the administrator’s whim be sufficient), and it allows the resident to appeal the actual decision (previously we were limited to requesting a review of the process)."

Thank you, Margaret, both for sharing the latest information on CALCRA's successful advocacy with California Assembly Bill 713, and for your additional commentary.  

December 6, 2017 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Property Management, Retirement, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)

Arizona State Presents Legal, Policy and Ethical Perspectives on "The Aging Brain"

On December 8, 2017, I'm excited to be participating in a conference on The Aging Brain: Legal, Policy & Ethical Perspectives, in Phoenix, Arizona.  This program is a follow-up to an interdisciplinary workshop hosted at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor School of Law in the fall of 2016. This year's presentations will take place at the the United States Courthouse in Phoenix.

The planned schedule is jam-packed with speakers I'm looking forward to hearing, including:

Welcome: Betsy Grey, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, ASU

Introduction: Dean Douglas Sylvester, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, ASU

Keynote Speaker:Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., FACS, 17th Surgeon General of the United States, Chief of Health Innovations, Canyon Ranch, Distinguished Professor, University of Arizona

Scientific Developments in Aging and Dementia: Pre-Symptomatic Screening for Neurodegenerative Diseases

    Panel Chair: Hon. Roslyn O. Silver, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

  • Dr. Richard Caselli, Mayo Clinic
  • Dr. Jessica Langbaum, Banner Alzheimer's Institute
Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications
       Panel Chair:  Michael Saks, Sand Day O'Connor College of Law
  • Dr. Cynthia M. Stonnington, Mayo C;inic
  • Jalayne J. Arias, UCSF Neurology, Memory and Aging Center
  • Henry T. Greely, Stanford Law School

Aging at Home

    Panel Chair: Larry J. Cohen, The Cohen Law Firm

  • David Coon, College of Nursing & Health Solutions, ASU
  • Kent Dicks, Life365, Inc.
Competency and Incapacity: Assessment and Consent

    Panel Chair: Charles L. Arnold, Frazer Ryan Goldberg & Arnold, LLP

  • Hon. Jay M. Polk, Probate Dep’t. Associate Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Arizona for Maricopa County
  • Katherine Pearson, Dickinson School of Law, Pennsylvania State University
  • Dr. Elizabeth Leonard, Neurocognitive Associates
  • Betsy Grey, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, ASU

End of Life

    Panel Chair: Dr. Mitzi Krockover, Health Futures Council at ASU

  • Jason Robert, Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics, ASU
  • Amy McLean, Hospice of the Valley
  • Dr. Patricia A. Mayer, Banner Baywood & Banner Health Hospitals

Keynote:

Dr. Susan Fitzpatrick, President, James S. McDonnell Foundation
Introduction by Jason Robert, Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics, ASU

December 6, 2017 in Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Health Care/Long Term Care, Science, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, December 4, 2017

Growth of Mediation Programs in Orphans' and Probate Courts

Last Saturday, I had the unique privilege to sit in on a day of Advanced Probate Mediation Training, a component of a larger ADR program at the Orphans/ Court for Prince George's County, Maryland.  The attendees included long-serving mediators from other court divisions, judges and attorneys and individuals interested in a formal mediation process for probate cases. The facilitators for the training were Mala Malhotra-Ortiz and Cecilia Paizs, very experienced educators and ADR specialists. Chief Judge Wendy Cartwright welcomed us all and made it clear that mediation, collaborative probate and structured settlements are three vital programs for the probate division.  Certainly this is part of a trend favoring ADR, now applying to post-death disputes. 

My strongest impression of the day was the warm and positive demeanor of the folks I met, especially as they were giving up most of their Saturday.  I had the feeling that they were eager to share this experience.

Part of the training involved role plays -- and everyone in the room took the exercises seriously.  In Maryland, a challenge to a will is called a "caveat" proceeding, and a threshold question for court administrators is whether a specific dispute seems to be a good candidate for referral to mediation.  

In one exercise, I played a minor role (a "grandchild") of the testator, in a fact pattern that involved two named beneficiaries, a biological child and a second beneficiary who wasn't a direct blood relation. The fact pattern was realistic, as both sides wanted "accountings" for pre-death expenses by those serving as the caregiver or  POA for the elderly testator before her death.  The dispute included a long-history of difficult family dynamics, and was realistic as there was a temptation for other family members to take sides with the primary disputants. We even had an "obstructionist" attorney as an assigned role, someone who was still advocating for the purely "legal" outcome during the mediation.  

The majority of the participants were also lawyers -- and I could quickly see how uneasy the fact pattern made some attorneys. One option for the mediated outcome was distinctly "nonlegal" -- i.e., permitting the parties to split the proceeds of the estate in a way that was not the same as the testator's directions in her will.   The facilitators did an excellent job in counseling the lawyers on how to change their thinking, so as to allow consensus to emerge for a final, written settlement agreement. The fact pattern also put us in the position of needing to think about whether there had been any pre-death elder exploitation, and if so, to discuss how mediators should handle the possibility of a "crime."

I know our law students are going to be very lucky to have Mala Malhotra-Ortiz join us at Dickinson Law in the near future as an adjunct professor.   And, by the way, for anyone interested in why probate courts are sometimes called  "orphans' courts," I recommend the Court's link above on the history of Orphans' Courts in Maryland. 

December 4, 2017 in Consumer Information, Crimes, Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)

Professor Tamar Frankel and The Fiduciary Rule -- Still Shaking Up Wall Street

In the Wall Street Journal, there is a recent, wonderful profile of Boston University Law Professor Tamar Frankel, who has been fighting the good fight to gain adoption of "The Fiduciary Rule" for financial advisors, investment brokers and others in positions of trust for her entire academic career.  

And, at age 92, she's still fighting the good fight, as the Trump administration recently delayed full implementation.   

When Ms. Frankel began researching fiduciary law in earnest in the 1970s, she dwelled on that idea: A fiduciary is someone trusted by others because he or she has superior knowledge and expertise. People hire brokers because the brokers know what they’re doing and the clients don’t. That gives fiduciaries power and responsibility over those who trust them.

 

The unconditional trust that clients place in a fiduciary creates a paradox, argues Ms. Frankel. “When you get power, you lose the power you might otherwise have,” she says.

 

A fiduciary adviser can’t abuse the relationship of trust by collecting unreasonable compensation or harboring avoidable conflicts of interest. The relationship is meant to satisfy only the needs of the client.

Professor Frankel appears to be remarkably sanguine about the latest delays:

With the Trump administration putting parts of the fiduciary rule on hold, Ms. Frankel counsels patience.

 

“What the rule has done is sown the seed, and the longer it takes the better off we are, because what we must change is the culture and the habits in the financial industry,” she says. “Habits don’t change in one day. It takes time.”

 

After she turns 93 next July 4, Ms. Frankel says, she will stop teaching—although she will continue to research and write. What accounts for her longevity? “Caring less and less about what other people think,” she says, “and more and more about questions you don’t have answers to.”

I have a copy of Professor Frankel's thoughtful treatise on Fiduciary Law (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011) on the shelf behind my desk, complete with sticky notes and much yellow and red highlighting.  I've been meaning to write Professor Frankel to thank her for her work over the years -- and now this article reminds me to get to that task!

My thanks to my always eagle-eyed friend and correspondent, Karen Miller, in Florida for this latest find and reminder.  

December 4, 2017 in Books, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Property Management, Retirement | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Questions Arise With Evictions of Residents from Continuing Care (Life Plan) Communities

Recently I wrote about a high profile suit filed by AARP attorneys on behalf of residents at a California skilled care (nursing home) facility to challenge evictions.  

I've also been hearing about more attempts to evict residents from  Continuing Care Communities, also known as CCRCs or Life Plan Communities.   For example, in late 2016 a lawsuit was filed in San Diego County, California alleging a senior's improper eviction from a high-end CCRC.  The woman reportedly paid a $249k entrance fee, plus additional monthly fees for 15 years.  When she reached the age of 93, however, the CCRC allegedly evicted her for reasons unconnected to payment. The resident's diagnosis of dementia was an issue.  Following negotiations, according to counsel for the resident, Kelly Knapp, the case reportedly settled recently on confidential terms.  

Is there a trend?  Are more CCRC evictions happening, and are they more often connected to a resident's diagnosis of dementia and/or the facility's response to an increased need for behavioral supervision?  If the answer is "yes," then there is a tension here, between client expectations and marketing by providers.  Such tension is unlikely to be good news for either side.    

CCRCs are often viewed by residents as offering a guarantee of life-time care. Even if any promises are conditional, families would not usually expect that care-needs associated with aging would be a ground for eviction.  

The resident and family expectations can be influenced by pricing structures that involve substantial up-front fees (often either nonrefundable or only partially refundable), plus monthly fees that may be higher than cost-of-living alone might explain.  Marketing materials -- indeed the whole ambiance of CCRCs -- typically emphasize a "one stop shopping" approach to an ultimate form of senior living.      

In one instance I reviewed recently, the materials used for incoming residents explained the pricing with a point system. The prospective resident was told that in addition to the $100+k entrance fee, an additional daily fee could increase as both "medical and non-medical" needs increased.  A resident who "requires continual and full assistance of others . . . is automatically Level C" and billed at a higher rate. The graded components included factors such a need for assistance with "cognition, mood, or behavior," or "wandering."  All of that indicates dementia care is part of the "continuing" plan.

CCRCs, on the other hand, may turn to their contract language as grounds for an eviction. Contracts may have language that attempts to give the facility sole authority to make decisions about a resident's "level" of care.  Sometimes that authority is tied to decisions about "transfers" from independent living to assisted living or to skilled care units within the same CCRC, as the facility sees care needs increasing.  Even same-community transfer decisions can sometimes be hard for families. Complete evictions can be even harder to accept, especially if it means a married couple will be separated by blocks or even miles, rather than hallways in the same complex.

Continue reading

November 30, 2017 in Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Medicaid, Medicare, Property Management, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (1)

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Actions by Attorneys and Their Investigators Trigger Sanctions Affecting the Underlying False Claims Act Suit

A decision earlier this year in a qui tam suit, alleging the submission of false claims to Medicare for the off-label prescription of a drug for dementia, seems especially interesting in light of recent high profile allegations involving Harvey Weinstein's alleged use of private investigators to befriend his victims  in order gather information.  

In the qui tam suit the drug in question was Namenda, described in the opinion as "approved by the FDA  for treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease," but allegedly also promoted illegally by the companies for prescription to individuals with milder stages of dementia.  In Leysock v. Forest Laboratories, et al, the United States District Court in Massachusetts dismissed the complaint as a sanction for conduct by the plaintiff's attorneys and the investigator hired by those attorneys:  

The present dispute arises out of the conduct of counsel for relator, the Milberg law firm, in investigating the case. As set forth below, Milberg attorneys engaged in an elaborate scheme of deceptive conduct in order to obtain information from physicians about their prescribing practices, and in some instances about their patients. In essence, Milberg retained a physician and medical researcher, Dr. Mark Godec, to conduct a survey of physicians concerning their prescription of Namenda to Medicare patients. In order to obtain the cooperation of the physicians, Dr. Godec falsely represented that he was conducting a medical research study. Dr. Godec, at Milberg's direction, conducted two internet-based surveys as well as follow-up telephone interviews. Among other things, the physicians were induced to provide patient medical charts and other confidential medical information to Dr. Godec. Information derived from those surveys was then set out in the Second Amended Complaint in this action, and was relied on by the Court in denying defendant's motion to dismiss in 2014.

 

Defendants have now moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint as a sanction for alleged violations of attorney ethical rules. For the reasons stated below, that motion will be granted.

Continue reading

November 26, 2017 in Cognitive Impairment, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicare | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, November 20, 2017

University of Missouri Law Professor David English Presents Guardianship Reforms to New Mexico

University of Missouri Law Professor David English, who is part of a team working on new Guardianship Law proposals for the Uniform Law Commission, was reportedly in Albuquerque New Mexico recently.  His appearance is in response to one of the latest regional scandals in the U.S. about the use of so-called "professional" guardians.  See here and here for more on the recent history in New Mexico, including the summer 2017 federal indictment of key individuals .

According to news reports, part of Professor English's concern is about the dangers that can attend unnecessary secrecy about proceedings: 

“What struck me when I first looked at New Mexico, I was very surprised as a general matter that guardianship proceedings were not open to the public. That’s not consistent with how most other states address the issue,” he told the guardianship commission on Friday.

 

In New Mexico, guardianship proceedings are sequestered and closed to the public. The only publicly available record is a court docket sheet identifying the parties involved and a general list of the actions and filings in the case. But, in Missouri, where English lives, the public can attend hearings in which judges decide whether a guardian should be appointed for an incapacitated person. Typically, those placed under guardianship or conservatorships are elderly, those with dementia or Alzheimer’s or others who need help with their decision-making or finances.

 

He said the intent of the new reform laws would be to open guardianship proceedings to the public, unless the person for whom the guardianship is being considered asks for a closed hearing or a judge decides otherwise. “It’s very important that the public have some access to what’s going on in guardianship cases,” English told the guardianship commission. “At least be able to attend the hearing.”

For more on the hearings and possible changes in New Mexico laws and procedures, see New Reforms in Guardian Law Presented by the Albuquerque Journal's investigative reporter, Colleen Heid.  

November 20, 2017 in Consumer Information, Crimes, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Philly Area Nursing Home Fire's First Lessons

As I wrote last week, the dramatic five-alarm fire at a senior nursing care unit near Philadelphia (actually, in West Chester) was something we might want to keep an eye on, to see if lessons emerge about emergency response.  The good news is that the community around the nursing home wing (which appears to be part of a CCRC rather than a stand-alone nursing home)  has been warm, loving and helpful to the residents.  Today's Sunday morning news showed donations of clothing and key supplies arriving at the door step of a local fire department, along with practical expertise:

 

Tom Short, a statistics professor at West Chester University, said he and his wife, Darlene, had just moved to the area from Cleveland. He saw the ambulances taking the seniors to the university during the fire and knew he wanted to help. The couple had already had experience helping seniors.

 

So they arrived at the firehouse early Sunday to help with crush of donations.  “I knew how to organize,” Short said.

 

“We just want to help out,” his wife said. “We printed out a list of things that were needed.”

So, the first lesson is positive -- the importance of community -- and folks with organizational skills stepping forward to volunteer.

But, there also seems to be a question about whether all of the residents of the care facilities have been accounted for.  

See:  Barclay Friends Nursing Home Fire: What We Know and Don't Know [as of late Saturday]. 

Some  of the residents are being cared for in family members' homes; others at hospitals or other care facilities, but it seems that one lesson could be that a system of accountability for individuals who could be uniquely at risk in a fire or similar disaster should be part of an emergency plan, regardless of the age of the affected individuals.   More details on the cause of fire and a casualty report are expected on Monday.  

November 19, 2017 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, November 17, 2017

New Lessons to Emerge from Philadelphia-Area Nursing Home Fire?

In Pennsylvania, we awoke today to news media images of flames shooting into the night sky from a nursing home near Philadelphia.  I suspect many of us feared the worst outcome, including serious injuries to helpless residents, or worse.  In the region, wooden structures, narrow streets, and densely populated neighborhoods are the norm.    

But, although we are still in the early aftermath of the fire which reportedly ignited around 10:30 at night in a dementia care unit, evacuations occurred swiftly and with the help of the entire community, including college students who joined in the effort.  As my blogging colleague has pointed out recently in the context of hurricanes, often the real impact for seniors displaced by emergencies occurs in the days or even weeks after the event.  Let's hope we hear positive news about "best practices" in this instance.  Lesson number one may involve whether sprinklers in the building operated appropriately.

From one early news account: 

https://youtu.be/8UhX3Bo93Og

 

 

November 17, 2017 in Consumer Information, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Property Management, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Evictions" of Nursing Home Residents Trigger Lawsuits

The issue of "evictions" in residential facilities for older adults has long been on my radar screen, and I was especially interested to hear (and read) news of a lawsuit initiated by the AARP Foundation Litigation (AFL) against a California skilled nursing facility and its parent entity following the facility's refusal to "readmit" an 82 year-old resident following her temporary hospital stay.  As reported by NPR for All Things Considered on November 13, 2017: 

[The Defendants] say that she became aggressive with staff and threw some plastic tableware. So Pioneer House called an ambulance and sent her to a hospital for a psychological evaluation. The hospital found nothing wrong with her, but the nursing home wouldn't take her back. They said they couldn't care for someone with her needs.  Jones protested his mother's eviction to the California Department of Health Care Services. The department held a hearing. Jones won.

 

"I expected action — definitely expected action," says Jones.  Instead, he got an email explaining that the department that holds the hearings has no authority to enforce its own rulings. Enforcement is handled by a different state agency. He could start over with them.

 

This Catch-22 situation attracted the interest of the legal wing of the AARP Foundation. Last year, attorneys there asked the federal government to open a civil rights investigation into the way California deals with nursing home evictions. Now, they're suing Pioneer House and its parent company on Gloria Single's behalf. It's the first time the AARP has taken a legal case dealing with nursing home eviction.

For more, read AARP Foundation Sues Nursing Home to Stop Illegal Evictions.  

My thanks to my always alert colleague, Dickinson Law Professor Laurel Terry, for sharing this item.  

November 17, 2017 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)