Sunday, July 20, 2014
The growing significance and scope of "elder law" is demonstrated by the program for the upcoming 2014 Elder Law Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to be held on July 24-25. In addition to key updates on Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans and Social Security law, plus updates on the very recent changes to Pennsylvania law affecting powers of attorney, here are a few highlights from the multi-track sessions (48 in number!):
- Nationally recognized elder law practitioner, Nell Graham Sale (from one of my other "home" states, New Mexico!) will present on planning and tax implications of trusts, including special needs trusts;
- North Carolina elder law expert Bob Mason will offer limited enrollment sessions on drafting irrevocable trusts;
- We'll hear the latest on representing same-sex couples following Pennsylvania's recent court decision that struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriages;
- Julian Gray, Pittsburgh attorney and outgoing chair of the Pennsylvania Bar's Elder Law Section will present on "firearm laws and gun trusts." By coincidence, I've had two people this week ask me about what happens when you "inherit" guns.
Be there or be square! (Who said that first, anyway?)
July 20, 2014 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Medicaid, Medicare, Programs/CLEs, Property Management, Retirement, Social Security, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
From the New York Times on July 16, 2014, this news of a class action lawsuit challenging dramatic cuts in Medicaid funding for home care:
"A federal class action lawsuit filed late Tuesday accuses New York State health officials of denying or slashing Medicaid home care services to chronically ill and disabled people without proper notice, the chance to appeal or even an explanation, protections required by law.
The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, names three plaintiffs: an impaired 84-year-old woman living alone in Manhattan, a frail 18-year-old Brooklyn man with severe congenital disabilities, and a 65-year-old Manhattan man with diabetes and a schizoaffective disorder. But it was brought by the New York Legal Assistance Group on behalf of tens of thousands of disabled Medicaid beneficiaries who need home health care or help with daily tasks like bathing and eating."
For the full New York Times article, see Nina Bernstein on "Medicaid Home Care Cuts are Unjust, Lawsuit Says."
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Last week's news of a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceeding in the Texas-based senior living company Sears Methodist Retirement Systems, Inc. (SMRS) has once again generated questions about "entrance fees" paid by residents at the outset of their move to a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). CCRCs typically involve a tiered system of payments, often including a substantial (very substantial) upfront fee, plus monthly "service" fees. The upfront fee will carry a label, such as "admission fee" or "entrance fee" or even entrance "deposit," depending on whether and how state regulations require or permit certain labels to be used.
As a suggestion of the significance of the dollars, a resident's key upfront fee at a CCRC operated by SMRS reportedly ranged from $115,000 to $208,000. And it can be much higher with other companies. So, let's move away from the SMRS case for this "blog" outline of potential issues with upfront resident fees.
Even without talking about bankruptcy court, for residents of CCRCs there can be a basic level of confusion about upfront fees. In some instances, the CCRC marketing materials will indicate the upfront fee is "refundable," in whole or in part, in the event the resident moves out of the community or passes away. Thus, residents may assume the fees are somehow placed in a protected account or escrow account. In fact, even if the upfront fee is not "refundable," when there is a promise of "life time care," residents may assume upfront fees are somehow set aside to pay for such care. How the facility is marketed may increase the opportunity for resident confusion. Residents are looking for reassurances about the costs of future care and how upfront fees could impact their bottom line. That is often why they are looking at CCRCs to begin with. "Refundable fees" or "life care plans" can be important marketing tools for CCRCs. But discussions in the sales office of a CCRC may not mirror the "contract" terms.
One of the most important aspects of CCRCs is the "contract" between the CCRC and the resident. First, smaller "pre move-in" deposits may be paid to "hold" a unit, and this deposit may be expressly subject to an "escrow" obligation. But, larger upfront fees -- paid as part of the residency right -- are typically not escrowed. It is important not to confuse the "escrow" treatment of these fees. Of course, the "hold" fee is not usually the problem. It is the larger upfront fees --such as the $100k+ fees at SMRS -- that can become the focus of questions, especially if a bankruptcy proceeding is initiated.
The resident's contract requires very careful reading, and it will usually explain whether and how a CCRC company will make any refund of large upfront admission fees. In my experience of reading CCRC contracts, CCRCs rarely "guarantee" or "secure" (as opposed to promise) a refund, nor do they promise to escrow such upfront fees for the entire time the payer resides at the CCRC. In some states there is a "reserve" requirement (by contract or state law) for large upfront fees whereby the CCRC has a phased right to release or use the fees for its operation costs. Thus, the contract terms are the starting place for what will happen with upfront fees.
Why doesn't state regulation mandate escrow of large upfront fees? States have been reluctant to give-in to pressure from some resident groups seeking greater mandatory "protection" of their upfront fees. There's often a "free enterprise, let the market control" element to one side of regulatory debates. On the other side, there is the question of whether life savings of the older adult are proper targets for free enterprise theories. Professor Michael Floyd, for example, has asked, "Should Government Regulate the Financial Management of Continuing Care Retirement Communities?"
My research has helped me realize how upfront fees are a key financial "pool" for the CCRC, especially in the early years of operation where the developer is looking to pay off construction costs and loans. CCRCs want -- and often need -- to use those funds for current operations. and debt service. Thus, they don't want to have those fees encumbered by guarantees to residents. They take the position they cannot "afford" to have that pool of money sitting idle in a bank account, earning minimal interest. This is not to say the large entrance fees will be "misspent," but rather, the CCRC owners may wish to preserve flexibility about how and when to spend the upfront fees.
The treatment of "upfront fees" paid by residents of CCRCs also implicates questions about application of accounting and actuarial rules and principles. That important topic is worthy of a whole "law review article" -- and frankly it is a topic I've been working on for months.
In additional to looking for actuarial soundness, analysts who examine CCRCs as a matter of academic interest or practical concern have looked at whether CCRC companies and lenders may have a "fiduciary duty" to older adults/residents, a duty that is independent of any contract law obligations. Analysts further question whether a particular CCRC's marketing or financial practices violate consumer protection or elder protection laws.
There can also be confusion about what happens during a Chapter 11 process. First, during the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy process, a facility may be able to honor pre-bankruptcy petition "refund" requests or requests for refund of fees for a resident who does not move into the facility. Second, to permit continued operation as part of the reorganization plan, a facility will typically be permitted by the Court to accept new residents during the Chapter 11 proceeding and those specific new residents will have their upfront fees placed into a special escrow account, an account that cannot be used to pay the pre-petition debts of the company.
But what about the upfront fees already paid pre-petition by residents who also moved in before the bankruptcy petition? Usually those upfront fees are not escrowed during the bankruptcy process. Indeed, other "secured" creditors could object to refunds of "unsecured" fees. The Bankruptcy Court will usually issue an order -- as it did in SRMS's bankruptcy court case in Texas last week -- specifying how current residents' upfront fees will be treated now and in the future. A bit complicated, right? (And if I'm missing something please feel free to comment. I'm always interested in additional viewpoints on CCRCs. Again, the specific contract and any state laws or regulations governing for handling of fees will be important.)
Of course, this history is one reason some of us have been suggesting for years that prospective residents should have an experienced lawyer or financial consultant help them understand their contracts and evaluate risks before signing and again in the event of any bankruptcy court proceeding. "Get thee to a competent advisor." See also University of New Mexico Law Professor Nathalie Martin's articles on life-care planning risks and bankruptcy law.
As I mentioned briefly in writing last week about the SMRS Chapter 11 proceeding, CCRC operators have learned -- especially after the post-2008 financial crisis -- that the ability of a CCRC to have a viable "second chance" at success in attracting future residents will often depend on the treatment of existing residents. Thus, one key question in any insolvency will be whether the company either (a) finds a new "owner" during the Chapter 11 process or (2) is able to reorganize the other debts, thereby making it possible for the CCRC company to "honor" the resident refund obligations after emerging from the Chapter 11 process.
During the last five years we have seen one "big" default on residents' upfront. refundable entrance fees during the bankruptcy of Covenant at South Hills, a CCRC near Pittsburgh. A new, strong operator eventually did take over the CCRC, and operations continued. However, the new operator did not "assume" an obligation to refund approximately $26 million in upfront fees paid pre-petition by residents to the old owner. In contrast, Chapter 11 proceedings for some other CCRCs have had "gentler" results for residents, with new partners or new financial terms emerging from the proceedings, thereby making refunds possible as new residents take over the departed residents' units.
For more on how CCRC companies view "use" of upfront fees, here's a link to a short and clear discussion prepared by DLA Piper law firm, which, by the way, is the law firm representing the Debtor SMRS in the Texas Chapter 11 proceeding.
June 18, 2014 in Consumer Information, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Retirement, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, June 12, 2014
On June 12, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Clark v. Rameker, concluding that "inherited" IRAs are not protected from a holder's creditors during bankruptcy. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. In so ruling, the Court rejected application of the "retirement fund" exemption, because unlike a holder's self-funded IRA, inherited accounts lack the "planning" motivation that justified protection of the funds as a retirement asset.
Forbes described the result as "an opinion with far-reaching implications."
Hat top to ElderLawGuy Jeff Marshall as the first to send the link this decision.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a district court's rejection of a proposed Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settlement for $285 million -- because of the absence of any admissions by defendant Citigroup -- was improper. In SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, a case that arose from investigations into fraud following the financial industries meltdown, the Second Circuit observed that while the court has an obligation to review consent degrees to determine generally the "legality" of the terms and may consider whether the settlement is "fair and reasonable, to demand admissions as a condition of settlement goes too far.
The Second Circuit said, "It is an abuse of discretion to require, as the district court did here, that the S.E.C. establish the 'truth' of the allegations against a settling party as a condition for approving the consent decrees.... Trials are primarily about the truth. Consent decrees are primarily about pragmatism.... Consent decrees provide parties with a means to manage risk."
In cases where injunctive relief is part of the settlement, the Second Circuit said the trial court is permitted to analyze the enforceability of the terms, as a matter of "public interest."
The Wall Street Journal, in reporting on the June 4 decision, observed that the decision "eases pressure" on prosecutors and regulators "to exact admissions of wrongdoing in settlements with companies."
After reading the SEC-related decision, it would seem the same reasoning would govern settlements of federal Medicare and Medicaid fraud suits, including whistleblower cases, such as the multi-million dollar settlements in recent months involving nursing home care, pharmaceutical sales, and hospice, thus explaining how millions in de facto fines often involve no admissions of wrongdoing.
Or as I sometimes describe such agreements to settle, defendants must decide whether they can live with the financial effect of the monetary terms, and must promise merely to never do again what they say they never did before.
But I worry, will customers -- which in Medicare and Medicaid cases, usually means seniors and disabled persons -- be the ones who pay the downstream price of the settlement, especially without clear admissions of wrongdoing in the past?
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Does a resident have a private right of action for violation of key provisions of the federal Nursing Home Reform Act?
For example, federal Medicare/Medicaid Law specifies residents have certain "Transfer and Discharge Rights." A certified nursing facility must permit each resident to "remain in the facility" and must "not transfer or discharge the resident" except for certain specified reasons, usually requiring 30 days advance notice. But what happens if a facility ignores the limitations on acceptable grounds for transfer or discharge, including the 30 day notice requirement?
In its decision on May 12, 2014 in Schwerdtfeger v. Alden Long Grove Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, the federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois ruled that a discharge improper under federal law does not trigger a private statutory remedy. As described in the clearly written decision, an abrupt transfer of the resident from the nursing home into a hospital followed the resident's "verbal dispute with a nurse" and another resident. While federal law permits transfers where there someone's safety or health is endangered, it does not appear from the decision that the nursing home claimed the verbal dispute created such a danger.
Nonetheless, the court dismissed the resident's federal claim, concluding that the statutory language regarding discharge and transfer rights in Medicare and Medicaid law "does not manifest a 'clear and unambiguous' Congressional intention to create private rights in favor of individual nursing facility residents.... The NHRA [Nursing Home Reform Act] provides an administrative process in the state courts rather than a private remedy in federal court."
In so ruling, the federal district court declined to follow the analysis of the Third Circuit in Grammer v. John J. Kane Regional Centers-Glen Hazel, 570 3d 520 (3d Cir. 2008), which as a "matter of first impression" ruled that the NHRA was sufficiently "rights creating" that it could trigger a cause of action regarding quality of care under Section 1983.
My question, reflecting my teaching interests no doubt, is whether the nursing home's discharge was a breach of contract? Most nursing home contracts I've reviewed either directly or indirectly "adopt" the protections of the NHRA as specific rights of their residents. (Indeed, I would be leery of any nursing home that did not do that.) So, even if not a violation of federal law, wouldn't such a discharge breach the contract? I suspect there is probably a court decision or law review article on this topic -- perhaps our readers have a citation?
Of course, in seeking a right to sue directly under the NHRA, the resident was probably also seeking a right to claim attorneys' fees under the civil rights law; breach of contract claims, even if successful, may not make a claimant "whole" because of the likelihood of small consequential damages and no contractual right to seek attorneys' fees. It is not clear from the Schwerdtfeger decision whether a breach of contract claim was alleged, although the federal court did "decline" to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's "state law claims."
Sunday, June 1, 2014
The Minensota DHS says that it is actively working to implement the plan and other mandates of the federal court, including departmentwide training on the agreement and plan.
The Jensen Settlement Agreement, approved Dec. 5, 2011, allowed the department and the plaintifs to resolve the claims in a mutually agreeable manner.
More information is on the Jensen Settlement page on DHS' website.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Maryland Elder Law and Disability Law specialist Ron Landsman provides a thoughtful analysis of use of trusts, especially "special needs trusts," to assist families in effective managment of assets. His most recent article, "When Worlds Collides: State Trust Law and Federal Welfare Programs," appears in the Spring 2014 issue of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) Journal. Minus the footnotes, his article begins:
"'Special needs trusts,' which enable people with assets to qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid, are the intersection of two different worlds: poverty programs and the tools of wealth management. Introducing trusts into the world of public benefits has resulted in deep confusion for public benefit administrators. . . . The confusion arising from the merger of trust law with public benefits is sharply drawn in the agencies' [Social Security Administration (SSA) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)] attempts to define what it means for a trust to be for the sole benefit of the public benefits recipient. Public benefits administrators have focused on the distributions a trustee makes rather than the fiduciary standards that guide the trustee. The agencies have imposed detailed distribution rules that range from the picayune to the counterproductive and without regard, and sometimes contrary, to the best interests of the disabled beneficiary."
Drawing upon his experience in drafting trusts for disabled persons, Ron takes on the challenge of explaining how and where he sees the agencies' focus on "distribution" as misguided. He contends, for example:
"The [better] task for CMS and SSA [would be] to use their authority to develop standards and guidelines that utilize, rather than thwart, competent, responsible, properly trained trustees as their partners in making special needs trusts an effective tool in serving the needs of people with disabilities. If this were done properly, capable trustees would be the allies of the federal and state agencies in the efficient use of limited private resources. Beneficiaries would live better, more rewarding lives to the extent that resources can make a difference, at a lower cost to Medicaid, with a greater possibility of more funds recovered through payback."
Ron is detailed in his critique of agency guidelines and manuals, and he provides clear examples of his "better" sole benefit analysis.
May 15, 2014 in Estates and Trusts, Federal Cases, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Medicaid, Property Management, Social Security, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
One of the tough questions in the arena of "law and aging," which is arguably broader than "elder law," is the scope of liability for negligence or mismanagement in long-term care. A lot rides on this issue. For example, recently one friend mentioned to me that a large law firm in his city was spending most of its litigation time defending nursing homes, not doctors or hospitals, on personal injury claims.
Hints of the "scope" of corporate long-term care liability issues appear as early as 2003. In Cases and Materials on Corporations (LexisNexis 2d 2005) by Professors Thomas Hurst (Univ. of Florida) and William Gregory (Georgia State), in the chapter on "Piercing the Corporate Veil," the authors include the case of Hill v. Beverly Enterprises-Mississippi, Inc., 305 F.Supp. 2d 644 (S.D. Miss. 2003), in which the court permits a nursing home resident's personal injury case to go forward for trial against the nursing home's "administrator" and two "licensees." The court rejects the defendants' arguments that without direct involvement or personal participation in the plaintiff's care, no liability can attach.
In the notes after the Beverly case, the textbook authors ask whether this ruling is an example of "piercing the corporate veil." The answer appears to be no; rather, the point of the authors' inclusion of the case in that chapter is that high level administrators may still face personal liability without hands-on involvement, because they have statutory or common law "duties," such as hiring, supervision, or training of employees. The court emphasized, "There is no requirement of personal contact, but rather of personal participation in the tort; and a breach by the administrator of her own duties constitutes direct, personal participation."
Fast forward 11 years. As recently discussed in McKnight's News, a 2014 federal bankruptcy court recently issued a ruling analyzing parties' attempts to pierce a particular for-profit nursing home enterprise's corporate veil in order to collect some $1 billion dollars in judgments. Success in collection apparently depends upon the judgment holders' ability to recover from a "bankrupt" corporate defendant's current or former "parent" corporations, the former parent's shareholders, lenders (private equity firms), or other individuals and entities alleged to have received the bankrupt subsidiary's assets as part of a "bust-out scheme."
In March 2014, the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled these more remote defendants can face potential liability. The court concludes that while the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim permitting "veil-piercing," the plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief against corporate directors and "upstream" entities on either a direct allegation of breach of fiduciary duty (for a director who served in multiple boards) or on an indirect theory of liability, "aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty." The court also permits the plaintiffs to proceed on theories of fraudulent transfers or conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfers against the parent company, successor entities, and certain individuals who appear to be corporate officers or directors. Of course, a decision on a pretrial motion to dismiss does not mean the defendants will ultimately be found liable.
The judge takes pains to outline the series of corporate entities and transactions, which appear to include overlapping officers or directors, that were used to build a national long-term care empire, but also, as alleged by the plaintiffs, to give separate entities control over physical assets or daily operations or incoming revenue, and to isolate and limit liability for debts. To highlight one of the alleged sham transactions, the court describes the debtor corporation's "sole shareholder" as "an elderly graphic artist who currently lives in a nursing home" and who may have had some recollection of being asked to invest in "computer equipment," but who did not, in fact have or spend any money for his shares.
The Bankruptcy Court's memorandum opinion, in In re Fundamental Long Term Care Inc., Jackson v. General Electric Capital Corp., 507 B.R. 359 (M.D. Fla. March 14, 2014), is "colorful" in the way that only legal geeks probably appreciate, although at one point the court observes that the "'bust-out' scheme alleged in the complaint . . . has all the makings of a legal thriller." Plus, there are political implications of the Florida decision reverberating in Illinois, as described by the Chicago Tribune, here. Scott Turow, this is in your backyard. Are you taking notes?
As for the $1 billion in judgments that triggered the collection efforts, they apparently represent 6 separate cases, and it appears that at least one was entered when no lawyer appeared to defend the nursing home at a jury trial against claims of negligence, as explained in a Tampa Bay Times news account in 2012 about one of the cases, where a wheelchair-bound resident was alleged to have fallen to her death in an unlocked stairwell.
And by the way, just because a nursing home is organized as a nonprofit corporation does not mean that it can necessarily escape liability for officers and directors, as we recounted last December in discussing In re Lemington Home for the Aged.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
The National Senior Citizens Law Center (NSCLC), drawing upon the nonprofit firm's experience in successful advocacy about access to benefits, is sharing its recommendations on how to help individuals obtain Medicaid funding for Home and Community Based Services (HCBS). The guide is titled "Just Like Home: An Advocate's Guide to Consumer Rights in Home and Communit Based Services." The authors, Eric Carlson, Hannah Weinberger-Divack and Fay Gordon, explain:
"New federal Medicaid rules, for the first time, set standards to ensure that Medicaid-funded HCBS are provided in settings that are non-institutional in nature. These standards, which took effect in March 2014, apply to residential settings such as houses, apartments, and residential care facilities like assisted living facilities. The standards also apply to non-residential settings such as adult day care programs.
This guide provides consumers, advocates and other stakeholders with information regarding multiple facets of the new standards, including consumer rights in HCBS, and the guidelines for determining which settings are disqualified from HCBS reimbursement. This guide is based on the federal rules and subsequently issued guidance, and will be updated as further information becomes available."
The twenty-page guide is free and downloadable -- more reasons to appreciate the hard-working folks at NSCLC. The NSCLC lawyers remind us that implimentation of HCBS is far from uniform from state to state. Knowing what is happening outside your own state will increase the odds of successfullly advocating for change, and securing threshold, quality care in your state.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
While in Arizona over the weekend, I had time (while hiding from the first days of this summer's 100+ degree days) to catch up on the latest news about allegations involving the Veterans Administration Health Care System in Phoenix. As reported in the Arizona Republic, key concerns focus on allegations that:
- Veterans were forced to wait unreasonable lengths of times for needed health care appointments (including allegations of waits of over 200 days);
- "Forty or more" veterans died while awaiting care;
- Records were falsified or improperly maintained regarding wait times, with allegations of a "secret list" showing more accurate information;
- Records have been or will be destroyed.
The U.S. House Committee on Veterans' Affairs has reportedly issued orders to the VA to preserve documents. The key allegations of failure to provide necessary care come from two physicians, including one who worked for the VA for 24 years before retiring in December.
I'm not seeing concrete details about the wait times or deaths, although at least one death by suicide of a 20-year veteran is described by a family member in a letter to the editor of the Arizona Republic. It seems unlikely that wait-time delays would be a facility-specific practice and would seem more likely to be a larger system issue. Some allege the problems can be tied to specific administrators. Pinning down such practices is difficult at best, but is there more bad news ahead?
Friday, April 18, 2014
Three legal advocacy organizations, Disability Rights Oregon, the Oregon Law Center and the National Senior Citizens Law Center, worked as a team to initiate a class action suit in Oregon on behalf of 700 individuals with disabilities to protect their rights to continue to receive Social Security benefits needed for basic living requirements. The individuals' access to monthly Social Security benefits was jeopardized when a non-profit organization, "Safety Net of Oregon," serving as their representative payee was disqualified following an investigation for alleged mismanagement of clients' funds. The advocates explained:
"This suit is asking that SSA follow its own regulations to make sure that benefits continue to flow to recipients in a safe and responsible manner. In early March, SSA sent a notice to approximately 1,000 SSA recipients who have Safety Net as a representative payee, advising them that their benefits would be suspended beginning April 1, 2014, and that the amount they would receive would be $0.00. While some recipients have been able to find a new payee, or to become their own payee, many clients never received the notice and have no idea that their benefits are about to be suspended. Almost 700 individuals still lack new payees as of March 21, 2014. Many are homeless, have severe and persistent mental illness, developmental disabilities, and/or alcohol or drug addictions. Many of the clients are profoundly social isolated and alienated, and totally unable to navigate the system on their own."
In response to the suit, the federal court issued a restraining order on March 26 requiring SSA to assign new payees to former Safety Net Clients, rather than delay, require new applications or other in-person requests by the disabled SSI and SSD recipients. More background here.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
The Social Security Administration announced on Monday that it is halting its practice of "Treasury Offsets" to recover debts reported to be 10 years or older. This decision comes just three days after the Washington Post's front page account of intercepts that targeted IRS income tax refunds going to children of alleged debtors. As reported in today's Washington Post:
“"I have directed an immediate halt to further referrals under the Treasury Offset Program to recover debts owed to the agency that are 10 years old and older pending a thorough review of our responsibility and discretion under the current law,' the acting Social Security commissioner, Carolyn Colvin, said in a statement.
Colvin said anyone who has received Social Security or Supplemental Security Income benefits and 'believes they have been incorrectly assessed with an overpayment' should contact the agency and 'seek options to resolve the overpayment.'”
The Washington Post reported that after its first article, "many hundreds of taxpayers whose refunds had been intercepted came forward and complained to members of Congress that they had been given no notice of the debts and that the government had not explained why they were being held responsible for debts that their deceased parents may have incurred."
Hmm. It seems that it is the intercept notice procedures that may be the focus of reexamination by the SSA, rather than giving up on the authority granted by Congress in 2008 to recover "stale" debts. Plus, it is unclear whether SSA will explain its theory for seeking recoveries against children of debtors.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Paula Span, writing for the New York Times' column, The New Old Age, offers several perspectives on the Vi of Palo Alto lawsuit filed by residents at this high-end, California continuing care retirement community (CCRC). In her first piece, "CCRC Residents Ask, 'Where's the Money?'" she sets forth competing viewpoints of the parties:
Though their suit covers several matters, concern over eventual refunds is at heart of the battle. In their complaint, the plaintiffs call the transfer of money from the local provider to its Chicago parent company “upstreaming.”
Management calls it standard business practice. Entrance fee repayments come not from a reserve, but from the eventual resale of an apartment after a resident moves out or dies, said Paul Gordon, a lawyer for Vi. “Once I pay someone, I can’t tell them what to do with it afterwards,” he said. “It’s their money.”
“The payments are going to be made,” Mr. Gordon said. “The rest is eligible for distribution as a return on investment” — i.e., as profit.
That’s a different arrangement from what residents believe they signed up for. Because the Chicago company has not assumed the debt owed for eventual refunds, residents “lost all the security and peace of mind they had paid for,” Mr. McCarthy [the attorney for Vi plaintiffs] said.
In her second article released the next day, Ms. Span takes a broader view than the single lawsuit involving Vi of Palo Alto, noting that "In Many States, Few Legal Rights for CCRC Residents," citing some of my work with states where resident-inspired changes are under consideration, and noting the important work of the National Continuing Care Residents Association, also known as NaCCRA.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Find out more about this settlement agreement here.
Monday, March 17, 2014
From 3L student Katie L. Summers at my own law school, Penn State Dickinson, a recently published Penn State Law Review comment titled "Medicaid Estate Recovery: To Expand, or Not to Expand, That is the Question." Here is a taste, from the abstract:
"To recoup some of the costs of Medicaid, the states are required to implement a Medicaid estate recovery program. There are certain mandated requirements, but the reach of the recovery program is primarily left to the discretion of the states. Pennsylvania recently contemplated expanding its Medicaid estate recovery program, but the proposed changes were not enacted. This Comment provides an overview of Medicaid estate recovery in Pennsylvania by exploring the background of Medicaid, Medicaid estate planning, and Medicaid estate recovery generally. In addition, this Comment examines the arguments for and against Medicaid estate recovery. Finally, this Comment recommends the creation of a system that expands Medicaid estate recovery in Pennsylvania, while retaining certain protections for the deceased Medicaid recipient’s heirs."
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Last week I blogged about tax questions facing some nonprofit senior living operations, especially nonprofit Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs). This week, we pass on news of a federal court suit filed by residents of a for-profit CCRC, challenging the company's accounting and allocation of fees, especially entrance fees, paid by the residents.
Residents of Vi of Palo Alto (formerly operating in Palo Alto as "Classic Residences by Hyatt") in California are challenging what could be described as "upstream" diversion of corporate assets to the parent company, CC-Palo Alto Inc. They contend the diversion includes money which should have been protected to fund local operations or to secure promised "refunds" of entrance fees. Further, the residents allege the diversion of money has triggered a higher tax burden on the local operation, a burden they allege has improperly increased the monthly maintenance fees also charged to residents. According to the February 10, 2014 complaint, Vi of Palo Alto is running a multi-million dollar deficit and the residents point to the existence of actuarial opinions that support their allegations. The complaint alleges breach of contract, common law theories of concealment, misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty, and statutory theories of misconduct, including alleged violation of California's Elder Abuse laws.
Representatives of the company deny the allegations, as reported in detail in Senior Housing News on February 23. A previous resident class action filed in state court against a Classic Residence of Hyatt CCRC, now called Vi of La Jolla, also in California, settled in 2008.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
In a previous post, I reported on a senior care whistleblower case, where a court ruled that a former corporate officer, who was also the in-house counsel, cannot participate in a False Claims Act suit, if the information supporting the claim comes from privileged communications received in his role as an attorney. The two other former executives of the company, non-lawyers, could have participated as qui tam plaintiffs; however the entire case was dismissed by the court as a sanction for improper disclosure of attorney-client privileged information.
Most whistleblowers are insiders, either current or former employees; however, that is not always true. The "relator" (that's False-Claim-Act-speak for whistleblower) in a suit brought against RehabCare, Rehab Systems, and Health Systems, Inc. was the CEO of a competitor, Health Dimensions Rehabilitation, Inc., who first heard about a successful use of "referral fees" during a public conference call hosted by RehabCare.
"Pride goeth before a fall," as our mothers might say. In this case, the CEO's research into the referral fees resulted in allegations the fees were intended to generate referrals of clients covered by Medicare and Medicaid, thus giving rise to alleged violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Act. The defendants denied all allegations.
In the RehabCare case, which settled earlier this year for a reported $30 million, the whistleblower, Health Dimensions Rehabilitation, Inc. is in line to receive about $5.7 million from the settlement, according to the U.S. Justice Department.
Penn State Dickinson School of Law is hosting a half-day program examining "Whistleblower Laws in the 21st Century," on March 20, 2014. Speakers include both academic scholars and experienced attorneys who have advised or represented parties in False Claims Act cases in health care, including "senior care."
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Via Kaiser Health News and sources referenced therein:
After years of trying, Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., says he is optimistic that Congress will change the Medicare policy that has left thousands of patients without coverage for nursing home care after leaving the hospital.
The CT Mirror: After years of trying, U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, said Tuesday he’s optimistic that Congress will take action to address a technicality that has left thousands of Medicare patients without coverage for nursing home care after leaving the hospital. At issue is how Medicare treats patients designated by hospitals as being on “observation status.” Medicare’s hospitalization benefit covers nursing home care for patients recovering from a hospital stay, if they have spent at least three consecutive days as inpatients in a hospital. But increasingly, hospitals have been designating patients as being on observation status, even if they receive inpatient care and spend several nights in the hospital (Becker, 2/11).
CQ HealthBeat: As Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., sees it, more of his colleagues are becoming aware of the ill effects that can occur when hospitals tell Medicare that a person who spent days being treated within their walls was not an “inpatient.” Courtney and many advocacy groups say that when hospitals instead slot patients as receiving “observation” services, that can deprive them of needed follow-up skilled nursing care. Or, it can cost them dearly if they use these services as after a hospital stay (Young, 2/11).
For lots of great information on the observation status issue, visit the Center for Medicare Advocacy's observation status resource area.
Friday, February 7, 2014
In United States ex rel. Fair Laboratory Practices Associates v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., decided by the Second Circuit on October 25 2013, we see another qui tam suit, where former employees allege the company's participation in a scheme to defraud Medicare and Medicaid, this time by allegedly underpricing certain services in order to stimulate referrals of clients who qualified for higher rates under Medicare or Medicaid coverage. That allegation triggered the federal Anti-Kickback Statute that applies to federal health care programs.
If anyone is interested in -- or skeptical about -- making a whistleblower claim part of a "business plan," just read this decision. The plaintiff, Fair Laboratory Practices Associates, was formed as a partnership by three former employees, who combined their knowledge in an attempt to confront what they believed were fraudulent sales practices. The federal False Claims Act permits successful whistleblowers to share in any financial recovery for the U.S.
Just one little problem. One of the members of the partnership was a former vice president and general counsel for the defendant corporation, and he was disclosing information received in his role as the only in-house lawyer for the company. Indeed, as reported in the opinion, that is exactly why the other two whistleblowers invited him to join their partnership, because his status as a lawyer "would improve our credibility with the government."
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs' group, it also triggered Rule 1.9 of New York's ethical rules, prohibiting a lawyer from disclosing confidential information of former clients. While the 2d Circuit credited the attorney's contention that he reasonably believed his employer intended to commit a crime, the court concluded the level of disclosure was "greater than reasonably necessary to prevent any alleged ongoing fraudulent scheme." The Court rejected the argument that the policies underlying the False Claims Act trumped the state's ethical rules for legal counsel.
More importantly, the court concluded that although the other two non-lawyer partners could have filed the qui tam action based on the information they alone possessed as former executives for the company, once their knowledge became entwined with the attorney's unauthorized disclosures, the partnership as a group was disqualified. Case dismissed (although the Court does leave the door open for a new relator as plaintiff, or the U.S. on its own).
Here's more on the case by Joseph Callanan, an associate editor for the American Bar Association's Litigation News.
Here is useful background on the federal Anti-Kickback law, courtesy of the American Health Care Association.