Sunday, December 6, 2015
According to one U.K. source, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, supports "removing barriers for new and emerging companies, in order to create better functioning business ... the lifeblood of a thriving economy." Apparently part of that proposal is to permit on-line real estate agents. From The Economic Voice:
Mr Osborne’s intention is for the Government to “further reduce barriers so that it’s easier for alternative business structures, such as supermarkets and estate agents, to offer legal services such as conveyancing.” A consultation next spring will look to remove these existing barriers for alternative business models in legal services, as well as making legal service regulators independent from their representative bodies....
However Mr Osborne’s big statement was the Government’s intention to inject innovation into the home buying process. They want to ensure that the modernisation of the estate agency sector through the online space, continues to provide consumers with quicker, better value routes to selling their home. Mr Osborne wants to encourage new business models such as online only estate agents, to enhance price competition in the real estate sector – as he believes they are yet to properly penetrate the property market.
Hat tip to Dickinson Law Professor Laurel Terry for the link.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
The GAO has released another report on Nursing Home Quality. Dated October, 2015, Nursing Home Quality: CMS Should Continue to Improve Data and Oversight is a 52 page report issued by the GAO that "examines (1) the extent to which reported nursing home quality has changed in recent years and the factors that may have affected any observed changes, and (2) how CMS oversight activities have changed in recent years."
The report notes some issues with the data collected as well as some efforts regarding oversight, and in the conclusion the GAO discusses the issues with the data and also
according to CMS officials, the agency faces the challenge of conducting effective oversight of nursing home quality with its limited resources, while meeting all of its oversight requirements. CMS has made modifications to some activities it considered essential to its oversight, without knowing whether the modifications have affected the agency’s ability to assess nursing home quality. Further, some modifications made by CMS regional offices and state survey agencies to their own nursing home oversight activities could adversely affect the CMS central office’s ability to oversee nursing home quality, while other modifications could be effective strategies that could be adopted more widely among regional offices and state survey agencies....
The GAO makes 3 recommendations:
- Establish specific timeframes, including milestones to track progress, for the development and implementation of a standardized survey methodology across all states.
- Establish and implement a clear plan for ongoing auditing to ensure reliability of data self-reported by nursing homes, including payroll-based staffing
- The Administrator of CMS should establish a process for monitoring modifications of essential oversight activities made at the CMS central office, CMS regional office, and state survey agency levels to better understand the effects on nursing home quality oversight.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Smaller residences (not smaller as in a tiny home) provide more homelike care than nursing homes, according to a recent article in the New York Times. Small Residences for the Elderly Provide More Personal, Homelike Care explains the Green House homes where
Each home houses only 10 elderly people, and each person has a bedroom and bathroom. [The resident] has private space, is able to order breakfast when she wants it and enjoys home-style cooking, including some of her favorites..... Residents can gather around a fireplace in the common room, and [the resident] enjoys chatting with aides in the open kitchen.
As the article explains, a smaller size residence like this "is part of a complex of senior housing and care options, and privately owned care homes that are often unmarked in residential neighborhoods. They are usually newer, sometimes cheaper, and generally offer more customized care than most nursing homes." The article traces the history of the development of Green Houses and notes that they are not yet widely available in all parts of the country. Quality is important: for a residence to be a Green House, "Green House homes are trademarked and built to strict certifications. Nurturing values and a more active life are encouraged. An aide, called shahbaz — a Persian word that means a royal falcon that oversees the kingdom — functions as a leader, not just a servant."
The article also discusses other housing options that are smaller in scale than nursing homes and compares them to nursing homes.
Click here to read more about Green House projects.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
With Thanksgiving looming, it seemed appropriate to take a moment to say thanks to all the family caregivers. And on the subject of caregivers, I wanted to share this 5 Facts about Family Caregivers published by Pew Research Center.
Here are the five facts:
- In the US there are 40.4 million unpaid caregivers for those 65 and older.
- The caregivers are most likely between 45-64 years old.
- The most common caregiving kids perform helping around the house, doing errands and fixing things around the house.
- A major segment of caregiving is providing emotional support.
- Most kids find helping their parents rewarding, although a few find it stressful.
This is good information to share with your students as well. So read the full document, thank a caregiver and have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Sunday, November 22, 2015
As I prepare to speak at a program at the University of Leeds this week on comparative social care systems and legal policies, a headline in The Guardian caught my eye: "Half of UK Care Homes Will Close Unless £2.9bn Funding Gap Is Plugged, Warn Charities." The Guardian reports:
In a joint letter, 15 social care and older people’s groups urge Osborne to use his spending review on Wednesday to plug a funding gap that they say will hit £2.9bn by 2020. They warn that social care in England, already suffering from cuts imposed under the coalition, will be close to collapse unless money is found to rebuild support for the 883,000 older and disabled people who depend on personal care services in their homes.
[Chancellor of the Exchequer] Osborne has already decided to use his overview of public finances to give town halls the power to raise council tax by up to 2% to fund social care, in a move that could raise up to £2bn for the hard-pressed sector. However, the signatories of the letter, such as Age UK and the Alzheimer’s Society, want him to commit more central government funding to social care.
The looming £2.9bn gap “can no longer be ignored”, the letter says. “Up to 50% of the care home market will become financially unviable and care homes will start to close their doors,” it adds. “Seventy-four per cent of domiciliary home-care providers who work with local councils have said that they will have to reduce the amount of publicly funded care they provide. If no action is taken, it is estimated that this would affect half of all of the people and their families who rely on these vital services.”
Osborne’s endorsement of a hypothecated local tax to boost social care comes after intense lobbying behind the scenes and public warnings from bodies such as the King’s Fund health thinktank.
The authors warn the "NHS will be overwhelmed by frail elderly people" in search of care. I was struck by implications that without funding reallocation, England will face staggering hordes of near zombies. There is irony in this imagery, of course, because we spend a heck of a lot of real money on best-selling books, movies and top-rated television shows about fictional zombies, while failing to come to terms with the funding needs for real people. See e.g., this estimate that "Zombies Are Worth Over $5 billion to Economy."
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Living in a Sunbelt state, I know how hot it can get in the summer months. I recently ran across a July 2015 decision from HHS' Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) reviewing the imposition of a "per instance" monetary penalty CMS assessed against an Arizona SNF.
CMS’s allegations in this case are predicated on complaints that portions of Petitioner’s facility – including several residents’ rooms – were uncomfortably hot. Those allegations are supported by the complaints of several residents and by temperature readings taken by a surveyor on July 16, 2014. Readings taken by the surveyor showed portions of some of the residents’ rooms being as hot as 90 degrees Fahrenheit.... Such temperatures plainly exceed what any reasonable person would consider to be "comfortable." On their face they comprise violations of 42 C.F.R. § 483.15(h)(6).
After discussing the ways the surveyor and the SNF measured the temperatures inside the SNF, the ALJ in the opinion notes
The overwhelming evidence is that rooms at Petitioner’s facility were uncomfortably hot due to the failure of the facility’s air conditioning system. Arizona in July is a very hot place. Building interiors in that State that are not adequately air conditioned can become dangerously hot. As Petitioner admits, the air conditioning in its facility had failed to work adequately in July 2014. The failure prompted residents to complain that their rooms had become uncomfortably hot.... The staff took various measures to address the failure of the air conditioning system, including closing curtains in residents’ rooms and conducting random temperature checks....
"The evidence that residents were not comfortable is overwhelming, beginning with these residents’ complaints and further evidenced by the fact that Petitioner’s own staff recognized that there were problems with overheating in the residents’ rooms." The ALJ upheld the penalty.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
On November 6, 2015 the appellate division of New York's Supreme Court addressed an issue long brewing in some states, whether Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs) can insist on "private pay" for skilled nursing care despite a resident's "eligibility" for Medicaid under state and federal laws. In Good Shepherd Village at Endwell, Inc. v. Yezzi, the unanimous panel affirmed summary judgment in favor of the CCRC on the payment question.
The decision highlights Congressional DRA action in 2005/6 that amended federal Medicaid law to expressly permit CCRCs to offer contracts that require residents to "spend on their care resources declared for the purposes of admission before applying for medical assistance." The DRA amendment was a response to the industry's lobbying efforts, following a 2004 decision by a Maryland appellate court in Oak Crest Village, Inc. v. Murphy that held such a contractual provision violated the federal Nursing Home Residents' Bill of Rights, viewed as prohibiting nursing homes from conditioning admission on guarantees of private pay.
In the New York case history, the couple apparently signed two separate documents, beginning with a "contract" at the time of their entrance into the CCRC that required them to pay both an entrance fee ($143,850) and "basic monthly fees" of approximately $2,550 to cover the cost of independent living. Any need for skilled nursing care would be assessed "an additional charge." That contract provided that residents could "not transfer assets represented as available" for less than fair market value. When the wife needed skilled care, the couple signed a second document, referred to in the case as an "admission agreement," for treatment in the CCRC's skilled nursing unit. The "admission agreement" reportedly required the Yezzis to "pay for, or arrange to have paid for by Medicaid" all services provided by the CCRC.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
For several years, the National Continuing Care Residents' Association (NaCCRA) has hosted annual meetings in conjunction with the LeadingAge meeting, combining its own business with the opportunity for members to participate in a broad array of educational and general sessions offered under the umbrella of LeadingAge, thus providing residents with direct insights into provider-side views of the industry.
This year, the NaCCRA meetings on October 31-November 1, 2015 in Boston, offered a packed agenda of topics that attracted strong attendance by officers, board members, and representatives of more than a dozen state resident chapters (photo), as well as interested individual residents. And anyone who thinks older adults aren't tech savvy can think again, as several members were participating remotely and the sessions are recorded for later viewing through the NaCCRA website.
High on the agenda this year was finalization of a formal affiliation agreement between NaCCRA and LeadingAge.
The prospects for affiliation troubled some within NaCCRA, especially those who became active in NaCCRA precisely because of concern about the direction taken by certain owners or management of CCRCs in recent years. They saw LeadingAge as the voice of "providers" only, and perhaps even as representing "the enemy." They were worried residents might be silenced by the affiliation. Others in NaCCRA have witnessed the ever-broadening membership of LeadingAge and noted the organization's strong interest in state and federal regulation, laws and tax policies affecting senior living operations. They felt that NaCCRA needed to be inside the tent to have an effective voice in future changes that can affect residents.
Within NaCCRA, the vote in favor of affiliation lead to a change at the leadership level, with President Dan Seeger (Pennsylvania) and at least one other board member stepping down from their positions in late summer 2015.
Past President Ruth Walsh (Connecticut, center in photo below) had several weeks as Interim President. During the October 31 meeting, new officers were elected, including Rev. Bob Nicholson (Washington, below left) as incoming President, Walt Boyer (North Carolina) as President Elect, and Jack Cumming (California) as Treasurer, joining William Ratcliff as Secretary.
At the meeting the results of a recent survey of the more than 2,000 paid members of NaCCRA (including those representing affiliated state NaCCRA chapters or resident councils, thus giving NaCCRA an interest group of at least 38,000 residents) was announced. The survey provides a prioritized action list for upcoming projects. Advocating for clearer written statements of "resident rights" (matched with better understanding of resident responsibilities) came out on top of the list of objectives for the coming year
Sunday, November 1, 2015
At the opening general session for LeadingAge's 2015 Annual meeting on November 1, the results of two years of research into consumer preferences for LTC and senior housing, including consumer and provider surveys and focus groups, has culminated in a new identity for Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs). And -- drum roll, please -- the new name is Life Plan Communities.
The thinking is interesting. First, LeadingAge researchers learned that while current residents embrace the name "Continuing Care Retirement" for their communities, younger persons reject the notion of both "retirement" and "care." Thus, Life Plan Communities are viewed as playing to the "engagement" model of aging, where individuals have more control over their options, and are less likely to be passive in their response to provider-defined theories of care.
In announcing the new name, outgoing LeadingAge CEO Larry Minnix and other leaders emphasized that the change is intended to be part of a conversation, to stimulate thinking and reaction to what it means to plan for future needs. They recognize that states may or may not embrace the name change, including whether state laws will be amended to reflect the new identity for purposes of licensing and regulation.
Will a rose by any other name smell as sweet -- or, perhaps, even sweeter?
The four-day annual meeting for LeadingAge, a trade association for providers of senior services with "6,000+ members and partners including not-for-profit organizations representing the entire field of aging services, 39 state partners, hundreds of businesses, consumer groups, foundations and research partners," starts today, November 1, in Boston The program offerings are impressive with as many as two dozen choices per educational session and keynote addresses by high profile individuals, such as Monday's speaker, Dr. Atul Gawande, famed author of a best selling and much discussed book that challenges thinking on end-of-life case, Being Mortal.
I find LeadingAge as an organization to be fascinating, not least of all because of the scope of providers under its umbrella, but also because it has proven itself to be very responsive to changes in the market place. It was once known as AAHSA or American Association of Homes and Services, but voted to change its name to LeadingAge in 2010.
More changes are in the works, as long-time and much respected Larry Minnix is retiring as the head honcho of LeadingAge. Nonprofit Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs) were once a major (perhaps even the most dominate) part of the membership, but as the senior care and services market is changing that is less and less true, especially with trends in favor of mergers and acquisitions, including not infrequent transitions to for-profit operations. Interestingly, during this year's meeting, LeadingAge is announcing a new for name for CCRCs. Stay tuned!
This organization clearly understands the need for change to stay attractive to consumers. At the same time, name changes can also complicate understanding by consumers of the choices available to them -- and can complicate state efforts to evaluate and, where appropriate, regulate different models of senior and adult housing and care services.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
I was interested to learn about a new law in Illinois that allows for electronic monitoring in long term care facilities in certain cases. Protecting Our Own: The Practical Implications of Illinois’s Authorized Electronic Monitoring in Long-Term Care Facilities notes that this new law goes into effect at the beginning of 2016 and "permits nursing home residents in facilities that are licensed under certain state legislation such as the ID/DD Community Care Act or Nursing Home Care Act to use audio or video surveillance in their room at their own expense." There are criminal penalties if anyone interferes with the monitoring devices and there is some money available for those facilities unable to afford the devices.
Illinois joins 4 other states (New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington) with electronic monitoring laws. There are other states that have guidelines for those LTC facilities who want to allow monitoring based on a desire of a resident. The article discusses the pros and cons of monitoring and offers concerns regarding quality of care.
In terms of quality of care, having cameras in the rooms may also affect the important relationships developed between facility caregivers and their residents. The staff may choose to rely on the cameras to monitor residents rather than engaging in direct communication, potentially leading to mistrust and even a greater substandard of care that such legislation was meant to combat in the first place. Residents may never truly feel comfortable without the bond usually fostered between the two parties, contributing to a negative experience.
The Illinois statute is available here. One section of the statute addresses consent to monitoring. Written consent by the resident (or the resident's guardian) is required on a specific form from the state agency. If the resident's doctor determines the resident lacks the capacity to consent, the statute provides a priority list of individuals who may provide consent. Among other things, the statute addresses monitoring when the resident has a roommate. The statute also provides for conditions to be set on monitoring. The "standard" conditions set out in the statute include no audio recording, no transmission of either video or audio, powering off the devices or blocking taping when a health care professional is caring for the resident or roommate or during bathing and dressing or during visits by certain folks such as attorney, financial planner, and ombudsman. Other restrictions beyond the statutory ones can be imposed. The statute addresses other matters, such as notice, reporting and more. Read the Illinois statute here.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
The ABA Section on Family Law has devoted the entire Fall 2015 issue of its Family Advocate magazine to "Crossing Paths with a Trust." The paper copy of the issue just appeared on my desk. The opening editorial advises family law attorneys advising clients considering divorce not to fear trusts:
Lawyers who simply take a deep breath and read the trust will often be surprised to learn that they have in their hands a road map for how assets will be managed, who gets what, when they get it, and under what terms.
The articles in the issue include a "plain English guide to trusts as a means of orchestrating assets in divorce cases," how trusts can interact with disclosure requirements for premarital agreements, how to address equitable division of interests assigned to trusts, the use of child support or alimony trusts, and the unique potential advantages for using trusts for "special needs" planning for disabled children. The issue ends with a bonus -- a primer on "will basics."
The articles underscore what I sometimes find myself saying to law students, that courses on "wills, trusts and estates" are about advanced family law issues, and that if families fail to address disputes among family members while they are still living, the issues may not be any less complicated when the asset-holding family member passes away.
The entire issue seems like a good resource for a wide audience, including law students. Unfortunately, the on-line version of Family Advocate issues is restricted to ABA Family Law Section members, at least during the first few weeks of publication. Apparently you can purchase paper copies (see for example the rates for the previous issue, for Summer 2015) , including bulk orders, although I find there is often a lag time for specific issues to become available to purchase. I guess you have to keep checking!
October 21, 2015 in Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Property Management, Retirement, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, October 19, 2015
Recently I was reading an issue of The Senior Care Investor, a subscription-based news service that reports on the "World of Senior Care Mergers, Acquisitions, and Finance," and doing so since 1948.
For approximately the last three years, most of the M & A activity has been in assisted living (AL) and memory care (MC). Senior Care Investor reports that CCRCs are "beginning to make a comeback" as the housing market recovers and prospective residents are again able to use equity in their homes to finance transitions into CCRCs. The most recent issue also indicates some development money is returning to the skilled nursing facility market, even as overall M & A activity in senior housing is lower in 2015 than in 2014.
I've been watching quite a bit of activity over the last few years in conversions of nonprofit senior housing operations to "for profit" and there is more evidence of that in the latest report. But the most recent issue (Issue 9, Volume 27) also reports on a "rare for-profit to not-for-profit deal," with a New Mexico-based company, Haverland Care LifeStyle Group, purchasing a new AL/MC community in Oklahoma.
Also, the Senior Care Investor reports on a faith-based, not-for-profit CCRC provider that has decided to sell an entrance fee model (one that's in transition to an "all rental" model) that will offer independent living, AL, MC units and nursing home beds. What happens when senior housing operations are fully "private pay" AND "rental" models AND disconnected from a faith-based organization? Can they maintain their tax-exempt status? In other words, if the public is paying market rates (and thus higher rates based on any market increases) with no promises of future care if the residents run out of money, is that senior housing enterprise still a nonprofit operation entitled to be treated as exempt from federal income taxes?
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
The Department of Justice announced a $255,000 settlement vs. a CCRC. United States Obtains $255,000 Settlement of Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Continuing Care Retirement Community in Lincolnshire, Illinois explains a proposed settlement (the settlement has to be approved by the court). The press release explains that this settlement resolves "allegations that the owners and managers of a continuing care retirement community known as Sedgebrook violated the Fair Housing Act by instituting policies and maintaining practices that discriminated against residents with disabilities at the facility, which is located in Lincolnshire, Illinois..."
The complaint alleges that since 2011, Sedgebrook has instituted a series of policies that prohibited, and then limited, residents’ ability to dine in the communal dining rooms of the independent living wing of the facility if they required assistance eating due to a disability. Additionally, the complaint alleges that Sedgebrook maintained a policy prohibiting residents of the independent living wing from hiring live-in caregivers and refused to grant reasonable accommodations to that policy that would have allowed Sedgebrook residents with disabilities to use and enjoy their apartments.
As part of the settlement, the CCRC "will appoint a Fair Housing Act compliance officer and will implement a new dining and events policy, a new policy applicable to residents’ private employment of caregivers, and a new reasonable accommodation policy. Additionally ... the company that manages Sedgebrook and is a named defendant in the lawsuit, will take steps to implement similar policies at the over 100 independent living and continuing care retirement communities it owns or manages across the country."
The complaint and consent order are available for download here.
Monday, October 12, 2015
AARP ran an article on the impact that livable communities have on local economies. The Livability Economy Livable Communities bring financial benefits to homeowners, business and local governments. covers a new report from AARP on The Livability Economy: People, Places and Prosperity.
This 28 page report focuses on 4 domains for livability: compactness, transportation, diversity of housing and land use integration. This is how livability is explained in the report
Livability is a high-level performance measure of neighborhood design factors that are critical to high quality of life for people of all ages. The Livability Economy identifies a framework based on these design factors that includes four essential livability outcomes, and documents how communities have benefited economically by focusing on these outcomes ....
Friday, October 9, 2015
We have previously blogged about technology that allows a person to more effectively age in place and about "smart homes." As well, we have mentioned the security issues with some technologies, so I was interested in a recent blog post published on the AARP blog Thinking Policy.
Making the Smart Home a Secure Home focuses on smart homes, described as a home designed "to help automate routine tasks and make homes more efficient." Looking at security for smart home technologies, the author offers 3 tips for a secure smart home: (1) "build strong security protections into all connected devices from the start...." (2) ensure that "software controlling connected devices is can be updated...." and (3) "securely transmitting and storing data gathered by connected devices"
The author concludes the article by saying:
The smart home promises to improve the lives of consumers by automating routine tasks and finding efficiencies that save money. Securing the connected devices constituting the smart home will make it more likely that consumers will adopt this technology. If the smart home industry continues to neglect the security of devices, government-mandated security protections might be necessary to resolve these issues.
In a convergence of my teaching, research and public outreach work, this week I've found myself in several overlapping conversations about whether adult children have obligations -- moral or legal -- to care for or financially support their parents.
This week, following my Elder Law Prof Blog post recommending Hendrik Hartog's fascinating book, Someday All This Will Be Yours, which I also recommended to my Trust & Estate students, I had a nice series of virtual conversations with Dirk about his book. What a thoughtful historian he is. We were talking about his research-based observation in the book about adult children and needy parents:
Adult children were not legally bound to remain and to work for their parents. Nor were they obligated to care for the old. Adult children were, paradigmatically and legally, free individuals, "emancipated," to use the technical term. . . . Furthermore, there was little -- perhaps nothing-- to keep an uncaring or careless adult child from allowing a parent to go over the hill to the poorhouse.
I asked, "what about filial support laws?" Turns out that was a timely question because Professor Hartog had just been interviewed for a Freakonomics Radio episode, "Should Kids Pay Back Their Parent for Raising Them?" The program became publically available, via podcast or written transcript, on October 8, 2015. In the interview Professor Hartog was asked to comment on filial support laws. He said in part:
Filial responsibility statutes are very weak efforts to ensure that the young will support the old if they are needy.... They rarely are enforced. Very, very, very, very rarely. So, you know, in a sense, every time they are enforced they become a New York Times article or they become an article in the local newspapers.
Professor Hartog was speaking in large measure from the perspective of his important historical research, including review of a body of case reports from New Jersey spanning some 100 years from the mid 1880s to the mid 1900s. And based on my own historical research, I would also say that in the U.S., filial support laws have been rarely enforced, although I would characterize the enforcement as often "episodic" in nature, especially after the growth of Social Security and Medicaid benefits. But...
I think the modern story is quite different in at least one state -- Pennsylvania. Part of this difference is tied to the fact that Pennsylvania's filial support law permits enforcement by commercial third-parties, including nursing homes, as I discussed in my 2013 article on Filial Support Laws in the Modern Era. Other U.S. jurisdictions with "modern" enforcement cases are South Dakota and Puerto Rico.
Indeed, I'm speaking on October 9, 2015 at the invitation of a Bench and Bar Conference in Gettysburg, PA about "The Festering Hot Topic" of Filial Support Laws in Pennsylvania. In the presentation, I report on controversies arising from recent, aggressive collection efforts by law firms representing nursing homes, as well the latest examples of successful enforcement suits by nursing homes and family members. I also analyze a disturbing additional claim, where Germany is seeking to enforce its filial support law to compel a U.S. resident to pay toward the costs of care for an ailing father in Germany.
Ultimately, I think that Professor Hartog and I agree more than we disagree about the lack of behavioral impact flowing from filial support laws. As demonstrated by Professor Hartog in his book, much care and support is provided by children, but flowing from complicated moral or personal inclinations, rather than statute-based lawsuits.
This seems a more realistic paradigm, although not without opportunities for misunderstanding and disappointment. But, as I often observe, the very last person I would want involved in my care would be someone who is doing it "only" because a statute -- much less a court -- is telling them they must care for me.
October 9, 2015 in Books, Current Affairs, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, International, Medicaid, Social Security, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, October 1, 2015
The Michigan Supreme Court recently invited amicus briefing by Elder Law attorneys and Disability Rights attorneys, in advance of oral argument in an interesting case involving a nursing home resident's claims of false imprisonment by the facility. The legal question of what is sometimes referred to as an "involuntary" admission for care initiated by family members or concerned others acting as "agents" for an unhappy or uncooperative principal, is important and challenging, especially if accompanied by conflicting assessments of mental capacity.
Following the Michigan Court of Appeals' 2014 ruling in Estate of Roush v. Laurels of Carson City LLC, in September 2015 the Michigan Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on whether there are genuine issues of material fact on the resident's claim of falsely imprisonment for a period of approximately two weeks. Ms. Roush alleges the nursing home acted improperly in reliance on her "patient advocate," claiming that she was fully able to make health care decisions for herself, and therefore there were no legally valid grounds for her advocate to trump her wishes. Alternatively, Ms. Roush argued she validly terminated the patient advocate's authority.
In Michigan, individuals may appoint a statutorily-designated "patient advocate," with limited authority as an agent for certain health care decisions. Michigan law provides at M.C.L.A. Section 700.5506 that: "The [written] patient advocate designation must include a statement that the authority conferred under this section is exercisable only when the patient is unable to participate in medical or mental health treatment decisions...."
The Supreme Court's order identified specific issues for additional briefing by the parties. Further, the court expressly invited the "Elder Law and Disability Rights Section of the State Bar of Michigan. . . to file a brief amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae."
October 1, 2015 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
My dear friend and colleague, Mark Bauer, sent me this article, Why More Seniors Are Forming Their Own 'Villages' .
The story features the establishment of Beacon Hill Village, where twelve
like-minded neighbors ... founded the Beacon Hill Village, a local group for independent seniors to meet and support one other through the elder years. By pooling yearly membership fees, members of the village pay for a small staff that helps them find services like drivers, cleaners, and handymen.
In 2002 they formally launched Beacon Hill village as a nonprofit (despite its name, the village doesn't own any property and has no physical housing component), and today count nearly 350 members. Their example has since spurred more than 170 other villages across the country, a growing experiment in how urban seniors can network with their peers—and empower themselves.
Members pay an annual fee which includes access to staff who assist residents in obtaining needed services (the village does not provide "direct services"). There are intangible benefits as well to this model. The story discusses the sense of community provided by this concept and its benefit to residents. The concept appears to be gaining fans.
In 2010 a national organization called the Village to Village Network emerged to help found new villages and connect existing ones. ... the network’s St. Louis-based director, said she expects the number of villages to double within two years. The average village has about 100 members, meaning such a rapid expansion would still only reach about 35,000 Americans in all. [The director] ... said lower-income members are underrepresented in the network at large, and that she and her colleagues hope to change that.
As the model expands across 40 states, managers ... are trying to reconcile exponential growth with an emphasis on neighborhood-scale relationships. Fundraising, too, presents a challenge. By design, membership fees barely cover costs at many villages, including Beacon Hill, so grants and foundations often make up the rest. That presents future villages with a tough choice: commit to the fundraising grind and the uncertainty that comes with it, or raise membership fees and risk shutting out lower-income neighbors.
The Beacon Hill Village website offers this description
Beacon Hill Village, a member-driven organization for Boston residents 50 and over, provides programs and services so members can lead vibrant, active and healthy lives, while living in their own homes and neighborhoods.
Benefits include access to discounted providers who can help you manage your household, stay active and healthy, and serve your driving needs. Our social and cultural programs are always changing to support member interests.
To learn more about Beacon Hill Village, click here. The Village to Village Network website describes the village concept as "Aging's new frontier". The website contains information about the various villages in the U.S., information about how to start a village, an interactive map, information about upcoming conferences, and more. Click here to learn more about the network. This is an interesting grass-roots effort that seems to be flourishing.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Thomas Jefferson School of Law is hosting its second annual student writing competition focusing on disability law. The Crane Writing Competition, named in honor of a Thomas Jefferson alum, Jameson Crane III, seeks to encourage student scholarship at the intersection of law and medicine, or law and social services. A central purpose is to further development of legal rights and protections, and improve the lives of those with disabilities.
Who can enter? The competition is open to currently enrolled law students, medical students and doctoral candidates in related fields, who attend an accredited graduate program of study in the U.S.
Deadline for entries? January 15, 2016 (by midnight, Pacific Standard Time) via electronic submission. For details see the competition website at Thomas Jefferson School of Law: http://www.tjsl.edu/cranewritingcompetition
What will be your topic? The competition accepts papers on a wide range of topics related to disability law, including legal issues arising from employment, government services and programs, public accommodations, education, higher education, housing and health care. This should integrate well with students currently taking or who have recently completed a seminar course, thus allowing that all important "double value" for good papers.
Prizes include cash ($1,500 to first place; $1,000 for each of two second place winners), plus potential publication.
My thanks to Professor Susan Bisom-Rapp for sharing news of this year's competition. She is coordinating the competition and you can send questions directly to Susan.