Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Here we go again. Another hard look at why a significant percentage of the public has not signed some form of advanced directive. In April 2015, GAO issued Advance Directives: Information on Federal Oversight, Provider Implementation, and Prevalence, its response to requests made by Senators Bill Nelson (D-Fla), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga), and Mark Warner (D-Va) who were inquiring into the role of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in overseeing providers, including hospitals and nursing homes, that are mandated by law to maintain written procedures and provide information about advance directives.
Perhaps it is just me, but whenever legislators raise this topic, it seems to me the not-so-subtle underlying message is "why aren't people agreeing in writing to forego aggressive health care as they near the end of life so that we can save more money on health care?"
In any event, the report:
- documents current practices for offering living wills, health care powers of attorney, and various alternatives such as DNR and POLST forms (including the potential for some confusion among staff members of health care providers about "who" should be handling the education and signing process),
- refers to a major Institute on Medicine study (Dying in America, 2015) on a similar topic, and
- concludes that there is no "single" point of entry for execution of advanced directives.
As the GAO team observes, "[t]herefore, a comprehensive approach to end-of-life care, rather than any one document, such as an advance directive, helps to ensure that medical treatment given at the end of life is consistent with an individual’s preferences."
Hat tip to Karen Miller, Esq., in Florida for the link to the latest study and report.
May 5, 2015 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Estates and Trusts, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Medicare | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the "long-time head of [Georgia's] powerful nursing home lobby has resigned after months of internal differences." The resignation appears to be about more than just internal politics, perhaps implicating state ethics. AJC explains:
"The resignation of Jon Howell, first reported by Georgia Health News, came only a few months after he told lawmakers that the industry didn’t need all of the money Gov. Nathan Deal recommended as part of a rate hike for select nursing homes. Several of those nursing homes are owned by one of Deal’s top contributors. But one state official said the 'civil war' within the organization began before this year’s General Assembly session.
The nursing home association is a major player at the statehouse, and owners have a big stake in what happens at the Capitol. The state pays more than $1 billion a year to nursing homes to care for Georgians. Owners have long been politically active, donating big money to state leaders and lawmakers who fund reimbursements. Earlier this year, Deal recommended that select nursing homes get a $27 million a year rate increase, a bump stalled by the Department of Community Health board last year...."
Separate articles in the AJC indicate that federal CMS authorities are now seeking millions of dollars of reimbursement for Medicaid payments made to 34 specific nursing facilities, although whether this claim correlates with the governor's recommended rate increase is not clear from the articles. State officials are reported as disagreeing with the federal CMS ruling that triggers the reimbursement claim.
Recent rate increases recommended by the Georgia governor were rejected by Georgia's General Assembly. Additional coverage on the Georgia nursing home industry's organization is provided by McKnight's Long-Term Care News.
I suspect the Georgia stories are part of a bigger picture. Compare, for example, Al Jazeera's America Tonight report from April 2014 on The Whopping Political Power of the Florida Nursing Home Lobby, describing the nursing homes advocating for placement of children into facility-based care.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Justice in Aging (formerly National Senior Citizens Law Center) is offering a free webinar on Wednesday. April 29, from 2 to 3 p.m. (eastern time) on "How New CMS Person-Centered Care Planning Rules Apply to Medicaid Delivered Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS)."
They report their webinar will focus on the rules as they apply to long-term services and supports delivered through Medicaid home and community-based waivers, and will:
- Provide background context for the new person-centered planning and service plan rule
- Analyze the requirements of the new rule
- Give examples of how selected states (Minnesota, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) are implementing provisions of the rule
- Identify gaps where more detailed state rules or better managed care plan contractual terms are needed to ensure that compliance with the intent of the rule
Who should participate? The program is suggested for health care professionals and their staffs, attorneys for consumers of LTSS services, and public employees -- and consumers, too.
Here is the link for the registration.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Whenever I look at national programs on "hot topics" in healthcare law, I'm seriously impressed by the number of offerings on regulatory compliance issues connected to Medicare and Medicaid payments. There are abundant reasons for this emphasis. Each year the Department of Justice touts its statistics on "recoveries" for False Claim Act cases. For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, the DOJ enthusiastically reported its "first annual recovery to exceed $5 billion" in a single year. No wonder health care law is a hot field. And remember, much of the money is connected to senior care in all of its guises.
A recent $1.3 million settlement on a Medicare-related False Claims Act case might seem like small potatoes at first glance. But, I was struck by the fact that it was a DOJ settlement with a (non-profit) Continuing Care Retirement Community. I don't usually think of CCRCs as being a major target of False Claim Act allegations. Details are a bit sparse, but the size of the payment seemed pretty hefty when you consider that Asbury Health Center near Pittsburgh, PA actually "self-disclosed" its violation of Medicare regulations. The DOJ press release on April 15 explains:
"For post-hospital skilled nursing care, Medicare regulations require that a facility obtain a physician certification at the time of admission or as soon thereafter as reasonable and practical. The facility must also obtain a physician recertification within 14 days of admission and every 30 days thereafter. Based on information provided by Asbury, the United States alleged that it had civil claims against Asbury resulting from Medicare payments for post-hospital skilled nursing services that were not supported by physician certifications and recertifications."
Thursday, April 16, 2015
From the New York Times on April 14, an article from the business section, As Nursing Homes Chase Lucrative Patients, Quality of Care is Said to Lag.
Promises of “decadent” hot baths on demand, putting greens and gurgling waterfalls to calm the mind: These luxurious touches rarely conjure images of a stay in a nursing home.
But in a cutthroat race for Medicare dollars, nursing homes are turning to amenities like those to lure patients who are leaving a hospital and need short-term rehabilitation after an injury or illness, rather than long-term care at the end of life.
Even as nursing homes are busily investing in luxury living quarters, however, the quality of care is strikingly uneven. And it is clear that many of the homes are not up to the challenge of providing the intensive medical care that rehabilitation requires. Many are often short on nurses and aides and do not have doctors on staff.
Some colorful quotes here ("patients are leaving the hospital half-cooked"), but a lot of this well-written article nonetheless seems like old news to me (okay, perhaps that's because of my chosen research focus), with reporting on trends influenced by operating margins on the "nonprofit" side of care, and "return on investment" for shareholders on the for-profit side. Perhaps "intensity" of the pressures is the theme here?
Tip of the hat to George Washington University Law student Sarah Elizabeth Gelfand ('16) and GW Professor Naomi Cahn for making sure we saw this article!
Saturday, April 11, 2015
One of the first assignments I give to law students in my Elder Law course is to visit a "nursing home" and to see if they can get a copy of the admission agreement or contract. (Most of the facilities in my area cooperate with these student visitors.) The lesson here, however, is revealed when the students bring the documents back to the classroom for discussion. We discover that the majority of the contracts are not for admission to "skilled nursing facilities."
More frequently the facilities in question are licensed as "continuing care retirement communities" or CCRCs, which are big in Pennsylvania, or personal care homes (PCs or PCHs), or assisted living (AL) communities, each of which have different state regulations applying to their operations. These are not "nursing homes," or at least, they are not "skilled nursing facilities." Further, in Pennsylvania, increasingly there may be no label at all -- at least not a label that the public is familiar with -- and that is often by design as the facility or community may be attempting to avoid a "higher" level of requirements.
The usual explanation is that the choice in label is not driven by concerns over "quality" of care, but by costs of having to meet some non "care" related regulation, such as AL state requirements for room size or physical accommodations. The facility makes the case that it can meet the real needs of its clientele without being tied to "higher care" and therefore more "costly" models for senior housing. Fair enough. Caveat emptor. If you are the customer, make sure you do your homework, ask questions, comparative shop, and avoid assumptions based on pretty pictures in marketing brochures. And try to do all of this before an emergency that accelerates the need for a move.
But, there can be significant differences triggered by a label (or lack thereof) that are not readily apparent to the public. A recent Policy Issue Brief published by Justice In Aging (formerly the National Senior Law Center) uses examples from California to shine a spotlight on subtle issues in labeling, as well as on the importance of regulations that are responsive and up-to-date. Merely changing an "identity" or label should not be the basis for failing to comply with minimum standards relevant to the clients' needs.
In How California's Assisted Living System Falls Short in Addressing Residents' Health Care Needs, Justice in Aging (JIA, to make our circle of acronyms almost complete), provides a sample job notice for a California facility and asks "can you spot the legal violations in this Assisted Living job announcement?" The notice, appears to be hiring for a "certified med aide," despite the fact that there is no such thing in California, and more importantly, if the facility calling itself "Assisted Living" is actually a RCFE (residential care facility for the elderly), the California regulations do not permit staff to administer medications. Outside of Medicare/Medicaid standards for skilled nursing facilities -- the "nursing homes" of the past -- there are no national standards for labeling of "assisted living" or the many alternatives.
JIA's issue brief dated April 7, 2015 is part of a series that explores how California's system functions and points to ways it could be modified to help assure residents their expectations and needs will be satisfied.
The lessons in the JIA brief -- with a few tweaks to respond to any given state's set of acronyms -- seem equally relevant in all states.
Friday, April 10, 2015
ElderLawGuy Jeff Marshall alerted us to this week's ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the conviction of Eugene Goldman, M.D. for several counts of taking "kickbacks" for referral of Medicare and Medicaid patients for hospice services. Dr. Goldman's sentence of 51 months, followed by three years of supervised release during which he is barred from practicing medicine, was affirmed. The facts, as set forth in the opinion, are interesting:
"Goldman had a geriatric medicine practice in Northeast Philadelphia. In December 2000, he secured the position of Medical Director of Home Care Hospice ('HCH'). Alex Pugman served as Director of HCH, and his wife, Svetlana Ganetsky, was the Development Executive, responsible for marketing HCH to doctors and other healthcare professionals. According to his contract, Goldman was responsible for quality assurance, consultations, and the occasional meeting. In reality, his job was to refer patients to HCH.
Goldman was paid for the number of patients he referred to HCH and the length of their stay. Early in his relationship with HCH, Goldman was paid $200 per referral. By 2011, he received $400 per referral, with an additional $150 for each patient who stayed longer than a month. Ganetsky paid Goldman each month by check. Between 2002 and 2012, Goldman referred more than 400 Medicare patients to HCH and received approximately $310,000 in return.
In 2006 the FBI and Department of Health & Human Services began investigating HCH for Medicare fraud. The FBI followed up in 2008 by obtaining a search warrant and seizing over 500 boxes of documents and information from HCH’s servers. Shortly after the raid, Ganetsky and Pugman approached the FBI and agreed to cooperate in the investigation. Ganetsky then recorded several meetings at which she paid Goldman for his referrals. Ganetsky made these payments with funds drawn from an account opened by the FBI for the investigation."
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
St. Louis University's Journal of Health Law and Policy has recently released a theme issue, focused on "Health Care Reform, Transition and Transformation in Long-Term Care." A great line-up of articles and authors, including:
- Home & Community-Based Long-Term Services and Supports: Health Reform's Most Enduring Legacy? by Marshall B. Kapp
- Care Coordination for Dually Eligible Beneficiaries, by Katie M. Dean and David C. Grabowski
- The Challenge of Financing Long-Term Care, by Judy Feder
- Rationalizing Home and Community-Based Services Under Medicaid, by Laura D. Hermer
- The Broken Promise of OBRA '87: The Failure to Validate Survey Protocol, by Malcolm J. Harkins III
In addition, there are two relevant Notes written by SLU students:
- Short-Stay, Under Observation. or Inpatient Admission? How CMS' Two Midnight Rule Creates More Confusion and Concern, by Rachel A. Polzin
- Disclosure for Closure? Why the Self-Referral Disclosure Protecol Process Paired with the 60-Day Overpayment Rule Creates More Headaches than Solutions, by Peter J. Eggers
April 7, 2015 in Discrimination, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, April 6, 2015
According to an informational bulletin from CMS on April 1, the traditional medical assistance program (TMA) and the QI program ended. The QI program had been extended until March 31, 2015, so both programs ended effective April 1, 2015. As a result of the end of the QI program and "[i]n the absence of an extension, states will not be required to discontinue their payment of Part B premiums for QI beneficiaries, but these payments will no longer be eligible for federal reimbursement from CMS unless and until the program is reauthorized" The informational bulletin is available here.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
When it becomes impossible for a loved one to stay at home without help, one decision that families made need to face is whether to use an agency, or hire one or more individuals outright. Agencies are usually more expensive (at least on paper). But direct hires of home aides can raise other questions, including how to handle state and federal income taxes and documentation, insurance, transportation (read: more insurance questions), coverage for holidays, sick leave, overtime, and more. You start off thinking this is short term help; the reality is it can last much longer....
But there is still one more question that may not be on the family's radar screen, until it is too late.
If the informal home care arrangements eventually don't suffice, perhaps because of increasing frailty and care needs, what happens when the individual's money is gone and there is a need for Medicaid-paid care?
As explained in a recent Michigan Court of Appeals case, "informal" arrangements for home care may trigger ineligibility for Medicaid-paid care based on state rules or policies implementing federal law.
April 4, 2015 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
On Tuesday, March 31, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision rejected "private" rights of action for services providers to challenge under-funding of Medicaid programs by states. The ruling potentially impacts availability of services to all Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries, if doctors, home care agencies and similar private health care providers decline to participate in Medicaid funded service programs. The decision in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, was delivered by Justice Scalia, joined in part by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Breyer. Justice Sotomayor dissents, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg and Kagan.
This one is going to take a bit of time to digest.
Here is the Washington Post coverage of the opinion.
Here is Kaiser Health's News Links to early reactions.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Have you seen the number of articles that have been released about ABLE accounts? Here's a chance to learn more: the ABLE National Resource Center has announced a free webinar on ABLE on March 26 from 2-3:30 edt. This is a collaboration between ARC, National Disability Institute, Autism Speaks, National Down Syndrome Society, and the College Plan Savings Network. According to the website, Understanding ABLE will cover the facets of ABLE, implementation updates and time for Q&A. To register, click here.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Proposal to Increase Anti-Impoverishment Protections for Community Spouses Introduced in Connecticut
One of the declared purposes of modern federal law setting threshold standards for eligibility for Medicaid for long-term care is "protection of the community spouse" from impoverishment. At least that's a declared objective of amendments to federal law, passed by Congress in 1988. As one of Dickinson Law's Elder Protection Clinic clients once observed, "slower" impoverishment isn't the same as protection. States have choices to make within federal guidelines about minimum and maximum sums, about how much money community spouses can keep when their loved ones apply for Medicaid for long-term care.
In Connecticut, there is new legislation proposed, aimed at increasing the level of protection of community spouses in that state. As described in a recent article from the Hartford Courant:
Allowing the spouse of a person in a nursing home to keep enough money to live on independently is, in many ways, a moral issue. But in a tight budget year in Connecticut, it's a fiscal issue.
A proposal that would increase the minimum assets that a spouse living in the community can keep - from $23,844 to $50,000 – in order for his or her partner to be eligible for Medicaid nursing home care is being backed by elder advocates, who say the increase would help seniors, especially women, remain able to live independently. But the move is being opposed by the Department of Social Services on the grounds it will shift millions in costs to the state-funded Medicaid program.
The proposal would affect couples with combined assets of between $23,844 and $100,000....
It will be interesting to see whether this bill has traction, and whether other states are also willing to step up to the financial plate.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
In Draper v. Colvin, petitioner sought judicial review of SSA's denial of her application for SSI benefits. Her claim was sympathetic, as "[e]ighteen-year-old Stephany Draper suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident in June 2006."
In an admittedly "hard line" ruling on March 3, the 8th Circuit rejected her argument that her parents' intent to establish a valid third-party-settled special needs trust, using proceeds from a settlement of a personal injury suit on her behalf, should permit her to claim SSI.
The ruling means that over $400,000 will be treated as "available resources," thus requiring spend down before she would be eligible for benefits. The court explained (minus citations):
Admittedly, some evidence in the record supports Draper's claim that her parents intended to act in their individual capacities. Draper's parents identified themselves individually as settlors and trustees, and the trust document explicitly states that it was established “pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A)," a provision which notes that a third party, such as a parent, must create the special needs trust for the benefit of the disabled person. Nevertheless, as discussed [earlier in the opinion], other facts provide substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Draper's parents acted using the power of attorney when establishing the trust.
The Court continued on to its tough bottom line:
March 10, 2015 in Cognitive Impairment, Estates and Trusts, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Property Management, Social Security, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Neither short nor sweet? Here is a link to the written Transcript of the oral argument before the United States Supreme Court on March 4, 2015 in King v. Burwell.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Texas attorney Renée C. Lovelace has literally written the book -- a guidebook -- on Pooled Trust Options. Renée was a recent guest speaker at Penn State's Dickinson Law, appearing before students in an advanced seminar on planning techniques. Indeed, our students had specifically asked to hear from experienced practitioners on special needs trusts, and with the help of the National Elder Law Foundation we were able to host a nationally known speaker to do just that.
Renée (third from the left, in blue) helped our students identify appropriate uses of pooled trusts, such as where the beneficiary's needs could be uniquely well-served by a trustee who is familiar with the challenges sometimes encountered in managing assets on behalf of persons with disabilities.
While the special needs beneficiary may be frustrated by a manager's handling of "his" (or "her") money, sometimes it is the family that has questions about application of the law. Recently I was reading a New Jersey case decision, where a family was challenging the state's attempt to seek reimbursement for medical and care expenses expended by the state, following the death of their disabled daughter. At the core of the dispute was what appeared to be a misunderstanding on the part of the family about the nature of their daughter's special needs trust, which they were describing as a pooled trust. The court pointed out, that in the absence of a nonprofit manager, the trust could not be deemed a (d)(4)(C) trust or "pooled" trust, that would have allowed assets remaining after the death of the daughter to stay in the trust for the benefit of other disabled persons, rather than be subject to the state's reimbursement claim.
Thus, the case is a reminder that pooled trusts, properly created and managed are usually drafted as special needs trusts (SNTs). However, not all SNTs are pooled trusts. Or as Renée explains so well in her thorough guidebook:
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) is offering a free webinar on "Medical Debt: Overview of New IRS Regulations and Industry Best Practices" on March 4, 2015 from 2 to 3 p.m. Eastern Time.
The hosts describe the webinar as follows:
This webinar will present an overview of the IRS final regulations governing financial assistance and collection policies of nonprofit hospitals. The regulations require nonprofit hospitals to have written financial assistance policies; regulate debt collection by nonprofit hospitals and third party
agencies; and prohibit the imposition of "chargemaster" rates to patients eligible for financial assistance.
Find out how to use the regulations to help clients who owe medical debts to nonprofit hospitals and protect them from lawsuits, liens, and credit reporting damage. The webinar will also review the voluntary best practices on medical account resolution issued by the Healthcare Financial Management Association.
Here is the link for REGISTRATION. Thanks to the National Senior Citizens Law Center (soon to be "officially" Justice in Aging) for sharing news of this educational opportunity of clear relevance to older persons and their families.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
The first White House Conference on Aging Regional Forum was held on February 19, 2015 in Tampa Florida. The morning featured comments by the WHCOA Executive Director Nora Super and remarks by Cecilia Munoz, Assistant to the President and Director, Domestic Policy Council. Two panels followed, with comments by panelists on the 4 topics of emphasis for the 2015 WHCOA, healthy aging, long term services and supports, retirement security and elder justice. In the afternoon, participants were divided into working groups for those 4 topics, where they discussed priorities, obstacles, and actions. Representatives from each working group presented the group's topic recommendations in a closing panel presentation moderated by Kathy Greenlee, Administrator for the Administration on Community Living and the Assistant Secretary for Aging. In person attendance was invitation only, but the event was live webcast through HHS. The next regional forum is set for Phoenix, Arizona on March 31st. Visit the WHCOA forums website a day or so before the event to register for the live webcast.
February 22, 2015 in Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Programs/CLEs, Retirement, Social Security | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, February 19, 2015
As the long-predicted aging tsunami hits, are there enough doctors to meet the need? Not in Montana, as demonstrated by a two-part story from NBC News:
"There is no part of life in McCone County, Montana, where the community's age has not begun to show. Farmers have gone gray. There were some dozen funerals last winter. Each year makes more widows. Nearly 25 percent of McCone County's 1,700 residents are already over 60, a bellwether for changes that will soon roll across Montana. State projections show a quarter of Montanans will be seniors by 2030, twenty years before the same demographic shift hits the nation as a whole.
Montana policymakers have watched that shift coming toward them, knowing it brings more older, potentially sicker patients to a largely rural medical system in which providers and specialists are already scarce. Seniors here often travel an hour or more for 'emergency' care, and nursing home beds are dwindling, particularly in the sparsest areas.
In the face of these changes, Charlie Rehbein, head of the Montana Office on Aging, asks, 'How do we provide services to them?'"
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
A long-running investigation of a doctor in Illinois for Medicaid and Medicare fraud is coming to a close. Michael Reinstein, "who for decades treated patients in Chicago nursing homes and mental health wards," has pleaded guilty to a felony charge for taking kickbacks from a pharmaceutical company. As detailed by the Chicago Tribune, on February 13, Reinstein admitted prescribing, and thus generating public payment for, various forms of the drug clozapine, widely described as a "risky drug of last resort."
The 71-year old doctor has been the target of the state and federal prosecutors for months, and he's also agreed to pay (which is, of course, different than actually paying) more than $3.7 million in penalties. He may still be able to reduce his prison time from 4 years to 18 months, if he "continues to assist investigators."
The investigation traces as far back as 2009, as detailed by a Chicago-Tribune/ProPublica series that revealed he had prescribed more of the antipsychotic drug in question to patients in "Medicaid's Illinois program in 2007 than all doctors in the Medicaid programs of Texas, Florida and North Carolina combined." Further, the Tribune/ProPublica series pointed to autopsy and court records that showed that, "by 2009, at least three patients under Reinstein's care had died of clozapine intoxication." Reinstein's, and one assumes, the pharmaceutical company's, defense was that the drug could have appropriate, therapeutic effects for patients, beyond the limited "on-label" realm.
Assuming that the government ever sees a dime in repayment, from either the doctor or the drug company, my next question is what happens to that money? At a minimum, shouldn't there be review of the effect of the drugs on these patients, some of whom may have been administered the drug for years? We keep reading that the drugs are "risky," but shouldn't there be evidence of real harm -- or perhaps even benefit -- from the documented "off-label" use? Certainly, prosecutions for off-label drugs are understandable attempts to claw-back, or at least reduce, public expenditures. But isn't more at stake, including the search for relief or workable solutions for patients who are in distress?
In March 2014, for example, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the maker of generic clozapine, reportedly agreed to pay more than $27.6 million to settle state and federal allegations that it induced Reinstein to prescribe the drug. Recovering misspent dollars is important. But I also would like to see evidence of the harm alleged by the government -- or the benefit asserted by the defendants -- from the administration of the drugs. Isn't objective study of the history of these real patients a very proper use of the penalties?
February 18, 2015 in Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Crimes, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Medicare, State Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)