Thursday, October 29, 2020
Earlier this week I posted about the nursing homes seeking additional $ from the federal government because of the number of COVID 19 cases. I thought this article in TIME magazine, COVID-19 Is Still Devastating Nursing Homes. The Trump Administration Isn't Doing Much to Stop It, provided a nice follow up.
Ar least 75,000 Americans in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities have already died from COVID-19—and the devastation is far from over. After a decrease earlier this summer, the death toll is now rising once again, and as the country heads into the fall and then flu season, millions of Americans who require institutional long-term care remain at the greatest risk.
But, so far, the Trump Administration has talked a big talk—and mostly failed to deliver.
There have been issues with the amount and quantity of the PPEs sent to facilities, CMS hasn't ensured that SNFS will have s sufficient supply of COVID test kits and there was nothing specific for SNFs in the latest relief package. The article discusses the lack of a coordinated federal response and what assistance is provided comes with new requirements. For example, as pertains to the new testing requirements:
The Administration’s new testing schedule assigns counties to “green,” “yellow” or “red” categories based on their rate of positive COVID-19 tests, and requires that nursing homes test their staff as often as twice weekly depending on the severity of their location. They must also test all residents during any outbreak or whenever a new COVID-19 case is identified. Facilities can face steep fines if they don’t comply and must keep up with testing to receive Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, which are the industry’s main source of income.
So why is this problematic? The article offers this insight
Those requirements are fine in theory, industry experts say, but they don’t reflect the reality on the ground. If nursing homes test at the required frequency, the supply of free tests provided by HHS will run out rapidly. Long-term care facilities, which are often financially stretched, will be required to purchase more tests on their own.
There is also concern about the sustainability of the current model of nursing home care and notes the problem with adequate staffing.
The staffing issue is even thornier. Nursing homes typically operate on thin margins, and long-term care workers—mostly poor women of color—are underpaid and overworked in the best of times. During the pandemic, staffers have been falling ill themselves, staying home to care for family members or children who are attending school remotely, and leaving the field for less dangerous jobs. While Congressional Democrats pushed for hazard pay for frontline workers this spring and included it in their relief bill that passed the House in May, no federal plan has been approved. Without specific money dedicated to worker salaries, long-term care facilities say they can’t hire the staff they need.
Thursday, September 24, 2020
Not a day goes by, or so it seems, that thee isn't some new article or announcement or data released about SNFs. Here, in no particular order, is some of the recent ones that I've collected in my inbox.
New York Times: Inside a Nursing Home Devoted to Treating Those With Covid-19
Wednesday, September 16, 2020
The New York Times asked the hard question, whether COVID deaths in SNFs were preventable, in a recently published opinion from the editorial board. How Many of These 68,000 Deaths Could Have Been Avoided?
Around 40 percent of all coronavirus-related deaths in the United States have been among the staff and residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities — totaling some 68,000 people.
Those deaths were not inevitable. The novel coronavirus is adept at spreading in congregant living facilities, and older people face an increased risk of contracting and dying from it. But most of the nation’s nursing homes had months of warning about the coming threat: One of the first coronavirus outbreaks in the country was in a nursing home near Seattle, making it clear that such facilities ought to prepare.
The opinion discusses steps SNFs could have taken to reduce the chances of spread, the financial model for SNFs in the US. The opinion also discusses the reduction of oversight and notes
Every effort should be made to ensure that the bulk of the money that the government puts into this industry goes to patient care, not providers’ pockets. An investigation started by the House of Representatives into the nation’s largest for-profit homes is a meaningful step in this direction. The Justice Department should follow suit.
The opinion discusses the way SNFs get supplies for their PPEs, etc. as well as staffing shortages. The editors conclude with 3 recommendations
In the near term, lawmakers should provide for hazard pay for nursing home workers in the next relief package and should require all nursing homes to enact non-punitive sick-leave policies so that workers don’t infect colleagues or residents.
In the longer term, federal officials need to consider revising Medicaid reimbursement rates for long-term care so they support higher than minimum-wage salaries, and shifting reimbursement policies so at least some long-term care can be reimbursed with Medicare dollars.
Lawmakers and nursing home operators also would do well to consider a national initiative, perhaps involving student volunteers and internship programs, to recruit future workers to nursing home care. That work, which can be deeply rewarding, will remain urgently needed long after this crisis passes.
Monday, September 14, 2020
Mark your calendars now for a free webinar on How Health Plans Serving Dual Eligibles Can Center Equity During COVID-19. The webinar is set for October 6, 2020 from 2-3:30 p.m. Here's a description of the webinar.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the forefront longstanding racial disparities in our healthcare system, and data show that older adults – especially older adults of color and those in residential congregate settings – are disproportionately impacted by the virus. Aging advocates play a key role in holding health plans and government agencies accountable to meeting the needs of those most at risk during this time. In this webinar, How Health Plans Serving Dual Eligibles Can Center Equity During COVID-19 , we will provide an overview of dual eligibles and the types of health plans that serve them. We will also present specific programmatic recommendations that advocates can push health plans with dual eligible members in their community to adopt. These recommendations are measures that plans can take to center equity in their ongoing response to COVID-19 and ensure they are meeting the needs of older adults of color during this challenging time.
To register, click here.
Sunday, August 23, 2020
Inevitably ... the virus has found its most ideal conditions in the warehouses storing America’s elderly population. No one knows the current death toll. As of early July, CMS put the number at 33,509, but the count covered only federally regulated nursing homes, not assisted-living communities. The homes, moreover, were not required to report deaths that occurred before May 8, although the agency said it was confident that “the vast majority” did so. One in five nursing homes didn’t bother to report their numbers at all. A New York Times study in late June put the number of deaths in U.S. nursing homes at a staggering 55,000, but even this figure did not necessarily include all of those who became infected in a home but died in a hospital, as was the case for Sharon Mitchell. In some states, the vast majority of COVID-19 deaths were in homes: 64 percent in Massachusetts, 68 percent in Pennsylvania, 77 percent in Minnesota. In New Jersey, one in every ten people housed in nursing homes or assisted-living centers died. This was a helpless population, helpless because so often confined in a state of neglect and squalor. But despite or perhaps because of their conditions, they were worth a lot of money. In effect, they were being harvested for profit.
The article looks at the financial model of long term care facilities in the U.S. It offers a comprehensive history of the development of LTC facilities in the U.S., culminating with a discussion of the ownership of LTC facilities by private equity firms. The article covers the impact of the pandemic and the efforts by the industry to get shield laws to provide them immunity.
As noted by the article, it's not only U.S. facilities that have faced these deaths from the pandemic. It notes one company that made changes early in the pandemic, which resulted in less cases, at least in some facilities. If we are to change the way we provide ltc in this country, in my opinion, this article is important. I'm assigning it to my students.
Thursday, July 23, 2020
Politico reported that the Trump team relaxed training rules for nursing home staff just as pandemic hit.
Shortly after the first coronavirus outbreak ravaged a nursing home in Kirkland, Wash., the Trump administration moved to fulfill a longstanding industry goal — waiving the requirement that nurse’s aides receive 75 hours of training and allowing people who study only eight hours online to become caregivers during the pandemic.
The industry had been fighting for years to reduce training requirements, saying they make it harder to recruit staff. The day after the administration announced the change, the industry rolled out a free online training program for certifying the new role — called a "temporary nurse aide" — that has since been adopted by at least 19 states.
The article reports that advocates for elders and others think this was poorly timed and may have resulted in the spread of COVID in SNFs, especially when considering that CNAs are typically "the main caretakers of residents, some of whom need round-the-clock monitoring; nurse’s aides are also on the front lines in implementing the cleaning and disinfecting practices that prevent the spread of Covid-19." CMS emphasized this is temporary and as soon a COVID is done with us, the CNA 75 hour training requirement will resume.
However, we don't know how well this is working. "[C]ritics are questioning why the waivers were applied so quickly and broadly, and why they’re lasting months into the pandemic when little is known about whether there are, in fact, larger-than-usual staff shortages in nursing homes. They also question the wisdom of waiving the rules for removing residents and making quarterly reports on their condition, which are among more than two dozen regulations temporarily suspended by the administration."
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
Charlie Sabatino, the rock star of elder law and the Director of the ABA Commission on Law & Aging recently wrote an opinion piece for Next Avenue on this important topic. OPINION: It’s Time to Defund Nursing Homes: How the traditional nursing home model can be replaced. Sabatino writes that:
[T]he COVID-19 pandemic ravaging nursing home residents underscores a deep-seated ageism inherent in our institutional model of nursing home care. I believe it is time to defund the institutional model and replace it with a radically different model.
Today’s typical nursing home has never come close to meeting the public’s desire for humane and dignified long-term care. Warehousing large numbers of frail elders in hospital-like buildings with residents in double or triple rooms along with staff turnover as high as 100% unavoidably creates a high risk for resident safety and compromises quality of care.
We've all read the stories about the horrors occurring in the nursing homes as the pandemic rolls across the country (for patients and caregivers too). A number of calls for change have been made, but as Sabatino aptly observed, "
[M]ultiple recommendations for change have gained attention. They include ensuring adequate personal protective equipment in nursing homes; disaster plans that facilitate quarantining; more and better trained staff and heightened monitoring and oversight of care.
But let’s be clear: These measures do little more than rearrange the deck chairs in a failing system.
The COVID-19 pandemic is a 9/11 moment for nursing home care and a test of our ability to reimagine nursing home care that puts the “home” into nursing homes.
Sabatino then turns to specifics regarding change and suggests the key to change is to tie it to Medicare and Medicaid funding.
As the largest payor for nursing home care, Medicare and Medicaid hold the key. Now is the time to change facility requirements to gradually limit participation in the program only to facilities that provide the following:
Small home-like facilities
Single rooms and bathrooms
A flattened, more flexible staff hierarchy with cross-trained staff
A culture focused first on residents’ goals, interests and preferences.
Sabatino concludes "[a]s long as the nursing home industry can rely on the flow of federal money for the current model of care, it has no financial incentive to change, not even after the coronavirus catastrophe. ... Change that flow, and a major cultural change in long-term care will follow."
Stay safe and healthy everyone.
Sunday, June 28, 2020
A few days ago CMS released a four page FAQ re: visiting residents in SNFs. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Nursing Home Visitation.
The FAQs include
1.What steps should nursing homes take before reopening to visitors?
2. The reopening recommendations maintain that visitation should only be allowed for
“compassionate care situations.” Do compassionate care situations only refer to
3. Can facilities use creative means, such as outside visits, to begin to allow for
visitation within the CMS and CDC guidelines; even before reaching phase three?
4.Can nursing home residents participate in communal activities before reaching
phase 3 of the nursing home reopening plan?
5.What factors should nursing homes consider when making decisions about
6. Should residents or visitors who have tested positive for COVID-19 participate in
7. Are nursing homes required to allow visits from the ombudsman when requested by
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
The Supreme Court 's ruling on the fate of DACA-residents and workers in the U.S. could be issued this week. Regardless of the outcome on the case itself, everyone who cares about quality of health care, including long-term care, should also care about the United States' need to be honest about how much health care depends on the hard work and commitment to care provided by temporary-status and undocumented-status workers in health and personal care jobs. I've seen DACA workers in action in elder care, and I've seen their families ripped apart by harsh immigration rulings.
NPR's Morning Edition had a short and yet deeply important segment today on Health Care Workers Who Are Awaiting Supreme Court DACA Decision. Do listen to the podcast replay -- it is just 4 minutes -- and think about whether this is a key opportunity for a true, bipartisan solution for DACA-children (families) who so often are working in some of the most challenging (and dangerous) U.S. jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Let's do the right thing.
June 17, 2020 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, International, Medicaid, Medicare | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, June 11, 2020
The seminal 1987 Nursing Home Reform Act requires all nursing facilities to care for their residents in a manner that that "will promote ,maintenance or enhancement of the quality of life of each resident." 12 USCA Section 1396r(b)(1)(A). The same law, at Section 1396r(e)(3), addresses "access and visitation rights:"
A nursing facility must - ...(B) permit immediate access to a resident, subject to the resident's right to deny or withdraw consent at any time, by immediate family or other relatives of the resident;(C) permit immediate access to a resident, subject to reasonable restrictions and the resident's right to deny or withdraw consent at any time, by others who are visiting with the consent of the resident;
(D) permit reasonable access to a resident by any entity or individual that provides health, social, legal, or other services to the resident, subject to the resident's right to deny or withdraw consent at any time ....
It wasn't candlelight and soft music that made the 40th anniversary of Luann and Jeff Thibodeau so memorable. It was gazing at each other through the window of Jeff's nursing home in Texas and eating carryout from the Olive Garden. Just the two of them. And a nursing assistant.
"She fed him, and I ate mine, and that was it," Luann Thibodeau says. "So that was our 40th wedding anniversary."
The Thibodeaus have not been in the same room since mid-March. That's when visitors were banned from nursing homes to slow the spread of the coronavirus. But family members say that talking via FaceTime and holding up signs at windows are no substitute for the hands-on care and emotional support their visits provide.
Family members often are an integral part of the care residents in nursing homes receive. They make sure meals are being eaten, clothes are being changed. They also offer invaluable emotional support. . . .
Luann Thibodeau has seen that decline in her husband. She used to bring dinner for him every night except Tuesdays when she goes to Bible Study. She says that as his multiple sclerosis has worsened, he's become increasingly disinterested in food. [She explains]. "I bully him into finishing a meal. And I'll say to him, 'Jeff, you know, this is what an adult man eats. So you need to eat this.' "
A staff member can't do what she does. Nursing home residents have rights. So if Jeff Thibodeau tells a nursing assistant that he's done eating after three bites, she has to abide by his wishes.
Without his wife's push, the results of her absence is striking.
For more, listen to the NPR podcast or read the parallel written narrative in "Banned From Nursing Homes, Families See Shocking Decline In Their Loved Ones."
The federal Nursing Home Reform Act's Bill of Rights has never been an easily enforceable mandate, and particularly in a global crisis the needs of the many can override the rights of individuals. But there does need to be a long-range plan on how better to facilitate visitation, recognizing it as an important part of any person's quality of life.
June 11, 2020 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Medicaid, Medicare | Permalink | Comments (2)
Thursday, June 4, 2020
Pittsburgh-based elder law attorneys Frank Petrich and Julian Gray write regular columns for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Recently they pulled out their crystal ball to gaze into the future, with the hope that positive change is possible if we pay heed to the lessons we are learning during the response to Covid-19. In looking at long-term care, they write:
It has been difficult for families, as well as elder law attorneys, over the past few months to connect with clients in long-term care facilities. It’s understandable that restricting access to hospitals, nursing homes and other long-term care facilities saves lives and reduces exposure for all parties.
However, given the significant concentration of COVID-19 cases within nursing homes and the inability for families to be with loved ones in person, a radical shift in the delivery of long-term care services is on the horizon.
For now, this points toward more people wanting to receive assistance in their homes versus moving into a long-term care facility. Like many states, Pennsylvania has talked about developing programs to keep people in their homes since the Rendell administration.
Maybe now that push has come to shove and large stimulus packages are happening weekly, our government can truly live up to its promise of helping people stay in their homes while receiving their long-term care services and support.
For more, read Elder Law Guys: Long-term Care after COVID-19, posted May 25, 2020 for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Friday, May 29, 2020
Looking forward from COVID , here is a story from Wired, Some Nursing Homes Escaped Covid-19—Here's What They Did Right.
The story focuses on steps that can be taken, and the importance of doing so early. But even more so, the story examines the design of nursing homes. Think about it. As the article points out
Residents, who are older, frail, and often have comorbidities like heart disease or diabetes, are more susceptible to severe Covid-19 infections. Many need help performing basic tasks like eating, dressing, or bathing—care that can’t be delivered through a video appointment, making it more likely they could get an infection from the aides who help them, or pass the virus along to their caretakers. Those aides may work at several different facilities, and unknowingly carry it from one home to another.The layout of these facilities also furthers contact in various areas. Most residents share bedrooms, bathrooms, activity rooms, and dining rooms—and staffers share a break room. Those group spaces are designed partly to cut costs, and also to encourage socializing. But shared spaces have also helped spread the virus. Senior facilities do have protocols to handle outbreaks like the flu, but the pandemic arrived so quickly and the SARS-CoV-2 virus is so contagious that many facilities were caught unprepared. “There’s an extent to which this virus just had the upper hand,” says Anna Chodos, a geriatrician at the UCSF. Unlike hospitals, most nursing homes aren't ordinarily well stocked with gear like masks and gowns, which aren’t necessary when containing the flu.
[P]recautions are only helpful to a point, according to [one expert]. “These outbreaks are continuing and they’re going to continue in nursing homes,” she says. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about how and why the virus has spread so quickly in some homes, but not in others. Based on early data, she says: “It’s about the size of the facility and the amount of spread in your community.”
Nevertheless, [she] warns that while researchers are working furiously to figure out solutions, they still don’t have all the answers: “It's a turbulent time and we're trying to make clinical and operational decisions with incomplete information.”
The article then discusses caring for elders in their homes rather than SNFs and what it would take for that to become a common occurrence. With potential looming budget cuts from states, the potential for that shift may be a long time coming.
This article does a good job in covering the various issues faced by those who run SNFs as well as those faced by individuals who have family in SNFs. Read it!
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Looking at Reasons for Opposition to Federal Immunity for Long-Term Care Facilities Related to Covid-19
A long-time friend and advocate for quality of life as we age contacted me today to discuss what to think about any attempts at federal legislation to immunize long-term care facilities from liability related to Covid-19. I admitted I hadn't had time to think about this yet! So, I'm starting my thinking now. My blogging colleague, Becky Morgan, said earlier this month that even at the state level, immunity is not an "easy" issue.
Historically, when Congress passed the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987, it was an important attempt to create minimum national standards for quality of care, in light of a long nightmare of horror stories about inadequate care across the nation. But, even as it established standards (such as a prohibition on "restraints" without documented medical necessity), it did not establish a "right to sue" by individuals claiming failure to comply with the standards. That was probably a compromise worked out with the various lobbying groups, but the consequence of that was states were left to decide on their own about whether and to what extent rights exist for a patient to sue for negligent care. So, one could say that it would be "unprecedented" for Congress to actively shield the long-term care industry from quality of care standards, stepping on the toes of the states. (Plus, at first blush, I don't see how Congress has any authority to craft immunity for facilities that are not subject to Medicare/Medicaid funding and oversight).
On the other hand, depending on how broad or narrow any such legislation was drafted, limited immunity might be appropriate on a narrow ground. States have been relying on existing federal Medicare/Medicaid law that effectively prevents nursing homes from turning away Covid-19 infected residents as long as they have open beds and the patient qualifies for Medicaid/Medicare. So those nursing homes have been, in effect, forced to take infected patients, which greatly increases the potential for cross infection, even with "good" infectious disease procedures in place. But isn't this a "problem" that should be fixed, rather than pasted over?
Advocacy groups on behalf of older persons, disabled persons, and consumers and workers are making it clear they oppose broad federal immunity. See the May 11, 2020 letter to Senate Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein, signed by California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, The Center for At Risk Elders (CARE), Center for Medicare Advocacy, Community Legal Services in Philadelphia, Justice in Aging, Long-Term Care Community Coalition, National Association of Local Long Term Care Ombudsmen, National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, National Association of Social Workers, National Association of State Long Term Care Ombudsman Programs, the National Disability Rights Network, Services Employees International Union, as well as individual law firms.
See also the letter of May 11, 2020 sent by AARP.
Addendum: See also 140 Groups Now Oppose Immunity; Nursing Homes Want Immunity and New York Regrets Giving It to Them, posted May 14, 2020 on Public Citizen.
May 27, 2020 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Medicaid, Medicare, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, May 24, 2020
Is What CMS Doesn't Say as Important as What CMS Does Say in Recommendations for "Reopening" Nursing Homes?
On May 18, 2020, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a ten-page Memorandum making recommendations to state and local officials for operation of "Medicare/Medicaid certified long term care facilities (hereafter 'nursing homes') to prevent the transmission of COVID-19."
In some ways, nursing homes may be breathing a sigh of relief as the memo does not use any mandatory language directed at the operators. In some instances CMS identifies "choices" for the states, such as whether to require all facilities in a state to go through reopening phases at the same time, by region, or on individual bases. The memo says that facilities "should" have CDC-compliant testing plans, including "capacity" for all residents and staff members to have a single baseline test with retesting until all test negative. What does that mean? You should be able to test everyone before you ease visiting restrictions, but you can choose not to do so? On page 4, CMS cross-references ("cross-walk") to reopening phases for all "senior care facilities" under President Trump's Opening Up America Again plan. The document describes "surveys that will be performed at each phase" of the reopening process, referring to the states' obligations to conduct surveys on prioritized timelines, although with no hard numbers for such oversight suggested.
CMS recommends that each nursing home "should spend a minimum of 14 days in a given phase, with no new nursing home onset of COVID-19 cases, prior to advancing to the next phase," and CMS says states "may choose to have a longer waiting period (e.g., 28 days) before relaxing restrictions for facilities that have had a significant outbreak of COVID-19 cases."
Significantly, there is nothing in the latest CMS guidelines regarding staff members who work at more than one facility, thus posing a clear potential for cross-contamination. That seems to me, at least, especially short-sighted.
May 24, 2020 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Medicare, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, May 15, 2020
Another interesting conversation with a long-term care administrator this week was about "what kind of tests" are important in the Covid-19 context, especially for older adults in a congregate setting. A first question is whether every member of the staff and the residents should be tested regardless of the presence or absence of any symptoms. A Washington Post editorial on May 14, 2020 called for "extreme measures" Of course, the utility of such threshold testing mandates depends upon the availability of the means to test and how quickly the results of the tests will be processed. It is unlikely that the nation's number of residential care facilities will have the White House's "instant" testing equipment, right?
But when Covid-19 is present in any congregate care setting, the administrator explained a second test may be even more important. The test is for oxygen levels, taken with a monitoring device, sometimes referred to as an oximeter and often attached to a finger of the person in question. She explained to me that with Covid-19, the impairment of the lungs can occur with dramatic quickness and not necessarily with any complaints from the patient about shortness of breath. The director explained that donations of oxygen concentrators to her community meant they are able to respond to lowered oxygen levels within seconds -- rather than within life threatening minutes or hours -- to provide enhanced oxygen for the resident. Further, many at-risk people resident not in nursing homes, but in the many other variations of congregate senior care.
Have you tried to convince a person with a cognitive impairment or an anxiety disorder to wear a mask or agree to keep that oximeter attached to their hand? Will "extreme measures" include funding to support needed increases in care-staff ratios?
Wednesday, May 6, 2020
If you are trying to keep up with all the moving parts during the pandemic, you know how hard it is to stay on top of developments and ever-changing information. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has been issuing a number of pandemic-related interim regulations, advisories, etc. which are available from their COVID-19 website. (You can also sign up for their daily emails which helps). I wanted to point out a few in case they escaped your attention.
- waiver of the 3 day-hospitalization requirement for SNF coverage.
- Requiring facilities to report COVID-19 cases to CMS, CDC, families, etc.
- Creation of an Independent Commission to Address the Safety & Quality in SNFs.
The website also has a lot of information about the various Medicaid waivers CMS has approved for states. CMS isn't the only government agency making changes tor respond as various issues crop up, due to the ongoing crisis. Subscribe to the daily CMS briefing to help you stay up on at least one agency's actions.
Friday, April 24, 2020
Transparency Issues in Long-Term Care: The Potential for Misuse of Confidentiality Policies to Hide Infection Facts from the Public
Recently I was talking with a friend in another state who is the director of an assisted living facility that largely serves older adults who have significant risks factors. I asked, "Have you had any residents or staff members that have tested positive for COVID-19?" I asked her directly, because there was no way to know the answer to that question from public websites, either in her state or on a national basis. The good news was that her facility had had no such diagnoses, either among staff or residents. I also asked what she felt was key to avoiding infections, and we talked about the rates uncovered in other facilities in her own state. She said bluntly, "We learned from our experience with influenza the last two years that we had to make real changes, and we did so before the COVID-19 was a reality and doubled down when we started hearing about the coronavirus."
Internal infections have long-been a documented problem in residential care settings, and certainly not limited to so-called "nursing homes." Contributing factors include residents who may have physical or mental conditions that make self-protection difficult and perhaps impossible. My sister and I used to struggle mightily with a family member whose dementia interfered with the simple task of hand-washing -- even though this same person was the one who taught us the importance of soap and water from the time we were small children. It is perhaps ironic to recall that as a horse-mad girl I had tried to persuade both of my parents that there should be an exception for "barn dirt," on my theory that horse-related dirt was "clean dirt." My mothers still insisted I undress on the back porch and wash thoroughly before coming in for dinner. Wise woman, one who was quick to dismiss utter nonsense.
Fast forward decades and every day I hear new arguments regarding why facilities that have experienced life-threatening infections should not be required to report this in a public venue. The most problematic argument is one that says an individual's infection is confidential medical information that prevents the facility from reporting statistical information, and thus an infection cannot be made public. I've seen arguments about federal or state record-keeping policies such as HIPPA privacy rules or Pennsylvania's confidentiality rules as the rationalization. I think I know what my mother would call this kind of argument.
Syracuse Law Professor Nina Kohn tackles the history of mishandled safeguards against infections in long-term care with an Op-Ed for The Hill. In "Addressing the Crisis in Long-Term Care Facilities," Professor Kohn points to specific actions at the federal level that have weakened, rather than strengthened, potential safeguards. She makes five specific recommendations, including prohibitions on staff working in more than one-long-term care facility, to reduce cross-contamination, and the need for family members and others to make it clear that we "are paying attention to what is happening." She reminds us: "Those who are health care agents for nursing home residents should not be afraid to request access to medical records, as federal law entitles them to do, if facilities are not forthcoming with information about the care being provided."
April 24, 2020 in Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Medicaid, Medicare, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, February 13, 2020
Public Charge and Immigrant Seniors
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court removed the nationwide temporary injunction that had prevented the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) public charge immigration rule from taking effect. This means that the public charge rule that DHS finalized last August can go into effect nationwide, except in Illinois, where it is blocked by a statewide injunction. DHS announced that it will begin implementing the final rule on February 24th.
The Supreme Court’s decision endangers the health and well-being of older immigrants and their families and cruelly impedes the path to citizenship and family unification. However, it is not a final decision and we must continue to fight to stop this harmful policy from becoming permanent. The multiple cases challenging the underlying legality of the final public charge rule will continue in the courts. DHS has appealed all the district court decisions that issued preliminary injunctions to the Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits. DHS has also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
Justice in Aging and our partners have filed amicus briefs in the Second and Ninth Circuits to ask the court to affirm the district courts’ nationwide injunctions and to highlight the ways in which this rule unfairly targets older immigrants, their families, and caregivers. This webinar, Updates on Public Charge & Older Immigrants, will begin with an overview of the public charge test and how it applies to older adults, discuss the current state of litigation, and provide information on what advocates need to know about the rule’s implementation.
Who should participate:
Aging and legal advocates, advocates serving immigrant communities, community-based providers, and others wanting to learn more about how changes to the public charge test and implementation of the new regulations impact older immigrants.
Saturday, January 18, 2020
HHS has released the 2020 Poverty Level Guidelines.
2020 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Persons in family/household Poverty guideline
"For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,480 for each additional person."
Alaska and Hawaii are also available in the publication.
Friday, January 10, 2020
Kaiser Health News (KHN) recently published a story about a PACE program, Government-Funded Day Care Helps Keep Seniors Out Of Nursing Homes And Hospitals.
The services provided by PACE, a national program primarily funded by Medicaid and Medicare, are intended to keep people 55 and older who need nursing home levels of care at home as long as possible and out of the hospital.
The program is more important than ever as baby boomers age, its proponents say.
“The rapidly growing senior population in California and across the country will put enormous strain on our current fragmented, and often inefficient, health care delivery system,” said Tim Lash, president of Gary and Mary West PACE. California officials consider PACE an integral part of the state’s strategy to upgrade care for aging residents.
Consider the cost-savings to states with PACE programs, as well as the number of folks, typically dual eligibles, who participate. According to the story,
The National PACE Association said data it collected for 2019 shows seniors enrolled in PACE cost states 13% less on average than the cost of caring for them through other Medicaid-funded services, including nursing homes.
. . .
PACE participants who do not receive government medical benefits can pay out of their own pockets. At Gary and Mary West, the tab ranges from $7,000 to $10,000 a month, depending on the level of care.
Nationally, 50,000 enrollees participate in PACE programs at over 260 centers in 31 states. In California, PACE serves nearly 9,000 vulnerable seniors at 47 locations.
PACE provides the same services as under Medicare and Medicaid, and use of team from various disciplines to provide care. Patients often have chronic conditions and almost 2/3 of them have some level of cognitive difficulty.
Check it out.
PACE enrollees commonly have conditions such as vascular disease, diabetes, congestive heart failure, depression and bipolar disorder.