Sunday, November 6, 2022
When I was a child, my grandfather had an ongoing relationship with Readers' Digest. Not just their magazine or their condensed books, but with the company itself. He was always convinced he had won their latest sweepstakes and his big-dollar prize was just around the corner. It was a bit of a family legend.
Recently an older friend, who had celebrated a 90th birthday a few months back, called to ask for help in filling out forms for the Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes. Over the years my friend had purchased various items from PCH, including a set of solar lights that never worked properly. The odds of actually "winning" the PCH sweepstakes are astronomically high. My friend thought buying something would increase the odds of winning no matter how often I explained over the years that was not true. Sometimes new "stuff" would appear in the mail, along with a corresponding bill for the "order." It was hard to know whether my friend had actually ordered the items.
This time, my friend was thrilled to explain the long-awaited victory was almost here -- as the latest mailing "guaranteed" the check would be arriving by mail and all that was needed was timely confirmation by return mail of a willingness to accept the prize. Two envelopes were provided to help in "claiming" the victory.
I walked patiently through the colorful documents with my friend, pointing out all my examples of clever language. I showed my friend a copy of a case, Harris v. Publishers Clearing House, an unofficially reported federal decision from 2016, that described another person who also thought he had won for the exact same reasons as my friend. The prize never came. He was suing -- without the benefit of an attorney -- for breach of contract, fraud, and alleged violations of Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act, 39 U.S.C. Section 2001 et seq. But the judge ruled against him, dismissing the case with prejudice while explaining the language in the letters "merely informed the plaintiff that he had a chance to win. . . . "
My friend seemed to understand what I was saying. My friend asked my opinion -- "what should we do?" I suggested we tear up the letters and throw them in the trash. My friend put the documents -- untorn -- in the waste can. We talked about the fact that continuing to participate with this company was wasting money, and was also an example of "feeding the troll," encouraging the company to keep sending those "too-good-to-be-true" letters to other people. We ended our discussion with a good hug.
The next morning I stopped by to drop off newspapers and a fresh donut. As I waited for my friend, I saw the top of two "official" envelopes addressed to Publishers Clearing House peeking out of the top of the home's mail box for pick up -- with fresh stamps. I couldn't help but sigh.
Here is a link to a science-based discussion about early assessment of cognitive impairment, and the importance of histories provided by a reliable informant or care partner for diagnostic assessment. Victimization in scams is one of several behavioral examples listed in the article that can point to changes in cognition, associated with the loss of the ability to evaluate risk or odds of winning.
Isn't it sad that it might be easier to diagnose cognitive impairment than to get a ruling finding deceptive trade practices?
November 6, 2022 in Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, October 5, 2022
The U.S. Justice Department issued a press release yesterday, announcing the expansion of its Transnational Elder Fraud Strike Force. The Strike Force was organized in 2019, involving the Justice Department's Consumer Protection Bureau, U.S. Attorneys Offices, the FBI, Homeland Security, and -- I was interested to see -- the United States Postal Inspection Service
I've actually worked with the Postal Inspector on an elder fraud case. A woman in her 90s was mailing an unusually fat envelope and asked a friend to give her a ride to a local branch of the post office. The friend, knowing the woman was quite frail when walking unassisted, offered to get the postage, or to accompany her, but the older woman, who the friend thought seemed unsure of herself, declined. The friend thought about this, was alerted by what struck her as unusual behavior, and called the woman's daughter and explained what had just happened.
The daughter had dismissed a home caregiver recently after learning the caregiver was asking her mother for -- and receiving -- two or more "pay checks" per week, as well as asking for additional cash that seemed to disappear in mysterious ways. The daughter went to the post office with a copy of a certified Power of Attorney, granted to her by her mother several years before she was diagnosed with multiple conditions, including cognitive issues, following a stroke. In fact the reason the caregiver had been hired was precisely because the mother was vulnerable and sometimes confused.
The Post Office at first seemed to be reluctant to take action, but the daughter was able to describe the envelope and also to provide the name of the former employee who had already been fully paid for his work, and had signed a receipt to that effect. The Post Office's worker agreed to search, but when the daughter departed, it seemed unlikely any action would be taken. That is, it seemed unlikely until the next day, when a representative of the Postal Inspector set up an appointment. Having identified and been given the daughter/agent's permission to open the envelope, the federal authorities found several hundred dollars in the envelope that was, indeed, addressed to the former worker. The officers interviewed the mother and then went to see the suspect, who claimed it was merely an additional paycheck that was "owed." He claimed the mother was fully supportive of giving him cash, but he was unable to explain the receipt he'd signed, the burner phones he had used to call the woman, nor the many "payments" he'd received in the last 60 days, payments that the daughter had since documented as more than tripling his agreed wage rate during that period.
I'm the daughter; my 90+ mother was the person defrauded. (She has since passed away, so I feel more able to tell this story.) I learned the Postal Service already understood such a fact pattern very well. Even at that time, several years ago, the official investigating the facts told us that similar transactions happened all too often. It is good to see, with this latest press release, that the U.S. Justice Department is coordinating authorities on enhanced fraud prevention and recovery efforts in support of elder justice.
My thanks to Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Amy Gaudion at Penn State Dickinson Law, who shared the Justice Department notice with me, and whose own research focuses on national security and privacy issues.
October 5, 2022 in Consumer Information, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Widener Univ. Commonwealth Law School's Clinical Students to Serve as Monitors in Pennsylvania Guardianship Program
Mary Catherine Scott, Director of the Central Pennsylvania Law Clinic at Widener University Commonwealth Campus, has recently partnered with Dauphin County Orphans' Court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to expand her clinical students' opportunities for service. Law students will now have roles as monitors in guardianship cases, seeking to maximize the interests of protected persons. The Pro Bono Guardianship Monitoring Program was begun in central Pennsylvania by the Honorable Todd Hoover, and is now overseen by Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Engle, involving as many as 400 active cases. The monitor program is another component of the Pennsylvania courts' enhanced protections for older persons and other persons found to be in need of certain assistance. Pennsylvania also has a state-wide Guardianship Tracking System.
Monday, September 12, 2022
A Model for Other States? Pennsylvania's Law Schools form Consortium in Active Support of Elder Justice
Faculty members representing all nine law schools in Pennsylvania have joined together in a unique effort. The inspiration was communications initiated by jurists in the Pennsylvania Courts, especially Supreme Court Justice Debra Todd, promoting the need for sound legal advice and representation for older persons. The purpose of Pennsylvania academics' new Elder Justice Consortium is to identify, examine, and seek to alleviate challenges and difficulties facing diverse older populations across the Commonwealth.
This mission will include support for direct legal services for older adults, sometimes through law school clinics or service projects, as well as "pop-up" outreach and educational modules that focus on older adults in underserved communities and regions.
Duquesne University School of Law Assistant Professor Katherine L.W. Norton, who also serves as the director of clinical legal education programs at her school, is serving as the inaugural chair of the Consortium. During the summer of 2022, more than fourteen faculty members met regularly to identify ways that law schools can effectively increase our support and commitment to "elder justice." Professor Norton reports the group invited guest speakers from IOLTA (Interest on Lawyer's Trust Accounts) and the SeniorLAW Center in Philadelphia to share their ideas on funding and needs, as well as seeking a legislative update on guardianship law reforms from Patrick Cawley, an Elder Law attorney from central Pennsylvania who earlier served as counsel for an influential committee in the Pennsylvania Senate. Members of the consortium also exploring joining an amicus team in a case to be argued before the United States Supreme Court in November. The case addresses whether residents of nursing homes have the right to enforce key provisions of the federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments (OBRA 1987) via direct suit under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983.
The Consortium's next step will be for the Deans of the nine law schools to meet in September 2022 in Philadelphia with representatives of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and other interested parties to discuss programming options and priorities for action with the support of our law schools. Stay tuned, and let us know whether Law Schools in your state have similar teams on behalf of older people.
Thursday, September 8, 2022
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and CMS Jointly Caution Nursing Homes and Their Debt Collectors on Their Practices
Today, my Conflict of Laws class and I watched a live-streamed hearing involving "choice of law": "state" (about contracts) versus "federal law" (prohibiting practices affecting contracts) The context is a bit dramatic and definitely overdue for action.
On the same day as the public hearing, which was hosted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for panelists to identify concerns about certain debt collection practices used by nursing homes against the family members and others, CFPB and the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a "notification letter." The letter, dated September 8, 2022 and addressed to "Nursing Facilities and Debt Collectors," details improper practices under federal law, such as asking "third parties" to sign documents that, in effect, serve as personal guarantees of payment of nursing homes. Without those guarantees, the nursing home may deny admission or continued care. However, the third parties are often family members or even mere "friends," who may be trying to help get care, but who have little knowledge of the resident's personal finances or eligibility for Medicare or Medicaid, and who may not understand the risks of "agreeing" to sign the contracts.
I began writing about this problem years ago in a series of articles. In "The Responsible Thing to Do About Responsible Party Provisions in Nursing Home Agreements," I focused on misleading attempts to have someone agree to be a "responsible party" for purposes of the resident being admitted, without the signer's full understanding that the signature may be construed by state courts as a promise to pay if the resident cannot pay personally or does not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid payments. See also "Traps for the Unwary in Nursing Home Agreements."
Recent studies conducted under the auspices of Kaiser Family Foundation (at KHN) provide additional examples of the hardships on families and friends. Unfortunately, the problems with attempts to hold third-parties liable for costs of nursing home care have become more intense with Covid-19 crises affecting long-term care. Indeed, one of the pandemic-influenced contracting practices that adds to the problem is use of "on-line signing processes" for these contracts. As family members were often not even present during the admission's process, nursing homes are increasingly turning to e-signatures. The swift moving electronic process for initials and virtual signatures all too easily flies by without any true reading, much less understanding, of the documents and with close to zero likelihood the signers will be able to ask questions (such as "Do I have to sign this?" or "What happens if I don't sign this?") and gain accurate answers. Nursing homes deserve to be paid for their care -- but the right way to do this is to involve people who can help the families apply for benefits under Medicare or Medicaid, and who won't insist on private pay if the resident's resources are too low to support such pay.
In my experience, thoughtfully-managed, well-run nursing homes definitely exist. They get sound business and legal advice and know that is more cost effective to help families through the process than sue them when the documents are not understood. Experienced elder law attorneys, including specialists in Legal Services offices, can help too. But while reading the KHN report linked above, too often I was seeing "default judgments" involved here -- and in those instances, that usually means a lack of informed agreement on the part of signers or that the admission processes are otherwise not working properly.
September 8, 2022 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Medicare, State Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, August 18, 2022
Recently Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association legal ethics committees issued a Joint Formal Opinion addressing ethical considerations in the handling of several related forms of billing for services: flat fee, earned upon receipt, and non-refundable fees. Elder Law attorneys use various forms of such billing.
On the one hand, clients often want to know up front the full cost for services and thus like flat fee billing. On the other hand there can be tensions about whether or when such fees are "earned." The opinion stresses the need for clarity in the client-attorney relationship, so as to assure mutual understanding about when a fee is deemed earned, and to make sure clients are fully advised about the fee structure. With older clients -- and their family members -- it can be especially important to avoid assuming everyone understands mere "labels" for different fee arrangements.
In Joint Ethics Opinion No. 2022-300, the Committees conclude that under Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and with the guidance of prior opinions:
• Any fee not “earned upon receipt” is deemed an “advance” fee, which may only be deposited into the operating account if the client provides informed consent, confirmed in writing, in accordance with Rule 1.15(i); and,
• When a fee is deemed to be “earned upon receipt,” attorneys may deposit the fee into an operating account rather than a Rule 1.15 IOLTA account or other Trust account, provided that the attorney specifically states in the fee agreement that the fee is intended to be nonrefundable and earned upon receipt.
Hat tip to Rob Clofine, elder law attorney extraordinaire, for sharing this with Pennsylvania lawyers.
Wednesday, August 3, 2022
On August 3, 2022, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued its latest ruling in the long-running case of Friends Boarding Home of Western Quarterly v. Commonwealth, with an en banc opinion rejecting Friends Home's exceptions to the appellate court's earlier three-judge panel ruling. The full court focuses closely on the use of residents' fees to operate the Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) and the argument that because "some" residents receive subsidized care the facility is donating the necessary "substantial" portion of its services. For example:
Between 2014 and 2017, Friends incurred annual operating losses between $386,620-$542,652. In 2018, Friends had an operating deficit of $265,569 and for 2019, $790,069. Friends maintains that these deficits lend additional support that Friends’ rates contain substantial subsidies that benefit all residents, such that it satisfied the requirement that it donates or renders gratuitously a substantial portion of its services.
We recognize that Friends incurs operating deficits that it covers with funds generated from investments and contributions. However, Friends’ argument that its operating deficits prove that it donates a substantial portion of its services by subsidizing all rates is once again refuted by the fact that there are for-profit facilities in the vicinity of Friends Home providing similar services at comparable rates. Even though Friends may incur operating deficits, it has not demonstrated that it donates “a substantial portion of its services” “to those who cannot afford the ‘usual fee.’” HUP, 487 A.2d at 1315 n.9. Thus, we discern no error in the conclusion reached [by the Panel] in Friends Boarding Home in this regard.
My Pennsylvania colleague Douglas Roeder and I recently co-authored an article about the ongoing challenges for nonprofit organizations, especially those who offer fee-based services. The latest ruling from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court would seem to deepen the need for certain nonprofits who seek "purely charitable" tax exemptions to carefully consider their charitable mission. I'm also thinking that nonprofit CCRCs would also be well advised to have candid discussions of their charitable missions with both potential residents and current residents. Ultimately, it will be the more solvent residents who make up the difference in support of the charitable mission.
Thursday, July 28, 2022
The Insurance Journal ran this article recently, Nursing Home Denied ‘Unconscionable’ Arbitration Where Patient Was Blind, Alone. The arbitration agreement in question was "to settle e a family’s wrongful death complaint where the arbitration papers had been signed by the deceased woman when she was blind, on medication and in severe pain." It wasn't just that, though for which "[t]he Pennsylvania Superior Court ... upheld a trial court in finding that the arbitration agreement was 'unconscionable....'" In addition, the resident "was alone when she was asked to sign the arbitration agreement, ... was not given a chance to read it and other admission documents before signing, ... was not given a copy of the agreement after she signed, even though it permitted her to rescind within 10 days, and the ... admissions director did not read or explain all of the arbitration agreement’s provisions."
Thanks to Morris Klein for sending me the article.
Monday, July 25, 2022
Do Federally Exempt Nursing Homes, Assisted Living, and Continuing Care Communities Also Qualify as "Institutions of Purely Public Charity?"
The latest in a series of senior-care related cases is making its way through the Pennsylvania appellate courts, asking whether a federally tax exempt senior living facility -- one that offers a range of options including independent living, "supported" independent living, personal care, and skilled care, although it isn't licensed as a CCRC -- can also qualify for state property and sales tax exemptions.
Pennsylvania, in ways similar to many states, allows a federal charitable tax exemption under Rev. Code Section 501(c)(3) to serve as the basis for state exemptions from income taxes, but a separate state statute sets tougher requirements to qualify as a "purely public charity" in order to avoid responsibilities to pay real property, sales and use taxes. Nursing homes, intermediate care settings (such as personal care or assisted living), and continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs) often rely on federal revenue rulings that recognize historical grounds to exempt "homes for the aged" from taxation. See e.g., Rev. Rul. 72-124 (also available at 1972 WL 30720). But on a fairly regular basis, Pennsylvania taxing authorities have challenged such enterprises as not being "sufficiently" charitable. Compare, for example In re St. Margaret Seneca Place, 640 A.2d 380 (Pa. 1994) (upholding state tax exemptions for a nursing home) with Appeal of Dunwoody Village, 52 A.3d 408 (Pa. Commw. 2012) (denying state tax exemption for a CCRC). In September 2021, a panel of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, using a "totality of the circumstances" approach concluded that the facility failed to donate a substantial portion of its services, and failed to show it benefits a substantial and indefinite class of persons who are subjects of charity. See Friends Boarding Home of Western Quarterly Meeting v. Commonwealth, 260 A.3d. 1064 (Pa. Commw. 2021).
The case is now under review for en banc consideration by the full Commonwealth Court, and there are indications the case might go all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Working with my former Elder Protection Clinic colleague, Douglas Roeder, Esq., we examine a series of cases and trends under Pennsylvania law, including those involving senior living enterprises, as reasons to consider larger implications for federal and state exemptions based on charitable grounds. See Putting the Charity Back in Purely Public Charities (July 2022).
July 25, 2022 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Retirement, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, June 30, 2022
The 6th Annual Oregon AG Elder Abuse conference will be held October 20-21, 2022 in Bend, OR. Conference organizers are seeking proposals. Here is the info
Request for Presentations is NOW OPEN! Presenters at Attorney General Rosenblum’s Annual Elder Abuse Conference are the heart and the soul of this annual event. Each year over 20 professionals with expertise related to elder abuse are selected to present to nearly 200 attendees. If you would like to be a presenter at the 2022 conference, please complete the Request for Presentations by July 1, 2022 and submit it electronically to ElderAbuse@doj.state.or.us.
If you want to submit a proposal, remember the deadline is tomorrow!
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
I suspect I'm not alone in thinking about guns this morning in the wake of the Texas shooting at a grade school in Uvalde Texas. This post reflects matters I've been thinking about for a long time. Indeed, thirty years ago I considered making gun violence a core academic research topic, until I realized how potent is the lobby supporting gun sales, and therefore gun ownership.
First, this morning I listened to a young man, David Hogg, speaking to an NPR interviewer about his own frustrations in opposing gun violence. He urged legislators at state and national levels to do at least "one thing" to move forward on gun safety legislation. My first reaction was "one thing?" How is that going to help?
Second, I heard a bit more about the background of the 18 year old shooter in Texas, as well as the background of the similarly-aged shooter in Buffalo New York. More memories. In one of my previous lives, I volunteered for a neighborhood tutoring program in New Mexico. My first two students, in high school, had been sent to the program by judges trying to help youths in crime-related incidents. One young man attended once -- and then disappeared.
I managed to have a good session with the other student, a junior in high school, who at my request wrote a short essay about what he saw as his future. The 500 word piece was quite well written, and gave us something we could definitely use to gently work to improve his reading and writing skills. The focus, however, proved to be a window into the bleak outlook of a young man who was involved in a so-called gang. To put it simply, he saw no future for himself after high school. He said with utter confidence that his high school "had" to graduate him regardless of whether he did any more work, as long as he merely attended class. I didn't want to believe that, but he had plenty of evidence to support his hypothesis. He didn't have any post graduation plans. He had equal confidence that he probably wasn't going to make it to age 21. The following week during our tutoring session, he was creative in his resistance to my role as a tutor. He turned in his next essay, but it was written entirely in what was some sort of "tagger's script," the stylized script he used when spray-painting his messages on public building. Tagging was his only crime at that moment.
I eventually decided to volunteer for younger students, and in fact I had a two-year working student-tutor relationship with a grade school boy who was in the program at his mother's insistence. Actually, I got to know the whole family, including his parents and a sister who also sometimes attended our reading sessions (and she helped turn reading into a competitive adventure). To mark the success of his "graduation" from the program, we went to a Phoenix Suns basketball game, because the opposing team that day had a player much admired by my student. At his comparatively "youthful" age, he had written about his plans for the future, including somehow, against all genetic odds, planning to "grow" tall enough to be a professional basketball player, like his idol, Nate Archibald. We talked about coaching as an alternative -- just in case.
I remember the difference in these individuals as I listen to the troubled histories of the two "boys" who bought guns as part of their 18th birthday celebrations. I don't know what happened to most of the other the students involved in the tutoring program. The second student dropped out of the program for reasons I never learned, but I later saw his name in the newspaper when he was accused of being the driver in a car-jacking where his "friend" shot the woman who resisted having her car taken. Sadly, that student's essay was prophetic, as any true dreams for a future may have ended with that crime.
So, if we are going to do at least "one thing," could we -- should we -- focus on raising the threshold age for gun ownership? Should we give young people in their late teens more time to grow older (and "taller" or more mature) and thus to reach a point where the future seems brighter? I'm not suggesting they cannot participate in shooting sports, hunting, and the military, where we hope their use and skill building would be supervised by knowledgeable people. I am suggesting making it unlawful for them to "own" or at least to purchase guns until they are older. Research suggests that substantially more crimes of gun violence against others are committed by individuals between the ages of 17 and 21. There is research to support restricting gun ownership (and therefore gun sales) to individuals over 21 as one step forward in terms of safety.
For example, in June 1999, a "collaborative report" under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Justice noted in part:
In 1996, 26,040 people in the United States were killed with guns. In 1997, offenders age 18, 19, and 20 ranked first, second, and third in the number of gun homicides committed. Of all gun homicides where an offender was identified, 24 percent were committed by this age group, which is consistent with the historical pattern of gun homicides over the past 10 years.
Other statistics suggest that gun-related suicide death rates are highest for females age 45 to 64 and for males age 75 and older, statistics that point to another form of age-specific gun tragedies. Age matters.
That first boy who "disappeared" after the first tutoring session? I later learned he had been killed in a neighborhood shooting. Would younger adults support delayed lawful-ownership as one form of protection against gun violence? Certainly, more is needed on so many other levels including mental health supports. But could "one thing" -- at least -- include blocking gun sales to people who are still in the process of learning to plan for the future, for their futures?
Sunday, May 8, 2022
It is Sunday, and I'm looking at a long list of things to do next week, with grading exams at the top of my list. Significantly, however, in the last six to eight months, at increasing rates, I'm hearing from current and prospective residents of Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs, also sometimes called Life Plan Communities). Here are examples of some of the most often asked questions:
- "The company that runs my CCRC is about to engage in development of a new CCRC. Is the money I've already paid in the form of an admission fee, or the money I continue to pay as monthly service fees, going to support this new development?"
- "During the lock-down associated with protecting residents and the public from COVID-19, we were asked to give up services that were the very reason we choose this community. But now that we are no longer locked down, the services either are not returning or the fees we are charged are actually increasing. Is there some effective way to object to this disconnect between the promises and the delivery of services?"
- "My parents are thinking about moving into a CCRC. On the one hand, I like the idea of the active community they are choosing. But on the other hand, the amount they are expected to pay in the form of an admission fee is astounding. Why are some communities calling this a refundable fee and others are saying it isn't a refundable fee? What are the protections for the 'refundable' fee?"
- "We have just learned that our nonprofit CCRC is being transferred to a for-profit company as the owner-operator. How is this likely to impact my wife and I as residents?"
Answers to many of these questions depend on the state's laws governing this form of senior living operation and, even more, on the particular contracts between the resident and the provider. State regulators have concerns here too. For those looking for legal assistance in their particular community, I sometimes recommend looking for attorneys in the caller's home state, someone who understands CCRCs from a resident perspective. I first wrote about the need for attorneys who understand resident perspectives in 2006.
Sometimes "elder law" attorneys have this expertise, but not always. Plus, it can be important to consult with an attorney who understands consumer protection laws, and not "just" CCRC law. Finally, if litigation is actually on the horizon, the choice for legal advice can depend on whether the attorneys have expertise in litigation or dispute resolution and not "just" contract law.
So, all of this is a short way of saying that even though, as an legal academic, I often write about the importance of resident rights in CCRCs, and even though I believe the future of CCRCs is very much tied to the answers, I'm not in a position to respond to individual questions. The very fact that I'm writing this Blog Post is a potential indication that something important could be going on in the industry. Perhaps that "something" should be addressed by the industry itself, especially if it wants the CCRC concept not just to survive, but thrive. In my opinion, it is not enough for the industry to say that "every CCRC is different."
Tuesday, May 3, 2022
RFP: Washington State Seeks Expert Consultation to Develop CCRC Regulations with Heightened Consumer Protections
I'm always interested when I start getting lots of calls or emails about a certain topic in aging. Today I was hearing from a lot of people wanting to talk about Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs, sometimes also called Life Plan Communities or LPCs). It is safe to say that all forms of senior living operations are facing new challenges after being hit hard by the lockdowns and staffing problems of the last two years with COVID-19.
But one of the most interesting set of calls was from the State of Washington, where residents have been using their time together during COVID to think carefully about the need for certain key protections for consumers who put their money and trust into CCRCs. The Washington Continuing Care Residents Association (WACCRA) has worked carefully, calmly and diligently to reach the ears of legislators and regulators in the state. I had the pleasure of hearing from members and residents of CCRCs in Washington last October and speaking at their annual meeting.
Today, I heard that the Office of Insurance Commissioner in Washington has initiated a Request for Proposals for a time-sensitive research project:
This project is designed to assess federal and state authorities regulating continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs) and provide a report with recommendations on creating a legal framework for shared regulatory oversight of CCRC products under Chapter 18.390 RCW, which may achieve heightened consumer protections.
Interested researchers -- with background in regulatory systems for CCRCS -- should act quickly as the deadline for submissions is May 23, 2022.
Friday, April 29, 2022
As is true with several U.S. states, Virginia has a filial support statute that can obligate adult children to support their parents. The key language of VA Code Ann. Section 20-88 provides:
It shall be the joint and several duty of all persons eighteen years of age or over, of sufficient earning capacity or income, after reasonably providing for his or her own immediate family, to assist in providing for the support and maintenance of his or her mother or father, he or she being then and there in necessitous circumstances.
If there be more than one person bound to support the same parent or parents, the persons so bound to support shall jointly and severally share equitably in the discharge of such duty. . . .
This section shall not apply if there is substantial evidence of desertion, neglect, abuse or willful failure to support any such child by the father or mother, as the case may be, prior to the child's emancipation or, except as provided hereafter in this section, if a parent is otherwise eligible for and is receiving public assistance or services under a federal or state program. . . .
There are few modern cases applying this law. In Peyton v. Peyton, an "unreported" Virginia chancery court decision from 40 years ago, the court applies the law to obligate one brother to reimburse another brother $8,000, representing half of the past out-of-pocket expenses for their mother's care in a nursing home. A careful reading of the Peyton case reveals one of the challenges of applying filial support laws when used to collect "back" expenses; here the second son was willing to pay a portion of their mother's monthly costs going forward but he was not successful in arguing a statute of limitations should apply to prevent liability for multiple years of back claims.
As with other American states that have had forms of filial support laws, Virginia's law was enacted as an alternative to public welfare laws because the common law generally found no legal duty for adult children to support indigent parents. But, in Virginia, again as in most American states, the filial support laws are largely dormant, misunderstood or ignored, especially after Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid laws were enacted on a federal level beginning in the 1960s.
Virginia's statute was amended decades ago to restrict use of the law by the state to seek reimbursement for its costs in providing public services (such as "medical assistance" a/k/a Medicaid). However, unlike the filial laws of most states, Virginia's law permits criminal prosecution as a misdemeanor for "any person violating the provisions of an order" of support under this statute, with a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment in jail for up to 12 months. I find no reported cases of criminal enforcement actions.
Recognizing that other states (including neighboring Maryland in 2017) had recently taken formal action to repeal filial support laws as outdated or impractical, Virginia Senator Adam Ebbin introduced 2022 Senate Bill 389 to repeal Virginia's law. Senator Ebbin's bill passed with no dissenting votes in the Virginia Senate. The final vote in the Virginia House, on March 11, 2022, supported repeal with 81 voting in favor, and only 16 members voting in opposition to repeal. In other words, repeal was not a controversial measure; rather it appeared to be part of an attempt to clean-up hoary laws, and it attracted strong bipartisan support.
Nonetheless, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (sworn into office in January 2022) vetoed the repeal on April 11, 2022. His reasoning for preserving filial support laws is unique, at least in my 20-some years of experience researching filial support laws (see e.g., Filial Support Laws in the Modern Era: Domestic and International and International Comparison of Enforcement Practices for Laws Requiring Adult Children to Support Indigent Parents, 20 Elder Law Journal 269 (2013)).
The governor's veto statement explains:
"Primarily, the Commonwealth's filial responsibility law supports those who care for their elderly parents. In establishing a bankruptcy budget, the court allows for necessary and reasonable expenditures and the repeal of Section 20-88 could prevent an individual from covering these expenses within the budget of their debtor. For those undergoing bankruptcy proceedings, there is a grave risk of unforeseeable and unintended consequences, which may harm people going through some of the most difficult times in their lives."
On the one hand, in today's torn asunder political scene, no one should be surprised that a newly elected governor of one party would be vetoing legislation sponsored by a member of the other party -- and that is true here, with a Republican governor vetoing a bill proposed by a Democrat.
But what about the proffered reason for the veto? Virginia's law does not "primarily" support those who care for their elderly parents. Rather, it creates an obligation for adult children. Is there any precedent for a theory that Virginia's filial support law permits some type of sheltering of assets for a debtor in bankruptcy court, to provide a means of financial support for the (also) destitute parent? Certainly I find no modern cases on Lexis or Westlaw suggesting such use or even a need for such use.
There is a reported case from 1938 in Virginia. In Mitchell-Powers Hardware Co. v. Eaton, 198 S.E. 496 (Supreme Court of Appeals, VA 1938), the court addressed a question of whether a transfer of valuable stock by a debtor to his sister was voidable as an invalid gift. Was this an invalid attempt to defeat a legitimate creditor's lien against the asset? The court recognized that under Virginia's predecessor version of Statute 20-88, the debtor "could" have an obligation to assist his sister in the care of their elderly mother. The appellate court remanded the case for a jury determination of whether the mother was actually destitute and in need of the son's financial support. (The sister had further transferred the stock in question onward to the debtor's son). This hardly seems a persuasive case for characterizing filial support laws as necessary "support for those who care for their elderly parents."
April 29, 2022 in Crimes, Current Affairs, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Medicare, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, February 25, 2022
Naomi Cahn of University of Virginia School of Law Law joins Clare Huntington, of Fordham Law and Elizabeth Scott, Emerita Professor at Columbia Law, to propose needed changes in family law to reflect the impact of aging. In their forthcoming article for Yale Law Journal (Vol. 132) titled Family Law for the One-Hundred Year Life, they contend family law must address the interests and needs of families across the life span, and not just those of younger people. They point to three areas for focus: the dignity and autonomy interests of older persons, structural inequalities, and the need for legal mechanisms that are efficient and accessible. An example of their calls for legal reform is the discussion of intrafamily personal care contracts:
The response of regulators and courts to intrafamily personal care contracts illustrates well the law’s failure to support family care, especially for low-income families. In arranging in-home care, older adults sometimes contract with service providers, but they also contract with family members. A care contract is especially helpful when an older adult wants to receive these services from a family member but the family member cannot provide care without compensation. But these agreements run into problems. If the older adult is trying to qualify for Medicaid, many states scrutinize the contracts to ensure they are not simply a means for transferring assets from the older adult to the younger relative, helping the older adult satisfy Medicaid’s means-tested eligibility requirements. Partly based on the assumption that familial care is provided altruistically, state regulators regularly find that the agreements are, indeed, fraudulent transfers. This is an example of class-based discrimination: intrafamilial contracts for care are not scrutinized by public authorities unless the care recipient seeks to qualify for public support through Medicaid.
Equally interesting is their discussion of "opt-in or opt-out" concepts for the definition of family. All-in-all, this article looks to the future of judicial, regulatory and legislative legal systems, while also offering ways to challenge our students in the classroom now.
Monday, February 14, 2022
The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care is offering a podcast with Dr. Laura Mosqueda on Nursing Home Neglect: Preventing It and Getting Help. Here's a description of the podcast:
The pandemic has renewed concerns about the quality of care that residents receive in some nursing homes, and many family members have reported significant decline in the condition of their loved ones. Neglect and abuse of older adults is a long-standing problem that is under-reported and has not received the necessary attention and response from policymakers, yet it results in needless and preventable suffering and harm.
In this episode with Dr. Laura Mosqueda, a professor of Family Medicine and Geriatrics at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, we talk about neglect, which is the failure to provide goods and services to an individual that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. Neglect may or may not be intentional.
February 14, 2022 in Consumer Information, Crimes, Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Programs/CLEs, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Web/Tech | Permalink
Thursday, December 16, 2021
You may have already read about this, but just in case.... Kaiser Health News has reported about changes to California's aid-in-dying law. New California Law Eases Aid-in-Dying Process explains that "in October, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a revised version of the law, extending it to January 2031 and loosening some restrictions in the 2015 version that proponents say have become barriers to dying people who wish to avail themselves of the law." This change becomes effective in 2022.
With the original law, as an example, "patients who want to die must make two oral requests for the medications at least 15 days apart. They also must request the drugs in writing, and two doctors must agree the patients are legally eligible. After receiving the medications, patients must confirm their intention to die by signing a form 48 hours before ingesting them."
Now, with the changes, "the revised law reduces the 15-day waiting period to just two days and eliminates the final attestation [and] requires health care facilities to post their aid-in-dying policies online. Doctors who decline to prescribe the drugs — whether on principle or because they don’t feel qualified — are obliged to document the patient’s request and transfer the record to any other doctor the patient designates."
The article offers poignant examples, provides statistics, and discusses the approach of insurance companies for coverage of the prescription ("[M]ore than 60% of those who take the drugs are on Medicare, which does not cover them. Effective life-ending drug combinations are available for as little as $400.")
December 16, 2021 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicare, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, November 16, 2021
Yesterday, I pointed out to you an article about how state residency requirements limit those from accessing aid in dying. Today, I wanted to update you on litigation that had been filed some time ago against the California aid-in-dying statute. The AP ran a story noting the Lawsuit briefly blocking California assisted death law ends.
An appeals court ... formally ended a lawsuit that in 2018 temporarily suspended a California law that allows adults to obtain prescriptions for life-ending drugs, a gap that advocates blamed Thursday for a significant drop in its use that year.
California lawmakers made the lawsuit moot last month when they reauthorized and extended the law until 2031 while reducing the time until terminal patients projected to have six months or less to live can choose to be given fatal drugs.
The controversy started when "a ... judge... [ruled]in May 2018 that state legislators acted unconstitutionally when they passed the law during a special session that was devoted to health care in 2016."
A different ... judge last year ruled that lawmakers in fact did act properly and that physicians who sued to block it lacked legal standing to file the challenge. But the court allowed the opponents to refile their complaint if they could find patients to join the lawsuit.
Late last week the two sides agreed that the Legislature’s recent reauthorization and extension of the law, which had been set to sunset in another five years, effectively ended the legal challenge.
The law was also revised as part of the reauthorization, including shortening "the waiting period required between the time a patient makes separate oral requests for medication ...to 48 hours, down from the current minimum 15 days [as well as] eliminat[ing] the requirement that patients make final written attestations within 48 hours of taking the medication."
Monday, September 27, 2021
I was interested in this recent opinion from the Penn. Supreme Court. Not elder law specific, but interesting info none the less. In Penn. v. Purnell, the court was reviewing
the appropriate test to apply to a trial court’s determination concerning whether a witness in a criminal case may utilize a “comfort dog” for support during his or her trial testimony. We hold that a trial court should balance the degree to which the accommodation will assist the witness in testifying in a truthful manner against any possible prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Here, the trial court allowed a witness to testify with the assistance of a comfort dog, and the Superior Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this regard. For the reasons stated below, we agree with the Superior Court and, therefore, affirm that court’s judgment."
The issue arose when one witness to a killing was concerned about her own safety, so the State sought
a “comfort dog” be present during [the witness'] testimony. ... The motion explained that a sheriff’s deputy would transport the comfort dog, Melody, to the court and that the dog would enter the courtroom before the jury’s entrance. According to the motion, the comfort dog would be placed in the witness stand outside the presence of the jury and would exit the courtroom after the jury left the room. (citations omitted).
After reviewing arguments and rulings from other states, the court determined "that trial courts have the discretion to permit a witness to testify with the assistance of a comfort dog. In exercising that discretion, courts should balance the degree to which the accommodation will assist the witness in
testifying in a truthful manner against any possible prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair
trial and employ means to mitigate any such prejudice."
The full opinion is available here.
Thursday, September 9, 2021
Colorado City Makes Public Apology & Pays $3 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Violent Takedown and Arrest of Older Woman
In May of 2021, we linked to emerging information about a June 2020 arrest of a 73 year-old woman with dementia in Loveland Colorado.
The family of the older woman, Karen Garner, filed a civil suit. On September 8, 2021, the City of Loveland issued a press release announcing a $3 million dollar settlement and expressing an apology to the family:
“The settlement with Karen Garner will help bring some closure to an unfortunate event in our community but does not upend the work we have left to do. We extend a deep and heartfelt apology to Karen Garner and her family for what they have endured as a result of this arrest,” said Loveland City Manager Steve Adams. “We know we did not act in a manner that upholds the values, integrity, and policies of the City and police department, and we are taking the necessary steps to make sure these actions are never repeated.”
“There is no excuse, under any circumstances, for what happened to Ms. Garner. We have agreed on steps we need to take to begin building back trust. While these actions won’t change what Ms. Garner experienced, they will serve to improve this police department and hopefully restore faith that the LPD exists to serve those who live in and visit Loveland,” Chief Bob Ticer stated.
Criminal charges are still pending against the officers involved in the violent takedown, in her arrest, and for the detention of the injured woman who was then left without medical care in a holding cell while officers sat comfortably in a booking room, reviewing their own bodycam videos, appearing to laugh over the sound of her breaking arm. For more, read here and here.
There is a lot of work still ahead for so many police and detention units.
September 9, 2021 in Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Crimes, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Discrimination, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)