That’s a No-No

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Apr 24, 2025 | Admin, Hospice, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

No-no # 1

“No-No” may seem like something you would say to a toddler, but there is a list of things agency owners do that they should not do. Many of these are things providers may not often consider. This article focuses on the use of private duty services by hospice and home health patients, and what hospices and home health agencies cannot do with regard to aide services.

Aide Services

Both home health and hospice services are usually intermittent and provided in patients’ homes. Patients and their families may elect to utilize the services of private duty/home care companies for additional assistance. At the same time, hospice and home health patients may receive aide services from hospices and home health agencies.

Conditions of Participation

According to Medicare Conditions of Participation (CoPs), hospice and home health aides can only provide personal care services, including bathing. Aides provided by private duty/home care companies may also provide personal care. Unlike aides provided by hospices and home health agencies, however, they can provide additional services; such as laundry, food preparation, light housekeeping, shopping, and running errands.

Private Duty Services

When patients use private duty services, they are often paying for these services out of their own pockets. Even if they have long-term care insurance, patients still bear the financial burden of paying for private duty services. Longterm care insurance often costs thousands of dollars that patients probably paid for themselves. Patients usually pay by the hour for these services.

That's a No-No

Patients may, of course, utilize private duty/home care services to perform any of the services described above. It seems, however, that hospices routinely tell patients who have private duty/home care that they will not provide aide services because private duty/home care aides are able to provide personal care for patients.

Breaking it Down

Here is an example: A hospice admitted a bedridden patient with urinary and fecal incontinence. The patient and caregiver requested aide services from the hospice five days a week to bathe him. He paid for a few hours of private duty/home care services each day. The hospice refused to provide aide services five days a week to bathe him because he had private duty/home care services. No-no!

Compelled to Provide Care

ospices must provide aide services consistent with patients’ needs related to their terminal illnesses. In the example above, the patient clearly had a need for aide services five days a week. If patients and their caregivers state that they prefer to use private caregivers for personal care, then hospices must document the refusal of hospice aide services offered, consistent with applicable standards of care. Then hospices are not required to provide aide services.

Profiteering

When hospices deny aide services that are consistent with applicable standards of care and require patients and caregivers to use private duty/home care services, hospices are shifting the cost of aide services onto patients and their families. Patients and their families may have to pay for additional private duty/home care services to meet patients’ needs. The result for hospices is that they do not incur the costs of aide services, thereby increasing their profits at the expense of patients and their families.

If hospice staff members who refuse to provide aide services to patients and require patients and their families to use private duty/home care services instead are compensated in any way based on the financial performance or profitability of the hospices, let’s hope they look good in orange jumpsuits!

Intent to Defraud

If the private duty/home care services are being paid for by any federal or state health care program; such as Medicaid, Medicaid waiver, VA, or TriCare; then both home health agencies and hospices have engaged in fraudulent conduct by shifting costs that they should have incurred onto other federal government programs.

God forbid that the hospice also owns the company from which patients receive private duty/home care services! Then hospices are limiting their costs while profiting from patients and their families.

Dig Deep and Find Your No-No's

Now is the time for all home health agencies and hospices especially to audit patients’ records to make certain that all patients have been offered services that they are required to provide. If patients and their families choose to use private duty/home care aides instead, documentation must show that they were offered the services but chose to use private duty/home care aides.

No-No's Final Thoughts

The bottom line is that hospices and home health agencies must always provide services needed by patients. Patients may choose to pay for services that are paid for by the Medicare hospice or home health benefits. Patients cannot be required to pay for services privately that hospices and home health agencies must provide. Unacceptable!

This article is the first in a series of “No-no” items for agency owners.

# # #

Elizabeth Hogue is an attorney in private practice with extensive experience in health care. She represents clients across the U.S., including professional associations, managed care providers, hospitals, long-term care facilities, home health agencies, durable medical equipment companies, and hospices.

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

©2025 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

Relief for Providers

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Apr 11, 2025 | Admin, Audits, CMS, Medicare, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Relief for Providers from Devastating Penalties?

A judge in the Northern District of Texas recently decided that even the minimum penalties mandated under the False Claims Act (FCA) violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause [see U.S. ex rel. Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Tex. (N.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2025)]. The FCA punishes providers for submission of information that is not true in order to get paid by the federal government.

Life Threatening Penalties

The penalties assessed against providers under the FCA may be described as “life threatening.” That is, it may be difficult for providers’ businesses to survive payment of such severe penalties. The minimum penalty increased from $13,946 to $14,308 in 2025. The maximum penalty per claim increased from $27,894 to $28,619.

Ex Post Facto

These increased penalties will be assessed for violations that occurred prior to the change, but that are assessed after they are in effect. These penalties certainly make it clear why it is difficult for providers to survive violations of the FCA.

False Claims

In the Taylor case above, for example, the defendants allegedly submitted false claims as follows:

As “incident to” a physician’s care without proper documentation
For services by providers who were not eligible to bill the Medicare Program
For services performed by medical assistants instead of qualified practitioners

FCA Math Doesn't Add Up

The jury found that one of the defendants, a primary care medical group practice, submitted 21,944 false claims for $2,753,641.86 in actual damages. After trebling the damages as required by the FCA, the Court said it would enter judgement against the defendant for approximately $8 million. The Court acknowledged, however, that penalties under the FCA are fines subject to the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Grossly Disproportional to the Gravity

The Court then applied the following four factors to decide whether the “fine was grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense” under the Eighth Amendment:

The essence of the defendant’s crime and its relationship to other criminal activity
Whether the defendant was within the class of people for whom the statute of conviction was principally designed
The maximum sentence, including the fine that could have been imposed
The nature of the harm resulting from the defendant’s conduct

Fraud...or a Reporting Error?

With regard to the first factor, the Court emphasized that the defendant’s misconduct involved violations of Medicare billing rules, but did not include billing for services that were not provided. In fact, the Court said that even though the defendant violated Medicare billing rules, the misconduct was “closer in gravity to something like a ‘reporting offense.’” There was, said the Court, no evidence that the defendant’s conduct was “related to other criminal or fraudulent activity.

Magnitude of Harm

The Court also focused attention on the fourth factor. The defendant’s harm was certainly significant, but the harm, according to the Court, did not necessitate a penalty “two orders of magnitude greater than the actual financial harm,” especially when the actual damages were substantial, i.e., one hundred times the amount of actual damages. That ratio was “grossly out of alignment with the ratios in other similar cases.” The Court imposed a civil penalty of $8,260,925.58 that represents less than 3% of the statutory minimum.

Final Thoughts

Whether other Courts follow the Taylor case described above remains to be seen, but it is quite clear that providers need relief from the penalties of the FCA.

# # #

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

More Violence in Care at Home

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Mar 21, 2025 | Admin, Caregiver Safety, Caring for the Caregiver, Clinical

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Violence Against Home Care Providers Continues

Violence in Care at Home Continues…

Sadly, but not surprisingly, the violence against field staff caring for patients in their homes continues. Here’s a recent example:

On February 28, 2025, a hospice nurse in Texas was accosted inside a patient’s home while she was attempting to provide care. The man who accosted her inside the home followed her outside with a rifle and fired at her as she fled. The nurse was uninjured, but her car was struck by at least one bullet.

Then, still armed, the man went back inside the patient’s home where he stayed close to the patient while pointing his rifle at deputies. Law enforcement officers were able to communicate with him and de-escalate the tense situation. The man was booked into the county jail on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and bond was set at $250,000.

By the Numbers

According to a recent analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, healthcare is one of the most dangerous places to work. Homecare field staff members who provide services on behalf of private duty agencies, hospices, Medicare-certified home health agencies, and home medical equipment (HME) companies may be especially vulnerable. Contributing to their vulnerability is the fact that they work alone on territory that may be unfamiliar and over which they have little control. Staff members certainly need as much protection as possible.

Violence Policies Needed

First, regardless of practice setting, management should develop a written policy of zero tolerance for all incidents of violence, regardless of source. This policy should include animals. The policy must require employees and contractors to report and document all incidents of threatened or actual violence, no matter how minor.

Beyond Reporting

Emphasis should be placed on both reporting and documenting. Employees must provide as much detail as possible. The policy should also include zero tolerance for visible weapons. Caregivers must be required to report the presence of visible weapons.

UCHealth SAFE Program

Below are some additional important actions for healthcare organizations to take that are based on the UCHealth SAFE Program:

Encourage staff members to STOP if they feel unsafe for any reason.
If danger is not imminent, workers should pause to generally ASSESS their environments. Staff members should think about what happened and observe what is currently happening. Is there, for example, mounting frustration or anger?
Staff should then FAMILIARIZE themselves with the area. Who is the patient? Where is the patient? Are there any factors that might escalate behaviors? Staff members should also consider putting themselves in positions where they have a route to escape, if necessary.
ENLIST help. Getting help may, for example, include pushing panic buttons on mobile devices.

In Their Own Words

Here is what Chris Powell, Chief of Security at UCHealth, said in Becker’s Hospital Review on June 4, 2024:

“You can’t just talk about the shrimp and give you a good picture. We have to talk about the roux and the rice and everything else that goes into this for a good picture to be painted so people have an understanding. We want to solve this with an electronic learning or a 15-minute huddle, but we can’t. This is continuous and a persistent pursuit toward educating, communicating, recognizing, responding to, reporting and recovering from workplace violence.”

Chris Powell

Chief of Security, UCHealth

Final Thoughts

Every caregiver matters. The healthcare industry has lost caregivers to violence on the job in the past. Let’s do all that we can to avoid similar events in the future.

# # #

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Nursing Facility Compliance Guidance

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Mar 13, 2025 | Admin, Clinical, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Nursing Facility Compliance Guidance

Takeaways for Hospices

In November of 2024, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued revised “Nursing Facility Industry Segment-Specific Compliance Program Guidance.” This guidance describes:

Risk areas for nursing facilities
Recommendations and practical considerations for mitigating risks
Other important information that the OIG believes nursing facilities should consider when implementing, evaluating, and updating their compliance and quality programs

Guidance Extends to Post-Acute Providers

The guidance targets nursing facilities. Howeve, it also clearly states that post-acute providers other than nursing facilities should use the guidance in their compliance efforts. The OIG says: “We encourage all long-term and post-acute providers to establish and maintain effective compliance and quality programs.” Guidance for nursing facilities, for example, specifically addresses relationships between nursing facilities and hospices.

The OIG...

First...

acknowledges that nursing facilities may arrange for hospice services for patients who meet the eligibility criteria and who elect the hospice benefit.

Then...

reminds facilities and hospices that requesting or accepting remuneration from hospices may subject both parties to liability under the federal anti-kickback statute. This applies if the remuneration may influence nursing facilities’ decisions to do business with hospices or induce referrals between the parties.

Goes On...

points out that nursing facilities that refer patients for hospice services who do not qualify for the hospice benefit may be liable for submission of false claims.

Nursing Facility Compliance Guidance OIG

Additionally...

says that hospices are permitted to furnish noncore services under arrangements with other providers or suppliers, including nursing facilities. State Medicaid Programs pay hospices at least 95% of the Programs’ daily facility rate. Hospices are then responsible to pay facilities for patients’ room and board.

Finally...

provides a list of suspicious arrangements between nursing facilities and hospices, including: (1) referrals of patients to hospices to induce hospices to refer patients to facilities, and (2) solicitation or receipt of hospices of goods or services for free or below fair market value, including nurses or other staff to provide services at facilities for nonhospice patients and monetary payments for:

referrals of patients to hospices to induce hospices to refer patients to facilities
solicitation or receipt of hospices of goods or services for free or below fair market value
- solicitation of nurses or other staff to provide services at facilities for nonhospice patients
- monetary payments for:

- - Room and board for patients in excess of what nursing facilities receive directly from Medicaid if patients are not enrolled in hospices. Additional payments must represent fair market value of additional services actually provided to patients that are not included in Medicaid daily rates.
  - Additional services for residents that include room and board payments to hospices from Medicaid Programs
  - Additional services for patients that are not included in room and board payments from Medicaid Programs at rates that are above fair market value
  - Provision of services by nursing facilities to hospice patients at rates that are above fair market value

Final Thoughts

Hospices are surely under fire these days from fraud enforcers. Engaging in the practices described above is likely to draw attention by enforcers and possible enforcement action.

# # #

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Update on Public Participation in Rule Making

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 13, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Update

Last week, we reached out to some of our contacts for responses to this change.

Former President of NAHC and current Senior Counsel at Arnall Golden Gregory Bill Dombi said:

It is difficult to discern the impact of the rescission of the waiver. One concern is whether the administration considers Medicaid a grant or benefit program thereby exempting it from APA public notice and comment rulemaking.

With respect to Medicare, if it is considered a benefit, there is still a Medicare statutory requirement of public notice and opportunity for comment through formal rulemaking that should effectively nullify the practical impact of the rescission of the waiver. All that said, we will need to see more before being to judge the impact.

Frequent guest author and Fellow, American Healh Law Association, Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. had this to say:

Recission of the Richardson Waiver is not good news for providers.

Many federal agencies voluntarily committed to give notice and comment for actions that otherwise would be exempt. The US Department of Health and Human Services was one of the federal agencies that adopted this policy in October, 1970, in a memorandum commonly referred to as the “Richardson Waiver.” This policy was published in the Federal Register in 1971. HHS did not, however, promulgate the Waiver through notice and comment rulemaking.

The open process of give and take between agencies and providers under the Richardson Waiver resulted in resolution of important issues relatively informally. Now it appears that only policies mandated by statute will go through the rulemaking process. In other words, opportunities to resolve issues without formal resolution will be compromised.

The recission of the Waiver may also make administration of both the Medicaid and Medicare programs more complicated and less effective, especially in view of US Supreme Court decisions that say everything that hasn’t gone through the notice and comment process is not binding on providers.

# # #

Below is the original article, published March 6, 2025

Public Participation Rescinded

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that an agency public a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register; allow sufficient time for public participation via written data, views, or arguments; and then publish a final rule. Matters relating to agency management, personnel, or public property; loans, grants, benefits, or contracts; and for “good cause” are exempt from the reporting requirements. The Richardson Waiver, adopted in 1971, waived the exemption and instructed agencies to use the good cause exemption sparingly. Effective immediately, the Richardson Waiver is rescinded.

“The policy waiving the statutory exemption…imposes on the Department obligations beyond the maximum procedural requirements specified by the APA, adds costs [that] are contrary to the efficient operation of the Department, and impedes the Department’s flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services

What it Means

Public participation is now optional. Agencies and offices of the Department of HHS can, if desired, use the public notice and comment procedures for these matters, but are no longer required to do so. The Department will continue to follow these procedures in all circumstances in which they are required to do so.

Law firm Hogan Lovells, experts in healthcare law, wrote about the potential implications for the health care industry in a recent blog post. According to the firm, it is unclear how HHS will interpret the “benefits” portion of the exemption. HHS, and specifically CMS, currently uses the notice and comment procedure for various benefits programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Secretary Kennedy’s statement clearly calls out the limitation in impacting any other law requiring notice and comment periods.

Public Participation in Medicare Rules

Hogan Lovells indicates that few if any policies written under the Medcare Act will be impacted by this change. The Medicare Act operates under additional rulemaking requirements under section 1871(a) of the SSA. Additionally, Azar v. Allina Health Services, 587 U.S. 566 (2019) confirms that Medicare rulemaking is independent from the APA. Some policies are currently exempt from the notice and comment obligations under the Medicare Act and will remain exempt.

Public Participation in Medicaid and CHIP rules

Medicare and CHIP fall under Title XIX of the SSA, which does not contain its own notice and comment requirements separate from the APA. HHS has used the APA notice and comment rules for many of the changes made to the Medicaid program. HHS could interpret the “benefits” clause as exempting Medicaid changes from the rule. Hogan Lovells states it is currently unclear whether HHS will take this route. They also purport the courts have not ruled on whether APA excludes Medicaid from the notice and comment requirements, and may not agree with that exclusion. Until the term “benefits” is better defined, Medicaid, CHIP, the insurance exchange marketplace, and TANF, among others, may be impacted.

Department of Veterans Affairs

A notable exception to these changes is the rulemaking in the Department of Veterans Affairs as it relates to the Veterans Health Care act of 1992. This program implemented Federal contractor requirements that established pricing and contracting standards for drug manufacturers. The VA policies and rules have historically been enacted using guidance letters, avoiding the rulemaking process altogether.

Final Thoughts

There is too much that is yet unknown regarding this change to understand its full impact. There will be immediate changes, court rulings, further changes, and likely a lot of advocacy from national organizations fighting for transparency for Medicare, Medicaid, and other “benefit” programs. This will be an ongoing story and The Rowan Report will bring updates as they happen.

# # #

Kristin Rowan has been working at The Rowan Report since 2008. She is the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Rowan Report, the industry’s most trusted source for care at home news .She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in content creation, social media management, and event marketing. Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

Telemedicine Rules from DEA

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Jan 23, 2025 | Clinical, Regulatory, Telehealth

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

DEA Issues Three Telemedicine Rules

On January 16, 2025, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced three new rules to make permanent some temporary flexibilities for telemedicine established during the COVID-19 public health emergency, including new provisions intended to protect patients. The DEA worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop the new rules. The DEA made significant revisions to the draft rules proposed on March 1, 2023.

Exemptions

It is important to note that the new rules do not apply to telemedicine visits when patients have already been seen in person by medical providers. After patients have in-person visits with medical providers, any medications may be prescribed through telemedicine indefinitely. Also, if no medications are prescribed during telemedicine visits, the rules about telemedicine do not apply. In other words, patients can always have telemedicine visits with medical practitioners. The rules apply only if patients have never been seen in person by practitioners and controlled medications are prescribed during telemedicine visits.

Rule #1 - Remote Access to Opiod Meds

First, the DEA expanded remote access to buprenorphine, the medication used to treat opioid use disorder, via telemedicine encounters. This change allows patients to receive six-month supplies of buprenorphine through telephone consultations with providers. Additional prescriptions will, however, require an in-person visit to medical practitioners.

Rule #2: Schedule III-V Without In-Person Evaluation

The DEA also issued proposed rules that establish special registrations that allow patients to receive prescribed medications even though they have never had an in-person evaluation from a medical provider. This special registration is available to practitioners who treat patients for whom they will prescribe Schedule III-V controlled substances.

Prescribing Registrations for Schedule II

Advanced Telemedicine Prescribing Registrations are available for Schedule II medications when practitioners are board certified in one of the following specialties:

- Psychiatrists
- Hospice care physicians
- Physicians rendering treatment at long term care facilities
- Pediatricians for the prescribing medications identified as the most addictive and prone to diversion to the illegal drug market
These specialized providers can issue telemedicine prescriptions for Schedule II-V medications.

Call for Public Comment

The DEA seeks public comment on the following issues related to the proposed rules, including whether:

- Additional medical specialists should be authorized to issue Schedule II medications
- Special registrants should be physically located in the same state as patients for whom Schedule II medications are prescribed
- To limit Schedule II medications by telemedicine to practitioners whose practice issues less than 50% of prescriptions by telemedicine.

Online Registration

The DEA will also require online platforms to register with the DEA if they facilitate connections between patients and medical providers that result in prescription of medications. In addition, the DEA will also establish a national prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) so that pharmacists and medical practitioners can see patients’ prescribed medication histories.

Rule #3: Exemption for Dept of Veterans Affairs

Finally, the DEA will exempt U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) practitioners from requirements for Special Registrations. After patients receive in-person medical examinations from VA practitioners, the provider-patient relationship is extended to all VA practitioners who engage in telemedicine with the patients.

Final Thoughts

Prescribing controlled substances is essential for some patients, including hospice patients. Practitioners must have the option to prescribe using telehealth.

# # #

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Care at Home Coming to Medicaid?

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Jan 16, 2025 | Advocacy, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Brown v D.C. Decision is Another Boost for Care at Home

In Olmstead v. L.C., the U.S. Supreme Court decided that unjustified segregation of disabled persons constitutes discrimination in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Court said that public entities must provide community-based services to disabled persons when such services are:

- Appropriate;
- Unopposed by disabled persons; and
- Reasonable accommodations taking into account resources available to public entities and the needs of other disabled individuals receiving services from the entity.

This decision gave a tremendous boost to the provision of home and community-based services of all types. Since Olmstead was decided in 1999, there have been more court decisions that require services to be provided at home based on this opinion.

Support for Olmstead

One recent decision is Brown, et al v. District of Columbia (Brown v D.C.) that was decided on December 31, 2024. The Court decided that the District of Columbia violated the rights of D.C. residents with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. According to the Court, D.C. failed to inform nursing facility residents who receive Medicaid that they could leave nursing facilities and receive home health services in their communities and failed to assist them to do so. The D.C. government also failed to help them access community-based services and housing options needed to transition back to the community.

The Court recognized that individuals living in nursing facilities often need help learning about and applying for available community services to help them transition out of the institution and into their own homes. Even when residents learn about services, navigating the complicated Medicaid-funded long-term care program can cause confusion and anxiety that sometimes causes facility residents to lose hope that they can live in their own homes again.

Consequently, the decision applies to

“All persons with physical disabilities who, now or during the pendency of this lawsuit: (1) receive DC Medicaid-funded long-term care services in a nursing facility for 90 or more consecutive days; (2) are eligible for Medicaid-covered home and community-based long-term care services that would enable them to live in the community; and (3) would prefer to live in the community instead of a nursing facility but need the District of Columbia to provide transition assistance to facilitate their access to long-term care services in the community.”

Brown v D.C. Says That D.C. Must

- Develop and implement a working system of transition assistance for [nursing home residents that], at a minimum
  - informs DC Medicaid-funded residents, upon admission and at least every three months thereafter, about community-based long-term care alternatives to nursing facilities
  - elicits DC Medicaid-funded nursing facility residents’ preferences for community or nursing facility placement upon admission and at least every three months thereafter
  - begins DC Medicaid-funded nursing facility residents’ discharge planning upon admission and reviews at least every month the progress made on that plan
  - provides DC Medicaid-funded nursing facility residents who do not oppose living in the community with assistance accessing all appropriate resources available in the community
- Ensure sufficient capacity of community-based long-term care services for [residents] under the EPD, MFP, and PCA programs and other long-term care service programs, to serve [residents] in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, as measured by enrollment in these long-term care programs.
- …[D]emonstrate [its] ongoing commitment to deinstitutionalization by, at a minimum, publicly reporting on at least a semi-annual basis the total number of DC Medicaid-funded nursing facility residents who do not oppose living in the community; the number of those individuals assisted by [DC] to transition to the community with long-term care services [described above]; and the aggregate dollars [DC] saves (or fails to save) by serving individuals in the community rather than in nursing facilities.

Final Thoughts on Brown v D.C.

As indicated above, there continues to be a clear mandate for Medicaid Programs to provide services to individuals in the community, which is a significant impetus to provide services to patients in their homes. This mandate, however, does not directly address practical aspects of implementation, such as reimbursement at appropriate rates for providers or availability of staff to provide services at home. Nonetheless, the Olmstead and Brown cases provide an important basis for further development of in-home services of all types to meet the needs of disabled persons.

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Case Management and Discharge Planning

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Nov 21, 2024 | Admin, Clinical

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Case Management & Discharge Planning to Reduce Length of Stay

By the Numbers

Many hospitals are laser-focused on reducing length of stay in order to enhance patient experiences and boost financial performance. A recent study by KFF shows that the average adjusted expense per patient day at hospitals in 2022 was $3,025.

Kenneth Kaufman, managing director of Kaufman Hall, observed in a blog post earlier this year that reductions in length of stay can produce dramatic increases in savings. Mr. Kaufman pointed out that if a hospital with 425 beds that has an average length of stay of six days achieved a reduction in length of stay of one day, the hospital would save at least $20 million in operating expenses per year.

Step Up to the Plate

An increasing number of healthcare leaders are now advocating for discharge planners/case managers to play a key role in care coordination, including reductions in length of stay.

Perhaps healthcare managers have lost sight of the fact that discharge planners/case managers have been required to fulfill this role for quite some time based on Conditions of Participation (CoPs) of the Medicare Program for discharge planning. According to 42 CFR 482.43 Condition of participation: Discharge planning, discharge planners/case managers are required to:

- Identify patients who need discharge planning early in their inpatient stays
- Evaluate patients in need of discharge planning to identify the need for post-hospital services, including the availability and accessibility of these services
- Regularly re-evaluate patients’ conditions to make needed changes in discharge plans
- Provide necessary medical information to implement discharge plans

The use of discharge planners/case managers to manage length of stay is not new and isn’t based on potential reductions in length of stay with resulting savings and increased revenue. Rather, case management is a discipline that is well-defined by standards of care published and periodically revised by the Case Management Society of America (CMSA).

They Were Already on Base

Hospital leaders may marvel at their discovery of discharge planning/case management as a tool to assist patients and manage revenue, but the fact is that case management/ discharge planning has been required for some time in order to maintain certification by the Medicare Program.

While newfound support is welcome, the role and contributions of case managers/discharge planners is long-standing and well known, especially among patients and post-acute providers. Perhaps now hospital leaders will share appreciation of the value of case management/discharge planning more often.

# # #

©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Fraud Soup

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Oct 31, 2024 | Clinical, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Everyone in the "Fraud Soup" Together

Perhaps you remember the CEO of a hospice in the Dallas area, Novus Health Care Services, who texted staff members urging them to administer drugs to patients to avoid exceeding per patient spending caps. He then sent texts praising them when patients passed away from the drugs he had urged them to administer: “Good job!” There were also accusations of recruiting ineligible patients and falsifying documentation. Ever wonder what happened to him and other staff members?

Well...Here's the Scoop!

Sixteen individuals from the hospice were indicted and at least eleven of them pled guilty.
Thirteen individuals involved in these activities were sentenced to a combined eighty-four years in prison.
The most recent sentence of four years in prison was imposed on the hospice’s marketing director.
The CEO of the Hospice was sentenced to thirteen years in prison.
Two Medical Directors decided to go to trial instead of pleading guilty. They were sentenced to thirteen years and ten years in prison.
A nurse involved in these activities was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison.
An LVN who received a text from the CEO saying “good job” after she administered drugs to a patient who then passed away was sentenced to eight years in prison.

A triage nurse was sentenced to seven years in prison.
The Director of Operations was sentenced to five and a half years in prison.
A Medical Director who pleaded guilty received a sentence of four years and nine months.
The VP of Patient Services was sentenced to three years in prison.
The VP of Marketing was sentenced to two years and nine months in jail.
A nurse was also sentenced to two years and nine months in prison.
An owner of a lab and home health agency was also sent to jail for eighteen months because she allowed the CEO to access potential patients’ confidential medical information in exchange for using services provided by her companies.

Far-Reaching Effects

Can you imagine the effect on professionals who surely also lost their licenses and their families? Not to mention patients and their families!

The lesson in this heartbreaking story is that fraud enforcement is not limited to owners and upper management. Enforcers will dump everyone who engaged in inappropriate conduct into the “fraud soup.” Therefore, when providers refuse to engage in fraudulent conduct, they are not only protecting themselves, but everyone else involved.

# # #

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Patient Preference by Race or Nationality

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Oct 10, 2024 | Admin, Clinical, CMS, Regulatory

This article provides updated information about a discrimination case filed against a home care agency by the EEOC. The Rowan Report published the initial press release and article last year.

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

What to do When Patients Don't Want Caregivers of Certain Races or Nationalities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued ACARE HHC, Inc.; doing business as Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care Agency in Brooklyn, New York. The EEOC claimed that the Agency removed home health aides from work assignments based on their race and national origin to accommodate clients’ preferences in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [EEOC v. ACARE HHC d/b/a/ Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care, 23-cv-5760 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York)].

This case recently settled, and Four Seasons will pay a whopping $400,000 in monetary relief to affected home health aides! The Agency must also update its internal policies and training processes related to requirements of the Civil Rights Act, stop assigning home health aides based on clients’ racial or nationality preferences, and provide semi-annual reports to the EEOC about any reports or complaints received about discrimination.

Aides Removed from Assignments

According to the EEOC, Four Seasons routinely responded to patients’ preferences by removing African American and Latino home health aides based on clients’ preferences regarding race and national origin. Aides removed from their assignments would be transferred to new assignments, if available, or, if no other assignments were available, would lose their employment altogether. The lawsuit asked for both compensatory and punitive damages, and for an injunction to prevent future discrimination based on race and national origin. The EEOC says that “Making work assignment decisions based on an employee’s race or national origin is against the law, including when these decisions are grounded in preferences of the employer’s clients.”

As many providers know, patients’ preferences for certain types of caregivers are common. Experienced managers have been asked by patients not to provide caregivers who are, for example, “foreign.” Such requests should generally be rejected, especially when they involve discrimination based upon race, national origin, religion, or any other basis commonly used to treat groups of people differently. Legally and ethically, providers should not engage in such practices.

Exception to the Rule

There is one exception to this general rule that occurs when patients ask for caregivers of the same sex as the patient based upon concerns about bodily privacy. It is then acceptable to assign only same-sex caregivers to patients who have made such requests.

Risk Management

In addition to concerns about discrimination, providers must also be concerned about risk management when they honor such requests. Especially in view of increasing staff shortages, limitations on available caregivers may mean that patients’ needs cannot be met by staff members who are acceptable to patients. In view of staffing shortages, the fewer caregivers who are permitted to care for certain patients, the more likely it is that patients’ needs will go unmet. Unmet patient needs are, in turn, likely to significantly enhance the risk associated with providing care to patients.

Preferences at Home

Perhaps the pressure to honor patients’ requests is at its greatest when patients receive services at home. Patients who will accept any caregiver assigned to them in institutional settings somehow feel that they have the right to decide who may provide services in their homes. On the contrary, with the exception noted above, staff assignments should be made without regard to client preferences for services rendered at home, just as assignments are made in institutional settings.

Agency Response

How should managers respond when patients tell them not to assign any “foreign” nurses to them? First, they should explain that the organization does not discriminate and that to avoid assignments based on cultural or racial background may constitute unlawful discrimination. Then staff should explain that if limitations on caregivers were acceptable, the provider may be unable to render services to the patient at all because they may not have enough staff. The bottom line is that staff will be assigned without regard to patient preferences in order to prevent discrimination and to help ensure quality of care.

Patients’ requests and managers’ responses must be specifically documented in patients’ charts. Documentation that says patients expressed preferences for certain caregivers or rejected certain types of caregivers is too general. Specific requests and responses of management must be documented.

Monitoring the Patient

After patients have expressed what may amount to prejudice against certain groups of caregivers, managers must follow up and monitor for inappropriate behavior by patients directed at caregivers who are not preferred. Managers should be alert to the potential for this problem and should follow up with patients and caregivers to help ensure that caregivers are receiving the respect they deserve. Follow-up activities and on-going monitoring should also be specifically documented.

From the EEOC

“Employers cannot make job assignment decisions based on a client’s preference for a worker of a particular race or national origin. It is imperative for employers to have policies, training and other safeguards in place that help prevent a client’s prejudices from influencing their employment decisions.”

-EEOC Representative

Final Thoughts

Caregivers are a scarce commodity. Providers cannot afford to lose or alienate a single caregiver based upon discrimination or inappropriate behavior by patients.

# # #

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »