-
-
94 percent of nursing homes violate health and safety standards
Among for-profit nursing homes, 94 percent were cited for health and safety standard violations last year. The majority, two-thirds of nursing homes, are owned by for-profit companies.
And 17 percent had deficiencies that caused “actual harm or immediate jeopardy” to patients.
Problems include infected bedsores, medication errors, poor food, and abuse and neglect of patients. About 20 percent of the more than 37,000 complaints inspectors received last year concerned abuse or neglect of patients.
Non-profit owned homes, about 27 percent included in this survey, did not fare much better. 88 percent were cited for violations, and 91 percent of government operated homes were cited.
The best care can be found in homes that have a high ratio of nursing staff to patients.
Rhode Island had some of the fewest violations at 2.5 deficiencies per nursing home. Delaware was at the other end of the spectrum with 13.3 per home.
More than 1.5 million Americans live in nursing homes and as a condition of housing Medicaid and Medicare patients, the nation’s nursing homes must meet federal standards. The federal program costs taxpayers more than $75 billion a year. Among for-profit nursing homes, 94 percent were cited for health and safety standard violations last year. The majority, two-thirds o... more -
Top 5 reasons to protest new HHS regulations
A firestorm of criticism erupted after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt proposed a new health care refusal regulation that could create serious barriers to publicly funded family planning services for the women and men most in need. Below, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association has outlined the top five reasons why you should protest the new regulations.
Our top five list of objections, offered below, should provide you some inspiration as you begin to draft your own comments. Pass this inspiration on to your friends and neighbors and be sure to get your comments in by Thursday evening. A flood of comments from the general public can change the minds of our leaders -- and it is the most direct way to participate in the creation of the policies that affect us all.
1. These new regulations could allow community health centers, hospitals and individuals to refuse to provide family planning counseling and contraception all in the name of moral objections.
Leavitt insists that these regulations are about protecting the "conscience rights" of providers, but it's clear that this justification is just a ruse to continue the war on contraception, which 90 percent of Americans use to be sexually responsible and raise families. These regulations are unnecessary, as there are already laws on the books that balance provider protections with patient's rights. Indeed, this rule appears to extract the health care needs from the equation altogether.
2. The definition of who may refuse service and what falls under the "service" category appears to have been broadened and could include even the most basic information, counseling on contraception and referral for important health care services.
Right now, an individual who walks into a health center goes in with the understanding and guarantee that they will receive access to the services they need or at the very least information. This includes access to various types of contraception. Under this proposed rule, however, that same individual will go in to their health center with no such guarantee and could be subject to the individual political whims and ideology of their provider.
3. This rule does nothing to contribute to the universal goal of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion.
Myriad state and federal programs have actually increased access to family planning. Bush's rule essentially negates these successful policies, which have reduced unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. Such state and federal laws have helped lawmakers achieve those feats because they provide for services such as counseling and contraception.
4. The proposed rule completely ignores the existing framework of patient protections found in federal law.
Existing federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, create a robust legal framework for balancing the rights of health care providers to exercise their religious and moral beliefs with the needs of patients to access crucial health care services, including family planning. The proposed rules make no mention of this existing legal framework, a telling and disturbing silence.
5. Publicly funded family planning health centers actually save money and are successful.
At a time when insurance costs are skyrocketing and the numbers of the uninsured are increasing, it seems highly irresponsible to propose a rule change that would actually hamper successful programs. A recent Guttmacher Institute report shows that for every dollar spent nationally on publicly funded family planning health centers, $4.02 is saved in pregnancy-related and newborn costs to Medicaid.
So get your comments in and make sure your voice is heard at HHS today. Go to regulations.gov and search for docket ID "HHS-OS-2008-0011" to leave your comments online. A firestorm of criticism erupted after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt proposed a new health care refusal re... more -
Massachusetts steps forward on health coverage
The most closely watched experiment in U.S. health care is under way in Massachusetts. Nearly everybody in the state is now required to have health insurance — or pay a tax penalty.
Massachusetts enacted its new health law in mid-2006 and has been phasing it in since. There's real progress to report. More of the uninsured have signed up than expected. Support remains broad and strong. But there have been glitches. And unless the federal government comes through with financing for the next phase, the experiment could still fall off the tracks.
The Price Of Complication Anytime you start with the complex U.S. health system as it is and try to plug its gaping holes, you're going to end up with something very complicated. That's what is happening in Massachusetts. And yes, Massachusetts health reform is very complicated. It's actually a collection of new programs.
Driving the whole thing is a new state requirement that all residents over 18 must have insurance — or pay a penalty of up to $912 on their annual income taxes.
The only exceptions are those who can't find an insurance policy that's "affordable" — no more than 2 to 10 percent of their gross annual income. About 60,000 people are expected to be exempt this year, but the number could rise if the cost of insurance keeps going up faster than people's incomes. So far, the Massachusetts law has exceeded its targets. Enrollment is running a year ahead of projections. The number of uninsured has dropped by more than half. Most of the newly insured are people who are poor or near-poor. Analysts say people's unmet health care needs have dropped substantially. Fewer people are hit by large medical bills and fewer are reporting trouble paying their bills. Nearly three out of four people think the new law has been a success, according to a recent poll of 1,015 randomly selected Massachusetts adults conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health for the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation. Most people in the survey support requiring people to have health insurance. A large majority favor subsidizing premiums for low-income people. On the other hand, the program's very success means that costs are running hundreds of millions of dollars higher than projected. In some parts of the state, newly insured people report trouble finding a doctor with appointment slots. Some people who have tried to get insured have run into maddening bureaucratic snags. Others who were signed up have found themselves disenrolled for no apparent reason. One of the biggest challenges is persuading younger adults to buy coverage. According to a recent study in the journal Health Affairs, most who are still uninsured are young males with low incomes and good health. Despite the problems, the costs, the challenges, most Massachusetts residents want to see the law continued. Only one in eight favor repeal. The fate of the experiment rests with the Bush administration. The federal waiver that was needed to launch the Massachusetts reform expired on June 30, but has been extended temporarily. The federal government supplies substantial subsidy — about $360 million in fiscal 2009. The state has applied for a three-year renewal of the waiver, and negotiations are ongoing. The most closely watched experiment in U.S. health care is under way in Massachusetts. Nearly everybody in the state is now required t... more -
Eligibility for Medicaid Affects Real Estate Transfer
A daughter asks about her father’s eligibility for Medicaid after he transfers his home to her. Will his eligibility for Medicaid be affected by the transfer of his real estate wealth? Find out about eligibility for Medicaid and the Medicaid lookback period by reading the full article at ThinkGlink.com or check out an excerpt below.
"Under new federal rules, the Medicaid lookback period is five years from the date of transfer. In other words, if Medicaid has to pay for your father's stay in a nursing home because your dad is broke, the government could reverse any transfer of wealth from your father to anyone for the previous five years, if they suspect him of trying to hide assets or he transferred assets that could have been used to pay for Medicaid costs.
Would you have to sell the property? Maybe. It's also possible the government would put a lien against the property that would have to be satisfied when the property is sold or refinanced down the line.
For more details, talk to your real estate attorney or an estate attorney." A daughter asks about her father’s eligibility for Medicaid after he transfers his home to her. Will his eligibility for Medicaid be a... more -
America's Total Debt Report: $53 Trillion and Soaring!
"America has become more a debt 'junkie' - - than ever before
with total debt of $53 Trillion - - and the highest debt ratio in history.
That's $175,154 per man, woman and child - - or $700,616 per family of 4,
$33,781 more debt per family than last year.
Last year total debt increased $4.3 Trillion, 5.5 times more than GDP.
External debt owed foreign interests increased $2.2 Trillion;
Household, business and financial sector debt soared 7-11%.
80% ($42 trillion) of total debt was created since 1990,
a period primarily driven by debt instead of by productive activity.
And, the above does not include un-funded pensions and medical promises.
2 great questions:
Can the production of debt forever replace the production of goods and savings?
Can Americans forever borrow their way to prosperity?
Easy Answer > NO WAY !!"
----
From "The Grandfather Economic Report"
by Michael Hodges "America has become more a debt 'junkie' - - than ever before ... more -
The dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows
U.S. Comptroller General (the governments accountant), David Walker, on 60 minutes explains that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy. After reviewing the nations income statements, balance sheets and our "future obligations" he has concluded that our standard of living is unsustainable unless we take drastic measures now. "It's been called the dirty little secret that everyone in Washington knows. A set of financial truths so inconvenient that most elected officials don't even want to talk about them." U.S. Comptroller General (the governments accountant), David Walker, on 60 minutes explains that the country is on the verge of bankru... more
-
Bush Cuts $700 M In Medicaid Funds For Schools
President Bush drew criticism this fall for his refusal to fund a children's health insurance program. On Friday, his healthcare slashing continued.
According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration eliminated about $700 million a year in Medicaid reimbursements to schools, sidestepping an attempt by Congress to block such a move. President Bush drew criticism this fall for his refusal to fund a children's health insurance program. On Friday, his healthcare ... more -
Mentally ill and children have been overlooked
We need national heath care!
-
related topics
Medicaid
Contributors (29)
Medicaid
