fbpx
Connect with us

Kaiser Health News

What Would a Nikki Haley Presidency Look Like for Health Care?

Published

on

Lauren Sausser
Fri, 12 Jan 2024 10:00:00 +0000

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley will learn how her campaign is resonating with voters after the Jan. 15 Iowa caucuses, the first presidential nominating contest of this election year.

Already, the former South Carolina governor — who became well known as one of the Affordable Care Act's loudest critics during her tenure in office from 2011 to 2017 — has raised questions about what her presidency could mean for the nation's health care policy.

“I would be very concerned,” said Sue Berkowitz, policy director and special counsel for the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center. “South Carolina is at the bottom of so many things in rankings in our country because of a number of the decisions she made while governor.”

Advertisement

While politicians from both parties rallied behind Haley when she urged lawmakers to remove the Confederate battle from grounds following the 2015 church shooting in this coastal , her politics diverged sharply from those of her Democratic colleagues when it came to most health care issues.

Haley's campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment, but statements she's made during recent debates offer clues about her health care positions.

She has criticized the Biden administration for high federal spending on covid relief and for the number of people on Medicaid, a program she has argued the federal should give states more flexibility in and administering.

She has also emphasized the need to find consensus on banning abortions late in pregnancy. And on Jan. 10, during her heated sound-off with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the final debate before the Iowa caucuses, she reiterated her critical stance on gender-affirming care.

Advertisement

“I have always said that need to go into boys' bathrooms, girls need to go into girls' bathrooms, that we shouldn't have any gender transitions before the age of 18,” she said. “Just like we don't have tattoos before the age of 18, we shouldn't have gender transformation or puberty blockers.”

On the campaign trail, she's addressed reforming Medicare and Social Security. But her tenure as governor, which overlapped with several tumultuous years of national health care reform, offers an even clearer picture of how a Haley presidency might look.

Former South Carolina Medicaid Director Anthony Keck pointed out that one of her early achievements as governor was fixing a $228 million Medicaid deficit.

“People forget what dire straits the Medicaid program was in when she came into office and how it took us a couple years to right the ship,” said Keck, now executive vice president for system innovation at Ballad Health in Tennessee.

Advertisement

Beyond that, Keck said Haley understood that the cost of health care was “growing faster than most people's paychecks,” adding that affordability and access were “really important to her.”

As Haley eyes the White House, here's a recap of her health care record as South Carolina governor, a post she left in 2017 after Trump appointed her as ambassador to the United Nations.

Affordable Care Act

In 2011, Haley convened an advisory committee to decide if South Carolina should build its own health insurance marketplace instead of participating in the federal one established under the Affordable Care Act.

Advertisement

But before the group gathered for its first meeting, Haley wrote in an email to her advisers that the “whole point of this commission should be to figure out how to opt out and how to avoid a federal takeover, NOT create a state exchange,” according to a report published by The Post and Courier.

When that email was made public, then-Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) requested a federal investigation to find out if Haley had predetermined the outcome of the committee. She was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing.

Throughout her time in office, Haley repeatedly advocated for the repeal and replacement of the ACA, but she has not given a definitive answer on the campaign trail about whether she'd try to repeal the law if elected president, The New York Times has reported.

Medicaid

Advertisement

In 2012, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA and made Medicaid expansion an option for every state, Haley declined to expand it in South Carolina. Christian Soura, one of her former cabinet members, estimated in 2019 that “several hundred” people in the Palmetto State had died because of the decision.

On the presidential campaign trail, Haley's stance on Medicaid expansion has remained unchanged, even as people who live in nonexpansion states broadly it, according to KFF polling.

South Carolina remains one of 10 states that have not expanded Medicaid eligibility under the ACA, leaving more than 90,000 residents in a health insurance coverage gap, according to a 2023 KFF report.

Even so, Medicaid enrollment and spending in South Carolina during Haley's tenure grew substantially, drawing criticism from some conservatives.

Advertisement

In 2012, her administration chose to implement a federal program that automatically issued new Medicaid coverage to children from low-income families based on data from welfare assistance and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. A 2013 case study found that the Express Lane Eligibility initiative grew Medicaid enrollment in South Carolina by more than 92,000 children in less than a year and that the simplified process “resulted in large enrollment and retention improvements.”

Haley's administration was also widely applauded for establishing a coalition of health insurers, hospitals, and health care providers to improve birth outcomes in a state where Medicaid pays for more than 60% of all deliveries. Infant and maternal death rates in South Carolina have long ranked among the worst in the nation.

Recent research suggests, however, that some of the policies Haley's administration prioritized, such as a home visiting program and a campaign to prevent early elective deliveries, didn't improve maternal or infant health outcomes.

Advertisement

On the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling, which allowed state legislatures to outlaw abortion, Haley called the decision a “victory for and democracy.”

Her position aligned with a controversial bill she signed into state law in 2016 that banned the procedure in South Carolina after 20 weeks of gestation — approximately the midpoint of a woman's pregnancy.

When she signed the law, it affected only hospitals because the state's three outpatient abortion clinics already didn't administer abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. The bill, which she championed, made exceptions for if the fetus were diagnosed with an “anomaly” and would die or if the mother's life were threatened. But no exceptions were made for rape or incest.

During the recent debate in Iowa, Haley called herself “unapologetically pro-life.”

Advertisement

“Not because the Republican Party tells me to be, but because my husband is adopted, and I've got my two sweet children sitting in front of me, and I had trouble having both of them,” she said. “Our goal should be how do we save as many babies as possible and support as many moms as possible.”

On the campaign trail, Haley has tried to thread the needle between being pro-life and recognizing the difficulty of enacting a national abortion ban. She has spoken of finding areas that are winnable for Republicans, including increasing access to contraception and supporting adoption. That said, Haley indicated she would sign a national abortion ban as president if such a bill reached the Oval Office.

Certificate of Need

During her first term, Haley vetoed more than $1 million from the state budget that had been allocated to administer the health department's long-standing “certificate of need” program. The program required hospitals and health care providers to apply for permission from the state before building new facilities or expensive equipment, with the goal of controlling health care costs and avoiding duplication of available health care services.

Advertisement

At the time, Haley called the rules “intensely political” and said they allowed “bureaucratic policymakers” to block health care providers from offering treatment. “We should allow the market to work rather than politics,” she said.

Nevertheless, the state Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that a budget veto wasn't sufficient to eliminate the regulations.

The South Carolina Legislature ultimately repealed the state's certificate of need rules last year.

During the Jan 10. debate, Haley said she would eliminate certificate of need across the country. The rules still exist in about two-thirds of states.

Advertisement

Rural Hospitals

During Haley's second year in the governor's office, the hospital where she was born in 1972 closed its doors. After a failed attempt to merge with other hospitals in the area, it became financially unfeasible for that hospital in the rural town of Bamberg to remain open.

In 2013, Haley announced her administration would reimburse rural hospitals across the state for all their uncompensated care costs, amounting to tens of millions of dollars over her time in office. The policy is still in effect.

Essentially, hospitals lose money when uninsured patients don't pay their bills. Federal law offers some support. For example, it requires state Medicaid programs to make “disproportionate share” payments to hospitals that serve large numbers of low-income and uninsured people.

Advertisement

But programs like those don't necessarily cover all of the losses.

Haley prompted the South Carolina Legislature to support rural hospitals by increasing their disproportionate share payments because, without an infusion of cash, several of them faced the same fate as Bamberg County Memorial Hospital.

“I certainly don't think it's a bailout,” Haley told The Post and Courier in 2014. “We're allowing solid footing for these hospitals to make the changes that they need to make.”

But her plan wasn't fail-safe. Two more rural hospitals closed during Haley's tenure as governor.

Advertisement

Vaccine Mandates

As a member of the state House of Representatives in 2007, Haley co-sponsored a bill that would have made the vaccine for HPV, the virus that causes nearly all cases of cervical cancer, mandatory for girls entering seventh grade. It was ultimately killed by evangelical lobbyists, who have historically associated the HPV vaccine with encouraging underage sex, KFF Health News reported.

Several years later, Haley called her support of that bill a mistake.

In 2012, Haley vetoed a bill that would have provided free, voluntary HPV vaccines to seventh graders in South Carolina.

Advertisement

During the pandemic, Haley, whose sister-in-law died from covid, said she received a covid vaccine, though she has said she firmly opposes covid vaccine mandates.

——————————
By: Lauren Sausser
Title: What Would a Nikki Haley Presidency Look Like for Health Care?
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/nikki-haley-health-policy-governor-president-agenda/
Published Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 10:00:00 +0000

Kaiser Health News

Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Decried as Biased Against Disabled People

Published

on

Daniel Chang
Tue, 14 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

Jacqueline Saa has a genetic condition that leaves her unable to stand and walk on her own or hold a job. Every weekday for four years, Saa, 43, has relied on a home health aide to her cook, bathe and dress, go to the doctor, pick up medications, and accomplish other tasks.


Share Your Story With Us

Have you or someone you know with disabilities unexpectedly lost benefits since April 2023? Tell us about it here.

contact us

Advertisement

She received coverage through Florida's Medicaid program until it abruptly stopped at the end of March, she said.

“Every day the anxiety builds,” said Saa, who lost her home health aide for 11 days, starting April 1, despite being eligible. The state has since restored Saa's home health aide service, but during the gap she leaned on her mother and her 23- and 15-year-old daughters, while struggling to regain her Medicaid benefits.

“It's just so much to worry about,” she said. “This is a health care system that's supposed to help.”

Medicaid's home and community-based services are designed to help people like Saa, who have disabilities and need help with everyday activities, stay out of a nursing facility. But people are losing benefits with little or no notice, getting bad advice when they call for information, and facing major disruptions in care while they wait for the issue to get sorted out, according to attorneys and advocates who are hearing from .

Advertisement

In Colorado, Texas, and Washington, D.C., the National Health Law Program, a nonprofit that advocates for low-income and underserved people, has filed complaints with two federal agencies alleging discrimination against people with disabilities. The group has not filed a lawsuit in Florida, though its attorneys say they've heard of many of the same problems there.

Attorneys nationwide say the special needs of disabled people were not prioritized as states began to eligibility for Medicaid enrollees after a pandemic-era mandate for coverage expired in March 2023.

“Instead of monitoring and ensuring that people with disabilities could make their way through the process, they sort of treated them like everyone else with Medicaid,” said Elizabeth Edwards, a senior attorney for the National Health Law Program. Federal law puts an “obligation on states to make sure people with disabilities don't get missed.”

At least 21 million people nationwide have been disenrolled from Medicaid since states began eligibility redeterminations in spring 2023, according to a KFF analysis.

Advertisement

The unwinding, as it's known, is an immense undertaking, Edwards said, and some states did not take extra steps to set up a special telephone line for those with disabilities, for example, so people could renew their coverage or contact a case manager.

As states prepared for the unwinding, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that regulates Medicaid, advised states that they must give people with disabilities the help they need to benefit from the program, including specialized communications for people who are deaf or blind.

The Florida Department of Children and Families, which verifies eligibility for the state's Medicaid program, has a specialized team that processes applications for home health services, said Mallory McManus, the department's communications director.

People with disabilities disenrolled from Medicaid services were “properly noticed and either did not respond timely or no longer met financial eligibility requirements,” McManus said, noting that people “would have been contacted by us up to 13 times via phone, mail, email, and text before processing their disenrollment.”

Advertisement

Allison Pellegrin of Ormond Beach, Florida, who lives with her sister Rhea Whitaker, who is blind and cognitively disabled, said that never happened for her family.

“They just cut off the benefits without a call, without a letter or anything stating that the benefits would be terminating,” Pellegrin said. Her sister's home health aide, whom she had used every day for nearly eight years, stopped service for 12 days. “If I'm getting everything else in the mail,” she said, “it seems weird that after 13 times I wouldn't have received one of them.”

Pellegrin, 58, a sales manager who gets health insurance through her employer, took time off from work to care for Whitaker, 56, who was disabled by a severe brain injury in 2006.

Medicaid reviews have been complicated, in part, by the fact that eligibility works differently for home health services than for general coverage, based on federal regulations that give states more flexibility to determine financial eligibility. Income limits for home health services are higher, for instance, and assets are counted differently.

Advertisement

In , a parent in a household of three would be limited to earning no more than $344 a month to qualify for Medicaid. And most adults with a disability can qualify without a dependent child and be eligible for Medicaid home health services with an income of up to $2,800 a month.

The state was not taking that into consideration, said Terry Anstee, a supervising attorney for community integration at Disability Rights Texas, a nonprofit advocacy group.

Even a brief lapse in Medicaid home health services can fracture relationships that took years to build.

“It may be very difficult for that person who lost that attendant to find another attendant,” Anstee said, because of workforce shortages for attendants and nurses and high demand.

Advertisement

Nearly all states have a waiting list for home health services. About 700,000 people were on waiting lists in 2023, most of them with intellectual and developmental disabilities, according to KFF data.

Daniel Tsai, a deputy administrator at CMS, said the agency is committed to ensuring that people with disabilities receiving home health services “can renew their Medicaid coverage with as little red tape as possible.”

CMS finalized a rule this year for states to monitor Medicaid home health services. For example, CMS will now track how long it takes for people who need home health care to receive the services and will require states to track how long people are on waitlists.

Staff turnover and vacancies at local Medicaid agencies have contributed to backlogs, according to complaints filed with two federal agencies focused on civil rights.

Advertisement

The District of Columbia's Medicaid agency requires that case managers help people with disabilities complete renewals. However, a complaint says, case managers are the only ones who can help enrollees complete eligibility reviews and, sometimes, they don't do their jobs.

Advocates for Medicaid enrollees have also complained to the Federal Trade Commission about faulty eligibility systems developed by Deloitte, a global consulting firm that contracts with about two dozen states to design, implement, or operate automated benefits systems.

KFF Health News found that multiple audits of Colorado's eligibility system, managed by Deloitte, uncovered errors in notices sent to enrollees. A 2023 review by the Colorado Office of the State Auditor found that 90% of sampled notices contained problems, some of which violate the state's Medicaid rules. The audit blamed “flaws in system design” for populating notices with incorrect dates.

Deloitte declined to comment on specific state issues.

Advertisement

In March, Colorado officials paused disenrollment for people on Medicaid who received home health services, which includes people with disabilities, after a “system update” led to wrongful terminations in February.

Another common problem is people being told to reapply, which immediately cuts off their benefits, instead of appealing the cancellation, which would ensure their coverage while the claim is investigated, said attorney Miriam Harmatz, founder of the Florida Health Justice .

“What they're being advised to do is not appropriate. The best way to protect their legal rights,” Harmatz said, “is to file an appeal.”

But some disabled people are worried about to repay the cost of their care.

Advertisement

Saa, who lives in Davie, Florida, received a letter shortly before her benefits were cut that said she “may be responsible to repay any benefits” if she lost her appeal.

The state should presume such people are still eligible and preserve their coverage, Harmatz said, because income and assets for most beneficiaries are not going to increase significantly and their conditions are not likely to improve.

The Florida Department of Children and Families would not say how many people with disabilities had lost Medicaid home health services.

But in Miami-Dade, Florida's most populous county, the Alliance for Aging, a nonprofit that helps older and disabled people apply for Medicaid, saw requests for help jump from 58 in March to 146 in April, said Lisa Mele, the organization's director of its Aging and Disability Resources Center.

Advertisement

“So many people are calling us,” she said.

States are not tracking the numbers, so “the impact is not clear,” Edwards said. “It's a really complicated struggle.”

Saa filed an appeal March 29 after learning from her social worker that her benefits would expire at the end of the month. She went to the agency but couldn't stand in a line that was 100 people deep. Calls to the state's Medicaid eligibility review agency were fruitless, she said.

“When they finally connected me to a customer service representative, she was literally just reading the same explanation letter that I've read,” Saa said. “I did everything in my power.”

Advertisement

Saa canceled her home health aide. She lives on limited Social Security disability income and said she could not afford to pay for the care.

On April 10, she received a letter from the state saying her Medicaid had been reinstated, but she later learned that her plan did not home health care.

The following day, Saa said, advocates put her in touch with a point person at Florida's Medicaid agency who restored her benefits. A home health aide showed up April 12. Saa said she's thankful but feels anxious about the future.

“The toughest part of that period is knowing that that can happen at any time,” she said, “and not because of anything I did wrong.”

Advertisement

Have you or someone you know with disabilities unexpectedly lost Medicaid benefits since April 2023? Tell KFF Health News about it here.

KFF Health News correspondents Samantha Liss and Rachana Pradhan contributed to this report.

——————————
By: Daniel Chang
Title: Medicaid ‘Unwinding' Decried as Biased Against Disabled People
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/medicaid-unwinding-people-with-disabilities-home-health-benefits/
Published Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/nursing-homes-wield-pandemic-immunity-laws-to-duck-wrongful-death-suits/

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Kaiser Health News

Nursing Homes Wield Pandemic Immunity Laws To Duck Wrongful Death Suits

Published

on

Fred Schulte, KFF Health News
Tue, 14 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

In early 2020, with reports of covid-19 outbreaks making dire headlines, Trever Schapers worried about her father's safety in a nursing home in Queens.

She had delighted in watching her dad, John Schapers, blow out the candles on his 90th birthday cake that February at the West Lawrence Care Center in the New York City borough. Then the home went into lockdown.

Soon her father was dead. The former union painter spiked a fever and was transferred to a hospital, where he tested positive for covid, his daughter said, and after two weeks on a ventilator, he died in May 2020.

Advertisement

But when Trever Schapers sued the nursing home for negligence and wrongful in 2022, a judge dismissed the case, citing a New York state law hastily passed early in the pandemic. It granted immunity to medical providers for “harm or damages” from an “act or omission” in treating or arranging care for covid. She is appealing the decision.

“I feel that families are being ignored by judges and courts not recognizing that something needs to be done and changed,” said Schapers, 48, who works in the medical field. “There needs to be accountability.”

The nursing home did not return calls seeking comment. In a court filing, the home argued that Schapers offered no evidence that the home was “grossly negligent” in treating her father.

More than four years after covid first raged through many U.S. nursing homes, hundreds of lawsuits blaming patient deaths on negligent care have been tossed out or languished in the courts amid contentious legal battles.

Advertisement

Even some nursing homes that were shut down by health officials for violating safety standards have claimed immunity against such suits, court show. And some families that allege homes kept them in the dark about the health of their loved ones, even denying there were cases of covid in the building, have had their cases dismissed.

Schapers alleged in a complaint to state health officials that the nursing home failed to advise her that it had admitted covid-positive patients from a nearby hospital in March 2020. In early April, she received a call telling her the facility had some covid-positive residents.

“The call I received was very alarming, and they refused to answer any of my questions,” she said.

About two weeks later, a social worker called to say that her father had a fever, but the staff did not test him to confirm covid, according to Schapers' complaint.

Advertisement

The industry says federal health officials and lawmakers in most states granted medical providers broad protection from lawsuits for good faith actions during the health emergency. Rachel Reeves, a senior vice president with the American Health Care Association, an industry trade group, called covid “an unprecedented public health crisis brought on by a vicious virus that uniquely targeted our population.”

In scores of lawsuits, however, family members allege that nursing homes failed to secure enough protective gear or tests for staffers or residents, haphazardly mixed covid-positive patients with other residents, failed to follow strict infection control protocols, and brazenly misled frightened families about the severity of covid outbreaks among patients and staff.

“They trusted these facilities to take care of loved ones, and that trust was betrayed,” said Florida attorney Lindsey Gale, who has represented several families suing over covid-related deaths.

“The grieving people had to go through was horrible,” Gale said.

Advertisement

A Deadly Toll

KFF Health News found that more than 1,100 covid-related lawsuits, most alleging wrongful death or other negligent care, were filed against nursing homes from March 2020 through March of this year.

While there's no full accounting of the outcomes, court filings show that judges have dismissed some suits outright, citing state or federal immunity provisions, while other cases have been settled under confidential terms. And many cases have stalled due to lengthy and costly arguments and appeals to hash out limits, if any, of immunity protection.

In their defense, nursing homes initially cited the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which passed in December 2005. The law grants liability protection from claims for deaths or injuries tied to vaccines or “medical countermeasures” taken to prevent or treat a disease during national emergencies.

Advertisement

The PREP Act steps in once the secretary of Health and Human Services declares a “public health emergency,” which happened with covid on March 17, 2020. The emergency order expired on May 11, 2023.

The law carved out an exception for “willful misconduct,” but proving it occurred can be daunting for families — even when nursing homes have long histories of violating safety standards, including infection controls.

Governors of at least 38 states issued covid executive orders, or their legislatures passed laws, granting medical providers at least some degree of immunity, according to one consumer group's tally. Just how much legal protection was intended is at the crux of the skirmishes.

Nursing homes answered many negligence lawsuits by getting them removed from state courts into the federal judicial system and asking for dismissal under the PREP Act.

Advertisement

For the most part, that didn't work because federal judges declined to hear the cases. Some judges ruled that the PREP Act was not intended to shield medical providers from negligence caused by inaction, such as failing to protect patients from the coronavirus. These rulings and appeals sent cases back to state courts, often after long delays that left families in legal limbo.

“These delays have been devastating,” said Jeffrey Guzman, a New York City attorney who represents Schapers and other families. He said the industry has fought “tooth and nail” trying to “fight these people getting their day in court.”

Empire State Epicenter

New York, where covid hit early and hard, is ground zero for court battles over nursing home immunity.

Advertisement

Relatives of residents have filed more than 750 negligence or wrongful death cases in New York counties since the start of the pandemic, according to court data KFF Health News compiled using the judicial service Courthouse News Service. No other area comes close. Chicago's Cook County, a jurisdiction where private lawyers for years have aggressively sued nursing homes alleging poor infection control, recorded 121 covid-related cases.

Plaintiffs in hundreds of New York cases argue that nursing homes knew early in 2020 that covid would pose a deadly threat but largely failed to gird for its impact. Many suits cite inspection reports detailing chronic violations of infection control standards in the years preceding the pandemic, court records show. Responses to this strategy vary.

“Different judges take different views,” said Joseph Ciaccio, a New York lawyer who has filed hundreds of such cases. “It's been very mixed.”

Lawyers for nursing homes counter that most lawsuits rely on vague allegations of wrongdoing and “boilerplate” claims that, even if true, don't demonstrate the kind of gross negligence that would override an immunity claim.

Advertisement

New York lawmakers added another wrinkle by repealing the immunity statute in April 2021 after Letitia James noted the law could give nursing homes a free pass to make “financially motivated decisions” to cut costs and put patients at risk.

So far, appeals courts have ruled lawmakers didn't specify that the repeal should be made retroactive, thus stymying many negligence cases.

“So these cases are all wasting the courts' time and preventing cases that aren't barred by immunity statutes from being resolved sooner and clogging up the court system that was already backlogged from COVID,” said attorney Anna Borea, who represents nursing homes.

Troubled Homes Deflect Suits

Advertisement

Some nursing homes that paid hefty fines or were ordered by health officials to shut down at least temporarily because of their inadequate response to covid have claimed immunity against suits, court records show.

Among them is Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation nursing home in New Jersey, which made national headlines when authorities found 17 bodies stacked in a makeshift morgue in April 2020.

Federal health officials fined the facility $220,235 after issuing a critical 36-page report on covid violations and other deficiencies, and the state halted admissions in February 2022.

Yet the home has won court pauses in at least three negligence lawsuits as it appeals lower court rulings denying immunity under the federal PREP Act, court records show. The operators of the home could not be reached for comment. In court filings, they denied any wrongdoing.

Advertisement

In Oregon, health officials suspended operations at Healthcare at Foster Creek, calling the Portland nursing home “a serious danger to the public health and safety.” The May 2020 order cited the home's “consistent inability to adhere to basic infection control standards.”

Bonnie Richardson, a Portland lawyer, sued the facility on behalf of the family of Judith Jones, 75, who had dementia and died in April 2020. Jones' was among dozens of covid-related deaths at that home.

“It was a very hard-fought battle,” said Richardson, who has since settled the case under confidential terms. Although the nursing home claimed immunity, her clients “wanted to know what happened and to understand why.” The owners of the nursing home provided no comment.

No Covid Here

Advertisement

Many families believe nursing homes misled them about covid's relentless spread. They often had to settle for window visits to connect with their loved ones.

Relatives of five patients who died in 2020 at the Sapphire Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing in the Flushing neighborhood in Queens filed lawsuits accusing the home's operators of keeping them in the dark.

When they phoned to check on elderly , they either couldn't get through or were told there was “no COVID-19 in the building,” according to one court affidavit.

One woman grew alarmed after visiting in February 2020 and seeing nurses wearing masks “below their noses or under their chin,” according to a court affidavit.

Advertisement

The woman was shocked when the home relayed that her mother had died in April 2020 from unknown causes, perhaps “from depression and not eating,” according to her affidavit.

A short time later, news media reported that dozens of Sapphire Center residents had died from the virus — her 85-year-old mother among them, she argued in a lawsuit.

The nursing home denied liability and won dismissal of all five lawsuits after citing the New York immunity law. Several families are appealing. The nursing home's administrator declined to comment.

Broadening Immunity

Advertisement

Nursing home operators also have cited immunity to foil negligence lawsuits based on falls or other allegations of substandard care, such as bedsores, with little obvious connection to the pandemic, court records show.

The family of Marilyn Kearney, an 89-year-old with a “history of dementia and falls,” sued the Watrous Nursing Center in , Connecticut, for negligence. Days after she was admitted in June 2020, she fell in her room, fracturing her right hip and requiring surgery, according to court filings.

She died at a local hospital on Sept. 16, 2020, from sepsis attributed to dehydration and malnutrition, according to the suit.

Her family argued that the 45-bed nursing home failed to assess her risk of falling and develop a plan to prevent that. But Watrous fired back by citing an April 2020 declaration by Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, granting health care professionals or facilities immunity from “any injury or death alleged to have been sustained because of the individual's or health care facility's acts or omissions undertaken in good faith while providing health care services in support of the state's COVID-19 response.”

Advertisement

Watrous denied liability and, in a motion to dismiss the case, cited Lamont's executive order and affidavits that argued the home did its best in the throes of a “public health crisis, the likes of which had never been seen before.” The operators of the nursing home, which closed in July 2021 because of covid, did not respond to a request for comment. The case is pending.

Attorney Wendi Kowarik, who represents Kearney's family, said courts are wrestling with how much protection to afford nursing homes.

“We're just beginning to get some guidelines,” she said.

One pending Connecticut case alleges that an 88-year-old man died in October 2020 after experiencing multiple falls, sustaining bedsores, and dropping more than 30 pounds in the two months he lived at a nursing home, court records state. The nursing home denied liability and contends it is entitled to immunity.

Advertisement

So do the owners of a Connecticut facility that cared for a 75-year-old woman with obesity who required a lift to get out of bed. She fell on April 26, 2020, smashing several teeth and fracturing bones. She later died from her injuries, according to the suit, which is pending.

“I think it is really repugnant that providers are arguing that they should not be held accountable for falls, pressure sores, and other outcomes of gross neglect,” said Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition, which advocates for patients.

“The did not declare open season on nursing home residents when it implemented COVID policies,” he said.

Protecting the Vulnerable

Advertisement

Since early 2020, U.S. nursing homes have reported more than 172,000 residents' deaths, according to Centers for Medicare & Services data. That's about 1 in 7 of all recorded U.S. covid deaths.

As it battles covid lawsuits, the nursing home industry says it is “struggling to recover due to ongoing labor shortages, inflation, and chronic government underfunding,” according to Reeves, the trade association executive.

She said the American Health Care Association has advocated for “reasonable, limited liability protections that defend staff and providers for their good faith efforts” during the pandemic.

“Caregivers were doing everything they could,” Reeves said, “often with limited resources and ever-changing information, in an effort to protect and care for residents.”

Advertisement

But patients' advocates remain wary of policies that might bar the courthouse door against grieving families.

“I don't think we want to continue to enact laws that reward nursing homes for bad care,” said Sam Brooks, of the Coalition for the Protection of Residents of Long-Term Care Facilities, a patient advocacy group.

“We need to keep that in mind if, God forbid, we have another pandemic,” Brooks said.

Bill Hammond, a senior fellow at the Empire Center for Public Policy, a nonpartisan New York think tank, said policymakers should focus on better strategies to protect patients from infectious outbreaks, rather than leaving it up to the courts to sort out liability years later.

Advertisement

“There is no serious effort to have that conversation,” Hammond said. “I think that's crazy.”

——————————
By: Fred Schulte, KFF Health News
Title: Nursing Homes Wield Pandemic Immunity Laws To Duck Wrongful Death Suits
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/nursing-home-pandemic-immunity-wrongful-death-lawsuits/
Published Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/first-responders-veterans-hail-benefits-of-psychedelic-drugs-as-california-debates-legalization/

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Kaiser Health News

First Responders, Veterans Hail Benefits of Psychedelic Drugs as California Debates Legalization

Published

on

Bernard J. Wolfson
Mon, 13 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

Wade Trammell recalls the time he and his fellow firefighters responded to a highway crash in which a beer truck rammed into a pole, propelling the truck's engine through the cab and into the driver's abdomen.

“The guy was up there screaming and squirming. Then the cab caught on fire,” Trammell says. “I couldn't move him. He burned to right there in my arms.”

Memories of that gruesome death and other traumatic incidents he had witnessed as a firefighter in Mountain View, California, didn't seem to bother Trammell for the first seven years after he retired in 2015. But then he started crying a lot, drinking heavily, and losing sleep. At first, he didn't understand why, but he would later to he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Advertisement

After therapy failed to improve his mental well-being, he heard about the potential of psychedelic drugs to help first responders with PTSD.

Last July, Trammell went on a retreat in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, organized by The S.I.R.E.N. Project, a nonprofit that advocates the use of psychedelics and other alternative medicines to help first responders. He took psilocybin mushrooms and, the next day, another psychedelic derived from the toxic secretions of the Sonoran Desert toad. The experience, he says, produced an existential shift in the way he thinks of the terrible things he saw as a firefighter.

“All that trauma and all that crap I saw and dealt with, it's all very temporary and everything goes back into the universe as energy,” Trammell says.

Abundant research has shown that psychedelics have the potential to produce lasting relief from depression, anxiety, PTSD, addiction, and other mental health conditions. Many universities around the United States have programs researching psychedelics. But experts warn that these powerful drugs are not for everybody, especially those with a history of psychosis or cardiovascular problems.

Advertisement

Most psychedelic drugs are prohibited under federal , but California may soon join a growing number of local and governments allowing their use.

A bill working its way through the California Legislature, would allow the therapeutic use of psilocybin; mescaline; MDMA, the active ingredient in ecstasy; and dimethyltryptamine, the active ingredient in ayahuasca, a plant-based psychoactive tea. The drugs could be purchased and ingested in approved locations under the supervision of facilitators, who would undergo training and be licensed by a new state board. The facilitators would need a professional health credential to qualify.

The bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), Assembly member Marie Waldron (R-San Diego), and several other lawmakers, follows last year's unsuccessful effort to decriminalize certain psychedelics for personal use. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, vetoed that bill, though he extolled psychedelics as “an exciting frontier” and asked for new legislation with “regulated treatment guidelines.”

Wiener says the new bill was drafted with Newsom's request in mind. It is supported by some and first responder groups and opposed by numerous law enforcement agencies.

Advertisement

One potential roadblock is the state's budget deficit, pegged at between $38 billion and $73 billion. Newsom and legislative leaders may choose not to launch a new initiative when they are cutting existing programs. “That is something we'll certainly grapple with,” Wiener says.

The legislation, which is making its way through committees, would require the new board to begin accepting facilitator license applications in April 2026. The system would look somewhat like the one in Oregon, which allows the use of psilocybin mushrooms under the guidance of state-licensed facilitators at psilocybin service centers. And like Oregon, California would not allow for the personal use or possession of psychedelics; the drugs would have to be purchased and consumed at the authorized locations.

Colorado, following the passage of a ballot initiative in 2022, is creating a system of regulated “healing centers,” where people will be able to legally consume psilocybin mushrooms and some other psychedelics under the supervision of licensed facilitators. Colorado's law allows for the personal use and possession of a handful of psychedelics.

In California, the cities of Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Arcata have effectively decriminalized many psychedelics, as have other cities around the United States, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Cambridge, ; Detroit; Minneapolis; Seattle; and Washington, D.C.

Advertisement

Psychedelics such as psilocybin, ayahuasca, and peyote have been used for thousands of years by Indigenous populations in Latin America and the current-day United States. And some non-Indigenous groups use these substances in a spiritual way.

The Church of Ambrosia, with locations in San Francisco and Oakland, considers psilocybin mushrooms, also known as magic mushrooms, a sacrament. “Mushrooms affect the border between this world and the next, and allow people to connect to their soul,” says Dave Hodges, founder and pastor of the church.

Hodges was behind an unsuccessful attempt to get an initiative on the California ballot this year that would have decriminalized the possession and use of mushrooms. He hopes it will qualify for the 2026 ballot.

The pending California legislation is rooted in studies showing psychedelics can be powerful agents in mental health treatment.

Advertisement

Charles Grob, a psychiatry professor at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Medicine who has researched psychedelics for nearly 40 years, led a study that found synthetic psilocybin could help reduce end-of- anxiety in patients with advanced-stage cancer.

Grob says MDMA is good for couples counseling because it facilitates communication and puts people in touch with their feelings. And he conducted research in Brazil that showed ayahuasca used in a religious context helped people overcome alcoholism.

But Grob warns that the unsupervised use of psychedelics can be dangerous and says people should undergo mental and medical health screenings before ingesting them. “There are cases of people going off the rails. It's a small minority, but it can happen, and when it does happen it can be very frightening,” Grob says.

Ken Finn, past president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, says that psychedelics have a number of side effects, including elevated blood pressure, high heart rate, and vomiting, and that they can trigger “persistent psychosis” in a small minority of users. Legal drugs also pose risks, he says, “but we have much better guardrails on things like prescriptions and over-the-counter medications.” He also worries about product contamination and says manufacturers would need to be tightly regulated.

Advertisement

Another potential problem is health equity. Since insurance would not cover these sessions, at least initially, they would likely attract people with disposable income. A supervised psilocybin journey in Oregon, for example, can cost more than $2,500.

Many people who have experienced psychedelics corroborate the research results. Ben Kramer, a former Marine who served in Afghanistan and now works as a psilocybin facilitator in Beaverton, Oregon, says a high-dose mushroom session altered his worldview.

“I relived the first time I was ever shot at in Afghanistan,” he says. “I was there. I had this overwhelming love and compassion for the guy who was shooting at me, who was fighting for what he believed in, just like I was.”

Another characteristic of psychedelic therapy is that just a few sessions can potentially produce lasting results.

Advertisement

Trammell, the retired firefighter, hasn't taken psychedelics since that retreat in Mexico 10 months ago. “I just felt like I kind of got what I needed,” he says. “I've been fine ever since.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

——————————
By: Bernard J. Wolfson
Title: First Responders, Veterans Hail Benefits of Psychedelic Drugs as California Debates Legalization
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/first-responders-veterans-psychedelic-drugs-california-legalization/
Published Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/fda-said-it-never-inspected-dental-lab-that-made-controversial-agga-device/

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News from the South

Trending