Khan and Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, said they became aware of the problem when Greater Boston Legal Services recounted cases of elders being released from nursing homes to inappropriate places, such as homeless shelters and to both unqualified and in some cases, incapacitated caregivers.
Khan cited one example of an elder in a wheelchair released to live with a niece on her second-floor apartment, with no bathroom facilities on that floor.
[Greater Boston Legal Services Attorney Betsy] Crimmins told of going to court for a patient who was discharged for smoking through her oxygen tank and placed with her son who was dying of cancer.
All the bill would have done would be to ensure that critical nursing home resident rights covered in federal law are spelled out in state law, so that there would be no mistake about an elder’s right not to be dumped out of a nursing home without an proper transition plan.
Healey’s hypocritical silence in the wake of this veto once again shows that she puts loyalty to her boss over the needs of the Commonwealth’s most vulnerable citizens. She must have thought that this matter would slip under our radar and she wouldn’t have to say anything about it. Let’s show her otherwise–speak out!
I’d like to recommend this, but the button is gone yet again.
Mr. Patrick’s opinion too. Or, will he refuse and abruptly walk away like he did when questioned about his view of taxation and fees?
As a practicing elder law attorney, I keep my eyes and ears open about stories like these. Given what I see every day in my office, I was saddened, but not surprised, that the current administration would blow off giving our seniors additional legal protections. Since Romney vetoed a bill promoting civil rights, I am sure the Patrick campaign will have something to say once they learn more. By contrast, a Lieutenant Governor should know what her boss is up to. She certainly would have had an opportunity to comment quickly had she chosen to do so. Thus, her silence here is deafening.
<
p>
This little veto was very quiet — whether it was because the Administration was hoping that we would all miss it or the MSM was too busy elsewhere, I don’t know. The newspaper serving Newton and Waltham appears to be the only media outlet that covered it.
<
p>
FWIW, I had the opportunity to briefly speak with Patrick about nursing home issues about six months ago. He mentioned that he had had to place his mother in a nursing home, and that he had been unfamiliar with these issues before that time. He was deeply interested in my comments about the erosions in financial protections for spouses of nursing home residents. Therefore, I think the only reason that a comment has not been made yet is that the matter has not been brought to anyone’s attention. I hope that this posting does just that.
How about a link to the bill before jumping on the bandwagon one way or another?
<
p>
Unfortunate as it may be, having a law on the books doesn’t mean the behavior will stop. So, the critical question, it seems to me, is whether adding state-level legislation would help the court process or hinder it. Specifcally, what advatages would this legislation provide that don’t exist already.
<
p>
It wouldn’t be the first time a roomful of “good intentions” resulted in legislation that caused more problems than it solved.
[http://www.mass.gov/…]
<
p>
<
p>
So, let’s argue an analogy — since some people are always going to be murderers, having laws on the books that makes it clear that murder is punishable won’t change human behavior and therefore it’s not worth the bother to pass that legislation. Do you truly believe that? Laws can act as deterents for many, and provide a mechanism to enforce rights when needed. That’s the situation here.
<
p>
Nursing homes ARE the only HOMES that many frail elders have. Missing a day’s worth of appropriate care can lead to medical catastrophe. The drain on family caregivers can be overwhelming, even if they are well-prepared. Thus, the potential harm is simply a difference between life and death, and appropriate care versus abuse or neglect.
<
p>
Unlawful nursing home discharge cases are hardly clogging the courts or the MassHealth Board of Hearings. The bill clarifies a right and a process which already exists under federal law. Spelling it out provides an incentive to better discharge planning. It also will lead to increased scrutiny every time a nursing home’s license comes up for renewal — and possibly help put a few bad apples out of business.
<
p>
I have worked with many caring and conscientious nursing home nursing supervisors and social workers who try their best to work with families and service providers to put together appropriate discharge plans. I have also met with families who are unprepared, unwilling, or unable to take a frail elder into their homes on short notice, if at all.
<
p>
The sad fact is that patient dumping happens, regardless of law to the contrary. There are unfortunately some nursing home operators who may be overwhelmed themselves by a demanding patient, have inadequate staffing to monitor someone with psychiatric or behavioral problems, or who just figure that the federal patient rights law really doesn’t count UNLESS it’s also encoded in a state statute–not just buried deep in the bowels of MassHealth regulations. I have seen discharge notices which fail to inform patients of their right to appeal discharges to the MassHealth Board of Hearings or provide the names and numbers of the local legal service organizations — both failures are violations of law.
<
p>
Harm enough for you?
link
For those who are defending Healey I would like to hear the argument. My belief is that Healey should have come out against the veto if she truly wanted to show the state her leadership qualities and speak for something that she believes in. The posts I’ve read so far are “what would Patrick do”, that’s not defending Healey’s position and action.