Archive for June, 2009

Nursing Homes for Veterans

Friday, June 26th, 2009

Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., NJ Veterans Attorney

Nursing home coverage for veterans is available from two sources within the Department of Veterans Affairs — the veteran’s health care system and the state veteran’s homes system.

Nursing Home Coverage Through the VA Health Care System
Nursing home coverage along with other long term care services such as home care and assisted living as well as geriatric care management are available through the Veterans Health Administration for qualifying veterans.

In order to get into the veterans health care program, the veteran must have service-connected disabilities, or be below a qualifying income level or be receiving Veterans Pension income. Once in the system, veterans are not guaranteed long term care services, including nursing home care, unless they meet specific requirements. Here is a list of these requirements for nursing home coverage.

Who is Eligible for Nursing Home Care

  • Any veteran who has a service-connected disability rating of 70 percent or more; 
  • A veteran who is rated 60 percent service-connected and is unemployable or has an official rating of “permanent and total disabled;” 
  • A veteran with combined disability ratings of 70 percent or more; 
  • A veteran whose service-connected disability is clinically determined to require nursing home care; 
  • Non-service-connected veterans and those officially referred to as “zero percent, non-compensable, service-connected” veterans who require nursing home care for any non-service-connected disability and who meet income and asset criteria; or 
  • If space and resources are available, other veterans on a case-by-case basis with priority given to service-connected veterans and those who need care for post-acute rehabilitation, respite, hospice, geriatric evaluation and management, or spinal cord injury.

VA’s nursing home health system programs include VA-operated nursing home care units and contract community nursing homes. Many VA hospitals operate nursing home care units located in or near the hospital. Other hospitals, without adequate nursing home beds, contract with approximately 2,500 community private nursing homes nationwide to provide services.

State Veterans Homes
State veterans homes fill an important need for veterans with low income and veterans who desire to spend their last years with “comrades” from former active-duty. The predominant service offered is nursing home care. VA nursing homes must be licensed for their particular state and conform with skilled or intermediate nursing services offered in private sector nursing homes in that state. State homes may also offer assisted living or domiciliary care which is a form of supported independent living.

Every state has at least one veterans home and some states like New Jersey have three (3) of them. There is great demand for the services of these homes, but lack of federal and state funding has created a backlog of well over 130 homes that are waiting to be built.

Unlike private sector nursing homes where the family can walk in the front door and possibly that same day make arrangements for a bed for their loved one, state veterans homes have an application process that could take a number of weeks or months. Many state homes have waiting lists especially for their Alzheimer’s long term care units.

No facilities are entirely free to any veteran with an income. The veteran must pay his or her share of the cost. In some states the veterans contribution rates are set at a certain level and if there’s not enough income the family may have to make up the difference. Federal legislation, effective 2007, also allows the federal government to substantially subsidize the cost of veterans with service-connected disabilities in state veterans homes.

Eligibility and Application Requirements for State Veterans Homes
From state to state, facilities vary in their rules for eligible veterans. And even in the same state it is common, where there is more than one state home, for some homes to have very stringent eligibility rules and others to be more lenient. New Jersey’s regulatory criteria are uniform.  These differing rules are probably based on the demand for care and the available beds in that particular geographic area.

Federal regulations allow that 25% of the bed occupants at any one time may be veteran-related family members, i.e., spouses, surviving spouses, and/or gold star parents who are not entitled to payment of VA aid. When a State Home accepts grant assistance for a construction project, 75% of the bed occupants at the facility must be veterans.

Domicile residency requirements vary from state to state. New Jersey requires an applicant to be a NJ resident domiciliary.

All states require an application process to get into a home. Typically a committee or board will approve or disapprove each application. Many states have waiting lists for available beds.

For further information and advice in any veterans, do not hesitate to contact me at 732-863-9900 Ext. 101 or 105, or fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

Assisted Living Facility Residents Can Lose Their Homes if Their Facility Stops Participating in Medicaid

Friday, June 26th, 2009

Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., NJ Medicaid Application Attorney

Most people want to avoid nursing home care.  Many people believe that assisted living provides them with something better: choice, control, independence, and safety in a “non-institutional, community-based setting.”  What is not widely known is that the protections for nursing home residents provided by the federal Nursing Home Reform Law do not apply to Assisted Living facility (ALF) residents, even those who are eligible for nursing home care and receive Medicaid for ALF services under a home and community-based waiver. Moreover, no separate federal legislation protects ALF residents.

Over the years, Medicaid spending for long-term care services has shifted significantly from nursing home care to home and community-based alternatives, including services in ALFs. Between 1995 and 2007, Medicaid spending on nursing home care declined from 61% to 47% of all Medicaid spending in long-term care, while Medicaid spending on home and community-based waiver programs, including ALF care, increased from 9% to 27% of Medicaid’s long-term care spending.[1] In 2002, 41 states used Medicaid to pay for assisted living services for more than 100,000 residents.[2]

Earlier this month, ALF residents in Washington State suffered a set-back in legal protection, highlighting the need for federal legislation.  In Washington State, a federal district court rejected limited state law protections for ALF residents whose facilities terminate their Medicaid participation. In contrast, residents of nursing facilities that participate in the Medicaid program have the benefit of a 1999 amendment to the federal Nursing Home Reform law, which offers broader protections to residents in identical circumstances.

Assisted Living Residents Lack Protection When their Facilities Terminate Participation in the Medicaid Program.

In 2007, ALFs in Washington State and elsewhere began voluntarily terminating their Medicaid provider agreements with the States and evicting their Medicaid residents.  Not atypical was the story of a 98-year old woman who had spent more than $300,000 of her life savings, paying privately for her stay at an ALF owned by Assisted Living Concepts. She was told that the facility would not accept Medicaid for her care and that she would have to leave, despite the fact that the facility had promised repeatedly over the nine years that she had paid privately that she could stay as a Medicaid beneficiary when her private funds ran out.[3]

Although Assisted Living Concepts, the chain that owns the woman’s ALF, evicted residents from its facilities across the country, only Washington State enacted protective legislation.  The protection for residents who were being displaced from their ALFs was limited. As enacted, the Washington legislation required ALFs to keep only residents who were receiving Medicaid at the time of their facility’s withdrawal and those who had paid privately for their stays for at least two years and who became eligible for Medicaid within 180 days of the facility’s withdrawal from the Medicaid program.[4]  The law was challenged by the Washington Health Care Association, a trade association of nursing homes and assisted living facilities. In a summary judgment decision issued this month, the federal district court in Washington State sustained the industry’s challenge and struck down the law on the grounds that it violates the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution[5]

The Court described the legal question as whether the state law was a substantial impairment to a contractual relationship and, if so, “whether the impairment is reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose.”[6] It found, first, that the 2008 legislation impaired facilities’ contractual relationship with the state by unilaterally invalidating the contract’s termination clause, which allowed ALFs to terminate a Medicaid contract on 30 days’ notice. Next, despite acknowledging that assisted living residents “are vulnerable elderly and/or disabled adults” for whom “forced and sudden discharge poses a significant threat to the residents’ emotional and physical well-being,” the Court held that “the drastic measure of requiring boarding homes to continue to provide services” to certain Medicaid residents “in exchange for the Medicaid rate [that the Department of Health and Social Services] DSHS decided to pay” was neither “reasonable” nor “necessary.”[7] The Court suggested that alternative legislative solutions could have served the state’s purpose “equally well without impairing the State’s own contracts.”[8]

The Washington federal court decision underscores the need for federal legislation to protect assisted living residents. Significantly, similar, but broader, federal law does protect nursing home residents in the identical situation.

Protection is Available for Nursing Home Residents when their Facilities Terminate their Medicaid Participation.

A 1999 amendment to the federal Nursing Home Reform Law – “Continuing Rights in Case of Voluntary Withdrawal from Participation”[9] – was Congress’ response to the decision of the Vencor Corporation (now known as Kindred) to terminate its nursing home Medicaid contracts and evict its Medicaid residents. The federal law allows nursing facilities to withdraw from the Medicaid program, but only prospectively.  All individuals living in a nursing facility at the time of a nursing facility’s withdrawal from the Medicaid program are protected, including those who become eligible for Medicaid at some undefined time in the future. The nursing home industry did not challenge the 1999 law. Notably, the Contract Clause, an important vehicle for challenging the Washington state law, does not apply to the federal government.

Conclusion
As assisted living becomes an increasingly prominent part of the country’s long-term care system, assisted living residents need to be adequately protected.  Congress should extend Medicaid nursing home protections to assisted living residents who use Medicaid and should consider whether additional, broader federal legislation is appropriate as well.

For further information and advice in any Medicaid matter, do not hesitate to contact me at 732-863-9900 Ext. 101 or 105, or fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

Politically Correct Language is an Inappropriate Policy; Harassment Policy Violates Free Speech

Friday, June 5th, 2009

When a male graduate student pursuing a degree in military history was inclined to speak his mind in classroom discussions about women in combat and women in the military more generally, he felt inhibited by the university’s broadly worded policy on sexual harassment.

In pertinent part, the policy stated that “all forms of sexual harassment are prohibited, including… expressive, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual or gender-motivated nature, when… such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work, educational performance, or status; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.”  The student sued the university to prohibit the enforcement of the policy on the ground that it had a chilling effect on the exercise of his right to free speech.

A federal appeals court sided with the graduate student. The sexual harassment policy’s prohibition of expressive conduct of a “gender-motivated nature” that had the purpose or effect of either unreasonably interfering with other individuals or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment was unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment. It impermissibly swept within its reach speech that should not be subjected to restrictive regulation.

Regarding the “gender-motivated” characteristic of speech, the court wondered: “Whose gender must serve as the motivation, the speaker’s or the listener’s?  And does it matter? Additionally, we must be aware that ‘gender,’ to some people, is a fluid concept.  Even if we narrow the term ‘gender-motivated’ to ‘because of one’s sex,’ we are far from certain that this limitation still does not encompass expression on a broad range of social issues.”

The term” gender-motivated” also necessarily required an inquiry into the motivation of the speaker, so that the policy punished not only speech that actually caused disruption, but also speech that merely intended to do so. To protect core forms of speech, there should have been a requirement in the policy that the conduct at issue objectively and subjectively create a hostile environment. A school must show that, before prohibiting it, targeted speech is so severe or pervasive that it will actually cause material disruption, and the university’s policy was fatally deficient for not having such a requirement.

It was important to the court’s decision that the challenged harassment policy was that of a university, as opposed to an elementary school or a high school.  It is well recognized that, in the words of United States Supreme Court decisions, “[the college classroom with its surrounding environs is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas,' "and "[t]he First Amendment guarantees wide freedom in matters of adult public discourse.”

Discussion by adult students in a college classroom should not be restricted, while certain speech which cannot be prohibited to adults may be prohibited to public elementary and high school students. This is particularly true when considering that public elementary and high school administrators have the unique responsibility to act in the place of parents, a disciplinary and protective role not shared by their counterparts in colleges and universities. Thus, in the case of the plaintiff graduate student, the court kept in mind that the university’s administrators were granted less leeway in regulating student speech than are administrators responsible for younger and more vulnerable students.

Employers and Job References; the Dilemma

Friday, June 5th, 2009

There’s Hope in Immunity

Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., Business Litigation Attorney

Whether an employer-employee relationship ends on good terms or with acrimony, a common final act – the employee’s request for a reference for a new job – is increasingly leading to litigation.

From the former employer’s standpoint, it can be a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. A candid, negative response to the request can invite a suit by the former employee. A glowing recommendation that omits some serious shortcomings in the employee’s performance, or that declines to say anything about the employee except perhaps dates of employment, could result in litigation brought by the new employer, who would have preferred to be warned about a subpar employee. The prevalence of such disputes only figures to increase in the current economic downturn.

The growing dilemma is such that some employers are telling their employees from the outset that they will get no job reference – good, bad, or indifferent – when they leave. Under such a policy, inquiring prospective employers would get only the employment equivalent of “name, rank, and serial number.” Other employers are willing to give a reference, but only after they have in their files documents in which an employee consents to having prospective employers find out all there is to know, and waiving their right to sue over anything that is said in the reference.

The good news for businesses is that their exposure to liability to disgruntled former employees who requested references is constrained in most states by statute. These laws gen¬erally provide immunity to the givers of references, so long as their actions were not motivated by malice. Of course, former employees, perhaps hurting while in between jobs and inclined to blame former employers for their predicament, are quick to argue that a negative response to a reference request was malicious.

In one such case, a nurse sued her former supervisor for defamation when the supervisor responded to a request for a job reference by stating on a form, without elaboration, that the nurse had “unacceptable work practice habits.” A court ruled that the statement came within a statutory privilege or immunity for former employers’ communications to prospective employers concerning former employees, because it was information provided about a former employee’s work performance at the request of both the former employee and a placement agency.

Although the nurse made the general argument that the immunity was lost because the statement about her was made with malice, she was unable to back up that contention with factual evidence of ill will or spitefulness directed toward her. She argued, to no avail, that if the former employer considered her work habits to be acceptable enough not to fire her, then it was reasonable to infer that the later negative inference must have been motivated by malice.

For further information and advice in any business matter, do not hesitate to contact me at 732-863-9900 Ext. 101 or 105, or fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.