I currently have a call in to the Department of Public Health
asking for a response to a very shocking but yet inexplicable story on
the part of the agency to drastically reduce oversight in state nursing
homes.
The story coming from the CANHR website, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, www.canhr.org/,
reports that DPH attempted to get a measure passed that would reduce
oversight in hospitals but the reduction in monitoring nursing homes
would have been extensive.
It included removing time
lines for inspections on licensing, as well as in the cases of claims
of dangerous conditions, imminent death, would no longer have to
investigated within 24 hours. These are only a few of the radical
changes listed in the CANHR article.
The article reported that the measure was pushed through the
budget committee rather than the normal legislative channels as it was
being called an "efficiency" plan.
According to the article the measure would do egregious harm to
the reform that has taken place over the last 30 years. Such surprising
items as "informed consent" and theft provisions would have been placed
outside the scope of DPH's responsibility.
The strange part of the story is that the Senate Budget
sub-committee and Assembly are to have indicated these cuts would not
save money. There are no specifics on how much money the cuts were
supposed to have garnered, but the services to elderly residents
throughout the state would most certainly have been impaired.
The
CANHR article represents that the measure put forth by DPH was of a
"sudden" nature and the people in the business of rallying and
supporting the elderly came together quickly to quash the destructive
cuts which could cause deleterious effects on the whole nursing home
industry.
Quick call to DPH
With
Governor Jerry Brown slashing the state budget as the deficit has been
upgraded to 16 billion recently, so the move on the part of DPH should
be an interesting story, as Brown continues to threaten to cut what are
considered necessary services, such as nursing home oversight.
However, the surprising part of this situation is why DPH
would move so quickly, under the radar, to get such a bill passed? This
would be front page news, but somehow it got left on the back burner.
I'll wait for my answers from DPH before I speculate too much.
I made a call to DPH public relations to see if I could get a
response to this startling article and I did manage to speak to a young
man who promises that someone will address the claims in the CANHR
article.
What makes me wonder about this whole situation
is that the PR guy who will be calling me back, said he knew nothing
about this. I would imagine that it would be the most controversial bill to date for DPH, but he knew nothing?
Basically, this was an attempt to stop DPH from policing, being responsible for the care of elderly patients around the state.
Who would be in charge if DPH manages to challenge this recent decision and go forth with a similar measure or bill?
I'm not against a citizen's group overseeing the nursing homes as
I think they would be far more effective in enforcing the hospitals to
follow procedures known to keep people safe and comfortable.
But why so quickly and why doesn't the public relations department even know?
KVHD Elder Abuse Trial
Next month marks almost five years since the allegations of short
staffing and elder abuse took place in the Kern Valley Healthcare
District skilled nursing facility.
With a former CEO who had false credentials to a tax measure with
faulty architectural plans, to cries for help from staff, this trial
will represent the willingness of the state to hold some KVHD leaders
accountable for the deaths and mistreatment of its residents.
Not only that but this trial will be a litmus test as DPH wants
to curtail it's oversight, but does that leave Kamala Harris and the
Attorney General's office to intervene? It was Jerry Brown, formerly the
AG, and the Department of Justice who opened up the investigation into
KVHD.
DPH records found serious problems at least a year
before the DOJ came to KVHD. But there were no alarms going off or
efforts to make changes. DPH accepted KVHD corrective measures.
The KVHD elder abuse trial is scheduled for June 25th at the Kern Country Superior court. Defendants, Pamela Ott, Dr. Hoshang Pormir and Gwen Hughes, all have public defenders, though at one time, Pormir had high powered attorney, Donald Etra. Ott was also given 25K dollars in a 3 to 2 vote by KVHD board members.
DPH and KVHD
Considering the lackluster job done by DPH surrounding the
investigation into the claims during 2006 that KVHD was short staffed,
one has to wonder if they are so incompetent, how much worse would it be
without them?
We will find out a month from now whether there should be
consideration of removing the cronyism that is DPH and finding a more
effective way to monitor elder care. If the elder abuse trial turns into
a sinking ship, then it could be time to find a more efficacious way to
protect our older, disabled citizens.
DPH had cited KVHD a year before the use of psychotropic
drugs for the use of "physical restraining." They were also written up
for having patients with severe weight loss and dehydration.
Those
citations did nothing to stop them from medicating patients without
permission, the records show that in 2007, KVHD simply stopped the
physical restraints and switched to using primarily psychotropic drugs.
These drugs often make patients drowsy and easier to manage, requiring
less staff.
Links to DPH measure
The
measure has so far been defeated, but Patricia McGinnis with CANHR,
said she expects to see it back on the table in the future, but with the
confidence that it will be voted down again.
"We plan to not let it go through," the nursing home advocate protested.
http://www.canhr.org/newsroom/newdev_archive/2012/DPH_Proposal_EX-01.pdf
http://www.canhr.org/newsroom/newdev_archive/2012/DPH_CANHR_Letter_Opp.pdf
http://www.canhr.org/newsroom/newdev_archive/2012/DPH_SenateBudgetSubCommitAnalysis.pdf
