28.01.2013 Views

HEARING - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging

HEARING - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging

HEARING - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

143<br />

492 541W, New Developmenis 10,941<br />

no later than June 2(). l)914 ili pan i-, hal II ii st) orderei.<br />

submit a prcsiwxrd judlgmtcmi siorni i u sh this<br />

decisinn toerther with ;.ny . 'ri , *.rders<br />

and supporting mcmrr3nda.<br />

I1 35;3751 Fifty Residents of Park Pleasant Nursing Home v. Comm<strong>on</strong>wealth of Pennsylvania.<br />

Pennsylvania Comm<strong>on</strong>wealth Court. No. 2905 C.D. 1984. Jan. 10, 1986.<br />

Before: RocEss. MACPHAIL, Judges, and BARBIERI, Senior Judge.<br />

Medicaid: Level-tf-Care Change<br />

Pennsylvania-Notice, hearing, and appeals c<strong>on</strong>cerning benefit-Level-of-care<br />

change-Adequacy of agency notice.-Even though agency regulati<strong>on</strong>s forming the basis for the<br />

reducti<strong>on</strong> in the level of care rendered to fifty nursing residents are valid, agency determinatimnt<br />

reducing the residents' level of care are reversed since notices sent to those residents of the<br />

recommended reducti<strong>on</strong> were inadequate under both federal and state regulati<strong>on</strong>s. First, no reas<strong>on</strong><br />

was given for the intended reducti<strong>on</strong>s in each of the residents- level of care and no specific<br />

regulati<strong>on</strong>s supporting the recommendati<strong>on</strong>s were cited. Further, references to the ag ency s regulatbins<br />

that were listed in the notice c<strong>on</strong>cerned inspecti<strong>on</strong> of care procedures, not 0he le initios of<br />

silled care which were relied up<strong>on</strong> in making the recommendati<strong>on</strong>s. Finally. the notice was devoid<br />

of detail and c<strong>on</strong>tained no explanati<strong>on</strong> of the basis for the proposed evel-of-care reducti<strong>on</strong>.<br />

See! l4 765.15 14,765.41, 15.632.<br />

(Text of Decisi<strong>on</strong>] (a) For an individual service provided to<br />

RoGERs, judge: This is the appeal of fifty the recipient to be c<strong>on</strong>sidered a skilled care<br />

nursing home residents of the Park Pleasant service, the service must:<br />

Nursing Home (residents) who have been receiv- (i) Be needed by the patient <strong>on</strong> a daily<br />

ing skilled nursing care under the Medical As3si- basis.<br />

tassce Pregratt.' Following an annual inspecti<strong>on</strong>, . .<br />

the Pennsylvania Department of Public Wed. (ii) Be ordered by a physician.<br />

fare's (DPW) Inspecti<strong>on</strong> of Care tetm recoin. (iii) Require the skills of, and be provided<br />

mended that the care of the appellant residents either directly by or under the supervisi<strong>on</strong> of,<br />

be reclassified from skilledi to intermediate, medical professi<strong>on</strong>als.<br />

DPW sent notices to the residents recertifying Be provio t pe o d<br />

them in accordance with the recommendati<strong>on</strong>. (iv) Be provided to the patint n dai<br />

'The residents appealed this determinati<strong>on</strong> nd sis.<br />

two days of hearings were held at which the (v) Be <strong>on</strong>e that can <strong>on</strong>ly be provided, as a<br />

hearing officer upheld DPW's recommendati<strong>on</strong>s. practical matter, in a skilled nursing facility<br />

The hearing officer's decisi<strong>on</strong> was affirmed by <strong>on</strong> an inpatient basis.<br />

DPW's Office of Hearings and Appeals. The . * * -<br />

residents filed a request for rec<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> (vi) Be documented i the recipient's medi.<br />

which was denied by DPW's Executive Deputy cal record daily.<br />

Secretary The residents have filed a petiti<strong>on</strong> for (vii) Be included and not excluded as a<br />

review of the order of recertificati<strong>on</strong>, asking us skilled care service in the Skilled Nursing<br />

to remand their cases for reevaluiati<strong>on</strong> because, Care Assessment Handbook. 55 Pa. Code<br />

as they assert, DPW's procedures were c<strong>on</strong>trary t 1181, Appendix E lI(n).<br />

to law and its own regulati<strong>on</strong>s. The residents claim that these criteria do not<br />

The residents first claim that the DPW regu- allow for an analysis of the patient's c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong><br />

Lati<strong>on</strong>s which formed the basis for the reducti<strong>on</strong> as a whole, which has been found to be necessary<br />

in the level of care to them must be invalidated by those courts interpreting a similar provisi<strong>on</strong><br />

since `(these] regulati<strong>on</strong>s examine <strong>on</strong>ly the defining "skilled nursing facility services" in the<br />

treatment and services provided in determining Social Security Act, which states in pertinent<br />

whether care is skilled or not." The DPW regu- pars:<br />

lati<strong>on</strong>s classify skilled care services as follows: [Tihe term 'skilled nursing facility ser-<br />

I1. SkilledCare Serv'ics. vices" means services which are or wert<br />

Ttle XIX .1 the Sreil Oee<strong>on</strong>izl A" (Medirso)d 42 Syvmoi. thich ehoe no pnkipte muss:<br />

comsp sith Itk<br />

USC f f t396 1396c The Stenlirid Pgs. is . mg.ers.. nquirenmnt. o the Sobl Seurity Act snd reglttio<br />

Live ledenturate araueosmest. .nd stoes trth as iti proims4ated th-ee.<br />

Medicare and Medicaid Guide i 35,375

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!