HEARING - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging
HEARING - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging
HEARING - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging
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