Attorney general starts probe of home health care agencies BY DEEPTI HAJELA The Associated Press
NEW YORK — State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo subpoenaed more than 50 home health care agencies in the city and the surrounding counties after Medicaid investigators uncovered aides working with false certifications and bills for services that were never provided. “The evidence we’ve obtained to date suggests endemic, persistent fraud and malfeasance at all levels of the home health care industry,” Cuomo said in a statement Monday, adding the data collected from the subpoenas would help identify the scope of the problem as well as possible solutions. The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit investigated the cases. The subpoenas, the last of which were sent out Monday, request a variety of information about the home health care aides whose services were billed to Medicaid by several home health agencies. Cuomo’s office is looking to verify credentials, how many hours were billed and the names of the agencies that sent the aides out on assignment. Ten of the largest agencies were asked to propose repayment schedules and to detail the steps they’re taking to train personnel and to ensure all future treatments are medically necessary. Cuomo said the process would separate legitimate practitioners from fraudulent agencies. The state-run Medicaid is a program for those who can’t afford to pay for medical care. Every month, more than 80,000 New Yorkers receive some sort of Medicaid-funded home health services. In 2006, Medicaid spent nearly $1.3 billion on home health care, Cuomo’s office said. Cuomo’s investigations have gone after a number of targets. Already this year, he has conducted a nationwide probe into student loans and whether colleges and universities steer students toward particular lenders. His office has also investigated a scandal in state government, releasing a report in July that said two of Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s aides conspired to release damaging information about another politician.
Why do Americans believe that the government should provide to each citizen (and those illegal immigrants) a home, an education, a retirement fund, food, healthcare, etc. for free? Because of the social programs enacted since the 1940s, the American people have become lazy and dependent on the government.
Generation after generation are born into and trapped by a Welfare system that deprives the recipients of the the initiative and the "know how" to escape their dependence. These people accept their awards and the standard of living that it provides, rather than seek employment that will enhance their lifestyles and those of their children.
Senior citizens anxiously await their social security checks to arrive by mail on the first of each month. The amount of their entitlement pales in comparison to what they would have had if they were allowed to invest the money themselves. Still, they have a sense appreciation for a government that takes care of them ... with their own money.
Are we no longer able to provide for ourselves or assume responsibilities for our lives?
Americans no longer plan for the future, but demand instant gratification at the expense of others. When we look to the government to pay for these "benefits", we must remember who the government is. Remember "of the people, by the people, for the people"? The money to pay for these handouts comes from the working class who is paying more than our fair share in taxes. Each of these entitlement programs is a redistribution of wealth from the "haves" to the "have nots". And the amount that is redistributed is the net amount, after the cost of the burgeoning bureaucracy that adminsters these programs is deducted and after aid payments are made to nations around the world, many of whom have no respect or regard for the generous benefactor, but rather hold us in contempt.
I believe that our reliance on the government to provide for us and to protect us from others and ourselves is a dangerous situation. The government already controls much of our everday lives, telling us what we can say, what we can eat, where we can travel, etc. Once they become our sole providers, they establish total control.
I encourage those who assert and espouse that they deserve free health care and those who demand that they receive increased retirement benefits and those who propose free educational benefits, etc to consider that, as the adage goes, there is "no such thing as a free lunch". It is time that the American people, once again, display the work ethic that made this country great.
We, including myself, need to control our materialistic urges. Rather than excessive consumerism, buying cheap toys made in China and painted with lead-based paint, human and pet foods made in China that are tainted with poisonous substances, and other items that we don't need (and probably really don't want), we need to learn to save "for a rainy day". With the aging of our population and the loss of high paying jobs, the clouds are already forming on the horizon.
To quote one of my favorite Presidents, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." The time is long overdue that proud Americans take responsibility for their actions, the consequences of their actions, and their future
I believe that any government that does not encourage the self sufficiency and self reliance of it's citizens are surely doing them a dis-service. People should be encouraged and given opportunities to develop independence.
However, our government does just the opposit. There are more government programs that are draining the tax system and draining it's citizens of their independence. BIG GOVERNMENT. And I honestly have not seen these programs move these citizens forward.
In my opinion, these programs were needed during the time of the depression and WWII. However, times are different now. We have evolved. We have become more educated. We pretty much have what we need...AND MORE! We are no longer, as a country, waiting in line for a loaf of free bread. We go to the grocery store and by 5 loaves so we can freeze 4 in our nice big feezers.
Everything is here for the asking/working!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
steps they’re taking to train personnel and to ensure all future treatments are medically necessary.
The insurance companies do this for us already.....they pick and choose....but, atleast we can buy what ever coverage we want.....if you want to stay in the healthcare system and find it to your liking then go ahead....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Zim I couldn't agree with you more. A perfect example of people becoming totally dependant on the government is what happened to New Orleans. The people just stayed in a city that everyone knew was in danger of flooding during hurricanes and waited for the government to save them but their local and state governments failed to put their disaster plan into action as they were too busy saving themselves. God helps those who help themselves.
You got that right shadow....unfortunately the motto for some generations has been 'just do it'....no thought, responsibility, trust, honor etc instilled throughout the education system...."....your house must be in order..." the leaders are imperfect just as the rest...but the thoughts of hippocrit and 'if they do it-I can do it', and the pervasive--'just be their friend',,,has seeped into the culture to such an extent that no one knows who is leading who and based upon what foundation.....
Since the depression and WWII the terrorist has been ourselves....before that there was a what---TEA PARTY
Quoted Text
Main Entry: ter·ror Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE 1 : a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT 3 : REIGN OF TERROR 4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands synonym see FEAR
Not to mention the allowances we have given the medical profession for all the fear mongering of our mortal lives.....I'm all for taking care of yourself and seeing your MD,,,but please dont tell me you are God and know better.....we have all seen the opposing 'studies'...
knowledge knowledge everywhere and not a lick of reason/wisdom.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Government should mandate establishing hospices First published: Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Jane Grimes' Perspective article (Aug. 19) on the need for hospice care is spot on.
Unfortunately, not all patients are able to live their final days at home. Those individuals need "institutional" hospice care. However, there are too few such facilities.
One way of dealing with this problem is to have the federal government mandate that any hospital that receives Medicare funding must establish a hospice, either as a separate facility or as part of its current facility.
Main Entry: hos·pice Pronunciation: 'häs-p&s Function: noun Etymology: French, from Old French hospise, from Latin hospitium, from hospit-, hospes host -- more at HOST 1 : a lodging for travelers, young persons, or the underprivileged especially when maintained by a religious order 2 : a facility or program designed to provide a caring environment for meeting the physical and emotional needs of the terminally ill
We cant even die peacefully at home....and anyone that tells you that it is "more comfortable for the patient" is telling a fib.....I work with dying folks all the time...alot of the time we 'medicate' to ease the family of 'seeing death'.....it is not a nicety in life but a reality, with MANY lessons to be learned...unfortunately Hollywood/society has made dying a bad word....
So,,,,, we cant afford nursing homes/home care etc for the aging/debilitated/challenged---dont have time, money or physical endurance to do it ourselves....yet.....we want to put the $$ where imminent death is........I dont get it......a culture of death...yet...we ride the merry-go-round of the drug commercials and 'studies'......
I guess that illegal alien lead paint is useful after all....if....we know what to do with the windfall $$......our choice would be to 'daycare' the kids to work more to buy all that 'stuff' we 'need'.......
There must be something rational somewhere.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Regarding Paul Drisgula’s Aug. 25 op-ed piece on the new hospital system in Schenectady, I am constantly baffl ed why abortion is the central issue in any discussion on women’s health. Mr. Drisgula says “Women require access to a full range of reproductive health services, including annual exams, cancer screening, birth control, prenatal care, abortion care, and menopause services, throughout their lives.” Yet the piece focuses on abortion, giving the impression that the rest of these services are well in hand. He also leaves out birth services in this list. Is he aware of the lack of option available to women in this region who want to birth outside of a hospital, an option which research consistently shows to be safe? With no physicians in the region willing to back them up, home birth midwives have been driven underground. The nearest free-standing birth center is in the Bronx, nearly three hours away. Typical prenatal care and hospital protocol for birth involves a battery of tests and procedures that are not presented as optional, and for which a discussion of risks and benefits is limited at best. Mr. Drisgula emphasizes a woman’s right to choose an abortion and her practitioner. What about her right to choose other options regarding her care and the care of her child? In addition, I am insulted that women are viewed as so delicate that we need an entire branch of medicine — and even a hospital — devoted just to us. What about this says equality? BRONWYN FACKRELL Scotia
Hold nursing homes accountable for bedsores First published: Monday, August 27, 2007
Regarding the Aug. 20 article, "State works to ease bedsore problem":
The bedsore problem in nursing homes is widespread and all too often tragic for the affected residents and their families. As the article notes, New York state nursing homes are doing a particularly poor job addressing this issue and, as a result, many frail people are suffering unnecessarily.
As an advocate for nursing home residents and their families, I am generally thrilled to see any attempt to improve care given to residents. However, this campaign is fundamentally flawed.
Since passage of the federal Nursing Home Reform Law 20 years ago, nursing homes that receive government funding (i.e., from the Medicaid or Medicare programs) have been required to ensure that residents do not develop pressure sores. And if a resident has pressure sores, the nursing home is required to provide the necessary treatment to promote healing and prevent infection and the development of new sores. This is, quite simply, what we as taxpayers are paying them to do.
To reward or coddle them when they fail to meet the obligation for which they are already being paid (as professional, licensed caregivers) is not only counterintuitive, it is outrageous.
RICHARD MOLLOT Executive Director Long Term Care Community Coalition New York City
He is correct,,,,, but...where are the workers/.....who actually care and are interested.....CNAs are the ones doing the back breaking work of moving debilitated bodies and demented minds around....alot of them do care but their case load is such that it is unattainable in the reasonable sense......ya know---looks good on paper kind of crap that all meetings come up with.....
If it is so bad----close them all......
I have talked to some folks that worked down south and,,,it's pretty scary....NYS is very very very regulated....like I said, looks good on paper but, where are the workers????? medicare/medicaid doesn't remotely pay a living wage for this type of work........
I'm sure Mr.Executive Director has yet to wipe up vomit/stool/urine etc and toilet, wash, dress, turn and position, feed, shave, lotion,get spit on, scratched, hit, kicked (dont forget to fit in your lunch and breaks), an assignment with 8-10 debilitated and/or demented folks he has to manage.......
for all intense purposes a nursing home is a warehouse of people that the state/feds like to run as a warehouse.......see, the government isn't personal and caring and compassionate---never has been and never will be....that would be the populus' job........
by no means am I defending the homes themselves,,,,but,where are the workers??.....
Just wait for the boomers---there are less workers than there are them....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Spitzer threatens to sue federal govt over SCHIP. Today in the New York Daily News, Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) sharply criticizes the Bush administration’s cuts, which block the state’s plan to expand coverage “to children whose parents earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, from 250 percent currently.” From his op-ed:
There are 400,000 uninsured children in New York. To put this in perspective, if they were to gather in one place, they would form the second-largest city in the state - larger than Rochester, Albany and Binghamton combined.
To deny coverage to these children is not only morally wrong, it is profoundly bad public policy. […]
But then - last Friday - the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, at the behest of President Bush, slammed the door in the face of children and families across our nation.
Not only would CMS prevent states from increasing their income limits to bring more children into the program, CMS has actually proposed reducing the income limits many states already have, forcing children out of the program and into the ranks of the uninsured.
Yesterday, Spitzer also threatened to sue the federal government “on charges that new regulations on children’s health insurance violate an existing program that covers children from lower-income families.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By ELIOT SPITZER Tuesday, August 28th 2007, 4:00 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Together with the state Legislature, this past April my administration established a historic plan to make health insurance available to every child in New York - a cornerstone of our patient-first health care agenda and a building block toward universal coverage.
The plan was backed by Democrats and Republicans; business and labor; doctors and patients; health care providers, experts and advocates alike, showing the unity around a common purpose that is all too rare in politics.
But then, through an eleventh-hour bureaucratic sleight of hand, the Bush administration slammed the door on our plan - and on New York's children. Instead of increasing coverage for children, President Bush actually proposed reducing it.
There are 400,000 uninsured children in New York. To put this in perspective, if they were to gather in one place, they would form the second-largest city in the state - larger than Rochester, Albany and Binghamton combined.
To deny coverage to these children is not only morally wrong, it is profoundly bad public policy.
Denying children health coverage during their formative years leaves them far more vulnerable to preventable diseases, which costs patients, government and taxpayers far more to treat in the future.
In 1997, a bipartisan Congress agreed with this logic when it created the SCHIP program to provide access to affordable health insurance for children in need. And recently, Congress proposed changes to expand SCHIP, preserving the central tenet of the program: state flexibility. Congress recognized that every state is different, and therefore every state needs the flexibility to tailor programs to the needs of its own children.
For example, at it stands now a family of four is disqualified from the program if its income is above $50,000. While that may be enough for a family of four in Milwaukee to afford health insurance, it's hardly enough in New York City, where the cost of living is well over twice as high.
Congress understands that if we are to reach the maximum number of children, different states facing different realities need greater flexibility to meet their individual needs. That is why 17 other states have made the same decision as New York; namely, to expand their programs to reach children in families that would otherwise be unable to afford health insurance.
But then - last Friday - the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, at the behest of President Bush, slammed the door in the face of children and families across our nation.
Not only would CMS prevent states from increasing their income limits to bring more children into the program, CMS has actually proposed reducing the income limits many states already have, forcing children out of the program and into the ranks of the uninsured.
To top it off, CMS has proposed another layer of burdensome restrictions. One of these would even force children to go without health insurance for an entire year before qualifying for the program.
Yet, as bleak as this picture is, it's not too late to undo the damage - if we act now.
All of us must pressure the Bush administration to roll back its destructive changes to SCHIP, allowing us to move forward with insuring all children.
And if the administration fails to act, Congress must. If Democrats and Republicans come together in Washington, they can form a veto-proof majority and legislate the President's disastrous changes into history's dustbin.
But if they, too, fail to act, 400,000 children in New York - and millions more across America - will continue to rely on the oldest and most precarious health insurance policy of all: waking up every morning and hoping and praying you don't get sick.
Logged
