Search This Blog

Wednesday, March 2, 2022

CMS wallops nursing homes with planned staffing requirements and increased penalties

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will establish minimum staffing requirements as part of a broad plan to “crack down on unsafe nursing homes,” the White House announced on Monday. 

The agency said it plans to conduct a new study to determine the level and type of staffing needed to ensure safe and quality care and will issue proposed rules within one year.

The reform measure is part of four new initiatives to ensure that residents get the quality care they need, according to the White House. President Joe Biden plans to raise the initiatives, which are sure to chafe nursing home operators, during his State of the Union address Tuesday evening. 

Biden also will call on Congress to supply almost $500 million to increase CMS’s survey budget by nearly 25%, an administration statement said.

The new initiatives also include plans to reduce resident room crowding, with CMS planning to explore ways to accelerate phasing out rooms with three or more residents and to promote single-occupancy rooms.

The agency also intends to update the Skilled Nursing Facility Value-Based Purchasing Program by proposing new payment changes based on staffing adequacy and the resident experience, as well as how well facilities retain staff.

Lastly, the agency will launch a new effort to identify what it calls problematic diagnoses and refocus efforts to continue to bring down the inappropriate use of antipsychotic medications.

The Biden administration also pledged to ramp up its accountability and oversight of nursing homes and called on Congress to raise the dollar limit on per-instance financial penalties levied on poor-performing facilities from $21,000 to $1,000,000. 

Failure ‘widespread’

The administration delivered a general broadside to nursing home operators while announcing the new plans.

“In the past two years, more than 200,000 residents and staff in nursing homes have died from COVID-19 — nearly a quarter of all COVID-19 deaths in the United States,” the White House statement stated. “Despite the tens of billions of federal taxpayer dollars flowing to nursing homes each year, too many continue to provide poor, sub-standard care that leads to avoidable resident harm. In fact, failure to comply with Federal guidelines at nursing homes is widespread.”

It cited a Government Accountability Office report that found that, from 2013 to 2017, 82% of all inspected nursing homes had an infection prevention and control deficiency, “including a lack of regular handwashing,” that was identified through Medicare and Medicaid surveys. 

“Without decisive action now, these unacceptable conditions may get worse,” the administration said. 

Officials said that establishing minimum staffing levels will ensure that residents will be provided “safe, quality care, and that workers have the support they need.”

“Nursing homes will be held accountable if they fail to meet this standard,” they noted.

The consumer-facing Care Compare website will “prominently” display whether a facility is meeting future minimum staffing requirements. The agency also will “ensure that ratings more closely reflect data that is verifiable, rather than self-reported, and will hold nursing homes accountable for providing inaccurate information. “

In addition, President Biden will ask Congress to expand CMS’ powers so it can validate data and take enforcement action against facilities that submit incorrect information.

“CMS intends to propose new payment changes based on staffing adequacy, the resident experience, as well as how well facilities retain staff,” officials added in the White House statement.

Private equity slammed

The administration announcement took especially harsh aim at private equity’s ownership of nursing homes.

“Private equity firms have been buying up struggling nursing homes, and research shows that private equity-owned nursing homes tend to have significantly worse outcomes for residents,” a fact sheet provided by the White House said. 

It noted that private equity firms’ investment in nursing homes “has ballooned” from $5 billion in 2000 to more than $100 billion in 2018, with about 5% of all nursing homes now owned by private equity firms. 

It explained a recent study found that residents in nursing homes bought by private equity were 11.1% more likely to have a preventable emergency department visit and 8.7% more likely to experience a preventable hospitalization, when compared to residents of for-profit nursing homes not associated with private equity.

Another examination over 17 years , a working paper, examined 18,000 nursing facilities and found that private equity ownership increased “excess” resident mortality by 10%, increased prescription of antipsychotic drugs for residents by 50%, decreased hours of frontline nursing staffing by 3%, and increased taxpayer spending per resident by 11%.

“That suggests an additional 20,150 lives lost as a result of private equity ownership,” the administration said. Another study found that private equity-backed nursing homes’ COVID-19 infection and death rates were 30% and 40% above statewide averages, respectively.

“Too often, the private equity model has put profits before people — a particularly dangerous model when it comes to the health and safety of vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities,” the White House statement said. “Recent research has found that resident outcomes are significantly worse at private equity-owned nursing homes.”

CMS targets SFF facilities, corporate owners

The administration also intends to come down harder on consistently poor performing facilities. 

The Special Focus Facility program will be “overhauled to more quickly improve care … including changes that will make its requirements tougher and more impactful.”

“Facilities that fail to improve will face increasingly larger enforcement actions, including termination from participation in Medicare and Medicaid, when appropriate,” the administration said.

CMS also will expand how often it will penalize poor-performing facilities based on desk reviews of data submissions, which will be performed in addition to on-site inspections.

It said that beyond previously reversing President Trump’s move to levy one-time fines on “bad actor nursing homes,” CMS will now explore making such per-day penalties the default penalty for non-compliance.

The administration also wants Congress to give CMS added authority  to “require minimum corporate competency” so that individuals or entities can be barred from obtaining a Medicare or Medicaid provider agreement for a nursing home if they have had compliance problems, past or present.

President Biden also will ask Congress to allow CMS to levy penalties and enforcement actions on owners or operators, even after a poor-performing building is closed.

In addition, CMS will increase pressure on corporate owners and operators by creating a new database that will track and identify owners and operators across states “to highlight previous problems with promoting resident health and safety.”

The agency also plans to collect and publicly report “more robust” corporate ownership and operating data, according to the White House briefing statement.

Senior administration officials earlier Monday said the reform measures are part of new actions that the Biden-Harris administration is taking this year to tackle some of the most pressing competition and consumer protection problems across our economy. Included would be “new steps to protect seniors and other nursing home residents by cracking down on unsafe nursing homes.” 

https://www.mcknights.com/news/cms-wallops-nursing-homes-with-planned-staffing-requirements-and-increased-penalties/

Manchin proposes dramatically scaled down version of Build Back Better

 Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who torpedoed President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda at the end of last year, on Wednesday laid out a dramatically scaled down version that he says he could vote for under the special budget reconciliation process.  

Manchin said he could support a reconciliation package that reforms the tax code and lowers the cost of prescription drugs if the money raised is split between spending on new climate change proposals and deficit reduction and fighting inflation.  

The West Virginia senator clarified he hasn’t made any formal counterproposal to the White House but is sketching the outlines of a proposal that he could support along with the rest of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

Whatever Manchin ultimately agrees to would have a different name than the Build Back Better Act, which he said in December he couldn't support. 

“There’s not a proposal, there’s just a conversation,” he said of informal talks with White House officials.  

“It just makes all the sense in the world. The one thing that we as Democrats all agreed on was the 2017 tax cuts were weighted unfairly. So if you want to fix the tax cuts and make everyone pay their fair share, whether it’s the very wealthiest or the corporations that pay nothing — I think the president identified that last night — then you have to fix the tax code,” he said.  

“Then you find out what revenues you have from that if you fix it,” he added.

Manchin also said there is broad agreement among Democrats on passing legislation to reduce the cost of prescription drugs and suggested that modeling a program on what the Department of Veterans Affairs does to negotiate lower prices for military veterans would be a good idea.  

“The other thing that we should all agree on is the high pharmaceutical prices, so you allow the negotiations. And I just said the organization that does the best job is the VA, the veterans administration gets some of the lowest prices. Maybe we should look at them and let them basically do [that] for our Medicaid and Medicare [recipients],” he said.

Manchin says half of the revenue raised from tax reform and prescription drug reform should be used to lower the deficit and fight inflation and the other half should be spent on whatever 10-year program has the most support in the Democratic caucus. 

He suggested spending on an array of initiatives to fight climate change would likely unify his Democratic colleagues.  

“Half of that money should be dedicated to fighting inflation and reducing the deficit,” he said. “The other half you can pick for a 10-year program, whatever you think is the highest priority and right now it seems to be the environment — and that’s a pretty costly one — would take care of it.” 

White House negotiators last year hammered out the outlines of a scaled-down agreement with centrist Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and other Democratic senators to lower the cost of prescription drugs, but it didn’t go as far as some liberals, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), initially wanted.  

Asked to clarify whether he wants the prescription drug proposal deal with Sinema and other lawmakers renegotiated, Manchin said he wasn’t intimately familiar with the details of that proposal.  

“I’m just throwing it out,” he said of his idea for prescription drug reform. 

Asked about what he thought of the work already done on the issue with Sinema, Manchin responded: “I haven’t seen it.” 

Manchin also declined to comment on the details of the tax reform he would like to see enacted.

“I’m just saying reconciliation is for getting your financial house in order,” he said, adding that whatever tax reform comes to the floor may be different than what White House officials and senators negotiated last year. 

“I’m talking about a fair tax system,” he said, declining to take a position on the wealth surtax that the White House unveiled as part of its framework in the fall.

But he insisted that he’s not engaged in any formal talks with the White House. 

“Everybody knows pretty much where I am,” he said. “This is nothing new. What I just told you all ... is nothing new. I’ve been saying it for a year.”  

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/596580-manchin-proposes-dramatically-scaled-down-version-of-build-back-better

Ukraine conflict: Growing numbers of firms pull back from Russia

 Thirty years ago when communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, Western firms jostled to be first through the door.

The arrival of brands like Coca-Cola and McDonald's symbolised the start of a new era, closely followed by retailers, miners, lawyers and advisers. And Russians became eager consumers of Levi jeans and luxury goods.

Now, in the wake of President Putin's military aggression in Ukraine, some firms, including Apple, Jaguar Land Rover, H&M and Burberry have announced they are pausing activities in Russia.

So which firms, in which sectors, are exiting fastest and why have others remained silent?

Oil and gas

When the conflict in Ukraine broke out, energy firm BP came under immediate pressure. The company owns a large stake in Russian energy giant Rosneft, but within days it had announced the operation would be hived off.

That was closely followed by pledges from ShellExxonMobil and Equinor to cut their Russian investments following pressure from shareholders, as well as from governments and the public.Those energy stakes are valuable. BP's Rosneft stake accounted for a fifth of the firm's most recent profits. Shell could be sacrificing up to $3bn (£2.2bn) for exiting its ventures with Gazprom.


But firms want to be seen to be doing the "right thing", says Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell.

Meanwhile, Total Energies, another big player in Russia, has said it won't fund new projects in the country, but unlike its peers does not plan to sell existing investments.

A view of the Rosneft oil rig drilling the first exploration well in the Khatanga Bay as part of the East Taimyr oilfieldIMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
A Rosneft oil rig drilling the first exploration well in the Khatanga Bay, Russia

It is still far from clear what will happen to those investments - whether they can eventually be sold, recouping some of their value, or if they will simply be written off.

Entertainment

Film fans in Russia wanting to go and see Warner Bros' new blockbuster The Batman, won't be able to after the company suspended new film releases in the country.

The US movie-maker was joined by Disney and Sony, with premieres of animation Turning Red and Marvel adaptation Morbius also being withdrawn.

Netflix is suspending all "future projects" in the country too, while it assesses "the impact of current events".

A scene from Disney and Pixar's Turning Red.IMAGE SOURCE,DISNEY
Image caption,
Pixar's new animated film Turning Red won't be released in Russia

All companies said their decisions were based on the "humanitarian crisis" in Ukraine, rather than as a result of sanctions that have been imposed.

But the decision will send a similar message. Being left out "in the cultural cold" will increase Russia's sense of isolation, said Susannah Streeter, senior investment and markets analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown.

Technology

Apple has halted all product sales in Russia, and limited other services such as Apple Pay and Apple Maps. Its shops have closed as well.

Shuttered re:store chain in MoscowIMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
All shops under the Re:store in Moscow have been shut as Apple halts all product sales in Russia

For a firm like Apple selling imported items, that's a relatively straightforward decision to take, suggests Chris Weafer, chief executive of consulting firm Macro-advisory Limited. He has worked in Moscow for the last 24 years.

"Companies do not want to be associated with the Russian regime and what's happening in Ukraine," he says. Their Russian business may be profitable, but "the rest of the world is more important" when it comes to a reputational risk like this.

On top of that, some tech companies, flooded by misinformation, are restricting Kremlin-linked media outlets posting on their platforms.

Facebook, for example, was restricted in Russia after it said it had refused to stop fact-checking and labelling content from state-owned news organisations.

Retail

Swedish fashion giant H&M has become the latest retailer to withdraw, and many more are likely to follow suit, according to Maureen Hinton of retail consultancy GlobalData.

But while H&M cited "tragic developments" in Ukraine, other brands including Nike have simply said they can't currently guarantee delivery of goods to customers in Russia.

Burberry, which has a flagship store on Moscow's Red Square, said it was pausing all shipments because it had become "difficult to fulfil orders in Russia".

Zara shopperIMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES

Russia was the fifth largest European retail market in 2021, valued at £337.2bn. Some brands may not want to burn their bridges, if there's a chance of returning at some later date.

That is why many firms simply say they are "reconsidering" or "suspending" sales rather than withdrawing altogether, says Chris Weafer.

And with sanctions limiting forms of payment, restrictions on taking foreign exchange out of the country and huge uncertainty over future prices and consumer appetite, the business climate is "extremely challenging" he adds, making the decision to hit pause easier.

Cars

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), General Motors, Aston Martin and Rolls-Royce are among the car-makers which have halted deliveries of vehicles to Russia due to the conflict, while construction equipment manufacturer JCB has paused all operations.

Jaguar Land Rover vehiclesIMAGE SOURCE,PA MEDIA
Image caption,
Jaguar Land Rover said sales were paused due to "trading challenges"

Cars are the biggest UK export to Russia, but still only 1% of UK cars went to Russia last year.

So any decision to stop exporting won't be particularly costly, and will have been made easier by nagging concerns over whether or not payments will arrive, said investment analyst, Russ Mould.

Transporting cars to Russia could prove difficult anyway, with the world's two largest cargo shipping companies, MSC and Maersk, suspending routes to and from Russia, except for food, medical and humanitarian supply deliveries.

Some car manufacturers, such as Volkswagen and BMW have had to pause production at some European plants because of a lack of parts from Ukraine.

Consultancy firms

Large consultancy and law firms were some of the first to set up a presence in Russia after the fall of communism, but mostly operate out of the spotlight.

Most have so far remained tight-lipped over their plans, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but Jonathan Holt, the UK boss of KPMG, said it was reviewing its clients in line with the sanctions. He did say that would mean ending some relationships both in the UK and across the world.

EY said it would comply with sanctions, but has not confirmed whether or not it intends to sever ties with any clients.

Some legal and consulting firms also say they are reviewing their client base and Russian links.

A senior executive for consultancy firm McKinsey, for example, wrote in a social media post that the company would "no longer serve any government entity in Russia."

But according to reports in the Wall Street Journal, McKinsey would not comment on whether that ban would apply to state-controlled companies like Rosneft. According to McKinsey's website, it serves 21 of the 30 biggest Russian companies.

Who remains?

While the flood of announcements from firms stepping back from Russia goes on, there are calls for more to join them - especially some of the biggest consumer brands.

But some will find it a lot harder to extricate themselves, even if pressure mounts in the coming days and weeks.

In retaliation against Western sanctions, the Russian government has banned the sale of Russian assets. So firms that, in recent years, have been encouraged to establish a presence in Russia, to make breakfast cereals or detergents, are "locked in" with local businesses, staff and supply chains.

Mr Weafer believes it's likely that large consumer brands may express concerns over the military conflict, but try to "ride it out".

"They'll leave door open for an improvement that will allow them to stay," he predicts.


https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60571133