• MSN
  • Hotmail
  • More
    • Autos
    • My MSN
    • Video
    • Careers & Jobs
    • Personals
    • Weather
    • Delish
    • Quotes
    • White Pages
    • Games
    • Real Estate
    • Wonderwall
    • Horoscopes
    • Shopping
    • Yellow Pages
    • Local Edition
    • Traffic
    • Feedback
    • Maps & Directions
    • Travel
    • Full MSN Index
  • Bing
  • NBCNews.com
  • TODAY
  • Nightly News
  • Rock Center
  • Meet the Press
  • Dateline
  • msnbc
  • Breaking News
  • Newsvine
  • Home
  • US
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • Health
  • Tech
  • Science
  • Travel
  • Local
  • Weather
Advertise | AdChoices
  • Recommended: Nutty finding: Olive oil, nuts can protect your brain
  • Recommended: Sleep-deprived teens cause crashes, study shows
  • Recommended: New sleep pill may be unsafe at higher doses, FDA review suggests
  • Recommended: ADHD in childhood linked to adult obesity, study finds

One body. One mind. That's what each of us gets to last a lifetime. Get the critical news and views to keep yours healthy, sharp -- and safe.

  • ↓ About this blog
  • ↓ Archives
    • Icons Email E-mail updates
    • Icons Twitter Follow on Twitter
    • Icons Feed Subscribe to RSS
  • 18
    Sep
    2012
    6:59am, EDT

    You may be signing away your right to sue the nursing home

    By Michelle Andrews, Kaiser Health News

    When Paul Ormond signed John Mitchell into a nursing home in Dennis, Mass., in June, he was handed a few dozen pages of admission papers. Ormond, Mitchell's legal guardian and an old friend, signed wherever the director of admissions told him to.

    He didn't realize that one of those documents was an agreement that required Mitchell and his family to take disputes to a professional arbitrator rather than to court.

    Mitchell had been institutionalized since suffering a stroke in 1999. During a hospital stay early this summer, Mitchell, then 69, had received a tracheotomy and needed to switch to a nursing home that could accommodate him.

    A few weeks after Mitchell arrived at the new nursing home, staff members dropped him while using a lift device to move him from his bed to his chair. Later that night Ormond, 63, got a call from the nursing home that Mitchell was unresponsive. Mitchell was rushed to the hospital, and doctors found that the fall had caused extensive bleeding on his brain. He died a few days later.

    Mitchell's sons hired a lawyer to look into the circumstances surrounding their father's death. That was when Ormond learned that amid all the admissions papers he had signed was an arbitration agreement.

    "I thought it was deceptive, and I was pretty angry that I'd been tricked into signing something that I didn't know what it was," says Ormond.

    A mandatory arbitration agreement is an often overlooked document in the package of admissions papers at many nursing homes these days. It can have an outsize impact if something goes wrong. But anxious seniors or their caregivers often sign every document that's put in front of them, perhaps only glancing at the content.

    Signing an arbitration agreement means that in the event of a problem that is not amicably resolved -- Mom slips on a wet floor and breaks her hip, say, or Dad wanders off the premises and gets hit by a car -- you agree to bring the dispute before a professional arbitrator rather than file a lawsuit for negligence or wrongful death, for example.

    Agreeing to arbitrate is generally not in families' best interests, say consumer advocates. For one thing, it can be pricey. In addition to hiring a lawyer, the patient or family generally has to pay its share of the arbitrator's fee, which may come to hundreds of dollars an hour, says Paul Bland, a senior attorney at Public Justice, a public interest law firm based in Washington.

    "In court, you don't have to pay the judge," he says. "Our taxes pay for that."

    Court proceedings are also conducted in a public courtroom and leave a detailed public record that can inform industry practice and help develop case law, say experts. Not so with arbitration hearings, which are conducted in private and whose proceedings and materials are often protected by confidentiality rules.

    The amount awarded -- if any -- may also be less if an arbitrator hears the case than it would be if a case went to trial, say experts.

    Aon Global Risk Consulting analyzed 1,449 closed claims involving long-term-care providers between 2003 and 2011 and found that there was no money awarded in 30 percent of claims where a valid arbitration agreement was in place, compared with 19 percent of claims in which there was no arbitration agreement or the agreement was determined to be unenforceable.

    Likewise, nearly 12 percent of claims without arbitration agreements resulted in awards of $250,000 or more, compared with 8.5 percent of claims with arbitration agreements.

    The study was conducted with the American Health Care Association, which represents 11,000 long-term-care facilities. According to the report, "loss rates" -- reflecting the dollar value of liability claims paid -- are increasing 4 percent annually.

    "Liability costs for providing care have grown and escalated" in recent years, says Greg Crist, a spokesman for the association. Arbitration agreements help keep a lid on those costs, he says.

    That may explain why arbitration agreements have become much more common in nursing homes, experts say. The agreements are increasingly used in assisted living facilities as well.

    Arbitration can also benefit patients and their families, Crist says. Claims are typically resolved more quickly than court cases, he says, so attorney costs are lower and patients can retain a larger portion of any financial settlement.

    The Federal Arbitration Act, enacted in 1925, allows for two sides in a dispute to agree to binding arbitration to resolve their differences. If a dispute arises and an arbitration agreement is in place, the arbitrators are jointly selected by the patient and the nursing home.

    Although consumers usually don't realize it, there's a simple way to avoid being forced into arbitration, say experts: Don't sign the arbitration agreement.

    What happens if you don't sign? Nothing, Crist says. "It's not a condition of admission to the facility," he says. The American Health Care Association doesn't support requiring people to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of admission, he says, although practices may vary at individual nursing homes.

    If you do sign and then wish you hadn't, arbitration agreements typically have a 30-day "opt-out" provision that allows you to change your mind and retain your rights to sue.

    The judge in John Mitchell's wrongful death case threw out the agreement on the grounds that it was "unconscionable,"  a legal term used to describe contracts that are unfair or unjust.

    "The judge agreed it was too much to expect me to digest all of this information at once, and that the arbitration clause hadn't been explained thoroughly," says Ormond. A trial date hasn't yet been set.

    Arguing that an agreement is unconscionable is one of the few ways people can extricate themselves from arbitration agreements once a dispute arises, says David Hoey, a North Reading, Mass., lawyer representing the Mitchell family. Another possibility is to prove that the person wasn't competent to sign an agreement or that the family member who signed wasn't legally qualified to do so.

    Better yet, experts agree, is not to sign in the first place.

    Please send comments or ideas for future topics for the Insuring Your Health column to questions@kaiserhealthnews.org

    Read the latest health news from NBCNews.com:

    Cancer surpasses heart disease as leading killer of US Hispanics

    Superbug kills 7th patient at NIH hospital in Maryland

    Mangoes placed on import alert; 121 sick in US

    20 comments

    Show more
    Explore related topics: aging, nursing-homes, featured, kaiser-health-news
  • 1
    May
    2012
    8:49am, EDT

    ER visits after drinking may not be covered

    By Michelle Andrews

    Kaiser Health News

    Up to half of the people who are treated at hospital emergency departments and trauma centers are under the influence of alcohol, experts say. That may be a sobering statistic, yet a recent study found that emergency departments can capitalize on this “teachable moment” to discourage problem drinking in the future.

    But laws in more than half the states permit insurers to deny payment for medical services related to alcohol or drug use and that can derail hospitals’ best intentions, experts say. Faced with the prospect of not getting paid for care, some emergency department personnel may sidestep the problem by simply not testing patients’ blood or urine for alcohol. 

    In the study, published online in the Annals of Emergency Medicine in March, nearly 600 emergency department patients who were identified as hazardous or harmful drinkers (defined for men as drinking more than 14 drinks per week or more than four on any single occasion, and for women as more than seven weekly drinks or three on any one occasion) took part in a seven-minute interview. During the interview, an emergency department staff member discussed the link between a patient’s injuries and alcohol, as well as guidelines for low-risk drinking, and encouraged the patient to discuss what was stopping him from drinking less and to set a drinking goal.

    Compared with those who received standard care, patients who took part in the sessions reduced their average number of weekly drinks significantly as well as their episodes of binge drinking and drinking and driving over the next 12 months.

    “In the emergency department on a weekend, all the cases may be drug or alcohol related, and yet we don’t do” screening and intervention, says Gail D’Onofrio, the study’s lead author who is chair of emergency medicine at Yale University School of Medicine. “Our goal is to normalize this in the emergency department.”

    Although some of the nearly 4,000 emergency departments screen patients for drug or alcohol use, it’s not required. Level 1 and 2 trauma centers, however, which are typically equipped to handle emergency patients suffering from serious injuries sustained, for example, in major car accidents, must screen for problem drinkers. Level 1 trauma centers must also be able to provide counseling. 

    Such screening and counseling can be effective, says Larry Gentilello, a trauma surgeon who has published studies on injury prevention and substance abuse. 

    “Most of the people who are injured don’t need to go into treatment,” he says. “They aren’t alcoholics or alcohol dependent. That’s why one counseling session can help them by talking about the risks of drinking.”

    The extent to which so-called alcohol-exclusion laws deter emergency medical personnel from screening and counseling patients for alcohol or drugs is unknown.  

    The laws have a long history. Since 1947, more than 40 states have passed measures allowing health plans to refuse to pay for care if the patient’s injuries occurred while he was under the influence of alcohol or, in some states, drugs, say experts. As people came to understand alcohol addiction and the possibility of treatment, however, it became clear that the laws were counterproductive. In 2001, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners recommended against them.

    Since then, at least 15 states have repealed or amended their laws and now prohibit exclusions of coverage for drinking or drugs, according to data from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Maryland and the District of Columbia are among them; Virginia’s law remains in place. 

    Regardless of state law, self-insured companies that pay their employees’ health care costs directly can refuse to cover employees for alcohol-related claims.

    The laws have ensnared both problem and occasional drinkers.

    Gentilello describes the case of a Seattle woman who was celebrating her 25th wedding anniversary and had a few glasses of champagne at dinner with her family. It was a rainy night and she was dressed up and wearing high heels. As she and her husband tried to hail a cab, she tripped on a curb, fell and broke her ankle. In the emergency department, her chart noted that she had a few drinks. Her insurer refused to pay. Washington subsequently adopted a prohibition on alcohol-related claims exclusions in 2004.

    It’s unclear how frequently insurers continue to apply such laws to avoid paying claims. Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade organization, says the group doesn’t know what member practice is. Cynthia Michener, a spokeswoman for Aetna, says that “to our knowledge” the company doesn’t apply such exclusions. Other insurers, including UnitedHealthcare and Humana, didn’t provide information about their practices.

    But a professor who has written about such laws says there are indications that health plans continue to use them to deny payment.

    “There are tons of these cases,” says Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services.  “The only evidence we have suggests that these cases go on.”

    “There’s no reason to think that insurers, eager to hold down costs, wouldn’t continue” to deny payment based on such exclusions, she adds.

    Related:

    • Vegas hangover treatment bus: Is IV flush safe?
    • Daily drink may reduce stroke chance
    • 17 percent of US adults binge drink

     

    216 comments

    Show more
    Explore related topics: health-care, alcohol, featured, kaiser-health-news

Browse

  • featured,
  • cdc,
  • fda,
  • cancer,
  • food-safety,
  • fungal-meningitis,
  • health-care,
  • childrens-health,
  • salmonella,
  • womens-health,
  • health,
  • mental-health,
  • obesity,
  • hiv,
  • aids,
  • pregnancy,
  • bird-flu,
  • heart-health,
  • sexual-health,
  • necc,
  • aging,
  • flu,
  • breast-cancer,
  • behavior,
  • alzheimers,
  • diabetes,
  • vaccines,
  • smoking,
  • birth-control,
  • recall,
  • meningitis,
  • autism,
  • health-insurance,
  • influenza,
  • obamacare,
  • sleep,
  • heart-disease,
  • children,
  • h7n9,
  • mens-health,
  • china,
  • psychology
Also
Advertise | AdChoices

Archives

  • 2013
    • May (90)
    • April (127)
    • March (126)
    • February (107)
    • January (111)
  • 2012
    • December (92)
    • November (131)
    • October (171)
    • September (110)
    • August (90)
    • July (94)
    • June (67)
    • May (91)
    • April (89)
    • March (87)
    • February (66)
    • January (62)
  • 2011
    • December (64)
    • November (50)
    • October (63)

Most Commented

  • More women opting for preventive mastectomy - but should they be? (612)
  • No. 1 swimming pool problem? It's number two! (341)
  • Doctors doubt nurses skills, survey finds (486)
  • ADHD in childhood linked to adult obesity, study finds (164)
  • Couple sues over adopted son's sex-assignment surgery (172)
  • Doctors detail Angelina Jolie's breast surgery (84)
  • Psychiatrists, critics face off over psychiatric manual (109)

Other blogs

  • The Body Odd
  • Cosmic Log
  • Red Tape Chronicles
  • PhotoBlog
  • US News
  • Open Channel

NBCNews.com top stories

3147,10
© 2013 NBCNews.com
  • Health on NBCNews.com
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Help
  • Site map
  • Careers
  • Closed captioning
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Advertise