Tag Archives for CNAs

Rhode Island nursing home bill veto response

Published in RINewsToday on July 1, 2024

With the adjourning of the General Assembly on the early morning of June 14, out of thousands of bills thrown into the legislative hopper in this year’s legislative session, 249 bills passed both chambers.  At press time, Gov. Dan McKee has vetoed five bills, including one to create a Rhode Island Nursing Home Workforce Standards Advisory Board (WSB).

Just weeks after the General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the establishment of a 13-member advisory board to keep state leaders informed on current market conditions, wages, benefits and working conditions in Rhode Island’s nursing home industry, McKee vetoed the legislation. The final vote count for H 7733 A was 63-7 in the House and 37-0 in the Senate for S 2621 A.

WSB would advise the General Assembly and the RI Department of Labor and Training on market conditions, wages, benefits and working conditions in the nursing home industry; recommend minimum statewide compensation and working standards for nursing home workers; propose minimum standards for nursing home training programs and assist in ensuring compliance by employers with the recommended standards.

This advisory board would consist of three members representing nursing home employers, three representing nursing home workers, two representing community organizations that work with the Medicaid population, one member representing a joint labor-management multi-employer nonprofit training fund, and representatives of the Health and Human Services secretary, the Department of Labor and Training, the Department of Health and the Long-Term Care State Ombudsman.

Reasons Gov. wielded his veto pen

On June 26, Gov. McKee’s 2-page veto message to House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi (D-Dist. 13, Warwick) and Senate President Dominick Ruggerio (D- Dist. 4, Providence, North Providence) outlined his objections to creating the WSB.   

“Rhode Island needs comprehensive solutions to resolve its critical nursing home emergency and support residents, workers and the long-term care facilities,” stated McKee, stressing that the Act didn’t meet that need.

McKee noted that letters submitted by nursing homes and assisted living facilities opposing this legislation charged that the Act didn’t address real issues faced by facilities, including “years of underfunding, increased costs and the lack of available workforce in the state.”

The Board created by the Act focused narrowly on only working conditions and wages without consideration for the key constraints such as reimbursement, the governor told lawmakers.  This will not “generate the comprehensive solutions Rhode Island needs to address the nursing home emergency,” he added.

Aging advocacy groups call for an override of the veto

“Governor McKee’s veto of legislation to create the WSB is a significant setback in our efforts to improve the quality of care in Rhode Island’s nursing homes and to find a way out of the nursing home crisis,” charges Kathleen Gerard, Director of Advocates for Better Care in Rhode Island (ABC-RI) in a statement quickly released after the governor’s veto.

“The veto yet again underscores the reality that the McKee administration has created no framework or plan to stabilize our state’s broken nursing home system,” says Gerard. “Instead of once again catering to the concerns of for-profit facility owners, Governor McKee must prioritize the needs of thousands of nursing home residents and caregivers who continue to suffer from the staffing crisis,” she adds.

According to Gerard, Governor McKee says that the WSB is not a sufficiently comprehensive solution, but the governor himself has proposed no alternative solutions. “In fact, when convening his own closed-door nursing home advisory board, he initially included only industry representatives, then perfunctorily invited union representatives for the final meeting, but failed to include consumer advocates, Long Term Care Ombudsmen, or Medicaid experts,” charged Gerard.  

Gerard notes that the only recommendation from the industry members in this group was to indefinitely suspend enforcement of the Nursing Home Staffing and Quality Care Act—a course of inaction which lacked any basis in evidence and did nothing to ameliorate any of the critical problems with care in Rhode Island nursing homes. “In fact, that course only hurt the facilities that were consistently meeting minimum staffing requirements,” she says.

“Governor McKee’s veto of the WSB is a devastating blow to the residents of Rhode Island’s nursing homes,” says Raise the Bar on Resident Care Coalition in a released statement. Currently, 34 out of 74 nursing homes are rated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services at two CMS stars or lower, indicating a dire need for improvement in care standards, notes the resident advocacy coalition. 

According to WSB, the legislation creating the Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board would have ensured better training and working conditions for caregivers, which are essential for enhancing the quality of resident care. Rhode Island ranked second in the nation for serious nursing home deficiencies in the last three years, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive solutions that prioritize the health and safety of residents.

Raise the Bar urges the Rhode Island General Assembly to override McKee’s veto. “The WSB bill was a necessary step towards ensuring better wages, benefits, and training for caregivers, and higher quality care for residents,” says the advocacy coalition, calling on the McKee administration “to remember its promises and create a comprehensive plan to end the nursing home crisis in Rhode Island.”

“The Senior Agenda Coalition of RI (SACRI) is extremely disappointed with Governor Dan McKee’s veto of the legislation passed by the House and Senate to create a Nursing Home Workforce Standards Advisory Board, andn we are calling for the general assembly to override the veto”, said Diane Santos, SACRI’s Chair, in a statement.

There are significant issues impacting the state’s nursing homes from how they are financed; the adequacy of staffing levels, training and wages; and the quality monitoring process, stated Santos. “As the state’s population grows older there will be an ongoing need to provide quality nursing home care for those with high support needs. It is critical that the many issues facing the nursing home industry be addressed,” she said.

ABC-RI and Raise the Bar strongly urge the Rhode Island General Assembly to override McKee’s veto and allow the creation of the WSB. 

In response to the aging advocacy groups calling for a veto override, House Speaker Shekarchi and Senate President Ruggerio issued statements pledging to review the Governor’s veto messages and to confer with each other and lawmakers to determine their response.  

Provider groups give thumbs-up to Gov. McKee’s veto

The state’s largest nursing home provider group agrees with Gov. McKee’s veto of the Workforce Standards Advisory Board, says John E. Gage, President and CEO of the Rhode Island Health Care Association. “This legislation would have set a precedent, establishing an Advisory Board with a narrow and ill-defined mission that failed to recognize the myriad of challenges facing nursing homes in Rhode Island and across the nation,” says Gage,  “these challenges include chronic Medicaid underfunding, skyrocketing costs, a historic workforce shortage, and the existing staffing mandate that is unfunded and fails to address the workforce crisis and includes draconian fines and penalties.”

According to Gage, S 2621A and H 7733A would also have replicated the many layers of existing oversight authority that exists at both state and federal levels – including CMS, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the RI Executive Office of Health & Human Services, the RI Department of Health, and the RI Department of Labor & Training, among others.

“There needs to be a comprehensive solution to the current environment of care facing Rhode Island’s nursing homes,” says Gage, stressing that this strategy should include workforce training programs, student loan forgiveness for RI nursing home professionals including RNs, LPNs and CNAs who are trained and choose to remain in RI to work in long-term care settings.

“In addition, reimbursement from Medicaid must become and remain adequate to cover the increasing cost of care in all settings, and changes are needed to address the staffing mandate passed back in 2021,” says Gage, noting that the bill was passed in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic without addressing the workforce crisis and failing to provide sufficient funding that would be needed to layer in sufficient staff to meet the metrics, if those staff could be found.

Gage says that if fully implemented and enforced, fines would amount to $100 million in the first full year of enforcement – closing the majority of facilities, displacing thousands of vulnerable residents from their homes and devastating access to care for Rhode Island seniors.

LeadingAge RI agrees with RIHCA’s detailed observations about this issue and the Governor’s veto message, which highlight the myriad of entities already in place to oversee and enforce nursing home care, says James Nyberg, Executive Director of LeadingAgeRI. “Furthermore, the Governor noted the need for a more comprehensive solution to the nursing home emergency, and steps are already being taken or are in place towards this goal,” he said.

According to Nyberg, the Governor and General Assembly just made a significant investment in the chronically underfunded industry in this year’s budget, which will benefit all residents and staff.  In addition, the industry has regular meetings with the Health Department and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to  discuss any quality-of-care issues and how to mitigate and resolve them immediately, he says, noting that these meetings are frank and productive. 

Nyberg noted that the industry, and individual nursing homes, also provide countless hours of educational programming to support and improve quality of care.  “All nursing home providers are working to overcome the challenges facing the industry, and demonizing them is disrespectful to the thousands of individuals who work 24/7/365 to care for our older Rhode Islanders,” he says.

As the dust settles…

Last Monday, Gov. McKee’s veto message was sent to House Speaker Shekarchi and Senate President Ruggerio to notify them of his veto. Now they can either let the veto stand or allow it to die.  Overriding the veto can occur if three-fifths of members in both chambers vote to affirm the bill’s passage. This vote would need to take place before the start of the new law-making session in January.

As the dust settles after McKee’s vetoing of legislation to create a WSB, with the overwhelming support of the General Assembly and the lobbying of resident advocacy groups opposing McKee’s veto, will the General Assembly have the political will to act and override the governor’s veto, especially during a time when lawmakers are just beginning their political campaigns? 

We’ll see…

Advocates, providers on new Nursing Home mandates

Published in RINewsToday on April 29, 2024

In the shadow of Rhode Island’s ongoing staffing shortage, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued its 329-page final rule on Nursing Home Minimum Staffing Standards (CMS 3442-F) on April 22 in the Federal Rule. 

CMS affirmed its commitment to hold nursing homes accountable for providing safe and high-quality care for the nearly 1.2 million residents living in Medicare-and Medicaid-certified long-term care facilities.  

According to CMS, over 46,000 public comments submitted in response to the proposed rule. Central to this final rule are new comprehensive minimum nurse staffing requirements, which aim to significantly reduce the risk of residents receiving unsafe and low-quality care within nursing homes.

Just the Nuts and Bolts

CMS say that central to its final rule are new comprehensive minimum nurse staffing requirements that would significantly reduce the risk of residents receiving unsafe and low-quality care within nursing homes.  The agency is finalizing a total nurse staffing standard of 3.48 hours per resident day (HPRD), which must include at least 0.55 HPRD of direct registered nurse (RN) care and 2.45 HPRD of direct nurse aide care. Facilities are given the flexibility to use any combination of nurse staff (RN, licensed practical nurse [LPN] and licensed vocational nurse [LVN], or nurse aide) to account for the additional 0.48 HPRD needed to comply with the total nurse staffing standard.

CMS is also finalizing enhanced facility assessment requirements and a requirement to have an RN onsite 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to provide skilled nursing care. 

This final rule provides a staggered implementation timeframe for facilities to meet the minimum nurse staffing standards and 24/7 RN requirement based on geographic location as well as possible exemptions for qualifying facilities for some parts of these requirements based on workforce unavailability and other factors. The requirements of this final rule prioritize safety and health care quality while taking into consideration the unique workforce challenges some nursing homes are facing, especially those operating in rural areas. 

CMS will closely monitor and evaluate the provisions of this final rule, including but not limited to, the minimum staffing standards, the 24/7 RN requirement, the exemption process, and the definition of rural, as they are implemented over the next several years to determine whether any updates or changes are necessary in the future. 

Additionally, to increase transparency related to compensation for workers, CMS will also require states to collect and report on the percent of Medicaid payments that are spent on compensation for direct care workers, and support staff, delivering care in nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities, for individuals with intellectual disabilities. 

Provider, advocate positions on new CMS final rule

At press time, the RI Department of Health (RIDOH) had no comments about CMS’s new final rule released last week, say Joseph Wendelken, RIDOH’s public information officer.  The state agency is reviewing the rule and assessing its impact and applicability in Rhode Island,” he says.

With the final rules release, senior advocates and providers are expressing their opinion about its impact.

Former President Donald Trump, who is challenging President Joe Biden for the presidency, has not addressed quality of care in nursing homes with a formal position.  Kathleen Heren, Rhode Island’s Ombudsman, speculates that by releasing the CMS mandate before the upcoming presidential election, President Biden is just trying “to establish a record” of enhancing quality of care in nursing homes.

“Nursing homes cannot find  Registered nurses (RN), and Nursing Assistances to hire,” notes Heren.  The CMS mandate will force nursing homes to downsize, like we have just seen happen at the Scandinavian Home,” she predicts.

According to Heren, the final CMS rules do not include the minimum staffing of LPNs. More important, “it’s an unfunded mandate,” she says.

Gerontologist Deb Burton, MS, executive director of RI Elder Info, is pleased to see a Federal minimum staffing mandate of 3.48 hours of daily nursing care. “It’s important to understand mandates don’t make workers appear and a minimum staffing mandate is only an average amount of time allotted for care across all residents in the facility,” she says, noting that this rule doesn’t mean each resident will receive 3.48 hours of care each day.

According to Burton, the CMS Nursing Home Compare website, as of April 2024, notes there are 6 Rhode Island facilities that would not meet the lower federal minimum staffing mandate if it were enacted today. “The workforce shortage and the dire need to increase Medicaid reimbursements to attract and retain adequate staff with a proper wage are common topics of meetings,” says Burton. 

“When workers say ‘It’s only me on the floor – do I help the resident eat their supper or take the other resident to the bathroom? I can’t do both,’ – we need to listen,” says Burton. “The new federal minimum staffing mandate is a good step forward, but we need more. One day it will likely be us waiting for that workers’ help,” she warns. 

Like other RI senior advocates, Maureen Maigret, policy director for the Senior Agenda Coalition of RI, sees the importance of CMS releasing its final rules.  “It is important that these regulations have been finalized as providing for minimum nurse staffing levels in nursing homes helps  ensure residents across the country will receive quality and resident-centered care,”  she says. 

According to Maigret, Rhode Island has had a provision for 24/7 RN coverage even before the state’s minimum staffing law was passed so that is not a new requirement here. She pointed out the regulations will also promote transparency and accountability by requiring public reporting on how much of the Medicaid payments are spent on direct care staff and that the federal government has committed to invest over $75 Million in an initiative to increase the number of nurses working in nursing homes through such things as financial incentives for tuition reimbursement.   

“We are dismayed that the Biden Administration is moving forward with this one-size-fits-all staffing mandate,” says John E. Gage, President and CEO of the Rhode Island Health Care Association. “In the midst of a historic and deepening caregiver shortage, this unrealistic policy will put access to care at risk for countless seniors in Rhode Island and across the country,” he warns, noting that when nursing homes can’t find nurses and/or certified nursing assistants (CNAs), they will be forced to downsize or, even worse, close their doors altogether, leaving seniors with fewer options to receive the care they need.

New final rule just another unfunded mandate

Like the 2021 RI staffing law, the Federal rule is an unfunded mandate, charges Gage. “Every nursing home wants more workers, but rather than blanket mandates from Washington, we need supportive policies and investments that will help us recruit and retain caregivers, he states.

According to Gage, nationally, the nursing home workforce has declined by 124,200 individuals (-7.8%) since the start of the pandemic. Rhode Island’s numbers are even worse, down 1,495 individuals (-15.3%). Gage calls on Congress to step up and support the bipartisan Protecting America’s Seniors’ Access to Care Act, which would prevent CMS from enforcing this unfunded and flawed mandate.

“Together with our national association, the American Health Care Association (AHCA), we will continue to fight for more common-sense solutions and do everything we can to preserve access to care for Rhode Island seniors,” says Gage.

“The good news about the Biden Administration’s final rule, there are phase-ins over multiple years that will provide an opportunity to challenge the mandates through legislation and/or possible AHCA litigation on the national level,” adds Gage. “The federal mandate highlights how much of an outlier RI’s staffing mandate is.  The RI statute has the highest staffing metrics and the highest fines in the country – 10% above the federal standards.  Without the Executive Actions of Governor McKee, RI nursing homes would be fined $90 million in the first full year of enforcement – devastating facilities and forcing further closures.  RI excludes hours worked by administrative nurses from counting toward the RN metric, yet they are included in the federal standards.  RI also excludes med techs’ and nurse aides in training’s hours from the CNA metric, while CMS includes them,” noted Gage.

Gage adds that the CMS final rules consider Rhode Island to be “urban.” As a result, the state has 2 years to phase-in the 24×7 RN requirement.

Rhode Island regulations and law have required 24×7 RN coverage in nursing homes for many decades, says Gage. “While challenging to maintain compliance given the shortage of registered nurses, this should not be a major concern for RI facilities,” he adds, noting that there will be 3 years to comply with the required 0.55 HPRD for RNs and 2.45 HPRD for CNAs. 

Additionally, Gage says that there are also waiver opportunities in certain circumstances.  “During the implementation phase, facilities and all stakeholders must be laser-focused on building a sufficient pipeline of qualified nurses and CNAs to the nursing home workforce,” he says.  

Like Gage, James Nyberg, executive director LeadingAgeRI, sees the CMS mandate as less onerous than the RI staffing mandate that “fortunately” remains suspended. “We remain concerned about the impact of this national mandate on providers in Rhode Island, and its broader impact on consumers and the health care industry,” he says.

According to Nyberg, the state’s current workforce shortages are already preventing nursing homes from filling open positions, limiting new admissions, and forcing organization closures (six nursing homes have already closed since the COVID pandemic began and two more have embarked on significant downsizing). 

“These challenges are also resulting in backlogs at hospitals, which are unable to discharge patients due to reduced capacity in nursing homes,” says Nyberg, noting that LeadingAgeRI is working with numerous stakeholders on various initiatives to develop a pipeline of workers. “But the simple fact is that it will take time and an infusion of resources,” he adds.

“CMS proposes to spend $75 million on a nursing home staffing campaign.  That amount might help a state like Rhode Island, but that money is national, so it is a drop in the bucket in terms of the support the industry needs, states Nyberg.  “On the home front, we have been working with the Administration and the General Assembly to provide an infusion of funding to try and rescue the homes from their dire financial straits and try to stabilize the industry.  But the federal mandate, and all the related details and requirements embedded in the rule, do nothing to further that cause,” he says.

For the Minimum Nursing Standard final rules, go to https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-08273.pdf

For the CMS Fact Sheet  on Minimum Nursing Standard final rules, go to https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicare-and-medicaid-programs-minimum-staffing-standards-long-term-care-facilities-and-medicaid-0

Questions Raised About the State’s New Independent Provider Program

Published in the Woonsocket Call on July 15, 2018

In the waning days of the 2018 legislative session, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed legislation (S 2734 Sub A, H 7803 Sub A) that establishes in the Ocean State the “Independent Provider” (IP) model of at-home care, which allows consumers to hire and manage caregivers of their own choice while the state takes on certain responsibilities, such as setting caregivers’ wages, qualification standards and hours. With Gov. Gina M. Raimondo’s signature, the legislation became law on June 29th.

The enacted legislation is backed by the Rhode Island Campaign for Home Care Independence and Choice, a coalition that includes the Senior Agenda Coalition, RI Working Families Party, RI Organizing Project, District 1199 SEIU New England, RI AFL-CIO, Economic Progress Institute and the RI Chapter of the National Organization of Women (NOW). But, although on the losing side of the legislative debate the Rhode Island Partnership for Home Care continues to express its concern about the impact on the delivery by IPs to seniors and persons with disability.

Overwhelming Support on Smith Hill

The health care legislation, sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Maryellen Goodwin (D-Providence) and Rep. Christopher R. Blazejewski (D-Providence), easily passed both the House and Senate Chambers. The Senate Committee on Labor unanimously passed the measure by a 9-0 vote. By a count of 33-0, the legislation easily passed on the Senate floor. Meanwhile, in the other chamber, the House Committee of Finance put its stamp of approval on the measure by a vote of 13-0, with the legislation ultimately passing of the House floor by a vote of 60-11. But, because the House amended the bill (in committee and on the floor), it had to come back to the Senate for consideration again. The Senate vote on the revised legislation was 28-3.

In a statement announcing the new law, Goodwin and Blazejewski, say “By increasing both availability and quality of at-home care options, the new law’s ultimate goal is to move Rhode Island toward greater use of care in the community rather than in nursing facilities, since at-home care is both more comfortable and satisfying for consumers and less expensive than nursing facilities.”

“Presently, Rhode Island ranks 42nd in the nation in terms of investment in home care. Ninety percent of older Americans prefer home care. Not only is it more comfortable for seniors, it’s more cost-effective, as we’ve seen in states like Massachusetts. High-quality home care is what people want, and it saves money. I’m proud to support this effort to help make excellent home care available to more Rhode Islanders,” said Goodwin.

Adds, Blazejewski, “There is little question that people prefer to stay in their homes as long as possible. Particularly now, as the over-65 population in our state is rapidly expanding, Rhode Island must shift more of our long-term care resources toward supporting home care. Our legislation will help provide more options for home-based services, enhance access to them and establish standards that assure high-quality care.”

Hiring, Finding and Managing a Caregiver

Currently around 77 percent of Medicaid funding for long-term services and supports goes to nursing facility care rather than community-based care. Those who use community-based care generally go through agencies or find, hire and manage a caregiver on their own. This bill would create a third option.

Under the Independent Provider model, which has been in place in Massachusetts since 2008, consumers would still be the direct employer who determines when to hire or fire an employee, but the state would take on responsibilities for maintaining a registry of qualified caregivers, and would set parameters such as rates, qualifications and hours.

While the new law stipulates that they are not employees of the state, it would give home care workers the right to collectively bargain with the state over those parameters. Allowing them to organize would ensure that this otherwise dispersed workforce has a unified voice and a seat at the table to tackle the issues facing Rhode Island’s long term services and supports system, said the sponsors.

Consumers in states with independent provider models report higher levels of client satisfaction and autonomy, received more stable worker matches, improved medical outcomes, and reduced unmet need with agencies delivering fewer hours of care relative to the needs of the consumer.

In testimony supporting the health care legislation, Director Charles J. Fogarty, of Rhode Island’s Division of Elderly Affairs (DEA), told lawmakers that the health care legislation supports two goals of DEA, first it would enable elderly and disabled Rhode Islanders who are medically able to stay at home and second, it would address Rhode Island’s direct service provider workforce shortage.

Fogarty said it’s critical for older adults and people with disabilities to have access to the quality of care that is right for them. “In some cases, care from an independent provider they know and trust will best meet their needs to remain independent. In other cases, a home care agency will be the right fit. And for some, particularly those with complex medical needs, our quality nursing homes are the right option,” he said.

When quizzed asked about The Rhode Island Health Care Association’s position, Virginia Burke, President and CEO, recognized the value of home care in the state’s long-term care continuum but stressed that residents in the state’s nursing facilities “are too sick or impaired to mange at home.” She said, “Our only concern with this proposal is the suggestion that it could drain Medicaid funding from the frailest and most vulnerable among our elders in order to pay for a new Medicaid service. Surely our elders deserve good quality and compassionate care in all settings.”

Calling for More Education, State Oversight of IPs

While most who testified before the Senate and House panel hearings came to tout the benefits of bringing IP caregivers into the homes of older Rhode Islanders and persons with disabilities, Nicholas A. Oliver, Executive Director of the Rhode Island Partnership for Home Care, sees problems down the road and calls the new policy “duplicative and costly.”

In written testimony, if the legislation is passed Oliver warns that Rhode Island will be authorizing untrained and unsupervised paraprofessionals to deliver healthcare to the state’s most frail seniors without Department of Health oversight, without adherence to national accreditation standards for personal care attendant service delivery and without protections against fraud, waste and abuse.

Furthermore, his testimony expressed concern over the lack of oversight as to the quality of care provided by IPs to their older or disabled clients. Although the legislation called for supervision from the Director of Human Services (DHS), this state agency does not have the mandated legislative authority to investigate IPs to ensure that patient safety is met and the recipients of care are protected against harm in their homes. Nor does it require daily supervision for adherence to the patient’s authorized plan of care, he says, noting that is a requirement for licensed home health and hospice agencies.

Oliver observes that the legislation does not require IPs to receive the same level of intensive training that Certified Nursing Assistances (CNAs) receive from their home health care and hospice agencies. While the state requires all CNAs to complete 120 hours of initial training, pass a written and practical examination, become licensed by the Department of Health and maintain a license by completing a minimum of 12 hours of in-service training annually, the legislation only requires IPs to take three hours of generalized training and no continuing in-service training is required.

CNAs deliver the same personal care attendant services as the IPs but have a specific scope of practices that they must follow as regulated by the Department of Health and their licensure board while IPs do not have these requirements, says Oliver.

Finally, Oliver says that “to ensure quality of care [provided by home care and hospice agencies], CNAs are supervised by a registered nurse (RN) that is actively involved in the field and who is available to respond to both the patient’s and the CNA’s needs on-demand to reduce risk of patient injury, harm or declining health status and to reduce risk of CNA injury, harm or improper delivery of personal care.” IPs do not have this supervision., he says.

Safe guards are put in place by home health and hospice agencies to ensure the safety of patient and direct care staff, says Oliver, noting that these agencies are nationally accredited by The Joint Commission, the Community Health Accreditation Program (CHAP) or the Accreditation Commission for Health Care (ACHC) in partnership with the Department of Health for compliance of state and federal rules and regulations, as well as national clinical standards for personal care attendant service delivery.

With the Rhode Island General Assembly bringing IPs into the state’s health care delivery system, the state’s Executive Office of Health and Human Services, granted authority by the legislation to develop the program, might just consider establishing a Task Force of experts to closely monitor the progress of the new IP program’s implementation to ensure that quality of care is being provided and to make suggestions for legislative fixes next year if operational problems are identified. Unanticipated consequences of implementing new rules and regulations do happen and every effort should be state policy makers that this does will not happen in Rhode Island with the creation of the new IP program.

To watch Oliver talk about the Rhode Island Partnership for Home Care’s opposition to the enactment of IP legislation that would increase state involvement in the home care sector, go to http://m.golocalprov.com/live/nicholas-oliver.