Identifying Mississippi's Uninsured Nursing Homes
As discussed in this post, in March State Senate Insurance Committee Chairman Buck Clarke and the insurance committee killed a bill that would have required Mississippi nursing homes to carry $500,000 in liability insurance coverage. In doing so, Clarke showed that he represents a few rich owners of nursing homes rather than every day Mississippians.
Uninsured nursing homes are a menace to their residents. I have compiled a list of uninsured Mississippi nursing homes. My list includes known nursing homes with no insurance and nursing homes with inadequate insurance. I am lumping these groups together because the danger posed by these homes to their residents is the same.
Here is the list, which will be updated as more uninsured nursing homes are identified. The list includes thirty-seven nursing homes operating a total of 3,752 beds. This means that there are thousands of elderly Mississippians currently in harm's way.
One interesting aspect of my research is that I have yet to identify a non-profit or government owned nursing home that is uninsured. Of the thirty-seven nursing homes identified so far, they are all operate for a profit. T
These nursing homes have a profit over people mentality. The number one priority of these nursing homes is maximizing profits for the owners. Staffing levels are at state minimum requirements and expenditures for resident meals is limited to a few dollars per day. If one of these nursing homes harms a resident, the first thing they do is write a letter saying that they have little or no liability insurance. A lawsuit does not have to be threatened for them to write these letters. You just have to request the medical records from the nursing home. The tone of the letter is that these nursing homes do not have to take care of their residents because they have developed a system in which they can avoid accountability for hurting people.
It is a travesty of justice that we live in a state that requires motorists to carry liability insurance, but does not make the same requirement for nursing homes that are supposed to care for vulnerable adults who cannot take care of themselves.
The list is useful as a warning to plaintiffs' attorneys: do not sue these nursing homes, or at least, don't spend much doing so.
... I will note that Mr. Thomas does not trouble to substantiate his claims that "Uninsured nursing homes are a menace to their residents" or that "These nursing homes have a profit over people mentality." The implication seems to be that the private sector should not provide health care at all, so that no one ever makes a profit.
The tone of the letter is that these nursing homes do not have to take care of their residents because they have developed a system in which they can avoid accountability for hurting people.
Perhaps we could be shown the text of one such letter, to judge its "tone"?
Nursing homes have plenty of market-based incentives to take care of residents apart from tort liability. CMS and state surveys can impose considerable liability that is hard to appeal. And of course, dead residents generate no income.
How can you agree that these nursing homes should not be sued, but disagree with my claims?
Here is a quote from a letter that I recieved last week from a lawyer for a nursing home: "Please be advised, if you have not already, that the facility is not covered by liability insurance and thus it serves all parties to seek the most cost effective resolution if a settlement is possible."
This is a threat that the plaintiff will be unable to collect a judgment due to the lack of insurance.
In addition, state surveys are ineffective to police nursing homes. The surveys take place once every 12-18 months and nursing homes somehow find out when the inspectors are coming. As a result, they spruce up the facility and ramp up staffing in anticipation of the inspections. Further, a cited nursing home usually just has to issue a correction plan for deficiencies. I have never seen liability from an inspection, much less considerable liability.
Finally, the notion that dead residents generate no income is true, but misleading. A nursing home that can replace a dead resident with a Medicare eligible resident who is just out of the hospital will make significantly more money off the new resident than would have been made off the now dead one, due to the fact that Medicare pays much more than Medicaid. That is why new residents get a bunch of therapy, but after 100 days the therapy is cut off.
Medicare eligibility ends after 100 days. As long as a nursing home has a steady influx of new Medicare eligle residents, it does economically benefit when residents die. If this sounds ghoulish, it is.
Although I have never seen a document that stated that the nursing home profits when non-Medicare residents die, I have seen documents stating that "Medicare means money" and emphasizing the steady influx of Medicare eligible residents. This is primarily made possible by the death of non-Medicare residents.
Thank you for your work defending the care of the elderly, the most vulnerable of our population.