House Human Services Committee December 13, 2017 Testimony Good - PDF document

2205 Hancock Drive | Austin, TX 78756 p 512.467.2242 | f 512.467.2275 www.leadingagetexas.org House Human Services Committee December 13, 2017 Testimony Good morning Chairman Raymond and Members of the Texas House Human Services Committee, My name is George Linial and I am the President/CEO of LeadingAge Texas. We represent about 250 not-for-profit aging services providers including; retirement housing, assisted living, continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), and nursing homes. LeadingAge Texas members are primarily sponsored by community-based non- profit, civic, religious, and mission-driven organizations. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the nursing facility survey process. LeadingAge Texas is dedicated to promoting quality care in nursing homes and understands the need for adequate oversight and measures to hold chronically poor- performing nursing homes accountable. However, the current system has been the leading source of frustration amongst experienced, high-quality providers (and surveyors) for many years. A Flawed System Providers continue to be frustrated with a survey process that is inconsistent, ever- changing, and sets unclear expectations. LeadingAge Texas members from across the state describe a similar dilemma they face at least annually (and actually much more often), when surveyors enter their communities. Despite their efforts to provide high- quality care and services to their residents – efforts that are often mandated by the mission statements guiding their organizations – these providers find themselves often, embroiled in negative encounters with surveyors who seem bent on “finding something wrong.” By the end of each survey inspection, providers are frequently feeling bewildered – and their staff demoralized and ready to quit. The adversarial nature of the survey process is not a new phenomenon but a culture that has become accepted despite efforts by the legislature and state agency to improve the environment for both providers and regulators. To put simply, providers are set-up to fail under the current system. Punishment, not quality improvement . The adversarial atmosphere created during many surveys seemed particularly difficult to accept for providers who have always believed strongly in the value of an effective oversight system. Clearly, the majority of nursing home facilities are not resistant to Inspire. Serve. Advocate.

2205 Hancock Drive | Austin, TX 78756 p 512.467.2242 | f 512.467.2275 www.leadingagetexas.org government oversight. On the contrary, many of these facilities are already involved in long-standing initiatives to monitor and improve the quality of their own care and fully recognize the importance of productive external evaluation. Sadly, what the current survey offers instead is a complex and punitive process that often resembles an interrogation rather than an effective communication between surveyors and providers, and leaves facility staff members feeling as if they have been deemed guilty of negligence until they can prove otherwise. Providers are not the only ones who would prefer a survey system that — while recognizing the role of compliance determination and enforcement-- is more productively positive and collaborative, rather than relentlessly critical and adversarial. We think providers could learn strategies from surveyors if a consultative process was permitted. Other parts of the health care system – hospitals, physician offices, ambulatory surgery centers, and others do not have to endure this antiquated and broken survey system. Complexity breeds inconsistency. The punitive nature of the typical survey is furthered by extensive and highly detailed regulatory guidelines that challenge both surveyors and providers. This overwhelming complexity is exacerbated by the fact that no standardized qualifications or training requirements exist to ensure that surveyors have the knowledge and skills they need to fully understand the system and its requirements or to conduct objective surveys. For their part, our state survey agency also seem troubled by the nature of the survey system they are charged with implementing. Highlighted through the work of the SB 914 Survey Inspection and IDR Council, survey staff have expressed frustration at being saddled with a process that is developed and/or periodically changed by federal regulators who have little or no survey experience. We know the state is challenged by requirements that they carry out new survey tasks without additional funding. We advocate for increased flexibility so the survey agency could use their limited survey resources where they felt they could be most effective – i.e., in troubled facilities in need of close oversight and intervention. Timelines to conduct onsite complaint investigations is one area that could be streamlined to create greater efficiency without CMS approval (and without jeopardizing resident safety). Slides 6 shows that less than 18% of complaints are substantiated. Slide 7 shows Priority 3 and Priority 4 are low level and the agency is given 30 and 45 days to investigate. How serious can a complaint be if the agency is given up to 6 weeks to investigate onsite? Inspire. Serve. Advocate.

2205 Hancock Drive | Austin, TX 78756 p 512.467.2242 | f 512.467.2275 www.leadingagetexas.org We recommend that P3 and P4 complaints be investigated at the provider’s next “regularly scheduled” onsite inspection per CMS guidance in the State Operations Manual (SOM). Our members have observed that inadequately prepared and overtaxed surveyors tend to make subjective assessments of facility operations – assessments that are often based on the surveyors’ own, idiosyncratic interpretation of CMS guidelines, rather than the regulations themselves. The result is an alarming inconsistency in how surveyors interpret and apply requirements and cite deficiencies. This perception is supported by a number of independent evaluations of the system, in which analysts confirm substantial inconsistencies in rule application and call for various solutions to the problem. Slides 8 and 9 show the vast differences by state of federal health citations, immediate jeopardy citations and substandard care violations on recertification surveys. Clearly there are state differences and we would argue there are regional differences in this state. Anecdotally, we have evidence that surveyor inconsistency and subjectivity can also plague individual facilities. Our members have told stories about specific facility practices, unchanged from one year to the next, which were essentially approved by one survey team and cited as deficient by the next team. Regulations and quality improvement. In addition to concerns about consistent interpretation of regulations, our provider members express deep concerns about the substance of some federal regulations governing nursing homes. For example, providers who have invested considerable time and energy in innovative initiatives often feel thwarted and hamstrung by regulations that either don’t encourage or don’t allow certain person -centered innovations. In addition, our members, including those who score significantly better than the average, questioned whether enforcement mechanisms associated with the survey system are really helping to improve quality of care and quality of life. There are numerous questions to suggest about the link or lack thereof between survey and quality:  Do written plans of correction bring about real change or simply add to a facility’s paperwork burden;  Is the oversight system overly dependent on fines as the enforcement mechanism of choice;  Does a two-year ban on nurse aide training programs triggered automatically under certain conditions of noncompliance encourage quality improvement or actually serve as a barrier to quality improvement. Inspire. Serve. Advocate.