Nursing-Home Residents Have Rights – Protect Them!

Ina Jaffe, in “As Nursing Homes Evict Patients, States Question Motives,” NPR, May 26, 2017, uncovers a dirty little secret of the long-term care industry. Many managers in that business are willing to abuse residents and break laws to maximize profits.

Maryland is suing Neiswanger Management Services, or NMS Healthcare, for flagrant and massive Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The suit alleges that the nursing home company charged the state for services it didn’t deliver, specifically for discharge planning. Nursing homes are legally required to ensure that a discharged resident is transferred to a safe placement where he or she will receive necessary care. But the Maryland Attorney General says that NMS absorbed patients’ lucrative Medicare rehabilitation days then sent residents with complex medical needs to homeless shelters or to shabby rooming houses that they knew would abuse the residents and fleece them for their Social Security. The room-and-board homes where the patients were dumped additionally charged Medicaid exorbitant per diem rates. Many skilled nursing facilities try to maximize profits by squeezing patients out when their Medicare benefits are exhausted, but NMS managers and their accomplices lowered the bar to the level of organized crime.

Medicare pays skilled-care facilities about three times as much per day for rehabilitation as Medicaid does for nursing care. A well-run nursing home can make money on Medicaid long-term care residents, but not nearly as much as they rake in for Medicare patients.

We have seen the result in the banking industry when management shreds the rule book and requires staff to pursue profit without regard to any ethical, or even legal, standard. Wells Fargo put such extreme pressure on staff to open new accounts that representatives steamrolled customers into opening unnecessary accounts and resorted to fraud when the customers resisted. They would hoodwink customers into executing blank signature cards, then use the cards to open unwanted accounts. The sole objective was to open as many accounts as possible. Many Wells Fargo customers had their credit ruined and their financial security compromised by having multiple bank and credit-card accounts opened without their knowledge or consent.

When that rapacious management style is adopted by a nursing-home operator, the results can be even more appalling. NMS, a five-facility rehabilitation and long-term care chain in Maryland, is being sued by the state’s attorney-general for flagrant disregard of Medicare and Medicaid regulations and resident safety in its involuntary discharge policies. When the rehabilitation bed occupancy was at or near capacity, the discharge coordinators would resort to kidnapping to get the patients out on the 101st day, the point at which skilled-care benefits are exhausted. They would traffick the unfortunate victim out of town to the sleazy owner of a shabby tenement lacking in care staff and medication. Worse yet, many patients were dumped at homeless shelters, hospital emergency rooms, relative’s addresses, or even on the street. The AG’s complaint is a Dickensian catalogue of horrors.

It is difficult to find a principle or proposition that most people agree on. Vaccination is even a source of controversy. The one thing that nearly everyone over 65 will vehemently oppose is being placed in a nursing home. Baby Boomers and older folks are 99 & 44/100% likely to prefer vegetating at home in their own filth over going to a <shudder> nursing home. Despite that, according to the federal government, the most common complaint against nursing home operators is not bad food, lack of staff, poor care or abuse by staff or other residents. It is eviction – involuntary discharge.

As much as they hate going to a nursing home, most residents – particularly those with dementia – become accustomed to the routine and begin to trust the staff after a month or two. Call it Stockholm Syndrome, but the prospect of being moved can be more stressful than the prospect of remaining in place. A change in location and caregivers can cause significant deterioration for a resident with dementia. Even those who are not mentally compromised suffer ill effects when moved without proper planning and social services. That is why an abrupt discharge on day 101, with no warning, is oppressive without regard to the placement. NMS did not just ignore the proper procedures for discharge, they carted the patients off to unfamiliar and unsafe surroundings and delivered them to scoundrels.

The legal restrictions and requirements of involuntary discharge are described in “Nursing Home Evictions.” A nursing-home resident has rights that can be enforced, with the assistance of an elder law attorney. Many rehabilitation, or skilled-care facilities that also have long-term care beds prefer to keep their beds filled with Medicare rehabilitation patients, not Medicaid long-term care residents. They will tell the patients’ families that they must move the patient at the end of rehabilitation because “they do not have an available Medicaid bed.” That is often a bluff to get the patient out so they can offer the bed to a more profitable Medicare rehabilitation patient. When the family has an attorney running interference on behalf of the patient the facility nearly always “finds” an available Medicaid bed at the last minute.

It is a pity that so many of NMS’s victims had no one to protect their rights. It is no less than criminal that the authorities ignored NMS’s abuse of vulnerable and elderly adults for years.

John B. Payne, Attorney
Garrison LawHouse, PC
Dearborn, Michigan 313.563.4900
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 800.220.7200
law-business.com

©2017 John B. Payne, Attorney

Advertisements

Michigan’s New Law to Allow Domestic Asset Protection Trusts

Asset protection has been has been a driving force in wealth generation and estate planning for as long as there has been a division between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” From fortified treasuries with armed guards in ancient times to secretive offshore banks and trust companies in Switzerland and the Caribbean, individuals and families have gone to great lengths to protect their monetary fortunes from discovery and recovery by creditors, criminals and even governments.

Although hiding money offshore provides the greatest protection for assets, there are many disadvantages: Cost, difficulty in retrieving and repatriating assets, and jurisdiction over the owner. Going to such great lengths to hide money is only cost-effective for very large sums.

Trustees in asset havens charge high fees. They have a favored position with regard to their local governments and can limit competition. Once an offshore trustee is in control of a hoard, the owner may be a captive client. It may be impractical or impossible to move the assets to a different repository.

The flip side to making assets hard for others to reach is that they may become hard for the owner to recover. Also, the assets are subject to a set of foreign laws that may become less favorable over time. Finally, ensuring that the owner’s intended beneficiaries will have access to the funds after the death of the present owner is problematic.

Placing assets outside the jurisdiction of domestic courts is not failsafe as long as the owner remains subject to the jurisdiction of those courts. One who refuses to provide information about offshore assets may be held in contempt of court. He or she may have to choose between keeping the assets or keeping his or her freedom.

In 1997, the Revised Alaska Trust Company Act, Alaska Stat. Ann. § 06.26.010, et seq. (West), was signed into law. It was developed to create a more accessible and less expensive alternative to foreign trust companies and to provide a business opportunity for trust companies. The Alaska statute was copied by similar laws in Delaware, Rhode Island, Nevada and 12 other states. Michigan is the 17th state to legalize domestic asset protection trusts when it enacted the Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act (QDTA), 2016 Pub. Act 330; MCLA 700.1041, et seq.

A domestic asset protection trust (DAPT) allows the settlor to fund an irrevocable trust with a completed gift that is removed from the settlor’s estate, despite the independent trustee’s power to make discretionary distributions of income and principal to the settlor. The trust also insulates the assets from the claims of most creditors. To receive this protection, the transfer into the trust must be a “qualified disposition” to a “qualified trustee.”

An individual, other than the settlor, who is a Michigan resident would be a qualified trustee. A nonresident or institutional trustee must be subject to supervision by the Department of Insurance and Financial Services, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Office of Thrift Supervision. Furthermore, at least some of the trust estate must be sited in Michigan and the nonresident trustee must have a place of business and maintain at least some of the records in Michigan. MCLA 700.1042(r).

A disposition is not qualified unless the trust is irrevocable and the settlor’s authority over the trust is limited to a list of permissible powers. The permissible powers include various items of administrative control, the right to receive income and annuity distributions and distributions to cover taxes on trust income, the right to receive up to 5% of the trust principal annually, the right to use real property in a qualified personal residence trust, and the right to direct post-mortem distributions to cover the settlor’s debts, expenses of estate administration and estate or inheritance taxes. A disposition is also not qualified if the settlor owes more than 30 days of child support or if an advisor who is related to the settlor is granted authority that the settlor may not exercise. MCLA 700.1042(p).

The settlor must sign a qualified affidavit affirming that the settlor has full title to the property, that the transfer will not make the settlor insolvent and the settlor does not intend to file for bankruptcy nor defraud a creditor, that if the settlor is involved in any pending court or administrative proceeding it is identified in an attachment to the affidavit, that the settlor is not 30 days in arrears on child support, and that the property is not the proceeds of illegal activity. MCLA 700.1046(1).

A creditor has two years from the date of the qualified disposition to file suit to void the disposition, or one year from when the creditor discovered or should have discovered a qualified disposition that was concealed. MCLA 700.1045(3). If the claim arose after the qualified disposition, the creditor must show “actual intent to defraud the creditor.” MCLA 700.1045(2)(b). The QDTA was accompanied by a revision of the Michigan Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, MCLA 566.31, et seq., to make it compatible with the new restrictions on the ability of creditors to attack asset protection trusts. 2016 Publ. Act 552.

A creditor who sues to cancel a qualified disposition is waging an uphill battle. Even if the creditor succeeds in voiding some or all of the disposition, unless the trustee was acting in bad faith, the recovery is diminished by the trustee’s costs in defending the disposition and the beneficiary may retain any distribution received before the creditor filed its action. MCLA 700.1047(2)(c). Furthermore, except for a distribution to a beneficiary who is also the settlor, the creditor must prove bad faith by clear and convincing evidence. MCLA 700.1047(3).

A Michigan DAPT provides protection equal to those established in other states, with two main advanteges: If the settlor has a trusted family member or friend who is a Michigan resident, it is not necessary to use an institutional trustee, saving substantial trustee fees. The settlor may choose an institutional trustee whose office is around the corner, instead of an unknown trust officer the settlor has never met in person.

Relatively few clients will find it cost-effective to establish a DAPT, but this type of planning could develope into a lucrative trust and estate sub-specialty. However, the practitioner must apply the statute meticulously, particularly in the early stages when many aspects of the law have not been interpreted and explained by the courts. The explanation above is only a starting point for drafting this specialized trust.

John B. Payne, Attorney
Garrison LawHouse, PC
Dearborn, Michigan 313.563.4900
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 800.220.7200
law-business.com

©2017 John B. Payne, Attorney