MEMPHIS — When one of Martha Jane Pierce’s sons peeled back the white sock that had been covering his 82-year-old mother’s right foot for a month, he discovered rotting flesh.
“It
looked like a piece of black charcoal” and smelled “like death,” her
daughter Cindy Hatfield later testified. After Mrs. Pierce, a patient at
a nursing home in Memphis, was transferred to a hospital, a surgeon had
to amputate much of her leg.
One
explanation for Mrs. Pierce’s lackluster care in 2009, according to
financial records and testimony in a lawsuit brought by the Pierce
family, is that the nursing home, Allenbrooke Nursing and Rehabilitation
Center, appeared to have been severely underfunded at the time, with a
$2 million deficit on its books and a scarcity of nurses and aides.
“Sometimes we’d be short of diapers, sheets, linens,” one nurse
testified.
That
same year, $2.8 million of the facility’s $12 million in operating
expenses went to a constellation of corporations controlled by two Long
Island accountants who, court records show, owned Allenbrooke and 32
other nursing homes. The homes paid the men’s other companies to provide
physical therapy, management, drugs and other services, from which the
owners reaped profits.
In
what has become an increasingly common business arrangement, owners of
nursing homes outsource a wide variety of goods and services to
companies in which they have a financial interest or that they control.
Nearly three-quarters of nursing homes in the United States — more than
11,000 — have such business dealings, known as related party
transactions, according to an analysis of nursing home financial records
by Kaiser Health News. Some homes even contract out basic functions
like management or rent their own building from a sister corporation,
saying it is an efficient way of running their businesses and can help
minimize taxes.
But
these arrangements offer another advantage: Owners can arrange highly
favorable contracts in which their nursing homes pay more than they
might in a competitive market. Owners then siphon off higher profits,
which are not recorded on the nursing home’s accounts.
The
two Long Island men, Donald Denz and Norbert Bennett, and their
families’ trusts collected distributions totaling $40 million from their
chain’s $145 million in revenue over eight years — a 28 percent margin,
legal documents show. In 2014 alone, Mr. Denz earned $13 million and
Mr. Bennett made $12 million, principally from their nursing home
companies, according to personal income tax filings. Typical nursing
home profits are “in the 3 to 4 percent range,” said Bill Ulrich, a
nursing home financial consultant.
Contracts
with related companies accounted for $11 billion of nursing home
spending in 2015 — a tenth of their costs — according to financial
disclosures the homes submitted to Medicare.
In California, the state auditor is examining
related party transactions at another nursing home chain, Brius
Healthcare Services, regarding reimbursements from the state’s Medicaid
program. Rental prices to real estate companies related to the chain of
homes were a third higher than rates paid by other for-profit nursing
homes in the same counties, according to an analysis by the National Union of Healthcare Workers.
Such
corporate webs bring owners a legal benefit, too: When a nursing home
is sued, injured residents and their families have a much harder time
collecting money from the related companies — the ones with the full
coffers.
After the Pierce family won an initial verdict
against the nursing home, Mr. Denz and Mr. Bennett appealed, and their
lawyer, Craig Conley, said they would not discuss the case or their
business while the appeal was pending.
“For
more than a decade, Allenbrooke’s caregivers have promoted the health,
safety and welfare of their residents,” Mr. Conley wrote in an email.
Dr.
Michael Wasserman, the head of the management company for the Brius
nursing homes, called the subject of corporate structures a “nonissue”
and said, “What matters at the end of the day is what the care being
delivered is about.”
Networks
of jointly owned limited liability corporations are fully legal and
widely used in other businesses, such as restaurants and retailers.
Nonprofit nursing homes sometimes use them as well.
Owners can have more
control over operations — and better allocate resources — if they own
all the companies. In many cases, industry consultants say, a related
company will charge a nursing home lower fees than an independent
contractor might, leaving the chain with more resources.
“You
don’t want to pay for someone else to make money off of you,” Mr.
Ulrich said. “You want to retain that within your organization.”
But
a Kaiser Health News analysis of inspection and quality records reveals
that nursing homes that outsource to related organizations tend to have
significant shortcomings: They have fewer nurses and aides per patient,
they have higher rates of patient injuries and unsafe practices, and
they are the subject of complaints almost twice as often as independent
homes.
“Almost
every single one of these chains is doing the same thing,” said
Charlene Harrington, a professor emeritus of the School of Nursing at
the University of California, San Francisco. “They’re just pulling money
away from staffing.”
Early Signs of Trouble
Martha
Jane Pierce moved to Allenbrooke in 2008 in the early stages of
dementia. According to testimony in the family’s lawsuit, when her
children visited they often discovered her unwashed, with an uneaten,
cold meal sitting beside her bed. Mrs. Hatfield said in court that she
had frequently found her mother’s bed soaked in urine. The front desk
was sometimes vacant, her brother Glenn Pierce testified.
“If you went in on the weekend, you’d be lucky to find one nurse there,” he said in an interview.
After
a stroke, Mrs. Pierce became partly paralyzed and nonverbal, but the
nursing home did not increase the attention she received, said Carey
Acerra, one of Mrs. Pierce’s lawyers. When Mrs. Pierce’s children
visited, they rarely saw aides reposition her in bed every two hours,
the standard practice to prevent bedsores.
“Not
having enough staffing, we can’t — we weren’t actually able to go and
do that,” one nurse, Cheryl Gatlin-Andrews, said in a deposition.
Kaiser
Health News’s analysis of inspection, staffing and financial records
nationwide found shortcomings at other homes with similar corporate
structures:
■ Homes that did business with sister companies employed, on average, 8 percent fewer nurses and aides.
■
As a group, these homes were 9 percent more likely to have hurt
residents or put them in immediate jeopardy of harm, and amassed 53
substantiated complaints for every 1,000 beds, compared with 32 per
1,000 beds at independent homes.
■
Homes with related companies were fined 22 percent more often for
serious health violations than independent homes, and penalties averaged
$24,441 — 7 percent higher.
For-profit
nursing homes utilize related corporations more frequently than
nonprofits do, and have fared worse than independent for-profit homes in
fines, complaints and staffing, the analysis found. Their fines
averaged $25,345, which was 10 percent higher than fines for independent
for-profits, and the homes received 24 percent more substantiated
complaints from residents. Overall staffing was 4 percent lower than at
independent for-profits.
Ernest
Tosh, a plaintiffs’ lawyer in Texas who helps other lawyers untangle
nursing company finances, said owners often exerted control by setting
tight budgets that restricted the number of nurses the homes could
employ. Meanwhile, “money is siphoned out to these related parties,” he
said. “The cash flow gets really obscured through the related party
transactions.”
The American Health Care Association,
which represents nursing homes, disputed any link between related
businesses and poor care. “Our members strive to provide quality care at
an affordable cost to every resident,” the group said in a statement.
“There will always be examples of exceptions, but those few do not
represent the majority of our profession.”
‘Piercing the Corporate Veil’
The
model of placing nursing homes and related businesses in separate
limited liability corporations and partnerships has gained popularity as
the industry has consolidated through purchases by publicly traded
companies, private investors and private equity firms. A 2003 article in the Journal of Health Law
encouraged owners to separate their nursing home business into detached
entities to protect themselves if the government tried to recoup
overpayments or if juries levied large negligence judgments.
“Holding
the real estate in a separate real-property entity that leases the
nursing home to the operating entity protects the assets by making the
real estate unavailable for collection by judgment creditors of the
operating entity,” the authors wrote. Such restructuring, they added,
was probably not worth it just for “administrative simplicity.”
In 2009, Harvard Medical School researchers found
the practice had flourished among nursing homes in Texas, which they
studied because of the availability of state data. Owners had also
inserted additional corporations between themselves and their nursing
homes, with many separated by three layers.
To
bring related companies into a lawsuit, attorneys must persuade judges
that all the companies were essentially acting as one entity and that
the nursing home could not make its own decisions. Often that requires
getting access to internal company documents and emails. Even harder is
holding owners personally responsible for the actions of a corporation —
known as “piercing the corporate veil.”
At
a conference for executives in the long-term health care industry in
Nashville in 2012, a presentation slide from nursing home attorneys
titled “Pros of Complex Corporate Structure” said, “Many plaintiffs’
attorneys will never conduct corporate structure discovery because it’s
too expensive and time consuming.” The presentation noted another
advantage: “Financial statement in punitive damages phase shows less
income and assets.”
A
lawyer in Alabama, Barry Walker, is still fighting an 11-year-old case
against another nursing home then owned by Mr. Denz and Mr. Bennett. Mr.
Walker traced the ownership of Fairfield Nursing and Rehabilitation
Center back to the men, but he said the judge had allowed him to
introduce the information only after the Alabama Supreme Court ordered
the judge to do so. That trial ended with a hung jury, and Mr. Walker
said a subsequent judge had not let him present all the information to
two other juries, and he dropped the men from the lawsuit. The home
closed a few years ago but the case is still ongoing, after two
mistrials.
“The
former trial judge and the current trial judge quite frankly don’t seem
to understand piercing the corporate veil,” he said. “My firm invested
more in the case than we can ever hope to recover. Sometimes it’s a
matter of principle.”
The
complexity of the ownership in Mrs. Pierce’s case was a major reason it
took six years to get to a trial, said Ken Connor, one of the lawyers
for her family. “It requires a lot of digging to unearth what’s really
going on,” he said. “Most lawyers can’t afford to do that.”
The
research paid off in a rare result: In 2016, the jury issued a $30
million verdict for negligence, of which Mr. Denz and Mr. Bennett were
personally liable for $20 million. The men’s own tax returns had
bolstered the case against them. They claimed during trial they
delegated daily responsibilities for residents to the home’s
administrators, but they reported on their tax returns that they
“actively” participated in the management. The jury did not find the
nursing home responsible for her death later in 2009.
The
appeal brought by Mr. Denz and Mr. Bennett challenges both the verdict
and their inclusion. They argue that Tennessee courts should not have
jurisdiction over them since they spent little time in the state and
neither was involved in the daily operations of the home or in setting
staffing levels. Their lawyers said jurors should never have heard from
nurses who hadn’t cared directly for Mrs. Pierce.
“No way did I oversee resident care issues,” Mr. Bennett said in a deposition.
Deficient in the End
Whoever
was responsible for Mrs. Pierce’s care, her family had no doubt it had
been inadequate. Her son Bill Pierce was so horrified when he finally
saw the wound on his mother’s foot, he immediately insisted that she go
to the hospital.
Mrs. Hatfield said the surgeon had told the family that “he had never seen anything like it.”
“He amputated 60 percent of the leg, above the knee,” she said.
After
the amputation, Mrs. Pierce returned to the nursing home because her
family did not want to separate her from her husband, who was also
there.
At
the trial, the nursing home’s lawyers argued that Mrs. Pierce’s leg had
deteriorated not because of the infection but because her blood vessels
had become damaged from a decline in circulation. The jury was
unpersuaded after nurses and aides testified about how Allenbrooke would
add staffing for state inspections while the rest of the time their
pleas for more support went unheeded.
Full Article & Source:
Care Suffers as More Nursing Homes Feed Money Into Corporate Webs
2 comments:
Corporate webs seem to `make it far easier to disguise wrong-doing. This situation distances the people responsible for abuse from those who are suffering. There's a show called undercover boss where the boss spends a few weeks working at the company. Corporate owners should try lying in bed in a diaper needing help to see what it's like.
GREEDY SOB'S
Post a Comment