Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Obama administration just quietly protected millions of seniors from abuse
https://thinkprogress.org/the-obama-administration-just-quietly-protected-millions-of-seniors-from-abuse-584c2198ca82#.ud0lvopz3Ian Millhiser
Justice Editor, ThinkProgress.
19 hrs ago3 min read
The Obama administration just quietly protected millions of seniors from abuse
Nursing homes will no longer be able to use a common tactic that allows them to stay out of court and avoid scrutiny.
New regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services on Wednesday will protect millions of seniors from a legal tactic often used by businesses to shield themselves from scrutiny and from liability for illegal conduct. Under the new rules, Medicare and Medicaid will cut off payments to nursing homes that require new residents to sign forced arbitration agreements, a contract that takes away the residents right to sue the home in a real court and instead shunts them into a privatized justice system.
Forced arbitration agreements proliferated after the Supreme Court interpreted an obscure 1925 law to enable businesses to immunize themselves from suits in the public court system. Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act so that, as Justice Ginsburg once explained, merchants with relatively equal bargaining power could agree to resolve disputes through arbitration rather than through potentially more costly litigation. Beginning in the 1980s, however, the Court began to read this law more expansively, permitting ordinary consumers and even employees to be forced into arbitration as a condition of doing business with a company.
As a result, even the most egregious cases can be locked out of court. The New York Times reported that a 94-year-old woman at a nursing home in Murrysville, Pa., who died from a head wound that had been left to fester, was ordered to go to arbitration. The family of another woman, who experienced two spine fractures from serious falls, a large, infected ulcer on her heel that prevented her from walking, incontinence from not being able to get to the bathroom, receding gums from poor hygiene assistance, and a dramatic weigh loss from not being given her dentures, was also diverted into arbitration after they sued the nursing home for neglect.
In case there is any doubt, arbitration is a less favorable venue for parties pushed into arbitration agreements than the ordinary court system. An Economic Policy Institute study, for example, compared arbitration in employment cases to similar court cases. It found that employees were significantly less likely to prevail in arbitration, and that they received significantly less money when they did prevail:
Additionally, while court records are typically public, arbitration can often be secretive. Accordingly, forced arbitration clauses enable nursing homes with a pattern of abuse to hide their illegal practices from public scrutiny.
Because the new rule only applies to people newly admitted into nursing homes, forced arbitration clauses may still impact current nursing home residents (as well as those admitted before the rule takes effect this November). Nevertheless, the rule will eventually phase out forced arbitration in the nursing home context, ensuring that residents will be able to assert their rights in court once again.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 2011 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (65)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Obama administration just quietly protected millions of seniors from abuse (Original Post)
babylonsister
Sep 2016
OP
mountain grammy
(26,644 posts)1. Thanks Obama!
Protecting the most vulnerable in our society.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)2. wish this was retroactive. The caretakers should be punished for all the death & agony they allowed.
lillypaddle
(9,581 posts)3. Our President does it again
Grins
(7,227 posts)4. Those homes have the name "Trump" on them...?
A fair question....
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)5. Thank you Mr. President!
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)6. K&R
I will miss him.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)7. <3 President Obama.
In the 1980's the Supreme Court started reading the ruling more expansively---
Like, to protect businesses from the consumers and employees they ripped off? Wouldn't that have been when raygunwould have been putting conservatives on the bench?
Than You President Obama! ❤️
SHRED
(28,136 posts)8. There are arbitration clauses in everything now
To get construction done on your home even.
What happens if we refuse to sign? Will the construction company turn us down?