A state tort reform effort that already stood to make nursing homes look pretty callous toward residents’ families got even uglier this week.
A progressive online publication took Florida lawmakers to task for allowing industry executives to promote a bill that by some estimates would eliminate about 90% of potential wrongful death cases involving nursing homes.
The bill would limit the right to bring wrongful death and medical negligence suits to residents’ surviving spouses and children under the age of 25.
It has been cheered by many providers, but an attorney with a well-known law firm known for ambulance chasing called the proposed legislation a “free kill law.”
The bill is apparently now on the back burner in the Florida Legislature. While nursing homes might argue they need protection from frivolous lawsuits or overzealous lawyers, this bill wasn’t the way to go after such safeguards.
In fact, combined with additional facts reported by the liberal American Prospect this week, this specific approach to reform smacks of an anti-consumer move made by big-money nursing home owners out to protect their bottom line rather than patients.
Prospect outlined the bill’s path to introduction, digging into big dollar donations from some corporate owners (several based out of state) to the Republican party, which backed the bill, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and even a new PAC incorporated by a Florida Health Care Association lobbyist.
The Florida Health Care Association previously told McKnight’s that excessive lawsuits “demoralize hard working staff and divert resources” that otherwise could go to improving the quality of care and health outcomes for residents. That’s an argument I believe is 100% fair.
And reform could help prevent “sue-to-settle tactics” that also divert resources away from patient care, as LeadingAge Florida spokesman Nick Van Der Linden said in March.
But this whole kerfuffle is a good reminder that optics matter. Providers who become too involved in efforts to get themselves off the hook preemptively won’t necessarily come out of the process looking like they plan to put patients first.
Such lobbying is especially questionable in the current regulatory environment. While severely restricting wrongful death litigation might have felt like a win in the short-term, any involved owners would have been wise to think of long-term impacts. What fresh attention will this bill, whether it ultimately dies or not, have brought down upon their peers?
Federal regulators, already on a crusade against private equity and other corporate owners and investors, no doubt view such political maneuvering as another reason to tighten the reins.
Like the American Prospect, they’re all too happy to keep digging and expose players who appear more concerned with keeping their coffers full than ensuring high quality care.
Kimberly Marselas is senior editor of McKnight’s Long-Term Care News.
Opinions expressed in McKnight’s Long-Term Care News are not necessarily those of McKnight’s.
