A proposal to remove hospice providers from a state review poses a threat to patient care
Get Rhode Island News Alerts
Sign up to get breaking news and interesting stories from Rhode Island in your inbox each weekday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The CON process isn't one of the flashier, public-facing functions of state government, but it has a direct impact on the quality of health and hospice care that Rhode Islanders receive throughout their lives.
Advertisement
The CON process is used to determine the need for a particular health care service and to ensure that providers entering Rhode Island are prepared and equipped to provide the highest quality, most ethical care before receiving a license.
Exempting hospice from meeting the rigorous standards that a CON requires poses an immediate threat to the quality of patient care.
Advertisement
In fact, extensive
In the last decade, profit-driven private equity firms have spent more than
Recently, based on increased reports of hospice fraud, waste and abuse, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced
All of this is a warning for Rhode Island. To roll back Certificate of Need requirements for hospice providers exposes vulnerable Rhode Islanders to the whims of anonymous, for-profit operators who put profit first, and patient care a distant second. Research has demonstrated that states with CON requirements have much higher quality of hospice care.
When we opened in 1976, HopeHealth was only the second hospice in the United States. As the leader of this nonprofit organization, I can tell you that this work is not about maximizing profits. It's a calling.
On behalf of our patients, their families, and our employees, we strongly urge the General Assembly not to weaken Rhode Island's Certificate of Need process. Instead, we should recommit to maintaining the high-quality hospice system that provides a level of care that Rhode Islanders have come to expect — and deserve — from their hospice providers by keeping hospice in CON.
Advertisement
Diana Franchitto is the president and CEO of HopeHealth Hospice & Palliative Care.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump rescinds guidance protecting women in need of emergency abortions
The Trump administration on Tuesday rescinded Biden-era guidance clarifying that hospitals in states with abortion bans cannot turn away pregnant patients who are in the midst of medical emergencies – a move that comes amid multiple red-state court battles over the guidance. The guidance deals with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (Emtala), which requires hospitals to stabilize patients facing medical emergencies. States such as Idaho and Texas have argued that the Biden administration's guidance, which it issued in the wake of the 2022 overturning of Roe v Wade, interpreted Emtala incorrectly. In its letter rescinding the guidance, the Trump administration said that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 'will continue to enforce Emtala, which protects all individuals who present to a hospital emergency department seeking examination or treatment, including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy. CMS will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions.' Abortion rights supporters said on Tuesday that rescinding the Biden administration's guidance will muddy hospitals' ability to interpret Emtala and endanger pregnant patients' lives. Since Roe's collapse, dozens of women have come forward to say that they were denied medical treatment due to abortion bans. A reported five pregnant women have died after having their care denied or delayed, or being unable to access legal abortions. 'This action sends a clear message: the lives and health of pregnant people are not worth protecting,' Dr Jamila Perritt, an OB-GYN and the president of Physicians for Reproductive Health, said in a statement. 'Complying with this law can mean the difference between life and death for pregnant people, forcing providers like me to choose between caring for someone in their time of need and turning my back on them to comply with cruel and dangerous laws.' Last year, the US supreme court heard arguments in a case involving Idaho's abortion ban, which at the time only allowed abortions in cases where a woman's life was at risk. In contrast, most state abortion bans permit abortions when a patient's 'health' is in danger – a lower standard that could make it easier for doctors to intervene. Idaho's standard, the Biden administration said, blocked doctors from providing abortions in some emergencies and thus violated Emtala's requirement that hospitals must stabilize patients. Ultimately, the supreme court punted on the issue by ruling 6-3 on procedural grounds that the case had been 'improvidently granted', indicating they should have never taken it up in the first place. 'This court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation and we have squandered it,' wrote Ketanji Brown Jackson, the supreme court justice, at the time. 'And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas and elsewhere will be paying the price.' The Trump administration's Tuesday move is not unexpected. In March, the administration moved to drop out of the case over the Idaho abortion ban. A local Idaho hospital later filed its own lawsuit over the ban.
15 hours ago
Texas hospital that discharged woman with doomed pregnancy violated the law, a federal inquiry finds
WASHINGTON -- A Texas hospital that repeatedly sent a woman who was bleeding and in pain home without ending her nonviable, life-threatening pregnancy violated the law, according to a newly released federal investigation. The government's findings, which have not been previously reported, were a small victory for 36-year-old Kyleigh Thurman, who ultimately lost part of her reproductive system after being discharged without any help from her hometown emergency room for her dangerous ectopic pregnancy. But a new policy the Trump administration announced on Tuesday has thrown into doubt the federal government's oversight of hospitals that deny women emergency abortions, even when they are at risk for serious infection, organ loss or severe hemorrhaging. Thurman had hoped the federal government's investigation, which issued a report in April after concluding its inquiry last year, would send a clear message that ectopic pregnancies must be treated by hospitals in Texas, which has one of the nation's strictest abortion bans. 'I didn't want anyone else to have to go through this,' Thurman said in an interview with the Associated Press from her Texas home this week. 'I put a lot of the responsibility on the state of Texas and policy makers and the legislators that set this chain of events off.' Women around the country have been denied emergency abortions for their life-threatening pregnancies after states swiftly enacted abortion restrictions in response to a 2022 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which includes three appointees of President Donald Trump. The guidance issued by the Biden administration in 2022 was an effort to preserve access to emergency abortions for extreme cases in which women were experiencing medical emergencies. It directed hospitals — even ones in states with severe restrictions — to provide abortions in those emergency cases. If hospitals did not comply, they would be in violation of a federal law and risk losing some federal funds. On Tuesday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency responsible for enforcing the law and inspecting hospitals, announced it would revoke the Biden-era guidance around emergency abortions. The law, which requires doctors to provide stabilizing treatment, was one of the few ways that Thurman was able to hold the emergency room accountable after she didn't receive any help from staff at Ascension Seton Williamson in Round Rock, Texas in February of 2023, a few months after Texas enacted its strict abortion ban. Emergency room staff observed that Thurman's hormone levels had dropped, a pregnancy was not visible in her uterus and a structure was blocking her fallopian tube — all telltale signs of an ectopic pregnancy, when a fetus implants outside of the uterus and has no room to grow. If left untreated, ectopic pregnancies can rupture, causing organ damage, hemorrhage or even death. Thurman, however, was sent home and given a pamphlet on miscarriage for her first pregnancy. She returned three days later, still bleeding, and was given an injected drug intended to end the pregnancy, but it was too late. Days later, she showed up again at the emergency room, bleeding out because the fertilized egg growing on Thurman's fallopian tube ruptured it. She underwent an emergency surgery that removed part of her reproductive system. CMS launched its investigation of how Ascension Seton Williamson handled Thurman's case late last year, shortly after she filed a complaint. Investigators concluded the hospital failed to give her a proper medical screening exam, including an evaluation with an OB-GYN. The hospital violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to all patients. Thurman was 'at risk for deterioration of her health and wellbeing as a result of an untreated medical condition,' the investigation said in its report, which was publicly released last month. Ascension, a vast hospital system that has facilities across multiple states, did not respond to questions about Thurman's case, saying only that it is 'is committed to providing high-quality care to all who seek our services.' Doctors and legal experts have warned abortion restrictions like the one Texas enacted have discouraged emergency room staff from aborting dangerous and nonviable pregnancies, even when a woman's life is imperiled. The stakes are especially high in Texas, where doctors face up to 99 years in prison if convicted of performing an illegal abortion. Lawmakers in the state are weighing a law that would remove criminal penalties for doctors who provide abortions in certain medical emergencies. 'We see patients with miscarriages being denied care, bleeding out in parking lots. We see patients with nonviable pregnancies being told to continue those to term,' said Molly Duane, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights that represented Thurman. 'This is not, maybe, what some people thought abortion bans would look like, but this is the reality.' The Biden administration routinely warned hospitals that they need to provide abortions when a woman's health was in jeopardy, even suing Idaho over its state law that initially prohibited nearly all abortions, unless a woman's life was on the line. But CMS' announcement on Tuesday raises questions about whether such investigations will continue if hospitals do not provide abortions for women in medical emergencies. The agency said it will still enforce the law, 'including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' While states like Texas have clarified that ectopic pregnancies can legally be treated with abortions, the laws do not provide for every complication that might arise during a pregnancy. Several women in Texas have sued the state for its law, which has prevented women from terminating pregnancies in cases where their fetuses had deadly fetal anomalies or they went into labor too early for the fetus to survive. Thurman worries pregnant patients with serious complications still won't be able to get the help they may need in Texas emergency rooms. 'You cannot predict the ways a pregnancy can go,' Thurman said. 'It can happen to anyone, still. There's still so many ways in which pregnancies that aren't ectopic can be deadly.'
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration ends emergency abortion requirement for hospitals
The Trump administration has rescinded Biden-era guidance requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortions when necessary to stabilize a patient's health - even in states that ban the procedure. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced the change Tuesday, saying the now-defunct guidance did not 'reflect the policy of this Administration.' Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. The Biden administration had issued the guidance in July 2022, weeks after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the national right to abortion, to clarify that a federal law guaranteeing emergency care for patients in peril took precedence over state abortion bans. It later sued Idaho in federal court to enforce penalties against hospitals that disregarded the federal policy to adhere to the state's strict abortion ban. The Trump administration's decision is not unexpected, but will likely make health care providers feel uneasy, especially if they practice in states with severe abortion bans, said Kelly Gillespie, director of the Center for Health Law Studies at St. Louis University. The Biden-era guidance was intended not only to protect pregnant patients but also to provide clarity to health care providers in states with strict abortion laws. 'The providers are only human,' she said. 'It's very natural for them to avoid anything that could lead them into serious legal jeopardy.' When the Department of Health and Human Services issued the guidance in 2022, it was intended to reinforce that health care providers could terminate a pregnancy in emergent situations amid a new patchwork of state abortion bans. The law at hand, the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act - known as EMTALA - was enacted in 1986 and requires federally funded hospitals to stabilize or transfer patients needing emergency care. In a statement Tuesday, CMS said it would continue enforcing EMTALA, including 'for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' The agency added that it would 'work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions.' Related Content Some advice from LGBTQ elders as WorldPride kicks off amid fears Black Democrats fume over 2024 while 'searching for a leader' in 2028 Joy, tension collide as WorldPride arrives in Trump's Washington
