Report pinpoints nursing home staffing shortages in Iowa and the nation
The Bettendorf Health Care Center, a Scott County nursing home, has been cited for insufficient nursing staff three times since May 2022 and is reported to be staffed 43.8% below expected levels based on residents' needs. (Photo via Google Earth)
Newly reported federal data shows the overwhelming majority of nursing homes in Iowa and the United States are operating with too few staff to meet resident's basic needs.
Eleven of Iowa's 410 nursing homes were staffed at least 40% below the level expected to meet residents' needs during the third quarter of 2024, according to the data. Among the 50 states, Iowa ranked in the middle of the pack, with staffing levels that averaged 20% below expectations.
According to federal data compiled by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and then analyzed by the nonprofit Long Term Care Community Coalition, nine in 10 nursing homes across the country were staffed below the level expected based on resident needs.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The report comes as Congress considers budgetary proposals that include instructions requiring the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to delay, until January 2035, enforcement of new minimum staffing standards for nursing homes.
Richard Mollot, LTCCC's executive director, said the coalition's methodology for calculating resident needs isn't based on arbitrary benchmarks, but on each facility's first-hand evaluation of its own residents' condition and medical needs.
'It gives residents, families, operators, and policymakers a clear and meaningful way to gauge whether a nursing home is adequately staffed to ensure safe, appropriate care,' he said.
In the third quarter of 2024, the study shows, the average U.S. nursing home provided 3.73 total nurse staff hours per resident, per day. Based on resident acuity, the national average expected staffing level was 4.94 hours. As a result, the median nursing home fell 25% short of expected staffing levels, according to the coalition.
Only two states — Alaska, where staffing levels averaged 21% above expectations, and Oregon, where the homes were staffed 2.5% above expectations — met or exceeded their expected staffing levels.
The states with the worst overall staffing averages included Illinois, where the homes averaged 37.7% below expected levels, followed by Texas, New Mexico, Missouri, Georgia and Virginia, all of which were at least 30% below expected levels.
The new report indicates there's insufficient data on staffing for 13 of Iowa's 410 nursing homes. Of the remaining 397 homes, 34 are reported to be staffed at or above the expected level.
There are 11 Iowa nursing homes that were staffed at a level at least 40% below the expected level based on each home's assessment of residents' needs. State records show that of those 11 homes, seven were cited by state inspectors for insufficient nursing staff at some point during the past 10 years.
The 11 Iowa homes that were staffed at least 40% below the expected level are:
Adel Acres in Dallas County: 47.5% below. The home was last cited for insufficient nursing staff in December 2021.
Oakland Manor in Pottawattamie County: 46% below. The home was last cited for insufficient nursing staff in August 2023.
Aspire of Pleasant Valley in Scott County: 45.3% below. The home was last cited for insufficient nursing staff in September 2024.
Mount Ayr Health Care Center in Ringgold County: 44.3% below. The home has not been cited for insufficient nursing staff in the past 10 years.
Bettendorf Health Care Center in Scott County: 43.8% below. The home was last cited for insufficient nursing staff in January 2025, October 2022 and May 2022.
Aspire of Perry in Dallas County: 43.1% below. The home was last cited for insufficient nursing staff in October 2024, September 2024 and September 2023.
Panora Specialty Care in Guthrie County: 42.8% below. The home was last cited for insufficient nursing staff in January 2025.
Good Samaritan Home of Saint Ansgar in Mitchell County: 42.7% below. The home has not been cited for insufficient nursing staff in the past 10 years.
Grundy Care Center in Grundy County: 42.4% below. The home was last cited for insufficient nursing staff in November 2024 and August 2024.
Maple Manor Village in Butler County: 41.4% below. The home has not been cited for insufficient nursing staff in the past 10 years.
Kingsley Specialty Care in Plymouth County: 40% below. . The home has not been cited for insufficient nursing staff in the past 10 years.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Biden's Doc Subpoenaed: Unraveling the Cognitive Cover-Up Scandal
(The Center Square) – Dr. Kevin O'Connor, former president Joe Biden's physician, has been subpoenaed by a U.S. House of Representatives panel investigating the physical and mental fitness of the 46th president. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, ordered O'Connor to appear for a deposition on June 27 as part of the investigation into Biden's 'cognitive decline.' The date, ironically enough, is one year to the day his only debate with Donald Trump went horribly wrong leading to an eventual withdrawal from the campaign on July 21. Previously, Comer 'requested' O'Connor to appear voluntarily for a transcribed interview but he refused. The chairman also noted that in the last Congress he requested the physician to take part in a transcribed interview, but Comer's request was blocked by the Biden White House. , Comer highlighted an assessment made by the physician in February 2024, months before the former president's debate performance, that led to withdrawing from the race. The chairman noted that O'Connor said Biden was ''a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency.'' Comer said the committee was also interested in exploring the physician's 'financial relationship with the Biden family' and whether it impacted his assessment of the former president's physical and mental fitness 'to fulfill his duties as president.' Comer concluded, 'Given your connections with the Biden family, the committee sought to understand if you contributed to an effort to hide former President Biden's fitness to serve from the American people. You refused the committee's request. However, to advance the committee's oversight and legislative responsibilities and interests, your testimony is critical.' In addition to O'Connor, Comer has sent letters to five former senior Biden White House aides, 'demanding they appear for transcribed interviews.' The chairman is seeking answers on the 'potentially unauthorized issuance of sweeping pardons and other executive action.' The subpoena comes on the heels of directing his counsel, the attorney general, and heads of relevant executive agencies to investigate 'whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden's mental state.' The president is asking whether an autopen was used to carry out executive actions, including executive orders, clemency grants, pardons, and presidential memoranda, and who directed the president's signatures to be affixed to the documents. The investigation furthers the debate as to whether the pardons and actions could be voided. Like Trump, Comer calls for transparency, calling the 'cover-up' a significant scandal in American history. 'The American people deserve full transparency and the House Oversight Committee is conducting a thorough investigation to provide answers and accountability,' Comer said. 'The cover-up of President Biden's mental decline is one of the greatest scandals in our nation's history. 'These five former senior advisors were eyewitnesses to President Biden's condition and operations within the Biden White House. They must appear before the House Oversight Committee and provide truthful answers about President Biden's cognitive state and who was calling the shots.' The investigations have been fueled in part by a book written by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, 'Original Sin,' which the congressman quoted as claiming, 'Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was at best a senior member of the board.' Another book, written by former Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, is due in the fall. Entitled 'Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines,' the combative Biden staffer says she has left the Democratic Party and become an independent. The book's publisher has promised a run through the three weeks leading up to Biden withdrawing from pursuit of reelection.
Forbes
6 hours ago
- Forbes
AMA: Doctors And Patients Hurt By ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
The American Medical Association says legislation wending its way through the Republican-controlled ... More Congress would 'take us backward' as a country by cutting health benefits for poor and low-income Americans, the group's president said Friday, June 6. In this photo, the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, June 3, 2025. Photographer: Eric Lee/Bloomberg The American Medical Association says legislation wending its way through the Republican-controlled Congress would 'take us backward' as a country by cutting health benefits for poor and low-income Americans. Meeting for its annual policy-making House of Delegates this weekend in Chicago, the AMA is rallying physicians to thwart the legislation now before the U.S. Senate. Legislation known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that narrowly passed the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives two weeks ago 'would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion and that the Medicaid provisions would increase the number of uninsured people by 7.8 million,' a KFF analysis shows. 'We have to turn our anger into action,' AMA President Bruce A. Scott, M.D. said in a speech to AMA delegates Friday. 'I know our patience is being tested by this new administration and Congress.' The AMA said it has launched a 'grassroots campaign targeted at the Senate' in hopes of making changes to the legislation. The AMA is the nation's largest physician group with more than 200,000 members. 'The same House bill that brings us closer to finally tying future Medicare payments to the rising costs of running a practice, also takes us backwards by limiting access to care for millions of lower-income Americans,' Scott said. 'Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act are literal lifelines for children and families for whom subsidized health coverage is their only real option. We must do all we can to protect this safety net and continue to educate lawmakers on how best to target waste and fraud in the system without making it tougher for vulnerable populations to access care.' Scott, an otolaryngologist from Kentucky, said the Medicare physician payment system is broken and Congress hasn't addressed – as an increasing number of states have – prior authorization, the process of health insurers reviewing hospital admissions and medications. Prior authorization delays needed treatment and puts patient health in jeopardy, doctors say. 'I'm angry because the dysfunction in health care today goes hand in hand with years of dysfunction in Congress,' Scott added. 'I'm angry because physicians are bearing the brunt of a failed Medicare payment system. And while our pay has been cut by more than 33 percent in 25 years, we see hospitals and even health insurance companies receiving annual pay increases.' Meanwhile, the AMA says cuts to physician payments are pushing more physicians away from private practice and exacerbating the nation's doctor shortage. A recent analysis by AMN Healthcare shows only two in five physicians are now in doctor-owned private practices. And Americans in most U.S. cities face waits of at least one month before they can see certain specialists. 'Congress needs to know there is no 'care' in Medicare if there are no doctors," Scott said.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
