Deadly Massachusetts fire highlights the minimal regulations that govern assisted-living facilities
As an assisted-living center, Gabriel House in Fall River, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) south of Boston, offered a type of housing for older residents that has expanded nationally in recent decades. But advocates argue that the absence of any federal regulations and spotty state rules mean the sector is largely left to police itself.
'The real issue is that assisted livings operate in an environment like the Wild West,' said Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition, a nonprofit that advocates for improved care in nursing and assisted-living facilities. 'They can pretty much do what they want with impunity, and that results in a lot of, I would say, mini-catastrophes every day, frankly.'
The fire that tore through the three-story structure late Sunday raised a host of questions about conditions at the dilapidated facility and put the spotlight on the growing number of assisted-living centers in the state and nationwide.
Created in the 1980s, assisted living has been marketed as an option for older adults who need some assistance but not as much help as a nursing home. Advocates argue that regulations for the facilities have not kept up as more locations have opened.
Nursing homes, for example, are governed by federal regulations because they receive Medicare and Medicaid while there are no federal regulations for assisted-living facilities. Nursing homes must have a minimum number of staffers and trained medical professionals such as doctors and nurses, but assisted-living facilities have no such requirements.
'The regulations are minimal,' said Liane Zeitz, an attorney who is also a member of the state Assisted Living Residences Commission, a body created to make recommendations about the sector. She has advocated for more regulations for assisted-living facilities.
The facilities were lightly regulated because initially they were regarded as residential, with lower levels of care and less oversight, she said. But now those facilities are caring for a population "that is much frailer, and the population is growing.'
Not only are the regulations weaker for assisted-living facilities, but advocates argue that the enforcement of the existing rules is often lax.
Paul Lanzikos, a former Massachusetts secretary of elder affairs and co-founder of the advocacy group Dignity Alliance, described a 'patchwork' of regulations across the country, with different agencies involved depending on the state.
'Some of the states are much more regulated. Some are regulated as a health care entity. Others, as we do here in Massachusetts, are considered a residential housing model,' he said.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, has been advocating for increased oversight for years, particularly after the release of reports about health and safety problems in 2018.
'These are serious problems that have been going on for years,' she said at a hearing last year. 'But we hear so much less about what's going in assisted-living facilities than we do in other facilities, like nursing homes.'
At that hearing, Mollot noted that scandals in the nursing home industry pushed Congress to act in the 1970s and 1980s, and that such a reckoning could be coming soon for assisted living. He described two major risks: increasingly sick and vulnerable assisted living residents and financial exploitation by owner investors.
Speaking Wednesday after learning about the Gabriel House fire, Mollot said the problems that plagued that facility are not unique to Massachusetts.
'Unlike nursing homes, assisted living has no federal state requirements, no requirement for staffing, no requirements for staff training, no requirements for safety protocols, no requirements for inspections,' he said. 'That falls to the states, and the states have overall very weak rules.'
___
Associated Press writers Holly Ramer and Matt O'Brien contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
7 hours ago
- Newsweek
Texas Removes 1.8 Million People From Health Care Plan
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Almost 1.8 million Americans have been disenrolled from Medicaid health coverage in Texas in the last two years, according to data by KFF, a nonprofit health policy research and news organization. These Americans have lost their health insurance as part of the unwinding process happening nationwide after Medicaid coverage was expanded following the COVID pandemic. A spokesperson for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) told Newsweek it is "committed to ensuring that those qualified for benefits receive them," and worked closely with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) "throughout the public health emergency and the Medicaid unwind process." "Federal guidance required HHSC to redetermine eligibility for 6 million Medicaid clients over the course of 12 months," they added. "Redetermining eligibility within federal requirements was a massive undertaking. Throughout the unwind, HHSC met with our federal partners on a regular basis to ensure that we followed federal guidance, and we will continue to collaborate with CMS to provide eligible Texans with benefits." Why It Matters The unwinding process has resulted in significant drops in Medicaid enrollment across the U.S. in recent years. While some of those disenrolled from Medicaid may still have had access to other forms of health insurance through their employment, those left without insurance could be in a vulnerable position. Higher rates of uninsured populations in states have been associated with negative impacts on health outcomes and medical costs. File photo: doctors treat a child in a hospital. File photo: doctors treat a child in a hospital. Gerald Herbert/AP What To Know During the pandemic, some states expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) while some Americans may have being encouraged to enroll for health coverage given the spread of the virus, causing nationwide enrollment levels to increase. Federal rules then meant states had to keep most Medicaid enrollees on the program even if their eligibility status changed, a requirement which expired in March 2023, allowing states to resume removing individuals from the program. Medicaid enrollment has since steadily declined, driven by both eligibility losses and procedural disenrollments. In Texas, there were 5,922,450 covered by Medicaid in March 2023, but by March 2025, that number was 4,164,694, KFF data shows. This marks a change of almost 1.8 million, a rate of decline faster than in Florida, California and New York. The number of people with Medicaid coverage is now just lower than February 2020 levels, a difference of 1 percent. Reasons for Texas' steeper drop in Medicaid enrollment could be because of the fact it, combined with Florida, New York and California, made up a significant proportion of Medicaid enrollment before the unwinding, Timothy McBride, a professor of public health at Washington University in St. Louis, told Newsweek. All four states together accounted for 36 percent of Medicaid enrollment and subsequently accounted for 31 percent of the drop in the unwinding period between 2020 and 2025, he added. This is in part because the states have large populations, but also because they have some of lowest percentages of health insurance coverage by employers or private plans, McBride said. This is due to "higher poverty rates, especially in Florida and Texas, fewer good jobs that offer health insurance, and a higher percentage of nonwhite persons, especially in Florida, Texas, and California," he said. "If they do not have private coverage they seek Medicaid," he added. For those that were able to gain health insurance through private coverage once being rolled off Medicaid, there is little concern. However, those that may remain uninsured as a result of the unwinding process "I am worried about," McBride said. "The negative outcomes could be delays in seeking needed medical care leading to worse outcomes, lack of prevention, which is especially problematic if they have chronic conditions, bad mental health and financial outcomes, and higher medical debt since they have to pay for more out of pocket," he added. What People Are Saying Timothy D. McBride, professor of public health at Washington University in St. Louis, told Newsweek: "Part of the drop is people who maintained Medicaid coverage on paper because they got it at some point during the pandemic but remained there through the PHE. Yet some may have moved along and obtained other coverage, so really were not needing the Medicaid anyway. The group we are concerned about is those who have become uninsured or who lost the coverage for procedural reasons. It appears from some work that maybe 30 percent or so of those who lost coverage may be uninsured. And a lot of people—around that number lost coverage for procedural reasons, many of them children." Laura Dague, a professor of health policy at Texas A&M University, told Newsweek: "How impactful the decreases in enrollment will be in terms of individual health depend on how aware people were of their ongoing coverage and how often they used it, and there is not much empirical evidence on this topic at the moment. A much bigger issue for Texas in my opinion will be the upcoming projected decreases in Marketplace enrollment due to decreasing subsidies; Texas has had major growth in that market in the last few years as subsidies increased." What Happens Next As the unwinding continues, more reductions in enrollment are expected in the state, and across the country. With millions already having lost health coverage, concerns remain about access to care for low-income individuals and families.
Time Magazine
7 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Medicaid Cuts Put People with Disabilities at Risk
Today marks the 35th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This landmark legislation, which enshrined in federal statute civil rights for people living with disabilities, has transformed countless lives. It opened the world up to an entire population who, until that point, were more often than not excluded and isolated from society. It codified a legal pathway for equality and inclusion by dismantling longstanding barriers that prevented people with disabilities from having the opportunity to pursue employment, live independently, access transportation and public spaces, and so much more. The ADA affirmed the fundamental right of every American to participate fully in society, and is foundational to ensuring that those with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) have equal opportunities to thrive and live with autonomy. Yet, as we celebrate the ADA's enduring legacy this year, the future for people with disabilities looks less certain. The ADA's vision is not self-sustaining. Its promise is fulfilled through an ecosystem of vital support services, many of which rely on Medicaid funding. For millions of Americans living with disabilities, Medicaid is a lifeline that provides access to essential home- and community-based services (HCBS). These services include the most basic activities of daily living like bathing, dressing, eating, and more, as well as the residential programs, employment supports, and assistive technologies that allow people with I/DD to live with dignity in their own homes and communities. These services are at the heart of the ADA and crucial to making inclusion a reality. Following the passage of President Donald Trump's tax bill, which will cut aproximately $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next several years, these support systems are in jeopardy. This attack on Medicaid threatens to unravel decades of progress toward equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities, as access to these services will undoubtedly become more limited. Read More: The Big Budget Bill Could Make Your ER a Mess Cuts to Medicaid could mean fewer available care services, longer waiting lists for critical support, and potentially the loss of the very assistance that allows those with I/DD to live independent and fulfilling lives. Imagine losing the career coach who helps you get ready for work and makes it possible to maintain steady employment, or the direct support professional (DSP) who helps you bathe and brush your teeth, or the transportation service that connects you to your community. These cuts translate into a forced retreat from independence, pushing individuals back into isolation and dependency, often in hospitals or costly, state-run institutions, directly contradicting the ADA's core tenets. The ripple effect extends to the dedicated community providers who are the backbone of the HCBS ecosystem. These organizations operate on thin margins, relying heavily, or solely, on Medicaid to fund their services. Cuts of this size may fall heavily on providers, who are already in crisis because of long-term underinvestment in community-based services, leaving them struggling to offer their DSPs competitive wages and benefits due to stagnant and insufficient reimbursement rates. Ultimately, these cuts could lead to reduced capacity, staff layoffs, and even the closure of programs. The national shortage of DSPs is also expected to worsen. To pay wages, providers rely on Medicaid reimbursements from their states; if states are rendered unable to increase reimbursement rates, providers will lose the DSPs they employ to better-paying opportunities in other hourly wage industries such as fast food and retail. This monumental blow to Medicaid funding will make it even harder to find and retain the individuals who provide day-to-day care. Troublingly, these DSPs, whose work is both physically and emotionally demanding, often rely on Medicaid themselves due to insufficient wages. When providers are forced to scale back programs or shutter entirely, the entire HCBS infrastructure weakens, leaving countless individuals without the support they need. The strain is then placed on the families of people with I/DD, potentially forcing some to leave their own jobs to provide care for their loved ones. For the many individuals with I/DD who don't have family or existing networks of support, access to care may be lost completely. Read More: The GOP Budget Takes From the Poor and Gives to the Rich The true scale of the impact remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that it will be nothing short of devastating. A nearly $1 trillion cut to Medicaid is not just a budgetary change. It will harm people with disabilities and the progress we have made since the passage of the ADA. Decades of advocacy, innovation, and hard-won victories for equality and inclusion are at risk of being rolled back. As we honor the ADA this year, we must recommit to its vision by unequivocally protecting the very funding that makes true community living and inclusion a reality for all. We cannot allow the fundamental rights and opportunities of people with disabilities to be undermined. Solutions must be found, advocates must fight back, and state leaders need to find ways to preserve funding for these vital services. Access to care is not a luxury, it is a necessity that is integral to upholding the rights of those with disabilities.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wells Fargo Cuts Elevance (ELV) Price Target on Margin Uncertainty
Elevance Health, Inc. (NYSE:ELV) ranks among the . Wells Fargo kept its Overweight rating on Elevance Health, Inc. (NYSE:ELV) on July 15, but lowered its price target on the health insurer from $478 to $400. Wells Fargo applied a lower multiple of 10.5x to its 2026 earnings per share projection of $38.05, which is less than the previous multiple of 11.5x. designer491/ Wells Fargo stated that the primary driver of the reduced value multiple was uncertainty regarding margins in the Medicaid, Medicare Advantage (MA), and Health Insurance Exchange (HIX) segments for 2025. The firm also pointed out that there was 'relatively low visibility to improvement in 2026,' especially in the Medicaid and Health Insurance Exchange segments. However, it insisted that Elevance's valuation 'remains compelling once dust settles on estimates.' Elevance Health, Inc. (NYSE:ELV), previously Anthem, Inc., is a leading health-benefits provider in the United States. The company offers medical, pharmaceutical, dental, long-term care, disability, and behavioral health insurance under numerous brands, including Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Wellpoint, and Carelon. While we acknowledge the potential of ELV as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. Read More: and Disclosure: None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
