[ad_1]
The nursing home industry has been opposing any kind of [requirements for] staffing standards.
But the patients, the families and the nurses are on our side. We are standing not only with the patients in nursing homes, but with the workers. That goes for hospital nurses as well.
To that end, many in the industry have said federal staffing ratios for hospitals or nursing homes don’t guarantee a safe healthcare environment or would impact access to providers in rural settings. How would you respond to those concerns?
What we have seen is that corporations and people who want to make money have gotten more into … healthcare in general. We need to make sure … more money is going to go into nursing itself. We’re going to make sure that the workers themselves are benefiting from that.
I just worry about the corporatization of healthcare, and the delivery of healthcare, that we’re seeing at great rates.
Unfortunately, there’s sometimes too much money and too much exploitation, I believe, from nursing home owners. [There’s] not enough scrutiny and not enough rules of the road, like having staffing standards.
Late last year, you pushed for the release of a proposed rule regarding the prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth. Now that the Drug Enforcement Administration has announced its proposed rule, what other actions need to be taken regarding telehealth flexibilities as the public health emergency comes to an end?
We certainly have to do everything we can to invest in telehealth. One of the things we learned during the pandemic … is that people were able to continue with the care that they needed. They were able to get the prescriptions they needed, and they were able to have quality healthcare [and] to be in connection with their providers and with their pharmacies.
We want to have all the protections in place, but we don’t want to diminish the opportunity for people to safely deal with telehealth.
We have got to see that all the rules and regulations will continue to provide for that, even though there may be some changes.
Do you plan to introduce any other legislation regarding the business of healthcare?
Absolutely, and I have. One of the big issues has been Medicare Advantage.
With a couple of my colleagues, I have already introduced the Save Medicare Act, which says that Medicare Advantage [carriers] actually cannot use the word Medicare [in plan titles or advertisements].
I am happy to see that CMS has taken a major step in cracking down on Medicare Advantage [carriers]. One of the things CMS has said is any Medicare Advantage [insurer] would be required to name [in advertising] the plan it’s actually using.
Right now, about 48% of [eligible] Americans use Medicare Advantage. It isn’t traditional Medicare. The other thing [companies] have to do is they cannot use the [CMS] logo [in a misleading way]. They can’t have information that makes it seem like [the plan] is Medicare.
My hope is that we could even go further: We could pass my legislation and say, “These private companies can do business, but they cannot use the word Medicare.”
This is a beginning at CMS. I’m going to be in contact with CMS and say, “Let’s see how this goes, because I think consumers are still going to be confused.”
The other thing we are concerned about [regarding] Medicare Advantage [is] they have networks. If your doctors are not in the network when you sign up, you may have to switch doctors. If you travel out of the state or go out of the network, you may have to pay on your own.
Or they may require prior authorization.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
[ad_2]
Source link
