1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | In December 2023, the licensee emailed R1’s responsible party to notify them the rent would be increased from $7,000 to $8,000 per month, due to a higher level of care needed. However, R1 had not had any increase in the higher level of care since moving into the facility, and no reappraisal was completed. R1’s responsible party also noted despite asking for a copy of the admission agreement for months, they had not received a copy. R1’s responsible party continued to pay $7,000 for the care, and the licensee attempted to have the responsible party sign a new admission agreement for $8,000. Administrator stated R1 increased from a Level 4 to Level 5 care plan, and believed the increase was valid. Credible witness interviewed confirmed R1 had no change in care needs since moving into the facility. Another responsible party confirmed they received an increase notice on March 22, with an effective date of May 15, which was not a full 60 days’ notice.
It was also alleged the licensee was charging R1 $350 per month for incontinence supplies, even though hospice was providing them. R1’s POA confirmed R1 was being charged $350 from the facility directly for incontinence supplies, even though the incontinence supplies were being provided through insurance and hospice. Responsible party stated administrator said they put the hospice incontinence supplies “in the supply closet as back up.” Interviews confirmed the briefs were all comingled in the supply closet, and staff used them for any resident. In addition, R1’s POA stated the administrator asked for the $350 to be paid in advance.
After R1’s responsible party discussed the issue with the licensee in January 2024, they agreed to remove the $350 charge. However, the licensee sent a letter on 1/2/2024 indicating there was a balance owed on R1’s account and they were serving an eviction notice due to nonpayment. R1’s responsible party refused to pay the additional cost. The administrator later sent a text stating they did not need to pay the $1,000. The fact remains R1 and their responsible party were not given proper notice of the rate increase. Based on the information obtained, the allegation is deemed Substantiated at this time.
Pursuant to Title 22 Division 6 Chapter 8 of the CA Code of Regulations, the following deficiency was cited (refer to LIC 9099-D):
Exit interview conducted. Copy of report and Appeal Rights issued at the time of the visit.
|