As last winter’s ice storms and this season’s swine flu have reminded us, home care emergency preparation takes more than set of policies in a three ring binder. In order to get discussion going on the topic before the Spring Trade Conference & Trade Show — which now has a new session on just this topic — we want to hear from you about what your own emergency prep plans.
Do you feel your emergency plan is action-ready, or is it just a set of policies?
Did you activate any part of it during the current outbreak?
Are there other potential emergencies you are more concerned with?
How did you compile your plan?
What can the Alliance do to help you improve your plan?
Please take just a few moments to post your answers in the comment thread below.
If you’ve already registered for the Spring Conference, we hope you’ll attend this forum. If you haven’t, we’re still accepting registration online and by fax.
Expanding the use of healthcare information technology is a key focus of the federal economic stimulus program. While the bulk of this funding is targeted for hospitals and physicians’ offices, the states have significant flexibility in how they distribute some of the funds.
The Alliance has scheduled a meeting with Mitch Adams, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, on Monday, June 1, to make our case for having some of those funds directed toward home health IT.
We need three or four agency IT directors to participate in this meeting to:
Describe how agencies currently utilize IT
Outline the possibilities for greater efficiencies and better care coordination and integration through expanded use of IT by home health agencies
Identify the “bang for the buck” that would result from investing stimulus finds into home health IT.
Members interested in participating in this important meeting should contact Tim Burgers, Associate Director at email@example.com.
The website you are now on is our dynamic newsfeed and — despite the different website address — should be considered part of www.thinkhomecare.org. This is an official part of the Home Care Alliance of Massachusetts.
A summary of each item posted here will be automatically cross-posted at http://www.thinkhomecare.org and you may access the full article by clicking on that summary (which is likely how you got to this page).
Once you’ve read the article you clicked on, you may comment or return to www.thinkhomecare.org (a link will always be provided). At the moment, the navigation bar up top does not work, though I will be fixing that shortly.
If you’re interested in searching through the archives kept on this website, you can use the tools that appear in the navigation bar immediately on your right.
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions.
Home health services are an important part of caring for the elderly, mentally ill and otherwise infirm citizens of Massachusetts and helps individuals remain independent in their homes and communities. Home health is also cost-effective in keeping patients out of nursing homes and hospitals as well as reducing visits to the emergency room. The industry carries with it opportunities for further cost savings, but the circumstances of our economy have hindered their advancement.
Pat Kelleher’s Testimony on Fair Share Contributions
Our primary concern with these proposed changes is their impact on our smaller, private care home care companies. These companies have emerged to meet a growing need for quality affordable elder care in our state; they are providing new jobs in our state, often for workers who are new to the workplace. But the work hours fluctuate widely for their direct care workers depending on the number of clients, on each client’s health status, and even the time year. Over this past year the vast majority of these entities have done what they believed the state wanted them to do. They worked to comply with the law, including the state’s new fair share rules, and filing deadlines. Few opted to pay rather than comply. With these proposed changes, especially including that quarterly test, it seems to them that what the state now wants is not compliance, but payment.