200 likes | 428 Views
Decision-Makers of Last Resort. Trends in Health Care Surrogacy for Isolated Elders; Public Guardianship Naomi Karp & Erica Wood ABA Commission on Law and Aging October 21, 2004. Incapacitated and Alone.
E N D
Decision-Makers of Last Resort Trends in Health Care Surrogacy for Isolated Elders; Public Guardianship Naomi Karp & Erica Wood ABA Commission on Law and Aging October 21, 2004
Incapacitated and Alone “These are the most vulnerable patients because no one cares deeply if they live or die. . . . We owe these patients the highest level of ethical and medical scrutiny; we owe it to them to protect them from over-treatment and under-treatment; . . . We owe it to them to help them live better or to die in comfort and not alone.” --Bioethics consultant at major academic medical center.
Overview of Session • How are health care decisions made for “unbefriended” elders? • Who are “unbefriended” elders? • What usually happens? • Statutory and institutional solutions • What is the status of state public guardianship programs? • National study underway • Overview of 7 states, showing diversity of systems – or none
Unbefriended Population • No decisional capacity to give informed consent • No advance directive • No capacity to execute advance directive • No guardian • No family or friends
Often informal & ad hoc process Often no clear statutory authority “Flying below the radar screen” Physicians decide; physicians as ad hoc guardians Stretch exceptions to consent rule Real World – What Happens
Statutory & Institutional Solutions • Health care consent statutes with additional category • Judicial remedies • Surrogate decision-making committees • Institutional ethics committees • Public guardianship
Health Care Consent Statutes • Close to 40 states have statutes, but only a few provide for unbefriended • Designation of last resort decision-maker • Physician; physician + other health care provider or ethics committee; clergy • Pros & cons of physicians deciding
Judicial Remedies • Procedure to petition court for a health care decision or designation of decision-maker -- At least 7 states -- Georgia – temporary health care placement • Temporary medical treatment guardian
Surrogate Decision-Making Committees • Proxy decision-makers authorized by law • Administrative hearing process • New York, Iowa, Texas • Would this work for unbefriended elderly?
Exist in most hospitals & some nursing homes Consultative vs. decision-making Santa Clara County policy Veterans’ Administration Pros & cons Ethics Committees
Public Guardianship • Definition • History • 1980 study – Schmidt et. al. • Study underway • Center on Aging, University of KY & ABA Commission on Law and Aging • National survey • 7-state focus – FL, KY, IL, IN, IA, MO, WI
FL, IL, IN, KY, MO have a statewide program IA & WI – no program Is there a state program?
Administrative Structure & Location? • FL – state program housed in Dept on Aging; 16 local programs covering 23 of 67 counties • IL – state program in Guardianship & Advocacy Commission with 8 regional offices; + statewide system of county offices. • KY – state program in Cabinet for Health & Family Services; six guardianship service regions covering entire state • IN – state program in Family & Social Services Admin.; six local offices • MO – statewide system of public administrators serve public guardianship function.
How funded? • FL – for FY 2003-4, 20% from Statewide Pub. Guard. Program, 80% from other sources (such as county, United Way, donations; formerly filing fees). “Direct support organization” & “Joining Forces” matching grant program, no approp. • IL – state funds and client fees • KY – federal social services block grant, state general funds, Medicaid funds • IN – state funds • MO – county funds and client fees
What services provided? • FL – personal and financial decision-making; monitor, arrange & advocate for services; rep payee • IL – personal and financial decision-making; monitor, arrange and advocate for services; rep. payee • KY – personal and financial decision-making; monitor, arrange, advocate for and directly provide services
Services, cont’d • IN – personal and financial decision-making; monitor, arrange, advocate for and directly provide services; rep. payee • MO- personal and financial decision-making; monitor, arrange, advocate for and directly provide services; financial and health care powers of atty., rep. payee, trustee, personal rep. of estates
How staffed? • FL – Statutory ratio of 1:40; range of paid staff in local programs including lawyers • IL – paid staff; decision-makers have BA or higher, depending on decision • KY – paid staff; decision-makers have BA and one year experience (with a few exceptions)
Staffing, cont’d • IN – paid staff; gen’ly BA with 2 years experience; new legislation creates volunteer pub. guard. program for seniors • MO – elected and paid County Public Administrators; no educational prerequisites
Clients Served? • FL – ages 18-64 and 65+;majority 65+. Approx 1660 individuals served in 2003. • IL – ages 18-64 and 65+; majority MR/DD; 97% MA or SSI recipients; majority white. Served 5367 in 2003. • KY – ages 18-64 and 65+; no diagnostic data; 95% MA eligible; majority white. Served 2460 individuals in 2003. • IN – no statewide information • MO - no statewide information
What is unmet need? Is staffing sufficient? Should there be a staff:ward ratio? What roles do staff play? What is cost per client? How are decisions made on clients’ behalf? What are strengths & weaknesses of programs? How does public guardianship stack up with other mechanisms of last resort? Key Questions