Before the Joint Hearing on Residential Healthcare Facilities and COVID-19 in Upstate New York
August 10, 2020


 
As the harrowing past few months have made clear, New York was both unusually vulnerable to the coronavirus and dangerously underprepared to fight it.

By the time the state gained control of the outbreak, tens of thousands of New Yorkers had died, a disproportionate share of whom lived in nursing homes. The state’s mortality rate – especially in New York City and its surrounding region – ranks among the very highest in the world.

On the whole, then, New York’s pandemic has been a cautionary tale, not a success story.

Acknowledging that reality is a crucial step toward bolstering the state’s defenses against the next pandemic. We need to thoroughly analyze the shortcomings of our response in order not to repeat the many mistakes that clearly were made. This is not about shaming officials and providers for good-faith actions taken under difficult circumstances. It’s about developing the best possible public health policy for the future.

With respect to nursing homes, however, a full analysis is not yet possible. This is largely because the state Department of Health is sharing only partial data and showing a counterproductive tendency to minimize the scale of the state’s pandemic.

As of now, DOH is reporting only deaths that occurred within the nursing facilities, which number approximately 6,500. This leaves out the substantial share of cases in which residents were transferred to hospitals in their final days.

This policy understates the painful losses suffered by nursing home residents and their loved ones, distorts comparisons with other states, obfuscates which homes protected residents most or least effectively and inhibits proper analysis of the state’s response.

For example, the Cuomo administration frequently cites a particular statistic – nursing home deaths as a percentage of all coronavirus deaths – to argue that New York fared better than most other states. This is doubly misleading: first because the state’s count of nursing home deaths is artificially low, and second because its total death count is unusually high.

By other measures, New York’s nursing home toll ranks among the highest in the country. Based on the understated official number, its total death count is the second highest of any state; the percentage of residents who died, at 6.3 percent, is seventh highest, and the rate of nursing home deaths per 100,000 total population, at 33, is sixth highest. If DOH were not omitting hospital deaths, those rankings would all get worse.[1]

Nursing home data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also incomplete. The CDC did not start gathering its information until mid-May, after the worst of New York’s outbreak had passed, and made it optional for homes to report coronavirus cases and deaths retrospectively. However, the CDC does count all coronavirus deaths among nursing home residents, including those who die in hospitals, which allows a useful if limited comparison with DOH data.

From May 24 to June 14, the CDC tallied 656 deaths attributed to coronavirus in New York nursing homes. The state’s count of COVID fatalities during those same weeks was only 383. This implies that 42 percent of the patients counted by the CDC had been transferred to hospitals before they died.[2]

If that same ratio has held throughout the crisis, the true toll of coronavirus in New York’s nursing homes would be in the neighborhood of 10,000.

Another concerning indicator is a spike in nursing home vacancies. State census data reveals that the share of empty beds increased from an average of eight percent through February to 21 percent in late May. That change means that nursing homes have about 13,000 fewer patients than usual. Excess deaths from COVID-19 are clearly a contributing factor to that drop, along with lower than usual admissions and, possibly, higher than usual discharges.[3]

The DOH report on coronavirus in nursing homes, published July 6, was a flawed document.[4] It brought new information to light but undermined its own credibility by relying on the department’s incomplete count of deaths, using questionable methodology and reaching conclusions that went beyond the evidence. Contrary to statements from the Cuomo administration, it was not peer-reviewed in the way that term is normally used.

The report focused on defending specific DOH policies while leaving other important questions unaddressed. For example, it linked the bulk of nursing home deaths to infections introduced by staff and possibly visitors, but failed to explore why infection rates among staff were so extraordinarily high – or what should be done to control that risk in the future.

In spite of those shortcomings, the report offered convincing evidence that coronavirus was widespread in many facilities well before the issuance of DOH’s much-debated March 25 directive, which compelled homes to accept admission of coronavirus-positive patients being discharged by hospitals. Thus, to blame that single decision for every nursing home death, as some critics have done, is clearly an exaggeration.

Yet the report’s conclusion that the order was “not a significant factor” overstates the evidence. A more reasonable interpretation is that discharging positive patients into nursing homes made a difficult situation worse and likely contributed to some excess deaths – although estimating how many would be difficult if not impossible given the information currently available.

The report also left unresolved the question of whether the policy embodied in the March 25 directive was the right call – and when or if it should be revived in the future.

At the time it was issued, projections indicated that the state’s hospitals might soon be overwhelmed by a wave of critically ill patients. Discharging infected but stable nursing home residents was a strategy to free up hospital beds for sicker patients. Ultimately, though, the peak demand for hospital beds proved much smaller than feared – meaning, in hindsight, that the March 25 order turned out not to be necessary.

In May, after initially defending the order, the administration issued a second directive barring hospitals from discharging positive patients to nursing homes. However, the original order technically remains in effect, and the governor and the DOH have denied that it had any negative consequences and declined to disavow their initial policy.

These mixed signals confuse the debate the state should be having – which is how officials should handle infected nursing home patients in future pandemics. One possible strategy would be to establish separate coronavirus-only nursing facilities that could house otherwise stable residents until the risk that they would infect others has passed. The state did this to some extent, but evidently not enough to handle all coronavirus-positive nursing home residents being discharged from hospitals.

The state should also work to improve infection control in nursing homes. That would include assuring an adequate supply of face masks, gowns and other critical equipment when emergencies strike, through stockpiling or other means.

It has been argued, in these hearings and elsewhere, that nursing homes were ill-prepared for the coronavirus because of chronic “under funding.” This is difficult to square with the reality that New York’s Medicaid program spends more per capita on nursing home care than any other state.[5]

To the extent the state has money to invest, its first priority should be developing more robust public health defenses – so that New York will never again be so badly surprised by a virus.

One lesson of the past five months is that New York cannot necessarily depend on the federal government to defend it against diseases that originate overseas. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the New York Police Department stationed intelligence personnel around the world to monitor terrorist activity. The city and state should consider taking a similarly independent and proactive stance with their public health defenses.

Ultimately, the best way to protect nursing home residents from pandemics is to make sure they don’t happen in the first place – or at least to minimize their spread when they do occur.

Endnotes

[1] These figures are drawn from an Empire Center analysis using data from the New York State Department of Health, the New York Times, the U.S. Census Bureau and the Kaiser Family Foundation.

[2] See “Nursing Home Vacancy Rate Soars, Hinting at a Higher Coronavirus Toll,” EmpireCenter.org, June 30, 2020. https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/nursing-home-vacancy-rate-soars-hinting-at-a-higher-coronavirus-toll/

[3] Ibid.

[4] See “Cuomo Administration Ducks Important Questions on Nursing Homes,” EmpireCenter.org, July 8, 2020. https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/cuomo-admin-ducks-important-questions-on-nursing-homes/

[5] “Medicaid Expenditures for Long-Term Services and Supports in FY 2016,” IBM Watson Health on behalf of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, May 2018. https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/ltssexpenditures2016.pdf

About the Author

Bill Hammond

As the Empire Center’s senior fellow for health policy, Bill Hammond tracks fast-moving developments in New York’s massive health care industry, with a focus on how decisions made in Albany and Washington affect the well-being of patients, providers, taxpayers and the state’s economy.

Read more by Bill Hammond

You may also like

Medicaid Saving Proposals

The 11 proposals, summarized in the table below, were submitted to Governor Cuomo’s Medicaid Redesign Team at a public comment forum on Friday at the Albany Capital Center. The Medicaid Redesign Team, appointed Feb. 4, is tasked with finding $2.5 billion in Medicaid savings to balance the state budget due April 1. Consistent with Cuomo’s guidelines, Hammond’s proposals would have no impact on current beneficiaries or local governments. Read More

FY2021 NYS Budget – Higher Education

The proposed increase in the Excelsior Scholarship income cap would build on a program that was fundamentally flawed, wasteful and unfair to begin with. Read More

FY2021 NYS Budget – Health Care and Medicaid

The main thing wrong with Governor Cuomo’s Medicaid budget is that it barely exists. His executive budget proposes to reduce funding for the state’s biggest and most important program by 10 percent, or $2.5 billion, but omits any plan for making that happen. Instead, the governor is delegating details to a panel of industry insiders who haven’t yet been named and don’t have a clear deadline. Read More

FY2021 New York State Budget – Taxes

The state’s current fiscal challenge is caused by excess spending, not insufficient taxes.  The governor’s projection of PIT receipts—which apparently have recovered from the post-tax reform disruption in the final quarter of fiscal 2019—assumes a steady continuing uptick in revenues across the next four years, despite the continuing phase-in of significant “middle class” income tax cuts through 2025.   But this could prove overly optimistic. Read More

Testimony: New York Health Act Public Hearing

If ever a piece of legislation warranted thorough vetting, in full public view, it’s a bill that would compel 20 million people to switch health plans, abolish tens of thousands of jobs, upend a sixth of the economy and levy the largest tax increase in the history of this or any other state. Read More

Testimony: FY2020 New York State Budget – Taxes

Governor Cuomo’s Executive Budget for fiscal year 2020 includes a short list of state revenue actions. By far the most significant tax proposal on the list would extend, for five years, the temporary added personal income tax (PIT) rate also known as the “millionaire tax.” Read More

Testimony: FY2020 New York State Budget – Health Care

Testimony of Bill Hammond, Health Policy Director, Empire Center for Public Policy, Before the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committees Read More

Testimony: FY2019 New York State Budget – Health Care

The past year has been a roller-coaster ride for New York’s health care system, as Congress tried repeatedly to scale back Medicaid and dismantle the Affordable Care Act while allowing other health-related programs to lapse. Because New York depends so heavily on federal health dollars, it had more to lose than almost any other state in all of those fights. Read More

Subscribe

Sign up to receive updates about Empire Center research, news and events in your email.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Empire Center for Public Policy
30 South Pearl St.
Suite 1210
Albany, NY 12207

Phone: 518-434-3100
Fax: 518-434-3130
E-Mail: info@empirecenter.org

About

The Empire Center is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank located in Albany, New York. Our mission is to make New York a better place to live and work by promoting public policy reforms grounded in free-market principles, personal responsibility, and the ideals of effective and accountable government.