Ombudsman’s Advice Is Sound

If the state is going to regulate an activity, it ought to do so with both a clear purpose and the will to serve it.

The Washington Legislature, therefore, should act positively on the the state Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program’s latest recommendations about adult boarding homes.

For the third time since 1995, the ombudsman report pointed out problems with the way such facilities are staffed as well as the way the state regulates them.

Adult boarding homes are a form of living facility for senior citizens who no longer can live independently but don’t need as intensive care as nursing homes provide.

The ombudsman reports have stressed that most boarding homes do a fine job.

But some don’t - to the disadvantage of individuals and families who already are dealing with the older person’s emotional stress of leaving familiar surroundings, losing independence and coping with increasing physical and sometimes mental limitations.

Unfortunately, the ombudsman report noted, even when regulators discover problems, the follow-up is often slow and insufficient.

Part of the problem is the convoluted regulatory structure itself. Although the Department of Social and Health Services oversees nursing homes and adult family homes, the Department of Health was given responsibility for boarding homes in 1989. DSHS, however, still plays a role in the case of boarding home residents who get Medicaid.

The ombudsman report criticized not only that structure but also the Department of Health, for responding slowly to complaints and for being reluctant to impose sanctions when problems are found.

In fairness to the Department of Health, DSHS has more manpower to deal with complaints.

The ombudsman suggests returning boarding home regulation to DSHS, requiring penalties for boarding homes with repeat violations and requiring higher training standards for workers at such facilities.

The state ought not to overreact, of course. One of the purposes of such facilities is to provide moderate assistance at less cost than more intensive care programs charge. It would defeat that purpose to impose stiffer than necessary requirements on providers.

Overall, the ombudsman recommendations are sound. Lawmakers asked for the information and should take it seriously. After three negative reports, it’s time for a change.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Doug Floyd For the editorial board