Except for the Quality-Based Inspections program, discussion participants did not identify any programs noted as unsuccessful or at risk of discontinuation. The department places great importance on making information available to consumers. There were no plans to add additional items (e.g., staffing information or MDS quality indicators) to the Nursing Home Report Cards. When CMS begins posting the quality indicators, the department will include a link to this site.
AHCA representatives advised other states to carefully consider all aspects of a report card and to have as much detail on the description, development and implementation as possible written into the legislation. They advised other states to consider what information will be seen by the public, how it will be displayed, timeframes for display, and how much collaboration there will be in the development process as examples of the types of topics that should be clearly defined prior to enactment. They noted that when the legislation to develop the Iowa report card was passed, it sounded acceptable, but later they found that DIA's interpretation of the legislation varied significantly from their interpretation, which led to the current problems regarding the posting of deficiencies prior to the resolution of appeals. Ombudsmen stated that they would like to see all complaints posted, including those that are not substantiated. They also advised that more advertising is needed to let consumers know that the report card is available.
There was general agreement that the application for the Quality-Based Inspections program needs to be simplified and the benefits for eligible facilities enhanced. Until CMS is willing to consider an alternative survey process which differentiates between good and poor performers, programs designed to make it possible for good facilities to be surveyed less often will not work if they can only be applied to state-licensed only nursing homes, given that most homes participate in Medicaid and/or Medicare.
Participants believed that programs rewarding best practices and deficiency-free surveys were valuable, despite the potential fall-out if those facilities later run into problems. They pointed out that it was important to have an objective process by which facilities are judged, so that the award is seen as truly recognizing outstanding quality and not based on other factors such as politics.
Both provider groups and the department indicated that they were pleased with the joint training programs and would recommend these to other states. High attendance at the sessions is indicative of the value that providers place on the training. DIA trainers suggest that states collaborate with community colleges and universities in the development of curriculum and presentation of materials. They also suggested that since provider associations usually have had more experience in planning and presenting educational programs, the states use them as resources. States should also consult with provider associations so as not to duplicate topics. DIA trainers also noted that states should avoid controversial topics, such as regulatory issues, and select "safer" topics, such as clinical issues.
The survey questionnaire was reported to be a relatively inexpensive way of improving the survey process, increasing surveyor accountability, and allowing facilities to provide feedback to the department. DIA recommends it to other states interested in these outcomes.