Wednesday, March 11, 2009

California Dep't of Public Health Issues Administrative Penalties to 10 Hospitals

On March 3, 2009, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued a press release announcing that 10 hospitals have been assessed administrative penalties of $25,000, under the authority of Health and Safety Code Section 1280.1, from the State of California after a determination that the facilities’ noncompliance with licensing requirements has caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury or death to patients.

See: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/news/Pages/NR2009-13-HospitalAdministrativePenalties.aspx

Facilities can appeal an administrative penalty by requesting a hearing within 10 calendar days of notification. If a hearing is requested, the penalties are to be paid if upheld following appeal. These facilities will be required to implement a plan of correction to prevent future incidents.
The following hospitals received penalties (which can be appealed):

1. Anaheim General Hospital, Anaheim, Orange County. The hospital allegedly failed to ensure comprehensive oversight and management of the dietary department resulting in potentially hazardous food handling practices. The facility has received two previous penalties; this is the facility’s third administrative penalty.

2. Bakersfield Memorial Hospital, Bakersfield, Kern County. The hospital allegedly jeopardized the health and safety of patients by not having properly functioning anesthesia equipment. This is the facility’s first administrative penalty.

3. Fountain Valley Regional Hospital and Medical Center, Fountain Valley, Orange County. The hospital allegedly did not protect the health and safety of a patient when it did not follow its policies and procedures for the safe and accurate administration of medications. The facility has received one previous penalty; this is the facility’s second administrative penalty.

4. Mad River Community Hospital, Arcata, Humboldt County. The hospital allegedly failed to follow its policies and procedures regarding radiation safety. This is the facility’s first administrative penalty.

5. Marin General Hospital, Greenbrae, Marin County. The hospital allegedly failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when the hospital did not follow its surgical policies and procedures. This resulted in a patient having to undergo a second surgery to remove a retained foreign object. This is the facility’s first administrative penalty.

6. Northbay Vacavalley Hospital, Vacaville, Solano County. The hospital allegedly did not ensure the safety of a patient at risk for falls by failing to follow its policies and procedures. This is the facility’s first administrative penalty.

7. Scripps Mercy Hospital Chula Vista, Chula Vista, San Diego County. The hospital allegedly failed to have a safe, effective and timely system for dispensing and administering medications. This is the facility’s first administrative penalty.

8. Thousand Oaks Surgical Hospital, Thousand Oaks, Ventura County. The hospital allegedly failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when the hospital did not follow its surgical policies and procedures. This resulted in a patient having to undergo a second surgery to remove a retained foreign object. This is the facility’s first administrative penalty.

9. Ventura County Medical Center, Santa Paula Hospital, Santa Paula, Ventura County. The hospital allegedly failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when the hospital did not follow its surgical policies and procedures. This resulted in a patient having to undergo a second surgery to remove a retained foreign object. This is the facility’s first administrative penalty.

10. Western Medical Center, Santa Ana, Orange County. The hospital allegedly compromised the safety of a patient when an allegation of physical assault was not investigated in a timely manner and the right to considerate and respectful care was not ensured. This is the facility’s first administrative penalty.

Last year, a new law was enacted that more than doubles administrative penalties for violations or deficiencies constituting an immediate jeopardy to the health and safety of patients. The new law, which took effect Jan. 1, 2009, increases fines to $50,000 for the first violation, $75,000 for the second, and $100,000 for the third violation at the same facility. After new regulations are written, the amounts will grow to $75,000, $100,000 and $125,000. Incidents which are referenced above occurred in 2007 and 2008, before the new law took effect.

For a comprehensive list of all hospitals which have received administrative penalties, go to the CDPH Web site: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/facilities/Pages/Counties.aspx.

Commentary: Physicians and other health care providers may feel under attack in the health care system. This press release demonstrates that hospitals are also under great pressure from the State. As acute care hospitals are facing financial difficulties, the regulations have become more stringent and the penalties have increased. There is also a concern that the State is seeking increased revenue from health care providers by means of fines.

Any questions or comments should be directed to: tgreen@greenassoc.com.  Tracy Green is a principal at Green and Associates. They focus a significant part of their practice on the representation of health care providers in compliance, litigation, administrative and criminal matters.   

DISCLAIMER

DISCLAIMER: Green & Associates' articles and blog postings are prepared as a service to the public and are not intended to grant rights or impose obligations. Nothing in this website should be construed as legal advice. Green & Associates' articles and blog postings may contain references or links to statutes, regulations, or other policy materials. The information provided is only intended to be a general summary. It is not intended to take the place of either the written law or regulations. We encourage readers to review the specific statutes, regulations, and other interpretive materials for a full and accurate statement of their contents and contact their attorney for legal advice. The primary purpose of this website is not the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service and this website is not an advertisement or solicitation. Anyone viewing this web site in a state where the web site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state, should disregard this web site.

The information provided on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to create, and does not create, a lawyer-client relationship with Green & Associates, Attorneys at Law. Sending an e-mail to Tracy Green does not contractually obligate them to represent you as your lawyer, or create any type of client relationship. No attorney-client relationship will be formed absent a written engagement or retainer letter agreement signed by both Green & Associates and client and which specifies the scope of the engagement.

Please note that e-mail transmission is not secure unless it is encrypted. E-mail messages sent to Ms. Green should not include confidential or sensitive information.