|
Regarding insurance, often very-expensive procedures are authorized while less-expensive needs go rejected. An acute-care bias still exists, even though elders are more likely to need long-term stability in chronic illness.
Medicare has always had an acute-care bias, which translates in chronic illness into coverage of acute exacerbations of chronic illness, and rehabilitation to recover to former status, while disallowing long-term coverage of care needed to maintain stability over the long haul.
This adds up to a 'get them rehabbed and get them out' post-hospital mentality, complementary to the 'quicker and sicker' hospital-discharge philosophy.
That said, there are nevertheless quality standards as to care planning and delivery that should, but often do not, prevent rehabbing residents to death. In short, a nursing facility resident, and anyone in post-hospital care at home or in any other venue, should not be subjected to rehab efforts that do not fit with the resident's condition.
Another issue has to do with a patient's prognosis, particularly if longer-term survival is unlikely. In particular, if a patient has a prognosis of less than six months of survival, then palliative care, particularly hospice, should be considered. The issue is then not to 'cure' nor to 'rehab,' rather to make the patient's last months more comfortable, and more dignified. Again, this goes against medicine's curative ideology; or more importantly, against an institution's interests in maximizing revenues from high-cost procedures. I don't know whether a short-term prognosis was the case with your mother or would be for your father; but it is something to be considered. If, by contrast, longer-term survival is possible, then good rehab is essential, but to be good it must be appropriate to a patient's condition.
One thing you might consider if you can afford it is seeking a second medical or rehab opinion from a disinterested provider.
|