http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/10/us/medicare-requirements-disaster-readiness.html 2016-09-12 14:09:34 Health Care Providers Scramble to Meet New Disaster Readiness Rule The new requirements seek to help medical facilities better provide care during emergencies, including severe weather, pandemics and terrorist attacks. === An estimated 72,315 American health care providers and suppliers — from hospitals and The new rule is aimed at preventing the severe breakdown in patient care that followed disasters including The rule “will make it more likely that facilities will be able to stay open and able to care for patients, and if they need to close or stop work temporarily, get back up and able to care for patients quickly,” said While the vast majority of organizations have had to adhere to at least some emergency preparedness requirements for accreditation, others were not subject to any, including hundreds of residential psychiatric facilities, nearly 200 community “It’s going to have a big impact on these facilities,” said Emily Lord, the executive director of Healthcare Ready, According to the government, the cost of putting the rule into effect will be just over $279 million. Others believe it will be more. “They didn’t account for any time to get up to speed,” Ms. Lord said. The requirements may be particularly onerous for smaller facilities. “Funding to offset preparedness activities has decreased,” said Barbara B. Citarella, the president of RBC Limited, a health care consulting group in Staatsburg, N.Y. “My concern is that compliance for some providers, especially home care and The final requirements acknowledged those concerns, but argued that preparedness investments would overall be beneficial. “Planning for the protection and care of patients, clients, residents, and staff during an emergency or a disaster is a good business practice,” the rule said. The original proposal for the requirements, released in December 2013, drew nearly 400 responses during a formal comment period, primarily from health care providers and industry groups. While they generally supported the goals of the rule, they attacked certain requirements as costly and unnecessary. At least some of those provisions were significantly modified in the final version. Chief among them was a proposal that hospitals and nursing homes test their backup power systems for a minimum of four hours every year at the full load needed in an emergency, rather than the current standard of once every three years. Generators have failed catastrophically in hospitals and nursing homes around the country during prolonged power outages, endangering patients and leading to chaotic evacuations. However, the government removed the enhanced testing proposal, stating that there was not enough evidence it “would ensure that generators would withstand all disasters.” That change was welcomed by health care industry groups, including the American Hospital Association. Instead, institutions will need to meet National Fire Protection Association standards for testing generator equipment and will still need to plan for what to do when power is lost. The new rule was “I am glad to see the recognition that disasters are not just an emergency department problem,” said Dr. David Marcozzi, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and former director of a federal health care preparedness program. “Simply, it’s a quality and safety issue.”