Does Government Regulation Prove To Cause More Harm Than Good?

Does government regulation prove to cause more harm than good? This issue has been of great debate since Richard Nixon initiated a federal role in nursing home regulation during the early 1970s.  There are a number of factors that must be taken into consideration when determining whether an increase in government regulations promotes quality care.  Unfortunately, in the consideration of quality, cost must be considered as well.   This learner postulates that from the governments perspective cost and quality are interchangeable, thus creating an oxymoron.

Nursing facilities are currently overseen by the 1986 Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report) and the subsequent Nursing Home Reform Act, which is part of the 1987 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) (P.L. 100-203) legislation whom all play major roles in determining the quality of care in nursing homes.

In developing and implementing government regulations for nursing homes three things must be taken into consideration are: "the quality of life experienced by residents, as well as making the regulations more resident-centered and outcome-oriented.

Therefore, this learner believes that although government regulation may seem excessive and strangles managerial creativity, it is necessary.  These regulations are the result of years of substandard and negligent care, outright abuse of residents, and a wide range of fiscal malfeasance, from embezzlement of residents' assets and extortion of money from families, to vendor kickbacks and reimbursement and capital finance fraud.

With the current healthcare bill pending, government regulations are expected to increase.   What does this mean for the future?  Finally, this learner believes although cost for compliance is high and even increasing, the cost for non-compliance and strict regulations is much higher.

Tagged as: Government Regulations

Related Posts: