Arbitration Agreement Lacked Clear Statement That Signing Was Not Required for Admission
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure its binding arbitration agreement contained an explicit statement that signing the agreement was not a condition of admission, as required by its own policy and regulatory expectations. The facility’s Binding Arbitration Agreements policy dated 11/2023 stated that arbitration agreements are voluntary, that residents are not compelled, pressured, or coerced to enter into such agreements, and that it would be unambiguously communicated that arbitration is optional and not required as a condition of admission or to receive care. However, the actual arbitration agreement form used for three sampled residents included language stating only that execution of the arbitration agreement was not a precondition to the “furnishing of services” to the resident by the facility, without clearly addressing admission status. Record review showed that one resident’s representative signed the arbitration agreement, another resident’s representative refused to sign, and a third resident signed the agreement, all on the same form containing the “furnishing of services” language. For each of these residents, the agreement did not explicitly state that admission to the facility was not dependent on signing the arbitration agreement. During an interview, the SSD acknowledged that the portion of the binding arbitration agreement using the phrase “furnishing of services” did not clearly state that admission to the facility was not contingent on signing the agreement and stated that the wording was not clear enough. The administrator identified that 74 residents resided in the facility at the time of the survey.
We Help Long-Term Care Teams Stay Survey-Ready
We process and analyze inspection reports and plan of correction using AI to extract insights and trends so providers can improve care quality and stay ahead of compliance risks.