In May 2007, Rachel Geller of Newton sent her aunt Sally to Sherrill House, a nursing home in Jamaica Plain.
The next day, Geller said the nursing home called her and said her aunt, who was 77 at the time and had advanced Alzheimer's disease, had had a seizure and was at Caritas Norwood Hospital. After a two-day hospital stay, she said the nursing home refused to readmit her aunt.
"I was suddenly in this horrible position where my aunt was homeless," said Geller, who had to keep her aunt in the hospital for three weeks until she found a bed for her at Hebrew Rehabilitation Center in Roslindale.
After that experience, Geller, a former Waltham special education teacher, has gone on a two-year campaign to change state law to keep nursing homes from discharging patients against the will of a patient or guardian.
Geller and state Rep. Ruth Balser have drafted legislation that would require nursing homes to provide patients and legal guardians with copies of nursing home-related laws and have them sign an affidavit saying they have read and understood the laws.
The Legislature's Joint Committee of Public Health approved the bill last week.
"The problem was big, but the solution was simple," Balser said.
The Newton state representative called Geller's proposal "consistent with basic health care policy."
But Scott Plumb, senior vice president of the Massachusetts Senior Care Association, an organization representing nursing homes and other care facilities, said there is no need for the law.
"Our position is that it's redundant and unnecessary," he said.
Plumb said the bill would add more paperwork to some 50 pages of material individuals receive from nursing homes. Additionally, Plumb said the admission agreement is enough of an affidavit.
"You can't read it all, you just sign it," Plumb said.
One of the amendments to the bill requires nursing homes to provide the law written in layperson's language, Balser said, "to make sure it happens consistently."
Geller points to her own experience as proof the additional law is needed.
After her aunt's discharge, Geller said she asked nursing home officials for a reason. She said the administrators invoke what they called the 24-hour law, under which nursing homes have an initial 24-hour window in which to discharge a patient.
Frustrated over the nursing home's action, Geller contacted her state representative that month. A week later, she found out from Balser's office that no such law existed.
"It was shocking, it was upsetting," Geller said. "They knew they could get away with it."
Patrick Stapleton, Sherrill House's executive director, said he legally cannot speak about cases involving specific patients.
"Sherrill House is not at liberty to discuss any individual's medical care, nor even the fact that services may have been provided to an individual, absent an express authorization from the patient," Peter Moser, the Sherrill House's lawyer, said in a letter.
In late May 2007, Geller began her campaign in earnest.
After she filed a complaint with the state Department of Public Health, the agency found that nursing home "did not provide a safe discharge plan for the resident," in part because "the family member was not given the right to appeal the decision," according to the state's investigation report.
Over the past two years, Geller has campaigned for a change.
The joint committee on healthcare finance will next consider the bill, Balser said. She said she was hopeful the legislature would eventually pass the bill. She will start talking to other legislators to lobby for the bill.
