Skip to Main Content
National Association for Home Care & Hospice
Twitter Facebook Pintrest


In the various roles he has undertaken through the years, Val J. Halamandaris has been a singular driving force behind the policy and program initiatives resulting in the recognition of home health care as a viable alternative to institutionalization. His dedication to consumer advocacy, which enhances the quality of life and dignity of those receiving home health care, merits VNA HealthCare Group’s highest recognition and deepest respect. 

VNA HealthCare Group

I have the highest respect for them, especially for the nurses, aides and therapists, who devote their lives to caring for people with disabilities, the infirm and dying Americans.  There are few more noble professions.

President Barack Obama

Home health care agencies do such a wonderful job in this country helping people to be able to remain at home and allowing them to receive services

U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Chair, Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee

Home care is a combination of compassion and efficiency.  It is less expensive than institutional care...but at the same time it is a more caring, human, intimate experience, and therefore it has a greater human’s a big mistake not to try to maximize it and find ways to give people the home care option over either nursing homes, hospitals or other institutions

Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich (R-GA)

Medicaid covers long-term care, but only for low-income families.  And Medicare only pays for care that is connected to a hospital discharge....our health care system must cover these vital services...[and] we should promote home-based care, which most people prefer, instead of the institutional care that we emphasize now.

Former U.S. Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-CD)

We need incentives to...keep people in home health care settings...It’s dramatically less expensive than long term care.

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ)


Home care is clearly the wave of the future. It’s clearly where patients want to be cared for. I come from an ethnic family and when a member of our family is severely ill, we would never consider taking them to get institutional care. That’s true of many families for both cultural and financial reasons. If patients have a choice of where they want to be cared for, where it’s done the right way, they choose home.

Donna Shalala, former Secretary of Health and Human Services

A couple of years ago, I spent a little bit of time with the National Association for Home Care & Hospice and its president, Val J. Halamandaris, and I was just blown away. What impressed me so much was that they talked about what they do as opposed to just the strategies of how to deal with Washington or Sacramento or Albany or whatever the case may be. Val is a fanatic about care, and it comes through in every way known to mankind. It comes through in the speakers he invites to their events; it comes through in all the stuff he shares.

Tom Peters, author of In Search of Excellence

Val’s home care organization brings thousands of caregivers together into a dynamic organization that provides them with valuable resources and tools to be even better in their important work. He helps them build self-esteem, which leads to self-motivation.

Mike Vance, former Dean of Disney and author of Think Out of the Box

Val is one of the greatest advocates for seniors in America. He goes beyond the call of duty every time.

Arthur S. Flemming, former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare

Val has brought the problems, the challenges, and the opportunities out in the open for everyone to look at. He is a visionary pointing the direction for us. 

Margaret (Peg) Cushman, Professor of Nursing and former President of the Visiting Nurses Association

Although Val has chosen to stay in the background, he deserves much of the credit for what was accomplished both at the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, where he was closely associated with me and at the House Select Committee on Aging, where he was Congressman Claude Pepper’s senior counsel and closest advisor. He put together more hearings on the subject of aging, wrote more reports, drafted more bills, and had more influence on the direction of events than anyone before him or since.

Frank E. Moss, former U.S. Senator

Val’s most important contribution is pulling together all elements of home health care and being able to organize and energize the people involved in the industry.

Frank E. Moss, former U.S. Senator

Anyone working on health care issues in Congress knows the name Val J. Halamandaris.

Kathleen Gardner Cravedi, former Staff Director of the House Select Committee on Aging

Without your untiring support and active participation, the voices of people advocating meaningful and compassionate health care reform may not have been heard by national leaders.

Michael Sullivan, Former Executive Director, Indiana Association for Home Care

All of us have been members of many organizations and NAHC is simply the best there is. NAHC aspires to excellence in every respect; its staff has been repeatedly honored as the best in Washington; the organization lives by the highest values and has demonstrated a passionate interest in the well-being of patients and providers.

Elaine Stephens, Director of Home Care of Steward Home Care/Steward Health Systems and former NAHC C

Home care increasingly is one of the basic building blocks in the developing system of long-term care.  On both economic and recuperative bases, home health care will continue to grow as an essential service for individuals, for families and for the community as a whole.

Former U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

NCOA is excited to be part of this great event and honored to have such influential award winners in the field of aging.

National Council of Aging

Health care at home…is something we need more of, not less of.  Let us make a commitment to preventive and long-term care.  Let us encourage home care as an alternative to nursing homes and give folks a little help to have their parents there.

Former President Bill Clinton

Federal Court in Georgia Protects Children’s Skilled Nursing Hours: Overturns Attempts to Wean Children off Program

October 31, 2013 10:08 AM

On September 27, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division, in Hunter v. Cook, issued an order (the Order) to the Georgia Department of Community Health (GDCH) to prevent it from providing less than 18 hours per day of skilled nursing care to two severely disabled children (the Plaintiffs) following attempts by the State to cut hours for the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs are beneficiaries of Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment services (EPSDT).  Additionally, they are enrolled in the Georgia Pediatric Program (GAPP), which the Order defined as “a Georgia Medicaid program that provides continuous skilled nursing care to medically fragile children.”  

This follows a June 19, 2012 order in the same court ordering GDCH to not cut skilled nursing hours to a 2-year old beneficiary of GAPP from 84 to 77 to 70 hours per week.  The plaintiff in this case was originally in the Hunter v. Cook case, which initially involved five plaintiffs.  The remaining two plaintiffs settled with GDCH this September.  For the June 2012 order, click here.

Facts of the Case

Clinical Conditions of Plaintiffs

Plaintiff 1 (R.E.) is a 16-year old suffering from both spastic quadriplegia and cerebral palsy, and her condition renders her wheelchair-bound for most of the day.  In addition, her quadriplegia severely compromises her respiratory system to the degree that she depends on 24-hour suctioning and oxygen. R.E. also suffers from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and requires nutrition through a jeunostomy (J) tube through her small intestine.  R.E. suffers from frequent seizures, many of which have caused her to be hospitalized.  She is also severely developmentally disabled and is unable to speak.  According to her treating pediatrician, Dr. Elizabeth LeDuc, these conditions are permanent.

Under the GAPP, R.E. was receiving 60 hours of skilled nursing care a week.  Dr. LeDuc requested that hours be increased to 84 hours per week, which was denied.

Plaintiff 2 (Marketric Hunter) is a 12-year old suffering from severe brain damage and spastic quadriplegia from a near drowning incident when she was 18-months old.  In addition, Marketric has compromised pulmonary function to the extent that he “requires secretion suctioning every one to two hours,” and occasionally requires a chest vest that could collapse his lung if not used properly.  He needs to be moved frequently day and night for proper secretion and to prevent skin ulcers.  He is also fed through a gastrostomy (G) tube, has GERD, and is severely developmentally disabled.

In Marketric’s case, the GDCH sent his adoptive mother-caregiver a letter stating that hours would be reduced from 84 to 77 hours a week, and then from 77 to 70 hours a week. 

Other Findings

Inadequate care: In addition to its weaning policy, the Order demonstrated that the GAPP program, in emphasizing family care over professional care, compromised the health and safety of beneficiaries.  According to GAPP policies, the GAPP was meant to be a program for parents and caregivers of beneficiaries to become educated in clinical care in the absence of a nurse, not a permanent skilled care program.  

In R.E.’s case, Dr. LeDuc testified that it was impossible for R.E.’s mother-caregiver to provide the necessary care for R.E. for the parts of the week where R.E. was not cared for by the GAPP.  Despite being able to provide many services for R.E., Dr. LeDuc stated that R.E.’s mother could not provide the needed quality of care of a skilled nurse.  In addition, Dr. LeDuc stated that R.E.’s mom could not sufficiently provide 108 hours of care required outside of the GAPP, even if she was a skilled nurse. 

In Marketric’s case, his 73-year old adoptive mother testified that she doesn’t feel comfortable performing suctioning, which the beneficiary’s physician felt was a reasonable concern.  In addition, Marketric’s physician stated that his mother cannot physically or emotionally care for Marketric to the extent needed.

Risk of Institutionalization: The Order also discussed how GAPP policies put R.E. at risk of institutionalization.  According to the Order, R.E.’s mother-caregiver was considering institutionalizing R.E. as caring for R.E. became so overwhelming.  The Order later concluded that both Plaintiffs faced a high risk of institutionalization due to lacking a medically necessary level of care.

Court’s Holding

Applying a standard used in Moore ex rel. Moore v. Reese (637 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2011)), the Court held that determining if private duty hours are sufficient is a function of the state’s ability to “place appropriate limits on a service based on such criteria as medical necessity…” and that the care is “sufficient in amount, duration, and scope to reasonably achieve its purpose.”  Under EPSDT, a state Medicaid program must offer a scope of benefits equal to the highest level permitted under federal law.  The only limitation allowed is one based on medical necessity.

The Court held that there is no evidence that in either case, for both Plaintiffs, the proposed cuts were based on medical necessity, or that the hours were sufficient.  In fact, Dr. LeDuc stated that 60 hours a week of skilled nursing care put R.E. at a great risk of frequent hospitalizations, and even death.  With both Plaintiffs, the Order established that the parent-caregivers were unable to provide adequate care. 

Reduced hours governed by weaning policy, not medical necessity: For both Plaintiffs, the court found that the state did not provide evidence that the rejected increase/proposed reduction was based on medical necessity.  Instead, the Order maintained that GAPP’s decisions to limit hours were governed instead by a policy of decreasing skilled nursing hours for children, and weaning them off the program entirely if possible.

For a link to the Order, click here.

Precedent for Medicaid Necessity Determination in EPSDT

The ruling in this case echoed previous case law on medical necessity determinations for EPSDT beneficiaries.  In Moore v. Cooke(U.S. District Court, N.D. Ga., Doc. No. 1:07-CV-631-TWT, April 20, 2012), the court held that reducing private duty nursing hours for a severely disabled 17-year old from 94 to 84 hours per week was not “sufficient in amount, duration and scope to reasonably achieve its purpose.” The court found that the beneficiary was “a medically fragile child who require[d] skilled care 24 hours a day 7 days a week” and that the reduction in hours was “arbitrary and capricious and was not based on medical necessity,” nor the clinical needs of the beneficiary, but rather on GAPP’s weaning policy. 

In Hunter v. Meadows (N.D. Ga., No. 1:08-CV-2930-TWT, Feb. 17, 2010), the court held that the state was required to provide the Plaintiff’s physician’s requested care of 24 hours of skilled nursing care a day for six to eight weeks while the plaintiff was in a body cast recovering from hip dysplasia surgery, and 18 hours a day following the removal of the cast to prevent respiratory infection, skin breakdown, and other complications.  The state had originally denied this request and instead approved 24 hour care for three days, followed by 18 hours for four days, 84 hours a week for five weeks, and 70 hours a week for the remainder of the certification period. 

In Moore v. Medows (11th Cir., No. 08-13926, Apr. 24, 2009, reversing N.D. Ga., No. 1:07-CV-631-TWT, June 4, 2008), the court held that both the state and the beneficiary’s physician “have roles in determining what medical measures are necessary to ‘correct or ameliorate’ [the beneficiary’s] medical conditions.”  The court also held that the state can put “appropriate limits” on services based on medical necessity.    


More robust pediatric home care benefits needed.  The National Council on Medicaid Home Care – a NAHC Affiliate - agrees with the Order’s ruling recognizing that private duty nursing must be covered by Medicaid to whatever level is medically necessary.  Further, arbitrary standards that shift care responsibilities to parents and siblings put pediatric patients at high risk.   

The Council not only advocates for providing access to home care services for pediatric patients with more intensive care needs, but also for improving Medicaid reimbursement requirements for pediatric home care under Medicaid.  See pages 36-37 of our policy blueprint, here.

Greater oversight to prevent arbitrary limitation of benefits.  The Council also promotes greater oversight mechanisms in states’ Medicaid programs, so that the programs cannot arbitrarily and capriciously limit care for beneficiaries in a way that compromises their health and safety.  The Council encourages providers to advocate for these mechanisms in their state associations, as well as through state and federal governments.

GAPP policies hindering rebalancing.  GDCH’s website states that one of GAPP’s main goals is to promote rebalancing towards home and community-based services (HCBS), in that it provides “[s]ervices are provided in their homes and communities and in a 'medical' daycare setting as an alternative to placing children in a nursing care facility.” However, as the Order suggests, GAPP has policies in place that often has the reverse effect.  By not providing adequate hours of skilled nursing care, GAPP creates an increased risk that severely developmentally disabled children like the Plaintiffs will be hospitalized or institutionalized. 

The Order, in addition to the above mentioned cases, supports the conclusion made in Senator Harkin’s Report that the victory of Olmstead, a case brought against the state of Georgia fourteen years ago, is incomplete. Home care providers should be aware that despite large national strides towards rebalancing, there is still unmet demand for private duty nursing caused by such short-sighted policies like Georgia’s, and HCBS more broadly.  As the Department of Justice suggested in a recent litigation in Florida, states can adjust to this demand through cost-effective, “reasonable modifications,” such as providing more HCBS options/funding and pro-active HCBS screenings. 

The Council encourages providers to continue to advocate for greater support of HCBS through their state associations, as well as through state and federal governments.  Home care providers are encouraged to keep abreast of HCBS developments in their states, and nationally, and to contact the Council with any questions or concerns.




©  National Association for Home Care & Hospice. All Rights Reserved.