Better Call Saul legal question about the retirement home plot

Ok part of the plot of the show is that Jimmy uncovers the fact the retirement home Sand Piper Crossing is charging residents exorbitant rates for goods, like facial tissue and toilet paper. These are high but not outlandish, $3 for a roll of toilet paper etc.

Now in my experience this is pretty much standard at hospitals, residential treatment centers etc. Ever take a close look at an itemized medical bill? Pretty much every single one will have exorbitant rates for drugs dispensed, consumable items in the room, up to the plastic water pitcher.

Is this practice actually illegal?

IANAL but it seems like it’s a thing: Professional service providers, ranging from financial planners, estate lawyers or even the local handyman may exploit older customers. They might overcharge for services, or even fraudulently transfer funds or accounts without the elder victim’s knowledge. Door-to-door handymen may swindle the senior into having work done and receive payment for the work without following through on it. ** Medical professionals may commit Medicare or Medicaid fraud by charging for services never performed or by overbilling.**
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/elder_care.html#.VU_qpjW37tQ

See: Cost Accounting

This is famously the $800 toilet seat, etc.

Somewhere, you need to pay for the cost of the land, the building, all of the various types of insurance, the cost of each worker, utilities, etc.

If you lump all those costs into the per diem, the rate is going to exceed what Mediwhatever pays, and you get no customers. So you hold down this number but up the other one.

When you spend $3 billion to develpo the technology that is used on a total of 150 planes, either the per/plane, the per/hour counsulting/ per year development/ per replacement part.

Good luck getting Americans to pay-as-you-go on tax rates.

I assume there’s a “duty of care” that applies when dealing with people who are not capable of managing their own affairs. Perhaps it’s similar to how a guardian cannot simply squander their ward’s assets, but can take “reasonable” amounts for necessary expenses related to the child. Similarly, a care home has taken on long-term “guardianship” of an elderly not-all-there senior, something the $20-aspirin hospital has not necessarily done.

Of course, its debatable whether charging double for a necessity when you deliver it on demand is a rip-off, but charging highway robbery prices of ten times or more, when the person is essentially a captive audience, might be hard to justify.