:

UDW Letter to State Legislature on Failure of SB 69

UDW EXECUTIVE BOARD

Laura Reyes, President

Rose Nguyen, Secretary/Treasurer

Rosalina Flores, Vice President

Russell Jones , Butte County – Addus

Amy Day, El Dorado County

Margarita Jaramillo, Kern County

Edward Huddleston, Merced County

Christine Nguyen, Orange County

William Reed , Placer County

Martha Martinez, Riverside County

Rosa Ramirez, Riverside County – Addus

Editha Adams, San Diego County

Gerald Ashby, San Diego County

Paula Fisk, San Luis Obispo County

Feel Good, Santa Barbara County

Elva Munoz, Santa Barbara County – Addus

Roxann Chakos , Stanislaus County

Doug Moore , Executive Director

 November 4, 2009

Members of the California State Legislature

State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Failure to pass Senate Bill 69 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) — IHSS Program Changes and Implementation

Dear State Legislator:

The UDW Homecare Providers Union/AFSCME, which represents 65,000 homecare providers throughout California, is deeply disappointed by the Senate’s failure to pass Senate Bill 69. This bill would have provided the time and resources desperately needed by our counties to implement the new IHSS provider enrollment requirements approved as part of the July budget agreement.

Twenty-eight counties representing 86 percent of the IHSS caseload informed the Schwarzenegger Administration last month that they would be unable to implement the new enrollment requirements by the November 1 deadline. These counties urged the Administration to allocate adequate funding and time and provide proper instruction to the counties so that the new requirements can be implemented in a way that promotes program integrity.

We applaud the 68 Democrats and Republicans who supported SB 69 in the Assembly. They recognized that the programmatic changes made to IHSS in July were not designed to dismantle this cost-effective and valuable program, but rather to enhance program integrity. We had hoped that this spirit of cooperation the Assembly showed in setting partisan politics aside to pass SB 69 would carry over to the Senate. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

SB 69 failed in the Senate on a party line vote. This sends the disturbing message that some in the Senate don’t think it’s a priority to stop the administrative chaos that their counties are facing as a result of the action by the Legislature and the Governor in July. The major programmatic changes in IHSS were approved in July without a thorough discussion of their policy implications, but some Senators refuse to take responsibility for the results.

This is especially troubling because while SB 69 failed in the Senate, other far more contentious bills dealing with water policy and education passed with bipartisan support. We wish that Senate leaders had stepped up to the plate for SB 69 as they did for water policy and education and as their counterparts in the Assembly did for SB 69.

Apparently, some of you think it’s OK for counties, IHSS consumers and their homecare providers to have to mount a major lobbying campaign to get legislators to fix a problem created by the Legislature itself. We think it’s unfair and irrational. We expect Senate leadership–with your support–to make this a priority.

Sincerely,
Jovan Agee
Political & Legislative Director

The Community Choice Act

Let the people who need services make the choice — homecare dollars should not have to compete with institutional care, but instead should be an equally funded choice for the consumer.

Every year those of us in California who depend on In Home Supportive Services have to wait, worry and wonder if the funding will be cut. Every year Governor Schwarzenegger has gone after the program and proposed cuts that would devastate the lives of the elderly and disabled who use In Home Supportive Services as well as their workers. Yet nursing homes and other institutions that are far more costly keep getting funded. Why?

Current law requires that nursing facility and institutional services be provided in every state, but home and community services are only an option .  Optional services are subject to arbitrary limitations in scope and levels of services to be provided, cutbacks, and waiting lists.  Not to mention quality of care. We’ve all seen those programs and articles exposing conditions in some nursing homes and veterans’ facilities. Study after study shows that most people would prefer to live in their own homes and communities, yet these barriers persist.  Additionally, home and community services are much less expensive costing two to three times less than their institutional and facility based counterparts. So Californians are forced to suffer low wages for providers and cuts to services if they want to live at home, and other states go with minimal or no homecare services at all.

If you are providing care for someone in their home; if you have a loved one that is aging and faces the choice of living in an institution or staying at home with help; if you are disabled but want to stay, live, and work in your local community, then the Community Choice Act will affect you.

The Community Choice Act (CCA) would create a basic home and community service as an alternative for people who otherwise qualify for and are entitled to nursing facility or intermediate care facility for mentally retarded (ICF/MR) services.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) will introduce the Community Choice Act (CCA) in both houses of Congress on March 24. Both President Obama and Vice President Biden were CCA co-sponsors during their years in the Senate.

To get email alerts and become a supporter of the bill go to the ADAPT website
then click on Community Choice Act (CCA)

The Human Cost of IHSS Changes: What Counties are Seeing

The elderly and disabled say that recent cuts to IHSS are literally life-threatening.

But the bungling of the administration’s "fraud prevention measures" may be an equal threat for some, who need a provider right away and now can’t get one because counties are unable to process the new requirements.

In spite of protests from over half of California counties, the Schwarzenegger administration is forcing "fraud reform" measures to be implemented without giving counties enough time, clear direction, or resources to implement them. If the counties can not process the new requirements in time that may stop new providers and existing providers seeking new clients from being paid. Which is already leaving some consumers without care providers.

Some say the Schwarzenegger administration is deliberately bungling the process in order to achieve further cuts to IHSS the legislature would not approve.

Here are some examples of reports received by the County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) since the new IHSS regulations went into effect November 1. Dozens of counties, along with homecare consumers, providers and advocates have asked that the state move back the implementation date because of situations like these. However, the Schwarzenegger Administration and Republican state senators have refused to allow a postponement. 

In Santa Cruz County, an 85-year-old woman who lives alone became ill with pneumonia. Her regular provider feared that the woman had H1N1 and was afraid to work for her while she was ill. Among this recipient’s health conditions: stroke with left side weakness, painful spasms to her face, osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis. She is authorized for 85 hours a month of domestic personal care services, including meal assistance, bathing, dressing, and medical escort. Ordinarily the recipient could find a temporary provider on her own or request short-term care through the registry. Due to all of the confusion regarding provider enrollment criteria, including what is required of current providers who accept jobs with new recipients, it was unclear whether or not a registry referral would be successful for the short-term services needed. The recipient ended up being hospitalized.

In Trinity County, three new providers came in Monday to enroll and become caregivers to three different recipients. The county had to tell the caregivers that they couldn’t complete their applications because the county is not able to process background checks, which they have not received final instructions on from the state. That means these three elderly and disabled people will be alone and without care for an indefinite amount of time.

In San Luis Obispo County, a woman just returned home from the hospital and does not have a caregiver in place. She is a recent double amputee and has an infection in what is left of one of her legs. She is unable to perform many tasks without assistance due to the amputation. She is not yet 65 years old and therefore cannot access many of the local senior resources, such as senior nutrition. The county is working to find an existing provider since it cannot set up a new provider. These situations will only become more common as the pool of available existing providers dwindles and the number of people needing personal care assistance continues to increase.

In San Francisco County, a desperate call came in this week from a bedridden woman who was in need of a new caregiver. The county staff member told her it would take several weeks to find a new caregiver because the provider enrollment process could not be quickly completed. The woman, a former nurse, just started to cry. The only answer county staff could provide was that the woman should try to rehire her provider and there was nothing the county could do to quickly find a new caregiver.

In San Francisco County, a blind man’s weekend worker had to stop working for him. The man now has no one to help him with meal preparation and clean up over the weekend. The county counselor suggested that he ask his regular weekday worker to prepare more food to get him through the weekend. There are no other options at this point given that finding a new provider will take weeks because of the still-to-be-finalized enrollment process.

See Assemblymember Evans’ Address to Oversight Committee (video)

Republican State Senators Vote

for Administrative Chaos,

Backdoor Cuts to IHSS

Doug Mooreby Doug Moore

Executive Director

United Domestic Workers of America

Published in California Progress Report, November 5, 2009

It is sad that the governor’s Republican enablers in the State Senate have chosen to ignore the pleas of countless California counties as well as thousands of homecare consumers, providers and advocates by allowing the In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) implementation fiasco to continue. Their failure to support SB 69, which would have simply given the counties the time and resources needed to efficiently implement new IHSS requirements, is disgraceful. The bill had passed the Assembly 68-0 earlier in the week.

Last summer, as part of the negotiated 2009-10 state budget, the legislature passed and the governor signed a new law which called for throwing thousands of low-income elderly, blind and disabled Californians out of the IHSS program. This was despite the fact that homecare saves taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year by keeping these consumers out of far-more-costly nursing homes or other institutions. Fortunately, a Federal Court judge has temporarily stopped this from happening because it may violate provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Olmstead Act, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

For those clients and providers who remain in the IHSS program, the budget agreement also imposed new requirements calling for fingerprinting, background checks, and other steps supposedly designed to eliminate what Republicans claim is “massive” fraud in IHSS. (Even though the governor, his legislative allies and a few ambitious district attorneys have been screaming about fraud all year, they have never provided definitive proof that it is widespread.)

Unfortunately, in its headlong rush to put these new requirements in place by November 1, the Administration sent information to the counties that was contradictory, confusing, incomplete and, in some instances, possibly illegal.

That is why counties all across California—urban and rural, Republican and Democratic, rich and poor—informed the Administration that they simply were unable to implement the new IHSS requirements by the Nov. 1 deadline date.

Furthermore, the Administration failed in many cases to obtain feedback from affected stakeholders—county welfare departments, homecare consumers and providers—before issuing these regulations. In cases where stakeholder feedback was solicited, it generally was ignored.

In most situations like this one—when new rules and regulations cannot be implemented by a deadline date—the previous rules and regulations continue in force. But in this case, the Administration has mandated that because the new rules and regulations weren’t implemented by Nov. 1st, the previous regulations DON’T apply and no new IHSS consumers can receive homecare until the new regulations are implemented . This begs the question: Is the Administration trying to achieve deeper cuts in IHSS than the Legislature voted for by encouraging this administrative chaos?

Instead of working with and supporting the counties by providing them with the time, resources, and accurate information they need to effectively and efficiently implement these changes in IHSS, Senate Republicans have told the counties and thousands of our state’s most vulnerable citizens: “You haven’t implemented the changes by the deadline date? Tough luck.”

They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Doug Moore is executive director of the 65,000-member UDW Homecare Providers Union, California’s only union made up entirely of homecare workers.

 

 

 

Top of Page

Copyright © United Domestic Workers of America. All rights reserved.

Technical comments or questions may be addressed to Webmaster

SB 69 FAILS PASSAGE IN STATE SENATE FINAL VOTE 23 TO 12 ON IHSS BILL FALLS 4 VOTES SHORT OF PASSAGE

CALIFORNIA DISABILITY COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK
ADVOCACY WITHOUT BORDERS: ONE COMMUNITY
REPORT  #304-2009   NOVEMBER 4, 2009 –  TUESDAY

Bill Passed In Assembly 68 to 0 – SB 69 Would Have Delayed Implementation of IHSS Worker Requirements – Requires Department of Social Services To Convene Stakeholder Process Before Implementation of New Requirements – Counties and Advocates Say Without A Delay In Implementation Widespread “Panic and Confusion” Will Grow Worse Across State Among the 462,000 Persons With Disabilities, Seniors in the IHSS Program

SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 11/04/09  12:01 AM  (Pacific Time)  -  With the State’s water crisis dominating attention at the State Capitol, the State Senate reconvened its floor session at 11:35 PM, over 8 hours since it recessed Tuesday afternoon, but failed to pass SB 69, a bill that would have delayed the November 1 st implementation of several requirements for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) workers (providers), with a final vote taken just after midnight.  The final roll call was 23 votes in favor and 12 votes opposed, with 5 members not voting.    No further action on the bill is expected at this point with the failure to win passage and it is not certain what the Legislature – or the counties and advocates will do next.

The initial vote before going into recess was 23 to 10, but because the bill is an “urgency” or emergency bill, 27 votes are needed for passage in the 40 member State Senate.  The final roll call vote fell strictly on party lines – with all 23 votes in favor Democrats – and all 12 votes in opposition Republicans.  Democrats control the State Senate with 25 seats, and Republicans holding the remaining 15.

The Assembly passed SB 69, with amendments by Assemblymember Noreen Evans (Democrat – Santa Rosa)  by an overwhelming final vote of 68 to 0.  As previously reported, SB 69 received support from Assembly Democrats and Republicans including Assembly Republican Leader Sam Blakeslee (Republican – San Luis Obispo) who spoke on the Assembly floor urging Assembly Republicans to support the measure.

While IHSS remains a health and safety crisis with most members of the Legislature, both houses have been largely focused Monday and today on trying to pass a long delayed agreement resolve the state’s water crisis.  It is not certain what happens next with counties saying it cannot comply in implementing the new IHSS worker requirements because, they claim, the State has not provided in time, clarification on questions, translated materials, clear directions or guidance on implementation, and released the funding for counties to hire and train the staffing needed to implement the new requirements.  Counties – representing over 86% of the 462,000 people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and low income seniors in the IHSS program, and disability and senior advocates say without a delay in the November 1 st implementation, widespread “panic and confusion” will grow worse across the state resulting in people losing workers or not having new workers available so they can remain safely in their own homes.

The new requirements included mandatory fingerprinting and background checks, in person orientation and new worker (provider) enrollment forms for all IHSS workers.  Counties have said they have not received clear directions and guidance or the time needed to implement the new rules by the November 1 st effective date.

CDCAN VOTE RECORD REPORT – SB 69 (FINAL VOTE)

STATE SENATE FLOOR VOTE 11/04/09: PASS AS AMENDED (AGREE OR CONCUR IN ASSEMBLY AMENDMENTS)

VOTE NEEDED TO PASS:  27

VOTING YES – 23 TOTAL:
SENATE DEMOCRATS (23):  Elaine Alquist, Ronald Calderon, Gil Cedillo, Ellen Corbett, Mark DeSaulnier, Denise Ducheny, Dean Florez, Loni Hancock, Christine Kehoe, Mark Leno, Carol Liu, Alan Lowenthal, Gloria Negrete McLeod, Alex Padilla, Fran Pavley, Curren Price Jr., Gloria Romero, Joe Simitian, Darrell Steinberg (Senate President Pro Tem), Patricia Wiggins, Lois Wolk, Roderick Wright, and Leland Yee.

SENATE REPUBLICANS (0): ***none***

VOTING NO – 12 TOTAL:
SENATE DEMOCRATS (0): ***none***

SENATE REPUBLICANS (12):  Roy Ashburn, John Benoit, Dave Cogdill, Dave Cox, Jeff Denham, Bob Dutton, Dennis Hollingsworth (Senate Republican Leader), Bob Huff, Abel Maldonado, Tony Strickland, Mimi Walters and Mark Wyland

NOT VOTING, ABSTAIN OR ABSENT

SENATE DEMOCRATS (2) :  Lou Correa and Jenny Oropeza

SENATE REPUBLICANS (3) : Sam Aanestad , Tom Harman, and George Runner

The bill as approved by the Assembly, with amendments by Assemblymember Noreen Evans (Democrat – Santa Rosa) would have required the following:

· Requires the Department of Social Services to conduct a full stakeholder process prior to implementing the provisions that  were intended to be in effect on November 1, 2009.

· Requires the stakeholder process to be concluded by February 1, 2010 (which means actual implementation date could be as late as the first week of  April  2010 if the stakeholder process ended February 1)

· Delays implementation of the IHSS worker (provider) requirements by 60 days after the stakeholder process is concluded.

The bill would have changed the effective dates for several of the provisions dealing with IHSS worker (provider) requirements in budget related bills passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor in late July as part of the 2009-2010 revised state budget including provisions in ABx4 19, and also changes to the IHSS in the main revised budget bill (ABx4 1) and the other budget related bill dealing with IHSS – ABx1 4