UDW Proposes Provider Fee to Help Save IHSS

UDW and other members of the IHSS Coalition have proposed a new provider fee to maximize funding for IHSS  and prevent catastrophic cuts in the program

Under the proposal, providers will pay a fee based on applying the state’s sales tax to the type of care services provided by IHSS.  This will increase the amount of state funding for the program. The federal government will match the new state funding, more than doubling the amount. This will result in a net increase of $180 – $200 million a year in federal funding to support the program.

The plan calls for providers to receive an additional Medi-Cal payment to offset the fee, which would amount to six percent of the provider’s adjusted gross income.

Here’s more information:

SECURE ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDS TO SAVE IHSS

Share and Save:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • email
  • Print

Author: Steve Mehlman
Date: August 3rd, 2010
Comments: 8 Comments »
Filed: State Budget News
Tags: , , , ,


  • mike

    I don’t quit understand what this “fee” is, but it sounds like another TAX upon the “have nots” I have a better idea, how about all you rich politicians that own yachts in ca. waters pay your registration fees on your “Motor vehicles” just like the, as you say “little people” have to pay their fees to the state. This should generate massive amounts of funding for the state, not to mention all the back penalty fees too.

  • http://www.udwa.org Steve Mehlman

    Actually, Mike, rather than “just another tax on the have-nots,” this fee actually makes some sense. First, providers will be immediately reimbursed for it by a payment from Medi-Cal, so it will actually cost them nothing. Second, because it will generate revenue for IHSS, the fee will bring millions more in matching federal dollars to the state. So not only will providers wind up paying nothing, some of the financial pressure to make further cuts in IHSS will be reduced. Sounds like a win-win.

  • Ellen

    Well, Well. If my check is $52.00 and the fee is $50.00 then how does my check show anything more than $2.00? This sounds like a way to just make a new division so that there is more goverment jobs. Two checks per paycycle. What a waste of trees, time, money, and more.

  • http://www.udwa.org Kristine

    Ellen – I believe you may be misunderstanding what would happen. The intention of this proposal is that it would be a seamless transfer. You would NOT see funds taken from your paycheck and then have them reimbursed later. “Though details are not yet available the proposal reportedly would return immediately the full amount of the fee taken out, back to the IHSS worker in the same paycheck.“ (CDCAN Disability Rights Report) The point is that the federal funding secured in this manner would allow providers to continue to be paid, while helping to stop the program from being drastically cut or eliminated. – Kristine

  • LAUANA

    CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS: IF THEY ARE REPEALING THE WAGE CUT ACTION, DOES THIS MEAN WE COULD GET THE RAISE THAT WAS DUE IN JULY 2009. I’M HAPPY THAT WE STILL HAVE IHSS, BUT MONEY IS TIGHT. I CARE FOR MY SON, 26 YEARS, HE IS TOTALY DISABLED FROM A CAR ACCIDENT.

  • Susanna

    At first I thought this new “fee” was just one more way to take money of what little money we have, away from us. But after I read more about it, it started to make good sense. Even though it sounds like a bad idea for providers, it is actually a good idea.
    It is just an accounting tactic that will increase the revenue for the state.
    If it helps the state get more money from the Federal government then the State won’t have to keep hammering us with cuts, etc. It won’t mean less money for us, or more checks. It won’t even be noticed. I say it’s a great idea. Finally something that will generate more money for the state and not be a burden on the back of the disabled or those who care for them.

  • Donna Chew

    I feel that a “Provider Fee” that brings in more money than it costs could be a good thing. As long as it isn’t taken away from it’s intended purpose and misused for other things. Such as pay raises for the Politicions.

  • http://www.udwa.org Kristine

    Luana in answer to your question, it is very hard to get ANY raises right now. Counties are reluctant to negotiate because of the financial climate, and the legal outcome of the state contribution to wages being unresolved. That being said, your union is working hard on it. Additionally I would suggest you look in to whether your client’s needs assessment (for the # of hours they get) is accurate.