Back to UDW Legislation & Political Pages 

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 151 — In-Home Supportive Services
Introduced by Assembly Member Fiona Ma

UDW sponsored this resolution, which would declare the intent of the Legislature to preserve home care and personal care services to seniors and people with disabilities through the In-Home Supportive Services program.

Background:

The IHSS program suffered devastating cuts in the 2009-2010 budget process. In February 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SBX3 6 (Chapter 13, Statutes of 2009), which reduced State financial participation for IHSS provider wages to $9.50 per (plus $.60 in benefits). Stakeholders responded by filing a lawsuit in United States District Court in May 2009 (Dominguez et. al. v Schwarzenegger). Though the matter is still pending, the Court issued preliminary injunctions halting implementation of the mandate. It determined that “Plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood of success on their claim that the State Defendants have violated the procedural requirements of the Medicaid Act. The Court also concludes that Plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable injury if the IHSS cuts are implemented and, furthermore, the cuts are reasonably likely to cost the State more money in the long run as individuals currently receiving in-home health services are required to turn to institutionalized care due to the difficulty of finding IHSS providers willing to work for the reduced wages. Accordingly, the Court grants the preliminary injunction.”

In July 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed ABX4 4 (Chapter 4, Statutes of 2009), which introduced new eligibility standards for IHSS based on Functional Index scores and ranks. Stakeholders responded by filing a lawsuit in United States District Court in October 2009 (Oster et. al. v Wagner). Though the matter is still pending, the Court issued preliminary injunctions blocking the implementation of the new eligibility guidelines. If implemented, the guidelines will eliminate or severely reduce homecare services for more than 100,000 recipients.

The Court recognized that these cuts were a step backward vis-a-vis the mandate of the Americans with Disability Act and the Olmstead ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Olmstead declares that individuals who can live at home must be given that option as opposed to institutional care. Governor Schwarzenegger justified the proposed massive cuts by pointing to the state’s fiscal crisis. However, the court responded by stating that “[a]lthough the State counters that its budget crisis requires such cuts, and the Court weighs this in the balance, the increase in more expensive hospitalization and institutionalization of needy disabled and elderly people will likely outweigh the short-term savings.”

UDW continues to oppose any cut in funding for the program, as it would have a negative effect on providers and recipients. The individuals receiving IHSS are low-income and could not afford to pay out-of-pocket for the services provided through the program. This would have the effect of shifting care to other sectors of the government including the developmental disability system, aging programs, long-term care and emergency rooms. Because the IHSS program is predominantly funded by the federal Medicaid program, reducing these services also would return an estimated $1.2 billion annually to the federal government if fully implemented.

Status:Chaptered by the Secretary of State (Chapter 143, Statutes of 2010) on September 9, 2010

______________________________

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 177
20th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Introduced by Assembly Member Mariko Yamada and Assembly Member Wesley Chesbro

UDW sponsored this resolution, which would recognize July 26, 2010 as the twentieth anniversary of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, further, would recommit the Legislature to efforts to reach full compliance with the Act. It would also recognize the In-Home Supportive Services program as the cornerstone of California’s compliance with the integration mandate of the ADA. Read the rest of this entry »