Senate Health and Welfare committee sends bill allowing family-installed cameras in residential care facilities to the floor

The Senate Health and Welfare Committee on a voice vote recommended sending House Bill 337 to the Senate floor with a due pass recommendation. The bill would permit a resident, a resident guardian or a health care agent to authorize installation and use of an electronic monitoring device in a resident's private room at a residential care facility.

The bill's sponsor, Representative Dory Healy (R.-Dist. 15), told the committee the proposal grew from constituent concerns about abuse in long-term care and cited national statistics about abuse and neglect. She said the bill is optional, paid for by the resident or family, and includes language intended to protect residents' privacy by specifying placement and by directing facilities to adopt standards to avoid capturing sensitive or intimate body areas.

Supporters and opponents disagreed over privacy, staff safety and operational impacts. Representatives of large providers — Elizabeth Sonnichsen, deputy general counsel for Pinnacle Senior Living; Cody Bennett, regional administrator for Grace Assisted Living; Monica Heath, executive regional nurse for Grace Assisted Living; and Colter Camo, owner at Grace Assisted Living — urged opposition. They argued the bill is overly broad, could lead to unreviewable footage being used against staff, would increase operational costs and staffing burdens, could undermine dignity during care that cannot always be performed while a resident is fully covered, and could encourage secret cameras that the facility would not control.

Robert Van der Merwey, executive director of the Idaho Healthcare Association, said dignity is a major concern and described examples where staff have quit after being accused based on recordings. He suggested technical mitigations — for example, cameras that show body outlines rather than fine detail — and said some states require moving cameras during intimate care.

Representative Healy and some committee members said the bill aims to protect at-risk adults and to make visible any monitoring rather than leaving secret cameras in use. Healy noted the bill already states cameras must be in a private room (page 2, line 18 in the bill text) and that facilities will write their own standards for acceptable camera placement and privacy safeguards.

Committee members asked about consent when residents have cognitive impairment, who pays for cameras, whether facilities could refuse residents who request monitoring, and whether facilities can require use of facility Wi-Fi. Representative Healy pointed to bill language allowing a resident, guardian or health care agent to authorize installation and said the bill allows a guardian to authorize monitoring for someone who cannot consent. She said the intent is that facilities must allow cameras and draft facility standards for placement and privacy; she also stated the device expense is borne by the resident or family.

After debate, Senator Blaylock moved and Senator Kaiser seconded the motion to send House Bill 337 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. Several senators expressed continued reservations during debate; the committee adopted the motion on a voice vote. The clerk later announced three recorded no votes: Senators Harris, Shippey and Wintrow; the motion otherwise carried.

The bill would create a statutory right for residents or their authorized representatives to install electronic monitoring devices in private rooms of residential care facilities, subject to facility standards on placement and efforts to protect sensitive and intimate body areas. The bill text (as discussed in committee) also says facilities must make "every effort" while the device is active to ensure sensitive and intimate areas are covered and that a resident must have a private room when monitoring is in place.

The committee did not adopt amendments on the floor of the committee. The measure will be considered next on the Senate floor, where senators can propose changes or ask for more specific language about consent, camera type, notification to facilities and access to footage.