Vermont Veterans Home presents 'all‑in' budget and warns staffing, waiver and occupancy risks

Melissa Jackson, chief executive officer of the Vermont Veterans Home, and senior staff briefed the House Appropriations Committee on the home’s FY 2026 budget request and operational challenges.

Jackson opened with the home’s mission: “We are here to fulfill the promise, taking care of Vermont's veterans, their spouses, and gold star parents.” She said the home is a state agency with state employees and collective bargaining obligations, and that it receives two kinds of federal Veterans Affairs payments (a daily basic per diem and a service‑connected full cost of care reimbursement) in addition to Medicaid, Medicare and private pay revenues.

Finance Director Steve McClafferty and Jackson outlined the home’s revenue assumptions. They said anticipated VA stipend revenue for FY 2026 is roughly $2.607 million, the domiciliary (residential) stipend about $136,000, and VA service‑connected reimbursement roughly $4.8 million (these are average‑per‑day revenue streams aggregated into annual estimates). Jackson and McClafferty said the home has moved to present an “all‑in” budget for FY 2026 — a single, comprehensive request that includes items previously handled in later budget adjustments. The presentation listed a FY 2026 general fund request of $10,033,214, which they said represents about 32.4% of the home’s expenses.

Staffing and occupancy issues were a central topic. Jackson said 30 beds are offline for a combination of staffing shortages and life‑safety issues in one unit; the unit was taken offline because management could not staff it safely. Committee members were told the home maintains a waiting list — one committee member cited a reported count of 62 people waiting for admission — and that bringing the offline beds back into service would likely generate demand from the waiting list.

The presenters described reliance on agency/temporary staff as a major cost driver. McClafferty noted typical hourly pay differences the home faces: a state RN position averages about $48 per hour while agency/traveling LPNs can cost about $76 per hour. Jackson and McClafferty emphasized that continued reliance on expensive temporary staff would increase deficits.

On reimbursement policy, Jackson and staff described a Medicare/Medicaid waiver process the state uses to obtain full‑cost reimbursement for eligible residents at the Veterans Home. They said the home receives an interim Medicaid reimbursement rate (an example figure cited was $475 per day) and noted prior recoupments that increased effective reimbursement (a cited figure was about $700 per day for recent recoupments). The home said it is monitoring federal policy changes and waiver approvals closely but had not been notified of an imminent loss of waiver eligibility.

Jackson highlighted successful local workforce efforts: the home held two recent LNA classes with passing students and plans another course in summer; most recent graduates applied for positions at the home. The board’s president, Gary DeGasta, described the governing board as a 21‑member body appointed by the governor responsible for fiduciary oversight and property ownership; he urged the legislature to treat the home’s “all‑in” budget as comprehensive if it is adopted.

The presenters did not ask the committee to act immediately beyond reviewing the FY 2026 request, but they asked members to consider the structural nature of the home’s request and the operational implications of staffing, waiver reimbursement and the board’s property and governance role.

Ending: State veterans home leaders said the FY 2026 all‑in budget aims to reflect total operating needs but flagged staffing shortfalls, offline beds, and federal waiver and reimbursement risks as variables that could materially affect the home’s finances and capacity.