Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assisted Living Advisory Council topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate amends assisted-living advisory council law, clarifies use of fines for quality improvements
Summary
Senate File 1918 was amended to add consumer advocacy representation, prefer recent assisted-living experience for council appointments, and clarify that fines collected from violations should be reinvested in direct care and quality improvements; the bill was laid over for further consideration.
Senate File 1918 — a package of nine provisions addressing assisted living, nursing homes, hospice and resident protections — was discussed in committee with a focus on Section 6, which revises the Home Care and Assisted Living Advisory Council’s membership and the use of fines collected from license enforcement.
Senator Scott Dibble (sponsor) and Suzanne Scheller, legal advisor for Elder Voice Advocates, described problems raised by residents and family members in long-term care settings. Scheller told the committee: “We receive many calls and emails, daily from residents and family members with concerns in their long term care settings. So this bill, in general, is born out of not 1, but many calls received with such concerns.”
Key changes adopted in committee include adding a consumer advocacy organization seat (aging or disability advocacy), clarifying that a member with home care experience is preferred to have received services within the prior five years, and directing the council to prioritize investments in direct-care staff recruitment, retention and training. The bill also clarifies the permitted uses of fines collected for violations and requires the commissioner of health to act on council recommendations within one year.
Committee members adopted the A4 author’s amendment to tidy language and then laid Senate File 1918 over for possible inclusion in later omnibus consideration. Supporters said the language balances representation and practical appointment needs; some provider groups signaled continued discussion would be needed before final agreement.
The sponsor said he expects further opportunity for amendment and negotiation as the bill moves through the process.
