Committee debates funding for nursing‑home minimum‑wage rule; opponents warn of costs to rural homes

The House Committee for Human Services on April 1 took testimony on House File 2319, which would appropriate state funding to implement minimum‑wage standards for nursing‑home workers recommended by the Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board.

Sponsor testimony explained the standards set wage floors that would take effect Jan. 1, 2026 if funded and approved by federal authorities. The proposed minimums include $19 per hour in 2026 and $20.50 per hour in 2027 for nursing‑home workers, with higher floors for certified nursing assistants, trained medication aides and licensed practical nurses, according to the sponsor’s committee presentation.

Workers and union representatives testified in favor. South Shore Care Center dietary aide Sam Kanighi described low pay and staffing shortfalls and urged funding for the board’s minimum wage. “We really don't get paid enough for the hard work we put in,” he said.

Provider groups and a long‑term care coalition testified in opposition or with caution, arguing the bill as drafted effectively attempts to circumvent statutory requirements by making the rule effective without the usual legislative appropriation and that the fiscal analysis relied on limited or unclear samples. Erin Hubert and Kyle Burnt, testifying for the Long Term Care Imperative, said the fiscal note shows the legislation includes no upfront appropriation and that costs would not accrue to the state until Jan. 1, 2028 unless nursing homes front the expense. They argued the workforce standards statute is “structurally broken” without legislative fixes and urged that the legislature address the board’s authority and funding mechanism.

Committee members asked DHS budget staff to clarify the fiscal note and how costs were calculated. DHS budget director Elise Bailey said the fiscal note was based on all facilities despite an earlier typo. DHS staff explained the fiscal interaction between the board standard and the state’s value‑based reimbursement (VBR) rates; the governor’s budget included a higher cost partly because it also proposed a 2 percent cap on VBR growth, producing an interactive effect.

Members raised concerns about rural nursing homes’ ability to absorb increases and about waiver processes and the state’s critical access nursing facility program. Testimony from a member who convened rural nursing homes described examples of multi‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar impacts for individual facilities; DHS staff noted a separate critical access nursing facility appropriation exists to help Greater Minnesota homes.

After robust debate, the committee laid House File 2319 over for further consideration; no roll‑call vote on enactment was recorded in the transcript.