Committee advances bill to limit guardianship admissions, require justification for large assisted‑living rate hikes

House File 2,216, advanced by the Minnesota House Human Services Finance and Policy Committee as amended, would restrict some assisted‑living and community residential service providers from requiring guardianship for admission, require new owners to honor existing resident contracts, and require facilities to document rate increases above the consumer price index.

Representative Moller introduced the bill and said it responds to constituent complaints about residents — many with dementia or Alzheimer’s — “spending down tens of thousands of dollars for services they either didn't receive” and then being asked to leave when they were no longer private‑pay. She told the committee the bill “ensures access to elderly waiver, it prevents arbitrary price increases, and it helps ensure access for hospital transitions.”

Nut graf: Supporters said the bill aims to curb practices they described as financially harmful to residents and their families — including private companies that buy facilities, change contracts and raise rates — while opponents warned the changes could impose administrative burden and unintended consequences for providers.

Family members told the committee their experiences. “My mom was paying over $110,000 a year for rent and CARES … ultimately our mom spent almost a half a million dollars until her death last December,” testified Susan Baster, who identified herself as a family member. She said her family worried that when her mother needed an elderly waiver room, they were told there would be no bed available. Don Varney, another family member, described similar uncertainty after a facility he chose did not complete promised elderly waiver enrollment and later was acquired by a new owner.

The Long Term Care Imperative, representing many providers, testified they share concerns about residents’ stability but raised several objections to the bill as drafted. Erin Hubert of the Imperative said guardianship and conservatorship “are complex” and in “some circumstances” appropriate; she also cited delays in county assessments, noting elderly waiver applications can take “160 days or longer,” which affects provider reimbursement. Kyle Burnt, also speaking for the Long Term Care Imperative, warned that limiting price increases to CPI plus an exemption process risks substantial administrative burden and could chill new assisted‑living development, calling the provision “rent control.”

Parice Rodino from the Office of Ombudsman for Long Term Care said alternatives to guardianship exist — such as supported decision‑making, powers of attorney and health care agents — and urged that guardianship not be the default. Several committee members asked how the bill would affect facilities’ financial viability and whether the commissioner would have capacity and timelines to review rate increase documentation; Representative Moller said the committee is awaiting a fiscal note and that other statutes use CPI language the administration could lean on.

The committee adopted the A1 amendment, which the chair described as “puts the bill in the shape the author wants,” then laid the amended bill over for possible inclusion in a future omnibus bill.

Ending: Representative Moller said she welcomes suggestions to refine the bill and noted a posted letter from Adult Representation Services describing experiences with facilities requiring guardianship. The bill was laid over as amended.