Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homecare Labor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contentious debate stalls bill that would remove contractor exemption for home‑care providers
Summary
Representative Gray's proposal to remove a statutory exemption that allowed some home‑care agencies to treat personal‑care workers as independent contractors drew extended testimony from caregiver registries and agency owners who said the registry model is consumer‑directed; providers warned the change would eliminate choice and harm caregivers, while agency proponents argued proper classification is vital for benefits and protections. No motion was made and the bill died for lack of a motion.
Representative Gray presented House Bill 16‑87 to strike a state exemption that allows certain home‑and‑community‑based service providers to treat personal‑care workers as independent contractors rather than employees. Gray argued the current exemption creates unfair competition and leaves workers without benefits, workers' compensation and payroll protections.
Multiple provider registries and business owners testified in opposition. Attorneys and registry executives said caregiver registries match clients with self‑employed caregivers who set hours and rates, receive referral fees and operate under licenses and IRS/Workforce determinations; they warned removing the exemption would remove consumer choice and disrupt a model used for decades. Providers described the model as 'consumer directed' and said caregivers want flexible schedules.
Provider advocates for employment‑based agency models, including representatives of licensed home‑care agencies and some employers, argued that in many cases the functional control, scheduling and reporting expected by Medicaid and insurers are closer to an employment relationship and that misclassification leaves workers exposed and the state liable. Dr. Matt McClure and other agency owners described cases where caregivers lacked tax reporting and where consumer protections and insurance coverage differed between models.
After extensive testimony and questioning, the bill received no motion to advance and thus did not move out of committee at this hearing.
