Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nursing Home Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Strafford County delegates debate future of Riverside Rest Home amid Medicaid shortfalls and staffing pressures
Summary
Delegation members reviewed options for Riverside Rest Home — renovation, public‑private partnership, or exit to managed care — and heard competing data and cost estimates; Representative Potenza will deliver a data‑driven report recommending a phased reduction and a 140‑bed cap.
Strafford County delegation members spent their meeting reviewing the future of Riverside Rest Home and the county’s fiscal responsibility for long‑term care, focusing on Medicaid reimbursement limits, facility conditions and a range of options including renovation, a public‑private partnership, or shifting to managed care.
Representative Potenza said hospitals have repeatedly contacted the county about patients medically ready for discharge but without a place to go. "I want the data," she said, presenting a draft where she argued long‑term nursing home use has declined and recommended capping Riverside at 140 beds and pursuing a 7–10 year phase‑down of the county‑run model. Potenza said her report will be data driven and delivered to colleagues by the New Year.
Other delegation members urged caution. One member noted the county already spends "over 1,000,000 dollars a year" on building maintenance and described prior renovation proposals that ballooned in cost when asbestos and new window requirements were discovered. Members emphasized that Medicaid billing rules mean the county remains responsible for the non‑federal share for eligible patients "irrespective of where they go," and they sought clarity on what the legislature might do about managed care.
Delegates discussed three broad options. One option is to build a new county facility and continue direct provision of long‑term care. A second is to accept state moves to managed care that could hand placement and care decisions to insurers; members warned that managed care could eliminate incentives to accept Medicaid patients and estimated systemwide losses (cited in discussion as about $60,000,000) with a local share example of roughly $8,000,000. The third option is a public‑private partnership in which the county would fund construction while a private operator runs the facility; participants discussed an illustrative split of 175 Medicaid beds and 125 private‑pay beds in a roughly 300‑bed project.
Several members pointed to other counties’ projects as a model. The delegation reviewed Sullivan County’s multi‑phase renovation that reportedly used state and federal grants to cover about 45 percent of costs, reducing the county bond share. Delegates discussed modular construction and phased demolition of the oldest building as strategies to control schedule and cost.
Behavioral health needs were a recurring concern. One participant said about "85% of that population over there is the behavioral component," arguing such residents are staff‑intensive and that private facilities often decline them. Delegates flagged that behavioral units require single rooms and specialized staffing and that any transition away from county operation must account for those patients.
No formal policy or appropriation was adopted at the meeting. Members agreed to continue work on written drafts, combine staff and member reports, and reconvene in January to review consolidated proposals. The meeting ended with a unanimous roll‑call vote to adjourn.
Next steps: Representative Potenza will circulate her data‑driven report and a subgroup will assemble background materials (including updated fiscal analyses and census data) before the next scheduled meeting in early January.
