Kansas hearing spotlights proposed dementia-care certification to curb misleading memory-care marketing
Loading...
Summary
Supporters say HB 23-70 would curb misleading advertising and protect families by creating a state dementia-care certification and public registry; providers warn vague language and enforcement could reduce access and create operational burdens without clearer standards.
The Committee on House Health and Human Services heard extensive testimony on House Bill 23-70, which would create a state-certified “assisted living facility with dementia care” designation, require department-approved dementia-care training for staff, set staffing and activity-program expectations, and require notice and transitional plans if a facility relinquishes the certification.
Proponents, including Jamie Gideon of the Alzheimer’s Association, told the committee facilities currently may advertise “memory care” without consistent standards and that the bill would help prevent exploitation of older adults and give families clearer information about services. Gideon said KDADS should maintain certification records so families can confirm a facility’s status online.
Haley Ordoyne, the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, urged the committee to broaden transparency and transition protections, recommending the legislation be expanded to include all adult care homes and that the ombudsman’s office be notified when a facility surrenders certification to help residents with transitional plans. A family caregiver described visiting facilities that appeared suitable but whose medical advisers later warned were “not good,” saying a searchable state registry would have helped her avoid a poor placement.
Providers and trade groups strongly supported the goal of preventing misrepresentation but warned the bill’s current language is vague on definitions, enforcement, and who would administer the certification. Jessica Easterwood, a licensed nursing-home administrator, said assisted-living regulations already require assessments, care plans and negotiated service agreements, and warned that tying marketing statements to consumer-protection enforcement without clear clinical standards could delay admissions, chill providers from accepting higher-need residents, and reduce access in rural areas.
Kylie Childs of LeadingAge Kansas said the association is willing to work in good faith but cannot support the bill as drafted because it lacks clear administrative responsibility, measurable standards, and transition provisions. Jennifer Surk of Midwest Health cautioned that rural communities rely on flexible services and that additional staffing or regulatory burdens may be impractical for small facilities.
Committee members pressed witnesses on operational questions: how families would verify certification (witnesses said KDADS would maintain certification records and the bill’s intent is an online lookup), whether national certification would be referenced (witnesses said the proposal is intended to create a Kansas credential administered by the secretary’s discretion), and finances (a fiscal note was discussed referencing KDADS costs and the need for staffing to implement oversight).
No formal action on HB 23-70 was taken during this hearing; the committee directed further work and acknowledged multiple stakeholders would need to refine definitions, training standards, oversight responsibilities and transition safeguards before a vote.
The committee adjourned the HB 23-70 hearing and moved on to other bills on its agenda.
