Committee reviews FY27 Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living priorities; members seek data before restoring cuts

The committee reviewing FY27 budget recommendations for the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living discussed a set of priorities and potential restorations Wednesday, and requested additional data before approving any restorations.

Speaker 2, an unidentified departmental presenter, told the committee that funding for elder-care clinicians—specialized staff who help designated agencies provide mental-health services to older Vermonters—was cut in a March budget change that "zeros that out," and proposed the committee consider restoring the funding so agencies can continue preventative services. "These elder care clinicians are working with case management," Speaker 2 said, adding the funds typically offset costs at existing designated agencies rather than create new positions.

Speaker 1 pressed for service counts and reporting details, asking how many people and units of service were provided and whether those services are recorded in the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). Speaker 2 said they would "find out" and provide the counts and clarifications so the committee can assess the impact before deciding whether to restore the line.

On home-share services, Speaker 2 proposed reinstating a prior one-time award of $235,000 to support efforts in the Northeast Kingdom to keep people in their homes and avert higher-cost long-term care. No funding source was identified during the discussion.

The committee also discussed reductions to deafblind interpreting and communication supports. Speaker 2 said interpretive services were cut by about $150,000 and described a meeting with an affected individual; Speaker 3 noted that some interpreters earn about $21 an hour, receive no travel reimbursement and face recruitment challenges for event support.

Meals on Wheels' funding needs drew extended discussion. Speaker 2 said the program is facing inflationary pressures and requested $1,000,000 (described in the meeting as "$1 a meal") to help reduce waiting lists; Speaker 2 also cited a rate-study figure indicating a broader funding gap "about $7,000,000" that providers have been fundraising to cover. Speaker 1 asked whether the $1,000,000 would be structured as a one-time investment or general-fund appropriation, and committee members requested a breakdown showing how past appropriations were disbursed to meal sites. Speaker 5 urged explicit language to ensure any new appropriation "must directly be provided to the meal providers rather than" be retained as overhead.

Speaker 2 relayed long-term care ombudsman concerns, saying roughly 40% of FY25 complaints came from seven facilities owned by private equity firms; Speaker 4 asked for clarification on whether those figures were limited to nursing homes and what share of total facilities that represents. The ombudsman's staffing request was discussed in the meeting with an amount referenced as "275" and later as "2.75," but the record does not specify units (thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions); Speaker 2 described the figures as preliminary.

The presenters recommended modest cost-of-living adjustments for home- and community-based providers, proposing a 1% COLA estimated at roughly $84,000 for ACCS and $85,000 for ERC per 1% increase. To illustrate cost trade-offs, Speaker 2 cited a Medicaid nursing-home daily cost of $389.98 (figure given as of Jan. 1) and argued that relatively small investments in community supports can be cost-effective if they keep people out of higher-cost institutional care.

Speaker 1 asked the department to provide caseload increases, unit counts, and any rate-increase or rebasing details for nursing facilities. The committee set a deadline to finalize language and data by Tuesday and agreed to reconvene after floor activity.

No formal motions or votes were recorded in the transcript of this session.