Advocates press for privacy while Connecticut providers warn of steep bed and cost impacts from two‑bedroom rule

Unidentified Speaker, an advocate for long‑term‑care residents, opened the working group by reading residents’ firsthand accounts of life in shared rooms, saying, “When my family falls, I have to choose,” and arguing that shared rooms strip residents of privacy and dignity.

Why it matters: The session focused on implementing a state rule limiting nursing‑home rooms to no more than two residents. Advocates framed the change as a safety and dignity issue; providers warned it would reduce bed capacity, complicate hospital discharges and require large capital and operating adjustments unless state agencies adopt transition measures.

Industry proposals and provider concerns: Matthew Barrett of the Association of Health Care Facilities described a multi‑session industry proposal addressing rate setting, waivers, certificate‑of‑need (CON) reforms and renovation costs, and said the industry was “not opposed to transition[ing] to the two‑bedroom” configuration. Denise Corals, who represents DaVita Care, said converting one Milford facility from 120 beds to a two‑bed configuration would reduce capacity to roughly 70 beds — “a 42% reduction in beds” — and raised concerns about impacts on residents with high‑acuity behavioral needs and on hospitals that rely on nursing‑home discharge capacity.

“We are in agreement” on the goal of two‑bed rooms, Michael Floss, chief financial officer of Life Care Health Network, said, but he cautioned that many homes operate at 90%‑plus occupancy and that the physical and financing logistics mean changes will be phased and lengthy. “We will comply with the law July 1,” Floss said, adding that some homes have already de‑licensed unused 3‑ and 4‑bed rooms and that renovations require complex planning and capital.

Policy and technical questions: Providers repeatedly requested clearer guidance from the Department of Social Services (DSS) on whether Medicaid rates would be adjusted to reimburse revenue losses during renovation and whether DSS would permit interim waivers or expedited CON reviews for projects that demonstrate progress. DaVita and other operators also asked whether bed transfers between facilities (for example, moving capacity from Milford to Cheshire or Danbury) could be approved without creating net new certified beds.

Advocates pushed back on delays and urged that residents’ privacy be prioritized immediately. The advocate who opened the meeting said the phase‑out timeline in statute (cited in the session) had been long known and argued that implementation should not be deferred further.

Next steps: Participants agreed to continue technical discussions. The working group tentatively scheduled a lower‑key follow‑up meeting for March 6 to address planning, rate‑setting and CON questions. No formal motions or votes were taken at this session.

The meeting record shows a mix of agreement on the policy goal and disagreement about implementation timing, financing and operational impacts; agencies and providers committed to more technical work before the law’s implementation milestones.