Committee advances H.582 to align neglect definition with federal APS rules; markup and vote planned

The Housing and Services Committee on Thursday reviewed H.582, a bill that would rewrite Vermont's adult protective services statute to redefine "neglect," revise where reports of alleged neglect are filed, and change appeal timeframes. Legislative counsel and department witnesses said the bill is intended to bring state law into compliance with a new federal APS rule and to preserve federal funding that supports APS operations.

Legislative counsel Jen Harvey told the committee the draft is a strike-all that overhauls the statute's definition section. "The failure of a caregiver, agent, or fiduciary to provide the goods or services that are necessary to maintain the health or safety or both of a vulnerable adult" would be the operative definition of neglect, she said, while clarifying that self-neglect is excluded and that actions taken under an advance directive are not neglect.

Joan Esbaum, director of the Division of Licensing and Protection, said the bill's primary purpose is federal alignment. "The first is updating the definition of neglect to bring it in compliance with federal rules," Esbaum said, and added that federal reviewers indicated Vermont needed changes to meet the national standard. Department witnesses told the committee failing to meet the federal rule could jeopardize funding that supports roughly one full-time position in APS.

The bill also creates an alternate reporting pathway for allegations that occur inside licensed facilities or involve state-licensed professionals. Under the draft, those allegations would be reported to the relevant licensing entity (for example, survey and certification units, the Department of Health, or the Office of Professional Regulation), and licensing entities that identify neglect would then report to APS. Legislative counsel and department staff characterized the approach as "no wrong door," with information-sharing MOUs and education planned before the statute takes effect.

Committee members raised concerns that routing initial reports to licensing entities could create a perceived conflict or a "chilling effect" on reporting by the workforce. One member opened by saying, "My bias up front ... I don't like this," and asked whether licensing entities should be required to copy APS immediately so that APS remains aware even if licensing entities conduct the initial review. Harvey said the statutory language can be clarified to require notification to APS and to specify who leads investigations in different circumstances.

Witnesses described a year-long stakeholder process to reach compromise language. Esbaum and others said the working group met repeatedly with provider groups, advocacy organizations and legal stakeholders to balance preserving federal funding and protecting vulnerable adults while minimizing unintended workforce consequences.

H.582 would also change appeal timing: the bill extends the window for an alleged perpetrator to seek review before the Human Services Board to 60 calendar days and directs the hearing officer to issue written findings and recommendations within 15 calendar days after the hearing. The departments said the change corrects misaligned deadlines and addresses practical scheduling problems given how often the Human Services Board meets.

Several provider and advocacy witnesses voiced support for the overall direction, while urging clarity in the reporting language. Helen Laban of the Vermont Healthcare Association said organizational or system failures (for example, medication reconciliation problems or staffing shortfalls after a weather event) are often best reviewed by regulatory survey and certification units rather than APS. Kylie Kuiper, the state long-term care ombudsman at Vermont Legal Aid, said proving intent is difficult in many cases and backed the change to focus on failure to provide needed services.

The committee asked legislative counsel to split and clarify the page-5 reporting provision so licensing entities are required to notify APS when they receive a report and to make a direct report to APS if they substantiate neglect. Counsel indicated such edits are feasible and that MOUs and education tied to the October 1 effective date would help operationalize information-sharing.

The committee planned to return revised language and "squeeze in the vote today"; the transcript records scheduling and a planned markup but does not record a formal vote or final outcome. The committee recessed for a short break and said it would take up H.0657 later in the day.

Authorities referenced in committee discussion included Title 33 and a cited section of Vermont statutes governing adult protective services; the transcript also references federal APS rules and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) oversight as the compliance driver. Clarifying technical details discussed during testimony include the proposed 60-day appeal window, the 15-calendar-day decision requirement for hearing officers and an October 1 effective date for implementation and MOUs.

The committee asked departments to provide refined statutory text and flowcharts showing reporting paths and said they would move quickly on markup and a vote.