Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senate Bill Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Georgia Health and Human Services Committee hears bill to require assisted‑living referral disclosure
Summary
Lawmakers and industry witnesses debated Senate Bill 439, which would require referral agencies that connect families to assisted‑living communities to disclose paid placement relationships and cap certain fees; providers cited hidden costs to small operators and families, while referral agents warned of administrative burdens that could impede crisis care.
Sen. Sean Still presented Senate Bill 439 to the Health and Human Services Committee on March 8, proposing new disclosure rules for referral agencies that connect families with assisted‑living and personal‑care homes. He said the measure is intended to protect seniors and relatives by requiring agencies to disclose when placements are driven by paid relationships and to limit placement‑fee practices.
The bill, as described by Sen. Still, adds definitions for assisted living and personal care homes in state code, creates a definition for referral agencies, requires a written disclosure and consumer acknowledgement that a fee may be charged for referrals, limits collection of referral fees after 12 months, and requires confirmation that referred residences are licensed with the Department of Community Health. "Transparency is something I think is ever so important," Sen. Still told the committee as he introduced the measure.
Seth Daniels of the Georgia Senior Living Association, who accompanied the author, told the committee that referral agencies are largely unregulated under current Georgia law and that many families do not realize referral lists are limited to communities that pay placement fees. "We collect a fee for making referrals ... the consumer is unaware that there's a fee paid on the back end," Daniels said. Witnesses and committee members cited typical referral fees ranging from roughly 70% to 120% of a first month's room‑and‑care charges and examples estimating fees of approximately $3,000 to $9,000.
Supporters from assisted‑living providers and small community owners said the disclosures would help families make informed decisions under time pressure. An administrator from Great Oaks in Monroe testified that families often believe they are contacting a home directly and later feel "taken advantage of" when they learn a referral agency was involved. Leslie Finkley, manager of two small Georgia communities, described fees that she said rose from about 65% (roughly $4,000 per resident) in 2015 to about 95% (about $8,000) today and said the hidden costs risk driving small providers out of visibility on referral platforms.
Providers also gave examples of financial exposure: Seth Pesek, president of Phoenix Senior Living, described a case where three different placement agencies claimed the same resident and sought fees that could have cost his community nearly $20,000 for a resident who stayed fewer than 12 months.
Referral agents and placement advisers urged caution. Amy Henschel of Senior Provisions and other referral‑service witnesses said they support transparency and consumer protection but opposed the bill as drafted, arguing that requirements such as pre‑service engagement letters, tight timing rules and reliance on the Department of Community Health portal could create harmful delays or administrative burdens at moments when families need fast, high‑touch guidance. "We absolutely support transparency, consumer protection, and appropriate oversight," Henschel said, "but as currently written, we cannot support it because several of the provisions unintentionally disrupt how high‑level senior care guidance actually functions in real time." Several witnesses urged preserving the role of local, hands‑on referral advisers and warned that forcing documents on families in crisis could erect a psychological barrier to care.
Committee members asked about existing law and comparable statutes in other states. Witnesses said roughly eight other states have enacted or considered similar measures (Texas, Colorado, Maryland, Oregon and Oklahoma were cited); members noted federal rules such as CMS prohibitions that apply to some regulated nursing facilities but not to private‑pay assisted living in Georgia. A committee member also flagged a Georgia kickback statute and recommended additional legal review before any statutory change.
The committee treated the item as a hearing only; Sen. Still and stakeholders were asked to submit proposed amendments by noon the next day. The chair said the committee could reconvene Wednesday to consider revised language. No formal vote was taken at the hearing.
What’s next: The bill author and stakeholders were directed to work on amendments and submit them by the specified deadline; the committee may consider the revised bill at a future meeting.
