Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Continuity Of Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee reviews continuity-of-care rules, segregated rent accounts and 60-day nonpayment standard
Summary
Nonpartisan staff told the Human Services Committee that Article 1 would align HCBS residential suspension rules with assisted-living standards, require ICS providers to segregate client rent payments, create a DHS continuity-of-care team, and clarify commissioner authority on payment withholds; senators pressed whether the 60-day nonpayment standard creates an unfunded duty to continue services.
Nonpartisan staff presented Article 1 of the omnibus human services policy bill to the Senate Human Services Committee, saying it aims to preserve continuity of care when residential waiver providers face commissioner-initiated payment withholds.
The article would import the assisted-living standard that allows providers to suspend or terminate services after 60 days of nonpayment by a public source into Home- and Community‑Based Services (HCBS) standards, add integrated community supports (ICS) to covered residential settings, require ICS providers to account separately for client rent and housing payments (creating a segregated mechanism), and establish a continuity-of-care team at the Department of Human Services to plan and intervene when the commissioner withholds payments to a provider.
Committee members questioned whether the language effectively creates a duty for providers to continue providing services for 60 days after a payment stop and asked how that would work when providers lack funds. Mr. Monahan, the nonpartisan staffer who presented the article, said the continuity-of-care team is designed to coordinate and, where possible, intervene to prevent service disruptions but acknowledged practical constraints and department capacity concerns. He said the article also clarifies the commissioner’s authority to stop a payment-withhold for good cause and requires coordination with the continuity-of-care team before a withhold begins.
Supporters framed the accounting requirement for rent as a consumer-protection measure to avoid commingling residents’ housing funds with provider operating funds. The article’s language also clarifies that a person previously receiving ICS may continue to live in the same setting and receive other services so long as those services are not provided by the former ICS provider.
The committee did not vote on Article 1; members requested additional detail about operationalizing a 60‑day standard and urged staff and the department to clarify how the continuity‑of‑care team would respond in practice. The article will return for markup at a later session.
