Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Continuity Of Care Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators introduce continuity‑of‑care proposal to shield residents when provider payments are suspended
Summary
A senator presented draft continuity‑of‑care language that would require resident notification, housing-account transparency and a person‑centered Continuity of Care Team to coordinate alternatives when provider payments are withheld. Disability advocates urged deadlines, clearer duties and a requirement that DHS provide state services if no alternatives exist.
A senator presented a draft continuity‑of‑care proposal to the Senate Human Services Committee that would clarify recipients’ rights when a provider faces a payment suspension and would create a person‑centered Continuity of Care Team to coordinate housing and services.
The sponsor told the committee the proposal focuses on three objectives: protecting services for people receiving residential supports; preserving housing security (including clearer accounting and receipts for housing costs); and establishing shared responsibilities and coordination among lead agencies, counties and the state when a payment withhold threatens a resident’s services or housing.
“People in residential settings who rely on services must not be forgotten in an investigation,” a sponsor said while presenting the draft. The language the senator described would also create housing accounts and require financial transparency of how housing dollars are spent for residents in settings where providers control housing and support arrangements.
Advocates who testified — including representatives from the state Disability Law Center, Brain Injury Alliance and other advocacy organizations — strongly supported the concept and asked the committee to add clearer statutory deadlines and escalation requirements. Allan Start of Legal Aid’s Disability Law Center urged explicit timelines so affected individuals and case managers know precisely when actions are required; Josh Bird, an advocate, urged making clear that the state must be the backstop to ensure no one becomes homeless or loses essential services.
The bill as presented was not a finished, filed statute; the sponsor said it will be offered as a delete‑all amendment and that committee staff and stakeholders still expect changes to add deadlines, implementation mechanics and named notification recipients (advocates asked to explicitly name the ombudsman and related offices in the text).
Committee members praised the proposal’s goals and asked DHS, ombudsman and advocates to work on specific timelines, definitions of the Continuity of Care Team’s authorities, and clauses describing when DHS must provide state‑operated services if alternatives cannot be found.
The committee did not vote on the continuity‑of‑care draft during the hearing; senators said they expect further amendments and follow‑up work before a formal committee action.
