Licensing Update

RCFE insurance companies increasing premiums

Get a competitive bid on your liability and worker’s compensation insurance? Contact Willy Halle, an RCFE administrator and independent insurance agent, to see if he can help with costs or coverage: (760) 835-1884.

Legislative and Licensing Updates

SB1343, Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), amended Government Code 12950 taking effect January 1, 2020, requiring employers of five (currently 50 or more) to provide one-hour training to non-managerial employees on sexual harassment, and two-hours of training to managers. However, it is the duty of Fair Housing and Employment to develop online courses to fulfill these requirements. This department must create informational posters and fact sheets and distribute to employers. The poster and information sheets will be in various languages and will include workplace rights of transgender employees, the illegality of sexual harassment, the definition and description of sexual harassment, and a link to the informational website. Section 12950.1 requires an “interactive” training and education and done at least once every two years, and further includes examples of abusive conduct and harassment based on gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation. The state defines “abusive conduct” to mean “hostile, offensive” and behavior unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests such as “verbal abuse, derogatory remarks, insults and epithets, verbal and physical conduct that another would find threatening, intimidating or humiliating.”

AB 447 by Jim Patterson (R-Fresno) would require DSS to allow facility personnel associated or cleared at one facility to be considered cleared at other facilities owned and operated by the same licensee. This would allow facilities to forego association or transfer paperwork and expedite employees working at one facility to work at another and not wait for clearance transfer paperwork to be completed. Plus, AB367 by Heath Flora (D-Ripon) seeks to expand the number of crimes preventing employment in facilities.

Title 22 was recently updated to reflect old laws. This practice seems to be the pattern by DSS to update its regulations—finally getting old laws into the regulations. An update took place in October 2018 and minor updates in January and July 2019. The January changes were formatted using a different type face or font—from 11-point Times New Roman to 12-point Helvetica. DSS explained it was reformatting Title 22 to a larger type face. However, the July 2019 updates were in the old and current Times New Roman, 11-point. Not sure why the January and July updates were in different formats, but negligence is a good reason. Title 22 states regulations “are printed in gothic type” or Times New Roman, and it has been proven using larger and “non-Gothic” type costs more to print. Apparently, DSS has the money.

Is the state’s Assisted Living Waiver (ALW) program at risk or worse, dead? Perhaps if AB50 fails. This bill by Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) is currently in the state’s “suspense file.” Will it progress to seek an increase in federal funding of the ALW? The bill would demand California petition the federal government for more funding to increase the program’s recipients from 5,744 participants to 18,500. However, the state has over 7 million eligible recipients for the program. A part of the request for funding would be to increase the funding levels to assist facilities manage the increases in minimum wage. It also appears, based upon the language in the bill, that the ALW may “merge” with another program governed by the state, and we know how that will work.

DSS’ unenforceable provider information notice (16-04-ASC) stated the Drug Enforcement Agency released new regs on controlled substances disposal, and DSS insists the new provisions must be followed, including denying the licensee the right to dispose of controlled substances because only the resident’s family can dispose of resident “property.” Is this true? From the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 174: “LTCFs (long-term care facility) are not prohibited…from destroying patients’ (not family) unwanted pharmaceutical controlled substances at the LTCF, on behalf of the resident patients.” The feds define a LTCF in §1300.01(b) as ‘‘a nursing home, retirement care, mental care or other facility or institution which provides extended health care to resident patients.’’ California RCFEs would not fit into this definition. DSS cannot require facilities to give narcotics to family for “disposal.” What if a family member ODs on the drugs? Who would get sued or blamed?