It appears RCFE insurance companies will increase premiums 30%
Looking for a competitive bid or help with your liability and/or worker’s compensation insurance? Contact our insurance guru, Willy Halle, an RCFE administrator, to see if he can help with costs or coverage: (760) 835-1884.
Legislative and Licensing Updates
As of mid-April, State Senator Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) canceled the Committee on Human Services. It may still be revived. The bill would prevent placement agency “employees,” from making inappropriate placements. If enacted it will make it a misdemeanor for an employee of a placement agency to “place an individual in a licensed residential care facility for the elderly when the individual, because of a health condition, cannot be cared for within the limits of the license or requires inpatient care in a health facility.” The current language in Health and Safety Code 1569.47 only lists the “placement agency” as the culprit for inappropriate placements. Many placement or referral agencies claim those who place residents are “independent contractors.”
The emergency disaster plan proposed by Assembly Member Laura Friedman (D-Burbank) under AB1034 was in the Appropriations Committee but in late April was placed into the suspense file. It may be brought back, but no progress to date to implement the same emergency and disaster provisions on community care facilities, i.e., adult and children’s homes, that were placed upon RCFEs earlier this year.
Assembly Member Marc Levine (D-San Francisco) has introduced AB1777 which will add H&S Code 1569.319, requiring any person who owns, operates or is the administrator of an RCFE who applies for a “land use permit” to disclose to the city or county any violations DSS has levied against him or her for facility abandonment or one that resulted in serious bodily harm.
Assembly Member Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) has introduced AB50 to amend portions of the Welfare and Institutions Code regarding Medi-Cal and the Assisted Living Waiver program. This will presume to increase the current acceptance of participants from 5,744 to 18,500, phased in over time. However, that phase in and participation must also be approved by the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—that funds Medi-Cal for California. The bill would also require the “tiers” of reimbursement be increased to compensate providers for expenses related to minimum wage and notify applicants their position on the waiting list.
State Senator Anthony Portantino (D-San Fernando) has introduced SB 172 to create H&S Code 1569.280, among other law. The bill is eclectic in its approach to “firearms” and somehow is part of the “Keep Our Seniors Safe Act.” It involves certain restrictions of firearms to be around children and elderly and would cause DSS to write regulations relating to the proper storage of firearms and ammunition (which already exists in Title 22 87309).
It appears Senator Ben Hueso (D-Chula Vista) SB305, “Access to Cannabis in Healthcare Facilities” is headed to the Governor. It is for healthcare facilities, but also for residential care facilities for persons with chronic life-threatening illnesses. This bill would require a healthcare facility to allow a patient who is receiving palliative care to use medical cannabis within the healthcare facility. The bill would require a patient to provide the facility with a copy of their medical marijuana card or written documentation that the use of medical cannabis is “recommended by a physician.” It would authorize a healthcare facility to reasonably restrict the manner in which a patient stores and uses medical cannabis to ensure the safety of other patients, guests, and employees of the healthcare facility, compliance with other state laws [not federal laws], and the safe operations of the healthcare facility. Here’s the problem—the federal government which funds Medicare—prohibits marijuana in healthcare facilities and can withhold or restrict funds to nursing homes that allow any form of marijuana and for any use from having it on the premises. The state v. feds.