We are very thankful to our students who trust us with their continuing education. We are glad more administrators are taking our courses for the first time. We get concerned when our “first-time students” tell us “the other vendor told us” or “my analyst said we had to…” or I got this “DSS memo.”
We understand some vendors teach “recommended practices” or “outdated regulations” which leads to confusion when we teach current state law. From our 20+ experience, we know Title 22 lags behind state laws. According to the Office of Administrative Law, a regulation may not be necessary when a law is clear in its intent. For instance, Health and Safety Code 1569.655, effective January 1, 2003, required RCFEs to provide residents a 60-days’ notice of a rate increase. That law was immediately enforceable even though it was not in Title 22, because the intent was specific: 60-days advance notice of rate increases.
Yet, Title 22 still had the obsolete regulation of a 30-days’ notice until an update in April 2017. The law created a new requirement enforceable over the outdated regulation. Licensees giving a 30 days’ notice from 2003 to 2017 were violating the law, but not the regulation. When new laws are enacted, old regulations are no longer enforceable if contradicting the new law. If the new law had just stated a licensee had to give “adequate notice” or “sufficient notice” then Title 22 would need to clarify that law and define what sufficient notice means.
If someone tells you there is a requirement, but it is not found in the laws and/or the regulations, it is not required even if an analyst said it was required. Without citing a current law or regulation, it may be wanted, but not required.