Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/25/2004 01:35 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 301-PIONEERS' HOMES/VETERANS' HOMES
CHAIR FRED DYSON announced the committee would consider SB 301.
He advised that there were two proposed amendments to the bill.
He wanted all testifiers to understand the proposed changes so
that they could address them. At the end of the public
testimony, the amendments would be voted up or down. He would
then hold the bill in committee until the next meeting at which
time a committee substitute (CS) would be available for
consideration.
DENNY DeWITT, special staff assistant to Governor Murkowski,
introduced himself and John Vowell, director of the Division of
Pioneers' Homes. He noted that creating a Veterans' Home in
Alaska is a long-standing issue. SB 301 would allow a Pioneers'
Home to be converted to a Veteran's Home. The VA guidelines
provide 79 beds in Alaska and with the proposal to convert the
Palmer Pioneers' Home they would extend that to the full 82 beds
that are currently in that facility. Converting a Pioneers' Home
to a Veteran's Home and the access to the other benefits will
assist the long-term viability of the entire system, he said.
He pointed to an aerial photograph of the Palmer Pioneers' Home
and explained that it is a licensed assisted living complex that
offers services from residential level to fairly intense care
just short of a licensed skilled nursing facility.
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. DeWitt if he had amendments to propose.
MR. DeWITT said they agree with several of the amendments that
have been brought forward.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN chimed in to say she had the amendments and
would introduce them.
CHAIR DYSON said he would also like to hear her comments on the
amendments. He asked whether the amendments were available at
the various LIOs.
JASON HOOLEY, staff to Chair Dyson, informed him that the
amendments had been distributed.
CHAIR DYSON encouraged everyone to comment on the amendments
when they gave testimony and restated that the amendments
wouldn't be adopted until after all testimony had been given.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS referred to page 8, Section 16 (b) and
expressed a concern that just cash income is discussed. Someone
might have a third party payer or have some other type of
payment for services received and that isn't addressed.
MR. DeWITT read about conditions of payment from page 10, lines
1-4 and told her he would get back to her about the section that
covers general payments prior to qualifying to receive the
assistance. With regard to that, two things could happen. If you
were paying toward your care, you could receive the money then
make payment to the home or you could have payment go directly
to the home.
SENATOR GUESS thanked him and said it just wasn't clear when she
read the section.
MR. DeWITT questioned whether her concern was that the home not
be able to collect from the individual, in total, more than the
amount that is billed for monthly charges.
SENATOR GUESS said that's correct. She then asked about page 8,
line 3 (e) and questioned whether there was a reason that the
activities in the section aren't controlled to be something that
works within this facility or a similar facility. "In this
section you could put a daycare in the center, which may be a
good thing and may be a bad thing. It's open and did you include
it open for a reason?" she questioned.
MR. DeWITT informed her there is a daycare in the Juneau
Pioneers' Home, but they specifically kept it generic so that
they have opportunity to take advantage of various options. The
Sitka Pioneers' Home has a dwindling population and waiting list
and this would provide the opportunity to talk to other
healthcare providers in the area that might be able to make use
of floors that they are unable use.
SENATOR GUESS asked, "You're not worried that we don't put
consistent with the activities of the home in the statute?"
MR. DeWITT said he would think about that.
CHAIR DYSON asked Senator Green to move her amendments.
SENATOR GREEN moved Amendment 1:
Page 6, line 28
Delete: "may"
Insert: "shall"
In explanation she read:
This will maintain the requirement that the State
operate the Pioneers' Home rather than making it
optional. If we were ever to discontinue the Pioneers'
Home it should be as a result of legislative policy
discussion not simply some future administrative
decision.
SENATOR GUESS objected to make it procedurally correct to hold
the amendments.
SENATOR GREEN moved Amendment 2:
Page6, line 31 following "social services."
Insert: "The only home that may be converted to a Veterans'
Home is the Pioneers' Home located in Palmer."
In explanation she said that has been the whole discussion and
the current language is vague and led some to question whether
this isn't a change of all Pioneers' Homes. "We want people to
know this was intended to be a combination Pioneers'/Veterans'
Home in Palmer," she said.
SENATOR GUESS said she would maintain her objection until the
end of the meeting.
SENATOR GREEN moved Amendment 3:
Page 8, line 4
Delete: "or the sale"
SENATOR GREEN moved Amendment 4:
Page 12, line 19 & 20
Delete: "with 181 days or more of"
Insert: "from"
CHAIR DYSON asked whether there was objection.
SENATOR GUESS objected until the end of the meeting.
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. DeWitt to comment.
MR. DeWITT stated: "The administration is prepared to support
all the amendments Senator Green offers."
SENATOR GUESS asked for verification that amendment 4 wouldn't
impact federal funds.
MR. DeWITT explained that this language came from Alaska
statute, but the federal program doesn't require it. The federal
program simply requires the person to be a veteran and the
common definition for that is someone who has been honorably
discharged.
2:04 pm
CHAIR DYSON announced he was opening public testimony.
GERALD J. DORSHER, lifetime member of Veterans of Foreign Wars,
gave some background on the issue and spoke in support of SB
301.
CHAIR DYSON asked whether he had any comments on the amendments.
MR. DORSHER replied he didn't have any comments at this point.
JOHN E WILKINS JR., representing the Disabled American Veterans
(DAV), testified that the organization is backing the bill as
presented. He would have no comment on the amendments until the
DAV had the opportunity to review them thoroughly.
MERRILL J. HAKALA testified via teleconference from Fairbanks to
say he is 100 percent opposed to converting the Palmer Pioneers'
Home to a Veterans' Home. He suggested adding a veterans' wing
to the Palmer Pioneers' Home as well as all others. He had no
comment on the amendments.
MIKE RACE testified as president of the Pioneers of Alaska. He
noted that the issue is divisive, but no one should interpret
that to mean that pioneers are against veterans or vice versa.
"We are, in fact, the same group," he said.
The Pioneers of Alaska are charged with protecting and
preserving history and dropping reference to the various
locations of the homes would be contrary to this responsibility.
He pointed out that in the 1930s the Territorial Legislature
traveled to the Sitka Pioneers' Home to make sure that the
people were being cared for properly. In conclusion he said, "I
just want to suggest that you keep that spirit - that this
aspect of the history and the protection of the people -
veterans and seniors in general are in your hands."
CHIP WAGONER introduced himself as a lobbyist for the Pioneers
of Alaska. He read the following into the record:
The Pioneers of Alaska was established in 1907 and is
an organization of nearly 7,000 Alaskans, each of whom
has been a resident of the state for 30 or more years.
The organization has both veteran and non-veteran
members. The pioneers have been longtime users and
supporters of the Alaska Pioneers' Home system.
Plans are underway to convert the Palmer Pioneers'
Home to a Pioneers' and Veterans' Home with 75 percent
of the 82 beds in the facility being reserved for
veteran pioneers. The above-referenced bills would
give the Department of Health and Social Services the
statutory authority to operate Veterans' Homes within
the Pioneers' Home system thereby allowing the
conversion to take place.
The Pioneers of Alaska supports enabling pioneers,
both veteran and non-veteran, to remain in their home
communities through a comprehensive array of services
including the services available at the state's
Pioneers' Homes. We would prefer that the state
continue its efforts to enable the state to receive
per diem reimbursement from the U.S. Veterans
Administration for services provided to veterans in
all of the Pioneers' Home facilities. Indeed,
according to the Alaska State Veterans' Home
Feasibility Study prepared for the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee in July 2003 by the McDowell Group
"A large majority of Alaska veterans - approximately
80 percent - would be reluctant to leave their home
communities to obtain long-term care."
While we believe that the administration should
continue efforts to obtain VA per diem to enable
veterans to stay in, or closer to, their home
communities, we are not advocating a delay of the bill
before you today until that battle is resolved.
The current bill does provide benefits and needed
changes to help the Pioneers' Home system continue in
these tough fiscal times. These include a 65 percent
federal match rate for capital projects at a Pioneers'
Home that is certified as a veterans' facility, the
ability to Medicaid dollars to help all of the
Pioneers' Home facilities.
MR. WAGONER pointed out that a number of the specific concerns
they have with the bill were addressed in Senator Green's
amendments.
CHAIR DYSON asked whether he agreed with all four amendments
that Senator Green proposed.
MR. WAGONER clarified that he couldn't speak to the last
amendment that changes the definition of a veteran, but the
pioneers do support the other three amendments.
The pioneers understand the need to bring in additional revenue
but, he said, "We are concerned that the vacancies in the beds
or in the space is the result of true lack of demand as opposed
to management decisions that created the vacancies."
He noted that Section 25(a) needed additional attention but it
did not need to be eliminated as the administration suggested.
They propose removing "for thirty years" from the provision.
CHAIR DYSON asked whether he had draft amendment language for
that change.
MR. WAGONER said he did not, but he could do so. He made the
point that, "Probably the most controversial part of this entire
bill, of course, is that you're taking a Pioneers' Home and
you're turning it into a Veterans' Home and the goal was to try
to also enable this home to serve those people who are non-
veterans...So the people in the Palmer community and Mat-Su
community could still have a place to go within the state
system."
2:20 pm
They understand that the goal is to designate 75 percent of the
beds for veterans and 25 percent to people on the active list.
If this is the case, they suggest designating 25 percent of the
beds to non-veterans so that spouses could be accommodated. He
said, "We are open to suggestions in drafting appropriate
language that will enable our state to move forward on the VA
certification of this project, but in a manner that addresses
this legitimate concern."
Another point of concern related to accommodating home residents
who need to move to a higher level of care without moving them
to another facility. Nothing in the statute addressed that
issue, he said.
TAPE 04-8, SIDE B
SENATOR GREEN asked if there was anything currently in statute
that addresses that issue.
MR. WAGONER replied he wasn't aware of anything, but there might
be something in regulation.
SENATOR GREEN asked if he'd ever heard of anyone being moved
under those circumstances.
MR. WAGONER said he had not.
SENATOR GREEN pressed him for what would lead him to believe
that would happen.
MR. WAGONER acknowledged there was no concrete instance that
would lead him to believe that would happen, but when evaluating
the legislation it was a concern that arose so he wanted to
bring it to the committee's attention.
CHAIR DYSON announced that he would address questions to the
administration when Mr. Wagoner was finished with his testimony.
MR. WAGONER advised that the last point of concern related to
the point that Senator Guess raised earlier. Pioneers must
provide income to help pay for the bed if they have income in
excess of $100 per month. There's also a provision in the same
AS 47.55.020(b) subsection that provides that, "a resident
without any funds, may be provided with $100 per month by the
department." The reason for the provisions is to provide dignity
to those without funds of their own. They suggest that the
provisions be amended to account for inflation and they believe
$200 to be a more reasonable amount.
SENATOR GREEN asked what he was referring to when he mentioned
Medicaid in his testimony.
MR. WAGONER explained, "My understanding is there are two
provisions in this bill that would allow them to access Medicaid
dollars that they can not right now. The first one is the
provision where there is a current prohibition of the department
seeking public assistance funds because it was considered a
public institution."
SENATOR GREEN asked whether that was Section 13.
MR. WAGONER replied that was part of it and the rest was in
Section 12. Referencing Section 16 he said: "There is a related
section that can require residents of the home to have to apply
for public assistance in order to reach some of these Medicaid
dollars...." Together he understands those to enable the state
to obtain Medicaid and other sources of revenue that would help
pay for the homes.
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. DeWitt if he had any comments.
MR. DeWITT elaborated on the issues that were raised that cause
the administration concern:
First, the section that we were suggesting to
eliminate that allows waivers for individuals who were
here for thirty years and left the state: The thirty
years does give us a constitutional problem as we all
know. And there is the other technical change relative
to whether it is sited in the Department of
Administration or [Department of] Health and Social
Services. This becomes a very difficult public policy.
The one side of it is that side presented by Mr.
Wagoner, which is just to resolve the constitutional
concern and then provide the opportunity for those who
have been residents of Alaska for a number of years.
The other side of that change, however, creates a
situation where someone can come to Alaska for one
year, go outside and then has every right to be
reconsidered on the list - so long as they had spent
that one year here and put their name on the list. So
initially it seemed appealing, I'm concerned that it
opens a gate that we really don't want open - and
frankly we don't have a good answer. It may well be
that the most judicious thing to do is rather than
doing unintended good, is to take the repeal of that
section out of the statute and wait until the courts
direct us specifically to do something with it.
The second issue that was raised by Mr. Wagoner - the
pioneers - that troubles us is the notion that 25
percent of the beds should be reserved for someone who
is not a veteran. The Veterans Administration has
indicated to us that that would probably cause us
problems in terms of securing veterans' benefits.
Particularly in the context that they would be
providing funds to upgrade the home. They would be in
a very difficult position to provide funds to upgrade
beds, which were precluded from use by veterans.
...So while I understand the concern, the
administration would have great problems - great
discomfort - with a policy that were someone otherwise
eligible for a benefit, the fact that they were a
veteran would deny that benefit to them. In terms of
addressing that issue, however, because we would be
filling the greater portion of the facility with
veterans and we'll be using the same list for
Pioneers' Home entrance for those 20 beds as we're
using now, it is incredibly likely that those people
that would be on the list to enter the Palmer Home as
a pioneer would not be a veteran - that the veterans
would already have been addressed and that non-
veterans would up the list. So I think it is probably
implicit in the process that that will happen, but any
way you draft language ends up in a position of
creating a public policy, which we would have great
trouble with.
The third issue was giving folks, internally, first
option. We have practiced, since 1913, a policy - and
we have internal policies in our policy and procedure
manual - that says that once a person enters the
Pioneers' Home, they can stay there until they die or
until they get to a point where we don't have a
capacity to provide care for them - and we can provide
care for fairly intensive needs, particularly in the
area of dementia. We always work within the system
first. Folks that are in the Ketchikan home, for
example, who have preference to be in the Juneau home
have an opportunity to move to the Juneau home before
someone is invited in off the waiting list. We would
imagine - we intend that that be the same process
within the Veterans' Home. ... We don't think that
would be a particularly good thing to have in statute.
In terms of the increase in the $100 allotment that's
provided for those who are indigent, I'd like to put
that into just a little bit of context for you. We are
currently providing a service at the very lowest level
- $4,634 a month to those individuals plus the $100.
At the higher comprehensive care level we are
providing $11,988 a month worth of state benefits to
that individual. So the notion that the value to the
individual has stayed static since the 1980s I think
is not particularly consistent and I think you have to
look at it in the context of the full benefit that we
are providing.
SENATOR GUESS asked if it was correct that changes can't be made
to reflect the intent of providing some beds for pioneers and
absolute numbers can't be placed in the bill because that would
jeopardize federal funds.
MR. DeWITT said you could put those in the bill, but the
Veterans Administration contract requires that 75 percent of the
beds be designated for veterans and the other 25 percent may be
designated for others. "There is legislation and there are
regulations discussing that issue which may change those," he
said, but there are no commitments. "The part that would concern
us is if the statute, somehow, precluded veterans from being in
those beds. At that point in time, yes, we would be
jeopardized."
2:35 pm
SENATOR GUESS needed further clarification and asked: "The
intent is 75 percent have to go to veterans right now - 25
percent does not necessarily have to go to veterans so we have
some room so we can accommodate pioneers and veterans.
MR. DeWITT agreed.
SENATOR GUESS asked if it was correct that the administration
doesn't want to put that in statute because there might be a
change at the federal level.
MR. DeWITT said that's correct, "We will have policies in place
that will articulate the federal regulations. If the federal
regulations change to increase it from, let's say, 75 percent to
80 percent, which I'm suggesting that is not the way it might go
- we I think would have some discussion about whether we might
continue our participation. On the other hand, if it were to go
from 75 percent to 65 percent, that might be something we would
want to take advantage of off into the future."
SENATOR GUESS then asked how the federal government determines
how many beds they would pay for.
MR. DeWITT said there is a formula that the Veterans
Administration uses based on the number of veterans in the
state. It comes out to 79 beds, he said, but the VA is prepared
to give a waiver from 79 to the 82 beds currently at the Palmer
facility.
SENATOR GUESS remarked that if the number of veterans in the
state were to increase, then the allocation would go up. In that
case, by the 2010 transition it's quite possible that all
residents of the Palmer home would have to be veterans and there
would be no space for pioneers.
MR. DeWITT said that's not how it would work. According to the
current calculations, 79 veterans home beds would be available.
The 75/25 ratio works off that number. As stated, the VA waived
the number to 82, which means that 62 beds must be for veterans.
"So, if we filled all of those with veterans, unless the
population changed and the formula changed, we'd still be at the
82 number," he said.
SENATOR GUESS stressed, "That 82 will increase and so then the
75 will increase."
MR. DeWITT said yes. He then said he wanted to make it very
clear that: "It is our intent to use the Pioneers' Home list to
fill the 20 beds that would not be reserved for veterans."
There were no further questions for Mr. DeWitt.
MARIE DARLIN stated that she didn't need to testify because all
her concerns were addressed in the amendments.
2:42 pm
CHAIR DYSON said he sensed support for the bill in the committee
so it was likely that it would pass. He advised bill supporters
that he wanted to hear from them, but to keep in mind that
lengthy testimony would slow progress. He continued to say that
anyone that had a suggestion or specific objection should
certainly make his or her thoughts known so the bill could be
improved as much as possible.
BILL CHUCH testified via teleconference to say he is a veteran
and he can see both sides of the issue. Veterans deserve a safe
place to live when they can't take care of themselves, but that
is already available to them in the form of the Pioneers' Home
system. He referred to the feasibility study conducted by the
McDowell Group in 2003 for the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee to point out why the Palmer Pioneers' Home shouldn't
be changed to become a Veterans' Home. He suggested the state
investigate purchase of the hospital in Palmer to convert to a
Veterans' Home.
CHAIR DYSON asked that remarks be kept to two minutes.
GEORGE H. HUSERMANN testified via teleconference from Anchorage
as a senior services officer with the Disabled American
Veterans. Veterans deserve a Veterans' Home, he said, and Palmer
is the only viable way to go.
ED KNOEBEL testified via teleconference from Glennallen as a
veteran and a senior. Converting the Palmer Pioneers' Home to a
Veterans' Home is a starter, but he had some questions. His
questions related to the 65-year age limit, how Social Security
medical benefit recipients would be affected, and "whether a
raid from the VA would make a difference."
CHAIR DYSON said they would answer the questions if they got the
chance.
DON DINKEL testified via teleconference from Mat-Su as a pioneer
and a veteran to express concern about converting the Palmer
Pioneers' Home to a Veterans' Home because it could ultimately
become just a Veterans' Home. He urged the state to negotiate
with the VA to allow veterans to go into all Pioneers' Home.
JIM OEHRING testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He made
the point that most men in the Pioneers' Homes were veterans,
but most of the women were not and he couldn't see that this
change would actually benefit veterans. He had several questions
about the cost and about the definition of veteran.
W.T. MANER testified via teleconference from Kenai as a veteran.
He preferred adding a veterans' wing to each of the Pioneers'
Homes, but he wasn't sure that would be feasible at this time.
It's time to get our foot in the door somewhere in Alaska, he
said, "so I'm in agreement with this bill."
LEON BERTRAM testified via teleconference from Anchorage as a
services officer with the American Legion. The organization is
pleased that the bill is moving forward and they support the
amendments.
Page 9, line 18 relates to benefits paid under 38 U.S.C. 1110
and it would represent a lost opportunity for collection.
Veteran benefits should be available for collection by the state
Veterans' Home, he said.
HARRY JENKINS testified via teleconference from Fairbanks to say
that the only thing that bothers him is that legislators wait
too long before asking for public opinion and they do what they
want to do anyway.
ARLEEN McCARVER testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. She
seconded the suggestion to use the Valley Hospital in Palmer
instead. Veterans gave their lives for us so we should consider
them, she said.
BOB HUFMAN testified via teleconference from Anchorage and said
he was satisfied with the amendments.
RUBY CHURCH testified via teleconference from Mat-Su to say that
criminals are treated better than some old people. "I wish you'd
consider this and vote no," she concluded.
CHARLIE HUGGINS testified via teleconference from Anchorage to
say that some of the things he heard during the walk-through of
the Valley Hospital made him question whether the VA believes
that facility could be converted. He saluted Senator Green for
her efforts to defend the pioneers and to make sure there were
modifications to accommodate both veterans and pioneers in the
conversion. This is the right thing to do and the timing is
right.
SENATOR GREEN wanted to make sure everyone in the room
understood that he was talking about the walk through of the
Valley Hospital when he said the VA found the facility unusable.
She asked him to repeat that portion of his testimony.
MR. HUGGINS said he listened to a Veterans Administration
representative who walked through the Valley Hospital and he
said that the old Valley Hospital site was "not convertible, not
cost effective for a Veterans' Home in the valley."
JIM VAN HORN, state commander for the American Legion, testified
via teleconference from Ketchikan. He reported that he toured
the Palmer facility and supported converting it to a
Pioneers'/Veterans' Home. He noted that this has been an
outstanding issue for 20 years. Alaska has 71,000 veterans in
the state, which is more per capita than any other state, yet it
is the only state that does not have a Veterans' Home. He urged
the committee to pass the bill.
ROBERT MIELKE testified via teleconference from Mat-Su as a
veteran with a medical discharge. He emphatically stated that he
would not like to see the VA take over administration of any
Pioneers' Home. He suggested that a separate facility for
veterans would be a better alternative than taking the Pioneers'
Homes away from Alaskans.
ART ROBINSON testified via teleconference from Anchorage as a
veteran that supported the conversion.
DIXIE GOLDSMITH testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. Her
father is a disabled veteran and she has worked at the Palmer
Pioneers' Home so she can see both sides of the issue. She
opined that veterans should be included in all Pioneers' Homes.
TAPE 04-9, SIDE A
3:05 pm
COLLEEN COTTLE testified via teleconference from Mat-Su to say
she is a third generation Alaskan and three of her family
members have resided at the Palmer Pioneers' Home. She said, "I
think turning the Palmer Pioneers' Home into strictly a
Veterans' Home is not a good thing. It is better to have
veterans in all the homes so they will be close to their family.
And I still think the old Valley Hospital would be a good
Veterans' Home."
There was no further testimony.
CHAIR DYSON called an at-ease from 3:12 pm to 3:13 pm.
CHAIR DYSON recognized Senator Guess.
SENATOR GUESS thanked the Chair for being clear in his intent
but she didn't understand why that intent couldn't be included
in the bill.
MR. DeWITT expressed confusion.
SENATOR GUESS clarified that she was referring to occupancy and
percentages.
MR. DeWITT replied, "I think we could probably craft some intent
language and I'd be happy to work with you on that. ... I think
an intent section, non-codified, might get us there, but I'd
have to work on that a little bit."
SENATOR GUESS thought is would smooth some rough edges. She then
referred to language on page 6, line 30 and asked whether the
bill excludes building wings on current facilities or building a
separate building. Her reading is that this does not exclude
that option if it were to become financially feasible at some
point in the future.
MR. DeWITT agreed with that interpretation, but warned that the
difficulty isn't with the construction, although that is an
economic consideration; rather it's a managerial issue. A
separate wing would have to be operated very much like a mini
home and the beds, rooms and areas would be specifically
designated as veteran or non-veteran. The areas would remain
geographically constant so moving residents from one area to
another wouldn't be possible. "We looked at that issue as did
the report given to the LB&A committee and the VA looked at it
and everyone has come to the conclusion that it's a managerial
issue and an operational issue that functions extremely poorly
and that's been the reason that we have not wanted to go there,"
he concluded.
SENATOR GUESS said she appreciated the clarification. If policy
changed at the VA or if there was an identified need to have a
separate veterans' facility in the state in the future would
this preclude that from happening, she questioned.
MR. DeWITT said it would not; it's a matter of appropriation at
some point in time.
SENATOR GUESS asked about disabled veterans that are under 65
and whether they would be excluded.
MR. DeWITT said it's handled differently in different states,
but the administration choose age 65 because "they intend to
operate the Veterans' Home and the Palmer Home, which will be a
combination of veterans' and traditional pioneers on the model
of pioneers. The services that we offer are geared towards a
geriatric population. They simply are not appropriate for a
younger population. This is not the whole answer that will solve
all veterans' concerns. It is a significant step forward and
it's one that is, in fact, doable in a reasonable timeframe. The
other issues we're going to have to continue to deal with. "
SENATOR GUESS asked for clarification of the $26.95.
MR. DeWITT noted that the $26.95 amounts to about $800 a month
and would be an offset against the individual's charge for care.
He emphasized that the charge for care does not reflect the cost
for care.
SENATOR GUESS asked for the average charge for care.
MR. DeWITT said he could give the rates for the five levels [of
care]. The coordinated services rate is $2,135 per month, basic
assisted living is $3,865 per month, enhanced assisted living is
$5,080 per month, Alzheimer and dementia related disorders is
$5,270 per month and comprehensive care is $6,450 per month.
Those are the current charges, but they are working on
restructuring them.
SENATOR GUESS added that the difference would come from various
means that are laid out in the bill, but if there are no other
means then the state picks up the difference.
MR. DeWITT agreed.
SENATOR GUESS noted that she saw decrements in the GF, but she
didn't see that reflected in the fiscal note, which made it
confusing as to how the payment plan would work.
MR. DeWITT said he would explain the extremes. For coordinated
services, someone is paying $2,135 out of their own pocket. If
he or she were a veteran living in a Veteran's Home, then that
payment would be $800 less than $2,135. At the other extreme,
the individual is fully subsidized by the state so the $2,135
would come from the general fund and the $800 would off set the
general funds.
SENATOR GUESS asked if the $800 is reflected in the negative GF
in the fiscal note.
MR. DeWITT said, "It's our belief that that's the savings that
would occur." But it's just for the people that are being
assisted. The people who pay their own way would be paying that
much less out of their own pockets."
SENATOR GUESS asked him to comment on a general discharge as
compared to the honorable discharge and to explain how other
states deal with this issue.
MR. DeWITT called it a semantic issue rather than a substantive
issue, which he believes is okay. He thought the language,
"other than dishonorably discharged" would be acceptable, but
they were ready to accommodate.
SENATOR GUESS suggested asking the veterans in the room for
their views.
CHAIR DYSON announced the committee would take up the bill again
on Monday.
SENATOR GREEN asked Mr. DeWitt whether he heard anything from
the teleconferenced testimony that he would like to correct for
the record at the next meeting. She suggested that corrections
might include, "comments that people made that someone else may
have heard that they actually believe that we're closing down
Pioneers' Homes and there are not going to be any pioneers in
there any more in the future."
CHAIR DYSON held SB 301 in committee and adjourned the meeting
at 3:25 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|