BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 142|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 142
Author: Maldonado (R)
Amended: 5/19/09
Vote: 21
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/28/09
AYES: Liu, Maldonado, Alquist, Runner, Yee
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : In-home supportive services: authorized tasks
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires the Department of Social
Services to devise a method to ensure that an in-home
supportive services (IHSS) provider receives a list of
approved tasks before working for an IHSS consumer.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Establishes the IHSS program to assist qualifying aged,
blind, and disabled individuals to remain safely in
their homes.
2. Requires the Department of Social Services (DSS) to
establish statewide hourly task guidelines for the
chores and services provided through IHSS and to provide
CONTINUED
SB 142
Page
2
a standardized tool for consistent and accurate
assessment of a client's service needs.
3. Requires county social services staff to do an
assessment, at least annually, of the needs of each IHSS
recipient and to authorize that certain tasks and
services be provided to that recipient by a provider of
his/her choosing.
4. Allows recipients of IHSS to select their own
provider(s).
5. Requires recipients and providers of IHSS to sign a
timesheet every fourteen days showing the number of
hours per day of services received, and to submit that
timesheet to the county for payment for services
rendered.
This bill:
1. Requires DSS, along with the appropriate stakeholders,
to devise a method ensuring the IHSS provider gets a
list of approved duties before working for the IHSS
recipient.
2. Requires DSS to work with appropriate stakeholders in
devising this method.
3. Requires that the process be developed on or before
December 31, 2011.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/27/09)
---
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/27/09)
Disability Rights California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office believes that
there is a need to continue the professionalization of the
SB 142
Page
3
IHSS program, a process significantly boosted by statutory
changes that established quality assurance activities [SB
1104 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), Chapter
229, Statutes of 2004].
One of the centerpieces of the quality assurance program is
a statewide standard for the various services available
through IHSS: "time for task" guidelines are now in place
and are used by social workers in calculating the amount of
time that a provider is available to work for an IHSS
recipient. A provider is not paid for more hours of
service than are authorized for a recipient by the county
social worker during the assessment.
However, an IHSS recipient is not obliged to give his/her
service provider a copy of the assessment or a list of the
approved tasks on that assessment. The provider knows the
maximum hours of service for which he/she will be paid, and
the provider receives direction from the client as to what
to do.
The author's office believes that if the provider knows
what tasks have been approved for the client, the provider
will provide those services needed and will submit a time
sheet that covers only the time used to provide those
services. The result will be a closer match between
services authorized and services provided.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Disability Rights California
opposes the bill and writes the following:
"Our objection to the current version of SB 142 is based
on its conflict with both the principle underlying and
the statutory authority supporting the employment
relationship of the IHSS consumer and the IHSS home care
worker: the consumer is the employer for the purposes of
hiring, firing and supervising the worker.
"On a more practical and less philosophical and
legalistic level, furnishing a list of tasks approved for
the particular consumers -- as opposed to a list of all
IHSS tasks -- can put the consumers and workers in an
untenable situation. ? [I]f a consumer doesn't have hours
approved for meal preparation because usually she or he
SB 142
Page
4
can do that independently, but becomes sick with a flu
and can't prepare meals, that consumer should be able to
direct the worker to prepare meals -- a legitimate IHSS
task. If the worker has a list which says the consumer
isn't approved for meal preparation, what is the worker
supposed to do -- refuse to prepare meals? I'm sure you
can imagine many more scenarios with similar issues."
CTW:mw 5/27/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****