BILL ANALYSIS
SB 886
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 15, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Jim Beall, Jr., Chair
SB 886 (Florez) - As Amended: June 3, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 28-1
SUBJECT : In-home supportive services providers: electronic
timekeeping
SUMMARY : Authorizes counties to use electronic timekeeping for
purposes of verifying hours completed and ensuring quality home
care for In-home Supportive Services (IHSS) recipients.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes county human services departments responsible for
administering the IHSS program to permit IHSS providers to use
electronic timekeeping.
2)Provides that the provider of IHSS services retains the option
of using paper timesheets consistent with policies and
procedures in effect on December 31, 2010.
3)Authorizes the Department of Social Services (DSS) to
implement and administer the electronic timekeeping provisions
of this bill through all-county letters or other department
directives, rather than through regulations, and requires that
instructions for electronic timekeeping be developed in
consultation with county human services departments,
representatives of providers and recipients, the appropriate
public authorities, and other stakeholders.
4)Defines "electronic timekeeping" as an electronic or
verifiable method for providers to input their payroll
timesheets directly, using a telephone-based interactive voice
response or web-based technology with the ability for users to
interface directly with case management systems, that both
identifies a provider and accurately records the provider's
timekeeping for the provider's home care visit.
5)Defines "recipient" as a person eligible to receive IHSS or
in-home medical care services.
EXISTING LAW
SB 886
Page 2
1)Establishes the IHSS program to assist qualifying aged, blind,
and disabled individuals to remain safely in their own homes.
2)Requires DSS to establish statewide hourly task guidelines for
the chores and services provided through IHSS and to provide a
standardized tool for consistent and accurate assessment of a
recipient's service needs.
3)Requires recipients and providers of IHSS to sign a time sheet
twice a month showing the number of hours per day of services
received.
4)Requires certification on timesheets by recipients and
providers verifying that information is true and correct after
notice of possible criminal penalties for fraud, and requires,
effective July 1, 2011, that the index fingerprint of
providers and recipients be included on timesheets.
5)Allows eligible persons to receive in-home medical care
services.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state
costs. The Alameda County pilot proposal on which this
bill is based provided that no additional state funds would
be required and that the County would use its already
allocated funds to develop the electronic timesheet
recording system. This bill, however, does not address
responsibility for any costs associated with developing or
implementing electronic timekeeping.
COMMENTS : The author states that this bill relates to one of
the suggestions for tightening up the IHSS payroll system as
reported by the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes in its
2009 report, In-Home Supportive Services: Examination of the
Impact of SB 1104: The 2004 Quality Assurance Initiative (March
24, 2009) (IHSS Report). The IHSS Report (p. 2) notes that:
Twice each month, more than 400,000 paper time cards
from IHSS providers are submitted and are manually
entered by county workers across California. The
cards require the signature of both the IHSS recipient
and the provider and are supposed to reflect the
actual hours worked in a two-week period. There is no
SB 886
Page 3
indication on the timecards regarding actual tasks
performed or other details of the services provided.
County IHSS administrators report that many cards are
illegible or inaccurate and some could be fabricated.
The recommendation giving rise to this bill is based on a
2008 Alameda County proposal to DSS for a pilot project to
test handling IHSS timecards telephonically. (IHSS Report,
pp. 17-18, and Attachment H.) Under the proposal, IHSS
providers would get a unique personal identification number
(PIN) for each two-week pay period. The PIN, together with
the provider's Social Security number, would give access to
a telephonic or online payroll system. The provider and
service recipient would still sign a paper timecard to be
kept for future audit purposes, which would also presumably
serve as a deterrent to fraud. Hours would be entered into
the system, which would check instantly to see if the hours
were authorized. The system would total the hours,
eliminating math errors, and would tag a statistically
valid number of time records for follow-up audits each
month. DSS did not approve the proposal.
According to the author, other states that have switched to
electronic timecards "have reported huge savings as well as
efficiencies with increased quality homecare for in-home
recipients. The provider gets paid quicker while providers
spend less time worrying about whether timecards are
accurate and more time providing much needed services."
A number of anti-fraud/program integrity measures related
to the IHSS program were enacted with the 2009-10 Budget.
AB X4 19 (Evans), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2009-10 4th
Extraordinary Session, requires that timesheets include
certification by the provider and the recipient verifying
that information is true and correct, and a statement that
providers and recipients may be subject to criminal
penalties if it is not. (Welfare & Institutions Code
12301.25(a)) AB X4 19 also requires, effective July 1,
2011, timesheets to include the index fingerprints of
providers and recipients. (Welfare & Institutions Code
12301.25(c).) This bill gives counties the option of using
electronic instead of paper timesheets, and gives providers
the option of electronic reporting in those counties that
choose to utilize electronic timesheets.
SB 886
Page 4
Use of paper timesheets : This bill does not explicitly say
whether a provider using electronic timesheets must also
keep a paper timesheet record; although, the author reports
that it is not this bill's intent to exempt providers who
opt to use electronic timekeeping from the need to complete
a paper time record. The Alameda County proposal on which
this bill is based did require that paper timesheets be
maintained and signed in addition to the electronic
timesheets. Language in this bill saying that the provider
"shall retain the option of using paper timesheets" could
be interpreted to mean that a provider opting to use
electronic timekeeping need not also use paper timesheets.
Assuming paper timesheets are to continue to be required,
it is also not clear what is to be done with them, how long
they must be retained and by whom, or whether recipient and
provider fingerprints and certifications would also be
required.
Impact on other program integrity measures : To the extent
that electronic timesheets serve their intended purpose of
"verifying hours completed," electronic timekeeping would
arguably obviate, or at least mitigate, the need for the
fingerprinting and certification requirements enacted with
the 2009-10 Budget for those providers who opt to use
electronic reporting. Because electronic timesheets would
correct errors common to paper time-recording,
discrepancies between the paper and electronic timesheets
are to be expected. It is unclear what effect the
certification on the paper timesheet would have if errors
exist but have been subsequently corrected through
electronic reporting.
A number of organizations, without indicating formal
positions in support or opposition, have proposed
amendments to this bill. The California Association of
Public Authorities (CAPA) has suggested a number of
amendments, including exempting providers who elect to use
electronic time reporting from the fingerprinting and
certification requirements. A similar proposal is made by
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME). CAPA has made a number of additional
recommendations, which the author is reportedly willing to
accept and which are included in the recommended amendments
below. The Service Employee's International Union (SEIU)
and United Domestic Workers of America (UDW) propose
SB 886
Page 5
exempting providers who use electronic timekeeping from any
paper timesheet requirements.
The author may wish to consider exempting providers who
elect to use electronic time reporting from paper timesheet
requirements or, at least, from the fingerprinting and
certification requirements.
Question : To what extent, if any, would implementation of
electronic timekeeping require modifications to the
existing Case Management, Information and Payrolling System
(CMIPS) and the CMIPS II system being developed, and would
there be costs or possible delays associated with CMIPS II
development and implementation?
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS
The author is reportedly willing to accept amendments as
follows:
1)Provide that any county that elects to use electronic
timekeeping shall provide written notice to providers and
consumers informing them how the system works and how it
differs from the paper timesheet process. The written
notification shall include information on any
requirements for consumers or providers to retain or
provide paper copies of timesheets.
2)Provide that counties electing to use electronic
timekeeping shall have a toll-free number for providers
and consumers to call to speak with someone to
troubleshoot any issues that arise with electronic
timekeeping.
3)Provide that electronic timekeeping procedures will
comply with any state and federal data requirements of
the existing CMIPS and the CMIPS II system being
developed.
4)Amend page 3, lines 7-12, as follows:
(b) (1) At the option of a county human services department
responsible for administering the in-home supportive services
pursuant to this article, a provider of services described in
paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) may use electronic
SB 886
Page 6
timekeeping for purposes of verifying hours completed and
ensuring quality home care for in-home care recipients.
5)Amend page 3, lines 17-25, as follows:
(c) Notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with
Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the
Government Code), the department may implement and administer
this section through all-county letters or similar
instructions from the director. Instructions issued pursuant
to this subdivision shall be developed in consultation with
county human services departments, representatives of
providers and recipients, the appropriate public authorities,
and other stakeholders.
6)Clarify that paper timesheets, including fingerprinting
and certification, are required to be completed even by
providers who choose to use electronic timekeeping.
Details on this requirement, including what is to be done
with paper timesheets, would have to be addressed in
instructions developed through the stakeholder process
and notifications sent to providers and recipients.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Eric Gelber / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089