Saturday, May 31, 2008
Say NO to I-159
The TRUTH about Initiative I-159
There is a petition drive currently going on to gather signatures in support of Initiative I-159 in an attempt to qualify it for the November 2008 ballot. The language below will appear on the petition and ballot initiative:
BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR INITIATIVE NO. 159 (I-159)
INITIATIVE 159
A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION.
I-159 establishes a program to provide home care services to low-income disabled and elderly persons by individual home care providers. These services now are provided only by home care
businesses. Both programs are paid for by government funds. Under the new program, a home care recipient chooses an individual home care provider who is trained and certified by the state. Individual home care providers may collectively bargain with the state, but only through a statewide union exclusively composed of individual providers, and they may not strike.
I-159 costs approximately $2.6 million of state funds the first year, increasing to $7 million by 2013, to train, certify, and supervise an increasing number of individual providers. To the extent available, federal Medicaid funds pay for the remaining program costs.
[] FOR establishing a program to provide home care services by individual providers who may collectively bargain with the state.
[] AGAINST establishing a program to provide home care services by individual providers who may collectively bargain with the state.
►FACT: I-159 is sponsored by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a well-funded international union with 1.9 million members.
►FACT: SEIU developed this ballot initiative totally on its own accord, with no consideration for input from the disability community, the aging network, the personal assistance provider agencies, or the state. This is a prime example of a wealthy out-of-state group forcing unwanted and unneeded change on Montana.
►FACT: The initiative is a backdoor way to unionize the personal care workforce. Individual providers (caregivers) would be forced to join SEIU and pay union dues, yet have no vote on joining or not..
Since 1995, Montana has been offering quality, consumer-directed, in-home care services to assist people with disabilities and our seniors to continue living independently in the home and community of their choice.
►FACT: The “individual provider” program would duplicate and eventually replace the existing Self-Directed Personal Assistance Services (SDPAS) program, which has worked well in Montana since 1995. The SDPAS program already allows consumers to direct their own care, including hiring, firing, and supervising their caregivers through a co-employment relationship with provider agencies.
►FACT: The “individual provider” program exposes consumers to more risk for exploitation or, abuse and neglect because it does away with the provider agencies who perform the oversight and accountability functions of the SDPAS program that help ensure consumer health, safety, and welfare.
►FACT: The “individual provider” program places the consumers in the role of employer, taking on the risks, liabilities and responsibilities that accompany having employees. The state would be required to serve as a fiscal agent for consumers for payment of wages, filing taxes and other administrative functions, but consumers would still hold the liability for complying with wage and hour laws, workers compensation regulations, etc.
►FACT: Personal assistants who work as individual providers would be required to complete mandatory training, background check and certification requirements each year, regardless of their years of experience providing personal care.
►FACT: Currently, under the SDPAS Program consumers are responsible for and able to train their own caregivers to perform tasks based on their own personal needs. I-159 would take that opportunity away from the individuals and instead, create a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to training personal assistants which the state would be required to administer.
►FACT: Personal assistants working as individual providers would assume the liability for providing care to consumers. In the SDPAS program, consumers assume the medical liability for their care, not the caregivers.
►FACT:I-159 will not provide money to get people out of nursing homes, nor does it "rebalance" the long-term care system in Montana by shifting funds from nursing homes into home and community-based services.
►FACT: I-159 would expand state bureaucracy by requiring the state to assume the fiscal agent role currently done by private provider agencies, along with requirements for training, certification and registry of individual providers.
►FACT: I-159 is expensive, estimated at $2.6 million the first year, and increasing to $7 million a year in five years. The fiscal note for this initiative may be grossly underestimating the cost. Yet these increased costs do not go towards better wages and benefits for caregivers, or more services for consumers, they go towards increased administrative costs for the state.
Paid for by:Summit Independent Living Center, Inc. AGAINST I-159 P.O. Box 3184 Missoula, MT 59806 406-728-1630 Mike Mayer, Treasurer
Summit is an advocacy and resource center for people with disabilities as well as an in-home, self-directed personal assistance program provider.
There is a petition drive currently going on to gather signatures in support of Initiative I-159 in an attempt to qualify it for the November 2008 ballot. The language below will appear on the petition and ballot initiative:
BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR INITIATIVE NO. 159 (I-159)
INITIATIVE 159
A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION.
I-159 establishes a program to provide home care services to low-income disabled and elderly persons by individual home care providers. These services now are provided only by home care
businesses. Both programs are paid for by government funds. Under the new program, a home care recipient chooses an individual home care provider who is trained and certified by the state. Individual home care providers may collectively bargain with the state, but only through a statewide union exclusively composed of individual providers, and they may not strike.
I-159 costs approximately $2.6 million of state funds the first year, increasing to $7 million by 2013, to train, certify, and supervise an increasing number of individual providers. To the extent available, federal Medicaid funds pay for the remaining program costs.
[] FOR establishing a program to provide home care services by individual providers who may collectively bargain with the state.
[] AGAINST establishing a program to provide home care services by individual providers who may collectively bargain with the state.
►FACT: I-159 is sponsored by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a well-funded international union with 1.9 million members.
►FACT: SEIU developed this ballot initiative totally on its own accord, with no consideration for input from the disability community, the aging network, the personal assistance provider agencies, or the state. This is a prime example of a wealthy out-of-state group forcing unwanted and unneeded change on Montana.
►FACT: The initiative is a backdoor way to unionize the personal care workforce. Individual providers (caregivers) would be forced to join SEIU and pay union dues, yet have no vote on joining or not..
Since 1995, Montana has been offering quality, consumer-directed, in-home care services to assist people with disabilities and our seniors to continue living independently in the home and community of their choice.
►FACT: The “individual provider” program would duplicate and eventually replace the existing Self-Directed Personal Assistance Services (SDPAS) program, which has worked well in Montana since 1995. The SDPAS program already allows consumers to direct their own care, including hiring, firing, and supervising their caregivers through a co-employment relationship with provider agencies.
►FACT: The “individual provider” program exposes consumers to more risk for exploitation or, abuse and neglect because it does away with the provider agencies who perform the oversight and accountability functions of the SDPAS program that help ensure consumer health, safety, and welfare.
►FACT: The “individual provider” program places the consumers in the role of employer, taking on the risks, liabilities and responsibilities that accompany having employees. The state would be required to serve as a fiscal agent for consumers for payment of wages, filing taxes and other administrative functions, but consumers would still hold the liability for complying with wage and hour laws, workers compensation regulations, etc.
►FACT: Personal assistants who work as individual providers would be required to complete mandatory training, background check and certification requirements each year, regardless of their years of experience providing personal care.
►FACT: Currently, under the SDPAS Program consumers are responsible for and able to train their own caregivers to perform tasks based on their own personal needs. I-159 would take that opportunity away from the individuals and instead, create a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to training personal assistants which the state would be required to administer.
►FACT: Personal assistants working as individual providers would assume the liability for providing care to consumers. In the SDPAS program, consumers assume the medical liability for their care, not the caregivers.
►FACT:I-159 will not provide money to get people out of nursing homes, nor does it "rebalance" the long-term care system in Montana by shifting funds from nursing homes into home and community-based services.
►FACT: I-159 would expand state bureaucracy by requiring the state to assume the fiscal agent role currently done by private provider agencies, along with requirements for training, certification and registry of individual providers.
►FACT: I-159 is expensive, estimated at $2.6 million the first year, and increasing to $7 million a year in five years. The fiscal note for this initiative may be grossly underestimating the cost. Yet these increased costs do not go towards better wages and benefits for caregivers, or more services for consumers, they go towards increased administrative costs for the state.
Paid for by:Summit Independent Living Center, Inc. AGAINST I-159 P.O. Box 3184 Missoula, MT 59806 406-728-1630 Mike Mayer, Treasurer
Summit is an advocacy and resource center for people with disabilities as well as an in-home, self-directed personal assistance program provider.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]