Should broader checks be required for home care workers?

Yes: I-1163 would help protect vulnerable citizens

By Mark Lindquist

Three years ago, Washington voters overwhelmingly supported federal background checks and increased training for the people who care for our seniors and citizens with disabilities. After the implemen-tation of these needed reforms was postponed, we have seen the risk to our seniors grow.

Initiative 1163 restores these common-sense protections for our most vulnerable and will bring increased professionalism to the care-giving field.

I-1163 requires home care workers, who provide the same type of care as nursing home workers but in a more isolated setting, to pass a full federal background check. Our current, state-level check misses crimes committed outside the state of Washington, leaving our seniors and disabled citizens vulnerable to felons from other states. Common sense dictates that we close this background check loophole.

In addition, I-1163 requires home care workers to receive a minimum of 75 hours of basic training and to pass a certification exam in order to provide care. A barber must undergo 1,000 hours of training, a nursing home worker receives 85, but someone who cares for in-home clients with conditions such as dementia and developmental disabilities currently receives less than 40 hours.

Thousands of Medicaid-eligible low-income seniors and people with disabilities who qualify for expensive nursing home care voluntarily choose to remain in their own homes. This allows them to stay connected to their families and communities, while saving taxpayers millions. These vulnerable people deserve safe, quality care that preserves their health, their sense of independence and their dignity.

In 2010, Residential Care Services, which investigates allegations against employees of long-term care facilities, reported an increase in citations of more than 15 percent in adult family homes since 2008. According to Adult Protective Services, reports of abuse increased 31.5 percent from 2001 to 2009. These abuses include physical, mental and sexual abuse; neglect; financial and personal exploitation; and abandonment.

Many of us have read the horror stories in the newspaper, such as the recent story of a partially paralyzed woman who was handed a lit cigarette while attached to an oxygen tank. It exploded. Now 71, she lives in a nursing home. She is unable to walk. She lacks the muscle control to hold a cup of water to her lips.

All of us will, at some point, likely rely on a caregiver, whether for a friend, a family member or ourselves. Let’s take this opportunity to protect the nearly 5,000 Pierce County residents who live in adult family and boarding homes and increase professionalism for the future.

In the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office, we vigorously prosecute those who abuse the most vulnerable members of our community, but many of these crimes could be prevented with the common-sense reforms of Initiative 1163. Please vote yes.

No: There's no way to pay for this unnecessary measure

By Cindi Laws and Julie Ferguson

Mark Lindquist is the Pierce County prosecutor. Initiative 1163 must be defeated because it represents the wrong priorities. Its $80 million cost requires tax increases or cuts to vital senior services. With the governor calling a special session to deal with the latest $1.4 billion shortfall, we must oppose I-1163.

Voters should not be fooled. Mandatory caregiver training and criminal background checks are already required by law. This initiative is designed solely to benefit one interest group.

This measure sponsored by the Service Employees International Union claims to protect vulnerable adults. But it really forces taxpayers to pay for the watered-down training of union members with inexperienced trainers managed by SEIU, eliminating the current training conducted by state-licensed medical professionals and credentialed educators.

When they couldn’t agree on much, 82 percent of the Legislature approved delaying the previous training initiative, I-1029. With the elimination of entire programs, legislators were unwilling to fund new government projects.

The state is desperate for money. There is simply no way to pay for I-1163.

In 2009, legislation allowed convicted violent and sex offenders in need of long-term care to be placed into “community residential care.” Recently we learned the state was attempting to move a 94-year-old convicted first-degree murderer into a local long-term care home, even though the murders took place just three years ago.

Last spring, the Legislature cut more than $500 million in medical services and in-home care to seniors and adults with disabilities. Eliminated were vision and hearing aids and dental care; prescription drug coverage was reduced. In-home care services for seniors and people with disabilities were slashed. Overall, there were more than $2 billion in cuts at DSHS, affecting children, the mentally ill and the working poor.

Less than four months later, state agencies have prepared additional 10 percent cutbacks to address the latest shortfall, including another $873 million slice from the Department of Social and Health Services. Care will end for 17,000 seniors and adults with disabilities; the Health Care Authority sharply reduced emergency room visits for those receiving Medicaid; and correctional facilities are releasing hundreds of inmates and mental patients into the community.

Our industry is absolutely committed to the highest standards of training and professional business practices, but that isn’t what I-1163 is about. It’s about a powerful special interest trying to write self-serving policy. Our residents deserve caregivers with the best and most relevant training available, and the taxpayers can’t afford it.

How does SEIU propose to pay the $80 million price tag of I-1163? SEIU’s selfish, cavalier approach to the current budget crisis is unconscionable. Whose medical services will be eliminated to pay for I-1163? Whose school lunches do they intend to cut? Whose taxes do they intend to raise?

At a time when our state is facing the biggest financial challenge since the Great Depression, we can’t justify a new $80 million program while cutting essential services to seniors and people with disabilities.

To preserve services for seniors and people with disabilities, the only responsible thing to do is vote no on I-1163.

Cindi Laws and Julie Ferguson are co-chairs of People Protecting Our Seniors – NO 1163 (no1163.com), a broad-based coalition that includes organizations advocating for senior protection, disability rights, residential housing, long-term care, business and consumer advocates. The coalition members care for more than 500,000 seniors and people with disabilities in Washington.