Homecare fraud by the numbers

So the numbers are in from the Great Homecare Scare of 2009/2010. As you may recall from last year's budget fight in Sacramento, the idea of screening homecare providers for criminal convictions was made into law. At first ANY felony conviction would bar a prospective or current provider from working in the program. After a lawsuit was filed, the barring convictions were reduced to just those that defrauded the government, as well as convictions of sexual abuse or child abuse.

Oddly enough convictions in rape, murder, robbery are still "acceptable" to the State. Just wait: next year these will be used to eliminate providers matching this criteria. (Eventually that parking ticket in Boston is going to catch up with, I just know it!) Hmmm, funny how for years the State wanted nothing to do with who did the work. Just do the work, be happy with minimum wage and don't ask for lofty rewards for your hard work like healthcare, sick pay or a pension. At least SEIU was able to bargain some contracts sporting better than minimum wage and worker only benefits. (We'll see how long that lasts!)

But now the legislature passed this law hoping to curb the Governator's 2007 estimate of 25% fraud in the program, only to find out in a study he commissioned that the waste was at best 1%. Now with the cut-off date of June 30, 2010 for current providers behind us we can see just how many of the State's 350,000+ providers are kicked out of the program.

So as of 6/29/2010, 446 out of 396,956 homecare workers are ineligible for employment. That's 0.11% (not a typo and not 11%), or just barely more than 1 in one thousand. Kind of makes all the bad press about homecare seem more like angry propaganda from conservative lawmakers who have no idea bout how the program works, the money it saves or the humanity inherent in living in and being cared for in the home instead of a nursing home. Keep in mind as "independent contractors" we had to pay for our own background checks and fingerprinting. Mine was among the cheapest in Sonoma county $52 for both. Multiply this by hundreds of thousands and you can see the great and bankrupt State of California made the vast majority of underpaid and desperately poor homecare workers pay for the cost of proving their innocence.

It gets worse: in Sonoma County, home of the Red Revolt, we see:

Do you see that? Out of 2719 providers, 1 lost his/her job. Put another way: $52 x 2719 = $141,388, minimum cost paid by the honest providers to disqualify one worker. Can I have my $52 back now? Can we all have our pay to prove we're innocent money back?

I can hardly wait until this year's budget is passed to see what money wasting, provider humiliating anti-fraud laws are forced on the poor and overwhelmingly innocent workers.

UDW excels where the Zombies fail

UDW, (United Domestic Workers), the counterpart to SEIU with respect to homecare workers in California have yet again succeeded where the Zombies have failed. The latest example of UDW shining through the muck of state politics and Zombie propaganda is this email I received. The absence of an email from is all the proof I need that the Zombie have abandoned homecare workers in the counties which UHW has contracts. The Zombie aren't even trying to help their dues paying members anymore any more. See Stern Burger's write up on yesterday's failure de jour! I wonder if Erica Boddie still has such an lofty of post trusteeship UHW.

Sacramento rally canceled due to Zombie ultra-fail

I don't feel so bad for missing the rally for work yesterday. I knew attendance would be low but this is just ridiculous! Go check out the link, it's hilarious. You'd think the all powerful and well funded Zombie UHW would be able to handle the simple process of securing a permit before the rally at the state capital. Clearly they are so consumed with defeating NUHW, they can't even pull off a rally at the capital. They used to do several a summer, now, just one and they still messed it up. This is the new, democracy free UHW, home of the slacker. Thanks to Stern Burger for the reporting!

Homecare saves, money, lives, dignity, etc (part 1)

Yet another well written, well reasoned opinion piece about the value of homecare workers and the care they provide. It's far more than just an extremely cost effective program for our most vulnerable citizens. Read on to learn more of what I am speaking about.

Updated Schedule of Final Round of Subcommittee Hearings As Budget Process Moves to Next Phase

Boldly lifted out of today's CD-CAN newsletter. Thanks Marty Omoto for keeping up up to date with the budget crisis. The Zombies clearly can't be bothered with keeping homecare members abreast of what is going on at the state capital.

---

California Budget Crisis:

Updated Schedule of Final Round of Subcommittee Hearings As Budget Process Moves to Next Phase

Full Senate Budget Panel Will Meet Instead of Subcommittees on May 25^th on Human Services, Mental Health and Child Care; May 26^th  on Health Including Developmental Services and May 27 on Education

SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 05/24/2010  01:10 PM  (Pacific Time)] -  Both houses of the Legislature will hold their final budget subcommittee hearings Tuesday and Wednesday (and if needed, Thursday) this week, taking final action on several of the Governor’s major proposals impacting people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind, seniors and their families, before the budget process heads to the next phase of “budget conference committee” hearings in early June.   

The full Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee will be meeting this week instead of its budget subcommittees, to take final action – though in the Assembly, their budget subcommittees will take final action this week. 

State Senate Full Budget Panel Will Meet Instead of Subcommittees

·         May 25^th - In the State Senate, the full Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee will meet tomorrow at 09:30 AM at the State Capitol in Room 4203 focusing on human service including mental health and childcare budget issues.

·         May 26^th - On Wednesday the full Senate budget panel will meet to hear health related budget issues including developmental services and take final action, instead of its five budget subcommittees (Disability Capitol Action Day)

·         May 27^th - It will hold what will likely be its final hearing to close out the Senate budget subcommittee phase of the budget process on Thursday (May 27) focusing on education issues.

Assembly Budget Subcommittees Will Meet This Week To Take Final Action

In the Assembly, its five budget subcommittees held hearings last week and took several final actions and will be  holding their final hearings on Wednesday (May 26^th)  and possibly Thursday to take any remaining final actions.  A copy of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Agenda (24 pages) pdf file is attached to this CDCAN Report and can also be viewed and downloaded from the CDCAN website at www.cdcan.us

Action on Proposed Closure of Lanterman Developmental Center Likely This Week

Action on the proposed closure of Lanterman Developmental Center – which was previously heard by both houses in late April and early May, will likely be taken at this hearing on May 26^th by the full Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee and also by the Assembly Budget Subcommittee #1 on Health and Human Services also on May 26^th.

Actions by Both Houses Not Final

Actions by both the Senate and Assembly budget subcommittees – or full budget committees are not final however.  Actions by both subcommittees or budget committees at this stage – especially if both agree, however does send a strong signal about the position of the Legislature on a particular proposal by the Governor. 

The process heads to the next phase – the budget conference committee (a joint committee of 6 members, 3 from each house) to work out any different actions that either house took.  That phase lasts through most of June – and then the budget process goes to the Assembly and Senate floor, where it will likely remain until a budget agreement is reached with the Governor and the legislative leaders.  A long budget stand-off, given the enormity of the budget deficit, is seen as certain, to probably last through the summer. 

MAY 25^TH  SUMMARY OF SENATE BUDGET & FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA

Copy of this 24 page agenda is attached to this CDCAN Report and can be downloaded also from the CDCAN website at www.cdcan.us

HUMAN SERVICES AND CHILDCARE

1. Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (Budget Item 4200)

* Elimination of Drug Medi-Cal Services, with the Exceptions of Perinatal and Minor Consent Programs

* Elimination of Funding for Offender Treatment Program

2. Department of Social Services (Budget Item 5180)

* Elimination of CalWORKs

* CalWORKs Grant Reduction

* Elimination of CalWORKs Recent Noncitizen Entrants Program (RNE)

3. Department of Social Services (Budget Item 5180) and California Department of Education (Budget item 6110) – Child Care Issues only

* Eliminate General Fund for Child Care Programs and Shift CalWORKs Child Care to the Alternative Payment Program (Issue 326)

* Regional Market Rate (RMR) Reduction

* Reduce Income Eligibility (Issue 323)

* CalWORKs Stage 3 Reduction (Issue 323)

* Adjust CalWORKs Child Care Caseload Funding (Issue 325)

* Negative COLA [“cost of living adjustment”]

* Proposed Plan to Recover Improper Payments from Child Care Programs (Issue 329)

4. Department of Social Services – continued (Budget Item 5180)

* In-Home Supportive Services “Cost Containment”

* SSI/SSP Grant Reduction

* Elimination of CA Food Assistance Program and Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants

* Redirection of County Savings

* Shift of County Mental Health Realignment Funds to Child Welfare Services and to Food Stamp Admin

5. Department of Mental Health (Budget Item 4440)

* Special Education Mental Health Services (AB 3632)

RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION BUDGET ISSUES

1. Department of Parks and Recreation (Budget Item 3790)

* Funding State Parks

2. Department of Transportation (Budget Item 2660)

* Defer Transportation Loan Repayment

* New Transportation Loan from net new “Fuel Swap” revenue

2740 Department of Motor Vehicles (Budget Item 2740)

* Motor Vehicle Account Loan to General Fund

FINAL SUBCOMMITTEE AND FULL COMMITTEE HEARINGS THIS WEEK

Please note: hearing dates and times are always subject to change.  For persons unable to attend the hearing today, phone numbers and addresses of both Senate and Assembly subcommittee health and human services members are listed below in this report for persons to send or call in their comments.  Given the volume of emails, comments or inquiries by email generally are not useful unless a person knows the staff person or the legislator. 

TODAY - MAY 24, 2010 – MONDAY

ASSEMBLY BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE #1 ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

***Hearing cancelled***

SENATE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE #3 ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

TIME: 01:30 PM or immediately after Senate Appropriations Committee hearing ends [that committee is scheduled to meet at 11:00 AM]

WHERE:  State Capitol – Room 4203

WHAT WILL BE HEARD

Governor’s May Revised Budget proposals and “open” issues:

* Secretary for California Health and Human Services Agency (Budget Item 0530)

* Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (Budget item 4140)

* Department of Aging (Budget Item 4170)

* Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (Budget Item 4200)

* Department of Child Support Services (Budget Item 5175)

* Department of Social Services (Budget Item 5180)

* Other departments as necessary

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:  Yes – though not likely on items “for vote only” or items previously heard

PRIORITY:  HIGH

SHOULD PEOPLE COME TO THIS HEARING:  Yes if you are able to

CDCAN COMMENT: “Open” issues refers to issues this subcommittee has previously heard earlier this year but still needs to take action on.  This will be the last hearing for the year for this budget subcommittee. – the full Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee will meet May 25^th and May 26^th to take final action on any remaining “open” issues that the Senate budget subcommittees did not yet take. 

MAY 25, 2010 – TUESDAY

ASSEMBLY BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE #1 ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

***Hearing cancelled***

SENATE BUDGET & FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

TIME: 09:30 AM

WHERE:  State Capitol – Room 4203

WHAT WILL BE HEARD

Governor’s May Revised Budget proposals and “open” issues:

Human Services (including Mental Health)  and Child Care Budget Items:

* Alcohol and Drug Programs (Budget Item 4200)

* Department of Social Services  (Budget Item 5180)

* Department of Education – Child Care Issues only  (Budget Item 6110)

* Other Department of Social Services Issues including SSI/SSP, IHSS (Budget Item 5180)

* Department of Mental Health (Budget Item 4440)

Resources Budget Items

* Department of Parks and Recreation (Budget Item 3790)

Transportation Budget Items

* Department of Transportation (Budget Item 2660)\

* Department of Motor Vehicles  (Budget Item 2740)

General Government Budget Items and Other Departments As Necesssary

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:  Yes – though not likely on items “for vote only” or items previously heard (it is always up to the committee chair)

AGENDA AVAILABLE; Yes – attached to this report and also on the CDCAN website at www.cdcan.us

PRIORITY:  VERY HIGH

SHOULD PEOPLE COME TO THIS HEARING:  Yes if they can – though not if coming from out of the Sacramento area. 

CDCAN COMMENT: “Open” issues refers to issues this subcommittee has previously heard earlier this year but still needs to take action on. All the Senate Budget subcommittee hearing dates scheduled on this date and Wednesday have been cancelled with the full Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee meeting and taking action instead. 

MAY 26, 2010 – WEDNESDAY

ASSEMBLY BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE #1 ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

TIME: 09:00 AM

WHERE: State Capitol – Room 4202

WHAT WILL BE HEARD:

Governor’s May Revised Budget Proposals and “Open” Issues

·         Human services budget items

·         Health budget items including developmental services budget items

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:  Yes – though not likely on items “for vote only” or items previously heard

PRIORITY:  HIGH

SHOULD PEOPLE COME TO THIS HEARING:  Yes if they can – though not if coming from out of the Sacramento area. 

CDCAN COMMENT: “Open” issues refers to issues this subcommittee has previously heard earlier this year but still needs to take action on.  Full Senate budget committee is scheduled to hold its final hearing during this phase of the budget process on this same day and beginning just 30 minutes later.

SENATE BUDGET & FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

TIME: 09:30 AM

WHERE:  State Capitol – Room 4203

WHAT WILL BE HEARD

Governor’s May Revised Budget proposals and “open” issues:

Health Budget Items

* Department of Health Care Services - Medi–Cal (Budget Item 4260)

* Department of Public Health (Budget Item 4265)

* Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (Budget Item 4280)

* Department of Mental Health (Budget Item 4440)

Judicial, Corrections and Public Safety Budget Items

* Judicial Branch (Budget Item 0250)

* California Emergency Management Agency (Budget Item 0690)

* Department of Justice  (Budget Item 0820)

* Dept of Alcoholic Beverage Control  (Budget Item 2100)

* Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitation  (Budget Item 5225)

Other Departments As Necessary

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:  Yes – though not likely on items “for vote only” or items previously heard – it is always up to the committee chair

AGENDA AVAILABLE: Not yet

PRIORITY:  VERY HIGH

SHOULD PEOPLE COME TO THIS HEARING:  Yes if they can – though not if coming from out of the Sacramento area. 

CDCAN COMMENT: “Open” issues refers to issues this subcommittee has previously heard earlier this year but still needs to take action on. 

MAY 27, 2010 – THURSDAY

ASSEMBLY BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE #1 ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

TIME: 09:00 AM

WHERE: State Capitol – Room 4202

WHAT WILL BE HEARD: Any remaining“Open” Issues

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:  Yes – though not likely on items “for vote only” or items previously heard

PRIORITY:  HIGH

SHOULD PEOPLE COME TO THIS HEARING:  Yes if they can – though not if coming from out of the Sacramento area. 

CDCAN COMMENT: “Open” issues refers to issues this subcommittee has previously heard earlier this year but still needs to take action on.  This Assembly budget subcommittee hearing is scheduled but may not be held if all “open” issues were taken up and acted on the previous day. 

SENATE BUDGET & FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

TIME: 09:30 AM or upon adjournment of the State Senate floor session

WHERE:  State Capitol – Room 4203

WHAT WILL BE HEARD:

K–12 EDUCATION

* California Department of Education (Budget item 6110)

HIGHER EDUCATION

* University of California (Budget Item 6440)

* California State University (Budget Item 6610)

* California Community Colleges (Budget Item 6870)

* Student Aid Commission (Budget Item 7980)

REVENUES

EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION

OTHER DEPARTMENTS AS NECESSARY

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:  Yes – though not likely on items “for vote only” or items previously heard – it is always up to the committee chair

AGENDA AVAILABLE: Not yet

PRIORITY:  VERY HIGH

SHOULD PEOPLE COME TO THIS HEARING:  Yes if they can – though not if coming from out of the Sacramento area. 

CDCAN COMMENT: “Open” issues refers to issues this subcommittee has previously heard earlier this year but still needs to take action on.  This is likely the final hearing of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee to close out the Senate budget subcommittee phase of the budget process. 

State's Largest Voice on In-Home Care Reacts to Governor's Revised Budget Proposal

This is interesting to me since homecare and nursing home members in Zombie UHW will be eventually forced into this ghetto local of SEIU. I wonder what the Zombie are doing to prevent this wholesale attack on homecare workers. Given their implicit approval of fingerprinting of providers (homecare workers) I'm putting my Monopoly money on no action from Zombie UHW whatsoever.

---

LOS ANGELES, May 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- SEIU ULTCW, the United Long Term Care Workers, will host a brief tele-press conference later today, reacting to Governor Schwarzeneggar's Revised Budget Proposal related to the funding of In-Home Care for some 400,000 low-income elderly and disabled Californians. Laphonza Butler, President of the 179,000 member union will be giving reaction and taking questions.
In his prior budget, submitted in January, the Governor proposed a nearly 87% elimination of this vital, cost-saving, lifeline-level program.  

What: Tele Press Conference on CA In-Home Care Budget
When: Today, Friday May 14 at 3:00 PM, PST
Where: By Phone. Call-In Instructions ?
Dial 1-866 278 0296, passcode: 9967401
For more background on us, go to www.seiu-ultcw.org

Fingerprinting of homecare consumers finally illegal!

Thanks to the unanimous decisions of Assembly Budget Subcommittee #1 on Health and Human Services, chair Assemblymembers Wes Chesbro, Jim Beall (both Democrats) Bob Emmerson and Brian Nestande (both Republicans) the fingerprinting for consumers as an anti-fraud measure is now illegal. Thanks to Marty Omoto for his timely report on this crucial decision.

California Budget Crisis:

Assembly Budget Subcommittee Votes to Rescind Fingerprinting Requirement of IHSS Recipients – Follows Senate Budget Subcommittee Action Last Week

Law Remains In Force Until Full Legislature and Governor Approve It As Part of 2010-2011 State Budget

SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 05/12/2010  02:50 PM  (Pacific Time)] – The Assembly Budget Subcommittee #1 on Health and Human Services, chaired by Assemblymember Wes Chesbro (Democrat – Eureka, 1^st Assembly District) voted  4 to 0 this afternoon to rescind the state law passed as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget last July that requires the fingerprinting of all recipients receiving In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS).  Note: the final vote could change if any missing subcommittee members add their votes to the roll call. 

The action was supported by Democrats Chesbro and Assemblymember Jim Beall and also the subcommittee’s two Republican members, Assemblymember Bob Emmerson and Brian Nestande.

The motion by Assemblymember Chesbro would reject the $8.2 million currently in the 2009-2010 State Budget and $5.6 million funding proposed in the 2010-2011 State Budget and any additional associated funding for purposes of fingerprinting IHSS recipients and shift any unspent money into the budget of the Department of Social Services.  Chesbro’s motion would also create corresponding budget related language (referred to as “budget trailer bill”) that would rescind current state law requiring fingerprinting of all IHSS recipients and also state law that requires their fingerprints on all timesheets of their IHSS worker (provider). 

The action follows a similar vote last week by the Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services chaired by Sen. Mark Leno (Democrat – San Francisco).

What The Action Means

·         The action by both subcommittees today and last week is not final and still needs approval of the entire State Senate and Assembly -  and then approval of the Governor.  Those approvals will be part of any overall agreement for the 2010-2011 State Budget which, given the enormous budget deficit, will likely be months away. 

·         The action today would rescind or repeal state law – and the funding to implement it – the requirement for mandatory fingerprinting of all recipients who receive IHSS.  The current state law does allow for certain exemptions of the requirement.  However the fingerprinting law still remains in force until final action on this is given by the full Legislature and approved by the Governor as part of the 2010-2011 State Budget.

·         The requirement to fingerprint all IHSS recipients has not been implemented yet by the Department of Social Services – the state agency that oversees the IHSS program statewide, but is proceeding forward as a pilot in certain parts of the state.  If the full Legislature and Governor end up giving final approval of today’s subcommittee action, the effort to move forward on the pilot would end. 

·         The action today did not address and does not impact the fingerprinting and background checks requirements of IHSS workers (providers) that was  passed as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget last July.  Those requirements went into effect on November 1^st and is underway now.

Important criteria for homecare worker background checks

Finally, some information about the criteria for these damn unwarranted background checks for IHSS (homecare) providers. Note: this info not brought to you by SEIU. They're too busy scrambling for a new president.

Despite being $20 billion in the hole, Governor finds way to harrass IHSS consumers

I guess it isn't enough that the Governor has had IHSS providers (workers) in his crosshairs since the day he took office. Apparently our (both providers and consumers (clients)) mere existence is unacceptable. Always looking for a new and devastating way to burn his fellow Californians, he's going after IHSS consumers (clients). You know, the low income elderly and disabled not to mention usually frail neighbors and family we care for that are our neighbors, friends and family. My friend's who cares for his father with dementia, my wife with Cerebral Palsy, my friend who cares for her child with Spina Bifida these are the latest group he's added to his list of usual suspects. This man has no conscious: he'll attack the poor and weak to perpetuate the illusion his efforts are saving money. But as I've written before the pennies he's saving are far outweighed by the dollars he's spending. Take, for example, the $3.5 million spent in Sacramento County to find fraud. Nineteen cases of fraud were detected for their efforts. That is a monumental waste of our, the taxpayers, money and an affront to 99% of honest IHSS providers. Now his administration is mulling over the purchase several hundred of these "MorphoTrak 'mobile biometric identification' device[s]". I checked out their website and found 2 devices that seem to fit the description in the Sacramento Bee article. Clearly this is speculative, but these devices seem overpriced and are more like mobile homecare terrorizing devices. Take your pick. What's next: a 1984-esque television that watches back?

See, if the guy gathering your information just smiles at you  it's make the criminalization of your job/disability so much easier to swallow! Seriously what a condescending smirk!

Or how about this one. Why not just go for broke and bring a lie detector to every consumer's house?

I see a few problems with the devices and their use. Here in Sonoma county, and I presume other organized counties, the contract between the county and the union reaffirms the long standing (e.g. before unionization) consumer right to "[d]etermine in advance and under all circumstances who may and may not enter their home." This is from section 3.1 (A) (3) of all contracts since we became organized in Sonoma county. What if a consumer can't come to the door? Hmmmmm. This privacy clause applies to unannounced house visits, but the Zombies are too busy hiring an army of lawyers from 4 law firms to fight NUHW in court next week to care about what really matters.

Second is the cost of these devices. These devices appear to be functionally equivalent to what I've listed below, at a price well below the 5 grand estimated cost of these mobile terrorizing units. Is this the best the Governator can come up with to fight fraud and save money? He can have both without spending a fortune of taxpayers money (which is not his money).

Finger print scanner: $39-$64
Digital camera: $29 & up
Netbook (a stripped down notebook computer): $250 & up (or better yet this one)

Add them up and what do you get, outside of a vendor who found a pot of gold hiding in the state budget?

 |

 |

 |

 |

 |

 |

 |

 |

 |

 |

\ /

$318 (just under $350 with tax)

The software to operate the fingerprint reader is included with the reader itself and any computer from 2001 forward can retrieve pictures from a digital camera with any additional software.

Finally, as stated in the article the new legislation does not mention photographing consumers. Sounds like the State is getting in on the harassment of consumers normally performed by fraudsters.

So it appears that yet again the Governator's plans to destroy homecare will cost far money than it can ever hope to save. I'm so happy he's terming out of office next year.

FREE fingerprinting for homecare workers in Lake Co...

...so will Sonoma County follow suit? Guess who I'm emailing and calling Monday morning. For my readers especially homecare providers (workers) and consumers (clients) in Sonoma County please call your supervisor as listed below. Don't know which district you are in? Look up your supervisor by street address. We need to raise their consciousness about the cost of proving our innocence.

They can all be reached at (707) 565-2241

District 1: Valerie Brown, vbrown@sonoma-county.org (southeast county)
District 2: Mike Kerns, mkerns@sonoma-county.org (southwest county)
District 3: Shirlee Zane, szane@sonoma-county.org (Santa Rosa & east Rohnert Park)
District 4: Paul Kelley, pkelley@sonoma-county.org (northeast county)
District 5: Efren Carrillo, ecarrillo@sonoma-county.org (northwest county)

"Those who have the least get the least"...

... and what you can do about it. This is a prime example of the positive press coverage I'm looking for, especially the last paragraph which includes a call to action aimed at it's readers. I've included the same information for us in Sonoma county. Shown below are the contact details for Wes Chesbro our representative in the Assembly. I strongly encourage all my readers to read the article to get a better understanding of what is going in the homecare universe and then contact Assemblymember Chesbro.

Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro

Capitol Address
State Capitol
Room 2176
Sacramento, CA 94249-0001
(916) 319-2001

District Address
50 D Street Suite 450
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 576-2526

 

"Sure you're disabled, just not disabled enough!"

Below is the first article I've read this budget season that describes the way in which the Governator wants to destroy homecare and the affect it would have on the lives of consumers (clients). With all the negative press that focuses on just the costs and the race occurrence of fraud it's refreshing to see someone other than me touting the economic and social benefits of homecare. It's not just a grueling job, it's a job that saves money and saves live: consumers, providers (worker) and both their families all benefit from non-institutionalized care of our disabled poor. Can't the Governator see that cutting care would make the disabled suffer, the workers jobless and the families overburdened with care often to their own financial detriment?

The Functional Index (FI) score was designed to quantify individual disability, not determine categorical eligibility. To use it as such is, at best, reprehensible. One would not have to look far to find obvious exceptions and contradictions to this line of reasoning. For example my wife has never and will never walk but her FI score is above a friend of ours who can walk with a walker but is much more dependent upon her caregiver. Should our friend become ineligible just because her FI score is lower? Is rating and then discriminating against the disabled the best solution the State can come up with to balance the budget? We need to ask our Legislature and Governator to do better than to pick on the poor and defenseless.

Community support for Memorial continues... (part 3)

Who can figure out what the Press Democrat will print, especially when it's letters to the editor. It seems to me half the time I glance at the paper on the way out of the grocery store I see the median price of homes in Sonoma county as the above-the-fold story. We have some real news here and they can barely get it together to print a few letters to the editor. Recently they published a little and none too well researched article about the hospital's allegations of misconduct by NUHW and Labor Board agents itself. Seriously folks, Memorial management backed out of 6 of the 10 objections they submitted, not the NLRB, but somehow this is not newsworthy. Anyway, here's what little coverage it did get and better yet a couple letters to the editor that don't pull any punches.

 

Too bad the PD editor can't be bothered with presenting the voices of the community, as shown below.

Dear Editor:

I was shocked at the spare and biased article regarding the Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital Union elections.  It announced this Monday's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hearing to address hospital management's complaints that the union which employees have been STRUGGLING TO BRING TO MEMORIAL FOR FIVE YEARS clearly won.  Managements captive audience meetings to discourage workers from voting pro union failed.  MILLIONS OF DOLLARS spent by the "intervening" union, SEIU, failed to split the pro union ticket.  Out of 600+ eligible votes, SEIU got 13 even though they had filled the Petaluma Sheraton Hotel with paid "union organizers" brought in from all over the country.

Now management has bought time in order to deteriorate working conditions.  This is in preparations for the up coming dreaded legitimately won labor negotiations.  Their lawyers' tactics appear to be "Throw any allegations you can think of at the union.  Something is bound to stick."  But those I consider Memorial managements' partners in crime, SEIU, would not agree to ANY rules of conduct prior to the election.  NUHW fiercely tried to come to some sort of decent arrangement with management. But thanks to intervening Johny-come-lately union SEIU, no rules of conduct could be had.

The complaint that NUHW supporters were electioneering by wearing emblems, t-shirts, buttons and the like is particularly amusing to me.  Memorial is a Catholic hospital.  Some of the clergy were wearing NUHW buttons and such.  At least one of them was a Monsignor.  An open letter of support for Memorial Hospital's employees labor union organizing from Catholic Academics is on file.  Why was none of this information included in the article?

I was there the night of the vote count.  It was going to be held in a large conference room in the main hospital building.  At the last minute, perhaps because too many community people (like me) showed up, it was moved to a small trailer across the street.  Greeting us at the door was a security guard and the hospital's lawyer.  NUHW's lawyer had to ARGUE his way in to observe the count.  NLRB reps witnessed this nonsense.  We Memorial Hospital Employees' supporters deferred entry to employees, but even some of them were turned away.  This is clearly a case of the pot (management) calling the kettle (NUHW) black.  

Why do I care???  Because I look forward to the day we have an election in Sonoma County IHSS so we can throw the SEIU bums out.   They stripped us of our leadership, colluded with the governor to trash our contracts, harass us workers, and are talking of raising our union dues to boot.  I don't want to give them one red cent, let alone a raise.  They give unionizing a very very bad name.  I want my NUHW leadership back.  It's a union I do believe in.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Elsa Stevens

Here's another.

Dear Editor;

I am writing in disbelief of Bleys Rose's "Hearing Set for Memorial Workers", February 6.

First of all, why was there no pro-union comments from the SRMH workers?  A hearing is really unnecessary and could be avoided due to the following facts:

 Hospital management filed objections with the National Labor Relations Board,(NLRB), which have no significance. They had confirmed that the majority of employees who voted, did so to form a union with NUHW.  However, weeks before and up to the election voting day, SRMH Management had meetings to try to persuade workers to vote against a union, and refused to comply with the Fair Election Oversight Commission, (FEOC), who are community members, whose role was and is to defend the employee's right to understand about forming a union in an workplace that would be null of intimidation, misinformation and pressure tactics., as well as helping set ground rules for the election.  Instead, management held anti-union meetings, with one-sided misleading information on strikes, bargaining, and dues.,further creating undue pressure and stress on their employees prior to voting, etc.

They now need in all good conscience to finally respect the worker's decision and begin to bargain in good faith without further delay, and respect their employee's final decision to form a union with NUHW...

Management and St. Joseph Health System is going against their own "principles" of dignity, service, excellence and justice by contradicting themselves, having promised that: "If workers held a secret ballot election through the NLRB, they would stand steadfast by their decision."  This history making vote and victory by SRMH workers should be celebrated !

I and other elected officials as well as community leaders believe that SRMH Management needs to withdraw the remaining objections and end this unnecessary conflict so that a fair contract can benefit everyone.

Andria Callas

Homecare fraud: you're lucky if you can find it!

Recently there has been some press coverage about homecare fraud with nearly all of it being bad. If we didn't get bad press we'd get no press at all. It seems the nature and cost effectiveness of homecare is horribly misunderstood. If you follow the LameStream media's coverage of this attack on homecare you'd think that the disabled poor and those who care for them are criminals worthy of only the harshest treatment. Following the Governator's line of reasoning one might think were it not for homecare the State wouldn't have a budget deficit at all! Here's an example of the spoon-fed and lopsided thinking that makes my blood boil.

 

This is exactly what we don't need: division among the consumers (clients) as to who is eligible. Having met several homecare providers (workers) and their consumers I can tell you if a consumer is receiving homecare services it's vital to the well-being and happiness of the consumer. My wife is much happier living with me than living in a group home! Homecare is no road to riches for the providers and it saves the State far more than it would spend if it housed every consumer in a nursing home, group home or whatever dungeon they think the disabled poor should be warehoused in.

When legislators and journalists stop blindly accepting what someone else tells them is the irrefutable truth (the Gov tells the Legislature, and the journalists gobble up whatever they hear from Sacramento) and the State attempst to find the fraud, they find much less fraud exists than is reported by the media. In 2007, the Gov stated it was as high as 25%, but when investigated by his own administration it was found to be no more than 1%. Don't get me wrong: even 1% is unacceptable but the way the State is going about reducing fraud is Draconian, and obviously lopsided (which is putting it nicely). For those who choose to abuse the system and steal from both us the taxpayers and us the overwhelmingly majority of honest workers just trying to earn a living, I say hang them up by their ampersand caret asterisk toes in the middle of town.

The money spent to detect and stop fraud is ridiculous in both absolute dollars and when the amount of money recovered is divided into the amount spent finding the fraud in the first place. Here are some examples:

 

Did y'all get that: they spent $3 million to save $315,000! That's $157,894.74 per conviction! I thought the Zombies' dollar-to-vote ratio was out of control but this is ridiculous! A quick run crunching the numbers shows this was a prime example of the State's penny-wise but pound-foolish approach to handling our tax money.

Maximum number of hours that can be assigned to any one consumer: 283 (a 40 work week is 173 hours a month, 283 is ~1.6 times more)
Hourly wage for IHSS workers in Sacramento: $10.40
Months in a year: 12
A years worth of homecare work at the above given wage comes out to $35,318.40

Difference between cost per conviction and maximum payout for one consumer's worth of work (283 x 10.40 x 12=): $110,576.34.

I say (s)he who wastes more money gets required lifetime employment at McDonald's working the drive thru window!

So, yet again way more money is spent than is recovered, but at least the politicians can feel good about their efforts to root out the fraud. Sheesh, does it hurt to be this stupid?

This is not an isolated example of the State's overzealous attack on the poor and defenseless.

 

So as you can see the State is very concerned about the 0.2% (NOT 2%!) in over-payments in Fresno county, the State's leader in homecare fraud detection, prevention and conviction and the only way they can see to fix the problem and punish this despicable and very small group of scamming "caregivers" is to take us all down. Make the poor poorer (reduce us to minimum wage), punish the innocent (fingerprinting for all), surely that will solve all our problems!

So to combat this problem they've written the "improvements" below into law. As far as I know they have yet to figure out how to implement these new laws. What the State has in mind is indeed punitive:

• checks can't be mailed to P.O. boxes (which is a bummer because in my neighborhood, a P.O. box is an excellent way to prevent identity theft)
• fingerprints for both the provider and consumer put on each timecard (Who pays for the ink? Who is charged with matching 800,000+ fingerprints to people on a semi-monthly basis? What if a consumer doesn't have (accessible) thumbs? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?)
• State required but not funded fingerprinting for both consumers and providers (and where were the Zombies when these proposal became law? Busy fighting with members, again!)
• unannounced home visits (Which seem to be in violation of  multiple homecare contracts about the consumer's right to chose whom, how and when someone enters their home.)

Seems like overkill doesn't it?

A few things need to be said about fraud:

• fraud is wrong, no matter the justification or significance
• those who commit fraud, both providers and (living) consumers must be punished
• the rest of us who aren't committing fraud need to be left alone, no fingerprinting at our own expense to prove our innocence
• the folks handling the timecards (counties) and the folks who cut the checks (the State) need some simple checks to be put in place, specifically:

• no checks for the consumers known to be deceased (except for consumers who passed away mid pay period)
• no checks for providers or consumers who are in jail

Had the counties and the State been checking for this all along who knows how much money could have been saved. Consider the lack of seething animosity that could have been avoided. The oft reported, but grossly exaggerated costs of IHSS fraud could simply never have happened but for that you'd need a state that cares for it's elderly and disabled poor, instead of taking every possible action to move us both ever-faster into the grave. Even when these fraudsters are caught it's a great expense to the State and the money is not always recovered.

Fortunately for us all the writing of a few bright minds makes it's way to the Op-Ed sections of our newspapers and blogs.

Indeed, this is a rare voice of reason is a sea of stupity.