Long-term care initiative too costly in the long run
Monday, October 27, 2008 6:50 PM PDT
Printable version
E-mail this articleOct. 27 Daily News editorial
Initiative 1029, a measure on the Nov. 4 ballot that would more than double the hours of training for long-term caregivers, looks good at first glance. But initial appearances are deceiving. Voters would do well to take a second, longer look before marking their ballots. This initiative would have costly consequences for taxpayers, many long-term care workers and all families with someone in long-term care.
The ballot measure proposes to increase the number of hours long-term care workers must be trained from the current 34 hours to 75 hours, beginning Jan. 1, 2010. Taxpayers would pay for the training of state-subsidized workers. The state’s bill would total $29.7 million for fiscal 2009-11, according to the Washington State Office of Financial Management.
The training cost for caregivers who subsidized by the state through Medicaid would be paid by home health-care agencies. Craig Hanley of Vancouver’s Synergy HomeCare franchise told Vancouver Business Journal writer Jodie Gilmore that the agencies’ training cost would be around $700 per worker. The care provider’s training cost would be passed on to consumers, according to Hanley. He estimated that the initiative could increase the cost of home care from the current $18 to $22 per hour to $26 per hour.
Cost isn’t the only problem with this initiative. Gilmore wrote that many cite its inflexibility as a concern. The 75 hours of training is mandated for all long-term care workers, regardless of the job. The requirement is the same for workers who cook or clean as those who must provide medical care.
Another aspect of this measure that should concern taxpayers is the vested interest the sponsor of I-1029 — Service Employees International Union Local 775 — has in its passage. The initiative designates SEIU as the provider of the 75 hours of training for its members, meaning a great many of those tax dollars for the training of state-subsidized workers would be flowing into union coffers (See correction below). Also, should the state contract SEIU to train non-unionized workers, the union would enjoy a powerful recruiting advantage.
Do long-term caregivers in the state require more hours of training? Possibly, though opponents of I-1029 insist that the current requirement of 34 hours training is adequate. In any case, Hanley argues that upping the requirement to 75 hours is too much of an increase.
Certainly, I-1029’s training requirement would put too much of a burden on taxpayers, the long-term care industry and consumers. We urge voters to reject this ill-conceived and ill-timed ballot measure.
Correction (posted Oct. 27)
This editorial urging voters to reject Initiative 1029 incorrectly states that the meausre “designates the Service Employees International Union as the provider of the 75 hours of training” for the union’s members. The state could contract with SEIU to train workers, but it does not designate the union as the trainer. The editorial also mistakenly said that the training requirement is the same for all long-term care workers. The 75-hour requirement would apply only to workers providing hands-on direct personal care” to clients.
Previous Daily News endorsements:
Cowlitz County Commission (Oct. 10)
Washington secretary of state (Oct. 12)
Washington state treasurer (Oct. 12)
State Representative, 18th District, position 2 (Oct. 14)
Initiative 985, traffic congestion (Oct. 15)
State Senate, 18th District (Oct. 16)
U.S. House, 3rd District (Oct. 17)
State Representative, 18th District, position 1 (Oct. 21)
Superintendent of pulic instruction (Oct. 22)
Initiative 1000, assisted suicide (Oct. 24)
Public lands commissioner (Oct. 26)
Past Month's Most Commented Stories