Bill Description: House Bill 807 would direct the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) to seek a federal waiver to restart the Family Personal Care Services (FPCS) program.
Rating: -4
Note: This legislation's rating has been updated with new analysis.
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
This bill would expand the DHW by reinstituting the FPCS program. It would also subject all care providers to “oversight as deemed necessary” by the DHW. Not only is this intrusive, it must be intrusive and ineffective by its nature. The original program was terminated due to concerns about fraud. It is simply not possible to monitor hundreds of personal caregivers for compliance without resorting to draconian and costly measures.
(-1)
Does it transfer a function of the private sector to the government? Examples include government ownership or control of any providers of goods or services, such as the land board’s purchase of a self-storage facility, mandatory emissions testing, or pre-kindergarten. Conversely, does it eliminate a function of government or return a function of government to the private sector?
Caring for family members ought to be out of charity and duty, not payments from the state. By restarting the FPCS, this legislation would transfer a familial private duty to a public welfare system employment arrangement – paying family members to do family care.
(-1)
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
While increasing utilization rates will distort the free market, this legislation does not give the government any additional powers that were not already inherent in the PCS program.
(0)
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
From the SoP:
“The 1000 potential FPCS participants are already eligible for $38,626,736 of PCS per year($27,038,715 federal, $11,588,021 general fund). This legislation would have the following fiscal impact: For one-time personnel and system costs for design, build, and deployment: $150,497 in federal funds, $266,949 from General Fund; For ongoing annual operating and personnel costs: $542,803 in federal funds, $290,490 from General Fund; At full utilization, for ongoing annual cost of services: $21,353,961 in federal funds, $10,418,039 from General Fund. To the extent utilized, these expenditures would be deducted from the $38,626,736 of PCS services for which these recipients are already eligible.”
This legislation would increase government spending by increasing the utilization rates of PCS by implementing the FCPS program. The entirety of the PCS program is an optional benefit of Medicaid. The threat of litigation could be removed by ending the program and instead of restarting the FCPS program.
(-1)
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the tenth amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
By restarting the FPCS, Idaho becomes more dependent on the federal government. Increased usage of PCS benefits due to these changes means these 1,000 enrollees will become more dependent on borrowed federal money. It is also subject to all the rules and regulations implemented by the federal government to manage this program.
(-1)
