Promotes efficient and effective oversight of continuing care retirement communities; repealer

• Democratic2

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Cordell Cleare says this is needed

Articles 46 and 46-A of the PHL, and the regulations and policies that emanate from these laws, make the establishment and operation of CCRCs unnecessarily complex and expensive in New York as compared to other states. Two State agencies, the Department of Health (DOH) and the Department of Financial Services (DFS), review applications for entrance-fee CCRC models, while three State agencies (DOH, DFS and the Office of the Attorney General) review applications for equity model CCRCs. The resulting review process is protracted, exceedingly complex, duplicative and expensive. Ongoing oversight of CCRC community oper- ations, marketing practices, contracting, fees and investments is burdensome, time-consuming and adds significantly to the cost of operat- ing these communities. This, in turn, increases fees to residents. Those provisions of Article 46 and Article 46-A that mandate multiple agency involvement should be revised to consolidate oversight in DOH and make it clear that other agencies are involved in a limited consultative role, as with other health care models such as managed long term care plans. Although this may have been the original intent of the statute, actual practice has evolved over the years such that there are competing interests among agencies in terms of authority to regulate CCRCs. Because they offer multiple levels of care, CCRCs are subjected to repeat and duplicative State survey inspections. These multiple surveys are costly to both the State and the community; they are disruptive to operations and residents; and findings are often contradictory between survey teams. When the three-agency construct was created thirty years ago, DOH lacked any excellence with health insurance so the Department of Insurance (now DFS) was needed for their insurance expertise. Since that time, DOH Assumed responsibility for the Medicaid program and the Child Health Plus program, the Essential Health Plan and the New York State of Health (the State's Health Insurance Marketplace) were created .under DOH over- sight. DOH now oversees the health coverage for more than 7 million New Yorkers. The CCRC Council was originally conceived as the coordinating body between the three agencies. It is Seeded with the statutory responsibil- ity for providing final approval for the establishment of and opera- tional changes to CCRCs. This construct has not proven to be efficacious and is inconsistent with the goal of consolidating authority into one agency. In addition, in recent years the Council has experienced diffi- culty achieving a quorum, which has delayed approvals. Delays can lead to increases in construction and financing costs. Both nationally and here in New York, CCRCs have proven themselves to be financially stable and sound investments for residents and surrounding communities. Contrary to costing the State money, CCRCs are a proven economic driver for local communities. They are a sound investment that pay dividends in managing the care and housing needs of seniors; provide an alternative to estate planning to qualify for Medicaid; and enable seniors to remain near family members and friends. The CCRC model is not a new Medicaid program that will cost the State money. Quite the oppo- site, seniors who invest in their care and housing needs through a CCRC does not divest their assets to qualify for Medicaid-funded services.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.