MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-First Session
February 14, 2001
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:40 p.m., on Wednesday, February 14, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Valerie Wiener
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 3
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Patricia Di Domenico, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Howard Fuller, Ed.D., Director, Institute for the Transformation of Learning, Marquette University
Jim Parry, Superintendent, Carson City School District
Joyce Haldeman, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education
Dotty L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Sherry Cushman, Washoe County School District
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards
Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA)
R. Alexis Miller, Lobbyist
Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teachers Association (PTA)
Loretta M. Evenson, Lobbyist, Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators,
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
David Graham, Concerned Citizen
Wendy Simmons, Administrator, Park Place
Mary Wherry, Deputy Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources
Chairman Rawson introduced Dr. Howard Fuller, who founded the Institute for the Transformation of Learning at Marquette University in 1995. Chairman Rawson said the institute’s focus is on improving academic achievement in an urban America through expanded educational options. He asked Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association, to continue the introduction of Dr. Fuller. Mr. Bacon expounded on the merits of Dr. Fuller’s contributions to education reform.
Howard Fuller, Ed.D., Director, Institute for the Transformation of Learning, Marquette University, stated his life’s goal was to make sure every child learns and to empower parents to be involved in that process. Chairman Rawson expressed his concerns about the student drop out rate in Nevada schools and students failure to go to college. Senator Mathews asked Dr. Fuller to expound on empowering parental involvement. Dr. Fuller elucidated on the achievement of students who have been nurtured by caring adults. He said children need an adult support structure at home or elsewhere. Dr. Fuller explained the need to provide an environment to reach out to parents. He said involvement occurs when parents are given the power to choose and feel those who control the bureaucracy take them seriously. Dr. Fuller stated charter schools, low-income vouchers, supporting people with home schooling, public and private partnerships, or anything that opens up the existing system to innovation and empowerment will benefit children’s needs.
Senator Wiener questioned whether the principles of the SEARCH institute, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, were integrated in his program for students. Dr. Fuller stressed approaching education from an asset model and bringing out a child’s assets, not the deficits. He said unless you are committed to fundamentally changing the bureaucracy, legislators in the future would face the same challenge. Dr. Fuller remarked, ”We are approaching a hip-hop generation with a waltz mentality and we ask ourselves why this does not work.”
Chairman Rawson asked the size of the Milwaukee School District. Dr. Fuller replied there are 103,000 children in the Milwaukee public school system of which 10,000 are participating in the low-income voucher program. There are almost 100 schools in the program: 14 charter schools, of those, 5 are independent charter schools; contract schools; partnership schools; and an inter-district transfer program. Chairman Rawson questioned whether the vouchers had been challenged. Dr. Fuller answered in the affirmative. Chairman Rawson asked what the program’s cost was per student. Dr. Fuller said the cost is $9000 per student, and property taxes are the major financial source. The cost is $6200 for charter schools, and $5200 for the parental-choice program but they do not receive funding from property taxes. Chairman Rawson commented the cost per student in Nevada is $5600, and is adjusted for counties and rural areas but there is a cry to put more money into education.
Senator Washington asked Dr. Fuller to define educational reform. Dr. Fuller replied that you must identify your purpose and student achievement should be number one. He declared, “It is criminal, that in the United States of America, we are giving kids diplomas who cannot read and write.” He reiterated the starting point is with student achievement. Dr. Fuller suggested we bring education into this century by building on what works. He emphasized moving away from a school system and advancing to a system of learning opportunity.
Senator Washington questioned if there were ways to get the bureaucrats to look at alternate ways of education. Dr. Fuller repeated his belief of applying pressure from outside the system to give people inside the system leverage because large-scale bureaucracy will not conform on their own.
At the conclusion of Dr. Fuller’s presentation, Chairman Rawson presented various bill draft requests (BDRs).
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 41-116: Revises standards for designation of gaming enterprise districts in certain locations. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 171.)
SENATOR SCHNEIDER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 41-116.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson presented Bill Draft Request (BDR) 18-133.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 18-133: Creates endowment fund for arts and humanities and revises powers and duties of state arts council. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 170.)
SENATOR SCHNEIDER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 18-133.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson presented Bill Draft Request (BDR) 15-166.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 15-166: Prohibits bestiality. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 173.)
SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 15-166.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson presented Bill Draft Request (BDR) 38-190.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 38-190: Requires cooperative efforts to make available through existing state programs adequate community-based services to provide essential personal assistance to certain persons with disabilities.(Later introduced as Senate Bill 174.)
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 38-190.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson presented Bill Draft Request (BDR) 34-218.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-218: Makes various changes regarding education. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 165.)
SENATOR SCHNEIDER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 34-218.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson presented Bill Draft Request (BDR) 38-222.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 38-222: Requires department of human resources to include continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pumps and podiatric services in state plan for Medicaid and makes appropriation for Pediatric Diabetes and Endocrinology Center. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 166.)
SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 38-222.
SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson presented Bill Draft Request (BDR) 34-737.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-737: establishes system of classification for licensure of teachers. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 168.
SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 34-737.
SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson presented Bill Draft Request (BDR ) R-739.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-739: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of feasibility of constructing highway between Mesquite and Caliente. (Later introduced as Senate Concurrent Resolution 9.)
SENATOR SCHNEIDER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R - 739.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 73 and introduced Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 3.
SENATE BILL 73: Requires state board of education to prescribe form for reports of parental involvement in education of children. (BDR 34-315)
Senator Raggio testified S.B. 73 is the result of many years of concern and reflections regarding children not learning. He emphasized the lack of parenting was one of the biggest problems in the country and a major cause of children not achieving in school. Senator Raggio explained S.B. 73 is a tool to get parental attention. He stated S.B. 73 was not intended to be punitive, rather its purpose is to get the attention and involvement of parents. Senator Raggio stressed the importance of the concerted help of parents, guardians, teachers, and community for children to achieve. He reiterated on parental involvement being the key factor in a child’s education. Senator Raggio said 30 states had enacted legislation relating to parental involvement and Nevada is getting a late start.
Referring to the document “Parental Involvement” (Exhibit C), Senator Raggio cited the research findings of the National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) that the involvement of parents in a student’s education resulted in: higher student achievement, including better test scores; better attendance; higher graduation rates; and decrease in alcohol use, violence, and other antisocial behaviors. Senator Raggio expounded on the frustration teachers feel confronted with students who continually are absent, tardy, and parents or guardians who do not participate in their children’s education. He pointed out (Exhibit C) contained a parent checklist designed by Jim Parry, Superintendent, Carson City School District, and a sample of the parent checklist designed by the Chicago Public Schools.
Senator Raggio explained section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (a), of S.B. 73 addresses the contents of the form that will be used by public schools to provide reports to parents. Outlining what the report should contain, he pointed out all were matters that were not unreasonable. Senator Raggio said this report would accompany a student’s report card twice a year.
Calling attention to a document titled, “Proposed Amendments to Senate Bill 73” (Exhibit D), Senator Raggio offered two amendments to S.B. 73. One amendment limits the report to elementary schools receiving remediation funds and requires middle and high schools receiving remediation funds to improve parental involvement; and the second amendment provides the principal with the authority to exempt certain families.
Chairman Rawson asked if the teacher would fill out the form or would it be a parental self-evaluation. Senator Raggio responded the form would be a report by the teacher to the parents. Chairman Rawson questioned whether the report would remain part of a student’s record. Senator Raggio responded that many of these items are currently part of the schools’ records. Chairman Rawson pointed out S.B. 73 does address the personal privacy issue of the parent and child. Senator Raggio reiterated the purpose of S.B. 73 is to capture the parent or guardian’s attention and get them involved.
Senator Washington questioned the intent of lines 40 through 42, on page 2 of S.B. 73. Senator Raggio explained it is permissive language allowing schools in the district not receiving remedial funds to use the form. Senator Washington voiced his concern about the term “an expanded form” on line 42, of page 2. Senator Raggio responded that the board of trustees would have to approve the expanded form.
Senator Mathews questioned how the information would be used and where it would be stored. Senator Raggio said this information is already in existence but it must be brought to the parent’s attention to get them involved. Senator Mathews asked if there had been feedback from other school districts using the form. Senator Raggio replied the information is helpful. Senator Mathews opined her concerns for parents of children in remedial schools.
Jim Parry, Superintendent, Carson City School District, stated the school board had not reviewed S.B. 73 and therefore he was speaking on behalf of himself. Referring to (Exhibit C), Mr. Parry stated the current parent report card used by the Carson City School District recently is the latest revision. He stated parents and teachers both need to be accountable and parent accountability should not be feared. Calling attention to page 3 of Exhibit C, Mr. Parry remarked the message from the principal is in a positive tone, and the parent report card is done at home. He drew attention to the section concerning “parents presence in school” on page 4 of Exhibit C. Mr. Parry asked the committee how they would grade themselves and if they graded themselves low would it cause them any dissidence in their mind. He said the intent of the parent report card is for the parent to ask themselves questions and make recommendations. Mr. Parry urged the committee not to fear accountability for parents and ask them to do it with “soul.” He told the committee the Carson City School District parent report card was initiated 14 years ago without the force of legislation.
Senator Amodei asked if there was any data concerning increased parental involvement due to the use of the parent report card. Mr. Parry responded by saying that there was no compiled data. He emphasized the possibilities of improvement if a school had a diligent staff, and parents took the report seriously. Mr. Parry noted the report card is narrative, there are no grades, and is a parent’s self-evaluation.
Joyce Haldeman, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit E) in favor of S.B. 73. She said S.B. 73 with the proposed amended language might open the door to improved dialogue between school and home. Ms. Haldeman referred to page 3 of Exhibit E, explaining it was a simple form with only five indicators. She indicated communication should be delivered in a nonthreatening manner, therefore calling the form a parent checklist would be a user-friendly approach.
Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, voiced support of S.B. 73.
Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education said he was speaking as the state superintendent without having discussed the issue with the members of the school board or other organizations. He stated the most effective way to involve parents is through communication, and the most effective way for a student to achieve is to strengthen the bond between the parent and the school. Mr. McLaughlin acknowledged the Department of Education would be pleased to work with the associations to put the form into place as specified in S.B. 73. He also suggested that by sharing the information developed by the national associations with parents they would have a better understanding of what is expected. Mr. McLaughlin voiced his support of S.B. 73.
Senator Mathews asked how schools communicated with parents in the past. Mr. McLaughlin replied teachers would send post cards, use the telephone, or send a note with the student, but the bottom line is a one-on-one approach. He reiterated S.B. 73 is the first step toward strengthening the bond between the school and the parent.
Senator Washington asked if there was data compiled on the parental response rate to this type of form in an urban area. Mr. McLaughlin pointed out, the response or nonresponse from parents is an indicator of other issues. Senator Washington reiterated the belief of Dr. Fuller that parents must take this report seriously for the system to work. Mr. McLaughlin stressed it is the educators’ responsibility to see that all children reach their highest potential and our students learn.
Dotty L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, testified on behalf of S.B. 73. She said the Washoe County School District agrees with Senator Raggio that parental involvement is one of the key factors of educational achievement. Ms. Merrill stated the Washoe County School Board would be acting upon S.B. 73 at their next meeting. She noted that S.B. 73 would afford schools numerous opportunities and open the lines of communication with parents. Ms. Merrill pointed out parental involvement is a positive approach which would provide input, and suggestions for ways to improve student achievement.
Sherry Cushman, Washoe County School District, said the school district is strongly supportive of parental and family involvement as evidenced by her position of parent involvement coordinator and volunteer services coordinator for the last five years. The focus at the district level is to communicate options for parents to be involved in their child’s education. Ms. Cushman referenced a quarterly newsletter titled “PARENTS” (Exhibit F), as one way the school district has of providing information on parental involvement and has done so in every issue for the last 5 years. She stated the school district offers workshops for parenting skills and ways to improve their child’s learning ability. Ms. Cushman highlighted Kinderfair, a program for parents whose children are entering the public school system. She outlined other ways the Washoe County School District communicates with parents. Ms. Cushman submitted to the committee examples: brochures written in “English, 101 WAYS” (Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library.), and in “Spanish, 101” (Exhibit H. Original is on file in the Research Library.); posters, pamphlets such as “Volunteering is for You – and Our Schools” (Exhibit I); handouts such as, “Tame the TV and Help the Child Succeed!” (Exhibit J); and their Web sites: www.washoe.k12.nv.us and www.washoe.k12.nv.us/parents. Ms. Cushman commented on a program at Swope Middle School called the “Dad’s Club” which allows fathers to lunch with their children. She gave examples of other programs that have been successful such as: Spanish speaking parents; parents with children who have physical or emotional disabilities; fathers, grandparents raising grandchildren; parents with low literacy skills; the district’s collaboration with the community; nonprofits offering services to families; and other organizations such as Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and the Parent Patrol.
Senator Amodei remarked on parental involvement as being the most important factor in education. He voiced his concern about fiscal notes, unfunded mandates, and focusing on at-risk schools based on state law. Senator Amodei pointed out no one has said, “If you do this form, parental involvement will increase.” Senator Amodei commended the Washoe County School District on their efforts.
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit K) supporting S.B. 73 and the amendments.
Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, opined S.B. 73 would not accomplish the purpose for which it was intended. She pointed out a low-income, hardworking, single parent would find it difficult to go to lunch or attend activities at their child’s school. Ms. Gilbert voiced her concern over the section of S.B. 73 addressing attendance at events. She said S.B. 73 is discriminatory because it singles out at-risk schools. Ms. Gilbert stated, “If you are going to do a report card of this nature, do it for everyone or don’t do it at all.”
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated support for parental involvement and S.B. 73. She also stated NSEA has a bill pending in the Assembly that has specific language concerning parental involvement. She said NSEA will be asking the legislators to “To put your money where our mouths are and fund $2 million so that we can fund some programs for parental involvement.” Ms. Cahill stressed:
Parental involvement programs should offer regular two-way and meaningful communication between home and school, promotion and support of responsible parenting, recognition that parents play an integral role in assisting their children to learn, an open atmosphere for parents to visit the schools that their children attend, active solicitation of parental support and assistance for school programs, inclusion of parents as full partners in decisions affecting their children and families, availability of community resources to strengthen school programs, family practices, and pupil achievement, training for school personnel in methods to communicate and work effectively with parents and pupils.
Ms. Cahill emphasized concern about the additional paperwork this would involve, and the necessity to provide training for school personnel.
R. Alexis Miller, Lobbyist, said she was representing Nevada Women’s Lobby, opposed S.B. 73 as written because it would take valuable classroom time away from teachers.
Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA), testified that parental involvement is one of the association’s major areas of advocacy and training. Ms. Clark stated S.B. 73 would only create a one-way dialog – to parents from the school. She opined the bill would assess parents based on their involvement in the education of their children and other factors. She stressed a checklist would not encourage participation of parents.
Ms. Clark said the Legislative Committee on Education asked the Legislative Counsel Bureau to find the best parent-involvement program in the country, the “National Standards for Parent/Family involvement Programs” (Exhibit L. Original is on file in the Research Library.) are their findings. She explained pages 14 and 15 of Exhibit L are examples of successful programs that promote parent involvement. Ms. Clark noted on pages 10 and 11 are ways to have effective communication using a variety of tools to create a two-way interaction. She asserted concern that S.B. 73 was discriminatory and makes assumptions about families who are already struggling in many areas of their lives. Ms. Clark said S.B. 73 would point out areas lacking in some families without providing resources to assist them. She claimed a successful parent involvement program for at-risk population provides for “getting out of the box.”
Ms. Clark said Assembly Bill (A.B.) 57 and Assembly Bill (A.B.) 201 address the need for parental involvement at the state district school level and encourage policies based on the national standards (Exhibit L).
ASSEMBLY BILL 57: Makes appropriation to Department of Education to provide grants for certain programs that promote parental involvement. (BDR S-326)
ASSEMBLY BILL 201: Requires state board of education and school districts to adopt policies encouraging parental involvement. (BDR 34-846)
She stated over two hundred parents that were interviewed are opposed to S.B. 73 in its present form, citing a more positive form is needed.
Chairman Rawson paused in the hearing on S.B. 73 to present Bill Draft Request (BDR) 40-827.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-827: Expands program of subsidies for provision of prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services to senior citizens to include persons with disabilities who have modest incomes. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 167.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-827.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson presented Bill Draft Request (BDR) 17-128.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 17-128: Requires preparation and distribution of report on effect of legislation that requires policy of health insurance to provide coverage for treatment or service. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 169.)
SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 17-128.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson resumed testimony on S.B. 73.
Loretta M. Evenson, Lobbyist, Parent Teacher Association (PTA), voiced opposition to S.B. 73. She opined it is not the responsibility of the teacher to evaluate or criticize the parent but to teach the students.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated opposition to S.B. 73. She said many items that are on the checklist are reported on the student’s report card, therefore it would be a duplication of paperwork. Ms. Lusk claimed teachers do not know why a parent does not attend student activities. She said the most egregious part of the form is the appropriateness of dress. Ms. Lusk added, “Who is to judge what is appropriate?” She opined the approach of S.B. 73 will not increase parental involvement but will cause anger or conflict between parents and the school. Ms. Lusk said S.B. 73 does not address such issues as ready access to the classroom without an advance appointment, and genuine empowerment of parents in decisions affecting their children. She reminded the committee of the testimony of Jim Parry, Carson City School District and their self-evaluation form. Ms. Lusk suggested an expanded student report card might be helpful. She urged the committee under no circumstances to call the form a report on parents or report on parental involvement. Ms. Lusk emphasized the time involved in such an undertaking is a step backwards, not a step forward.
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators, proposed an amendment to S.B. 73 (Exhibit M) giving principals input into the development of the form.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, related personal experiences relative to her involvement in her children’s education. She stated schools should develop parent-friendly policies to encourage parental participation so parents will feel empowered to give criticism or suggestions to the school. Ms. Hansen said S.B. 73 will create alienation between the parent and the school or the parent and the teacher. She stated that asking a student questions such as: “Why doesn’t your parent send back this form?” or “Why haven’t they come to the teacher conference?” a teacher could be in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes 392.029 (Exhibit N).
Ms. Hansen provided the committee with newspaper articles from the “Education Reporter” and information relating to the federal regulations (Exhibit O). Referring to page 2, of “Access to Student Educational Records” (Exhibit P), she highlighted the rights under NRS 392.468 and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Ms. Hansen stressed the need for less government and more schools that are open to parental involvement. She quoted Article 1, section 20, of the Nevada Constitution, Rights Retained by People, ”This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.” Ms. Hansen opined the government would be in violation of our constitutional rights by evaluating parents.
David Graham, Concerned Citizen, offered two thoughts for the committee’s consideration concerning S.B. 73. He said a teacher should not be a part-time parent, warden, administrator or social worker, therefore the form should not be the responsibility of the teacher because it takes time away from the classroom. Mr. Graham opined forcing parents by law to be involved in their child’s school could be viewed as coercive and might have an opposite effect.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 73 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 74.
SENATE BILL 74: Clarifies provisions regarding regulation of residential facilities for groups. (BDR 40-963)
Wendy Simmons, Administrator, Park Place, spoke in favor of S.B. 74. She provided written testimony (Exhibit Q) and “Assisted Living Guidelines” (Exhibit R) for the committee’s information. Ms. Simmons said S.B. 74 was a cost-effective solution to clarifying the terminology of assisted living facilities by identifying them within the definitions of the chapter 449 the Nevada Revised Statutes.
Mary Wherry, Deputy Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources, testified S.B. 74 could negatively impact the Department of Human Resources’ ability to fund assisted-living services under its home- and community-based waivers and personal attendance service under its state plan. She explained the waiver is an alternative to institutional placement. Ms. Wherry said Medicaid has a package of services under the physically disabled waiver called “assisted living” which includes: personal care, homemaker, chore, companion services, transportation, mobility training, advocacy for related social services, home and community safety training, therapeutic social and recreational programming and active supervision. She added persons receiving these services live in subsidized housing apartments offering a 24-hour, on-call staff. Ms. Wherry stated section 1, of S.B. 74 would allow without limitation an assisted living facility to be classified as a residential facility for groups; therefore, this would eliminate any distinction
between a group home and assisted living facility. She claimed this would cause Nevada Medicaid to alter the group home and physically disabled waiver because currently Medicaid pays $105 a day for an assisted living package and $9.09 per day for an additional personal care service in a group home. Ms. Wherry said the higher rate would have to be paid to all assisted living and group home providers causing an 91 percent increase in the projected budget of the group home waiver. She emphasized that the increase was not anticipated during the budget process and may make it impossible to deliver the current delivery system provided by the waiver without additional funding. Ms. Wherry pointed out Medicaid may have to allow access to attendant services to all individuals who are in assisted living or group care settings if S.B. 74 is passed. She declared the lack of distinction between a group home and an assisted living facility may also cause problems with Social Security supplements. Ms. Wherry stressed the change in terminology should be researched before the passage of S.B. 74 because it could block access to Medicaid benefits. She stated the department would like to have an opportunity to work with the proponents of the bill to resolve these issues.
Chairman Rawson asked if there is a rate distinction on the basis of services, and if the language is added to the definition of S.B. 74, if Ms. Wherry could still make that rate distinction. Ms. Wherry responded the line between services becomes gray. She said based on their policies and definitions the services are different. Chairman Rawson commented the payment methods and subsidies are different.
Ms. Wherry stated, based on the type of services provided, that would be true. Chairman Rawson queried if the waiver and the state plan needed to be amended. Ms. Wherry responded the funds would need to be appropriated.
Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Simmons if the purpose of the language change was to appropriate additional funds. Ms. Simmons responded the intent of S.B. 74 was to define, in statute, assisted-living facilities. She opined assisted-living services and home-based services would not be impacted by the change.
Chairman Rawson requested Ms. Wherry, Ms. Simmons, an assistant attorney general or other legal counsel, a staff analyst, and other Legislative Counsel Bureau staff to meet and resolve the language issues concerning S.B. 74.
Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.
Patricia Di Domenico
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: