Elements of the Crisis
In 2015, my first year as executive director of MCIL, I met with two leaders from the disability community, Tim Benjamin, the executive director of Access Press, and Rick Cardenas, a social worker and builder of community. Both were people who relied upon PCAs for daily living. They asked me what I was going to do about the direct care worker shortage crisis. I had no idea of the magnitude of this crisis. People were being forced out of their homes and even dying because there were not enough PCAs.
Many years later this problem has not improved, in fact in many ways it is worse.
Most people do not know that in order to qualify for certain federal and state services and benefits a person applying as an individual can have assets limited only to $2,000 and for a couple, assets limited to $3,000. Those asset limitation amounts have not changed in 40 years. That’s right, no cost-of-living adjustments, the same exact amount for the past 40 years. Due to federal laws, states have no alternative but to abide by these limitations, with some exceptions.
As a way forward Congress needs to ask for greater involvement and input from people with disabilities and older adults who rely upon direct care services. This input is needed in order to advance legislation that is person centered and supports independent living. Asset limitations need to be adjusted to today’s standard of living and employ an annual cost-of-living adjustment.
H.R. 34, the 21st Century Cures Act, was passed into law by the 114th Congress in 2016. It was designed to help accelerate medical product development and bring technological innovations to patients who need these products more quickly and more efficiently. Incorporated into legislation was language calling for further development of electronic health records.
Section 12006, which lacks the robust development of protocols found throughout the act, is one sentence: “Electronic visit verification system required for personal care services and home health care services under Medicaid.” Electronic visit verification (EVV) is a timesheet technology utilized predominantly by mobile telephones to track PCA timesheets. It requires that the person who receives the services verifies receipt electronically.
Section 12006 has become controversial because EVV utilizes a government-controlled global positioning services (GPS) tool that people who rely upon state PCA services are required to use. People are afraid to speak out about EVV for fear of losing their PCA services. Many individuals feel it is a violation of their privacy to be forced to utilize this tracking-based EVV in order to receive PCA services.
Of note, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) state there is no requirement to use GPS, but it is a common approach for implementation of the EVV requirements. An acceptable alternative to GPS is Interactive Voice Response, which requires the caregiver to check in and out using a landline or cellular device located at the individual’s home.
Minnesota has chosen to employ EVV with the government-controlled GPS for its PCA programs.
Minnesota should also seek to use the alternative EVV suggested by CMS out of an abundance of concern for the civil rights of people required to utilize EVV.
Congress needs to change this law and provide greater guidance for states to advance person centered care that is consistent with the intentions of the Cures Act. Congress needs to ask people who rely upon PCAs for their input about EVV. If it was the intention of Congress to have a government-controlled GPS as part of EVV in the Cures Act, it would have been written into law in 2016, but it wasn’t. The remedy for Congress in taking responsibility for the current state of EVV is to require testimony from people who rely upon PCAs and from PCAs themselves for their input about EVV in changing the law to be consistent with spirit and letter of the Cures Act.