Latest news with #In-HomeSupportiveServices
Los Angeles Times
5 days ago
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
Gov. Newsom proposes ‘asset test' for low-income and disabled Medi-Cal applicants. What does that mean?
Millions of Californians who rely on Medi-Cal and In-Home Supportive Services could lose eligibility under a proposal requiring recipients to prove their assets total less than $2,000. Gov. Gavin Newsom's recent revised budget proposal highlighted a stark $37.6 billion increase in funding costs associated with Medi-Cal between the 2024 and 2025 fiscal year, compared to $17.1 billion in the 2014 through 2015 fiscal year. The dollar amount needed to fund the program is expected to continue rising over the next several years. The cost has been driven up by a surge in enrollment, pharmacy costs and higher managed care costs, according to the budget proposal. The Medi-Cal caseload reported an increase of 12.7 million recipients between 2019 and 2020 to 15 million in 2024 through 2025. Medi-Cal is the state's health care program that provides free or low-cost health coverage for those who qualify, specifically low-income adults and families, seniors and individuals with disabilities. In-Home Supportive Services provides in-home assistance to eligible aged, blind and disabled people as an alternative to out-of-home care. Newsom has proposed tackling the rising costs of the programs by reintroducing what is called the 'asset test' to limit eligibility for the Medi-Cal and In-Home Supportive Services programs. For decades, low-income seniors and those with disabilities had to pass the 'asset test' to be eligible for Medi-Cal and In-Home Supportive Services programs. That meant that a single applicant couldn't qualify if they had assets valued more than $2,000. The limit for a couple was $3,000. To determine whether someone had $2,000 or not, the state would look at a person's bank accounts, the amount of cash they had in hand and whether they had a second vehicle, among other analyses. In 2024, the test was eliminated, allowing all-income eligible people to apply for Medi-Cal's Aged and Disabled program, Med-Care Savings programs and Long-Term Care program regardless of assets. Newsom has proposed reinstating the 'asset test' and include in that evaluation the value of a person's primary home, vehicle or retirement fund for both Medi-Cal and Home Supportive Services programs. Reinstating the test would purportedly save an estimated $94 million this coming fiscal year, $540 million the next year and $791 million annually thereafter, which includes costs for Home Supportive Services, according to the California Department of Health Care Services. If approved, the 'asset test' would go into effect Jan. 1, 2026. Disability and health advocates are criticizing the governor's proposal, with the nonprofit group Disability Rights California calling it a willingness to 'sacrifice the health and human services of California's people, particularly the disabled, poor and elderly populations.' 'Disability Rights California and many others fought tirelessly for years to get this asset limit eliminated, finding it to be a deeply inhumane and punitive approach, the change just went fully into effect in 2024, and it is truly disturbing to see the Governor reverse course so quickly,' the nonprofit said in a statement. Reinstating the 'asset test' would result in 'people losing coverage and force older adults and people with disabilities into extreme poverty,' said the nonprofit organization California Health Advocates. The organization says the individuals who would lose coverage as a result of the proposed policy change could ultimately become 'Medi-Cal eligible again once they have exhausted any resources they have.' 'As a result of losing access to care, the costs to the state when they regain eligibility will likely increase because their condition will have worsened and they may no longer be able to live at home, thus requiring full time nursing facility care,' the organization said in a statement. Newsom defended his proposed budget cuts saying, 'None of this is the kind of work you enjoy doing — but you've got to do it. We have to be responsible. We have to be accountable. We have to balance the budget.' The Legislative Analyst's Office determined that seniors made up just under 10% of Med-Cal enrollment in December of 2024. The largest category of Medi-Cal enrollees is families, followed by childless adults aged 19 to 64 who qualify under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, seniors, persons with disabilities, children in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and other enrollees. Families and enrollees of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act make up about three-quarters of Medi-Cal enrollment. Even though the number of senior enrollees is relatively low compared to other groups, the state spends heavily on them, with annual costs per enrollee of around $15,000 compared to $8,000 across other caseload categories. To fund most Medi-Cal programs for families, seniors and those with disabilities, the federal government provides a 50% match, compared to other programs like the Affordable Care Act and Children's Health Insurance Program which gets an enhanced match of 90% and 65%, respectively. 'While higher health care costs are expected as people age, seniors also carry higher state costs due to the standard federal reimbursement rate,' according to the report.
Epoch Times
02-05-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
California In-Home Caregivers Allege They Were Duped Into Union Membership and Dues
Three class action lawsuits have been filed in California alleging that some individuals providing personal care to their invalid family members were misled into joining a union. The cases will be heard by the Superior Court of California in El Dorado, Sacramento, and Fresno counties. Representing the plaintiffs in all three cases are attorneys Shella Arcabes and Ravi Prasad. Both work for the Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank and legal activism group. Arcabes told The Epoch Times, 'Since the Supreme Court's 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, the unions have been acting deceitfully and using stall tactics to stem the losses of members and money.' In the For years, unions have Related Stories 11/14/2024 2/25/2025 'Every employee has the right to decide whether he or she will join a union. They don't have to give dues to a union that uses a portion of that money to advocate for causes and policies that the individual worker does not support. We think people should be aware of these rights,' Prasad told The Epoch Times. A Cost-Effective Service Through the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, the government pays individuals to provide in-home personal care services to loved ones, neighbors, and friends. The The client hires the caregiver of his choice, and the government Funding for the IHSS program comes from federal, state, and local sources. The state of California issues all checks for individual provider payments and withholds a portion of the payment for applicable taxes and union dues. It is the responsibility of the union to provide the state with a list of dues-paying union members every month or pay period. The newly hired caregivers must attend an employee orientation session conducted by government officials at which a public employee union representative explains the advantages of union membership to the workers. Attorney Shella Arcabes. Courtesy of Freedom Foundation Some Representative Cases According to the legal pleadings in the Kendrick wrote the words 'Do not want to participate' on the signature line of the union membership forms she was handed. A short time later, Kendrick noticed that union dues were being taken out of her paycheck. Kendrick sent an opt-out letter to the United Domestic Workers of America (UDW), who responded that she had agreed to the dues deduction and that they would continue to be taken from her paycheck every month for one year from her signup date. Claudiu Hotea has been taking care of a member of his family as an IHSS caregiver since 2011. At his new employee orientation session, Hotea signed up for union membership after being told by a UDW representative that he had to join the union if he wanted to receive benefits such as health insurance, the complaint alleges. In May 2023, Hotea sent an opt-out letter to UDW requesting to withdraw his membership and cease dues deductions. Mr. Hotea retained counsel in December 2023, who sent a letter to UDW demanding that the withholding of dues stop and that UDW provide Hotea with a copy of his membership agreement. On Dec. 27, 2023, the Membership Resource Department of UDW sent Hotea's lawyer a copy of his membership agreement dated March 28, 2019. According to the complaint, the signature at the bottom of the membership agreement does not belong to Hotea, who contends he never signed a membership agreement on that date. UDW eventually stopped taking dues from Mr. Hotea's paycheck in May 2024. The United Domestic Workers of America did not respond to a request for comment. Dues Allegedly Deducted Without Consent In another Attorney Ravi Prasad. Courtesy of Freedom Foundation Muravskii, an employee of the University of California Davis Health, claims he signed a union membership form that did not contain any reference to paying dues. When Muravskii noticed dues were being taken out of his paycheck, he sent a letter to the union withdrawing his membership and requesting that the withholding stop. According to the complaint, 'On March 28, 2024, AFSCME 3299 sent him a membership form that they purported he signed, containing dues payment obligations up until a certain window period each year.' Muravskii claims he did not sign this form or any other form containing dues payment obligations and that the signature on the form 'does not reflect how he signs his name.' The complaint asserts that Muravskii would not have signed any form that would have required him to subsidize union political speech. Another employee of U.C. Davis Health, Swartika Lal, sent a letter to AFSCME 3299 in February 2024 withdrawing her membership in the union and requesting that the dues deduction from her paycheck cease. Hearing nothing from the union, Lal called Local 3299 and was told that it had received her revocation letter and the dues deductions would stop in 'two or three pay cycles,' according to the complaint. Seeing no halt to the deductions, in August 2024, Lal hired a lawyer who sent a demand letter requesting that the union cease the deductions and refund, with interest, any dues deducted since February 2024, up until the deductions cease. As of April 21, 2025, the union continues to take dues out of Lal's paycheck. AFSCME did not respond to a request for comment. Problems in Fresno County A third According to the complaint, in 2017, Lozano received an unsolicited visit to her house from a representative of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015. The complaint alleges that the representative tried to persuade her to join the union, going so far as to electronically sign a membership agreement on Lozano's behalf without showing her the document or explaining that membership in the union entailed the deduction of dues from her paycheck. In mid-2024, Lozano realized she did not have to be a union member or pay union dues. She sent two opt-out letters to Local 2015 and spoke on the phone with union officials several times, trying to cancel her membership and stop the dues collection. As of April 28, 2025, union dues are still being deducted from Lozano's paycheck. Shirley Marsh is an IHSS provider furnishing home-based care to her disabled grandson. According to the complaint, Marsh never signed a membership agreement with SEIU Local 2015 and does not agree with their political activity. Despite not signing any membership agreement or dues authorization, SEIU Local 2015 commenced deducting union dues from her monthly paycheck. The complaint states, 'On Sept. 5, 2024, Ms. Marsh sent a certified opt-out letter to SEIU 2015 even though she had no need to do so since she was never a union member to begin with.' As of April 28, 2025, SEIU 2015 continues to deduct dues from her monthly paycheck, according to the complaint. The Service Employees International Union did not respond to a request for comment. 'The objective of these class action suits is to bring a halt to the deceitful and stalling tactics by the unions and to prevent them from recurring in the future,' said Prasad. The cases also seek refunds of all inappropriately deducted union dues.
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ex-Fairfax trustee's embezzlement case headed to trial
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) — Palmer Moland, the former Fairfax School District Trustee accused of embezzlement and voter fraud, will go to trial later this month, attorneys said Friday. There's no plea offer on the table and the trial is expected to last four weeks. It's set for April 28, depending on courtroom availability. According to prosecutors, Moland ignored bylaws that restrict using public funds to hire a law firm that was set to investigate him. Prosecutors say he should have abstained from voting to hire the firm because it posed a conflict of interest. He's also charged with voter fraud. Prosecutors say he lied about living within the district during the 2018 and 2020 elections. In a separate case, Moland is accused of exaggerating his health issues to fraudulently obtain in-home care services for people with disabilities. He began misrepresenting his health status in 2018 to become eligible for the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, which overpaid $78,012.55 for services that included laundry, cleaning, meal preparation and assistance while showering, according to prosecutors. He received IHSS assistance for four years. A preliminary hearing on that case is set for next month. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
