Connecticut House Bill HB06893

Connecticut 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/25/15
• Refer: 2/25/15
• Report Pass: 3/5/15
• Refer: 3/13/15
• Report Pass: 3/19/15
• Refer: 3/24/15

Caption

An Act Increasing The Personal Needs Allowance For Residents Of Long-term Care Facilities.

Impact

If enacted, HB 06893 will directly impact residents of long-term care facilities by providing them with a slightly increased financial buffer to manage their personal needs. This change is particularly pertinent for vulnerable populations who may not have substantial income beyond their monthly stipends. By increasing the allowance, the bill seeks to alleviate some financial pressure on these residents, thereby improving their overall well-being and financial stability within their care settings.

Summary

House Bill 06893 aims to increase the personal needs allowance for residents in long-term care facilities, raising the allowance from $60 to $65 per month for recipients of Medicaid and the federal Supplemental Security Income Program. This increase is significant as residents in these facilities often rely on such allowances to cover their personal expenses, thereby impacting their quality of life. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that starting July 1, 2016, this allowance will be adjusted annually according to Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, ensuring that the needs of these residents keep pace with inflation.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding this bill appears to be largely positive among advocates for elderly and healthcare rights. Supporters appreciate the recognition of the financial challenges faced by residents in long-term care facilities and the intent to provide them with some relief. However, there may also be views questioning whether the increase is sufficient in addressing the broader financial needs and therefore the continued discussion around substantial reform in funding and support for long-term care systems remains critical.

Contention

While the bill has the potential to improve the lives of many residents, discussions may arise concerning the adequacy of the increase and whether it truly meets the growing costs associated with long-term care. Additionally, there might be concerns about how this arrangement affects state budgets and the sustainability of funding for Medicaid and SSI programs. These elements could lead to debates about the balance between increasing allowances and ensuring long-term financial viability of care programs for the elderly.