Letter to the editor
To the editor:
The McGreevey Administration is currently attempting to push through legislation that would severely damage New Jersey’s home care system. Hiding behind the guise of promoting "quality home care," the proposed bill (A-3778) would create a state-sponsored, state-controlled home care monopoly consisting of four regional "Quality Home Care Councils." However, the proposed councils really involve the establishment of bureaucracies that benefit hardly anyone but the union that developed the bill and presented it to state leaders for sponsorship. Here are just a few reasons why the proposed bill is bad public policy.
New Jersey taxpayers should know that start-up costs alone are estimated to be at least $1.5 million with no good estimates on what will be required to fully fund the four councils. The proposed bill would also force hundreds of New Jersey home care agencies to close their doors considerably depleting state tax revenues. In essence, the proposed bill threatens free enterprise in New Jersey. Ask yourself: what industry or profession might be targeted next?
For home health aides, the legislation’s impact is truly disturbing. The proposed bill would force aides into the state monopoly stripping away the right to choose an employer as well as many benefits and protections. Aides would be required to join the council’s union and pay monthly union dues regardless of whether they are working or not. In addition, aides would see virtually no increase in wages and would be denied state-employee benefits and status losing access to benefits they currently enjoy such as 401(k) plans, vacation pay and transportation allowances.
For home care consumers, the bill also has frightening ramifications. Besides drastically limiting a consumer’s ability to choose their own home-care provider, the proposed system also imposes additional fees on thousands of consumers making safe, well-regulated care unaffordable for many of our state’s elderly and disabled. The bill would also drastically reduce the amount of nursing supervision provided. In one model, professional supervision of a patient’s care would be provided just twice a year rather than the current standard of every 30 to 60 days. This lack of professional supervision and support opens the door to potential abuse, neglect and safety concerns surely not what anyone would define as "quality home care."
So who does benefit from the proposed bill? In a word, unions. The labor organization chosen to represent the council stands to reap millions in annual labor dues. No wonder a union is behind the development of this bill. After all, they were successful in creating similar structures in California and Washington, where the results have not been promising. The California model is widely considered to be an expensive and failing experiment.
It is imperative for anyone who cares about quality home care in New Jersey to contact their state legislators and tell them that the proposed legislation is bad for New Jersey.
Theresa Kozcworski
Franklin Corner Road
Lawrenceville