Please Vote YES on HB37 o HB 904’s sunset provision (set for 7/1/26) must be removed (see below) o Virginians w/ Medicaid waivers who receive SSDI, are in danger of losing waivers if SSDI, plus other income, puts them over income cap o If individual’s parent dies/retires, individual's SSDI amount is impacted. Impact may surpass income cap for waiver eligibility o If individual can work, income is counted along with SSDI benefits; must be kept under income cap. Virginians w/Medicaid waivers MUST accept lower pay, and/or less hours than co-workers. Some lose their jobs. o Medicaid waivers provide necessary supports for disabled individuals so they can live like other Virginians Individuals who lose eligibility for waivers, lose group home support, medical support, other service supports put in place to help them live lives like other Virginians o HB37 allows for slightly larger ‘window’ of eligibility for Medicaid waiver recipients who parents have died/retired, and for those who want to work APPROVAL/ENACTMENT OF THIS BILL MUST BE COMMUNICATED BROADLY AND CLEARLY; GUIDANCE/TRAINING MUST BE ON-GOING.THIS WAS NOT THE CASE FOR HB 904 (SEE BELOW): o Our 36-year old son has Medicaid waiver and receives SSDI. His employer would like him to work more but he cannot, due to Medicaid Waiver Income Cap o In 8/2025, I discovered in an Autism Society presentation that HB 904, addressing these issues, was approved on 3/28/2024. WE WERE NEVER INFORMED. o 9/2025: DFS case manager and supervisor told me they did not know of the passage of HB 904 until informed by me o CSB/Fairfax did not share info with ARC of Northern Virginia who sub-contracts with CSB to manage our son’s Medicaid waiver o DMAS policy manager stated, ‘a policy change was made in the state plan and deployed on 12/1/2024 in VACMS and broadcast to all state and local staff on 12/4/2024 with another broadcast on 12/10/2024 to all LDSS Directors, Benefits Staff, and CoverVA Starr to bring attention to the change and instruct workers how to navigate it’s application' o Yet, nine months later, DFS supervisors and staff were not aware of the change in law, nor its implementation o DMAS policy manager also stated, ‘communication of SSDI Disregard to Impacted Waiver Recipients was not part of the training and is not an expectation of the local benefits worker - We do not typically do outreach about each policy change’ How, then, is anyone to know about changes, let alone, implement them? This inadequate communication among agencies/organizations responsible for implementing HB 904/SSDI Disregard resulted in no change in policy for waiver recipients who collect SSDI. There was no guidance This flawed roll-out of HB 904 appears to be intentional. Without knowledge of the approval, and guidance for implementation, data could not be collected for review before the sunset date of 7/1/2026. It appears that DMAS had no desire to assure implementation of this law. HB37 will remove the sunset clause, BUT ALSO must assure that communication of this policy change will be clear to policymakers, supervisors, providers and care-givers so they will be able to navigate the DMS system to assure that Virginians who receive SSDI and Medicaid waivers will have their needs met in the most equitable manner possible. Laura Laverdiere; Springfield, VA; lauralaverdiere@msn.com; 571-239-4418

This is Mark Williamson and I provided written comments yesterday ,1/28, and want to supplement/clarify one point in regard to the SSDI disregard bill (HB 37). My intellectuality disabled son currently receives SSDI benefits over the Medicaid Waiver cost of living allowance (approx $1640). Note that right now he receives 50% of my benefit (approx $2000) and upon my death that benefit will increase to approx $3,000. BUT THE WAY THE BILL IS WORDED EVERY DOLLAR HE RECEIVES OVER THE COST-OF-LIVING ALLOWANCE AS SET BY THE STATE (CURRENTLY $1640) IS REUNDED TO THE MEDICAID WAIVER PRORAM, So he WILL NEVER BE ENTITLED TO KEEP MORE THAN THE STATE MANDATED COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE (currently approx $1640). When his social security disability benefit "bumps up' upon my death he will see NONE of that and ALL of that increase would be refunded to the state Medicaid program. So in an economic sense FEDERAL social security dollars would be rerouted into the state's pockets under this bill. A win/win for the Commonwealth. Thank you. Mark Williamson

My name is Kathleen Walsh. My family and I live in Alexandria, Virginia. My autistic twins are 17 years old, juniors in high school. It is our hope that they will both be able to participate in and contribute to the community with support from the DD waiver. The Services provided are only available through medicaid. They are not available privately. Unless HR 37 passes, the SSDI benefits I earned and they will receive once they are 18 will make them ineligible for Medicaid. If it does pass, Any amount they receive or earn above the Medicaid threshold, would be paid back to Medicaid for The services they receive. I was a lawyer. I now have a rare, progressive disease. As such, I currently receive the Social Security Disability Insurance that I earned. My son only recently received the DD waiver. My daughter has not yet. The services he receivesEnables him to learn skills from a professional and live in the community. This is particularly important to my family, because we are not able to take him out into the Community because of my disease. As they become older, and especially after we pass away, the waiver services Like job Coaching and housing supports Will ensure that they do not become homeless and can remain productive And engaged members of the community. My daughter does not yet have the DD waiver. She shares her brother’s needs, but to different degrees and may need different services. Please support Del. Shin's bill. HB37. It would allow my children to keep services and be productive members of the community. Any money that they earned or receive above the Medicaid threshold, would be paid back to Medicaid for the services they receive. This provides a revenue stream to the state. Knowing that the waiver services will be there to support our children, both now and when we are gone, enables my husband and me not to worry about their ability to function in the future, without us. Please contact Del. Shin or Lucy Beadnell with questions. Lucy Beadnell (she/her) Director of Advocacy The Arc of Northern Virginia P: 703-208-1119 x116 Lucy.beadnell@thearcofnova.org www.thearcofnova.org Thank you. Kathleen Walsh, Alexandria, VA 22308

My son, Brian, is 35 and severely autistic with intellectually disability. He functions mentally at the level of about a 3-year-old. But he is a wonderful child and we love him greatly. He in unable to work so I have a slightly different problem from those in the Medicaid Waiver program who are able to work. He has been in the Medicaid Waiver program for about 20 years now so he can receive the supports so he can live at home. He needs 24/7 care. I receive $4130 in social security benefits as I am 67 and retired. In my working years I paid the maximum amount into the social security program, so I have maximum benefits. But those level of benefits create the problem. Brian currently receives SSDI benefits of half that, or $2065. All amounts above approx $1640 are refunded to the Medicaid waiver program so he is one of the few Medicaid waiver recipients who actually pays money back to the state Medicaid waiver program. Without the extension of this bill to permanent status, if I were to die, he would receive 75% of my SS benefit or $3120 (in today's dollars) which would put him over the Medicaid Waiver Income cap; and thus he would lose his waiver slot and be left to fend on his own (remember I am dead at this point). For example, without the permanent extension of the SSDI income disregard bill (HB 37), I could live another 20 years at which point Brian would have been in the Medicaid Waiver system for FORTY years and then, at the same time his father dies, he would lose his Medicaid Waiver benefits for no fault of his own!!! Please image if you were in my shoes, knowing that your death would cause your severely disabled child to lose the very benefits that allow him to survive; and which he had been receiving for DECADES. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN. YOU all can prevent this result by making the SSDI disregard bill first passed in 2024 PERMANENT. Support HB 37. Sorry if this all sounds morbid but I had a 3500-word limit and I had to get to the point. Mark Williamson

Please Vote YES on HB37 People with developmental disabilities using the Medicaid Developmental Disability Waivers (Community Living, Family and Individual Support, and Building Independence) who receive SSI are required by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to migrate during their lifetimes from personal SSI disability benefits to SSDI benefits on their parents' work record when a parent retires or dies. SSDI benefits can be more than quadruple the amount of SSI, and the migration of benefits either puts disabled Medicaid-funded Waiver recipients precariously close to the income limit for Medicaid in Virginia—often preventing them from having a vocational job—or takes them over the limit, and they lose all of their state-approved life-supporting Waiver services entirely. This bill makes permanent the requirement for DMAS to amend the financial eligibility standards for certain waivers providing services to individuals with DD so that SSDI income is disregarded by DMAS when calculating financial eligibility for the Medicaid Waiver.

SSI recipients like me who also get Medicaid should not loose benefits when it is necessary to change to SSDI in the future.

I am an employer of 33 adults with disabilities in two different locations in Falls Church - Jake's Ice Cream and Jake's Gourmet Popcorn. Most of my employees have SSI, SSDI and Waivers. Everyone who works for me gets paid no less than minimum wage PLUS tips. Tips can add $2-4.00 per hour to their paycheck. Due to the income limits, it is an insane process for me to work out schedules for staff to assure they don't exceed their total money limits. It's bad enough that the SSDI benefit PLUS wages cannot exceed $2829 per month. Due to these limits some of my staff can only work ONE day per week. Others can work 4 days per week but are unable to fill in for another staff person who calls out sick or they will exceed the income limit. Losing or reducing benefits is a real hardship for these individuals. We all know that it is not possible to live independently on 40 hours per week of minimum wage (which is $2043.20 per month). All of these individuals have a cap on benefits plus wages and can't have more than $2000 in assets total. None of these people are getting "rich" on these small amounts of money. They have to spend down their income to avoid the $2000 cap by paying for rent, food and other expenses. Having a low cap on the combined total makes it disadvantageous for any of these people to work. It makes it disadventageous for an employer to hire them due to the wacky work schedules. We recognize that people who have SSDI need assistance. Why not encourage more people to work and earn more money and then put some of that "excess income" towards the services of an aide, companion, job coach etc. This would allow them meaningful time at work with meaningful pay and then would plow back some of the "excess" to cover the expenses for their care and assistants. Use that excess to help cover their expenses and not to disqualify them or take away assistance. This way, if they lose their job or become ill enough to not be able to work, they don't have to qualify all over again. This whole system appears on its face to be arbitrary and punitive rather than thoughtfully worked out to everyone's benefit - the individual and the state.

HB37 has been very successful in allowing individuals to keep their DD waiver, and also their benefits and continue working if that is their dream. We all as humans have the right to work and contribute to society. Please support making HB37 permanent so that when my husband dies, my son can keep working at Costco, which he has done successfully for the last 18 years. Without this legislation, he will need to quit work to protect his waiver, which provides essential, supports and services, to allow him to live in the community with dignity. Without this legislation, not only will, my son have to deal with the death of his father, but also the loss of his job. This legislation costs the state nothing but means everything! Thank you for making the right decision. I trust you will. From a concerned mom. Respectfully, Pam Spiering

Please approve this bill. The trial period has been a great success without cost to the state. My son now has a secure future once we die. His mental health relies on continuing to work. Otherwise once we are gone there is no future stability for him, so thank you from great foul hearts up north! Donna and Bruce Burnette On behalf of Brett Carroll

These should be basic right standards. These cause less trauma, less injuries, deaths, and for a better society

These should be basic right standards. These cause less trauma, less injuries, deaths, and for a better society

As a clinical professional with over 20 years of experience in rehabilitation, I want to highlight the essential role of clinically informed referral resources in the senior living placement industry. Senior living transitions—especially during medical crises—require more than a directory of facilities. They demand clinical insight and local expertise. Online referral platforms often lack the ability to accurately assess a community’s capacity to manage specific acuity levels and focus on contracted locations only. Current “lead ownership” practices frequently lock families into working with an online source. Families should be able to choose their preferred referral partner and have limits placed on how long a referral can be “owned.” Recently, a family using an online service spent days touring communities that ultimately declined admission due to clinical needs. After a brief connection with the family by a rehab case manager, I was able to identify appropriate local matches that accepted the patient within 24 hours. Families deserve the freedom to work with the advocate who best meets their needs—not the one tied to their initial web search. I think that referral entities should disclose how they are compensated while remaining no cost to the client. By prioritizing clinical expertise and protecting a family’s right to choose their advocate, we can help seniors receive the right level of care the first time—reducing stress, preventing unnecessary delays, and allowing families to focus on their loved one rather than navigating a complex system alone. For many families, this support is invaluable.

I am writing to support the spirit behind HB297. As an occupational therapist serving seniors in Virginia for over 24 years, it is important to have safeguards to help protect one of the most vulnerable segments of the population. HB297 is an important step toward protecting older adults’ autonomy and ensuring ethical, person-centered guidance at a time when decisions carry significant financial, health, and emotional consequences. This bill clearly affirms a client’s right to freely choose their senior advisor—and to change advisors at any time without penalty—puts the older adult at the center of the process. This safeguard helps prevent coercive practices, conflicts of interest, and undue influence, while reinforcing informed consent and transparency. Seniors and their families deserve confidence that recommendations are based on their needs and values, not on locked-in contracts or referral arrangements that limit options. I disagree with the provision in lines 48-55, however, because it creates a financial incentive for community-based staff to influence or discourage residents from using referral agencies. Allowing residents to opt out at any time without a referral fee—particularly after substantial coordination, counseling, and placement work has already occurred—may unintentionally encourage staff or affiliated parties to steer residents away from referral services for financial or competitive reasons. This undermines ethical decision-making, compromises resident autonomy, and devalues the legitimate role referral agencies play in supporting informed, resident-centered placement decisions.

Dear Members of the House, As a healthcare provider with more than 20 years of experience, I am writing to express my overall support for HB 297, while also offering several areas for clarification and improvement. As a Senior Living Consultant and Physical Therapy Assistant, I have worked across multiple settings including home health, skilled nursing, inpatient, outpatient, and most recently assisted living as a program manager. This experience has allowed me to observe the continuum of care firsthand—both its strengths and its challenges. I have consistently seen that residents and families who are educated, guided, and supported through informed decision-making tend to fare significantly better than those forced into rapid decisions without adequate support. As a senior living consultant, my role is to assist families during times of stress and uncertainty, providing transparency that is often missing when families attempt to navigate assisted living options on their own. Without guidance, families frequently experience confusion, wasted time and resources, and unnecessary emotional strain. HB 297 provides meaningful transparency for families by clearly outlining how “no cost” referral services are funded and ensuring families maintain choice throughout the process. This is particularly important for families who begin their search online, only to discover later that local referral options may not be accessible due to large chain companies who do not provide the same services as small, local companies. The bill’s provisions allowing residents and families to opt out at any time, along with clearer disclosure of how referrals work, are a significant benefit and align with resident-centered care. Additionally, the bill’s current opt-out provision—which allows families to disengage from referral services as late as the day before move-in while still proceeding with placement—does not fully reflect the scope of work referral agencies perform. This work often includes comprehensive assessments, coordination with multiple providers, facilitation of tours, family education, crisis support, and ongoing guidance throughout the decision-making process. I respectfully recommend that the bill be amended to allow referral agencies to receive compensation if a resident moves into a community that was recommended and toured through the agency within a specified time period, even if the family later opts out of services. Referral agencies that prioritize integrity, transparency, and resident-centered guidance will benefit from the clarity and consistency this bill provides. However, those same agencies should also be protected and fairly compensated for the expertise, time, and guidance provided at no cost to families—particularly when their recommendations are ultimately followed. Without this protection, there is a risk that assisted living facilities may attempt to avoid referral fees despite benefiting from the work performed. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued efforts to support transparency, choice, and quality care for Virginia’s seniors and their families. Sincerely, Angelina M Fortin, MS Ed, LPTA, ATC Senior Living Consultant

I am writing to respectfully share my professional perspective regarding the proposed legislation addressing transparency in senior placement services, particularly those involving compensation from assisted living communities. I have spent many years working in clinical and advisory roles, first as a licensed physical therapist and now as a senior living advisor. Prior to becoming an advisor, I worked extensively in home health, where I frequently encountered seniors who were at significant risk due to the absence of professional guidance when selecting appropriate living arrangements. Too often, families were left to navigate complex decisions alone, resulting in moves that did not adequately support safety, health, or quality of life. As senior advisors, we work collaboratively with case managers, social workers, families, and caregivers to ensure seniors are moving where they can safely thrive. Our services include in-person and virtual consultations, guided tours, transparent pricing discussions, and ongoing support through the move-in process. From the onset, we clearly disclose that our services are provided at no direct cost, and that compensation is paid by the assisted living community. In my professional experience, this transparency has consistently been met with appreciation and trust by families. We are often contacted by families who initially selected an assisted living facility based on online searches or informal recommendations, only to discover later that the placement was not appropriate. In many of these cases, seniors are forced to relocate again—an emotionally and physically taxing process that could have been avoided with proper professional guidance from the beginning. Many families are unaware that local, personalized advisory services exist to walk alongside them throughout this journey. Failing to connect seniors with qualified advisors whose sole purpose is to advocate for their well-being does a disservice to this vulnerable population. Local advisory services provide a level of personal engagement, accountability, and community knowledge that cannot be replicated by large, nationwide referral platforms. For these reasons, I support reasonable oversight measures aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability, particularly among large national companies that do not offer the individualized, hands-on support that local advisors provide. Such oversight will help protect seniors and families while preserving the essential, high-touch services that truly serve their best interests. I do have concerns regarding the opt-out language in lines 48–55. It unintentionally creates a financial incentive for community staff to encourage residents to discontinue using referral professionals after substantial work has already occurred. A simple clarification that the referral fee remains owed if the resident moves into a recommended community after services were provided would protect resident autonomy, ethical consultants, and the intent of the legislation. Thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to the well-being of our senior population. Respectfully, Heather Doré, DPT, CDP Senior Living Consultant

Please support this important piece of legislation, HB297. Far too often, seniors or their loved ones perform internet searches when initiating their journey to find an assisted living community. In doing so, they search the internet and click what they think is a link to a community they are interested in. However, large referral companies use this as click bait, and it isn't the communities' link, but rather the referral agencies. They are then contacted by that company and unwittingly sign an agreement with that agency. Regardless of if the senior or loved one uses that agency; the agency has their name in their system. We have seen these agencies then try to enforce a "proprietary" claim on that resident and demand payment from the assisted living where the senior moves into. This bill will offer protections from these types of agencies and tactics.

I support House Bill 297. As a former caregiver and a current senior citizen, I think it is important for referral agencies to openly and honestly disclose how they are paid for providing referral services. They say it is free, but I have now learned that it is not free, since they are paid by the assisted living communities. Everyone knows that costs get passed down to the end user, which would be the resident and their family members that pay their bills. I also do not think the referral agencies should have the right to use my name to make money indefinitely.

Navigating senior living options can be overwhelming—I know this both personally and professionally. As a granddaughter, my family was forced to make a difficult decision for my grandmother during a moment of panic and uncertainty. She needed more care than we were able to provide at home, and a decision had to be made quickly. At the time, we didn’t know that quality referral services existed—services that could truly guide us, educate us, and present viable options tailored to her needs. Instead, we chose a community based primarily on location and immediate availability—factors that, in hindsight, should have been among the least important considerations. We didn’t know what questions to ask. We didn’t understand levels of care, the importance of aging in place, or that services such as hospice, home health, or therapy could be brought in. We didn’t know to ask about staffing models, programming, dining, or long-term care planning. Most importantly, we didn’t know how to be better advocates for our loved one. That question still lingers with my family today: Did we choose the right place? Could we have made a better decision? Professionally, I have spent nearly 15 years as a practicing physical therapist. I’ve sat in countless care plan meetings where families are told their loved one is no longer safe to return home alone. In many of these situations, families are handed a single sheet of paper with a generic list of local senior living communities. While well-intentioned, these lists are often outdated, vague, and not personalized to the patient’s clinical, emotional, or social needs. This is where a trusted, local healthcare focused group comes in- Benchmark Senior Solutions. As trusted consultants, we step in to bridge the gap for families during one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives. Our work is not about handing over a list—it’s about truly knowing our clients and their loved ones. We take the time to listen, to understand medical needs, personal preferences, family dynamics, and long-term goals. With our clinical background and deep knowledge of senior living communities, we provide families with meaningful guidance. We educate them on levels of care, advocate on their behalf, schedule and attend tours, assist with the many details of the move-in process, and follow up after placement to ensure each client is set up for success. Our services require time, empathy, and clinical expertise—and that is exactly what we offer. We are deeply committed to the families we serve, and we also value the relationships we build with the communities we partner with. Our goal is always the same: to ensure our clients are well cared for, supported, and positioned to thrive in the right environment.

My name is Whitney Crawley, and I am the owner of Benchmark Senior Solutions, a senior living consulting group serving families throughout Richmond, Charlottesville, and Hampton Roads, Virginia. I want to express my overall support for the intent of House Bill 297. With thoughtful revisions, this legislation has the potential to significantly strengthen trust in senior advising services while protecting Virginia families and improving transparency across the aging services system. This bill is timely, necessary, and an important step toward distinguishing true resident-centered referral professionals from large, volume-driven lead-selling organizations whose business model is based on CRM data and referral quantity rather than individualized guidance. Benchmark Senior Solutions is a member of the National Placement and Referral Alliance (NPRA), and we strictly follow the NPRA Code of Ethics. I have worked in the senior care industry for over 20 years, and each member of the Benchmark team is a licensed healthcare professional with long-standing experience serving older adults. We have all personally worked within CCRC’s, independent living, assisted living, memory care, and skilled rehabilitation settings throughout the regions we serve. That experience allows us to provide families with informed, ethical, hands-on guidance to ensure residents transition into the most appropriate setting for their needs. We build meaningful, lasting relationships with the families we serve, which is reflected in our public reviews and community reputation. Please read our public reviews at : https://g.page/r/CbDdGhpFzBhlEAE/review to better understand how beneficial a local senior living consulting group can be in the communities we serve. *Please see attachment for full summary

Please pass the bill HB297. As a senior citizen, I have the right to own my own name and to know if a company is making money off of my name! It is morally wrong for a referral company to make money off of my name after only giving me referrals that pay them a fee. I don't know how to use the internet to view any terms that they say are in place. They don't pay me to use my name. So please pass the bill HB297. Thank you.

This bill improves transparency and helps protect seniors and families during an already stressful decision-making process. Families deserve to know whether financial relationships may influence referrals, so they can make fully informed choices based on a resident’s needs. HB297 promotes trust, accountability, and person-centered care while preserving consumer choice. I urge support for this important legislation.

It has been my pleasure and privilege to have been working in the senior living industry for the past 25 years. I have been approached by many referral agencies over the years and know that they are not all created equal and not all are in the referral business because they want to serve the senior population as they deserve to be served. Thank you, legislators for giving HB297 the time and attention that it needs to stop some referral companies from trying to collect fees for simply passing names and contacts along when they have never met with the family or potential resident, nor take the time to make a visit with them to a prospective community. Thank you for reminding assisted living communities that they do not have to work with any agency or company that does not have the same level of experience, professionalism, ethics, transparency or compassion as we do.

I support HB297. I have worked in and around senior healthcare services for almost 20 years. Many of these years have been spent as a Sales Director within an Assisted Living Community. I am in favor of HB297 because it provides regulation and standards to an industry that has very little of either. An industry that at its best can help guide seniors and their families through very trying periods, but at its worse can be predatory towards the general public and Assisted Living Communities it claims to be helping. More transparency and oversight are needed.

Comments Document

Requesting the opportunity to speak on behalf of referral services agencies and families. Re: House Bill 297 Summary below... Good morning, Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Mikelle Rappaport, and I am the owner of a senior care consultant agency who serves the Hampton Roads area of Virginia and specializes in senior living placements, care coordination, and health care advocacy. I am also a member of NPRA and have made a commitment to operate our agency using best practices and under a defined code of ethics. I have also served professionally in the senior care industry for over 25 years. Today, I am here in strong support of House Bill 297. (remaining support of my position is attached and welcome the opportunity to speak today)

HB297 Referral companies like Owl be there, Families Ties, Care Patrol, Oasis Senior are all missed leading clients. They don’t disclose to their clients that they are being paid by the communities one month ( 10k-15k) or one month rent . It’s also on their agreement that we as the providers CANNOT disclose to our clients that we pay them a month rent . As a company, we charge our clients large amount of entrance fee to recuperate from those big expenses that goes to Referral companies. Also, these referral companies would not refer people to other facilities if they don’t have a contract with them. These referral companies does not even visit or assess the community for their services. They just give out the information to their clients. But, they advertise their services as free referral, but in reality.. they are NOT. It’s not fair for clients not to know this arrangement. They all get mad after they found out that we paid the company $12,000 . We need transparency! Grace Kimball Executive Director Vienna Manor

Comments Document

VALA supports HB297. We received support for this bill from numerous assisted living providers and resident family members as well as a placement & referral alliance. Why this bill is needed:  Informed consent should be the standard when seniors are making life-changing housing decisions. Many families do not realize referral agencies are paid by the ALF. Families will finally understand who is being paid and for what reasons. The referral industry has grown rapidly with little oversight. Families often make placement decisions under crisis conditions. Without standards, bad actors can operate unchecked resulting in negative experiences and higher costs. Virginia already regulates assisted living facilities, and this bill closes the regulatory gap affecting the same residents.  This bill establishes basic consumer protections and transparency requirements for resident referral agencies that assist seniors and adults with disabilities as well as their families in finding assisted living facilities in Virginia. It ensures individuals clearly understand financial relationships and referral fees, creates transparency in requiring referral agencies to provide meaningful services before being paid, limits duplicate referral fees per resident, and protects residents’ personal information through a defined look-back period. Overall, the bill creates basic, common-sense consumer protections for Virginia’s seniors and their families, and promotes informed choice, fairness, and accountability during a critical and often stressful housing decision for seniors and their families. Clarification of this bill:  Aligns Virginia with other states that already regulate referral agencies (e.g. WA, OR, AZ, OK, NV)  Does NOT ban referral agencies.  Does NOT cap referral fee amounts.  Does NOT restrict families from using multiple referral resources.  Uses civil penalties only for noncompliance – not criminal sanctions.

Please Vote YES on HB823. If a Medicaid Recipient has to be hospitalized, their attendant does not get paid while the individual is in the hospital. This bill will provide for an option to have a paid caregiver assist a Medicaid Waiver Recipient in the hospital with necessary supports, including communication, behavior support and intense care needs. Attendants who are home care providers are paid minimal amounts and must find another job. When the hospitalized individual comes home, they no longer have the attendant care they need at home. Please VOTE YES on HB823.