Human Services Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-5332
AN ACT PROHIBITING HOME CARE AGENCY CONTRACTS THAT PENALIZE
Title: CLIENTS FOR DIRECTLY HIRING AGENCY STAFF.
Vote Date: 3/17/2022
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/8/2022
File No.:
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Human Services Committee
REASONS FOR BILL:
Committee Bill No. 5332 will prohibit home care agencies from applying financial penalties to
clients who choose to directly hire an employee that also works for the home care agency.
Clients will be free to hire any caregiver of their choice. It will prohibit home care contracts
that impose financial penalties on clients for directly hiring home care agency staff. It defines
"no-hire clause" as a provision of a contract between a homemaker-companion agency or a
home health agency and a client of the agency that imposes a financial penalty on the client
for directly hiring an agency employee.
SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE:
The substitute language will declare void agency contract provisions calling for legal or other
fees or creating grounds for breach of contract or injunctive relief.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Deidre S. Gifford, Commissioner of the Department of Social Services (DSS): The
Department urges passage of this bill because it will allow clients of a home health agency
the freedom to hire caregivers with whom they have developed a relationship. This bill would
make void and unenforceable any contract between a homemaker-companion agency or
home health agency and a client of such agency that seeks to impose a financial penalty
against that client for directly hiring an employee of such agency. The bill would ensure that
no client who wishes to hire their caregiver directly will be forced to pay a penalty or fee or
fear litigation. According to DSS, the current practices limit economic opportunities for
personal care assistants and caregivers to remain and grow in the home care field, further
straining our shortage of direct care workers. Caregivers should have the right to accept
employment opportunities, including from their current clients, without being forced out of the
industry to increase their wages and career advancement.
Amy Porter, Commissioner, Department of Aging and Disability Services: ADS strongly
urges the passage of this bill because it strengthens consumer rights, allows for free choice
in the vital area of home care services and strengthen Connecticuts home- and community-
based service system. This bill would prohibit home care businesses from using financial
penalties to punish their customers who choose to directly hire an employee of that home
care agency. ADS believes that these penalties inhibit choices for individuals trying to make
decisions for themselves or their family members.
Michelle Seagull, Commissioner, Department of Consumer Protection (DCP): For DCP,
this legislative proposal would clarify that no hire provisions are not permitted in contracts
between home care industry entities and their clients. The Public Act 19-117 in 2019
protected a workers right to enter a direct contract with a consumer, but it did not expressly
protect a consumers right to enter that same contract without the threat of a fee. DCP
supports closing this loophole to protect consumers and appreciates the leadership of this
Committees willingness to bring this issue to the forefront
Mairead Painter, State Long Term-Care Ombudsman Department of Aging and
Disability Service: The Department supports this bill because it would prohibit home care
agencies from applying financial penalties to individuals who choose to directly hire an
employee that also works for the home care agency. ADS argues that with the current
penalties, the agencies overall goal is to ensure their business needs are met and this can
often result in the company moving a staff person around from one client to another and this
has a significant impact on the client receiving care, yet clients have little to no control over
when it happens. Giving the client the ability to hire staff directly without the fear of being
penalized would allow greater continuity in their care and stability in the community.
Continuity and choice are important to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds.
Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, Equity and Opportunity: The Commission
supports the bill because it addresses the shifting penalties that have been imposed by home
care agencies, from the employee to the client/consumer-employer, by prohibiting penalties
for directly hiring homecare workers. This bill ensures the legislative intent of the established
law and protects freedom of choice for workers and clients alike, to work closely together,
free from fear of expensive financial penalties.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Anna Doroghazi, Policy and Outreach Director, AARP Connecticut: AARP states that
according to a survey from Research in 2020, 81% of Connecticut residents would prefer to
receive long-term supports and services (LTSS) in their own home rather than an assisted
living facility or nursing home. This bill would allow LTSS recipients to directly hire home care
aides that they used through a home care agency without facing penalties. It provides both
care recipients and direct care workers with more flexibility. AARP CT argues that the work
Page 2 of 4 HB-5332
involved in home care can be extremely personal, and it is important for care recipients to
trust the workers who have access to their homes and bodies.
Christy Kovel, Director, Public Policy Alzheimers Association Connecticut Chapter:
The Alzheimers Association is in support of this legislation because it will strengthen
consumer rights, empower our families choice in selecting a caregiver who knows their loved
one and will enrich Connecticuts home- and community-based service system. It is stated
that the key to enriching the lives of people living with dementia particularly those who are
in the more advanced stages of the disease is to surround them with people who know
them well.
Carol Scully, Director of Advocacy, The Arc CT: The Arc CT supports legislation that
positively impacts persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD) who are
self-directing their support services so they can live their best life in the community. The
ability to choose the right companion and/or homemaker match is directly tied to quality-of-
life issues for persons with IDD. Access to direct service staff is a high priority for the IDD
community, now more than ever as the state is experiencing a shortage of direct service staff
due in part to the low wages, inability to pay for health care and the competition for these
workers across all direct service providers and other industries including retail and food
services.
Mary Liz Williams, Connecticut Resident: claims her father, whose dementia has
worsened over time has come to depend upon this caregiver feeling safe, secure and at
peace with her managing his care. It is stated that the extremely high cost of this kind of care
and how much is paid overtime, that the workers are free to come and go at will but the
families are penalized because they have grown dependent on a person, and because the
agencies could not indenture the caregiver.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Tracy Wodatch, President and CEO, Connecticut Association for Healthcare at Home:
opposes this bill because it will be a huge detriment to their business but most importantly to
our clients most in need of care. As stated in the testimony, homecare agencies make
substantial investments in finding and identifying qualified caregivers (companions and
homemakers) who are appropriate for their clients. It involves a great deal of time and effort
on behalf of the agency in interviewing, screening which include criminal background check
and drug test, onboarding, and training them. Additionally, caregivers taken private by clients
may be misclassified as independent contractors and are often working under the table.
Many clients do not pay taxes, unemployment insurance, or workers compensation
insurance, and many caregivers do not pay taxes on their income when hired privately.
When a caregiver needs to take time off, often there is nobody to replace them while they are
gone. Banning no hire provisions in private contracts between owners and clients is unfair
and overreaching and will likely cause many locally owned and operated small home care
agencies in the state to go out of business. It will fundamentally alter home care agency's
business practices by irreparably damaging their ability to retain their trained caregivers who
provide reliable and quality care.
Neil Anand, Owner, ComForCare Home Care.
Lisa Brower, Owner, Seniors Helping Seniors.
Page 3 of 4 HB-5332
Maria Cerino Owner/Manager, Seniors Helping Seniors, Mystic CT.
Mark McGoldrick, Chairman, HCAOA Connecticut.
Mark McGoldrick, Owner, Comfort Keepers.
Nicholas Miller, Owner, Comfort Keepers.
Marlene Chickerella B&M Homemaking and Companion Services, LLP.
CHOWDHURY, KC, President, CareAll LLC.
Attorney Neil P Connors, Center for Transitional Living, LLC.
Sandra Cook, Manager of Business Development and Care Coordination, Home
Helpers Home Care.
Timothy Francis.
Colman Gately Owner, Fairfield Family Homecare Inc.
Kelley Green, Chief Operating Officer, Visiting Angels.
Dave Harrison, Owner, Right at Home.
Steven B. Katz, President, Sterling Care.
Jim Keane, Owner, Visiting Angels of Stamford Living Assistance Home Care.
John J. Lajeunesse, Vice President, Always Best Care Senior Services.
Taylor C. Lajeunesse, Director of Operations, Always Best Care of Central Connecticut.
John Richards, Owner, FirstLight Home Care Of Western Ct.
Robert Scandura, Owner, Right at Home.
Tracy K. Weiss, Owner and President, Right at Home of Middle Connecticut.
Ann Wilson, Companions & Homemakers, Inc.
Reported by: Isaac Agyemang-Duah Date: 03/24/2022
Page 4 of 4 HB-5332