Our Vision Statement: Disability Rights California will create individual and family supports, chosen and directed by the person with a disability

Modesto Bee

February 24, 2010

Why cut a humane, cost-effective state program?

In your Feb. 14 editorial ("Limit in-home care; don't eliminate it"), you correctly pointed out that the In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) home re program is our state's fastest growing social service program.

But you failed to explain why:

  • It is humane. IHSS allows nearly a half-million low-income elderly, blind and disabled Californians to be cared for in the comfort and safety of their own homes by people they know and trust. It is obvious that most of them would choose that over nursing home care.
  • It makes economic sense. Allowing people to remain in their own homes means that they and their caregivers contribute to the local economy.
  • It reflects the growth of the elderly population in California. As our citizens grow older, we need to adapt our public services to meet their needs.
  • It is cost-effective. As you noted, it costs an average of $13,000 a year to care for someone through IHSS. Put that person in a nursing home, and it will cost taxpayers $55,000 a year or more. The non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) said in its recent report: "The elimination of IHSS or a dramatic reduction in eligibility would likely lead to offsetting costs that more than outweigh the savings from its elimination."
  • The federal government pays the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year in matching funds for IHSS. If IHSS is eliminated or cut back, we lose some or all of that money. And remember, Stanislaus County is reimbursed by the state and federal governments for all the money it spends on IHSS.

Surely we should be supporting such a humane, economically beneficial, cost-effective program rather than trying to reduce its effectiveness and value.

If you limit IHSS to only the severely impaired, how do you care for the Alzheimer's patient who can cook and clean but needs supervision? Without home care, he or she is likely to forget to turn off the stove or wander away from home. There are thousands of such patients who now receive IHSS services. How do you keep them safe?

It is easy to claim that home care is a "family responsibility." But that does not erase the reality that thousands of families rely on the limited income from IHSS wages and that some people are not able to work outside the home because their caregiving role is so demanding. Many have had to give up other jobs and even careers. Especially in this economy, how can you abandon them?

Finally, a word about fraud. We believe that fraud in any public program is wrong and should be punished.

However, despite the outlandish claims by Gov. Schwarzenegger, political ideologues and some ambitious district attorneys, there is no definitive proof that fraud in IHSS is widespread.

In Sacramento County, for example, a recent report cited a total of 19 potential cases of fraud out of some 42,000 IHSS recipients. Widespread? Hardly, and certainly not justification for eliminating the entire program.

Our state budget process is broken. We need to fix it. Depriving some of California's most vulnerable citizens of care or throwing hundreds of thousands of low-wage home care providers out of work (while preaching "jobs, jobs, jobs") is not the solution.

Moore is executive director of the UDW Homecare Providers Union/AFSCME Local 3930, which represents 65,000 home-care workers statewide and nearly 5,000 in Stanislaus County.