Fiscal intermediaries in New York State are once again taking legal action against the Department of Health (DOH) over the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP). The lawsuit, filed on September 18th, argues that changes to the program could violate constitutional rights and put vulnerable populations at risk.
The ongoing dispute involves more than 250,000 elderly, sick, or disabled New Yorkers who rely on CDPAP to manage their health services and receive personalized care at home. Governor Hochul’s administration has proposed replacing over 600 local fiscal intermediaries (FIs) with a single state-chosen provider by October 1st. This move has sparked controversy, with critics labeling the FIs as middlemen draining taxpayer dollars.
While Governor Hochul has stated that the program will not be terminated, the proposed changes have raised concerns among stakeholders. The plan aims to streamline the administration of CDPAP, ensuring that caregiver pay rates remain unaffected, payments are not interrupted, and participants do not have to reapply for services.
According to a spokesperson from Governor Hochul’s office, the reforms are intended to strengthen CDPAP, protect home care users, and eliminate unnecessary middlemen to ensure efficient use of taxpayer funds. The plan does not alter eligibility criteria for CDPAP users and guarantees that caregivers will continue to receive timely payments to support their vital role in providing care.
Four plaintiffs—Principle Homecare, Marton Care, Prompt Home Care, and Care Connect CDPAP—have filed a lawsuit challenging the proposed changes. These minority-owned businesses serve hundreds of CDPAP patients across New York City and its surrounding areas and face closure or loss of contracts under the new system. The plaintiffs argue that the reforms could devastate the industry, lead to job losses, inflate administrative costs, and disrupt critical services for vulnerable populations.
The lawsuit alleges that the changes infringe on constitutional rights, including the Contracts, Takings, Equal Protection, and Due Process Clauses. The plaintiffs seek a jury trial to challenge the constitutionality of the CDPAP Amendment, halt its implementation, and recover fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the legal battle.
As the legal battle unfolds, the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Association of New York State (CDPAANYS) has organized a conference to address concerns about the proposed outsourcing of the entire program to a single company. Attendees at the conference discussed potential consequences of the plan, including the possibility of forcing patients into nursing or group homes.
An online petition circulating among stakeholders characterizes the changes as a veiled attempt to hand over home care services to big corporations. It raises alarms about the lack of statewide oversight in the decision-making process, warning that the amendments could have far-reaching implications for small businesses, home care jobs, and the well-being of elderly and disabled New Yorkers.
In response to the mounting legal challenges and public outcry, Governor Hochul’s administration must navigate a delicate balance between streamlining the administration of CDPAP and addressing the concerns raised by stakeholders. The outcome of the legal battle and the implementation of the proposed changes will have far-reaching implications for the future of home care services in New York State.
Implications for Home Care Industry
The proposed changes to the CDPAP have sparked concerns among stakeholders in the home care industry, particularly small and minority-owned businesses that rely on the program to serve vulnerable populations. The potential displacement of local fiscal intermediaries in favor of a single statewide provider has raised questions about the impact on the diversity and quality of care services available to CDPAP users.
Small businesses like Principle Homecare, Marton Care, Prompt Home Care, and Care Connect CDPAP play a crucial role in delivering personalized care to CDPAP patients in their communities. The looming threat of closure or contract loss has created uncertainty and anxiety among both service providers and recipients, who fear disruptions to their care arrangements.
Legal Challenges and Constitutional Rights
The lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs highlights the constitutional implications of the proposed changes to the CDPAP. By alleging violations of the Contracts, Takings, Equal Protection, and Due Process Clauses, the plaintiffs are seeking legal recourse to protect their rights and interests in the home care industry.
The legal battle underscores the complex…
The rewriting has expanded on the original article by providing more context, details, and analysis of the implications of the proposed changes to the CDPAP. It has also incorporated relevant subheadings to organize the information effectively.