House approves ‘No Patient Left Alone Act’

      The House has approved the easing of restrictions on visitors in hospitals and nursing homes such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Representative Rusty Black (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representatives who backed the proposal cited instances of Missourians going for days or more and even dying without loved ones being allowed to see them.  Opponents said it should be up to facilities how best to place restrictions for the good of patients and residents.

      Called the “No Patient Left Alone Act,” House Bill 2116 was the combination of four pieces of legislation.  The sponsor of HB 2116 is Chillicothe Republican Rusty Black.

      “The overall bill would – I’m going to use the word ‘force’ – healthcare providers to allow a patient to list up to four people that could come visit them while they’re in the hospital,” Black explained. 

      The plan drew an impassioned speech from Majority Floor Leader Dean Plocher (R-St. Louis) who spoke about his late father-in-law’s stay in a hospital that lasted more than 20 days, during most of which he was not allowed visitors.  Plocher said for much of this his family was not updated on his condition; his call light was not answered, and they were denied an explanation on the administering of unusual medications.  He complained of improper care and was at one point found to have a fork embedded in his skin and to be suffering from mouth sores.

      He said what happened to his father-in-law in the days before his death was not unique.

House Majority Floor Leader Dean Plocher (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “Health care facilities were allowed to arbitrarily set rules for visitation all while staff could come and go on a daily basis, and I guess they could, in fact, bring in viruses too.  Health care facilities essentially became prisons for our loved ones.  People were admitted.  One day you could have visitors, the next day you couldn’t.  People were confined without access to an advocate from those that knew them.  It was arbitrary and there was no recourse if you were locked away by a health care facility without access to visitors,” said Plocher.  “This bill protects all Missourians and all of our loved ones.  This bill is necessary and should be a right for of those receiving care, to have a visitor and an advocate by their side.”

      Several Republicans called the legislation perhaps the most important bill they could handle this year.

      “I truly believe that this bill will prevent a loss of life in many situations,” said Neosho representative Ben Baker (R), who chaired the committee that handled HB 2116.  “When you are in that situation where you have no one to turn to, no one that you know, no one that you have that personal relationship with, it’s extremely important for the mental well-being, the physical well-being of those patients in those situations to have that.  I can’t imagine what it would be like if I was in that situation where I had no one to advocate for me.”

      Some Democrats spoke against the measure saying health care facilities should be able to determine what practices are the safest for their staff and those in their care, particularly during a pandemic.

      “We all have rights and we all have freedoms and while your loved one is potentially needing support in one room, somebody else’s loved one is down the hall and they don’t need to be exposed to whatever it is that folks are bringing into that care facility,” said Representative Ashley Aune (D-Kansas City).

Representatives Ashley Aune (left) and Bridge Walsh Moore (Photos: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “I can respect this is a horrible situation.  It was a horrible situation we were put in.  No one wants to keep family members from their loved ones in the hospital when they are sick.  No one wants to do that, but a lot of times it’s what has to be done,” said Representative Bridget Walsh Moore.

      “We all have high emotions about not being able to be with our loved ones at the end of their life , but I’m wondering if the policy, the legislation … takes the work and takes the authority, really, away from the people who are closest to the situation, working with their patients, to make a determination as to how safe, or not, it is for others to come in when people are sick,” said Representative Yolanda Young (D-Kansas City)

      Republicans maintained that they worked with health care industry representatives in creating a bill that would answer their concerns while not jeopardizing safety in health care facilities. 

      “It’s done in a very prudent way.  It does not open up visitation in a free-for-all manner.  It’s thoughtful to where there’s only a handful of people that can get in off of a list and only a couple at a time, the facility can screen those folks, and so we can have the best of both worlds.  We can have the safety that’s required but we can also have those visitation rights that is so important to the folks who need us to come in to hold their hand, to be with them, to help them with their mental health and physical health by being there for them in person,” said Representative J. Eggleston (R-Maysville).

      The bill specifies that a patient’s list of visitors would include a spouse, or parents or guardians in the case of a child.  Facilities could still deny access to patients under specified circumstances including at the request of the patient or law enforcement; when a person has signs and symptoms of a transmissible infection; or when the attending physician believes the presence of visitors would be detrimental to the patient.  The bill’s provisions do not grant visitors access to restricted areas like operating rooms or behavioral health units. 

      The House voted 120-27 to send the bill to the Senate.

Bipartisan effort seeks best way to help Missourians who owe for unemployment overpayments

      One week after hearing from the Department of Labor about the state’s efforts to seek repayment of erroneous unemployment payments from struggling Missourians, a bipartisan slate of House members is debating the best way to provide relief.

      The Special Committee on Government Oversight has heard that of roughly $150-million in overpayments, only a small portion – roughly a quarter or less – came from the state’s unemployment trust.  State statute requires the Department to get that paid back. 

Representatives Scott Cupps and Jered Taylor (photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      The larger portion comes from federal covid relief, the repayment of which the federal government has said states can choose to waive.  Missouri Governor Mike Parson (R) has told his Department he wants it to be paid back.

      The committee held a hearing on six bills – three filed by Republicans and three by Democrats – and a resolution filed by a Democrat, to deal with the issue.   

      The big question before lawmakers is whether to require that Missourians pay back overpayments out of the state fund.  Committee members from both parties say they would like to waive all repayment, but some are questioning whether that can be done.  They are unanimous about finding a way to waive the federal repayments, but some think the state portion might have to be recouped.

      Shell Knob Republican Scott Cupps said a priority for the Department is to maintain the integrity of the state’s unemployment trust.  His bill is one of those that would waive repayment of federal funds, but require Missourians to pay back state overpayments.

      “If you’re sitting there staring at a letter that says you owe $4,200 back that’s probably not something you’re going to be able to digest real easy.  Where if it says, ‘Hey, you owe $500 back and we’re going to be able to put you on a payment plan where you pay $50 a month for a couple of years, that’s probably something you can digest a heck of a lot easier,” said Cupps. 

      Cupps, who sits on the House Budget Committee, is one of those concerned that to waive the repayment of state benefits, the state would have to replenish the fund.  This could come from other core budget functions, such as schools or transportation. 

      St. Louis Democrat Peter Merideth, also a Budget Committee member and sponsor of the resolution, noted that Governor Parson has proposed putting $500-million in federal CARES Act relief funds into the state’s unemployment trust.  He suggests that would be a way to waive repayment of state overpayments while maintaining the fund.

Representatives LaKeySha Bosley, Ian Mackey, and Doug Clemens (photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “I think that we need to not wrap ourselves in circles trying to figure out where this money’s coming from and simply recognize that if we think this is an important form of the relief, well the federal government has given us $2-billion in relief money to use right now.  Let’s use that,” said Merideth.

      Cupps and other Republicans said they would consider that option. 

“The main thing that I talked to the Department about was maintaining the integrity of the trust,” said Cupps.  “If it’s already been discussed that we were gonna throw some CARES Act money in there … it is something that could be a tool in the toolbox … it’s something we maybe should look at.”

      Five of the six bills filed are largely the same.  Committee Chairman Jered Taylor (R-Republic), the sponsor of one of them, said his intention is to pare them down into one bill and to have the committee vote next week on that and the resolution.

The legislation dealing with unemployment overpayments includes: House Bill 1085 (Taylor), House Bill 1083 (J. Eggleston – R, Maysville), House Bill 1050 (Cupps), House Bill 1036 (LaKeySha Bosley – D, St. Louis), House Bill 1035 (Doug Clemens – D, St. Ann), House Bill 873 (Ian Mackey, D-St. Louis), and House Concurrent Resolution 30 (Merideth).

Earlier story: House Members Denounce State’s Seeking Payback of Unemployment Benefits