Georgia Senate panel hears testimony on bill requiring disclosure by assisted‑living referral agencies

The Georgia Senate Health and Human Services Committee on [date not specified in transcript] heard testimony on SB 439, a proposal to require placement and referral agencies that connect families with assisted‑living and personal‑care homes to disclose referral fees and certain licensing details. The committee characterized the measure as a consumer‑protection effort and set a short timetable for stakeholder revisions.

Supporters told the committee the current market can hide key facts from vulnerable families. Seth Daniels of the Georgia Senior Living Association said referral websites often present a curated list that includes only communities that pay a fee and that “we collect a fee for making a referral” without consumers’ clear knowledge. Melinda Dally, administrator of Great Oaks in Monroe, said families “feel tricked” when they learn after the fact that a third party routed them and that greater upfront disclosure would allow families to make informed choices.

Small operator Leslie Finkley described steep referral charges that have grown over time: “When we started in 2015, referral fees were about 65% … that averaged about $4,000 per resident,” rising to “about 95% costing us upwards of $8,000 per resident,” she said, and argued those hidden fees make it difficult for smaller providers to compete.

Opponents who work in referral and placement services said the bill’s current language could interfere with fast, high‑touch advising during crises and impose burdensome procedures. Amy Henschel of Senior Provisions said she supports “transparency, consumer protection, and appropriate oversight” but could not support SB 439 as written because “procedural requirements … disrupt how high‑level senior care guidance actually functions in real time.” Laura Banner of OASIS Senior Advisors said many agencies already disclose how they are paid and that forcing families to sign documents in a hospital setting would create a psychological barrier.

Tammy Brewer of Care Patrol said the draft could “erode trust in families” and jeopardize small businesses that rely on referral relationships to help clients find appropriate care. Brewer and other witnesses also raised concerns about linking compliance to the Department of Community Health’s portal, noting the DCH site can be outdated or temporarily unavailable.

Phoenix Senior Living president Seth Pesek supported the bill, recounting instances in which multiple placement agencies claimed credit for the same move and demanded payment, creating significant financial exposure for providers. Pesek said the bill’s protections — including limiting fee claims after 12 months and requiring disclosure that an agency is being used — would protect families and small businesses.

Committee members pressed staff and stakeholders about the law’s scope. Members noted an existing Georgia anti‑kickback statute and said they needed clarity about whether current state law already covers some conduct. Committee counsel and witnesses said Georgia statute does not currently regulate private‑pay referral agencies the way it regulates health professionals; proponents pointed out similar laws in other states, and witnesses cited Texas and Colorado as examples.

Chairman Goodman reiterated that the meeting was a hearing only and gave stakeholders until noon the next day to submit suggested edits. The committee said it could reconvene on Wednesday to consider revised language. No vote was taken at the hearing.

What’s next: Stakeholders will submit line edits and an executive summary to the committee by the deadline; the committee may hold another session to consider amendments and move the bill forward.