Committee advances assisted‑living referral bill after debate over disclosures, timelines and oversight

The Senate Health and Human Services Committee advanced a substitute to Senate Bill 439 (LC 443482s) by an 8–1 vote after extended questioning about how referral agencies for assisted‑living and personal care homes should operate and be regulated.

Sponsor Senator Still described the substitute as a compromise that addresses two central issues raised in testimony: (1) shortening the period during which a referral agency may collect placement fees (the substitute uses a 12‑plus‑12 structure rather than the original 36 months) and (2) requiring that referral agencies obtain and retain a documented acknowledgement (written, electronic or verbal) from prospective residents or authorized representatives that a referral was made. The substitute clarifies the fee relationship: referral agencies may collect a fee from the facility after a resident relocates; they shall not collect the fee from the resident under specified conditions.

Multiple senators asked whether the bill requires referral agencies to verify facility licensure or use the Department of Community Health (DCH) web portal; witnesses said that DCH portal language was removed in negotiation to secure a deal with some referral agencies. Seth Daniels of the Georgia Senior Living Association confirmed his group negotiated removal of the DCH portal requirement. Committee members also asked about conflict‑of‑interest concerns and whether a referral fee could constitute a 'kickback'; sponsors and witnesses distinguished the federal Stark/anti‑kickback rules (which apply where federal dollars are involved) from private‑pay assisted‑living arrangements, and noted that civil remedies remain available under contract law. The attorney general’s Consumer Protection Bureau was identified in committee discussion as the public enforcement entity for alleged violations under the Fair Business Practices Act.

After debate and questions, the committee voted 8–1 to advance LC 443482s. The transcript shows a recorded vote of 8 in favor and 1 opposed; the sponsor and stakeholder representatives said further negotiation may continue as the measure proceeds.