House Bill 813 restructures North Carolina’s regulatory framework for certain assisted housing settings by replacing the term “multiunit assisted housing with services” with “registered residential facility.” It also rewrites the definition of “assisted living residence” so these registered residential facilities are clearly distinguished from licensed adult care homes, with the stated purpose of making the difference more understandable to the public. The bill updates registration, disclosure, screening, staffing, inspection, and enforcement requirements for these facilities, and it expands the list of residents who may not be cared for in them.
The bill requires annual registration with the Division of Health Service Regulation, detailed disclosure statements for residents, initial and annual resident screenings, separate housing and care charges, background checks for employees, and restrictions on handling resident funds. It also authorizes the Division and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deny, suspend, revoke, or otherwise take adverse action against a facility’s registration for noncompliance, and it allows the Department to seek injunctions against unregistered operations. The Medical Care Commission is directed to adopt rules covering registration, inspections, admissions, discharges, and adverse actions, with emergency rulemaking authority to implement the changes.
HB813 also amends the state Health Care Personnel Registry law to include registered residential facilities among the entities treated as “health care facilities” for registry purposes, which ties these facilities more directly into existing workforce and safety oversight systems. The bill further appropriates recurring and nonrecurring funds to the Department of Health and Human Services to add compliance staff and support registration and inspection activities.
Overall, the bill appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and regulatory-clarity measure rather than a major expansion of services. The text emphasizes clearer public labeling, stronger disclosure, and more active state oversight of facilities that provide housing plus arranged personal care services. Because the bill was only referred to committee and no votes or transcripts are available, there is no recorded floor debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative sentiment.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the increased regulatory burden on facility operators, the expanded grounds for denial or revocation of registration, and the new staffing and inspection requirements. Facilities may also be concerned about the bill’s stricter resident admission limits and the prohibition on handling resident funds, while supporters would likely view those provisions as necessary safeguards for vulnerable adults and a way to prevent confusion between registered facilities and licensed adult care homes.
The bill amends Chapter 131D to create and regulate “registered residential facilities” in place of “multiunit assisted housing with services,” effective January 1, 2026. It changes statutory definitions, adds detailed registration and disclosure requirements, expands prohibited resident conditions, authorizes inspections and adverse actions, and creates enforcement authority for DHHS to seek injunctions against unregistered facilities. It also amends the Health Care Personnel Registry statute to include these facilities as health care facilities and appropriates funds for additional DHHS compliance staff and equipment.
No committee transcripts or votes are available, so there is no direct record of debate or formal support/opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure is presented in a strongly protective and administrative tone, emphasizing clearer public understanding, resident safety, and stronger oversight. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments makes the overall legislative sentiment indeterminate, though the bill’s structure suggests it is intended as a regulatory modernization and consumer-protection measure.
Likely areas of contention include whether the new registration regime and inspection authority are too burdensome for operators, whether the expanded list of disqualifying resident conditions is too restrictive, and whether the state is drawing a sharper line between registered facilities and licensed adult care homes than some providers would prefer. Operators may also object to the annual registration fee, mandatory disclosure and screening requirements, and the possibility of registration revocation or injunctions for noncompliance. Supporters would likely argue these provisions are necessary to protect residents, improve transparency, and prevent facilities from operating outside the intended regulatory category.