Permits an eligible individual's parent, adult child or in-law relative to be a personal assistant under the consumer directed personal assistance program.
This bill amends New York’s Social Services Law section 365-f, which governs the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP). The measure changes who may serve as a personal assistant for an eligible participant by expressly allowing a participant’s parent, adult child, in-law relative, or other adult relative to provide services, so long as the arrangement is consistent with the participant’s plan of care and the total cost does not exceed the cost of comparable services from a non-relative assistant. The bill also preserves existing exclusions: a spouse or designated representative may not serve as the personal assistant, and a person legally responsible for the participant’s care and support is removed from the prior statutory exclusion language.
The bill keeps the program’s core structure intact, including the participant’s responsibility for recruiting, hiring, and supervising assistants, and the requirement that personal assistants obtain a state-issued unique identifier. It also maintains confidentiality protections for information submitted for that identifier under New York’s privacy law. Providers remain responsible for their own duties and may not be held liable for responsibilities assumed by the participant, but they must still exercise reasonable care and monitor whether the participant can continue to manage those responsibilities.
In practical terms, the bill would broaden the pool of available caregivers in CDPAP and make it easier for families to use relatives as paid personal assistants. It would affect Medicaid home- and community-based personal care services administered through the program, while leaving cost controls and care-plan oversight in place. Because the bill is drafted as an amendment to the Social Services Law, its legal effect would be to modify eligibility rules for who can be hired as a CDPAP assistant rather than to create a new program.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s caption and text is supportive of family caregiving and flexibility for participants who rely on consumer-directed care. No committee transcript or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded debate or formal vote outcome to indicate broader legislative sentiment. Based on the language alone, the bill appears aimed at reducing barriers to hiring trusted relatives while preserving program safeguards.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between expanding family participation and preventing conflicts of interest, fraud, or overbilling in Medicaid-funded personal care. Supporters would likely emphasize continuity of care, convenience, and the ability of families to meet care needs, while critics may focus on oversight, program integrity, and whether allowing more relatives to be paid assistants could increase costs or weaken independent supervision. The bill addresses those concerns by retaining the spouse/designated-representative exclusion and by requiring that relative-provided services remain cost-neutral relative to non-relative assistants.
The bill would amend Social Services Law § 365-f, the statute governing the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program, to expand the category of relatives who may serve as personal assistants. It would allow a participant’s parent, adult child, in-law relative, or other adult relative to be hired, subject to plan-of-care consistency and a cost cap tied to equivalent non-relative services. The bill preserves existing program rules on participant direction, provider oversight, confidentiality of identifier information, and monitoring of the participant’s ability to manage responsibilities.
The bill appears generally favorable toward consumer-directed care and family caregiving, with an emphasis on flexibility for Medicaid recipients who need assistance at home. Because no committee discussion or vote record is included, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from legislators in the provided materials. The text suggests a policy choice to broaden caregiver options while keeping cost and oversight safeguards in place.
The likely controversy is whether expanding eligibility for relatives as paid personal assistants improves access and continuity of care or creates risks for Medicaid program integrity. Supporters would likely argue that family members are often the most reliable and available caregivers, especially for participants with complex needs. Opponents would likely worry about fraud, self-dealing, reduced independence in supervision, and potential cost growth, even though the bill tries to limit those risks by excluding spouses and designated representatives and by requiring cost neutrality and care-plan consistency.