To amend sections 173.39 and 173.391 and to enact section 173.394 of the Revised Code regarding shared bathrooms under the assisted living program.
HB876 amends Ohio law governing the Department of Aging’s provider certification and payment rules for long-term care services, and it creates a new section specifically addressing bathroom configurations in assisted living facilities. On the provider side, the bill updates sections 173.39 and 173.391 to continue requiring certification for providers serving the PASSPORT and assisted living programs before the department may pay them, while also refining the department’s authority to certify, discipline, and, in some cases, deny hearings for providers based on existing licensing actions, criminal history, Medicaid-related adverse actions, inactivity, or other specified conditions. It also preserves the provider certification fund and the department’s ability to charge certification fees.
The bill’s most visible policy change is new section 173.394, which prohibits the Department of Aging from denying assisted living certification solely because a residential care facility uses shared bathrooms under certain conditions. For standard assisted living units, two residents may share a full bathroom if the bathroom is accessible in approved ways, there is at least one additional half bathroom on the same floor, the bathrooms meet ADA accessibility requirements, and residents are informed in advance and sign written consent. For memory care units, the bill requires the use of fully enclosed shared bathroom facilities. The bill also incorporates cross-references to existing law and repeals the prior versions of sections 173.39 and 173.391.
In practical terms, HB876 would affect the Department of Aging, assisted living providers, residential care facilities, and residents receiving long-term care services through state-administered programs. It would likely make it easier for some facilities to qualify for or maintain assisted living certification despite shared-bathroom layouts, which could matter for older facilities, facilities with space constraints, and providers planning renovations or new construction. At the same time, it preserves state oversight of provider quality, certification, and disciplinary enforcement.
Because the bill was only introduced and has no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no documented public debate to gauge broad support or opposition. The text itself suggests a policy balance between expanding facility design flexibility and maintaining resident protections through accessibility, notice, and consent requirements. The main likely point of contention is whether shared bathrooms in assisted living and memory care settings adequately protect privacy, dignity, and safety, versus whether the new standards appropriately accommodate facility operations and housing availability.
HB876 would amend Ohio Revised Code sections 173.39 and 173.391 and add section 173.394, affecting the Department of Aging’s certification and payment authority over PASSPORT and assisted living providers. It would create a specific statutory exception preventing denial of assisted living certification based solely on certain shared-bathroom arrangements in residential care facilities, while also preserving certification, disciplinary, fee, and fund provisions for providers under department-administered long-term care programs. The bill would directly affect residential care facilities, assisted living providers, memory care units, residents, and the Department of Aging.
The bill appears generally policy-driven and operational in tone, with no recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials to indicate organized support or opposition. Its structure suggests an attempt to balance provider flexibility with resident safeguards, indicating likely mixed but pragmatic sentiment: favorable among facilities seeking certification flexibility, and potentially cautious among advocates concerned about privacy and care standards. Because the bill is only introduced, the public record provided does not show a formal consensus or controversy beyond the statutory changes themselves.
The main likely contention is the shared-bathroom provision in assisted living and memory care settings. Supporters would likely emphasize that the bill allows more facilities to qualify for certification, especially older or space-constrained buildings, while still requiring ADA accessibility, advance notice, and written consent. Opponents or skeptics would likely focus on whether shared bathrooms reduce privacy, convenience, or safety for residents, particularly in memory care environments. A secondary area of concern is the bill’s broader certification language, including circumstances where hearings are not required before denial or discipline, though the text frames those provisions as existing oversight mechanisms rather than new restrictions.