No Provisions for Improved Care

The proposed Article 5, Section 31(2) describes duties and functions of the proposed MQHCC. Proponents of Proposal 4 contend that the MQHCC would improve the quality of in-home care.

There appears to be no basis for this claim. The proposal provides for a registry of caregivers.[74] However, such a registry has been provided in the past, and nothing prevents Michigan from continuing to provide such a registry in the future.[75] Similarly, the MQC3 required providers hoping to place their names on the registry to undergo a background check, and the DCH appears to be continuing the practice.[76] It is also worth noting that because most caregivers are family members, no referral — and no registry — is necessary in most cases.

Other provisions would require the MQHCC to provide financial management services to care recipients “to facilitate their ability to employ providers, to ensure compliance with applicable laws, and to make appropriate employment-related payroll deductions.”[77] This service would include helping care recipients file W-2s acknowledging payments to care providers and complying with other state and federal employment laws. Amending the constitution and creating a new government agency is not necessary to provide this service, however; the service is already provided by the DCH.[78]

Proposal 4 states the MQHCC would furnish “training opportunities for providers, to improve provider skills.”[79] Backers of the measure allege that this would improve the available care. Notably, however, these training opportunities would not be mandatory. Moreover, such programs have been provided in the past; a constitutional amendment is not required to continue them.[80]