Wage increase for home healthcare workers delayed

The U.S. Labor Department won't start enforcing its new rule requiring higher pay for many home healthcare workers just yet despite a recent court decision upholding the rule, the department announced last week.

The new rule won't go into effect until 30 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issues a mandate making its opinion effective. Whether that mandate comes any sooner isn't yet clear. Industry groups have asked the court not to issue the mandate until after they try to appeal the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The rule was otherwise slated to go into effect Oct. 13.

Last month, the court upheld the department's new rule after industry groups challenged it. The department and labor groups say the rule will mean fair wages for home healthcare employees, while industry groups say it will make home healthcare unaffordable for many seniors.

For years, home healthcare agencies haven't had to pay minimum wage or overtime to companionship workers who provide “fellowship, care and protection” to seniors and disabled people. The rule would significantly narrow the definition of companionship workers to those who spend no more than 20% of their time providing actual care, such as feeding and bathing. It would also no longer exempt companionship workers employed by third parties, such as home healthcare providers, from wage protections.

In recent court documents, the industry groups asked the court to hold off on issuing its mandate, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, saying doing so would ensure “certainty for the entire industry and the millions of elderly and disabled consumers who depend on its vital services.”

Industry groups involved in the case include the Home Care Association of America, the National Association for Home Care and Hospice and the International Franchise Association.

The government, however, has asked the court to issue its mandate quickly, arguing in court documents that the industry groups' “contention that the final rule will harm consumers and workers was rejected in rulemaking comments submitted by consumer advocates, labor representatives and industry experts.” —Lisa Schencker