Florida: State Senate District 11

Candidates

Lee Cannon, Democrat
Mike Fasano, Republican

Issues: Nursing Home Quality | Long Term Care | Utility Regulation |

The issue boxes contained on this page are not clickable online. Please print the page and make notes for your reference.

Question

Florida law provides the right to sue and recover damages when a long-term care facility provides negligent care that results in injury or death to a resident. What is your position on limiting non-economic compensatory damage awards against facilities whose negligent care results in a resident’s injury or death?

AARP Response

AARP believes that the right to sue a long-term care facility when negligent care results in a resident’s injury or death is essential to our efforts to ensure the quality of long-term care. Arbitrary limits on the damages awarded in lawsuits devalue the worth of older people and seriously impede or eliminate this right.

The staff report of the Task Force on the Availability and Affordability of Long-term Care found no frivolous lawsuits filed against long-term care facilities. Lawsuits are filed when residents suffer serious injuries and conditions such as bedsores, malnutrition, dehydration and broken bones.

The single-most important factor in preventing these problems is the presence of adequate numbers of well-trained staff. Florida law now provides for minimum staffing levels and the legislature appropriated the funds to achieve these levels.

Senate Bill 1202, passed by the 2001 legislature, created a carefully developed balance between regulation, quality, litigation reform, and funding. This important legislation will, when fully implemented, reduce the number of lawsuits, improve the quality of care and protect the rights of residents to seek redress in the courts when they are harmed.

AARP will oppose any change in the law that would alter the balance created in Senate Bill 1202 because any such change would be harmful to residents.

Issue	Yes	No	Unclear
Opposes any limits on compensatory damages for nursing home residents.
Supports protecting the right of residents to sue nursing home and assisted living facilities.
Opposes any changes to the law created by Senate Bill 1202 (Florida law 2001-45)

Candidate Response: Lee Cannon

I believe that we must consider further tort reform in the upcoming legislative session if we are to deal effectively with the current crisis we are experiencing in regards to the insurance and health care industries here in Florida. However, I am generally opposed to limiting non-economic compensatory damages in cases where negligent care results in a resident’s injury or death.

Candidate Response: Mike Fasano

During my four years as a state representative I steadfastly opposed so-called “tort reform” efforts to limit damages that may be sought against long-term care facilities who negligent care results in a resident’s injury or death.

Question

Many people cannot find affordable, quality home and community-based long-term care and face long waiting lists when they need help with the cost of their care. How would you improve the availability, affordability and quality of long-term care, particularly home and community-based care?

AARP Response

Long-term care services can be costly. Many people cannot afford to pay for them. Public funding for long-term care is limited and waiting lists for services are long. Many people do not have family or friends to help them and few have private long-term care insurance.

In addition, the current long-term care system is fragmented and confusing to those who need to use it. Public funding is used predominantly for nursing home care. The amount and quality of services is inadequate. Information about the availability and quality of services is not readily available to consumers.

Because of these problems many older people do not receive the long-term care services they need. They live in fear of impoverishing themselves and becoming a burden to their families. Their health and the quality of their lives decline unnecessarily.

Florida must have a comprehensive, cohesive system to meet the long-term care needs of all Floridians regardless of age and income. Creating such a system must be a legislative priority.

The system should:

• Be adequately funded,
  
  
• Emphasize home and community-based care,
  
  
• Focus on the needs of consumers,
  
  
• Provide for consumers to direct their own care,
  
  
• Support the role of families in providing care,
  
  
• Be easily accessible.
  
  
• Coordinate with private insurance coverage,
  
  
• Focus on the quality of care and the quality of life,
  
  
• Improve the coordination between health and long-term care services,and
  
  
• Be efficiently administered.
  
  

Issue	Yes	No	Unclear
Supports funding to eliminate current and future waiting lists for people who need financial assistance.
Proposes ways to meet the long-term care needs of all Floridians, not just those who need financial assistance.
Supports the development of a long-term care system focused on the needs of consumers not providers.

Candidate Response: Lee Cannon

The Legislature should seek to create more incentives for individuals and the insurance industry to participate in home and community-based healthcare programs, particularly for seniors, as the high costs associated with long-term care in a professional facility prevents many seniors from receiving the care and medical attention that they need. I also support the development of a long-term care strategy that focuses more attention on the needs of the consumer.

Candidate Response: Mike Fasano

As chairman of the House Healthy Communities Council I was a prime cosponsor with Representative Carole Green of the Consumer Directed Care Act. This legislation gives adults with disabilities and senior citizens on Medicaid the ability to choose the appropriate setting in which to receive Medicaid funded services. No longer will nursing homes be the only option available to these Medicaid recipients. This legislation serves not only as a model for other states it demonstrates that if legislators look beyond traditional methods of funding Medicaid programs, greater choices and a diversity of services can be made available with existing dollars

Question

In recent years the Florida legislature has considered a number of proposals that would alter the regulation of public utilities and benefit service providers at the expense of service consumers. How would you protect Florida consumers from unnecessary increases in their electric and basic phone bills?

AARP Response

The 2002 legislature passed legislation that would have increased consumer’s basic phone rates by as much as $8 per month. This legislation was vetoed by the Governor at the urging on AARP and other consumer groups.

Supporters of this legislation claimed it would stimulate competition in the local phone services and ultimately benefit consumers. The claim was based on the faulty idea that local phone rates are being subsidized by other services offered by local phone service companies. The bill was supposed to correct this subsidy problem.

AARP disputes that local service is subsidized and offers evidence to prove the point. (see AARP publication -- Current Issues in the Pricing of Telecommunications Services). AARP further challenged supposed consumer protections that were added to the bill. There was no consumer protection in the bill that would have offset the massive phone rate increases it would have led to.

Electricity: In the hope of encouraging lower prices, higher service quality and greater innovation, lawmakers across the country are considering whether and how to restructure the electric industry to allow consumers to purchase electricity from competing suppliers rather than from the traditional regulated monopoly structure. The Governor’s 2020 Energy Commission is considering restructuring in Florida.

The extent to which implementation of retail competition benefits residential consumers is unclear. Benefits in the form of lower rates are not guaranteed to residential ratepayers, who are at a disadvantage since they do not purchase enough electricity to be as attractive to competitors as industrial customers. If the outcome of restructuring is left entirely to the marketplace, residential consumers are likely to be the last class of customers to benefit if they receive any benefits at all.

If the electric industry in Florida is restructured, safeguards should be adopted that ensure just, reasonable and affordable rates and high-quality service for residential customers under retail competition. The legislature should ensure that residential ratepayers receive equitable and simultaneous benefits, including rate reductions, equal access and better service, from retail competition.

Issue	Yes	No	Unclear
Supports electric deregulation that specifically benefits the consumer.
Opposes an increase in basic consumer phone rates.

Candidate Response: Lee Cannon

As we saw from the events that unfolded recently in California, deregulation of public utilities can lead to huge rate increases, rather than rate reductions. We must ensure that any effort to deregulate utilities includes a mechanism to protect consumers from astronomical rate hikes and service interruptions. In those instances where deregulation directly benefited the consumer, I would be inclined to support those measures.

Candidate Response: Mike Fasano

During the nearly eight years I have been a state legislator I have fought Aloha Utilities which has attempted to impose enormous water rate increases onto its customers, most of which are retirees. In addition to numerous appearances before the Florida Public Service Commission on behalf of my constituents I have sponsored legislation that has taken away what until that time had been the legal right of utilities to forever collect legal costs associated with rate cases, even after the costs of those rate cases have been recovered. During the 2002 session of the Florida Legislature I publicly opposed and voted against the proposed increase in local telephone rate (HB 1683). On March 26, 2002 I sent a letter to Governor Jeb Bush urging him to veto this legislation, which he ultimately did.