Regulating payment for home care companionship services: legal authority and public policy.
On June 11, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Long Island Care at Home Ltd. v. Coke that upheld a federal regulation exempting employees of third-party agencies who provide home-based "companionship services" to disabled persons from the protections of the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This article discusses the legal issues argued in the case and the legal rationales for the court's decision. The article then identifies the important public policy questions involving the maintenance of a sufficient, competent home care workforce that were left unanswered by the legal ruling and outlines some of the pragmatic implications of potential responses to these public policy questions.
Kapp
Marshall B
MB
Southern Illinois University School of Law, Carbondale 62901, USA. kapp@siu.edu
D006291:Health Policy; D006299:Health Services for the Aged / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006699:Home Care Services / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D018576:Home Health Aides / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D012456:Salaries and Fringe Benefits / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States