Template comment opposing the proposed rescission of the 2013 DOL companionship exemption rule (90 FR 28976). Pre-populated with the familial caregiver paradox argument, fiscal data, and 14-state precedent. Customize with your state data and personal experience.
On July 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) at 90 FR 28976 proposing to rescind the 2013 rule that extended overtime and minimum wage protections to home care workers employed by third-party agencies.
The 2013 DOL rule narrowed the FLSA companionship exemption in two key ways: (1) It limited the exemption to workers employed directly by the family or household, removing the exemption for workers employed by third-party agencies. (2) It narrowed the definition of “companionship services” to exclude workers who spend more than 20% of their time on medically-related tasks. The proposed rescission would reverse both changes, stripping protections from an estimated 2+ million workers employed by home care agencies.
Public comments are part of the formal rulemaking record. The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to consider and respond to substantive public comments before finalizing a rule. Comments that include data, state-specific evidence, and personal experience carry more weight than form letters. This template provides the data framework — your personal and state-specific details make it effective.
Copy this template, replace all bracketed fields [like this] with your information, and submit via regulations.gov. The template is organized into six arguments — use all of them or select the ones most relevant to your situation.
Re: RIN 1235-AA44 — Proposed Rescission of the Definition of “Companionship Services” and Related Rules (90 FR 28976)
Dear Administrator [Name / Wage and Hour Division],
I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2013 rule extending Fair Labor Standards Act overtime and minimum wage protections to home care workers employed by third-party agencies. I am a [caregiver / care recipient / family member / researcher / advocate / legislator] in [State], and I submit this comment based on [personal experience / professional expertise / data analysis].
[PERSONAL PARAGRAPH: Add 2-3 sentences about your personal connection to this issue. If you are a caregiver, describe your work. If you are a care recipient or family member, describe how the workforce crisis affects your care. If you are a researcher or advocate, describe your expertise.]
The FLSA companionship exemption creates a structural paradox: in self-directed care programs, 50–78% of paid caregivers are family members of the care recipient. These are spouses, parents, and adult children — the individuals most motivated to provide care, most knowledgeable about the recipient’s needs, and most available to deliver it. Yet the companionship exemption was explicitly designed to exclude them from labor protections.
The person most likely to provide care is the person the system most fails to protect. Rescinding the 2013 rule would deepen this paradox by extending the exemption back to agency-employed workers — expanding the universe of unprotected caregivers rather than narrowing it.
[STATE-SPECIFIC: In [State], the [program name, e.g., IRIS/CDCS/IHSS] program has approximately [XX]% familial caregivers. These [XX,XXX] workers would lose protections under the proposed rescission.]
The proposed rescission is fiscally counterproductive. Home and community-based care costs an average of $48,000 per person annually, compared to $128,000 for nursing home care — a 2.7:1 cost ratio. People without adequate HCBS access are 5 times more likely to enter nursing homes.
The companionship exemption saves an estimated $500–700 million annually — approximately 0.2% of the $313 billion HCBS system. A 30% HCBS reduction caused by workforce instability would generate approximately $943 million in additional nursing home costs. The savings-to-risk ratio is 1:1.5. The exemption saves less than the institutional cost blowback it generates.
[STATE-SPECIFIC: In [State], the average annual Medicaid cost of HCBS is $[XX,XXX] compared to $[XXX,XXX] for nursing home care. A workforce reduction would shift [XX,XXX] individuals toward institutional care at an additional cost of $[XXX million] to [State] taxpayers.]
14 states have enacted overtime protections beyond federal law: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington. None has experienced the fiscal catastrophe the Department’s regulatory impact analysis predicts.
Washington ranks #1 nationally for home care worker conditions (PHI State Index) with a median wage of $19.50/hr. Massachusetts ranks #6 with a 90% wage pass-through requirement. Nevada’s SB 511 raised reimbursement to $25/hr and reduced workforce turnover from approximately 50% to 4%. These states demonstrate that overtime protections are compatible with — and supportive of — sustainable HCBS systems.
The Department should consider this 14-state evidence base before concluding that the 2013 rule imposed unsustainable costs.
The Government Accountability Office studied employer responses to the 2013 rule and found that: (1) employers capped worker hours rather than absorbing overtime costs; (2) worker pay did not increase as a result of the rule; and (3) the home care workforce declined 11.6%. These findings demonstrate that the 2013 rule did not achieve its intended workforce stabilization effect — but they do not support rescission.
The GAO findings show that the rule failed because it was not paired with adequate Medicaid reimbursement rate increases. The solution is complementary state action (wage pass-through requirements, reimbursement rate increases) — not a return to the pre-2013 status quo that denied basic labor protections to millions of workers.
The companionship exemption affects a workforce that is 85% female and 67% people of color (27% Black, 26% Hispanic). These demographics are not coincidental. The FLSA companionship exemption traces directly to the New Deal–era exclusion of domestic workers from labor protections — an exclusion originally designed to maintain the racial caste system of the Jim Crow South.
The 1974 FLSA amendments that created the companionship exemption preserved this historical exclusion for home care workers. Rescinding the 2013 rule — the only federal action that has narrowed this exclusion — would reinforce a labor policy rooted in racial and gender discrimination. The Department should be moving toward full inclusion, not backward.
HCBS is the infrastructure for community integration under Olmstead v. L.C. (1999). The Supreme Court held that unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities violates the ADA. Without home care workers, there is no community-based alternative to institutional placement.
The workforce crisis — driven in part by the labor protections gap the companionship exemption creates — is producing de facto Olmstead violations: beneficiaries approved for HCBS who cannot access it because there are no workers available, and who are forced into nursing homes as a result. Rescinding the 2013 rule would deepen this dynamic by further depressing workforce wages and stability.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Department to withdraw the proposed rescission (90 FR 28976) and maintain the 2013 rule extending FLSA overtime and minimum wage protections to home care workers employed by third-party agencies.
The 14-state precedent demonstrates that overtime protections are fiscally sustainable. The GAO findings demonstrate that the problem is inadequate complementary policy, not the protections themselves. The disparate impact data demonstrates that the exemption perpetuates historical exclusion. And the Olmstead framework demonstrates that workforce stability is a civil rights imperative.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your name]
[Your title/organization, if applicable]
[Your city, state]
[Your email address]
Replace all [bracketed fields] with your information. Add your personal paragraph in the opening section. Include state-specific data from your state profile where indicated. Remove any arguments you don’t want to include — a focused 3-argument comment is stronger than a generic 6-argument one.
Navigate to the docket for RIN 1235-AA44 on regulations.gov. Click “Submit a Formal Comment.” Paste your comment text into the comment field or upload it as a PDF/Word document. Include your name and contact information. Click “Submit Comment.”
Note: All public comments become part of the public record and are viewable on regulations.gov. Do not include information you do not want to be public.
Share with your network. Encourage colleagues, coalition partners, and community members to submit their own comments. Personalized comments carry more weight than duplicates, but volume also matters in the rulemaking record.
Send to your legislators. CC your state and federal representatives on your comment. This signals constituent interest and can support complementary state-level action.
Personalize. Comments that include personal experience, state-specific data, or professional expertise carry more weight than form letters. The template provides the data framework — your details make it persuasive.
Be specific. Reference the docket number (RIN 1235-AA44) and specific provisions of the proposed rule you oppose. Cite data sources.
Be respectful. Comments that are professional and substantive are more likely to influence the final rule than emotional appeals. The data speaks for itself.
Check the deadline. NPRM comment periods are typically 60–90 days. Check regulations.gov for the current deadline for this docket.
Full history of the FLSA companionship exemption, the 2013 DOL rule, Loper Bright implications, and the regulatory timeline.
→ Exemption analysisState-specific data to strengthen your comment. Find your state’s wage data, workforce demographics, and HCBS cost comparisons.
→ Browse state dataModel state-level legislation for complementary action. Reference this in your comment as evidence of the state-level alternative.
→ View model billThe cost-avoidance argument in detail. Use these talking points to strengthen the fiscal case in your comment.
→ Framing guide