Licensing, powers and duties

50.03 (5). The licensee is entitled to a hearing under s. 50.03 (5) prior to expiration of the license. (7) VIOLATIONS. If an act forms the basis for a violation of this section and s. 49.498, the department or the attorney general may impose sanctions in conformity with this section or under s. 49.498, but not both. (8) PROTECTION AND COST EFFECTIVENESS PROGRAMS; QUALITY ASSURANCE. (a) The department may distribute moneys from the appropriation account under s. 20.435 (6) (g) for innovative projects designed to protect the property and the health, safety, and welfare of residents in nursing homes and to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the operation of facilities so as to improve the quality of life, care, and treatment of residents. (b) The department shall establish and maintain a quality assurance and improvement committee to review proposals and award moneys for innovative projects, as described in par. (a), that are approved by the committee. The department shall promulgate rules to guide the actions of the quality assurance and improvement committee. History: 1977 c. 170 ss. 6, 29; 1977 c. 272; 1979 c. 34; 1981 c. 20, 121, 317, 391; 1983 a. 27 s. 2200 (1); 1985 a. 29; 1985 a. 182 s. 57; 1985 a. 332 s. 251 (1), (7); 1987 a. 27, 127, 399; 1989 a. 31, 336; 1991 a. 39, 269, 315; 1995 a. 27; 1997 a. 27, 114, 237, 252, 280; 1999 a. 9, 32, 103; 2003 a. 33; 2007 a. 20, 153; 2009 a. 28; 2011 a. 70, 126; 2019 a. 9; 2021 a. 240 s. 30. A state nursing home is not subject to the forfeiture provisions of this chapter. Wisconsin Veterans Home v. Division of Nursing Home Forfeiture Appeals, 104 Wis. 2d 106, 310 N.W.2d 646 (Ct. App. 1981). A county-operated nursing home is subject to forfeitures under sub. (5). Lakeland Nursing Home v. Division of Nursing Home Forfeiture Appeals, 118 Wis. 2d 636, 348 N.W.2d 523 (1984). The sub. (5) (e) 30-day limit for commencing a hearing is directory, not mandatory. State ex rel. St. Michael’s Evangelical Lutheran Church v. DOA, 137 Wis. 2d 326, 404 N.W.2d 114 (Ct. App. 1987). The requirement under sub. (2r) that an individual may not be admitted to an intermediate care facility unless the county department of the individual’s county of residence has recommended admission is a residency requirement, which in the case of a private facility is an unconstitutional restriction on travel. Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Services, Inc. v. Leean, 122 F.3d 443 (1997).