Opinion: Fixing New York’s Home Care Chaos 69%

By Jeanmarie Evelly51%

7/17/2026, 8:56:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Indoctrination, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 34.7% saturation with 226 hits. Analysis detected 1,620 faulty-reasoning hits from 651 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.6% and a BS Rank of 69% (6,430 of 20,514 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.70% of the article peer group.

“What we need is a return to the original intent of CDPAP. 
Run by responsible non-profits, with input from disabled people themselves.” 
Gov. 
Kathy Hochul at a healthcare-related press conference in 2023. 
(Mike Groll/Office of Governor Kathy Hochul) 
Nearly 30 years ago, I was seriously injured by an ex-boyfriend. 
He pushed me off a chair and I fell hard, with permanent damage to my spinal cord that turned me into a disabled person. 
Suddenly, I had to navigate a different world. 
Here I was, in my 30s, and I couldn’t do my nursing job anymore, nor could I pursue my dream of a singing career. 
But, with some help, I reinvented my life, eventually doing part-time work as an advocate for people with disabilities. 
At first, I got help via a home care agency. 
Then I learned about a state Medicaid option called the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP). 
I’ve been in CDPAP since 2004 and, until recently, it’s been a godsend. 
But in 2025, Gov. 
Kathy Hochul handed CDPAP over to a private equity-backed company called PPL. 
In short, it’s been a disaster. 
In fact, it’s so bad that on June 16, the U.S. 
Department of Justice sued PPL and two top executives who work for Hochul. 
The charges outline fraud, bid-rigging, wage theft and more. 
Sadly, for those of us who have had to deal with this disastrous transition, none of this comes as a surprise. 
For many years, I was served by Concepts of Independence—a nonprofit here in Brooklyn—to help manage my state-approved, 49 hours a week of home care. 
I even found my current, big-hearted caregiver, Carron, through Concepts. 
It wasn’t perfect, but Concepts was an utter vacation compared to PPL. 
Dealing with PPL has been a chaotic, stress-filled mess. 
They lose paperwork repeatedly. 
They don’t get back to you. 
Their technology is loaded with glitches. 
Carron has had to squeak by, waiting for pay that only arrives because we are such bulldogs about it. 
There are workers I know who still haven’t been paid by PPL. 
(In fact, PPL just settled a wage-theft lawsuit brought by The Legal Aid Society here, handing over $162 million to workers.) 
No wonder tens of thousands of CDPAP consumers and workers have been hounded out of the program. 
Yet this sorry state of affairs was entirely predictable. 
PPL has left a trail of destruction in other states due to their incompetence and greed in running home care. 
They’ve even been kicked out of six states. 
In New York, PPL replaced hundreds of smaller outfits, with the supposed goal of saving taxpayer money. 
The governor touts over a billion dollars in CDPAP savings. 
Of course, those savings are only because people have fled, to go to more expensive state options like home care agencies and nursing homes, or to burden their families with unpaid care. 
Which brings me back to the DOJ lawsuit. 
On the surface, it is justified. 
But the dark worry is what it may bring. 
Will it simply be used as a political weapon? 
With the Trump administration already targeting Medicaid, will they use it as a way to justify even more cuts? 
If Kathy Hochul loses re-election, she’ll lick her wounds in a mansion in Buffalo. 
If PPL loses their contract, its private equity investors will simply move on to suckers in other states. 
But what happens to people with disabilities? 
There should be no place in our healthcare system for profit over care. 
And no place for corrupt politicians making backroom deals with people’s lives and well-being at stake. 
What we need is a return to the original intent of CDPAP. 
Run by responsible non-profits, with input from disabled people themselves. 
Nothing about us, without us. 
Gabriela Amari works part-time as a supervisor of the Open Doors Peer Program for the Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 4.0%City Limits: 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.1%City Limits: 0.9%Anchoring Bias1.5%This article: 4.9%Jeanmarie Evelly: 3.6%City Limits: 3.6%Availability Heuristic4.9%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.8%City Limits: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.6%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.5%City Limits: 0.5%Hindsight Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.8%City Limits: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Jeanmarie Evelly: 5.9%City Limits: 6.7%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 8.6%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.0%City Limits: 1.3%Loss Aversion8.6%This article: 3.7%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.3%City Limits: 1.2%Status Quo Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.4%City Limits: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Jeanmarie Evelly: 5.5%City Limits: 4.6%Optimism Bias2.9%This article: 9.2%Jeanmarie Evelly: 2.1%City Limits: 1.9%Pessimism Bias9.2%This article: 32.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 9.7%City Limits: 9.2%Negativity Bias32.0%This article: 4.6%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.5%City Limits: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias4.6%This article: 7.5%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.0%City Limits: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error7.5%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.0%City Limits: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.3%City Limits: 1.1%In-Group Bias2.3%This article: 5.8%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.8%This article: 3.5%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.0%City Limits: 1.2%Halo Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.2%City Limits: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.1%City Limits: 1.1%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 2.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.6%City Limits: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.8%City Limits: 0.6%Ad Hominem7.4%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.2%City Limits: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.7%Jeanmarie Evelly: 4.8%City Limits: 4.8%Appeal to Authority7.7%This article: 8.3%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.8%City Limits: 2.0%False Dilemma8.3%This article: 7.1%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.3%Slippery Slope7.1%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.4%City Limits: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 4.1%City Limits: 4.0%Hasty Generalization10.0%This article: 1.2%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.2%City Limits: 0.2%Red Herring1.2%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.8%City Limits: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 34.7%Jeanmarie Evelly: 6.0%City Limits: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion34.7%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.1%City Limits: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.5%Jeanmarie Evelly: 2.4%City Limits: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.5%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.1%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.5%City Limits: 0.4%Burden of Proof1.1%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.2%City Limits: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.1%Jeanmarie Evelly: 3.2%City Limits: 3.8%Anecdotal3.1%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.8%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.9%City Limits: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.8%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.0%City Limits: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.0%City Limits: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.6%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.2%City Limits: 0.1%Special Pleading2.6%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.5%City Limits: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.8%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.0%City Limits: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection1.8%This article: 16.9%Jeanmarie Evelly: 4.5%City Limits: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice16.9%This article: 16.9%Jeanmarie Evelly: 6.7%City Limits: 5.7%Indoctrination16.9%This article: 2.9%Jeanmarie Evelly: 2.7%City Limits: 2.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.0%City Limits: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.7%City Limits: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

651 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers16%attributed speech549writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 9 words • 0.0% coverageOffice of Governor Kathy Hochul • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Department of Justice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Department of Justice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageThe Legal Aid Society • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageGabriela Amari • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Legal Aid Society

100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words21% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+85.6 ptsWriter: 14.4%The Legal Aid Society: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-20.0 ptsWriter: 20.0%The Legal Aid Society: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%The Legal Aid Society: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%The Legal Aid Society: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.